Managing Cubs Still Sandberg's Dream

Quade does not know how to manage. He makes horrible decisions all the time. Just stupid little things that show he doesn't know what he's doing. I remember a couple weeks back when they played the Cards, bottom of the ninth, up three runs, man on first, 2 outs, and he has Pena covering first to try and hold the runner. What the hell are you doing that for? It's like he missed fundamentals training. 

And Ryno is a stick in the mud. He wouldn't last more than 2 years in the bigs. 

For this, I must go back to my Kentucky roots to draw an analogy. In the 1990s, Rick Pitino was an excellent basketball coach at the University of Kentucky. He took teams to the NCAA finals two years in a row, and set up the team that made the run the third year under his successor. Then he took a job coaching the Boston Celtics, where he quickly learned just how big a difference there is between coaching young up-and-comers who desperately want to climb to the next level and coaching multi-millionaires who've already made the big time and gotten what they want. Ryno might be good with the kids, but he has yet to prove he can do shit with guys like Soriano or Zambrano.

Under Quade, the Cubs are currently 56-71. Under Sandberg, they probably would have been somewhere in the neighborhood of 56-71, only Cubs fans would have had to start hating one of their favorite guys.

I see what you're saying, but the thing about the Cubs going forward (hopefully) is that the dead ass will be gone. They are trying to go younger and build from within. I realize those are baseball buzzwords but that's just what's happening.

A guy like Sandberg seems like the perfect choice to be dealing with up-and-coming talent, in many cases guys he already coached in the farm system. Furthermore, if we're to believe Ricketts when he talks about changing the culture and all that, then not only would you target players in free agency or via trade but you would make sure they are of a higher caliber. Not just raw talent but fundamentally sound, with leadership traits...basically guys who not only don't need to be coached or managed to heavily but also could be like having a manager on the field with the younger guys.

The dream for me is someone like Fielder. The guy is clearly a superstar and I think he's a team leader in Milwaukee. He seems to play the game the right way, he doesn't dog it out there like certain vets on this team. In short, he'd be the kind of player that Ryne Sandberg wouldn't have to worry about wrangling. Sori and Z aren't the future of this team, so does it really matter if Sandberg can't deal with them?

Wait, 10 years of Prince Fielder is the dream? The guy is a 300 lbs. VEGETARIAN, professional athlete. How does that work? No. Just no.

As for Sandberg . . . there is no talent in the pipeline and no money for free agents. Let him get his first job somewhere else and come to the Cubs when the current class of draftees is ready.

5 years

Maybe. I would still want a shorter contract. Like three years at more per year. Remember the last time the Cubs signed someone because they needed to show they were serious was Soriano. I hate him so much . . .

I don't think he'll sign for 3 years even if it's at more money.

In that case, the Cubs ought to take a pass. It's not as if they are one player away . . . and the last bunch of years in his contract will kill whoever signs him. He has more talent than Soriano, but once he falls off, $20M per year will still be terrible.

I really get how much the Soriano thing has soured you, but I don't think 5 years on Fielder (he's 28) is too terribly risky. I'm with you on the idea that 3yrs is better, but I don't hate signing him for 5.

I'd be shocked, though, if he'd sign for 5.

Edit: Well, maybe not shocked but at least surprised.

He'd be giving away millions if he did. It's always easier to assume that a player's decline won't be "that bad" when you sign a contract that ends 8 years in the future. It's harder when they are 33 and want a four or five year deal.

I say god bless Fielder and any money he can get. I just don't want the Cubs snookered (again).

I'm with ya. I think the potential for getting snookered though has to do with expectations and perspective: if you look at it as, "We're paying this guy $X million a year and expect a consistent level of production every year, commensurate with that annual pay for the duration of the deal", I think you're bound to be disappointed. But if you look at it as, "We're paying $Y million over Z years in order to lock up this super-star player for a good number of years before his decline", then you might not be so bothered by a drop in production in year 8 of the deal -- assuming the first 7 met your expectations, of course.

The Soriano deal, obviously, fails on all levels: he never really produced what Cubs fans were told to expect (30/30) and we're still stuck with the bill. But like I'm saying in that other thread, I don't think that in itself is a good argument for not locking up Fielder or Pujols.

The Cubs gave a lot of money and a lot of years to a guy who may or may not have been 31. That was a bad idea. Fielder is 27 now and if you could somehow give him 5 with a 6th year added if he say finishes 1st or 2nd in MVP voting in that 5th year, that's a steal. That's a centerpiece to build your team around. I'm not saying we need to spend every dime we have on 2 or 3 guys. I'm saying we get Fielder and then fill out the roster with some other mid level free agents. Guys that our new GM will hopefully find for us. Then the year after, we have more money off the books. We go out and try to get Hamels or Cain. Then you have the makings of a really great rotation with one of them, Garza and hopefully Cashner and then a couple of other mid level guys.

That's how you have to do it if you're a major market team. Cubs fans are not going to tolerate a full rebuild with no free agent spending. Attendance is going to drop off unless management makes a good faith gesture in the form of going out and taking our rival's best player.

Even nice guy superstars and veterans need a manager who can lead them.  I think Sandberg's record in the minors proves he can coach -- this is how you bunt, this is how you field, and you do X in situation Y.  But I don't know that it has proven he can lead at a big-league level, especially at an organization like the Cubs.  The Cubs not only have the normal clubhouse things going on, they will have a brand-new GM, potentially a whole new front office, and they operate in one of the biggest sports fishbowls in the country.  Those things add up to a tremendous amount of pressure for a first-year manager, even one who is beloved by the fans.  I don't think it would do the Cubs or Sandberg any favors to throw him into that situation.  Let him get some big league coaching experience (including a bench coach) first, then give him a shot at the job.  Otherwise I think you'd be throwing him under the bus sometime in July.

I get what you're saying in the first paragraph, but then you blow it in the second. Going after a guy like Fielder is exactly the kind of bonehead move the Cubs made in spades under Hendry. Here you have an expensive player whose physical conditioning harkens back to the Ruth era, except that Prince Fielder looks like he ate Babe Ruth. He is the literal definition of dead weight. He's about at the middle of his career--perhaps farther along if his weight takes a toll as he ages--which suggests he's closer to the twilight than the dawn. Yes, from everything I hear he's a nice guy, but he also doesn't seem to be the type who really offers the type of clubhouse guidance you seem to suggest is needed. You're more likely to get that out of the quiet, background guys you don't hear so much about, and Prince Fielder is just another superstar. If the team really is looking to change their culture, go young, build from within and all that--and if they are to build the team you think Sandberg could manage--they need to leave the superstars alone. Commit to a slow build rather than trying to buy talent.

And while Z may or may not have walked himself out of his contract, unless Ricketts plans on eating a few dozen million or Jim Hendry gets a job with the Padres, Soriano is at least the short term future of the Cubs. He'll be around at least another years or two. 

I just think Fielder still has many years left in him where he can produce. He's going to be 28 next may. Let's say you give him a 5 year contract so he's 33 when it ends. That's still pretty young. I say 5 years because at that age he could still get one last big contract, probably from an AL team. I think take 5 years to get that one last payday. The guy has been extremely durable in his short career, only missing 12 games I think. And that's at his current body type. I'm not saying they have to buy all of their talent, but they don't have anyone coming up to play 1st and Pena isn't going to do it. You need to do both, you need to build from within and also be a player in free agency. You need Fielder to let the fans know you're serious because if the fans don't come to the games then you don't have any money to spend. The Cubs can't survive on homegrown talent alone. Few major market teams can because their fans won't tolerate a slow rebuild process. Major market teams need to rebuild on the go.

Wait. The supposed Cubs issue is "culture," dead-assed veterans, and Quade? It seems to me that dead-assed veterans alone would be sufficient to sink the season. I really have not seen anything that Quade has done that is particularly bad, and if you don't think Ryno could get the dead-ass out, what's the point in firing Quade?

Also, notice how Ryno has not gotten a single sniff from anyone else for the MLB job? Fundamental to the Cubs current culture is stupid shit like hiring Ryno and acting as if he is the top coaching prospect going when, in fact, he is not even on the radar for most teams.