Bleacher Bums Forum

.. when Theo is talking about accountability and stuff that he's referring to Russell.  He might be, but I doubt it.  Everything I've read is that Russell has done almost everything the FO asked him to do.   I think there's something else going on.  Backstabbing, missing signals, swinging for the fences with winning run at third and one out, being clueless about game situations in one's hitting approach, nursing injuries...there's more to it.   

Yes, I assume Russell did as asked for counseling, and yes to your main point that there's more to it.  If it's just Russell, they could let him go and and problem is solved. 

Russell is the face of the franchise for accountability issues, both on-field and off.  On field, there was the stuff about not being focused defensively, having mental errors, AND not even having complete command of the signs.  That's a professionalism/preparation issue.  And down to Iowa he went. 

Theo made a reference to "consequences", and used wording as if he thought everybody could see that somebody had been held accountable for something. What "consequences" was Theo alluding to in his head there?  Russell getting sent to the minors, but what else?  And if players experienced consequences, were they for performance, or for behavior issues of some other kind? Edwards, Almora, and Montgomery were bad players sent away; are those performance consequences that Theo was alluding to? 

I kinda don't think so, because great club leadership doesn't make bad players good.  What leadership is supposed to improve are issues of behavior, attitude, professionalism, preparation, practice habits, focus, etc..   

So agree with Curt, there's more to it than Russell, and you mention some possibilities. 

Quote from: craig on October 02, 2019, 09:47:52 am


Thanks, dihard.  That's helpful to hear.

Cubs admin have a reputation for being really smart/intellectual.  I'd like to get somebody who's really intelligent and smart.  Maddon is, no question there.  But I'm not sure all of their managerial hires, or batting-coach hires, have necessarily mirrored that.  Think they have maybe tended to go more for style.  Elan, the word Theo used several times.  Soft skills.

I hope they get somebody who's got good soft skills, but who's also an intelligent and thoughtful guy too.

Quote

That rules out WJ

Ouch.  That hurt.

I couldn't agree more.

I hated the scheduled off days...and the idea of giving a player a day off after having a big game the day before just because "it was scheduled"...that's crap...

Deeg, there's truth in that, for sure.  On the other hand, he might have had more guys perform consistently if he had let them get into some kind of rhythm.

One thing I'd like to see the new manager do differently from Joe is to establish more of a set everyday lineup.  Not so much a set batting order as much as a set 8 who - outside of a straight platoon - are your "everyday" guys.

I think the superflexibility of the roster sometimes was overused and acted as a detriment to player development.

If you believe in a guy, you have to give him an extended opportunity at some point to prove whether he can or can't do it.  This playing once every 3-4 days is tough on anyone but much more so a young player.

Who would you have played more as an “everyday” guy? 

Only guy I can think of is Bote but seemed to me his usage was fine.

We had five everyday guys: Rizzo, Bryant, Baez, Heyward, Schwarber (137 GS). Nobody would start Schwarber against certain lefties(at least until Aug/Sept). Then, there’s Contreras/Caratini, which is six.

When Castellanos arrived, he played everyday.

Seems to me that nobody Cubs had could be an “everyday” guy at the other two positions.

At 2B, Russell started season suspended,  Descalso didn't hit, and Zobrist went home. Happ was in minors and Russell too for a stretch after the suspension. Bote—see above.

In CF, Almora didn’t hit. Ideally, he would have been an everyday guy but don’t think anybody would argue Almora deserved to play more. So, Heyward had to play half-time in CF and almost all the time when Castellanos arrived.

What am I missing?

I think I've probably been one of the more skeptical here with regard to Kyle Schwarber.  But the second half of this season has turned me around on him.  This is an interesting piece on Schwarber from cubsinsider.com that makes the case that he should be a core piece in 2020 and going forward.

https://www.cubsinsider.com/2019/10/03/kyle-schwarbers-second-half-turnaround-makes-him-lock-to-remain-with-cubs/

That piece references an earlier one that goes into more detail about his performance since the All Star Break.

https://www.cubsinsider.com/2019/09/18/kyle-schwarber-raking-entire-yard-with-balanced-batting-approach/

If the second half Schwarber is the "real" Schwarber, it seems like he should be the default LF going forward. His defensive lapses can be tolerated if the other two OF positions are filled with good defenders.  Heyward in RF would be one. This is all the more reason for the Cubs to focus on finding a good defensive CF who gets on base and is a contact guy this winter.

It will be interesting to see if the Cubs and Schwarber agree on an extension over the winter. If they do, I expect Schwarber to be penciled in as the regular LF, and I would not expect them to sign Castellanos.  If no deal is reached, then maybe Schwarber gets traded.

So looking at 2016 Cubs
Heyward RF, 14 DRS, UZR/150 17.5
Fowler CF, 1 DRS, UZR/150 0
Cubs LF Combined 5 DRS, 12.9 UZR/150

Schawarber -1 DRS, UZR/150 -0.9 in 2019

Cubs 2019 45.6 GB%
Cubs 2016 46.9 GB%

Despite the fly ball revolution maybe OF Defense is overrated