Fire Lou

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=99225:date=May 30 2010, 11:44 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ May 30 2010, 11:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I agree with rok and tom.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I agree with rok and tom and kb.

And I agree with me.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=99223:date=May 30 2010, 11:23 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ May 30 2010, 11:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Whether you are satisfied with Lou's in-game management or not over the past 2 seasons, even his long-time supporters would have to acknowledge that he seems disinterested and overwhelmed by just about every obstacle he's encountered for quite some time. What kind of confidence could that possibly inspire in a team? If anything, his general demeanor and the impression that he has been "out to lunch" since the 2008 playoffs should cost him his job, but it won't. If it hasn't by now, it never will.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


My problem with this is the idea that a fan's perception that Pinella is "out to lunch" is almost completely meaningless. Usually (and I have no idea if this is actually what you are getting at Rok) when fans say the manager "doesn't care", it's code for "he isn't screaming at the umps enough". 95 percent of what a manager does to show a team that he cares happens completely out of our sight. It happens in the clubhouse, in meetings with Hendry, in practice, in the dugout. More importantly, when he says "what do you want me to do?", he's RIGHT. He can't make ARam hit. He can't make Dlee hit. He can't make Grabow not suck (and if you are going to argue he could stop pitching him, fine, but pretty much no one has given him another option in that bullpen).

I'd also argue that you can't complain about Lou going through the motions on one hand, and on the other hand rip him for trying something unconventional like putting Z in the pen. A manager who doesn't give a shit simply doesn't make that move. Period.

[funkster]

I think BT brings up some very valid points. I think Lee and Ramirez are killing this team.

[satchel]

<!--quoteo(post=99282:date=May 31 2010, 07:34 PM:name=funkster)-->QUOTE (funkster @ May 31 2010, 07:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I think BT brings up some very valid points. I think Lee and Ramirez are killing this team.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so why does lou keep on hitting them 3 and 4 with byrd and soriano hitting much better...

[Runnys]

It has been two months now, when does Ramirez get benched? BTW, is A-Ram option a mutual option or a player option next season?

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=99281:date=May 31 2010, 08:08 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ May 31 2010, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99223:date=May 30 2010, 11:23 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ May 30 2010, 11:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Whether you are satisfied with Lou's in-game management or not over the past 2 seasons, even his long-time supporters would have to acknowledge that he seems disinterested and overwhelmed by just about every obstacle he's encountered for quite some time. What kind of confidence could that possibly inspire in a team? If anything, his general demeanor and the impression that he has been "out to lunch" since the 2008 playoffs should cost him his job, but it won't. If it hasn't by now, it never will.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


My problem with this is the idea that a fan's perception that Pinella is "out to lunch" is almost completely meaningless. Usually (and I have no idea if this is actually what you are getting at Rok) when fans say the manager "doesn't care", it's code for "he isn't screaming at the umps enough". 95 percent of what a manager does to show a team that he cares happens completely out of our sight. It happens in the clubhouse, in meetings with Hendry, in practice, in the dugout. More importantly, when he says "what do you want me to do?", he's RIGHT. He can't make ARam hit. He can't make Dlee hit. He can't make Grabow not suck (and if you are going to argue he could stop pitching him, fine, but pretty much no one has given him another option in that bullpen).

I'd also argue that you can't complain about Lou going through the motions on one hand, and on the other hand rip him for trying something unconventional like putting Z in the pen. A manager who doesn't give a shit simply doesn't make that move. Period.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That isn't what I meant by "out to lunch." I do think Lou cares, but he seems exasperated and paralyzed by events around him. That's what I meant. And giving in to certain impulses to rock the boat (like trying high risk, low reward experiments such as moving Z to the pen) are not the types of calculated gambles that a manager who actually understands his own roster would take. Being caught off guard by your leadoff hitter only walking once in the past 30 days is another sign of a manager who has overstayed his welcome. Re-read Bruce Miles' articles over the past few weeks and then tell me if Lou still sounds like a manager who is on the ball or not. I'm not saying that firing Lou would automatically turn this team into a champion, but I also don't believe for a second that Lou played no part in constructing the roster over the past 2 seasons or that he is filling out the lineup card in the best possible way recently. What sort of value is he adding in your opinion?

[kbwsb]

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec--><b>Rok</b> said: That isn't what I meant by "out to lunch." I do think Lou cares, but he seems exasperated and paralyzed by events around him. That's what I meant. And giving in to certain impulses to rock the boat (like trying high risk, low reward experiments such as moving Z to the pen) are not the types of calculated gambles that a manager who actually understands his own roster would take. Being caught off guard by your leadoff hitter only walking once in the past 30 days is another sign of a manager who has overstayed his welcome. Re-read Bruce Miles' articles over the past few weeks and then tell me if Lou still sounds like a manager who is on the ball or not. I'm not saying that firing Lou would automatically turn this team into a champion, but I also don't believe for a second that Lou played no part in constructing the roster over the past 2 seasons or that he is filling out the lineup card in the best possible way recently.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

BT, I'm always impressed with your points, especially since they are often diametrically opposed to my way of thinking, yet you almost sway me to your side.

However, rok's posts in this thread have been spot-on, IMO. He's really saying perfectly what I'm having trouble putting into words: that we're not hysterically calling for Lou's head, and expecting a 180 degree shift in the Cub's fortunes. It's simply that Lou is acting like a 65 y old man who's exasperated, defeated, and out of ideas.

Like tom, I enjoyed Lou's early tenure, especially the anti-Dusty qualities. But every man hits a wall; I think Lou has hit it.

For some illumination, look at what happened when Tampa Bay replaced Lou with a smart, young, hungry manager. (Yes, I know it took him a full year to turn things around. And yes, he was given the helm of a team that had sucked for so long, that they'd accumulated a lot of high-draft pick young players. Lots of qualifiers here, I admit.)

But you can't argue with the results. Sometimes, <i>any</i> change is good change.

[veryzer]

Rok is on fire. I agree with everything he's saying.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=99292:date=May 31 2010, 10:57 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ May 31 2010, 10:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99281:date=May 31 2010, 08:08 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ May 31 2010, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99223:date=May 30 2010, 11:23 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ May 30 2010, 11:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Whether you are satisfied with Lou's in-game management or not over the past 2 seasons, even his long-time supporters would have to acknowledge that he seems disinterested and overwhelmed by just about every obstacle he's encountered for quite some time. What kind of confidence could that possibly inspire in a team? If anything, his general demeanor and the impression that he has been "out to lunch" since the 2008 playoffs should cost him his job, but it won't. If it hasn't by now, it never will.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


My problem with this is the idea that a fan's perception that Pinella is "out to lunch" is almost completely meaningless. Usually (and I have no idea if this is actually what you are getting at Rok) when fans say the manager "doesn't care", it's code for "he isn't screaming at the umps enough". 95 percent of what a manager does to show a team that he cares happens completely out of our sight. It happens in the clubhouse, in meetings with Hendry, in practice, in the dugout. More importantly, when he says "what do you want me to do?", he's RIGHT. He can't make ARam hit. He can't make Dlee hit. He can't make Grabow not suck (and if you are going to argue he could stop pitching him, fine, but pretty much no one has given him another option in that bullpen).

I'd also argue that you can't complain about Lou going through the motions on one hand, and on the other hand rip him for trying something unconventional like putting Z in the pen. A manager who doesn't give a shit simply doesn't make that move. Period.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That isn't what I meant by "out to lunch." I do think Lou cares, but he seems exasperated and paralyzed by events around him. That's what I meant. And giving in to certain impulses to rock the boat (like trying high risk, low reward experiments such as moving Z to the pen) are not the types of calculated gambles that a manager who actually understands his own roster would take. Being caught off guard by your leadoff hitter only walking once in the past 30 days is another sign of a manager who has overstayed his welcome. Re-read Bruce Miles' articles over the past few weeks and then tell me if Lou still sounds like a manager who is on the ball or not. I'm not saying that firing Lou would automatically turn this team into a champion, but I also don't believe for a second that Lou played no part in constructing the roster over the past 2 seasons or that he is filling out the lineup card in the best possible way recently. What sort of value is he adding in your opinion?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I'm sorry Rok, I love you but I need to call you out. This seems like back peddling. Out to lunch = exasperated and paralyzed? That's not what I think of the expression. When I hear out to lunch I think happy, carefree, and unthinking. I can only assume that's what you meant originally by your statement. Now maybe you reconcidered your originall position, and that's cool. But I find it extremely hard to believe that when you posted the statement originally, you meant exasperated and paralyzed.

Also, in terms of the Zambrano move, I think BTs point was that he gets slammed for not doing anything and also slammed for doing too much. I'm not saying that's not possible, but the polarizing comments are ridiculous. To placate Piniella as the biggest problem is foolish and acusing him of not caring is finding a reason to dislike him.

I personally think that it's getting to the point that this team is just not going to perform well enough to make a push for the playoffs and having Lou here doesn't do anything for the Cubs. Unless they go on a serious tear in the next month, I think they need to talk to him about stepping down. Not because he's an idiot. Not because he's crazy. Not because he doesn't care. Only because having a veteran manager that doesn't have long term plans for managing this team does not fit the bill for the current situation. That's all the reason needed.

[rok]

Nope, that's exactly what I meant. No backpeddling on my part, but thanks for the thought. Maybe my idea of what the expression means is wrong but this is getting really ridiculous now if we are debating the meanings of expressions in order to make a point. Reread some of my other posts. It isn't the first time that I've used the word exasperated with regard to Lou. I'm not letting this get personal now, so I would also ask that you guys don't as well.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=99307:date=Jun 1 2010, 08:32 AM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Jun 1 2010, 08:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Nope, that's exactly what I meant. No backpeddling on my part, but thanks for the thought. Maybe my idea of what the expression means is wrong but this is getting really ridiculous now if we are debating the meanings of expressions in order to make a point. Reread some of my other posts. It isn't the first time that I've used the word exasperated with regard to Lou. I'm not letting this get personal now, so I would also ask that you guys don't as well.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I understand that you've used exasperated, but that doesn't mean you can't think he's clueless too. I'm not making this personal either and most of my comments have not been directed at you. I don't think anything I said was any more or less personal than "thanks for the thought".

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=99308:date=Jun 1 2010, 08:40 AM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Jun 1 2010, 08:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99307:date=Jun 1 2010, 08:32 AM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Jun 1 2010, 08:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Nope, that's exactly what I meant. No backpeddling on my part, but thanks for the thought. Maybe my idea of what the expression means is wrong but this is getting really ridiculous now if we are debating the meanings of expressions in order to make a point. Reread some of my other posts. It isn't the first time that I've used the word exasperated with regard to Lou. I'm not letting this get personal now, so I would also ask that you guys don't as well.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I understand that you've used exasperated, but that doesn't mean you can't think he's clueless too. I'm not making this personal either and most of my comments have not been directed at you. I don't think anything I said was any more or less personal than "thanks for the thought".
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude, how would you expect me to respond to your post when I wasn't trying to mislead anyone over something this trivial?

And would you have preferred it if I said "willfully ignorant" instead of "out to lunch?"

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=99309:date=Jun 1 2010, 08:43 AM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Jun 1 2010, 08:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99308:date=Jun 1 2010, 08:40 AM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Jun 1 2010, 08:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99307:date=Jun 1 2010, 08:32 AM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Jun 1 2010, 08:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Nope, that's exactly what I meant. No backpeddling on my part, but thanks for the thought. Maybe my idea of what the expression means is wrong but this is getting really ridiculous now if we are debating the meanings of expressions in order to make a point. Reread some of my other posts. It isn't the first time that I've used the word exasperated with regard to Lou. I'm not letting this get personal now, so I would also ask that you guys don't as well.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I understand that you've used exasperated, but that doesn't mean you can't think he's clueless too. I'm not making this personal either and most of my comments have not been directed at you. I don't think anything I said was any more or less personal than "thanks for the thought".
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude, how would you expect me to respond to your post when I wasn't trying to mislead anyone over something this trivial?

And would you have preferred it if I said "willfully ignorant" instead of "out to lunch?"
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Ok, look at it from my point of view though. I see you say Lou is out to lunch. I see BT state he has a problem with people deciding Lou doesn't care and is clueless. Then I see you explain that your definition of the expression out to lunch is exasperated and paralyzed rather than carless and clueless. All along, I've never thought the expression meant what you stated. I've known it to mean exactly what BT was stating. Thus, I can only draw three conclusions. Either you don't know what the expression means, I don't know what the expression means, or you were readjusting your position on the fly. I assumed the latter and challenged you on that. If you're telling me that you feel that out to lunch is your definition, then I apologize for my assumption and I will believe you for your word. But, you have to understand that I didn't do it to be malicious. I did it because I don't know anyone else that define's the expression "out to lunch" as exasperated and paralyzed. I enjoy going out to lunch. I don't enjoy being exasperated and paralyzed.

It isn't trivial. I'm trying to find out your position. If we were talking about Jake Gyllenhaal being "out to lunch" for Prince of Persia in the movies forum, I wouldn't have made a big deal about it because this is not a Prince of Persia forum and neither you or I are that passionate about Jake Gyllenhaal.

[rok]

This isn't a big deal, but I'm just a little surprised that we are debating what an expression means in the context of this discussion. You can be "out to lunch" either a) because you don't care or b ) because you have lulled yourself into a state of ignorance. I think the latter is the case for Lou. He is old.

[rok]

I didn't really want to look it up, but I did anyway. How is a paralyzed and/or exasperated person not any of the following? Why can't he be all of the above?
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/out+to+lunch
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->2. and out of it Fig. not alert; giddy; uninformed. Bill is really out of it. Why can't he pay attention? Don't be out of it, John. Wake up! Ann is really out to lunch these days.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->