Sveum Interviews … Maddux Next Up for the Cubs

The Cubs conducted the second interview for their managerial opening on Monday. Current Brewers’ hitting coach Dale Sveum became the second candidate to go through the Theo Epstein/Jed Hoyer interview process.

Dale Sveum was asked about winning now and he said when dealing with the Cubs and any major market team you are expected to win that year and not be rebuilding. Sveum, who has a history with both Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer, told the media he did not talk about the Cubs plans with Epstein and Hoyer but “understands that rebuilding is not in their vocabulary.”

While Sveum was interviewing, another managerial candidate made headlines. Mike Maddux withdrew his name from the Red Sox’s manager search citing family issues as the reason. In the statement released by the Red Sox, Maddux left the door open in regards to the Cubs job.

Soon after the interview with Dale Sveum concluded, the Cubs announced they would be interviewing Mike Maddux on Wednesday.

Speculation is that Mike Maddux is now the favorite to land the Cubs job after what transpired on Monday afternoon.

Dale Sveum
Here are a few tidbits from Dale Sveum’s time with the Chicago Media.

  • Theo Epstein, Jed Hoyer, Jason McLeod and Randy Bush spent five hours with Sveum on Monday.
  • When asked what type of manager he would be, Sveum responded with stoic and explained he does not show a lot of emotion … except when arguing with umpires.
  • Dale Sveum’s nickname is ‘Nuts’.
  • Sveum said the one thing he’s done in all of his years is pay attention. Sveum explained that he’s been able to learn the game from “a lot of good people” and “a lot of good managers.” Sveum played for Tony LaRussa, Lou Piniella, Joe Torre, Jim Leyland and Gene Lamont.
  • When the subject of Prince Fielder was brought up, Sveum responded by saying he is one of the favorite players he’s ever coached.
  • Reportedly Sveum “prepares meticulously for games, using video and statistics.”

Joe Bohringer
As expected, the Cubs announced the hiring of Joe Bohringer on Monday. The Cubs added an impressive piece to their front office by naming Bohringer the Director of Pro Scouting.

Bohringer, 41, has been in professional baseball for 22 years and will take a little responsibility away from Tim Wilken, who was the Director of Pro and Amateur Scouting under the previous regime. While Wilken will report to Jason McLeod, Bohringer will report to GM Jed Hoyer.

Stay Tuned … The Cubs are still expected to interview Sandy Alomar, Jr. for their managerial opening. Alomar is scheduled to meet with the Red Sox on Wednesday.

Follow ChicagoCubsOnline on Twitter: @TheCCO

Quote of the Day

"The most wasted of all days is one without laughter." – E.E. Cummings

Share on Fancred
  • Chuck

    New slogan:  “Let’s go Madd in Twelve”

    • J Daniel

      Madd as in Mad Dog brother or John Madden?

  • Shelbymenge

    from shelby, hire mike maddux for  manager next season for the chicago cubs.

    • Theboardrider

      Shelby please don’t take offense.  But has anyone else noticed your posts read like an 19th century indian chief reciting english?  Also, what is with the “from Shelby,”?  Please don’t take offense, I’ve just noticed so many of your posts and they all read like a computer generated them.  Give us a bit more detail and let us get to know you through your words! 

  • cc002600

    I think it will be Sveum

    • Aaron

      I think you might be right. I said last night it’d be either Maddux or Sveum, with a darkhorse candidate in play like Bogar, but with Maddux pulling his shenanigans with the Red Sox…I’m wondering if that might turn the Cubs off from him.

      From what I understand with Sveum…he wouldn’t be a bad choice at all, so I’m comfortable with that…I just don’t really want Mackanin. He almost seems like Mike Quade part 2…you know, the whole, “I’ve been a baseball lifer, and therefore, I deserve a chance to be manager”

      • Schwimmer

        Aaron, I have a lot of respect for your baseball savvy.  But I was surprised to hear you refer to Maddux as “pulling his shenanigans.”

        I thought he was very straight forward?  Maybe I missed something that you know?I thought all he did was to say to BOSTON, “Please take my name off your list.  Based on family considerations, Boston would not be a good option for me.”Isn’t that basically what he said?  And, isn’t the good news — that it may mean that he (esp. with his Brother Greg’s prompting) may have said that to BOSTON…because he really wants to manage the CUBS?I’d love to hear your response to what I’ve said.  Thanks, Larry

        • Aaron

          I referenced my post from last night, but should’ve done a recap….basically what I said was that Maddux actually agreed to interview with Boston over a week ago. When you agree to interview, and something is scheduled, usually you’ve already made the decision that you could see yourself working for that company. If during the interview process, you determine otherwise through questioning or just a gut feeling, then that is your prerogative. But the fact that he agreed to do the interview, then copped out because he said after discussing with his family it’d be too great of a distance from home…..I just got a feeling that maybe he didn’t use the best judgement in accepting the offer to interview in the first place. Am I making sense?

          Obviously, everyone is entitled to change their mind, but the timing of his announcement (unless he made the Red Sox aware earlier) makes him look pretty bad.

          That’s all I was saying. It’s not that I don’t want him as manager, but his decision-making could land him in hot water during his Cubs interview, unless Theo and Jed already knew about his thought process ahead of time. They’re sure to ask why he’d agree to do an interview with a prestigious organization, only to pull out right before his scheduled interview due to “family concerns”. How he handles that line of questioning will probably determine whether or not he moves forward in the process or not…and while I understand this is my personal opinion, I think he actually did himself a disservice if he even hoped to land the Cubs’ gig. The reason I feel that way is because he could’ve used the Red Sox process as a sort of practice run for the job he really wants (which might or might not be the Cubs….but hopefully you understand what I’m getting at). Both teams are implementing the same criteria and interview model that Theo and others developed when they hired Francona. 

          I’ve actually gone on job interviews in the past with companies my interest was really lukewarm, just to get back in the flow of the line of questioning, etc. that I could experience in a high pressure interview, and it helped prepare me to land my ideal job

          • paulcatanese

            Aaron, I understand exactly what you are saying. And while he may want the Cub job over Boston, I agree, he should not have made the commitment to begin with.

            In his defense, no one knows when Boston approached him,maybe before the Cubs,I dont know, but should have kept it, if nothing else do it and then just tell them he wasnt interested.

            Persoanally, I would like to see him as the Cub pitching coach, but then thats a lateral move and he may not take that either.

            I like Bogar as manager and Maddux as pitching coach.
            Then again Maddux may just like Chicago over Boston to live in.

          • Tedtop16

            There is no way that Maddux is going to be interested in a pitching coach  job with the CUBS. He is really close with the Ryan family. They go back to the days in Round Rock. A lateral move would make no sense for him.

          • paulcatanese

            I agree that Maddux would  not take a lateral move to be a pitching coach it was just my choice.
            And I feel keeping the appointment would be prudent for him. One does not want to burn bridges behind them, never know when one may want to cross over the river again.

          • Theboardrider

            It’s a lot easier to accept the interview and change your mind then to decline it and then change your mind.  Once you decline or show hesitancy you are out of the running.  Maybe he wanted more time to decide and they approached him before he had totally made up his mind.  Therefore he accepted and then thought better of it.  

          • Schwimmer

            Thanks for that explanation.  I wasn’t aware of the fact that MADDUX had accepted the Boston interview a week ago.  

            Based on that fact — I agree with you and, your analysis.  The negative is that we might say that he didn’t use good judgment.   But we all have said, “Yes,” only to have 2nd thoughts.  The only positive might be that he has an inside track to the CUBS job and really wants to go for that.

            To your point about the fact that the “Boston job” might have given him practice…

            Well, MADDUX might be wired in a way where taking an interview for practice is just not necessary.   I’ve shied away from taking an interview with a company I KNEW…I didn’t want to work for.  After all, the other side of “it’s great practice,” is — “if I’m not interested…what’s the point?  No  one gives their best interview when their heart is not in it.  At least — that’s my thought.

            Anyway…it’s fun to have CUB “blog buddies” to psyche out these issues.  Thanks for taking time to reply.

            By the way…have you heard whether or not the CUBS are interested in bidding for Yoenis Cespedes?   I always thought it was a mistake not to consider Ardis Chapman (from Cincinnati).

          • Aaron

            Cubs have not been linked to Cespedes at all…not on MLBTR, not on other blogs I’ve seen, and from what I understand, have not even sent scouts to watch him practice, which is a clear sign they think he’s priced out of their range….and what everyone needs to keep in mind about these Cubans, is NOBODY really knows their age. They have notoriously bad birth records, and moreover, there really haven’t been that many successful Cubans to play in MLB. Yes, there were in the distant past, but recently, I guess you could point to Contreras. Chapman and Viciedo might have good careers…but there hasn’t been any recent precedence for successful Cubans in the big leagues, just like arguably there hasn’t been many successful Japanese players outside of Ichiro. Is it really wise to spend $30 million on a guy that has played talent that is at best equivalent to high-A or AA? I sure don’t think so…not after the Fukudome debacle.

          • Dorasaga

            Aaron, Cespedes is a much mature hitter than Viciedo (who never made the Cuban national team), and a much better fielder. He’s a lower risk and OK reward guy. (Don’t expect too much from the free-swing league of Cuba, though. Those stats are translatable.)

            Darvish makes no sense. For marketing purposes, I would recommend the Cubs to wait on his teammate Saitoh Yuki, who’s a Koshien hero and a media hype for several years already. But that’s to assume he’ll survive pro the next six years and got posted, or the NPB (Japan’s big league) gives in on their awkward post-and-FA system.

            They let players announce free agency after six years, if they’re from college or adult amateur leagues, but seven years for high school and another 3 (adds up to nine) years be allowed to go abroad. That’s too complicate. They need to get rid of the posting system and all those 6-7-9 crap, as Theo Epstein agreed, as once reported (from Boston).

          • Coolpdxcubsfan

            Not that it matters, but maybe he just didn’t want to tell Boston that he didn’t like them or Boston and didn’t want to work for them and would prefer to work for Theo (who just spurned Boston) in  Chicago. Then maybe he tried to be diplomatic about it and re-assure them, in case he would like to work for them sometime in the future of his carreer. I don’t think his decision making is in question here, just his choice of phony excuses.

          • Neil

            I have not heard or read of the Cubs showing any interest in Cespedes.

          • Neil

            This just popped up … but consider the source, Phil Rogers

            Phil Rogers

            Cubs are very intrigued by Cuban CF
            Cespedes. He could become their free-agent priority this time around, if
            homework checks out.

          • Tedtop16

            Honestly. Has Phil Rogers ever gotten anything right? Most of his comments seem drug induced.

          • Jason Penrod

          • studio179

            I respectively disagree with your reasoning and not trying to be rude here. Maddux first agreed to and has since declined an interview with the Boston interview due to ‘family concerns’. Yet, you say it is ok he wastes Boston’s time and his time with a ‘sort of practice run’ with an interview, just because they use the same process. Wasting people’s time with false intentions seems like ‘shenanigans’ to me. Besides, let him make it or break it without a trial run on real intentions. 

            Also, you say ‘When you agree to interview, and something is scheduled, usually you’ve already made the decision that you could see yourself working for that company.’ Yet at the end of your post you say ‘ I’ve actually gone on job interviews in the past with companies my interest was really lukewarm, just to get back in the flow of the line of questioning, etc. that I could experience in a high pressure interview, and it helped prepare me to land my ideal job.”

            So you using a company for a job interview you do not want is not considered ‘shenanigans’, but Maddux agreeing for an interview a week ago and now declining it before he wastes anyone’s time, is considered ‘shenanigans’. 

            This reasoning seems odd. 

      • cc002600

        Yea, but he has nice hair and he’s a “young 60”

        • Zippy2212

          for some reason I keep thinking Mackanin wouldn’t be a bad choice, then I realize it’s just because if he gets hired Ryno moves to bench coach for the Phils.  Hopefully Boston hires him.

  • Last_ginger

    Royals interested in Zambrano for right price.

    • Neil
    • Schwimmer

      There are a lot of teams that would be interested in Big Z if they only have to pay $3 million for him.  

      That’s why I say:  KEEP him…unless someone wants to ante up a lot more than $3 or $4 million.

      Carlos Zambrano is going to win 12 to 16 games for someone next year.

      • cubtex

        I tend to agree with you. If they have to eat 15 Mil of the 18 Mil and only get back a low level prospect……keep him for the last year. I don’t know about winning 15 games but he would be better than throwing Rodrigo Lopez or someone like that out there in his place.

        • Aaron

          …unless you get the Royals to flip Sanchez for him…or the Marlins to give the Cubs Nolasco or Anibal Sanchez….or the Mets to give up Pelfrey…or the Angels to give up Ervin Santana (or a rookie like Chatwood or Walden)…you get the picture. Zambrano is basically the equivalent of a solid #3 starter for most teams, so that’s about what you should get for him, especially with his track record of logging significant innings and sub-4 ERA’s

          • cubtex

            If that is the return….then definately I would agree,

          • Schwimmer

            Totally agree.  Z may deserve criticism for his immature behavior.  But he deserves credit for still being a very good pitcher that (as you said) could be a #3 starter on many MLB Ball clubs.

            So…let’s not be in too big of hurry to “throw the baby out with the bath water.”  And, THEO is sharp enough to know this, too.  That’s why he was so clever at his Press Conference when he discussed Z.

            My guess is that the CUBS keep him…unless some ball club is willing to put their money where their mouth is.   And, I’m talkin more than offering to pay the CUBS $3 or $4.

          • cc002600

             There is NO WAY you will get #3 starter for Z.

            Remember, whoever takes him, is basically rolling the dice on him for 1 year and that’s probably it.  Why in the world would anyone give up anything of value for a one-year rental with big-time baggage ??  Would you ?

            Be happy if they get a low level prospect

          • Brp921

            You may be right about the return, but if your getting nothing back and still paying his salary, then you might as well get however many wins he can get instead of trading him.

  • Anonymous47701

    2012 Coaching Staff idea

    Manager- Mike Maddux

    Bench- Ryne Sandberg
    Pitching- Greg Maddux
    Hitting- Rudy Jaramillo
    1st Base- Bob Dernier
    3rd Base- Chip Hale
    Bullpen- Lester Strode

    • paulcatanese

      I would rather see Mike Maddux as pitching coach,Jarmillo as hitting coach,and Strode as bullpen coach, but only it they have complete authority in the positions they are placed in.
      Why, for example would one have Jarmillo as a hitting coach if only half or less pay any attention to him? The same would hold true tor the rest of the “specialized” coaches, they must have control if they are going to do their jobs.

      • Anonymous47701

        You lost me there, paul. what are you trying to say?

        • paulcatanese

          OK, lets just use D Lee and Aram for an example, Rudy tried to work with both and for the longest time got nowhere with either one, and guess what both sucked.
          If you have a strong manager and hitting coach and both are backed by upper management, they sit these two down and tell them,”you both are going nowhere with the approach you have” “We are paying you to produce, so its my way or sit until you decide to take constructive help”.

          And you could say the same about Marmol, what happend there? he was out of the closer for what two days? To work on mechanics and then back out and after one appearance back to the old stuff.

          The bullpen coach needs the same authority out there. My impression of coach’s managers has always meant “above the players” It’s their job to impliment what they are hired to do and not have overpaid children out their doing their own thing. The players play “for the club” and not “as the club”May be quite a stretch, but thats how I see it.

          Ricketts has gone ot of his way to develop a mangement team to carry out exactly what they think they have to do to build a winner, and no less authority should be given to those who are “in the trenches” to carry Theo’s policies out. All out by all with the program.

          Make any sense?


  • Aaron


    With that recent post by Kaplan regarding the Royals interest in Zambrano….methinks the Cubs could possibly trade him straight up for Jonathan Sanchez in a sort of belated 3 team deal. If that happens, then it’s quite possible the reason the Cubs might’ve stayed away from Sanchez is the asking price. While Melky Cabrera had a career year and is still young, I really have never expected more than a .275 avg, .330’s OBP and 10 hr, 65 RBI (last year he had a .305 avg, .339 OBP, 18 hr, 87 RBI, and 20 SB)…if Cabrera landed the Royals Sanchez plus a pitching prospect, I am wondering if the Cubs would’ve had to give up someone like Brett Jackson, plus another player to get Sanchez. Would that have been worth it? Not to me….

    But here’s the reality…The Royals rotation sucks even worse than the Cubs. Here is their likely rotation (assuming Davies isn’t back and one of either Chen or Francis aren’t brought back):
    Hochevar 11-11, 4.68 ERA, 1.283 WHIP
    Paulino 4-6, 4.11 ERA., 1.372 WHIP
    Duffy 4-8, 5.64 ERA, 1.614 WHIP
    *one of Chen (12-8, 3.77 ERA, 1.303 WHIP), Francis (6-16, 4.82 ERA, 1.437 WHIP)

    Sanchez would appear to be a more expensive….but younger version of Chen, and I say that, because both have been pretty inconsistent in their respective careers. If you look closely at the Royals, what it’s really lacking is a strong veteran presence to lead the staff.

    While I certainly wouldn’t make any claims that Zambrano is a “leader”, I would say that he is more consistent than Sanchez, and given the fact he is just 1 year older than Sanchez, it’s not like the Royals would be getting a significantly older pitcher in return. Sanchez is also getting more expensive, and is set to earn roughly $7 million in arbitration. If the Cubs paid about $10 million of his contract, they would be swapping basically even contracts (from the Royals perspective).

    Sanchez only has one season under at least a 4.24 ERA, and that was in 2010 during their championship run when he had a 3.07 ERA. Meanwhile, Zambrano had just one season as a starter over a 3.95 ERA (2011 he had a 4.82 ERA).

    My guess is Zambrano would never approve a trade to the Royals, but you just never know, right?

    One can dream…

    • JimBo_C

      you might be on to something. i was about to say the same thing but you beat me to it. getting something of value for Z will require creativity. the Cubs could pay the difference in the salaries and even sweeten the pot by sending another arm (e.g. Coleman, Gaub, Parker). 

      Sanchez could be evaluated for a year. If they like him then keep him, if not then he would have simply been a stop gap.

    • Neil

      Aaron, I’m with you. I do not think he would approve a trade to the Royals … unless the Royals agreed to let him DH once in a while. If Zambrano gets traded it will be to a NL team.

  • Aaron

    I was just looking at potential FA targets for the Cubs using Epstein’s criteria:

    1) A player’s prime years are defined as roughly 27-32 years old
    2) A hitter needs to be a “grinder”, work the count, and get on base

    That’s basically the only criteria we have to go off of, so I’ve compiled a list of free agents under the age of 32:

    Jake Fox (28)-catcher/IF
    Rob Johnson (28)-catcher
    Ryan Doumit (31)-catcher/IF
    Dioner Navarro (28)-catcher
    JR Towles (28)-catcher

    Jorge Cantu (29)-1B/3B
    Prince Fielder (28)-1B
    Casey Kotchman (29)-1B

    Aaron Hill (30)-2B
    Kelly Johnson (30)-2B/3B
    Jose Lopez (28)-2B/3B
    Drew Sutton (29)-2B

    Yuniesky Betancourt (30)-SS
    Andres Blanco (28)-SS/2B (remember him?)
    Ronny Cedeno (29)-SS (ditto)
    Jose Reyes (29)-SS
    Brandon Wood (27)-SS/3B

    Wilson Betemit (30)-3B
    Kevin Kouzmanoff (30)-3B
    Andy LaRoche (28)-3B

    Travis Buck (28)-OF
    Jonny Gomes (31)-OF
    Conor Jackson (30)-OF
    Fred Lewis (31)-OF
    Laynce Nix (31)-OF
    Wily Mo Pena (30)-OF
    Felix Pie (27)-OF
    Yoenis Cespedes (26)-OF
    Nate McLouth (30)-OF
    Cody Ross (31)-OF
    Grady Sizemore (29)-OF
    Jason Kubel (29)-OF

    *Only Fielder Kubel, Sizemore, and Reyes (outside chance he’d even be considered by Epstein) would fit into Epstein’s criteria, while an older guy like Damon (based solely on PPA would be considered)

    Kyle Davies (28)
    Zach Duke (29)
    Jeff Francis (30)
    Armando Galarraga (30)
    Rich Harden (30)
    Edwin Jackson (28)
    Paul Maholm (30)
    Sergio Mitre (31)
    Mitch Talbot (28)
    Dontrelle Willis (30)
    CJ Wilson (31)

    Jonathan Broxton (28)
    Matt Capps (28)
    Ryan Madson (31)
    Jonathan Papelbon (31)
    KROD (30)
    David Aardsma (29)
    Jeremy Accardo (30)
    Todd Coffey (31)
    Juan Cruz (31)
    Juan Guttierrez (30)
    Pat Neshek (31)
    Tony Pena (30)
    Adam Russell (29)
    Joel Zumaya (27)

    *The only guys I could fathom Epstein being interested in from the pitching list is Maholm, Francis, Harden (because he was last year while GM of the Red Sox), Jackson, and Willis for starters. For relief, he’d probably be interested in Broxton, Capps, Madson, Papelbon, KROD, and an outside chance he’d be interested in Zumaya, even with injury concerns. 

    There’s no doubt in my mind that Epstein would at least entertain signing players like Damon, Buehrle, Oswalt, Cuddyer, etc., that are technically past prime ages of 27-32, but he’d likely only do it on short-term contracts for no more than 2 years, and aside from Damon, the others might be looking for 3+years.

    I would love to see the Cubs get Edwin Jackson, Buehrle, Papelbon, Broxton, Cuddyer, Kubel, Fielder, and Sizemore…but I just don’t see that happening. Out of that group, only Broxton, Cuddyer, Kubel, and Sizemore would likely be feasible given $$ and years for the others…and I’d actually be fine with that. But the problem is, the Cubs haven’t been linked to any of these players, save for Fielder, who is likely to be the second most expensive FA on the market. 

    • Breeden

      Bring back Jake Fox!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Neil

      Philly is about to set the market for late inning relievers/closers. The are close to a 4 year, $44 million deal with a fifth year option for Ryan Madson. Aaron, you know how I feel about multi-year deals for relievers … much less ones this long. This is a bad contract, too bad it is the first one of the off-season.

      • cmschube

        I’m surpised the Nationals didn’t sign him for $100+ million!!

        You know if it were the Cubs, he’d get decapitated in his first outing and through some part of his contract, we’d still be on the hook for the rest of the money.. Oh wait, Hendry’s gone.

        • daverj

          Just wait … the Nats will be overspending this year again.  Could very well be Fielder and Oswalt this time. 

      • daverj

        That contract is nuts … and it’s going to set the market price for closers.  Heath Bell and Papelbon got richer just by Madson signing this deal.

        KRod, Broxton and Capps should also benefit from this to varying degrees.

        • Tony_Hall

          In normal markets yes, but sometimes the most money can go to who gets it first.  Just because the Phillies paid their own guy that much, doesn’t mean that there is enough other teams, willing to pay this much to all the guys available.  This should be a buyers market for closers, with all the inventory available.

      • Aaron

        For late inning relievers like Rivera and Hoffman (when he was younger), I would’ve made the exception to go longer than 3 years, but like you said, it’s a losing proposition if you’re dishing them out like candy as Hendry did during his tenure.

        Eyre, Howry, Grabow, etc. I could go on and on. As for other teams, if you look at Fuentes, KROD, Linebrink, Jenks, etc., it’s quite clear that other teams have also made mistakes. 

        Neil, you’ve always been right about the long-term reliever contracts, and I’ve always agreed with you. Unless you’re getting someone like a Cordero, Rivera, Papelbon, etc. that has consistent stats throughout their career, then there’s absolutely no point in offering them more than 1-2 years, and certainly NOT more than a year for an average at best middle reliever (coughs…Grabow). Why? Because most teams could EASILY fill most of their relief roles from their own minor league systems with young, cheap internal options. 

        Consider the Cubs for a minute here….Here are just a few of their minor league options:
        Kurcz (could be ready mid-season for MLB)
        Mateo (he’s injured, but nobody seems to know to what extent)

        I still believe the Cubs should aggressively pursue trading Marmol, then signing Papelbon and Broxton.

      • Tony_Hall

        Keep spending Philadelphia!!  Their window, with this ever aging group, is only another year or 2.  Then these over-bloated contracts will be too much, for them to continue signing players, and they will have an extremely old team.  

      • Tony_Hall

        Jim Bowden predicted 4 years $40M for an AAV of $10M. 

        He got $11M AAV.

        • Tony_Hall

          Bowden predicted the following relievers contracts.

          Papelbon – 4 yrs $52M – $13M AAV
          Bell – 3 yrs $30M – $10M AAV
          K Rod – 2 yrs $17M – $8.5M AAV
          Cordero – 1 yr $8.5M
          Nathan – 1 yr $7.5M
          Capps – 1 yr $4M

  • Agustinrexach

    I bet Nolan Ryan offered maddux the manager position once Washington deal is over. He will not manage the cubs either if family and Texas are a real issue. I am still pulling for him.

  • Neil

    From Bruce Levine: Sandy Alomar jr to interview for cub job later this week. MLB source.

    • Jeff in AZ

      Elephant in the room: Are they only interviewing Alomar to meet thin MLB minority requirement, or do we think he is a legitimate canidate? Since he is a former catcher who seems to have a high baseball IQ, I hope it is the latter…

      • Tony_Hall

        I am looking forward to seeing how Alomar does in his interview.  I think he would be an excellent choice.

      • Neil

        Jeff, I don’t think so. I think Alomar is a legitimate candidate. I am curious as well on how he does.

        • Aaron


          I saw some article (I’ll try to find and post for you…believe it might’ve been the “Smurf” Rosenthal) that said he supposedly had “insiders” that said they would not be shocked if Alomar blew the interview out of the water, and the Cubs or Red Sox hired him.

          I would be all for it, as he comes from a strong baseball family and background, PLUS, we all know how well former catchers have been as managers with Scioscia and Girardi the most prominent recently.

          • Neil

            Aaron, it was Jon Heyman on twitter … here ya go.

            #cubs and #redsox both willing to be swayed in interviews tho. alomar/mackanin could still blow them away & get job

  • Neil

    From Jon Heyman: mike maddux still on calendar for cubs interview wednesday. being that that’s tomorrow, it seems he intends to go

    • Jeff in AZ

      This is the guy I want. I want pitching, pitching, and more pitching. So it makes sense that I prefer the pitching coach canidate with 15 years of mlb experience as one. Not to mention the possibility of little brother helping out.

  • Neil

    #Cubs in #AFL (11/8): Junior Lake (DH): 0-for-3, BB; DJ LeMahieu (3B): 2-for-4, 2RBI, R, 2SB (12 total in AFL); Trey McNutt: 1R, 3H, 0BB, K in 2IP (L); Marcus Hatley: 0R, 1H, 0BB, K in 1IP

  • Anthony

    Ok, lets try this again. The mathematics of MLB continually state, each team will win 50 games and lose 50 games. What does that mean?

    It means each team has enough baseball talent to win 50/162, and due to both the simpleness of the game and the complexity of it, and how the ball bounces, and the fact each game is unique, each team has 62 other games to make or break a season.

    There are 30 MLB clubs, and 29 went home not achieving their ultimate goal. Are they failures?

    This game about players, and is about those 62 games and the pitching, defense, the pitching, and those times where the term timely/clutch hitting happens.

    Now, is the propensity to deliver higher offensively with a balanced lineup? Yes.

    Players play the game.
    Managers’ DON’T
    The front office supplies their best version of who plays.

    Those 62 games and every possible scenario ultimately determines who holds the trophy, and the managerial aspect has minimal bearing on the outcome.

    If this was only about stacked lineups/high payrolls, wouldn’t the Yankees and Boston win every season? They don’t, because today’s game won’t permit it. All the players on each team can make the difference, and if all timing comes to fruition, it can happen.

    Prince Fielder is not the answer.
    Managers are not the answer.

    The mathematics of baseball, the fractions of inches make the difference. The outcomes have tons of happenstance included. Baseball is truly a unique game.

    The Cubs could have the best Manager, Pjols and Fielder both in the lineup, and baseball will not guarantee winning. The design of the game is something that cannot be scripted.

    The game of baseball is failure oriented, and he who fails the least gets the prize, based on the aspect of failure.

    The hard hit ball right into the glove of a fielder. Do that 10 times in 10 at bats and they call it a slump.

    Hit 10 flairs in a row, and the hitter is on a hot streak???? Say What!


    Those are the past 11 WS Champs thru 2011 season.

    It is almost a Crapshoot. each of the other 29 teams each season pretty much tried their best to field a winner. Many of the losing teams were better statistically, toolsy, administratively, had better managers(????), players, and organizations, and larger payrolls.

    The best advice is to accept the game for what it is, unique and unpredictable. The Hot Stove chatter can be less stressful if one focuses on that fact.

    • Tony_Hall

      Yet the team with one of the best managers, and a slightly better than average team, won the World Series.

      Nobody is stressed out on here.

      And yes, if every team’s goal is to win the World Series…29 teams failed this year.

    • John G

      Any player that makes it to the major leagues has a skill level way beyond what you or I have. (Even Koyie Hill or John Grabow) Some utilize those skills more consistenly than others. The biggest difference between players is the 6″ between their ears (8″ in the case of Barry Bonds). The good GM/Scout/Manager/Executive is the one who can identify those players who use that 6″ better than the other guy. Yes, luck has a lot to do with it. but over a 162 game season the team on top is going to be the one where the players used that 6″. No one can say that the Cardinals had better skills than the Rangers (or the Brewers or the Phillies) but they used that 6″ better than the other teams did. And in many cases, no most cases, the Manager is the one who got them to use that 6″ just a little better than the other manager.


      • Anthony

        Agree, in that one seasonal time frame where all the tumblers clicked simultaneously, hence the crapshoot.

        • John G

          You missed my point completely. It’s not a crapshoot at all. Oh maybe it is between a haNdfull of teams. But in the big picture, the teams with the best Managers and the most players that use their brain to maximize their skill sets will be competing in the post season. Once you reach the post season, I believe the Manager has a greater impact on the results. So your premise that the Manager is unimportant is, to be as dIplomatic as I can be, “HOGWASH”.

    • RickinMSP

      And to think I thought all the discussion about the managerial selection process was fun banter amongst Cub fans.  Evidently the line between having fun and stressing is a very fine one and I am unable to recognize it. I guess I have more learning to do.

      • Anthony

        My point was simple. You, and every other Fan, if they got their wish all at the same time, FA signings, play this guy, get this manager, etc. still means little because baseball doesn’t guarantee anything even if you feel all your P’s and Q’s are in order, and you dotted all the I’s and crossed all the T’s.

        • Tony_Hall

          By your thoughts, we shouldn’t even watch or follow baseball.  It’s just a crap shoot anyway.

          Quit talking down to everyone that enjoys this game for what it is, and enjoys the discussions that we have together.  If you don’t like it, don’t join in the discussion.  

          • daverj

            I don’t agree with what Anthony says here, but he does bring a different and interesting perspective.

            I think the manager has a lot to do with what happens in the regular season, but very little to do with the playoff results.  Over 162 games, the best teams (including both players and manager) will prevail.  The small sample size of the playoffs, however, means anything can happen in the post season (like a dominant 1984 Cubs squad losing in a 5 game series to the Padres).  Post-season results are often not related to the skill level of the players or manager.

          • paulcatanese

            I guess the solution is “hit em where they aint”.:)

          • Tony_Hall

            The playoffs show us what’s inside each player and manager.  The pressure is at an amazingly high level, and some players fold, while others excel.  Some managers make really bad decisions, while others stay on top of everything and don’t miss a beat.  

            To reference another sport (can we call it a sport still while they argue over money??) why Michael Jordan was the best.  He had the best skills that came out during even more so, during money time.  Take some of the Cubs players, Aramis, Soriano, they folded in the playoffs.  Now, if a player gets their enough (ARoid), then they can get more comfortable and eventually have 1 good playoff run.  But lets face it, he doesn’t have it, that thing inside, that makes the best come out of you, when the pressure is on.

    • paulcatanese

      I guess under the criteria that you support, managers dont win games, players do, and are supplied by the club(GMs) The Cubs should not have gone all out and replaced Hendry and Quade as it was not their fault for the past season at all, that was just a waste of money, all one has to do is sit back and watch where the ball bounces.

      I guess it was Arams fault and Pena’s that they continued in the lineup with little or no production, and pretty much in the same spot in the lineup for a lot of the first half of the season,Quade was not to blame at all, he wasn’t playing, that half baked lineup he put out there every day was not his fault, the players did not play. Day after day players were put in a position to fail, did they do that to themselves?

  • Jason Penrod

    I think Cespedes might be a good guy to go after. He’s still young, he fills a need (CF, speed) and will cost a lot less than the aging FA’s on the market.  I wouldn’t give him a huge veteran salary because their have been busts from Cuba, but I don’t think he’s going to be one of them.  He hit 33 HRs in 90 games, and seems to have all 5 tools.

  • Dorasaga

    Neil, this is just a minor grammatical mistake, but “stoic” is an adjective. You probably meant “When asked what type of manager he would be, Sveum responded with STOICISM”