Dawson cap tug of war brewing (UPDATED)?
Newly elected Hall of Famer Andre Dawson met the media in New York today. There was no announcement as to which cap Dawson will "wear" into the Hall, but there's plenty of time to decide that before the July 25 induction in Cooperstown.
From the way Dawson spoke about his time in Chicago, both yesterday and today, it appears he'd like to go in as a Cub. However, Dawson spent 10-plus years with the Montreal Expos, and there definitely will be sentiment in Canada for Dawson to represent a franchise that is now the Washington Nationals.
Daily Herald columnist Barry Rozner, who was on the Cubs beat from 1990-97, says that Dawson has told him many times that he'd like to enter the Hall of Fame as a Cub.
The Hall of Fame will have the ultimate say, with input from Dawson. The Hall may wish to pay homage to the Expos, with whom Dawson made his name initially. It's one to watch, and the fact that no announcement has been made as of late Thursday night suggests that a lot of back-and-forth conversations are taking place.
Interesting, too, how Dawson said on both days that he didn't get off to a good start as the Cubs' right fielder in 1987 but that the fans embraced him. Let's see, the Cubs had a right fielder last year who didn't get off to a good start...oh, never mind.
Is it Cubs policy to retire the number of any player who goes into the Hall wearing a Cubs cap? I'm not really opposed to retiring #8, but to me I think #17 should be retired before #8 solely based on Gracie's accomplishments with the Cubs throughout his career.
Maddux had his number retired and he isn't in the Hall of Fame yet, and when he goes, he'll go as a Brave, I'm sure. It took them 25 or so years to retire Jenkins' number. Ron Santo isn't in the Hall of Fame, and they retired his number.
Jermaine Dye is still floating around out there, I see. What is his asking price, Bruce, and would it make sense for the Cubs to look at him? He could platoon with Fukudome in RF, occasionally spell Lee at 1B and would be a nice insurance policy in LF if Soriano gets hurt or wets the bed again. If you had Dye, then Fuld would make perfect sense as your fifth OF.
Two excellent fielding everyday players= Lee & Fukodome. Irregardless of who plays the infield, not including Blanco, average. (and I'm pushing it) Byrd's fielding average, Soriano below average.
Catching could be a little above average. staring pitching, average, but better then most in the Central Division.but better fielding would help. Hitting -Health, hoping for a rebound of 2008. Cubs look to me like a station to station hitting team, who probably will bop the ball over the wall.
As is stands, I still think they have a good chance to win the Division, irregardless of
Pujols, Holliady, Carpenter and Wainwright & Franklin. As far as going to the WS, it's who's hot and who's lucky.
Our neighboors across town have a better team if Quentin stays healthy and Rios rebounds, they probably going to win their Divison, but won't go to the WS's either.
Best teams on paper right now are the Red Sox, Yankees, Phillies, Mariners, perhaps the
Angels, Dodgers, Giants, and perhaps the Rays and Rockies.
Both our Chicago teams don't measure up to any of them.
Somebody asked who filled out a blank ballot? Here you go:
http://deadspin.com/5443162/presenting-the-absolute-worst-hall-of-fame-v...
I don't see the love affair with Fukudome, Byrd, and Soriano.
as for Fuld, going on strictly all around talent on this (OF'er's) team, forget the contracts, he should start. the little chance he's had he's proven himself. what more do you want from him? to compare him to other so-so's is unfair since he hasn't really had a chance. has he started a whole year here, no. Lou won't give him that chance. I'll say this again, ask the pitchers who'd they want out there from this group. some of the pitchers late last year said who'd they'd like to see out there everyday, as did BB and Len.
the Cubs have played a combo of 3 stooges out there for 3 years, what has it got them? now going on 4 years you still have 3 stooges out there, when do you change? Hendry could have used the money for a pitcher/infielder not Byrd.
I'm not saying Fuld's a starter on any team, on this team he's better than at least one of those guys and here's where the contracts speak. thank Hendry again.
I believe Sutter once said he wanted to go in as a Cardinal, he had more fun (WS) there. also believe he lives in St. Louis.
"the Cubs have played a combo of 3 stooges out there for 3 years, what has it got them?"
They've been in the playoffs twice and had the best record in the NL during that time.
"as for Fuld, going on strictly all around talent on this (OF'er's) team, forget the contracts, he should start. the little chance he's had he's proven himself. what more do you want from him?"
Power to hit for extra bases and the ability to drive in runs. His .388 slugging % isn't exactly sparkling. If he could grow a couple of inches, I'd like that, too.
"now going on 4 years you still have 3 stooges out there, when do you change? Hendry could have used the money for a pitcher/infielder not Byrd."
They've changed center fielders each year so they have been changing.
I don't think I said winning 2 of 3 is average. the 2008 team was as good as there was in 2008. they were good enough to play in the WS that year. the 2009 team was average and the record/players shows it. the 2010 team is basically the same. again this is just my option.
it's been 101 years and the fans are tired of hearing we won 2 of 3 or 4 in 8 years. they want the WS. Lee, Lilly will be gone in 2011, Castro and maybe another rookie could be here, Cubs will have some money to get 2 above average players. today you think 2011,12,13, etc. cause I believe 2010 is a wash/waste and teams do this knowing the fans will still show up.
Boozer, "An average hitter that can play average defense in CF is better than an" "average player".
an average hitter that can play an average defense in CF=average player.
the Cubs to me are average so why sign an average player to 3 years? if he helps this average team to the playoffs and that makes the fans happy, fine. normally average teams don't get to the WS. Byrd is not a difference maker so their best option was not signing him.
Wish you say you think the Cubs are above average and that's fine. we' can't agree on everything. take it easy.
the goal is to be the best not average
changing but still getting a another combo of 3 stooges. I do have to correct myself. in 2008 they had Edmonds and Johnson who played good.
playoffs don't get you anywhere unless you're satisfied with just getting to a playoff game. you build for a WS not just to move Fukudome to RF (for D).
"Power to hit for extra bases and the ability to drive in runs. His .388 slugging % isn't exactly sparkling. If he could grow a couple of inches, I'd like that, too".
ha, ha, he's a lead off man not an RBI guy.
"They've changed center fielders each year so they have been changing".
I meant change for the better. change just to change or for the same type player gets you nowhere.
my point was you could have gone with Johnson/Fuld in CF. Byrd brings nothing. is he taking us to the WS? and I know Johnson/Fuld aren't either so why sign Byrd.
you need to replace the Edmonds/Johnson, Fontenot/DeRosa of 2008. that was not done for 2009 and so far not for 2010.
and aren't the Cubs looking for another OF'er to platoon with Fukudome? like the last 1/2 of 2009. doesn't that make him a part time OF'er, 4th OF'er? Byrd fits that role.
they needed Figgins and Granderson, who were available or that type of player/s to be a serious WS contender. they didn't get them so again, why sign Byrd? he's an average OF'er, not much power, 279 hitter, can't run, can't steal, etc.
I'd say making the playoffs two out of the three years isn't average. I'm sure someone could find some statistical evidence to back that up. I'd say the Cubs are an above average major league team with teams such as the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies being excellent teams.
.388 slugging is very poor even for a leadoff hitter. That's the exact slugging % Juan Pierre had when he was on the Cubs. That didn't work.
When the Cubs couldn't get Granderson, Cameron, etc. this offseason they weren't left with many choices as to who to put in CF since they want to move Fukudome back to RF. Fuld isn't an every day player so Bryd was the best option left. No, I didn't really like the signing for a lot of reasons but there really wasn't much the Cubs could do once they didn't get Granderson/Cameron.
Will Byrd be better than a Johnson/Fuld combo? Yes. In my opinion, you sign Byrd only if you don't feel you have a minor leaguer to take that spot in the next year and a half and there doesn't appear to be an impact FA on the horizon for CF.
Fontenot/DeRosa was replaced by Baker. I can't really fault the Cubs for thinking Fontenot would play better than he did in '09. Sometimes a player just doesn't get the job done.
Yes, the Cubs, right now, seem to have four outfielders on their 25-man roster and teams generally carry five so they are looking for someone to take a hack a couple hundred times next season if Hoffpauir doesn't fulfill their appetite.
>> I'd say making the playoffs two out of the three years isn't average. <<
The Cubs play in a division that includes the Pirates, Reds, Astros and Brewers. These are all below average teams that have even more holes than the Cubs do.
The reality is that the Cubs don't have to have a much better than average team to beat those other teams out and for the Cardinals to have an off year in order to make the playoffs.
Winning their division is no great accomplishment when looking at the division they play in. An average or below average team actually winning in the playoffs against superior competition is another story.
There's no mystery why the Cubs haven't won a playoff game in the last two playoff series they played in.
Hendry hasn't built the team for the playoffs. He built the team to be better than those within the Cubs' division to merely get them to them playoffs.... which keeps all of their unenlightened Cub fans giddy with unrealistic expectations and keeps the turnstyles clicking.
The Cub organization and Hendry have been pulling the biggest charade in sports over Cub fans since 2003.
"The reality is that the Cubs don't have to have a much better than average team to beat those other teams out and for the Cardinals to have an off year in order to make the playoffs.
Winning their division is no great accomplishment when looking at the division they play in. An average or below average team actually winning in the playoffs against superior competition is another story. "
Look, the reality is that the Cubs led the NL in wins in 2008. They didn't just win the Central, they had the best record in the entire National League. In 2007, they won the NL Central. They didn't sneak in via the Wild Card either year. To say they have been an average team the past three seasons is just flat out statistically incorrect.
"Hendry hasn't built the team for the playoffs. He built the team to be better than those within the Cubs' division to merely get them to them playoffs...."
This baffles me and I really hate to sound like I enjoy what Hendry does but....the 2008 team was a pretty kick ass team. I would have to say that's the best Cubs team I've seen in my lifetime (1979-present with 85 being the earliest I remember). From top to bottom there wasn't a better, on paper, team in the National League before the playoffs started. He built the best team in the National League in the eyes of a lot of baseball 'experts'. Hindsight is 20/20 but at the time, the Cubs were the best team in, at least, the National League.
>> They didn't just win the Central, they had the best record in the entire National League. <<
Let's look at the facts here before we start comparing apples to apples...
The NL Central was (and still is) the weakest division in baseball. How many more games were the Cubs advantaged by in playing the Pirates, Reds and Astros because the Cubs happen to play in the same division as they do? Compare that advantage to any other division winner in either league.
Could strength of schedule have had anything to do with winning 97 games in 2008?
Absolutely!
The 2008 team was a good team. A great team?..... No way after what was demonstrated in the playoffs.
Sorry, no. Were the Mariners overrated when they won 116?
"There's no mystery why the Cubs haven't won a playoff game in the last two playoff series they played in.
Hendry hasn't built the team for the playoffs. He built the team to be better than those within the Cubs' division to merely get them to them playoffs..."
Point out some evidence of this instead of just blowing out hot air...
How does spending more money in 1 offseason than any other team in the history of the game equate to Hendry only trying to beat the teams in his division?
What does the ridiculous obsession with getting a LH batter in the lineup have to do with the teams in our division? If Hendry were only worried about the teams in the NL Central, he wouldn't have done a gd thing after winning 97 games; but he went and got that lefty to combat the playoff pitching.
How does spending more money in 1 offseason than any other team in the history of the game equate to Hendry only trying to beat the teams in his division?
>>>>>
I'd say it's silly to believe that Hendry was only trying to build a team that was just good enough to win the NL Central, and wasn't concerned with producing one good enough to match up with the elite clubs in MLB. It's just that he hasn't been able to accomplish the latter. Is anyone willing to go out on a limb and say that in throwing huge contracts at players such as Soriano and Fukudome, Hendry was only trying to win the NL Central? Of course he wasn't, he simply didn't do a good job of evaluating his team and he obviously overvalued those players. He undoubtedly thought he had enough horses to get the job done, but he left obvious holes that the elite teams exploited in the post season. Had Reed Johnson and Jim Edmonds not fallen into his lap, they may very well have fallen short of making the post season.
>> Is anyone willing to go out on a limb and say that in throwing huge contracts at players such as Soriano and Fukudome, Hendry was only trying to win the NL Central? <<
Wow, do you guys ever pay attention to the business end of baseball and maybe dig beneath the surface??
As you probably may not recall, The Tribune Co was in dire straits financially and had made the decision to sell the Cubs in order to raise some much needed cash.
Business 101 would have taught you that a winning franchise is worth much more to a seller (The Tribune Co.) than a losing franchise. The Trib honchos made the decision to throw money into the Cubs in order to try to achieve a championship caliber team regardless of the size or length of the contracts because once the sale was made, they wouldn't be the ones holding the bag and responsible for the payroll.... the new buyer would!
Therein lies the reason for the Soriano, Fukudome, Zambrano, etc contracts.
If it wasn't for the fact that The Tribune was putting the Cubs up for sale, those outrageous contract offers would never have been made and the previous strategy of assembling a "competitive" team with the goal of winning the Central Division would have remained.... just as it has been re-adopted since.
Other than that brief period predicated on the Tribune's goal of increasing the value of the franchise to accomodate a sale.... the objective of this organization has never been to do the things necessary to put a championship caliber team on the field. It always has been and continues to be just to get to the playoffs.... which is obviously good enough for most Cub fans who tend to demand very little and consequently ideal for ownership in that it keeps the turnstyles clicking and the cap & jersey revenue flowing in with minimal effort or resolve.
If it wasn't for the fact that The Tribune was putting the Cubs up for sale, those outrageous contract offers would never have been made and the previous strategy of assembling a "competitive" team with the goal of winning the Central Division would have remained.... just as it has been re-adopted since.
>>>>>>
You are correct, the Trib approved of the increased budget after putting the team up for sale. But the point I was making is that Hendry's intention wasn't to field a team that was simply good enough to win the NL central, but clearly inferior to the elite teams in MLB. He thought he was building a winner. He just didn't do a good enough job of honesty evaluating his club.
>> He just didn't do a good enough job of honesty evaluating his club. <<
That gets all the way back to my original premise.... He's had his chances, he's failed miserably and should not be the GM of the Cubs.
It's not how much you spend, it's who you spend it on, and how long (Soriano), you spend it.
Could better choices been made. Tribune ok'd the money, but it was Jim Henry and his assistants who made the decision.
>> How does spending more money in 1 offseason than any other team in the history of the game equate to Hendry only trying to beat the teams in his division? <<
Who said anything about needing to spend more money? Everybody forget the old-fashioned way of improving a team..... trades???
Hendry had a chance to trade for Brian Roberts. It was reported that McPhail wanted Rich Hill and/or Felix Pie (both of which he got for nothing later on!) included in the deal along with Cedeno, Patterson and Gallagher. Hendry designated both Hill & Pie as untouchables. Wouldn't Roberts have looked good batting leadoff the past couple of years while we all smirked about Hill & Pie?
Last year Jake Peavy wanted to come to the Northside and Hendry was reported to be engaged in talks with Towers to complete a deal. Towers reportedely wanted Colvin and Marshall included in the deal. Hendry designated Colvin as untouchable. Why did the Cubs sign Byrd for 3 years if Colvin was such a hot prospect?
Was there any serious discussion about Granderson?
Seems like the Cards don't have any problems improving thru trades. Last season they went out and traded for DeRosa and Holliday. Did you see our GM make any impactive deals other than relieving the Pirates of Grabow & Gorzellany??
i agree with you. that's really what i was trying to say and you put it better. thanks
Neither one can consistently hit major league pitching. At least Fuld can play some defense. Hoffpauir should not make the 2010 roster, as his hitting isn't good enough to justify his defensive liabilities. I'd be okay with Fuld as a fifth OF, but we still need a number four and I'm still advocating for Ryan Church.
From what I saw, Hoffpauir was outstanding at 1B and played a fine LF too....certainly much better than Soriano. The catch he made going into the stands was "fan"tastic, pun intended. Maybe I'm in the minority but I believe that given the chance to play nearly everyday, Hoffpauir would hit somewhere in the .280-.300 range with an OPS above .850.
Hoffpauir would NOT be a .280 hitter if given the chance to play everyday. In fact, I think the trend that you see with him will continue as his playing time increases, and that is the more AB's he gets, the lower his average dips. Same with Fontenot. When they are overexposed to major league scouting, other teams identify their deficiencies and they get pitched too accordingly - leading to lower production. Neither player should be an everyday starter.
Honestly, I actually started laughing when I read your analysis of Hoffpauir. "A fine LF...."???? "Hit somewhere in the .280-.300 range..."???? He's an awful LF and a more accurate prediction for his batting average if he played everyday would be in the .225-.240 range, with a league leading strikeouts per plate appearance ratio. If he were the hitter you claim, other teams would have been busting down Hendry's door to get him. He's not and they didn't.
I'll bet you were one of those guys who wanted to see D Lee traded last year to open up a spot for the mighty Michah. Ugh!
You either didn't watch the games or you are one of those guys who is so opinionated that nothing you see or hear or read will change your mind. Hoffpauir was far from awful in LF. Did you even see him out there? As for opinions, you obviously have yours about Hoffpauir, and I just disagree. Hoffpauir hit .362 with a 1.145 OPS in AAA in 2008. He struck out 46 times in 290 AB's, but he launced 25 HR's and another 36 extra base hits for a total of 61 extra base hits out of 105 hits he compiled. He also hit .342 with a .934 OPS in limited opportunities with the Cubs that year. He's a power hitter, not a contact hitter. He's closing in on 30, so he's not the sort of guy that other teams will typically be hot on the trail for. But then you have no idea whether or not other teams have inquired about him do you?
Some guys put it all together later than others do. Hoffpauir is at the age when many players peak offensively. As for exchanging him for Lee, you'd have to weigh the drop off offensively against the $13M that could have been put to use to fill another hole or two. In other words, would you rather have Lee at 1B and Fontenot at 2B, or Hoffpauir and Utley instead?
All you've told me is that Hoffpauir is a fairly decent minot league player. He DOESN'T hit major league pitching very well. The season for which you quoted his impressive stat line (2008) was for less than a hundred plate appearances and he struck out nearly once for every three of them. Last season, in more than three times as many plate appearances we saw those numbers drop off to .239/.300/.427/.727, which bears out my premise that as the league gets a better look at him, his production falls off. The guy is a career minor leaguer and has NO place on this year's Cubs' roster. And I'll argue his defensive deficiencies with you all day long - HE'S BAD.
How do I know whether or not other teams have inqured about him? That's easy and obvious - he's still on the Cubs' roster. If anybody'd offered anything of value for him, I'm sure he'd be gone.
What's with all the Hoffpauir love, anyway? He's just a scrub.
but just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them wrong. Since you didn't answer the question, I'll assume you would prefer having Hoffpauir at 1B if it meant having a Chase Utley at 2B, as opposed to having Lee and Fontenot. You are apparently one of those people that gains enjoyment by telling others they were wrong (about Lee and Hoffpauir) but you don't seem to understand what the argument was in the first place. It never was a question of which player was better, it was a question of whether or not the Cubs would be better off playing Hoffpauir at 1B and using Lee's $13M salary elsewhere. I never read a post from anyone claiming that Hoffpauir was better than Lee, but I've read several "where are the people who wanted Hoffpauir over Lee now" posts.
He's not a major league caliber everday player at ANY position. And your premise is terribly flawed in that it assumes that the Cubs only option at 2B is Fontenot. So your either/or question of Lee/Fontenot or Hoffpauir/Utley (where you pulled Utley from is another head scratcher, since he's not available).
Additionally, you keep changing the main point of your argument, so I don't really care to waste too much time on you, since it appears that your don't know very much about baseball or the Cubs. This started out as a discussion of Hoffpauir's viability as an everyday major league player, and then you start dragging other names into it, for no apparent reason.
So in answer to your ridiculous question, no I don't think the Cubs would be better off with Hoffpauir at 1B, regardless of who plays 2B. Why would you replace a player like Lee (above average offensively and defensively) with a career minor leaguer who is below average at bat and in the field? And if you'd bother to read, rather than invent impossible scenarios (Utley?) to support your failing arguments, you'd also understand that I don't view Fontenot as a solution for the 2B situation either. I still think Hendry has a couple of cards up his sleeve that he can play before the season starts, and one of them might be to acquire a middle infielder who can bat lead-off, and given that possibility, I'd prefer it to your delusion of Hoffpauir and Utley.
Actually this began with my questioning your statement that Hoffpauir was a defensive liability. Even Lou and Bob, guys who watch the Cubs everyday, have commented that Hoffpauir does a nice job defensively. I saw the same thing as they have obviously, and I simply challenged your opinion because I happen to disagree.
The hypothetical question I tossed out was because of the following statement you made:
"I'll bet you were one of those guys who wanted to see D Lee traded last year to open up a spot for the mighty Michah. Ugh!"
Since it seems by your comment, that you are one of several who for some reason can't understand that proponents of trading Lee and playing Hoffpauir weren't indicating they think Hoffpauir is the better player. They were saying the team could be improved upon by doing a deal because they could use Lee's $13M to fill other holes. The team does have a budget afterall.
Sorry to confuse you by using Utley in posing a hypothetical acquisition. Second base just happens to be a hole and Utley just happens to be a very good player who plays 2B and makes a $1M or so less than Lee. It doesn't mean I was claiming that Utley was available. I was simply providing an example of a scenario where the Cubs would have been better off by trading Lee. I think that Hoffpauir + Utley > Lee + Fontenot. No Fontenot isn't the only option at 2B, but they wouldn't be able to keep Lee and still go out and get an Utley type to replace Fontenot because they have the budget to adhere to. So trading Lee could have made sense under the right scenario. Apparently that logic escapes you. You can improve the team by dealing from strengths to improve areas of weakness. They might have done well to sell high on Lee and get some talent in return, and use the $13M to sign a premier player at an area of weakness, because the addition would more than make up for the loss of Lee.
I guess all I have to do is wait for you to clown yourself and you never fail to disappoint. Two quick things. First, Len and Bob have never been fans of Hoffpauir's defensive prowess at any position, especially at an OF spot. Perhaps once or twice he's made a good play rightfully worthwhile of compliment, but on the whole, neither endorses his defensive capabilities - only a baseball retard would. Secondly, your Utley argument completely jumps the track, because even if the Cubs cleared out Lee's contract to free up some cash, the Phillies aren't offering up Utley in trade to the Cubs. On top of that, there's not really another AVAILABLE 2B out there, who you'd want to clear that kind of cash for and team with a dud like Hoffpauir.
Do you always fall in love with career minor leaguers like Hoffpauir? If so, I'll just sit by and wait for you to start campaigning for Bobby Scales to take over in LF for Soriano.
It's all flown completely over your head hasn't it? Buy a dictionary and look up the word hypothetical. You obviously are lacking in reading comprehension skills. Not only did I state that I WASN'T implying that Utley was available, the entire trade Lee debate took place a year ago. So it doesn't matter who is or who isn't available NOW. It was a matter of who the Cubs might have been able to add to the team if they were able to deal Lee a YEAR ago, when they had holes in CF and 2B as well as the bullpen. But I'm sure you are confident that no players were available thru trade or free agency a year ago that could have helped the Cubs. I see you are also posting under another name now. Good idea, now nobody knows who you are.
Your original premise was that Hoffpauir is a viable major-league baseball player (you still haven't convinced anybody of that, BTW). Maybe you should read your own posts and try to comprehend them. Heck, you even trotted out his stat line for a sixth of a season as testament to his abilities. It was you who went off on the wild trade diatribe, I was just shaking my head and trying to follow along.
My wife was signed in on my computer. It was an accident.
the scouts have always said Hoffpauir is good D at 1b, Lou even acknowledged that late last year. it's some of the media that never seen someone play who quickly label players. plus some fans label certain players. it bothers me when a fan or media say "he's not an everyday player" when they have nothing to base it on. using what they do in the minors is not always accurate. the kids are learning their craft. pitchers learning how to throw a curve, slider, etc. while the hitters try and learn how to hit a curve ball.
just cause X manager doesn't play you doesn't mean you're not an everyday player. Theriot was labeled a role/bench player under Baker cause he had his pet N. Perez. so most of the media and some fans said same.
Lou comes along and gives him a shot and now the same people who labeled him a role/bench player consider him an everyday player. and as you all know I'm not a Lou Piniella fan. now i'm not saying Hoffpauir is an everyday player but i know where you're coming from.
An average hitter that can play average defense in CF is better than an "average player".
fuld and reed could not give you what Byrd does, because Byrd gives you an open roster spot and produces as much as those two put together. using 1 roster spot for production >>> 2 roster spots with same production.
Bruce - do you know if Bruce Sutter told the Hall he would rather go in as a Card than a Cub or did he really just leave the decision up to them? Just by the numbers Sutter had a bit of a better career in Chicago, but he won a WS in STL.
I can't wait to see the reception the Hawk gets at the Convention next weekend - he played the game the right way for 21 years and deserves this honor!
I'm not sure what Sutter told them. I'll try to find out, though. Having Dawson at the convention is a great touch. I'm sure he wants badly to go in as a Cub.
Just saying...the Hall of Fame museum is closer to Canada than it is any major US City (no offense Syracuse). That place is a hike from NYC and in the winter can be nearly impossible to get to. Well worth the drive but if putting that silly Montreal logo on the hat gets more attendance from the north, I can see it playing out that way.
>> The Hall may wish to pay homage to the Expos <<
I wouldn't think that The Hall feels any obligation to the Expos since they no longer exist and the people of Canada never really supported baseball to the degree that the NL had to take control of the franchise until they found an acceptable buyer, who moved the team to DC and adopted a different team name under the implied threat of various politicians who were waving the prospect of taking away baseball's anti-trust exemption if they didn't get a team in the nation's capital.
(sorry for the run-on sentence!)
I only wish Bradley would read this. What a difference between those two guys. I hated how Bradley tried to turn the whole issue of his performance into a race thing. He couldn't just put his head down and try to improve. Both these guys have Hall of Fame talent, but only one of them has any class. I'm glad The Hawk will be at the Cubs Convention to see how much Cubs fans appreciate him.
Bradley isn't the 1st Cub to use the race thing.... LaTroy Hawkins implied it, Jacque Jones implied it, Dusty Baker implied it as well as likely others. What they never "got" was that adoration is earned from fans regardless of color.
My idols were and remain Ernie Banks, Billy Williams, Fergie Jenkins, Andre Dawson as well as Ron Santo, Ryne Sandberg and Mark Grace, etc.
There must be such an overwhelming sense of persecution and entitlement by players such as mentioned above that they lack the basic understanding of expectations via performance on the field by the people who pay alot of money to see them play.
(Sorry for staying off-topic Bruce, but we seem to have a pretty interesting conversation going here and I can't see the big whoop over which cap Dawson wears)
I don't get the Sam Fuld love thing either. To me he's the reincarnation of Doug Descenzo... nothing more than a defensive replacement.
As far as Bruce interpreting the Nomar and Harden trades as being meaningful.... I don't get that stretch either.
Nomar contributed nothing as a Cub. As Bruce may have forgotten, Nomar tore away his groin muscle (sorry, I'm not an MD!) and spent the bulk of his Cub career on the DL.
Harden showed nothing but flashes, yet contributed nothing as well since he was the consumate 5 inning pitcher.... which ended up taxing the bullpen in the long run and the staff always needed a 6th starter on call because they knew how fragile he was.
Hendry COULD have traded him to the Twins last July/Aug for something, but he deluded himself about the Cubs' chances in spite of already tapping into the injury excuses and Bradley disruptions. In the end the Cubs just let Harden go and received nothing in return.
I've addressed the existential questions of "meaning" there as it pertains to trades. Nothing wrong with talking a little Hall of Fame. We'll have plenty of time to discuss current Cubs issues.
I'd love to see him go in as a Cub, but I can certainly understand the Expos side of the equation too. For me personally I'm just glad he got in. He played the game right, unlike future right fielders. Too bad he didn't hit in the clutch, though, in the 1989 playoffs.
I got to meet him at a book signing in Houston about 12 years ago. Nice guy.