I suppose this post could have waited till next week, but once again we are faced with more than 48 hours between games -- for the last time in 2009 -- and so I thought I'd start some discussion this morning with these things that I think were done poorly by Cubs GM Jim Hendry since the end of the 2008 season.
Hendry got a three-year contract extension (through the 2012 season) after last year's successful regular season, with the hope that 2009 would be even better. It didn't work out that way; Hendry had about as bad an offseason last year as any GM in recent memory, but with new ownership poised to take over, it isn't the right time to blow everything up and start over. Hendry will be given at least one more year to get things back on the track we thought the Cubs were on during their two-year run as NL Central champions in 2007 and 2008.
Some of the problems with the 2009 Cubs were not Hendry's fault and many of them were beyond his control. It's not Hendry's fault that Aramis Ramirez dislocated his shoulder four weeks into the season and missed a total of 75 games (through yesterday). A-Ram produced above his usual level (.906 OPS, compared to his career level of .847) and I think we all agree that the Cubs missed his production in the two months he was out from mid-May to mid-July, not to mention that he wasn't at full strength on his return. To have produced the way he did after the All-Star break -- without complaining -- is a credit to Ramirez's work ethic and ability. It's not Hendry's fault that Alfonso Soriano played most of the year injured, though he perhaps could have insisted harder that Soriano have arthroscopic surgery in June, and maybe he'd have been ready in September. It's not Hendry's fault that all the Opening Day rotation starters spent time on the disabled list, forcing the Cubs to have 21 starts made by guys (Sean Marshall, Kevin Hart, Tom Gorzelanny and Jeff Samardzija) whose performance can best be called "uneven". (The Cubs were 9-12 in those 21 games.)
Credit where credit is due: give Jim credit for recognizing that Randy Wells could help the team as a starter, though I don't think anyone could have guessed he'd be as good as he has been. Credit for giving Koyie Hill the backup catcher job; he's been very good in that role. And credit for getting John Grabow and Gorzelanny for, essentially, nothing; Grabow will likely be retained as a key part of the 2010 bullpen and Gorzelanny, though his performance has been up and down, does have talent and will be in the mix for the 2010 rotation.
With that in mind, below the fold you'll find ten ideas Hendry must internalize and go by as he builds a roster for 2010. (Not necessarily in priority order.)
1. Stop fixing "problems" that do not exist. I think this is one we can all agree on; the troubles with the 2009 Cubs began with the decision made at the organizational meetings last fall that "we're not lefthanded enough", a mantra particularly of Lou Piniella's, due to the Dodgers' RHP-centric pitching staff in the 2008 NLDS. The Cubs didn't lose that series because of a lack of LH batters, but since Lou (and the rest of the staff) thought that was the reason, they went out of their way to identify a "lefthanded, middle-of-the-order bat" that they could insert behind Derrek Lee and ahead of Ramirez. We are all familiar with the expensive disaster that produced so I won't rehash it here. I caution Hendry about this because they are about to do the same thing -- fix a nonexistent problem. "We need a speedy leadoff man", goes the managerial mantra. Well, no, Lou, you don't. A leadoff man's primary job is to get on base. You already have someone who can lead off and do that -- Kosuke Fukudome, who ranks 8th in the NL in walks, despite having almost 100 fewer plate appearances than the leader (Albert Pujols). The Cubs are 22-13 with Fukudome leading off this year (that's a 101-win pace for a full season). The last time Hendry went after this type of player, he traded three useful minor leaguers for Juan Pierre. Jim -- do not get sucked into this trap again.
2. Stop bidding against yourself for players. The first argument against this, you might think, is "Jason Marquis", but Marquis did what he was asked to do -- if the Cubs had kept him this year and he had produced the way he did in Colorado, the Cubs would have gotten fine 4th or 5th starter value for the $7 million a year average per year over the life of Marquis' contract. True, Hendry could have likely had Marquis for less, since no one else had expressed interest at the time. And you can't make the argument "Alfonso Soriano" about this, either, because Soriano had been offered six-plus years by the Phillies and seven by the Angels; the Cubs were determined at the time to make a statement in the free agent market. Soriano was the top free agent after 2006, and yes, the Cubs overpaid to get him. He may still be healthy and productive enough to be worth the deal, at least for the next 2-3 years. (Heaven help the Cubs in years 7 and 8, though.) No, what I'm talking about is paying $30 million for three years' worth of the iffy Milton Bradley when absolutely no other team was even after Bradley, much less offering three years. Or giving a two-year contract to Aaron Miles for any amount of money, when we now know there was at least one option (Andres Blanco) right in the Cubs' own farm system who could have done a better job for the league minimum. Advice to Jim: when you're thinking about doing this, don't. Just don't.
3. Stop giving out contracts that are longer than they need to be. Related to the last point, there was no need to give Marquis a three-year deal; two plus a mutual option would have likely done it, and then if the Cubs really did want to deal him last year, they could have arranged for the other team to pick up the option (if that team wanted him badly enough) or simply decline the option and let him go to free agency. This is particularly true in the case of Marquis; the return for him (Luis Vizcaino) was worthless, because the Cubs wound up dumping him and eating the contract. The same thing applies to the Miles and Bradley deals.
4. Stop trading for guys you think are good because you liked them five years ago, or are fond of their college coach. You don't have to guess who I'm talking about here; his name is Aaron Heilman. (And several years ago, his name was Michael Barrett.) It's great for a GM to be loyal to his players, and Hendry is someone a lot of MLB players want to play for, for this very reason. But any Mets fan could have told Hendry that Heilman had lost whatever command he had last year -- you should have heard the booing for Heilman when he came in at Citi Field, louder than I think I've ever heard for any returning former player -- and though Heilman has been better the last six weeks, he still was not worth losing Felix Pie (Pie, though he went to Baltimore, essentially was part of this deal because Garrett Olson, who was acquired for Pie, was part of the deal to the Mariners for Heilman). And really, Jim, isn't it time to stop the Notre Dame-Wrigley Express? As far as I can tell, there are four active major leaguers who went to ND: Heilman, Samardzija, Craig Counsell and Brad Lidge. All of those guys have issues. Enough already.
5. Stop handing out one-year renewal deals to players like candy. Chad Gaudin didn't throw very well and had a noted off-field incident in 2008. He didn't figure to play a major role in the 2009 rotation or bullpen, yet the Cubs signed him to a $2 million deal in December to avoid arbitration. Then he stunk it up in spring training, forcing the Cubs to simply release him and eat the contract; the Padres and Yankees later got replacement-level production for the league minimum. The Cubs could have gotten this sort of production out of Justin Berg or Esmailin Caridad, as it turned out. Gaudin should have been non-tendered in December.
6. Don't waste half a year's roster spot on a Rule 5 pick that your manager isn't going to use. Maybe David Patton would have pitched better if Lou Piniella had actually used him more than once every five games. We'll never know, obviously, but Lou essentially wasted a roster spot by relegating Patton to pitching in blowouts or in long extra-inning games. The Cubs could have used an extra bench player -- since Aaron Miles was useless -- because Lou was working with what was for all practical purposes an 11-man pitching staff. Lou and Jim deserve equal blame for this one -- and I hate to say it, but BCB poster BLou was right about this one. At this point, maybe it's best for the Cubs to stay out of the Rule 5 draft for a while.
7. Do more careful evaluations of your prospects and young players to maximize their value, whether it be in the major league lineup or in trades. It's clear now that the entire organization was split on Felix Pie's progress. Two years ago, his trade value would have been a lot higher than "Garrett Olson", and of course, now it's probably far higher than that again. Hendry sold on Pie at the lowest possible point, and he and Lou together dragged down a former top prospect's trade value (they did the same with Rich Hill, who could have been dealt after the 2007 season for a pretty good return, although few would have suggested it after Hill put together such a good season). This is another reason why it's silly to have played Bobby Scales in left field for even one game. Scales is a great story and maybe he's a 25th guy on someone's roster next year -- but his trade value is close to zero. Jake Fox, on the other hand, might either be a useful spare part for the 2010 Cubs or might have some trade value, but scouts aren't going to see it if he sits on the bench, Lou. This is where a GM has to have some input with his manager, not simply let the manager dictate the roster. In general, GM's shouldn't be making out lineups -- but Hendry, in this case, could have let Lou know that Fox should have been playing (and Fox should have also been playing 3B from the day after A-Ram went down, too).
8. Don't automatically think that you have to sign expensive free agents to get better. Last offseason, rather than sign Milton Bradley, the Cubs could have approached the White Sox for Jermaine Dye. Dye could have been available by trade; at the time it appeared the White Sox were trying to dump contracts. In fact, I wrote about this possibility last November. Dye didn't have a great year, but he was at least as good as Bradley without the baggage, and with Dye having a $12 million mutual option that will almost certainly be declined by the White Sox, he might be available for not too much money and years (see points 2 and 3). There may be other players available like this -- and, in fact, Hendry almost has to use this route to be able to move Bradley's contract. Magglio Ordonez is almost certain to be on the block, and though he had a terrible season, it's possible he could rebound and he's a lifetime .308/.389/.513 hitter in Wrigley Field (relatively small sample size of 90 PA). NOTE! Do not assume that because I mentioned Ordonez, he is the ONLY player I'd go after for such a deal. He's only one example. Another such player is Luke Scott, who would have looked pretty good in a Cubs uniform in 2009, and who is likely headed for a hefty raise in arbitration. Maybe the Cubs can do that if they can trade Bradley elsewhere. The point of all this to Jim Hendry is: get creative, the way you did when you pulled off the Nomar Garciaparra deal in 2004.
9. Get "good clubhouse guys". I mean, this should be a no-brainer. Any Cubs fan who's been around even for ten years knows that the 2003 Cubs, managed by a player's manager, Dusty Baker, succeeded in part because they had strong clubhouse leaders, Eric Karros and Damian Miller. Miller and Karros were sent packing before 2004, and the 2004 Cubs, despite having more talent and ability than the 2003 version, collapsed in the final week. The acrimony there was visible in public, with players calling the press box to bitch, along with some high-profile public trouble between the team and its broadcasters. I'm not saying those were the only reasons for the success or failure of those two teams, but they clearly did have some impact, particularly with a players' manager like Baker who pretty much lets the clubhouse run itself. If there are no strong player-leaders, such a clubhouse is an "inmates running the asylum" situation and the results are predictable. Similarly, the Cubs lost strong player-leaders Mark DeRosa and Kerry Wood after 2008 and added one player who reportedly was not a good clubhouse presence. NOTE! I am NOT saying that the Cubs must go out and reacquire DeRosa and Wood. However, I am saying that I believe all successful teams have players like this in their clubhouse. Hendry needs to identify some such players who can both do this and be productive in the lineup, and acquire a couple of them. Without trying to ignite the stats debate again, I believe having guys like this does matter. (Of course, they should also be good players -- that goes without saying.)
10. Think outside the box. Jim Hendry did this when he managed to dump an unproductive Todd Hundley on the Dodgers and get back two useful players in Mark Grudzielanek and Karros, without whom the Cubs might not have won the division in 2003. He did it again in 2004 when he engineered the four-team trade that got Nomar to the North Side. He needs to be creative in his thinking again this year. Don't fall prey to the "this is what's wrong with us and we are going to go fix that no matter what it costs" thinking that helped ruin the 2009 Cubs. Be ahead of the curve; that's what helped the Cardinals do so well this year. Also, this could apply to the idea that Hendry might be able to find solutions just by looking in his own system for next year (say, Andres Blanco, Justin Berg, Esmailin Caridad) rather than scouring the waiver wire for someone else's discards (as he did this year with the Aaron's).
There may be more lessons than just these ten, but going by these simple precepts might help Jim Hendry build a 2010 Cubs team that will once again be the favorite to win the NL Central -- and this time, actually do it.
1 recs | 611 comments
Sounds good to me - a very interesting summary, Al.
eths - September 29, 2009
breaking down a team roster you begin with pitching, then defense up the middle and then how are you going to score runs
Pitching appears pretty set where the starters still were very good/ not spectacular, but solid. Lilly will be a question coming off injuries even though he had almost a career year. Z remains an ignigma but he is signed and sealed. Dempster & Wells round out a good 4-man leaving Gorz and Samardz to fight for a 5th spot.
Bullpen also appears pretty solid; Marmol, Guzman, Grabow, Marshall appear to be solid late inning relievers. Add the loser in the 5th starter to the mix and all that needs to happen is a real LOOGY.
It is the up the middle defense that bothers me. If Soto is healthy and comes to camp like he did in ‘07 &’08 that anchors the middle, but SS/2B and CF are not there defensively. I could live with Theriot/Blanco 2B platoon where the Cubs would have a real glove at 2B and Theriot starting 100 games. But SS remains a problem a real glove with some real speed and baseball brains. CF seems to be a perennial problem—-why? I have an idea, one of the bad contracts that other teams have is Gary Matthews Jr., now like the Hundley trade maybe Angels would want a DH like Bradley and possibly a sweetner—-Hoffpauir for Sarge Jr. revisited. GM Jr. has really fallen from a high a few years back but he could be useful as the Cubs might need a tutor for Colvin CF.
Now how are you going to score runs? If Lou & Co. settled on Fukudome to lead off, then things become settled; let us place Colvin in the 7th hole and 2B-Theriot/Blanco in the 8th spot leaving whatever SS Cubs acquire in the off season. (Could it be Izturis or Scutaro or someone else), then Lee & Ramirez. The Cubs have to have Soto move up the 5th hole and hit like 2008 to make this work. Soriano if healthy than is the 6th hole until Colvin shows he can stick and play——moving Soriano down to the 7th spot.
Ivy Walls - September 29, 2009
So you're saying we should reacquire DeRosa and Wood, then?
:P
Clutch16 - September 29, 2009
Only if we can pick up Mags too!
gocubsgo22 - September 29, 2009
No, he's saying that DeRosa was better than Greg Maddux,
and that the Cubs would have been 100% certain to win the 2009 NL Central if they’d kept DeRosa.
D98 - September 29, 2009
You forgot this in your comment.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
True. I'll pile on and add, great post today.
It can’t be easy to keep a 2-posts-daily pace up for years at a time, either.
D98 - September 29, 2009
Thanks.
I worked all day yesterday on this one. Glad you liked it. Thanks to everyone else here for your compliments.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
This is a great post Al.
I completely agree, especially about how Fox should have been playing the day after ARam went down. I have caught crap on here all season for saying that.
Also about the character people. This can’t be underestimated. They don’t have to be stars, just a leader in the clubhouse, like Karros.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
One point that is getting clearer
is evaluating our own talent. The players we brought up from AAA have done an admirable job this year. While they may not be every day players, Scales, Blanco, Fox have looked pretty darn good for the most part and I think you would all agree, exceeded our expectations on the field.
Would we have rather had Scales all year or Miles? Fox all year or on the 25 man off the 25 man Hoffpauir? In a pinch, Scales would have filled in nicely as our 25th roster spot. Not to mention what Wells has done pitching this year as almost an afterthought in March.
While we may not have the RBI machine we’re looking for in this offseason, please don’t make the mistake of looking elsewhere for middle infield help or outfield help (Fuld, Colvin). It wasn’t the call-ups that dismantled this season.
I’m content with Baker-Theriot-Blanco next year as middle infield. Lead off man… meh. A sold RBI guy and middle reliever are two concerns, but first is good health and good hitting from Soto, Soriano and Fukudome.
mrcubsfan - September 29, 2009
Middle infield could be a bit better
But let’s not get carried away trading for a minor improvement over Baker, Theriot, Blanco & Fontenot. If we could get a bit more OPS here, I’d be willing to start Blanco for the glove and move a couple of the others.
Ihatethecards - September 29, 2009
Baker could end up being our DeRosa
teach him to play corner outfield along with 2nd and 3rd, he could be quite valuable, especially if he continues to hit over .300 with a little power.
mrcubsfan - September 29, 2009
He's going to have to be
I heard he can play LF already if needed
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
I couldn't agree more
bigz38fan - September 29, 2009
We're going to trade him for some minor league pitchers we won't use?
santoswoodenlegs - September 29, 2009
Prospects like these?
eths - September 29, 2009
then we would be selling him high like the other poster said we did with DeRosa......
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Lightening never strikes the same place twice, right?
bigz38fan - September 29, 2009
That's not actually true
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
I know
I cringed at the thought of developing Baker into a versatile utility player, then trading him away for prospects we never use. AKA: DeRo
bigz38fan - September 29, 2009
Not that we developed DeRosa
bigz38fan - September 29, 2009
Oh, for God sakes
I cringe at the thought of posts like this.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
NBF
No need to get your panties in a wad
bigz38fan - September 29, 2009
NBF won't rest until
DeRosa is signed as free agent and head cheerleader.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
We've used Stevens.
And I believe Gaub should be ready for next season.
daver - September 29, 2009
I would venture to guess that Gaub could be the LOOGY
we’ve all been looking for these last few years with a good Spring Training.
Bill Potter - September 29, 2009
Bobby Scales
Hey Mr Cubs Fan: Thank you very much for adding Scales to your list of AAA help. He’s great “off the bench,” and gives 110% at all times, even when required to play out of his normal positions. Other than that, Al’s post was terrific, as always.
uniquepat - September 29, 2009
He has not embarrassed himself or the organization for sure.
mrcubsfan - September 30, 2009
A number of great points,
I especially like #8, don’t assume we need FA’s or big names to get better.
But, I like to focus on #1, especially,
As you and others have stated numerous times the resulting strategy of getting more left-handed was both flawed and poorly executed. But, why did we lose that series and what should have been done? Remember, that bitter feeling not quite a year ago losing three straight after an incredible 97 win season. In hindsight, status quo would have been better than JH’s tinkering (your point), but also I don’t think status quo would have got us over the perceived hump. Something had to be done, yes in fact the wrong things were done, but I rather be proactive and fail, than complacent and fail.
BatCubFan - September 29, 2009
"Something must be done!"
“This is something, therefore it must be done.”
What Hendry did wasn’t proactive, it was reactive. Worse, it was reactive to the wrong problem.
Clutch16 - September 29, 2009
I agree,
what Hendry did was, as we have painfully seen, wrong. And, also agree it was more reactive than proactive.
But, what we needed was to be proactive. Standing pat on a 97 win team (even though it would have resulted in a better 09), was also the wrong thing to do.
BatCubFan - September 29, 2009
I'm nearly certain
that if Jim Hendry didn’t do a thing this past off-season…and the Cubs finished out of the race…a significant number of people here would be calling out Hendry for “standing pat” or for being “a do-nothing GM.”
I’m also not upset that Hendry shook up the 2008 team. As many have said — the wrong moves were made for possibly the wrong reasons. That’s where my frustration lies.
San Diego Smooth Jazz Man - September 29, 2009
Yes, but -
A lot of the moves were questioned when they were made.
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
Actually,
wasn’t every single move questioned?
chilango2 - September 29, 2009
Good point
There was a ridiculous amount of angst over the back-up catcher.
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
Interesting point, SDSJM
Shaking up the 2008 team was the right thing to do. But he shook up the wrong aspects of it.
What should he have shaken up? It seems the majority here would have been quite content to return the 2008 team without any changes at all.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
I don't think you can or should do that.
I agree with you that shaking up ANY team — even a 97-win team — is necessary. I’ll also agree that he shook up the wrong aspects of it.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
What would have been
the right aspects to shake up, Al? I guess that’s what I’m asking.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
They did need to revamp the bullpen.
And maybe tweak the bench. Otherwise I’d have stood pat.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
And, with all due respect,
I think you’d run the risk of another playoff whitewash.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
Maybe.
But at least the team would have been in.
And once you get in, it’s a crapshoot.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
Al
I mostly agree with your current statement, but I don’t think that this was the same tune that you were singing last October.
vonde6 - September 29, 2009
Yes, I am well aware of the "roster remake" I tried to do.
Clearly, it wasn’t right — although we’d have done pretty well having Luke Scott in right field this year.
That’s why I tried to approach the needed 2010 changes in a different way.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
I don't disagree...
…which leads me to my main point with Hendry, decision making ability.
I don’t think it was wrong to make some changes, but if you make bad decisions on what those changes are, it really doesn’t matter much.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
I think Hendry made
changes that are defensible and didn’t work out.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
For example -
How do you not give a young 2B, who was once a touted prospect, who just hit for a .900 OPS in part time work, a change to play more? Mike Fontenot is clearly not an everyday 3B, but shouldn’t the Cubs have tried to find out if he was a platoonable 2B?
DGU - September 29, 2009
Fontenot was a platoonable 2B
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
The platoon partner they chose was worthless, unfortunately...
… and they had no backup plan at 3B which forced Fontenot out of position and they had no viable 2B replacement.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
Take a look.
How often did Aaron Miles get to hit against LHP?
The platoon player didn’t get to platoon.
DGU - September 29, 2009
Small sample size, but...
… I wouldn’t call .206 vs. LHP a crashing endorsement of his platoon ability.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
Check the career splits.
I linked to this year so you could see that he has had, what, 5 plate appearances against the pitchers he hits best?
DGU - September 29, 2009
He still sucked.
santoswoodenlegs - September 29, 2009
Looks like 35 PA to me, not 5.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
You are defending Miles?????
He sucked in every aspect of the game and should have been released 3 months ago!
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Aaron Miles was a competent IF v. LHP
and he wasn’t played against LHP. Even a player with bare skills can be mismanaged.
DGU - September 29, 2009
So one of our problems was that Miles didn't get to play ENOUGH?
santoswoodenlegs - September 29, 2009
I think that is what he is saying
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
No...
…I guess he was mismanaged by the same manager that was able to achieve an “astoundingly good” record despite all the injuries, bad signings and poor player performances this year.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
I believe Lou is a good manager who makes mistakes.
And batting splits is an area he makes consistent mistakes.
DGU - September 29, 2009
The best managers...
…make mistakes, and some of them just happen to have really good players that may cover up for some of those.
Lastly, I will agree lineup construction has left something do be desired with Lou. I will say until the cows come home, that Soriano should have been moved down in the order in 07. Maybe, just maybe, the club wouldn’t have had to deal with a leadoff guy going 1 for 14 in the freaking playoffs.
I know it was a delicate situation, because Soriano was probably promised the leadoff spot, but I still say it hurt the club in both of those playoffs.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
Soriano in the leadoff spot ...
is the most famous, but not the worst, lineup choice by Lou. His decisions this year with Fukudome, Theriot, Fontenot, Baker, Miles, Scales and Fox have been baffling.
elgato - September 29, 2009
Lou has had a poor year along with Hendry
The injuries have not helped, but in this division it could have been overcome.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
LOL
But Aaron Miles is passable against LHP and horrid against RHP. But we played him a lot against RHP and hardly at all v. LHP. We shouldn’t have played Miles more. We should have swapped his playing time v. pitchers.
DGU - September 29, 2009
We should have swapped his playing time with a fan picked out of the crowd.
santoswoodenlegs - September 29, 2009
lol.
I needed that.
CubsWin!Oregon - September 29, 2009
Putting Miles in the stands would a have caused the fan's ratings to collapse
eths - September 29, 2009
VORF
(Colby Rasmus has the highest VORF.)
DGU - September 29, 2009
Even the crazy youtube girl?
santoswoodenlegs - September 29, 2009
exactly
DGU - September 29, 2009
its kind of like how marmol needs to pitch constant back to back days to get better
right?
jesus christos - September 29, 2009
Miles
Let compare these two players stats (G, BA, OBP, SLG, OPS)
716 .281 .321 .356 .677
294 .271 .327 .458 .785
The first line is the stat line for Jeff Baker who seems to be the guy folks are considering as the reserve IF for next year, the second for Miles, which includes his horrendous 2009 season. My point is simply that when Hendry picked up Miles it was reasonable to assume that this player would be a useful reserve infielder.
He certainly shouldn’t have been given a two year contract, but, those two discussions should be split.
WGNstatic - September 29, 2009
Sure, Miles looks better than Baker
But only when you give Baker’s stats to Miles and Miles’s stats to Baker
Jody Jody Davis - September 29, 2009
i approve of this
jesus christos - September 29, 2009
Gaffe
Indeed, the lines are reversed, oops.
My point was actually that, aside from slugging, they are quite similar, and that Miles’ line is not bad for a backup middle infielder.
but yeah, oops.
WGNstatic - September 29, 2009
The slugging is very different.
I don’t think we expected Miles to be as bad as he was this year. I also don’t think there was any reason to expect he’d be any better than a guy we pulled up from AAA. His success in 2008 was almost pure luck.
At any rate, given their ages and histories, Baker’s upside far outstripped Miles’. This is mostly represented by the vast difference in their power.
aldimond - September 29, 2009
Because the incumbent was entering the final year on his contract?
There was nothing to be lost by using Fontenot in a moderately expanded role in 2009, while retaining DeRosa to be the starting 2B.
If Fontenot had continued to hit like he did in 2008 – which was by no means a certainty based on his minor league career – then you’re looking at your starting 2010 2B.
Also, Fontenot isn’t/wasn’t so young. If he’d put up a part-time OPS of .900 as a 24 or 25 year old, that’s maybe worth shaking things up over. But as a 29-year old, on a veteran “win-now” team like the Cubs, you maybe say “Lou is using him correctly”, and “what a great bench asset”.
D98 - September 29, 2009
It's not realistic
to think that you cut into Mark DeRosa’s playing time on his contract year.
DGU - September 29, 2009
I certainly wouldn't do that.
I’d just find more time for DeRosa in the corner OF spots.
D98 - September 29, 2009
That's not any more realistic.
Especially not when you have a touchy RF who has a games played clause and a LF your manager has said he can’t take out of the lineup.
DGU - September 29, 2009
But besides that -
we did that in ’08. The most you can get Mike that way is 300-350 PAs.
DGU - September 29, 2009
Agreed
I remember the atmosphere here when they got swept from the playoffs last year. There was noone suggesting that they stand pat then, not after two playoff failures in a row.
vonde6 - September 29, 2009
I understand what you are saying
But if you are going to tinker, Milton Bradley for Mark DeRosa……Really???
That is something I hope Ricketts holds Hendry accountable for.
Its not like something anyone except for a very small few thought would work out.
A selfish asshole with an injury prone past for a clubhouse leader who happened to play many positions and could hit as well as play the position Bradley plays.
JH bid vs himself when all the better options signed for less years and money.
Huge mistake. Also, if they can eat Vizcaino’s contract, why is Miles still here?
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Milton for DeRosa is a myth
It is a complete myth that DeRosa departure and Milton’s arrival are connected.
DeRosa departed when it was decided that Fontenot could be an everyday 2B and that Miles could be a backup infielder (who could play SS which DeRosa could not).
Milton Bradley was the replacement for Jim Edmonds.
I don’t mean to defend either move, but they simply should not be be linked the way that many seem to do.
WGNstatic - September 29, 2009
Actually
DeRosa got “sold” at his highest value, and got 3 decent prospects in return. Hendry guessed that DeRo would drop off this year and wanted to get max value in return. The only issue that Hendry missed was that DeRo was a club house leader and no one stepped to fill that roll, also we had no back-up at 3B which really hurt when A-Ram went down.
Bradley was actually Fukudome’s replacement. Fukudome was signed to be the Left handed RF that was suppose to break-up D-Lee and A-Ram, being Fukudome hit in the 3 hole most of his time in Japan. When Fukudome failed in that role, Lou wanted someone else, this is where Bradley comes in.
gaclaudy - September 29, 2009
Good list Al...
…and if Hendry can get half of those right, they will be much better off.
IMO, the issues the Cubs had this year were not just relegated to the offseason moves, but have been slowly building over the last several years. It took the “perfect storm” of injuries, bad signings and poor player performances for the problems to come to a head, but some of this originated long before the 08 offseason moves.
First and formost, the Cubs have to get better at scouting, player development and evaluating their own talent. They have struggled in this area for far too many years, and at some point, you pay for this dearly. Unlike other successful orgranizations, the Cubs don’t appear to have a strong organizational philosophy that creates an identity they can hang their hat on. Instead, it is more knee jerk, 5 tool driven, all over the board and lacking in the core fundementals early on in a players development. Opening the check book after 06 has helped to keep these weaknesses at bay, but money will only hide deep organizational weaknesses for so long.
What the Cubs have now is a boatload of money tied up in 6-7 players, and several of those have big question marks as regards to what you will get out of them in 2010 or beyond. The only way to fix this in the short term is to do a stellar job identifying trades that can bring you pieces that fit better into the jigzaw puzzle that makes up a team. These pieces do not have to be expensive parts (they have plenty of those already), but they need to be the right players that fill a need. Since 03, Hendry has struggled to find the right mix of players despite having a fairly substantial budget, and I have little faith he is going to wake up one day and all of a sudden have this skill in his repertoire, and this is why I hope Ricketts brings in someone to oversee everyone of Hendry’s moves.
There is little doubt, the next 3-4 months will most likely determine whether the Cubs will be playoff contenders in the next 2-3 years, or whether they enter a period where you need to rebuild from the ground up.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
Good points
I to have made the case for better farm system and drafting. I believe the corner is turning. The dead money is killing the Cubs, Miles, Bradley, Dome, and Soriano’s coin are a hinderance. Hopefully Bradley will be dealt for a useful player and part of his contract goes away.
I agree fully the next several months are huge for the Cubs.
Grockcubs - September 29, 2009
Actually, Al, with regard to Point #2............
………Jason Marquis IS the poster child for Hendry’s “bid against himself” style.
The results of the player are somewhat irrelevant in the face of the GM’s role, which is to secure said player at the best possible price. No other team has EVER surfaced as a contender to Marquis, thus it has been clear Hendry outbid himself for his services.
To me, Marquis was the tip of the iceberg in what has become a penchant for Hendry over the past few years, Bradley and Miles being prime examples.
tville - September 29, 2009
The only reason I wouldn't have put Marquis in there...
… is that he actually did produce, and had the Cubs kept him this year, they would have gotten decent value out of that contract.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
Agree on the value, but...........
……….this team was seemingly blessed with an abundance of starting pitching at the onset, so moving Marquis at the time did make a bit of sense.
Nonetheless, Marquis gets a plaque on Hendry’s wall of overbidding.
tville - September 29, 2009
Al, great points as usual.
The Cubs really need to do a better of job of evaluating their own system before going out and making needless trades or signings.While Randy Wells had a good year the Cubs made him a Rule 5 pick last year and Toronto picked him and taugt him a sinker which turned his game around. Why couldn’t Rothschild or one of the lower class pitching coaches helped him develop this? I think Rothschild gets entirely too much respect for the job that he does.
It is time to look at other Organizations systems that actually develop players and use them as a model such as Florida!
cubdreamer - September 29, 2009
Wells was Toronto property for 4 months
People keep insisting that the Jays taught him something, or Halladay did, and use that to knock Rothschild.
First of all, Wells was in the minors when the Jays took him. Do you think the parent club’s pitching coach works with every pitcher in the system?
Second, if the Jays are so brilliant that they could teach him a pitch in four months – two of which are December and January – then they are dumbasses for giving up on him two weeks into the season.
This is revisionist history, and you’re not the only one guilty of it.
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
Excellent post, Shanghai
People who really believe that are a brick or two shy of a full load. They also probably still spout the “Why did the Cubs get rid of Josh Hamilton for nothing?” fallacy.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
Please explain how that is a fallacy.
The Cubs knew Hamilton was available. They chose to deal their pick away for $50K.
The Cubs didn’t want to give Hamilton a shot, which was, at the time, a defensible position. But it’s completely revisionist history to say that Hamilton couldn’t have been a Cub, or that the Cubs didn’t actually trade him away for $50K. They did.
D98 - September 29, 2009
Nobody except the Reds wanted Hamilton
and the only reason they wanted him is because Narron is a family friend. The Cubs drafted him as a courtesy to the Reds, knowing full well they would let them have him. Teams doing that for other teams in Rule 5 is not unusual.
Hamilton was a dead-ender with serious problems that, apparently, still haven’t been entirely rectified. He never was in the Cubs plans, never. Nor was he in any other team’s plans, probably not even the Reds.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
That is a completely different argument.
I absolutely agree that the Cubs didn’t want Hamilton, and you’re obviously stating the sequence of events as they happened.
That doesn’t change the fact that the Cubs could have drafted him for themselves, and opted instead to draft him for the Reds for $100K.
You don’t know that he “wasn’t in any other teams’ plans.” I dont’ know where you’re getting the “probably not even the Reds” business, as Hamilton saw extensive work in ST, and made the 25-man roster. The Reds saw him (properly) as a high-risk, high-reward flyer, and it paid off handsomely.
As for the “apparently, still haven’t been rectified” — he hasn’t taken any drugs for years. He views himself as an addict and an alcoholic forever, and he was photographed drinking in a bar last offseason. I don’t know that it’s fair to say that his problems “haven’t been rectified” over that incident – he reported his falling off the wagon to the Rangers the next day, and it’s a long way down the slippery slope from Bud Light to heroin.
I don’t even blame the Cubs for not taking Hamilton. I wish they would have, and I was ecstatic for the 30 minutes or so when I thought we had, but I can understand the unwillingness to bring him into the organization.
D98 - September 29, 2009
So what are you exactly arguing
other than to be argumentative?
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
That "The Cubs passed on Hamilton for $100K" is not a "fallacy".
D98 - September 29, 2009
But it is.
Let’s move on.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
Give D98 his grammatical due and then move on
We did pass on Hamilton. That’s a fact. Why that’s important to D98 at this point, I have no idea, but whatever…
ballhawk - September 29, 2009
28 other teams passed on Hamilton, too.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
The Hamilton stuff is stupid. Nobody cared at the time. He was a minor league junkie.
The ones bitching don’t know what they are talking about. You can’t blame JH on that.
Now what happened with Bradley was pathetic. Most sane people knew how this was going to play out. This is all JH’s fault.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
I'd say it's 70/30 Bradley's fault...
santoswoodenlegs - September 29, 2009
Well yeah, I am talking about the actual signing.
Bradley is a fool and has brought most of his problems on himself.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
All of the signings are Hendry's fault...
he’s the GM.
santoswoodenlegs - September 29, 2009
Cut him some slack...
…he was just listening to Lou:)
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
He was a minor league ballplayer, major league junkie.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
true
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Turn it green!
DGU - September 29, 2009
I got your brick right here!
cubdreamer - September 30, 2009
Rec'd
DGU - September 29, 2009
Yes, Randy Wells himself
gave credit to the Major League pithing coach for teaching him the sinker for the short time he was over there. This just doesn’t only speak about Rothschild, who is very overrated but the cubs system as a whole.
cubdreamer - September 30, 2009
I've seen a reference to
The Jays refining his sinker, not teaching it to him.
This speaks nothing to Rothschild. So many people want to point to struggles of Cub pitchers and blame him, but no one wants to give him credit when the pitchers succeed. Hardly consistent.
You seem to think that modifying one pitch constitutes developing a pitcher. Shouldn’t being astute enough to hang on to that pitcher be part of the equation?
Shanghai Badger - September 30, 2009
Overall...
…it is very difficult to evaluate the positive (or negative contributions) of either a pitching, or hitting coach. Look at Mazzone with the Braves. Everyone thought he was the 2nd coming, but that may have had a little to do with what those pitchers would have accomplished no matter who their pitching coach was – who knows?
To me, when you see a pitching coach turn around a bunch of guys who were either hurt or struggling before they got their hands on them, that is a good sign the guy is a difference maker (see Dave Duncan).
With Rothschild, I have always been bothered by how many walks Cub’s pitchers have given out since he has been the pitching coach. I know, some of that is because he has had a lot of strikeout pitchers, but I do believe he teaches guys to nibble far too much. Recently, this has improved a bit, because Piniella absolutely hates giving up walks and may have had some influence in this area.
The other part about Rothschild that bothers me is he is one of Hendry’s “guys”, and we all know how objective he tends to be with one of his buddies. Rothschild was highly recommended to Piniella by Hendry, and Lou probably understood the relationship and didn’t balk at it, but I don’t think he would have been Lou’s first choice.
MPH73 - September 30, 2009
and....
Don’t field a 130 million dollar team with a 2 cent bullpen. My #1 want this offseason is a bullpen full of stud lockdown, proven, pitchers. I don’t want maybe’s or has beens, I want depth and quality!
cubsluver22 - September 29, 2009
Those types of bullpen pitchers are rare
And besides, a team has to be able to have leads to protect in order for a good bullpen to be a priority. I think the bullpen the Cubs would have going into next year without any major changes would be better than average.
mykalmorgan - September 29, 2009
no their not rare
Their just not Aaron Heilman and Kevin Gregg types!
cubsluver22 - September 29, 2009
I want the Great Pumpkin to bring me $1,000,000
Middle relief pitchers are the most inconsistent breed of baseball players from year to year.
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
Excellent post, Al.
I think Hendry’s biggest issue is his poor track record evaluating talent. Our best rookie this year, Wells, was almost given away for a mere 50 stacks. Lucky for us JP Ricciardi didn’t want him. I believe Hendry is afraid to rely on his young talent, and believes it safer to just spend, spend, spend.
I’m not saying he has not made good moves, because he clearly has, but when given what he’s been given a lot more is to be expected.
I’d also like him to use some form of statistical analysis. No way anyone with a brain takes half the cash saved by trading DeRo and dumps it on a career nobody like Aaron Miles. That’s not me playing monday morning qb. I, as well as most on this site, have been on that signing since day one. I’ve had enough of Hendry. I’d like him to be retained in some capacity, as he seems to know everyone around the league, but I don’t want him as my GM.
dakoose - September 29, 2009
It's interesting that............
…………Hill and Wells are mentioned in the same thread. I recall all of the joy after Hill’s 2007 campaign, only to see him fail miserably in 2008.
Here’s hoping Wells’ 2010 season is at least as good as his results of this year.
tville - September 29, 2009
Wasn't Hill's table saw injury in the 2007-08 offseason?
If so, that would explain him having a tough 2008.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
I think tville's talking about Rich Hill
RynoHoF - September 29, 2009
Correct.
Rich, not Koyie.
tville - September 29, 2009
Oh, sorry.
That makes more sense.
As I said, no one would have suggested trading Rich Hill after 2007 — but his value lessened each day after his flameout in 2008.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
Great list from top to bottom Al
bigz38fan - September 29, 2009
My only issue with #1 is that if we don't bring in a leadoff man
Lou will try to use Theriot in the leadoff to often. He is not a leadoff hitter. This is more Lou’s issue than Hendry. But if Hendry brings in a clear leadoff hitter, Lou wouldn’t be tempted to try to force Theriot into that role. IMO Fukudome should be the leadoff hitter but for some reason Lou likes to put Theriot up there sometimes even when Fukudome is still in the lineup. Hopefully they’ll talk about it in their meetings and settle on Fukudome and then spend their money elsewhere.
thehat34 - September 29, 2009
That Theriot can really hit!
Apparently, the concept of “splits” is still making the rounds in committees before a full report can be handed to Lou.
Clutch16 - September 29, 2009
This is infuriating to me as well.
What is going on that this makes sense to us morans over on a fan’s blog but the team can’t figure it out?
The stats support Dome leading off. Why isn’t somebody shoving those numbers under Lou’s nose?
Simply watching day to day how the team reacts to Theriot leading off should be evident to Lou…
How is this being missed?!? ARRRRGHHHH!!!!!
AndrewJStone - September 29, 2009
Relax matey.chilango2 - September 29, 2009
eths - September 29, 2009
BUT THERIOT IS SO FAST
jesus christos - September 29, 2009
I wonder about JH making trades
He does a nice job taking advantage of salary dumps….Lee, ARam…..Signing injured players with upside….Dempster. (Though I hope if Chad Fox wants to give it another go next spring they tell him to go home.)
But trading talent for talent seems to be an issue. He overpays-Pierre type deals- or holds on too long-Like as you said-Rich Hill.
The Hundley deal was about money, though that worked nice.
Besides the Nomar deal, in which the Red Sox were really trying to get rid of him, can someone name a big deal that JH pulled off that we were not get screwed and that did not involve a salary dump?
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
You mean like Aramis Ramirez and Kenny Lofton
for Bobby Hill and a bucket of baseballs?
Bill Potter - September 29, 2009
That was a massive salary dump
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Like I said He's good at getting those players, especially from the Pirates
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
On Pittsburgh's part, but not the Cubs.
if you’re looking for talent-for-talent, I’d go with the Harden deal (Oakland wasn’t necessarily clearing salary on that one).
Bill Potter - September 29, 2009
The Harden deal is a good example.
The above Simon deal is also decent because i do not believe He was making much. But the point is we are having to dig for a decent talent for talent trade JH has made.
We can probably name them on one hand……Maybe I am forgetting some of them.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
here’s a comprehensive Jim Hendry trade list from earlier this year. He’s made a lot of “nickel and dime” type trades, overall. The Cubs, since he became GM, haven’t necessarily needed to make those talent-for-talent trades too often.
Bill Potter - September 29, 2009
there are some ugly names on that list......
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
sure there are.
But there are ugly names on just about every GMs trade list.
Bill Potter - September 29, 2009
Weren't Randal Simon and Jose Hernandez part of this deal?
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
Randall came later-In august I believe
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Yes
Hernandez was part of the Ramirez, Lofton deal. Can’t really call this one a salary dump, Hernandez made pretty good coin back then. From what I remember the Pirates were pretty tired of Ramirez’s act and Lofton was a rental player who they signed in order to trade for prospects at the deadline. Hendry did well on this deal.
tripdenten - September 29, 2009
In an era when players actually spent time in their clubhouse...........
…………the Oakland A’s had 25 taxis waiting outside the locker room. I was a notoriously bad clubhouse situation, yet they went to the WS five straight times in the 70’s, winning three of them.
Having “clubhouse guys”, in my estimation, is overrated.
tville - September 29, 2009
Actually, that's not quite true.
The A’s all hated their manager, but not necessarily each other.
The counterpoint to this is the Red Sox, who also had that “25 taxis” reputation for a long time. They finally won when they came together as “idiots” in 2004. (And, of course, had a good team, too.)
Clubhouse chemistry isn’t the be-all and end-all. But it IS a factor. Ask anyone on this year’s Cubs about that.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
I think it's become...........
……….a convenient “excuse” for this year’s group, Al, leaving Hendry with the difficult task of moving Bradley to teams who are fully aware that he has to make the dump.
tville - September 29, 2009
It's more than just an "excuse", IMO.
Obviously, it’s not the ONLY reason for this year’s failure, but it is A reason.
And Hendry has moved bad contracts before. I think he’ll be able to do it again.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
Moving a "bad contract".....
is different than moving a bad contract given to a bad person.
timeforachange2009 - September 29, 2009
Maybe.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
He's moved bad contracts because for the most part, those bad contract
guys could all be dismissed as “needing a change of scenery.” Milton has had many, many, many changes of scenery. The rest of baseball knows that won’t fix him
Nunyabidness - September 29, 2009
This will be JH's biggest test.
The Sosa thing was hard, but at least we got one decent season out of Frontenot.
Hundley was nice but they got two contracts back from the Dodgers. I do it again in a heartbeat.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Bad clubhouse guys...
…become an excuse when they don’t produce. If they put up numbers, everyone has a way of dealing with them, even though they are a-holes.
With Bradley, he was way out of his element this year with the Cubs, and I’d bet his odd behavior was the worst it has been over his career.
Bradley needed to go, but I highly doubt he had any negative impact on anyone else’s performance.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
Quite True
WGNstatic - September 29, 2009
Couple of things
Yes, a talented team will overcome a lot of issues. The early 70s A’s had Reggie, Fingers, Vida Blue, Catfish Hunter and Sal Bando, among others.
That was a talented enough team to beat the Reds (the Bench/Rose/Morgan Reds) WITHOUT Reggie, who was injured in the ALCS.
But we’re talking about an era with little media compared to today. We’re talking about Oakland.
A few years later, a team that could not stand each other, the 77-78 Yankees, won two World Series.
But again, they had Reggie, Pinella, Thurman Munson, Nettles, Catfish, Guidry, Sparky Lyle… etc. etc.. etc…
And that team nearly imploded over media coverage. And that was in the late 70s.
Just ONE incident that happened between Reggie and Thurman today would bring the Internets to their knees.
Worf - September 29, 2009
"A-Roid's" team seems to be doing just fine today
Overall, though, I agree with Al. It helps to have informal leaders in any organization.
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
Right... once-in-a-generation teams can overcome this
But for the most part, you need leaders and a cohesive clubhouse. Very few teams in history have been good enough to overcome having assholes.
And I don’t think even a team with a healthy Ramirez and a productive Soto is good enough.
Worf - September 29, 2009
A healthy Ramirez and a productive Soto would have gone a long way, though.
Enough? I don’t know.
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
And
numerous stops on the DL for the starting staff.
Grockcubs - September 29, 2009
Starting pitching hasn't been the problem, though
Other than Derrek Lee, that’s about the only bright spot.
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
Agree
Missing Lilly in August didn’t help and “Z” not doing his situps also hurt.
Grockcubs - September 29, 2009
I agree that those hurt
Even though, as we both acknowledge, there were bigger problems.
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
Good Points
I’m not old enough to remember the world pre-ESPN. I’ve seen the skirmish between Billy Martin and Reggie Jackson in the Yankees dugout at Fenway Park plenty of times on tape. Could you imagine what kind of uproar there would be in today’s world if something like that happened between Alex Rodriguez and Joe Girardi?
memphiscub - September 29, 2009
The As
won 3 straight World Series in the early 70s, but they did not go to the World Series “5 straight times.”
azjazzman - September 29, 2009
Correct
They did win 5 straight division titles, though.
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
Sorry.
Sloppy fingers.
Five straight post-seasons with three straight WS titles.
tville - September 29, 2009
Al, great list.
But one thing I would add is that Hendry has NEVER had an emphasis on middle infield defense. I continue to make this point. I think this puts too much pressure on our pitchers to get “Ks” instead of just getting ground ball outs. We have never had starting 2Bs or SSs with above average range/arms and top notch double-play combos (this decade).
Why can’t we get this with the money we spend? What a relief this would be to our pitching staff. I would love to have a team that has a lot less errors/game. I think it would set a whole different tone for our pitching. This is one thing I would love to see in terms of a new attitude by Jim & Lou. If that means we no longer have the LSU connection on this team, I am fine with it. This love of these LSU guys reminds me of our reliance on Wood/Prior as starters from the earlier part of this decade.
Time to move on.
LAcarl519 - September 29, 2009
Great post!
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Sometimes it seems like the pitchers are scared to let them hit it because the defense is suspect.
Strikeouts are nice but it drives up the pitch count which taxes the bullpen and so on…..
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
+1
Big agreement on this. This is one area where the 2010 team could stand a large upgrade.
vonde6 - September 29, 2009
Excellent Point!
,,,and again shows how flawed Hendry’s philosophy has been. He held on to Barrett entirely to long as one of the worst defensive catchers in baseball and a position that may be the most important defensive position on the field.
The other area he went brain dead on was the top of the order, and how important that is to putting your boppers in a position to drive in runs.
Plain and simple, Hendry’s values are not in order and they have shown time and again in how he keeps trying to fit the square peg in a round hole.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
Make 'er green!
AndrewJStone - September 29, 2009
Middle infield defense - yes!
DGU - September 29, 2009
I think this is
one of the top priorities for the offseason.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
I guess it's...
…never too late!
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
For what?
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
To recognize...
…that the skills of those playing in the middle of the ball diamond are quite important to a team’s success.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
When did I say
they weren’t? It’s also a chance to upgrade offensively.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
He's just criticizing Hendry again.
DGU - September 29, 2009
Correct!!!
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
I wish. Sadly the biggest priority of hot stove 2010 is
how to move Bradley.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
Awesome post!!!
Finished with the “Cajun Connection”, let’s try the “Tiger Tandem”.——-Theriot (LSU) and Baker (Clemson)
bigz38fan - September 29, 2009
aren't there two guys from Clemson on the roster right now?
LAcarl519 - September 29, 2009
Yes, Colvin is from Clemson
but he can’t play SS
bigz38fan - September 29, 2009
I'll buy the Clemson connection, sell LSU.
upside (& versatility) v downside over the next few years.
LAcarl519 - September 29, 2009
I hear you loud and clear
bigz38fan - September 29, 2009
They tried Izturis.
That sure didn’t work.
Infield defense is hard to judge, and I don’t take UZR as gospel, but Theriot has had an above-average UZR since taking over at short. Fontenot is a pretty good second baseman, shame about his struggles at the plate. I don’t think Fontenot/Theriot are anything like Wood/Prior. Wood and Prior were stars that were supposed to carry the team. Fontenot and Theriot are acceptable and cheap players. If a clear upgrade were available for the right price they’d be out of a job.
aldimond - September 29, 2009
Mid-season moves
It seems to me, when you have a team that is pretty much settled, you should only lightly tinker in the off-season. Nothing major, unless some stud just drops in your lap. (not likely) Instead do what the Cubs in 2003 & the Cards of this year did. USE your minor league talent to fill holes early in the year, and if you still see needs, address them right around the trade deadline. You’ll have a much better idea what you really need to compete down the stretch. In "03 we tried Bellhorn, who had a decent season the year before, at 3rd, and figured on Cory Patterson as our CF. When he got hurt, and Bellhorn didn’t work out, the Cubs got Lofton & ARAM & the rest was success. Cards did the same this year, with Holliday & DeRosa.
KedzieKid - September 29, 2009
As much as I hate to say it
As bad as the Hendry was this year, the Cardinal front office was good.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
I give them credit for taking advantage of the situation, which is something any competent GM should do
The Cubs couldn’t go after the players they did. Obviously, we all would have loved to see Mark DeRosa back at Wrigley Field and Matt Holliday in a Cubs uniform. They’ll be Cardinals for the foreseeable future. The Cubs were stuck mostly because of the expensive moves in the offseason and the impending sale. Obviously things would have been different had the economy not tanked or Aramis Ramirez been injured in May. I still don’t think the Cards will win the World Series. We’ll never stop hearing about it if they do.
Ace Venom - September 29, 2009
Don't be so sure that Holliday stays a Cardinal.
They may need the $ to sign Albert.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
I think it would take a miracle to keep both
Holliday’s agent is Scott Boras which means that he will get himself a lot of money. Are the Cardinals willing to spend 40-50 million on two players each year?
nji232 - September 29, 2009
agreed
That would be half of their $90 million budget right there.
vonde6 - September 29, 2009
I wouldn't mind having Holliday in a Cubs uniform
The price is just too high.
Ace Venom - September 29, 2009
Boras
will ask for stupid money. I could see the Mets make a substantial offer to Holiday.
What type of ballpark is Holiday looking at 5 or 6 years and 17 per? Close?
Grockcubs - September 29, 2009
I think he'll be a Yankee.
Damon, Matsui, and Nady are all gone after this year, which frees up a lot of money, and as things stand their outfield will come from Cabrera, Swisher, Hairston, and Gardner.
Inkin - September 29, 2009
holliday has trouble hitting AL pitching
jesus christos - September 29, 2009
He did in Oakland
but new Yankee Stadium is a hitters’ park.
Bill Potter - September 29, 2009
true
jesus christos - September 29, 2009
food for thought
Is in some miraculous way, the Cubs are able to convince TLR to become the next Cubs Manager, what would be the chances Pujols would follow?
bigz38fan - September 29, 2009
For some insight to your answer:
http://deadspin.com/5291272/how-the-cardinals-could-lose-albert-pujols
Granted, this was written well before the Cards added a ton of mid-season help…
AndrewJStone - September 29, 2009
Thanks
Let’s get it done
bigz38fan - September 29, 2009
I can't even think of another modern day equivalent...
… that would equal the epic gut punch Pujols would be giving STL fans if he came to the Cubs. I sincerely doubt it would ever happen.
That would be bigger than Farve to the Vikings, right? Ruth to the Yankees?
AndrewJStone - September 29, 2009
You are right
If that QB guy is going to pronounce his name like that, he should spell it like that
vonde6 - September 29, 2009
I've been accidentally intentionally misspelling it since he first left the Packers.
I had a GB fan for a roommate (and member of my Fantasy league) at the time, and he was so distraught that his northern accent was coming out big time. It sounded something like Far-vrah.
The whole season we rode him mercilessly about it, and now i can’t spell it right without thinking hard about it. Hah.
AndrewJStone - September 29, 2009
No doubt about Pujols
Probably bigger than Ruth to the Yankees, given each player’s stature at the time of the deal.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
I don't believe Pujols...
…has any specific loyalty to LaRussa, but I could be wrong.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
I feel the Cards have a chance to sign Holliday for 2 years unless
The Mets, Yankess or Red Sox throw big big money to him. I really think the Cards have a chance to sign him to maybe a 2 year deal ($26-$28 mil) since the market is so bad. Then he looks for a long term big deal after that.
Just my thoughts.
Cubsfan Waveland - September 29, 2009
Totally agree with this logic.
Give a few younger guys a chance to prove themselves over the first month or two, then replace the weak links closer to the trading deadline when you still should have some resources available. What Hendry did was more or less throwing all of his chips in before the season started, and then his hands were tied with the roster he had assembled.
madcow256 - September 29, 2009
Hendry didn't just throw all his chips in, he threw them big at guys who hadn't
proven they could fill the need. Soriano proved to be unable to play CF, and both Dome and Bradley aren’t middle of the order LH power hitters.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
These are the problems you run into when you have back-to-back flameouts in the playoffs
Jim Hendry did a horrible job in the offseason when he had the chance to do things to make the team better. Rather than second guess his offseason moves and play the what if game, I’m going to make some points of my own.
1) Work on the bullpen: Obviously this can be helped by not having Heilman and Gregg return in Cubs uniforms in 2010. In house, you have Carlos Marmol in line for the closers job. Grabow should be returning and there have been some positives in that pen. They still need some bullpen arms.
2) Dump Aaron Miles: This will require eating his contract because no team is going to take him now. His numbers this season basically say that his career is over. He’ll always have the distinction of having had the first hit in an exhibition game at the new Yankee Stadium, though it’ll be one of those trivia questions that hardly anyone outside of SABR will know after twenty years.
3) Infield help is needed: Ryan Theriot’s bat keeps him in the lineup, but playing every day eventually wears him down towards the end of the season. His glove isn’t there at short, so if you can find a good starting SS on the market, take it so Theriot can be moved to second. Mike Fontenot has little value, but at least you could probably still move him. Jeff Baker deserves another chance as a backup infielder.
Ace Venom - September 29, 2009
Just curious
Why should we flat out hand the 2B job to Theriot? He’s putting up an OPS+ of 84 this year, with Baker coming in at 112 after a not-insignificant 200 PAs.
The slashes:
Theriot: .285/.342/.372
Baker: .315/.370/.459
I’m gonna argue that the only reason Theriot is an everyday player on a major league ballclub is that he’s (somewhat) capable of playing SS, something few players can claim. When you put him at 2B, his bat becomes downright pedestrian. My suggestion would be that if we can pick up a solid SS, Theriot is either part of that trade or he becomes the SS/2B sub (which can mean he starts 4 games a week for all I care, if it stops him from slowing down every September/October).
madcow256 - September 29, 2009
I would love for Theriot to either ride the bench
or play for a new team, but I doubt that happens with Lou around.
nji232 - September 29, 2009
He's been a godsend as a cheap functional player on this team the past few years
But he’s going to be eligible for arbitration soon, which to me means all those years as a starting SS will cost us, even if the stats suggest he’s not that great.
Based on what I’ve seen so far this season, Theriot looks like he should be batting in the 7-8 range on our team. Baker seems like he has the potential to be a 5-6 hitter on a team that was lacking some pop.
Let’s not waste a chance to see if we have another young, cheap, functional player in Baker just because Theriot’s been our guy for so long.
madcow256 - September 29, 2009
Right On!
tripdenten - September 29, 2009
Well said.
We need to start calling Jeff Baker “scrapy” and give him a dumb nickname, like “Shaknbaker” so he can win the starting job.
DGU - September 29, 2009
that reads
“scrapey shack-n-baker.” Awesome.
TC Cubby - September 29, 2009
Well "scrappy" is taken. So...
DGU - September 29, 2009
I think the bullpen can be solid.
Closer – Marmol
Setup – Grabow, Guzman (and possibly Caridad and/or Samardzija)
Middle Relief – Stevens, Caridad/Samardzija, Marshall/Gorzelanny (long man)
That’s not a terrible bullpen – young, yes – but plenty of power arms down there.
Bill Potter - September 29, 2009
You forgot Berg.
I think Berg could be a real good contributor.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
I was thinking about tossing him in there, too.
I agree – I think the Cubs bullpen doesn’t need much for 2010 – yes, it would be young, but Lou’s dealt with young bullpens before.
And, truthfully, as long as these guys throw strikes, I think Lou would be fine with it, as opposed to some of the walk-happy guys there now.
Bill Potter - September 29, 2009
Exactly the point I made...
… when I said to stop throwing money at guys like Heilman.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
Agreed.
And, IIRC, the 1990 Reds had a young bullpen full of power arms (I was 8, but I think the Nasty Boys were pretty young) that Lou used pretty well.
Bill Potter - September 29, 2009
I wonder if Lou could handle it now.
Gregg isn’t exactly lights out and he had Marmol. He seemed hell bent on keeping Gregg as the closer way past the time most good managers would. He does not seem to think outside the box too much anymore. The pitcher in LF being one of the few.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
It's a good question
and the role of the bullpen has changed since 1990. But while Lou was slow to pull Gregg, he was quick to make Guzman a setup man.
I think if Lou is comfortable with his arms, and confident they’ll throw strikes, he’ll use a guy regardless of age/experience.
Bill Potter - September 29, 2009
is heilman an anomaly then?
jesus christos - September 29, 2009
and Howry.
Notice that they’re both veterans. I wouldn’t give Lou too many veteran options in the ’pen.
Bill Potter - September 29, 2009
howry threw strikes...
but they usually flew out of the park
jesus christos - September 29, 2009
short memory
Howry was good in 2006 and 2007,
not so in 2008
vonde6 - September 29, 2009
Yet he kept getting sent to the mound
as does Aaron Heilman.
My proposal is to limit the number of veterans in the bullpen for Lou to use. By next March, Marmol and Grabow would be the ’pen veterans, with a host of young, power arms filling other roles.
Bill Potter - September 29, 2009
i know
i was specifically referring to 2008
jesus christos - September 29, 2009
i am sorry you are singling out
aaron heilman in your article & using the horrendous behavior of the citifield “faithful” as some sort of justification for it. no one has “thrown” any money at heilman. he has been through arb more then once and was awarded his relatively meager salary fair & square. further, i do not know what “issues” you are referring to with regard to samardzija. the shark is showing all the signs of mis-use & indecisive role assignment that have plagued heilman since he was placed in the pen to make room for the “other” (victor) zamabrano in the aftermath of the disastrous kazmir trade in the 2004 – 2005 seasons
brian custer - September 29, 2009
The issue isn't the money given to Heilman.
The issue is, the Cubs had three or four pitchers in their farm system who could have done better than Heilman this year, and the Cubs could have kept Felix Pie as a result.
I know you are personal friends with him, and I am sure Heilman is a nice guy. But he isn’t a very good pitcher and hopefully, he will be elsewhere in 2010.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
how do you know
that any unproven minor leaguer would’ve done better than heilman? heilman’s stats for the year are at or near average across the board. and, as you have admitted, heilman has been pitching exceptionally well for the last 6 – 8 weeks.
brian custer - September 29, 2009
when it didn't matter......
Heilman needs to go and should have gone to the Giants.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Yep.
Heilman’s numbers aren’t “average or near average across the board”. His WHIP is awful for a middle reliever, and so are the HR allowed.
Please. Stop allowing your personal relationship with this man to cloud your judgment of him as a pitcher.
He’s had a few good weeks. That’s not enough for me to want him back, and the point is, he shouldn’t have been here in the first place.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
Well said.....
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
i guess felix pie
would’ve fixed the cubs’ stagnant offense that apparently aaron heilman broke over the winter. please. your bias against heilman is very apparent. you never gave the guy a chance. using the behavior of the neanderthals in citifield to say “see, they still hate him in ny” is piling on and just plain wrong. if cubs’ fans behaved like that you would all over them
brian custer - September 29, 2009
I didn't care that they got him because it got us rid of Cedeno.
But he has not been good for the most part and can’t be trusted in big situations. So I hope he’s gone.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Felix Pie had just about as good a year as Milton Bradley.
Next?
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
sorry, al
a 4.02 (and dropping) ERA and a 1.44 WHIP are not “horrendous” by any stretch. aaron has allowed 8 HR’s in 69 innings. both marshall & gregg have had far more trouble with the gopher ball than heilman…
brian custer - September 29, 2009
Heilman seemed to have the neat ablility to allow everyone else's runs to score but his own.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Way to be (dropping) when the season is over?
Arbusto - September 29, 2009
dropping what?
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
It was a reply to Brian
The dropping ERA of Heilman.
Arbusto - September 29, 2009
got it
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
I was ok with giving him a shot
Over his career, 2008 looked to be an outlier, and I was hoping he’d regain his old form.
He didn’t do it, and it’s probably time to move on.
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
I'm surprised...
that people seem to be comfortable with Marmol as closer. Even considering only from the point where he was made closer and seemed to do better, his underlying numbers are not particularly great (despite 11 saves). Most worrying is that he only threw 60% strikes and had a WHIP of 1.55 in that period (with his overall season numbers being even worse)…
I won’t feel comfortable next year with Marmol as our anchor. But maybe I’m in the minority…
CubsWin!Oregon - September 29, 2009
Hire the scouting director of the Giants
Did you notice how many of their recent picks are at the Major League level contributing??
cozmotaylor123 - September 29, 2009
Mostly pitchers, though.
The Cubs haven’t had trouble developing pitchers.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
I do wonder how much of that will change
I think things will turn around for the minor league system, but these things take time. At least we’re not in a situation like the Pirates and we can keep retooling in the minor leagues while we have winning seasons. It’s not like our minor league system is horrible.
Ace Venom - September 29, 2009
Correct...
…and for the most part, it is easier to predict a pitching prospects chances for success than it is a position players.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
Really?
Someone posted a link to a good article several weeks back that made the point “There’s no such thing as a pitching prospect”. I thought that it was pretty good.
vonde6 - September 29, 2009
Didn't read that...
…but more times than not, when a pitcher is dominating hitters at lower levels, that usually equates to a higher percentage of success at the major league level compared to hitters.
In essense, pitchers can get by on raw talent at the big league level easier than hitters can. I’m not saying pitchers don’t need to make adjustments at the big league level, but they are not to the same degree that hitters need to. We have seen far more hitters dominate the farm and then fail, compared to pitchers who have the same minor league success.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
You've made a lot of assertions there.
Can you back them up with data? The opposition point has. One of the big problems with predicting pitcher performance is that injuries are very hard to predict. A player that is great when healthy but injured half the year isn’t really any more useful than a player that’s average and healthy all the time. I’m not a BP subscriber so I can’t get at the meat of the linked article, but I have read studies showing that position players drafted high pan out at a higher rate than pitchers.
aldimond - September 29, 2009
Which pitchers have they developed?
Most of the pitchers that come from the system either don’t pan out, get injured or get traded elsewhere.
cubdreamer - September 29, 2009
So if they get traded, that means they weren't developed?
On this year’s team alone:
Zambrano
Wells
Marshall
Guzman
Marmol
That’s not too bad.
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
Plus Gallagher helped in the Harden deal
rlpete - September 29, 2009
So one year of Wells,
winning 11 games in which the pitching coach from the Jays helped develop his sinker last year and he is considered developed.
Guzman has been hurt more than he has pitched for his Cub career.
Marmol is a coverted catcher as was Wells that still struggles to throw stikes consistently.
Zambrano has the talent to win 20 games a year but will probably win 10 this year.
The last pitcher the Cubs developed was Maddux and then let him walk away via free agency.
cubdreamer - September 29, 2009
You call that being a Cub Dreamer?
vonde6 - September 29, 2009
That's called being a realist
cubdreamer - September 30, 2009
Fine with me
But you might want to change your user name
vonde6 - September 30, 2009
What the hell does being a converted catcher have to do anything?
Cripes, you’re just looking for things to bitch about. If things are that bleak, go root for another team.
Shanghai Badger - September 30, 2009
Carlos Zambrano, Kerry Wood, Dontrelle Willis, Carlos Marmol
Sean Marshall, Angel Guzman, Randy Wells, there are more
The Cubs system has been good with pitchers, hitters not so much
nji232 - September 29, 2009
Hmm,
Pablo Sandoval, Travis Ishikawa, Nate Schierholz, Fred Lewis, and John Bowker are all home grown talent who contribute quite a bit. Not sure I agree with your “mostly pitchers” comment
Nunyabidness - September 29, 2009
Pablo Sandoval can hit.
Hav you looked at the other guys’ stats?
DGU - September 29, 2009
this is an assinine comment
Sandoval is the only guy worth anything.
socalbob - September 29, 2009
The Giants scouts and Cubs scouts have the same taste because
nji232 - September 29, 2009
AWWWWWW Fuuuuuudge
I did not know that
Nunyabidness - September 29, 2009
spend 88% of your budget so
you can make a move at the deadline….not 100% and have to ask for more $$ at the deadline to get something that is needed.
cozmotaylor123 - September 29, 2009
Not necessarily
Spending 100% is fine if you do it wisely. Hendry seemed to do it just to use it up.
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
So few teams have depth at every position
that they can expect to weather injuries like Rami’s. We’re no different. Leaving a few million behind to find a guy who could save your season after a critical injury is just smart thinking.
madcow256 - September 29, 2009
You two are both right. If all your movable assets have NTC's, a GM
can’t tie up 100%. If some talent is portable, a GM could tie up 100% to shuffle the deck in the case of Aramis’ injury. Freel didn’t count as move to fill the void.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
It's a breath mint. It's a laxative. Stop, you're both right!
I see the point in leaving money for a “rainy day”, but if you spend Miles, Gaudin, Gathright’s, etc. dough on better players, it’s not as big of a deal.
If you go into the season relying on what they relied on, you’d better have some cash reserves. But Hendry spent them to get the parts that he shouldn’t have been relying on in the first place.
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
EXACTLY!
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
I have a visual of Hendry asking for his annual +5% midseason budget
increase right after Ramirez went down and turning purple while screaming “What do you mean my budget was my budget!?!?!?!”
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
While he was purple, the same guys asked him "why isn't your .430 hitting utility guy at AAA playing 3B"
And JH answers “well we have aaron Miles for that”
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Do you have
the visual of beverage all over a keyboard?
Villeslgr - September 29, 2009
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
Love it Al.
Hendry has to stop identifying the “one need” and overpaying to fill it and focus on value, depth, and upgrades beyond the next season.
For the 06 season, he wanted Pierre to be the speedy leadoff centerfielder, in 07 it was starting pitching and a speedy leadoff centerfielder bringing Lilly, Marquis & Soriano. In 08, needed a left handed bat in RF so Fukudome brought in. In 09, still need a LH bat in RF so Bradley brought in.
Even for a big market team, elite free agents are not needed every year and the Cubs don’t have to be where previously decent talent gets that one last good contract.
Imagine how much nicer this season could have been if Hendry picked up Teahen or Hermida instead of signing Bradley.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
To be fair
Without Lilly, Marquis and Soriano, do the Cubs win back to back division titles? How quickly we forget where we were in 2006. Fukudome is actually working out for the Cubs, but we weren’t sure about it after he fell off the map in the second half of 2008. Hendry had the right idea, but he committed to Milton Bradley. That did not work out at all. While we ideally would have liked Fukudome still playing in right with an extra year having been dealt to Jim Edmonds, unless you have a nuclear powered DeLorean on hand, we’re stuck with having to prepare for 2010.
Ace Venom - September 29, 2009
Who was the GM that built that 2006 team?
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
You're not the only one who has lost patience with Jim Hendry
I would personally rather he and Lou Piniella be out the door after this season, but it’s not going to happen.
Ace Venom - September 29, 2009
Indeed.
I really hope Hendry’s boss is not Crane Kenney, though. He needs a baseball guy to report to.
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
Hope all you want
It looks as if Crane Kenney is going to stick around. Now will Ricketts change things after 2010 if things don’t work out? You’d hope he would. He’s showing more patience with this staff than I would show.
Ace Venom - September 29, 2009
Sticking around, yes - but
Not necessarily in the same capacity.
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
I really hope...
…that Ricketts is astitute enouph to understand that Kenney should not be overseeing the baseball part of the organization, and I’m sure he is.
I got a kick out of Steve Stone on the radio the other day; he said Hendry would be back because Ricketts knows he is not a baseball guy and he needs to observe how Hendry operates. Well, if Ricketts is not a baseball guy, where is he going to get the knowledge to evaluate how Hendry operates? That’s right, he has to bring someone in that reports directly to him, and will be his eyes and ears in evaluating all things baseball.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
he needs the unemployment line to report to
Nunyabidness - September 29, 2009
Well, that's not likely to happen for a while.
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
Can you describe what a "baseball guy" higher up than a GM would be responsible for...
…that the GM wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) already be doing?
ballhawk - September 29, 2009
Let me try to explain...
…what that might be.
We have Tom Ricketts, who just paid about 850 mil for an asset. Of late, it appears to be underperforming considering the investment made in talent (players) and it may be a good idea to have a fresh view of the organization.
I’ll make an assumption here, that Ricketts has seen enouph to think there may be some areas of the Cub’s baseball organization that may need to be improved upon, and the question is, how does he go about evaluating that? Does he watch (with his untrained eye) the people that have been running the show (and could be part of the reason things need to improve) or does he hand pick someone who is a known “baseball guy” to be his confidant in determining what is going on from top to bottom in regards to the baseball operation?
I would think it’s likely he takes this route, because it assure him he is getting information that will more objective than he could get otherwise.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
That's a reasonable scenario but I don't see how Ricketts can go that route and expect Hendry to stick around
Hendry strikes me as being a remarkably even-keeled regular kind of guy, but if Ricketts brings in a baseball guy above him, how does Hendry not feel professionally insulted? It’s not like he’s some boy-wonder GM or a stats-whiz GM that may have been prematurely put in that position and thus could now use a steady, seasoned hand above him. He’s been a GM for several years now and a case can be made he’s been a pretty successful one at that.
If Ricketts thinks the baseball operations is an area that could be improved upon, he should fire Hendry (or reassign him elsewhere for the duration of the contract) and bring in his own known “baseball guy”.
ballhawk - September 29, 2009
I don't believe Rickett's...
…priority will be towards not hurting Hendry’s feelings (or anyone else’s) after he just invested the kind of dough he did to buy the team, do you?
Being the successful business man that he has been, it’s reasonable to assume he will seek people who have solid reputations to help him understand what he has and what may need to be improved upon. For him to rely solely on Hendry on that would not be the objective thing to do.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
Plus, I think Hendry would rather have his job than not have it, right?
So if he keeps his job with a “head of baseball operations” above him, that might be the best of both worlds.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
No question.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
No I don't.
In a black-n-white world, either Hendry is his guy or he isn’t and Ricketts should take steps accordingly.
But obviously there’s a lot of gray (and green and Cubbie blue…) here, so chances are that he’s not sure about Hendry yet (and as you pointed out, probably many other aspects of the Cubs.)
So if he isn’t sure yet, I just think there are other – more subtle – ways to have that evaluation process than inserting a new boss on the org chart, right out of the gate.
ballhawk - September 29, 2009
I could, but someone’s done it better.
As far as feeling insulted, I doubt it. I don’t feel like digging to look it up, but I suspect the majority of baseball teams have baseball men as presidents. Besides, Hendry has one of 30 jobs. I doubt he’d quit over a perceived slight.
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
I thought my point was toward 2010.
Hendry and the Cubs have embraced big ticket/big name moves every year with mixed success. I would argue the only one of those moves I mention above without a negative is Lilly.
As for your question of whether the Cubs make the playoffs/win the division in 07/08 without Lilly (absolutely not), Marquis (I think so), Soriano (Depends on how the money was spent).
I grow weary of seeing the same need addressed in repeated offseasons with large NTC contracts. Too much Groundhog Day meets the NFL drafting talent of Matt Millen.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
The 2008 Cubs might have won without Soriano.
2007, no way. He basically carried the team the entire month of September.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
True, I guess I'm assuming Hendry had money to spend and
would have spent it on players who would have contributed somehow. Perhaps filling the void.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
You say no other team wanted Milton
except that the Rays did want him. You would rather have Jermaine Dye who was a worse baseball player, Magglio? Also worse, and older, and owed more money.
If I were to pick a guy that might just fill all the qualifications you desire (good clubhouse guy, big contract so you can dump MB) Aaron Rowand has the best chance to be productive again. A smaller outfield at Wrigley probably helps him in center, and that same smaller field probably helps his bat a bit.
nji232 - September 29, 2009
As I said...
… I mentioned Maggs just as an example of the type of player to go after — someone who the other team also wants to get rid of.
Rowand might be a very good fit.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
Getting Rowand might work.
And the Giants may even kick in some cash to even things out, as Rowand has stunk it up for them. But if not, I’d still make the move.
Rowand is going into year 3 of a 5 year, $60M deal. For the next 2 years, he and Bradley would be, essentially, a financial wash. In year 5, the Cubs would be on the hook for an extra $12M – coincidentally, exactly when Dome’s deal expires.
I’d still prefer Michael Young, even with the bigger cash outlay. But I’d certainly bring Aaron back to Chicago.
D98 - September 29, 2009
Makes sense. Supposedly, he was a "clubhouse" guy on the southside
and can play CF.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
As long as he can stay away from that brick wall.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
But get closer to it than Soriano.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
I'm closer to it than Soriano gets
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
True-Soriano is a horrid LF
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Agreed. However, great defensive players aren't
usually stashed at LF unless there is a gold glover in RF.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
My problem with Young is that he doesn't have a position
He can’t play third bc we have Aramis, he is awful at short which is why they moved him and the NL has no DH
nji232 - September 29, 2009
Could Young play 1 year at 2b
and re-evaluate for 2011? Lee’s contract is up, Aramis has an opt out so one or both might be gone.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
You could put him there
Last time he played there was 2003 and his UZR was -9.7 so he wouldn’t be good at it. Young just isn’t a good defensive player
nji232 - September 29, 2009
Meh. I find myself just wanting the money from Bradley's contract to provide
a player. Further, provided the contract taken back is shorter in length, the guy could be the most expensive PH in the league.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
That is why Pat Burrell makes sense to me
He can’t play the field, but he would be a good pinch hitter
nji232 - September 29, 2009
He reminds me of an old Jake Fox who can't even be a possible 3rd catcher
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
There are terrible flaws with any player you are going to get for Bradley
I’m not the one who wants him gone, you can’t expect to get anything resembling a productive player for him.
nji232 - September 29, 2009
I agree it will take a better GM than JH to get anything for Bradley...
But be clear…..You want Bradley to stay?:
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
I'm not getting into that anymore
Just don’t complain when a steaming pile of crap comes back in the Bradley trade, that’s all i’m saying
nji232 - September 29, 2009
A steaming pile of crap is coming unless they just eat the contract. You are correct.
What do you think would happen to the moral of this team if he showed up to spring training?
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
You think this team has a moral?
Like the moral of a story?
What is the moral of this team?
vonde6 - September 29, 2009
Just say no to drugs?
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
If I had to hazard a guess...
I’d say something akin to the Book of Job.
CubsWin!Oregon - September 29, 2009
If the Cubs do send Bradley to Tampa for Burrell...
… Burrell could be flipped to an AL team that could use him as a DH. There are several teams who might do that.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
Yielding the Cubs what in return?
Nothing worthwhile. Maybe a non-prospect minor-leaguer. Maybe the Cubs would be better off dealing Bradley straight for that non-prospect minor-leaguer and not even take the risk of having Burrell on the team next year.
aldimond - September 29, 2009
I would like
Rowand. I think he produce better power numbers in this division. The west is a pitchers haven.
Grockcubs - September 29, 2009
Rowand may also uptick being out from under the pressure of
the contract. Being the talent replacing Bradley will make his contract irrelevant.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
People will be happy just to see him.
I would do this deal today…..
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
No way...
…the Giants kick in a dime if they are taking Bradley off the Cub’s hands, not way!
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
We would already be taking on more money, so they should be straight up.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Of course...
…the Cubs would be taking on more dough, but the Giants are also taking on a much bigger risk with Bradley and his attitude.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
Hey, of all teams, the Giants are used to a bad attitude.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
Very true- The whole SF area seemed to be fine with the Barry Bonds Crap.
Bradley is Bonds-lite
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
very lite, as in doesn't come close to putting up the numbers
but with all the problems.
Nunyabidness - September 29, 2009
I am saying that SF seems to accept, even make excuses for their players. I think Bradley may even thrive there.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
they accepted, and made excuses for Bonds
because of the insane numbers he put up. They would not have accepted Bradley with the numbers he put up. I don’t know why you don’t understand that.
Nunyabidness - September 29, 2009
They seem pretty laid back there
Maybe its all the drugs….
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Nunya's right on this one
No way does MB get the same free pass that Bonds did.
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
It would be easier there than here for him is all I'm saying...
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
It'd be easier just about anywhere
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
I'd like to see him pull this shit with the Yankees and Girardi
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
I said "just about"
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
Just giving an example.....
The Angels wouldn’t put up with this stuff either. Both teams are winners by the way.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
I'm not sure what your point is
A lot of teams that would not be tolerant of MB would put up with Bonds. Performance matters.
Is it right? Maybe not. But it’s reality.
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
Not to mention
That Bradley’s problem seems to be extreme sensitivity — a very thin skin. Contrast that with Bonds, whose press statements when under fire made Bill Clinton sound like a Sunday school teacher.
vonde6 - September 29, 2009
Rays
I believe offered a 2 year deal. Cubs or Hendry went the extra mile to get that all important lefthanded stick.
Grockcubs - September 29, 2009
and passed on Ibanez,Abreau, and Dunn....
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Ibanez was snapped up early.
The revisionist history on the Bradley signing, including Al’s idea that no one wanted him (when several teams were reported as in on him), continues unabated.
DGU - September 29, 2009
Love the sig.
AndrewJStone - September 29, 2009
Who else was in on Bradley?
No one that I can recall, certainly not for a three-year deal.
If you have specific links to back up your claim, let’s see ’em.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
I remember Tampa being mentioned
But I don’t think anyone else was offering the money or years Hendry offered.
elgato - September 29, 2009
Thus proving point #2...
… stop bidding against yourself.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
I'm totally with you on that, Al
elgato - September 29, 2009
Ok I went searching around on MLBTR and explorer crashed twice.
So it’s not worth any further digging.
However, bidding against Tampa is not the same as bidding against yourself.
DGU - September 29, 2009
There were other teams interested.
I don’t feel like spending too much time on it, but it’s worth noting that the Nationals declared that they “had serious interest in signing Bradley” this past offseason, indicating that they wished to compete with the Cubs for his services.
As I recall, there were others as well (Tampa has been mentioned, but I thought there were a couple more as I think back to the kinder, simpler, happier time that was the pre-season. *sigh)
CubsWin!Oregon - September 29, 2009
Bravo, Al!
I hope that Jim Hendry reads your post and takes all 10 items to heart. If there is a unifying theme to all 10 items, it is that having the payroll clout that the Cubs have enables an undisciplined GM, like Hendry, to throw money at problems instead of doing the hard work of true talent evaluation.
perseman - September 29, 2009
Right up until he locks down all his payroll.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
I've made this point before
Hendry is a horrible bargain shopper. With the exception of the Dempster signing FIVE YEARS AGO, Hendry often overpays or pays around the market rate for players (especially when you consider contracts’ lengths and perks).
The Cardinals, on the other hand, are great at finding one-year bargains (particularly pitchers) who go on to have career years. I know we don’t have Dave Duncan on the payroll, but the Cardinals often turn position players around, too.
And please, don’t defend Hendry by bringing up the fact that Kosuke could have made more if he had signed elsewhere. Even if other GMs would have made the same mistake — or a worse mistake — Kosuke’s contract isn’t really anything Hendry can hang his hat on.
elgato - September 29, 2009
He's not a particularly good GM in general. He's just not
Giving credit to Hendry for getting Grabow and Gorzelanny for almost nothing is ridiculous too. Getting two middling players from a team doing everything in their power to get rid of their entire team is hardly an accomplishment
Nunyabidness - September 29, 2009
rec'd
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
the Pirates were trying to get rid of anyone who was expensive
So you’re right no Grabow. But Hendry should get some credit for getting Gorzo.
elgato - September 29, 2009
on Grabow
elgato - September 29, 2009
the pirates had pretty much given up on Gorzo
which is why he was languishing in the minors when we got him.
I guess I’ll give hendry SOME credit for him, but it was hardly a steal, or pulling the wool over the Pirates eyes. Plus, Gorz posted a 4.58 ERA and a higher WHIP than when he was with the Pirates, so it’s not like the man turned into Cy Young upon his arrival here
Nunyabidness - September 29, 2009
I know what you mean
I’m just thinking that Gorzo needed a change of scenery, Hendry realized this and got him as a throw-in who might really pay dividends.
But fleecing the Pirates isn’t exactly a huge accomplishment.
I should note the Hendry did get Jim Edmonds at a bargain price. Too bad he didn’t hang on to him.
elgato - September 29, 2009
And where did
Edmonds play this year, anyway?
More revisionist history.
Hendry has had more hits than misses. Many more.
I also love how, apparently, the deals to get Ramirez, Lee, etc., somehow don’t count because those were other teams’ salary dumps. Those players had to go someplace, didn’t they? They could have gone to any of 28 other teams, but they ended up with the Cubs. Funny how that happened.
Hendry deserves one more year. After 2010? Well, we’ll see.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
Just because Edmonds sat home all year doesn't mean he couldn't have been productive.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
Apparently, Al,
29 other GMs didn’t think he would be productive, either.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
True.
But that doesn’t make those GM’s right.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
Maybe not
But I also can’t blame them.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
Neither can I
I don’t know about you, but the thought of bringing him back gave me visions of Gary Gaetti circa 1999.
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
Exactly
the name and scenario I brought up when this subject first was broached.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
I know you said that.
And it was a risk.
But just because it happened once, does not mean it would have happened again, with a different team, different manager, different teammates.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
You assume
DeRosa would have made the Cubs better this season. I assume Edmonds would have made the Cubs worse.
I think we cancel each other out. :)
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
LOL
I’ll take that cancel!
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
Damn right
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
The deals for Ramirez and Lee were six and five years ago
Setting that aside, Hendry’s missteps, mostly, have revolved around signing free agents from other teams to contracts that were too rich — notably Soriano, Fukudome, Bradley, Miles and Marquis. I would say the Lilly signing has definitely panned out.
I was actually trying to give Hendry a pat on the back for getting Edmonds last year, NBF. I agree that he deserves one more year.
elgato - September 29, 2009
I think Edmonds turned out to be a good get
and dumping him after last season also was wise.
I think the main problems with Bradley and Miles was the length of the contracts. Marquis, too, perhaps.
I have no problem at all with the Soriano and Fukudome deals. Soriano’s deal was necessary to wipe off the stains of the 2005 and ’06 seasons, and Fukudome was had for below market value.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
I can see your point on Soriano
But I don’t like that argument regarding Fukudome. Just because other teams would have paid more for Kosuke doesn’t mean that we should be OK with the fact that the Cubs are probably paying him twice what he’s worth.
elgato - September 29, 2009
I'd rather have Fukudome than not have him
What he’s “worth” is whatever the market will give him.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
Well, then we just disagree
I’d rather spend $12 million per on something else. That said, if Fukudome was earning, say, $6 million, I’d be fine keeping him.
Let me be clear that I don’t think Kosuke was the biggest problem on the team this year.
elgato - September 29, 2009
Fair enough
I’d also agree with your last point.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
Kosuke has a lot of things going for him
And brings a lot to the team.
elgato - September 29, 2009
I agree, I just don't think he plays as much if he has RJ's contract
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Strongly agree...
…and you have to look at the totality of his 7 years of a GM to get the full picture:
Scouting – below average
player development – below average
roster assembly – below average
trades – average to above average
FA signings – average
Lastly, you have to look at what the team accomplished during his tenure. They won 1 playoff series (6 years ago) and 3 dvisions, but he also had ample resources to sign FA’s that played the largest role in winning divisions in 07 and 08. Both the Cards and Astros have won more than the Cubs in the last 7 years (Cards-1 WS, 2 NL pennants, Astros, 1 NL pennant). Also, you have to look at how the club is set up to have success in the next 2-3 years, and that ain’t looking real promising unless the stars align quite well.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
Excluding re-signing your own players, I would put Hendry
way below average in FA signings. On no-risk fliers, he’s 2 for 3 (Johnson & Edmunds), but those don’t really count as no risk was taken.
As for big ticket FA’s , Ted Lilly has met or outperformed his contract. The rest, not so much.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
some risk was taken with Reed
He makes about $2 million a year — which is the same money that angers fans because it’s going to Aaron Miles. I agree on Edmonds, though.
But Hendry doesn’t have any signings akin to Abreu going to the Angels this year.
elgato - September 29, 2009
I disagree with your last point ...
The Cubs have a good pitching staff with few questions left to answer.
Lee and Ramirez are cornerstones, and Theriot has some value (despite the varied opinions of him). Jeff Baker was a great pickup (not a bargain in the way I was talking about because Hendry got him in a trade), and Soto has a huge upside.
The outfield is the biggest issue. The Cubs have to bet that Soriano can bounce back, because they won’t put $18 million on the bench for long. Kosuke’s overpaid, but he’s not a real problem.
That leaves right field (again) and a platoon mate for Kosuke (assuming RJ isn’t back).
I guess I don’t think it’s that big a leap that Soriano and Soto bounce back — so I’m hopeful for next year.
elgato - September 29, 2009
Ideally from a defensive standpoint...
We could find a solid CF so that Kosuke could play RF. Dome’s defensive stats in center aren’t very good, unfortunately, but he’s well above average in RF.
CubsWin!Oregon - September 29, 2009
If you step back and look at it
during his 7 years the Cubs have spent a ridiculous amount of money and have 0 WS appearances. I think he should get one more year to turn things around but if they don’t, good riddance.
Mapmaker - September 29, 2009
agreed-I still think he is a 4th OF on a good team.
Tell me anyone if you think Fukudome would have played as much as he did, if he didn’t have the hype and contract. He’s a LH Reed johnson making what. 12 million a year?
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
It's not really a matter of hype ...
and if Kosuke were making, say, $4 million, I think he would have been out there as much as he was this year. He’s left handed, plays good defense and rarely makes dumb mistakes.
He’s just not worth $12 million a year.
elgato - September 29, 2009
No he's not....
I just wonder with the massive fade last year, what would have happened if he was just a normal rookie??? The minors this season?
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Does Kosuke have options?
Can he even be sent down? I don’t know the answer?
elgato - September 29, 2009
he clearly got more at-bats than he would have last year
than if he had been making less. This year, with the mess our outfield is in, he would have gotten the same amount of PAs. But his big pricetag has played a part in his playing time.
Plus, if he wasn’t making $12 million, I don’t think he would have been in the Cubs plans for this season at all
Nunyabidness - September 29, 2009
true
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
agreed
elgato - September 29, 2009
???
Jim Edmonds
Jason Kendall
Jeff Baker
Mark DeRosa
Todd Walker
Michael Barrett
All these guys are bargains – of course, they are also imperfect players, which leads others to criticize Hendry for trying to “put square pegs in round holes.”
If you’ve made this point before, you should stop.
DGU - September 29, 2009
No, I shouldn't stop
I should have clarified that Hendry is a horrible bargain shopper when it comes to free agents. Barrett, Kendall and Baker were acquired through trades.
I’m not sure that Walker could be viewed as a bargain. I also noted that the Edmonds deal worked out (in a later comment), and will grant you the DeRosa signing.
Hendry overpaid for Soriano, Fukudome, Bradley, Miles and Marquis.
elgato - September 29, 2009
Most bargain shopping doesn't happen on the free agent market.
By its nature, free agency is almost absolutely opposed to getting bargains. But Reed Johnson, on the other hand, a pre-FA guy, is the kind of guy Jim Hendry has been very good at finding.
Todd Walker provided value. Yeah, he had drawbacks, but the point is you don’t find a bargain without drawbacks. The only time you get a FA bargain is when you already have the player on your team and you give him a NTC and he signs for less to stay with you – and lo, and behold, Jim Hendry has gotten that, too, with both Aramis Ramirez and Derrek Lee.
Just because Jim Hendry also overpays doesn’t mean he’s not a good bargain shopper. Bargain shopping is one of the things he actually is best at.
DGU - September 29, 2009
Rec'd
vonde6 - September 29, 2009
'free agency is almost absolutely opposed to getting bargains'?
1) Bobby Abreu
2) Orlando Hudson
elgato - September 29, 2009
Hence my qualification.
Yes you can get bargains. But you have to wait till the fat wallets have spent and have to show no pressing need yourself to sign the player. In both cases the Angels and Dodgers already had other players at those positions. They risked clubhouse conflict to get those bargains. And both players had bad defensive 2008s, too, another factor that can lead to a “bargain,” which is then also a “square peg.”
DGU - September 29, 2009
well, I don't think Hendry is a good bargain shopper when it comes to free agents,
do you?
elgato - September 29, 2009
Wall Street...
…would call Hendry a “Market Maker”, because he establishes the market on his own.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
To market to market to buy a fat pig...
home again home again, jiggity jig.
santoswoodenlegs - September 29, 2009
Well done!
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
This is what I said
in another post.
To sum up – Hendry will overpay w/o care to get things done, largely, I believe, because he had more money than he knew what to do with until this year. But he’ll get bargain deals with the best of them, too.
DGU - September 29, 2009
with the best of them?
Evidence — that doesn’t include trades made in 2004?
elgato - September 29, 2009
The words in blue can be clicked as a link.
DGU - September 29, 2009
oh, sorry --
did you edit that link in? I totally missed that when I read your comment the first time.
elgato - September 29, 2009
Can't edit posts.
Wish I could.
DGU - September 29, 2009
I don't see how Barrett can be counted in Hendry's favor, regardless.
He seemed like a pretty nice guy, and he had a somewhat above-average bat for a catcher, but he was remarkably poor at handling a game. It was not a coincidence that the team failed in every year that he was our starting catcher – and again for the first part of 2007. It’s also not a coincidence that the Cubs are the last team to have given him a starting gig.
Hendry was absolutely driven to acquire Barrett, over many seasons. And he did.
D98 - October 2, 2009
Far too many...
…examples of Hendry’s (square peg in a round hole) to ignore, sorry.
This is a short list of his handy work (a very short list), but the guy who typfies how Hendry thinks was Barrett. He was a BRUTAL catcher, and it was there for all to see, but Hendry was fine with that because he could hit a little bit. If this was the neighborhood softball team, that would have been fine, but it’s not.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
Agreed rather wholeheartedly.
I’m pretty sure that Jake Fox would be an above-average shortstop with the bat…. but I’m not eager to try it out.
Barrett had at least a half-dozen games which he lost, all by himself, with some ingenious new way to be a poor defensive catcher.
D98 - October 2, 2009
I think he does but he did prove this year he should be in the majors but a job shouldn't just be given to him.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
The lefty thing
Sorry but I’m getting really tired of this. This is a universal truism throughout the sport. Teams have a balance of lefties and righties. They do. Piniella wanted to rectify this and he’s taken to task. Can anyone (seriously) point to other teams that had pretty much all righties up and down the top and middle of their line-up? I ask this in all seriousness. The Cubs did score a lot of runs last year but they also struggled at times, especially against certain types of pitchers, something that has been an issue for quite some time. They still managed to strand a lot of runners last year, too. So blame Piniella for wanting to do what pretty much every other team does.
Two things to add. The “thinking outside the box” is something that Hendry does not know how to do. He knows how to spend money. He knows (or knew) how to trade for players that were on teams needing to dump salary. Hendry, IMO, is a fantasy league GM and its grown tiresome.
Also, enough with the damn no-trade clauses. If you’re going to both overpay and include a no-trade clause, then there is something wrong here.
dmlichte - September 29, 2009
The Cubs had lefthanded hitters last year who produced.
Three of them, actually: Edmonds, Fontenot and (to some extent) Fukudome.
It wasn’t the reason they lost the playoff series. Sure, have a balanced lineup, but don’t overreact to losing three games at the worst possible time.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
And they decided to not resign Edmonds
Instead replacing him with Bradley. Now, we can debate which left handed corner outfielder we should’ve signed, but dmlichte is right in saying Hendry was simply trying to keep the lineup balanced.
shoemile - September 29, 2009
I agree with part of this
But even without signing Milton, the Cubs were set to have two lefties in the lineup (Kosuke and Fontenot) and two on the bench (Micah and Hill).
Unfortunately, the two lefty bats they signed (switch-hitters Miles and Bradley) were disasters — and based on past performance alone, they were overpaid, IMO. There was NO reason Hendry had to offer Milton three years.
So, actually, Milton and Miles were examples of Al’s first, second and third points.
elgato - September 29, 2009
Agreed
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
2004 Cubs
Corey (L) then Nomar, Alou, Sammy, Rami, DLee, Walker (was he lefty i think so), Barrett
That is six of eight righties and scoring wasn’t that team’s issue, them being idiots and assholes was.
nji232 - September 29, 2009
No ...
Here’s why the 2004 team didn’t succeed:
- Prior and Wood were hurt and won 14 games combined (compared with 32 in 2003)Borowski got hurt and was replaced by LaTroy, who blew seven saves-
- The team had a losing record in 1-run games, after being 10 games over .500 in 1-run games in 2003.The Cardinals were a lot better in 2004 than they were in 2003. The 2003 Cubs actually won fewer games than the 2003 squad.-
The team being “assholes and idiots” certainly didn’t help, and contributed to the collapse in the final week. But Hawkins blew (I think) three saves in the final week.
So, no, the Cubs’ 2004 failure should not be attributed to a lack of lefty hitting (Walker was a lefty, but he split time with righty Grudzielanek. But the “assholes and idiots” rational is a very small reason why that team was so disappointing.
elgato - September 29, 2009
um, no idea what caused the strike throughs ...
elgato - September 29, 2009
I think I know
It’s the double dashes before and after text. It is seeing dash one and two as surrounding line 1, dash 3 and 4 surrounding line 3.
- If I’m right, this line will have a strikethroughThis line will not-
- This one willThis one won’t-
— Neither will this one
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
Avast, ye strikethroughs!Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
argh!
And thanks. :)
elgato - September 29, 2009
eths - September 29, 2009
and the 2003 squad won fewer games the the 2004 squad
elgato - September 29, 2009
You are right
but my point was more that a team with 6 and sometimes 7 righties in the lineup was able to win 89 games. It isn’t a matter of having balance it is a matter of having good hitters.
nji232 - September 29, 2009
gotcha
elgato - September 29, 2009
A big problem...
…with the Cubs in the 07 and 08 playoffs was the top of the order. Soriano had good regular seasons both years, but he is as streaky as anyone can be, especially against playoff pitchers who can execute a game plan.
When your leadoff guy goes a combined 3 for 28 in two consecutive playoff years, it puts that much more pressure on the rest of the lineup.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
I'm rec'ing this even though I can't agree with it all.
I agree that balancing a lineup is for the best, but I think that you can’t pigeon-hole yourself. Would the Cubs have been better off had they traded for Matt Holliday than signed Milton Bradley and kept Mark DeRosa, depsite being more RH? Because those were options out there.
Also – I marvel at how one side of the Hendry bashing in this post complains he thinks outside the box too much (forcing sqaure pegs and all) and others think he can’t do it. Sounds like both sides are wrong.
DGU - September 29, 2009
I don't know...
…what the baseball definition of “thinking outside the box” would be, but everything comes down to using sound judgment (and sound evaluation skills) to have the majority of your decisions to be good ones.
My complaine about Hendry is I don’t think he uses sound judgement, and I also don’t think he does well in evaluating what he has or what he may be getting either.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
Isn't using sound judgement
“Thinking inside the box”?
The “outside of the box” thing is a tired cliche, but if it means anything, it means making some brilliant deduction that would not be arrived at just by sound judgement.
I am just saying that I think that is what the term is meant to convey.
vonde6 - September 29, 2009
It is a tired cliche.
I was getting down to the end of the post and had some things to say and didn’t know what to title them, so “think outside the box” won.
“Think creatively” might be a better way to put it. Hendry did that when he was able to dump Todd Hundley’s deal. Let’s hope he has that sort of thinking working starting next week.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
All depends....
…on how big the box is I guess.
Some guys have better judgment than others, and may recognize things that most can’t, and that is a good skill to have as a GM.
Beyond that, I do think there are fundemental areas you have to be strong at and recognize the value they have in winning baseball games on the field and building a strong organization. Also, you have to be disciplined enough to stick with the fundementals when things aren’t going well.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
Clarification
“this post” meant to refer to all the posts in this thread, not the singular post I rec’d, which I think is definitely worth the read.
DGU - September 29, 2009
Outside the box
Yes, I hate that phrase too. It asks you to do something you already should be doing. Not something you have to make a special effort to do. But, diatribe aside, Jim Hendry will have to be really creative this year to dispense with MB’s contract. I am curious to see how it works out. Maybe there is a GM out there that will take him and his baggage. Who knows. I don’t want a straight bad contract swap where we get someone else’s problem. Which, leaves a multi-player/multi-team deal. We may end up having to give up a prospect or two just to fix Jim’s big booboo from last year.
This is one instance where I wonder if it isn’t just best to eat the money, even though it is a big sum. If you can’t get better by trading Bradley, don’t make the problem worse.
Nibbles - September 29, 2009
Completely agree.
However, two of the ideas above have merit, but only if the other team takes Bradley and the deal.
Rowand fills a need with a centerfielder and only adds 1 year of commitment. Burell provides a PH with no additional commitment.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
As I noted somewhere above...
… if Burrell is acquired for Bradley, watch for him to be flipped to an AL team that needs a DH.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
Sure, just like the return on the DeRo trade . . .
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
exactly
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Well...
… unless Hendry has a locked-in deal in place for Burrell to be flipped, he shouldn’t trade for him in the first place.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
Hey whats one more DH on this team......
How many do we have now….
Soriano
Bradley
Fox
Hoffpauir
Soto
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Geo may have the size to be a DH
but he sure doesn’t hit like one.
nji232 - September 29, 2009
Nice idea if JH can handle it.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
He's out of shape and not a good catcher
and the team wants him to play ahead of Hill because of his bat.
What does that make him?
And no I don’t want Hill as the starter either.
You are correct about him not hitting like one. The only one who really did was Fox.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Some nice points but on point 1...
…I think it’s a reasonable move for the Cubs to search for a LH power hitter. It has been characterized as an obsession (by me at times), but when you take a step back and look at their 2008 lineup, getting a 2009 LH power hitter would be helpful—a good addition. Part of this recognition should come from scouting Fukudome properly and recognizing that he’s a no. 1-2 hitter and refrain from projecting him as a power hitter. But you don’t have to create deficiencies elsewhere to acquire that LHB, given the number of LHBs available this past off-season. Unfortunately the Cubs chose the wrong bat, but since that’s not the main reason the Cubs lost in the 2008 playoffs, it’s also not the main reason they performed below expectations in 2009. Some of the collateral roster damage hurt this team’s chances as well.
Also, I agree about bidding against yourself, but I am not sure if it applies to MB. Someone posted a long list of other contracts on this site and in light of that long list I don’t think that he bid against himself in this instance. Although I would have preferred a one year deal with a mutual option on year 2 for MB and ifMB declines then so what, you go after Dunn. I think Dunn signed for 2 years and around $20-22 million and just from looking at ISOP, SECA, OBP, OPS, I think Dunn’s a better player but his deal may reflect the collapsing economy more than Hendry bidding against himself in this instance on MB.
DudeVf11 - September 29, 2009
Who should be learning from this year?
Villeslgr - September 29, 2009
here
Villeslgr - September 29, 2009
Great post Al.
And great conversation, everyone. I see you were busy this morning.
chilango2 - September 29, 2009
I'll also praise Al for this post
A lot of food for thought, and it’s apparent you spent a lot of time on it.
I’ll agree with you on points 2, 3, 5, 8 and 10. Not so sure about the other ones.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
Not 6, 7 or 9?
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
Nine is more a byproduct of how a team plays
I think, not the other way around.
I’m not sure 7 really applies. Those guys still are in the system, after all. Blanco certainly looks better than Miles now, but I’m not sure that was the case a year or two ago.
And 6, I think, is irrelevant.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
I think 9 does have some effect
7 applies because they spent $ on players that they not only didn’t need, but were worse for getting.
I’ll concede #6. They would havejust put a vet in the ’pen and not used him, instead of doing that with Patton.
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
I think 9 is kind of a chicken-or-egg proposition
Not sure what begats what.
I’ll concede 7 as well. I suspect Hendry didn’t want to take too many chances on unproven players if he’s in a “win now” mode.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
Point 6 isn't that relevant in all years, true.
But what happened with David Patton should be a cautionary tale.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
Its relevant if it is a wasted roster spot
Especially if you are wasting other spots as well. (Miles)
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Couple of points
I mostly agree with this good list, but you know I always get a little sensitive when we start talking about “good clubhouse guys.” Too often, that’s used as an excuse to get lousy ballplayers. Aaron Miles may be a great clubhouse guy, but it doesn’t matter as long as he stinks on the diamond. I do believe that winning makes good clubhouse chemistry and vice versa, although I’m not a fanatic about it. There are guys, and to avoid getting into the current situation, I’m going to use Dick Allen and Alex Johnson as examples, who are so disruptive to the clubhouse, it doesn’t matter how many games you win. They’re going to find a way to disrupt the team and create a losing atmosphere.
The other point is that the Notre Dame thing is over. In fact, it was never a Notre Dame thing, it’s a Paul Manieri thing. Hendry got ND players because his buddy Manieri coached at South Bend. Now he’s at LSU, he wants LSU players—and we got DJ LeMahieu in the draft.
Now there is one big difference here: LSU is a program that has won more than one College World Series in recent years. There is a lot more talent in Baton Rouge than South Bend.
Josh Timmers - September 29, 2009
Another example...
…of Hendry not being objective in his thought process, and letting “buddies” cloud his judgment.
I agree there is more overall talent at LSU, but in baseball, you can find a lot of “diamonds in the rough” at small schools who you have scouts capable of finding them.
IMO, part of Hendry’s issue is he seems to want to please too many people (his good ole boy crew of scouts, coaching friends etc.) and be liked. This has shown up in his judgement with who he has drafted, traded for and how many times he has given contracts with no-trades, too many years and too much money for many a player.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
Right.
The “old college coach” thing is more than just a Notre Dame problem.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
Can we get a short list of who are considered "good clubhouse guys" around MLB?
Doesn’t have to be exhaustive. I’m just trying to get an idea.
redward - September 29, 2009
The Red Sox and Angels have quite a few of them, from what I hear.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
I was looking for specific names.
I’d love to do some clumsy analysis on a list of such players. Or see if someone else more talented can do a more sophisticated analysis.
Do the teams these guys are on consistently outperform their Pythagorean? Do they have shorter losing streaks?
I think it would be interesting if we could find any kind of tangibility in what this “intangible” provides teams.
redward - September 29, 2009
Some good clubhouse guys (off the top of my head)
Jason Varitek, Victor Martinez, Torii Hunter, Mark DeRosa, Ryan Dempster, Kevin Millar
Bill Potter - September 29, 2009
Josh is right about the clubhouse guy caution.
Neifi Perez was supposed to be a superb clubhouse guy, and I think Miles, too, but I’m not certain on Miles.
DGU - September 29, 2009
It's not JUST being a good guy.
You also have to be a good player.
In the cases of Jason Varitek and Kevin Millar (mentioned above), the Red Sox stuck with them after they stopped performing at peak level, because they were so good as clubhouse leaders.
It’s not something you can boil down to a number. (And no, I don’t want to start that debate again.)
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
Right, I think we're all on the same page here.
Be a good clubhouse guy, but also play well.
So, was Ryan Dempster worth overpaying (if we overpaid) for that very reason?
DGU - September 29, 2009
another example of Hendry's bargain shopping ...
elgato - September 29, 2009
Right.
I would argue that Dempster has been worth his contract this year, especially if he continues his good pitching for his last two starts.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
I was actually being sarcastic
I like Dempster, but I think Hendry paid way too much to keep him.
elgato - September 29, 2009
But Demp was a very positive clubhouse presence
Are we willing to overpay for that or not?
DGU - September 29, 2009
maybe
But even accounting for Dempster’s clubhouse presence, I think Hendry paid him too much.
elgato - September 29, 2009
Once again on Dempster's contract
He was signed before the market collapsed. Many observers wondered why he didn’t hold out for more.
Shanghai Badger - September 29, 2009
Yes, a thousand times yes
Dempster was a relative bargain at the time he was signed.
Are there any players for whom the Cubs didn’t pay “too much”? And what, exactly, is the figure that crosses that threshold?
I’ll argue that EVERY baseball player is paid “too much.” But that’s basically a fart in a hurricane.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
Surprisingly Dempster has been worth his contract
2009 Salary $8 million
2009 Fangraphs value: $14.4 million
He’s done a nice job of rebounding from a terrible start.
nji232 - September 29, 2009
But here's the issue
Do you think Reggie Jackson was ever a good clubhouse guy? The Straw that stirs the drink? While some memoirs I’ve read of Reggie paint him as misunderstood, no one thought he was a great teammate who was encouraging other players and getting along well with everyone. I don’t blame him for the fistfight with Billy Martin because Martin was a jerk and probably started it, but Jackson was loafing on that fly ball before the fight.
But Reggie Jackson went to the post-season 10 times in 12 years with three different teams. He won five world championship rings.
I can understand avoiding known “problems” like Bradley, but if we go out and get “good clubhouse guys,” you’re sigining Richie Zisk or Disco Dan Ford as a Free Agent rather than Jackson. And that’s would be stupid (not that teams at the time didn’t do that.)
As long as a guy meets a certain level of social behavior, I think “good clubhouse presence” is just an excuse to keep Enos Cabell on your roster instead of Bill Madlock.
Josh Timmers - September 29, 2009
Bravo!!!!!!
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
I'm rec'ing this
if only for managing to get Disco Dan Ford and Enos Cabell references in the same post. Bravo, Josh.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
I love the Seventies
Josh Timmers - September 29, 2009
I like this as well
I have wondered whether the “good clubhouse guys” like Dempster and DeRosa are a little too in tune with the fans. When the fans are all clenched up, like those two playoff games at Wrigley last year, maybe these guys are channeling the fans so much that they, I don’t know, walk the bases loaded or drop-kick an easy grounder.
Don’t tell me that none of you has considered this.
vonde6 - September 29, 2009
I have
A lot of times, Cubs fans swoon over Cubs players who “get” what it is to be a Cub.
Well, being a Cub for the last 100-plus years has meant a lot of failure and not winning a World Series.
A big part of me is saying “Bring me players who DON’T ‘get’ what it is to be a Cub.”
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
Milton Bradley was one such player...
and we all know how that worked out.
CubFanSince1970 - September 29, 2009
That doesn't disprove what NBF is saying
Shanghai Badger - September 30, 2009
Love it and rec'd.
Question – Is it possible a team can only handle one or two divas before the clubhouse implodes? In Sosa’s years, his teammates couldn’t stand him, but there wasn’t anyone else demanding the attention so things moved along.
In SF Barry’s teams moved along until Kent came in and created two me first guys. It may also be possible a clubhouse can have be full of Bonds’ and Bradley’s, provided they’re friends.
I’d have to do far too much research to see where a clubhouse full of divas attention grabbers and divas succeeded.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
Rec'd for sure
I don’t think it’s really getting great clubhouse guys as much as it’s not getting guys who are, like you said, known problems. These are adults we’re talking about. I’d say 90% of the majors is made up of players who can function well enough in the clubhouse. So get the most talented ones.
shoemile - September 29, 2009
I'm just getting started on reading the comments.
But let me throw two cents in now at the risk of repeating what others have said.
It’s this kind of absurd exaggeration that is all too common in sports commentary today.
Jim Hendry succeeded in selling high on Jose Ceda and Mark DeRosa. He also got a good return for DeRo. He avoided giving a contract to Kerry Wood who did not look good at the start of the season and would have been way overpaid. The early returns on the draft look good. We saw resurgent years for several prospects in the system.
Finally, Jim Hendry built a team with a solid winning record despite the fact that 4/8 of his offense was hobbled mostly by injuries but also by other problems. To say that this result bespeaks a disaster for a GM’s work suggests that winning isn’t really a priority in judging a team.
DGU - September 29, 2009
I tend to agree with what you've said here.
Its the GM’s job to put together a team that has a chance to succeed. Hendry has been remarkably consistent (at least in comparison to Cubs history) in doing so over the past few years. He hasn’t been perfect, but the reasons the team failed this year had less to do with his moves and more to do with on field performance and injuries.
Its the manager’s job to take that team and direct them to wins. I’m not entirely convinced Lou has done this. You can’t blame him for the Rami injury – the single biggest reason this team is so disappointing, IMHO – but i firmly believe Lou’s odd decisions with the bullpen management, with batting order, and with playing guys in the middle infield (and 3B during Rami’s injury) who shouldn’t have been out there, all of that did far more damage to this team’s chances than any of Hendy’s signings.
I would, by the way, place blame with both of them for how Sori was handled.
AndrewJStone - September 29, 2009
For me, the Cubs' record right now is atoundingly good
when you go back and look at all that happened this year. HALF of our offense underpeformed hugely and mostly for reasons that you couldn’t have predicted in 2008.
DGU - September 29, 2009
And our DL had its own starting rotation.
redward - September 29, 2009
+1
vonde6 - September 29, 2009
Right on.
That is why i believe Hendry should be back. He doesn’t have some crystal ball the rest of us lack… we all believed, just like he (presumably) did, that what he’d put together would work well and we would win the division.
Players under performing far outweighed the effects of his sketchy moves, and in many cases, actually shined a big bright light on those sketchy moves.
AndrewJStone - September 29, 2009
And evidently
The professional crystal balls agreed, since I didn’t see too many preseason predictions that didn’t have the Cubs winning the division.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
So...
…you are saying the Cub’s record is “astoundingly good” despite all that has gone on this year with injuries, bad signings etc., correct?
Who (in your mind) should get the bulk of the credit for that?
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
The players get credit for winning games?
And the GM gets all the blame for losing games.
Ramirez, Soto, and Soriano all underpeformed – not because they were bad players or bad players to give starting jobs to. They underperformed because of injury. Unless you can make the case that the Cubs did something wrong with their medical staff, it’s no one’s fault.
DGU - September 29, 2009
Soto was playing bad before he got hurt. He came in out of shape-thats his fault.
The other two I will give you.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
It's questionable how much Soto was healthy pre-DL
The reason so many catchers have sophmore slumps is that they get so banged up back there. Injuries could have thrown off his training as much as any of the other humorous excuses we’ve all heard.
DGU - September 29, 2009
These guys make LOTS of money. They should have themselves in shape when they come to spring training.
Not going home over the winter smoking weed and eating.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
I think that Soto would be in pretty good shape
If he followed the Michael Phelps training regimen
vonde6 - September 29, 2009
If Soto was swimming laps everyday he would be in shape despite the pot.
I have heard that he is going to train hard this winter. I hope thats true and he isn’t just lazy.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
I agree in principle.
I also know that a nagging injury can really throw off your exercise routine.
DGU - September 29, 2009
Blah.
I hate having to debate this over and over, but… come on.
Smoking can inhibit your ability to achieve athletically. Sure, IF YOU LET IT. So can many things the rest of the world openly accepts, including Big Macs and reality TV binges. There certainly are a good number of out of shape fat people in both baseball and life who’ve never smoked once, and smoking actually increases your metabolism (hence the munchies) so its more about having a baggie of carrots on hand instead of a bag of Cheetos.
About a decade ago a New York Times article asserted that 60% to 70% of NBA players smoked marijuana. Here, off the top of my head, is a very incomplete list of notable stars in various sports who have been caught or have admitted to smoking:
LeBron James
Michael Phelps
Ricky Williams
Bruce Lee
Chris Andersen
Santonio Holmes
Kevin Faulk
Josh Howard
Randy Moss
Rasheed Wallace
Sócrates
Mario Manningham
Charles Oakley
Travis Henry
Nick Diaz
Pacman Jones
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Michael Vick
Lamar Odom
Would you accuse a majority of the people on that list of being out of shape or fat?
Many of the players we cheer for are part of a hip hop culture that glorifies its use, and i would suspect many more players in all sports use in the off season (as Geo did) than the leagues would care to admit. The fact that it isn’t tested for probably isn’t an accident – in many of the countries these players call home, it isn’t illegal to smoke. I would venture that in a few decades, it won’t be here in most of the US as well.
The argument that there is an unavoidable correlation between marijuana consumption and athletic failure is an uninformed one.
AndrewJStone - September 29, 2009
I just think it is not acceptable to be in bad shape when you get paid to play baseball.
To not be so is being lazy and you will lose your job to someone else who will take it more seriously.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Well yes, obviously.
I wasn’t taking offense to your contention that he should have been in shape. I was taking offense to your implication that it was because he smoked weed.
AndrewJStone - September 29, 2009
The weed part is about what he might be doing while sitting around and getting fat.
He could just be playing video games….
I hope this season was a wake up call because he could be one of the best catchers in the national league.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Your last statment...
…may hold true for some folks indeed, but it also may have been a symptom that arose from Soto resting on his one year laurels.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
That's also a possible explanation.
I don’t know Soto to know what caused it. I hope we see him pick it up this off-season.
DGU - September 29, 2009
+1
I agree that this was tired after a couple of days.
vonde6 - September 29, 2009
I read in the paper this week that
we’ve scored 2 runs or less in 1/3 of our games this year.
If that is indeed true… it’s AMAZING that we’re actually over %.500
digitalbenjamin - September 29, 2009
Selling high on Ceda and Dero? Agreed.
Good return on Dero? Nope. At least not yet. I still contend more could have been obtained for DeRo but that’s one of those revisionist things that can never be proved one way or another. So all we have to work with is what Hendry got in return, and I still think it’s way too soon to call this a ‘win’.
What have you seen that tells you what we got was a good return?
ballhawk - September 29, 2009
We got Gregg and 3 minor league pitchers.
Hendry did a real nice job on that. If it was all to land Peavy somehow, he failed at that as well.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Gregg and three minor league pitchers...
… pretty poor return, IMO.
Now, I agree with you that the three minor league pitchers may have been acquired as part of a Peavy strategy. If that is the case, Hendry should have been 100% sure he could get Peavy before he did the other deals.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
Good argument.
The reports I was reading, though, were that these pitchers will all help at the ML level.
DGU - September 29, 2009
I can't believe I'm about to defend the DeRo trade
But Stevens might be the worst of the three, and even he look like a major league middle reliever.
Gaub looks like his floor is a LOOGY, but might be more. He destroyed hitters at AAA this season, if he settles down his control then he will have a long major league career.
Archer started in Peoria this year and posted a 2.81 ERA in 109 innings. He also has major control problems (the baseball cube rates his control 5/100) but he is only 20 years old.
The thing is all three guys might eventually make their impact in the big leagues, and on the surface we did get decent return for DeRo. The thing is you don’t dump major league players for low prospects in the middle of a championship window. Certainly not the player who makes up you insurance at the three positions your most injury prone players are at.
nji232 - September 29, 2009
Just because not all his moves sucked, doesn't make his offseason
horrid.
Miles, Gathright, Heilman, Bako, signing Gaudin just to release him. Eating what wound up being 100% of Marquis contract. No backup at 3rd. Using up what we now realize was all his budget. Take this pile of manure and factor in outbidding phantom GM’s for Bradley and what he accomplished over the season and, yes, I agree it’s the worst season of any GM in recent memory.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
In other words,
winning games doesn’t matter much in how you judge a GM…
I mean, for goodness’ sake,
this is all small potatoes.DGU - September 29, 2009
small potatoes?
With the money used to pay those four guys (I don’t really count Bako), the Cubs would have had the flexibility to keep DeRosa.
Considering that Miles has been a disaster, Gathright and Gaudin and Heilman has barely touched mediocre, the small potatoes really added up in a way that hurt the Cubs.
elgato - September 29, 2009
Gathright and Gaudin are gone
sorry
elgato - September 29, 2009
They were so worth the money
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
The problem is
that Hendry thought a Miles/Fonty combo could cover 2B, and be cheaper. The problem is DeRo was a club house leader that did not get replaced.
gaclaudy - September 29, 2009
even if Miles and Fontenot had produced
… the Cubs could have saved about $4 million by not signing Gaudin, Gathright and trading for Heilman (never mind trading for Kevin Gregg). My point is that smaller dumb moves add up.
elgato - September 29, 2009
I agree they add up in terms of dollars.
They don’t add up in terms of wins.
I don’t buy the idea that there was a silver bullet in the trade market who would have gotten us to the playoffs if only we hadn’t tried Paul Bako out in spring training.
DGU - September 29, 2009
Yes they do
a million here, 100k there eventually adds up to real money!
gaclaudy - September 29, 2009
AARRGH!
Make it stop! Enough about the Sainted One.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
Agreed
Never has a utility player been argued about for so long by so many.
vonde6 - September 29, 2009
Aaron Miles has been taken to Neifiesque
mythical proportions. I will be pleased when the flawed utility guys do not have to play every day or have a manager who liked to play them every day.
Penciling in the utility guy 4 out of 5 days is the managerial equilivant to using the 27th out to try to bunt for a base hit.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
I agree with most of this
The biggest blame goes to guys like Soriano and Soto, as well as the Aram injury. Not much a guy can do there.
But Mike Fontenot was a mistake. And if he struggled because he was playing third, well then that’s on Jim for not getting a backup third baseman. I was on board for the Bradley signing, but I think we can all agree that didn’t work out even though there were other options.
I agree at this point we got good value for DeRosa. Unfortunately we didn’t adequately replace him until we acquired Baker. And while we can give him credit for selling high on Ceda, I can’t say that doing so really helped us out. And even if Pie was in Lou’s mythical doghouse, he still could’ve been used in the minimal role Gathright occupied.
It most certainly wasn’t as bad as Al makes it out to be. But it was bad.
shoemile - September 29, 2009
The offseason looks worse than it was
because of the volume of little things that didn’t turn out well, some of which were definite mistakes and some of which were worthwhile risks. I’d contend that if the Cubs had a healthy Jeff Baker at the beginning of the season (and this wasn’t possible because he wasn’t healthy until we got him), there would have been about a thousand less posts ruing the day we lost DeRosa.
In other words, it wasn’t so much a mistake to give Fontenot a bigger role, and it wasn’t so much a mistake to trade DeRosa, and it wasn’t even necessarily a bad idea to add Aaron Miles, but to pay what we paid Miles and to expect him to be The IF Backup was a bad thing that became over-exposed when Aramis went down and Fontenot couldn’t cut it.
But all these things didn’t turn out well and we’re going to be a .525 team. Give me just two of Soto, Soriano, Bradley, and Ramirez back at full-steam for a full season and we’re in the playoffs. So, how bad was it?
DGU - September 29, 2009
Most of what you say is true
The trouble is, we simply didn’t have a guy like Jeff Baker at the beginning of the season. I was with a lot of people who kept wondering in spring training, “who’s our backup 3B?” It’s kinda ridiculous we didn’t have one for so long.
Still, you can make the case that by the time Aramis came back, we were still right in the thick of it. And thus I do agree with you and others that Jim did a good job of in season trading.
Mike Fontenot, who you may consider to be a worthwhile risk, still failed miserably in a full time role. I won’t blame Jim for something like Aramis being injured, but giving a full time job to a guy who simply flamed out is still his fault.
But for me, the question remains: Did Jim make this team better than it was the year before? I’d say no, although it’s difficult to improve on a 97 win season (unless the next season you actually win a playoff series). And almost every move Jim made in the off season didn’t pan out for one reason or another. So while I can’t quantify how bad it actually was, I don’t think there’s much denying that it was bad.
shoemile - September 29, 2009
Every move?
Re-signing Dempster? Letting go of Wood? Keeping Guzman when others wanted to DFA him? Going with Hill over Bako? Exercising the option on Harden, who will give us some draft picks this winter?
DGU - September 30, 2009
Hence the word almost
No complaints about Dempster.
We let go of Wood and got a guy who was cheaper, but probably worse than Wood would have been. I’m not saying we should’ve kept Kerry, but we did get worse.
I never read the DFA guzman stuff. Had I, I would’ve thought it absurd. I hadn’t forgotten his 07 spring training, and I don’t know why anyone would.
Hill over Bako sure, but we wasted cash signing Bako in the first place.
Harden was our worst SP this year, and I’ll wait until (if) we offer arbitration to pass judgment.
Heilman, Miles, Gathright, Gregg, the Gaudin mess, wasting 3 million to dump marquis.
Pretty bad, you’d have to admit.
shoemile - September 30, 2009
Fantastic Post, Al...
This is the reason I read BCB. Very well thought out and logical.
I would have included an emphasis on defensive upgrades at 2B, backup 3B and corner outfield, such as that emphasized by Seattle in this previous offseason.
Dave Cameron over at Fangraphs has an excellent blurb on the success of the Seattle Mariners this season in upgrading their defensive UZR rating, and in turn, improving their overall team success. They did this without spending much in the offseason.
IowaCubs- - September 29, 2009
#11
Great list Al. I’ve got a #11 for you:
11) Don’t waste roster space on helping friends get their pension. Chad Fox was a questionable pick up to begin with, but once he blew out his arm for the 100th time he should have been released. Instead he sits on the 15-man DL to this day. At the very least, Hendry should have moved him to the 60-day DL to utilize the roster spot. An extra catcher could have come in handy when Soto was injured.
tom veryzer - September 29, 2009
Until two weeks ago...
… there was plenty of room on the 40-man roster; it didn’t get filled until Tyler Colvin was added.
I think if they had needed room, they would have moved Chad Fox to the 60-day DL.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
Doesn't Chad Fox...
…have a lifetime contract with the Cubs?
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
It would seem so.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
Over 350 comments and no one's said anything about this yet, so maybe I should just take my tin-foil hat off now...
…but Al, I think you’re being far too charitable on Hendry for this one.
While day-to-day on-the-field play may be more in the manager’s domain than GM’s, Hendry would have to have been completely blind not to notice that something was wrong with Soriano. “…could have insisted harder…” is putting it mildly. He should have been riding Lou’s ass to figure out what was wrong with Soriano. And if the injury issue was known then, Hendry should have been riding the medical staff’s collective ass to figure out what was wrong. To not pursue this, IMO, was a significant dereliction of duties.
And if he did pursue this to understand the extent of the injury issue but did NOT take further action – in effect, agreeing that letting Soriano play most of the rest of the season on a bum knee was the best course of action, then again – dereliction of duties.
I don’t know that we’ll ever know what the real story was, and given all that went on with Bradley (and will continue for awhile more), I think this one has gotten lost in the shuffle, but were this in the political arena, I would envision a full-blown Soriano-gate scandal centering on the whole “who knew what and when” issue.
ballhawk - September 29, 2009
Soriano's knee is the new Prior's arm.
santoswoodenlegs - September 29, 2009
It must look very strange when he tries to walk...
eths - September 29, 2009
Hence the "hop" when he's catching fly balls.
santoswoodenlegs - September 29, 2009
You could make money inventing a towel based resistance machine
to build back leg muscles.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
Larry R. is working on that
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Prior will be his celebrity spokesmen
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Maybe he should be kicking towels for rehab
Mapmaker - September 29, 2009
Does that mean...
Hendry will have Soriano doing knee towel drills?
digitalbenjamin - September 29, 2009
The medical people should have just pulled Soriano out, independent of what Jim and/or Lou thought,
if he had any significant injury. No body gains anything by long term damage to a players health.
eths - September 29, 2009
How do I "Rec" something more than once?
DGU - September 29, 2009
you can't but sending me a small check works just as well
I may not look like much but I am a worthy cause.
Oh, and I’m left-handed…
ballhawk - September 29, 2009
You strike out too much.
santoswoodenlegs - September 29, 2009
✓ - One small check
eths - September 29, 2009
Excellent!
Now I can retire, move down to Florida, wear shorts and black socks, and complain about the Cubs all day… ;-)
ballhawk - September 29, 2009
but the only one of those that is any fun
is complaining about the Cubs all day, and you are able to do that now.
vonde6 - September 29, 2009
Soriano's knee is still a mystery to me
There was never any further word about what they did to his knee besides “cleaned it out”. No word of a torn meniscus, bone chips, torn ligament — nada. I don’t know what to make of this. What is with the radio silence?
There has been much speculation here, but without any word on what was wrong with the knee, how are we supposed to buy the fact that Soriano’s problem has been fixed? I have had four knee surgeries myself, so I feel like I could have an idea about whether he was likely to be fixed if there was more news, and the lack of information baffles me.
vonde6 - September 29, 2009
Reading all of the discussion here, leaves me very uncertain if a "few tweaks" will do the job,
or if the Cubs are in for a couple years of rebuilding the team and organization, to get back to where they were 1½ years ago. Whether such a rebuilding process might not be the better way to go.
eths - September 29, 2009
5 years of the Soriano watch coming up!
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Review of the ten points
1. Sure. Although adding some speed to this team would be a good idea. Just not at the expense of OBP. But now let’s point out that the reason you shouldn’t fixate on one problem is so that you don’t pigeon-hole yourself and just get the LH bat without thinking about defense. And having pointed that out, we realize that Jim Hendry didn’t fixate and add Adam Dunn. Jim Hendry got the player he thought would be the complete player the team needed, a guy whose defense was solid, who was LH but with RH splits so as not to over-compensate, a guy who was at the prime of his career and not ancient (Ibanez). What Hendry got wrong was the inability of Milton to work in the Wrigley atmosphere under the management style of Lou Piniella.
2-3. I think this is overwrought. Jim will keep handing out reward contracts to character guys like Henry Blanco. It’s who he is. Generally, he can afford it. It’s also a way to get character guys and keep them happy.
4. I have a hard time taking the ND complaint seriously. It’s two players. We don’t have Brad Lidge and we don’t have Craig Counsell, despite the fact that both would have fit on this team in the past fairly well.
5. Yep. I think the most annoying thing about Hendry’s managment is the carelessness you see on the nickle and dime deals. It adds up.
6. It wasn’t wasted when you keep the player. I still contend that Lou’s not going to use the 12th man no matter who he is. Might as well make it a pitcher you can keep.
7. Yep.
8. But we heard Hendry was looking at less expensive options like Teahen and Hermida, too, so I’m not sure how this is a lesson Jim Hendry has to learn.
9. Obviously Cleveland doesn’t want Bradley back, but would you be up for taking on Kerry Wood’s contract if a three-way unloading deal could be worked out as part of the dump-Bradley effort?
10. Yeah – not sure how Hendry, the guy who tried Alfonso Soriano as a CF, has to learn this one.
DGU - September 29, 2009
totally agree on No. 5
elgato - September 29, 2009
Cost controlled Pie became
Gathright and Heilman. Hell, Pie could have been a 4th outfielder, Gathright made $1M and wasn’t even the 5th outfielder.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
Hendry can waste some money....
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Exactly - Hendry is okay taking minimum contracts on guys like
Edmunds or Ryan. It’s doling out real dough like Gathright, Gaudin & Vizcaino for what amounts to MLB tryouts to make the Cubs that make no sense.
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
In regards to your comments on six
It seems like Jim and Lou are just at a fundamental divide on how many pitchers you need. I’ve read Jim always wants twelve, but it seems like Lou likes 11. If their version of compromising is Lou just not using the twelfth man, well, I guess it worked out well enough. We got Patton, the guy we wanted. I wish they’d come to an agreement though.
shoemile - September 29, 2009
Meanwhile, back on the field...
The Twins took Game 1 of their DH with Tigers, 3-2 in 10 innings. They’re now just one game back.
ballhawk - September 29, 2009
And just a few weeks ago they were 6 or 7 (or was it 8) back
eths - September 29, 2009
After losing to Cleveland on September 6....
… the Twins were 68-68, seven games back.
Since then they have now (including game 1 today) gone 14-6. I think they’re going to win it.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
the Twins are amazing
They’re so well built and fundamentally sound (from a casual fan’s perspective, anyway). If they make the postseason, I think I’ll be rooting for them.
elgato - September 29, 2009
And this (their playoff push) comes AFTER losing their version of Derrek Lee (Justin Morneau) for the season
ballhawk - September 29, 2009
They managed to overcome their injuries.
Elgato is correct-they are very fundamentally sound. The Cubs could learn from them.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
The Twins...
…very rarely lose games, they just get beat.
Over 162 games, it allows them to win their share of games against clubs with more raw talent.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
Hard not to root...
…for an organization that does most things right from the ground up.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
true
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
do you think the Twins lose some of that advantage when they move from that
Hefty Bag ballpark into to the new field with no roof? It could make for a lot of cancellations in the springtime.
LAcarl519 - September 29, 2009
Postseason games will be fun.
santoswoodenlegs - September 29, 2009
Cubs v Twins in 2010 World Series...
Target Field v Wrigley Field. This WS could take 3+ weeks to play.
LAcarl519 - September 29, 2009
And we think Wrigley is cold in April?????
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
The Twins are my favorite AL team
Have been since the Rod Carew days. Kirby Puckett and I share a couple of alma maters, and I lived in North Dakota when they won the ’87 World Series.
I love their organization, and I was thrilled when Andy MacPhail, LaTroy Hawkins and Jacque Jones came to the Cubs. Didn’t work out as well as it did in Minneapolis, however.
I think moving out of the Dome will be an adjustment, possibly a detriment. That place can psych out other teams (look at the White Sox), and it accentuates speed. Having Mauer and Morneau, however, will (needless to say) help in the transition.
I still think it’s stupid for them not to have put in a roof at Target Field, if only for the Twins’ fan base. A lot of Twins fans live a long way from the Twin Cities, in the Dakotas or Montana or Wyoming. If I’m driving, say, 500 miles one-way from Dickinson, N.D., to Minneapolis for a baseball game, I’d like some guarantee the game is going to be played.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
It's criminally stupid that MLB let them build a new stadium without a roof that can open and close.
santoswoodenlegs - September 29, 2009
♫♫♬♪♬ The roof the roof the roof is on fire The roof the roof the roof is on fire The roof the roof the roof is on fire We don't need no water ♩♬♫♩♫♪
eths - September 29, 2009
Andy MacPhail, LaTroy Hawkins and Jacque Jones
I just threw up in my mouth a little
Mapmaker - September 29, 2009
Lessons
Point 1. To recap 08’ OPS vs RHPs
Edmonds 998 -win
Ramirez 954 -place
Fontenot 915 -show
Soto 852
DeRosa 842
The rest, righthanded hitters except Fukudome, were under 800
So, they needed another run producer who could hit RHPs better than the
team’s returning righthanded hitters. But that shouldn’t mean the hitter has to
be a lefty.
Some of the other points suggest Hendry operates better in trades or when picking-up released players, than he does with signing free agents. Lilly was a sound free agent signing; who else? That might be because the trade or release fills a need when the opportunity presents itself.
AboutTheCubs - September 29, 2009
The issue discussed wasn't even about OPS at the time. There were many
old, cheap, veteran RH bats who could hit RHP, it was presented that opposing pitchers got in a groove not seeing a batter in the LH batters box.
blech
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
Signing old vets
Not sure where you are coming from, so excuse if this is overly obvious. What they should have done is signed one of those old, cheap, veteran RH bats who could hit RHP as long as that player could play CF, RF, 2B or SS. They should base roster decisions on what the team needs and that will get better results. Unexpected things happen, but when they get players based on what pitchers on opposing teams do or what other players on opposing teams do, then the results will at best be in the direction the Cubs want but not as good as they could be; lower divergence between good and bad results. That’s because the Cubs face the opposition with basically the same cast, whereas the opposing teams are each a set of different players.
AboutTheCubs - September 29, 2009
Nice work on this, Al.
daver - September 29, 2009
Thanks.
I really appreciate the excellent discussion here, too. Many people have brought up good points of their own, and expanded on (or given good counterarguments) to the points I made.
Al Yellon - September 29, 2009
Good conversation here and kudos to Al for starting it.
DGU - September 29, 2009
Not to inflate Al's head
But it’s typical of the usual class and thought provocation Al uses in managing this board.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
Al forgot to mention Baker
Hendry did a good job by picking up Baker.
Cubbiegoon - September 29, 2009
All good points, Al
Personally I think #7 is the most important – the first commandment of running a good baseball organization is “Know Thine Own Players”. Hopefully the incoming ownership will invest more heavily in scouts and front-office personnel, which should help alleviate the Cubs’ longtime difficulties with talent evaluation.
hip2bsquare - September 29, 2009
Any discussion on Hendry has to begin with the quality of talent development
in the minors on his watch. If there was even a trickle of major league quality position players coming from the minors over the past eight years then some of the ten things he should supposedly have learned from this year would be moot.
the nth - September 29, 2009
Exactly my point...
…and along with identifying the right players, are at the heart of why I have been a critic of Hendry’s for several years.
It was only a matter of time before circumstances came to be, that magnfiied this weakness.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
Agreed. I think the Cubs' minor league system has sucked for so long
that people don’t even think of it a potential source of problem solving. The system is THE problem and, except for a few years during the Dallas Green regime, has been since I became a fan in the mid-sixties.
the nth - September 29, 2009
Most people don't...
…understand how much solid player development, scouting etc. plays a role in long term success of any organization and they only look at the surface stuff; trades, FA signings and the manager.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
Indeed
While we’re all very happy to have practically swindled the pirates for Aram and the marlins for Lee, it would be nice to have a talented guy from the farm system come up and produce too, thus being cost controlled and giving us more wiggle room in the budget. Soto, if he returns to 08 form, would be that type of guy.
shoemile - September 29, 2009
Very nice Al.
It will be interesting to see what does happen this off season.
sue369 - September 29, 2009
Speaking of the minor league system...
Do people like the idea of Ryne Sandberg being promoted to a 2010 bench coach on the big league team so he will be better prepared to take over for Lou in 2011? Sandberg has made it clear he wants to move up and stay with the organization while Lou has made it clear that he wants to leave after 2010…so what would be the harm? This may mean Alan Trammell is moved out, but I think it is likely he is hired away anyway—plus, the Cubs need some new blood on this team. Maybe there is a place for both Trammell and Ryno (one for hitting & infield, one for bench).
With the way minor league managers lose players to upper levels to serve the big league team, I think Ryno would round out his apprenticeship with a year on the bench of the big league team—any thoughts??? The question is, where does Ryno spend 2010 if the Cubs want to seriously consider him for manager in 2011?
Joe Girardi was a major league bench coach before he became a manager for the ’06 Marlins (Yankees 2005), so why would the Cubs not do the same with Ryno?
LAcarl519 - September 29, 2009
Great question...
…and I’m going to guess that will be determined by what Rickett’s (and the baseball guy he may bring in) thinks about this.
It certainly wouldn’t hurt Sandberg being able to observe the club from the dugout for a year, and eliminate some of the learning curve new managers have getting familiar with the talent. On the other hand, managers typically have different relationships with players than bench coaches do, and sometimes you have to be careful you don’t make the transition more difficult in that sense.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
I think Trammell would have a hard time with it and find another team quickly.
He probably wants to manage again and with Sandberg around the writing on the wall would be pretty clear.
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Girardi sat with Torre, a pre-existing relationship, and learned something.
Do Lou and Ryno have a relationship beyond “hi, how are ya?”
N Oakley - September 29, 2009
I don't think...
…they have to have a cozy relationship, just mutual respect for each other.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
Lou's first lesson with Ryno:
“Relax, slump your shoulders a bit. Good. Now turn down the corners of your mouth a bit….a little more. Yeah…that good. Now shake your a bit and place your hands palm down on the table in front of you and repeat after me. ‘Look, what do you want me to do?’ "
santoswoodenlegs - September 29, 2009
Only if he would then go on
To manage a small-market team to prove that he could manage in the big leagues.
I find the idea that Sandberg would be a good manager for the Cubs, just because he was a hall of fame player for the Cubs, completely ridiculous. He was never the type of leader/thinker as a player that would lead you to believe that he would be management material. I think that the Cubs have built themselves into a prestigious enough franchise that they could get a manager with a resume.
vonde6 - September 29, 2009
so in 2011 we will bring in another one of these tired retreads (wait, "proven winners")
and miss out on the next Joe Girardi, like we did in 2007. If taking a chance on a young manager was good enough for the Yankees and their payroll, it is good enough to me.
These days, you get quick buy-out clauses and a new manager like a Ryno could be bought out cheap if he fails. It will be a lot cheaper buy-out than a pedigree manager who might also fail.
LAcarl519 - September 29, 2009
I have no problem...
…with giving Ryno a shot, as long as the organizational issues are corrected so he (or any other manager) is in a better postion to win.
To go against the great Michael Jordan, I believe organizations win championships! Yes the players have to do it on the field, but the organization needs to scout them, develop them and acquire the right ones.
MPH73 - September 29, 2009
Joe Girardi
Had his tryout with the Marlins, but Ryno doesn’t need one?
Also, Girardi was a catcher, which is the closest player equivalent to a manager. You need to have leadership skills to be a good catcher. He was proven twice, and Ryno is still unproven.
vonde6 - September 29, 2009
there were many who thought Jeff Loria
was running the Marlins in 2006 like a AAA ball club and therefore Girardi’s run ins with him (Loria) made him (Girardi) a bad risk for other teams to take. Some did not like Girardi getting on Loria for chastising umpires and impacting his ability to win games as Girardi felt Loria was causing umps to dislike his team and taint the umpires against his team. Girardi eventually got fired for disrespecting the owner publicly.
All of this is forgotten now. I think a lot of this fire is what a lot of us saw in a young/successful Lou and see in a young Ryno. I hope the Cubs give him (Ryno) a chance to grow up somewhere with the Big League team next year. I think he has earned a chance to step into Lou’s shoes in 2011.
LAcarl519 - September 29, 2009
I don't understand why you see Sandberg in this way
Why do you see him as another Girardi?
Girardi has stayed engaged with baseball since his playing days, which just ended in 2003. Sandberg has been away for awhile, but now he wants to come back. If I saw that gap in someone’s resume, it would make me wonder whether they have the sort of fire that you imagine that he will be bringing.
Ryno the player was a hero to me, but I am still skeptical of the idea of Ryno the manager.
vonde6 - September 29, 2009
Agreed
I’ve seen Ryno up close in Peoria the last two years. The only thing he’s good at so far is getting thrown out of games.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
All that is forgotten, but it wasn't last year
And don’t forget Sabathia and Teixiera . . . that didn’t hurt, either.
Shanghai Badger - September 30, 2009
Girardi
also is well above average in intelligence. He has a degree in industrial engineering from Northwestern. I like Ryno, but he isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Not Bruce Froemming - September 29, 2009
I tried to make this point before, too
But got Al pretty defensive, so I didn’t want to go there right away.
Even if I assume that all of the interviews that I have seen did not highlight his intelligence because he was “shy”, I can still say that I don’t see the leadership qualities that I would like to see (articulate, thoughtful) and that others are either assuming or undervaluing. For those who think that Lou does not have enough of those characteristics, choosing Sandberg would be inexplicable.
vonde6 - September 29, 2009
Trust me...
…having a high IQ isn’t necessary to be a goo manager. There have been plenty of good ones who would be considered butter knives.
With that said, a guy needs to have some leadership skills and have good baseball smarts and instinct, and I really have no idea how good a manager Sandberg would make.
MPH73 - September 30, 2009
big deal, Joe burned out 3 starters with Florida.
Jeter runs the Yankees not Joe. Just another over-rated former Cub.
cubswin - September 29, 2009
Yeah
I’m neutral on Ryno as a manager, but I’ve never been crazy about Joe. He had the highest payroll in baseball and couldn’t do anything with it the first two years of his tenure. I guess we’ll see how he does in the playoffs.
shoemile - September 29, 2009
Sandberg seems to have changed while managing
He’s not the same passive quiet guy we used to know. I believe I would rather have a hungry Sandberg next year than a Lou who is just collecting his paycheck asking us “what he should do?”
TJ11 - September 29, 2009
Thanks for the time...
…and thought you put into this analysis, Al. Well done.
re: Scales. Maybe this is his tryout for next season? If he can manage to avoid completely embarrassing himself in the OF (which I think he has), then he could be a decent off-the-bench utility. Fox’ll be the backup corner IF. While his defense hasn’t been spectacular, he also hasn’t embarrassed himself on the diamond.
If the org insists on pursuing a speedy lead-off guy, I still opt for Davis. While more than fine with Dome in that role, a combo punch of the two could be quite nice.
LeSaboteur - September 30, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.