David Banks - Getty Images
Chicago Cubs general manager Jim Hendry speaks to the media before a game between the Chicago White Sox and the Chicago Cubs at Wrigley Field in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo by David Banks/Getty Images)
I have only met Jim Hendry a couple of times personally, just briefly at a couple of Cubs Conventions. So I can't really say much about what he's like as a person, other than that he seemed personable and friendly.
That's the impression I have of him in his job, too -- friendly, outgoing, a guy who'll go have a few drinks with you, slap you on the back, tell you some funny stories, and has a zillion friends throughout the baseball world, where he's spent his entire adult working life. Among those years are 16 years spent in the Cubs organization, where he was farm director from 1995-2002, and major league general manager since July 5, 2002, a shade over nine years. That makes him the eighth-longest-tenured GM in baseball, behind Brian Sabean (1996), Billy Beane (1997), Brian Cashman (1997), Dan O'Dowd (1999), Kenny Williams (2000), Mark Shapiro (2001) and Dave Dombrowski (April 2002).
That's a long time, and the long relationships Hendry has made with other GMs has helped him make many deals. Some of them were good for the Cubs, others not. We've sliced and diced those so many ways -- that's not the point of this post.
Here's the point: Jim Hendry is very loyal. That is both his best quality and his worst. His loyalty to his players has helped players get pensions (Chad Fox) and slots with other teams when there was no place for them with the Cubs (Scott Moore, since returned, and Sam Fuld). Players and coaches and managers and scouts want to work for a guy like that -- wouldn't you? How many of you work for a boss who's loyal to people who work hard for him or her? Not many, I'd bet.
But Hendry's loyalty has also led him to keep players far past their shelf life; has led him to give jobs in both management and on the playing roster to friends, old college buddies, or buddies of buddies, and that's not the way to run a winning baseball team. You can't do it as an old-boy network. While Hendry did do a good job of building a division titlist in 2003, and again in 2007 and 2008, it was his attempted "tweaking" of that 2008 division champion to try to get to the next level that has led to his undoing.
Jim Hendry is a friendly guy. So when Milton Bradley managed to smile and make nice at dinner with Hendry before the 2009 season, Hendry pretty much ripped apart the 2008 champions to sign him. Bradley never was the kind of player the Cubs needed to get over the top, but somehow he convinced Hendry -- or Hendry convinced himself -- that he was.
The aftermath of that signing has also been sliced and diced here and it's not my purpose here to do that again. But the team is still paying for that aftermath and the aftermath of the aftermath (Carlos Silva), as Hendry tries to scramble to recapture the 2008 magic, which is long gone. The aftereffects of the large contracts with NTC's handed out like Halloween candy in the waning days of the Tribune era are also hurting the Cubs right now, although many of those will vanish after the end of this season. Blame for those, I think, can be spread between Hendry and Tribco management, trying to bump up the value of their asset for sale. Whether Hendry would change his M.O. once the contracts come off the books is the question that needs to be asked and answered by Tom Ricketts as this season spirals into a disaster.
There hasn't been much good to come out of the first half of this season; a few fun victories, and the play of Starlin Castro, have been about it. The team needs retooling. Over the next three weeks, we'll see if Hendry -- who is certainly not going to be fired now, in the middle of the season -- can get some value, any value, out of veterans and maybe save a little contract money, although I suspect any deal made for any Cubs veteran who has a large contract is going to wind up with the Cubs eating all the money.
There's one other thing that a lot of you have mentioned -- a lack of accountability. This, I think, goes back to Hendry's friendly, glad-handing nature; he doesn't want to seem like the bad guy, and so no one ever gets held accountable for poor play, or bad coaching or managing. This obviously has made Hendry a lot of friends in the business, but it doesn't go very far in making a team that knows it has to produce or be gone. His first manager, Dusty Baker, was very much this way. Lou Piniella wasn't -- at least in his first couple of years. Later in his tenure, Lou was very much laissez-faire: "Look, what do you want me to do?" And Mike Quade is much the same way.
This attitude has to change. Tom Ricketts, in his opening press conference in October 2009, said people would be held accountable if they didn't produce. It's time to do just that on the baseball side of things.
As most of you know, I have defended Jim Hendry for a long time -- not always defense, but at the very least trying to provide a countering voice to many of you who have had your torches and pitchforks at his door, blasting every move he has made. Some of his moves, admittedly, have been pretty bad. No one can defend the Juan Pierre deal, or the Aaron Miles signing, or the John Grabow signing (yes, clearly I was wrong on that one). But other moves he's made may have seemed like they were the right thing at the time, only to blow up in his face. To me, he has neither the best nor worst record of current MLB GM's; he's in the middle of the pack. I give him credit for getting the Cubs to the postseason more than any Cubs executive in the last 70 years. That counts for something.
And that said, I do think it's time to move in a new direction. As I've said, Jim Hendry is very loyal. There's no reason to think that if he's retained, the team would go in any sort of substantively different direction than they're headed now, which is not a good direction. At all.
Some of you are already discussing, in this FanPost, your "wishlist" for manager and GM. Many of the names mentioned would do fine work. I'd love to see the Cubs get Brian Cashman. He's done a great job (granted, with virtually unlimited resources). Those unlimited resources probably keep him in New York.
No, I think the man for the job is right under our noses, already in the organization, and we know that Tom Ricketts is someone who likes to promote from within.
That's Oneri Fleita.
Yes, Fleita was hired by Hendry, was recruited by Hendry while he was at Creighton and has worked under him for the entire time he's been in the organization. But I don't see him as any sort of continuation of Hendry's gladhanding ways. Fleita has helped build up the Cubs' minor league system, as Vice President of Player Personnel, to the point where it's now producing quality major league position players, with several more (as well as some pitchers) in the pipeline. He'd bring a fresh viewpoint, even though he's been in the organization, and that would also be a bonus, since he's already familiar with all of the organization's players. Fleita is more than a decade younger than Hendry and closer in age to many of the "young Turk" GM's currently in the game -- and already knows them, too, so wouldn't have to start from scratch building relationships.
Here's a profile of Fleita written by Patrick Mooney at CSN Chicago this past March. It shows a man who knows how to recruit international talent -- something the Cubs have now made a strong push to do -- and to build an organization from the ground up. It's time for him to step up to the next level and bring experience, but a new view, into the GM's chair. Management also needs to give its baseball people the resources, and freedom, to build a winning organization their way -- because marketing the ballpark experience alone isn't enough. The team needs to win, or people are going to stop showing up.
Thanks to Jim Hendry for bringing us some playoff thrills. The fact that the teams never won the ultimate prize isn't his fault -- those teams had their shot, and the players just couldn't get over the hump. Many of you may disagree with this choice. And I'm not saying Fleita is the only choice. But it is definitely time to close the book on Jim Hendry, and start new.
0 recs | 376 comments
I get tired of hearing that the awful backloaded, ntc contracts
are not Hendry’s fault. Thing is if he didn’t sign those contracts we never make the playoffs in 2007-2008. Then we would be going on a decade with one playoff appearance which is just pathetic. He had to sign those contacts because we just didn’t have the talent to compete without the free agents. And that is his fault. Farm director from 1995 to gm now and we have been horrible during his tenure at developing players. That is why we constantly have to play the free agent game.
You would think that since he got promoted based on what he did as farm director would actually have developed some players, but thats not the case. The fact we are constatnly in the free agent game despite his background just shows that he was terrible at his job and is terrible at his job. He should be able to setup decent instructors (i think our biggest problem) and scouts based on his knowledge. I know that people like what is happening on the farm now but lets face it, the last decade of evidence at the major league level is pretty damning.
thezonk - July 14, 2011
I'm really torn on this Al.
Hendry has his pluses and his big negatives. A close friend of my worked with Hendry at Creighton and swears by him. I can’t imagine all the behind the scenes work he does and all the inside stories that never hit the press. I respect this; I am glad everything is not played out in the press.
But, if the change is necessary, I would like to go outside the system and get someone in the Dallas Green mold that has a successful background, has worked in a highly successful baseball operation and can operate this organization from the draft, to rookie ball and all the way to the major league roster. I’m not savy enough to know who that right person is or what organization is the best ran. Organizations like the Yankees and Red Sox run on large amount of cash; the Rays, run on player draft and development. I do not have the name of who will do the best. but, I do think it needs to be someone outside the current Cubs office.
The deciding factor on Hendry’s fate and Quade’s, is probably butts in the seats. The days seem to be gone when the Cubs could run any tieam on the field and sell out Wrigley. Ricketts is going to have to make a decision because he needs attendance and concessions and merchandise sales. For the immediate future, Sandberg should be involved.
mrcubsfan - July 14, 2011
Honestly I'd be fine with Hendry if there's a numbers guy with
serious input helping him out. The Great Billy Beane fell for Bradley too, as have other GMs who probably saw a ticking time bomb who could really play baseball.
Farm system on the way up…bad contracts about to end…new decade….I’m of the school of thought that if Brian Sabean and Kenny Williams can keep their jobs forever and bump into a WS win along the way, then Hendry is entirely capable of it.
Fleita feels like a lateral hire btw. How much background does he have in contract negotiation? Is his eye for young talent better suited to run the minor league system in the future? Is he really an upgrade from Hendry, or would he just be the benefactor of the wolves being fed the meat they so want?
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
I suggested Fleita...
… because he’d be a change, yet provide continuity for all the young players he’s begun developing in the system.
Even though he’s been closely connected to Hendry, he’d be a fresh enough face to provide a different mode of leadership.
Like I said, I’m not necessarily married to this idea, but it’s at least a start. I do have respect for Hendry and the division titles he brought to the Cubs. But it seems like now, he’s just making a big mess messier.
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
Change for the sake of change...
just doesn’t strike me as a good idea. It’s not like those young players know Fleita personally and he’s been the guy developing them.
I’d prefer he get treated like Rico in NY, and learns a little from new talent (if Hendry were to be fired) who can show him more ropes to being a GM.
What’s Hendry making messier? The Cubs have gone out of their way in the past couple years to NOT make it messier by going with shorter contracts to FA (who doesn’t think the Pena deal was awesome?) or just plain refraining from spending money that isn’t freed up yet. Yes, the team is losing in 2011 and that sucks, but as for the future of the team I really don’t see anything getting in the way of contending within the next 2-3 years. The mess is all contained within a bad 2011 season, and that to me is a very positive thing. After 2011 what’re we waiting for…two more contracts (Z and Soriano)? And Z, at 30, might even be able to turn it around and be worth keeping for cheaper after this contract is up….really it’s not as bad as is consistently painted here.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
But Hendry made the mess in the first place...
and then made it messier the next few years.
I agree that change for the sake of change isn’t a good idea. Change for the sake of progress is a good idea. And I think replacing Hendry with a better GM would be the right move. I don’t know that I agree with Al about Fleita, but I agree that it needs to be someone different.
I think you’re looking at Hendry way to rosily. Aside from an unquestionably tireless work ethic (he’s widely regarded as one of the most active GMs in baseball), he doesn’t seem to have any organizational vision. Everything appears to be reactionary and often wrong. He’s not as horrible as some make him out to be – but he’s not that good either. I don’t trust him to be the guy to take us to that next step unless (like Cashman) he’s given nearly unlimited payroll flexibility.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
Remember Senor Sheep thinks Hendry and Quade are doing a good job....
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
The mess was made on the heels of contending for
a stretch. Again, I ask what’s messier?
For his lack of orgainzational vision we’re being rewarded with an improving farm system with improved bat prospects (which Hendry got knocked for not being able to develop) and 50+ million to spend. I just don’t buy that Hendry put this organization in a bad situation, and I believe all his previous mistakes were to try to put a team that was pretty close a few short years ago over the top.
As someone who was ripping Hendry before it got to be cool, I just don’t believe anymore that he’s taking us down a bad path. Things can get better and get better fast.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
Your Kool Aid is blinding you.....
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
Cool story bro.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
the truth Hurts
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
Hendry absolutely put the organization in a bad situation...
We had a phenomenal year in 2008 thanks to a few overpriced contracts and some career years for a bunch of players. That was in response to several years of decline following the 2003-2004 seasons (the decline was in part due to the Wood/Prior/Lee injuries). Then, he made a series of bad moves on top of a payroll that was already getting bloated.
The farm system is getting better – largely because he finally realized after over a decade that he stunk at player evaluation and brought in a guy who was better at it. That’s not organizational vision.
I realize you want to take an ever-optimistic approach. I’m sorry that blinds you to the possibility that he could be mediocre.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
Very well said....
Kool Aid blinds you to almost everything the cubs do wrong!
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
If he sucks at player evaluation then...
why was our farm system so highly thought of when he was the farm director?
I still maintain that the bad situation is contained, and that’s all you can as of a bad situation. By the end of THIS season we’ll have 40+ million free, a 21 year old stud SS, probably a top CF prospect in baseball up, and a FA class that offers us a cornerstone bat. It’s really not all that bad of a situation unless you reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally thought 2011 shoulda/woulda/coulda been something.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
Our farm system wasn't all that highly-though of...
we had a few highly-regarded top-3 picks (Wood, Patterson, Prior). We had some guys that everyone was wrong about (Kelton, Rosey Brown, etc). And we had some bad decisions on trades (Garland).
Hendry has “contained” the bad situation by allowing the team to bottom out for 2-3 years. And again, it’s a bad situation that he created.
He’s had some bad luck. But he’s a mediocre GM.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
Our farm system was once considered top 5 in the game...
I think for like a 3 year span or so too. Busts coming out of a farm system isn’t special to to the Hendry run Cubs.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
Sure - but that's not really a feather in Hendry's cap, is it?
The fact that previous GMs also failed to consistently develop MLB talent from their farms just means we’ve consistently had bad GMs (ever since Dallas Green). That doesn’t make Hendry a good GM.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
What? Wake up.
I’m not going to insult your intelligence, but the situation looks bleak. You point to 2 bright spots out of 8 everyday players and hint at the “chance” at signing a top free-agent bat (which there are really only 3 worth while free agent, difference making bats,) and this isn’t that bad of a situation?
The Cubs have a garbage rotation with aging veterans that are passed their prime (Dempster and Zambrano), a wild card that could possibly develop into a #2 starter at best (Garza) and the hope that Cashner can return healthy with NOTHING in the minors to rely on for the future.
C.J. Wilson? Sure, that would make the rotation respectable, but still not even the best—or second best—in the division.
TheBeerBaron - July 14, 2011
And why get better if it's not going to instantly make you the best right...
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
I keep hearing all this crap about our budding "system"
Who are these phenoms? Where are these guys going to come from?
The 2001 crop with Hill,Kelton,Jackson,Cruz,Z etc was much higher thought of. They all had better ML track records on the way up
The 2005ish crop of Murton, Pie, Cedeno, Marshall etc was much higher thought of. They all had better ML track records on the way up
This “we have a great ML system” refrain is the last bastion for Kool Aid drinking fans to lie to themselves. This whole outfit is completely BROKEN!!!
aaronb - July 14, 2011
There is hope with the International signings
and some of the talent (Jackson, Szczur and Flaherty) but I’m with you. It’s not like the Cubs have the system the Braves or Red Sox have.
TheBeerBaron - July 14, 2011
It seems like complete hype at this point
Even the Ronny Cedeno’s and the Felix Pie’s of the world put up AWESOME minor league numbers.
NONE of the guys in our system are having real “breakout” statistical seasons. Its all scout projections on swing mechanics and having a “baseball face” etc.
Get back to me when someone puts up a 1000 OPS in AA or higher, that isn’t pushing 30?
aaronb - July 14, 2011
This is the gnawing doubt in the back of my mind, too.
It seems like we just saw Felix Pie post a .900 OPS at AA Tennessee as a 20-year-old, while playing a plus-plus centerfield – and then post a .975 OPS at AAA at 22….
Maybe this time’s going to be different.
But when your top prospect gets comps like “Has the potential to become another Mark Kotsay”, you start to wonder.
D98 - July 14, 2011
OTOH, if Cashman was free and wanted the job...
he should be in here asap.
There’s alot of people I wouldn’t mind being the GM here in the future, but I also see a Hendry firing as leaning towards the reactionary side at this point. It’s not easy to win a WS, and he’s built at least two teams that were very, very capable of it (‘03 and ’08), but didn’t pull it off for whatever reason. With the money to spend in the offseason I could easily see this team competing quickly again, and I think the Cubs think that same way too.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
As I wrote...
…. sure, Cashman would be great. But I suspect the Yankees know how great he is, too, and will pay whatever it takes to keep him, as they did with Joe Girardi.
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
The Yankees had and have had a chance to extend Cashman...
haven’t done it. I think they’re going to go their separate ways this offseason as the Yankees promote Oppenheimer or Newman to the GM role. Cashman has been there a loooooooong time and has taken a whoooooooooooole lot of crap in his time there, and despite the tons of success he’s had I think both sides are stable enough that they can agree to move on.
There’s the chance the Yankees keep him too, definitely, but I’m crossing my fingers they don’t.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
I think Cashman is overrated...
He was handed the keys to a championship-caliber team with some strong veteran players and some up-and-coming future Hall-of-Famers (Jeter, Posada, Rivera, Pettitte) already in place. Since then, his farm system hasn’t been all that much better than the Cubs’ farm system. And he has benefited from a nearly limitless budget.
Cashman has made similar whiffs as Hendry, but when your owner is willing to spend anything and everything to acquire talent, you can make mistakes go away (or simply sign players over mistakes). I am VERY hesitant to see what Cashman would do with a $125 million payroll and the Cubs current roster.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
I disagree somewhat.
Cashman lately gets the right player for the Yankee team. Swisher, Granderson, Martin. Farm system not better than the Cubs? Gardner, Robertson, Cano, Nova, Hughes. What young Cub besides Castro is better than these farm system Yankees?
All the talk of the unlimited resources the Yanks have, however there farm system is strong.
Grockcubs - July 14, 2011
True, but his farm system produced Robinson Cano. That trump card completely tips the scales.
He also signed Alfonso Soriano and Hideki Matsui. They drafted Brett Gardner, David Robertson, Phil Hughes, and Joba Chamberlain, who have all been useful pieces on pennant winners.
Yes, he’s made the huge-dollar acquisitions, like Teix and Giambi and CC and so on, but he’s essentially never whiffed on a high-profile signing. And his mid-tier signings, like Bobby Abreu, always seem to work out.
D98 - July 14, 2011
Not always...
Pavano, Wright, Igawa, Ventura, White, Contreras, Swisher, Martin, Vazquez (the first time around), etc. There have been numerous free agent misses by the Yankees. Matsui, Burnett, Kevin Brown, and Giambi were bad signings for the money that they got. The difference is that Cashman had the financial flexibility to recover from those misses and still sign top-tier guys.
I didn’t say the farm systems were equivalent – just that they haven’t produced very much MLB talent. The Yankees have lived off of free agent signings and the ability to take on huge salaries in trades in which teams took less-than-top-tier talent to get players off the books (Kevin Brown, Randy Johnson, etc). Those deals woudn’t be as available with the Cubs.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
Matsui and Burnett at least...
as well as Swisher and Martin…I doubt the Yankees would call those bad moves. Burnett was their #2 in his first year there and he and CC did work to win them a WS ring.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
All relative to the price...
They aren’t bad players. They were just inefficient acquisitions. Burnett was paid like an ace and hasn’t been one. Swisher is paid like a star and has been often a platoon player. Martin’s stats make Geovany Soto look like an All-Star.
Cashman could afford to overpay to have auxiliary players because He has $80-90 million more in salary than almost everyone else. He wouldn’t be able to do so in Chicago.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
Swisher has OPS'd .870 in his first two years with the Yankees...
and is now struggling. But in those first two years they paid him a combined ~12 million for 8 WAR….That’s not bad at all.
Burnett isn’t getting ace money. That’d be well over 100 million on the FA market. He didn’t even get 90 million. Last year was a disaster, but this year is solid and he was really good in ’09.
I agree that Cashman and the Yankees can afford to overpay, but it’s not like the Cubs are strapped for cash or the Yankees aren’t an extremely well run organization.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
AJ Burnett absolutely got ace money...
He’s the 7th highest paid pitcher in baseball this year (20th overall) making 16.5 million this year. It’s not Sabathia money, but it’s absolutely ace money. He was the #2 or #3 free agent that year behind Sabathia.
As I said, Cashman has had ~$90 million per year more to spend than the Cubs over the past 8 years. During that time, he’s had arguably the same types of misses as Hendry. He’s just also had the luxury to sign (or trade for) the top free agent in the class almost every year. That makes up for a lot of ills, and he won’t have that option with the Cubs.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
So what you're saying is that he got paid like the #2-3 FA that year?
That’s the price of FA. You’re always going to overpay. I don’t see that as ace money, and either way he wasn’t signed to be an ace.
Cashman has done far more than just sign FAs for the Yankees. It’s merely a luxury that comes with the job. He still runs a productive farm system that always seems to land them what they want…most recently former top prospect and future ROTY Austin Jackson for Curtis Granderson.
The tradeoff of having that much payroll is having that the expectations are that much higher, and he’s handled himself as well as you can dealing with the NY crowd.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
What!?!?!?
He got paid like the #2-3 free agent and the #7 pitcher in all of baseball. That’s the DEFINITION of getting paid like an ace.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
Not only did Burnett get ace money,
he isn’t even an ace and it isn’t even remotely close. Last 2 1/2 seasons
K/9 7.7
BB/9 4.0
K/BB 1.9
That’s awful- and let’s look at that stellar playoff performance in 2009 – 27 IP, 24K, 16 BB, 5.27 ERA. Yep, he was a rock in that World Series run.
He could be the most grossly overpaid SP not named Carlos Zambrano and this is the evidence that you use to claim that Cashman should be our guy?
For someone who incessantly belittles people for not looking at facts, you tend to stretch the truth quite a bit yourself. You make some good points, but you also argue a lot of positions that should not be argued – this is one of them. AJ Burnett sucks and is vastly overpaid. If he has a season where the surface numbers represent that of a #2 starter while possessing those peripherals, it will be due to luck and nothing else.
uptowncub - July 14, 2011
john lackey is far far worse than z or burnett
jesus christos - July 15, 2011
And the question is whether you think Hendry is the right person to spend that money.
After Bradley and Grabow, I’ve lost all faith in his evaluation skills.
rlpete - July 14, 2011
Well said
I love what I hear about Hendry’s work ethic and ability to forge relationships. I like that we almost never go to arbitration. I just don’t think his talent evaluation and organizational vision skills are sufficient to be a GM of a consistent contender.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
He framed two separate teams...
One that was 6 outs away in ’03 and then one that won the most games in the NL in ’08. Before that he framed one of the best farm systems in baseball.
It really doesn’t sound like a guy who can’t build a contender. The lull the Cubs are going through sucks, but who saw that coming? Who saw Z falling off, Lee falling off so quick, Ramirez getting his shoulder torn up, Soriano falling off…all during roughly the same time frame and all with seemingly no warning. That’s every star on the team…none of whom really rank amongst stars anymore, but aren’t terrible either.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
In less words...
stuff happens.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
No one could have forseen Aramis' injury.
Anyone could have forseen the fact that it was a bad idea to break camp with Aramis as the only player on the 25-man with any experience at 3B.
No one could have seen Lee’s injury coming, either – but we all kind of watched him slide from the dizzying highs of 2005 to the sporadic player of 07-10.
As for Soriano – he’s never been good against top competition. Almost all of his value is comprised in his ability to hit for power with the bases empty. It’s a weird thing about him, but it’s been consistent throughout his career. And we should have seen that a fast-twitch all-instinct type of player would fall apart in his 30’s.
Z just never made the leap to the Schilling-esque pitcher we all thought he could be. But he hasn’t been horrible, either. I do blame Hendry for moving him to the bullpen, of all things, last year. That was just ridiculous, small-timey BS.
D98 - July 14, 2011
What?
You have a stud 3B and it’s a bad idea to break camp with that stud 3B as the only 3B? Should the Nats have a top backup plan for Zimmerman going down? When a top player goes down, you’re going to feel it, and his replacement will almost always pale in comparison.
Lee’s ’10 came after his very, very strong ’09. No one saw his ’10 coming.
I’d like to see some numbers on your Soriano insinuation.
Z’s move to the bullpen last year led to a strong finish last year. Sounds like you just finding another nothing to complain about.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
Yes. You need to have 2 players capable of fielding the position on your 25-man.
I don’t see how that can be disputed.
I’ll bet that the 2009 were the first team in the last 90 years to be in the position of having literally 1 player capable of playing 3B on the 25-man roster.
D98 - July 14, 2011
The Yankees...the richest, most spendingest organization in baseball...
will be filling 3B with Ramiro Pena/Eduardo Nunez. Both of those guys are SSs by trade.
I don’t see how that’s any better than having Baker/Miles. So yes, what you’re saying can be disputed.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
We didn't have Baker. Aaron Miles was not capable of making the throw from 3B.
The backup plan was Fontenot, who had never played the position.
The Yankees had Eric Chavez, who has played a little bit of 3B in his day. Unfortunately, he’s the most brittle human being on the planet.
Eduardo Nunez and Ramiro Pena are also both capable of playing 3B, have done it in recent seasons, and are doing it this season.
D98 - July 14, 2011
Baker was on the '09 team.
He played 20 games at 3B.
Eric Chavez is not much of a backup plan. The Yankees were lucky to get what they got out of him. The guy hasn’t been even moderately healthy in 5-6 years. That’s not much of a backup plan, and it quickly went the way everyone thought it would.
Jeff Baker and Aaron Miles were both capable of playign 3B, had done it before, and did it at the time.
Once again, you make something of nothing. Backup 3B? Really?
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
Baker didn't break CAMP with the team.
He was acquired in June/July.
This isn’t something out of nothing. The Cubs gambled on Aaron Miles as a 3B backup. That was the initial mistake. Then, when they realized he couldn’t make the throw in ST, they looked at Corey Koskie, who promptly retired.
So, when Aramis went down in early May, the Cubs were forced to put Fontenot at third (a position he had never played in the bigs). Worse, they had to make him hit lefties, and he had an awful year as a result.
It all came down to Hendry vastly overrated Aaron Miles.
elgato - July 14, 2011
Don't forget they even tried Ryan Freel over there for a spell...
What a circus that position was for a couple months.
carmen_fanzone - July 14, 2011
Please do a better job of reading. This isn't difficult stuff.
D98: “…it was a bad idea to break camp with Aramis as the only player on the 25-man with any experience at 3B.”
SG: “What? You have a stud 3B and it’s a bad idea to break camp with that stud 3B as the only 3B?”
Jeff Baker was acquired in July of 2009.
D98 - July 14, 2011
Almost two months after Aramis got hurt.
elgato - July 14, 2011
Exactly. Thats like saying the Bears shouldn't break camp
with a back up QB because he won’t be as good as the starter.
Of course the back won’t be as good, but you need to have someone capable of handling the position.
MDavis - July 14, 2011
The Yankees also
had Eric Chavez as a back up 3B, and he got hurt. So Pena/Nunez are 3rd/4th options.
This isn’t the same as having no other 3B. D98 never said that there needed to be a “top backup plan”, but having someone capable of being a replacement is simply sound strategy.
ScottT - July 14, 2011
And add the fact that Nunez appears to have some talent.
He put up over .700 OPS in the minors for 2009 and 2010. Not bad for a shortstop and 3rd option.
rlpete - July 14, 2011
Nearly everyone panned the Soriano contract when it happened...
everyone thought we overpaid in years and dollars. It was a bad decision largely based on a career year and a lack of understanding of the truly valuable metrics. Hendry thought he was getting a 40/40 leadoff hitter who could play CF for the next 6-8 years. Instead, he got an aging free-swinger who relied on phenomenal wrists and speed (things that decline with age) and could barely play an adequate LF.
The only argument in favor of the Soriano deal was “we had to spend on someone” and “at least we’ll hopefully get a few years out of him.” Unfortunately, he got hurt early in his career with the Cubs and that robbed him of one of his two positive attributes. And now the other attribute is expectedly declining with age.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
Hendry got screwed both in years and dolllars...
as the Trib tacked on at least two years (meaning Soriano’s contract would also have come off the books this year? Or is it next year?) and corresponding dollars to the deal.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
I heard it was one additional year (from 7 to 8)
and that the money per year was the same. So he would have come off the books after 2013.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
I heard two years and...
the money per year being the same means a good what…36 million got tacked on? That’s alot.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
I didn't hear two years (I'm not saying you're wrong on that, but that's not what I remember)...
The difference in money that you suggest ($36 million) is less than the value of the corresponding last two years. The deal was already overpaying even at 6 years and $100 million ($16.67 million per year) considering his age and skill set.
Soriano benefited from a bad market and Hendry feeling like he had to spend money.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
You really need to understand that...
you’re going to overpay in FA. It’s where players will alawys get their largest contracts.
6 years 100 million would have been fine for Soriano, and MUCH easier to deal with. My main problem with the deal was always the length and the fact that that length makes them money go up.
Soriano benefited from being a good FA. Hendry should have signed Beltran, but he didn’t and went with Soriano instead. That sucks, but it could have been much more tolerable if the Trib didn’t get involved.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
I do understand that...
I just expect the GM of a baseball team to understand what he’s getting when he signs a guy.
Soriano was brought in to be a leadoff man and CF and was paid handsomely for it. This despite the fact that (1) his value as a leadoff man was largely tied to his speed, which was likely to decline, (2) his value as a hitter was based on phenomenal wrist strength, which was likely to decline, and (3) he hadn’t played CF and the team had no idea if he could do it (which he ultimately proved entirely incapable).
It was a bad signing.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
His value as a leadoff hitter was tied into his whole offense...
He produced his best as a leadoff hitter.
The CF idea was just dumb, but overall that contract would have been very easy to handle if the Trib never got involved. Soriano was still a very productive offensive ML who could hit 30 HRs and steal you 30 bases….not an easy thing to find…and surely they thought he’d keep his power as his other skills declined.
The contract only truly became terrible and a burden with the Trib’s influence. Otherwise it would merely have been a meh deal on a pretty high end ML talent.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
A "meh-at-best" deal on a high-end declining talent...
Again – the skills that gave him value offensively (speed and quick/strong wrists) were the type of skills that decline quickly for a player reaching his age. They were paying for a player they were only likely to see for another 3-4 years (and that’s assuming he could play CF).
The deal got somewhat worse (depending on whether the Tribune really added one or two years) when the Tribune increased the cost. And it got a LOT worse when Soriano got the hamstring troubles. But it started off as a very questionable deal.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
He wasn't declining at the time dude.
He was coming off his best season, and then he came in and had two really strong seasons.
They were paying for a player who’d be good for 3-4 years…when they needed a player who’d be really good for 3-4 years. After that we COULD have been on the hook for 2 years with variable performance, but instead we got 4 because of ownership involvement.
The deal was only questionable because he, like most players, wasn’t the perfect player. If Beltran got that money he’d probably see questions. The FACT is the Cubs got a really good player at the time when the team needed a big bat in the OF. He was part of some pretty good Cubs teams, and he started really strong here.
Stuff happens and here we are…It still would have been perfectly fine to have him here for 6 years/100 million…the complaint has long been that year 7 and 8 would not be fun.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
This is where foresight comes into play dude...
He was in his 30s and his primary attributes were those that tend to decline in your 30s. Thus, he was likely to be in decline over the course of the contract.
And again, I’m not sold on your suggestion that Soriano’s deal would have been only for 6 years, $100 million had the Tribune not intervened.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
This is...
…a deck chair on the Titanic when you look at Henry’s complete body of work.
MPH73 - July 14, 2011
Several people saw Zambrano declining due to his workload...
Several people saw Soriano declining due to his age. Those were short-sighted decisions. Lee’s injury was a fluke. Ramirez has been fine. So half of those stars were bad signings, one had a fluke injury.
Yes, stuff happens (see Wood, Prior, Lee). Bad decisions also happen (see Soriano, Bradley, Fukudome).
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
I can dig the Z one because I was one of thsoe people.
Soriano dropped from a ~.880 OPS in his first two years here to a .726 OPS. You’re really telling me people saw that coming totally based on his age? He lost .150 points on his OPS from ’08 to ’09 simply because he turned 33? I have trouble buying that.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
Here's the Soriano stats I referenced above, from my May 2011 post
D98 - July 14, 2011
My guess is that's why he was signed to lead off.
It’s where he was most comfortable when he signed, where he got the most ABs coming into his Cubs career, where they planned to use him…the decline just came hard and fast.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
He was signed to be the lead-off man and CF...
one was a terrible idea from the beginning. The other was fully expected by outsiders to be a questionable decision within a few years.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
The idea that he could play CF is just so incredibly damning.
It’s as if the organization was saying “well, we couldn’t sign Beltran, because the timing was wrong with Sosa still on the books.”
“So now, we’ll turn Soriano into another Beltran! Here’s the same contract he got (never mind that you’re substantially older…) and you can play CF, right? Of course you can.”
How could the team have possibly thought that Alfonso Soriano could play CF? He can’t even play LF.
D98 - July 14, 2011
They thought Soriano was a CF...
and Fukudome was a Power Hitter…
and Bradley was rehabilitated…
and Theriot was a SS…
and Russell was a SP…
santoswoodenlegs - July 14, 2011
And Fukudome was a CF'er.
rlpete - July 14, 2011
and Jerry was a racecar driver
santoswoodenlegs - July 14, 2011
Jermiah was a bullfrog
Shanghai Badger - July 14, 2011
lol
cooliogirl47 - July 14, 2011
He was a pretty productive leadoff hitter.
The CF part was dumb…I call that Beltran guilt (as was the Fukudome signing).
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
At least they gave up on the CF idea pretty quickly.
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
Agreed.
A bad defensive LF is much easier to deal with.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
And since that didn't work
round 2 of that exercise was moving their RF to CF to make way for Bradley.
rlpete - July 14, 2011
Leading off made his numbers look better.
It doesn’t mean that he was a good idea as a leadoff man for the next six to eight seasons. And, when his skills declined — as they often do for players in their mid 30s — the Cubs couldn’t justify leading him off anymore. Hence a No. 6-7 hitter making $18 million a season for six years.
Maybe you give Hendry the benefit of the doubt that Soriano would have been good enough to lead off through 2009, or even 2010. But there still would have two to four season of a Soriano who couldn’t lead off.
elgato - July 14, 2011
He's declined more rapidly than expected...
but everyone expected him to decline quickly with the bat. Thus, paying him top-dollar for 8 years was a bad decision.
Last year was a flukey bad year. This year was more what I expected at the plate.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
And who saw...
Bradley being awful, Grabow being awful, Shark being awful, 2010’s kiddie bullpen being awful, James Russell not being a starting pitcher, Z to the bullpen not working.
rlpete - July 14, 2011
Seems like Hendry is enganged in "Empire Building" now
In project management “empire building” is the act of continuing a project long after it should be killed. It’s the point when the project’s scope is escalating faster than you can keep up with it. That’s where the Cubs seem to be right now. Someone has to come in and cut out what isn’t working for them. Someone has to take the reputation hit associated with starting the cleansing fire that will pave way for new growth.
There is no savior on the horizon for the Cubs. It seems to me that a lot of baseball insiders have a bad taste in their mouth for the Cubs’ organization. I don’t expect that Cashman is going to sully his legacy by leaving the Bronx Bombers for the Lovable Losers. We have tried to build through free agency and trades. Maybe it’s time to invest that money in finding the type of young talent that builds dynasties. Maybe it’s time for the Cubs to build their own “system”.
subtle - July 14, 2011
The reason Cashman would do it...
… is the knowledge that IF you are the GM (or manager, or any of the players) of the Cubs team that breaks the drought, you will be remembered forever.
That’s why Dusty and Lou came here. That’s why some of the recent free agents signed here.
it’s very, very tempting.
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
Very tempting indeed
But to be honest, I wouldn’t take the job. Many who think they can handle the pressure, from players on up, are chewed up and spit out by this system. I’d take a job with the Rays for less money than all the money the Cubs could throw at me to be GM. I know in Tampa Bay, I wouldn’t have to deal with the sort of pressure I’d have to deal with in Chicago. Now maybe someone like Cashman could handle that sort of pressure given his experience with the Yankees. But that’s no guarantee there. The New York media and Chicago media are still completely different animals despite similarities.
Ace Venom - July 14, 2011
Very tempting indeed.
SackMan - July 14, 2011
There is also a LOT of tension between Cashman
and Hank Steinbrenner. When Hank signed Soriano over Cashman’s objections it was a big deal. Very few owners would do that and Ricketts never would. Cashman may be tempted by a team with a decent budget that will give him complete independence within said budget.
Doggie Stalker - July 14, 2011
And Cashman would likely fail if he came...
Cashman’s success has (in my opinion) been derived entirely from having the highest payroll in baseball. He came into the GM spot with a championship caliber team, and since then the Steinbrenners have let him spend whatever necessary to sign expensive free agents every year since 2001:
2001: Mussina
2002: Giambi, Ventura, Rondell White, David Wells
2003: Contreras, Matsui
2004: Alex Rodriguez (via trade), Sheffield, Javier Vazquez (via trade), Kevin Brown (via trade)
2005: Randy Johnson (via trade), Pavano, Jaret Wright
2006: Damon, Farnsworth
2007: Igawa, Pettitte
2008: Alex Rodriguez (re-signed to a ridiculous extension)
2009: Teixeira, Sabathia, Burnett, Swisher (via trade)
2010: Granderson (via trade), Javier Vazquez
2011: Russell Martin (via trade)
His payrolls have averaged over $200 million for the past 7 years (probably $80 million more than the Cubs’ average). Since 2004, his payrolls are ~$90 million more than the Cubs. That’s the equivalent of 5-10 free agent misses every few years.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
As I mentioned above
The farm system has been a core of the this team for long while. Posada, Jeter, Bernie Williams, Mariano, Cano, Hughes, Pettite.
I will not argue that Cashman has had unlimited money to spend. However, he has made good trades and there farm system is deep to make those trades.
I would welcome Brian Cashman with open arms to take control of the Cubs.
Grockcubs - July 14, 2011
I think that most of those guys predate Cashman though
I could be wrong, but I think that Cano and Hughes would be the only two on the list that would have been signed with Cashman as GM. Was he involved in the minor league system before he became GM?
jerry morales rules - July 14, 2011
No, Cashman has been working with the Yankees since '88.
IIRC. He was part of the team that developed the farm system into what launched the 90’s.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
He was part of the organization...
that doesn’t mean he was responsible for their acquisitions (which I don’t believe he was).
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
I doubt he rose to the GM position under those guys...
without contributing some input.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
"Input" doesn't imply responsibility
You’re giving him an awful lot of the benefit of the doubt, when I suspect that being a “yes man” to Steinbrenner had a lot to do with it.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
Steinbrenner wasn't even around...
when the Yankees FO got their shyte together and rebuilt that team. He was working off a suspension for whatever he did, which allowed the Yankees to regroup and build up the farm system. Cashman worked with everyone involved in that rebuild, including the main guys Watson and Michael.
Also, as someone who’s been close to the headlines of the Yankees under Cashman, he is far from a yes man to anyone.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
He was only not around on paper...
don’t think for a second that Steinbrenner wasn’t involved.
As you’ve said, the main guys were Michael and Watson – not Cashman. So in my opinion, Cashman shouldn’t be given credit for acquiring those four cornerstones.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
Actually...
… though Steinbrenner may have been “involved”, the Yankees didn’t come out of their 1980s-early 1990s funk until he stepped into the background and let his baseball people run things.
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
That's not the point...
the point I’m arguing is that Cashman wasn’t responsible for the acquisitions of Jeter/Posada/Pettitte/Rivera. And it’s those guys and the continual stream of top free agents that he’s afforded due to payroll flexibility that have made the Yankees great.
You’re getting sidetracked.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
Your point is still wrong.
Cashman was around for all those signings, and clearly was involved enough that they found him the most suitable in house candidate for the GM job. Despite many threats over the past 15 years, they still haven’t touched him either.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
See below...
I’m tired of arguing with you in multiple spots on this thread.
Simplify to this:
1. Cashman was almost certainly not the guy responsible for acquiring the big four (he may have had involvement but we don’t know how much)
2. Cashman’s tenure has a GM has been driven by an unlimited budget, which has allowed him to sign whomever and overpay to correct his mistakes.
Thus, I think he’s overrated.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
OK again...
1 – Cashman was certainly part of the group that built the core 4. I’m not trying to give him all the credit for it, but you’re trying to take away any credit he can get for it.
2 – Their budget is not unlimited, and money wouldn’t be a problem here anyway. Yes, he’s been able to afford to walk away from an Igawa deal fine and that can’t happen away from the Yankees, but I see nothing that leads me to assume he wouldn’t adjust.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
And again...
#1. Being “a part of the group” does not necessarily equal being responsible for their acquisitions. I’m not taking away all credit from Cashman – I’m just giving the credit to the GMs (just like I give him credit for acquiring Soriano and Cano). I think that’s only fair, since his title would be GM if he came here, no?
2. I honestly can’t believe you’d nitpick on this. Their budget has been ~$80-90 million higher than the Cubs over Cashman’s tenure. That’s an entire additional roster! That’s as cost to unlimited as you can get. The fact that you don’t see ANY reason why he wouldn’t adjust to losing $80-90 million per year in payroll flexibility makes me REALLY question your judgement.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
And again...
1 – When you’re the guy who they choose to make GM, the youngest GM in baseball history, of the friggin Yankees, you proooooooobably had a little more to do than say “yes” the whole time you worked under people. Not being the big boss in the group from Day 1 doesn’t mean he had no input, or limited input, and clearly in the end the Yankees didn’t feel that way.
2 – No, unlimited it unlimited. The fact that you think it’d be some gargantuan task fro him “only” having the Cubs payroll to work with kind of makes me question your judgement. As does the idea that he has to be the GM to get credit for anything. Does Dan Oppenheimer, the guy in charge of the Yankees farm, get no credit for what they do over there because he’s not the GM?
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
Good lord you seem dense...
1. You’re nitpicking my “yes man” comment.
2. You’re nitpicking my “unlimited” comment.
You seem to be missing the forest for the trees (perhaps intentionally?).
Forget everything that’s been said before.
1. Cashman wasn’t in charge when the big four were acquired. I’m giving credit to the guys who were, because that’s the only fair thing to do when (a) you don’t know the behind-the-scenes stuff and (b) he’d be the guy in charge if he came here. I’m grading on likely performance in the role of GM, and thus using his history as a GM. I know – astonishing concept.
2. Having the Cubs payroll gives him $80-90 million less in payroll flexibility. That is absolutely a gargantuan difference in task from what he had with the Yankees. I’m sorry that you either don’t understand that or are choosing not to understand it for argument’s sake.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
Pot meet kettle...
1 – I’d say I know the Yankees behind-the-scenes better than you do, as I live closer to the action and followed the team and it’s FO for years now. Cashman was a key cog in that FO that rebuilt the Yankees, whether you’d like to admit it or not. Congrats for giving credit to Stick and Watson, you should. That doesn’t mean Cashman gets none.
2. Or I could just believe that you overblow the crap out of payroll. I’m sure he could adjust to merely having a payroll well over 100 million. The Yankees payroll has actually been shrinking in recent years, and was mostly bloated from Steinbrenner’s last stand in the 2000’s when he went ape crap on trying to buy a WS in his last years.
As far as your yes man comment…I mentioned it all of twice. I’m “nitpicking” it because it was wrong. I suppose you can hope I’d nitpick those more because then I’d really be getting on you for something dumb…but I completely disagree with you on the size of his role, the importance to that franchise he had in his pre-GM days, and the fact that money will hold him back with the Cubs just because the Yankees had more. The Yankees have/spend more money than anyone…anywhere he goes would have money questions…to me they’re completely overblown, especially since the Cubs specifically are not going to be making him work with less than 100 million.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
Did you really just simplify to "over 100 million?"
Do you really not understand the impact of $80-90 million difference in payroll? Or do you not actually believe that the payrolls are that different?
Go back and look at Cot’s contracts:
Cubs: http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/chicago-cubs_112114177768677294.html
Yankees: http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/new-york-yankees_111398168678860040.html
Since 2003, the Yankees payroll has ranged from $66 million to $121 million, with an average difference of $86 million. If you honestly don’t understand that it’s much different to work with an additional $86 million, then I don’t know what to say other than you have no clue.
In any case, I’m done discussing this. First, because we’re clearly not convincing either one. Second, because it’s a moot point (I’d be shocked if Cashman ever became our GM).
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
slight edit...
the differences in payrolls – not Yankees’ payroll. Obviously the Yankees’ payroll was MUCH higher than $66-121 million.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
That 86MM extra a year can get all those things SenorGator wishes for in this offseason!
GETITDONERICKETTS!!!!!
ubercubsfan - July 14, 2011
Yep...
Hendry could sign a new RF, a new 1B, a top-tier starter, and a reliever or two with $86 million. But no, that doesn’t make any difference.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
What are you talking about...
Pujos 3B, Fielder 1B, CJ Wilson!
ubercubsfan - July 14, 2011
And there'd STILL be money for a reliever or two!
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
That's not even counting what's coming off normally after this season...
That would be what? 120MM extra to play with?? CC Would be ours too!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ubercubsfan - July 14, 2011
Your third should be because...
everyone knows the Yankees outspend everyone. It doesn’t make or break Cashman as a GM.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
I'd argue it has a large part of "making" Cashman...
My point has been that Cashman has been successful largely BECAUSE the Yankees outspend everyone. If he didn’t get handed four future hall of famers (and hopefully you now realize that he WAS handed them) and he didn’t have the Yankees’ payroll flexibility, I think he’d be viewed as mediocre – like Jim Hendry, but maybe still better than Hendry.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
No, Steinbrenner wasn't involved.
If he wasn’t, they certainly didn’t listen to him. Steinbrenner tried to trade Bernie and Pettitte early on, he didn’t like them and thought they were soft. Stick, Cashman, and Watson fought him the whole way through and won. And then that victory paid off.
And again, Cashman was THE GUY underneath the main two. That’s why he got the GM job in ’98 and became the youngest GM in baseball history. He did more than just stand there in awe of Michael and Watson, and had been an integral part of the organization for at least a decade before landing the job.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
*was
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
Again, not the point...
Michael and Watson were the guys in charge. Cashman didn’t make the ultimate decisions on the big four. Neither you nor I know how much he was RESPONSIBLE for their acquisitions.
You’re nitpicking on a largely irrelevant point. My point has been and remains that the Yankees’ success has been based on twho things:
1. great talent already in place when Cashman took over as the GM (and we don’t know how responsible he was for that)
2. ability to spend whatever he wanted for the top players every year.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
So because neither you or I
know how involved he was in the building of the Yankee nucleus I should work off of your assumption that he should get on credit?
1. Cashman helped put that talent together. That’s MY point.
2. He hasn’t been able to spend “whatever he wanted” for top players every year. He had to wait a good amount of time before the big ’09 splurge, and it only happened because something like 80(!) million was coming off the books that year led by the Mussina and Giambi contracts.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
See my other post...
as I said, I’m tired of posting the same thing in 3 places.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
Those guys pre-date Cashman's time as a GM...
As I said, he came into the GM job with the championship pieces already in place.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
He was part of the FO core that...
built their clubhouse core. IIRC he learned under Watson and Stick Michael from Day 1 with the Yankees.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
He has been in the organization since 1986...
He was not the GM when those guys were drafted, nor do I believe he was in charge of their drafts.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
Which guys?
Why does he have to be the GM to have input if he’d been there since ’86?
The guy was the youngest GM in baseball when he was hired…and he’s held the GM job for the most demanding franchise in American sports for 15 years. He must be doing something right.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
See above...
Rivera, Jeter, Posada, Pettitte. You’re giving Cashman credit for something that he may or may not have had ANY input on. Just because he was in the organization doesn’t mean he had much (if any) involvement in selecting those guys.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
You've taking away credit for something...
You’re pretty much guessing on. The guy did just walk in in ‘98 and start GM’ing, he worked his way up the ladder in that organization as they promoted from within.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
He was around for all those guys' signings/draftings/w/e.
btw.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
But he wasn't remotely in charge...
Thus, I’m giving credit to the guys who were in charge. Because, when in doubt (and we’re both obviously in doubt), I tend to err on side of giving the credit (or blame) to those making the decisions.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
The guys in charge...
were and are his greatest mentors, both of whom he worked closely with during the whole time they worked on the organization.
Again, you’re trying to take any credit away from him when that’s not necessary or more to the point, correct.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
I'm not trying to take any credit from him...
I’m just trying to assess his abilities as a GM. He wasn’t the GM when those guys were acquired. Thus, I don’t know that they’d have been acquired with him as GM. It’s not an outlandish concept.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
OTOH
It shows you don’t know much about the Yankees organization, and you’re basing his role completely on job title. Cashman was a significant part of the FO long before his GM days.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
Perhaps you don't know as much as you think you do...
Cashman joined the Yankees as an intern in 1986. He didn’t graduate college until 1989. Posada, Pettitte, and Rivera were drafted/acquired in 1990. Jeter was drafted in 1992. Call me crazy, but I’m guessing that Cashman was still pretty low on the totem pole when those guys were acquired.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
Heck - Cashman wasn't even a full-time Yankee employee until 1992...
For someone with supposedly so much knowledge about the Yankees, you seem to be lacking on facts.
Given that he wasn’t a full-time employee of the Yankees until 1992 (after those guys were signed), I’d say it’s highly unlikely he had ANY involvement in the drafting/signing of the big four. And your lack of knowledge of the Yankees payroll (which has not been shrinking, but instead has been over $200 million the past four years and 5 of the past 7 years) and your apparent lack of awareness of when the big four were acquired seems to suggest you’re largely talking out of your rear on this.
So perhaps you should back off on your steadfast ascertion that Cashman was heavily involved in acquiring the big four?
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
You two need to get a room
Hammer - July 14, 2011
Sorry - I think I stated my case sufficiently now...
I’ll stop now. Sorry that anyone else had to follow that discussion.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
I was just trying to be a wise ass
It was entertaining to follow.
Hammer - July 14, 2011
I don't know that this is a negative for Cashman
He exploited the assets of the organization that were given to him. Who’s to say that if he had to build a team more through minor league development he couldn’t?
jerry morales rules - July 14, 2011
I didn't say that he couldn't...
just that I think he’s overrated based on the Yankees’ payroll flexibility. He might be able to do well with a smaller budget. But I don’t think he warrants the enthusiasm that some here are giving toward him.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
He's not my first choice as I agree with you that he may be overrated
It’s easier to build a team with the most cash available than through scouting/developing. That’s why I lean towards Beane. I think he can learn to work with a large payroll more easily than Cashman could in the talent development field.
jerry morales rules - July 14, 2011
It's been demonstrated by the limited success of Durocher, Green, and Piniella...
…that the only hope of breaking through the inertia and pathology of Wrigleyism is to reach outside the Cubs organization for proven leadership. The thought of Fleita as GM reminds me of the reaction I had last year when Quade was picked to manage: SOS.
ernaga - July 14, 2011
We are a bad organization,
Promoting within a bad organization doesn’t make sense to me. If some wants to claim Hendry hasn’t been bad and is Just O.K, fine. But we shouldn’t accept Mediocrity. We should want the best. If the cubs the cubs resign pena next year people will not be happy because they expect the best available for 1st. Why should this not be the same way with a gm. I’d rather us through the kitchen sink at Andrew Friedman than pujols and yes i know friedman would cost nowhere near the same as pujols but he could have the same effect.
As for Flieta, our players who come up can’t run the bases correctly, don’t take pitches, cant bunt and don’t know how to situationally hit. He is in charge of instruction. Not sure he is even good at that.
thezonk - July 14, 2011
Correct....There is NO WAY I would hire with in.....The team sucks top to bottom...Why bring in another Hendry crony?
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
That would be my worry - minor league instruction has not been very good
Maybe it is drafting the wrong players, but there has been a real failure to progress in recent years. Castro is on the Cubs due to raw talent, not any polishing he got in the minors.
ClarkFan - July 14, 2011
Again correct....
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
Spot on!
CubFanSince1970 - July 14, 2011
Hold on here
Durocher, Green, and Piniella… ???
All three of those men came from OUTSIDE the Cubs organization!
Leo Durocher came from the Brooklyn Dodgers and NY Giants
Dallas Green came from the Philadelphia Phillies
Pinella came from the New York Yankees, Cincinnati Reds, Seattle Mariners, and Tampa Bay Devil Rays
RiskyBusiness - July 14, 2011
Right
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
Right, I think that was ernaga's point.
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
I didn't initially read it that way
especially with the reception that Piniella got last year.
And the funny thing is Hendry came from outside the organization. His first pro baseball jobs were with the Marlins under Dombrowski.
RiskyBusiness - July 14, 2011
Right, but after 16 years in the organization..
…. Hendry is an insider.
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
Well said.
I’ve been on the anti-Hendry side for awhile. Nice guy and all but it is time for a change. He really lost me on the Bradley and Grabow deals. There is no justification for those two.
I’m not in agreement on Fleita. I really think new blood is needed. I also wouldn’t mind both a GM and Head of Baseball Operations type position. Maybe bring in John Hart as head and let him decide on a new GM. Having Kenney and Ricketts decide on a new GM doesn’t fill me with optimism.
rlpete - July 14, 2011
I don't think that Fleita is a bad idea, but ...
I think the Cubs situation is so difficult and so unique that a guy who is trying to figure out the job description of GM is already a bit behind. One the other hand, he has organizational knowledge and that’s a huge plus, but it’s not enough to convince me.
Not that I’m on the hiring committee, but I would like to hear a full description of his philosophy before I could support it. My preference is still for an experienced guy. Cashman could be good, but, for me, Beane would be better.
Should a quality experienced guy not be available, Fleita could be included in a handful of people that I’d consider – Hahn, Ng, re-up Hendry are others.
jerry morales rules - July 14, 2011
I don't care who gets hired
You could hire some no name guy off the street so long as he produces.
Ace Venom - July 14, 2011
Whoever gets the job must first...
A. Put a winning coaching staff in place
B. Assemble a quality rotation with a real staff Ace
The rest will follow suit.
SackMan - July 14, 2011
That sounds easy.
I’d rather he just put as many good players on the field as possible.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
Cashman is my first choice
If Ricketts is serious about this team, he goes after Cashman in a strong manner.
Grockcubs - July 14, 2011
I dont know if Ricketts is serious....Thats the problem...
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
I'm willing to bet that he's far more serious than
you.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
L for love.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
L is for loss, which the Cubs do almost every day.
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
I called this post a mile away.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
good for you.....
Its still true…except in your world
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
Some days I wonder
if SenorGato and TJ11 aren’t one guy posting from two different accounts just for the heck of it.
Bradsbeard - July 14, 2011
I'm guessing the SenorGato account is the one that
got the brain.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
that's not very nice
jesus christos - July 14, 2011
The Senor Sheep one is the one Ricketts is counting on to be at the ballpark and buy jerseys...
Tom Ricketts loves Senor Sheep and those like him!!!
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
I've never been to Wrigley.
I bet you have. Sheep.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
The Gato one is the one with all the Kool Aid!
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
The Gato? Gato Du Diablo?
ubercubsfan - July 14, 2011
ITS ME MYSELF AND IRENE
Starring SG AND TJ.
You see TJ uses the number 11 in his name to signify the number of “gatos” he has. It is pretty easy when you break it down.
Hammer - July 14, 2011
I would have made the moves by now...and not have ticked off most of the fanbase of my new toy like he has....
NO ACCOUNTABILITY ON THE CUBS!!!!
Its a country club…
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
Because pandering to the fans is what makes a good owner...
alkappy - July 14, 2011
At what point does acknowledging problems in your organization and taking steps to fix them go from being "a leader" to "pandering"?
santoswoodenlegs - July 14, 2011
TJ is saying it's bad that Ricketts hasn't done what the whiney fans like himself want
How is that not pandering?
alkappy - July 14, 2011
Because in this case, the whiny fans are correct
Shanghai Badger - July 14, 2011
thats correct.....Ricketts appreciates the sheep like alkappy and senorgato....
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
If he fires people because he thinks it is the right thing to do, that's fine.
But if he fires people because he doesn’t want the fans to be mad, then that’s totally wrong.
alkappy - July 14, 2011
No disagreement there
TJ could have worded his comment better, but the fan base clearly is becoming alienated.
Shanghai Badger - July 14, 2011
I expect a slimy naked Jim Hendry larve to explode out of Dan's chest any day now.
santoswoodenlegs - July 14, 2011
Icky
Shanghai Badger - July 14, 2011
neat...and alkappy will be there to clean it up......
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
I needed a second post to clarify my comments.
And I agree, the fan base is becoming alienated, but they’ll all be back if the Cubs start winning, regardless of who is running things. If Ricketts knows that Hendry gives them the best shot out of his options, then that’s who he should stick with.
alkappy - July 14, 2011
And vice versa
If he believes somebody else does, then that’s who he should go with.
alkappy - July 14, 2011
They will come back quicker if they think the owner gives a crap about winning....
And hires some people who know what they are doing….
If they all get fired, alkappy is going to be so sad….
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
He does not have to pander to us
He also does not need to assume we are fricken idiots.
Hammer - July 14, 2011
Which is what he thinks now apparently
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
As I said, I'd love to see Cashman.
I just don’t think the Cubs have the resources to get him.
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
Resources?
An average Gm only makes a couple million a year. That makes no sense when they have a larger impact on the team than any player. If you want someone you got to pay them. What sense does it make to pay a 1st baseman $25M a year when the person picking the players only makes a few million? Money should never be an issue for picking your GM. It’s to important and just not that costly.
thezonk - July 14, 2011
If Ricketts in not serious about this team
then what the F is doing buying it??
Hammer - July 14, 2011
Cashman is my choice...
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
I'm sure he'll be happy to know that
tommy veryzer - July 14, 2011
I am sure he will.....
At least your choices for GM and manager are still here….
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
No, they are not
how could you presume to know that? In addition to being a world class whiner, are you omniprecent?
tommy veryzer - July 14, 2011
Well I am usually correct about the Cubs.....Almost daily.....
I wish I could be happy with the direction of the Cubs like you, but I am not….
Sheep…
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
No- you only show up when the news is bad or there is a loss
unfortunately, we’ve been treated to extra helpings of your infantile posts the last couple of years. You aren’t very tolerant of other opinions, and your “performance art” crap tends to get old after a couplke hundred posts saying the same thing.
So you know, I do not advocate keeping Hendry or Quade, though I suspect Quade might get another year. Just because I don’t show up moaning every day about it doesn’t mean I think your position is wrong.
tommy veryzer - July 14, 2011
I am here either way....way more than you, I might add.....
I cant help it they suck and we have more losses to talk about…
and if Quade is here next year, it proves how inept the management team is..
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
There is no way I'd want to be on here as much as you
quality- not quantity
tommy veryzer - July 14, 2011
wait...you blast him by accusing him of only being here "when the news is bad or there is a loss"...
but then say you don’t want to be here as much as he is….
you lose.
santoswoodenlegs - July 14, 2011
LOL
Fair point- but I stand but the quality/quantity part!
tommy veryzer - July 14, 2011
Agree
With alot of our fine posters here. Especially SackMan. Alot of teams this year are proving you can go a long way with pitching & defense along with solid fundamentals. It does seem time for Hendry to move on. I believe it will take someone with a real backbone as well. Anyone remember all the criticism from the Chicago press of Dallas Green when he first arrived?
KedzieKid - July 14, 2011
there is nobody currently in the Cubs front office with that kind of Backbone
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
there is nobody currently in the Cubs front office with that kind of Backbone
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
"Building a New Tradition" was the ad slogan for Green and the Cubs in '82...
…Then and now it sounded great to me, and I’m still waiting for somebody to finish the job. But as you say, the sports media that served as Wrigley apologists through the years took offense. Even a Wrigley critic like Mike Royko had fun talking about the Phillies history as baseball’s worst franchise, leading his readers to the defensive reaction of “Who the hell is this guy Green to tell us anything?”
ernaga - July 14, 2011
Shows you that Royko didn’t know his stuff, at least about this. Green had built an excellent Phillies farm system and managed them to a World Series title. Those were pretty good credentials.
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
I'd take a Dallas Green type now- no questions asked
tommy veryzer - July 14, 2011
The Ricketts need an outside consultant to help them choose the right people...
An elder statesman like Dallas Green, Bobby Cox, or Gene Michael would be ideal as a consultant. Each knows all phases of the game, and all three have shown exceptional competence in franchise-building. Of course, Green and Michael fought hand-to-hand combat with Cubness during the 1980’s, while Bobby spent most of the last 20 years cleaning-up against the Cubs.
In any event, let’s hope Team Ricketts has learned enough in the last two years to understand they need help in hiring front office and field managers.
ernaga - July 14, 2011
Nice idea!
tommy veryzer - July 14, 2011
I'd pick John Hart over Cox and Michael.
I think Green is still under contract but I agree with your general idea. For comparison, the Lerners who bought the Nationals brought in Stan Kasten for a period to help. Of course then they apparently didn’t listen to him and were sweet talked by Jim Bowden and kept him around as GM until they realized that was a mistake.
rlpete - July 14, 2011
Absolutely, Hart would be a great choice.
ernaga - July 14, 2011
Absolutely, Hart would be a great choice.
ernaga - July 14, 2011
I really don't want another Creighton Hendry guy, or another U. New Orleans Bush/Quade/Maineiri guy
The organization needs an overhaul, and if we’re leaving substantial remnants of the existing organizational culture in place at the top, what is the point?
At some point, being friends with the current bosses in the early-mid 1980’s has to stop being the primary determinant of who gets hired and promoted in this organization. That time should be right now.
D98 - July 14, 2011
If only Milton had been Milton at dinner
If his Steak Tartare had one too many Tars. Or his ice cubes actually melted in his water glass. Milton gets upset with the waiter, flips over the table at at dinner and storms out.
But then Milton would have looked back at Hendry and mouthed “Call me” with the fake phone to face bit. And the Cubs would still have signed him.
RiskyBusiness - July 14, 2011
For triple the money.
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
Honored that my fanpost is mentioned
by Al the Legend. That’s my only comment. Wouldn’t mind Fleita by the way. I just want to see a focus on the minor league system, above all else. And backtracking, Cashman proably is not the best choice for that sort of focus
ChicagoZ - July 14, 2011
the Yankees
have a top 5 farm system
hansman1982 - July 14, 2011
Even with all...
…the money the Yankees spend, their best run (mid to late 90’s) was when their core group was all homegrown players.
MPH73 - July 14, 2011
Right.
That’s when they won the WS every year.
Only one WS in the last 10 seasons.
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
But repeated playoff appearances...
The postseason is a crap shoot. The Yankees give themselves a chance every year though (mainly because of the top payroll in baseball by a wide margin – but they’ve unquestionably been successful the past decade).
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
This.
I truly think the Cubs’ problem in recent years is that they haven’t developed talent to the point where they can be consistent winners.
Hendry’s farm system has been pretty good at developing pitchers. I know that the lack of anyone who could spell Ramon Ortiz this season is a mark against that, but the Cubs’ farm system since the late ’90s has produced some good arms.
The real problem has been position players. Ideally, you have some young players making up a good part of your team so you need free agency and trades to mostly supplement your roster. Even Lee and Ramirez — two definite feathers in Hendry’s cap — came with escalating pricetags. By the time they became Cubs, they were already fairly expensive and getting pricier.
It really wasn’t until 2008 when Hendry had a full, All-Star caliber season from any player developed in the system, in Geo. The 2003-04 nucleus really had one home-grown contributor (Corey Patterson).
I know the Yankees spend like nobody’s business, but a big part of that core since the mid ’90s came from within, with expensive reinforcements filling out the roster. Same with the Phillies, Boston, St. Louis, etc. The Cubs have been so shallow in position player depth in the Hendry years that the team has had to overspend and get guys who are aging.
elgato - July 14, 2011
They made the WS 3 of the last 10 years.
That’s a lot.
They had a winning season every single year and made the playoffs in 9 of 10.
Even leaving out the oodles and mounds and tons of profit they’ve made, and new stadium they built, you can’t claim they haven’t had their second consecutive uber-successful decade.
jameslcrockett - July 14, 2011
I would
go with the GM from the Tigers Dromroski
wild bill - July 14, 2011
Dombrowski?
He’s done a pretty good job in Detroit. He’s a Chicago native (who used to work for the White Sox).
It’s a possibility, I suppose.
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
I participated...
…in a one day scout camp at Comiskey park when I was a senior in high school in 1979. I met Dumbrowski then when he was an asst to Roland Hemond and he spent a good deal of time with me.
I’m not certain he is what I would call “an organization builder” though. I think they can find a better fit.
MPH73 - July 14, 2011
No to Dombrowski!
I live in metro Detroit and have casually followed the Tigers for years.
He is only slightly better than Hendry. Tiger Farm system is barren (except for a couple of pitching prospects) and he has squandered a lot money on FAs who have not lived up to their money (Damion Easley, Nate Robertson, etc) and has let some good players go too early (Granderson, Polanco).
A big fat “No Thanks”!
CubFanSince1970 - July 14, 2011
I don't really want to advocate for Dombrowski.... but this is kind of funny.
Damion Easley was traded from CAL to DET for Greg Gohr in 1996.
Six years before Dombrowski joined the team.
Dombrowski joined the team as President in 2002. He became the GM, too, for the 2003 season.
He gave Easley his outright release on March 28, 2003 – just prior to Opening Day of his first season as GM.
As for Nate Robertson…. We’re talking about a 3 year, $21.5MM deal. Sometimes these things happen.
And as for Granderson – they got Austin Jackson for him.
D98 - July 14, 2011
I believe Hendry got his start in MLB working for Dombrowski?
I’d rather have him than Jimbo.
I’d much rather have someone who values base runners and a Minor League system though.
aaronb - July 14, 2011
They also got three pitchers in the deal for Granderson...
one of which is really, really good, and the other two have been on their team all year.
Dombrowski also got Miguel Cabrera for a fat lot of nothing, even if he had to pay the corpse of Dontrelle Willis a lot of money to get him.
In his defense, he did say he “casually” followed the Tigers “for years”. He didn’t say which years.
jameslcrockett - July 14, 2011
This is a good, well reasoned summary
much better than the constant whining sound bites offered by some. I just think that taking anyone out of the current organization is akin to sticking them behind the 8 ball immediately- they are going to be overanalyzed and berated by the general population if they make the slightest mis-step. As a result, I guess I favor going outside the organization.
I don’t know if Cashman would be interested in the Cubs, but they will have their pick of candidates- it’s still a large market, national scope franchise, and there is still the lure of being “the guy (or gal?)” that finally puts the Cubs over the top.
tommy veryzer - July 14, 2011
I think any new guy...
is likely to get berated for even the slightest mis-step. And Jah forbid he open up his career with a losing season in 2012, which some on BCB wouldn’t mind because it’d mean better prospects for the future that might come one day.
Completely agreed that we won’t be short on candidates if the job were to open up. G’luck to whoever wins it…
SenorGato - July 14, 2011
Why Cashman?
Aside from being able to buy just about any player he wanted, what makes him so great? I’m asking because I don’t know.
I do like the fact that he seems like more of a polished businessman, whereas Hendry seems more like the goofy guy cracking jokes at the water cooler. I’d like to have someone a bit more… what’s the word I’m looking for here… shrewd. And Cashman certainly projects that image.
kanderber - July 14, 2011
I think I would equate Hendry to a guy that opened doors by being friendly and accomodating
instead of the button-down business type, as evidenced earlier this year by he Pujols hug. He likely gets a lot of doors opened that way- not to say that one is better than the other, just different.
I think the love for Cashman is because he is with the Yankees and the success they enjoy. As has been stated, not sure it’s due to his baseball acumen, or the unlimited resources he has access to.
tommy veryzer - July 14, 2011
I wouldnt mind seeing
Hendry promoted to President to keep those connections open and get a firey guy in for GM – good cop bad cop
hansman1982 - July 14, 2011
Ladies and gentlemen, your Cubbies second half...
Well, I guess this is all we have to look forward to now… Lots of whining back and forth about how the Yankees have a great GM and we want him. Awesome. I do agree with Al that Hendry is nothing but loyal. Stories I’ve heard around Creighton are that he will put himself on the line for his players… so there’s that. Also, while many posters have noted this, I’d like to point out that Hendry is responsible for our (albeit limited) success.
With that in mind, it is time for the guy to move on. I’d be okay if he just hangs out @ Wrigley sipping Old Styles with the Ricketts, so long as we have a newer, fresher perspective on constructing a team. I know that over the next few months, Cubs fans will be clamoring for something like, “it’s so easy, just get better _” but it will take a few years to get there. For me, I’d like to see the Ricketts use their business minds for a moment and try to spend money to make money. That is, I think we need to really find a young guy who can negotiate and surround himself with talent. I don’t know who that is, but their are great organizations out there that pull it off routinely and finding those architects is the cornerstone of our success moving forward.
Let’s not pretend this is as easy as we’re making it. Deals on your PS3 are a bit different than deals between teams. I hope we have some success this next half, and I hope Castro doesn’t turn into a headcase with all these losses. Here’s hoping! (as a sidenote, I’m on the Fire Quade bandwaggon too… nice guy, but looks woefully in over his head)
KennardHusker - July 14, 2011
What a joke:
D98: “No one could have seen Aramis’ injury…”
Really?
Considering he has been on the DL every season he has been on the team save 2003 ( his first, half-season)?
Considering Super Sub DeRosa was signed specifically to cover for him during his annual dl visit?
And, since DeRo left (after the crap subs prior to his nice signing) we are given Aaron Miles, Jeff Baker, and Blake DeWitt to fill in?
I KNOW that A-Ram WILL get hurt every year, just like I know April will be cold at Wrigley.
The fact that the GM predicates the Cubs offense on a good player that misses too much time (in addition to his bad starts) and has had ONE decent back up 3B in ten years for two of them is only one of my many beefs against this guy who in my book ranks in the lower third of all the GM’s.
In spite of his cousin, Senior Gato, we still have to stomach Koyie Hill play too many times on this ball club as well.
Having this guy blocking Wellington Castillo at this moment is just absurd.
The E-Man - July 14, 2011
You're preaching to the choir.
I’ve been calling for Hendry to be replaced for years. He certainly should not have survived 2009, after that amazingly poor 2008-09 offseason.
I’m saying that you can’t predict that particular May 2009 injury for Aramis. However, as you note, it’s fair to assume that Aramis is going to be dinged up at some point, and probably spend some time on the DL.
Regardless, you must break camp with at least one player behind Aramis who is capable of playing 3B.
Don’t lump Jeff Baker in with Aaron Miles and Blake DeWitt. Baker has a place on a good MLB roster. DeWitt and Miles don’t.
D98 - July 14, 2011
I agree with that.
The DeRosa deal, and others that made room for Bradley’s salary, were the doom of the 2007/08 division champions. There wa no backup plan — literally.
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
Yes, REALLY. You would have predicted before the 2009 season that he would dive and separate his shoulder on May 8?
If you knew that, I wish you would have chosen some lottery numbers for me around that time.
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
Maybe not the type of injury Al...
but he does get hurt every year.
santoswoodenlegs - July 14, 2011
I don't think there's a disagreement here.
We all agree that Aramis is injury prone, and that Hendry’s decision to go north with no backup 3B was hilariously bad.
What I was saying, probably less clearly than I should have, was that – while i was and am very critical of Hendry, especially on this point – no one could predict that Aramis would miss SO much time, or when the injury would take place.
D98 - July 14, 2011
and that still is no excuse for not having at least one capable backup infielder that can play 3rd base at an average level.
santoswoodenlegs - July 14, 2011
All true- there should have been a back up plan
other than Miles
tommy veryzer - July 14, 2011
Especially because the Cubs traded away that backup and thought Miles was a replacement...
The Cubs ended up paying the same money for Miles and change that they would have paid for DeRosa. Not that DeRosa was an amazing player (he wasn’t), but he was clearly a better fill-in for Ramirez and Bradley than Miles and change.
The team knew that Ramirez would need lots of days off and would likely find the DL at some point (usually due to chronic leg issues). Replacing DeRosa with Miles was a dumb move, as was acquiring Bradley for 3 years and $30 million.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
Another issue - trading DeRosa and ditching Wood just gutted the team mentally.
Obviously, that sort of off field thing is nebulous and the value can’t be quantifed. But the 2009 team spent about 5 months playing aimless baseball and constantly talking about DeRosa and Wood. It’s fair to assume that those transactions decapitated the team’s leadership and left quite a vacuum in the clubhouse.
D98 - July 14, 2011
and replacing them with chemistry greats like Bradley and (then) Silva...
I’m generally in the camp that success can create chemistry, but when you replace good guys with d-bags, you do run the risk of killing any chance of chemistry.
I do contend that if Bradley had come in and provided a .900 OPS and stayed healthy in RF, he’d have been great. But neither of those was a likely outcome (especially the healthy part), and the potential for a public-relations nightmare was much more likely.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
Yes, that's what we're all saying.
It was such a baffling decision. It’s essentially unprecedented.
As someone put it above, it’s akin to the Bears leaving Bourbonnais with no backup QB because none of them are as good as Jay Cutler.
D98 - July 14, 2011
I'm pretty sure that's what D98 is saying
He’s said it about 4 times here already
Shanghai Badger - July 14, 2011
What I'm saying is that it was dumb that there was no backup 3rd baseman.
Also that you guys like to play the game with me.
santoswoodenlegs - July 14, 2011
Indeed
And, indeed.
Shanghai Badger - July 14, 2011
Sports Illustrated Has an article about the next generation of GMs and a Cubs employee is listed...
Who knew, although unlikely to be a GM the Cubs have one of the best Stats guys around. Ari Kaplan ranked #10 as a GM "prospect.
Here’s the link: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/will_carroll/07/13/baseball-gms/index.html
Here’s a snippet:
“Ari Kaplan has a passion for baseball and he combines this with a thoughtful and intelligent approach to the game. In my view, he is at the very top of the line when it comes to the development and understanding of the analytical programs available to a Major League team”
I strongly recommend reading it.
astroview - July 14, 2011
Statistical Analysis?
I thought the Cubs stayed away from that- yet, here is a strength?
tommy veryzer - July 14, 2011
He's a new hire
Done specifically by Ricketts.
aaronb - July 14, 2011
There's a fanshot discussing this topic.
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
I would like to think
deep down that Tom Ricketts will replace Jim Hendry.
As I have said before, I have never heard the words “Losing will not be tolerated here.”, from this new ownership, which I was really hoping for.
I get the feeling, So Far, that this is an investment.
Therefore, imo, as of today, I do not feel there will be any change in so far as Jim Hendry is concerned.
I would love some kind of John Schuerholdz (excuse the spelling) involvement, but when I heard Ricketts speak last month about the State of the Cubs, I just am not optimistic.
The E-Man - July 14, 2011
Hendry is under contract for next year. I'm not convinced that Joe Ricketts is going to want to eat $2MM for an off-field position.
D98 - July 14, 2011
I hope he enjoys the lost revenue from the plummeting ticket sales next year.
santoswoodenlegs - July 14, 2011
I think it's a foregone conclusion that he'll be gone
I just don’t get that so many feel like TR has to go out and trash Hendry, Quade and the entire organization. That is not going to happen- I’d wager they will sit down at the end of the season and make thge moves that they feel need to be made.
I’d guess that Hendry is gone, but I would not be shocked to see Quade get another year (though I don’t think he deserves one)
tommy veryzer - July 14, 2011
It will be a sad day for you when Hendry leaves....
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
Not really...
just because I don’t go on and on and on with it like you do. I don’t think Hendry has done the job, especially with the farm system. I just know that ownership is not going to go out and trash the team and leadership during the middle of a season. There will have to be changes made, but they will be after the season is over.
Again, you presume to know something of which you have no idea
tommy veryzer - July 14, 2011
Hmmm.
No disrespect to Oneri Fleita — or the improvement that we’ve seen in the farm system. But it really might be time for a new approach from an outsider. I do agree with your assessment on Hendry, Al — though I think it doesn’t touch on something important that further bolsters your argument.
It’s perfectly acceptable to blame Hendry AND Tribune for the glut of bad contracts signed before 2007. However, Hendry has been GM for more than nine years and (as you pointed out) was important in shaping the farm system before that as farm director.
So we need to ask ourselves, why did the Cubs have to spend like crazy after 2006? It’s pretty simple — they didn’t have enough homegrown talent (particularly of the position player variety) to field a competitive team that would attract fans.
From 2002 to the end of 2006, the only position player from the system that made a significant impact on the North Side was Corey Patterson. Now, Lee and Ramirez were acquired by trading position player prospects to Florida and Pittsburgh. But none of those players panned out. In other words, the top position player prospects in the organization from 2002 to 2007 — Patterson, Choi, Hill, Pie — all were busts. Things got a LITTLE better by 2007-08 with Soto and Theriot, but both guys have been mixed bags as major league players.
Only in May 2010, with the callup of Starlin Castro, did we see the beginning of improved position player talent come from the system. But that was almost eight years after Hendry took over as GM, and 14 years after he started having some role in the Cubs’ player development. I could go off on another tangent about the fundamentals of the Cubs’ players during the Hendry years, but I’ll stick with the talent for now.
Had the Cubs under Hendry and with Hendry involved in the minor league system been better about developing position players, a lot of the bad contracts would have been avoidable. And that’s another reason he really needs to go.
elgato - July 14, 2011
yes, the reason the cubs had to sign the big contracts is because they didnt develop a lot of guys. but that’s irrelevant now,its sunk, the only thing that matters is if you think they’ll develop those guys in the future
Donbedouin - July 14, 2011
Past history would indicate that they won't.
santoswoodenlegs - July 14, 2011
Not with this GM.
elgato - July 14, 2011
not based on the history of the guys who run our farm system
Donbedouin - July 14, 2011
Well, it seems pretty relevant when you're assessing whether to retain Jim Hendry.
elgato - July 14, 2011
not really. he’s not the primary developer of minor league talent anymore. the only things that makes a difference are any future moves he might make.
Donbedouin - July 14, 2011
and those future moves could very well be out of desperation to keep his job...
so they’ll be both shitty AND expensive
santoswoodenlegs - July 14, 2011
well he wouldnt be making to moves out of desperation if you dont have intentions to fire him
Donbedouin - July 14, 2011
So, we should keep him ...
allowing him to have more years to mess things up just so … he won’t make moves out of desperation now?
elgato - July 14, 2011
thats based on an assumption that he’ll mess things up, which I’ve yet to have someone logically prove that thats the case
Donbedouin - July 14, 2011
You might want to read this thread.
elgato - July 14, 2011
or try and remember the past 3 or so years.
santoswoodenlegs - July 14, 2011
ive yet to read anything here that logically convinces me that Hendry is bad
Donbedouin - July 14, 2011
ENGLISH MF.....
DO YOU READ IT?
santoswoodenlegs - July 14, 2011
I'll give you a breakdown:
1) Signed Milton Bradley to a 3-year deal.
2) Gave Aaron Miles $4.9 million and wrongly viewed him as a DeRosa replacement.
3) Traded three pitching prospects for one season of Juan Pierre.
4) Was one of several GMs who overestimated the abilities of Kosuke Fukudome
5) Was one of several inside the organization who viewed Soriano as a durable leadoff hitter who could play center and would be worth $18 million a season for six to eight years.
6) Failed to develop a good stable of position players in the minors despite more than a decade working with the farm system.
7) Failed to emphasize fundamentals in the organization despite more than a decade working with the farm system.
8) Gave John Grabow $7.5 million.
9) Gave Xavier Nady $3.3 million.
10) Gave Shark too much money ($10.5 million?) and a NTC.
11) Went along with moving Z to the pen.
12) Gave Neifi Perez and Glendon Rusch 2-year contracts.
13) Hired Mike Quade.
elgato - July 14, 2011
OK, let me break down those 13 points.
1) Agreed
2) Agreed
3) Agreed
4) You can’t specifically blame only Hendry for this, as others did the same thing
5) Soriano suffered injuries AFTER he was signed that reduced his effectiveness
6) Agreed
7) Agreed
8) Agreed
9) Meh. Not that much in today’s market.
10) Agreed, but Shark may finally have become a decent pitcher.
11) Agreed
12) Agreed
13) Most here thought Quade was a good hire last year, too. Appears we were all wrong.
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
Re: No. 4
I did say he was one of several GMs who overstated Kosuke’s value. I don’t think I’m specifically blaming him. You and I have debated this before, and I actually chose my language on that one to be a little easier on Jimbo.
As for Soriano, I certainly see your point, and I can forgive Hendry for figuring Soriano would be good beyond 2008. But through 2012 (which will be year 6 of the deal)?
I was one of those who was wrong on Quade. However, the question is not whether I, or others, should be kept as GM of the Chicago Cubs.
The Nady signing was just pointless, and the Shark signing wouldn’t be as galling if not for the NTC.
elgato - July 14, 2011
Let's not get into the Soriano discussion...
… because as we know, the length of that deal was not entirely his fault.
You’ve given a pretty long list of mistakes, and as you see, I agree completely with 9 of the 13.
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
Fair enough.
elgato - July 14, 2011
re: No. 6
The fact that Hendry thought that Alfonso Soriano could play CF, and was willing to sign him to a 6-8 year deal at $18MM per in order to do so, is more damning than any incorrect estimates on his durability.
Alfonso Soriano may be the worst fielding OF on the team, including all infielders and pitchers.
(Re: No. 13 – not all of us thought Quade was a good hire.)
D98 - July 14, 2011
Agreed...
The concerns about his durability and potential decline can be debated. The fact that Hendry signed Soriano to play CF was stupid. That alone should have brought the value of the deal down substantially.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
Nevertheless
… they corrected that mistake quickly. And before Soriano was hurt, he was producing — and without some of his hot streaks, the Cubs don’t make the playoffs in 2007.
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
They didn't really "correct" that mistake, though.
A decent part of the reason we’re still paying Soriano $18MM annually is b/c the team thought he was going to be providing serious power from CF, a non-traditional power position.
As a LF, he’s not as valuable. As a terrible LF, he’s even less valuable.
So after 12 miserable starts for Soriano, the 2007 team was left with no real CF. Thank goodness Jacque Jones managed to hack it over there for a while. (Especially b/c he certainly didn’t have the arm for RF.)
But the bottom line is, they gave Soriano the “Beltran Contract” b/c they assumed he could play CF. They were relieved of that misconception after 12 games, but they’re still paying that contract.
D98 - July 14, 2011
Exactly...
Moving to Soriano immediately made the deal a bad deal, and they should have known he was going to flunk as a CF.
The Cubs then had to make due with a patchwork CF situation for the next several years (arguably to this day, where Marlon Byrd is just average). Fortunately the team won in spite of this (thanks to a bad division and some great pitching).
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
Bradley and Kosuke were products of timing, i dont think he signs either deal if the cubs arent in a “win-now” mode. theres been plenty of speculation that he was not the driving force on soriano, and we have no idea if he really thought soriano could be a centerfielder or not. anything he did with the farm system doesnt matter much anymore, he’s signed two guys that i think are doing quiet a good job with it now. the pierre deal sucked, im not sure there was a good managerial candidate. and the rest of the moves are bullpen and bench
there’s an even longer list of good moves he’s made too
Donbedouin - July 14, 2011
start listing them
santoswoodenlegs - July 14, 2011
off the top of my head
1. Gridz and Karros for Hundley
2. Aramis, Loften and Simon for Hill and Hernandez
3. Murton and Nomar for Gonzalez and Harris
4. todd walker
5. Lee for Choi
6. Fontenot for Sosa
7. Lilly
8. Marquis
9. DeRosa
10. hired Pinella
11. cliff floyd
12. rich harden
13. edmonds and reed
14. was in charge when dempster got moved to the rotation
15. was able to keep every single star player in chicago under his tenure
16. gorz and grabow for hart and ascanio
17. silva for bradley
18. id call bob howry a pretty good success
19. hired wilken and fleida
20. getting 3 pitchers for derosa
Donbedouin - July 14, 2011
1 – Yes, absolutely
2 – Yes, although – it was a salary dump by PGH and Simon was not included in that deal
3 – Yes
4 – No. Overrated, whiny ballplayer who knew far too much about what announcers from both teams were saying during games he was playing in. They should have kept Grudzeilanek, but were worried about being to RH. Hmmm…..
5 – Yes, although a salary dump
6 – Meh. I like Fontenot, but they systematically destroyed Sosa’s trade value.
7 – Sure
8 – A bit overpaid. Decent move.
9 – Sure
10 – Yes
11 – Solid move, but nothing special
12 – Yes
13 – Lightning in a bottle, but they worked, so OK
14 – Counters a previous point, so ok
15 – With NTC’s and long contracts. Meh.
16 – Minor impact at best
17 – Nope. As someone once said, you don’t get credit for stepping in dogshit and finding a dime on the bottom of your shoe
18 – For 2 of 3 years in his first stint, yes
19 – Jury’s out on that
20 – See #19
To paraphrase Chris Rock’s take on child support, you’re SUPPOSED to make smart decisions. There are a couple of things on here that are shrewd beyond what most could have predicted, but most of them are just nice little moves. And that doesn’t counter the mind-numbingly stupid decisions that anyone could have predicted would end in failure.
Shanghai Badger - July 14, 2011
If Todd Walker and Carlos Silva are among your positives ...
you should not keep your job.
elgato - July 14, 2011
"We have no idea if Hendry really thought Soriano could be a centerfielder or not..."
I mean, other than the fact that Hendry SAID Soriano would be a CF at the time of the signing, and the fact that Soriano actually did play CF in ST and April 2007, until it became abundantly clear that he was a disaster out there.
D98 - July 14, 2011
was that his idea, or was it from other people in the organizations. im sure there are plenty of moves, good and bad that he’s made that he deserves far less credit for
Donbedouin - July 14, 2011
I'll break it down for you. Jim Hendry is the General Manager.
He stood up at the podium and explained that Soriano was going to be his CF.
Occam’s Razor. Sometimes what obviously happened, actually happened.
This forum has spent way, way too long constructing conspiracy theories to bail Jim Hendry out for his crappy, crappy general managing.
D98 - July 14, 2011
correct
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
its not like he’s going to stand up there and throw crane kenney under the bus. im smart enough to realize what we as fans hear is no where near the whole story, good and bad.
its impossible to do a complete evaluation of a GM without insider information
Donbedouin - July 14, 2011
Are you seriously claiming that Crane Kenney overruled Hendry on Soriano's fielding ability?
I think you’re way, way out of your element.
D98 - July 14, 2011
Its a new sheep to go with Senor Sheep and Alkappy and NOT Bruce!!!!
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
im just saying i dont know. from what ive read, kenney had more to do with the soriano signing than hendry did.
either way, the month he played in center is not a big deal
Donbedouin - July 14, 2011
I think you have your names mixed up.
Crane Kenney didn’t even become club President until McDonough left in November ’07.
D98 - July 14, 2011
i probably do
Donbedouin - July 14, 2011
The month he played in center is a huge deal.
Its called positional worth. A center fielder who who can hit 40 hrs is worth alot more than a corner outfielder who can hit 40hrs. If you give someone an 8 year deal (6 he wanted apparently) and he cant stick at the position you need him to for a month, thats an awful decision.
thezonk - July 14, 2011
he would’ve ended up in left anyway if Pie actually turned out to be good;
Donbedouin - July 14, 2011
...but he didn't.
If Soriano could field any OF position with competence, he’d probably be in RF with his “arm”. He’s in LF because he’s a problem, and that’s where you put problems.
jameslcrockett - July 14, 2011
if Pie had turned out to be good, would that make Hendry a better GM? Soriano’s defense in left is low on the list of problems
Donbedouin - July 14, 2011
Would it make Hendry a better GM?
Sure. Acquiring young cheap players who succeed is a mark of a successful GM. But Pie didn’t turn out to be good, which is part of what makes Hendry a mediocre GM (especially given the mismanagement of Pie’s trade value as a prospect).
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
No. At the end of the day, Hendry’s GMing ability can’t impact how the players preform. Sometimes talented players don’t work out, it happens; and he shouldn’t be punished for it. Same goes for someone like Castro who does.
But by your logic there, if results dictate his ability to GM. Well then I guess he’s a better GM if Prior doesn’t get hurt he’s a better GM. If Gonzalez can turn the double play, he’s a better GM. If Milton Bradley gets off to a hot start and doesn’t begin his attitude problems, he’s a better GM
Donbedouin - July 14, 2011
i need to proofread more
Donbedouin - July 14, 2011
Approved!!!
aaronb - July 14, 2011
"people in the organization"
You realize that, as the GM, he is the guy in charge of making that executive decision, right? He was the highest-ranking baseball man in the organization when Soriano was signed. So he’s ultimately responsible for those baseball-related decisions. If he let non-baseball people tell him that Soriano was a CF, he should be fired anyway.
Hendry is not an atrocious GM. As you note, he’s made some good moves. But he’s no more than a mediocre GM.
SouthernCub - July 14, 2011
#12 is a laugher
Kennabelle - July 14, 2011
Its senor Sheep's little brother...he sneeks some of his Kool Aid...
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
LMAO
Hammer - July 14, 2011
great, then they'll just be regular Jim Hendry moves...
that’s reassuring.
santoswoodenlegs - July 14, 2011
A general manager ...
has nothing to do with developing a baseball team’s farm system? What in the what? That’s like saying Obama has nothing to do with the nation’s armed forces because he has a defense secretary.
elgato - July 14, 2011
Well let's see...
Soriano is the Trib’s fault. The poor farm results are the farm director’s fault. Bradley blowing up is Bradley’s fault. Soriano, Lee and Ramirez getting old is Mother Nature’s fault. Fukudome not panning out is random luck’s fault. 2010 is Lou’s fault.
Looks like Jim Hendry should be GM for another 10 years.
rlpete - July 14, 2011
Actually, if you turn Don's post around ...
then Hendry’s biggest defense right now — that the farm system is getting better — doesn’t matter because he doesn’t have anything to do with the farm system.
elgato - July 14, 2011
i believe it was rosenthal who reported that Wilkin and Fleita are likely to leave if Hendry goes
Donbedouin - July 14, 2011
Depends on what they'd be offered to stay.
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
fine....
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
I'll care about that when....
Wilken drafts anybody of impact to Chicago. Other than Castro who is Fleita responsible for?
aaronb - July 14, 2011
Holy crap...I agree with you, el...
If Oneri Fleita was hired by-and somewhat mentored by Jim Hendry, then he needs to “take the train”, too. I keep hearing about the farm system being so good. Other than Castro, I just ain’t seein’ it. Maybe Colvin, but, I’m thinkin’ he was just one of those “flash in the pan” sorta guys. Clean house…all of them…Hendry.. Kenney…Rudy J…Wilkens…that one guy in the minors that everyone says is connected at the hip with Hendry…ummm…what’s his name?…he don’t like it, then he goes too. Enough of this kissyface BS…get some guys in here that WON’T tolerate losing. Get me TJ11 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Easy Ed - July 14, 2011
No argument
except I’ll keep Wilken for at least another year. I like this year’s draft especially if the Cubs sign most of their key picks.
rlpete - July 14, 2011
My mistake...
Riggins, the pitching coach, needs to go. Wilkens is the guy from the minors I was trying to think of.
Easy Ed - July 14, 2011
I don't think this is the FIRST time we've agreed.
But it is rare, Ed. I’m not sure if I would completely clean house, but I wouldn’t be dead set against it.
elgato - July 14, 2011
Agree 100%
Hendry’s biggest failing in his regime was lack of impact position players in the farm system
tommy veryzer - July 14, 2011
Sorry- reply fail
tommy veryzer - July 14, 2011
I disagree
with the idea that Brian Cashman would be a good choice to replace Hendry (who needs to go, I agree). He’s made as many bad deals as good one, but with the Yankees never-ending supply of ready cash, they just go out and get someone else to replace the mistake. He wouldn’t have that margin for error here. For every CC type they’ve signed, there’s a Carl Pavano on the other side of the ledger.
cubfaninplattsburgh - July 14, 2011
What about pitching?
You have all seen our pitching “depth”?
And the likes of Russell, Coleman, Wells as starters?
What contending teams have pitchers like that waiting to graduate to the MLB?!
The fact is, we have jack right now that are remotely ready to be difference makers on the parent Cubs team. Chris Archer?
Did Hendry REALLY need to make a move like that with the team going nowhere in 2011?
I guess he may have bet his career on it.
So while some uof you state how the farm has developed, and it indeed has improved, ready pitching depth on a par with some other teams’ young arms, is laughable now.
The E-Man - July 14, 2011
I know we're not slicing & dicing the Milton Bradley deal, but...
Lou was really chirping after that ’08 season about how he needed a left-handed power bat. This was a case of allowing a manager to play GM after an emotionally draining end to a really good season. Wisdom should have prevailed and allowed some time to cool off and make a rational decision.
JG23 - July 14, 2011
A rational decision like actually signing a left handed power bat.
santoswoodenlegs - July 14, 2011
Or even retaining the one they had.
Jim Edmonds posted a .937 OPS as a platoon CF for the 2008 Cubs. He posted an .846 OPS two years later, after sitting out 2009. There’s no reason he couldn’t have been a perfectly fine platoon with Reed Johnson again in CF in 2009 — and for a lot less money than Bradley.
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
Without the need for a 3-year deal.
That was the worst part of the Bradley signing. Had Hendry rolled the dice for a season, the damage would have been a lot easier to deal with.
elgato - July 14, 2011
On a one-year deal, Edmonds was still the better choice.
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
Agreed.
elgato - July 14, 2011
I'm not sure how the conversation went behind closed doors
But Lou wasn’t quiet publicly about it. I think the front office felt pressured to make a move. There was too much emotion about losing and they made a bad decision. It’s not like you can’t win a WS without a left-handed power bat in your lineup. Edmonds/Johnson platoon would have been fine. You’d would have had a bunch of guys that were pissed off about getting swept coming back to prove themselves.
JG23 - July 14, 2011
Yep
Shanghai Badger - July 14, 2011
Exactly, and...
… Lou overreacted to the loss. When he saw what a mess his ideas had made, that’s when he seemed to lose interest and shut down — the second half of 2009 and all of 2010.
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
I'd really like to go back and play '09 with the '08 guys again
Can we make that happen?
JG23 - July 14, 2011
For what it's worth...
Lou playing GM on the field, is largely what got us there in the first place. In spring of the 2007, he was seemingly already shuffling the players that Hendry put in place, and he capped it off by ousting Michael Barrett in mid-season.
SackMan - July 14, 2011
Without Lou...
…that 07 club never sniffs the playoffs and would have been likely 08 also would not have been near as successful as it was.
MPH73 - July 14, 2011
It also helped, that we played in a crappy divison.
SackMan - July 14, 2011
That always helps.
MPH73 - July 14, 2011
Lou playing GM on the field singlehandedly got rid of Michael Barrett.
D98 - July 14, 2011
I should read posts before responding to them.
In short, I agree with everything you wrote.
D98 - July 14, 2011
Yep.
He ended the Soriano in CF experiment real fast. How THAT was ever a plan is beyond belief. But, that’s what the GM sold the media and the fans on, when he signed him. And it took a while for Hendry to get him a competent CF, after Lou ushered Felix Pie back to Iowa.
SackMan - July 14, 2011
The key question...
…to ask yourself, is where are the Cubs as a baseball organization after 16 years of influence in key positions?
If you look at that in it’s totality and compare the Cubs to many other organizations accross baseball, the only answer I can come up with is; simply not close to good enough with their resources.
I wanted Hendry replaced after 2006, but I’d settle for a good solid replacement as soon as the last out is made in 2011. Cub’s fans everywhere, deserve a lot better for their loyalty.
MPH73 - July 14, 2011
I don't know of
anything other than longevity in the system that would qualify Fleita to be the GM.
Under most of his tenure the minor leagues have been awful, with almost no consistent major leaguers coming out. The apparent quality has improved over the last couple years, but I think that is far more attributable to Wilken than Fleita.
The players coming through the system still have awful fundamentals, and the decisions on advancement of players are often poor, with players advancing through levels well before they have achieved success at that level.
In my opinion there is more a case to replace Fleita than promote him.
tomas21 - July 14, 2011
I agree....NO MORE CRONIES!!!!!!
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
I agree...
…the organization needs a fresh approach (a wake up call) someone who will impose their will from top to bottom with the right culture.
MPH73 - July 14, 2011
hendry isn't particularly good at his job
jesus christos - July 14, 2011
Perhaps, the time has come.
Change for its own sake can sometimes be good in sports. But even so, there is a ton of revisionism, 20/20 hindsight, and good old fashioned half-truths in this thread.
If I gave a full-throated defense of Hendry, you’d probably just think I’m a troll. So without doing that, and without attempting to whitewash what we can all see are very real and painful mistakes with Bradley, Soriano, Pierre, etc., I’ll simply say this:
If it is Hendry’s last year, bon voyage, thanks for the memories, and good luck in your next job – as someone definitely will give you one. I actually think you did a pretty good job and gave us some of the best years we’ve ever had as Cubs fans. And I’m not afraid to say it just because it’s fashionable to pile on and pretend that nothing good has come out of the last ten years.
Orval Overall - July 14, 2011
what has he done for the cubs lately?
even tom landry got fired, im tired of his overblown contracts being, the reason that he cant do anything
Roman the greek - July 14, 2011
Tom Landry got fired so Jerry Jones could hire his old college buddy Jimmy Johnson.
And that firing was largely panned by everyone. Got another comparison you’d like to make?
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
Hendry's "buddy's" have not worked out so well...
TJ11 - July 14, 2011
"Panned by everyone"??
Hardly, Jimmy Johnson won two Super Bowls with the Cowboys.
Even hard core Tom Landry fans, such as myself, had to admit that by 1989, the game had passed him by.
azjazzman - July 14, 2011
Rec'd
I feel the exact same way.
alkappy - July 14, 2011
hendry was in charge of the farm system when albert pujols fell all the way to the 12th round
in 99. did the cubs get any players out of that draft?
Roman the greek - July 14, 2011
Actually, it was the 13th round.
So let me get this straight. You’re blaming Hendry for not getting Pujols, when 30 teams passed on him 12 times?
This is the torches & pitchforks mentality that I really don’t care for.
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
He's a witch. He's a witch. Burn him!
Just kidding… Seriously, though. This has been an awfully vindictive thread. I remember reading about Hendry a few years back as one of the better GM’s in MLB. Now that his moves didn’t pan out, the entirety of the Cubs fan base is angry. Look, I’m with you and every one else, it’s time for the guy to go. But, you’re also right, blaming him for everything is overblown. Remember, the Tribune’s transition period really sucked the life out of this franchise. Moves were made not to win, but to look good on paper. I’m not saying Hendry is blameless (Again, as documented, Bradley, Soriano’s 40 year deal, etc.), but let’s thank him for his service and move on.
And if we really want to go after someone, shouldn’t we start with the players at some level? I mean, we have some veterans who haven’t exactly done their part. We are so quick to attack the guy who hired them (fair), but they hire them for a reason. This is/was a talented team (this year redacted from that statement due to another (@#$& injury) that has woefully underachieved. To put all that blame on the GM is crazy.
KennardHusker - July 14, 2011
Actually, I don't think this thread has been vindictive at all.
Lots of good discussion and not very many torches or pitchforks.
Al Yellon - July 14, 2011
...
santoswoodenlegs - July 14, 2011
I for one think Hendry should stay.
He hasn’t made the perfect move every time, but he has made a lot of good ones. He seams to have a lot of good relationships all around baseball which has made him someone who is able to make trades when needed. Some of his free agent signings are somewhat questionable(Bradley, Fukudome, and Soriano, and several other smaller deals that he overpaid) but there have been some really good ones as well, not to mention the potential free agents that signed for less money to stay than they would have received on the open market.
The money that was spent prior to the 07 season seamed to be a push to make the team more valuable before sale without much regard for the future of the team. He has taken a lot of chances to produce a winner without a championship, but he has had a lot of success. Changing GM’s at this point would be a setback and could hinder rebuilding even further. With the money coming of the book this year I would like to see him have another chance to build a contender. I don’t know that anyone would work harder or wants to win more.
wfree0104 - July 14, 2011
nice try Jim Hendry's secretary
santoswoodenlegs - July 14, 2011
ever notice that when someone mentions Jim Hendry's decisions
its always like this:
" Sure Jim Hendry has made some bad decisions ( soriano, bradley, Miles, Juan pierre fukudome)….."
but when they mentions the good ones its like this:
" there have been some really good ones as well…."
epsilon - July 14, 2011
....
jesus christos - July 14, 2011
maybe he has an elderly mother he can go take care of
Roman the greek - July 14, 2011
Unnecessary
Shanghai Badger - July 14, 2011
you're callous....people should take care of their elders
santoswoodenlegs - July 14, 2011
No No No No on Fleita
This organization desperately needs a change of attitude and direction that can only be accomplished by hiring from the outside. How in the world can anyone assume Fleita wouldn’t be Hendry-lite. He was hired by JH and has spent his career at the feet of his mentor.
Merely because he has done a nice job as farm director, that doesn’t qualify him for GM. Good salesmen generally make poor sales managers and good teachers often are poor administrators. This organizational structure doesn’t need tinkering. It needs a new and better vision.
tharr - July 14, 2011
Is our minor league system really all some people are making it out to be?
We’ve basically determined that we have very few pitchers at the upper levels who are ready and we may not have a major league level starter in the high minors. Our top prospect among pitchers (McNutt) has really been pretty average this year at best, although I know we have the caveat that he isn’t 100%.
Basically, we have two players who are stepping up (Jackson and Szczur) and they play the same position. Some promise at the lower levels I guess with Golden, Easterling and a few others but how long have we been hearing that we have great potential in the lower minors?
Guess I’m not as overly optimistic as others about the current state of our minor league system. I hope I’m wrong…
uptowncub - July 14, 2011
I'll go a step further
Other than Jackson, all the postion prospects have terrible plate discipline. And for all the hype he get here. Szczur put up a .791 in Low A ball this year. Take away all the Texas League doubles and he’s probably a 750 OPSer in Low A ball.
Just another hype case of a guy who doesn’t have power, and doesn’t draw walks.
Maybe we can convert him to pitching?
aaronb - July 14, 2011
And guys don't come to Chicago with well-developed skills
ClarkFan - July 14, 2011
Hendry has to go. Period.
When the Ricketts family took over ownership of the Cubs in October 2009, I was very optimistic about the future of the Chicago Cubs. Even when he announced that the Cubs would be retaining Jim Hendry and Lou Piniella I remained optimistic. The Cubs had a disappointing season in 2009, but it was not what I would call a “bad year.” The Milton Bradley deal was a huge mistake and I thought replacing Kerry Wood with Kevin Gregg was a bad move, but after years of the pennypinching Tribune ways I was hopeful that Ricketts Inc. would be a breath of fresh air. I’m not anti-Ricketts like some of the Cubs fans are, but the regime is only going to add fuel to the fire of the critics calling them clueless and out of touch if they bring back Jim Hendry as GM. The Chicago Cubs have no excuse to be losing with a big payroll and, more importantly, HOW they are losing.
I can’t speak for all Cubs fans. I can only speak for myself. It personally angers me to witness the ineptitude of this organization for the past couple of years and, as a consequence of this, the constant reminders of no World Series championship since 1908, “lovable losers”, “snake-bitten organization”, etc. I guess I expected more from a self-proclaimed Cubs fan whom should know better. If Tom Ricketts isn’t embarrassed by the team’s play of 2011, then shame on him. It is beyond embarrassing to watch the Chicago Cubs play in 2011. I don’t like it when I listen to commentators and other fans bash the Cubs, but I can’t really blame them. There is no excuse for the lackadaisical play on-the-field. There is no excuse for the lack of depth on this team and the poor managerial decisions by Mike Quade. You can use the injuries excuse all that you want, but there are teams in MLB who have had as many injuries to key players, if not more, whom are performing better than the Cubs.
Ryne Sandberg was disappointed that he didn’t get hired as the Cubs manager last October, but it might have been a blessing in disguise. Would you want to work for Jim Hendry with this team? Sandberg would probably fare a lot better with a new GM that he can work WITH rather than work FOR and the two of them can go to work on rebuilding this team with some dead weight coming off the payroll in 2012.
jeffmills1972 - July 14, 2011
Yep. That’s all that needs to be said here. The good ol’ boys Country Club down at Clark & Addison needs to be broken up ASAP.
Will it? Of course not. As long as they get 2 Million+ in guaranteed ticket sales every January from season ticket holders, they won’t even blink.
bluemagic9 - July 15, 2011
I didn't see it mentioned, but
any chance we pry Theo Epstein away from the Red Sox ?
Cubbinstrongsince86 - July 14, 2011
Part of the problem
By continuing to say overpaid players are off-limits to trade is absolutely rediculous. This team is beyond awful and should be broken up as much as humanly possible. Ricketts isn’t part of the solution if he allows Hendry to make deals just to tread water, and to sell slightly more tickets. Time to strip this down to the bone and hope for a return in investment 3-5 years down the road. Tough pill to swallow, but I see no other solution at this point.
propheteer - July 15, 2011
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.