All his eggs in one basket?

[nick23]

I just don't think you know what you're talking about. That's all. You claimed Hendry didn't put enough eggs in Giles's basket. I was just wondering how you knew this.

 

Here we go again. It's not okay to question Hendry, instead, let's just bash the people on this board who don't like Hendry's moves.

 

I know what I'm talking about, and I feel very comfortable stating that he put a lot of eggs in the Furcal basket and not enough in the Giles basket. If there were some secret backdoor negotiations that no media outlet picked up on or felt were worth reporting, where Hendry repeatedly tried to convince Giles and his agent to talk to the Cubs in the neighborhood of 3/30 or a little more, then I will admit I was wrong on this one. But I highly doubt that's the case.

 

Instead of just attacking me, why don't you offer up your take on the subject with some sort of logical explanations based on what information is out there? It's not like I just pulled some wild conspiracy theory out of my butt with nothing to base it on. Why are you so interested in what other fans think about the Cubs, instead of what the Cubs are actually doing, or not doing?

I'm not attacking you. We all pretty much get the same info when it comes to the offseason. I think Hendry did contact the Giles camp. I think he didn't get the reaction he was looking for so he started to look elsewhere. I do however feel that all along Furcal was priority number 1. I don't however agree with this. Giles was the perfect fit for the cubs, unfortunately he didn't want to come here. Hendry still has time to turn this thing around though. Ideally he could keep the infield intact, trade for Bradley and Wilkerson, then sing Millwood(assuming Williams is traded). Make those moves, or similar moves and imo we're in the playoffs.

[BigbadB]

He did put a lot of eggs in the Furcal basket, but lucked out when somebody else overpaid.

 

He didn't put enough eggs in the Giles basket.

How exactly do you know this? Is it that hard for you to accept that maybe, just maybe, Giles didn't want to play for Chicago?

 

It's very hard for me to accept that Hendry apparantly didn't even try to talk him into the move, like other GMs have done with players who used to be against playing for that team.

Like I asked before, How exactly do you know this?

 

Well, we didn't get Giles, so that alone says he didn't do enough.

 

But no, I don't know this as fact. None of this crap we talk about is known as fact. But any reasonable person who has read up on the situation would have to come to the conclusion that Hendry didn't really try hard to get Giles. If you disagree with that statement, or the statement that he did try really hard to get Furcal, than go right ahead and say it. But don't ask me to prove every statement, or else make sure you do that to every other poster who makes an educated assumption based on several reports by many baseball media outlets.

I just don't think you know what you're talking about. That's all. You claimed Hendry didn't put enough eggs in Giles's basket. I was just wondering how you knew this.

 

Nick,

 

Goony doesn't know what he's talking about anymore than you know what you are talking about, and I don't have any facts to back up anything I'm talking about. No one here is Jim Hendry.

 

Goony is free to make his own assumptions of whether Hendry tried aggressively to get Giles or not. He's not calling you out for believing that Hendry did everything in his power to get Giles. Therefore, there is no reason for you to call him out for believing that Hendry did not do all he could. Disagree or move on.

 

If you prefer to trust that Hendry at least asked about Giles availability, good for you. Some of us don't buy into it, just like a lot of other people won't believe another Chicago Cub injury report.

 

The only thing that will change my mind that Hendry did everything he could to get Giles, would be if he came out publicly and said he offered Giles a 3 year deal that was better than any other offer and Giles turned him down.

 

Personally, I don't know why Hendry didn't offer Giles 3/45m to come to Chicago. No, I can't prove that he didn't make that offer. But, if he did, I'm sure someone would have heard about it. In fact, I'm not so sure Giles would be putting all his equipment back in the same locker he had last year if Hendry did make that offer.

 

To me, and in my opinion only, Hendry wanted Furcal, not Giles. He placed more importance on a lead off hitter, rather than the most productive outfielder on the market.

 

I sure hope someone flat out asks him why he didn't seem interested in Giles at convention this year. Maybe we will get some truth.

[badger1679666666]

Isn't it at all possible, even probable, that Hendry did look into Giles, but realized from what he was hearing that it looked like a lost cause/very difficult so rather than waste time with a player that was 95% staying in SD, he went after a player he thought he had a better chance of getting (Furcal)? Maybe he, the General Manager of the Chicago Cubs had more information than us, fans of the Chicago Cubs?

 

It's possible, but still not a good enough explanation for me.

 

My personal view of the situation is that Hendry didn't prioritize Giles at all. He did not value Giles skillset or realize just how big a hole RF is right now. Hendry has a thing for guys like Encarnacion, Wilson, Jones and Burnitz, so he was more than happy to wait on RF, and pretty much ignored Giles and his .400+ OBP. Considering he was offering 5/50 and maybe more, for Furcal, 3/30 for Giles was more than fair to the Cubs, but I don't think he even tried to negotiate there.

 

Fair enough, I would have liked Giles too. It just seems with the way things went on with Giles, that he really wanted to stay in SD.

 

Now I want Lugo, Wilkerson, Huff, and/or Bradley. I think Hendry can still have a very effective off-season if he can't several of those.

 

Lugo

2/3 of Huff/Bradley/Wilkerson.

IF we can get those players you mentioned it would be a successful offseason. We'll see what Hendry can do but getting those players isn't cheap and will probably cost us our best prospects.

 

Well Dusty ain't ever gonna play them, and Hendry isn't gonna fire him, so we might as well trade them for someone he will play right?

 

:roll: @ this organization. I can't believe that we have to "dusty-proof" a lineup. How ridiculous is that?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

2. I think nick23 makes the same point that I am making. We don't really "know" any of this. While I agree that Giles would have been wonderful and RF is more of a problem than SS/lead-off, we don't know. It could be that Hendry did inquire about Giles and was told to "buzz off" in which case, wouldn't it have been foolish to continue the pursuit?

 

Given what we know, I think it's a greater assumption that Hendry pursued Giles as much as Goony(and many others) felt was appropriate, than to assume that Hendry didn't really have much interest at all.

[badger1679666666]

He did put a lot of eggs in the Furcal basket, but lucked out when somebody else overpaid.

 

He didn't put enough eggs in the Giles basket.

How exactly do you know this? Is it that hard for you to accept that maybe, just maybe, Giles didn't want to play for Chicago?

 

It's very hard for me to accept that Hendry apparantly didn't even try to talk him into the move, like other GMs have done with players who used to be against playing for that team.

Like I asked before, How exactly do you know this?

 

Well, we didn't get Giles, so that alone says he didn't do enough.

 

But no, I don't know this as fact. None of this crap we talk about is known as fact. But any reasonable person who has read up on the situation would have to come to the conclusion that Hendry didn't really try hard to get Giles. If you disagree with that statement, or the statement that he did try really hard to get Furcal, than go right ahead and say it. But don't ask me to prove every statement, or else make sure you do that to every other poster who makes an educated assumption based on several reports by many baseball media outlets.

I just don't think you know what you're talking about. That's all. You claimed Hendry didn't put enough eggs in Giles's basket. I was just wondering how you knew this.

 

Nick,

 

Goony doesn't know what he's talking about anymore than you know what you are talking about, and I don't have any facts to back up anything I'm talking about. No one here is Jim Hendry.

 

Goony is free to make his own assumptions of whether Hendry tried aggressively to get Giles or not. He's not calling you out for believing that Hendry did everything in his power to get Giles. Therefore, there is no reason for you to call him out for believing that Hendry did not do all he could. Disagree or move on.

 

If you prefer to trust that Hendry at least asked about Giles availability, good for you. Some of us don't buy into it, just like a lot of other people won't believe another Chicago Cub injury report.

 

The only thing that will change my mind that Hendry did everything he could to get Giles, would be if he came out publicly and said he offered Giles a 3 year deal that was better than any other offer and Giles turned him down.

 

Personally, I don't know why Hendry didn't offer Giles 3/45m to come to Chicago. No, I can't prove that he didn't make that offer. But, if he did, I'm sure someone would have heard about it. In fact, I'm not so sure Giles would be putting all his equipment back in the same locker he had last year if Hendry did make that offer.

 

To me, and in my opinion only, Hendry wanted Furcal, not Giles. He placed more importance on a lead off hitter, rather than the most productive outfielder on the market.

 

I sure hope someone flat out asks him why he didn't seem interested in Giles at convention this year. Maybe we will get some truth.

 

3/45 for a 34 year old giles is more insanity than 3/13 for Furcal, or 5/55 guaranteed for Burnett.

 

Giles is NOT at all a 15/a year player.

[goonys evil twin]

However, I think it is overgeneralizing to say that he is "putting all his eggs in one basket" and pursues players with a single minded devotion. As I said in reason 1, I really wouldn't mind if he chose the right basket. My condemnation is in his choice of FA baskets, not his style as a GM.

 

I do think that Hendry is a solid GM, just not a good judge of FA talent.

 

This is the thread where I've seen the eggs/basket talk, not really anywhere else. I said he put a lot of eggs in one basket and not enough in another, not "all". I dislike his style as GM (let's just wait for the leftovers, but I'll overpay my own mediocre players as soon as possible, HEY WORLD I HAVE TO TRADE SAMMY AND WALKER AND FARNSWORTH, I am going to focus almost exclusively on one spot in the order and do whatever I can to fill that one spot then leave all the other big holes to fill later) and I think he's an average GM, with the proof being a top 5 payroll not being met with a top 5 record or top 5 offense and a bad 2005 team.

[BigbadB]

2. I think nick23 makes the same point that I am making. We don't really "know" any of this. While I agree that Giles would have been wonderful and RF is more of a problem than SS/lead-off, we don't know. It could be that Hendry did inquire about Giles and was told to "buzz off" in which case, wouldn't it have been foolish to continue the pursuit?

 

Would it have been in the best of interest for Giles and his agent to tell a team interested in his services to "buzz off"? Especially, if their main purpose for testing the market was to drive up Giles price.

[goonys evil twin]

I just don't think you know what you're talking about. That's all. You claimed Hendry didn't put enough eggs in Giles's basket. I was just wondering how you knew this.

 

Here we go again. It's not okay to question Hendry, instead, let's just bash the people on this board who don't like Hendry's moves.

 

I know what I'm talking about, and I feel very comfortable stating that he put a lot of eggs in the Furcal basket and not enough in the Giles basket. If there were some secret backdoor negotiations that no media outlet picked up on or felt were worth reporting, where Hendry repeatedly tried to convince Giles and his agent to talk to the Cubs in the neighborhood of 3/30 or a little more, then I will admit I was wrong on this one. But I highly doubt that's the case.

 

Instead of just attacking me, why don't you offer up your take on the subject with some sort of logical explanations based on what information is out there? It's not like I just pulled some wild conspiracy theory out of my butt with nothing to base it on. Why are you so interested in what other fans think about the Cubs, instead of what the Cubs are actually doing, or not doing?

I'm not attacking you. We all pretty much get the same info when it comes to the offseason. I think Hendry did contact the Giles camp. I think he didn't get the reaction he was looking for so he started to look elsewhere. I do however feel that all along Furcal was priority number 1. I don't however agree with this. Giles was the perfect fit for the cubs, unfortunately he didn't want to come here. Hendry still has time to turn this thing around though. Ideally he could keep the infield intact, trade for Bradley and Wilkerson, then sing Millwood(assuming Williams is traded). Make those moves, or similar moves and imo we're in the playoffs.

 

Then what is with all the "where is the proof" "you don't know what you're talking about" BS. You have no more proof than I do, but it's okay for you to state your opinion and not me? I have to wait until I have iron-clad proof before I write about what I think happened based on every report that has been made available?

[nick23]

He did put a lot of eggs in the Furcal basket, but lucked out when somebody else overpaid.

 

He didn't put enough eggs in the Giles basket.

How exactly do you know this? Is it that hard for you to accept that maybe, just maybe, Giles didn't want to play for Chicago?

 

It's very hard for me to accept that Hendry apparantly didn't even try to talk him into the move, like other GMs have done with players who used to be against playing for that team.

Like I asked before, How exactly do you know this?

 

Well, we didn't get Giles, so that alone says he didn't do enough.

 

But no, I don't know this as fact. None of this crap we talk about is known as fact. But any reasonable person who has read up on the situation would have to come to the conclusion that Hendry didn't really try hard to get Giles. If you disagree with that statement, or the statement that he did try really hard to get Furcal, than go right ahead and say it. But don't ask me to prove every statement, or else make sure you do that to every other poster who makes an educated assumption based on several reports by many baseball media outlets.

I just don't think you know what you're talking about. That's all. You claimed Hendry didn't put enough eggs in Giles's basket. I was just wondering how you knew this.

 

Nick,

 

Goony doesn't know what he's talking about anymore than you know what you are talking about, and I don't have any facts to back up anything I'm talking about. No one here is Jim Hendry.

 

Goony is free to make his own assumptions of whether Hendry tried aggressively to get Giles or not. He's not calling you out for believing that Hendry did everything in his power to get Giles. Therefore, there is no reason for you to call him out for believing that Hendry did not do all he could. Disagree or move on.

 

If you prefer to trust that Hendry at least asked about Giles availability, good for you. Some of us don't buy into it, just like a lot of other people won't believe another Chicago Cub injury report.

 

The only thing that will change my mind that Hendry did everything he could to get Giles, would be if he came out publicly and said he offered Giles a 3 year deal that was better than any other offer and Giles turned him down.

 

Personally, I don't know why Hendry didn't offer Giles 3/45m to come to Chicago. No, I can't prove that he didn't make that offer. But, if he did, I'm sure someone would have heard about it. In fact, I'm not so sure Giles would be putting all his equipment back in the same locker he had last year if Hendry did make that offer.

 

To me, and in my opinion only, Hendry wanted Furcal, not Giles. He placed more importance on a lead off hitter, rather than the most productive outfielder on the market.

 

I sure hope someone flat out asks him why he didn't seem interested in Giles at convention this year. Maybe we will get some truth.

First of all, please don't tell me when to move on. Second, read my last post.

[Magnetic Curses]

2. I think nick23 makes the same point that I am making. We don't really "know" any of this. While I agree that Giles would have been wonderful and RF is more of a problem than SS/lead-off, we don't know. It could be that Hendry did inquire about Giles and was told to "buzz off" in which case, wouldn't it have been foolish to continue the pursuit?

 

the point is that it's not wrong to make an educated guess based on the facts that you DO know.

 

1. hendry hardly mentioned giles' name when talking about possible FA targets, despite Giles being EXACTLY what this team needs. We've seen this before from him(ie: Drew and Beltran).

 

2. Agents do NOT tell possible bidding competitors to "buzz off". It's an incredibly stupid thing to do, if you believe they do, you're trying too hard to defend hendry.

 

If people don't like the decision that was made, that is a fine and valid argument. I am not sold on Scott Eyre either. However, I think it is overgeneralizing to say that he is "putting all his eggs in one basket" and pursues players with a single minded devotion.

 

being sold on eyre and paying him nearly 4 mil per year are two different things. I have no problem with the acquisition of a left handed set-up guy, i have all the problem in the world with hendry fixing a perceived problem by throwing too much money at something relatively insignificant--compared to our OF issues.

 

I do think that Hendry is a solid GM, just not a good judge of FA talent.

 

well, a main part of his job is evaluating FA talent so he must not be that good at being a GM.

[nick23]

I just don't think you know what you're talking about. That's all. You claimed Hendry didn't put enough eggs in Giles's basket. I was just wondering how you knew this.

 

Here we go again. It's not okay to question Hendry, instead, let's just bash the people on this board who don't like Hendry's moves.

 

I know what I'm talking about, and I feel very comfortable stating that he put a lot of eggs in the Furcal basket and not enough in the Giles basket. If there were some secret backdoor negotiations that no media outlet picked up on or felt were worth reporting, where Hendry repeatedly tried to convince Giles and his agent to talk to the Cubs in the neighborhood of 3/30 or a little more, then I will admit I was wrong on this one. But I highly doubt that's the case.

 

Instead of just attacking me, why don't you offer up your take on the subject with some sort of logical explanations based on what information is out there? It's not like I just pulled some wild conspiracy theory out of my butt with nothing to base it on. Why are you so interested in what other fans think about the Cubs, instead of what the Cubs are actually doing, or not doing?

I'm not attacking you. We all pretty much get the same info when it comes to the offseason. I think Hendry did contact the Giles camp. I think he didn't get the reaction he was looking for so he started to look elsewhere. I do however feel that all along Furcal was priority number 1. I don't however agree with this. Giles was the perfect fit for the cubs, unfortunately he didn't want to come here. Hendry still has time to turn this thing around though. Ideally he could keep the infield intact, trade for Bradley and Wilkerson, then sing Millwood(assuming Williams is traded). Make those moves, or similar moves and imo we're in the playoffs.

 

Then what is with all the "where is the proof" "you don't know what you're talking about" BS. You have no more proof than I do, but it's okay for you to state your opinion and not me? I have to wait until I have iron-clad proof before I write about what I think happened based on every report that has been made available?

I never said "where's the proof". You said Hendry did not go after Giles. I said how do you know this. All I'm doing is disagreeing with you. I think Hendry did ask about Giles.

[goonys evil twin]

I never said "where's the proof". You said Hendry did not go after Giles. I said how do you know this. All I'm doing is disagreeing with you. I think Hendry did ask about Giles.

 

And saying I don't know what I'm talking about, all while basing your theory on no more evidence than I based mine, which is an incredibly rude and arrogant remark.

[badger1679666666]

 

well, a main part of his job is evaluating FA talent so he must not be that good at being a GM.

 

I think he's great at trades:

 

The Good:

 

Lee acquisition for a mediocre/bad Choi

Ramirez/Lofton/Simon acquisition

Karros/Grudz acquisition for freaking Hundley

Nomar/Murton acquisition for crap

Barrett acquisition (he was traded for correct?)

Clement part of the acquisition (Willis was thrown in at the very end as a throw-in no one thought he'd be great)

 

The Bad:

 

Sosa trade

Farnsworth trade

Cruz trade

 

 

So basically when Hendry devalues a player, the trades suck (pretty intuitive) and when he doesn't devalue them he fleeces opposing GM's, for the most part.

 

I'd say he sucks at FA but is good at trading, making him an average to slightly above average GM. I think he just focuses too much on "toolsy" guys.

[BigbadB]

3/45 for a 34 year old giles is more insanity than 3/13 for Furcal, or 5/55 guaranteed for Burnett.

 

Giles is NOT at all a 15/a year player.

 

That's how much Bobby Abreu is getting. Abreu is probably not coming to the Cubs. Abreu would probably be the better choice of the two because of age, but if one isn't available, you have to consider overpaying if you want the guy who can help you the most.

 

Instead of overpaying for a "GOOD" player like Giles, instead we overpay for average players like Neifi, Rusch and Eyre. To me, that doesn't make sense. None of those other guys are difference makers. Giles is a difference maker.

 

The biggest hole on this team is RF. What we needed in RF was a lefty, power bat that gets on base a ton. Giles can play RF. He's a lefty, he can hit for power and he gets on base a ton.

 

Giles/Cedeno would have cost a hair over 15m a year if you made that deal.

 

Furcal/Preston Wilson would have likely cost more "If Hendry did get his man".

 

Assuming the Cubs still had budget room for someone like Milton Bradley in CF, which would you honestly rather have? Furcal at 10m for 5 years and Preston Wilson at 6m a year for 2 years or Giles at 15m for 3 years and Cedeno at league minimum of 3 years?

 

Paying Giles through age 37 wouldn't be that horrible, IMO. We did it with Moises, and a lot of people wanted Moises back this year. Moises got a 2 year deal with San Fran.

 

It's a risk, but one that had to be taken if available. Worst case scenario is that he doesn't work out and you have to pay some of his salary to DH in the AL for the last year. Phily did it with Thome, the Cubs could have done it with Giles.

[CubinNY]

I think Hendry did ask about Giles.

 

Where is your proof? The only quote that I have read from Hendry that had anything to do with Giles at all was

 

this

 

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-051116 cubs,1,1236145.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

 

:

The Cubs aren't interested in getting into a bidding war with teams like the Yankees and Cardinals for free-agent outfielder Brian Giles, who turns 35 in January and is seeking more than $10 million per year for at least three years.

 

Hendry is more likely to trade for a right fielder than look to the subpar free-agent crop.

[nick23]

I never said "where's the proof". You said Hendry did not go after Giles. I said how do you know this. All I'm doing is disagreeing with you. I think Hendry did ask about Giles.

 

And saying I don't know what I'm talking about, all while basing your theory on no more evidence than I based mine, which is an incredibly rude and arrogant remark.

You're right. Sorry for the remark.

[nick23]

I think Hendry did ask about Giles.

 

Where is your proof? The only quote that I have read from Hendry that had anything to do with Giles at all was

 

this

 

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-051116 cubs,1,1236145.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

 

:

The Cubs aren't interested in getting into a bidding war with teams like the Yankees and Cardinals for free-agent outfielder Brian Giles, who turns 35 in January and is seeking more than $10 million per year for at least three years.

 

Hendry is more likely to trade for a right fielder than look to the subpar free-agent crop.

I need proof for saying I think Hendry asked about Giles? Are you serious? I think you need to go back and look at what I was responding to. Once again, I never asked anybody to prove anything.

[CubinNY]

I think Hendry did ask about Giles.

 

Where is your proof? The only quote that I have read from Hendry that had anything to do with Giles at all was

 

this

 

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-051116 cubs,1,1236145.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

 

:

The Cubs aren't interested in getting into a bidding war with teams like the Yankees and Cardinals for free-agent outfielder Brian Giles, who turns 35 in January and is seeking more than $10 million per year for at least three years.

 

Hendry is more likely to trade for a right fielder than look to the subpar free-agent crop.

I need proof for saying I think Hendry asked about Giles? Are you serious?

 

you are the one who is saying he did. From everything I've read, seen, and heard Hendry did not pursue Giles this off-season.

 

To my knowledge there is not one story that would suggest he even talked to Giles agent. Meanwhile the newspapers were lousy with Furcal being wined and dined by Hendry. All this after Hendry makes it his business to go out and resign Neifi and Rusch lickity-split. After that it was on to setting the market for medicore relief pitchers. Meanwhile Giles was available the whole time. In each of the aformentioned signings there were corresponding news reports.

 

I'm no Perry Mason but it dosen't take a slueth to surmize that Hendry didn't target Giles.

 

Now you say he did. I say how do you know?

[MPrior]

Maybe no one else remembers this, but Bruce Miles did come on this board and say the Cubs weren't really interested in Giles because of his age and "declining production." So our most reliable inside source said the Cubs weren't that hot on Giles. Take that for what it's worth.

[BigbadB]

How about we just drop this whole "how do you know" stuff, otherwise I'm locking this thread.

[CubinNY]

How about we just drop this whole "how do you know" stuff, otherwise I'm locking this thread.

 

like a potatoe

[NoDak]

well, a main part of his job is evaluating FA talent so he must not be that good at being a GM.

 

While my "buzz off" statement was hyperbole and I don't necessarily think that is what happened, my point is that we really don't know what did happen. Just having no reports about something is not necessarily the same thing as saying that it didn't happen. "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

 

I disagree that evaluating FA talent is the main part of his job. Hendry never markets himself, and, to my knowledge, neither does anyone else, that he is a good evaluator of FA talent. His main credentials are that he is a very good guy in getting things for trades. He is rarely fleeced and has often fleeced opposing teams.

 

 

Badger, I don't know that the Sosa trade was that bad. Would the team have been better with Sosa than with Hairston, I don't know about that. Some have argued that he could have gotten more for Sosa, but I don't know that that makes this a "bad trade." You are correct about the Cruz trade and the Farnsworth trade (but the Cruz trade for what we got back was FAR worse).

 

Finally:

 

It is part of the beauty of baseball that we can discuss these things in the off-season. What I still want to stress is that this is all guess-work. To discuss them as "educated guesses" (as one poster pointed out) is fun, interesting and valid. Where I think we cross the line is when we start to give these "educated guesses" the apparent status of "fact" with statements like "Hendry did/did not go after Giles." A good argument can be made that he didn't, but there is really little evidence (much less "proof") that he did/did not.

[badger1679666666]

well, a main part of his job is evaluating FA talent so he must not be that good at being a GM.

 

While my "buzz off" statement was hyperbole and I don't necessarily think that is what happened, my point is that we really don't know what did happen. Just having no reports about something is not necessarily the same thing as saying that it didn't happen. "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

 

I disagree that evaluating FA talent is the main part of his job. Hendry never markets himself, and, to my knowledge, neither does anyone else, that he is a good evaluator of FA talent. His main credentials are that he is a very good guy in getting things for trades. He is rarely fleeced and has often fleeced opposing teams.

 

 

Badger, I don't know that the Sosa trade was that bad. Would the team have been better with Sosa than with Hairston, I don't know about that. Some have argued that he could have gotten more for Sosa, but I don't know that that makes this a "bad trade." You are correct about the Cruz trade and the Farnsworth trade (but the Cruz trade for what we got back was FAR worse).

 

Finally:

 

It is part of the beauty of baseball that we can discuss these things in the off-season. What I still want to stress is that this is all guess-work. To discuss them as "educated guesses" (as one poster pointed out) is fun, interesting and valid. Where I think we cross the line is when we start to give these "educated guesses" the apparent status of "fact" with statements like "Hendry did/did not go after Giles." A good argument can be made that he didn't, but there is really little evidence (much less "proof") that he did/did not.

 

Well devaluing Sosa to the point where GM's knew they didn't have to offer ANYONE to get him was Hendry's mistake. Just as they are doing with Walker now. I don't get why they devalue certain players. As I said, all his great trades are with players who weren't devalued.

[BigbadB]

How about we just drop this whole "how do you know" stuff, otherwise I'm locking this thread.

 

like a potatoe

 

Good. Now, who would have liked for Hendry to give Giles a 3/45m contract if that's how much it would have taken to get him away from San Diego?

[goonys evil twin]

How about we just drop this whole "how do you know" stuff, otherwise I'm locking this thread.

 

like a potatoe

 

Good. Now, who would have liked for Hendry to give Giles a 3/45m contract if that's how much it would have taken to get him away from San Diego?

 

I thought 3/30 was the price all along. I would have been willing to go 3/40 (maybe 45), with a team option for the 4th year coupled with a buyout of up to $5. And if he played X number of games in 2007/2008, it would become automatic (but X would be high).