Why all the Hendry bashing?

[BigbadB]

It's alright to call HendryBall (Strong pitching, defense, , speed, and average offense) stupid. Although, it won a title several times in the 2000's. Just don't call hardcore Moneyball stupid. That's offensive.

 

Wrong! It's okay to call Moneyball stupid and it's okay to call Hendryball stupid. What is not okay is to insult the posters who praise Moneyball or Hendryball, etc....

 

It's really that simple.

[CubfaninCA]

It's alright to call HendryBall (Strong pitching, defense, , speed, and average offense) stupid. Although, it won a title several times in the 2000's. Just don't call hardcore Moneyball stupid. That's offensive.

 

Hendry won several titles in the 2000s? I take back my complaint, I was under the impression that the team Hendry put together actually came up well short.

 

Cmon you're mischaracterizing what I wrote. The way Hendry wants to build this team has been ripped a many occasions.

[BigbadB]

It's alright to call HendryBall (Strong pitching, defense, , speed, and average offense) stupid. Although, it won a title several times in the 2000's. Just don't call hardcore Moneyball stupid. That's offensive.

 

Hendry won several titles in the 2000s? I take back my complaint, I was under the impression that the team Hendry put together actually came up well short.

 

Cmon you're mischaracterizing what I wrote. The way Hendry wants to build this team has been ripped a many occasions.

 

And until there are acceptable results from the way Hendry has built this team, he will likely continue to get ripped.

[YearofDaCubs]

It's alright to call HendryBall (Strong pitching, defense, , speed, and average offense) stupid. Although, it won a title several times in the 2000's. Just don't call hardcore Moneyball stupid. That's offensive.

 

Hendry won several titles in the 2000s? I take back my complaint, I was under the impression that the team Hendry put together actually came up well short.

 

Cmon you're mischaracterizing what I wrote. The way Hendry wants to build this team has been ripped a many occasions.

It probably has been ripped because of his failure the past two years. He keeps talking about what kind of team he wants but results speak for themselves. As of now Hendry is not doing a good job of getting this team ready for the playoffs.

[Fro]

The reason people are ripping on Hendry is simple... Cards, White Sox, and the Astros have all been in the World Series in the last two years while the Cubs have imploded. Edited December 6, 2005 by Fro

[Transmogrified Tiger]

It's alright to call HendryBall (Strong pitching, defense, , speed, and average offense) stupid. Although, it won a title several times in the 2000's. Just don't call hardcore Moneyball stupid. That's offensive.

 

Wildly untrue.

[Careless]

Average offenses that have won titles in this decade: white sox, florida, and that's it. they both had great pitching. Did those two teams have above average defenses? The sox certainly didn't seem to, but it's hard to quantify.

[wade]

To the guys who think Hendry is unfairly/ overly criticized on this messageboard-

 

What sort of posts do you expect when/if the Cubs sign or trade for a very good player? Speaking for myself, my criticism will lessen when or if they add a good player for a much needed position.

[Brian]

Here's what Hendry is doing at the winter meetings

 

http://www.desipio.com/2005/12/06/daily-dose-apparently-100-million-cant-buy-a-clue/

[CubfaninCA]

It's alright to call HendryBall (Strong pitching, defense, , speed, and average offense) stupid. Although, it won a title several times in the 2000's. Just don't call hardcore Moneyball stupid. That's offensive.

 

Wrong! It's okay to call Moneyball stupid and it's okay to call Hendryball stupid. What is not okay is to insult the posters who praise Moneyball or Hendryball, etc....

 

It's really that simple.

 

What's the definition of insult?

[CubfaninCA]

To the guys who think Hendry is unfairly/ overly criticized on this messageboard-

 

What sort of posts do you expect when/if the Cubs sign or trade for a very good player? Speaking for myself, my criticism will lessen when or if they add a good player for a much needed position.

 

Expected post - My complaining was premature.

 

If Boston had injuries to Manny & Ortiz, like the Cubs have had to Prior and Wood, they'd be in the same boat as the Cubs. Few teams can survive such injuries. It's just the way the ball bounces sometimes.

[Mizzou]

People are going to bash our GM, our manager, our players, ect. It's the nature of message boards. I too get sick of all the posts bashing Hendry because he "missed out" or "didn't do exactly what I'd do" and sign player X or player Y, but you just have to look past them cause they're inevitable.

[badger1679666666]

In short:

 

You can't judge a GM on a deal by deal basis. You have to take into account the hole team's performance. The Cubs have won 88, 89 and 79 games under Jim's watch as GM. And it's not like he came into this team blind, having been asst GM for a while and working elsewhere in the organization prior to that gig. He has had a top 5 payroll throughout his time as well, so the sub par finishes are inexcusable.

 

The Cubs have had consistent problems holdings this team back for several years, primarily, the hitters don't take walks, which keeps down their OBP, which keeps down their runs scored, which keeps down their win totals. And Jim hasn't done much to improve that glaring weakness.

 

Also, he's focused on positions that are not glaring holes, while seemingly ignoring the one position on the team that does not currently have 1 potential in house candidate to fill the spot and possibly provide adaquate production, RF.

 

I don't like Jim's methods or results. This team is terribly inefficient.

 

You've really convinced yourself that you'd make a better GM, haven't you?

 

I would make a better GM. And I am absolutely sure of it.

 

Thanks for the laugh, I needed one this afternoon.

[BigbadB]

It's alright to call HendryBall (Strong pitching, defense, , speed, and average offense) stupid. Although, it won a title several times in the 2000's. Just don't call hardcore Moneyball stupid. That's offensive.

 

Wrong! It's okay to call Moneyball stupid and it's okay to call Hendryball stupid. What is not okay is to insult the posters who praise Moneyball or Hendryball, etc....

 

It's really that simple.

 

What's the definition of insult?

 

insult

 

n 1: a rude expression intended to offend or hurt; "when a student made a stupid mistake he spared them no abuse"; "they yelled insults at the visiting team" [syn: abuse, revilement, contumely, vilification] 2: a deliberately offensive act or something producing the effect of an affront; "turning his back on me was a deliberate insult" [syn: affront] v : treat, mention, or speak to rudely; "He insulted her with his rude remarks"; "the student who had betrayed his classmate was dissed by everyone" [syn: diss, affront]

 

It's not just insults, it's attacking, labeling, grouping, or insulting the poster for his/her opinions rather than simply debating the post.

 

"Daily whiners" is an insult, among other things.

 

I'm not going to sit here and spell out 100% what is or isn't acceptable to post here. Be intelligent enough to know right from wrong. I know you are, but you seem to prefer challenging authority rather than doing the right thing. And I don't understand why.

[hawkeyecub]

In short:

 

You can't judge a GM on a deal by deal basis. You have to take into account the hole team's performance. The Cubs have won 88, 89 and 79 games under Jim's watch as GM. And it's not like he came into this team blind, having been asst GM for a while and working elsewhere in the organization prior to that gig. He has had a top 5 payroll throughout his time as well, so the sub par finishes are inexcusable.

 

The Cubs have had consistent problems holdings this team back for several years, primarily, the hitters don't take walks, which keeps down their OBP, which keeps down their runs scored, which keeps down their win totals. And Jim hasn't done much to improve that glaring weakness.

 

Also, he's focused on positions that are not glaring holes, while seemingly ignoring the one position on the team that does not currently have 1 potential in house candidate to fill the spot and possibly provide adaquate production, RF.

 

I don't like Jim's methods or results. This team is terribly inefficient.

 

You've really convinced yourself that you'd make a better GM, haven't you?

 

I would make a better GM. And I am absolutely sure of it.

 

 

:lol:

 

Wow. Now that's good stuff.

[YearofDaCubs]

To the guys who think Hendry is unfairly/ overly criticized on this messageboard-

 

What sort of posts do you expect when/if the Cubs sign or trade for a very good player? Speaking for myself, my criticism will lessen when or if they add a good player for a much needed position.

 

Expected post - My complaining was premature.

 

If Boston had injuries to Manny & Ortiz, like the Cubs have had to Prior and Wood, they'd be in the same boat as the Cubs. Few teams can survive such injuries. It's just the way the ball bounces sometimes.

Agreed, but they did lose Schilling and Foulke and they still made it to the playoffs in a tough division.

[CubinNY]

To the guys who think Hendry is unfairly/ overly criticized on this messageboard-

 

What sort of posts do you expect when/if the Cubs sign or trade for a very good player? Speaking for myself, my criticism will lessen when or if they add a good player for a much needed position.

 

Expected post - My complaining was premature.

 

If Boston had injuries to Manny & Ortiz, like the Cubs have had to Prior and Wood, they'd be in the same boat as the Cubs. Few teams can survive such injuries. It's just the way the ball bounces sometimes.

Agreed, but they did lose Schilling and Foulke and they still made it to the playoffs in a tough division.

 

No team is healthy for an entire season. Good teams overcome injuries. Excuses are for losers.

[BigbadB]

To the guys who think Hendry is unfairly/ overly criticized on this messageboard-

 

What sort of posts do you expect when/if the Cubs sign or trade for a very good player? Speaking for myself, my criticism will lessen when or if they add a good player for a much needed position.

 

Expected post - My complaining was premature.

 

If Boston had injuries to Manny & Ortiz, like the Cubs have had to Prior and Wood, they'd be in the same boat as the Cubs. Few teams can survive such injuries. It's just the way the ball bounces sometimes.

Agreed, but they did lose Schilling and Foulke and they still made it to the playoffs in a tough division.

 

No team is healthy for an entire season. Good teams overcome injuries. Excuses are for losers.

 

Did you just steal your own sig? :D

[ThePenguin11]

In short:

 

You can't judge a GM on a deal by deal basis. You have to take into account the hole team's performance. The Cubs have won 88, 89 and 79 games under Jim's watch as GM. And it's not like he came into this team blind, having been asst GM for a while and working elsewhere in the organization prior to that gig. He has had a top 5 payroll throughout his time as well, so the sub par finishes are inexcusable.

 

The Cubs have had consistent problems holdings this team back for several years, primarily, the hitters don't take walks, which keeps down their OBP, which keeps down their runs scored, which keeps down their win totals. And Jim hasn't done much to improve that glaring weakness.

 

Also, he's focused on positions that are not glaring holes, while seemingly ignoring the one position on the team that does not currently have 1 potential in house candidate to fill the spot and possibly provide adaquate production, RF.

 

I don't like Jim's methods or results. This team is terribly inefficient.

 

You've really convinced yourself that you'd make a better GM, haven't you?

 

I would make a better GM. And I am absolutely sure of it.

 

I hope you're kidding. There's more to being a GM than the trades and free agent pickups. That is like saying, "I could run Ford Motor Co. better than Bill Ford because I know alot about how car's work." That's so ignorant, it's ridiculous.

 

And if you're that sure you could do it better, you'd better start sending you're resume out to some minor league teams. That's where you have to start. Then qualified applicants with real experience in professional sports get a sniff.

[CubinNY]

 

Did you just steal your own sig? :D

 

I don't know how to use all the fancy lines and such, and I never liked when people write "see the sig" So I had to open another window to see one of my posts and then steal it. Me good at computer :P

[Warren Brusstar]

In short:

 

You can't judge a GM on a deal by deal basis. You have to take into account the hole team's performance. The Cubs have won 88, 89 and 79 games under Jim's watch as GM. And it's not like he came into this team blind, having been asst GM for a while and working elsewhere in the organization prior to that gig. He has had a top 5 payroll throughout his time as well, so the sub par finishes are inexcusable.

 

The Cubs have had consistent problems holdings this team back for several years, primarily, the hitters don't take walks, which keeps down their OBP, which keeps down their runs scored, which keeps down their win totals. And Jim hasn't done much to improve that glaring weakness.

 

Also, he's focused on positions that are not glaring holes, while seemingly ignoring the one position on the team that does not currently have 1 potential in house candidate to fill the spot and possibly provide adaquate production, RF.

 

I don't like Jim's methods or results. This team is terribly inefficient.

 

You've really convinced yourself that you'd make a better GM, haven't you?

 

I would make a better GM. And I am absolutely sure of it.

 

I hope you're kidding. There's more to being a GM than the trades and free agent pickups. That is like saying, "I could run Ford Motor Co. better than Bill Ford because I know alot about how car's work." That's so ignorant, it's ridiculous.

 

And if you're that sure you could do it better, you'd better start sending you're resume out to some minor league teams. That's where you have to start. Then qualified applicants with real experience in professional sports get a sniff.

 

I have no interest in working for peanuts for a decade so that I *might* someday have the opportunity to run a big league club. And I'm quite content in my current job, than you.

 

In any case, whether I actually seek to become Cub GM is irrelevant to whether I could do a better job that Hendry. It isn't rocket science.

[badger1679666666]

I have no interest in working for peanuts for a decade so that I *might* someday have the opportunity to run a big league club. And I'm quite content in my current job, than you.

 

In any case, whether I actually seek to become Cub GM is irrelevant to whether I could do a better job that Hendry. It isn't rocket science.

 

keep the laughs coming, this is good stuff.

 

:lol: :lol:

[noisesquared]

In short:

 

You can't judge a GM on a deal by deal basis. You have to take into account the hole team's performance. The Cubs have won 88, 89 and 79 games under Jim's watch as GM. And it's not like he came into this team blind, having been asst GM for a while and working elsewhere in the organization prior to that gig. He has had a top 5 payroll throughout his time as well, so the sub par finishes are inexcusable.

 

The Cubs have had consistent problems holdings this team back for several years, primarily, the hitters don't take walks, which keeps down their OBP, which keeps down their runs scored, which keeps down their win totals. And Jim hasn't done much to improve that glaring weakness.

 

Also, he's focused on positions that are not glaring holes, while seemingly ignoring the one position on the team that does not currently have 1 potential in house candidate to fill the spot and possibly provide adaquate production, RF.

 

I don't like Jim's methods or results. This team is terribly inefficient.

 

You've really convinced yourself that you'd make a better GM, haven't you?

 

I would make a better GM. And I am absolutely sure of it.

 

I hope you're kidding. There's more to being a GM than the trades and free agent pickups. That is like saying, "I could run Ford Motor Co. better than Bill Ford because I know alot about how car's work." That's so ignorant, it's ridiculous.

 

And if you're that sure you could do it better, you'd better start sending you're resume out to some minor league teams. That's where you have to start. Then qualified applicants with real experience in professional sports get a sniff.

 

Baseball is not brain surgery. Nor is being the GM of a professional sports franchise comparable to running all facets of a multi-billion dollar corporation.

 

There are many posters on this board who I'm confident if given the opportunity could perform better than several current GM's in the ML. The primary requirements to be a quality GM (performing player evaluation, understanding salary/budget/value, a complete and thorough baseball knowledge regarding players, systems, rules, transactions, etc.) are topics that are discussed at NSBB on a daily basis. I thought Theo Epstein broke the stereotype that you had to be a baseball 'lifer' in order to succeed in management at the ML level.

 

**Edit for spelling

Edited December 6, 2005 by noisesquared

[ThePenguin11]

In short:

 

You can't judge a GM on a deal by deal basis. You have to take into account the hole team's performance. The Cubs have won 88, 89 and 79 games under Jim's watch as GM. And it's not like he came into this team blind, having been asst GM for a while and working elsewhere in the organization prior to that gig. He has had a top 5 payroll throughout his time as well, so the sub par finishes are inexcusable.

 

The Cubs have had consistent problems holdings this team back for several years, primarily, the hitters don't take walks, which keeps down their OBP, which keeps down their runs scored, which keeps down their win totals. And Jim hasn't done much to improve that glaring weakness.

 

Also, he's focused on positions that are not glaring holes, while seemingly ignoring the one position on the team that does not currently have 1 potential in house candidate to fill the spot and possibly provide adaquate production, RF.

 

I don't like Jim's methods or results. This team is terribly inefficient.

 

You've really convinced yourself that you'd make a better GM, haven't you?

 

I would make a better GM. And I am absolutely sure of it.

 

I hope you're kidding. There's more to being a GM than the trades and free agent pickups. That is like saying, "I could run Ford Motor Co. better than Bill Ford because I know alot about how car's work." That's so ignorant, it's ridiculous.

 

And if you're that sure you could do it better, you'd better start sending you're resume out to some minor league teams. That's where you have to start. Then qualified applicants with real experience in professional sports get a sniff.

 

I have no interest in working for peanuts for a decade so that I *might* someday have the opportunity to run a big league club. And I'm quite content in my current job, than you.

 

In any case, whether I actually seek to become Cub GM is irrelevant to whether I could do a better job that Hendry. It isn't rocket science.

 

You really must think it's like it is in the video games. As for the bold part - I don't even know what that means.

 

I see - "thank you". Didn't catch that at first. I 'll take back one of my comments then.

Edited December 6, 2005 by ThePenguin11

[Warren Brusstar]

I have no interest in working for peanuts for a decade so that I *might* someday have the opportunity to run a big league club. And I'm quite content in my current job, than you.

 

In any case, whether I actually seek to become Cub GM is irrelevant to whether I could do a better job that Hendry. It isn't rocket science.

 

keep the laughs coming, this is good stuff.

 

:lol: :lol:

 

I'm still waiting for any substantive reason why Jim Hendry is somehow eminently more qualified that me to be the Cub GM. First, you know nothing about me, so you can't even subjectively compare our qualifications for the job. Moreover, you haven't even identified any job responsibilities that only a "long time baseball guy" can fulfill.