Baker and Hendry...back for more?

[DesMoinesCub]

Did Hendry set the market, or did he just out bid the other teams that were trying to acquire those two? If some team offered a million less and all Hendry did was up it by a million, then the market was already set and Hendry paid "market value." We really don't know for sure.

 

What if Hendry made a phone call to Giles and Giles said something along the lines of..."Thanks for the call Jim, but I really don't see myself playing for the Cubs." Jim may have made a call and was shot down like a Jr. High kid asking a senior on a date. He may not have. Again, we really don't know for sure.

 

Unless we work for the Cubs, nobody really knows what happened in any of the cases. It is speculation that Giles didn't want to come here, and it is speculation that Hendry really never targeted him. It is MY speculation that Hendry inquired about Giles and was told not to bother.

[jjgman21]

Why do these guys deserve extensions? For netting us 4th place last year? For getting lucky 3 seasons ago that the Cardinals and Astros had big injury problems, and making it to the playoffs? How about making Hendry and Dusty show they are worthy of a contract extension before just handing them out. This organization drives me nuts sometimes.

 

time for another post by jjgman that gets mistaken for supporting Hendry, when it is really just an attack on a bs argument used to support someone else's position.

 

on the bolded part above. nonesense. neither the Cardinals or Astros had big injury problems in 2003. the grand sum of their impact injuries were

 

Cardinals - Vina replaced by the two month wonder, Bo Hart. Drew replaced by Eduardo Perez's 122 OPS+, Morris missing about 6 starts.

 

Astros - Kent missed about 25 games, Oswalt missed about 12 starts.

 

certainly not coming close to approaching the injury problems the Cubs went through in 2004-2005. if you want to excuse the Cardinals and Astros performance in 2003 due to injuries, you should bow down to Baker and Hendry for the Cubs doing what they did in 2004-2005.

[E.J.]

Why do these guys deserve extensions? For netting us 4th place last year? For getting lucky 3 seasons ago that the Cardinals and Astros had big injury problems, and making it to the playoffs? How about making Hendry and Dusty show they are worthy of a contract extension before just handing them out. This organization drives me nuts sometimes.

 

time for another post by jjgman that gets mistaken for supporting Hendry, when it is really just an attack on a bs argument used to support someone else's position.

 

on the bolded part above. nonesense. neither the Cardinals or Astros had big injury problems in 2003. the grand sum of their impact injuries were

 

Cardinals - Vina replaced by the two month wonder, Bo Hart. Drew replaced by Eduardo Perez's 122 OPS+, Morris missing about 6 starts.

 

Astros - Kent missed about 25 games, Oswalt missed about 12 starts.

 

certainly not coming close to approaching the injury problems the Cubs went through in 2004-2005. if you want to excuse the Cardinals and Astros performance in 2003 due to injuries, you should bow down to Baker and Hendry for the Cubs doing what they did in 2004-2005.

 

Okay. I should have made my point differently. We made it to the playoffs by winning 89 games in 2003. If we were in the NL East or NL West we wouldn't have made the playoffs. We won the Central division on a down year. I'll give you most of 2004, but down the stretch the team was healthy and choked. We won 79 games last year. Injuries or not, that's pathetic for a team with one of the highest payrolls in baseball.

[CubinNY]

Did Hendry set the market, or did he just out bid the other teams that were trying to acquire those two? If some team offered a million less and all Hendry did was up it by a million, then the market was already set and Hendry paid "market value." We really don't know for sure.

 

No by defienition he set the market. If someone else signed them then that someone else would have set the market. The "market value" is what the player got, not what the palyer is worth. Hendry set the market by being the first to sign theses two mediocre middle releivers who were coming off of career years to bloated contracts.

 

I am pretty sure there was a quote by either one of those two to the effect of, "after I heard the offer I didn't need to talk to other teams". I think the quote was from Howry. That leads me to believe that Hendry did not just out bid every other suiter he out bid every other suiter by a considerable margin.

 

ADD:I think Hendry needed to do sometihing to upgrade the pen so I don't think the signings in themself are bad things, but the money and years given to these two are a huge risk. It is not out of the realm of imagination to say that those two positions couldn't have been filled by farm hands, but that might have been a bigger risk then the signings. To me the performance of the bullpen from year to year is among the hardest things to forcast in baseball.

[CardsandBearsFan]

Why do these guys deserve extensions? For netting us 4th place last year? For getting lucky 3 seasons ago that the Cardinals and Astros had big injury problems, and making it to the playoffs? How about making Hendry and Dusty show they are worthy of a contract extension before just handing them out. This organization drives me nuts sometimes.

 

on the bolded part above. nonesense. neither the Cardinals or Astros had big injury problems in 2003. the grand sum of their impact injuries were

 

Cardinals - Vina replaced by the two month wonder, Bo Hart. Drew replaced by Eduardo Perez's 122 OPS+, Morris missing about 6 starts.

 

.

 

Just for the sake of accuracy--2003 was the year Izzy didn't make an appearance until June---and the Cards bullpen blew an inordinant amount of saves while he was out. But that's not an excuse--the Cards played like crap in September and didn't deserve the division. Sorry for the slight derail.

[Careless]

Why do these guys deserve extensions? For netting us 4th place last year? For getting lucky 3 seasons ago that the Cardinals and Astros had big injury problems, and making it to the playoffs?

 

If you're going to use that logic, then the counter-argument easily surfaces, 'The Cardinals and Astros got lucky the Cubs had serious injury problems the last 2 seasons.'

 

So that won't work.

because without injuries the cubs would have won over 100 games both seasons? that's ridiculous.

 

On topic, nobody should be surprised that Hendry will get an extension. Hendry is not a bad GM. Like most GMs, he's made the right and wrong moves and is just about 50/50 overall.

yeah, mediocrity is always what a franchise should shoot for.

 

I had "Fire hendry" in my sig for several months, and if hendry offers baker an extension with any expectation that he'll accept it, I was too kind

[RockTheIvy]

I would be interested to see who Hendry would replace Baker with.

[CubinNY]

I would be interested to see who Hendry would replace Baker with.

 

If I had my choice it would be Larry Deriker.

[RockTheIvy]

I would be interested to see who Hendry would replace Baker with.

 

If I had my choice it would be Larry Deriker.

 

Didn't he have like a heartattack or a stroke or something? How is he doing? He had a lot of success with the 'Stros that's for sure.

[jjgman21]

Why do these guys deserve extensions? For netting us 4th place last year? For getting lucky 3 seasons ago that the Cardinals and Astros had big injury problems, and making it to the playoffs? How about making Hendry and Dusty show they are worthy of a contract extension before just handing them out. This organization drives me nuts sometimes.

 

time for another post by jjgman that gets mistaken for supporting Hendry, when it is really just an attack on a bs argument used to support someone else's position.

 

on the bolded part above. nonesense. neither the Cardinals or Astros had big injury problems in 2003. the grand sum of their impact injuries were

 

Cardinals - Vina replaced by the two month wonder, Bo Hart. Drew replaced by Eduardo Perez's 122 OPS+, Morris missing about 6 starts.

 

Astros - Kent missed about 25 games, Oswalt missed about 12 starts.

 

certainly not coming close to approaching the injury problems the Cubs went through in 2004-2005. if you want to excuse the Cardinals and Astros performance in 2003 due to injuries, you should bow down to Baker and Hendry for the Cubs doing what they did in 2004-2005.

 

Okay. I should have made my point differently. We made it to the playoffs by winning 89 games in 2003. If we were in the NL East or NL West we wouldn't have made the playoffs. We won the Central division on a down year. I'll give you most of 2004, but down the stretch the team was healthy and choked. We won 79 games last year. Injuries or not, that's pathetic for a team with one of the highest payrolls in baseball.

 

the topic of total salary is another one that irritates me because of the disengenuous arguments it leads to. I by no means believe that Hendry has used his resources in the best way, but

 

a. saying he has always had a top five payroll is simply wrong and

b. the Trib probably never would have increased salary the way they did if not for Hendry convincing them to to do so.

 

according to this site

 

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/default.aspx

 

(not sure of their methodology) the Cubs rank in payroll and total in millions are as follows

 

2005 - 9 (87)

2004 - 7 (91)

2003 - 11 (80)

2002 - 12 (75)

2001 - 15 (65)

2000 - 12 (62)

1999 - 10 (55)

1998 - 10 (49)

[DesMoinesCub]

I think Hendry did over pay for the two relief pitchers, but it was an area that needed upgrading. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices in one area to upgrade another.

 

As far as Hendry is concerned, I just think he gets some unjust criticism. I think he has done a very good job in terms of trades, and average job in terms of free agent signings, and a very good job in terms of developing the farm system to a point where it is not a weakness anymore. Wasn't Hendry in charge of the minor leagues when Lynch was GM.

 

Now, if the Cubs get off to a bad start or have a bad year, and Baker is given an extention, then I think Hendry might have some explaining to do.

[jjgman21]

 

As far as Hendry is concerned, I just think he gets some unjust criticism.

 

I think alot of the criticism is perfectly justified, but I know that most of the criticism is supported by unrealistic expectations based on incomplete information, disingenuous arguments, skewering of the facts and flat out lies (or at a minimum a reckless disregard for the truth).

[goonys evil twin]

 

As far as Hendry is concerned, I just think he gets some unjust criticism.

 

I think alot of the criticism is perfectly justified, but I know that most of the criticism is supported by unrealistic expectations based on incomplete information, disingenuous arguments, skewering of the facts and flat out lies (or at a minimum a reckless disregard for the truth).

 

I completely disagree.

[The Voice of Reason]

They were definitely too patient with Lynch as well, although as an orgranization, they were at a different stage compared to now. They were truly rebuilding at that time, they had to rebuild the worst farm system in MLB and one of the least talented ML rosters around 95.

 

I have no problem w/MacPhail as far as what he has accomplished, including his tenure as GM. I'm sure being that it's been 10 years, he's disappointed they haven't won a title and that does reflect on him and maybe his stagnet nature as far as holding on too long with Lynch.

 

Just what has he accomplished? One lucky 89 win Division title? Hiring Ed Lynch? Giving Sosa that ridiculous contract that handcuffed Hendry last year? Or simply keeping the Tribune Corp. suits and beancounters happy?

 

IMO, MacPhail deserves as least as much of the blame for what the Cubs have sunk to as Baker and Hendry.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Just what has he accomplished? One lucky 89 win Division title?

 

Um, MacPhail was still in Minnesota in 89.

[TheDude]

Why do these guys deserve extensions? For netting us 4th place last year? For getting lucky 3 seasons ago that the Cardinals and Astros had big injury problems, and making it to the playoffs?

 

If you're going to use that logic, then the counter-argument easily surfaces, 'The Cardinals and Astros got lucky the Cubs had serious injury problems the last 2 seasons.'

 

So that won't work.

because without injuries the cubs would have won over 100 games both seasons? that's ridiculous.

 

Not in the least. If you get 30+ starts out of Prior, Zambrano, Wood in those years, winning 100 games was not out of the question. They were afterall the favorite going into both seasons.

 

On topic, nobody should be surprised that Hendry will get an extension. Hendry is not a bad GM. Like most GMs, he's made the right and wrong moves and is just about 50/50 overall.

yeah, mediocrity is always what a franchise should shoot for.

 

I had "Fire hendry" in my sig for several months, and if hendry offers baker an extension with any expectation that he'll accept it, I was too kind

 

Nice spin-doctoring. Nobody ever said GMs strive for mediocrity.

 

I said all GMs have deals that work out, and others that don't. That is the nature of the business. And in Hendry's case, the deals that have worked out have been far more valuable for the team than those that haven't, even if the 2004 and 2005 records don't reflect it. Having Lee, Ramirez, and Barret going into 2006 is critical for this team.

[Ram1380]

Why do these guys deserve extensions? For netting us 4th place last year? For getting lucky 3 seasons ago that the Cardinals and Astros had big injury problems, and making it to the playoffs?

 

If you're going to use that logic, then the counter-argument easily surfaces, 'The Cardinals and Astros got lucky the Cubs had serious injury problems the last 2 seasons.'

 

So that won't work.

because without injuries the cubs would have won over 100 games both seasons? that's ridiculous.

 

Not in the least. If you get 30+ starts out of Prior, Zambrano, Wood in those years, winning 100 games was not out of the question. They were afterall the favorite going into both seasons.

 

On topic, nobody should be surprised that Hendry will get an extension. Hendry is not a bad GM. Like most GMs, he's made the right and wrong moves and is just about 50/50 overall.

yeah, mediocrity is always what a franchise should shoot for.

 

I had "Fire hendry" in my sig for several months, and if hendry offers baker an extension with any expectation that he'll accept it, I was too kind

 

Nice spin-doctoring. Nobody ever said GMs strive for mediocrity.

 

I said all GMs have deals that work out, and others that don't. That is the nature of the business. And in Hendry's case, the deals that have worked out have been far more valuable for the team than those that haven't, even if the 2004 and 2005 records don't reflect it. Having Lee, Ramirez, and Barret going into 2006 is critical for this team.

 

 

And enabling a self-serving ass like Baker to continue to run the franchises recources into the ground is criminally negligent.

[cjbucks]

They were definitely too patient with Lynch as well, although as an orgranization, they were at a different stage compared to now. They were truly rebuilding at that time, they had to rebuild the worst farm system in MLB and one of the least talented ML rosters around 95.

 

I have no problem w/MacPhail as far as what he has accomplished, including his tenure as GM. I'm sure being that it's been 10 years, he's disappointed they haven't won a title and that does reflect on him and maybe his stagnet nature as far as holding on too long with Lynch.

 

Just what has he accomplished? One lucky 89 win Division title? Hiring Ed Lynch? Giving Sosa that ridiculous contract that handcuffed Hendry last year? Or simply keeping the Tribune Corp. suits and beancounters happy?

 

IMO, MacPhail deserves as least as much of the blame for what the Cubs have sunk to as Baker and Hendry.

 

I'll admit the contract did handcuff Hendry last year - but at the time it was signed (March 2001) would anybody have done anything different? I doubt it.

[DesMoinesCub]

Speaking of Minnesota in 89...any chance Tom Kelly is the next manager of the Cubs. I know the chances of this are very slim, but MacPhail was in Minnesota when Kelly was there.

 

Dierker had brain surgery to repair a blood vessel problem that led to seizures. I think he is doing better and would be a candidate to manage again if healthy.

[The Voice of Reason]

Just what has he accomplished? One lucky 89 win Division title?

 

Um, MacPhail was still in Minnesota in 89.

 

Um, in 2003 the Cubs won the Division by a small margin with 89 wins.

 

My point was that 89 wins usually doesn't win a division and the Cubs were lucky because the Cards had injury issues.

[BigbadB]

I was singing high praises for Jim Hendry in 2003. In 2004, I felt like he did a good job in the offseason. In 2005, I was very upset over the Sosa fiasco, the whole player vs. booth issue, the lack of retaining order with the players as well as the "get rid of the bad apples" philosophy they used that offseason. In 2005, I'm pretty speechless.

 

Overall, Hendry has been adequate as a GM. I'd love to see him back on the farm. I think he was outstanding in that regard. I also believe the farm has weakened considerably since his promotion.

 

I believe Hendry was a bit cash strapped for team improvements until this offseason. I believe there really was no excuse for having a poor offseason making team improvements. There were good players available in trade. There were good players available on the free agent market, the Cubs had a lot of trade value in current roster guys and farm system depth. Finally, Hendry had an incredible amount of cash at his disposal.

 

Regardless, I'm not totally a proponent to run Hendry out of town for the above paragraph. His refusal to recognize how poorly Dusty fits into this teams plans is what has me in complete misery. When you are inserting the crappiest player on the team at the top of the batting order on a daily basis, someone needs a good scolding. When you convert a dominant when healthy starter into a relief role and potentially hurt the beginning of the next season because a needed surgery is delayed to attempt to win meaningless games in August of the previous year, someone needs scolding. When you misuse players day after day after day (leaving your dominant starter in to throw 120 pitches in a blowout, Remlinger facing a lefty batter on a hunch, starting veteran crap players in place of the prospects in meaningless games in September, etc...), someone needs a serious scolding. To watch the manager seem to reward poor fundamental baseball rather than discipline it, someone needs to be scolded. To make so many off color remarks like the manager did, someone needs to be scolded.

 

To know you have a team built on the strength of a good farm system, there is no excuse for blocking every young player with a mediocre veteran bat. Unless you honestly believe that one mediocre veteran bat is the player that puts the team over the top. This team is nowhere near being close to over the top. I could live with a Hendry extension. What I can't live with (obvious sarcasm), is giving Dusty an extension when he has done absolutely nothing positive for this organization. If he gets an extension before we get to see the results of the 2005 offseason, I'm going to absolutely lose it. A poor start or a poor first half, and he's really got to go. It would honestly take a playoff appearance to even remotely consider extending him.

 

I haven't like much at all with what Hendry has done this offseason. But, an added power bat to the outfield has the potential to salvage this offseason, IMO. This management team has regressed in each year they've been here. IMO, another regression this year is grounds for termination, not an extension.

[The Voice of Reason]

They were definitely too patient with Lynch as well, although as an orgranization, they were at a different stage compared to now. They were truly rebuilding at that time, they had to rebuild the worst farm system in MLB and one of the least talented ML rosters around 95.

 

I have no problem w/MacPhail as far as what he has accomplished, including his tenure as GM. I'm sure being that it's been 10 years, he's disappointed they haven't won a title and that does reflect on him and maybe his stagnet nature as far as holding on too long with Lynch.

 

Just what has he accomplished? One lucky 89 win Division title? Hiring Ed Lynch? Giving Sosa that ridiculous contract that handcuffed Hendry last year? Or simply keeping the Tribune Corp. suits and beancounters happy?

 

IMO, MacPhail deserves as least as much of the blame for what the Cubs have sunk to as Baker and Hendry.

 

I'll admit the contract did handcuff Hendry last year - but at the time it was signed (March 2001) would anybody have done anything different? I doubt it.

 

 

Considering his advanced age (don't forget to add at least two years to the stated age for a player from the Dominican Republic), and what they could have gotten for him at that time, a forward thinking, risk-taking GM/President (like a Jocketty, Beane or Williams) would have traded him.

[goonys evil twin]

Just what has he accomplished? One lucky 89 win Division title?

 

Um, MacPhail was still in Minnesota in 89.

 

Um, in 2003 the Cubs won the Division by a small margin with 89 wins.

 

My point was that 89 wins usually doesn't win a division and the Cubs were lucky because the Cards had injury issues.

 

For the record, the Cubs won the division with 88 wins in 2003. 2004 was the 89 win season, when they weren't even close to the division. Despite people remembering 2003 fondly and thinking of 2004 as a disaster, the 2004 team was better. The problem is it was only marginally better, and the 2003 team wasn't that good to begin with. What they need, and should be getting is consistent 90+ win seasons.

[UK1679666180]

They were definitely too patient with Lynch as well, although as an orgranization, they were at a different stage compared to now. They were truly rebuilding at that time, they had to rebuild the worst farm system in MLB and one of the least talented ML rosters around 95.

 

I have no problem w/MacPhail as far as what he has accomplished, including his tenure as GM. I'm sure being that it's been 10 years, he's disappointed they haven't won a title and that does reflect on him and maybe his stagnet nature as far as holding on too long with Lynch.

 

Just what has he accomplished? One lucky 89 win Division title? Hiring Ed Lynch? Giving Sosa that ridiculous contract that handcuffed Hendry last year? Or simply keeping the Tribune Corp. suits and beancounters happy?

 

IMO, MacPhail deserves as least as much of the blame for what the Cubs have sunk to as Baker and Hendry.

 

MacPhail was able to build up the farm system during his tenure, they had their best success as far as signing International FAs. You seen two seen things occur during the end of Lynch's tenure and the start of MacPhails. 1) They did not trade any important pieces of the farm system for stop gaps 2) They increased spending on International free agents (Pie, Guzman, Zambrano, Cruz, Choi, Ryu, Cedeno, Marmol, Soto, Pinto) were signed between '99 and '01.

 

He helped lay the foundation to what to what should've been the ground level of a 10 year run of productive baseball.

[The Voice of Reason]

Uk wrote

 

He helped lay the foundation to what to what should've been the ground level of a 10 year run of productive baseball.

 

CEOs and Presidents should be held acountable for the company's ultimate results and the people beneath them that they hire directly or indirectly (i.e., Lynch, Hendry, Baker, etc.).

 

The Bottom line is that one fluky 88 win division title in 10 years doesn't cut it. If the Tribune Corp cared as much about winning as they do about being profitable, MacPhail would be gone.