Fox Sports grades Cub off-season a D / SI gives them B

[nick23]

Who cares how many games we win in the regular season as long as we make it to the playoffs and then the WS? Houston won 89 games last year and made it to the World Series. I think I'd take that over the Cardinals season of 100 wins and no World Series. Would you be dissapointed if you were an Astro fan last year? As long as we get in who cares how many wins it takes?

[TheDude]

Hendry set out bullpen improvements and a leadoff hitter as his two prime improvement needs, and he acquired/signed 4 very solid players to fill those roles. Jones in RF was filler, and it was a mistake to grant filler a 3 year contract. It was also a mistake to give Perez, a non-catcher bench player, a 2 year contract.

 

To force some squares into circles, I'll count the surprise non-signing of Furcal as a negative transaction, but the ascention of Murton in RF and Cedeno at SS at full-time duties as a positive transaction (since both constitute likely statistical improvements over last year's numbers).

 

So 5 positive improvements and 3 negative. For better or worse, none of the 8 'transactions' constitute club-altering splashes. Overall slight improvements to the club. A Grade of C+ is appropriate for overall positive tinkering.

 

A grade of 'D' is just poor analysis. Everybody has their own idea what the team's 'most important offseason need' was, and clearly Hendry doesn't agree with this writer or some of the fans here.

 

Those fans here who believe hitting and plate discipline define the top needs of the team are obviously disappointed. They are grading on emotion or personal taste, not on Hendry's ability to achieve his pre-defined goals.

 

Folks expecting Hendry to completely revamp the whole team, or who will only grade positively based upon the acquisition of one of a small pool of players (Abreu, Dunn, Gile, etc) have unrealistic expectations IMO. It is my belief that those people have two grades: A or F.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Who cares how many games we win in the regular season as long as we make it to the playoffs and then the WS? Houston won 89 games last year and made it to the World Series. I think I'd take that over the Cardinals season of 100 wins and no World Series. Would you be dissapointed if you were an Astro fan last year? As long as we get in who cares how many wins it takes?

 

Naturally once you're in the playoffs you want to make it as far as possible, but since the playoffs are pretty unpredictable, i.e. inferior teams beat superior teams, gauging the quality of the team should be mostly confined to the regular season.

[goonys evil twin]

Who cares how many games we win in the regular season as long as we make it to the playoffs and then the WS? Houston won 89 games last year and made it to the World Series. I think I'd take that over the Cardinals season of 100 wins and no World Series. Would you be dissapointed if you were an Astro fan last year? As long as we get in who cares how many wins it takes?

 

I care how many games the Cubs win in the regular season because the more you win the greater chance you have of making the postseason and the World Series. 88 wins is not good because most seasons that usually means you are on the outside looking in. An 88 win season isn't that good. An 89 win season isn't that good.

[nick23]

Who cares how many games we win in the regular season as long as we make it to the playoffs and then the WS? Houston won 89 games last year and made it to the World Series. I think I'd take that over the Cardinals season of 100 wins and no World Series. Would you be dissapointed if you were an Astro fan last year? As long as we get in who cares how many wins it takes?

 

I care how many games the Cubs win in the regular season because the more you win the greater chance you have of making the postseason and the World Series. 88 wins is not good because most seasons that usually means you are on the outside looking in. An 88 win season isn't that good. An 89 win season isn't that good.

 

It was good enough 2 of the last 3 years. I don't care if we're like the Padres and win 82 games. As long as we get in and advance to the Series.

[goonys evil twin]

Hendry set out bullpen improvements and a leadoff hitter as his two prime improvement needs, and he acquired/signed 4 very solid players to fill those roles.

 

So 5 positive improvements and 3 negative. For better or worse, none of the 8 'transactions' constitute club-altering splashes. Overall slight improvements to the club. A Grade of C+ is appropriate for overall positive tinkering.

 

A grade of 'D' is just poor analysis.

 

I think you're 5+ to 3- is poor analysis. (who are the 4 very solid players he signed, I don't see 4) And I think D is perfectly reasonable. Hendry misappropriated his efforts. If you study for a test and end up spending 90% of your time on subjects other than the ones that will actually matter to the test, you're going to struggle and get a bad grade. That's what happened to Hendry. He mistakenly focused on less important positions, and because of it the team as a whole suffers.

[goonys evil twin]

Who cares how many games we win in the regular season as long as we make it to the playoffs and then the WS? Houston won 89 games last year and made it to the World Series. I think I'd take that over the Cardinals season of 100 wins and no World Series. Would you be dissapointed if you were an Astro fan last year? As long as we get in who cares how many wins it takes?

 

I care how many games the Cubs win in the regular season because the more you win the greater chance you have of making the postseason and the World Series. 88 wins is not good because most seasons that usually means you are on the outside looking in. An 88 win season isn't that good. An 89 win season isn't that good.

 

It was good enough 2 of the last 3 years. I don't care if we're like the Padres and win 82 games. As long as we get in and advance to the Series.

 

The point is you won't get in the vast majority of the time. It sounds very noble of you to say you don't care, but you should, because without the regular season success, you won't have much of a shot at postseason glory.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Who cares how many games we win in the regular season as long as we make it to the playoffs and then the WS? Houston won 89 games last year and made it to the World Series. I think I'd take that over the Cardinals season of 100 wins and no World Series. Would you be dissapointed if you were an Astro fan last year? As long as we get in who cares how many wins it takes?

 

I care how many games the Cubs win in the regular season because the more you win the greater chance you have of making the postseason and the World Series. 88 wins is not good because most seasons that usually means you are on the outside looking in. An 88 win season isn't that good. An 89 win season isn't that good.

 

It was good enough 2 of the last 3 years. I don't care if we're like the Padres and win 82 games. As long as we get in and advance to the Series.

 

Obviously we'll take a playoff appearance any way we can get it. Looking at BK's post shows you the inherent disadvantage we'd have though.

[TheDude]

Hendry set out bullpen improvements and a leadoff hitter as his two prime improvement needs, and he acquired/signed 4 very solid players to fill those roles.

 

So 5 positive improvements and 3 negative. For better or worse, none of the 8 'transactions' constitute club-altering splashes. Overall slight improvements to the club. A Grade of C+ is appropriate for overall positive tinkering.

 

A grade of 'D' is just poor analysis.

 

I think you're 5+ to 3- is poor analysis. (who are the 4 very solid players he signed, I don't see 4) And I think D is perfectly reasonable. Hendry misappropriated his efforts. If you study for a test and end up spending 90% of your time on subjects other than the ones that will actually matter to the test, you're going to struggle and get a bad grade. That's what happened to Hendry. He mistakenly focused on less important positions, and because of it the team as a whole suffers.

 

The 4 players are Pierre, Eyre, Howry,and Dempster (close enough to offseason).

 

It's your opinion that Hendry studied for the wrong test because you want a different test (offense). Hendry wants pitching as top priority because pitching has proven to win championships, while offense has not. Hendry knows more about this business than all of us.

 

I grade Hendry based on his ability to satisfy his own priorities for the club, not my own personal wishes (though I happen to be a pitching-first guy myself). If Hendry was never going to pursue top 5 offensive output players, then it is not right to grade him on a failure to acquire those players.

 

Grading shouldn't be based on differing philosophies of club-building.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Hendry set out bullpen improvements and a leadoff hitter as his two prime improvement needs, and he acquired/signed 4 very solid players to fill those roles.

 

So 5 positive improvements and 3 negative. For better or worse, none of the 8 'transactions' constitute club-altering splashes. Overall slight improvements to the club. A Grade of C+ is appropriate for overall positive tinkering.

 

A grade of 'D' is just poor analysis.

 

I think you're 5+ to 3- is poor analysis. (who are the 4 very solid players he signed, I don't see 4) And I think D is perfectly reasonable. Hendry misappropriated his efforts. If you study for a test and end up spending 90% of your time on subjects other than the ones that will actually matter to the test, you're going to struggle and get a bad grade. That's what happened to Hendry. He mistakenly focused on less important positions, and because of it the team as a whole suffers.

 

The 4 players are Pierre, Eyre, Howry,and Dempster (close enough to offseason).

 

It's your opinion that Hendry studied for the wrong test because you want a different test (offense). Hendry wants pitching as top priority because pitching has proven to win championships, while offense has not. Hendry knows more about this business than all of us.

 

I grade Hendry based on his ability to satisfy his own priorities for the club, not my own personal wishes (though I happen to be a pitching-first guy myself). If Hendry was never going to pursue top 5 offensive output players, then it is not right to grade him on a failure to acquire those players.

 

Grading shouldn't be based on differing philosophies of club-building.

 

Dempster is in this offseason?

 

People aren't upset at the pitching acquisitions because they aren't offensive acquisitions. Check the threads for when each signed. People were upset because both had by and large marginal careers until their career years last year. Given their respective age and the wild variation in relief pitchers, they were poor selections for expensive and long term deals.

[BigbadB]

Hendry had the cash and the resources to improve the offense and the pitching, not just one or the other.

[goonys evil twin]

The 4 players are Pierre, Eyre, Howry,and Dempster (close enough to offseason).

 

It's your opinion that Hendry studied for the wrong test because you want a different test (offense). Hendry wants pitching as top priority because pitching has proven to win championships, while offense has not. Hendry knows more about this business than all of us.

 

I grade Hendry based on his ability to satisfy his own priorities for the club, not my own personal wishes (though I happen to be a pitching-first guy myself). If Hendry was never going to pursue top 5 offensive output players, then it is not right to grade him on a failure to acquire those players.

 

Grading shouldn't be based on differing philosophies of club-building.

 

Dempster was on the team last year, it's ludicrous to include him in offseason moves. Hendry didn't get pitching, he got a couple of middle relievers. They needed starting pitching and got none. Grading should be done based on what you believe should be done. I'm not going to sit here and say that since he's in the business he gets a free pass to address whatever positions he desires. Hendry did go hard after a bat, unfortunately it was the wrong bat in Furcal, luckily he failed. But then he turned around and made more foolish moves.

[nick23]

Who cares how many games we win in the regular season as long as we make it to the playoffs and then the WS? Houston won 89 games last year and made it to the World Series. I think I'd take that over the Cardinals season of 100 wins and no World Series. Would you be dissapointed if you were an Astro fan last year? As long as we get in who cares how many wins it takes?

 

I care how many games the Cubs win in the regular season because the more you win the greater chance you have of making the postseason and the World Series. 88 wins is not good because most seasons that usually means you are on the outside looking in. An 88 win season isn't that good. An 89 win season isn't that good.

 

It was good enough 2 of the last 3 years. I don't care if we're like the Padres and win 82 games. As long as we get in and advance to the Series.

 

The point is you won't get in the vast majority of the time. It sounds very noble of you to say you don't care, but you should, because without the regular season success, you won't have much of a shot at postseason glory.

I only said I don't care if we get in. You almost sound like you'd be happier if we won 94 and didn't get in, than if we won 88 and snuck in. Let me ask you, do you consider the Astros season last year a success or failure?

[TheDude]

Dempster was on the team last year, it's ludicrous to include him in offseason moves. Hendry didn't get pitching, he got a couple of middle relievers. They needed starting pitching and got none. Grading should be done based on what you believe should be done. I'm not going to sit here and say that since he's in the business he gets a free pass to address whatever positions he desires. Hendry did go hard after a bat, unfortunately it was the wrong bat in Furcal, luckily he failed. But then he turned around and made more foolish moves.

 

So re-signing a potential FA to the same team only a few weeks before season end can't be constituted as a 'future move' or offseason transaction equivalent? I had already prefaced the post bystating there were a few forced scenarios.

 

Hendry got his future closer early. Hardly a stretch IMO.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Dempster was on the team last year, it's ludicrous to include him in offseason moves. Hendry didn't get pitching, he got a couple of middle relievers. They needed starting pitching and got none. Grading should be done based on what you believe should be done. I'm not going to sit here and say that since he's in the business he gets a free pass to address whatever positions he desires. Hendry did go hard after a bat, unfortunately it was the wrong bat in Furcal, luckily he failed. But then he turned around and made more foolish moves.

 

So re-signing a potential FA to the same team only a few weeks before season end can't be constituted as a 'future move' or offseason transaction equivalent? I had already prefaced the post bystating there were a few forced scenarios.

 

Hendry got his future closer early. Hardly a stretch IMO.

 

But you listed him as an "improvement", did you not?

[TheDude]

Hendry had the cash and the resources to improve the offense and the pitching, not just one or the other.

 

This, as has been shown multiple times in various threads, is a misconception. Most fans here have shown time and again they do not understand the actual market value of players, either on FA market or in terms of trade market.

 

The so-called Sosa windfall doesn't exist. Current roster player increases will eat up that money. Getting a "big bat" means the two bullpen guys do not get signed, and the team goes into next season with the same bulpen (and people cry about it and blame Hendry).

 

For the trade market, the Cubs do not have premiere blue chip minor leaguers to acquire big bats in trade. Dunn, Abreu, Tejada etc, command better than the Cubs have in a full prospects style trade. The also don't have the expected major leaguers to compliment a prospects style trade. Both Murton and Cedeno fill needs and are not proven enough to get the big bat.

 

So when looking at the Cubs, people turn to proven youth: Prior and Zambrano. And the big bat deals fall apart quickly.

 

For the FA market, there was only one real "big bat" to fill a positional need, and he stayed put, turning down bigger money elsewhere. A clear indication he planned to stay put all along.

 

The only way Hwendry was going to get a big bat in this market, was to overpay and set-up the ballclub for a thinner future and a nasty FA cycle dependency, ala the NY Yankees. I for one am glad the Cubs are not turning into the Yankees.

[TheDude]

Dempster was on the team last year, it's ludicrous to include him in offseason moves. Hendry didn't get pitching, he got a couple of middle relievers. They needed starting pitching and got none. Grading should be done based on what you believe should be done. I'm not going to sit here and say that since he's in the business he gets a free pass to address whatever positions he desires. Hendry did go hard after a bat, unfortunately it was the wrong bat in Furcal, luckily he failed. But then he turned around and made more foolish moves.

 

So re-signing a potential FA to the same team only a few weeks before season end can't be constituted as a 'future move' or offseason transaction equivalent? I had already prefaced the post bystating there were a few forced scenarios.

 

Hendry got his future closer early. Hardly a stretch IMO.

 

But you listed him as an "improvement", did you not?

 

Yes. Just the same as other clubs recieved credit for better grades than Cubs for simply re-signing their own FAs.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Dempster was on the team last year, it's ludicrous to include him in offseason moves. Hendry didn't get pitching, he got a couple of middle relievers. They needed starting pitching and got none. Grading should be done based on what you believe should be done. I'm not going to sit here and say that since he's in the business he gets a free pass to address whatever positions he desires. Hendry did go hard after a bat, unfortunately it was the wrong bat in Furcal, luckily he failed. But then he turned around and made more foolish moves.

 

So re-signing a potential FA to the same team only a few weeks before season end can't be constituted as a 'future move' or offseason transaction equivalent? I had already prefaced the post bystating there were a few forced scenarios.

 

Hendry got his future closer early. Hardly a stretch IMO.

 

But you listed him as an "improvement", did you not?

 

Yes. Just the same as other clubs recieved credit for better grades than Cubs for simply re-signing their own FAs.

 

That's a pretty disingenuous statement, regardless of the article. If you're bringing him back he's not an improvement, especially at his age and performance last year.

[goonys evil twin]

I only said I don't care if we get in. You almost sound like you'd be happier if we won 94 and didn't get in, than if we won 88 and snuck in.

 

I don't sound anything like that, let alone "almost". The point is your chances are better if you win more regular season games. I'm talking about improving your odds. A GM's job is to improve his team's chances of success, because he can't do anything other than acquire the guys who ultimately decide the fate of the team. A GM of a very expensive team should be able to create a very good team. And a GM who has had a top 5 payroll throughout his tenure should have a 90+ win season under his belt at least once, and probably twice.

 

Let me ask you, do you consider the Astros season last year a success or failure?

 

I don't see the point in this question. They weren't a very good team last year, but they peaked at the right time and had the right amount of dominant starting pitching to sneak into the World Series, where they came up short. I didn't see them as a likely 95 win team, or anything close to great before the season (but I did place some money on them to win the NLCS last winter). They were a success in that they bounced back from such a poor start to have a respectable regular season, but they weren't great, by any stretch.

[TheDude]

That's a pretty disingenuous statement, regardless of the article. If you're bringing him back he's not an improvement, especially at his age and performance last year.

 

I don't believe so. A full year of Dempster at closer (with same performance as last year) is an improvement over last year's cadre of closers. It's the same as saying a full year of Murton is an improvement over Murton/Dubois/Hollandsworth combined, etc.

 

How is that disingenuous?

[goonys evil twin]

Dempster was on the team last year, it's ludicrous to include him in offseason moves. Hendry didn't get pitching, he got a couple of middle relievers. They needed starting pitching and got none. Grading should be done based on what you believe should be done. I'm not going to sit here and say that since he's in the business he gets a free pass to address whatever positions he desires. Hendry did go hard after a bat, unfortunately it was the wrong bat in Furcal, luckily he failed. But then he turned around and made more foolish moves.

 

So re-signing a potential FA to the same team only a few weeks before season end can't be constituted as a 'future move' or offseason transaction equivalent? I had already prefaced the post bystating there were a few forced scenarios.

 

Hendry got his future closer early. Hardly a stretch IMO.

 

Huge stretch. He was the current closer, and signed before the season ended. He wasn't an offseason improvement, just like Rusch or Perez weren't offseason improvements. The Cubs finished last season as a bad team, and those guys were on the team, so in order to get better, which they had to do, they had to get other guys.

[nick23]

Dempster was on the team last year, it's ludicrous to include him in offseason moves. Hendry didn't get pitching, he got a couple of middle relievers. They needed starting pitching and got none. Grading should be done based on what you believe should be done. I'm not going to sit here and say that since he's in the business he gets a free pass to address whatever positions he desires. Hendry did go hard after a bat, unfortunately it was the wrong bat in Furcal, luckily he failed. But then he turned around and made more foolish moves.

 

So re-signing a potential FA to the same team only a few weeks before season end can't be constituted as a 'future move' or offseason transaction equivalent? I had already prefaced the post bystating there were a few forced scenarios.

 

Hendry got his future closer early. Hardly a stretch IMO.

 

But you listed him as an "improvement", did you not?

 

Yes. Just the same as other clubs recieved credit for better grades than Cubs for simply re-signing their own FAs.

 

That's a pretty disingenuous statement, regardless of the article. If you're bringing him back he's not an improvement, especially at his age and performance last year.

 

I can see his point though. Wouldn't you factor in Konerko and Giles into the Sox and Padres offseason? They're not improvements but they're definitely considered offseason success.

[goonys evil twin]

That's a pretty disingenuous statement, regardless of the article. If you're bringing him back he's not an improvement, especially at his age and performance last year.

 

I don't believe so. A full year of Dempster at closer (with same performance as last year) is an improvement over last year's cadre of closers. It's the same as saying a full year of Murton is an improvement over Murton/Dubois/Hollandsworth combined, etc.

 

How is that disingenuous?

 

Dempster was the primary closer last year, and the team sucked with him in there. We're talking about making offseason improvements.

 

Regardless of whether you talk about his full tenure or just this offseason, Hendry hasn't come close to fullfilling his duty. He's failed to make this team as great as it should be, and if somebody wants to give him an F, they are completely justified. If they want to give him a D, go right ahead. You can't say somebody is right or wrong when giving out a F, D, C+, it all suggests the same thing, which is he hasn't done a very good job. The level of failure really doesn't matter, because it's all failure in the end.

[goonys evil twin]

I can see his point though. Wouldn't you factor in Konerko and Giles into the Sox and Padres offseason? They're not improvements but they're definitely considered offseason success.

 

At least if you did, those actually took place in the offseason, unlike Dempster. But I wouldn't include them when talking about either team making offseason improvements. The Sox offseason was filled with actual improvements to an already good team.

[nick23]

I only said I don't care if we get in. You almost sound like you'd be happier if we won 94 and didn't get in, than if we won 88 and snuck in.

 

I don't sound anything like that, let alone "almost". The point is your chances are better if you win more regular season games. I'm talking about improving your odds. A GM's job is to improve his team's chances of success, because he can't do anything other than acquire the guys who ultimately decide the fate of the team. A GM of a very expensive team should be able to create a very good team. And a GM who has had a top 5 payroll throughout his tenure should have a 90+ win season under his belt at least once, and probably twice.

 

Let me ask you, do you consider the Astros season last year a success or failure?

 

I don't see the point in this question. They weren't a very good team last year, but they peaked at the right time and had the right amount of dominant starting pitching to sneak into the World Series, where they came up short. I didn't see them as a likely 95 win team, or anything close to great before the season (but I did place some money on them to win the NLCS last winter). They were a success in that they bounced back from such a poor start to have a respectable regular season, but they weren't great, by any stretch.

 

Without injuries in 04 we easily win 90+. And our record in 03 after the trade was 38-24. Meaning we we're pretty good those years. Plus didn't someone come up with evidence yesterday saying that last year was the only year we've had a top 5 payroll under Hendry? And with current payroll are we even in the top 5 this year?