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

[goonys evil twin]

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?

 

The Cubs are not top 5 right now, but they have been every year before that, under Hendry. Seeing how much return they've gotten on their investment, I wouldn't be surprised if the ownership cut back on expenses.

 

 

Oh, and the injury excuse is bogus. Any team can say "without injuries we'd have won ...." It's meaningless. You have to plan for injuries, and when you put together the roster that the Cubs had, you have to expect more injuries than others.

[TheDude]

The level of failure really doesn't matter, because it's all failure in the end.

 

The team is improved from last year. Enough for the 30-40 game turn-around you demand? No, not likely. But the team should be good enough to fight for the division (which is weakened) and improve to a better than .500 season.

 

The team also goes into the next off-season mostly intact and in position to moderately improve again.

[goonys evil twin]

The level of failure really doesn't matter, because it's all failure in the end.

 

The team is improved from last year. Enough for the 30-40 game turn-around you demand? No, not likely. But the team should be good enough to fight for the division (which is weakened) and improve to a better than .500 season.

 

The team also goes into the next off-season mostly intact and in position to moderately improve again.

 

Moderate improvements aren't what a GM should be looking for 4 years into his reign when the team has fallen off a cliff. You act as if my demands for a turnaround are unrealistic. The problem is they shouldn't have been as bad as they were last year, and they wouldn't have been as bad if the GM did his job.

 

 

I still can't believe how much slack Cubs fans are willing to give this group. They've failed. The team isn't any good. Mediocrity appears to be the goal, and many fans are pissed at those people who want to point these facts out instead of the people who made these facts true.

[nick23]

The Cubs have been a top 5 payroll team throughout Hendry's tenure.

 

That's not accurate. They were 9th in '05, 7th in '04, 11th in '03, and 12th in '02. (I don't recall when Hendry started)

 

This is the post I was talking about. I have no idea if it's accurate or not.

[BigbadB]

The Cubs have been a top 5 payroll team throughout Hendry's tenure.

 

That's not accurate. They were 9th in '05, 7th in '04, 11th in '03, and 12th in '02. (I don't recall when Hendry started)

 

This is the post I was talking about. I have no idea if it's accurate or not.

 

Maybe there is some confusion with TOP 5 in general. Top 5 in MLB, top 5 in the NL? The Cubs have increased payroll by 30m over the last 5 years while removing themselves from their biggest contract (Sosa), and they are coming off a losing season to show for it. Not good whether they were top 5 or not.

[TheDude]

The level of failure really doesn't matter, because it's all failure in the end.

 

The team is improved from last year. Enough for the 30-40 game turn-around you demand? No, not likely. But the team should be good enough to fight for the division (which is weakened) and improve to a better than .500 season.

 

The team also goes into the next off-season mostly intact and in position to moderately improve again.

 

Moderate improvements aren't what a GM should be looking for 4 years into his reign when the team has fallen off a cliff. You act as if my demands for a turnaround are unrealistic. The problem is they shouldn't have been as bad as they were last year, and they wouldn't have been as bad if the GM did his job.

 

Your demands are very high. Improving by 21 games (to a 100 win season) rarely happens. I don't know of a resource to look up how many times it's been done in the FA era, but it's a safe bet to say it is rare.

[nick23]

The level of failure really doesn't matter, because it's all failure in the end.

 

The team is improved from last year. Enough for the 30-40 game turn-around you demand? No, not likely. But the team should be good enough to fight for the division (which is weakened) and improve to a better than .500 season.

 

The team also goes into the next off-season mostly intact and in position to moderately improve again.

 

Moderate improvements aren't what a GM should be looking for 4 years into his reign when the team has fallen off a cliff. You act as if my demands for a turnaround are unrealistic. The problem is they shouldn't have been as bad as they were last year, and they wouldn't have been as bad if the GM did his job.

 

 

I still can't believe how much slack Cubs fans are willing to give this group. They've failed. The team isn't any good. Mediocrity appears to be the goal, and many fans are pissed at those people who want to point these facts out instead of the people who made these facts true.

 

I myself am not cutting anyone any slack. I just actually feel the cubs are good enough to contend this year. Do I agree with all the moves Hendry made? No. But I like the Pierre trade and I like the bulpen additions. If Murton and Cedeno play like we're all hoping they will, and Wood can get back sooner than later I think we can absolutely conted this year.

[goonys evil twin]

The Cubs have been a top 5 payroll team throughout Hendry's tenure.

 

That's not accurate. They were 9th in '05, 7th in '04, 11th in '03, and 12th in '02. (I don't recall when Hendry started)

 

This is the post I was talking about. I have no idea if it's accurate or not.

 

It's not. I believe that goes off of the very poor USA Today numbers somebody else linked to, which, among other things, don't count the money they paid Baltimore to take Sammy, and don't properly account for midseason trades that increase payroll or contracts that are not evenly dispersed accross years. The Cubs were consistently around 12th in the late 90's and early this decade. By the time Hendry took over though, many teams formerly in front of them, Baltimore, Atlanta, Dodgers and others, were cutting payroll, and the Cubs were adding each year. The only teams to consistently have a higher payroll than the Cubs in recent years have been the Yankees, Red Sox and Angels. The Mets have been ahead of them most of the time, but had a year where they took a dip, during the turnover in ownership and switch away from the Phillips era. Philly popped ahead of them the first year in the new stadium, but they've been neck and neck.

[goonys evil twin]

The level of failure really doesn't matter, because it's all failure in the end.

 

The team is improved from last year. Enough for the 30-40 game turn-around you demand? No, not likely. But the team should be good enough to fight for the division (which is weakened) and improve to a better than .500 season.

 

The team also goes into the next off-season mostly intact and in position to moderately improve again.

 

Moderate improvements aren't what a GM should be looking for 4 years into his reign when the team has fallen off a cliff. You act as if my demands for a turnaround are unrealistic. The problem is they shouldn't have been as bad as they were last year, and they wouldn't have been as bad if the GM did his job.

 

Your demands are very high. Improving by 21 games (to a 100 win season) rarely happens. I don't know of a resource to look up how many times it's been done in the FA era, but it's a safe bet to say it is rare.

 

Very high? First, I didn't demand a 100 win season, I demand significant improvement. Second, they shouldn't have been a 79 win team last year, Hendry and Co. screwed up, so any marginal improvement this year should not go on their record as a positive, it would only be improvement because they did so bad last year.

 

My demands for the Hendry era were steady improvement and consistent success, including multiple 90+ win seasons/playoff appearances. It puzzles me why any Cubs fan would expect less than that. I'm not demanding Playstation numbers, with 100 win season and a streak of WS wins. This isn't a Yankees fan talking of a disgraceful season when you win 97 but lose the World Series. I'm demanding what any fan of an upper echelon payroll team should demand, which is more than a team that teeters around the .500 mark and hopes for better luck.

[CubinNY]

so any marginal improvement this year should not go on their record as a positive, it would only be improvement because they did so bad last year.

 

That is the genius that is the Cubs marketing and leadership. Have a 79 win season. Then when you have a high 80s win season call it an improvement.

 

Hendry gets credit for improving a team that he created while the team that he created last year is used as the baseline from which to measure, brilliant!

[Billy_Buck]

I for one am glad the Cubs are not turning into the Yankees.

 

Never thought I'd hear that from a Cubs fan! :P

 

(Many apologies to The Dude for ripping that out of context. But reading it out of context makes me chuckle.)

[Careless]

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.

I would be much happier with the cubs management if we won 94 and lost out on the playoffs than 88 and snuck in. I would be much happier as a fan if we won 88 and snuck in.

[Magnetic Curses]

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.

I would be much happier with the cubs management if we won 94 and lost out on the playoffs than 88 and snuck in. I would be much happier as a fan if we won 88 and snuck in.

 

but his point (goony's, that is) is that you don't build a team to compete "within the division", you build the best team you can with the money you have to spend. you don't overspend on mediocrity based on divisional trends.

[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.

I would be much happier with the cubs management if we won 94 and lost out on the playoffs than 88 and snuck in. I would be much happier as a fan if we won 88 and snuck in.

 

but his point (goony's, that is) is that you don't build a team to compete "within the division", you build the best team you can with the money you have to spend. you don't overspend on mediocrity based on divisional trends.

 

I agree. But has anyone on this board suggested that we just build a team to conted within the division? Everyone on here wants the cubs built to be the best team possible. Some of us just disagree on how that should be done. Which is what makes it so much fun to come on here and argue about it.

[goonys evil twin]

I agree. But has anyone on this board suggested that we just build a team to conted within the division? Everyone on here wants the cubs built to be the best team possible. Some of us just disagree on how that should be done. Which is what makes it so much fun to come on here and argue about it.

 

Most of this thread is about people upset with somebody for giving the Cubs a D, when in reality they think they deserve a C. People are upset with other fans and media for pointing out the failures of the Cubs management, and squabbling over arbitrary, made-up, subjective letter grades. I don't see the point. Whether somebody sees it as an F, a D or a C+, it's all a great big disappointment. And some people are going as far as saying that Jim did all he could do, and should not be criticized. So, to answer your question, yes some people are suggesting that they should just build a team to contend within the division, because that's been the Cubs stated goal for 10 years and people are defending their strategy.

[nick23]

I agree. But has anyone on this board suggested that we just build a team to conted within the division? Everyone on here wants the cubs built to be the best team possible. Some of us just disagree on how that should be done. Which is what makes it so much fun to come on here and argue about it.

 

Most of this thread is about people upset with somebody for giving the Cubs a D, when in reality they think they deserve a C. People are upset with other fans and media for pointing out the failures of the Cubs management, and squabbling over arbitrary, made-up, subjective letter grades. I don't see the point. Whether somebody sees it as an F, a D or a C+, it's all a great big disappointment. And some people are going as far as saying that Jim did all he could do, and should not be criticized. So, to answer your question, yes some people are suggesting that they should just build a team to contend within the division, because that's been the Cubs stated goal for 10 years and people are defending their strategy.

I find it hard to believe that the stated goal of the organization is to contend within the division. I know MacPhail mentioned that one time in a recent article, but I'm pretty confident his goal is to build a WS team.

[goonys evil twin]

I find it hard to believe that the stated goal of the organization is to contend within the division. I know MacPhail mentioned that one time in a recent article, but I'm pretty confident his goal is to build a WS team.

 

I think they'd like to win the WS, but they've said over and over that their plan was to build a team to contend within the division (or similar phrases). They've never shown any desire to build a dominant team, rather one that could enjoy some success if everything works out right.

[CubinNY]

I find it hard to believe that the stated goal of the organization is to contend within the division. I know MacPhail mentioned that one time in a recent article, but I'm pretty confident his goal is to build a WS team.

 

I think they'd like to win the WS, but they've said over and over that their plan was to build a team to contend within the division (or similar phrases). They've never shown any desire to build a dominant team, rather one that could enjoy some success if everything works out right.

 

It's called the "goodenough" philosphy and it will work on occasion, 1998 and 2003 ,but is not a way for a big money organization to build a championship calibur team.

[TheDude]

so any marginal improvement this year should not go on their record as a positive, it would only be improvement because they did so bad last year.

 

That is the genius that is the Cubs marketing and leadership. Have a 79 win season. Then when you have a high 80s win season call it an improvement.

 

Hendry gets credit for improving a team that he created while the team that he created last year is used as the baseline from which to measure, brilliant!

 

I don't understand your point. If we are not allowed to compare the 2006 team to the 2005 in terms of improvement, then what are we allowed to do?

 

This isn't some grand conspiracy to make Hendry look good. The entire point of the thread was to discuss the grade for this offseason, which must use last season as a baseline to have any relevence.

[EricG]

The Cubs overpaid in every deal. Hopefully they will make a midseason deal that will put them over the top.

[nick23]

I find it hard to believe that the stated goal of the organization is to contend within the division. I know MacPhail mentioned that one time in a recent article, but I'm pretty confident his goal is to build a WS team.

 

I think they'd like to win the WS, but they've said over and over that their plan was to build a team to contend within the division (or similar phrases). They've never shown any desire to build a dominant team, rather one that could enjoy some success if everything works out right.

 

I think the fact that they are top 5 in payroll year in and year out shows they have a desire to win the WS. Now, whether the GM is competent enough to put together a WS team is a whole other debate. But I am 100% confident that Hendry is doing everything he can to get us to a WS. I don't think anyone can debate that. We can debate his moves all day long but not his desire for a WS. And I know everyone is sick of excuses, but injuries really have killed us the last 2 years.

[baseball7897]

I dont think the Cubs "OVERPAID" for anyone. When it comes to Eyre, Howry, and Jones, Cubs got a bargin. Other teams were offering these guys more money and more years than what the Cubs got for them.

[nick23]

I find it hard to believe that the stated goal of the organization is to contend within the division. I know MacPhail mentioned that one time in a recent article, but I'm pretty confident his goal is to build a WS team.

 

I think they'd like to win the WS, but they've said over and over that their plan was to build a team to contend within the division (or similar phrases). They've never shown any desire to build a dominant team, rather one that could enjoy some success if everything works out right.

 

It's called the "goodenough" philosphy and it will work on occasion, 1998 and 2003 ,but is not a way for a big money organization to build a championship calibur team.

 

I rank your "goodenough" myth right up there with the myth that Cardinal fans are the most knowledgeable in baseball.

[CubinNY]

I find it hard to believe that the stated goal of the organization is to contend within the division. I know MacPhail mentioned that one time in a recent article, but I'm pretty confident his goal is to build a WS team.

 

I think they'd like to win the WS, but they've said over and over that their plan was to build a team to contend within the division (or similar phrases). They've never shown any desire to build a dominant team, rather one that could enjoy some success if everything works out right.

 

It's called the "goodenough" philosphy and it will work on occasion, 1998 and 2003 ,but is not a way for a big money organization to build a championship calibur team.

 

I rank your "goodenough" myth right up there with the myth that Cardinal fans are the most knowledgeable in baseball.

It's not a myth it is a philosophy esposued by Jim Hendry.

 

Every year he says something to the effect of, "Well, I think we are good enough to compete within the division".

 

Don't believe me? You can look it up.

[TheDude]

The Cubs overpaid in every deal. Hopefully they will make a midseason deal that will put them over the top.

 

You'll have to prove this with some data, because otherwise its just hyperbole.