Bobby Hill Released by Padres

[Diffusion]

As far as Nomar goes, he was a complete bust for the Cubs, in part, because Hendry waived the Cubs' right to require a physical. Instead, Hendry merely took Boston's reports and knew he was getting damaged goods by acknowledging that Nomar wouldn't be playing with regularity.

 

Garciaparra played in 43 of the 58 games the Cubs played in 2004 after they traded for him. He hit .297/.364/.455, and the cost to the Cubs was in the region of $1m, plus the prospects, minus Alex Gonzalez. Nomar's brief 2004 stint with the Cubs was also quite probably a factor in him deciding to spend 2005 in Chicago. As a result, I have absolutely no idea how you can describe the Garciaparra part of the Garciaparra trade a "complete bust". Do you need me to quote for you Alex Gonzalez's career line?

 

Now, obviously, due to the groin injury, Garciaparra returning in 2005 didn't work out for the Cubs as they might have planned. That though does not necessarily mean that the decision to bring him back was a bad one, unless you want to argue that the Cubs had any knowledge that Garciaparra would injure not the Achilles that had troubled him during 2004 but his groin. Make no mistake about it though, there was nothing wrong with Garciaparra's bat last year - if you count spring training, Nomar hit .306/.336/.541 in 122 PA before he got injured, and .318/.347/.531 in 190 PA after it, which comes to .314/.343/.534 in 312 PA overall. His career numbers? .320/.367/.544. His defence is another matter, of course, and it wasn't particularly good, but it would have needed to have been twenty times worse than it was for your labelling of him as a "complete bust" to be even remotely accurate.

 

In all, Garciaparra cost the Cubs three prospects, minus Alex Gonzalez, and cost the Cubs just under $10m. He played 105 of a possible 220 regular season games with the Cubs, hit .289/.339/.453 and was poor defensively. And that was pretty much the fulfillment of the worst case scenario. If it's 31 July 2004 again, and the same trade is on the table, you take it every single time, each time being a fleecing, and as with any trade you just hope that ill-fortune doesn't nix the best laid plans.

 

As for Murton, he was a throw in, thanks to Theo Epstein's insistence when the Expos demanded Harris.

 

Care to explain how that works, or maybe provide a source on this? The Expos demanded Brendan Harris from the Cubs, so the Boston GM insisted upon sending a decent prospect of his own to Chicago?

[don_kessinger_was_good]

If you're going to argue that the Cubs wouldn't have Lee, Ramirez, Barrett, Dempster, Murton, Pierre, Howry et al. were it not for Hendry, it is only fair to point out that if we had someone OTHER than Hendry, we might very well have Vlad Guerrero, Ivan Rodriguez, Miguel Tejada, Rafael Furcal, Adam Dunn, and Raul Ibanez here, amongst others, as those are some of the notable deals he failed to secure.

[TheDude]

This is an old argument on this bd., but some of us either see theglass as half empty all the time, or just have it in for Jim for reasons unknown.

 

This is ignorant. Because people disagree with you about Hendry, they must have something personal against him? Please. Talk about tired, old arguments.

 

The tired old argument is that Hendry is actually lucky and not good.

[JC]

As far as Nomar goes, he was a complete bust for the Cubs, in part, because Hendry waived the Cubs' right to require a physical. Instead, Hendry merely took Boston's reports and knew he was getting damaged goods by acknowledging that Nomar wouldn't be playing with regularity.

 

Garciaparra played in 43 of the 58 games the Cubs played in 2004 after they traded for him. He hit .297/.364/.455, and the cost to the Cubs was in the region of $1m, plus the prospects, minus Alex Gonzalez. Nomar's brief 2004 stint with the Cubs was also quite probably a factor in him deciding to spend 2005 in Chicago. As a result, I have absolutely no idea how you can describe the Garciaparra part of the Garciaparra trade a "complete bust". Do you need me to quote for you Alex Gonzalez's career line?

 

Now, obviously, due to the groin injury, Garciaparra returning in 2005 didn't work out for the Cubs as they might have planned. That though does not necessarily mean that the decision to bring him back was a bad one, unless you want to argue that the Cubs had any knowledge that Garciaparra would injure not the Achilles that had troubled him during 2004 but his groin. Make no mistake about it though, there was nothing wrong with Garciaparra's bat last year - if you count spring training, Nomar hit .306/.336/.541 in 122 PA before he got injured, and .318/.347/.531 in 190 PA after it, which comes to .314/.343/.534 in 312 PA overall. His career numbers? .320/.367/.544. His defence is another matter, of course, and it wasn't particularly good, but it would have needed to have been twenty times worse than it was for your labelling of him as a "complete bust" to be even remotely accurate.

 

In all, Garciaparra cost the Cubs three prospects, minus Alex Gonzalez, and cost the Cubs just under $10m. He played 105 of a possible 220 regular season games with the Cubs, hit .289/.339/.453 and was poor defensively. And that was pretty much the fulfillment of the worst case scenario. If it's 31 July 2004 again, and the same trade is on the table, you take it every single time, each time being a fleecing, and as with any trade you just hope that ill-fortune doesn't nix the best laid plans.

 

As for Murton, he was a throw in, thanks to Theo Epstein's insistence when the Expos demanded Harris.

 

Care to explain how that works, or maybe provide a source on this? The Expos demanded Brendan Harris from the Cubs, so the Boston GM insisted upon sending a decent prospect of his own to Chicago?

 

The reason I called Nomar a complete bust is because he did not create the impact on the team necessary to get the Cubs into the playoffs. The Cubs brought him in to put them over the top in 2004. He didn't accomplish that goal as the Cubs fell apart down the stretch. So, while I certainly concede that his offensive numbers were solid, he didn't put the Cubs over the top as you expect from a deadline deal in the middle of a tight playoff race. Knowing what Hendry did at the time regarding Nomar's health, I don't think I would have made that deal. And, mind you, I'm a HUGE Nomar fan.

 

With respect to Murton, the way I understand the story (which may have come from Hendry himself in an interview) was that the deal was pretty much dead because the Expos wanted Harris. Epstein didn't want Nomar, and desperately wanted Cabrera, so he pushed Murton as compensation. The Cubs had to look into Murton as he was never a component of the deal. Obviously, after review, Hendry was satisfied as the deal went through. I don't have a site or a link, so if that is necessary, I guess you can simply accuse me of lying or making the whole thing up.

[Diffusion]

The reason I called Nomar a complete bust is because he did not create the impact on the team necessary to get the Cubs into the playoffs. The Cubs brought him in to put them over the top in 2004. He didn't accomplish that goal as the Cubs fell apart down the stretch.

 

Yeh, that's really fair. The Cubs' didn't make the playoffs so you take it out on one player by ridiculously calling him a "complete bust". I guess Nomar was doing a really good job up until the bottom of the ninth inning on September 26th, seeing as the Cubs were just about to pull 1.5 games clear of the closest team in the wild card race. And then, by only hitting .296/.424/.407 in 34 PA in the 7 remaining games, he blew it.

 

So, while I certainly concede that his offensive numbers were solid, he didn't put the Cubs over the top as you expect from a deadline deal in the middle of a tight playoff race.

 

Maybe you were expecting too much. Like Nomar to play everyday and hit like it was 2000 while playing Gold-Glove defence. Jeez. It was absolutely no secret that Nomar was having problems with his Achilles, and that he hadn't been quite his old self with the Red Sox that year. Indeed, at the time, people were even talking about him being a clubhouse cancer. We knew what we were getting, and we knew it was a gamble, and we decided that it was worth it relative to what we were giving up. Given that over the final two months of the season Nomar improved our team at a negligible cost (erm, Alex Gonzalez?), it's plain that he did that. The fact that he was a big name, the fact that he was traded at the deadline and the fact that the playoff race was tight, that's all completely academic. We didn't trade for a player guaranteed to put you over the top if you deal for him at the deadline in the middle of a tight playoff race, we traded for Nomar Garciaparra.

 

Knowing what Hendry did at the time regarding Nomar's health, I don't think I would have made that deal.

 

What did Hendry know that everyone didn't know? That's an honest question.

 

With respect to Murton, the way I understand the story (which may have come from Hendry himself in an interview) was that the deal was pretty much dead because the Expos wanted Harris. Epstein didn't want Nomar, and desperately wanted Cabrera, so he pushed Murton as compensation. The Cubs had to look into Murton as he was never a component of the deal. Obviously, after review, Hendry was satisfied as the deal went through.

 

Okay, that makes some sense. Thanks. I just didn't know the story behind the inclusion of Murton in the deal, and Epstein insisting on Murton being in the deal sounded extremely strange, so that's the only reason I asked. Really, that you constantly lie and make things up only occured to me later! :wink:

[frostwyrm]

If you're going to argue that the Cubs wouldn't have Lee, Ramirez, Barrett, Dempster, Murton, Pierre, Howry et al. were it not for Hendry, it is only fair to point out that if we had someone OTHER than Hendry, we might very well have Vlad Guerrero, Ivan Rodriguez, Miguel Tejada, Rafael Furcal, Adam Dunn, and Raul Ibanez here, amongst others, as those are some of the notable deals he failed to secure.

 

Opting for Greg Maddux over Vlad Guerrero was a horrible idea and message board geeks everywhere knew it even at the time. A lot of things have gone wrong in the past few years but that Maddux contract is the one that sticks out in my mind.

[Jehrico]

Granted, the Cubs could use some more fleecings since he can't seem to sign a meaningful FA, but how much more often can you expect one GM to fleece another?

 

Hundley for Grudz and Karros? Fleeced. Hill and garbage for Ramirez? Fleeced. Choi for Lee? Fleeced. Jones and not much else for Nomar and Murton? Fleeced.

 

Honorable mention goes to Miller for Barrett. Hawkins for Williams. Hairston Jr. for Sosa. Each of those has the possibility of becoming a fleecing, but aren't there yet.

 

He got burned on the Willis for Clement deal, but I can't call that a fleecing because no one saw Willis coming and Clement was pretty good, a whole heck of a lot better than Hundley or Hill or Choi or...

 

Four indisputable fleecings in just 3 1/2 years. Is there any other GM out there who can come close to that?

 

Indisputable? Hardly. The economics of the Ramirez and Lee deals can't be ignored. They were components of the deals that factored in what the Pirates and Marlins could demand in return. As such, its hard to see how Hendry can receive all the credit and the "Jason and the Argonauts Golden Fleece Award".

 

As far as Nomar goes, he was a complete bust for the Cubs, in part, because Hendry waived the Cubs' right to require a physical. Instead, Hendry merely took Boston's reports and knew he was getting damaged goods by acknowledging that Nomar wouldn't be playing with regularity. As for Murton, he was a throw in, thanks to Theo Epstein's insistence when the Expos demanded Harris.

 

Grudz and Karros turned out much better than I expected. I give Hendry credit for that.

 

Other than Grudz/Karros, I hardly see an objective "fleecing" being had in each of these other instances.

 

No, they were fleecings.

[Jehrico]

If you're going to argue that the Cubs wouldn't have Lee, Ramirez, Barrett, Dempster, Murton, Pierre, Howry et al. were it not for Hendry, it is only fair to point out that if we had someone OTHER than Hendry, we might very well have Vlad Guerrero, Ivan Rodriguez, Miguel Tejada, Rafael Furcal, Adam Dunn, and Raul Ibanez here, amongst others, as those are some of the notable deals he failed to secure.

 

Opting for Greg Maddux over Vlad Guerrero was a horrible idea and message board geeks everywhere knew it even at the time. A lot of things have gone wrong in the past few years but that Maddux contract is the one that sticks out in my mind.

 

I thought the trib ponied up extra money just for Maddux that was above and beyond the regular budget? . In all honesty, the offseason was over, Vlad had signed somewhere else, and Maddux came about in late February. Maddux wasn't being seriously pursued while Vlad was available, so it's not fair to throw that out at Hendry. You make it sound like Vlad was a sure thing had he simply decided to not pursue Maddux and put an offer on the table to Vlad.

Edited March 17, 2006 by Jehrico

[CubsWin]

Granted, the Cubs could use some more fleecings since he can't seem to sign a meaningful FA, but how much more often can you expect one GM to fleece another?

 

Hundley for Grudz and Karros? Fleeced. Hill and garbage for Ramirez? Fleeced. Choi for Lee? Fleeced. Jones and not much else for Nomar and Murton? Fleeced.

 

Honorable mention goes to Miller for Barrett. Hawkins for Williams. Hairston Jr. for Sosa. Each of those has the possibility of becoming a fleecing, but aren't there yet.

 

He got burned on the Willis for Clement deal, but I can't call that a fleecing because no one saw Willis coming and Clement was pretty good, a whole heck of a lot better than Hundley or Hill or Choi or...

 

Four indisputable fleecings in just 3 1/2 years. Is there any other GM out there who can come close to that?

 

Indisputable? Hardly. The economics of the Ramirez and Lee deals can't be ignored. They were components of the deals that factored in what the Pirates and Marlins could demand in return. As such, its hard to see how Hendry can receive all the credit and the "Jason and the Argonauts Golden Fleece Award".

 

As far as Nomar goes, he was a complete bust for the Cubs, in part, because Hendry waived the Cubs' right to require a physical. Instead, Hendry merely took Boston's reports and knew he was getting damaged goods by acknowledging that Nomar wouldn't be playing with regularity. As for Murton, he was a throw in, thanks to Theo Epstein's insistence when the Expos demanded Harris.

 

Grudz and Karros turned out much better than I expected. I give Hendry credit for that.

 

Other than Grudz/Karros, I hardly see an objective "fleecing" being had in each of these other instances.

Clearly you are entitled to your opinion, JC. On many other opinions we might agree, but on this one I fail to see how you have put forth a solid argument. Every point you raised is easy to poke holes in.

 

If you are arguing that the Pirates and Marlins unwillingness to pay Ramirez and Lee makes these trades any less of a fleecing, then ask yourself how would you feel if the Cardinals or Astros had acquired them for next to nothing? The Rolen trade was economically motivated. People on this board have expressed anger at Cubs management for missing out on that one. Sounds like a double standard to me.

 

Also ask yourself, if the Cubs were in a position where they had to trade someone of value and youth because they couldn't afford to pay them, would you be happy with complete flops like Hill or Choi in return? Would you call that a good trade? No, you'd probably say the Cubs got fleeced. How could they trade away someone of value like Lee and not get anything good in return?

 

This "Murton was a throw in" comment defies all logic and holds no water. Are we to believe that Hendry wasn't demanding something more than just Nomar? That he would have been fine taking only Nomar in that trade but that the Red Sox insisted that the Cubs take Murton as well? A "throw in"? Please. Obviously, Hendry wanted more. The Red Sox may have offered up Murton, but ultimately it had to have been Hendry's judgement to take him or ask for someone else. Clearly, Hendry felt Murton was a good enough prospect to get the deal done. It was widely reported that Hendry was the mastermind of that 4-team deal. No one disputes that.

 

And as far as getting a former AL MVP for AGon, Jones, and some other guys being called a complete waste, you should ask yourself the following question. Would you be saying the same thing if Nomar had only missed his average of 30-35 games in '05? You can't blame Hendry for the amount of games Nomar missed or the type of injury he suffered, but yet, you still are. Trading for and resigning Nomar was a gamble and one that I think was well worth taking. Whether or not that gamble pays off or not says nothing about the soundness of the decision to take that gamble.

[CubsWin]

If you're going to argue that the Cubs wouldn't have Lee, Ramirez, Barrett, Dempster, Murton, Pierre, Howry et al. were it not for Hendry, it is only fair to point out that if we had someone OTHER than Hendry, we might very well have Vlad Guerrero, Ivan Rodriguez, Miguel Tejada, Rafael Furcal, Adam Dunn, and Raul Ibanez here, amongst others, as those are some of the notable deals he failed to secure.

 

Opting for Greg Maddux over Vlad Guerrero was a horrible idea and message board geeks everywhere knew it even at the time. A lot of things have gone wrong in the past few years but that Maddux contract is the one that sticks out in my mind.

While it is unfair and inaccurate to say that Hendry chose Maddux over Guerrero, I agree that the Maddux signing was a questionable one. I felt that the money could have much better spent and that Maddux's contract sent Clement packing.

 

In the post that kicked off this tangent, I openly admitted that Hendry's record in signing meaningful FAs was sorely lacking. It was a very balanced post in my opinion simply defending the one area of Hendry's performance that has been quite good, his trades, while acknowledging his shortcomings. I am surprised it spawned a couple of pages of Hendry criticism and the requisite defending of him, but I probably shouldn't be.

[goonys evil twin]

In the post that kicked off this tangent, I openly admitted that Hendry's record in signing meaningful FAs was sorely lacking. It was a very balanced post in my opinion simply defending the one area of Hendry's performance that has been quite good, his trades, while acknowledging his shortcomings. I am surprised it spawned a couple of pages of Hendry criticism and the requisite defending of him, but I probably shouldn't be.

 

I would agree with all of this.

 

He's made some good trades.

His signings have been questionable.

You shouldn't have been surprised

 

 

And I would add that we still have to look at the overall picture, and not just rate certain trades, signings or other moves. And I find it hard to say the overall job has been anything but disappointing.

[CubsWin]

In the post that kicked off this tangent, I openly admitted that Hendry's record in signing meaningful FAs was sorely lacking. It was a very balanced post in my opinion simply defending the one area of Hendry's performance that has been quite good, his trades, while acknowledging his shortcomings. I am surprised it spawned a couple of pages of Hendry criticism and the requisite defending of him, but I probably shouldn't be.

 

I would agree with all of this.

 

He's made some good trades.

His signings have been questionable.

You shouldn't have been surprised

 

 

And I would add that we still have to look at the overall picture, and not just rate certain trades, signings or other moves. And I find it hard to say the overall job has been anything but disappointing.

And I would agree with all of that except to say that the overall job has been disappointing with extenuating circumstances.

 

A GM cannot be held accountable for everything that happens on a baseball team. The game itself is fraught with freak happenings, inches here or there, balls landing on a chalk line, umpires making bad calls. It happens, and sometimes it happens in streaks.

 

Was Patterson supposed to pull an el foldo like he did last season? Was Hendry supposed to see that coming? Was Hendry supposed to see Prior getting hit by a line drive? Was Hendry supposed to see Baker using Dempster in the rotation to start the season? Was he supposed to see Dubois tanking like he did? What about the injuries to and the poor performances from the bullpen?

 

Should/Could Hendry have signed better players in RF and LF last season? Absolutely. Did he blow it by leaving the Cubs hoping that Burnitz and Dubois would get the job done? Yes. But thats not what had the Cubs finish under .500, is it? Have the overall results been disappointing the past two seasons? Of course, but you'd have to admit that there have been a lot of things that have happened that were not easily foreseen.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

In the post that kicked off this tangent, I openly admitted that Hendry's record in signing meaningful FAs was sorely lacking. It was a very balanced post in my opinion simply defending the one area of Hendry's performance that has been quite good, his trades, while acknowledging his shortcomings. I am surprised it spawned a couple of pages of Hendry criticism and the requisite defending of him, but I probably shouldn't be.

 

I would agree with all of this.

 

He's made some good trades.

His signings have been questionable.

You shouldn't have been surprised

 

 

And I would add that we still have to look at the overall picture, and not just rate certain trades, signings or other moves. And I find it hard to say the overall job has been anything but disappointing.

And I would agree with all of that except to say that the overall job has been disappointing with extenuating circumstances.

 

A GM cannot be held accountable for everything that happens on a baseball team. The game itself is fraught with freak happenings, inches here or there, balls landing on a chalk line, umpires making bad calls. It happens, and sometimes it happens in streaks.

 

Was Patterson supposed to pull an el foldo like he did last season? Was Hendry supposed to see that coming? Was Hendry supposed to see Prior getting hit by a line drive? Was Hendry supposed to see Baker using Dempster in the rotation to start the season? Was he supposed to see Dubois tanking like he did? What about the injuries to and the poor performances from the bullpen?

 

Should/Could Hendry have signed better players in RF and LF last season? Absolutely. Did he blow it by leaving the Cubs hoping that Burnitz and Dubois would get the job done? Yes. But thats not what had the Cubs finish under .500, is it? Have the overall results been disappointing the past two seasons? Of course, but you'd have to admit that there have been a lot of things that have happened that were not easily foreseen.

 

By the same token, the unforseen circumstances would be much easier to manage if the appropriate improvements had been made, across the board. Personnel(corner outfield), management(Baker), and philosophical(international scouting, emphasis on OBP/patience) mistakes/failures have been prevalent for a while now, and Hendry hasn't done much to improve any of those situations in some time.

[CubsWin]

By the same token, the unforseen circumstances would be much easier to manage if the appropriate improvements had been made, across the board. Personnel(corner outfield), management(Baker), and philosophical(international scouting, emphasis on OBP/patience) mistakes/failures have been prevalent for a while now, and Hendry hasn't done much to improve any of those situations in some time.

Agreed. I mentioned the corner OF thing in the post you responded to. I believe he tried to do something about it. He recognizes that there is a need to address, but he has clearly failed to adequately address it.

 

No doubt Baker has his shortcomings. They have been put on display a lot recently. But, believe or not, he also has his strengths, as we saw in '03, a year that few predicted the Cubs would come within 5 outs of the WS. When the Cubs are healthy, I believe Baker's style helps teams stay loose, get on a roll and minimize losing streaks. But his ability to use less than optimal personnel properly, among many other things, is a big downfall, IMO.

 

Hendry may not stress OBP/patience as much as you would like him to, but it is difficult to build a solid argument that says he doesn't value them at all. All he has done since becoming GM is acquire guys who's OBP are better than their predecessor's. He has drafted both projectable, toolsy guys and college OBP guys. How many times did the Cubs draft Sam Fuld before they finally signed him? In almost every story written about Pie, they say he needs to improve his plate discipline and that he is going to spend more time in the minors despite the Cubs gaping hole in RF. So, to say he hasn't done much about OBP/patience is inaccurate, IMO.

[Mizzou]

If you're going to argue that the Cubs wouldn't have Lee, Ramirez, Barrett, Dempster, Murton, Pierre, Howry et al. were it not for Hendry, it is only fair to point out that if we had someone OTHER than Hendry, we might very well have Vlad Guerrero, Ivan Rodriguez, Miguel Tejada, Rafael Furcal, Adam Dunn, and Raul Ibanez here, amongst others, as those are some of the notable deals he failed to secure.

 

Opting for Greg Maddux over Vlad Guerrero was a horrible idea and message board geeks everywhere knew it even at the time. A lot of things have gone wrong in the past few years but that Maddux contract is the one that sticks out in my mind.

We had nearly 30 million tied up between Sosa and Alou when Vlad was a FA... how exactly did you expect Hendry to sign Vlad when we we didn't have a place for him?

[CubsWin]

If you're going to argue that the Cubs wouldn't have Lee, Ramirez, Barrett, Dempster, Murton, Pierre, Howry et al. were it not for Hendry, it is only fair to point out that if we had someone OTHER than Hendry, we might very well have Vlad Guerrero, Ivan Rodriguez, Miguel Tejada, Rafael Furcal, Adam Dunn, and Raul Ibanez here, amongst others, as those are some of the notable deals he failed to secure.

 

Opting for Greg Maddux over Vlad Guerrero was a horrible idea and message board geeks everywhere knew it even at the time. A lot of things have gone wrong in the past few years but that Maddux contract is the one that sticks out in my mind.

We had nearly 30 million tied up between Sosa and Alou when Vlad was a FA... how exactly did you expect Hendry to sign Vlad when we we didn't have a place for him?

He could have traded Sosa or Alou. Doing so is a lot easier said than done, but it was a possibility people were looking at that off season.

[BigbadB]

Alou, no problem. Sosa, not likely. Sosa was still the Cubs franchise player at that time. Alou could have been dealt to San Francisco pretty easily, IMO. Moving Sosa to left where he belonged would have been the start of his departure from Chicago, as he would have thrown a fit much worse than being moved down in the order.

[jjgman21]

If you're going to argue that the Cubs wouldn't have Lee, Ramirez, Barrett, Dempster, Murton, Pierre, Howry et al. were it not for Hendry, it is only fair to point out that if we had someone OTHER than Hendry, we might very well have Vlad Guerrero, Ivan Rodriguez, Miguel Tejada, Rafael Furcal, Adam Dunn, and Raul Ibanez here, amongst others, as those are some of the notable deals he failed to secure.

 

I'm often mistaken for a Hendry defender when in fact I agree with the concensus that is developing in this thread, trade good, signing bad. but I often think people presume players were obtainable simply because those are the players they want.

 

there's no way to know all the factors and considerations in these dealings. for instance, regarding Murton, I have also heard that Hendry insisted the chip coming from Boston for including Harris had to be Murton. you also have to evaluate some of those missed deals long term, which is something I like about Hendry.

 

some of these players are listed in don's post here. Vlad's deal is tough to argue with, but....

 

On Saturday, Guerrero turned down a three-year offer from the New York Mets that could have been worth $71 million over five years.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1706614

 

what are you gonna do about matching that offer, especially when that player turns around and signs for the same amount overtwo more years? alot goes into why a player signs with a team. with Vlad, the hispanic element seemed to have alot to do with it.

 

incidentally, same theory goes for those that are mad the Cubs didn't get Wilkerson. we're talking about a GM who highly values Soriano. how do you make a deal when the other party is insane?

 

but back to those other players...

 

Irod. don't know if you noticed, but he had a 94 OPS last year. defense, schmefense. he's not worth the money.

 

Furcal (and Beltran for that matter)...too much money. no convincing me the deals they signed were or will be a good investment.

 

Tejada - I think whoever has Tejada will end up regretting the last couple years of his deal, but that remains to be seen.

 

Dunn - that's message board fodder. I have never heard of a serious deal for Dunn.

 

Ibanez - not sure why he is on this list. his career OPS+ is 105. Jacque Jones is 101.

 

looking back to last year, the "decisions" on Drew (who I advocated getting, especially at the deal he signed), Ordonez, Percival, Benitez all turned out to be good "decisions"

 

alot of times the deal you do not make is the best deal.

Edited March 17, 2006 by jjgman21

[CubsWin]

Alou, no problem. Sosa, not likely. Sosa was still the Cubs franchise player at that time. Alou could have been dealt to San Francisco pretty easily, IMO. Moving Sosa to left where he belonged would have been the start of his departure from Chicago, as he would have thrown a fit much worse than being moved down in the order.

Like I said, easier said than done, but those were the options being discussed at the time of Vlad's free agency. Probably has a lot to do with why he didn't sign with the Cubs, don't you think?

[CubsWin]

If you're going to argue that the Cubs wouldn't have Lee, Ramirez, Barrett, Dempster, Murton, Pierre, Howry et al. were it not for Hendry, it is only fair to point out that if we had someone OTHER than Hendry, we might very well have Vlad Guerrero, Ivan Rodriguez, Miguel Tejada, Rafael Furcal, Adam Dunn, and Raul Ibanez here, amongst others, as those are some of the notable deals he failed to secure.

 

I'm often mistaken for a Hendry defender when in fact I agree with the concensus that is developing in this thread, trade good, signing bad. but I often think people presume players were obtainable simply because those are the players they want.

 

there's no way to know all the factors and considerations in these dealings. for instance, regarding Murton, I have also heard that Hendry insisted the chip coming from Boston for including Harris had to be Murton. you also have to evaluate some of those missed deals long term, which is something I like about Hendry.

 

some of these players are listed in don's post here. Vlad's deal is tough to argue with, but....

 

On Saturday, Guerrero turned down a three-year offer from the New York Mets that could have been worth $71 million over five years.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1706614

 

what are you gonna do about matching that offer, especially when that player turns around and signs for the same amount over many more years? alot goes into why a player signs with a team. with Vlad, the hispanic element seemed to have alot to do with it.

 

incidentally, same theory goes for those that are mad the Cubs didn't get Wilkerson. we're talking about a GM who highly values Soriano. how do you make a deal when the other party is insane?

 

but back to those other players...

 

Irod. don't know if you noticed, but he had a 94 OPS last year. defense, schmefense. he's not worth the money.

 

Furcal (and Beltran for that matter)...too much money. no convincing me the deals they signed were or will be a good investment.

 

Dunn - that's message board fodder. I have never heard of a serious deal for Dunn.

 

Ibanez - not sure why he is on this list. his career OPS+ is 105. Jacque Jones is 101.

 

looking back to last year, the "decisions" on Drew (who I advocated getting, especially at the deal he signed), Ordonez, Percival, Benitez all turned out to be good "decisions"

 

alot of times the deal you do not make is the best deal.

I agree. A very well thought out and considerate post.

 

The one thing that Hendry could have done is sign a bad deal. I wouldn't have done so to get someone injury prone like Drew or injured like Ordonez or someone with less than superstar numbers like Furcal, but I would have offered "too much" for someone like Giles. Then again, who knows, just like for Vlad, Giles might not have wanted out of Southern California.

[barryfoote]

To further hijack a hijacked thread.

 

The reason I called Nomar a complete bust is because he did not create the impact on the team necessary to get the Cubs into the playoffs. The Cubs brought him in to put them over the top in 2004. He didn't accomplish that goal as the Cubs fell apart down the stretch.

 

I still to this day place the majority of the blame on Hawkins. The blown save in New York with a three run lead and the blown save against Cincinnatti at home just seemed to suck the life out of the team. That's hardly Nomar's fault. Hendry was able to swing a deal to replace (arguably) out weakest starter at the time with a player that had historically been an all-star caliber player. Also, he was able to swing Murton as part of that deal as well.

 

I generally like Hendry myself, but I do think that he did not adequately address right field this year.

[UK1679666180]

A team with a farm system like the Cubs when Hendry took over as GM as well as the payroll should have made the playoffs more than once over the last 3 years.

 

But, over the last 2 years the wins and farm system have regressed (farm system over the last 3) while the payroll has increased.

 

You can look at every reason why that has occured and delegate blame towards the players, Baker, and bad luck, but it comes back to Hendry at the end of the day, if things aren't getting done.

 

Overall, during the last 3 years, the Cubs have not gotten it done.

[Jake]

Haha, we got Aramis Ramirez for him

@(#&@(#$&@(*&(!@(!@&*@#(*&!(@#&!@(*#&*(#$&@(&!@(#*&!(#%&@#(*&!@#(*&!@#$(*&@#$(@&*#$(@#

[CubsWin]

Haha, we got Aramis Ramirez for him

@(#&@(#$&@(*&(!@(!@&*@#(*&!(@#&!@(*#&*(#$&@(&!@(#*&!(#%&@#(*&!@#(*&!@#$(*&@#$(@&*#$(@#

Let's hear from a Pirates' fan...

 

Soooo, Jake, um, would you characterize the trade Hendry made to get Ramirez as a "fleecing"?

[CubsWin]

You can look at every reason why that has occured and delegate blame towards the players, Baker, and bad luck, but it comes back to Hendry at the end of the day, if things aren't getting done.

Happy St. Patrick's Day, you omnipotent Irishman!

 

You seem to acknowledge the litany of things that went wrong and the list of other people who should share in the responsibility, but then, rather inexplicably hold Hendry responsible for it all.

If what you are saying is that, in a technical sense, the General Manager is responsible for the results the team produces because he should have depth in case of injury and a team philosophy that works perfectly to handle any major bumps in the road, then I would say that idealistically you are correct, but that you aren't being realistic here.

 

Idealistically, it is easy to hold the top guy in any organization responisble for the results of those under him, and that may translate well in a most business models, but not so much in baseball. Realistically, not idealistically, Hendry made mistakes, missed out on signings, took gambles that didn't pay off and is directly responsible for that. There were also a lot things that happened that were completely out of his control and completely unforeseen that greatly affected the won-loss record of the team, especially in '05. To hold him responsible for the line drive that ko'd Prior or Corey's collapse among other things simply isn't realistic.

 

To say that he didn't have an adequate back-up plan in case of injury or unforeseen poor performance is a little more realistic, but still not exactly accurate. His back-up plan may have worked better if the players who stepped in had performed better. Hill, Rusch, Mitre, Dubois, Hairston, Lawton, Borowski and others all performed worse than expected.

 

I believe in team sports, especially baseball, the blame for the results of an organization is shared and not one man can be blamed for it.

 

Overall, during the last 3 years, the Cubs have not gotten it done.

Agreed, except for '03. Given what the team did the year before, I would say the Cubs "got it done" in '03, but certainly haven't in the two years since.