Bobby Hill Released by Padres

[UK1679666180]

Hendry, Baker, and the players that were injured or underachieved responsible.

 

Hendry should be graded on the state of the team. I also hold Hendry responsible for hiring Baker, he had to have known Baker's weaknesses as a coach would trump Baker's strengths given the way the Cubs were being built. If I could point that out before Baker was hired, someone w/Hendry's baseball IQ should've seen it a mile away.

 

Hendry has been given more than enough resources to field a better ballclub and has not been able to.

 

I think he deserves this final year to prove whether or not he deserves a new contract, any contract extention before that is a risk not worth taking. If this team has a similar season to last, it's time to start over and they'll have to plenty of FAs as well as expiring contracts to do so.

 

2-3 years ago as the stars aligned properly for the Cubs to succeed with the development of the young pitching and propel the Cubs into a decade of 90 win seasons, the stars have aligned once again to rebuild if the Cubs have another miserable season.

 

When a GM has Burnitz and Hollandsworth as his starting corner OF'ers on a team with a payroll around 100mil, he hasn't done his job.

 

Like I mentioned earlier, the wins have decreased, the quality of the farm system has decreased, while the payroll and the age of the team has increased.

 

I judge Hendry on the overall state of this team, this team isn't where they need to be.

[DurbanJer]

Hendry, Baker, and the players that were injured or underachieved responsible.

 

Hendry should be graded on the state of the team. I also hold Hendry responsible for hiring Baker, he had to have known Baker's weaknesses as a coach would trump Baker's strengths given the way the Cubs were being built. If I could point that out before Baker was hired, someone w/Hendry's baseball IQ should've seen it a mile away.

 

Hendry has been given more than enough resources to field a better ballclub and has not been able to.

 

I think he deserves this final year to prove whether or not he deserves a new contract, any contract extention before that is a risk not worth taking. If this team has a similar season to last, it's time to start over and they'll have to plenty of FAs as well as expiring contracts to do so.

 

2-3 years ago as the stars aligned properly for the Cubs to succeed with the development of the young pitching and propel the Cubs into a decade of 90 win seasons, the stars have aligned once again to rebuild if the Cubs have another miserable season.

 

When a GM has Burnitz and Hollandsworth as his starting corner OF'ers on a team with a payroll around 100mil, he hasn't done his job.

 

Like I mentioned earlier, the wins have decreased, the quality of the farm system has decreased, while the payroll and the age of the team has increased.

 

I judge Hendry on the overall state of this team, this team isn't where they need to be.

 

I agree with you 100% on a macro level, but I'd still give Hendry a solid A for the Ramirez/Hill trade and the Hundley/Karros-Grudz trades.

 

It seems to me this 'argument' is based largely on people looking at this from the macro leve (the Cubs are worse today than they were 4 years ago by the criteria you outlined) and those looking at each of these moves on their own merits. So he gets an A on 'that paper' but flunked the course, I guess.

[CubsWin]

It seems to me this 'argument' is based largely on people looking at this from the macro leve (the Cubs are worse today than they were 4 years ago by the criteria you outlined) and those looking at each of these moves on their own merits. So he gets an A on 'that paper' but flunked the course, I guess.

But here's the thing. The Cubs are a vastly improved team, talent wise, than they were when Hendry took over. Certainly a much better team than they were 4 years ago. So those that are arguing, on a macro level, that they are worse, or have regressed under Hendry are, IMO, mistaken.

 

Do you remember how bad the team was in '01 and '02? Then they exploded in '03, perhaps playing over their heads a bit, and then returned to earth in '04 and then had a season in which almost everything went wrong in '05. So expectations got built sky high after '03 such that '04 and '05 became that much more of a stinging disappointment making it seem like they are regressing when, talent wise, I don't think they are at all. And the talent level of a team is basically what the GM can be held responsible for.

 

But if we look at the bigger picture, here is the team Hendry inherited in July of '02 (OBP in paranthesis):

 

C Hundley (.301)/Girardi (.275)

1B McGriff (.353)

2B Bellhorn (.374)

SS Gonzalez (.312)

3B Stynes (.314)/Orie (.306)

RF Sosa (.399)

CF Patterson (.284)

LF Alou (.337)

 

Over the last couple of years and now...

 

C Barrett +

1B Lee +

2B Walker/Hairston +/even

SS Nomar/Cedeno +

3B Ramirez +

RF Burnitz/Jones -

CF Pierre +

LF Murton +/even

 

He has put together what looks to be one of the best bullpens in the league and what he had in '02 wasn't all that great.

 

Alfonseca 4.00

Borowski 2.73

Cruz 3.98

Farnsworth 7.33

Mahomes 3.86

Cunnane 5.47

 

Injuries to Lieber and Zambrano starting in the bullpen had players like Jason Bere, Steve Smyth and Alan Benes in the rotation. Now the spot starters are Rusch and Williams. Or at least they would be spot starters if guys would stay healthy.

 

It is important to remember just how bad the Cubs were in '01 and '02. That is what Hendry had to build on. The talent is vastly improved over the 2002 team. And the main responsibility of a club's GM is the talent he puts on the field, and even for that he is largerly relying on his scouts. A team's won-loss record is a shared responsibility amongst the players, the coaching staff, manager, trainer, scouts and GM. That's the reality.

 

It is common practice to blame or want to fire the GM or manager when things don't work out, and I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing so. I'm only laying out an argument as to why blaming the head of a baseball organization for every little result isn't based in reality. But this is a message board. Who ever said we needed to ground our comments in facts? (Seriously, that's not sarcasm.)

[NCCubFan]

Do you remember how bad the team was in '01 and '02?

They were bad in 2002, but in 2001 they were 88-74 (exactly the same record as 2003) and leading the division much of the year. That's the year they acquired Fred McGriff to put them over the top and stalled Patterson's development by bringing him up before he was ready because Baylor wanted his speed on the bench to use as a pinch runner.

[jjgman21]

I think something to keep in mind when criticizing Hendry for the minor league depth and payroll not resulting in the roster or results on the field we would all like, is that he built the minor leagues and got the Trib to open up their wallet. the Cubs wouldn't have had the minor league system they do, or the payroll they have without Hendry.

 

in the 15 years or so before Hendry took over scouting, the Cubs had maybe 10 draft picks that turned into even marginal major leaguers. their international scouting was nonexistant. since Hendry took over the draft and into his GM years, the draft has netted Wood, Adam Everett (not signed), Justin Speier, Kyle Lohse, Garland, Scott Downs, Wuertz, Patterson, Ohman, Hinske, Hill, Wellemeyer, Willis, Leicester, Dubois, Prior, Andy Sisco, Brendan Harris, Mitre, Khalil Green (not signed), with several others on the way. that's not mentioning the international players the Cubs organization has funneled to the major leagues. in other words, the system we were so proud of was built by Hendry.

 

 

in addition, part of being a GM is how you relate to the owner. Hendry became assistant GM in 2001 and took over as full time GM in July 2002. let's look at rank in team payroll and how it compared with the league leaders.

 

1999 - 10/63%

2000 - 12/67%

2001 - 15/58%

2002 - 12/70 (I used % of 2nd highest because this is when the Yankees disparity became ridiculous)

2003 - 11/75 (of 3rd highest, the Mets were absurd too)

2004 - 7/90 (of 3rd highest, the RedSox get absurd)

2005 - 9/86 (of 3rd, Yankees and RedSox way ahead)

 

source

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2005

 

Hendry took over when the Trib was squeezing the team, and got them to reverse that trend and open the bank book. in other words, Hendry is the one responsible for the increased payroll.

 

Furthermore, the past two years when the Cubs really moved up in the payroll standings, the Cubs had to pay 16M for a 110 OPS+ rightfielder in 2004 and 17M for a 94 OPS+ rightfielder in 2005, neither of which he was responsible for. the other transaction that has most handstrapped the organization, Maddux, is also a decision widely believed to have not been in his hands.

 

if you really want to look at things in the macro, Jim Hendry is the main reason there is hope and are at least considered competitive. in all probability Jim Hendry is the main reason this very website exists. sure, I can't stand alot of his moves, especially hiring and sticking with Baker and over paying for spare parts, but the days of hoping for .500 and counting on 4 players to have career years in order to do it are in the past, because of Jim Hendry. now, much has to go wrong in order to finish below .500.

 

I for one take comfort that he is GM, especially with the Steve Phillips of the world waiting to step in, because if you think the Trib would hire a stathead with Andy MacPhail, who isn't going anywhere, as President, you're nuts.

[UK1679666180]

But here's the thing. The Cubs are a vastly improved team, talent wise, than they were when Hendry took over. Certainly a much better team than they were 4 years ago. So those that are arguing, on a macro level, that they are worse, or have regressed under Hendry are, IMO, mistaken.

 

Is this '06 team as talented as the '04 team? I don't think so, the rotation has regressed as has the offense. They've improved over the last 5 years b/c of Hendry's ability as scouting director and the Cubs (currently non-existent) allocation of resources towards international scouting from 99'-02'.

 

After the Cubs improved from a bad team to a good team, they have gone from a good team to an avg. team. If Hendry gets credit for bringing them from a bad team to a good team, he also gets blame for taking this team from a good team to an avg. team.

 

He has the resources to make this team a great team, he has yet to utilize the resources to do so.

 

I'll use a reference from the new Schuerholz book.

 

A winner says "let's find out", a loser says "nobody knows".

 

I want to find out why every recent season has begun with Prior or Wood on the DL. Are they overworking them during the season? How effective are their off-season throwing programs? Do the Cubs allocate many hours towards biomechanics? Is Rothschild doing a good job of correcting flaws? There are many more questions as to why they are so injury prone? I refuse to chalk it up to god or bad luck.

 

Right now, the only thing that was mentioned from Hendry was "bad luck".

 

A winner says, "I'm good, but not as good as I ought to be". A loser says. "I'm not as bad as a lot of people".

 

I'll use the Pierre debate, some are incorrectly equating his arrival to completely changing the structure of the Cubs offense. They are basing on what the Cubs in '05 as their leadoff hitter. Pierre is a good leadoff hitter, he wasn't the biggest need on this team and wasn't the best player to go after this off-season.

 

Give me the choice of Dayton Moore as the unknown or Hendry, I'd take Moore, every single time.

[CubsWin]

But here's the thing. The Cubs are a vastly improved team, talent wise, than they were when Hendry took over. Certainly a much better team than they were 4 years ago. So those that are arguing, on a macro level, that they are worse, or have regressed under Hendry are, IMO, mistaken.

 

Is this '06 team as talented as the '04 team? I don't think so, the rotation has regressed as has the offense. They've improved over the last 5 years b/c of Hendry's ability as scouting director and the Cubs (currently non-existent) allocation of resources towards international scouting from 99'-02'.

You state that the rotation and offense has regressed and I respect your opinions, but you did not provide your reasoning for them.

 

Are you accounting for the natural attrition of all rosters? Obviously, the Cubs can't have the '04 Sosa in the '06 line-up. So the question then becomes who could he have realistically gotten to replace Sosa? The '04 line-up is the same except for Sosa in RF, Patterson in CF, Alou in LF and Ramon Martinez/Alex Gonzalez/Nomar at SS. Are you saying that you want Patterson still in CF? Is Hendry responsible for Patterson's '05 collapse? Do you not consider Pierre an improvement over Corey? You may not, and that's fine. I just want to understand your reasoning.

 

Clearly, Sosa had to be replaced. I mean he is out baseball now. Who should he have gotten, and at what price? I wanted Giles real bad. I would have overpaid to get him, but who's to say Giles would have accepted it. He took less to stay in San Diego. Should he have outbid the Mets for Beltran in '04? Who would you rather have in LF this season, Murton or Alou? I'm assuming from your comments that you would rather have Alou. Should Nomar be manning SS this season over Cedeno? Certainly you would rather play Cedeno than Ramon Martinez and Alex Gonzalez, right? Isn't playing Cedeno the Schuerholz thing to do? Isn't he saying "lets find out" by doing so?

 

How is the rotation worse? I never liked the Maddux signing because I felt it doomed Clement to being released. You don't think keeping those 5 starters together for two more seasons would have been financially realistic, do you? So who should Hendry have replaced Clement with that was economically viable?

 

A winner says "let's find out", a loser says "nobody knows".

 

I want to find out why every recent season has begun with Prior or Wood on the DL. Are they overworking them during the season? How effective are their off-season throwing programs? Do the Cubs allocate many hours towards biomechanics? Is Rothschild doing a good job of correcting flaws? There are many more questions as to why they are so injury prone? I refuse to chalk it up to god or bad luck.

 

Right now, the only thing that was mentioned from Hendry was "bad luck".

I want to find out those things, too. But, it sounds like, from your current opinion that you already know the answers to those questions. It seems like you believe that Hendry and the Cubs aren't doing any of those things. They may not be. But where is your proof? If indeed they are doing all of those things, and they are still getting the results they are getting. Wouldn't bad luck be the only reason left?

 

A winner says, "I'm good, but not as good as I ought to be". A loser says. "I'm not as bad as a lot of people".

 

I'll use the Pierre debate, some are incorrectly equating his arrival to completely changing the structure of the Cubs offense. They are basing on what the Cubs in '05 as their leadoff hitter. Pierre is a good leadoff hitter, he wasn't the biggest need on this team and wasn't the best player to go after this off-season.

I agree that Pierre was not the best player to go after this off-season. But where is it written that every GM gets every player that they go after? There are 29 other teams. Did you want Hendry to pay 13 million a year for 3 years to get Furcal? Do you have inside knowledge that Giles would have accepted a deal outside of Southern California? I don't. If I did, then I would believe that Hendry chose not to go after Giles and didn't value him very highly. But I don't have that evidence. After those two, which other free agents do you believe would have had a better impact on the Cubs offense this season? If they are players that he would have had to trade for, how do you know the price the other teams were asking would have been acceptable?

 

These are all questions I believe must be answered in order to support the opinion you have chosen. Perhaps I'm wrong. I'm open to seeing that I am.

[UK1679666180]

You state that the rotation and offense has regressed and I respect your opinions, but you did not provide your reasoning for them.

 

Are you accounting for the natural attrition of all rosters? Obviously, the Cubs can't have the '04 Sosa in the '06 line-up. So the question then becomes who could he have realistically gotten to replace Sosa? The '04 line-up is the same except for Sosa in RF, Patterson in CF, Alou in LF and Ramon Martinez/Alex Gonzalez/Nomar at SS. Are you saying that you want Patterson still in CF? Is Hendry responsible for Patterson's '05 collapse? Do you not consider Pierre an improvement over Corey? You may not, and that's fine. I just want to understand your reasoning.

 

There's no chance that Pierre will be as productive as Patterson and Lofton were in '03. Pierre should easily surpass what Patterson provided in '04 and '05. But this team needs a middle of the order hitter worse than they need a leadoff hitter, Wilkerson or Bradley (despite the baggage) would've filled a greater need than Pierre. I'd feel more more comfortable with Walker/Hairston and Murton hitting 1/2 with Wilkerson/Bradley hitting 5th than Pierre and Walker/Hairston hitting 2nd with Jones hitting 5th.

 

Sure, if you have a natural attrition of rosters, you either A)replace them with similar or greater talent thru FA or trade B)replace them with someone coming from the farm system to provide similar production or C)regress while bringing someone up thru trade/FA or thru the farm system. The Cubs OF has regressed b/c they have unable to fill the production void left by Alou and Sosa.

 

Their replacements have been Hollandsworth (career 4th OF'er), Burnitz (career below avg. corner OF'er), and Jones (early peak followed two poor years). Hopefully, Murton will be able to provide +.800 OPS and be an asset in the middle of the order. Hollandworth and Burnitz were terrible last year.

 

Good GMs find ways to improve positions of need even when there doesn't appear to be options. Shapiro in Clev., needs a 3B who is young, talented, and cheap. Trades a gifted OF'er and gets his 3B, now has a hole at the top of the order and at a corner OF spot and trades an expensive veteran reliever to get an OF who has been platooning for several years, yet extremely productive especially at the top of the order and play well above avg. defense in RF.

 

There weren't any good young 3B roaming freely, he had to make it happen, b/c there doesn't appear to be any good FAs at a position of need doesn't equate to, chalking up another bad offseason to there weren't any good FAs so we'll settle for scraps (Jacque Jones until proven otherwise is a scrap).

 

Hendry is responsible for the Cubs failing last year, you start the year with Hollandsworth and Burnitz as your corner OF'ers, you're in trouble.

Edited March 19, 2006 by UK

[UK1679666180]

How is the rotation worse? I never liked the Maddux signing because I felt it doomed Clement to being released. You don't think keeping those 5 starters together for two more seasons would have been financially realistic, do you? So who should Hendry have replaced Clement with that was economically viable?

 

You think Rusch is as good as Clement? If no, then you'll see why this rotation isn't likely as good as 2004.

 

I didn't the Maddux signing either, he has been overpaid and underproductive for what he is being paid, it did basically signal the end of Clement after the year was up.

 

That signing was a bad one, how is that not reflective on Hendry if you disagree with the signing and watching how it has played out?

 

How did Kenny Williams get Bobby Jenks, Dustin Hermansen, Cliff Politte, etc on the cheap?

 

How did Jocketty get Carpenter & Calero on the cheap? How did Schuerholz get Jaret Wright on the cheap?

 

If you're limited on spending, you have to find ways to be creative. If you want to keep asking me who was avail., I can keep throwing out these types of names, there are plenty of them around. It's pointless to keep me this question b/c it's what separates the great GMs from the avg. ones.

 

How did Schuerholz get Hudson last year? How did get Kenny Williams get Freddy Garcia?

 

They traded top prospects for them without doing serious damage to the farm system. Unlike the Cubs, they have the ability to trade top prospects without destroying the farm system, b/c they have done a much job better job of maintaining a productive farm system.

 

I want to find out those things, too. But, it sounds like, from your current opinion that you already know the answers to those questions. It seems like you believe that Hendry and the Cubs aren't doing any of those things. They may not be. But where is your proof? If indeed they are doing all of those things, and they are still getting the results they are getting. Wouldn't bad luck be the only reason left?

 

I don't know if they practice biomechanics to level Peterson does in NY or the A's cont. to do since his departure.

 

I don't think you need to dig far in researching whether or not Baker has been reckless in how he has handled Wood, Prior, and Zambrano over the last 3 years.

 

If they cont. to fail to address Baker's usage pattern, then it's doubtful that they'll see Prior and Wood last an entire season w/out getting injured. I get tired of watching of Zambrano, Prior, and Wood cont. to pitch despite obvious signs of extreme fatigue.

 

The proof is right in front of your face in that regard. Yes, the usage patterns of Prior and Wood have impacted their lack of health, moreso Wood than Prior, but Prior would have less long-term questions had Baker not worked them beyond what most pitchers can take.

 

I agree that Pierre was not the best player to go after this off-season. But where is it written that every GM gets every player that they go after? There are 29 other teams. Did you want Hendry to pay 13 million a year for 3 years to get Furcal? Do you have inside knowledge that Giles would have accepted a deal outside of Southern California? I don't. If I did, then I would believe that Hendry chose not to go after Giles and didn't value him very highly. But I don't have that evidence. After those two, which other free agents do you believe would have had a better impact on the Cubs offense this season? If they are players that he would have had to trade for, how do you know the price the other teams were asking would have been acceptable?

 

More of the proof stuff...

 

The ultimate argument that can never be proven wrong and more importantly can never be proven right.

 

Why is your only argument around stuff that can't be proven?

 

How do you know that Giles would not have accepted a deal outside of California? How do you know they even went after Giles?

 

If this is the crutch of your argument as it has been, then there is anything to discuss. You'd be better off asking Peter Gammons.

[jjgman21]

 

Sure, if you have a natural attrition of rosters, you either A)replace them with similar or greater talent thru FA or trade B)replace them with someone coming from the farm system to provide similar production or C)regress while bringing someone up thru trade/FA or thru the farm system. The Cubs OF has regressed b/c they have unable to fill the production void left by Alou and Sosa.

 

Their replacements have been Hollandsworth (career 4th OF'er), Burnitz (career below avg. corner OF'er), and Jones (early peak followed two poor years). Hopefully, Murton will be able to provide +.800 OPS and be an asset in the middle of the order. Hollandworth and Burnitz were terrible last year.

you don't replace position by position like you suggest. you replace production in the lineup as a whole. between 2004 and 2005 three positions changed, Right, Left and Short. the theory was to replace Alou, Sosa, and a mixed bag of crap with Nomar replacing Alou's production and Burnitz and Hollandworth/Dubois replacing Sosa and the mixed bag of crap. it should have worked out, but for Nomar's injury.

 

there has been lot's of talk on this board about how the Cubs need another "impact bat" in the middle of the order. while I am not exactly sure what "impact bat" means, for the purposes of this argument, let's assume that means an .800 OPS.

 

do you know how many players in all of baseball had an .800 OPS and over 400 plate appearances last year? 82. that's it. that averages out to about 2.7 per team. the Cubs had 4 of them. this year, they should easily have 5 (Lee, Aram, 2nd base, Barrett, Murton) and with a little luck could have a 6th (Jones and a righty platoon. not counting on it, but it is possible). will the Cardinals have 5 or 6 players in the lineup with .800 OPS? not even close. they will have 3. Astros? they will have to count on the near 40 crowd and/or Jason Lane to have more than 3. the Braves? they need to depend on Francour playing way over his head to have four positions over .800.

 

that leaves two positions in the lineup, CF and shortstop, on which the Cubs offensive production can also improve. those moves were made by replacing a horrendous OBP at both positions with players that should be considerably better. seems to me that alot of the people who have been whining for years that the Cubs improve their OBP got exactly what they wished for, and are now whining that the Cubs don't have another "impact bat" even though they have more "impact bats" than most teams in the national league.

[jjgman21]

You think Rusch is as good as Clement? If no, then you'll see why this rotation isn't likely as good as 2004.

 

it's not exactly a true comparison considering the innings, but let's look at the numbers

 

Clement ERA+

2003 - 103

2004 - 123

 

Rusch as a starter

2004 - 130ish

2005 - 99ish.

 

what a creative solution.

 

 

That signing was a bad one, how is that not reflective on Hendry if you disagree with the signing and watching how it has played out?

 

because as I mention above, that decision appears to have been taken out of Hendry's hands and made by the higher ups.

 

How did Kenny Williams get Bobby Jenks, Dustin Hermansen, Cliff Politte, etc on the cheap?

 

Jenks was a psycho released by the Angels. the Sox had the option to pick him up before the Cubs did. for all we know, the Cubs would have picked him up if he got to them.

 

Politte was signed in 2004, after a 83 ERA+ year with the Blue Jays. Hermanson was a career suckwad who had a career year with the White Sox. so let me get this strait...Williams gets credit for finding these two diamond in the rough, but Hendry doesn't get credit for taking a chance on Rusch?

 

How did Jocketty get Carpenter & Calero on the cheap? How did Schuerholz get Jaret Wright on the cheap?

 

Carpenter - the same way the Cubs got Dempster and Wade Miller.

Calero - the same way the Cubs got Todd Van Poppel and Joe Borowski.

 

let me get this straight. Duncan gets credit for these moves, but Hendry doesn't get credit for taking chances on those players?

 

 

How did Schuerholz get Hudson last year?

 

by fleecing Billy Beane. so Schuerholz gets credit for that, but Hendry doesn't get credit for doing the same in the Barrett-Miller deal

 

How did get Kenny Williams get Freddy Garcia?

 

the same way Hendry got Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez

 

They traded top prospects for them without doing serious damage to the farm system. Unlike the Cubs, they have the ability to trade top prospects without destroying the farm system, b/c they have done a much job better job of maintaining a productive farm system.

 

I agree the farm system needs to get back to where it was, but the Cubs farm system has deteriorated due to injury as much as anything else. the system was built on pitching, and the many of those pitchers have gone down to injury. that being said, should the players that have been injured come back to form, the Cubs farm system is alot better than it has been credit for in the publications.

 

 

If they cont. to fail to address Baker's usage pattern, then it's doubtful that they'll see Prior and Wood last an entire season w/out getting injured. I get tired of watching of Zambrano, Prior, and Wood cont. to pitch despite obvious signs of extreme fatigue.

 

agreed.

 

 

and a word on a couple other players mentioned in a different post

 

Wilkerson and Bradley - I mentioned before how it is difficult to swing a deal when the other party is insane. how do you strike a reasonable deal with a GM who highly values Soriano? as for Bradley, all indications were tthe Cubs went after him hard and offered a better package than the A's, and it is widely speculated that Coletti won't trade with the Cubs due to spite.

[Vinestal]

and it is widely speculated that Coletti won't trade with the Cubs due to spite.

 

Just currious where the spite comes from?

 

Also Ive really enjoyed the debate concerning Hendry's job as the GM, pretty interesting stuff you guys have thrown back and forth. I agree with most of what UK has been saying but I have seen great points made by both sides.

[Tim]

and it is widely speculated that Coletti won't trade with the Cubs due to spite.

 

Just currious where the spite comes from?

 

Also Ive really enjoyed the debate concerning Hendry's job as the GM, pretty interesting stuff you guys have thrown back and forth. I agree with most of what UK has been saying but I have seen great points made by both sides.

Supposedly Colletti and Johnny B. don't get along very well.

[CubsWin]

I agree that Pierre was not the best player to go after this off-season. But where is it written that every GM gets every player that they go after? There are 29 other teams. Did you want Hendry to pay 13 million a year for 3 years to get Furcal? Do you have inside knowledge that Giles would have accepted a deal outside of Southern California? I don't. If I did, then I would believe that Hendry chose not to go after Giles and didn't value him very highly. But I don't have that evidence. After those two, which other free agents do you believe would have had a better impact on the Cubs offense this season? If they are players that he would have had to trade for, how do you know the price the other teams were asking would have been acceptable?

 

More of the proof stuff...

 

The ultimate argument that can never be proven wrong and more importantly can never be proven right.

 

Why is your only argument around stuff that can't be proven?

Its not. I didn't ask for proof once in the above quote. In the entire post you are responding to, I asked for your reasoning and your evidence several times. I used the word proof once in response to something that you seemed to know. If someone knows something for certain, then they must have proof right? But primarily, I was simply asking for your reasoning and evidence. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as proof. But there is such a thing as evidence. All I was asking for in the above quote was evidence. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for the evidence you used to formulate an opinion especially when it was left out of your previous post.

 

You included a lot of evidence prior to this unwarranted rant on proof and I appreciated reading it. It helped me to understand why you believe what you believe. Some of it I agreed with. Some of it, I believe, is countered by the logic and evidence presented by jjgman21 in his two previous posts.

 

How do you know that Giles would not have accepted a deal outside of California? How do you know they even went after Giles?

Well, I don't know that Giles wouldn't have signed a deal outside of SoCal. But I have plenty of reasons to believe that was the case. This is what I mean by evidence. I know that Giles had previously stated that he wanted to stay in San Diego. He was born in El Cajon just outside of San Diego. I know that he was offered 4/44 or 5/55 depending on the report from Toronto, but accepted 3/30 from the Padres.

 

Here is the evidence for my belief that the Cubs were going after Giles. I read plenty of articles about the Cubs being interested in Giles, and how Hendry had contacted his agent several times. I never read any official offer, but you rarely do with Hendry who likes to keep negotiations out of the press. I also read a statement that he didn't want to get into a bidding war for Giles. Well who would? But this statement was taken by many people on this board to mean that he wasn't interested in him and a lot of people criticized him for it. For me, that isn't evidence that he isn't interested in Giles. It is simply a statement that every GM would make who is committed to financial responsibility for his team and his team's future.

 

So I require evidence, not proof, that he is doing something worthy of criticism before I criticize him. I wanted Giles badly and was willing to overpay to get him. If Hendry wasn't willing to overpay, I can still respect him as a GM even though I would disagree. If he wasn't interested in him at all, I would be rather upset and think that he made a big mistake. I'm still open to evidence that shows his lack of interest in Giles.

 

If this is the crutch of your argument as it has been, then there is anything to discuss. You'd be better off asking Peter Gammons.

Clearly requiring proof has not been the crutch (sic) of my argument as you claim. But if assuming the worst about a GM without the requisite evidence is the crux of your argument, then you'd be better off admitting your chronic pessimism at the start ,and we would just leave it at that. But I don't believe that is the crux of your argument which is why I entered this discussion with you. Perhaps I was wrong.

[UK1679666180]

it's not exactly a true comparison considering the innings, but let's look at the numbers

 

Clement ERA+

2003 - 103

2004 - 123

 

Rusch as a starter

2004 - 130ish

2005 - 99ish.

 

what a creative solution.

 

Rusch was at 94 in '05.

 

Rusch had a good year as a spot starter '04. He didn't continue it in '04. Going from a 123 ERA to 94 is a big dropoff. Getting Williams was a very nice acquisition for Hendry.

 

because as I mention above, that decision appears to have been taken out of Hendry's hands and made by the higher ups.

 

I don't buy this, it's definitely unfair to assume that Hendry did not want Maddux while MacPhail and them forced his hand to go him.

 

Hendry wanted him and they complied with expanding the payroll to get him.

 

Jenks was a psycho released by the Angels. the Sox had the option to pick him up before the Cubs did. for all we know, the Cubs would have picked him up if he got to them.

 

Politte was signed in 2004, after a 83 ERA+ year with the Blue Jays. Hermanson was a career suckwad who had a career year with the White Sox. so let me get this strait...Williams gets credit for finding these two diamond in the rough, but Hendry doesn't get credit for taking a chance on Rusch?

 

And they helped lead the Sox to a World Series, he also signed Iguchi, Dye, etc.

 

I'm sorry, the White Sox have less resources and went into last off-season w/less talent and yet Williams has been able to improve his club while the Cubs have regressed.

 

I've never argued that Hendry hasn't made good trades or signed good players off the scrap heap.

 

But, there's a difference between teams like Atlanta, White Sox, and STL. They have less payroll and had less talent as recently as 2004', yet now they have more talent and been much more productive over the last 2 years.

 

Hendry is responsible for the regression.

 

The farm system hasn't regressed mainly b/c of injury, it has regressed mostly b/c they have allocated less resources international scouting.

 

Who is the Pacific Rim scout? It has gone from Leon Lee to the Major League scouting bureau.

 

Who was the last top prospect from the Domincan Republic? That's Felix Pie who was signed in 2001. The last top prospect signed out of Venezuela was Cedeno/Guzman and that was 7 years ago.

 

When the Cubs at the best farm system Cruz, Choi, and Zambrano were all in the top 100 overall.

 

Wilkerson and Bradley - I mentioned before how it is difficult to swing a deal when the other party is insane. how do you strike a reasonable deal with a GM who highly values Soriano? as for Bradley, all indications were tthe Cubs went after him hard and offered a better package than the A's, and it is widely speculated that Coletti won't trade with the Cubs due to spite.

 

I have never heard of the Cubs offering more than Oak. to get Bradley. Everything I heard was that they were considering going after him, but nothing was definitive as far as an offer or even who would be involved.

 

I don't think the Cubs did consider Wilkerson an option, I assume they valued Pierre more based on the assumption he is a pure leadoff hitter based on his lack of power, great speed, and decent OBP with his ability to make contact.

[UK1679666180]

you don't replace position by position like you suggest. you replace production in the lineup as a whole. between 2004 and 2005 three positions changed, Right, Left and Short. the theory was to replace Alou, Sosa, and a mixed bag of crap with Nomar replacing Alou's production and Burnitz and Hollandworth/Dubois replacing Sosa and the mixed bag of crap. it should have worked out, but for Nomar's injury.

 

there has been lot's of talk on this board about how the Cubs need another "impact bat" in the middle of the order. while I am not exactly sure what "impact bat" means, for the purposes of this argument, let's assume that means an .800 OPS.

 

do you know how many players in all of baseball had an .800 OPS and over 400 plate appearances last year? 82. that's it. that averages out to about 2.7 per team. the Cubs had 4 of them. this year, they should easily have 5 (Lee, Aram, 2nd base, Barrett, Murton) and with a little luck could have a 6th (Jones and a righty platoon. not counting on it, but it is possible). will the Cardinals have 5 or 6 players in the lineup with .800 OPS? not even close. they will have 3. Astros? they will have to count on the near 40 crowd and/or Jason Lane to have more than 3. the Braves? they need to depend on Francour playing way over his head to have four positions over .800.

 

that leaves two positions in the lineup, CF and shortstop, on which the Cubs offensive production can also improve. those moves were made by replacing a horrendous OBP at both positions with players that should be considerably better. seems to me that alot of the people who have been whining for years that the Cubs improve their OBP got exactly what they wished for, and are now whining that the Cubs don't have another "impact bat" even though they have more "impact bats" than most teams in the national league.

 

Well, the 1st mistake in counting on Nomar to stay healthy. It'll be like the Cubs counting on Wood and Prior to remain healthy this year if Baker continues to wear them down.

 

Plus, Nomar would've never come close to matching Alou's '04 production, even if he stayed healthy.

 

This team will have to depend on rebounding season from Jones and Pierre as well as the health of Ramirez and Barrett/Lee from regressing.

 

I see this offense likely finishing 6-10 range as far as runs scored.

[UK1679666180]

But if assuming the worst about a GM without the requisite evidence is the crux of your argument, then you'd be better off admitting your chronic pessimism at the start ,and we would just leave it at that. But I don't believe that is the crux of your argument which is why I entered this discussion with you. Perhaps I was wrong.

 

I've always given Hendry credit when things have gone well and been critical when the Cubs have fallen short.

 

I've looked at Hendry fairly and unbiased. This was a team that was the deserving of being considered the favs. to win the NL in '04 and went to 79 wins a year later.

 

The Cubs have a huge payroll and is probably IMO, the 4th most talented team in the NL behind ATL, NYM, and STL. That's before factoring health into the equation.

 

That to me isn't good enough.

 

I'm willing to give Hendry this year to determine whether or not he should be given a long-term deal. But, anything less than 90 wins and a playoff spot would like equate to not bringing him back.

[CubsWin]

But if assuming the worst about a GM without the requisite evidence is the crux of your argument, then you'd be better off admitting your chronic pessimism at the start ,and we would just leave it at that. But I don't believe that is the crux of your argument which is why I entered this discussion with you. Perhaps I was wrong.

 

I've always given Hendry credit when things have gone well and been critical when the Cubs have fallen short.

 

I've looked at Hendry fairly and unbiased. This was a team that was the deserving of being considered the favs. to win the NL in '04 and went to 79 wins a year later.

So in '04, Hendry built a team that, on talent alone, was worthy of being considered the favorites to win the NL, but because the team underachieved, he is to be held solely responsible?

 

And, yes, we all agree the Cubs won just 79 games last season. But what you have yet to answer in any of your posts are the following questions:

 

1. Is Hendry to be held solely responsible for the drop off in talent when Prior got hit on the elbow by a line drive? Were his back-up plans of Williams and Rusch not as talented as other spot starters around the league?

 

2. Is Hendry to be held solely responsible for Corey Patterson's performance last season?

 

3. Is Hendry to be held solely responsible for the worse than normal performances of Hollandsworth, Dubois, Hairston, Borowski, Remlinger, Lawton, Hill and others?

 

4. Is Hendry to be held responsible for an injury to Nomar that kept him out 100 games when on average he missed about 30 games in the previous seasons?

 

5. Didn't these factors all happening in the same season contribute more to the Cubs won-loss record than the fact that he missed out on providing an impact bat in RF and LF?

 

The Cubs have a huge payroll and is probably IMO, the 4th most talented team in the NL behind ATL, NYM, and STL. That's before factoring health into the equation.

 

That to me isn't good enough.

Where did they rank talent wise in 2002? I doubt it was anywhere near 4th best in the NL. Isn't the talent level of the 25-man roster the thing that a GM is most directly responsible for? So in 3 years time, he has raised it to that level. Imagine what he will be able to do in another 3?

 

Look, I don't think Hendry is beyond criticism. I don't agree with everything he does. I've been frustrated by the results of the past two seasons as well. But I don't think it is realistic to hold any one person responsible for the results of a major league baseball organization. There are simply too many uncontrolable variables.

 

I also think it is accurate to say that many posters on this board have attacked and criticized Hendry without sufficient evidence to do so. Their criticism might still be accurate, but we have no way of knowing that given the evidence at our disposal. So instead of remaining neutral or giving the benefit of the doubt, they attack and criticize. That behavior is certainly allowed, but I chose not to participate in it.

[UK1679666180]

So in '04, Hendry built a team that, on talent alone, was worthy of being considered the favorites to win the NL, but because the team underachieved, he is to be held solely responsible?

 

He was given credit for it, since he was given credit for it, he also deserves blame when the talent regresses. This '06 isn't as talented as the '06 team.

 

And, yes, we all agree the Cubs won just 79 games last season. But what you have yet to answer in any of your posts are the following questions:

 

1. Is Hendry to be held solely responsible for the drop off in talent when Prior got hit on the elbow by a line drive? Were his back-up plans of Williams and Rusch not as talented as other spot starters around the league?

 

2. Is Hendry to be held solely responsible for Corey Patterson's performance last season?

 

3. Is Hendry to be held solely responsible for the worse than normal performances of Hollandsworth, Dubois, Hairston, Borowski, Remlinger, Lawton, Hill and others?

 

4. Is Hendry to be held responsible for an injury to Nomar that kept him out 100 games when on average he missed about 30 games in the previous seasons?

 

5. Didn't these factors all happening in the same season contribute more to the Cubs won-loss record than the fact that he missed out on providing an impact bat in RF and LF?

 

I've answered all the questions you've asked.

 

1)Yes, Houston responded w/out Pettitte, look at what Atlanta did with all the injuries they had. STL responded w/out Rolen. Yankees had pitching injuries as did Boston.

 

2)No, he is not responsible for Patterson. But, a bad year from Patterson was not the primary reason why the Cubs missed the playoffs.

 

3)He put Hollandsworth as the starting LF'er, of course he is to blame for putting a 4th OF'er as the starting LF'er. Borowski was hurt before the season started and Remlinger was unproductive before the season started last year. Remlinger was a mistake signing from the start, you don't a sign a middle reliever at his age to a multi-year deal at that cost. Hendry wasn't counting on Dubois, Hill, etc. to determine whether or not this team would make the playoffs. Lawton was a good trade that didn't work out.

 

4)Yes, Nomar played in half the game the previous season and has had several injuries that were considered to be lingering like his wrist. There's a reason why his contract was incentive-laden, Nomar is the type of player you don't build around, his injury history makes him unreliable to be counted on.

 

5)No, his inability to address the OF and the bullpen as well as Baker impacted (his mistaken hire) the team in a negative manner worse than the injuries to Prior and Nomar as well as Patterson regression.

[UK1679666180]

Where did they rank talent wise in 2002? I doubt it was anywhere near 4th best in the NL. Isn't the talent level of the 25-man roster the thing that a GM is most directly responsible for? So in 3 years time, he has raised it to that level. Imagine what he will be able to do in another 3?

 

Look, I don't think Hendry is beyond criticism. I don't agree with everything he does. I've been frustrated by the results of the past two seasons as well. But I don't think it is realistic to hold any one person responsible for the results of a major league baseball organization. There are simply too many uncontrolable variables.

 

I also think it is accurate to say that many posters on this board have attacked and criticized Hendry without sufficient evidence to do so. Their criticism might still be accurate, but we have no way of knowing that given the evidence at our disposal. So instead of remaining neutral or giving the benefit of the doubt, they attack and criticize. That behavior is certainly allowed, but I chose not to participate in it.

 

No, b/c that's before Zambrano & Prior had arrived. You look at in a 3 year window and I choose to look at it in a 2 year window. I take it from where they at its highest and where they're at now.

 

Also, is this team where it should be?

 

The team's talent right now isn't where it should be.

 

If I told you after the '03 season, the Cubs would win 89 and 79 wins and not make the playoffs, that you would be content with the job of Hendry?

 

Hendry is judged by the state of the team. From top to btm, they're not where they should be.

 

I blame Baker more than Hendry, of course, Hendry courted and hired Baker and every Cubs fan except for a select few applauded and were giddy of the hire. I thought it was a mistake then, and it is still a bad hire.

 

It is more than fair to be critical or complentary of Hendry as long as you look at it fairly.

 

I've been both, everything I've ever said about Hendry has been based on results and unbiased.

[CubsWin]

Well, the 1st mistake in counting on Nomar to stay healthy.

What makes you think he was counting on Nomar to stay healthy. He averaged 125-130 games played during the previous seasons. I think he counted on Nomar to miss a decent portion of the season. In '05, he missed 100 games. That was out of the ordinary. By providing Perez as a back-up for those 30-35 expected missed games, Hendry had a decent back-up plan. How many other reserve SSs can you name that are clearly better than Perez?

 

Plus, Nomar would've never come close to matching Alou's '04 production, even if he stayed healthy.

Neither would have Alou. 2004 was a career year for him. So who would you have signed? If you don't have a better plan, then calling the one Hendry followed not good enough rings rather hollow.

 

I see this offense likely finishing 6-10 range as far as runs scored.

That's sounds reasonable. If the pitching and defense are near the top, which obviously was the design behind Hendry's off season acquistions, the Cubs should contend for the playoffs. Last season, the White Sox were 9th in runs scored in the AL but tied for 1st in ERA.

 

Interestingly, the southsiders had an OBP of .322, two points lower than the Cubs. When things go right for a team, they really go right. Maybe some of those uncontrollable variables will break the Cubs way this season. Or do you believe that baseball is a completely predictable, numbers in, numbers out type of game?

[UK1679666180]

What makes you think he was counting on Nomar to stay healthy. He averaged 125-130 games played during the previous seasons. I think he counted on Nomar to miss a decent portion of the season. In '05, he missed 100 games. That was out of the ordinary. By providing Perez as a back-up for those 30-35 expected missed games, Hendry had a decent back-up plan. How many other reserve SSs can you name that are clearly better than Perez?

 

You sign him to that contract with your only backup as Perez, you better hope he starts.

 

I wanted Chris Gomez as the backup.

 

Gomez is a much, much better option than Perez.

 

It's not out of the ordinary for SS in his 30s coming off a season where he missed half the year with a wrist injury the previous season to struggle to stay healthy.

 

Also, he was expected to hit 5th or 6th (depending on how poorly Baker constructs the lineup). That's counting on him.

 

Neither would have Alou. 2004 was a career year for him. So who would you have signed? If you don't have a better plan, then calling the one Hendry followed not good enough rings rather hollow.

 

You want to try and remember who they should've gone after during the '04-'05 off-season?

 

I was critical of both Hollandsworth and Burnitz being signed before the '05 season started, there's nothing hollow there.

 

If the pitching and defense are near the top, which obviously was the design behind Hendry's off season acquistions, the Cubs should contend for the playoffs. Last season, the White Sox were 9th in runs scored in the AL but tied for 1st in ERA.

 

Interestingly, the southsiders had an OBP of .322, two points lower than the Cubs. When things go right for a team, they really go right. Maybe some of those uncontrollable variables will break the Cubs way this season. Or do you believe that baseball is a completely predictable, numbers in, numbers out type of game?

 

Like me, you're counting on the Cubs to stay healthy to have any chance. As long as Baker is here, I question whether Prior and especially Wood and now Miller will be able to handle his usage.

 

Defensively, this team isn't much better than last year and they weren't that bad last year.

 

Baseball isn't predictable or only a game of numbers(and don't try that cute stuff with me, it won't get you far), but "uncontrollable variables" didn't lead to the Sox winning the WS and the Cubs finished below .500.

[CubsWin]

No, b/c that's before Zambrano & Prior had arrived. You look at in a 3 year window and I choose to look at it in a 2 year window. I take it from where they at its highest and where they're at now.

Not true, UK. Zambrano and Prior appeared in 51 games in '02, 35 of them were starts. But that said, let me ask you a question, do you think the Cubs overachieved in '03?

 

Also, is this team where it should be?

 

The team's talent right now isn't where it should be.

How can you accurately determine where a club's talent should be? Should Patterson be an all-star by now? Is Hendry solely responsible for him not being one? Where it should be? It sounds as if your expectations for this team went sky high after the '03 season and you never really considered that maybe they were playing a little over their heads that year. After all, the year before they won just 67 games.

 

If I told you after the '03 season, the Cubs would win 89 and 79 wins and not make the playoffs, that you would be content with the job of Hendry?

Of course not. I've already told you several times, over and over again, that I am disappointed too. The question that we are discussing, or trying to discuss, is whether Jim Hendry is to be held solely responsible for those disappointing results or not.

 

Hendry is judged by the state of the team. From top to btm, they're not where they should be.

So from this statement, should I take it that you believe a GM is solely responsible for everything that happens to a major league baseball organization including the many uncontrollable variables of the game of baseball itself?

 

Should I also take it that since you know where they should be, that you have a list of moves that Hendry should have and could have taken?

 

It is more than fair to be critical or complentary of Hendry as long as you look at it fairly.

I couldn't agree more.

 

I've been both, everything I've ever said about Hendry has been based on results and unbiased.

There seems to be some dispute here. But I respect your opinion.

[UK1679666180]

Not true, UK. Zambrano and Prior appeared in 51 games in '02, 35 of them were starts. But that said, let me ask you a question, do you think the Cubs overachieved in '03?

 

They won 88 games with great starting pitching and a very good top of the pen.

 

They overachieved by making the playoffs with 88 wins and they progressed quicker than I thought they would but no they didn't overachieve. They had a pythag. record of 85 wins, nothing too shocking.

 

How can you accurately determine where a club's talent should be? Should Patterson be an all-star by now? Is Hendry solely responsible for him not being one? Where it should be? It sounds as if your expectations for this team went sky high after the '03 season and you never really considered that maybe they were playing a little over their heads that year. After all, the year before they won just 67 games.

 

You gauge where the talent should be by the quality of your farm system over the last 5 years, combined with payroll and compare it with the current state of the team.

 

Everyone's expectation should've increased after the '03 season, you got a glimpse of how good these 3 young pitchers could be.

 

Of course not. I've already told you several times, over and over again, that I am disappointed too. The question that we are discussing, or trying to discuss, is whether Jim Hendry is to be held solely responsible for those disappointing results or not.

 

So from this statement, should I take it that you believe a GM is solely responsible for everything that happens to a major league baseball organization including the many uncontrollable variables of the game of baseball itself?

 

Should I also take it that since you know where they should be, that you have a list of moves that Hendry should have and could have taken?

 

I've put more blame on Baker (whom Hendry hired). If I had a list of potential FAs for '05, I can tell you who I wanted. I know I wanted Drew or Beltran and I was wrong.

 

So what? What does that prove? That I would've made a mistake? They're not the 1st or the last players that I've wanted that would've bombed.

 

There seems to be some dispute here. But I respect your opinion.

 

Where haven't I been fair?

[CubsWin]

What makes you think he was counting on Nomar to stay healthy. He averaged 125-130 games played during the previous seasons. I think he counted on Nomar to miss a decent portion of the season. In '05, he missed 100 games. That was out of the ordinary. By providing Perez as a back-up for those 30-35 expected missed games, Hendry had a decent back-up plan. How many other reserve SSs can you name that are clearly better than Perez?

 

You sign him to that contract with your only backup as Perez, you better hope he starts.

 

I wanted Chris Gomez as the backup.

 

Gomez is a much, much better option than Perez.

A much, much better option? Their career OPSs are nearly identical. Gomez - .682. Perez - .681. Perez is two years younger and at least as good and likely better defensively.

 

Please tell me what I'm missing because I'm clearly not looking in the right places to find the evidence you failed to provide showing how Gomez is a much, much better back-up SS.

 

It's not out of the ordinary for SS in his 30s coming off a season where he missed half the year with a wrist injury the previous season to struggle to stay healthy.

How does his previous wrist injury cause him to blow out his groin muscle while leaving the batter's box on his way to first? I fail to see the connection.

 

Also, he was expected to hit 5th or 6th (depending on how poorly Baker constructs the lineup). That's counting on him.

Yes, because Hendry failed or chose not to sign Beltran or Ordonez or Drew. I wasn't happy with those results either. But realities being what they are, would you have wanted to spend that much for Beltran or overpay like that for Ordonez. Would you be criticizing Hendry right now for handcuffing the team financially by spending 11 million a year for 5 years on another injury-waiting-to-happen like J.D. Drew? Signing Nomar was a gamble. Just like signing Drew would have been. They either work or they don't. But its not signing Nomar was a bad gamble to take, was it?

 

Neither would have Alou. 2004 was a career year for him. So who would you have signed? If you don't have a better plan, then calling the one Hendry followed not good enough rings rather hollow.

 

You want to try and remember who they should've gone after during the '04-'05 off-season?

Yes. I just mentioned them above. I also mentioned the circumstances surrounding their signings and why Hendry probably didn't get them.

 

I was critical of both Hollandsworth and Burnitz being signed before the '05 season started, there's nothing hollow there.

I'm not saying its hollow criticism because you are bringing it up now. It rings as hollow criticism if you don't have a list of other possible moves that he should have and could have taken.

 

Like I mentioned above, would you have wanted Hendry to beat out the Mets offer for Beltran. Do you think it is a good idea to spend 15-17 million dollars a year on him? Do you think the huge contract Ordonez got should have been topped by Hendry considering his health at the time of the signing? What about hospital boy, J.D. Drew? Should Hendry have beaten the Dodgers offer of 5 years, 55 million for someone with a similar injury history to Nomar?

 

Its possible that you think that he should have signed any one of those three mentioned above. If so, thats great. All I'm saying is that without presenting an alternate path that Hendry should have taken, calling the one he did take not good enough rings hollow.

 

Defensively, this team isn't much better than last year and they weren't that bad last year.

Cedeno sure seems better defensively than Nomar and probably Neifi as well. Murton is better than Dubois. Jones is better than Burnitz. Pierre and CPat are probably similar. I would say thats better than last season. The bullpen is much improved over last season. That's better, too.

 

Baseball isn't predictable or only a game of numbers(and don't try that cute stuff with me, it won't get you far), but "uncontrollable variables" didn't lead to the Sox winning the WS and the Cubs finished below .500.

I never said uncontrollable variables were completely responsible for anything, just one factor that needs to be included in the big picture.

 

And, I don't know what you are referring to as "cute stuff". I mean what I say. I know a lot of people get snippy and sarcastic on boards like this. I don't. I question people's arguments and the evidence behind their opinions all while respecting their right to hold those opinions. I'm not looking for a fight. I'm looking for an exchange of ideas. And maybe a truing up of opinions to reality. Both your opinions and mine. I've learned stuff from this discussion. Have you?