Bobby Hill Released by Padres

[UK1679666180]

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.

 

Look at their career EQAs (much more accurate gauge of offensive abilities than OPS) . Gomez-.241 Perez-.219.

 

OPS (last year) Gomez .701 Perez .681.

 

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.

 

It brought into the discussion his injury history, do you think he would've had an incentive laden deal had not been injured for much of '04?

 

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?

 

I would not be critical of Drew or Beltran b/c I agreed with the thought process behind either of those acquisitions. that 1st year, it would not have worked out.

 

I addressed Drew and Beltran, I would not have gone after Ordonez.

 

I had no problem with signing Nomar, I did say at the time I would rather trade for Lugo though. but, I had no problem with the signing but caveat emptor and get a better backup than Perez.

 

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.

 

Neifi's strength was his defense at SS, he is a very good defensive SS. If it was Nomar to Cedeno it would be a big upgrade, but how games did Nomar play at SS? You can say the same thing about going from Murton to Dubois, how games did Dubois start in LF? Murton is an avg. defensive corner OF'er. Until Murton finally got off the bench, Hollandsworth, Lawton, and Dubois probably provided avg. defense overall.

 

The only upgrade I see is Burnitz to Jones, which isn't much.

 

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?

 

What was the point of this question...

 

Or do you believe that baseball is a completely predictable, numbers in, numbers out type of game?

 

What were your intentions of this, how much of a moron do I have to be to actually believe that baseball is completely predictable by numbers?

 

To me, that's the same as implying that I have have never watched or played the game and would rather look at a stat sheet rather than watch the game. B/c (not to sound like conceeded) but I consider myself to have been able to gain some knowledge (hitting and pitching mechanics, as well as the proper thought process behind the actions of a manager or the pattern of a pitcher and the hitter) of the game beyond reading a Baseball Prospectus handbook. That to me is far more important than any number will ever be.

[badger1679666666]

I have come to the conclusion that the people that hate Hendry will blame him for everything and give him no credit or minimize his moves. Say what you will, but this is my opinon on the group think on these boards.

 

Personally I don't think he's the worst GM, and I don't think he's the best either. He's made some poor poor moves with respect to vision and free agency, but he's made some GREAT trades in his time here.

[CubsWin]

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?

 

What was the point of this question...

To see if this discussion has been of value to you as it has been to me. To see if you have learned anything. I have.

 

Or do you believe that baseball is a completely predictable, numbers in, numbers out type of game?

 

What were your intentions of this, how much of a moron do I have to be to actually believe that baseball is completely predictable by numbers?

It was a rhetorical question that played off of the statement before it. I believe when you read it in context with the statement that went before it, it makes perfect sense as a rhetorical question.

 

If I failed to make it clear that it was a rhetorical question, then a possible answer to a question like that would be, "Of course, I don't think that baseball is completely predictable, no one does. I see your point and respect your opinion but I differ in that I think baseball is more predicatable than you think it is. Here's why..."

 

No offense was intended. Just using a ridiculous, rhetorical question to make a point. And that point being that only if baseball were a completely predictable game could an organization's GM be held solely responsible for his team's won-loss record. Which I believe is where this discussion started.

[UK1679666180]

I have come to the conclusion that the people that hate Hendry will blame him for everything and give him no credit or minimize his moves. Say what you will, but this is my opinon on the group think on these boards.

 

Personally I don't think he's the worst GM, and I don't think he's the best either. He's made some poor poor moves with respect to vision and free agency, but he's made some GREAT trades in his time here.

 

Agreed, of course I don't know if that runs parallel with your idea of who's involved with "group think".

 

Unlike Baker, he has earned the right to try and correct the ship for this year b/c he has been good enough to stick around. After that, if the Cubs do well and show progression with players like Murton, Cedeno, etc. and exceed my expectations for this year, I would have no problem with Hendry being inked long-term. But, if the Cubs have a repeat of '05, I think it's time to go in another direction. Hendry's contract ends at an ideal time to allow MacPhail one year to judge the capabilities of Hendry, that should not be wasted by giving him the long-term prematurely or had they fired him prematurely.

 

Although I think there are better GM waiting for their shot, Hendry has earned the right to cont. to try & improve this team.

[CubsWin]

I have come to the conclusion that the people that hate Hendry will blame him for everything and give him no credit or minimize his moves. Say what you will, but this is my opinon on the group think on these boards.

And I respect your right to this opinion, but I don't think this applies to UK. He doesn't hate Hendry or blame him for everything. He does give him credit for some good things that he has done.

[UK1679666180]

To see if this discussion has been of value to you as it has been to me. To see if you have learned anything. I have.

 

Yeah, it has been of value and I have learned from it. We have different levels of responsibility pointed towards Hendry for the disappointment over the last two years and it's been civil.

 

It was a rhetorical question that played off of the statement before it. I believe when you read it in context with the statement that went before it, it makes perfect sense as a rhetorical question.

 

I just took the question the wrong way.

[Shilzzz]

not to butt in but how much blame for the injuries of the staff and poor decision making on the field go to hendry via baker?

 

baker was who he is before he got here and it was evident in san fransisco.

[UK1679666180]

not to butt in but how much blame for the injuries of the staff and poor decision making on the field go to hendry via baker?

 

baker was who he is before he got here and it was evident in san fransisco.

 

You're not butting in, this isn't a two person conversation.

 

I think Hendry hired the wrong one, Baker needs a certain type of team to excel, he had that in SF w/Sabean. That's not a knock on Hendry, b/c I prefer Hendry's outline better than Sabean's, despite Sabean having the better track record.

 

But, Hendry should've been cautious on how Baker ran Bill Swift into the ground, Van Landingham as well, how Estes was overworked and had his FB go from the mid 90s to the upper 80s under Baker.

 

Baker's track record of overworking pitchers was clear and was probably my #1 complaint of Baker, he's not a very good in-game manager either.

 

So, yes if you believe that Baker has hurt the Cubs more than helped them, some blame goes to Hendry despite the glossy appeal of Baker.

 

How much? I don't think that much.

Edited March 20, 2006 by UK

[CubinNY]

not to butt in but how much blame for the injuries of the staff and poor decision making on the field go to hendry via baker?

 

baker was who he is before he got here and it was evident in san fransisco.

 

I'm not sure if I am reading your post the right way, but Baker was criticized in SF for pulling his starting pitchers too soon and burning up his pen.

 

I think that criticism coupled with the less than stellar bullpen performance has, in a way, contributed to the ills in the pitching department (i.e, overuse of both the SP and select bullpen arms).

[CubsWin]

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.

 

Look at their career EQAs (much more accurate gauge of offensive abilities than OPS) . Gomez-.241 Perez-.219.

And when you factor in Perez's superior defensive abilities, how is Gomez a much, much better back-up shortstop?

 

OPS (last year) Gomez .701 Perez .681.

Which only goes to show that going into last season, when Hendry would have been making this decision, Gomez's career OPS was probably exactly the same or slightly worse than Perez's. One cannot expect a GM to accurately predict the future. But we can expect the GM to make a wise decision using the tools and information at his disposal at the time.

 

We agree that signing Burnitz was not our first choices. But, to date, I don't think either of us have been able to come up with a different viable option that Hendry could have signed.

 

In LF, I was one of the group that felt Dubois had earned his chance and would do pretty good. I didn't think Hollandsworth should have started and was glad to see Baker replace him with Jason. I was disappointed by Jason's performance, but I don't see how Hendry should be blamed for it. Dubois's performance in AAA the year before was so good that he deserved that shot. Had he resigned Alou or signed somebody else to play LF, Dubois would never had gotten his shot. So I'm glad Hendry didn't sign anyone to play LF during the '04 off season and I understand, given the size of the contracts and injury history of the top candidates why the Cubs wound up with Burnitz. I can't provide a better option.

 

This off season, I would have thrown money at Giles. But the evidence I have seen, which I have previously listed, leads me to believe he wouldn't have accepted it anyway. I also would have traded for Wilkerson and Huff and am disappointed this didn't happen. But the Nats valued Soriano and who knows what the D-Rays wanted for Huff, so I can't necessarily blame Hendry for dropping the ball when I don't know what the price for each player would have been. That would be presumptious and unfair of me. So Jones is the next best thing. I still can't figure out how Jones commanded a 3-year deal.

[UK1679666180]

And when you factor in Perez's superior defensive abilities, how is Gomez a much, much better back-up shortstop?

 

Gomez is still better despite Perez being better defensively.

 

Which only goes to show that going into last season, when Hendry would have been making this decision, Gomez's career OPS was probably exactly the same or slightly worse than Perez's. One cannot expect a GM to accurately predict the future. But we can expect the GM to make a wise decision using the tools and information at his disposal at the time.

 

Why not? How did I predict that Gomez would outproduce Perez.

 

When I said I would rather have Gomez over Perez, that was during the Winter of 04-05, before last year.

 

I was right, Gomez had a better year than Perez. Also, Gomez was much cheaper than Perez.

 

Time for another prediction concerning Jacque Jones being the best option avail.

 

I'll say that a platoon of Mark Sweeney and Marrero will outproduce Jones this year. This platoon will be cheaper and more productive.

 

Willing to make a fake wager? :)

 

As much as I like Dubois, I did not want him handed the starting LF spot, I wanted him to be platooned. It would've been mistake to start Dubois unless they had more offense (like a better RF'er).

 

I would not be upset if they signed Drew, even after last year, I would not be upset. Conceptually, it would've been right.

[Shilzzz]

not to butt in but how much blame for the injuries of the staff and poor decision making on the field go to hendry via baker?

 

baker was who he is before he got here and it was evident in san fransisco.

 

You're not butting in, this isn't a two person conversation.

 

I think Hendry hired the wrong one, Baker needs a certain type of team to excel, he had that in SF w/Sabean. That's not a knock on Hendry, b/c I prefer Hendry's outline better than Sabean's, despite Sabean having the better track record.

 

But, Hendry should've been cautious on how Baker ran Bill Swift into the ground, Van Landingham as well, how Estes was overworked and had his FB go from the mid 90s to the upper 80s under Baker.

 

Baker's track record of overworking pitchers was clear and was probably my #1 complaint of Baker, he's not a very good in-game manager either.

 

So, yes if you believe that Baker has hurt the Cubs more than helped them, some blame goes to Hendry despite the glossy appeal of Baker.

 

How much? I don't think that much.

 

yeah, i remember around the time of the hiring, there were alot of people on the cubs.com forum(back then it was alot of us and less what it is today) saying that he wasn't the right guy for the reasons we dislike him now. but hendry wanted him from the get go, he said several times during the interview process after the 2002 season that he wanted to interview some people still in the playoffs, and when baker wasn't reupped by the giants he had this job just as quick.

 

but i mean, you could tell it wasn't going to work from day one. he(dusty) was notorious for not playing rookies or youngsters and the innings he put on starters was partly covered up by livan hernandez and jason schmidt iirc; and hendry and the cubs brass, at the time, were trying to build from the farm system up. it's funny to me that since bakers hiring, hendry has focused almost exclusively on veterans(giving them HORRIBLE contracts), and changed his whole player evaluations around what baker wants.

 

i just think that if hendry was truely savvy, he would have seen this and went in another direction(wasn't the current brewers manager interviewed? he has done well with that team and their limited budget, imo).

[Shilzzz]

not to butt in but how much blame for the injuries of the staff and poor decision making on the field go to hendry via baker?

 

baker was who he is before he got here and it was evident in san fransisco.

 

I'm not sure if I am reading your post the right way, but Baker was criticized in SF for pulling his starting pitchers too soon and burning up his pen.

 

I think that criticism coupled with the less than stellar bullpen performance has, in a way, contributed to the ills in the pitching department (i.e, overuse of both the SP and select bullpen arms).

 

so because he pulled his starters too soon in sf our starters are overworked? i don't know if i understand what you are getting at.

 

if baker actually knew how to utilize a bullpen(im sure its also rothschild) - ie the overuse of remlinger vs lefties when he was obviously terrible/ keeping hawkins in the closer role, etc etc - then he probably wouldn't have to leave the starters in the game for so long for fear of the bullpen not producing.

 

the bullpen doesn't work if you don't use it right(or left, depending on who's at bat ;)

[CubsWin]

And when you factor in Perez's superior defensive abilities, how is Gomez a much, much better back-up shortstop?

 

Gomez is still better despite Perez being better defensively.

I get that is your opinion, but why is it your opinion. To me, after looking that the stats you've shown me, I don't see one standing out that much over the other. What stat makes Gomez look "much, much better" to you? Or how else should I value or interpret the stats you have shown me?

 

Which only goes to show that going into last season, when Hendry would have been making this decision, Gomez's career OPS was probably exactly the same or slightly worse than Perez's. One cannot expect a GM to accurately predict the future. But we can expect the GM to make a wise decision using the tools and information at his disposal at the time.

 

Why not? How did I predict that Gomez would outproduce Perez.

You didn't. You got lucky. Gomez has had some really good offensive years and some really bad ones. Last year, his OPS was about 20 points higher than his career average. How did you know he was going to do that? You didn't.

 

When I said I would rather have Gomez over Perez, that was during the Winter of 04-05, before last year.

 

I was right, Gomez had a better year than Perez. Also, Gomez was much cheaper than Perez.

You were right offensively, but not defensively. And the margin by which you were right is fairly negligible. Certainly not enough to support your comment that he is "much, much better" than Perez.

 

This is actually evidence that supports my point that there is a lot of variance year to year in how a player performs and it is impossible to predict with any amount of certainty who will do better in a given season between players who have very similar career averages. This is a perfect example of "uncontrollable variables".

 

Time for another prediction concerning Jacque Jones being the best option avail.

 

I'll say that a platoon of Mark Sweeney and Marrero will outproduce Jones this year. This platoon will be cheaper and more productive.

 

Willing to make a fake wager? :)

Why would I? I'm not happy with the Jones signing.

 

As much as I like Dubois, I did not want him handed the starting LF spot, I wanted him to be platooned. It would've been mistake to start Dubois unless they had more offense (like a better RF'er).

Agreed. So who could they have gotten that was appreciably better than Hollandsworth, left handed and willing to platoon? I must confess, I don't know the answer to this one off the top of my head. This one will take some research. Anyone know the answer to this one?

 

I would not be upset if they signed Drew, even after last year, I would not be upset. Conceptually, it would've been right.

So you would not be criticizing Hendry right now if he had signed Drew to a 5 year, 55-60 million dollar deal? But aren't you critical of Hendry for signing Nomar to a 1-year, incentive laden deal? Don't Drew and Nomar have similar injury histories? In fact, isn't Drew's a little worse?

[jjgman21]

 

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.

 

 

you say you are being fair, but then you don't give Hendry the benefit of the doubt that you do Williams and Jocketty

 

I'm sorry, but we both know that if the Cubs went into the season with the same team on paper that the white sox did, you would scream bloody murder. you give him credit for signing Dye AFTER Dye had his most productive season in five years. will you give Hendry credit if Jones rebounds? or will you chalk it up to a fluke. Pods for Carlos Lee? you really think that's a great move? if so, how can you rationally turn around and bitch about the Cubs getting Pierre, who was being shopped, and not Wilkerson, a trade that came out of the blue? El Duque and Contreras? please.

 

the white sox got fluke performance and a flukish number of wins for the number of runs they scored and prevented, and you want to give credit to Kenny Williams. now I agree that Williams has done a nice job this offseason, but if you saw the White Sox getting career years out of virtually the entire pitching staff and going on to the world series with the team they brought north last year, well then you're just a flat out lier.

 

now let's talk about injuries. I think the argument that Hendry somehow failed because of his acquiring and holding onto injury prone players is absurd. you ever heard of plantar fascitis? Pujols has it. it's a chronic condition, can strike at any time, and can sideline a baseball player for weeks at a time. hasn't hurt the Cards yet, though, but at some point Pujols will spend time on the DL because of it. now knowing this is the case, isn't Jocketty an idiot for relying on him to be a huge part of the offense? of course not, because when he's around he's a fricken stud, as are our pitchers who have missed time, as Nomar would have been.

 

not a big risk for the Cardinals though, right? how about a pitcher rumored to have a degenerative hip and coming off a bad second half, another pitcher two years removed from labrum surgery, and another coming off of an offseason shoulder scope? not enough, how about throwing in that the closer was on the DL in 96, missed most of 97 and 98, and missed 2.5 months of 2003. not enough risk? well throw in that the rightfielder never played a full season in his career, nor has the leftfielder, and both are getting really old. shortstop? well he missed a month the year before last. what about prancer out there in center? only one trip to the DL since coming to town. oh, 8 seperate trips to the DL since entering pro ball, including missing half of 89, half of 91, and nearly all of 99. and did I mention that the superstar thirdbaseman has chronically bad knees?

 

Jocketty is such an idiot, right? no, he's great according to you. same situation, same results? no, different results, so what's the deal? you want to put it on Hendry, when Hendry actually had a far better backup plan, but the fact is the Cubs needed to use more of the backup plan, the backup plan didn't perform nearly as well as should have been expected, while the backup plan for the "great" GM went better than he ever could have imagined.

 

doesn't seem to me you are giving fair treatment at all. you are evaluating alot of things in hindsite.

 

also, I don't think counting on Nomar's career 137ish career OPS+ to replace Alou's 128 OPS+ from 2004 was too out of the question, nor was counting on Burnitz to replace Sosa's 110 OPS+, nor was counting on Hollandworth/Dubois to replace the 2004 shortstop production. again, you're not evaluating fairly, you're evaluating with offhand assumptions about what you think a player can and will do and ignoring facts that are inconvenient.

 

you "don't buy" that the Trib ponied up extra cash for Maddux, but you have no evidence to the contrary, when there is evidence that was the case. did you expect Hendry to say "no, I don't want a Cy Young award winner for fifth starter?" you say that the Cubs have greater resources than those teams, which is somewhat true, but Hendry does not get vastly more resources than the White Sox and the Cardinals.

 

finally, I agree more resources have to go back into international development. the fact that the Cubs haven't I think is some evidence that the expenditures on baseball operations probably haven't gone up significantly. Hendry's just putting more into payroll that player development. but to counter what you say about injuries not impacting the farm system, I will quote our founder from a different thread...

 

Tim wrote

The 2004 NSBB Top 30 prospects:

 

1.) Guzman - Injuries have stalled him. Still a high ceiling, but has to stay healthy

2.) Sisco - A good pick here, too bad he's with KC

3.) Jones - Health

4.) Pie - Still a great prospect

5.) Brownlie - Never regained college form

6.) Blasko - health

7.) Harris - Appears to have topped out at utlility player level. Wasn't ever able to take last step

8.) Harvey - Strike zone command big concern

9.) Nolasco - Doing great with FLA this spring -- 0.00 ERA

10.) Ryu - Still right around this level

 

Health is obviously a big issue here.

 

and that doesn't mention that more of those players were also injured, as have many others.

 

NSBB 2003 top 30 prospect list includes these names

Nic Jackson

Angel Guzman

Luke Hagerty

Ryu

Brownlie

Steve Smyth

Billy Petrick

Scott Chaisson

Aaron Krawiec

Alfredo Francisco

Carmen Pignatiello

Jason Wylie

 

you say you are evaluating Hendry fairly, that he is responsible for the system falling off, then imply injuries have had little to do with the system falling off? come on.

[UK1679666180]

So you would not be criticizing Hendry right now if he had signed Drew to a 5 year, 55-60 million dollar deal? But aren't you critical of Hendry for signing Nomar to a 1-year, incentive laden deal? Don't Drew and Nomar have similar injury histories? In fact, isn't Drew's a little worse?

 

I haven't been critcal of the Nomar signing, I don't think it was a substitute for Alou's offense in '04 and they should've been more prepared by having better depth at SS, b/c Nomar even heading into last year is a higher injury risk than most.

 

Drew is a much better player than Nomar even with Nomar playing a more difficult defensive position.

 

Agreed. So who could they have gotten that was appreciably better than Hollandsworth, left handed and willing to platoon? I must confess, I don't know the answer to this one off the top of my head. This one will take some research. Anyone know the answer to this one?

 

I wanted them to go after Floyd via trade, whether or not he was avail. is to opinion. He was rumored to be avail. for of the off-season yet did not get traded.

 

You were right offensively, but not defensively. And the margin by which you were right is fairly negligible. Certainly not enough to support your comment that he is "much, much better" than Perez.

 

This is actually evidence that supports my point that there is a lot of variance year to year in how a player performs and it is impossible to predict with any amount of certainty who will do better in a given season between players who have very similar career averages. This is a perfect example of "uncontrollable variables".

 

There is a rather large offensive difference between Perez and Gomez, you just have to factor for Perez taking advantage of Coors. That 22 point difference of EqA is greater than the defensive difference.

 

You didn't. You got lucky. Gomez has had some really good offensive years and some really bad ones. Last year, his OPS was about 20 points higher than his career average. How did you know he was going to do that? You didn't.

 

Had nothing to do with luck, Gomez has been the better player over his career, last year just followed a consistent trend.

 

I get that is your opinion, but why is it your opinion. To me, after looking that the stats you've shown me, I don't see one standing out that much over the other. What stat makes Gomez look "much, much better" to you? Or how else should I value or interpret the stats you have shown me?

 

Look at their difference in EqA or OPS+ and you'll have the stats you need.

[badger1679666666]

I have come to the conclusion that the people that hate Hendry will blame him for everything and give him no credit or minimize his moves. Say what you will, but this is my opinon on the group think on these boards.

And I respect your right to this opinion, but I don't think this applies to UK. He doesn't hate Hendry or blame him for everything. He does give him credit for some good things that he has done.

 

Oh I wasn't implicating UK at all. In fact I don't know much about his opinions at all. I was more commenting on what I see in general with regards to Jim Hendry.

[UK1679666180]

you say you are being fair, but then you don't give Hendry the benefit of the doubt that you do Williams and Jocketty

 

I'm sorry, but we both know that if the Cubs went into the season with the same team on paper that the white sox did, you would scream bloody murder. you give him credit for signing Dye AFTER Dye had his most productive season in five years. will you give Hendry credit if Jones rebounds? or will you chalk it up to a fluke. Pods for Carlos Lee? you really think that's a great move? if so, how can you rationally turn around and bitch about the Cubs getting Pierre, who was being shopped, and not Wilkerson, a trade that came out of the blue? El Duque and Contreras? please.

 

I'll give Hendry if Jones rebounds, I think Dye had a more likely chance to rebound over Dye, b/c he is a better hitter.

 

Pods for Lee was a good move b/c of how it freed up the budget. Did Contreras not have a very good year? They got him for another expensive unproductice pitvher and was able to get something out of him that the Yankees couldn't.

 

I give Williams and Jocketty the benefit of the doubt, b/c Williams followed up a WS win while able to improve the talent of a team that won it all. Jocketty has had led the Cards to how playoff appearences now?

 

If Hendry had cont'd building success, I would be optimistic about his ability to lead the Cubs beyod this year. Fully healthy, this team is still 2nd best to the Cards and behind Atlanta and NYM overall.

 

FWIW, I never "bitched" about the Pierre trade, I've said it improves the club, just shouldn't be counted on to take this team to the next level. I do think they gave too much as well, but it gives them leadoff hitter and a CF'er.

 

the white sox got fluke performance and a flukish number of wins for the number of runs they scored and prevented, and you want to give credit to Kenny Williams. now I agree that Williams has done a nice job this offseason, but if you saw the White Sox getting career years out of virtually the entire pitching staff and going on to the world series with the team they brought north last year, well then you're just a flat out lier.

 

No one predicted the Sox to win the WS at the start, but finally something clicked with Garland, Garcia has been a very good pitcher for most of his career, Mark was strong as usual, and Contreras finally got his production to match his talent. Iguchi was a solid addition as well AJ.

 

I thought he did a good job last off-season, I didn't predict them to win the division, but I did note improvement.

 

now let's talk about injuries. I think the argument that Hendry somehow failed because of his acquiring and holding onto injury prone players is absurd. you ever heard of plantar fascitis? Pujols has it. it's a chronic condition, can strike at any time, and can sideline a baseball player for weeks at a time. hasn't hurt the Cards yet, though, but at some point Pujols will spend time on the DL because of it. now knowing this is the case, isn't Jocketty an idiot for relying on him to be a huge part of the offense? of course not, because when he's around he's a fricken stud, as are our pitchers who have missed time, as Nomar would have been.

 

When have I blamed Hendry for holding onto injury prone players, when you have an injury prone player at a key position, you need an above avg. back-up. Nomar had Perez and later Cedeno who was benched in favor of Perez.

 

Look at the injury history of Pujols compared to Wood, Prior, and Nomar. He's going to deal with a bad foot and a bad arm for most of his career, Pujols has shown the ability to play thru pain and play very well. Wood, Prior, and Nomar have not.

 

not a big risk for the Cardinals though, right? how about a pitcher rumored to have a degenerative hip and coming off a bad second half, another pitcher two years removed from labrum surgery, and another coming off of an offseason shoulder scope? not enough, how about throwing in that the closer was on the DL in 96, missed most of 97 and 98, and missed 2.5 months of 2003. not enough risk? well throw in that the rightfielder never played a full season in his career, nor has the leftfielder, and both are getting really old. shortstop? well he missed a month the year before last. what about prancer out there in center? only one trip to the DL since coming to town. oh, 8 seperate trips to the DL since entering pro ball, including missing half of 89, half of 91, and nearly all of 99. and did I mention that the superstar thirdbaseman has chronically bad knees?

 

Jocketty is such an idiot, right? no, he's great according to you. same situation, same results? no, different results, so what's the deal? you want to put it on Hendry, when Hendry actually had a far better backup plan, but the fact is the Cubs needed to use more of the backup plan, the backup plan didn't perform nearly as well as should have been expected, while the backup plan for the "great" GM went better than he ever could have imagined.

 

With all the potential injury risks STL has, someone who hasn't followed baseball over the last 2 years would wonder how STL has been 37 games better than the Cubs over the last 2 years.

 

doesn't seem to me you are giving fair treatment at all. you are evaluating alot of things in hindsite.

 

What is hindsight about it? I said last year, the Cubs don't have the talent to make the playoffs. I've said it this year, the Cubs don't have the talent to make the playoffs.

 

also, I don't think counting on Nomar's career 137ish career OPS+ to replace Alou's 128 OPS+ from 2004 was too out of the question, nor was counting on Burnitz to replace Sosa's 110 OPS+, nor was counting on Hollandworth/Dubois to replace the 2004 shortstop production. again, you're not evaluating fairly, you're evaluating with offhand assumptions about what you think a player can and will do and ignoring facts that are inconvenient.

 

I didn't think Nomar would hit like he did in his prime, if the question was put to me, do I think Nomar will replace Alou's '04 production? I would've said no.

 

You're also comparing it to an offense in '04 that needed improving, it was a better offense than I expected it to be in '05, but I didn't expect Lee to take off.

 

you "don't buy" that the Trib ponied up extra cash for Maddux, but you have no evidence to the contrary, when there is evidence that was the case. did you expect Hendry to say "no, I don't want a Cy Young award winner for fifth starter?" you say that the Cubs have greater resources than those teams, which is somewhat true, but Hendry does not get vastly more resources than the White Sox and the Cardinals.

 

I know they ponied up the extra cash to get Maddux, I have never seen evidence that the someone higher up than Hendry led the negotiations or overstepped Hendry's boundaries as GM.

 

you say you are evaluating Hendry fairly, that he is responsible for the system falling off, then imply injuries have had little to do with the system falling off? come on.

 

Like I said before, where are the Latin signings? Pie was a top prospects 3rd in the Cubs system as recently as '03, were heading into '06 and he was the last one.

 

To me, the lack of international scouting has had a greater impact on the regression of the farm system than injuries. The Cubs had just as many injuries in '02 and '03 as they do now. Christensen, Jackson, Krawiec, Webb, etc.

[CubinNY]

not to butt in but how much blame for the injuries of the staff and poor decision making on the field go to hendry via baker?

 

baker was who he is before he got here and it was evident in san fransisco.

 

I'm not sure if I am reading your post the right way, but Baker was criticized in SF for pulling his starting pitchers too soon and burning up his pen.

 

I think that criticism coupled with the less than stellar bullpen performance has, in a way, contributed to the ills in the pitching department (i.e, overuse of both the SP and select bullpen arms).

 

so because he pulled his starters too soon in sf our starters are overworked? i don't know if i understand what you are getting at.

 

In a way that is exactly what I'm getting at. Baker is notoriusly thin skinned. Now I don't know know if that is THE reason, but he certainly has worked the starting pitchers.

 

I also agree about his misuse of the pen too. It seems to me that Baker is not good at managing a pitching staff. Before Fox's arm nearly literally fell off I think he pitched three days in a row. We all know about his fetish for righty/lefty matchups. And then there is his usage patterns of Farnsworth and others while leaving some guys to rot in the pen.

 

Overall, he is just not good at what he does.

[jjgman21]

 

No one predicted the Sox to win the WS at the start, but finally something clicked with Garland, Garcia has been a very good pitcher for most of his career, Mark was strong as usual, and Contreras finally got his production to match his talent. Iguchi was a solid addition as well AJ.

 

I thought he did a good job last off-season, I didn't predict them to win the division, but I did note improvement.

 

I really have to question the veracity of that, because I know you are smarter than that. you saw improvement in a team that predictably scored 106 fewer runs and had a starting staff whose career ERA+ was around 125, 114, 100, 98, plus the chronically injured el duque with the major bullpen addition being Dustin Hermanson. amazing how 8 pitchers having career years, and a young fireballer finding the strikezone out of nowhere makes a GM look like a genius. Williams was not good. he was lucky. and again, I do agree he has done a nice job this year.

 

but you are not taking the different circumstances of the organizations into account. in 2004, I wonder if the Maddux money were available to sweeten the offer to Tejada if Hendry would rather have done that. there's no way of telling really, but I don't know if you would even consider that when evaluating Hendry. didn't get it done. it was his fault.

 

then there is 2005. here Jim, get rid of this contract for 21M to be paid to a player with slightly above league average production last year. good luck. why don't you go get creative and give yourself some payroll flexability. make sure you choose the right potential Cy Young award winner to trade away to build payroll flexability like Kenny Williams did. the fans won't mind, because Jermaine Dye and Dustin Hermanson types are available. handed an impossible situation, but it was his fault.

 

 

What is hindsight about it? I said last year, the Cubs don't have the talent to make the playoffs. I've said it this year, the Cubs don't have the talent to make the playoffs.

 

I think you evaluate Williams and Jocketty in hindsite and evaluate Hendry through expectations without considering all the factors and making conclusions without sufficient available information

 

 

You're also comparing it to an offense in '04 that needed improving, it was a better offense than I expected it to be in '05, but I didn't expect Lee to take off.

 

this goes back to the Patterson discussion you are having. yes, Lee did much better than expected. how many players did worse than expected? just the entire outfield, short, and the entire bench. should've gotten creative. here's your trading chips Jim. what's that? half the minor league prospects with value are on the DL too?

 

I know they ponied up the extra cash to get Maddux, I have never seen evidence that the someone higher up than Hendry led the negotiations or overstepped Hendry's boundaries as GM.

 

then it's just the deal you don't like, not the acquisition of Maddux? I thought it was a stupid move all together. never like it and again agree that he sucks when it comes to signing free agents. but I always felt he thought the roster was pretty set with Cruz as the fifth starter, then the Trib said, 'here's some extra dough, go get Maddux.' you seem to assume that the Trib said go get Maddux, and Hendry fell over himself to run out and pay too much money for too many years.

 

 

Like I said before, where are the Latin signings? Pie was a top prospects 3rd in the Cubs system as recently as '03, were heading into '06 and he was the last one.

 

To me, the lack of international scouting has had a greater impact on the regression of the farm system than injuries. The Cubs had just as many injuries in '02 and '03 as they do now. Christensen, Jackson, Krawiec, Webb, etc.

 

and I agreed with you that the international scouting has fallen off, but I also think without the injuries you would barely notice the difference. maybe Stockstill moving on will help cure that problem. even if he doesn't, I'm really excited about this guy from the Blue Jays organization and what he does with the draft.

[UK1679666180]

I really have to question the veracity of that, because I know you are smarter than that. you saw improvement in a team that predictably scored 106 fewer runs and had a starting staff whose career ERA+ was around 125, 114, 100, 98, plus the chronically injured el duque with the major bullpen addition being Dustin Hermanson. amazing how 8 pitchers having career years, and a young fireballer finding the strikezone out of nowhere makes a GM look like a genius. Williams was not good. he was lucky. and again, I do agree he has done a nice job this year.

 

Yes, they did improve the team over the year before. I thought they progressed over the previous season. They improved at 2B, RF, C over the previous year as well as the bullpen, I didn't think Hermansen would do what he did, but I've always liked Cotts and Garland and I liked the Jenks pickup when it occured. I'm pessimistic Jenks can handle a full season of closing b/c of his violent delivery, but if used properly, he is a great opion out of the pen.

 

Then, you have to factor what he did this off-season. If Hendry had the off-season that Williams did, I would feel more confident in Hendry, but two sub-par offseasons after a 10 win decline has left me questioning which way this team is going.

 

then there is 2005. here Jim, get rid of this contract for 21M to be paid to a player with slightly above league average production last year. good luck. why don't you go get creative and give yourself some payroll flexability. make sure you choose the right potential Cy Young award winner to trade away to build payroll flexability like Kenny Williams did. the fans won't mind, because Jermaine Dye and Dustin Hermanson types are available. handed an impossible situation, but it was his fault.

 

Why even sign Maddux to that deal in the 1st place? What potential Cy Young winner has Williams traded away?

 

What impossible situation has Hendry been handed that he did not create?

[UK1679666180]

I think you evaluate Williams and Jocketty in hindsite and evaluate Hendry through expectations without considering all the factors and making conclusions without sufficient available information

 

What fan doesn't make conclusions w/out all the information available? I'm judging Hendry on his track record, I've factored into the equation the sudden improvement of '03, the improved talent of '04, the regression of talent in '05, and the disappointing off-season of '06. I don't see this team making the playoffs in '06 and at this stage of the season it factors into my equation.

 

Jocketty has the Cards poised to win a 3rd straight NL Central, Williams has the Sox coming off a WS and then unlike most GMs, he actually improved the club.

 

If Hendry had those results, improved the club like Williams did, or was the favorite to win the division, I would be more optimistic.

 

then it's just the deal you don't like, not the acquisition of Maddux? I thought it was a stupid move all together. never like it and again agree that he sucks when it comes to signing free agents. but I always felt he thought the roster was pretty set with Cruz as the fifth starter, then the Trib said, 'here's some extra dough, go get Maddux.' you seem to assume that the Trib said go get Maddux, and Hendry fell over himself to run out and pay too much money for too many years.

 

Both, too many years, too much money on a player they didn't need.

 

Hendry wanted Maddux, don't kid yourself in believing or try to imply that he didn't. Maddux had very little interest, the Cards were the closest other team, but they pulled out of the bidding when the Cubs raised the stakes. At the end, it appeared the Cubs were bidding against themselves.

 

but I also think without the injuries you would barely notice the difference. maybe Stockstill moving on will help cure that problem. even if he doesn't, I'm really excited about this guy from the Blue Jays organization and what he does with the draft.

 

They had similar amounts of injuries in '01 and '02 in the farm system, then you start losing players to Rule 5 (Sisco for nothing).

 

I'm sorry, you would notice that the farm system dropped in overall talent b/c they had high amounts of injuries when it was doing well, they just had more overall talent.

 

Once again, they haven't signed anyone from the Pacific Rim since 99-00, and hasn't signed anyone worthwhile from Latin America since '01.

 

Tim Wilken should be an asset, but Stockstill's strength was the draft. Without improving the international scouting, there will be very little potential improvement from Stockstill to Wilken.

[brinoch]

I have come to the conclusion that the people that hate Hendry will blame him for everything and give him no credit or minimize his moves. Say what you will, but this is my opinon on the group think on these boards.

And I respect your right to this opinion, but I don't think this applies to UK. He doesn't hate Hendry or blame him for everything. He does give him credit for some good things that he has done.

 

Oh I wasn't implicating UK at all. In fact I don't know much about his opinions at all. I was more commenting on what I see in general with regards to Jim Hendry.

 

It's not really group-think, per se. Ignoring for the moment whether or not it is justified in any particular case, you will regularly hear complaints about a team's GM when said team regresses. This is pretty true for each and every team, in each and every major sports league. Now, blaming Hendry for every problem is a little excessive, I agree. However, as the GM he does have the burden of responsibility. (MacPhail, too, has a level of responsibility.)

 

Here's a question for you to consider: why shouldn't Cubs fans complain about Hendry?

 

My problem with Hendry is mostly along these three fronts:

 

1. Johnny B. Baker

2. Doesn't recognize that this team's problem is (and has been) the ability to get on base.

3. Lack of international scouting focus