JH on XM

[stitchface]

I would guess he is referring to the fifth starter even if that is a couple weeks away. Didn't the Marlins rely on Willis to win the WS?

[abuck1220]

I would guess he is referring to the fifth starter even if that is a couple weeks away.

 

then is he ruling out guzman getting that spot?

[stitchface]

that's how I would interpret that. Marshall will get the fifth starter spot and guzman will pitch in the minors until someone notices he is better than rusch or williams.

[UMFan83]

 

In the majority of instances, contending teams should not be in the business of having AA pitchers starting the season in the 5th starters role. Yet here we are.

 

 

what's the alternative? woo kirk reuter out of retirement? regardless of whether a team is contending, i'd rather throw a guy out there who has the potential of being good than throw someone out there who you just hope doesn't suck to his fullest sucking potential.

 

i'd be happy w/ either hill or marshall.

 

Agreed, what I meant was contending teams should not be in this position in the first place. Maybe the Cubs will learn after a 4th consecutive year of Prior and Wood injuries.

[jjgman21]

...have mightily bungled the 40 man roster on mutliple occassions that cost us blue-chip prospects

 

Sisco and

 

 

......crickets......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

exactly Blink.

[Danny82]

Zach Duke worked for the Pirates because they are perpetually not contending and can afford to throw pitchers on the fire and see if they pan out.

 

In the majority of instances, contending teams should not be in the business of having AA pitchers starting the season in the 5th starters role. Yet here we are.

 

That said, given the situation we are in, I am all for Marshall starting the season in the 5th spot.

 

Honestly, I don't see what is wrong with starting a AA pitcher in the 5th hole spot if he is ready....contending team or not. Players make the jump from AA to the majors all the time. And it's the 5th spot in the rotation, not necessarily a high pressure spot on the roster. I guess I am just saying I see the crux of your post to be a non-issue. Did you find anything wrong with the A's using Joe Blanton as their #5 last year to start the season?

 

If anything, I took Hendry's comment about Duke to be a good sign that at least a couple of the Cubs' pitching prospects are going to get some good time this year on the big club.

[Soul]

Cookie cutter response to Hendry whenever he shows his face:

 

 

No, things are not O.K., Jim. You're heading for 4th place with bullet, you're bungling the greatest pitching windfall in Cubs history, you've squandered one of the greatest Cub teams ever assembled in 2004, and you've got precious little hope for the future.

 

WOW. This is just an amazing negative post. I understand that there is a certain truth to some of these statements, but I can't agree with the absolutes in that post. This is not the greatest pitching windfall in Cubs history, and he didn't "squander" anything. He did what a GM is supposed to and set up a team for sucess. Unfortunately, it didn't happen but saying that Hendry is a bungling GM is far from the truth.

 

 

I think given our inability to field a consistant offense in the past 4 years despite one of the highest NL payrolls, have mightily bungled the 40 man roster on mutliple occassions that cost us blue-chip prospects, have produced, apparently, only one major league position player on our 25 man roster (unless Theriot makes it), and the fact that we have yet to capitalize on what should have been the best stretch of starting pitching we've had in back to back years or more in my lifetime is indeed grounds to say that Hendry may have bungled the job.

 

It's not just negativity to say that where the Cubs are as an organization is a major disappointment compared to where it was headed 3-4 years ago.

 

Yes, that pretty much sums it up.

 

Why is that such an amazing negative post? I mean, I know it's negative......but why are you amazed by it, huber? I look at 2003, and then I look at now. It's a downward slide. We are a team in decline. It's not alot of fun to watch that happen to my favorite baseball team.

 

I'm sorry to be a negative nancy, but this team needs to do something about the hole they've dug since 2003, and it's not happening. Hendry comes on the air and talks about how well everything is going. It's not. It's just not.

 

Edited March 29, 2006 by Soul

[oldcubsfan]

I think you are going to be unhappy for a while. From what I hear, they are both going to get extensions of between 2 to 4 years depending on what they want to do.

[CubsMinorLeagueReport]

Zach Duke worked for the Pirates because they are perpetually not contending and can afford to throw pitchers on the fire and see if they pan out.

 

In the majority of instances, contending teams should not be in the business of having AA pitchers starting the season in the 5th starters role. Yet here we are.

 

That said, given the situation we are in, I am all for Marshall starting the season in the 5th spot.

 

Honestly, I don't see what is wrong with starting a AA pitcher in the 5th hole spot if he is ready....contending team or not. Players make the jump from AA to the majors all the time. And it's the 5th spot in the rotation, not necessarily a high pressure spot on the roster. I guess I am just saying I see the crux of your post to be a non-issue. Did you find anything wrong with the A's using Joe Blanton as their #5 last year to start the season?

 

If anything, I took Hendry's comment about Duke to be a good sign that at least a couple of the Cubs' pitching prospects are going to get some good time this year on the big club.

 

The only hesitation I have about it is that Marshall is not terribly experienced.

[CuseCubFan69]

How many pitchers from AA have had decent years in the past 5 years? Willis was brought up from AA and I'm sure more have been good. I also believe that Florida won a WS with Willis on the starting rotation.

[Bull]

How many pitchers from AA have had decent years in the past 5 years? Willis was brought up from AA and I'm sure more have been good. I also believe that Florida won a WS with Willis on the starting rotation.

 

Right on, man!

 

I'm sure you;ve said it before: AA is where the prospects are. AAA is mostly spare parts.

[brinoch]

How many pitchers from AA have had decent years in the past 5 years? Willis was brought up from AA and I'm sure more have been good. I also believe that Florida won a WS with Willis on the starting rotation.

 

Right on, man!

 

I'm sure you;ve said it before: AA is where the prospects are. AAA is mostly spare parts.

 

I agree. But something to keep in mind is that the PCL is a hitter's league, so when a pitcher is doing really well in Iowa, that's probably a good sign. Likewise, when a hitter is dominating the Southern League, which tends to be a pitcher's league, that's also a good sign.

[Jehrico]

How many pitchers from AA have had decent years in the past 5 years? Willis was brought up from AA and I'm sure more have been good. I also believe that Florida won a WS with Willis on the starting rotation.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he in Daytona his last season in our system. I don't think Willis even had that much AA time.

[mhuber92211]

Soul-

 

I appreciate the criticsm of the regime and I understand where it comes from. The challenge I bring is that I can't lay the blame upon Hendry. His moves have invigorated the team to the point that we have higher expectations and thus the "hole" that it has to dig it self out of.

 

Hendry, in each offseason (and midseason), has perpetually gone out and acquired players that would help the Cubs in the short term AND the long term. There have been mixed reviews on deals that he could have made but in hindsight most (if not all ) of those decisions have turned out positively (i.e. closer in 2005 and not signing Percival or Benetiz). There are non deals from this offseason like Giles & Furcal that many were hoping to see but in each of those cases, Hendry had backup plans should they had failed.

 

I would call the current regime a failure if they hadn't tried and had been abundantly foolish. There isn't 1 transaction that can't be looked at from both sides of an argument. Sure we can disagree with the Rusch & Perez & Macias signings, the loss of Sisco and so on and so forth. However, none of these "hot button" transactions have had a huge (and lasting) effect on the team. The major transactions (AR, Lee & Nomar) have had the lasting impact (and a positve one for the most part given Murton) that they were expected to have.

 

Not to excuse the situation the last 2 years, but injuries have taken a huge role in each of those campagins. To say that the crrent regime has squandared the best pitching we have had is some what blunted. I can't fault Hendry for Wood and Prior and Nomar breaking down. No matter how you spin Baker's influence, the player has to take some responsibility too. The Cubs have been unfortuante the last 2 years but I am firmly in the camp that it is not the fault of the leadership.

[XZero771679666304]

Soul-

 

I appreciate the criticsm of the regime and I understand where it comes from. The challenge I bring is that I can't lay the blame upon Hendry. His moves have invigorated the team to the point that we have higher expectations and thus the "hole" that it has to dig it self out of.

 

Hendry, in each offseason (and midseason), has perpetually gone out and acquired players that would help the Cubs in the short term AND the long term. There have been mixed reviews on deals that he could have made but in hindsight most (if not all ) of those decisions have turned out positively (i.e. closer in 2005 and not signing Percival or Benetiz). There are non deals from this offseason like Giles & Furcal that many were hoping to see but in each of those cases, Hendry had backup plans should they had failed.

 

I would call the current regime a failure if they hadn't tried and had been abundantly foolish. There isn't 1 transaction that can't be looked at from both sides of an argument. Sure we can disagree with the Rusch & Perez & Macias signings, the loss of Sisco and so on and so forth. However, none of these "hot button" transactions have had a huge (and lasting) effect on the team. The major transactions (AR, Lee & Nomar) have had the lasting impact (and a positve one for the most part given Murton) that they were expected to have.

 

Not to excuse the situation the last 2 years, but injuries have taken a huge role in each of those campagins. To say that the crrent regime has squandared the best pitching we have had is some what blunted. I can't fault Hendry for Wood and Prior and Nomar breaking down. No matter how you spin Baker's influence, the player has to take some responsibility too. The Cubs have been unfortuante the last 2 years but I am firmly in the camp that it is not the fault of the leadership.

 

 

I would not lay all of the blame on Hendry. Clearly, he has largely ignored the team's need for OBP guys, and has catered to Dusty's lousy veteran fetish. Hendry did a great job building the 2004 team, but did an equally lousy job with the 2005 squad, especially with the bullpen. There wasn't much to be had this offseason, so it is hard to blame him for a lack of additions to the 2006 team. But while injuries and such are beyond his control, clearly Hendry is not blameless.

 

And I really hope you aren't including Baker when you say that recent failures are not the fault of the "leadership".

[CuseCubFan69]

How many pitchers from AA have had decent years in the past 5 years? Willis was brought up from AA and I'm sure more have been good. I also believe that Florida won a WS with Willis on the starting rotation.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he in Daytona his last season in our system. I don't think Willis even had that much AA time.

 

I don't remember Jehr...I just know he didn't pitch AAA.

 

AAA is fine for a measuring stick for a lot of pitchers but IMO some are just ready at a younger age and maybe Marshall is one of those players.

[Soul]

Soul-

 

I appreciate the criticsm of the regime and I understand where it comes from. The challenge I bring is that I can't lay the blame upon Hendry. His moves have invigorated the team to the point that we have higher expectations and thus the "hole" that it has to dig it self out of.

 

Hendry, in each offseason (and midseason), has perpetually gone out and acquired players that would help the Cubs in the short term AND the long term. There have been mixed reviews on deals that he could have made but in hindsight most (if not all ) of those decisions have turned out positively (i.e. closer in 2005 and not signing Percival or Benetiz). There are non deals from this offseason like Giles & Furcal that many were hoping to see but in each of those cases, Hendry had backup plans should they had failed.

 

I would call the current regime a failure if they hadn't tried and had been abundantly foolish. There isn't 1 transaction that can't be looked at from both sides of an argument. Sure we can disagree with the Rusch & Perez & Macias signings, the loss of Sisco and so on and so forth. However, none of these "hot button" transactions have had a huge (and lasting) effect on the team. The major transactions (AR, Lee & Nomar) have had the lasting impact (and a positve one for the most part given Murton) that they were expected to have.

 

Not to excuse the situation the last 2 years, but injuries have taken a huge role in each of those campagins. To say that the crrent regime has squandared the best pitching we have had is some what blunted. I can't fault Hendry for Wood and Prior and Nomar breaking down. No matter how you spin Baker's influence, the player has to take some responsibility too. The Cubs have been unfortuante the last 2 years but I am firmly in the camp that it is not the fault of the leadership.

 

 

I would not lay all of the blame on Hendry. Clearly, he has largely ignored the team's need for OBP guys, and has catered to Dusty's lousy veteran fetish. Hendry did a great job building the 2004 team, but did an equally lousy job with the 2005 squad, especially with the bullpen. There wasn't much to be had this offseason, so it is hard to blame him for a lack of additions to the 2006 team. But while injuries and such are beyond his control, clearly Hendry is not blameless.

 

And I really hope you aren't including Baker when you say that recent failures are not the fault of the "leadership".

 

Certainly, with Baker around and the injuries we have had, there's no way Hendry should get all the blame. Just his share.

 

I do think something can and should be done about our offseason activities that would help limit the injuries. It certainly wouldn't cure everything, but a good offseason program with solid participation can help. I'm not willing to lay the blame of all injuries at Hendry's feet, of course.

 

My main beef here is that in my opinion the team is not O.K., mistakes have been made, we are watching the potential for true greatness on our pitching staff slip by the boards (an incredible source of pain for any Cub fan), and yet listening to Hendry talk you would think everything is great.

[goonys evil twin]

Soul-

 

I appreciate the criticsm of the regime and I understand where it comes from. The challenge I bring is that I can't lay the blame upon Hendry. His moves have invigorated the team to the point that we have higher expectations and thus the "hole" that it has to dig it self out of.

 

 

I would not lay all of the blame on Hendry.

 

Certainly, with Baker around and the injuries we have had, there's no way Hendry should get all the blame. Just his share.

 

Hendry's moves did not invigorate this team or raise expectations. Anybody who was paying attention in the late 90s was expecting the Cubs to be contenders in the early to mid 2000s. Hendry, as GM, has not raised expectations above where they were, for this time period. He did a nice job working with the minor leagues, as GM, however, he's left a lot to be desired.

[mhuber92211]

Soul-

 

I appreciate the criticsm of the regime and I understand where it comes from. The challenge I bring is that I can't lay the blame upon Hendry. His moves have invigorated the team to the point that we have higher expectations and thus the "hole" that it has to dig it self out of.

 

 

I would not lay all of the blame on Hendry.

 

Certainly, with Baker around and the injuries we have had, there's no way Hendry should get all the blame. Just his share.

 

Hendry's moves did not invigorate this team or raise expectations. Anybody who was paying attention in the late 90s was expecting the Cubs to be contenders in the early to mid 2000s. Hendry, as GM, has not raised expectations above where they were, for this time period. He did a nice job working with the minor leagues, as GM, however, he's left a lot to be desired.

 

I think that this comment would create some contention with some around here. What has Hendry done that has been so bad specifically?

 

As for my comment about raised expectations, Hendry was the one in charge of developing these expectations in the late 90's. For those of us "paying attention" Hendry (and others) is credited for helping the Cubs' system rebound and provide some of players to project for those sucessful years in the early 00's.

 

What could Hendry have done differently? If the thought process is that Hendry hasn't raised expectations during his tenure or has "left a lot to be desired" what should have been done differently?

[goonys evil twin]

I think that this comment would create some contention with some around here. What has Hendry done that has been so bad specifically?

 

As for my comment about raised expectations, Hendry was the one in charge of developing these expectations in the late 90's. For those of us "paying attention" Hendry (and others) is credited for helping the Cubs' system rebound and provide some of players to project for those sucessful years in the early 00's.

 

What could Hendry have done differently? If the thought process is that Hendry hasn't raised expectations during his tenure or has "left a lot to be desired" what should have been done differently?

 

A) You failed to differentiate between Hendry the minor league guy, and Hendry the GM.

 

B) It's absurd to ask a fan to say what he should have done differently as a means to quiet complaints about the lack of success by the team.

 

3) The answer to that question has been laid out hundreds of times. Whether it was this offseason, last season, the previous offseason or any other time, there have been plenty of opportunity for Hendry to "do something differently." On a general note, he should have recognized the value of the walk long ago, both in how it helps your offense and hurts your pitching, by emphasizing players who draw more walks and pitchers who give up fewer. And he never should have hired Baker, the exact wrong guy at the exact wrong time.

[XZero771679666304]

Soul-

 

I appreciate the criticsm of the regime and I understand where it comes from. The challenge I bring is that I can't lay the blame upon Hendry. His moves have invigorated the team to the point that we have higher expectations and thus the "hole" that it has to dig it self out of.

 

 

I would not lay all of the blame on Hendry.

 

Certainly, with Baker around and the injuries we have had, there's no way Hendry should get all the blame. Just his share.

 

Hendry's moves did not invigorate this team or raise expectations. Anybody who was paying attention in the late 90s was expecting the Cubs to be contenders in the early to mid 2000s. Hendry, as GM, has not raised expectations above where they were, for this time period. He did a nice job working with the minor leagues, as GM, however, he's left a lot to be desired.

 

On the whole, you are right. But I have to say he did a damned good job raising expectations after the 2003 season. He improved the team quite a bit after the 2003 season, and the 2004 squad looked to be the best in the league going into ST. Plus the addition of Garciapaara mid-season would have to be considered "invigorating". Ramirez, Lee, Garciaparra, Hawkins, Barrett, Maddux, Walker...Hendry did a very good job of invigorating and improving the team. The expectations and optimism in February of 2004 were as high as I can ever remember, and certainly higher than any reasonable person could have predicted a few years earlier.

 

The problem is that all of that happened 2 years or more ago. He did a pathetic job building the 2005 team, and his failure to take the options that were available then is hurting us now, IMO. There are holes in this team that there aren't solutions for now that there were after 2004. He has also facilitated Baker's asinine agenda and sold out our young talent by providing Dusty with older and lousier options.

 

The bottom line is that Hendry did in fact invigorate, improve and raise expectations. What he also did was to cut our legs out from under us by doing an equally effective job of being complacent and letting it all go to crap in such short order. Is he wholly responsible for this collapse? No, but the fact he is so supportive of Baker, and so quick to make excuses shows me he doesn't really get it at all.

[A New Era]

 

B) It's absurd to ask a fan to say what he should have done differently as a means to quiet complaints about the lack of success by the team.

 

Does that mean you don't know what he should have done differenly? :P

 

I can name a few things. But let me say I'm mostly for Hendry. I think he is a good GM. But there are a couple of things I would have done, or atleast think I could have done, or tried to do differently.

 

I'd have never gotten rid of Grudz in the first place. Here we are trying to choose between defense or offense at 2b. Grudz provided both. I would have pushed a LITTLE bit harder for Furcal. Hendry has said he went higher than he wanted too in the first place (at $9.5m and 5yr). I think an extra mil a year would have gotten him. And WHAT is $1 mil a year to a GM and organization that gave Perez $3 mil and Rusch $3 mil, can I ask you that? (especially when you think to yourself we could give THREE guys a shot (ryu, guzman, marshall) and have a very good chance atleast ONE of them would be even better than Rusch. Save the $3 mil, and have Pierre-Furcal #1 and #2. I would have traded Prior while we had a chance because I frankly am tired of the season starting on the DL and towel throwing simulated game championships.

 

I like our team this year. But there were deffinatly chances to bring us "over the top". . Now we will just have to rely on luck, and everybody "clicking".

[mhuber92211]

 

A) You failed to differentiate between Hendry the minor league guy, and Hendry the GM.

 

B) It's absurd to ask a fan to say what he should have done differently as a means to quiet complaints about the lack of success by the team.

 

3) The answer to that question has been laid out hundreds of times. Whether it was this offseason, last season, the previous offseason or any other time, there have been plenty of opportunity for Hendry to "do something differently." On a general note, he should have recognized the value of the walk long ago, both in how it helps your offense and hurts your pitching, by emphasizing players who draw more walks and pitchers who give up fewer. And he never should have hired Baker, the exact wrong guy at the exact wrong time.

 

I hope I am reading this post right, because it doesn't make much sense to the argument to me.

 

A.) Hendry is the same person and his role, while different, is supposed to accomplish the same taks of devolping players for the Cubs that leads to a championship. There is a reason why becoming a GM from a minor league director is a promotion. The GM still has similar duties to his former post but now he has more responsibliity and (in Biz Terms) Strategic planning and less physcially hands on. To say that Hendry should act differently in each role is "absurd" because the role is an integral part of a GM.

 

B.) Asking a fan how they would do the job differently is exaclty what we are doing on this board. Asking "what if" they were in the big chair is the same as crticizing what happened. Like the matra goes, Don't just bring me a problem, bring a solution too.

 

3.) (or C.) While the emphasis on the walk or the control of pitchers Hendry acquired is continually debatable, its not the sole reason for the stumbles the organization has taken the last couple of seasons. Much of the challenges can be assocaited with the depth of talent on the team as well as the lack of verified information from the training staff. I will not shy away from saying that when Dusty was hired I thought it was a good hire. I still believe that at the time he was the best candidate available and a proven winner which is what the Cubs needed. While the argument can be made that the manager needed to be more of a teacher, guider and strageist and not a "player's manager" I think that the team needed the guidance of a former player who has had sucess as both a manager and a player. Discount it all you want but players follow and respect their leaders more if they have gone through the same issues. Baker had and the thought was that he would provide guidance to the budding superstars on the team was a highlight of the reason he was hired.

[CubDad4Ever]

First premise. , the board is for what ifs and questions. Nothing wrong with that. To represent what you think Hendry or Baker should do is obviously an opinion, nothing more. There are no GMS on this board, thank God , just people with passionate opionions. Take it for what it is. A fun place to debate and follow the Cubs in a variety of ways. Thanks for all the debate and info. Coach L

[goonys evil twin]

A.) Hendry is the same person and his role, while different, is supposed to accomplish the same taks of devolping players for the Cubs that leads to a championship. There is a reason why becoming a GM from a minor league director is a promotion. The GM still has similar duties to his former post but now he has more responsibliity and (in Biz Terms) Strategic planning and less physcially hands on. To say that Hendry should act differently in each role is "absurd" because the role is an integral part of a GM.

 

If you can't tell the difference between a guy being fully capable of one job, and receiving just praise for that job, but then failing after a promotion, and getting just criticism for that failure, then you don't know much about life. Hendry wasn't the GM in the 90's. He did some nice things to help the team. But saying that would be the similar to saying Isiah Thomas is a great GM because he did a lot of things to help his basketball team when he played.