Hendry extended through 2008

[nilodnayr]

Good point SSR, although I would not lump latroy in with the other tree at all. Latroy clearly disappointed, even if the other three suck, at least they will be meeting expectations. Plus, that was such a ridiculously lopsided trade, it would have been impossible to turn down.

[soccer10k]

The way I look at it is, if they don't extend Hendry the next GM will more than likely be worse then him. Hate him or love him, Hendry has worked some incredible trades, now if he can just sign some good free agents.

 

Don't Howry and Eyre count as good free agents? I know Jones hasn't done anything yet but Hendry should get credit for the two pitchers.

[cubbyvirus00]

im extremely happy with hendry getting another contract. Hes a good GM, and his good moves far far far outweigh his bad ones

[soccer10k]

im extremely happy with hendry getting another contract. Hes a good GM, and his good moves far far far outweigh his bad ones

 

I couldn't agree more. Not every GM is going to see all of his moves work out. But Hendry could have made WAY mistakes.

[mhuber92211]

Good point SSR, although I would not lump latroy in with the other tree at all. Latroy clearly disappointed, even if the other three suck, at least they will be meeting expectations. Plus, that was such a ridiculously lopsided trade, it would have been impossible to turn down.

 

Remmy also says Hi

[Mark Priors Calves]

The way I look at it is, if they don't extend Hendry the next GM will more than likely be worse then him. Hate him or love him, Hendry has worked some incredible trades, now if he can just sign some good free agents.

 

Don't Howry and Eyre count as good free agents? I know Jones hasn't done anything yet but Hendry should get credit for the two pitchers.

It's way too early to tell if they were good signing. Hawkins looked like a great signing only a week into his first season too. In fact, he looked like a great signing until he was made in the closer. Then, not so much.

[mhuber92211]

I am looking at it this way. Lets say the Cubs let Hendry go, would he be in consideration for another GM post immediately? Looking at how poor the recent candidates were I would have to say yes. I think the Dodgers (and their fans) would love to have someone like Hendry in their F.O. right now.

[Jon]

I am looking at it this way. Lets say the Cubs let Hendry go, would he be in consideration for another GM post immediately? Looking at how poor the recent candidates were I would have to say yes. I think the Dodgers (and their fans) would love to have someone like Hendry in their F.O. right now.

I'm not sure that's a good way to look at it. Heck, Jim Bowden somehow got another shot at being a GM. Most MLB teams are pretty hesitant to hire someone without experience, so even bad ones can bounce around for a while.

 

Unlike the other deals, those Hendry gave to Perez, Rusch, and Jones were all bad from the very beginning and really unwarranted. He most likely isn't going to be able to move Jones unless he either eats a lot of money or takes on a bad contract in return. It just boggles the mind as to what he was thinking when he made those moves. He shouldn't have had to give Rusch and Perez multi-year deals (or deals at all) and giving three years to Jones was just absurd. I don't think the contract he gave to Eyre was that smart (especially because it played a large role in setting the market), but at least he was coming off a good season.

[Jon]

Good point SSR, although I would not lump latroy in with the other tree at all. Latroy clearly disappointed, even if the other three suck, at least they will be meeting expectations. Plus, that was such a ridiculously lopsided trade, it would have been impossible to turn down.

Well, LaTroy followed up a 1.99 ERA over his last two seasons with the Twins with a 2.76 ERA during his time with the Cubs. It's not like he had failed miserably.

[mhuber92211]

Good point SSR, although I would not lump latroy in with the other tree at all. Latroy clearly disappointed, even if the other three suck, at least they will be meeting expectations. Plus, that was such a ridiculously lopsided trade, it would have been impossible to turn down.

Well, LaTroy followed up a 1.99 ERA over his last two seasons with the Twins with a 2.76 ERA during his time with the Cubs. It's not like he had failed miserably.

 

This is exactly how stats don't tell the whole story. Despite Hawkins stellar ERA as a Cub, I think all in the organization and probably even Hawkins himself would say that his time as a Cub wasn't as good as that stat would indicate.

 

Your points on Jones' contract I can't agree with. Calling his contract absurd is not a good way of establishing it. Compare his deal with the other FA Of's in his class and what they got and it is pretty much the same. Jones was an attractive FA if only due to the lack of quality OF available and the number of teams looking for one. OF was a limited position this offseason (and last one too) thus the market is high. Regardless we beleive that Hendry overpaid or gave too many years to Jones, the market dictates what he gets paid. Looking at the crop of FA OF available I don't think Hendry's deal was a bad one. Looking at what the Cubs would have had instead of Jones wasn't a good alternative either.

 

In a vaccum Jones' contract may not be ideal but given the enviroment it was made in I think that Hendry afforded what needed to be done to fill that hole. Giles might have been the best solution originally but the environment plays a key role in the decision making process and Giles had the freedom to choose. We can't assume that if we had offered Giles more per year that he would have chosen us. Other then Giles, who would have been a better use of the money and/or years?

[Jon]

Good point SSR, although I would not lump latroy in with the other tree at all. Latroy clearly disappointed, even if the other three suck, at least they will be meeting expectations. Plus, that was such a ridiculously lopsided trade, it would have been impossible to turn down.

Well, LaTroy followed up a 1.99 ERA over his last two seasons with the Twins with a 2.76 ERA during his time with the Cubs. It's not like he had failed miserably.

 

This is exactly how stats don't tell the whole story. Despite Hawkins stellar ERA as a Cub, I think all in the organization and probably even Hawkins himself would say that his time as a Cub wasn't as good as that stat would indicate.

 

Your points on Jones' contract I can't agree with. Calling his contract absurd is not a good way of establishing it. Compare his deal with the other FA Of's in his class and what they got and it is pretty much the same. Jones was an attractive FA if only due to the lack of quality OF available and the number of teams looking for one. OF was a limited position this offseason (and last one too) thus the market is high. Regardless we beleive that Hendry overpaid or gave too many years to Jones, the market dictates what he gets paid. Looking at the crop of FA OF available I don't think Hendry's deal was a bad one. Looking at what the Cubs would have had instead of Jones wasn't a good alternative either.

 

In a vaccum Jones' contract may not be ideal but given the enviroment it was made in I think that Hendry afforded what needed to be done to fill that hole. Giles might have been the best solution originally but the environment plays a key role in the decision making process and Giles had the freedom to choose. We can't assume that if we had offered Giles more per year that he would have chosen us. Other then Giles, who would have been a better use of the money and/or years?

And I'd also argue that fan impression doesn't tell the whole story, either. My point was that Hawkins' ERA made him quite tradeable. Especially if he was going to be traded to a team that wasn't going to use him as a closer, his value wasn't that low at all.

 

When you're dealing with mediocre starting position players, there's a huge difference between a 3-year contract and a 2-year or 1-year contract. In my opinion, the Cubs would have been significantly better off paying $7 million for Burnitz for one more year, not tie up the hole in right field with Jones for three years, and go into the free agent market with some money to spend for right field.

 

Jeff Conine (1-year, $1.7 million with Baltimore) and Jose Cruz Jr. (1-year, $3.21 million including buyout with Los Angeles) would also have been better options, depending on their health.

[UK1679666180]

My take on the situation is that I have no problem w/Hendry getting two more years, 4 years is too short of a timeframe to evaluate his work. The Cubs didn't change philosophies or overhaul the system, but they lacked an identity at the major league level. Hendry has helped shape the identity getting Lee (likely inked), Ramirez, and hopefully Barrett, Murton, and Cedeno ecome long-term options as well. After the next two years, we'll have a better idea if Hendry is capable of building an annual favorite.

 

With that said, if the Cubs avg. 85 wins from now till the end of the contract, it's time for a new GM.

 

In short, Hendry's short time as GM deserves a couple more years rather than his previous work, b/c I still don't know if he is or isn't good enough yet.

 

To comment whether or not Hendry is the best out there so we should keep him, insults future GMs with plenty of potential like Moore in ATL and Antonetti in Cleveland. Both are young bright candidates that will likely have successful tenures as GM. That's the same as being content with Jones b/c Giles wasn't leaving SD, there were better and cheaper options avail. for Hendry and you can say the same for Pierre.

[mhuber92211]

Agreed that there were cheaper options then Jones, but I doubt that Conine or Jose Cruz would have been any better and most likely a lot worse. At least Jones fits Hendry's type of player, meaning that he is still in "prime" years and can contribute in several different ways. Jones' defense is better then both of those options and I would imagine that he would out produce both of them as well.

 

Hypothecially, if Jones had signed for 2 years, would there been as much hatred for the contract? If not, I don't see where 1 year makes or breaks it. If Jones would only accept a 3 year deal then Hendry had to go to that length. At the time the options were limited and it was either Encarncion or Jones on the FA market. Who would you rather have?

 

I have no problem with the deal and I am excited to see Jones in RF. I will support him and Hendry until they give me a reason not to. Many here have reached that point with Hendry but I haven't yet. Until there isn't a justifiable reason for something Hendry does, I won't.

[Jon]

Agreed that there were cheaper options then Jones, but I doubt that Conine or Jose Cruz would have been any better and most likely a lot worse. At least Jones fits Hendry's type of player, meaning that he is still in "prime" years and can contribute in several different ways. Jones' defense is better then both of those options and I would imagine that he would out produce both of them as well.

 

Hypothecially, if Jones had signed for 2 years, would there been as much hatred for the contract? If not, I don't see where 1 year makes or breaks it. If Jones would only accept a 3 year deal then Hendry had to go to that length. At the time the options were limited and it was either Encarncion or Jones on the FA market. Who would you rather have?

 

I have no problem with the deal and I am excited to see Jones in RF. I will support him and Hendry until they give me a reason not to. Many here have reached that point with Hendry but I haven't yet. Until there isn't a justifiable reason for something Hendry does, I won't.

The number of years is a huge issue, more so than the money. Conine and Cruz will likely put up pretty similar offensive numbers under far, far better contracts. I don't know if there's ever a reason to give a mediocre player, whose production could be easily replaced, a three-year deal.

 

I would have much rather have gotten Conine, who didn't sign until January. Hendry signed Jones in late December.

 

EDIT: It was reported that Conine agreed to terms with the Orioles on December 21st, the day after the Jones deal became official. Either way, Conine was still available to the Cubs.

[UK1679666180]

At the time the options were limited and it was either Encarncion or Jones on the FA market. Who would you rather have?

 

Why was it limited to only those two? I fail to see how this is fact, unless you think Hendry was limited to overspending on two players likely to get more than they are worth b/c of a GM's mistake, it will be soon found out that both Encarnacion and Jones were bad moves.

 

I still think a platoon of Sweeney and Marrero would have been a better option than Jones, less money, less years, and one half of the platoon becomes the best bat off the bench.

 

Hendry made a mistake w/Burnitz and repeated it w/Jones and added more years for good measure.

[BigbadB]

Yeah, if you want to use Conine and Cruz for comparisons, it will make people lean more towards Jones. However, Conine and Cruz were not the only players available for RF this offseason. Brad Wilkerson, Milton Bradley, Brian Giles, Aubrey Huff, Reggie Sanders, etc....

 

While it wouldn't look like a popular move now, I'd rather have brought back Nomar on a smaller contract and stuck him out there in RF than sign Jacque Jones to a 3 year deal.

 

Jones isn't as bad at the plate as he has been so far, but he's never been anything special at the plate. One of Jones' problems is the same problem that has plagued this team for years. OBP. He doesn't get on base very well. I'm not interested in "I told you so's", I just want a good team. Paying high dollar for mediocre players because you couldn't get who you wanted is a poor business decision, now and until the contract ends. Jones' contract will handcuff the team later on, just you watch. He will basically be making what Todd Hundley made, and while Hendry pulled off a tremendous deal to get rid of Hundley, he had to take on "bad contracts" in exchange. It worked that time, but it isn't always going to work.

 

If the plan didn't work out to get the guys he really wanted, then, IMO, it was a much better idea to put his long term contracts in his back pocket and offer up a 1 year deal to someone like Reggie Sanders, or trade for Milton Bradley and figure out a way to upgrade next year.

[Jon]

I'm only using Conine and Cruz because their contracts are significantly better than Jones' while their 2004 and 2005 seasons were very similar (with Jones have probably the worst seasons out of the three).

 

There were other options, of course, and like UK said, a platoon could've meant a stronger bench.

[Guest]

I'd rather have Cruz than Jones. If that's my choice, I'm all over a one year contract for Jose.