Walker traded to the Padres

[sweetpeteman]

ACUIRE

 

 

Uh, Tim? You might want to check the spelling...

[da bears]

Goodbye Louisiana Lumberjack. This is an intriguing prospect the Cubs got back from the Padres.

[Hacking Out Machine]

I'm pleasantly suprised that we got someone who had a ceiling for Walker.

 

Surprised? Really? All Hendry cares about is ceiling. What he nevers gets is anybody capable of reaching their ceiling.

 

I expected a AAA reliever or a toolsy no hit slick-gloved middle IF.

 

 

I expected an A ball reliever with a 2.9 WHIP who can't strike anyone out, but is tall or looks good in a uniform.

 

Call me surprised as well. At least this kid misses bats. It's refreshing to see a Cubs pitching acquisition who has some results rather than just projectibility.

[Guest]

ACUIRE

 

 

Uh, Tim? You might want to check the spelling...

:D I didn't proofread it as I thought that cutting and pasting the official press release would be safe!

[Jon]

Cubs.com[/url]"]Ceda, 19, was signed by the Padres as a non-drafted free agent in November of 2004. The 6-4, 207-pounder was quick to post strong numbers, going 4-2 with a 1.50 ERA (10 ER/60.0 IP) in 13 games (nine starts) for the Padres Dominican Summer League Team in 2005. He limited opponents to a .174 batting average against (38-for-218) while striking out 83 and walking just 29.

 

This season with the Padres Arizona League club, Ceda has gone 2-0 with a 2.00 ERA (4 ER/18.0 IP) over his last six games (three starts) while holding opponents to a .200 average.

 

In just 89.0 career innings of work, the Santo Domingo, D.R., native has struck out 114 batters while allowing 58 hits and walking 40.

Muskat's previously article falsely stated that he had a 2.00 ERA for the season.

[Shilzzz]

come on todd. unleash 2 1/2 years of frustration!

[Shilzzz]

todd said it's the hardest working coaching staff?!?!

[RynoRules]

todd said it's the hardest working coaching staff?!?!

 

I respect him for taking the high road, but it must be killing him.

[Shilzzz]

todd said it's the hardest working coaching staff?!?!

 

I respect him for taking the high road, but it must be killing him.

 

he didn't want to leave. as much crap as todd has had to deal with, he still wants to be a cub. this is a shame.

[goonys evil twin]

I'm pleasantly suprised that we got someone who had a ceiling for Walker.

 

Surprised? Really? All Hendry cares about is ceiling. What he nevers gets is anybody capable of reaching their ceiling.

 

I expected a AAA reliever or a toolsy no hit slick-gloved middle IF.

 

 

I expected an A ball reliever with a 2.9 WHIP who can't strike anyone out, but is tall or looks good in a uniform.

 

Call me surprised as well. At least this kid misses bats. It's refreshing to see a Cubs pitching acquisition who has some results rather than just projectibility.

 

Plenty of Cubs pitchers miss bats, they also miss the strike zone, just like this guy.

[craig]

Jon, Ceta sounds more talented than I expected for Walker.

 

His DSL numbers, 83K/29BB/38H/60IP at age 18 were very, very good.

 

And the reports on his rookie league numbers are also interesting. Overall at 5.09 in 23 IP, but the reports suggested 2.00 in his last 18 IP. So that means he gave up 9 runs during his first five innings in the U.S., but since then has pitched 18 IP with 4 earned runs and only 13 hits, and presumably a bundle of K's. That sounds perfectly fine to me.

 

Thanks for your research. The minorleaguebaseball.com has him at 6'4", 205, which seems long, lean, and projectible. If the Peoria roster has him listed at 240, I'd tend to believe that. mlb stuff routinely lists guys according to what they were when they signed. Usually, if there is a discrepancy and to the high side, wouldn't it be best to assume the guy has subsequently added weight?

 

Anybody who is 240 pounds at age 19, you've gotta think that's a lot of bad weight and isn't likely to be all muscle. Perhaps a young Sidney Ponson, and perhaps that factored into SD's willingness to deal him?

 

Still, guys who throw mid 90's and have been clocked as high as 99, guys like that have a chance.

 

Sooner or later, maybe it will be the Cubs turn to get lucky with one of these kind of deals.

[CubsWin]

Jon, Ceta sounds more talented than I expected for Walker.

 

His DSL numbers, 83K/29BB/38H/60IP at age 18 were very, very good.

 

And the reports on his rookie league numbers are also interesting. Overall at 5.09 in 23 IP, but the reports suggested 2.00 in his last 18 IP. So that means he gave up 9 runs during his first five innings in the U.S., but since then has pitched 18 IP with 4 earned runs and only 13 hits, and presumably a bundle of K's. That sounds perfectly fine to me.

 

Thanks for your research. The minorleaguebaseball.com has him at 6'4", 205, which seems long, lean, and projectible. If the Peoria roster has him listed at 240, I'd tend to believe that. mlb stuff routinely lists guys according to what they were when they signed. Usually, if there is a discrepancy and to the high side, wouldn't it be best to assume the guy has subsequently added weight?

 

Anybody who is 240 pounds at age 19, you've gotta think that's a lot of bad weight and isn't likely to be all muscle. Perhaps a young Sidney Ponson, and perhaps that factored into SD's willingness to deal him?

 

Still, guys who throw mid 90's and have been clocked as high as 99, guys like that have a chance.

 

Sooner or later, maybe it will be the Cubs turn to get lucky with one of these kind of deals.

Careful, that post was chock full of stats and intelligent analysis. You are making it rather difficult for people to have unbalanced opinions towards only the negative.

[Jon]

Jon, Ceta sounds more talented than I expected for Walker.

 

His DSL numbers, 83K/29BB/38H/60IP at age 18 were very, very good.

 

And the reports on his rookie league numbers are also interesting. Overall at 5.09 in 23 IP, but the reports suggested 2.00 in his last 18 IP. So that means he gave up 9 runs during his first five innings in the U.S., but since then has pitched 18 IP with 4 earned runs and only 13 hits, and presumably a bundle of K's. That sounds perfectly fine to me.

 

Thanks for your research. The minorleaguebaseball.com has him at 6'4", 205, which seems long, lean, and projectible. If the Peoria roster has him listed at 240, I'd tend to believe that. mlb stuff routinely lists guys according to what they were when they signed. Usually, if there is a discrepancy and to the high side, wouldn't it be best to assume the guy has subsequently added weight?

 

Anybody who is 240 pounds at age 19, you've gotta think that's a lot of bad weight and isn't likely to be all muscle. Perhaps a young Sidney Ponson, and perhaps that factored into SD's willingness to deal him?

 

Still, guys who throw mid 90's and have been clocked as high as 99, guys like that have a chance.

 

Sooner or later, maybe it will be the Cubs turn to get lucky with one of these kind of deals.

For the record, that 99 reading was from what google showed me of a scouts.com article from October '05 that I didn't have access to. If anyone has a scout.com membership, here's the article.

 

Right now, I'd have to believe the 240 was a typo. According to minorleaguesplits.com, here are his ground ball/fly ball splits:

 

June (5 IP) - 4 ground balls, 2 line drives, 9 fly balls, 2 pop ups

July (18 IP) - 12 ground balls, 4 line drives, 11 fly balls, 10 pop ups

 

He had a WHIP of 2.20 in June, so he was really getting smacked around.

 

Sounds like an interesting prospect.

[Guest]

Jon, Ceta sounds more talented than I expected for Walker.

 

His DSL numbers, 83K/29BB/38H/60IP at age 18 were very, very good.

 

And the reports on his rookie league numbers are also interesting. Overall at 5.09 in 23 IP, but the reports suggested 2.00 in his last 18 IP. So that means he gave up 9 runs during his first five innings in the U.S., but since then has pitched 18 IP with 4 earned runs and only 13 hits, and presumably a bundle of K's. That sounds perfectly fine to me.

 

Thanks for your research. The minorleaguebaseball.com has him at 6'4", 205, which seems long, lean, and projectible. If the Peoria roster has him listed at 240, I'd tend to believe that. mlb stuff routinely lists guys according to what they were when they signed. Usually, if there is a discrepancy and to the high side, wouldn't it be best to assume the guy has subsequently added weight?

 

Anybody who is 240 pounds at age 19, you've gotta think that's a lot of bad weight and isn't likely to be all muscle. Perhaps a young Sidney Ponson, and perhaps that factored into SD's willingness to deal him?

 

Still, guys who throw mid 90's and have been clocked as high as 99, guys like that have a chance.

 

Sooner or later, maybe it will be the Cubs turn to get lucky with one of these kind of deals.

Careful, that post was chock full of stats and intelligent analysis. You are making it rather difficult for people to have unbalanced opinions towards only the negative.

Good lord! Contrasting opinions are welcome on this board. This kind of post that only slams other posters is not. If I (or any other mod) see you do this one more time, you are history on this forum. I've seen too many of this type of post from you and I will not have it any more.

[CUBZ99]

Jon, Ceta sounds more talented than I expected for Walker.

 

His DSL numbers, 83K/29BB/38H/60IP at age 18 were very, very good.

 

And the reports on his rookie league numbers are also interesting. Overall at 5.09 in 23 IP, but the reports suggested 2.00 in his last 18 IP. So that means he gave up 9 runs during his first five innings in the U.S., but since then has pitched 18 IP with 4 earned runs and only 13 hits, and presumably a bundle of K's. That sounds perfectly fine to me.

 

Thanks for your research. The minorleaguebaseball.com has him at 6'4", 205, which seems long, lean, and projectible. If the Peoria roster has him listed at 240, I'd tend to believe that. mlb stuff routinely lists guys according to what they were when they signed. Usually, if there is a discrepancy and to the high side, wouldn't it be best to assume the guy has subsequently added weight?

 

Anybody who is 240 pounds at age 19, you've gotta think that's a lot of bad weight and isn't likely to be all muscle. Perhaps a young Sidney Ponson, and perhaps that factored into SD's willingness to deal him?

 

Still, guys who throw mid 90's and have been clocked as high as 99, guys like that have a chance.

 

Sooner or later, maybe it will be the Cubs turn to get lucky with one of these kind of deals.

Careful, that post was chock full of stats and intelligent analysis. You are making it rather difficult for people to have unbalanced opinions towards only the negative.

Good lord! Contrasting opinions are welcome on this board. This kind of post that only slams other posters is not. If I (or any other mod) see you do this one more time, you are history on this forum. I've seen too many of this type of post from you and I will not have it any more.

 

Not to nit pick, but could you please apply this standard to both points of view. I've seen far worse in other threads today. :D

[Guest]

Jon, Ceta sounds more talented than I expected for Walker.

 

His DSL numbers, 83K/29BB/38H/60IP at age 18 were very, very good.

 

And the reports on his rookie league numbers are also interesting. Overall at 5.09 in 23 IP, but the reports suggested 2.00 in his last 18 IP. So that means he gave up 9 runs during his first five innings in the U.S., but since then has pitched 18 IP with 4 earned runs and only 13 hits, and presumably a bundle of K's. That sounds perfectly fine to me.

 

Thanks for your research. The minorleaguebaseball.com has him at 6'4", 205, which seems long, lean, and projectible. If the Peoria roster has him listed at 240, I'd tend to believe that. mlb stuff routinely lists guys according to what they were when they signed. Usually, if there is a discrepancy and to the high side, wouldn't it be best to assume the guy has subsequently added weight?

 

Anybody who is 240 pounds at age 19, you've gotta think that's a lot of bad weight and isn't likely to be all muscle. Perhaps a young Sidney Ponson, and perhaps that factored into SD's willingness to deal him?

 

Still, guys who throw mid 90's and have been clocked as high as 99, guys like that have a chance.

 

Sooner or later, maybe it will be the Cubs turn to get lucky with one of these kind of deals.

Careful, that post was chock full of stats and intelligent analysis. You are making it rather difficult for people to have unbalanced opinions towards only the negative.

Good lord! Contrasting opinions are welcome on this board. This kind of post that only slams other posters is not. If I (or any other mod) see you do this one more time, you are history on this forum. I've seen too many of this type of post from you and I will not have it any more.

 

Not to nit pick, but could you please apply this standard to both points of view. I've seen far worse in other threads today. :D

I'm starting in on those, too. But CW has a very long history of this exact type of post.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

meh

 

Yep. I might've held out for the draft pick, but it's not a big difference.

[CubsWin]

Jon, Ceta sounds more talented than I expected for Walker.

 

His DSL numbers, 83K/29BB/38H/60IP at age 18 were very, very good.

 

And the reports on his rookie league numbers are also interesting. Overall at 5.09 in 23 IP, but the reports suggested 2.00 in his last 18 IP. So that means he gave up 9 runs during his first five innings in the U.S., but since then has pitched 18 IP with 4 earned runs and only 13 hits, and presumably a bundle of K's. That sounds perfectly fine to me.

 

Thanks for your research. The minorleaguebaseball.com has him at 6'4", 205, which seems long, lean, and projectible. If the Peoria roster has him listed at 240, I'd tend to believe that. mlb stuff routinely lists guys according to what they were when they signed. Usually, if there is a discrepancy and to the high side, wouldn't it be best to assume the guy has subsequently added weight?

 

Anybody who is 240 pounds at age 19, you've gotta think that's a lot of bad weight and isn't likely to be all muscle. Perhaps a young Sidney Ponson, and perhaps that factored into SD's willingness to deal him?

 

Still, guys who throw mid 90's and have been clocked as high as 99, guys like that have a chance.

 

Sooner or later, maybe it will be the Cubs turn to get lucky with one of these kind of deals.

Careful, that post was chock full of stats and intelligent analysis. You are making it rather difficult for people to have unbalanced opinions towards only the negative.

Good lord! Contrasting opinions are welcome on this board. This kind of post that only slams other posters is not. If I (or any other mod) see you do this one more time, you are history on this forum. I've seen too many of this type of post from you and I will not have it any more.

I'm all for contrasting opinions. I've never written to anyone to stop writing what they are writing, like you have just done to me. I'm also all for opinions that are based in something other than someone's cynicism. I'm also for posts that have a bit more thought and analysis put into them and consider both sides and have a little bit of balance. If you're not, fine, its your board.

 

Today has seen a lot of hatred-filled, purely cynical posts when the evidence suggests that these trades are not that bad. I dare to point that out and am threatened with removal. First, its Neifi will be the everyday 2B through 2007. Then, when that turns out to be wrong, its Hendry got terrible value in return for Maddux and that it is guaranteed that Izturis and Cedeno will be the middle infielders for the forseeable future. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Hendry is an absolute idiot and this is the line-up the Cubs will have for the next 2 years and those that stop to consider any other options are met with ridicule. Pure cynicism. Not baseless, but also not at all balanced. So its okay to ridicule someone who dares to present evidence on the positive side, but not to ridicule those who present only the negative?

 

People get pounded, and I mean attacked, on this board for daring to present evidence that shows the positive. Ridicule upon ridicule for daring to state an accurate statistic that counters the most negative, lobsided and cynical viewpoints.

 

I've never seen you or any other moderator, if you want to call them that, come to that person's defense. So, I feel I have to. I guess this means I'm out. Its your board. Its a shame. Lots of good information can be found here. Lots of great people too.

[goonys evil twin]

I'm all for contrasting opinions. I've never written to anyone to stop writing what they are writing, like you have just done to me. I'm also all for opinions that are based in something other than someone's cynicism. I'm also for posts that have a bit more thought and analysis put into them and consider both sides and have a little bit of balance. If you're not, fine, its your board.

 

Today has seen a lot of hatred-filled, purely cynical posts when the evidence suggests that these trades are not that bad. I dare to point that out and am threatened with removal. First, its Neifi will be the everyday 2B through 2007. Then, when that turns out to be wrong, its Hendry got terrible value in return for Maddux and that it is guaranteed that Izturis and Cedeno will be the middle infielders for the forseeable future. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Hendry is an absolute idiot and this is the line-up the Cubs will have for the next 2 years and those that stop to consider any other options are met with ridicule. Pure cynicism. Not baseless, but also not at all balanced. So its okay to ridicule someone who dares to present evidence on the positive side, but not to ridicule those who present only the negative?

 

People get pounded, and I mean attacked, on this board for daring to present evidence that shows the positive. Ridicule upon ridicule for daring to state an accurate statistic that counters the most negative, lobsided and cynical viewpoints.

 

I've never seen you or any other moderator, if you want to call them that, come to that person's defense. So, I feel I have to. I guess this means I'm out. Its your board. Its a shame. Lots of good information can be found here. Lots of great people too.

 

I think it's very cynical of you to read what people have written about these deals and think they are nothing by cynical. You are suggesting that we are incapable of seeing a good move and being happy about it. I take offense to that.

 

I know crappy baseball when I see it. And that's all I've seen for 2 years. Hendry has given us nothing to offset the negativity that he has created. That's right, we didn't create the negativity, he did. Do you think I like hating the Cubs? Well, I don't. I wish there was something to be positive about, but when you take an objective look at the Cubs situation, and factor in these moves, there simply isn't any. Sure, maybe some day in the future they will rectify all the mistakes and make a series of stunningly brilliant transactions that lead to glory. But nothing in Jim Hendry's past suggests that is possible.

[Guest]

Jon, Ceta sounds more talented than I expected for Walker.

 

His DSL numbers, 83K/29BB/38H/60IP at age 18 were very, very good.

 

And the reports on his rookie league numbers are also interesting. Overall at 5.09 in 23 IP, but the reports suggested 2.00 in his last 18 IP. So that means he gave up 9 runs during his first five innings in the U.S., but since then has pitched 18 IP with 4 earned runs and only 13 hits, and presumably a bundle of K's. That sounds perfectly fine to me.

 

Thanks for your research. The minorleaguebaseball.com has him at 6'4", 205, which seems long, lean, and projectible. If the Peoria roster has him listed at 240, I'd tend to believe that. mlb stuff routinely lists guys according to what they were when they signed. Usually, if there is a discrepancy and to the high side, wouldn't it be best to assume the guy has subsequently added weight?

 

Anybody who is 240 pounds at age 19, you've gotta think that's a lot of bad weight and isn't likely to be all muscle. Perhaps a young Sidney Ponson, and perhaps that factored into SD's willingness to deal him?

 

Still, guys who throw mid 90's and have been clocked as high as 99, guys like that have a chance.

 

Sooner or later, maybe it will be the Cubs turn to get lucky with one of these kind of deals.

Careful, that post was chock full of stats and intelligent analysis. You are making it rather difficult for people to have unbalanced opinions towards only the negative.

Good lord! Contrasting opinions are welcome on this board. This kind of post that only slams other posters is not. If I (or any other mod) see you do this one more time, you are history on this forum. I've seen too many of this type of post from you and I will not have it any more.

I'm all for contrasting opinions. I've never written to anyone to stop writing what they are writing, like you have just done to me. I'm also all for opinions that are based in something other than someone's cynicism. I'm also for posts that have a bit more thought and analysis put into them and consider both sides and have a little bit of balance. If you're not, fine, its your board.

Where did I ask you to not offer a baseball opinion in my post? I asked you to stop slamming other posters. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Today has seen a lot of hatred-filled, purely cynical posts when the evidence suggests that these trades are not that bad. I dare to point that out and am threatened with removal. First, its Neifi will be the everyday 2B through 2007. Then, when that turns out to be wrong, its Hendry got terrible value in return for Maddux and that it is guaranteed that Izturis and Cedeno will be the middle infielders for the forseeable future. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Hendry is an absolute idiot and this is the line-up the Cubs will have for the next 2 years and those that stop to consider any other options are met with ridicule. Pure cynicism. Not baseless, but also not at all balanced. So its okay to ridicule someone who dares to present evidence on the positive side, but not to ridicule those who present only the negative?

There have been people out of line on both sides (positive and negative). I've handled most of these cases privately. I handled yours publicly because of your history of exactly this type of post and because I want to discourage others from adopting this style. Many of the posts in this thread were overly cynical. But you act as if the people being cynical have presented nothing to back up their opinions and that the people who are positive about the trades are saints. This is not the case. Also, since when does the poor behavior of others excuse bad behavior on your part?

 

People get pounded, and I mean attacked, on this board for daring to present evidence that shows the positive. Ridicule upon ridicule for daring to state an accurate statistic that counters the most negative, lobsided and cynical viewpoints.

When they get pounded with personal insults, the mods and I step in. When their arugments get attacked, we let it go. There's a huge difference there. You are attacking the posters, not the arguments with posts like the one you made above.

 

I've never seen you or any other moderator, if you want to call them that, come to that person's defense. So, I feel I have to. I guess this means I'm out. Its your board. Its a shame. Lots of good information can be found here. Lots of great people too.

You don't have to be out. Just stop attacking others and you'll be welcome here as long as you'd like to contribute to the community.

 

If you have a problem with a poster attacking someone and you don't see a mod taking action, PM your favorite mod. If the mod doesn't respond, PM 1908 or myself. That's the proper way to do things.

[CubsWin]

I'm all for contrasting opinions. I've never written to anyone to stop writing what they are writing, like you have just done to me. I'm also all for opinions that are based in something other than someone's cynicism. I'm also for posts that have a bit more thought and analysis put into them and consider both sides and have a little bit of balance. If you're not, fine, its your board.

 

Today has seen a lot of hatred-filled, purely cynical posts when the evidence suggests that these trades are not that bad. I dare to point that out and am threatened with removal. First, its Neifi will be the everyday 2B through 2007. Then, when that turns out to be wrong, its Hendry got terrible value in return for Maddux and that it is guaranteed that Izturis and Cedeno will be the middle infielders for the forseeable future. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Hendry is an absolute idiot and this is the line-up the Cubs will have for the next 2 years and those that stop to consider any other options are met with ridicule. Pure cynicism. Not baseless, but also not at all balanced. So its okay to ridicule someone who dares to present evidence on the positive side, but not to ridicule those who present only the negative?

 

People get pounded, and I mean attacked, on this board for daring to present evidence that shows the positive. Ridicule upon ridicule for daring to state an accurate statistic that counters the most negative, lobsided and cynical viewpoints.

 

I've never seen you or any other moderator, if you want to call them that, come to that person's defense. So, I feel I have to. I guess this means I'm out. Its your board. Its a shame. Lots of good information can be found here. Lots of great people too.

 

I think it's very cynical of you to read what people have written about these deals and think they are nothing by cynical. You are suggesting that we are incapable of seeing a good move and being happy about it. I take offense to that.

There have been some excellent points made that show these moves that Hendry has made today will not turn around anything. I agree with those points. There are many negatives to this season and the season before and some of the moves Hendry has made and has not made but should have. I agree wholeheartedly and always have.

 

But nothing in Jim Hendry's past suggests that is possible.

But it is unbalanced statements like this one that I tend to challenge and I am often met with nothing but ridicule when I do. Wouldn't one have to ignore all of the good moves that Hendry has made in order to stand by such a statement?

[CubsWin]

Where did I ask you to not offer a baseball opinion in my post? I asked you to stop slamming other posters. Nothing more, nothing less.

I did offer a baseball opinion. I said craig's baseball analysis was solid and that it would make it difficult for those who have a solely negative opinion of this trade to continue to have such an opinion. I fail to see the slam. For me, a slam is when someone ridicules someone else for making a post. I've been ridiculed for stating an accurate statistic that flew in the face of someone else's negative opinion. I mean these were contentless retorts that simply sought to ridicule me, the poster. No mod posted anything. What I am doing doesn't come close to what I received. I feel as if I am attacking the cynical and negatively unbalanced posts and opinions. I never write anything personal about those who write them nor do I ridicule them for having them. But I do challenge the lack of balance in a person's opinion when I perceive it. Should I not? If so, just let me know. You set the rules. I just want to know.

 

Also, since when does the poor behavior of others excuse bad behavior on your part?

It doesn't. But when others do it, you feel like you can to.

 

You are attacking the posters, not the arguments with posts like the one you made above.

How so? I'm characterizing their statements like "Neifi will be the everyday 2B through 2007" or "this was a brutal trade and Hendry should shove it" as cynical and difficult to support. Perhaps I shouldn't have said it will be difficult for "people to post opinions that are..." maybe I should have instead said "you are making it difficult for negative opinions about this trade to hold water..." or something like that. Is that what you are talking about?

 

You don't have to be out. Just stop attacking others and you'll be welcome here as long as you'd like to contribute to the community.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I know that I am only allowed to post here because you have gone through the trouble of setting this up and maintaining it and that you have every right to kick anyone out that you darn well please.

 

But I could use some more help on how I have been attacking people on this board. I'm a little confused now.

[goonys evil twin]

But nothing in Jim Hendry's past suggests that is possible.

But it is unbalanced statements like this one that I tend to challenge and I am often met with nothing but ridicule when I do. Wouldn't one have to ignore all of the good moves that Hendry has made in order to stand by such a statement?

 

All the good moves? This team is about 30 under .500 the past two seasons. Where are all these good moves? Nothing in his past suggests he will make all the right moves to turn this team around. It's not going to be one move that makes it work. I'm not saying all his moves will be bad. I'm saying that all odds are that when all is said and done, the entirety of his work will result in failure, as usual.

[CubsWin]

But nothing in Jim Hendry's past suggests that is possible.

But it is unbalanced statements like this one that I tend to challenge and I am often met with nothing but ridicule when I do. Wouldn't one have to ignore all of the good moves that Hendry has made in order to stand by such a statement?

 

All the good moves? This team is about 30 under .500 the past two seasons. Where are all these good moves? Nothing in his past suggests he will make all the right moves to turn this team around. It's not going to be one move that makes it work. I'm not saying all his moves will be bad. I'm saying that all odds are that when all is said and done, the entirety of his work will result in failure, as usual.

Very true. When failure is anything but winning the World Series and when there are 30 teams in the major leagues, then yes, the odds are that his work will result in failure.

 

The point is Hendry has made some good trades and some good FA signings and some bad trades and some bad FA signings. He has also not done what was necessary (overpay) to get the job done on some of the ones that got away.

 

If what you are saying is that the odds are against him. I agree. That is true of almost every GM, if not every one. If what you are saying is that he will most assuredly fail because of who he is and what he is capable of, then I would disagree. Your "nothing in Jim Hendry's past" statement earlier seemed to suggest that you think he isn't capable of bringing this team to the World Series. You might be right. In fact, given the odds, you probably are right that he will not be able to get the Cubs in a WS.

 

More on point to today's trades, these would have to be considered something for nothing trades. It seems he did pretty well in that regard. Is there more work to be done? Certainly. Can he do it? Yes. Will he? Maybe not. I think it is certainly valid to think that he won't. It isn't valid to believe that he definitely won't because he is incapable.

[CubsWin]

But nothing in Jim Hendry's past suggests that is possible.

But it is unbalanced statements like this one that I tend to challenge and I am often met with nothing but ridicule when I do. Wouldn't one have to ignore all of the good moves that Hendry has made in order to stand by such a statement?

 

All the good moves? This team is about 30 under .500 the past two seasons. Where are all these good moves?

I don't really have to list them for you, do I? I think you know what the good moves he has made have been. But we are in agreement that it certainly hasn't been enough the past two seasons.