Some optimism about 2007.

[goonys evil twin]

 

No, in 2005 is when people started to question Hendry. In 2003-04 he was considered gold from everything I read.

 

Does this sound like I thought he was a genius until a couple of months ago. You pick and choose what you want to believe instead of actually reading what I said...

 

If that's true, you didn't read much but cubs.com headlines then. Hendry has been questioned throughout. You never read anybody question the Baker hiring? His infatuation with tools? His ignorance of patience/walks/OBP? His insistence on overpaying for mediocrity and garbage?

 

I said Generally as said here:

 

But generally the public and print media was overally positive about hendry.

 

And once again here:

 

Well of couse there is always going to be negative posters about anything no matter how postive things are going! The point I was making is the majority of people and media were overly postive about Hendry.

 

You're talking about "gold from everything I read" and generally overly positive by the majority. Those are two very different things. Hendry was generally considered a good GM, but never gold from a national standpoint. He's had his doubters from day one, and many of the people who were accused of just being negative even though things were "going positive" have been proven right in their criticisms.

[C.C.]

You're talking about "gold from everything I read" and generally overly positive by the majority. Those are two very different things. Hendry was generally considered a good GM, but never gold from a national standpoint. He's had his doubters from day one, and many of the people who were accused of just being negative even though things were "going positive" have been proven right in their criticisms.

 

And I disagree with you...I think in 2003-04 he was highly respected from a National standpoint and completly gold in the City of Chicago, in turning around this org. and getting 5 outs from a World Series. If you saw it different then you saw it different. What can I say?

[forbez18]

I have to agree with cubbiechris there was a big fan base for Hendry and if they would have won there would be no discussion right now as if he was considered a genious if you can get the Cubs there. You have to admit that was the closest we have all pretty much seen.

[Caryatid]

 

No, in 2005 is when people started to question Hendry. In 2003-04 he was considered gold from everything I read.

 

Does this sound like I thought he was a genius until a couple of months ago. You pick and choose what you want to believe instead of actually reading what I said...

 

If that's true, you didn't read much but cubs.com headlines then. Hendry has been questioned throughout. You never read anybody question the Baker hiring? His infatuation with tools? His ignorance of patience/walks/OBP? His insistence on overpaying for mediocrity and garbage?

 

I said Generally as said here:

 

But generally the public and print media was overally positive about hendry.

 

And once again here:

 

Well of couse there is always going to be negative posters about anything no matter how postive things are going! The point I was making is the majority of people and media were overly postive about Hendry.

 

You're talking about "gold from everything I read" and generally overly positive by the majority. Those are two very different things. Hendry was generally considered a good GM, but never gold from a national standpoint. He's had his doubters from day one, and many of the people who were accused of just being negative even though things were "going positive" have been proven right in their criticisms.

 

The point was that Hendry was considered by the majority of national baseball people to be a solid up and coming GM in 2004. Regardless of whether they were right or not, that was conventional logic. Of course there were detractors-every GM has detractors, most of them have scores of detractors (even Billy Beane!), especially on message boards that are populated with boatloads of people that have a 180 degree different philosophy from that GM.

 

That was the point that was being argued, regardless of what everyone thinks about what Hendry DID, this has nothing to do with what he did. This has to do with the perception of the guy by the general baseball population-no matter whether or not we agree with that perception. And the general population felt he was very good.

 

Now rather than further hijack one of the few positive threads posted here, I'm going to leave this aspect of the conversation alone.

Edited August 15, 2006 by Caryatid

[goonys evil twin]

I have to agree with cubbiechris there was a big fan base for Hendry and if they would have won there would be no discussion right now as if he was considered a genious if you can get the Cubs there. You have to admit that was the closest we have all pretty much seen.

 

That what if scenario ended in October 2003. People are claiming he was considered gold from 2003-2005. That what if scenario doesn't matter.

[C.C.]

I have to agree with cubbiechris there was a big fan base for Hendry and if they would have won there would be no discussion right now as if he was considered a genious if you can get the Cubs there. You have to admit that was the closest we have all pretty much seen.

 

That what if scenario ended in October 2003. People are claiming he was considered gold from 2003-2005. That what if scenario doesn't matter.

 

And some people did feel that. I think he got a free pass even in 2005. I soured on him at the end of 2004 and by the end of 2005, I was full blown get rid of him mode.

[baseball7897]

I think Hendry did a excellent job in 03-04. Picked up Lee, Ramirez, Barrett, for nothing basically. He added Maddux, he traded for Nomar.

 

Baker raised the expectations when he signed with the Cubs. He was the best named manager out there, and Hendry got him.

 

That being said, Hendry has done very little since then. He spent the whole 04 off-season trying to deal Sosa. That could be a reason he didnt do much. This is a very important off-season for Hendry. If he dosent get this team back into contention, he could be done as Cub GM.

[David]

I think Hendry did a excellent job in 03-04. Picked up Lee, Ramirez, Barrett, for nothing basically. He added Maddux, he traded for Nomar.

 

Baker raised the expectations when he signed with the Cubs. He was the best named manager out there, and Hendry got him.

 

That being said, Hendry has done very little since then. He spent the whole 04 off-season trying to deal Sosa. That could be a reason he didnt do much. This is a very important off-season for Hendry. If he dosent get this team back into contention, he could be done as Cub GM.

 

Ugh, imagine if we had gotten Beltran that offseason...

 

I still remember (during the 04-05 offseason) having hopes of..

 

Walker, Beltran, Nomar, Ramirez, Lee, Sosa, Barrett, Patterson

 

w/Wood, Prior, Zambrano, Maddux, and ??

 

Instead, we spent the whole offseason trading Sosa and picked up Hairston and Burnitz...

 

:x

Edited August 15, 2006 by David

[forbez18]

very well said

[C.C.]

I think Hendry did a excellent job in 03-04. Picked up Lee, Ramirez, Barrett, for nothing basically. He added Maddux, he traded for Nomar.

 

Baker raised the expectations when he signed with the Cubs. He was the best named manager out there, and Hendry got him.

 

That being said, Hendry has done very little since then. He spent the whole 04 off-season trying to deal Sosa. That could be a reason he didnt do much. This is a very important off-season for Hendry. If he dosent get this team back into contention, he could be done as Cub GM.

 

Ugh, imagine if we had gotten Beltran that offseason...

 

I still remember (during the 04-05 offseason) having hopes of..

 

Walker, Beltran, Nomar, Ramirez, Lee, Sosa, Barrett, Patterson

 

w/Wood, Prior, Zambrano, Maddux, and ??

 

Instead, we spent the whole offseason trading Sosa and picked up Hairston and Burnitz...

 

:x

 

I don't think not getting Beltran was Hendry's fault. I think the TRIB pocket books and the Cubs payroll had something to do with that. No one was outbidding the Mets for Beltran that year...BTW - Imagine if we had Pudge in 2003?

[baseball7897]

I think Hendry did a excellent job in 03-04. Picked up Lee, Ramirez, Barrett, for nothing basically. He added Maddux, he traded for Nomar.

 

Baker raised the expectations when he signed with the Cubs. He was the best named manager out there, and Hendry got him.

 

That being said, Hendry has done very little since then. He spent the whole 04 off-season trying to deal Sosa. That could be a reason he didnt do much. This is a very important off-season for Hendry. If he dosent get this team back into contention, he could be done as Cub GM.

 

Ugh, imagine if we had gotten Beltran that offseason...

 

I still remember (during the 04-05 offseason) having hopes of..

 

Walker, Beltran, Nomar, Ramirez, Lee, Sosa, Barrett, Patterson

 

w/Wood, Prior, Zambrano, Maddux, and ??

 

Instead, we spent the whole offseason trading Sosa and picked up Hairston and Burnitz...

 

:x

 

I don't think not getting Beltran was Hendry's fault. I think the TRIB pocket books and the Cubs payroll had something to do with that. No one was outbidding the Mets for Beltran that year...BTW - Imagine if we had Pudge in 2003?

 

Exactly.

 

I hate hearing Cub fans complain about not getting Beltran. The Cubs were not going to out bid the Mets for him.

[David]

If Hendry had not wasted 9 mil/year signing Maddux (that was a terrible contract), there would've been more than enough money to sign Beltran, even taking into account whatever payroll restrictions there may or may not have been.

 

I still think Beltran would've taken a bit less if he didn't have to go to NY. It was widely believed that Beltran wanted nothing to do with NY (be it the Yanks or Mets); of course, when you get offered that kind of money, there's not much of a choice. I could be wrong.

[baseball7897]

If Hendry had not wasted 9 mil/year signing Maddux (that was a terrible contract), there would've been more than enough money to sign Beltran, even taking into account whatever payroll restrictions there may or may not have been.

 

I still think Beltran would've taken a bit less if he didn't have to go to NY. It was widely believed that Beltran wanted nothing to do with NY (be it the Yanks or Mets); of course, when you get offered that kind of money, there's not much of a choice. I could be wrong.

 

In 2004, the Cubs had the best chance of winning. When Hendry signed Maddux the chances increased even more.

[C.C.]

If Hendry had not wasted 9 mil/year signing Maddux (that was a terrible contract), there would've been more than enough money to sign Beltran, even taking into account whatever payroll restrictions there may or may not have been.

 

I still think Beltran would've taken a bit less if he didn't have to go to NY. It was widely believed that Beltran wanted nothing to do with NY (be it the Yanks or Mets); of course, when you get offered that kind of money, there's not much of a choice. I could be wrong.

 

I'm not sure about that because Houston was pretty close to the Mets in money and years and Houston doesn't even have state taxes...And yet he still went to the Mets.

 

It would've taken more then 9 million a year to sign Beltran, and Maddux was signed after Beltran signed. So signing Maddux has nothing to do with not signing Beltran. The Cubs made a fair offer to Beltran but Mets offered more...17 million a year for Beltran is a lot of money...

Edited August 15, 2006 by C.C.

[USSoccer]

If Hendry had not wasted 9 mil/year signing Maddux (that was a terrible contract), there would've been more than enough money to sign Beltran, even taking into account whatever payroll restrictions there may or may not have been.

 

I still think Beltran would've taken a bit less if he didn't have to go to NY. It was widely believed that Beltran wanted nothing to do with NY (be it the Yanks or Mets); of course, when you get offered that kind of money, there's not much of a choice. I could be wrong.

 

In 2004, the Cubs had the best chance of winning. When Hendry signed Maddux the chances increased even more.

 

Disagree. The 2004 Cubs with Beltran and Cruz/Rusch (2004)/Mitre are a better team that the 2004 Cubs with Maddux and Patterson.

[baseball7897]

If Hendry had not wasted 9 mil/year signing Maddux (that was a terrible contract), there would've been more than enough money to sign Beltran, even taking into account whatever payroll restrictions there may or may not have been.

 

I still think Beltran would've taken a bit less if he didn't have to go to NY. It was widely believed that Beltran wanted nothing to do with NY (be it the Yanks or Mets); of course, when you get offered that kind of money, there's not much of a choice. I could be wrong.

 

In 2004, the Cubs had the best chance of winning. When Hendry signed Maddux the chances increased even more.

 

Disagree. The 2004 Cubs with Beltran and Cruz/Rusch (2004)/Mitre are a better team that the 2004 Cubs with Maddux and Patterson.

 

Beltran wasnt a FA untill after the 04 season.

[CubColtPacer]

If Hendry had not wasted 9 mil/year signing Maddux (that was a terrible contract), there would've been more than enough money to sign Beltran, even taking into account whatever payroll restrictions there may or may not have been.

 

I still think Beltran would've taken a bit less if he didn't have to go to NY. It was widely believed that Beltran wanted nothing to do with NY (be it the Yanks or Mets); of course, when you get offered that kind of money, there's not much of a choice. I could be wrong.

 

In 2004, the Cubs had the best chance of winning. When Hendry signed Maddux the chances increased even more.

 

Disagree. The 2004 Cubs with Beltran and Cruz/Rusch (2004)/Mitre are a better team that the 2004 Cubs with Maddux and Patterson.

 

The only way to get Beltran in 2004 was a trade. Maddux and Beltran were not choices up against each other. Maddux was signed after the 03 season, and Beltran was traded to Houston in June of 04 and became a free agent after the 04 season. We had no idea that a player like Beltran would automatically be available the next offseason (and of course Beltran hadn't completely broken out then either) when we signed Maddux before the 04 season.

[C.C.]

If Hendry had not wasted 9 mil/year signing Maddux (that was a terrible contract), there would've been more than enough money to sign Beltran, even taking into account whatever payroll restrictions there may or may not have been.

 

I still think Beltran would've taken a bit less if he didn't have to go to NY. It was widely believed that Beltran wanted nothing to do with NY (be it the Yanks or Mets); of course, when you get offered that kind of money, there's not much of a choice. I could be wrong.

 

In 2004, the Cubs had the best chance of winning. When Hendry signed Maddux the chances increased even more.

 

Disagree. The 2004 Cubs with Beltran and Cruz/Rusch (2004)/Mitre are a better team that the 2004 Cubs with Maddux and Patterson.

 

The only way to get Beltran in 2004 was a trade. Maddux and Beltran were not choices up against each other. Maddux was signed after the 03 season, and Beltran was traded to Houston in June of 04 and became a free agent after the 04 season. We had no idea that a player like Beltran would automatically be available the next offseason (and of course Beltran hadn't completely broken out then either) when we signed Maddux before the 04 season.

 

And again 17 million a year for Beltran is alot and I mean alot of money!

[David]

If Hendry had not wasted 9 mil/year signing Maddux (that was a terrible contract), there would've been more than enough money to sign Beltran, even taking into account whatever payroll restrictions there may or may not have been.

 

I still think Beltran would've taken a bit less if he didn't have to go to NY. It was widely believed that Beltran wanted nothing to do with NY (be it the Yanks or Mets); of course, when you get offered that kind of money, there's not much of a choice. I could be wrong.

 

I'm not sure about that because Houston was pretty close to the Mets in money and years and Houston doesn't even have state taxes...And yet he still went to the Mets.

 

It would've taken more then 9 million a year to sign Beltran, and Maddux was signed after Beltran signed. So signing Maddux has nothing to do with not signing Beltran. The Cubs made a fair offer to Beltran but Mets offered more...17 million a year for Beltran is a lot of money...

 

Wrong. And nobody is saying that Beltran would've signed for 9 million. But the 9 million could easily have been used to up our "offer," which, IIRC, was reported to be in the 5 year 12-13 per range or something like that... (I'm a little hazy on the numbers)

[David]

If Hendry had not wasted 9 mil/year signing Maddux (that was a terrible contract), there would've been more than enough money to sign Beltran, even taking into account whatever payroll restrictions there may or may not have been.

 

I still think Beltran would've taken a bit less if he didn't have to go to NY. It was widely believed that Beltran wanted nothing to do with NY (be it the Yanks or Mets); of course, when you get offered that kind of money, there's not much of a choice. I could be wrong.

 

In 2004, the Cubs had the best chance of winning. When Hendry signed Maddux the chances increased even more.

 

Disagree. The 2004 Cubs with Beltran and Cruz/Rusch (2004)/Mitre are a better team that the 2004 Cubs with Maddux and Patterson.

 

The only way to get Beltran in 2004 was a trade. Maddux and Beltran were not choices up against each other. Maddux was signed after the 03 season, and Beltran was traded to Houston in June of 04 and became a free agent after the 04 season. We had no idea that a player like Beltran would automatically be available the next offseason (and of course Beltran hadn't completely broken out then either) when we signed Maddux before the 04 season.

 

And again 17 million a year for Beltran is alot and I mean alot of money!

 

Sosa was in that vicinity, and Beltran would've been our new superstar talent. They only would've had to have swallowed one year of both contracts.

[David]

We had no idea that a player like Beltran would automatically be available the next offseason (and of course Beltran hadn't completely broken out then either) when we signed Maddux before the 04 season.

 

This isn't exactly true. Beltran was already being hyped (sort of the way ARod was) as the big free agent of the class well before the 2004 season started.

[C.C.]

If Hendry had not wasted 9 mil/year signing Maddux (that was a terrible contract), there would've been more than enough money to sign Beltran, even taking into account whatever payroll restrictions there may or may not have been.

 

I still think Beltran would've taken a bit less if he didn't have to go to NY. It was widely believed that Beltran wanted nothing to do with NY (be it the Yanks or Mets); of course, when you get offered that kind of money, there's not much of a choice. I could be wrong.

 

I'm not sure about that because Houston was pretty close to the Mets in money and years and Houston doesn't even have state taxes...And yet he still went to the Mets.

 

It would've taken more then 9 million a year to sign Beltran, and Maddux was signed after Beltran signed. So signing Maddux has nothing to do with not signing Beltran. The Cubs made a fair offer to Beltran but Mets offered more...17 million a year for Beltran is a lot of money...

 

Wrong. And nobody is saying that Beltran would've signed for 9 million. But the 9 million could easily have been used to up our "offer," which, IIRC, was reported to be in the 5 year 12-13 per range or something like that... (I'm a little hazy on the numbers)

 

I actually forgot that Beltran signed after 2004 so never mind. I had a brain fart there...5 years 12-13 is a far cry from 7\119 million. That's a huge difference and honestly the Cubs gave him a very fair offer...I have no problem with this at all.

[C.C.]

We had no idea that a player like Beltran would automatically be available the next offseason (and of course Beltran hadn't completely broken out then either) when we signed Maddux before the 04 season.

 

This isn't exactly true. Beltran was already being hyped (sort of the way ARod was) as the big free agent of the class well before the 2004 season started.

 

No, no, no...Beltran might of been "Hyped" as much as AROD but no where near the talent.

[BigbadB]

2003 was the year Hendry could have gone after Vlady.

 

Moises could have been shipped to San Fran to play with daddy for peanuts. Sosa to left field and Vlady in RF. Maybe Moises to San Fran for Ray Durham?

[C.C.]

If Hendry had not wasted 9 mil/year signing Maddux (that was a terrible contract), there would've been more than enough money to sign Beltran, even taking into account whatever payroll restrictions there may or may not have been.

 

I still think Beltran would've taken a bit less if he didn't have to go to NY. It was widely believed that Beltran wanted nothing to do with NY (be it the Yanks or Mets); of course, when you get offered that kind of money, there's not much of a choice. I could be wrong.

 

In 2004, the Cubs had the best chance of winning. When Hendry signed Maddux the chances increased even more.

 

Disagree. The 2004 Cubs with Beltran and Cruz/Rusch (2004)/Mitre are a better team that the 2004 Cubs with Maddux and Patterson.

 

The only way to get Beltran in 2004 was a trade. Maddux and Beltran were not choices up against each other. Maddux was signed after the 03 season, and Beltran was traded to Houston in June of 04 and became a free agent after the 04 season. We had no idea that a player like Beltran would automatically be available the next offseason (and of course Beltran hadn't completely broken out then either) when we signed Maddux before the 04 season.

 

And again 17 million a year for Beltran is alot and I mean alot of money!

 

Sosa was in that vicinity, and Beltran would've been our new superstar talent. They only would've had to have swallowed one year of both contracts.

 

Yeah, but Sosa put up the numbers and Beltran hadn't yet...And quite frankly still hasn't.