Hendry on WGN

[YearofDaCubs]

For the record on Pie's 2006 performance, I'm:

 

1) satisfied with the numbers he put up in AAA as a 21 year old.

2) happy he made adjustments during the year to finish stronger than he started

3) disappointed he didn't explode in a hitter's league and put up a .900+ OPS

 

He didn't do anything to hurt his prospect status this year. But he didn't do anything to enhance it, either.

I agree with you there. It wouldn't be bad to see him at AAA again next year for at least a couple of months, but I'm not so hot on Pierre being here for a 3 year deal either.

[goonys evil twin]

Now, there's nothing to say you couldn't lift him after the 4th inning every game and let Pie finish things up. But that would really be an insulting thing to do in the eyes of most people inside baseball.

 

Letting a crappy player play every day is quite insulting to the fans.

The Cubs and most baseball people do not look at Pierre that way, though.

 

Their lack of knowledge about Pierre's crappiness is insulting to me. :D

[Guest]

Now, there's nothing to say you couldn't lift him after the 4th inning every game and let Pie finish things up. But that would really be an insulting thing to do in the eyes of most people inside baseball.

 

Letting a crappy player play every day is quite insulting to the fans.

The Cubs and most baseball people do not look at Pierre that way, though.

 

Their lack of knowledge about Pierre's crappiness is insulting to me. :D

Yeah, that's something I'll agree with.

[YearofDaCubs]

I have to say the biggest knock on Pierre has to be his pathetic throwing arm. How many times have we seen slow players move from 1st to 2nd and a flyout? That is completely unacceptable. Furthermore, over the weekend his throw from shallow field couldn't even make it to the pitcher. That is just bad.

[Guest]

I disagree with you here goony - how can a prospect improving his performance at a higher level not be a good thing? not only did his numbers get better, his indicators got better (k/bb). Sure, I would have loved to see Pie do better, but I am not disappointed.

 

I wouldn't care if he never plays - call him up and let him hang out. Am I mistaken in thinking this would not impact his arbitration clock?

[Guest]

I disagree with you here goony - how can a prospect improving his performance at a higher level not be a good thing? not only did his numbers get better, his indicators got better (k/bb). Sure, I would have loved to see Pie do better, but I am not disappointed.

 

I wouldn't care if he never plays - call him up and let him hang out. Am I mistaken in thinking this would not impact his arbitration clock?

It doesn't impact his arbitration clock, but does impact his free agency clock.

[goonys evil twin]

I disagree with you here goony - how can a prospect improving his performance at a higher level not be a good thing?

 

I find it odd that you disagree with something I never said.

 

I said I wish he did better. I never said it was a bad thing that his numbers improved, I said it was nice that he came along as the season went along. He had a good April, a piss poor May and June, an okay July and a very good August. It's good that the piss poor May and June didn't carry over for the rest of the year.

 

But he didn't do anything spectaculiar.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

They did win, 89 games. 1 more than the season before. It was a nominal improvement. When I speak of building teams that should win, I'm talking about building teams that should win 95-100 games. Teams that should be near locks for the playoffs, or extremely close to a lock. Not a team that might skate by if things fall the right way (like the 2003 did).

 

But that was a team that should have won 95 games.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Thats my point. Why take a shot at your top prospect in the Media?

 

Handle these things behind close doors.

 

 

 

as for Pie expectations...I really think you have to divide his season in half to see his potential. He might have been sligthly overwhelmed the first half but really put it together the 2nd half. I wish he didn't K as much, but he seems like a kid who wants to improve so I think he will start off Iowa next season on a fast track.

 

I'm not a big fan of disregarding prolonged periods of poor performance and selectively viewing a player's best numbers. We already knew his potential was huge. He showed us that last year, with a shortened season of success. But snapshots and splits are a dangerous way to rate a player. Sure, it's nice that he came on big late. But the fact is his 2006 rate stats weren't that impressive. I wish he did better. He is still an enormous question mark as a prospect, with a very wide range of possible career paths.

 

At the same time, especially when it's at AAA and you are looking for development, you can't ignore the strides Pie made during the year. It's pretty clear that he's made an adjustment there and at this point is showing that he's better than an .800 OPS guy there.

[Outshined_One]

I'm still a bit skeptic of Pie's numbers. He put up good overall numbers on their face, but his IsoD tells me he still has work to do on his plate discipline.

 

Remember, less Ks doesn't always entail better strike zone judgment.

[Andy]

 

They did win, 89 games. 1 more than the season before. It was a nominal improvement. When I speak of building teams that should win, I'm talking about building teams that should win 95-100 games. Teams that should be near locks for the playoffs, or extremely close to a lock. Not a team that might skate by if things fall the right way (like the 2003 did).

 

But that was a team that should have won 95 games.

And in fairness to Jim, we didn't know Wood and Prior were walking disasters yet going into 2004.

[YearofDaCubs]

 

They did win, 89 games. 1 more than the season before. It was a nominal improvement. When I speak of building teams that should win, I'm talking about building teams that should win 95-100 games. Teams that should be near locks for the playoffs, or extremely close to a lock. Not a team that might skate by if things fall the right way (like the 2003 did).

 

But that was a team that should have won 95 games.

And in fairness to Jim, we didn't know Wood and Prior were walking disasters yet going into 2004.

True, but maybe he should have done more than to count on them in 2005 and 2006 when a lot of people were saying it was too risky going forward with them without having a backup plan.

[goonys evil twin]

 

They did win, 89 games. 1 more than the season before. It was a nominal improvement. When I speak of building teams that should win, I'm talking about building teams that should win 95-100 games. Teams that should be near locks for the playoffs, or extremely close to a lock. Not a team that might skate by if things fall the right way (like the 2003 did).

 

But that was a team that should have won 95 games.

And in fairness to Jim, we didn't know Wood and Prior were walking disasters yet going into 2004.

True, but maybe he should have done more than to count on them in 2005 and 2006 when a lot of people were saying it was too risky going forward with them without having a backup plan.

 

Or maybe he should have directed the managers not to abuse the two young guys in 2002 and 2003 as much as they did.

[Sammy Sofa]

 

They did win, 89 games. 1 more than the season before. It was a nominal improvement. When I speak of building teams that should win, I'm talking about building teams that should win 95-100 games. Teams that should be near locks for the playoffs, or extremely close to a lock. Not a team that might skate by if things fall the right way (like the 2003 did).

 

But that was a team that should have won 95 games.

And in fairness to Jim, we didn't know Wood and Prior were walking disasters yet going into 2004.

 

Agreed, but it's not like those two alone are the reason for the 2004 collapse. You look at the team the Cubs had on paper at the end there and it still boggles my mind they didn't win up to 95 games. Everything just fell apart those last two weeks, and I'm still not even sure why.

[halplm]

 

They did win, 89 games. 1 more than the season before. It was a nominal improvement. When I speak of building teams that should win, I'm talking about building teams that should win 95-100 games. Teams that should be near locks for the playoffs, or extremely close to a lock. Not a team that might skate by if things fall the right way (like the 2003 did).

 

But that was a team that should have won 95 games.

And in fairness to Jim, we didn't know Wood and Prior were walking disasters yet going into 2004.

 

Agreed, but it's not like those two alone are the reason for the 2004 collapse. You look at the team the Cubs had on paper at the end there and it still boggles my mind they didn't win up to 95 games. Everything just fell apart those last two weeks, and I'm still not even sure why.

 

Two words: Dusty Baker

[Sammy Sofa]

That doesn't explain anything. What did he do or not do in those last two weeks that he did or didn't do the rest of the season and they still win 89 games?

[halplm]

It's the manager's responsability to get the team to function as they should during times of high stress. That team fell apart internally at the critical point. They didn't play like they had the rest of the year because Dusty failed at his PRIMARY job.

 

There's really no other explanation.

[YearofDaCubs]

 

They did win, 89 games. 1 more than the season before. It was a nominal improvement. When I speak of building teams that should win, I'm talking about building teams that should win 95-100 games. Teams that should be near locks for the playoffs, or extremely close to a lock. Not a team that might skate by if things fall the right way (like the 2003 did).

 

But that was a team that should have won 95 games.

And in fairness to Jim, we didn't know Wood and Prior were walking disasters yet going into 2004.

 

Agreed, but it's not like those two alone are the reason for the 2004 collapse. You look at the team the Cubs had on paper at the end there and it still boggles my mind they didn't win up to 95 games. Everything just fell apart those last two weeks, and I'm still not even sure why.

 

Two words: Dusty Baker

Let me add to this...IMO, we did not make the playoffs that year because we came in to the season with Borowski as our closer who got hurt. I blame Hendry for not trading for a relief pitcher when Borowski went down. He finally got the cajones to trade for a close during waivers and of course it didn't go through because it was blocked by other playoff hunt teams then. I also blame Baker for being the embecile that he is and kept leaving Hawkins as our closer when everybody knew he was not made for that role. Not once did Baker try Farnsworth or others in that role and his stubborness cost us the playoffs. Bottom line, Hendry and Baker were buffoons then and not much has changed since.

[RegulusBlue]

We want Murton to get more time

 

This is the only important part of this thread, and its great news. I'll take Pierre for the next few years, given that he is Juan Pierre at the beginning of next year and not Glendon the CF.

[goonys evil twin]

We want Murton to get more time

 

This is the only important part of this thread, and its great news. I'll take Pierre for the next few years, given that he is Juan Pierre at the beginning of next year and not Glendon the CF.

 

The problem is Juan Pierre isn't good. Don't be fooled into thinking hot streak Pierre is the real Pierre. The real Pierre is an unproductive defensive liability who runs into far too many outs. Also, Murton should have been getting more time a year ago. I don't give credit to a GM making the right decision a year late.

[C.C.]

It's the manager's responsability to get the team to function as they should during times of high stress. That team fell apart internally at the critical point. They didn't play like they had the rest of the year because Dusty failed at his PRIMARY job.

 

There's really no other explanation.

 

Espically when that above mentioned Manager is making 4 million a year...

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'm still a bit skeptic of Pie's numbers. He put up good overall numbers on their face, but his IsoD tells me he still has work to do on his plate discipline.

 

Remember, less Ks doesn't always entail better strike zone judgment.

 

I don't think a .060 IsoD in AAA at 21 is all that bad. In fact, while we've all lamented Pie not walking a ton, that .060 is pretty constant through his minor league career. Considering his age and levels, that's okay with me, and I don't think it's necessarily a red flag. Will a walk rate that low keep him from being the next Miggy Cabrera? Yes, but it's not going to keep him from being a good or even very good player. Heck, take Murton, who is widely heralded for his approach, was only slightly better IsoD wise(.071 to .059) at an older age for his levels.

[cubfan1955]

 

They did win, 89 games. 1 more than the season before. It was a nominal improvement. When I speak of building teams that should win, I'm talking about building teams that should win 95-100 games. Teams that should be near locks for the playoffs, or extremely close to a lock. Not a team that might skate by if things fall the right way (like the 2003 did).

 

But that was a team that should have won 95 games.

And in fairness to Jim, we didn't know Wood and Prior were walking disasters yet going into 2004.

 

Agreed, but it's not like those two alone are the reason for the 2004 collapse. You look at the team the Cubs had on paper at the end there and it still boggles my mind they didn't win up to 95 games. Everything just fell apart those last two weeks, and I'm still not even sure why.

 

Two words: Dusty Baker

I thought it was Steve and Chips fault? :twisted: