How did it come to this?

[RichHillIsABeast]

You seem like the stereotypical second guesser to me. It can't be fun being that negative.

 

You seem like somebody who likes to come to conclusions without much evidence. I've followed the Hendry era very closely. I was strongly against the whole "we're going to be the Braves" thing long ago. I advocated many many years ago a much stronger effort be placed on developing hitters. I was all about the farm system long before it became par for the course to be all about the farm system. But you cannot simply build around young pitching, because it is the single most unstable thing in all of baseball. Young pitchers drop like flies, and pitchers in general are not the most consistent bunch. I'm all about having young pitching. But building through the farm system does not mean you can't spend $100+ million on good pitching and good hitting today. I don't see what you seem to be advocating. You talk about the need for developing with young players, but then you also talk about not going with a Zambrano + rookies rotation. What are you looking for?

 

There's no reason why the Cubs can't continue to build from within, while at the same time spending to build with players from outside the organization and contending today. 10 years ago, a guy like Jacque Jones would have been your 2nd best position player, now we have 3 hitters who are much better, plus a young player that is just as good and probably soon to be better. This isn't a hapless bunch where you'd be better off dumping everything and building for 5 years down the road. This is a team that can contend, with the right moves, now. They can be a 95 win team, and still keep building up the farm system.

 

They can, and should, get as many good hitters and pitchers as they can. They should not sacrifice hitting for pitching because of some cliche about great pitching.

 

We tried to build from within and caught some bad luck. It takes time to rebound from that. Just going out and spending money when your core has just taken a serious hit isn't smart. It's reactionary.

 

Hendry was a little slow realizing Wood would give us next to nothing these last two years. That's his only major mistake.

 

Prior went down b/c of cumulative freak injuries. Lee went down b/c of freak injuries.

 

A healthy Z, Prior, and Lee take this team to the playoffs. Our record looks very poor compared to the talent we had on the field b/c of all the young pitching (not ML ready) we threw out there.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Painfully obvious? Yeah, we needed 3 starting pitchers and an offense. That's a little ridiculous to come up with mid-season.

 

Hendry called it a season right after the ASB. He re-assigned his scouts right about that time.

 

This team wasn't going to make the playoffs with Soriano and Zito on it after the ASB. It's ok to admit it.

 

You think this is a 2006 thing? This problem has been around for a long time.

 

I spent several posts explaining that this is a long-term problem. Do you even read what I write, or just argue for arguements' sake?

[goonys evil twin]

We tried to build from within and caught some bad luck. It takes time to rebound from that. Just going out and spending money when your core has just taken a serious hit isn't smart. It's reactionary.

 

Hendry was a little slow realizing Wood would give us next to nothing these last two years. That's his only major mistake.

 

Only major mistake? I would say hiring Baker was the biggest mistake.

 

 

So what is your plan? Sit on the $40-60 million he has to spend and just let the kids play now?

[goonys evil twin]

Painfully obvious? Yeah, we needed 3 starting pitchers and an offense. That's a little ridiculous to come up with mid-season.

 

Hendry called it a season right after the ASB. He re-assigned his scouts right about that time.

 

This team wasn't going to make the playoffs with Soriano and Zito on it after the ASB. It's ok to admit it.

 

You think this is a 2006 thing? This problem has been around for a long time.

 

I spent several posts explaining that this is a long-term problem. Do you even read what I write, or just argue for arguements' sake?

 

It's hard to read what you write because it makes so little sense. You think there's been high turnover by leaders, when Andy and Jim were around forever. You don't want to spend money on this team, but you think the talent is very close to contending. What exactly are you advocating? You are all over the place.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Yes, I did know that.

 

I was debating where the blame falls in an organization. If you keep blaming the leaders and have a high rate of turnover (like we're doing), you're not giving your leaders time to identify and fix the problems lower in the organization before being re-assigned/let go/whatever.

 

High rate of turnover? Andy and Hendry were in charge for 12 years. How the hell can you possibly claim the problem is with the high rate of turnover in leaders when the two most prominent leaders were in place for 12 years.

 

Andy was part of the problem. He set the agenda for everyone below him. I'm glad he's gone. He was way too conservative and it showed with his lack of flexibility.

 

Hendry switched titles several times in that 12 years. Hendry has nothing to do with the draft now, for example. Job responsibilities changed. Not only have they changed for Hendry, but baseball is extremely against micro-managing. You let people do their jobs. Blaming Hendry for long term problems (like 20+ year problems) when he was only in certain roles for a several years is ridiculous. That's not how baseball organizations work.

 

Yes, the problem is a high rate of turnover. We can't even begin to fix the many problems further down in the organization without quality steady leadership. MacPhail was steady, but not quality. Let's see what Hendry can do with a free hand now that MacDonough is basically going to rubber stamp the baseball department's decisions.

 

If it doesn't improve drastically in the next two years, it's all on Hendry.

[goonys evil twin]

Yes, I did know that.

 

I was debating where the blame falls in an organization. If you keep blaming the leaders and have a high rate of turnover (like we're doing), you're not giving your leaders time to identify and fix the problems lower in the organization before being re-assigned/let go/whatever.

 

High rate of turnover? Andy and Hendry were in charge for 12 years. How the hell can you possibly claim the problem is with the high rate of turnover in leaders when the two most prominent leaders were in place for 12 years.

 

Andy was part of the problem. He set the agenda for everyone below him. I'm glad he's gone. He was way too conservative and it showed with his lack of flexibility.

 

Hendry switched titles several times in that 12 years. Hendry has nothing to do with the draft now, for example. Job responsibilities changed. Not only have they changed for Hendry, but baseball is extremely against micro-managing. You let people do their jobs. Blaming Hendry for long term problems (like 20+ year problems) when he was only in certain roles for a several years is ridiculous. That's not how baseball organizations work.

 

Yes, the problem is a high rate of turnover. We can't even begin to fix the many problems further down in the organization without quality steady leadership. MacPhail was steady, but not quality. Let's see what Hendry can do with a free hand now that MacDonough is basically going to rubber stamp the baseball department's decisions.

 

If it doesn't improve drastically in the next two years, it's all on Hendry.

 

I disagree strongly with the free pass you are giving Hendry. He was not a puppet. This team looks exactly like he wanted it to.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Painfully obvious? Yeah, we needed 3 starting pitchers and an offense. That's a little ridiculous to come up with mid-season.

 

Hendry called it a season right after the ASB. He re-assigned his scouts right about that time.

 

This team wasn't going to make the playoffs with Soriano and Zito on it after the ASB. It's ok to admit it.

 

You think this is a 2006 thing? This problem has been around for a long time.

 

I spent several posts explaining that this is a long-term problem. Do you even read what I write, or just argue for arguements' sake?

 

It's hard to read what you write because it makes so little sense. You think there's been high turnover by leaders, when Andy and Jim were around forever. You don't want to spend money on this team, but you think the talent is very close to contending. What exactly are you advocating? You are all over the place.

 

You have no idea how a baseball organization runs. Hendry doesn't tell Wilken who to draft, for example. When Hendry's job title changes, his responsibilities change. So does what he can be held accountable for. When someone isn't left in a position long enough to evaluate the results, it's pretty hard to blame him for everything.

 

What you get is a cumulative effect. Singling out one individual who has had many EVERCHANGING leadership roles as the ultimate culprit ignores the complexity of what is going on in the Cubs org. It's not about how much total time Hendry has spent in the organization.

 

MacPhail you can blame for everything. He set the organization-wide agenda, but your method of blame placement isn't accurate.

 

My comment about not spending money was related to this team at the ASB. No Prior, Wood, or Lee makes that a pretty obvious call, especially with Pierre's lackluster 1st half. That wasn't a problem that could be fixed with money.

 

I have no problem spending money once the core is in place. But you have to develop the core first.

[abuck1220]

 

People like to spout off about pitching because it's a great cliche. But the 2006 NLCS has put to rest any notion that you absolutely must have great pitching to go anywhere in the postseason. These teams are routinely throwing out retreads, has beens and nobodies, and succeeding. Why?

 

defense? i heard it wins championships.

[Andy]

Painfully obvious? Yeah, we needed 3 starting pitchers and an offense. That's a little ridiculous to come up with mid-season.

 

Hendry called it a season right after the ASB. He re-assigned his scouts right about that time.

 

This team wasn't going to make the playoffs with Soriano and Zito on it after the ASB. It's ok to admit it.

 

You think this is a 2006 thing? This problem has been around for a long time.

 

I spent several posts explaining that this is a long-term problem. Do you even read what I write, or just argue for arguements' sake?

 

It's hard to read what you write because it makes so little sense. You think there's been high turnover by leaders, when Andy and Jim were around forever. You don't want to spend money on this team, but you think the talent is very close to contending. What exactly are you advocating? You are all over the place.

You have no idea how a baseball organization runs. Hendry doesn't tell Wilken who to draft, for example. When Hendry's job title changes, his responsibilities change. So does what he can be held accountable for. When someone isn't left in a position long enough to evaluate the results, it's pretty hard to blame him for everything.

So you think it is a complete conicidence that Hendry is a good friend of former ND baseball coach Paul Maineri, and the Cubs have just happened to pick ND players with high-round draft picks two out of the last three years?

 

Of course Hendry has an impact on who we draft.

[Guest]

 

People like to spout off about pitching because it's a great cliche. But the 2006 NLCS has put to rest any notion that you absolutely must have great pitching to go anywhere in the postseason. These teams are routinely throwing out retreads, has beens and nobodies, and succeeding. Why?

 

defense? i heard it wins championships.

 

it does when combined with offense - created through bunting and hit and running.

[UK1679666180]

Painfully obvious? Yeah, we needed 3 starting pitchers and an offense. That's a little ridiculous to come up with mid-season.

 

Hendry called it a season right after the ASB. He re-assigned his scouts right about that time.

 

This team wasn't going to make the playoffs with Soriano and Zito on it after the ASB. It's ok to admit it.

 

You think this is a 2006 thing? This problem has been around for a long time.

 

I spent several posts explaining that this is a long-term problem. Do you even read what I write, or just argue for arguements' sake?

 

It's hard to read what you write because it makes so little sense. You think there's been high turnover by leaders, when Andy and Jim were around forever. You don't want to spend money on this team, but you think the talent is very close to contending. What exactly are you advocating? You are all over the place.

You have no idea how a baseball organization runs. Hendry doesn't tell Wilken who to draft, for example. When Hendry's job title changes, his responsibilities change. So does what he can be held accountable for. When someone isn't left in a position long enough to evaluate the results, it's pretty hard to blame him for everything.

So you think it is a complete conicidence that Hendry is a good friend of former ND baseball coach Paul Maineri, and the Cubs have just happened to pick ND players with high-round draft picks two out of the last three years?

 

Of course Hendry has an impact on who we draft.

 

How many have been drafted from Creighton by the Cubs?

[goonys evil twin]

What you get is a cumulative effect. Singling out one individual who has had many EVERCHANGING leadership roles as the ultimate culprit ignores the complexity of what is going on in the Cubs org. It's not about how much total time Hendry has spent in the organization.

 

Actually it is. It's not like he was the groundskeeper before and ticket seller. He was in charge of the farm, then he was asst GM, then GM. His paws are everywhere. This is his team. I'm not singling out any one individual, just the one remaining individual from the triumverate of failures that led this team into the toilet. Andy, Jim and Dusty. Jim is as guilty as any of them.

 

My comment about not spending money was related to this team at the ASB. No Prior, Wood, or Lee makes that a pretty obvious call, especially with Pierre's lackluster 1st half. That wasn't a problem that could be fixed with money.

 

I have no problem spending money once the core is in place. But you have to develop the core first.

 

What does that even mean? Do you want to sit on the $40-60m available to spend until a new core is in place? The core is in place. Zambrano, Ramirez and Lee are the core, with Barrett and Murton along for the ride and guys like Hill, Wuertz and others very capable of contributing now and the future. Midseason they should have gone after Bobby Abreu for the garbage Philly was looking to take back. I don't know what other midseason spending you are talking about, but that would have been a very smart move.

[Andy]

Painfully obvious? Yeah, we needed 3 starting pitchers and an offense. That's a little ridiculous to come up with mid-season.

 

Hendry called it a season right after the ASB. He re-assigned his scouts right about that time.

 

This team wasn't going to make the playoffs with Soriano and Zito on it after the ASB. It's ok to admit it.

 

You think this is a 2006 thing? This problem has been around for a long time.

 

I spent several posts explaining that this is a long-term problem. Do you even read what I write, or just argue for arguements' sake?

 

It's hard to read what you write because it makes so little sense. You think there's been high turnover by leaders, when Andy and Jim were around forever. You don't want to spend money on this team, but you think the talent is very close to contending. What exactly are you advocating? You are all over the place.

You have no idea how a baseball organization runs. Hendry doesn't tell Wilken who to draft, for example. When Hendry's job title changes, his responsibilities change. So does what he can be held accountable for. When someone isn't left in a position long enough to evaluate the results, it's pretty hard to blame him for everything.

So you think it is a complete conicidence that Hendry is a good friend of former ND baseball coach Paul Maineri, and the Cubs have just happened to pick ND players with high-round draft picks two out of the last three years?

 

Of course Hendry has an impact on who we draft.

 

How many have been drafted from Creighton by the Cubs?

What do you mean?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Hendry was the Head Coach at Creighton at one point.

[UK1679666180]

Hendry was the former head coach at Creighton before leaving amatuer baseball. The Cubs have not drafted or signed as FAs many players from Creighton, despite Hendry's relationship.

 

I think it's inaccurate to overstate Hendry's dealings with ND draftees, espec. at the expense of the area acout, crosschecker, and scouting director.

[goonys evil twin]

Hendry was the former head coach at Creighton before leaving amatuer baseball. The Cubs have not drafted or signed as FAs many players from Creighton, despite Hendry's relationship.

 

I think it's inaccurate to overstate Hendry's dealings with ND draftees, espec. at the expense of the area acout, crosschecker, and scouting director.

 

Who cares about his relationships? He's been a major factor within this organization for several years. He's very much a reason why this team sucks.

[Soriano12]

Has any GM in Cubs history had the payroll comparable to Hendry's.(relative to the rest of the league of course)

 

I know the Cubs had the 7th highest payroll in 06, has a Cubs GM ever had a payroll ranking this high?

[UK1679666180]

Did I say I cared about his past relationships? It doesn't matter anything to me.

 

If you ask why did I bring it up, it was in relation to a previous post that brought up the relationship of Hendry and Maineri as if it added greater importance to the selecting of a very high pick.

 

If you want to turn me mentioning his past relationship w/Creighton into some defense of how he has done, that's your own dumb connection, as wrong as it is.

[goonys evil twin]

Did I say I cared about his past relationships? It doesn't matter anything to me.

 

If you ask why did I bring it up, it was in relation to a previous post that brought up the relationship of Hendry and Maineri as if it added greater importance to the selecting of a very high pick.

 

If you want to turn me mentioning his past relationship w/Creighton into some defense of how he has done, that's your own dumb connection, as wrong as it is.

 

Ease up cowboy.

 

I was responding to the general conversation about Hendry's relationships affecting drafts. Hendry's imprint is all over the team. The hitters fit to a T the type of hitter he's advocated, and the results of both the hitting and pitching were almost inevitable, given the goals he set long ago.

[Pinktermite]

it's not like Hendry is unique here, there's been many GM's before him that sucked, too.

[Guest]

the idea that hendry isn't responsible is preposterous. what have the cubs been paying him for if he isn't responsible for this team?

[CubinNY]

preposterous

 

I love that word but cannot spell it.

 

What a great word.

 

preposterous

 

Indeed

[Soriano12]

it's not like Hendry is unique here, there's been many GM's before him that sucked, too.

 

Did they have the same resources as Jimmy?

[UK1679666180]

Did I say I cared about his past relationships? It doesn't matter anything to me.

 

If you ask why did I bring it up, it was in relation to a previous post that brought up the relationship of Hendry and Maineri as if it added greater importance to the selecting of a very high pick.

 

If you want to turn me mentioning his past relationship w/Creighton into some defense of how he has done, that's your own dumb connection, as wrong as it is.

 

Ease up cowboy.

 

I was responding to the general conversation about Hendry's relationships affecting drafts. Hendry's imprint is all over the team. The hitters fit to a T the type of hitter he's advocated, and the results of both the hitting and pitching were almost inevitable, given the goals he set long ago.

 

I tought you were trying to argue for the sake of it, trying to correlate me mentioning his past relationships as something of a positive.

 

Don't call me cowboy :)

[Andy]

preposterous

 

I love that word but cannot spell it.

 

What a great word.

 

preposterous

 

Indeed

A spectacular word