[TheDude]

Way too forward-thinking for Hendry. He would rather go with someone like DeRosa.

 

Based on what?

[Larry Horse]

Way too forward-thinking for Hendry. He would rather go with someone like DeRosa.

 

Based on what?

 

His history of signing mediocre players.

 

Name me the last signing of Hendry where you said "Wow, that was proactive. Hendry was really a step ahead of everyone else with this one."

[Mephistopheles]

Michael Barrett!

 

Although it wasn't a signing.

[CubsWin]

Way too forward-thinking for Hendry. He would rather go with someone like DeRosa.

 

Based on what?

 

His history of signing mediocre players.

 

Name me the last signing of Hendry where you said "Wow, that was proactive. Hendry was really a step ahead of everyone else with this one."

You're right, his signing history isn't the best. He has done most of his improving of the Cubs talent via the trade.

 

He was proactive last season in the FA market when he signed Eyre and Howry who seem to be worth the money spent, though some here think improving the bullpen is a waste of money. But, yes, clearly he has missed out on guys like Beltran, Guerrero and others.

 

However, the past is the past. New things are happening all the time. For example, the Cubs spent a lot more money scouting Asia this past season. One would assume since Hendry is GM, he would have had something to do with that decision. That was a change from the previous few seasons since Leon Lee left. If that change can be made and approved by Hendry...

 

If you are going to base your decisions solely on the past, then you might as well include all of Hendry's past.

[Larry Horse]

Way too forward-thinking for Hendry. He would rather go with someone like DeRosa.

 

Based on what?

 

His history of signing mediocre players.

 

Name me the last signing of Hendry where you said "Wow, that was proactive. Hendry was really a step ahead of everyone else with this one."

You're right, his signing history isn't the best. He has done most of his improving of the Cubs talent via the trade.

 

He was proactive last season in the FA market when he signed Eyre and Howry who seem to be worth the money spent, though some here think improving the bullpen is a waste of money. But, yes, clearly he has missed out on guys like Beltran, Guerrero and others.

 

However, the past is the past. New things are happening all the time. For example, the Cubs spent a lot more money scouting Asia this past season. One would assume since Hendry is GM, he would have had something to do with that decision. That was a change from the previous few seasons since Leon Lee left. If that change can be made and approved by Hendry...

 

If you are going to base your decisions solely on the past, then you might as well include all of Hendry's past.

 

Well, since I wasn't talking about players acquired via trade ( He's been living off the ARam and Lee fumes for quite a while), I didn't see the point of including it.

 

I was talking about players he signed.

 

And yes the past is the past. And it's also the only thing I have to go by in judging Hendry. So until Hendry shows something, I won't expect a whole lot.

[UK1679666180]

However, the past is the past. New things are happening all the time. For example, the Cubs spent a lot more money scouting Asia this past season. One would assume since Hendry is GM, he would have had something to do with that decision. That was a change from the previous few seasons since Leon Lee left. If that change can be made and approved by Hendry...

 

I don't consider that proactive since that was already in place when he was hired as GM, he likely had a large role in the initial development of the Pacific Rim scouting, but that was before he was GM.

[TheDude]

Way too forward-thinking for Hendry. He would rather go with someone like DeRosa.

 

Based on what?

 

His history of signing mediocre players.

 

Name me the last signing of Hendry where you said "Wow, that was proactive. Hendry was really a step ahead of everyone else with this one."

 

That is exceptionally selective memory on your part. Every year Hendry has made a proactive attempt to fix the bullpen through FA, with names like Hawkins, Howry, and Eyre. All three were solid, proactive signings to fix an annually ragged bullpen. Alfonseca wasn't the best acquisition, but at the time (without the value of hindsight), he was expected to be solid.

 

Hendry's acquisition of the core of this team for the past two years was proactive, including Lee out of the blue, Barret for an aged Miller, and Ramirez for nothing. Garciaparra was a proactive acquisition as well.

 

Every GM has good moves and bad moves, which are conveniently measurable by fans after the fact. Hendry is no different.

 

Multiple news sources noted that Hendry increased his scouting in Asia shortly after the all-star break of the 2006 season, and the Cubs have been rumored to be interested in several different Asian pitchers this offseason. I hardly think looking at a position player in addition to known pitching scouting is suddenly 'too forward-thinking'.

[goonys evil twin]

Alfonseca wasn't the best acquisition, but at the time (without the value of hindsight), he was expected to be solid.

 

Au contraire.

 

Nobody who paid much attention would have thought that way. Alf sucked. He racked up save totals, but did it with weak peripherals. The only people that would have thought Alf would be solid are people who judge a reliever on whether or not he's closed a game before.

 

Besides, signing relievers is not proactive. It's going straight to the used car lot while everybody else is looking for new models. It's not much of an accomplishment to come away with the premier middle relievers on the market. Middle relievers don't win you baseball games. They help you not lose them. But the Cubs have had lineup and rotation weakness for a while now, and Jim ignored both to solidify a secondary unity.

[TheDude]

Alfonseca wasn't the best acquisition, but at the time (without the value of hindsight), he was expected to be solid.

 

Besides, signing relievers is not proactive. It's going straight to the used car lot while everybody else is looking for new models. It's not much of an accomplishment to come away with the premier middle relievers on the market. Middle relievers don't win you baseball games. They help you not lose them. But the Cubs have had lineup and rotation weakness for a while now, and Jim ignored both to solidify a secondary unity.

 

I don't agree with this assessment. Signing middle relievers can be as you described, but the Cubs signed the premiere middle relievers available in each of the years we're talking about.

 

These are all guys who had stellar numbers at the time of signing with closer potential. That helps you win.

[goonys evil twin]

Alfonseca wasn't the best acquisition, but at the time (without the value of hindsight), he was expected to be solid.

 

Besides, signing relievers is not proactive. It's going straight to the used car lot while everybody else is looking for new models. It's not much of an accomplishment to come away with the premier middle relievers on the market. Middle relievers don't win you baseball games. They help you not lose them. But the Cubs have had lineup and rotation weakness for a while now, and Jim ignored both to solidify a secondary unity.

 

I don't agree with this assessment. Signing middle relievers can be as you described, but the Cubs signed the premiere middle relievers available in each of the years we're talking about.

 

These are all guys who had stellar numbers at the time of signing with closer potential. That helps you win.

 

They are still middle relievers, and this was a team with a bad lineup and many rotation holes. Middle relievers are a secondary need. A team that sucks both offensively and with starting pitching needs to do a lot more than focus on premiere middle relievers. Teams don't win by signing premiere middle relievers.

[USSoccer]

Alfonseca wasn't the best acquisition, but at the time (without the value of hindsight), he was expected to be solid.

 

Besides, signing relievers is not proactive. It's going straight to the used car lot while everybody else is looking for new models. It's not much of an accomplishment to come away with the premier middle relievers on the market. Middle relievers don't win you baseball games. They help you not lose them. But the Cubs have had lineup and rotation weakness for a while now, and Jim ignored both to solidify a secondary unity.

 

I don't agree with this assessment. Signing middle relievers can be as you described, but the Cubs signed the premiere middle relievers available in each of the years we're talking about.

 

These are all guys who had stellar numbers at the time of signing with closer potential. That helps you win.

 

A premier middle reliever is still the least important part of your team. Middle relievers are generally failed starters. They can have success for a year or two, but that success usually means that somone overpays them.

 

They are less important than your backup C, IMO. A team with a good rotation won't need them as often, and a team with a great offense can outslug deficincies.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

He was proactive last season in the FA market when he signed Eyre and Howry who seem to be worth the money spent, though some here think improving the bullpen is a waste of money. But, yes, clearly he has missed out on guys like Beltran, Guerrero and others.

 

Can't agree with any GM who pays alot for middle relief help.

 

Sorry, but considering a reliever can have such a volatlie career, I don't see any proactiveness in that.

 

His most proactive moment may have been the ARam trade.

 

I just don't see the Cubs in general as a proactive orginization. It's so deeply rooted in tradition that the orginization has just never grown the balls needed to step away from it. It's annoying as hell, but I would never count on the Cubs making a move that shocks everyone AND is good.

[CubinNY]

Alfonseca wasn't the best acquisition, but at the time (without the value of hindsight), he was expected to be solid.

 

Besides, signing relievers is not proactive. It's going straight to the used car lot while everybody else is looking for new models. It's not much of an accomplishment to come away with the premier middle relievers on the market. Middle relievers don't win you baseball games. They help you not lose them. But the Cubs have had lineup and rotation weakness for a while now, and Jim ignored both to solidify a secondary unity.

 

I don't agree with this assessment. Signing middle relievers can be as you described, but the Cubs signed the premiere middle relievers available in each of the years we're talking about.

 

These are all guys who had stellar numbers at the time of signing with closer potential. That helps you win.

 

There is no such an animal as a "premire middle releivers". There are only middle relivers who stink and those who are medicore.

 

The very nature of pitching in middle relief spells medicore.

[abuck1220]

Way too forward-thinking for Hendry. He would rather go with someone like DeRosa.

 

Based on what?

 

His history of signing mediocre players.

 

Name me the last signing of Hendry where you said "Wow, that was proactive. Hendry was really a step ahead of everyone else with this one."

 

That is exceptionally selective memory on your part. Every year Hendry has made a proactive attempt to fix the bullpen through FA, with names like Hawkins, Howry, and Eyre. All three were solid, proactive signings to fix an annually ragged bullpen. Alfonseca wasn't the best acquisition, but at the time (without the value of hindsight), he was expected to be solid.

 

 

that's not forward-thinking at all. that's looking at the list of available FA middle relievers, picking the one with the best era the previous year, and then throwing a bunch of money at him. that's the definition of playing it safe...there's no advanced philosophy at work there.

[ChiCubsFan]

Alfonseca wasn't the best acquisition, but at the time (without the value of hindsight), he was expected to be solid.

 

Besides, signing relievers is not proactive. It's going straight to the used car lot while everybody else is looking for new models. It's not much of an accomplishment to come away with the premier middle relievers on the market. Middle relievers don't win you baseball games. They help you not lose them. But the Cubs have had lineup and rotation weakness for a while now, and Jim ignored both to solidify a secondary unity.

 

I don't agree with this assessment. Signing middle relievers can be as you described, but the Cubs signed the premiere middle relievers available in each of the years we're talking about.

 

These are all guys who had stellar numbers at the time of signing with closer potential. That helps you win.

 

There is no such an animal as a "premire middle releivers". There are only middle relivers who stink and those who are medicore.

 

The very nature of pitching in middle relief spells medicore.

 

I understand what you're trying to say, but it's wrong. There are premier middle relievers. Premier meaning the best of the best. So they are the best of the best of what they do....pitch in middle relief. Some players consistently perform extremely well in the middle relief role and I would consider those players premier middle relievers.

[CubinNY]

Alfonseca wasn't the best acquisition, but at the time (without the value of hindsight), he was expected to be solid.

 

Besides, signing relievers is not proactive. It's going straight to the used car lot while everybody else is looking for new models. It's not much of an accomplishment to come away with the premier middle relievers on the market. Middle relievers don't win you baseball games. They help you not lose them. But the Cubs have had lineup and rotation weakness for a while now, and Jim ignored both to solidify a secondary unity.

 

I don't agree with this assessment. Signing middle relievers can be as you described, but the Cubs signed the premiere middle relievers available in each of the years we're talking about.

 

These are all guys who had stellar numbers at the time of signing with closer potential. That helps you win.

 

There is no such an animal as a "premire middle releivers". There are only middle relivers who stink and those who are medicore.

 

The very nature of pitching in middle relief spells medicore.

 

I understand what you're trying to say, but it's wrong. There are premier middle relievers. Premier meaning the best of the best. So they are the best of the best of what they do....pitch in middle relief. Some players consistently perform extremely well in the middle relief role and I would consider those players premier middle relievers.

 

I guess. It's like picking the skinniest pig over 300 pounds.

 

The difference between Bob Howry and [insert name here] is not that much.

[UK1679666180]

Depends on who and how many you have avail. from your farm system. The difference between Wuertz and Howry is less than someone like Howry and Novoa.

 

The Cubs needed Wuertz and Eyre b/c the options weren't there. Minus Borowski and Dempster (although, currently not in that boat), the Cubs have not been good at finding diamonds in the rough or thru the system.

[Backtobanks]

Alfonseca wasn't the best acquisition, but at the time (without the value of hindsight), he was expected to be solid.

 

Besides, signing relievers is not proactive. It's going straight to the used car lot while everybody else is looking for new models. It's not much of an accomplishment to come away with the premier middle relievers on the market. Middle relievers don't win you baseball games. They help you not lose them. But the Cubs have had lineup and rotation weakness for a while now, and Jim ignored both to solidify a secondary unity.

 

I don't agree with this assessment. Signing middle relievers can be as you described, but the Cubs signed the premiere middle relievers available in each of the years we're talking about.

 

These are all guys who had stellar numbers at the time of signing with closer potential. That helps you win.

 

There is no such an animal as a "premire middle releivers". There are only middle relivers who stink and those who are medicore.

 

The very nature of pitching in middle relief spells medicore.

 

I understand what you're trying to say, but it's wrong. There are premier middle relievers. Premier meaning the best of the best. So they are the best of the best of what they do....pitch in middle relief. Some players consistently perform extremely well in the middle relief role and I would consider those players premier middle relievers.

 

I guess. It's like picking the skinniest pig over 300 pounds.

 

The difference between Bob Howry and [insert name here] is not that much.

 

Then why would someone like Howry as opposed to "fill in the blank" be desirable to teams in a trade. With starters trained to go 5 or 6 innings, 2 or 3 relief pitchers are needed in most games.

[Mizzou]

A premier middle reliever is still the least important part of your team. Middle relievers are generally failed starters. They can have success for a year or two, but that success usually means that somone overpays them.

 

They are less important than your backup C, IMO. A team with a good rotation won't need them as often, and a team with a great offense can outslug deficincies.

You really think that? No offense, but I think it's silly to say that a backup catcher who starts 30 games a year is more important than the guys who pitch the 6th, 7th, and 8th innings of close games.

[TheDude]

The difference between Bob Howry and [insert name here] is not that much.

 

Ok, I'll play along. Insert Roberto Novoa.

 

Yep, no drop off there. I guess the Cubs should just trot out a bullpen full of Novoas so that Zambrano can leave every game in the 7th inning with a 2-run lead and lose.

 

Now that's forward-thinking!

[USSoccer]

A premier middle reliever is still the least important part of your team. Middle relievers are generally failed starters. They can have success for a year or two, but that success usually means that somone overpays them.

 

They are less important than your backup C, IMO. A team with a good rotation won't need them as often, and a team with a great offense can outslug deficincies.

You really think that? No offense, but I think it's silly to say that a backup catcher who starts 30 games a year is more important than the guys who pitch the 6th, 7th, and 8th innings of close games.

 

I do think so. 30 starts from backup catcher is worth more than 30 appearances by a terrible middle reliever in the 6th inning.

 

FYI, I define middle relief as everyone other than a setup man and closer. The back end of the pen is somewhat important, but middle relief isn't worth spit. The fact that Hendry has dumped so much payroll into the bullpen in the past 3 seasons is insanity. Your bullpen should be fixed only after your lineup and rotation have been properly constructed. It's like building a house and starting with the roof.

[TheDude]

Way too forward-thinking for Hendry. He would rather go with someone like DeRosa.

 

Based on what?

 

His history of signing mediocre players.

 

Name me the last signing of Hendry where you said "Wow, that was proactive. Hendry was really a step ahead of everyone else with this one."

 

That is exceptionally selective memory on your part. Every year Hendry has made a proactive attempt to fix the bullpen through FA, with names like Hawkins, Howry, and Eyre. All three were solid, proactive signings to fix an annually ragged bullpen. Alfonseca wasn't the best acquisition, but at the time (without the value of hindsight), he was expected to be solid.

 

 

that's not forward-thinking at all. that's looking at the list of available FA middle relievers, picking the one with the best era the previous year, and then throwing a bunch of money at him. that's the definition of playing it safe...there's no advanced philosophy at work there.

 

Thanks for quoting only half my post and omitting all the other examples, that's a fine way to present a case.

 

The question posed was to list acquisitions that made you think the GM was proactive, and I answered it. The Cubs bullpen was a major issue in 2005 and the GM went out and addressed it immediately the next year. That is pro-active in my book - identify the problem and waste no time addressing it.

 

The challenge before that was to suggest signing/posting a Japanese player was too forward-thinking for the GM. I answered that as well, and my answer went completely ignored, probably because there isn't a valid counter argument that will stand up to scrutiny.

 

Folks can continue to pick one example out of the context of the enire issue if they want to, but it does nothing to answer the original question and my original response - why is signing a Japanese player too forward-thinking for the current GM?

[UK1679666180]

Folks can continue to pick one example out of the context of the enire issue if they want to, but it does nothing to answer the original question and my original response - why is signing a Japanese player too forward-thinking for the current GM

 

I don't believe that was the question. I brought up reasons beyond the field why it would be a good move (marketing and transitional ease) why it might be a good idea to look at two Japanese players rather than one.

 

Very few things are proactive in this game. I don't think buying relievers and making good trades (most fiscally motivated for a team to get fleeced talentwise) under the terms used in this thread as proactive.

 

The offense was a major problem in '05 as well, but I felt at the time of FA, that it wasn't enough with Pierre and Jones. Would that be the opposite of proactive (stagnet)?

[goonys evil twin]

The question posed was to list acquisitions that made you think the GM was proactive, and I answered it. The Cubs bullpen was a major issue in 2005 and the GM went out and addressed it immediately the next year. That is pro-active in my book - identify the problem and waste no time addressing it.

 

That's actually pretty much the definition of reactive, not pro-active. Reactive looks at what was bad last year and then tries to fix it. Proactive has a bunch of internal options lined up to fill holes before they become holes, that way you don't have to spend big on middle relief. Pro-active goes out and acquires a stud before he becomes a stud, or signs a player that fills a need that will come up soon, as opposed to one you've been having for years.

 

Reactive is seeing your team lose a game because of the bullpen then going out and signing middle relievers.

[KingCubsFan]

 

Folks can continue to pick one example out of the context of the enire issue if they want to, but it does nothing to answer the original question and my original response - why is signing a Japanese player too forward-thinking for the current GM?

It all depends on which Hendry we'll see this offseason. During his tenure, it seems like there's been two Hendry's. If we see a return of the GM who traded for Lee despite having Choi at first, constructing a trade for Nomar, trading for Barrett, etc. than he might surprise and do something like sign a foreign player to play 2nd base. But the past two years, he's been very reactive and has just tried to patch holes on a sinking ship. Hopefully that doesn't continue.