[CubColtPacer]

Unlike Hendry, he inherited a team capable of winning a division.

 

Hendry inherited a team that won 88 games 2 years before, then the team went out and won 88 games and won a division.

 

That sounds nice, but that doesn't mean the team he inherited could win the division. The 2001 Cubs were nothing of what it looked like at the end of 2002. They had talent at the end of 2002, but the talent was completely different than what it was when they won 88 in 01-the only players even available to Hendry from the 01 team were Sosa, Hundley, Mueller, Wood, and some bullpen guys. That's it-the team in 03 had an almost complete turnover. That's a great deal different then his point that the Dodgers were ready to win then and there.

 

Hendry inherited the team at the end of 2002. The 2003 team was very similar. The rotation, the primary reason they won, was already in place.

 

It's simple absurd to claim that Hendry didn't inherit a team capable of winning a division. He inherited a team, and they won the division.

 

I guess I just don't believe that the team at the end of 2002 could have won a division if they had all been retained for 03. There was plenty of talent there, but there were a great number of holes as well. I don't think the Cubs come anywhere close to a division title without filling at least some of those holes, such as a bad lineup with a quickly declining Fred McGriff and a terrible Todd Hundley (or Joe Girardi) and a mostly awful bullpen.

[goonys evil twin]

I guess I just don't believe that the team at the end of 2002 could have won a division if they had all been retained for 03. .

 

That's not the point. He inherited a team capable of winning the division. If he didn't, they wouldn't have won the division. Besides, every important player was already there. They acquired role players, but nothing else. The team was capable of winning the division because the only reason the team won the divsion was due to insanely good pitching that was already in place.

[CubColtPacer]

I guess I just don't believe that the team at the end of 2002 could have won a division if they had all been retained for 03. .

 

That's not the point. He inherited a team capable of winning the division. If he didn't, they wouldn't have won the division.

 

Wait a minute-the original point is that a GM who takes a team capable of winning a division and doesn't do much more isn't that good of a GM. You said that the Cubs were capable to win a divison at the end of 2002. That means that basically the Cubs team from 2002 had a reasonable chance to win the division (with some minor upgrades). What you're saying there is that every team is capable of winning the division at the end of every year-but the original poster was saying without major moves they weren't able to. IMO, the Cubs did not just tinker from 2002 to 2003-they would not have won the division without all those moves they made. If you disagree, that's fine-but I certainly didn't look at the end of the year in 2002 and say that the team was 1 or 2 moves away from a division title.

[goonys evil twin]

I guess I just don't believe that the team at the end of 2002 could have won a division if they had all been retained for 03. .

 

That's not the point. He inherited a team capable of winning the division. If he didn't, they wouldn't have won the division.

 

Wait a minute-the original point is that a GM who takes a team capable of winning a division and doesn't do much more isn't that good of a GM.

 

The original point I made was that it's absurd to claim Depodesta inherited a team that could win the division but Hendry did not.

[KingCubsFan]

I guess I just don't believe that the team at the end of 2002 could have won a division if they had all been retained for 03. .

 

That's not the point. He inherited a team capable of winning the division. If he didn't, they wouldn't have won the division.

 

Wait a minute-the original point is that a GM who takes a team capable of winning a division and doesn't do much more isn't that good of a GM.

 

The original point I made was that it's absurd to claim Depodesta inherited a team that could win the division but Hendry did not.

It's true that the 2002 Cubs had a lot of talent, although I don't think they were quite as good as the 2003 Dodgers, who won 85 games. A team that loses 97 games is not set up to win a division.

Regardless, this still does not explain why DePodesta should ever be a GM again, or be hired to solve the Cubs problems.

[JonnyRed]

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

 

 

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.

 

Those are pretty good moves to be living off of, aren't they? He got two all-stars and one MVP-caliber player for what amounted to a whole pile of nothing. If we're going to bash Hendry, let's at least bring up his strong moves as well.

[goonys evil twin]

Those are pretty good moves to be living off of, aren't they? He got two all-stars and one MVP-caliber player for what amounted to a whole pile of nothing. If we're going to bash Hendry, let's at least bring up his strong moves as well.

 

Why? He built a team, and that team stinks. What's the point in bringing up good moves? He's not a bad GM because he made a bad move or two, and he wouldn't be a good GM if he made a good move or two. He's a bad GM because he's built an horrendous baseball team.

[YearofDaCubs]

Those are pretty good moves to be living off of, aren't they? He got two all-stars and one MVP-caliber player for what amounted to a whole pile of nothing. If we're going to bash Hendry, let's at least bring up his strong moves as well.

 

Why? He built a team, and that team stinks. What's the point in bringing up good moves? He's not a bad GM because he made a bad move or two, and he wouldn't be a good GM if he made a good move or two. He's a bad GM because he's built an horrendous baseball team.

There's a lot to not like in Hendry. He overpays for mediocrity, he doesn't value OBP, his catch the ball mentality is absurd, and he doesn't fill glaring holes when needed. He hasn't done squat since early 2004 and didn't adjust the ball club when we needed holes to fill to make a run in 2004. He just doesn't know how to properly put a team together it's that simple.

[Larry Horse]

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

 

Wow, that kind of creeps me out.

[Sammy Sofa]

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

 

Wow, that kind of creeps me out.

 

Heh, nice.