[XZero771679666304]

 

If the price of keeping Aram was handing out all these insane contracts to win now then I would have let Aram walk, as painful as that would have been. He's not Albert Pujols. You don't base a team's entire future around placating Aramis Ramirez. Also, it's very possible Aram might have been persuaded to stay if he believed the Cubs were making a big push in 2009.

 

Hendry's job depends on winning this year. That's the impetus behind everything, along with the ratings/popularity slippage and possible sale. Big moves were going to happen one way or the other, and rebuilding was never an option for 2007.

 

Not saying I like it, but it is what it is.

[Sammy Sofa]

Soriano's is the contract that will turn out to be the real stinkbomb of the bunch. I HATE that contract.

I agree it's got a good chance to be an albatross towards the end, and Hendry should have broke the bank for Beltran and not Soriano, but it is impossible to know if he had the green light to do so back then. Plus, with the way Soriano is built and the shape he keeps himself in, he might not be so terrible at 37 and 38.

 

Unfortunately, you can't pick and choose who is going to be the best free agent in a given off season. I believe Hendry when he says that if the Cubs didn't pay Soriano that much money, someone else would have. We see it happen every year. Why should this season be any different? So given that, the choice isn't between Soriano at 8/136 or Soriano at 6/90. The choice is Soriano at 8/136 or not Soriano and who knows who else. Maybe Drew, maybe not. There was no clear overture from his camp that he was willing to play for the Cubs. If not Drew in CF or RF, then who? The drop-off was pretty steep after J.D.

 

So it seems to me that you aren't looking at these contracts from a realistic point of view. Of course Soriano is overpaid and in comparison to other FA contracts signed last year or the year before, it looks ridiculous. But in reality, every market is different and impossible to anticipate. And who knows what a bargain will be next year or 2-3 years down the road. Plus, if you had to choose between Soriano or who knows what else, which in reality may have been the choice Hendry faced, which would you choose?

 

Easy choice for me: use 2008 to rebuild, look to make a run in 2009. Not for one second would I have considered going 8/136 for Alfonso Soriano. This entire spending spree would been postponed for a year. Z would already have been traded for ARod. No way do I give any pitcher a Zito type deal, which is what Z will be getting soon. Neither of Lilly/Marquis would be here, especially not Marquis. IMO Marquis is purely a panic move to save Hendry's job. Aram gave us a hometown discount, so I guess I would have kept him. Pie and EPat would have all of 2008 to show us what they've got, and all the young starting pitchers would be given a chance to step up and claim a rotation slot for 2009. Obviously Pierre should have been traded for a prospect who could have helped the big team in 2009.

 

Here's the problem with that. One of Hendry's "cards" to get Aram to stay was probably telling him how the purse was opened and they were going to be really aggressive this off-season. As Aram probably wanted to be on a team that would compete to win now. I do agree with you on Lilly and Marquis. However I am happy we are in a win now mode.

 

If the price of keeping Aram was handing out all these insane contracts to win now then I would have let Aram walk, as painful as that would have been. He's not Albert Pujols. You don't base a team's entire future around placating Aramis Ramirez. Also, it's very possible Aram might have been persuaded to stay if he believed the Cubs were making a big push in 2009.

 

Why would 2008 or 2009 be any better for free agents? A plentiful crop of "good" free agents rarely happens. Do you want the Cubs to focus mainly on developing players internally?

[frostwyrm]

 

If the price of keeping Aram was handing out all these insane contracts to win now then I would have let Aram walk, as painful as that would have been. He's not Albert Pujols. You don't base a team's entire future around placating Aramis Ramirez. Also, it's very possible Aram might have been persuaded to stay if he believed the Cubs were making a big push in 2009.

 

Hendry's job depends on winning this year. That's the impetus behind everything, along with the ratings/popularity slippage and possible sale. Big moves were going to happen one way or the other, and rebuilding was never an option for 2007.

 

Not saying I like it, but it is what it is.

 

Meant to say 2008 in my quote, I went back and changed the post. I do think 2007 could have been used for rebuilding if only we didn't have a GM who is desperate to save his job, which is one of many reasons why Hendry should have been dumped by now.

[CubsWin]

This is the type of thing you do every freaking time you try to defend Hendry and the Cubs.

 

Anyone can play the "if" game. It doesn't change history.

First off, I don't appreciate the personal tone of this baseless attack post. You are making assumptions about me that are simply incorrect instead of responding to something specific in my post that you feel is inaccurate or uses faulty logic. If you would like to challenge a point that I've made, bring it. But you provided nothing other than your own opinion. You're going to have to do better than that.

 

The "if" game is the point, CubinNY. I am (and you should be too if you want your arguments to hold water) assessing Hendry's decision to sign Nomar at the time he signed him. By your "it doesn't change history" statement, you show us that you are judging his decision by how it turned out. That is 20/20 hindsight. Use it if you must, but your argument suffers greatly when you do. Just because Nomar missed about 2 1/2 times the amount of games he usually did and had his worst season production-wise of his career in '05, doesn't mean that signing him was a bad decision. Yes, the history is what it is, but it doesn't mean that Hendry or anyone else should have been able to know that it would turn out that way and go a different direction. And it also doesn't mean that the '05 injury to Nomar (which caused him to miss 90-95 games when he previously averaged missing just 35-40) wasn't one in a long line of major injuries to star players over the last 3 seasons.

 

So I guess I too could baselessly exaggerate and attack you personally by saying that you use 20/20 hindsight "every freaking time you try to bash Hendry and the Cubs". But I see no need to sink that low.

[CubsWin]

If you remove their salaries from the Cubs payroll that season, they drop into the middle of the pack.

 

This is the type of thing you do every freaking time you try to defend Hendry and the Cubs.

 

Anyone can play the "if" game. It doesn't change history.

Since you removed the context of the above quote, allow me to put it back in.

 

I agree that Hendry could have done a better job of having a back-up plan for Wood. But going into '05, Kerry was just one year removed from two fully healthy seasons in '02 and '03. Using straight statistical analysis and no scouting info or medical reports, leading up to the '05 season Kerry was averaging 27.3 starts per season. Not bad. In '05, he started just 10. That's clearly an unpredictable, tough luck loss for the Cubs.

 

The same goes for Nomar in '05. He was averaging 123 games per year going into '05 which means on average he missed about 35-40 games a year. In '05 he missed 100. And in the 62 he played, he produced his worst numbers of his career, so it was really like not having Nomar on the team at all, yet the Cubs were still paying him his full salary.

 

If Wood and Nomar still get injured, but play their normal amount of games and perform to their norms of the previous 3 seasons, the Cubs are going to win a lot more than 79 games.

 

That was the context of the sentence you quoted. It was in response to a post about how Hendry wasn't able to produce more wins despite spending 90 million plus in team salary which is a position that completely ignores the magnitude of the injuries incurred by several key Cubs over the last 3 seasons.

 

I wasn't saying just magically remove these two large salaries and the Cubs would be near the middle of the pack of team payrolls. I was saying that since wins are being used as the sole judge of Hendry as GM and because happenstance caused two all-star caliber Cubs to basically be taken off the team, it is only fair to look at their team payroll as if Nomar's and Wood's salaries weren't on it when comparing team payroll to team wins. If I remember correctly what they each got paid that year, removing their combined salaries would have dropped the Cubs near the middle of the pack in team payroll and their 79 wins would also have been near the middle of the pack that season.

 

Now, other teams also had to deal with injuries, but it would be difficult to come up with another team that lost a starter the caliber of Kerry Wood for all but 10 starts and a hitter the caliber of Nomar Garciaparra for essentially the whole year that still finished well above .500.

[Peoriaman]

Hendry "rebuilt" this offseason without trading away young players. This has been a success.

[BigbadB]

Hendry did rebuild without trading away young talent, but it is a bit early in the ball game to call it a success.

 

I can grade his moves this offseason, and I do give him a good grade for the combined efforts of those moves, but how improved this team will be is still up in the air.

[CubsWin]

Hendry did rebuild without trading away young talent, but it is a bit early in the ball game to call it a success.

 

I can grade his moves this offseason, and I do give him a good grade for the combined efforts of those moves, but how improved this team will be is still up in the air.

I'm setting the bar pretty high for this season to be called a success. The Cubs are going to have to make the playoffs, period. Anything less than that, with the money they spent, will be considered a failure.

[Amazing_Grace]

I'm setting the bar pretty high for this season to be called a success. The Cubs are going to have to make the playoffs, period. Anything less than that, with the money they spent, will be considered a failure.

 

This is something I can certainly agree with. With the money we've spent, if we don't make the playoffs, it should be considered a failure, and it should cost Hendry his job. You can't have a top 10 payroll in MLB and miss the playoffs every year. If that happens, then obviously your GM has gotten more or less what he wanted, and he still lost. The payroll has gone up every year since 2003 and the Cubs have not made the playoffs a second time during that period. Falling back on the injuries excuse won't work forever. At some point, you have to show some results.

[frostwyrm]

Hendry did rebuild without trading away young talent, but it is a bit early in the ball game to call it a success.

 

I can grade his moves this offseason, and I do give him a good grade for the combined efforts of those moves, but how improved this team will be is still up in the air.

I'm setting the bar pretty high for this season to be called a success. The Cubs are going to have to make the playoffs, period. Anything less than that, with the money they spent, will be considered a failure.

 

After Z gets his Zito contract our window becomes 2007 and 2008. Beyond that we're screwed until 2011, and even then we'll have some handicaps. I really believe we have to win a World Series in the next 2 seasons. Anything less would constitute utter failure.

[Illini Iceman]

Hendry did rebuild without trading away young talent, but it is a bit early in the ball game to call it a success.

 

I can grade his moves this offseason, and I do give him a good grade for the combined efforts of those moves, but how improved this team will be is still up in the air.

I'm setting the bar pretty high for this season to be called a success. The Cubs are going to have to make the playoffs, period. Anything less than that, with the money they spent, will be considered a failure.

 

After Z gets his Zito contract our window becomes 2007 and 2008. Beyond that we're screwed until 2011, and even then we'll have some handicaps. I really believe we have to win a World Series in the next 2 seasons. Anything less would constitute utter failure.

 

This is small market thinking. I don't see the Dodgers, Yankees or Red Sox losing any sleep over long term deals so I don't see why the Cubs should either.

 

In any case, I am glad the window is 2007 and 2008. I am sick of hearing about long term plans. Let's do it now. Even if your sky is falling pessism is right, it just means that they are screwed until 2011 after the window closes in 2008. It is has been 98 years since a World Series, so what's another 3 seasons after 2008 as a trade off for taking a shot RIGHT NOW?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Hopefully, the payroll will increase to a level that the Cubs will still be competitive beyond 2008.

[frostwyrm]

Hopefully, the payroll will increase to a level that the Cubs will still be competitive beyond 2008.

 

At a bare minimum we'll need another $20 million unless we have an unexpected bumper crop of productive rookies. That figure assumes we have no health disasters with our expensive guys.

[CubsWin]

Hopefully, the payroll will increase to a level that the Cubs will still be competitive beyond 2008.

 

At a bare minimum we'll need another $20 million unless we have an unexpected bumper crop of productive rookies. That figure assumes we have no health disasters with our expensive guys.

Well, we don't really know what the financial future of baseball as a whole looks like right now. 4 or 5 years from now 17 million a season might be a somewhat reasonable amount. The Cubs have untapped revenue potential with the parking structure/museum/restaurant space that has yet to be built next door to Wrigley. Lots of things could happen between now and 2009/2010.

[frostwyrm]

Hendry did rebuild without trading away young talent, but it is a bit early in the ball game to call it a success.

 

I can grade his moves this offseason, and I do give him a good grade for the combined efforts of those moves, but how improved this team will be is still up in the air.

I'm setting the bar pretty high for this season to be called a success. The Cubs are going to have to make the playoffs, period. Anything less than that, with the money they spent, will be considered a failure.

 

After Z gets his Zito contract our window becomes 2007 and 2008. Beyond that we're screwed until 2011, and even then we'll have some handicaps. I really believe we have to win a World Series in the next 2 seasons. Anything less would constitute utter failure.

 

This is small market thinking. I don't see the Dodgers, Yankees or Red Sox losing any sleep over long term deals so I don't see why the Cubs should either.

 

In any case, I am glad the window is 2007 and 2008. I am sick of hearing about long term plans. Let's do it now. Even if your sky is falling pessism is right, it just means that they are screwed until 2011 after the window closes in 2008. It is has been 98 years since a World Series, so what's another 3 seasons after 2008 as a trade off for taking a shot RIGHT NOW?

 

Even in 2011 it won't be easy, seeing as Fonz and Z will be eating up $40 million of the payroll until we are all old men. Also, Aram is due $14.6M in 2011. We'll probably have to eat most of that to ship him off to the AL.

[CubsWin]

Falling back on the injuries excuse won't work forever. At some point, you have to show some results.

You say that like there haven't been any major injuries to big time players over the last three seasons. If the Cubs suffer the league average type and amount of injuries over that span, they certainly make the playoffs in '04 and possibly some of the other years, too. Its difficult to say. Having Sosa deteriorate so quickly made it hard. Hendry had to rebuild on the fly. Before Hendry, as Sosa went, so went the Cubs. Now, the team has several good hitters. That's improvement. That's results. Wins and losses are not the only way to judge a GM. In fact, they're not even a good way to judge a GM.

 

Look, Hendry has signed guys that I hate. He has failed to provide a good bench, got bit taking gambles on some players like Nomar, failed to go the extra mile on Beltran, made a dumb trade for Pierre, failed to do what it took to get the Cubs in the playoffs in '04 and waited a year or two too long to stop counting on Kerry Wood. The list goes on. He's made plenty of mistakes. I list them often. But I also list his accomplishments.

[Amazing_Grace]

Falling back on the injuries excuse won't work forever. At some point, you have to show some results.

You say that like there haven't been any major injuries to big time players over the last three seasons. If the Cubs suffer the league average type and amount of injuries over that span, they certainly make the playoffs in '04 and possibly some of the other years, too. Its difficult to say. Having Sosa deteriorate so quickly made it hard. Hendry had to rebuild on the fly. Before Hendry, as Sosa went, so went the Cubs. Now, the team has several good hitters. That's improvement. That's results. Wins and losses are not the only way to judge a GM. In fact, they're not even a good way to judge a GM.

 

Look, Hendry has signed guys that I hate. He has failed to provide a good bench, got bit taking gambles on some players like Nomar, failed to go the extra mile on Beltran, made a dumb trade for Pierre, failed to do what it took to get the Cubs in the playoffs in '04 and waited a year or two too long to stop counting on Kerry Wood. The list goes on. He's made plenty of mistakes. I list them often. But I also list his accomplishments.

 

You make a good point about wins and losses not being the only way to evaluate a general manager. Again, I don't think he is much better or worse than other GM's in the players he's signed and traded for. He's done some good, Barrett and Ramirez in particualar, and Lee to a somewhat lesser extent. He's done some bad, Jacque Jones, Neifi Perez, Juan Pierre. He's had some things that should have been good backfire because of injury, like Nomar.

 

If that were the bottom line, I'd be fine with Hendry as GM, but it isn't. He has repeatedly and consistently ignored the value of OBP on both sides of the ball, while overvaluing speed, SBs, and RISP AVG (which isn't useful at all because there isn't any evidence that the stat is related to anything other than the hitter's non RISP AVG). He refuses to recognize the problem, even though last year's team was middle of the pack in batting average, and 21st in slugging, but 29th in OBP and 28th in runs scored. This is not a new pattern, but one that has been clear and present during Hendry's term. He also continues to hand out contracts and extensions that take players into their mid to late 30's making 10M+ dollars. That's fine if he knows the payroll will stay as high as it is, or go up, but if he doesn't know that, it's a mistake.

 

Do you at least agree that it's a flawed approach to not focus on OBP and SLG as the primary offensive stats, and look at WHIP and OBP against for pitchers?

 

EDIT: and I didn't even go into how he could have put a stop to the overworking of our pitchers but let Dusty get his way.

Edited January 29, 2007 by Amazing_Grace

[goonys evil twin]

He's made plenty of mistakes. I list them often. But I also list his accomplishments.

 

The problem is he doesn't have any accomplishments.

[RichHillIsABeast]

He's made plenty of mistakes. I list them often. But I also list his accomplishments.

 

The problem is he doesn't have any accomplishments.

 

Yup. 2003 was crap. So was 2004.

[goonys evil twin]

He's made plenty of mistakes. I list them often. But I also list his accomplishments.

 

The problem is he doesn't have any accomplishments.

 

Yup. 2003 was crap. So was 2004.

 

He accomplished to construct an 88 and then an 89 win team, that in the end accomplished nothing more than one playoff series win. So, I guess that's what we have in the accomplishment category, one playoff series. 4 years, one series win. A sub .500 record. Yay for lowered expectations.

[RichHillIsABeast]

He's made plenty of mistakes. I list them often. But I also list his accomplishments.

 

The problem is he doesn't have any accomplishments.

 

Yup. 2003 was crap. So was 2004.

 

He accomplished to construct an 88 and then an 89 win team, that in the end accomplished nothing more than one playoff series win. So, I guess that's what we have in the accomplishment category, one playoff series. 4 years, one series win. A sub .500 record. Yay for lowered expectations.

 

So the A's didn't accomplish anything until recently? Right on.

[goonys evil twin]

He's made plenty of mistakes. I list them often. But I also list his accomplishments.

 

The problem is he doesn't have any accomplishments.

 

Yup. 2003 was crap. So was 2004.

 

He accomplished to construct an 88 and then an 89 win team, that in the end accomplished nothing more than one playoff series win. So, I guess that's what we have in the accomplishment category, one playoff series. 4 years, one series win. A sub .500 record. Yay for lowered expectations.

 

So the A's didn't accomplish anything until recently? Right on.

 

Well, they did a whole lot more than win 88 and 89 games at the best.

[frostwyrm]

One of Hendry's worst traits is grossly overvaluing fluky good seasons from mediocre talents. Eyre, Howry, Dempster, Neifi, and obviously Soriano have all gotten fat contracts based largely on one season. Hollandsworth was named an opening day starter based on a quarter season's worth of AB's. Macias parlayed an 11-20 streak into 2 full years with the Cubs. Burnitz got a starting gig based on playing one half of one season at Coor's Field. Howry's been good so far but he's only one third of the way thru his contract. Can't really say Howry's been a bargain, since he ought to be good considering he's being paid top dollar for his role.

[RichHillIsABeast]

He's made plenty of mistakes. I list them often. But I also list his accomplishments.

 

The problem is he doesn't have any accomplishments.

 

Yup. 2003 was crap. So was 2004.

 

He accomplished to construct an 88 and then an 89 win team, that in the end accomplished nothing more than one playoff series win. So, I guess that's what we have in the accomplishment category, one playoff series. 4 years, one series win. A sub .500 record. Yay for lowered expectations.

 

So the A's didn't accomplish anything until recently? Right on.

 

Well, they did a whole lot more than win 88 and 89 games at the best.

 

They didn't win many playoff series, did they? That's how you measured the Cubs success.

 

Let's see the A's lose their two best pitchers to injuries and make the playoffs, much less post winning seasons.

 

Glass half empty I guess.

[RichHillIsABeast]

One of Hendry's worst traits is grossly overvaluing fluky good seasons from mediocre talents. Eyre, Howry, Dempster, Neifi, and obviously Soriano have all gotten fat contracts based largely on one season. Hollandsworth was named an opening day starter based on a quarter season's worth of AB's. Macias parlayed an 11-20 streak into 2 full years with the Cubs. Burnitz got a starting gig based on playing one half of one season at Coor's Field. Howry's been good so far but he's only one third of the way thru his contract. Can't really say Howry's been a bargain, since he ought to be good considering he's being paid top dollar for his role.

 

No pitchers gained through FA are going to be a bargain. But Howry and Eyre could be both easily moved w/o eating salary.