Hendry cannot win

[UBlink]

I agree. If you don't take into account all of the circumstances of a GM's tenure and attempt simplify everything down to a bottom line of wins and losses, you aren't making a fair or accurate judgement. It would be nice if it were that simple, but its just not.

 

In fact it is that simple. If you throw in all the BS excuses people like to give Hendry, you complicate the story. The fact is Hendry has done a poor job.

I don't mean to be flip, but you just restated your opinion without providing any reasons why it should hold up under logical scrutiny. I can make an argument why it is fair and accurate to take into account the state of the team at the time the GM takes over and why it is hard to fault a GM for catastrophic injuries. Can you make an argument for why it is more fair and accurate to judge a GM on one statistic?

 

In the long run, I think it is fair to judge a GM strictly on on-the-field performance. Sure, state of the team at the start and injuries will happen along the way to all teams but they can't obscure the results in the long run. The only excuse I can imagine is sample size, and my question is how many years do we have to give him before the noise is filtered out?

 

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the sample size is large enough to judge by on-field results, and the overall results are unacceptable.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

They were "crap" teams, but Hendry didn't sit on his thumb and ignore the holes. Last year he brought in a much-needed leadoff hitter. THAT was the problem (outside of injuries) and he addressed it.

 

Actually, the problem is he thought leadoff hitter was the problem. Leadoff hitter wasn't the problem. And why Cubs fans are still fooled by this non-existent position is beyond me. But the problem has been that the Cubs don't walk enough and they give up too many walks. Hendry ignores this, instead going after a crap leadoff hitter that anybody with half a brain could see was not going to help the team.

 

Hendry ignored the holes, and concentrated on filling mythological needs.

[Abe Frohman]

I blame a lot more on Dusty Baker mismanaging the 05 and 06 teams than Hendry. Neifi Perez has worth as a late-game defensive sub - not as a #2 hitting starting SS. John Mabry should have never started a game. Todd Walker should have been leading off with Murton hitting 2.

 

The list goes on and on, but Hendry's only fault was having a water-brain running his team.

[jersey cubs fan]

I agree. If you don't take into account all of the circumstances of a GM's tenure and attempt simplify everything down to a bottom line of wins and losses, you aren't making a fair or accurate judgement. It would be nice if it were that simple, but its just not.

 

In fact it is that simple. If you throw in all the BS excuses people like to give Hendry, you complicate the story. The fact is Hendry has done a poor job.

I don't mean to be flip, but you just restated your opinion without providing any reasons why it should hold up under logical scrutiny. I can make an argument why it is fair and accurate to take into account the state of the team at the time the GM takes over and why it is hard to fault a GM for catastrophic injuries. Can you make an argument for why it is more fair and accurate to judge a GM on one statistic?

 

If you need something to backup the claim that results are what matters in sports then you just don't understand sports. There's nothing else to say.

 

Hendry has been in charge for many years. And before he was in charge of the whole thing he was in charge of the minors. He had as much money and resources to work with as any GM could possibly expect, and he failed.

 

Those people who are willing to accept mediocrity as a goal are satisfied with somebody like Hendry in charge. Those people who want to see a championship are not. It's quite simple. No need to muck it up with the nonsense.

 

There is no logical scrutiny that can tear down the argument that Hendry has done a poor job. There is only BS and lies.

[Abe Frohman]

 

Actually, the problem is he thought leadoff hitter was the problem. Leadoff hitter wasn't the problem. And why Cubs fans are still fooled by this non-existent position is beyond me. But the problem has been that the Cubs don't walk enough and they give up too many walks. Hendry ignores this, instead going after a crap leadoff hitter that anybody with half a brain could see was not going to help the team.

 

Hendry ignored the holes, and concentrated on filling mythological needs.

 

I totally agree with you on that point. The Cubs are never going to win unless they grasp the concept that scoring more runs than the opposition is the key to the game. It sounds ridiculously stupid because it is just that.

 

When you are disciplined enough to draw a walk as a hitter, you are going to score more runs. I don't care what anyone says, and I guarantee that a team would be better with Adam Dunn leading off than Juan Pierre.

 

Don't blame Hendry for this, blame him for hiring Gene Clines and Dusty Baker. Ever look at Clines' career statistics? Might as well hire Borat to be your hitting instructor.

[CubsWin]

I don't get this nonsensical logic. Why does he deserve credit. It's baseball, there are winners and losers. If you lose more than you win, you're bad. Hendry is bad. How hard is this? Why does he deserve credit? Are we grading on a curve? Is it impossible to fail in this class? If Hendry deserves credit, then every GM deserves credit.

If you think that the teams Hendry has put together over the last two or three seasons were terrible and doomed to failure because of the crappy decisions he made and that the injuries to superstars Prior, Lee and Ramirez, plus some important role players, and the larger than normal amount of games missed by injury concerns Wood and Nomar, and the unforeseeable and freakish collapses of Patterson, Dempster and others had little to no effect on the won-loss record of those teams, then yes, he doesn't deserve any credit.

 

But if you think he put together teams that could have contended if it weren't for a lot of freakish stuff happening, then he deserves more credit than you and some others are giving him.

 

If you choose to only look at the total won-loss record over 4 years and not take into account that it looked a whole lot better after his 3rd year before a disasterous season felled by an unusual amount of injuries to key superstar players, then yes, he doesn't deserve any credit.

 

But if you allow yourself to remember the records of the teams before he took over and see how much better his teams were in his first two or even three years combined, even withstanding a rapidly declining superstar and injuries to key players over those seasons, then he deserves more credit than some are willing to give him.

 

From where I'm looking at it, that seems clear to me. Am I missing something that you're seeing?

[jersey cubs fan]

I blame a lot more on Dusty Baker mismanaging the 05 and 06 teams than Hendry. Neifi Perez has worth as a late-game defensive sub - not as a #2 hitting starting SS. John Mabry should have never started a game. Todd Walker should have been leading off with Murton hitting 2.

 

The list goes on and on, but Hendry's only fault was having a water-brain running his team.

 

Hendry hired Baker and kept him on board.

 

And now that's his only fault?

 

Laughable, utterly laughable. I try to fight the argument that Cubs fans get what they deserve because they accept the losing, but it's hard to with so many people making claims like this.

[UBlink]

They were "crap" teams, but Hendry didn't sit on his thumb and ignore the holes. Last year he brought in a much-needed leadoff hitter. THAT was the problem (outside of injuries) and he addressed it. It isn't Hendry's fault that Pierre and Ramirez swung rubber bats in the first half

 

Pierre's OPS in 2006 was only 6 points lower than his career numbers. His hitting performance was pretty much what one could expect.

[rawaction]

Hendry could have the Yankees offensive roster and the Red Sox pitching talent. He could have acquired all by given up prospects that have flamed out. He could have signed all FAs at the league minimum. But if he has a losing record as a GM, he's NOT a good GM. That's the bottom line.

 

Sure, Lee, Ramirez, Nomar, Barrett were all steals. Developing Theriot, Zambrano, Hill, Wuertz, Pie is great. But the fact remains that he hasn't done well enough to win, and he has had no shortage of resources to do so. Hell, even the teams without resources have had more success on the field (Marlins, A's to name a couple) and on the farm.

[jersey cubs fan]

Don't blame Hendry for this, blame him for hiring Gene Clines and Dusty Baker.

 

What? Hendry hired those guys. It's his job to hire the right guys.

 

But more importantly, Hendry has been the guy who has pushed this backward strategy the hardest.

[Soriano12]

 

Actually, the problem is he thought leadoff hitter was the problem. Leadoff hitter wasn't the problem. And why Cubs fans are still fooled by this non-existent position is beyond me. But the problem has been that the Cubs don't walk enough and they give up too many walks. Hendry ignores this, instead going after a crap leadoff hitter that anybody with half a brain could see was not going to help the team.

 

Hendry ignored the holes, and concentrated on filling mythological needs.

 

I totally agree with you on that point. The Cubs are never going to win unless they grasp the concept that scoring more runs than the opposition is the key to the game. It sounds ridiculously stupid because it is just that.

 

When you are disciplined enough to draw a walk as a hitter, you are going to score more runs. I don't care what anyone says, and I guarantee that a team would be better with Adam Dunn leading off than Juan Pierre.

 

Don't blame Hendry for this, blame him for hiring Gene Clines and Dusty Baker. Ever look at Clines' career statistics? Might as well hire Borat to be your hitting instructor.

 

And who allowed Baker to function as manager of the Cubs for 4 seasons?

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't get this nonsensical logic. Why does he deserve credit. It's baseball, there are winners and losers. If you lose more than you win, you're bad. Hendry is bad. How hard is this? Why does he deserve credit? Are we grading on a curve? Is it impossible to fail in this class? If Hendry deserves credit, then every GM deserves credit.

If you think that the teams Hendry has put together over the last two or three seasons were terrible and doomed to failure because of the crappy decisions he made and that the injuries to superstars Prior, Lee and Ramirez, plus some important role players, and the larger than normal amount of games missed by injury concerns Wood and Nomar, and the unforeseeable and freakish collapses of Patterson, Dempster and others had little to no effect on the won-loss record of those teams, then yes, he doesn't deserve any credit.

 

But if you think he put together teams that could have contended if it weren't for a lot of freakish stuff happening, then he deserves more credit than you and some others are giving him.

 

If you choose to only look at the total won-loss record over 4 years and not take into account that it looked a whole lot better after his 3rd year before a disasterous season felled by an unusual amount of injuries to key superstar players, then yes, he doesn't deserve any credit.

 

But if you allow yourself to remember the records of the teams before he took over and see how much better his teams were in his first two or even three years combined, even withstanding a rapidly declining superstar and injuries to key players over those seasons, then he deserves more credit than some are willing to give him.

 

From where I'm looking at it, that seems clear to me. Am I missing something that you're seeing?

 

In other words. Things were worse before, so I'm just happy they are marginally better now.

 

Believe me, it's perfectly clear.

[Backtobanks]

My biggest beefs with Hendry are this:

 

- Over 4 years with 3 of the most promising young arms in franchise history, along with one of the top 5 payrolls in baseball to fill in the missing pieces, the Cubs have not won. They have played worse than .500 baseball over a period when any other team with the pitching and farm system the Cubs had with a payroll the Cubs have would and should have made the playoffs every year.

- The most glaring reason for the struggles has been obvious: the Cubs haven't been scoring runs. Hendry saw the problem as a lack of hitting with runners in scoring position, when even a cursory glance at the statistics would show the Cubs were near the back of the majors in OBP, which indicated there simply weren't runners in scoring position. When you're only getting 9 chances a game, coming through 3 times shouldn't be seen as a flaw in execution.

 

- Once Prior and Wood were shown to have arm problems, rather than have a backup plan at the ready, the plan was sheer hope that they would be ready. Glendon Rusch and revolve-a-starter was not a solution, and it was compounded by trading away most of the promising young pitching for speed and defense, which again didn't address either issue with the team.

 

How can you say that any other team with the Cubs' payroll and farm system would have made the playoffs every year? Let's see if the Cards and Yanks continue to struggle, if Cashman and Jocketty are considered morons. Being a GM is a fickle job, you're either a genius or a loser (see Kenny Williams). Whether it should be considered or not, you have to admit that the Cubs have had an unbelievable number of injuries to key players during this time frame.

[CubsWin]

I agree. If you don't take into account all of the circumstances of a GM's tenure and attempt simplify everything down to a bottom line of wins and losses, you aren't making a fair or accurate judgement. It would be nice if it were that simple, but its just not.

 

In fact it is that simple. If you throw in all the BS excuses people like to give Hendry, you complicate the story. The fact is Hendry has done a poor job.

I don't mean to be flip, but you just restated your opinion without providing any reasons why it should hold up under logical scrutiny. I can make an argument why it is fair and accurate to take into account the state of the team at the time the GM takes over and why it is hard to fault a GM for catastrophic injuries. Can you make an argument for why it is more fair and accurate to judge a GM on one statistic?

 

If you need something to backup the claim that results are what matters in sports then you just don't understand sports. There's nothing else to say.

 

Hendry has been in charge for many years. And before he was in charge of the whole thing he was in charge of the minors. He had as much money and resources to work with as any GM could possibly expect, and he failed.

 

Those people who are willing to accept mediocrity as a goal are satisfied with somebody like Hendry in charge. Those people who want to see a championship are not. It's quite simple. No need to muck it up with the nonsense.

 

There is no logical scrutiny that can tear down the argument that Hendry has done a poor job. There is only BS and lies.

Sure there is. Let's say you spent all evening cooking a really good dinner for your friends. And just before they arrived, I showed up and smashed up the plates and poured tons and tons of cayenne pepper on everything. When your friends arrive, all they see is a messy table and terrible tasting food that is so spicy they choke on it. Do you deserve any credit for making a really good meal?

 

BS and lies? Simple and obvious logic says otherwise. It occurs to me that your mind is painfully closed and made up on this issue. I'm done talking to you about it.

[bukie]

 

How can you say that any other team with the Cubs' payroll and farm system would have made the playoffs every year? Let's see if the Cards and Yanks continue to struggle, if Cashman and Jocketty are considered morons. Being a GM is a fickle job, you're either a genius or a loser (see Kenny Williams). Whether it should be considered or not, you have to admit that the Cubs have had an unbelievable number of injuries to key players during this time frame.

 

The Yankees have made the playoffs every year. The Cards made the playoffs in '04, '05, and '06. Neither of them had the young arms and the farm system the Cubs had in '03, and neither of them failed to take advantage of the opportunities they had. The Red Sox have contended for the playoffs every year.

 

The Mets were the only high spender that failed recently, and they changed their entire organization. The Cubs, however, keep trying to make things work with the current system, and it hasn't worked.

[UBlink]

Sure there is. Let's say you spent all evening cooking a really good dinner for your friends. And just before they arrived, I showed up and smashed up the plates and poured tons and tons of cayenne pepper on everything. When your friends arrive, all they see is a messy table and terrible tasting food that is so spicy they choke on it. Do you deserve any credit for making a really good meal?

 

If I continue to invite you over every time I invite my friends and you do the same thing each time I think I have to share in the blame, and I wouldn't blame my friends if they passed on my invitations.

[Soriano12]

I agree. If you don't take into account all of the circumstances of a GM's tenure and attempt simplify everything down to a bottom line of wins and losses, you aren't making a fair or accurate judgement. It would be nice if it were that simple, but its just not.

 

In fact it is that simple. If you throw in all the BS excuses people like to give Hendry, you complicate the story. The fact is Hendry has done a poor job.

I don't mean to be flip, but you just restated your opinion without providing any reasons why it should hold up under logical scrutiny. I can make an argument why it is fair and accurate to take into account the state of the team at the time the GM takes over and why it is hard to fault a GM for catastrophic injuries. Can you make an argument for why it is more fair and accurate to judge a GM on one statistic?

 

If you need something to backup the claim that results are what matters in sports then you just don't understand sports. There's nothing else to say.

 

Hendry has been in charge for many years. And before he was in charge of the whole thing he was in charge of the minors. He had as much money and resources to work with as any GM could possibly expect, and he failed.

 

Those people who are willing to accept mediocrity as a goal are satisfied with somebody like Hendry in charge. Those people who want to see a championship are not. It's quite simple. No need to muck it up with the nonsense.

 

There is no logical scrutiny that can tear down the argument that Hendry has done a poor job. There is only BS and lies.

Sure there is. Let's say you spent all evening cooking a really good dinner for your friends. And just before they arrived, I showed up and smashed up the plates and poured tons and tons of cayenne pepper on everything. When your friends arrive, all they see is a messy table and terrible tasting food that is so spicy they choke on it. Do you deserve any credit for making a really good meal?

 

BS and lies? Simple and obvious logic says otherwise. It occurs to me that your mind is painfully closed and made up on this issue. I'm done talking to you about it.

 

It is his fault for not keeping you(Dusty Baker) out of the house.

[CubColtPacer]

 

How can you say that any other team with the Cubs' payroll and farm system would have made the playoffs every year? Let's see if the Cards and Yanks continue to struggle, if Cashman and Jocketty are considered morons. Being a GM is a fickle job, you're either a genius or a loser (see Kenny Williams). Whether it should be considered or not, you have to admit that the Cubs have had an unbelievable number of injuries to key players during this time frame.

 

The Yankees have made the playoffs every year. The Cards made the playoffs in '04, '05, and '06. Neither of them had the young arms and the farm system the Cubs had in '03, and neither of them failed to take advantage of the opportunities they had. The Red Sox have contended for the playoffs every year.

 

The Mets were the only high spender that failed recently, and they changed their entire organization. The Cubs, however, keep trying to make things work with the current system, and it hasn't worked.

 

They aren't the only ones. The Dodgers have been in and out of the playoffs. The Mariners haven't been in the playoffs for years. The Angels have been up and down. The Orioles haven't made the playoffs for years, and the Giants and Phillies haven't either. All of those teams have had similar payrolls to the Cubs.

[Exile on Waveland]

I believe the title of this thread is accurate: Hendry cannot win. And that's all that matters, folks. As a GM you're judged on wins and wins only. End of story. Hendry hasn't won, he's not a good GM.

[seanimal]

Hendry could have the Yankees offensive roster and the Red Sox pitching talent.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

Seriously, some of this is just pure silliness. Hendry's an alright GM. Not good, not bad.

Edited May 8, 2007 by seanimal

[bukie]

Sure there is. Let's say you spent all evening cooking a really good dinner for your friends. And just before they arrived, I showed up and smashed up the plates and poured tons and tons of cayenne pepper on everything. When your friends arrive, all they see is a messy table and terrible tasting food that is so spicy they choke on it. Do you deserve any credit for making a really good meal?

 

BS and lies? Simple and obvious logic says otherwise. It occurs to me that your mind is painfully closed and made up on this issue. I'm done talking to you about it.

 

Besides the awful analogy, what you are basically saying is that everything that went wrong for the Cubs was beyond Hendry's control.

 

Injured players were beyond Hendry's control, even if they had a history of injury prior to being acquired. No other teams ever had to account for injury problems.

 

Players with poor strike zone judgment was a coaching issue, not an organizational philosophy issue. Even if those players never had good strike zone judgment, it was up to the coaching to make sure they developed it, and it had nothing to do with Hendry's philosophy on acquiring and developing hitters.

 

Same with pitchers with poor command. Totally out of Hendry's control, and purely a coaching issue. Not Hendry's fault that the players in the Cubs system were incapable of throwing strikes consistently, and not Hendry's fault that the players he acquired had the same problem.

 

Again, nobody is saying Hendry is solely responsible for everything bad happening with the Cubs system. The ones that have a problem with Hendry are criticizing that his organizational philosophy is incorrect, and it hasn't helped the Cubs do what they should be doing as an organization with the funding and farm system they had.

[CubsWin]

Sure there is. Let's say you spent all evening cooking a really good dinner for your friends. And just before they arrived, I showed up and smashed up the plates and poured tons and tons of cayenne pepper on everything. When your friends arrive, all they see is a messy table and terrible tasting food that is so spicy they choke on it. Do you deserve any credit for making a really good meal?

 

If I continue to invite you over every time I invite my friends and you do the same thing each time I think I have to share in the blame, and I wouldn't blame my friends if they passed on my invitations.

Truer words, my friend, truer words...

[satxcubfan]

I agree. If you don't take into account all of the circumstances of a GM's tenure and attempt simplify everything down to a bottom line of wins and losses, you aren't making a fair or accurate judgement. It would be nice if it were that simple, but its just not.

 

In fact it is that simple. If you throw in all the BS excuses people like to give Hendry, you complicate the story. The fact is Hendry has done a poor job.

I don't mean to be flip, but you just restated your opinion without providing any reasons why it should hold up under logical scrutiny. I can make an argument why it is fair and accurate to take into account the state of the team at the time the GM takes over and why it is hard to fault a GM for catastrophic injuries. Can you make an argument for why it is more fair and accurate to judge a GM on one statistic?

 

If you need something to backup the claim that results are what matters in sports then you just don't understand sports. There's nothing else to say.

 

Hendry has been in charge for many years. And before he was in charge of the whole thing he was in charge of the minors. He had as much money and resources to work with as any GM could possibly expect, and he failed.

 

Those people who are willing to accept mediocrity as a goal are satisfied with somebody like Hendry in charge. Those people who want to see a championship are not. It's quite simple. No need to muck it up with the nonsense.

 

There is no logical scrutiny that can tear down the argument that Hendry has done a poor job. There is only BS and lies.

Sure there is. Let's say you spent all evening cooking a really good dinner for your friends. And just before they arrived, I showed up and smashed up the plates and poured tons and tons of cayenne pepper on everything. When your friends arrive, all they see is a messy table and terrible tasting food that is so spicy they choke on it. Do you deserve any credit for making a really good meal?

 

BS and lies? Simple and obvious logic says otherwise. It occurs to me that your mind is painfully closed and made up on this issue. I'm done talking to you about it.

 

What took you so long??? :)

[bukie]

They aren't the only ones. The Dodgers have been in and out of the playoffs. The Mariners haven't been in the playoffs for years. The Angels have been up and down. The Orioles haven't made the playoffs for years, and the Giants and Phillies haven't either. All of those teams have had similar payrolls to the Cubs.

 

The Mariners and Phillies are middle-of-the-pack spenders, and the Mariners have won recently without a huge payroll. And nobody is claiming that the Dodgers, Orioles and Giants are run well, either. :)

[satxcubfan]

also... who else was available at the end of '02 aside from Baker? Nobody worth a cr*p, if I recall correctly...