Hendry cannot win

[Transmogrified Tiger]

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

 

You're really going to use that as an argument? It wouldn't have been very difficult to find someone better than Dusty, or at the very least someone who wouldn't turn our starters' shoulders into hamburger.

[bukie]

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

 

Willie Randolph, John McLaren, Ken Macha (who I am putting here for completionist's sake, as the Oakland management didn't care for him).

 

Baker was looked at as a good option because the Giants had been to the World Series that year. It doesn't mean there weren't other options.

[Shawon12]

He deserves credit for Barrett. And Dempster. And it looks like Marquis/Lilly.

 

It could be worse, and I am pretty happy with Hendry.

 

Pudge >>>Barrett in '04 and we win the WC running away. To me, this was a critical move based on Barrett's awful D.

[satxcubfan]

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

 

Willie Randolph, John McLaren, Ken Macha (who I am putting here for completionist's sake, as the Oakland management didn't care for him).

 

Baker was looked at as a good option because the Giants had been to the World Series that year. It doesn't mean there weren't other options.

 

That's my point, he took SF to the series and Cubs management liked him for that, especially considering the failed term of Don Baylor/Bruce Kimm. Believe me... I AM NOT a Dusty supporter!!!

[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?

 

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.

No, one person is and that is who I was responding to in the above quote.

 

I don't think Hendry should be held blameless, but there are certain things that are beyond any GMs control. I listed them in a previous post. The injuries to superstars like Prior, Lee and Ramirez, and other important role players, the larger than normal amount of games missed by injury concerns like Wood and Nomar, the unforeseeable and freakish collapses by Patterson, Dempster and others. These are things that every GM will have to deal with, but not to the abnormal extent that the Cubs GM had to over the last couple of seasons.

 

I hold Hendry responsible for not doing what it took to sign Beltran, for not making the necessary moves to get the Cubs into the playoffs in '04, for not emphasizing OBP more than he has, for not having a back-up plan for Wood sooner, for not handling the Sosa trade with more forsight or candor and other things. I don't think he is the greatest GM, but I think he has obviously improved this team and is improving and learning on the job. Should he be kept on after this season? If the Cubs make the playoffs? Yes. If not, probably not, but would depend on the big picture and the circumstances involved.

[Z38Cubs]

He deserves credit for Barrett. And Dempster. And it looks like Marquis/Lilly.

 

It could be worse, and I am pretty happy with Hendry.

 

Pudge >>>Barrett in '04 and we win the WC running away. To me, this was a critical move based on Barrett's awful D.

 

You're saying the Cubs didn't win the WC in 2004 because of Michael Barrett's defense? Wow, of all the reasons one could come up with, you choose that one. Nevermind the fact that Barrett had an .826 OPS, his defense cost the cubs 3 games in the standings. Yea, whatever you say.

[inari]

He deserves credit for Barrett. And Dempster. And it looks like Marquis/Lilly.

 

It could be worse, and I am pretty happy with Hendry.

 

Pudge >>>Barrett in '04 and we win the WC running away. To me, this was a critical move based on Barrett's awful D.

 

We found an absolute bargain in Michael Barrett. Would you want to be paying Pudge's contract at this point? I certainly wouldn't. We're getting a lot more bang for our buck with Michael, and I have no problem with that.

[Rob]

He deserves credit for Barrett. And Dempster. And it looks like Marquis/Lilly.

 

It could be worse, and I am pretty happy with Hendry.

 

Pudge >>>Barrett in '04 and we win the WC running away. To me, this was a critical move based on Barrett's awful D.

 

We found an absolute bargain in Michael Barrett. Would you want to be paying Pudge's contract at this point? I certainly wouldn't. We're getting a lot more bang for our buck with Michael, and I have no problem with that.

 

Dude, you don't understand baseball if you want an offensive-minded catcher.

 

Blanco should be starting.

[inari]

DEFENSE UP THE MIDDLE, POWER AT THE CORNERS! DEFENSE UP THE MIDDLE, POWER AT THE CORNERS! DEFENSE UP THE MIDDLE, POWER AT THE CORNERS! DEFENSE UP THE MIDDLE, POWER AT THE CORNERS! DEFENSE UP THE MIDDLE, POWER AT THE CORNERS! DEFENSE UP THE MIDDLE, POWER AT THE CORNERS!

 

WAR IS PEACE

 

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

 

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[third eye]

To me, saying that the won-lost record in a vacuum should define a GM's success is like saying a pitcher's effectiveness should be determined strictly by his won-loss record (an extreme example, but directionally analogous). There are too many other variables that come in to play. A pitcher can execute his pitches and hope his offense provides him some runs. A GM can execute his game plan and hope his team stays heatlhy and that the aggregate runs scored and allowed are reflected in the final record. Saying he is under .500 in his tenure isnt fair either, because before last year he did have a winning record, and the team was in contention for the majority of the previous three years. He absolutely put together the most talented team in baseball in 2004 in my opinion. I still peg that one on Latroy's inability to nail down the one-run saves. Add to that the Cubs were 10 games under .500 in 1 run games that year (clearly related). Even a .500 record in that department puts them at 94 wins, in the playoffs and a major threat to win the WS. I cant fault him at all for the failure that year.

 

Two obvious caveats: 1. Yes, he clearly undervalues OBP. 2. He didnt add pitching depth to the 05 and 06 teams.

 

Last year was a disaster all around, and can be largely pinned on him. But he put together strong teams the previous 3 years. I dont blame him for freak injuries to Nomar and Prior in 2005. No one could have seen those coming. That team would have been in contention for the WC all year had those two been available. He clearly has flaws in his baseball philosophy, but I think his overall track record is unfairly scewed by last year's performance.

[abuck1220]

 

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.

 

no, he didn't. pierre sucked, and pretty much everyone on this board knew he would. he made whatever hole in the lineup there was worse. and that's his fault, not pierre's. pierre did exactly what everyone thought he would do.

 

just b/c hendry, espn and joe morgan say pierre is a good leadoff hitter, doesn't make it so.

[abuck1220]

To me, saying that the won-lost record in a vacuum should define a GM's success is like saying a pitcher's effectiveness should be determined strictly by his won-loss record (an extreme example, but directionally analogous).

 

not even close to being analogous.

 

a pitcher's job is to pitch well. there are things that are out of his control.

 

the gm's job is to build a winning team. included in that job is the expectation that he fix things that come up that are out of his control (ie injuries).

 

it is mind-boggling that people still defend hendry, who has put together a team that has disappointed for three straight seasons despite a ridiculously huge payroll. seems like a lot of people here got used to baker's excuses and are now making them for hendry.

[killthegoat06]

 

It could be worse,

 

What inspiring words. This is the sort of thing that causes people to rejoice over back to back over .500 seasons, complacency and willingness to accept mediocrity as improvement.

 

and I am pretty happy with Hendry.

 

You're happy with a team that's under .500 since he took control? I can't imagine what he'd have to do to make you unhappy.

 

I agree. That's what bugs me about some of the things people say about the cubs (not necessarily on this board). They talk about being decent and being happy with that. I, for one, am not happy with a team that is not a consistent serious contender with a World Series ring somewhere in the last 90 years.

[Rob]

 

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.

 

no, he didn't. pierre sucked, and pretty much everyone on this board knew he would. he made whatever hole in the lineup there was worse. and that's his fault, not pierre's. pierre did exactly what everyone thought he would do.

 

just b/c hendry, espn and joe morgan say pierre is a good leadoff hitter, doesn't make it so.

 

Yeah. I don't know of a single realistic person who thought Juan Pierre was even a good option for CF just for the money... let alone what we gave up to get him.

 

And make no mistake, Juan Pierre isnt a leadoff hitter. He's a CF, and a subpar one.

[Yeti]

 

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.

 

no, he didn't. pierre sucked, and pretty much everyone on this board knew he would. he made whatever hole in the lineup there was worse. and that's his fault, not pierre's. pierre did exactly what everyone thought he would do.

 

just b/c hendry, espn and joe morgan say pierre is a good leadoff hitter, doesn't make it so.

 

Yeah. I don't know of a single realistic person who thought Juan Pierre was even a good option for CF just for the money... let alone what we gave up to get him.

 

And make no mistake, Juan Pierre isnt a leadoff hitter. He's a CF, and a subpar one.

gotta love a noodle armed CF'er :pukel:

[Rob]

 

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.

 

no, he didn't. pierre sucked, and pretty much everyone on this board knew he would. he made whatever hole in the lineup there was worse. and that's his fault, not pierre's. pierre did exactly what everyone thought he would do.

 

just b/c hendry, espn and joe morgan say pierre is a good leadoff hitter, doesn't make it so.

 

Yeah. I don't know of a single realistic person who thought Juan Pierre was even a good option for CF just for the money... let alone what we gave up to get him.

 

And make no mistake, Juan Pierre isnt a leadoff hitter. He's a CF, and a subpar one.

gotta love a noodle armed CF'er :pukel:

 

I was more upset about his anemic bat. Sad thing is I wasn't surprised at all that he led the league in outs...

[third eye]

To me, saying that the won-lost record in a vacuum should define a GM's success is like saying a pitcher's effectiveness should be determined strictly by his won-loss record (an extreme example, but directionally analogous).

 

not even close to being analogous.

 

a pitcher's job is to pitch well. there are things that are out of his control.

 

the gm's job is to build a winning team. included in that job is the expectation that he fix things that come up that are out of his control (ie injuries).

 

it is mind-boggling that people still defend hendry, who has put together a team that has disappointed for three straight seasons despite a ridiculously huge payroll. seems like a lot of people here got used to baker's excuses and are now making them for hendry.

 

 

So you do pin the 2004 collapse on Hendry? What more could he have done? Who else in baseball did more to improve their team over the previous year than him that year? (Maybe Epstein) I can agree with two straight diappointing years for the GM but not three. If this team doesnt deliver, then I agree he needs to be replaced. But I think arguing that he has failed to deliver every year is an oversimplifications, particularly from a group who tends to be more analytical of other aspects of the game. That's not making excuses for him. It is examining the source of failures rather than assigning blanket guilt by association.

 

I am not defending all of his decisions. As I stated in the previous post, he has philosophical shortcomings. I just dont agree with the logic that a sub .500 record in 4 seasons makes him an overall failure as a GM. It is too skewed by one year.

[Amazing_Grace]

To break it down, here are the bullet points for why Hendry is a bad GM.

 

1.) Bottom line, he has a sub .500 record as GM with a top 5 payroll in the NL. That's unacceptable by most anyone's definition.

 

2.) He hired Dusty Baker, who refused to play young players when the Cubs had one of the best farm systems in all of baseball, abused our pitchers' arms, and taught young hitters a terrible approach to hitting.

 

3.) He signed middle relievers, who are, by definition, inconsistent and unpredictable, to multi-year multi-million dollar contracts.

 

4.) He consistently failed to address the team's greatest deficiency, lack of OBP over his entire tenure as GM. He ignores OBP altogether or else doesn't give it a high enough priority. He continues to sign an entire team of aggressive power or speed hitters and ignores the need to have some other kinds of hitters on the team.

 

5.) He has repeatedly signed or traded for bad to mediocre veterans in the decline phase of their careers to block young prospects, players such as Burnitz, Floyd, and Karros.

 

6.) He refused to ever put a check on Dusty Baker's abuse of young pitchers by ordering them put on pitch counts. Hendry was Baker's boss and it's his job to make sure he overrules his employees when they make decisions that cost the organization.

 

7.) He relied over and over again on players with long injury histories to be major contributors without having a suitable backup plan, and waited too long to bring in replacements when needed.

 

8.) Those who give him credit for "foreseeing" the improvement of Lee, Barrett, and Ramirez would do well to remember that he apparently DIDN'T foresee the decline in Juan Pierre, Glendon Rusch, Joe Borowski, Jeromy Burnitz, or Greg Maddux, nor obviously, did he foresee the injuries to Wood, Prior, and Nomar. He may have left Rich Hill untouchable, and that is to his credit, but he also gave up Ricky Nolasco AND Sergio Mitre for Juan Pierre (and only one year of Pierre thankfully). Those two might have made it unnecessary to sign Marquis and/or Lilly.

 

If that isn't enough to convince people that Hendry is, at best, a mediocre GM, and, at worst, one of the worst in MLB, then I guess they can't be convinced. Sure, he found some good players. Every team has at least one or two guys that came in and did well. The odds dictate that you have some successes and some failures when you bring in players. You measure how good the team was overall by wins and losses, and the Cubs have had fewer wins per dollar than just about any team in baseball during Hendry's tenure. If that's not an indication of his failure, then what exactly does it indicate?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

you only got 8?

[Amazing_Grace]

you only got 8?

 

LOL, Well, if I went over every single bad signing and bad trade and why it was dumb, the post would be so long no one would read it. I went with the most unforgiveable errors that he's consistently made, though I probably should add "not recognizing when a player is having an uncharacteristic career year and failing to realize regression to the mean is likely".

[BigbadB]

A GM has one job. Put a team on the field that wins. It is that simple.

 

GM's get fired all the time for NOT putting a team on the field that wins. GM's who put teams on the field that go out and win keep their jobs for as long as they want them.

 

Hendry has not put a team on the field that wins. For that, he should have been fired already.

 

No one wants to hear excuses. But this guy was injured and this guy had an off year and that guy wasn't as good as anticipated and this other team played over their heads. Anyone can run off a long list of excuses, but no one wants to hear excuses. They want to hear that their team is going to the playoffs. If you don't get your team to the playoffs, then the GM should voluntarily resign from his job for failing at his job or he should be fired.

 

It's ridiculous that someone who fails at their job continues to get paid to do that job. I suppose a contract requires you pay him for that job whether he works or not, but what's the point of continuing to allow him to do a job he clearly is not good at doing? It would be better to pay him to sit at home on the couch and put someone in charge who will get the job done.

 

There aren't only 32 people in the world qualified to be a GM. When the one you got sucks, go out and find someone who won't. There are many great baseball minds in this world, start interviewing them for the job.

 

With that said, Hendry is still here even though I've been screaming for his removal. I did give him a pretty good grade for his offseason moves and I do have high hopes for this team this year, but he never should have been given this opportunity. All I can hope at this point is that he rights this ship, because if they don't win this year, he's really gotta go.

[CubinNY]

He deserves alot of credit.

 

For having the highest paid worst team in baseball year after year. For that he deserves a lot of credit.

[biittner77]

To break it down, here are the bullet points for why Hendry is a bad GM.

 

1.) Bottom line, he has a sub .500 record as GM with a top 5 payroll in the NL. That's unacceptable by most anyone's definition.

 

:D

[David]

Hendry 2003-2004 - Good (outside of hiring Dusty and his boys)

 

Hendry 2005-present - Bad

 

/thread

[RynoRules]

Hendry has done a very bad job. I am not sure if he is a "bad GM". That sounds a bit general for me. He's done a nice job with building pitching talent in the minors and we have some nice results of that on the ML level. He also has done a decent job at signing FA pitchers (I am going largely off Lily and Marquis and how they have done so far).

 

He has done a poor job drafting position players, and isn't very good at judging FA position players either. He's done a pretty good job at swinging trades.

 

He did a very poor job in dealing with Baker. He did a very poor job of dealing with media distractions and players who allowed themselves to be distracted by the media.

 

Then there is his teams' W-L record over the last three seasons. Piss poor.

 

Is he a bad GM? Or has he done a bad job? I dunno. I am not sure it matters. He probably should have lost his job last year, but I suspect that upper management feels MacPhail was largely responsible for what has happened.