Hendry cannot win

[Chocolate Milk]

Thread title is right on the mark.

[NomarSammy]

I am glad there is so much feedback. I thought there was much more support on here for hendry as I read the first couple of pages, then he kind of lost with the later pages. I am not sure what some people around here are looking for--I think some of you are fairly narrow -minded in some of your responses, but I understand the frustration and do agree you have to win.

 

I have enjoyed reading this--thanks

[CUBZ99]

I am glad there is so much feedback. I thought there was much more support on here for hendry as I read the first couple of pages, then he kind of lost with the later pages. I am not sure what some people around here are looking for--I think some of you are fairly narrow -minded in some of your responses, but I understand the frustration and do agree you have to win.

 

I have enjoyed reading this--thanks

 

 

To the contrary, most of the people arguing that Hendry is a bad GM back up their arguments pretty well. The people arguing Hendry is a good GM are doing so based upon excuses and a few good moves that he makes.

 

Other GM's in baseball deal with the exact types of issues Hendry has had to deal with through his tenure. As any executive would attest to, you take the good and the bad. In baseball it comes down to winning and losing. Hendry's record speaks for itself.

[MPC]

the gm is the most important person in an organization. the cubs have been very bad the past 2 years and the third worst team in all of the major leagues last year, and has had more money to work with than the majority of other teams in mlb. hendry has the biggest impact on the outcome of the season and the win-loss results have been bad. he's to blame.

[soonercub]

While no GM is perfect, I like most of the moves Jim has made to acquire talent. Building a bench is like catching lighting in a bottle. There are reasons that the players aren't starters to begin with.

 

I can't put to much blame of 04 on Jim. He had the pieces in place after 03 and aquired Nomar and Matt in a nice deal. 2005 was injury filled. 2006 was the one I put on Jim, but at least he was proactive in preparing for 2007. So far Lilly has been real nice and he wanted Meche for the right money, but came up short and rebounded with what appears to be an improved Jason Marquis.

 

I would have liked to see what kinda run we would have made at Beltran and Furcal if MacPhail wasn't over his head.

[frostwyrm]

Ample money + ample time + losing record = bad GM.

 

 

It really is that simple.

[Amazing_Grace]

I am glad there is so much feedback. I thought there was much more support on here for hendry as I read the first couple of pages, then he kind of lost with the later pages. I am not sure what some people around here are looking for--I think some of you are fairly narrow -minded in some of your responses, but I understand the frustration and do agree you have to win.

 

I have enjoyed reading this--thanks

 

I'm looking for a GM who can put a team that consistently wins on the field, and by "wins", I don't mean I'm going to jump for joy at being over .500 for two straight seasons; I mean I'd like to see the team in contention within a couple games of the playoffs at least through July and August in most seasons.

 

I'd also prefer a GM whose baseball philosophy isn't older than I am (I'm 26), as I think it's unlikely any GM who relies on the old "speed and defense" mentality and ignores the importance of OBP is going to win consistently.

[Guest]

Building a bench is like catching lighting in a bottle

 

no, its not. building a bench is a talent.

[mhuber92211]

So if I understand the major bone of contention correctly is that Hendry did not spend wisely.

 

Sheesh, that makes a swell argument. The counter thought would then be that he would be an acceptable GM if he has had the same record that he has now but only spent the Pirates' payroll.

 

Why does having a large payroll make a difference?

 

Bottom line is that money does not make a difference in baseball. There is no correlation with big spending and wins. You can win with a minimal payroll and you can win with a large payroll.

 

Saying that Hendry is a poor GM because he spent his money unwisely is not a solid argument. If you said that Hendry is a poor GM because his moves like Perez & Macias are more common then his moves like Lee and Ramirez.

 

If that is the argument, the conclusion isn't clear. Hendry has made some mistakes in acquiring the correct players. Were the above mistakes? Sure. Did they cripple the team and were the direct cause of failure? Absolutely not. Was it the sum of all these mistakes? Nope.

 

The answer is simple. The Cubs have failed because they haven't been good enough to win. The players play the game, the GM and manager set them up for success. Each year Hendry identifies what needs to improve to provide the right course for success and he sets to it. Relying on what was the best rotation in baseball in 2004 was seemingly a good way of accomplishing this and Hendry supplemented the best rotation with a couple of major relievers that had a track record of recent success. This didn't work. Hendry then thought it was depth and attacked this and again it didn't work.

 

Agree or not, Hendry has acted to improve the team. Were they the best options at the time? Possibly. We have no idea of the roadblocks to a possible deal with various players this board has clamored for. But at least we can't fault the GM for not ignoring a problem and trying to fix it.

 

Before the OBP argument comes into play, let me say this. OBP is another weakness identified and addressed as best as possible. In this age of baseball , even though OBP is highly valued, there isn't many players capable of putting up good numbers.

[Bote McBoteface]

Hendry's big fault is that he relied on Prior and Wood too much. I feel he built solid teams the entire time, but he didn't account for the possibility of injury (dumb move, I know.)

 

This year, he took action and now we have no Prior, no Wood, and we still have a pretty good team. I'm decently happy with him.

[Rob]

So if I understand the major bone of contention correctly is that Hendry did not spend wisely.

 

Sheesh, that makes a swell argument. The counter thought would then be that he would be an acceptable GM if he has had the same record that he has now but only spent the Pirates' payroll.

 

Why does having a large payroll make a difference?

 

Bottom line is that money does not make a difference in baseball. There is no correlation with big spending and wins. You can win with a minimal payroll and you can win with a large payroll.

 

It's possible to win with a minimal payroll on a consistent basis only if your GM makes better moves than those GMs with larger payrolls.

 

You think the small or mid market payrolls inherited by Billy Beane, Mark Shapiro, and John Schuerholz don't have an impact on their performance? All of them have been forced to exploit the weaknesses of their fellow GMs in order not only to survive, but to thrive. Small payrolls make you an underdog. Larger payrolls are expected to produce results more consistently than small ones. Period.

[Guest]

So if I understand the major bone of contention correctly is that Hendry did not spend wisely.

 

Sheesh, that makes a swell argument. The counter thought would then be that he would be an acceptable GM if he has had the same record that he has now but only spent the Pirates' payroll.

 

Why does having a large payroll make a difference?

 

Bottom line is that money does not make a difference in baseball. There is no correlation with big spending and wins. You can win with a minimal payroll and you can win with a large payroll.

 

Saying that Hendry is a poor GM because he spent his money unwisely is not a solid argument. If you said that Hendry is a poor GM because his moves like Perez & Macias are more common then his moves like Lee and Ramirez.

 

If that is the argument, the conclusion isn't clear. Hendry has made some mistakes in acquiring the correct players. Were the above mistakes? Sure. Did they cripple the team and were the direct cause of failure? Absolutely not. Was it the sum of all these mistakes? Nope.

 

The answer is simple. The Cubs have failed because they haven't been good enough to win. The players play the game, the GM and manager set them up for success. Each year Hendry identifies what needs to improve to provide the right course for success and he sets to it. Relying on what was the best rotation in baseball in 2004 was seemingly a good way of accomplishing this and Hendry supplemented the best rotation with a couple of major relievers that had a track record of recent success. This didn't work. Hendry then thought it was depth and attacked this and again it didn't work.

 

Agree or not, Hendry has acted to improve the team. Were they the best options at the time? Possibly. We have no idea of the roadblocks to a possible deal with various players this board has clamored for. But at least we can't fault the GM for not ignoring a problem and trying to fix it.

 

Before the OBP argument comes into play, let me say this. OBP is another weakness identified and addressed as best as possible. In this age of baseball , even though OBP is highly valued, there isn't many players capable of putting up good numbers.

 

You can't possibly be serious. You think a GM that wins 70 games while spending $105 million should be judged the same as a GM that wins 70 games and spends $40 million? Are you unaware of free agency? It is infinitely more difficult to win with a smaller payroll - are you really going to dispute that? Without the big payroll, Lee and Ramirez would both be gone. Where would this team be then? Your argument is completely ridiculous. No one is criticizing how much money Hendry spends, they are criticizing how he spent it.

[jjgman21]

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

 

the thing about the payroll is it was Hendry who got the Cubs in the upper echelons of NL salary in the first place, if not in rank then in actual dollars spent. I don't want Hendry as the GM. there are alot of things he does and doesn't do that drives me nuts and are enough for me to want him gone. at the same time, I consider his tenure thus far with a large amount of sympathy. the a "GM's job is to win, period, bottom line" crap is crap. denying that there are a variety of things out of his control and that those things have lead to losing baseball is untenable and disengenuous. like it or not, a GMs job is primarily to assemble a good team on paper during the winter, and there is not much else that can be done about it. here's the equation. team on the field = team on paper - injured players.

 

the vast majority of baseball transactions happen during the offseason. thus, the team you got on paper is generally the team you go with for most of the season. looking at things in a vacuum and saying 'he should have done something about it' when injuries happen is silly. it's not like he can snap his finger and have a .900+ OPS shortstop magically appear to replace the one lost for the season. there are no interns stepping into a phone booth and emerging as a #1a and a #1b starter. there is no foreseeing a squat little flee body checking your superstar or season ending scrotal contusions. few teams succeed losing one of their top players for the year, the Cubs have lost at least three of their top players each of the past two years, with many other good players lost for long stretches. other than teams with mind blowing salaries like the Yankees, RedSox and now the Mets ever have these types of injuries and find any kind of success.

 

someone even had the gall to ding on the acquisition of Karros. need I remind you...Todd Hundley. enough said on that, but regarding the team assembled in 2003, the harsh critics can't complain, right? afterall, it's about success, right? I want more, but I do consider 5 outs from the WS success.

 

so onto 2004. well, Hendry managed to assemble a team that, based on it's starting staff, most experts and projections had winning the WS. two of those starters didn't make it out of ST. closer goes down in May. so what's a guy to do? how about go out and get a borderline HOF shortstop to fill in at your biggest offensive hole? not bad. didn't work out. Cubs finish three games out of the WC. where would most teams have finished if there top two starters combined to miss 25 games? how about when there closer who was perfect in converting saves the year before goes down? how about both, and you throw in one of your best offensive players missing 35 games due to injury and suspension? probably not three games out of the WC.

 

so onto 2005. ah, but you can't talk about 2005 without reflecting on 2004 which ended with your disgruntled and rapidly fading superstar walking out. let's face it guys, he had to go. now some of it may have been his fault for letting Baker let the clubhouse situation get to the point it got to, but that's such a minute area of his responsability, if at all, as to make that part of his failure pretty irrelevant. somehow, someway Hendry manages to get rid of Sosa. you can say bad move, but you think 2005 was bad, you should have seen it if Sosa showed up to Mesa with his boombox declaring it was his house. deny the effects of mood of a ballclub all you want, the media would have dug and dug and dug until the clubhouse was in complete disarray and the effects would have shown up on the field. as it worked out, the Cubs got better production out of right than Sosa would have provided, and for a few mill less.

 

so with that said, onto 2005. not a good job assembling an outfield, but oh what an infield, and still a great starting staff. not so fast. subtract one of the aces completely, subtract a quarter of the infield, set another of the aces out for a few games completely, and a few more to get the stuff back. oh, the budding center fielder? complete regression. back to the minors for him.

 

"he should have seen it coming and had a contingency plan!" you say. why? Wood made every start through the rotation from July 11 until the end of the season in 2004. Prior made every single June, July, August, and September start in 2004. there was no reason to have a contingency plan going into 2005.

 

side bar...the contingency plan argument as it relates to the alleged mind blowing salary Hendry has had to work with. seems to me the Cubs have been writing checks that total high payroll, but not getting high payroll players on the field. two seasons in a row at least 25M in players have not played baseball even though they received checks. this is the type of thing the original poster is talking about. some say he's had this huge payroll, then turn around and say he should have spent even more for a contingency plan. it doesn't work that way in corporate America, which is exactly where Hendry operates. there's only one Roger Clemens tree, and it's fruit only falls in Texas and New York. there is no replacing Kerry Wood and Mark Prior, unless you spend 30M more, and that kind of dough is not falling out of Tribune tower any time soon. there is no replacing Nomar and Lee, nor is there much point in trying as losing that caliber of player results in his team losing 99% of the time.

 

2006 - a disaster, complete and total. I did not like the position players he assembled, and this is where he should have had a contingency plan for the pitching situation. but again, how is that possible? we're talking about 16M that you have to pay, and replacing two irreplacable baseball players. even so, this was IMO his only terrible year as a GM, mostly because of the lost opportunities created by riding the year out with Baker and the crap that was on the field. rebuilding should have started last June, not in December, and it lead to what I think was his second worst job, assembling the current team, which I think has a realistic shot at the playoffs, but will hamstring the organization for years because of the length of the Soriano deal. but what does that say? let's say the Cubs make the NLCS, but in 5 years are hamstrung because of the Soriano deal. that makes Hendry a success right? that is why viewing things in a vacuum is ridiculous. that is why the "winnging, bottom line, period" crap is crap.

 

 

in summation, you can say "every team has to deal with injuries." very true. however, no team has had to deal with injuries to the extent Hendry and the Cubs have had to the past three years. none. plain and simple. end of story. leaving injuries out of the equation in evaluating Hendry is absolutely absurd.

 

every person in every job has things in his control, things not in his control and a limited number of options to deal with those things which are not in his control. being held to blame when previously reliable employees suddenly stop performing forcing you to put less talented employees to work would suck for anybody managing anything. "bottom line is to win" is not the way things generally do, nor generally should, work. while most everyone is and should be held accountable to the bottom line, most everyone deserves the benefit of having proper process recognized even if it doesn't result in proper results, and sans injuries to many of the top employees in the Chicago Cubs organization, proper results were likely in 2004 and 2005.

 

 

on Baker - I don't think hiring him was a big mistake. it served it's purpose, which was to pump some enthusiasm back into the fan base. the mistake was retaining Baker after 2004. he should have gone right along with the other 'malcontents.' as for his failure to curb the way Dusty managed the ballclub, that's not the way it generally works.

[jjgman21]

So if I understand the major bone of contention correctly is that Hendry did not spend wisely.

 

Sheesh, that makes a swell argument. The counter thought would then be that he would be an acceptable GM if he has had the same record that he has now but only spent the Pirates' payroll.

 

Why does having a large payroll make a difference?

 

Bottom line is that money does not make a difference in baseball. There is no correlation with big spending and wins. You can win with a minimal payroll and you can win with a large payroll.

 

It's possible to win with a minimal payroll on a consistent basis only if your GM makes better moves than those GMs with larger payrolls.

 

You think the small or mid market payrolls inherited by Billy Beane, Mark Shapiro, and John Schuerholz don't have an impact on their performance? All of them have been forced to exploit the weaknesses of their fellow GMs in order not only to survive, but to thrive. Small payrolls make you an underdog. Larger payrolls are expected to produce results more consistently than small ones. Period.

 

I'm not sure how Shapiro and Schuerholz belong in this argument. before 2007, Shapiro had one successful year, and still failed to make the playoffs. the Braves payroll has been reduced, but has been only slightly behind the Cubs each of the past few years.

 

further, none of the three have made their mark by exploiting the weaknesses of fellow GMs. all three have succeeded primarily because of great farm systems. even Beane is overrated when it comes to this. on the current team, I can think of four significant players that came by trade, two were very good trades (Harren and Gaudin), one very meh (Kendall) and one he'd probably like to have back (Bradley).

 

the larger myth that is developing here is that you don't need large payrolls to win. there are three teams that have found any recent success without spending alot of money, the A's, the Twins, and the Padres, and it's no longer 2002. they're all edging ever closer to the middle of the pack with each passing year.

 

let's look at 2005

 

AL East - Yankees

AL Central - White Sox

AL West - LA Angels

WC - Boston

 

NL East - Mets

NL Central - Cardinals

NL West - Giants

WC - Phillies

 

that's not the standings, that's the top payroll in each division and the top non high payroll team in each league. 5 of the 8 made the playoffs.

 

 

middle 10 payroll teams rarely make the playoffs, bottom ten are even rarer. I think maybe two teams made the playoffs with a bottom 10 payroll the past three years. all of them had several players that weren't even arbitration eligible as centerpieces of their team and were not far behind the median payroll. you don't need payroll, but without a minor league system churning out major leaguers every year and at least a payroll approaching middle of the pack to hang onto some of the 3-6 year guys, you won't have sustained success.

 

payroll source

 

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/default.aspx

[BigbadB]

in summation, you can say "every team has to deal with injuries." very true. however, no team has had to deal with injuries to the extent Hendry and the Cubs have had to the past three years. none. plain and simple. end of story. leaving injuries out of the equation in evaluating Hendry is absolutely absurd.

 

This is what caught my eye in your post. Yes, the Cubs have had some injuries. Some were completely out of the teams control. However, there has been endless discussion that the organization itself was responsible for some of those injuries, including Prior, Wood and to a lesser extent, Chad Fox.

 

I'm not saying they are innocent or guilty of ripping Wood and Prior's arms off of their sockets, but if you pretend for a moment that they were guilty of this, then can you really include those when viewing someone's overall performance as a GM?

 

And if we pretended again that it was Dusty and not Hendry who kept running them out there way too long in games, Hendry was Dusty's boss. Hendry had the power to inform Dusty not to burn the starter's arms.

[hitamprun]

Hendry is a good baseball man, but IMO, he does not posses the intellect to be a good GM. GM's need to constantly focus on putting the right parts together to build a balanced team over the short and long haul. Hendry has proven to be good at acquiring talent, but has missed the boat on getting the right pieces that make a good team.

 

In 03, he got it right. He aquired a very important catalyst in Kenny Loften, and they also had a very good 2 hole hitter in Gruds. Even though the 3-4-5 positions in the order were not as good as this year, Lofton and Gruds were constantly jump starting the offense and made the team less of a hot/cold type of team. Sure, the 03 team does not win without Wood and Prior, but I could also say they never win the division without Lofton and Gruds setting the table.

 

In 04 and 05, Hendry basically built softball teams that had zero offensive versatility. This year is a bit better, but this team is also prone to the stretches where they struggle to score runs.

 

Any GM can sign FA's, all you need is money, and some of Hendry's trades have been very good, but it is all about wins and losses, and his ROI for the payroll, has been very poor.

[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

 

the thing about the payroll is it was Hendry who got the Cubs in the upper echelons of NL salary in the first place.

 

I was actually just struck by the irony that the first point was "The bottom line".

 

In so far as increasing the payroll goes, if spending more money didn't help than it can't be listed as an accomplishment. He spent a lot of that money on crappy bench players whose production could likely have been matched by cheaper options from the farm system. For example, what value does Henry Blanco bring to the team that they couldn't get out of Geovoni Soto? Why pay Neifi Perez 2 million to stink when Fontenot could have stunk for league minimum?

[jjgman21]

in summation, you can say "every team has to deal with injuries." very true. however, no team has had to deal with injuries to the extent Hendry and the Cubs have had to the past three years. none. plain and simple. end of story. leaving injuries out of the equation in evaluating Hendry is absolutely absurd.

 

This is what caught my eye in your post. Yes, the Cubs have had some injuries. Some were completely out of the teams control. However, there has been endless discussion that the organization itself was responsible for some of those injuries, including Prior, Wood and to a lesser extent, Chad Fox.

 

I'm not saying they are innocent or guilty of ripping Wood and Prior's arms off of their sockets, but if you pretend for a moment that they were guilty of this, then can you really include those when viewing someone's overall performance as a GM?

 

And if we pretended again that it was Dusty and not Hendry who kept running them out there way too long in games, Hendry was Dusty's boss. Hendry had the power to inform Dusty not to burn the starter's arms.

 

people just assume this without any actual proof as to whether it is or is not the case. yes, Hendry was Dusty's boss, but generally GMs have a hands off policy when it comes to the use of players, and as the course of Dusty's tenure played out, I think it was blatantly obvious that Hendry had no input into the use of the players. it was Dusty's purview, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was contractual

 

further, by the time the damage was allegedly done, it was too late. put yourself in Hendry's place. are you going to ring up Dusty in September and October 2003 and say "hey, let's not use Prior and Wood so much?" hell no. your eyes would be on the playoffs, and Prior and Wood was what would get you there.

[jjgman21]

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

 

the thing about the payroll is it was Hendry who got the Cubs in the upper echelons of NL salary in the first place.

 

I was actually just struck by the irony that the first point was "The bottom line".

 

In so far as increasing the payroll goes, if spending more money didn't help than it can't be listed as an accomplishment. He spent a lot of that money on crappy bench players whose production could likely have been matched by cheaper options from the farm system. For example, what value does Henry Blanco bring to the team that they couldn't get out of Geovoni Soto? Why pay Neifi Perez 2 million to stink when Fontenot could have stunk for league minimum?

 

as I said early on in my post, I don't like alot of the things he does, and over spending for replacement level players is one of them. but I think you know I am not talking about the Glendon Rusch's and Henry Blanco's. before Hendry, the Cubs assembled no talent. one, maybe two guys were big time players and paid as such. again, it's easy to say it doesn't mean anything, but assembling the talent on the rosters that Hendry has assembled simply did not happen pre-Hendry.

 

there was ZERO legitimate hope before Hendry. before Hendry, there was pray for career years out of the entire roster. alot of people around here say that is still the case, but that's a load of BS. had the rosters Hendry assembled matched three year splits, or even come close, the playoffs would have been a regularity. as it turns out they did not, again mostly because of injuries.

 

how about this.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/1996.shtml

 

you want to go back to those days? look at that crap. that was life as a Cub fan before Hendry.

[Guest]

who hired Dusty? The frustrating thing to me about Hendry is that he does not seem to learn from his mistakes and he does not use his resources wisely.

[MPrior]

While it's true that the many injuries to key players constitute a mitigating factor w/regards to Hendry's performance, they are THE ONLY mitigating factor, and using them as an excuse for Hendry only masks the fact that, with the exception of the 2004 team (which still had its problems), his teams have been deeply flawed, mediocre teams even without the injuries.

 

People defend Hendry by citing his good moves. Okay, let's ignore his W-L record and evaluate his moves. So, sure, he's made good moves, and I'm glad. Most of the moves would have been impossible without his massive payroll, but that's beside the point. The point is that these moves don't make him stand out - all GMs make good moves now and again, or have a poor or seemingly lateral move surprisingly pan out very well. These moves do not distinguish him from other GMs; and, given that baseball is a competitive sport, that's his job - to be better than the rest.

 

Where Hendry does stand out, though, is in his repeatedly demonstrated tendency to make mind-numbingly stupid moves. Few GMs (Bowden, Krivsky excepted) have made so many moves that were so misinformed. Hendry has repeatedly paid absurd prices to fill his roster with replacement level players for whom there is no market, and signed them to fill roles much bigger than they should ever be considered for. All this while blatantly ignoring the most obvious and egregious flaw on the team.

 

So now matter how you judge Hendry, I don't see how you can make an argument that he is anything better than mediocre - a below average GM. And that's being kind.

[CubColtPacer]

 

Where Hendry does stand out, though, is in his repeatedly demonstrated tendency to make mind-numbingly stupid moves. Few GMs (Bowden, Krivsky excepted) have made so many moves that were so misinformed. Hendry has repeatedly paid absurd prices to fill his roster with below-replacement level players for whom there is no market, and signed them to fill roles much bigger than they should ever be considered for.

 

Can you give a list-I can only think of two players right now-Perez and Izturis.

[Guest]

 

Where Hendry does stand out, though, is in his repeatedly demonstrated tendency to make mind-numbingly stupid moves. Few GMs (Bowden, Krivsky excepted) have made so many moves that were so misinformed. Hendry has repeatedly paid absurd prices to fill his roster with below-replacement level players for whom there is no market, and signed them to fill roles much bigger than they should ever be considered for.

 

Can you give a list-I can only think of two players right now-Perez and Izturis.

 

 

I'll start:

Macias

Pagan

Womack

. . .

[CubColtPacer]

 

Where Hendry does stand out, though, is in his repeatedly demonstrated tendency to make mind-numbingly stupid moves. Few GMs (Bowden, Krivsky excepted) have made so many moves that were so misinformed. Hendry has repeatedly paid absurd prices to fill his roster with below-replacement level players for whom there is no market, and signed them to fill roles much bigger than they should ever be considered for.

 

Can you give a list-I can only think of two players right now-Perez and Izturis.

 

 

I'll start:

Macias

Pagan

Womack

. . .

 

He said absurd prices for a large role-all of those players were minimum salary players, and as far as I know none of them were signed to be anything other than a bench player.

[rawaction]

FWIW, Sergio Mitre has given up 3 hits in 8 shutout innings vs. LA.

 

A good sign to show that you made a bad trade?

 

- The least talented of the 3 players you gave up a year ago, has thrown 8 shutout innings against the player you traded him for.... and the player you traded for is NOT on your team any longer.