Jim Hendry should be Fired - NOW!

jersey cubs fan · May 17, 2007

Wrigley is not the problem.

C.C. · May 17, 2007

I agree somewhat with Synergy.

We built Wrigley in 1914. We have constant problems with the City of Chicago and the damn Neighborhood Assoc.

Part of the problem with the ball club could be the stadium.

Not a popular opinion, but there may some truth to that.

Wrigley is a wonderful place to see a game and have many memories of the place. But in the words of George Harrison, All things must pass. The House that Ruth Built is coming down this year. No reason we cant build somewhere where we are wanted either.

That's silly. Wrigley is not the problem. Was Fenway a problem for Boston? C'mon!

sunnydoo · May 17, 2007

That's silly. Wrigley is not the problem. Was Fenway a problem for Boston? C'mon!

Was it a coincidence that after the RedSux built on top of the Monster in 2003 that HRs stopped going out with the same frequency as before?

Methinks not.

Dont know what the problem is with Wrigley, but saying something isnt amiss with some great teams we have had over the years from 1916 (the first year they played in the park) until 2007 seems kind of freakish, especially given the wind tunnell that is mid summer.

My philosophy is that it is the same thing that is going on out here in Colorado with Coors. If you build your team one way for home games, does it translate to the road? I think the Cubs problem over the years is lack of lefty production and pop among other sordid problems with the pitching staff.

bobbyd20 · May 17, 2007

When you consider that those 3 have NTC and probably aren't going anywhere, a new ownership group that actually cares is not going to try to play for 2009 or 2010, even if it is the best long-term solution.

A question about NTCs...do they prohibit the front office from trading the player to ANY club at all, or do they just limit the choices of teams that the player can be traded to?

A full NTC means that the player has to approve any deal that is made in order for it to go through. Some players, like Scott Eyre, have limited NTC, where they can block trades to up to 10 teams.

Hendry gave Scott Eyre a fricken no trade clause? That tells me everything I need to know about his talent evaluation skills.

frostwyrm · May 17, 2007

When you consider that those 3 have NTC and probably aren't going anywhere, a new ownership group that actually cares is not going to try to play for 2009 or 2010, even if it is the best long-term solution.

A question about NTCs...do they prohibit the front office from trading the player to ANY club at all, or do they just limit the choices of teams that the player can be traded to?

A full NTC means that the player has to approve any deal that is made in order for it to go through. Some players, like Scott Eyre, have limited NTC, where they can block trades to up to 10 teams.

Hendry gave Scott Eyre a fricken no trade clause? That tells me everything I need to know about his talent evaluation skills.

On the bright side 2008 is a $3.8M player option for Eyre. There's a chance, however slight, that he'll become stark raving mad before the offseason and turn down the money.

Mizzou · May 17, 2007

I didn't really have a problem with the years and dollars at the time, but the NTC was absurd. You don't give relief pitchers a freakin no trade clause.

TruffleShuffle · May 17, 2007

I didn't really have a problem with the years and dollars at the time

I did. You don't give a large three-year contract to a guy coming off a year that's clearly out of line with his past:

WHIP

2000: 2.16

2001: 1.40

2002: 1.55

2003: 1.51

2004: 1.33

2005: 1.08

__________

2006: 1.48

2007: 2.17

Now really, what in those six years above the line, aside from 2005, says "give this guy a big three-year contract." I don't see anything.

frostwyrm · May 17, 2007

I didn't really have a problem with the years and dollars at the time

I did. You don't give a large three-year contract to a guy coming off a year that's clearly out of line with his past:

WHIP
2000: 2.16
2001: 1.40
2002: 1.55
2003: 1.51
2004: 1.33
2005: 1.08
__________

2006: 1.48
2007: 2.17

Now really, what in those six years above the line, aside from 2005, says "give this guy a big three-year contract." I don't see anything.

I wish Tim would enable search again. I'd dig up some old posts from when Howry and Eyre were signed. I thought they were both terrible contracts, as did many others. I'm still surprised the Soriano contract didn't get more negative buzz here. That's like Eyre times 10.

sethuel1 · May 18, 2007

Was it a coincidence that after the RedSux built on top of the Monster in 2003 that HRs stopped going out with the same frequency as before?

Methinks not.

This statement makes no sense

sunnydoo · May 18, 2007

Was it a coincidence that after the RedSux built on top of the Monster in 2003 that HRs stopped going out with the same frequency as before?

Methinks not.
This statement makes no sense

Why?

Gammons mentioned it again the other nite after one of the guys cleared the Monster. The ball simply isnt traveling as well to left field these days.

The new edition up there has caused some kind of change to the wind direction in Fenway. It was done right before the RedSux won the Championship in 2004. Some say its a coincidence which i can somewhat understand. Some say it was a fundamental change to the pitching staff (which i disagree with. look at the 70s Boston staff of Eck, Torrez, Tiant, and Lee. Pretty hard throwers with good stuff but they were unable to seal the deal.) I think it is the wind dynamics. I do not understand why that makes little sense.

Mizzou · May 18, 2007

I didn't really have a problem with the years and dollars at the time

I did. You don't give a large three-year contract to a guy coming off a year that's clearly out of line with his past:

WHIP
2000: 2.16
2001: 1.40
2002: 1.55
2003: 1.51
2004: 1.33
2005: 1.08
__________

2006: 1.48
2007: 2.17

Now really, what in those six years above the line, aside from 2005, says "give this guy a big three-year contract." I don't see anything.

Our bullpen in the years prior to his signing was horrible. I would rather overpay a guy who had a great, great year than have a pen full of league minimum making rookies.

bobbyd20 · May 18, 2007

Find me a free agent contract where Hendry didn't pay more than the going rate or for too many years.

Eyre

Howry

Ohman

Jones

Lilly

Marquis

Macias

Womack

Perez

Maddux

Floyd

Pierre (I know this was a trade, but still gave up far more than necessary for the production Pierre provided)

etc.

Plus, he couldn't even execute a salary dump correctly last season. He traded Maddux and took on a $4 million no-hit shortstop with a history of injuries. I would have rather had a couple of "B" level prospects or seen Maddux finish out the season with the Cubs.

abuck1220 · May 18, 2007

I didn't really have a problem with the years and dollars at the time

I did. You don't give a large three-year contract to a guy coming off a year that's clearly out of line with his past:

WHIP
2000: 2.16
2001: 1.40
2002: 1.55
2003: 1.51
2004: 1.33
2005: 1.08
__________

2006: 1.48
2007: 2.17

Now really, what in those six years above the line, aside from 2005, says "give this guy a big three-year contract." I don't see anything.
Our bullpen in the years prior to his signing was horrible.

...because the cubs gave a bunch of money to other middle relievers coming off good seasons.

I would rather overpay a guy who had a great, great year than have a pen full of league minimum making rookies.

man, have you even watched the last four seasons of cubs baseball? every middle reliever the cubs have given big money to have been tremendous disasters...i guess hendry isn't the only one who doesn't learn.

C.C. · May 18, 2007

I didn't really have a problem with the years and dollars at the time

I did. You don't give a large three-year contract to a guy coming off a year that's clearly out of line with his past:

WHIP
2000: 2.16
2001: 1.40
2002: 1.55
2003: 1.51
2004: 1.33
2005: 1.08
__________

2006: 1.48
2007: 2.17

Now really, what in those six years above the line, aside from 2005, says "give this guy a big three-year contract." I don't see anything.
Our bullpen in the years prior to his signing was horrible.

...because the cubs gave a bunch of money to other middle relievers coming off good seasons.

I would rather overpay a guy who had a great, great year than have a pen full of league minimum making rookies.

man, have you even watched the last four seasons of cubs baseball? every middle reliever the cubs have given big money to have been tremendous disasters...i guess hendry isn't the only one who doesn't learn.

I used to think like that, but I've wised up. Bullpen's are a crap shoot. Spending big money on a bullpen is a complete waste of money. It's a disposable position. Even the best closers don't have a long shelf life. The Hoffman's and the Rivera's are the exceptions and not the rule. I actually liked the way Kenny Williams built his pen this year and probably spent what Ryan Dempster is making per year. If not less...

Mizzou · May 18, 2007

I didn't really have a problem with the years and dollars at the time

I did. You don't give a large three-year contract to a guy coming off a year that's clearly out of line with his past:

WHIP
2000: 2.16
2001: 1.40
2002: 1.55
2003: 1.51
2004: 1.33
2005: 1.08
__________

2006: 1.48
2007: 2.17

Now really, what in those six years above the line, aside from 2005, says "give this guy a big three-year contract." I don't see anything.
Our bullpen in the years prior to his signing was horrible.

...because the cubs gave a bunch of money to other middle relievers coming off good seasons.

I would rather overpay a guy who had a great, great year than have a pen full of league minimum making rookies.

man, have you even watched the last four seasons of cubs baseball? every middle reliever the cubs have given big money to have been tremendous disasters...i guess hendry isn't the only one who doesn't learn.

Well yeah, in retrospect it was a bad decision but one that I supported at the time. And I'm not going to act like I was all up in arms about it at the time, cause I wasn't. I was pretty pissed that he gave him a NTC though.

And no, I haven't watched the last four seasons. Not one game. :roll:

erik316wttn · May 18, 2007

I know there are lots of knee jerk reactions in this thread, and knee jerk reactions to those reactions. Part of me wants heads to roll for today's loss. Someone's gotta take the fall. It was absolutely inexcusable. NO team should be able to come back from 4 runs down in the 9th. I don't care if you're playing the [expletive] 1927 Yankees reincarnated and Murderer's Row is due up. You don't blow that game.

The facts are that Jim Hendry spent $300 million this offseason and what we have to show for it are a bad bullpen, an inconsistent offense, and 3 games below .500.

The offense may correct itself.. there are a lot of good hitters who have proven themselves for several years in the past and who have produced both here and in other places. I'm not so much worried about the offense, frustrating as it can be.

I am, however, very worried about the bullpen and don't see it getting better anytime soon. We really don't have anyone we can call up from the minors who could make any sort of immediate positive impact, we don't have enough guys who can really be shut-down and lights out. We have far too many question marks in the pen. And I don't see who we can trade for right now to make this pen what it should be. Demp was an ok starter and had a couple good years in the pen, but was a question mark. Cherry is a rookie. He may be good one day but he can't be counted on yet. Our regulars are terrible.... things are looking pretty bleak. And if you can't hold leads, you won't win ballgames. Period.

$300 million will be lucky to buy us .500 this year.

Edited May 18, 2007 by erik316wttn

abuck1220 · May 18, 2007

the fact that you have watched cub baseball makes it even more mind-boggling that you're in support of throwing money at one year wonders.

Mizzou · May 18, 2007

the fact that you have watched cub baseball makes it even more mind-boggling that you're in support of throwing money at one year wonders.

An expensive guy that dominated last year vs. a cheap rookie that's never pitched a game in the big leagues? If I'm running a team with a 100M+ payroll, I don't want a bunch of kids who have never pitched in the big leagues before being relied upon to pitch in tight situations. And it's not like Eyre was only good for one year prior to joining the Cubs, let's keep the facts straight here.

But with all that said, I'm all for dumping the guy now.

Soul · May 18, 2007

the fact that you have watched cub baseball makes it even more mind-boggling that you're in support of throwing money at one year wonders.
An expensive guy that dominated last year vs. a cheap rookie that's never pitched a game in the big leagues? If I'm running a team with a 100M+ payroll, I don't want a bunch of kids who have never pitched in the big leagues before being relied upon to pitch in tight situations. And it's not like Eyre was only good for one year prior to joining the Cubs, let's keep the facts straight here.

But with all that said, I'm all for dumping the guy now.

If only it was just Eyre....

Alas, it's the entire pen. And because of that, I fear it's not realistic to expect a fix this year. Which means today might not be the last time we feel this way.

One thing's for sure. Being a Cub fan teaches you life lessons about losing. Unwelcome life lessons about losing, but lessons nonetheless.

sweetpeteman · May 18, 2007

I'm going to say this slowly and loudly:

THE CUBS DID NOT SPEND $300MIL THIS PAST OFFSEASON.

THAT IS NOT HOW CONTRACTS WORK.

The payroll for this year, IIRC, is hovering around $115 MIL, so while the production has still not been great, its not like we are spending Yankee money.

Second, I can't really blame Hendry too much for the offense so far. We don't have Lee, ARam is only recently getting hot, and we all know Murton, and Theriot should be starting more. So while I don't agree with signing DeRosa and Floyd, so far Floyd has been productive.

The bullpen on the other hand has been mishandled and not built right since forever. Giving large contracts to relievers hasn't worked once so far but yet Hendry keeps trying it. I'm sure if he keeps banging his head against that wall maybe the wall will break. Or his head will, one of the two.

TruffleShuffle · May 18, 2007

ARam is only recently getting hot

he is? His OPS in April was .923... his OPS this month is .686.

Soul · May 18, 2007

I'm sure if he keeps banging his head against that wall maybe the wall will break. Or his head will, one of the two.

Hendry's head wouldn't break if you put it in an industrial-strength vice. Not even under atomic pressure would Mr. Hendry's head buckle.

Careless · May 18, 2007

Was it a coincidence that after the RedSux built on top of the Monster in 2003 that HRs stopped going out with the same frequency as before?

Methinks not.
This statement makes no sense

it makes sense. It's silly and illogical, but it makes sense. he's telling you why he thinks something happened. That's an opinion, and they don't need to be backed with facts to be intelligible, even if they are nonsensical

sweetpeteman · May 18, 2007

ARam is only recently getting hot

he is? His OPS in April was .923... his OPS this month is .686.

The last couple of games are starting to look better.

Soul · May 18, 2007

ARam is only recently getting hot

he is? His OPS in April was .923... his OPS this month is .686.

The last couple of games are starting to look better.

Right during the throes of losing, Rammy starts to look good. Hmmmm...

Jim Hendry should be Fired - NOW!

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs