So when is JH gonna make a move for another bat???

[Soul]

Is there any chance Hendry is retained by new ownership? I dunno, for me it's just wins & losses. Hendry's had 5 years, not enough wins. I try to keep it uncomplicated.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm saying he's a freaking moron if he couldn't put 2 and 2 together. The Cubs sale was speculated on for a long time. He had to have an idea that money may get tied up if something went down. He screwed up the team from 2003-2006, he should have gone in 2007 with the best team possible and not just hoped he'd be able to fix it on the fly in July.

Well now you're just being laughably irrational.

 

Hendry just sat on his hands this past offseason, and made no effort to try and improve, figuring that he'd just fix things in July instead, huh?

 

You'd be hard pressed to come up with something further from the truth than that.

 

Of course I never said that but don't let that get in the way of your theory.

Oh really?

 

"He should have gone in 2007 with the best team possible."

 

Aside from the fact that that's a useless throwaway line that is patently obvious and universally applicable to every GM in baseball, clearly implicit in it is that he didn't do enough in the offseason to improve the team.

 

Of course the truth is that *the* story of baseball's offseason was the Cubs' top-to-bottom overhaul. Aside from the hiring of John McDonough as President, everything from the new manager and coaching staff, to the new LF, to the new pitchers, and on and on, was Hendry's doing. Nobody can deny that the makeover was extreme.

 

Now if you want to argue that Hendry's plan or vision or whatever is flawed, then fine. Philosophically, you clearly see things differently than he does, as do many of us here.

 

Just don't try and tell me that Hendry didn't do everything he could to go into 2007 with the best team *he* thought possible. That's just flat out absurd.

 

I think what you meant to say was not, "he should have gone in 2007 with the best team possible," but rather, "he should have done what I would've done."

 

I think you are allowing your hatred for me to completely poison your ability to read what I wrote.

 

I said "he should have gone in 2007 with the best team possible and not just hoped he'd be able to fix it on the fly in July", you claim that means I accused him of sitting on his hands and made no effort to improve.

 

I didn't say that, but believe what you want to believe.

 

The point is people are making excuses for Jim about him having his hands tied in July. Hendry should have realized there'd be a good chance the budget would be in doubt by July, given the story at the time. Jim dug himself a hole, and he had to pull off a miracle to fix it. He didn't do enough. He had more than enough money, but he blew it on a barely above .500 team, and now come July he wants more and giving him a pass for not getting it from his bosses.

[C.C.]

I don't believe the budget constraints argument holds water, to the billionaire or billionaires who are going to purchase the Cubs a few extra million is a drop in the bucket. Its convenient, sounds nice but, rings hollow, I believe its more Hendry' inability to put together a solid team in first place. And after the first month or so of the season his observing the Cubs were a bat short.

 

 

 

Even to billionaires millions of dollars do matter. It's a negative to the bottom line.

 

It all depends on ego too and why they purchased the team. Baseball isn't very profitable in the grand scheme of a billionaire buying a team compared to other potential ventures of similar cost.

 

They won't lose money, but if their ego plays a role their profit margin can be reduced at the expense of competition and self-valuation (even a word?)

 

You are totally missing the point. I'm saying that until the team is sold the bottom line does matter. After it's sold the new owner can spend all he wants...

[jersey cubs fan]

Is there any chance Hendry is retained by new ownership? I dunno, for me it's just wins & losses. Hendry's had 5 years, not enough wins. I try to keep it uncomplicated.

 

For the long haul, I doubt it. For 2008, quite possibly. It probably depends on the timing of the sale, and how quickly they can get their own "baseball people" in line.

 

There is a theory that McDonough is sitting pretty with the leading group. If they (Canning & Co.) buy, and keep him, there won't be a rush to overhaul the front office. They might give Jim the 2008 offseason to keep working, and then reevaluate in the spring/early season.

 

I could see them cleaning house in November, or waiting to see what April/May looks like and either extending him or replace him.

 

If the sale doesn't clear until January/February, then it might be too late to make a move for 2008.

[UK1679666180]

I don't believe the budget constraints argument holds water, to the billionaire or billionaires who are going to purchase the Cubs a few extra million is a drop in the bucket. Its convenient, sounds nice but, rings hollow, I believe its more Hendry' inability to put together a solid team in first place. And after the first month or so of the season his observing the Cubs were a bat short.

 

 

 

Even to billionaires millions of dollars do matter. It's a negative to the bottom line.

 

It all depends on ego too and why they purchased the team. Baseball isn't very profitable in the grand scheme of a billionaire buying a team compared to other potential ventures of similar cost.

 

They won't lose money, but if their ego plays a role their profit margin can be reduced at the expense of competition and self-valuation (even a word?)

 

You are totally missing the point. I'm saying that until the team is sold the bottom line does matter. After it's sold the new owner can spend all he wants...

 

Not if that owner is running on ego, to someone who loves the sport of competition he might want the best team avail. Of course, Zell and them have to assume that is the minority and keeping lower expenses is what most want.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't believe the budget constraints argument holds water, to the billionaire or billionaires who are going to purchase the Cubs a few extra million is a drop in the bucket. Its convenient, sounds nice but, rings hollow, I believe its more Hendry' inability to put together a solid team in first place. And after the first month or so of the season his observing the Cubs were a bat short.

 

 

 

Even to billionaires millions of dollars do matter. It's a negative to the bottom line.

 

It all depends on ego too and why they purchased the team. Baseball isn't very profitable in the grand scheme of a billionaire buying a team compared to other potential ventures of similar cost.

 

They won't lose money, but if their ego plays a role their profit margin can be reduced at the expense of competition and self-valuation (even a word?)

 

You are totally missing the point. I'm saying that until the team is sold the bottom line does matter. After it's sold the new owner can spend all he wants...

 

Not if that owner is running on ego, to someone who loves the sport of competition he might want the best team avail. Of course, Zell and them have to assume that is the minority and keeping lower expenses is what most want.

 

I think you are talking about the new owners' ego. The issue is it all affects the bottom line of the current owners.

 

Personally I'd think new owners would want to see the best team possible in 2007, becuase we've seen how much previous year's success affects the next seasons's attendance/ratings.

 

But that's not what it's about. The trib probably doesn't feel the will get any financial benefit, or ego benefit, from spending more.

[Soul]

Is there any chance Hendry is retained by new ownership? I dunno, for me it's just wins & losses. Hendry's had 5 years, not enough wins. I try to keep it uncomplicated.

 

For the long haul, I doubt it. For 2008, quite possibly. It probably depends on the timing of the sale, and how quickly they can get their own "baseball people" in line.

 

There is a theory that McDonough is sitting pretty with the leading group. If they (Canning & Co.) buy, and keep him, there won't be a rush to overhaul the front office. They might give Jim the 2008 offseason to keep working, and then reevaluate in the spring/early season.

 

I could see them cleaning house in November, or waiting to see what April/May looks like and either extending him or replace him.

 

If the sale doesn't clear until January/February, then it might be too late to make a move for 2008.

 

That's kind of what I was thinking would happen. Unfortunately, if the sale holds up making a move on front office personnel, I fear it will also prevent us from bringing Zambrano back to the Cubs.

[UBlink]

I think you are talking about the new owners' ego. The issue is it all affects the bottom line of the current owners.

 

Personally I'd think new owners would want to see the best team possible in 2007, becuase we've seen how much previous year's success affects the next seasons's attendance/ratings.

 

But that's not what it's about. The trib probably doesn't feel the will get any financial benefit, or ego benefit, from spending more.

 

I can't imagine that the trib doesn't recognize the value that would be created by a successful 2007 for the Cubs team. In this case the bottom line is the projected sales price of the Cubs, and they would be idiots to only see an increase in expenses and miss the upside on the sales value of the franchise. Maybe I just answered my own question.

[jersey cubs fan]

I think you are talking about the new owners' ego. The issue is it all affects the bottom line of the current owners.

 

Personally I'd think new owners would want to see the best team possible in 2007, becuase we've seen how much previous year's success affects the next seasons's attendance/ratings.

 

But that's not what it's about. The trib probably doesn't feel the will get any financial benefit, or ego benefit, from spending more.

 

I can't imagine that the trib doesn't recognize the value that would be created by a successful 2007 for the Cubs team. In this case the bottom line is the projected sales price of the Cubs, and they would be idiots to only see an increase in expenses and miss the upside on the sales value of the franchise. Maybe I just answered my own question.

 

I'm not sure the sale price would go any higher. I doubt it would actually.