Jim Hendry Appreciation thread.

[CubsWin]

383-385

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done.

 

That said, over simplify away...

 

Excuses excuses excuses.

 

 

Record vs resources. It's simple because that's all that matters. Excuse away, and you'll just keep getting the same results.

So what kind of job would you say Dave Dombrowski has done with the Detroit Tigers?

 

I would take Dombrowski as GM of the Cubs any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but if we judged him the same way you are judging Hendry, our analysis would tell us to stay far, far away.

 

Never mind that Dombrowski took an organization that was losing terribly and turned them into a team that went to the World Series last year and is currently leading their division this year. His won-loss record during his tenure at Detroit is 403-527. That's 124 games under .500!!!! OMG!!!!

 

Simple and ridiculous.

[hawkeyecub]

Hendry has made a lot of mistakes and the results show that. However all GM's make bad decisisons and give bad contracts or starting roles/contracts to players undeserving. It's like when people complain about our manager's having a veteran fetish. Well I haven't seen many managers in baseball who don't prefer veterans to young guys. It doesn't excuse it, but I think you have to put it in perspective.

 

He's a mixed bag in my opinion. I think he's done some really good things and has his strengths. He's also made some boneheaded moves and has plenty of weaknesses. I do think that he gave Dusty WAY too much authority with assembling the roster and I think he's done a better job since it was clear that Dusty was out the door.

[TruffleShuffle]

383-385

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done.

 

That said, over simplify away...

 

Excuses excuses excuses.

 

 

Record vs resources. It's simple because that's all that matters. Excuse away, and you'll just keep getting the same results.

So what kind of job would you say Dave Dombrowski has done with the Detroit Tigers?

 

I would take Dombrowski as GM of the Cubs any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but if we judged him the same way you are judging Hendry, our analysis would tell us to stay far, far away.

 

Never mind that Dombrowski took an organization that was losing terribly and turned them into a team that went to the World Series last year and is currently leading their division this year. His won-loss record during his tenure at Detroit is 403-527. That's 124 games under .500!!!! OMG!!!!

 

Simple and ridiculous.

 

Detroit was a train wreck and they're now a very good team that's well-positioned for the future. Hendry took over a team that had won 88 games the previous year. Since then he hired Dusty Baker, who was an outright disaster and who was at least partly responsible for major injuries to two very good young pitchers. He's built a team that is 3 games above .500 in a terrible division, in a weak National League. He's also got several very large contracts which may hinder the options available to the team in the future.

 

Dombrowski inherited a team that had lost 106 games, had bad players and little promise for the future. He's turned them into a very good team with some of the best young talent in the game - a team that should be playoff contenders for years to come. They're 13 games over .500 in a pretty good division, in what's considered by just about everybody to be the superior league. The very large contracts that the Tigers have are Mags - that one expires in 2009 if the Tigers choose not to exercise his options, Sheffield (expires in '09), Carlos Guillen (expires in 2011, but $12M a year for his production is probably a bargain) and Bonderman (4 years, $38M - who wouldn't take that?)

 

So Dombrowski has taken a worse product and turned it into a better team with a better outlook for the future. Simple and ridiculous.

[CubsWin]

Hendry has made a lot of mistakes and the results show that. However all GM's make bad decisisons and give bad contracts or starting roles/contracts to players undeserving. It's like when people complain about our manager's having a veteran fetish. Well I haven't seen many managers in baseball who don't prefer veterans to young guys. It doesn't excuse it, but I think you have to put it in perspective.

 

He's a mixed bag in my opinion. I think he's done some really good things and has his strengths. He's also made some boneheaded moves and has plenty of weaknesses. I do think that he gave Dusty WAY too much authority with assembling the roster and I think he's done a better job since it was clear that Dusty was out the door.

Agree.

 

He is neither terrible nor great. He's made some really bad moves and some really good ones. Probably more good than bad. I agree that he abdicated way too much authority to Baker. That was totally his fault and Cubs fans have paid the price for it.

 

Has he improved the Cubs roster over his tenure? Yes. Without a doubt. That should carry a lot of weight in determining what kind of job he has done as the Cubs GM. Certainly a whole lot more weight than the team's won-loss record.

 

Is he the kind of GM I want running the Cubs? I think they could definitely do better.

[CubsWin]

383-385

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done.

 

That said, over simplify away...

 

Excuses excuses excuses.

 

 

Record vs resources. It's simple because that's all that matters. Excuse away, and you'll just keep getting the same results.

So what kind of job would you say Dave Dombrowski has done with the Detroit Tigers?

 

I would take Dombrowski as GM of the Cubs any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but if we judged him the same way you are judging Hendry, our analysis would tell us to stay far, far away.

 

Never mind that Dombrowski took an organization that was losing terribly and turned them into a team that went to the World Series last year and is currently leading their division this year. His won-loss record during his tenure at Detroit is 403-527. That's 124 games under .500!!!! OMG!!!!

 

Simple and ridiculous.

 

Detroit was a train wreck and they're now a very...

Eh, no, sorry. Stop right there. The only thing that matters is the won-loss record of the team during that GM's tenure. :P

[UK1679666180]

 

Has he improved the Cubs roster over his tenure? Yes. Without a doubt. That should carry a lot of weight in determining what kind of job he has done as the Cubs GM. Certainly a whole lot more weight than the team's won-loss record.

 

Is he the kind of GM I want running the Cubs? I think they could definitely do better.

 

That's more damning towards MacPhail and espec. Lynch rather than praise towards Hendry, IMO.

 

He took over a team that was a 90 loss team with a very good farm system (which he is partially responsible for building).

 

That means there's been improvement, but not success. I wouldn't qualify the last 5 years as successful or progressive.

[Exile on Waveland]

383-385

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done.

 

That said, over simplify away...

 

It's not an oversimplification; it's the only thing that matters. Winning is the bottom line, and Hendry's teams have not done so.

While it is true that winning is the only thing that matters, to hold one person solely responsible for the win-loss record of a team, especially one that was so much worse before he took it over, one that suffered an unusual amount of injuries to key, star players and one that had a quickly declining superstar making a ton of money from a contract that Hendry did not give him, is really rather silly.

 

It is an extreme over-simplification.

 

Does that mean that I think he is a great GM? No. But using this team's won-loss record as the lone justification for how well it's GM did is simple and ridiculous.

 

1. Hendry's job includes drafting, signing and trading for the players that make up the roster. He is SOLELY responsible for what players make up the team. He also hires the manager. Holding a GM responsible for wins and losses is the correct thing to do, seeing as that's the GM's job. There is no one else to blame -- if the players or manager were bad, you must look to who hired them.

 

2.. The Cubs were not that much worse before Hendry took over. Hendry took over in July 2002 so this is his fifth full year on the job. His teams are now 384-385. The previous five years, including 2002 (which obviously wasn't his team) the Cubs were 377-434. The winning percentages are .499 to .465. So, the club was marginally worse, but Hendry certainly worked no miracles. Plus, this ignores the fact that Hendry was helped by youngsters like Zambrano and Prior waiting in the wings and the yearly payroll increases.

 

3. The Cubs suffered an unusual amount of injuries to key star players? Does this mean Wood and Prior? Young pitcher get hurt, every team deals with this. Every team deals with injuries. Prior's injuries certainly have been flukish, though Hendry waited to long for a backup plan. However, Wood has always battled injuries and further DL-time should have come as no surprise.

 

4. I really, really don't think the Sosa contract hindered the club much at all. Sure, it likely didn't help, but every team has a player making too much money. This money could've easily been made up by not signing crappy replacement level players to multi-million dollar deals. Oh, and even in his last year with the Cubs, Sosa was productive with a 110 OPS+.

 

5. 88-89-79-66. Those are the Cubs wins totals in Hendry's tenure. That's an ugly trend. Now, of course, the win total will increase this year, but, sheesh, how could it not with the amount of money Hendry was allowed to throw around in the offseason? And, even with the spending money, the team is barely over .500 in a middling division.

[CubsWin]

 

Has he improved the Cubs roster over his tenure? Yes. Without a doubt. That should carry a lot of weight in determining what kind of job he has done as the Cubs GM. Certainly a whole lot more weight than the team's won-loss record.

 

Is he the kind of GM I want running the Cubs? I think they could definitely do better.

 

That's more damning towards MacPhail and espec. Lynch rather than praise towards Hendry, IMO.

 

He took over a team that was a 90 loss team with a very good farm system (which he is partially responsible for building).

 

That means there's been improvement, but not success. I wouldn't qualify the last 5 years as successful or progressive.

Agreed. Improvement doesn't equal success.

 

He definitely improved the team and their chances of winning, but he probably could have done a lot more had he made better, more informed choices on a lot of things. His and his team's success has been limited. Some of that is clearly his fault. Some of it isn't.

[CubsWin]

383-385

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done.

 

That said, over simplify away...

 

It's not an oversimplification; it's the only thing that matters. Winning is the bottom line, and Hendry's teams have not done so.

While it is true that winning is the only thing that matters, to hold one person solely responsible for the win-loss record of a team, especially one that was so much worse before he took it over, one that suffered an unusual amount of injuries to key, star players and one that had a quickly declining superstar making a ton of money from a contract that Hendry did not give him, is really rather silly.

 

It is an extreme over-simplification.

 

Does that mean that I think he is a great GM? No. But using this team's won-loss record as the lone justification for how well it's GM did is simple and ridiculous.

 

1. Hendry's job includes drafting, signing and trading for the players that make up the roster. He is SOLELY responsible for what players make up the team. He also hires the manager. Holding a GM responsible for wins and losses is the correct thing to do, seeing as that's the GM's job. There is no one else to blame -- if the players or manager were bad, you must look to who hired them.

 

2.. The Cubs were not that much worse before Hendry took over. Hendry took over in July 2002 so this is his fifth full year on the job. His teams are now 384-385. The previous five years, including 2002 (which obviously wasn't his team) the Cubs were 377-434. The winning percentages are .499 to .465. So, the club was marginally worse, but Hendry certainly worked no miracles. Plus, this ignores the fact that Hendry was helped by youngsters like Zambrano and Prior waiting in the wings and the yearly payroll increases.

 

3. The Cubs suffered an unusual amount of injuries to key star players? Does this mean Wood and Prior? Young pitcher get hurt, every team deals with this. Every team deals with injuries. Prior's injuries certainly have been flukish, though Hendry waited to long for a backup plan. However, Wood has always battled injuries and further DL-time should have come as no surprise.

 

4. I really, really don't think the Sosa contract hindered the club much at all. Sure, it likely didn't help, but every team has a player making too much money. This money could've easily been made up by not signing crappy replacement level players to multi-million dollar deals. Oh, and even in his last year with the Cubs, Sosa was productive with a 110 OPS+.

 

5. 88-89-79-66. Those are the Cubs wins totals in Hendry's tenure. That's an ugly trend. Now, of course, the win total will increase this year, but, sheesh, how could it not with the amount of money Hendry was allowed to throw around in the offseason? And, even with the spending money, the team is barely over .500 in a middling division.

So you truly believe that a GM should be solely judged on his won-loss record?

[CubsWin]

383-385

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done.

 

That said, over simplify away...

 

Excuses excuses excuses.

 

 

Record vs resources. It's simple because that's all that matters. Excuse away, and you'll just keep getting the same results.

So what kind of job would you say Dave Dombrowski has done with the Detroit Tigers?

 

I would take Dombrowski as GM of the Cubs any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but if we judged him the same way you are judging Hendry, our analysis would tell us to stay far, far away.

 

Never mind that Dombrowski took an organization that was losing terribly and turned them into a team that went to the World Series last year and is currently leading their division this year. His won-loss record during his tenure at Detroit is 403-527. That's 124 games under .500!!!! OMG!!!!

 

Simple and ridiculous.

 

Detroit was a train wreck and they're now a very good team that's well-positioned for the future. Hendry took over a team that had won 88 games the previous year. Since then he hired Dusty Baker, who was an outright disaster and who was at least partly responsible for major injuries to two very good young pitchers. He's built a team that is 3 games above .500 in a terrible division, in a weak National League. He's also got several very large contracts which may hinder the options available to the team in the future.

 

Dombrowski inherited a team that had lost 106 games, had bad players and little promise for the future. He's turned them into a very good team with some of the best young talent in the game - a team that should be playoff contenders for years to come. They're 13 games over .500 in a pretty good division, in what's considered by just about everybody to be the superior league. The very large contracts that the Tigers have are Mags - that one expires in 2009 if the Tigers choose not to exercise his options, Sheffield (expires in '09), Carlos Guillen (expires in 2011, but $12M a year for his production is probably a bargain) and Bonderman (4 years, $38M - who wouldn't take that?)

 

So Dombrowski has taken a worse product and turned it into a better team with a better outlook for the future. Simple and ridiculous.

That's exactly my point. Go back and re-read the post you are responding to. I would take Dombrowski as the Cubs GM in a heartbeat and yet his won-loss record at Detroit is abysmal. Way worse than Hendry's is with the Cubs. So should we rely solely on won-loss record when judging a GM? Is that the be all end all stat that says it all? No, of course not. That argument is simple and ridiculous.

[Exile on Waveland]

383-385

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done.

 

That said, over simplify away...

 

It's not an oversimplification; it's the only thing that matters. Winning is the bottom line, and Hendry's teams have not done so.

While it is true that winning is the only thing that matters, to hold one person solely responsible for the win-loss record of a team, especially one that was so much worse before he took it over, one that suffered an unusual amount of injuries to key, star players and one that had a quickly declining superstar making a ton of money from a contract that Hendry did not give him, is really rather silly.

 

It is an extreme over-simplification.

 

Does that mean that I think he is a great GM? No. But using this team's won-loss record as the lone justification for how well it's GM did is simple and ridiculous.

 

1. Hendry's job includes drafting, signing and trading for the players that make up the roster. He is SOLELY responsible for what players make up the team. He also hires the manager. Holding a GM responsible for wins and losses is the correct thing to do, seeing as that's the GM's job. There is no one else to blame -- if the players or manager were bad, you must look to who hired them.

 

2.. The Cubs were not that much worse before Hendry took over. Hendry took over in July 2002 so this is his fifth full year on the job. His teams are now 384-385. The previous five years, including 2002 (which obviously wasn't his team) the Cubs were 377-434. The winning percentages are .499 to .465. So, the club was marginally worse, but Hendry certainly worked no miracles. Plus, this ignores the fact that Hendry was helped by youngsters like Zambrano and Prior waiting in the wings and the yearly payroll increases.

 

3. The Cubs suffered an unusual amount of injuries to key star players? Does this mean Wood and Prior? Young pitcher get hurt, every team deals with this. Every team deals with injuries. Prior's injuries certainly have been flukish, though Hendry waited to long for a backup plan. However, Wood has always battled injuries and further DL-time should have come as no surprise.

 

4. I really, really don't think the Sosa contract hindered the club much at all. Sure, it likely didn't help, but every team has a player making too much money. This money could've easily been made up by not signing crappy replacement level players to multi-million dollar deals. Oh, and even in his last year with the Cubs, Sosa was productive with a 110 OPS+.

 

5. 88-89-79-66. Those are the Cubs wins totals in Hendry's tenure. That's an ugly trend. Now, of course, the win total will increase this year, but, sheesh, how could it not with the amount of money Hendry was allowed to throw around in the offseason? And, even with the spending money, the team is barely over .500 in a middling division.

So you truly believe that a GM should be solely judged on his won-loss record?

 

There are always variables and everything is relative. I don't hold the GM of the Royals to the same standard as the GM of the Yankees. But Hendry is the GM of a major market team with a very large payroll and has not won accordingly. Hendry has every advantage to field a successful team, and has not done so.

[Exile on Waveland]

383-385

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done.

 

That said, over simplify away...

 

Excuses excuses excuses.

 

 

Record vs resources. It's simple because that's all that matters. Excuse away, and you'll just keep getting the same results.

So what kind of job would you say Dave Dombrowski has done with the Detroit Tigers?

 

I would take Dombrowski as GM of the Cubs any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but if we judged him the same way you are judging Hendry, our analysis would tell us to stay far, far away.

 

Never mind that Dombrowski took an organization that was losing terribly and turned them into a team that went to the World Series last year and is currently leading their division this year. His won-loss record during his tenure at Detroit is 403-527. That's 124 games under .500!!!! OMG!!!!

 

Simple and ridiculous.

 

Detroit was a train wreck and they're now a very good team that's well-positioned for the future. Hendry took over a team that had won 88 games the previous year. Since then he hired Dusty Baker, who was an outright disaster and who was at least partly responsible for major injuries to two very good young pitchers. He's built a team that is 3 games above .500 in a terrible division, in a weak National League. He's also got several very large contracts which may hinder the options available to the team in the future.

 

Dombrowski inherited a team that had lost 106 games, had bad players and little promise for the future. He's turned them into a very good team with some of the best young talent in the game - a team that should be playoff contenders for years to come. They're 13 games over .500 in a pretty good division, in what's considered by just about everybody to be the superior league. The very large contracts that the Tigers have are Mags - that one expires in 2009 if the Tigers choose not to exercise his options, Sheffield (expires in '09), Carlos Guillen (expires in 2011, but $12M a year for his production is probably a bargain) and Bonderman (4 years, $38M - who wouldn't take that?)

 

So Dombrowski has taken a worse product and turned it into a better team with a better outlook for the future. Simple and ridiculous.

That's exactly my point. Go back and re-read the post you are responding to. I would take Dombrowski as the Cubs GM in a heartbeat and yet his won-loss record at Detroit is abysmal. Way worse than Hendry's is with the Cubs. So should we rely solely on won-loss record when judging a GM? Is that the be all end all stat that says it all? No, of course not. That argument is simple and ridiculous.

 

88-89-79-66-(80 something). Hendry didn't lift a team out of an extended doldrums like Dombrowski; and, if he did, he returned them three seasons later.

[Alfonso Soriano]

To show my appreciation to Jimbo here are some items:

Dunkin Donuts:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/writermama24/donuts.jpg

and the Baconator:

http://www.wendys.com/images/product_lrg/4.png

[abuck1220]

383-385

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done.

 

That said, over simplify away...

 

Excuses excuses excuses.

 

 

Record vs resources. It's simple because that's all that matters. Excuse away, and you'll just keep getting the same results.

So what kind of job would you say Dave Dombrowski has done with the Detroit Tigers?

 

I would take Dombrowski as GM of the Cubs any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but if we judged him the same way you are judging Hendry, our analysis would tell us to stay far, far away.

 

Never mind that Dombrowski took an organization that was losing terribly and turned them into a team that went to the World Series last year and is currently leading their division this year. His won-loss record during his tenure at Detroit is 403-527. That's 124 games under .500!!!! OMG!!!!

 

Simple and ridiculous.

 

you're right. comparing hendry to dombrowski is ridiculous.

[CubsWin]

383-385

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done.

 

That said, over simplify away...

 

Excuses excuses excuses.

 

 

Record vs resources. It's simple because that's all that matters. Excuse away, and you'll just keep getting the same results.

So what kind of job would you say Dave Dombrowski has done with the Detroit Tigers?

 

I would take Dombrowski as GM of the Cubs any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but if we judged him the same way you are judging Hendry, our analysis would tell us to stay far, far away.

 

Never mind that Dombrowski took an organization that was losing terribly and turned them into a team that went to the World Series last year and is currently leading their division this year. His won-loss record during his tenure at Detroit is 403-527. That's 124 games under .500!!!! OMG!!!!

 

Simple and ridiculous.

 

Detroit was a train wreck and they're now a very good team that's well-positioned for the future. Hendry took over a team that had won 88 games the previous year. Since then he hired Dusty Baker, who was an outright disaster and who was at least partly responsible for major injuries to two very good young pitchers. He's built a team that is 3 games above .500 in a terrible division, in a weak National League. He's also got several very large contracts which may hinder the options available to the team in the future.

 

Dombrowski inherited a team that had lost 106 games, had bad players and little promise for the future. He's turned them into a very good team with some of the best young talent in the game - a team that should be playoff contenders for years to come. They're 13 games over .500 in a pretty good division, in what's considered by just about everybody to be the superior league. The very large contracts that the Tigers have are Mags - that one expires in 2009 if the Tigers choose not to exercise his options, Sheffield (expires in '09), Carlos Guillen (expires in 2011, but $12M a year for his production is probably a bargain) and Bonderman (4 years, $38M - who wouldn't take that?)

 

So Dombrowski has taken a worse product and turned it into a better team with a better outlook for the future. Simple and ridiculous.

That's exactly my point. Go back and re-read the post you are responding to. I would take Dombrowski as the Cubs GM in a heartbeat and yet his won-loss record at Detroit is abysmal. Way worse than Hendry's is with the Cubs. So should we rely solely on won-loss record when judging a GM? Is that the be all end all stat that says it all? No, of course not. That argument is simple and ridiculous.

 

88-89-79-66-(80 something). Hendry didn't lift a team out of an extended doldrums like Dombrowski; and, if he did, he returned them three seasons later.

What does it take to get people to read before they respond around here. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

 

That's what I'm saying. Judging a GM on his won-loss record alone is a terrible idea.

 

You think Dombrowski is a better GM than Hendry is. I have no problem with that. I would love to have him as Cubs GM. But Dombrowski's won-loss record is terrible with the Tigers. Much worse than Hendry's is with the Cubs. I don't think Dave is a worse GM, do you?

Edited August 17, 2007 by CubsWin

[XZero771679666304]

I am thrilled that he signed Z. I was stunned and thrilled when he re-signed ARam. I was sure Aramis was being fitted for an Angels jersey. The deal for ARam was awesome, as were the deals for Lee and Nomar. The Kendall deal is looking pretty good right about now.

 

Hendry seems to be a brilliant negotiator, both with free agents and in trade talks.

 

However, Hendry is also abysmal at recognizing weaknesses and addressing problems. He spends too much on the bullpen, and his refusal/inability to recognize the lack of OBP as a key problem throughout his entire tenure has been very damaging.

 

Not all of the Cubs problems have been his fault, unless you hold him entirely accountable for Dusty Baker. Remember that it was Hendry's idea to make a closer of Dempster, while Dusty stubbornly kept running Hawkins out there. In fact, I think Jim did a great job overall until 2005, when the wheels seemed to fall out of his brain.

 

At best it is a wash, but when you look at the team's performance against the money Jim was given to spend, it's hard not to think he has done a sub-par job overall.

[CubsWin]

383-385

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done.

 

That said, over simplify away...

 

Excuses excuses excuses.

 

 

Record vs resources. It's simple because that's all that matters. Excuse away, and you'll just keep getting the same results.

So what kind of job would you say Dave Dombrowski has done with the Detroit Tigers?

 

I would take Dombrowski as GM of the Cubs any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but if we judged him the same way you are judging Hendry, our analysis would tell us to stay far, far away.

 

Never mind that Dombrowski took an organization that was losing terribly and turned them into a team that went to the World Series last year and is currently leading their division this year. His won-loss record during his tenure at Detroit is 403-527. That's 124 games under .500!!!! OMG!!!!

 

Simple and ridiculous.

 

you're right. comparing hendry to dombrowski is ridiculous.

Never compared them. Please quote where I did.

 

I only applied the same simple and ridiculous standard to both of them. That is not comparing them. That is showing how the standard of using only a GM's won-loss record to determine how good of a job he is doing simply doesn't work.

 

Face it, its a bad way to judge a GM.

[Exile on Waveland]

383-385

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done.

 

That said, over simplify away...

 

Excuses excuses excuses.

 

 

Record vs resources. It's simple because that's all that matters. Excuse away, and you'll just keep getting the same results.

So what kind of job would you say Dave Dombrowski has done with the Detroit Tigers?

 

I would take Dombrowski as GM of the Cubs any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but if we judged him the same way you are judging Hendry, our analysis would tell us to stay far, far away.

 

Never mind that Dombrowski took an organization that was losing terribly and turned them into a team that went to the World Series last year and is currently leading their division this year. His won-loss record during his tenure at Detroit is 403-527. That's 124 games under .500!!!! OMG!!!!

 

Simple and ridiculous.

 

Detroit was a train wreck and they're now a very good team that's well-positioned for the future. Hendry took over a team that had won 88 games the previous year. Since then he hired Dusty Baker, who was an outright disaster and who was at least partly responsible for major injuries to two very good young pitchers. He's built a team that is 3 games above .500 in a terrible division, in a weak National League. He's also got several very large contracts which may hinder the options available to the team in the future.

 

Dombrowski inherited a team that had lost 106 games, had bad players and little promise for the future. He's turned them into a very good team with some of the best young talent in the game - a team that should be playoff contenders for years to come. They're 13 games over .500 in a pretty good division, in what's considered by just about everybody to be the superior league. The very large contracts that the Tigers have are Mags - that one expires in 2009 if the Tigers choose not to exercise his options, Sheffield (expires in '09), Carlos Guillen (expires in 2011, but $12M a year for his production is probably a bargain) and Bonderman (4 years, $38M - who wouldn't take that?)

 

So Dombrowski has taken a worse product and turned it into a better team with a better outlook for the future. Simple and ridiculous.

That's exactly my point. Go back and re-read the post you are responding to. I would take Dombrowski as the Cubs GM in a heartbeat and yet his won-loss record at Detroit is abysmal. Way worse than Hendry's is with the Cubs. So should we rely solely on won-loss record when judging a GM? Is that the be all end all stat that says it all? No, of course not. That argument is simple and ridiculous.

 

88-89-79-66-(80 something). Hendry didn't lift a team out of an extended doldrums like Dombrowski; and, if he did, he returned them three seasons later.

What does it take to get people to read before they respond around here. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

 

That's what I'm saying. Judging a GM on his won-loss record alone is a terrible idea. Dombrowski better than Hendry. Dombrowski's won-loss record with Detroit a lot worse than Hendry's with the Cubs.

 

What do you think 88, 89, 79 and 66 are? Those are wins, half of the team's record. Yes, sometimes you have to split up the overall record of a GM -- I've said there are many variables and that's certainly one. Whether it's combined or year-by-year, the team's record is the way to judge a GM.

[Guest]

So you truly believe that a GM should be solely judged on his won-loss record?

Actually, goony's original point was win-loss + resources is how to judge a GM. When you analyze Dombrowski's job, you have to consider the initial condition of the franchise as part of the resources he had to work with.

[YearofDaCubs]

I am thrilled that he signed Z. I was stunned and thrilled when he re-signed ARam. I was sure Aramis was being fitted for an Angels jersey. The deal for ARam was awesome, as were the deals for Lee and Nomar. The Kendall deal is looking pretty good right about now.

 

Hendry seems to be a brilliant negotiator, both with free agents and in trade talks.

 

However, Hendry is also abysmal at recognizing weaknesses and addressing problems. He spends too much on the bullpen, and his refusal/inability to recognize the lack of OBP as a key problem throughout his entire tenure has been very damaging.

 

Not all of the Cubs problems have been his fault, unless you hold him entirely accountable for Dusty Baker. Remember that it was Hendry's idea to make a closer of Dempster, while Dusty stubbornly kept running Hawkins out there. In fact, I think Jim did a great job overall until 2005, when the wheels seemed to fall out of his brain.

 

At best it is a wash, but when you look at the team's performance against the money Jim was given to spend, it's hard not to think he has done a sub-par job overall.

I wouldn't call the Soriano contract brilliant. He was bidding against himself. Nobody would have given Soriano 8 years, probably not even 7.

[Guest]

What does it take to get people to read before they respond around here. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

lol - again, maybe you should re-read goony's post before talking about people's reading abilities.

[CubsWin]

383-385

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done.

 

That said, over simplify away...

 

Excuses excuses excuses.

 

 

Record vs resources. It's simple because that's all that matters. Excuse away, and you'll just keep getting the same results.

So what kind of job would you say Dave Dombrowski has done with the Detroit Tigers?

 

I would take Dombrowski as GM of the Cubs any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but if we judged him the same way you are judging Hendry, our analysis would tell us to stay far, far away.

 

Never mind that Dombrowski took an organization that was losing terribly and turned them into a team that went to the World Series last year and is currently leading their division this year. His won-loss record during his tenure at Detroit is 403-527. That's 124 games under .500!!!! OMG!!!!

 

Simple and ridiculous.

 

Detroit was a train wreck and they're now a very good team that's well-positioned for the future. Hendry took over a team that had won 88 games the previous year. Since then he hired Dusty Baker, who was an outright disaster and who was at least partly responsible for major injuries to two very good young pitchers. He's built a team that is 3 games above .500 in a terrible division, in a weak National League. He's also got several very large contracts which may hinder the options available to the team in the future.

 

Dombrowski inherited a team that had lost 106 games, had bad players and little promise for the future. He's turned them into a very good team with some of the best young talent in the game - a team that should be playoff contenders for years to come. They're 13 games over .500 in a pretty good division, in what's considered by just about everybody to be the superior league. The very large contracts that the Tigers have are Mags - that one expires in 2009 if the Tigers choose not to exercise his options, Sheffield (expires in '09), Carlos Guillen (expires in 2011, but $12M a year for his production is probably a bargain) and Bonderman (4 years, $38M - who wouldn't take that?)

 

So Dombrowski has taken a worse product and turned it into a better team with a better outlook for the future. Simple and ridiculous.

That's exactly my point. Go back and re-read the post you are responding to. I would take Dombrowski as the Cubs GM in a heartbeat and yet his won-loss record at Detroit is abysmal. Way worse than Hendry's is with the Cubs. So should we rely solely on won-loss record when judging a GM? Is that the be all end all stat that says it all? No, of course not. That argument is simple and ridiculous.

 

88-89-79-66-(80 something). Hendry didn't lift a team out of an extended doldrums like Dombrowski; and, if he did, he returned them three seasons later.

What does it take to get people to read before they respond around here. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

 

That's what I'm saying. Judging a GM on his won-loss record alone is a terrible idea. Dombrowski better than Hendry. Dombrowski's won-loss record with Detroit a lot worse than Hendry's with the Cubs.

 

What do you think 88, 89, 79 and 66 are? Those are wins, half of the team's record. Yes, sometimes you have to split up the overall record of a GM -- I've said there are many variables and that's certainly one. Whether it's combined or year-by-year, the team's record is the way to judge a GM.

Good. So then we agree that what Goony posted is not the be all end all of judging a GM. That's the point I have made. Are you disagreeing with it?

 

The trend of those wins and losses should be taken into account. The wins and losses of the seasons immediately preceding that GM's tenure should be taken into account. Other extenuating circumstances should be taken into account like major debilitating injuries at unusual rates should be taken into account. I think when these things are considered, Hendry has clearly improved the Cubs team he took over in July of '02, but that doesn't mean that he is a great GM or given a contract extension.

[Guest]

hmm...

 

I think I might rather have the cubs team he inherited in 2002 and the chance to manage that young talent in a different manner.

[Exile on Waveland]

383-385

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done.

 

That said, over simplify away...

 

Excuses excuses excuses.

 

 

Record vs resources. It's simple because that's all that matters. Excuse away, and you'll just keep getting the same results.

So what kind of job would you say Dave Dombrowski has done with the Detroit Tigers?

 

I would take Dombrowski as GM of the Cubs any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but if we judged him the same way you are judging Hendry, our analysis would tell us to stay far, far away.

 

Never mind that Dombrowski took an organization that was losing terribly and turned them into a team that went to the World Series last year and is currently leading their division this year. His won-loss record during his tenure at Detroit is 403-527. That's 124 games under .500!!!! OMG!!!!

 

Simple and ridiculous.

 

Detroit was a train wreck and they're now a very good team that's well-positioned for the future. Hendry took over a team that had won 88 games the previous year. Since then he hired Dusty Baker, who was an outright disaster and who was at least partly responsible for major injuries to two very good young pitchers. He's built a team that is 3 games above .500 in a terrible division, in a weak National League. He's also got several very large contracts which may hinder the options available to the team in the future.

 

Dombrowski inherited a team that had lost 106 games, had bad players and little promise for the future. He's turned them into a very good team with some of the best young talent in the game - a team that should be playoff contenders for years to come. They're 13 games over .500 in a pretty good division, in what's considered by just about everybody to be the superior league. The very large contracts that the Tigers have are Mags - that one expires in 2009 if the Tigers choose not to exercise his options, Sheffield (expires in '09), Carlos Guillen (expires in 2011, but $12M a year for his production is probably a bargain) and Bonderman (4 years, $38M - who wouldn't take that?)

 

So Dombrowski has taken a worse product and turned it into a better team with a better outlook for the future. Simple and ridiculous.

That's exactly my point. Go back and re-read the post you are responding to. I would take Dombrowski as the Cubs GM in a heartbeat and yet his won-loss record at Detroit is abysmal. Way worse than Hendry's is with the Cubs. So should we rely solely on won-loss record when judging a GM? Is that the be all end all stat that says it all? No, of course not. That argument is simple and ridiculous.

 

88-89-79-66-(80 something). Hendry didn't lift a team out of an extended doldrums like Dombrowski; and, if he did, he returned them three seasons later.

What does it take to get people to read before they respond around here. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

 

That's what I'm saying. Judging a GM on his won-loss record alone is a terrible idea. Dombrowski better than Hendry. Dombrowski's won-loss record with Detroit a lot worse than Hendry's with the Cubs.

 

What do you think 88, 89, 79 and 66 are? Those are wins, half of the team's record. Yes, sometimes you have to split up the overall record of a GM -- I've said there are many variables and that's certainly one. Whether it's combined or year-by-year, the team's record is the way to judge a GM.

Good. So then we agree that what Goony posted is not the be all end all of judging a GM. That's the point I have made. Are you disagreeing with it?

 

The trend of those wins and losses should be taken into account. The wins and losses of the seasons immediately preceding that GM's tenure should be taken into account. Other extenuating circumstances should be taken into account like major debilitating injuries at unusual rates should be taken into account. I think when these things are considered, Hendry has clearly improved the Cubs team he took over in July of '02, but that doesn't mean that he is a great GM or given a contract extension.

 

It depends. If Gooney is saying overall win/loss + resources is the only way to measure a GM, then I don't agree. But I seriously doubt that's what he meant. Win/loss + resources is the way to judge a GM, though sometimes the win/loss may be overall or seasonal. In this case, I'm guessing Gooney quoted the overall mark because it's simpler and the seasonal record isn't more favorable to Hendry.

 

Also, I still don't agree that the Cubs faced major debilitating injuries at unusal rates. All teams have injuries. I also think the Cubs were basically the same in the five years prior to Hendry. Though I do agree, and have throughout the thread, that these variables should be weighted.

[Exile on Waveland]

hmm...

 

I think I might rather have the cubs team he inherited in 2002 and the chance to manage that young talent in a different manner.

 

I agree. I think the Cubs were in a far more favorable position in 2002 than they are now. In 2002 the team was stocked with young, cheap talent and didn't have the potential millstone contracts the current squad is saddled with.