Jim Hendry Appreciation thread.

[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.

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

 

Which is why is didn't mention Soriano specifically. Hendry has been very good overall when it comes to negotiating.

 

As far as Alfonso goes, I'm not sure he wouldn't have gotten a similar deal from someone else. Maybe a year and 20 million less, but a similarly structured deal. I think Jim felt he had to hit Soriano and his agent with something too good to refuse before the bidding really got started, for the sake of having it not drag on all offseason.

 

I don't agree with that, but I think that was the idea.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

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.

 

 

This is a pretty good post.

[Sosa21MVP]

hell no! We would be better off without him. Let's see how you praise him in 6 years when Soriano is almost completely useless and making 1/5 of the payroll.

 

In 6 years, Soriano's salary probably won't look bad at all and won't come anywhere near being 1/5 of the payroll. Imagine how many huge contracts will be inked between now and then.

 

It still amazes me that people are bitter about Soriano's contract. The deal is done and the guy was having a solid year for the Cubs before he got hurt. What does it really matter what he is making at this point, it certainly did not stop the Zambrano deal from getting done and I doubt it stops any future deals from being done unless the new owner is a tightwad. But if the new owner is a tightward then we will have bigger concerns than Soriano's contract.

[CubsWin]

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.

The original post I responded to said nothing of resources. The post I responded to read simply 383-385. He later mentioned resources. To which I responded with the example of applying won-loss record to Detroit's Dave Dombrowski, who's team's payroll is similar to the Cubs.

 

Detroit ranks 9th in overall payroll according to ESPN with 95 million, just under the Cubs, who rank 8th with 99 million. The resources are there in Detroit. So, of course, resources matter. But, in this example, that is a moot point.

 

I mentioned people's reading more closely because they started putting words in my mouth, misunderstanding my use of Dombrowski as an example. Do you agree with abuck's post and how he responded to that example? Or do you think he was putting words in my mouth? If you agree that he is just being argumentative and putting words in my mouth, are you going to respond to his post like you've responded to mine?

[XZero771679666304]

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.

 

It sickens me to think what might have been had Dusty Baker not gotten his claws into Wood and Prior. Sammy's contract was no picnic, but he was still producing 5 years ago.

 

As for the contracts now, I think only Soriano's is unmovable as is. Barring an injury, I think Z and even Lee could be moved to a New York team or Boston as an in-season deal. The only potential millstone I see is Soriano.

[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.

 

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.

Goony and I have had several conversations about this in the past and he has always said that won-loss record stands alone when the team has the resources the Cubs have. I disagree and remain surprised that he continues to stand by this claim.

[CubsWin]

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.

 

It sickens me to think what might have been had Dusty Baker not gotten his claws into Wood and Prior. Sammy's contract was no picnic, but he was still producing 5 years ago.

 

As for the contracts now, I think only Soriano's is unmovable as is. Barring an injury, I think Z and even Lee could be moved to a New York team or Boston as an in-season deal. The only potential millstone I see is Soriano.

I agree.

[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.

The original post I responded to said nothing of resources. The post I responded to read simply 383-385. He later mentioned resources. To which I responded with the example of applying won-loss record to Detroit's Dave Dombrowski, who's team's payroll is similar to the Cubs.

 

Detroit ranks 9th in overall payroll according to ESPN with 95 million, just under the Cubs, who rank 8th with 99 million. The resources are there in Detroit. So, of course, resources matter. But, in this example, that is a moot point.

 

I mentioned people's reading more closely because they started putting words in my mouth, misunderstanding my use of Dombrowski as an example. Do you agree with abuck's post and how he responded to that example? Or do you think he was putting words in my mouth? If you agree that he is just being argumentative and putting words in my mouth, are you going to respond to his post like you've responded to mine?

abuck wasn't criticizing people's ability to read while doing so himself.

 

Which is, you know, what made your post kinda funny. :)

[XZero771679666304]

Goony and I have had several conversations about this in the past and he has always said that won-loss record stands alone when the team has the resources the Cubs have. I disagree and remain surprised that he continues to stand by this claim.

 

I agree with you to a point. Judging a GM based solely on W-L is not the best way.

 

However, given that:

 

A)The Cubs nearly won the pennant in 2003 and nearly lost 100 games only 3 seasons later

 

B)His resources increased each year subsequent to 2003

 

The team's W-L record is a pretty clear indictment of his incompetence (aside from 2004, when he assembled a great team).

 

It is his fault that he counted so heavily on Wood and Prior when they were injured. It is his fault he seemed more concerned with giving fat contracts to relievers than improving a dismal offense. It is his fault that he doesn't recognize the ability to get on base as a key to a consistent offense. And it is his fault he sat on his thumbs while Dusty ruined our young talent. It is his fault that he buys high and sells low.

 

All these things contributed to a poor W-L record. And lets not pretend that Jim inherited a barren team. He had Wood/Prior/Zambrano, Sammy Sosa (when he was still awesome), Patterson (when he still had tremendous trade value), etc.

 

With what he had, and the money he was given, there is no excuse whatsoever for the team not to have won at least 2 division titles from 2003-2006, and that's considering all the injuries in 2004. No excuse.

[Larry Horse]

The only thing to remember about Hendry is he has spent nearly 700 million dollars since he took over and has one playoff series win to show for it.

 

I wonder if fans even comprehend that, or just like to not think about that ungodly amount. It's not my money, so I could not care less, but you would think buy some stroke of whatever he could have lucked into assembling a World Series winner.

[CubsWin]

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.

The original post I responded to said nothing of resources. The post I responded to read simply 383-385. He later mentioned resources. To which I responded with the example of applying won-loss record to Detroit's Dave Dombrowski, who's team's payroll is similar to the Cubs.

 

Detroit ranks 9th in overall payroll according to ESPN with 95 million, just under the Cubs, who rank 8th with 99 million. The resources are there in Detroit. So, of course, resources matter. But, in this example, that is a moot point.

 

I mentioned people's reading more closely because they started putting words in my mouth, misunderstanding my use of Dombrowski as an example. Do you agree with abuck's post and how he responded to that example? Or do you think he was putting words in my mouth? If you agree that he is just being argumentative and putting words in my mouth, are you going to respond to his post like you've responded to mine?

abuck wasn't criticizing people's ability to read while doing so himself.

 

Which is, you know, what made your post kinda funny. :)

Do you have it out for me?

 

First, you wrongly accuse me of not reading Goony's post closely enough to understand what he was saying.

 

Then, when I respond showing you how I did respond to his "resources" comment thus fully understanding what he wrote, you completely ignore it in your response.

 

Nice double standard, Tim. I got no problem you picking on me, just have the facts to back it up.

[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.

 

It sickens me to think what might have been had Dusty Baker not gotten his claws into Wood and Prior. Sammy's contract was no picnic, but he was still producing 5 years ago.

 

As for the contracts now, I think only Soriano's is unmovable as is. Barring an injury, I think Z and even Lee could be moved to a New York team or Boston as an in-season deal. The only potential millstone I see is Soriano.

 

I really wonder what the future would have held for Prior and Wood if the club would've exercised caution with their careers. Without Dusty, I think the past couple seasons might've looked much different. It sickens me as well.

 

Unfortunately, Zambrano's has the potential to be a millstone. He's a young pitcher that has been pushed pretty hard in innings, pitch counts and such. Don't get me wrong, I definitely, definitely am happy about the deal. I think it's a good deal relative to the market. But it could certainly be a millstone. Other than that, I agree that the other contracts (outside of Soriano's) aren't bad.

[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.

The original post I responded to said nothing of resources. The post I responded to read simply 383-385. He later mentioned resources. To which I responded with the example of applying won-loss record to Detroit's Dave Dombrowski, who's team's payroll is similar to the Cubs.

 

Detroit ranks 9th in overall payroll according to ESPN with 95 million, just under the Cubs, who rank 8th with 99 million. The resources are there in Detroit. So, of course, resources matter. But, in this example, that is a moot point.

 

I mentioned people's reading more closely because they started putting words in my mouth, misunderstanding my use of Dombrowski as an example. Do you agree with abuck's post and how he responded to that example? Or do you think he was putting words in my mouth? If you agree that he is just being argumentative and putting words in my mouth, are you going to respond to his post like you've responded to mine?

abuck wasn't criticizing people's ability to read while doing so himself.

 

Which is, you know, what made your post kinda funny. :)

Do you have it out for me?

 

First, you wrongly accuse me of not reading Goony's post closely enough to understand what he was saying.

 

Then, when I respond showing you how I did respond to his "resources" comment thus fully understanding what he wrote, you completely ignore it in your response.

 

Nice double standard, Tim. I got no problem you picking on me, just have the facts to back it up.

Dude, stop taking yourself so seriously. You are not significant enough for me to "have it out for you". If I did, the next time you tried to log on you'd find yourself banned. Much easier.

 

To address your points:

 

First - You did not address the resource issue. I mentioned in a post above here that you have to take into account the talent level within the systems inherited by the two gm's when considering "resources".

 

Second, you consistently characterized goony's point as being solely based upon win/loss record, which he clearly stated was not the case. Yes, you pointed out the example of Dombrowski, but you stated more than once that goony's case was based purely upon w/l records.

 

Now, "Lighten up, Francis!"

[Modzilla]

Dude, stop taking yourself so seriously. You are not significant enough for me to "have it out for you". If I did, the next time you tried to log on you'd find yourself banned. Much easier.

tsk, tsk.

 

Not appropriate behavior there, Tim.

[RynoRules]

I say layoff Jim for a few days. Today he did something great.

 

And though I blame Hendry for many things, I still think that MacPhail was the true anchor dragging this team down.

[Exile on Waveland]

I say layoff Jim for a few days. Today he did something great.

 

And though I blame Hendry for many things, I still think that MacPhail was the true anchor dragging this team down.

 

Only because he didn't let Hendry outspend his mistakes.

[CubColtPacer]

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.

 

Here is an article from the Houston Chronicle talking about how the Astros had made an offer to Soriano-here's a quote:

 

Soriano is expected to seek a seven-year deal in the $120 million range, which is an average annual salary of more than $17 million

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/4340964.html

 

And here's one from San Fran:

 

According to major-league sources, the Giants and a handful of other teams made offers to Soriano, 30, high enough to move them into the second level of negotiations. However, the Cubs reportedly came back with their offer as a pre-emptive move to secure Soriano without any more bidding.

 

Sources said the Giants were not given a chance to match Chicago's offer.

 

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/20/SPGINMGE7R1.DTL

 

From Baltimore:

 

According to the source, Soriano is seeking a deal similar to the seven-year, $119 million deal given to center fielder Carlos Beltran by the New York Mets before the 2005 season.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103000899.html

 

 

I think you can see that the Cubs were not bidding against themselves whatsoever. There were several teams willing to give Soriano 7 years, 120 million. The Cubs decided to go 8 in order to make sure they got him, and they impressed him enough that they did.

There are even other teams besides the Astros and Giants that made similar offers for Soriano in that week of free agency that I didn't list. The thought that nobody was willing to give Soriano 7 years at that type of money is simply not true.

[TruffleShuffle]

Here is an article from the Houston Chronicle talking about how the Astros had made an offer to Soriano-here's a quote:

 

Soriano is expected to seek a seven-year deal in the $120 million range, which is an average annual salary of more than $17 million

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/4340964.html

 

And here's one from San Fran:

 

According to major-league sources, the Giants and a handful of other teams made offers to Soriano, 30, high enough to move them into the second level of negotiations. However, the Cubs reportedly came back with their offer as a pre-emptive move to secure Soriano without any more bidding.

 

Sources said the Giants were not given a chance to match Chicago's offer.

 

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/20/SPGINMGE7R1.DTL

 

From Baltimore:

 

According to the source, Soriano is seeking a deal similar to the seven-year, $119 million deal given to center fielder Carlos Beltran by the New York Mets before the 2005 season.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103000899.html

 

 

I think you can see that the Cubs were not bidding against themselves whatsoever. There were several teams willing to give Soriano 7 years, 120 million. The Cubs decided to go 8 in order to make sure they got him, and they impressed him enough that they did.

 

 

Those articles say what Soriano wanted.... they don't say what it is that other teams were offering. In fact, the WaPo article states that the Orioles were "floored" by his contract demands.

[CubsWin]

Dude, stop taking yourself so seriously. You are not significant enough for me to "have it out for you". If I did, the next time you tried to log on you'd find yourself banned. Much easier.

Standard procedure. Get caught attacking the poster and hide behind the old, you don't matter to me. I wasn't upset.

 

If I'm not significant enough for you to have it out for me, then why is this the third or fourth time you have singled me out for behavior that others around us, whom you happen to agree with, are doing far worse than I am?

 

If my comments haven't gotten under your skin, then why write that I'm not "significant enough" for you to care about, if you're not trying to jab at me?

 

Banning me would have been far less of a public display on your part. Whatever. I'll take care of the banning part myself.

 

Go Cubs.

[CubColtPacer]

Here is an article from the Houston Chronicle talking about how the Astros had made an offer to Soriano-here's a quote:

 

Soriano is expected to seek a seven-year deal in the $120 million range, which is an average annual salary of more than $17 million

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/4340964.html

 

And here's one from San Fran:

 

According to major-league sources, the Giants and a handful of other teams made offers to Soriano, 30, high enough to move them into the second level of negotiations. However, the Cubs reportedly came back with their offer as a pre-emptive move to secure Soriano without any more bidding.

 

Sources said the Giants were not given a chance to match Chicago's offer.

 

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/20/SPGINMGE7R1.DTL

 

From Baltimore:

 

According to the source, Soriano is seeking a deal similar to the seven-year, $119 million deal given to center fielder Carlos Beltran by the New York Mets before the 2005 season.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103000899.html

 

 

I think you can see that the Cubs were not bidding against themselves whatsoever. There were several teams willing to give Soriano 7 years, 120 million. The Cubs decided to go 8 in order to make sure they got him, and they impressed him enough that they did.

 

 

Those articles say what Soriano wanted.... they don't say what it is that other teams were offering. In fact, the WaPo article states that the Orioles were "floored" by his contract demands.

 

Yes, the Orioles were floored by those demands, but other teams clearly weren't. There was no way that Soriano would have gotten less than he was desiring with that many teams after him so early in the free agnet process. As the San Francisco article states, several teams had already put offers in that were considered high enough in the Soriano camp to keep negotiating. In that same article, notice it said that San Fran never had a chance to match the offer-it seems to imply that they would have seriously have considered matching the Cubs offer if given the chance.

 

Remember that Lee got 6/100, and Soriano was considered a much more desirable free agent with more teams chasing him than Lee. Lee was the backup plan for most teams, but Soriano was plan A. I don't see any way that Soriano comes out of free agency with anything less than 7/115, probably 7/120, and if the Cubs hadn't offered an 8th year there is a possibility that someone else would have in order to make sure they made a splash.

[rocket]

i wonder if in 5 years we'll be thrilled with the deal z got

 

Would you have prefered that he not be re-signed?

 

remember how we were all thrilled when kerry wood signed his 3 year extension? long term commitments to pitchers are risky. i hope z remains good for the duration of the contract, but i'm skeptical. if the cubs let z walk, i'd have understood.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Yea...I still find myself hating Hendry's long term "goals" for this team and organization.

 

Theres like...nothing in the farm system...and beyond the hiring of Perry and Piniella at the ML level...not much is being done to change the lack of plate discipline throughout our farm system.

 

It's nice that he tries his ass off...but the guy would get a sh*tload more respect if he had SOME kind of plan for the longterm. Or at least a half decent philosophy on how to build a team.

[RynoRules]

i wonder if in 5 years we'll be thrilled with the deal z got

 

Would you have prefered that he not be re-signed?

 

remember how we were all thrilled when kerry wood signed his 3 year extension? long term commitments to pitchers are risky. i hope z remains good for the duration of the contract, but i'm skeptical. if the cubs let z walk, i'd have understood.

 

I agree that long term commitnments to picthers are risky. I also think the reality of this situation is that it had to be done.

 

A negotiation is what it is - you get value but you also concede some to the other side. In this case we get the value of our ace during the best years of his career, and in return he gets a couple of years of high-end pay during which he probably won't be worth it. IMO, that's fair.

[RynoRules]

Yea...I still find myself hating Hendry's long term "goals" for this team and organization.

 

Theres like...nothing in the farm system...and beyond the hiring of Perry and Piniella at the ML level...not much is being done to change the lack of plate discipline throughout our farm system.

 

It's nice that he tries his ass off...but the guy would get a sh*tload more respect if he had SOME kind of plan for the longterm. Or at least a half decent philosophy on how to build a team.

 

I don't agree. There is a noticebale lack of position player depth, but we have pretty good pitching prospects.

[biittner77]

383-385

 

Honest questions:

 

Is the top GM rated by his team's record? How do you personally calculate GM worth?

 

I don't think there's any one way to do it. But 5 years of near the top payroll producing a record as mediocre as 383-385 is more than enough evidence to indict, try and convict Jim Hendry for being a bad GM.

 

Cubswin,

 

Read this post- it's on the first page of this thread-then apologize to Tim etal for being so obtuse. You're arguing to disprove a point that no one is trying to make.

 

Back to the actual topic:

 

If the Cubs make the playoffs this year that will be twice in 5 years. Does that change anybody's perception of Hendry as a GM?