Jim Hendry Appreciation thread.

Exile on Waveland · August 18, 2007

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?

No. He will have made the playoffs with 88 and approx. 84-85 wins. That's not good GMing, that's simply luck. In any other division, he'd have zero playoff appearances.

Mizzou · August 18, 2007

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?

Why is everyone being such as ass to CubsWin? He's one of the better posters on here, and because he took issue with gooney's 383-385 post (which, yes, if you go back and actually read you'll see), he's being called out by several people? That's just stupid.

biittner77 · August 18, 2007

Why is everyone being such as ass to CubsWin? He's one of the better posters on here, and because he took issue with gooney's 383-385 post (which, yes, if you go back and actually read you'll see), he's being called out by several people? That's just stupid.

Yes, I saw Gooney's post about Hendry's record. I also saw and then quoted his response to this question about how to evaluate a GM. At that point everyone accept Cubswin understood that neither Gooney, nor anyone else was trying to say that W-L was the only way to evaluate a GM. Then he started questioning people's reading ability. That to me is belittling and something we could do without.

I've been here since the beginning and I can count on one hand the number of times Tim has called someone out. Think about that for a while.

Tracer Bullet · August 18, 2007

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?

I hate to stick my head in the lion's mouth, but I agree w/ Cubswin to a point. In fact, if I had more time yesterday, I was going to post Dombrowski's record, b/c I had just been discussing it w/ a buddy this week. Goony's post says "5 years, top payroll, 383-385 record = indict, try, convict JH as a bad GM."

Dombrowski: 5+ years, roughly equal payroll, 403-528 record.

I don't like the repetition of "simple & ridiculous" for this method of evaluating GMs, but I think Cubswin did a good job of pointing out the obvious flaw. No reasonable person would consider Dombrowski a worse GM than Hendry, but he's got a far worse record with roughly the same payroll. Hendry inherited a good/average team and didn't improve it much. Dombrowski inherited a large pile of manure and turned it into a contender in 4 years. Nevertheless, he has a much worse record w/ the Tigers. [the flaw in Cubswin counter is that the Tigers payroll is only similar this year, before 2006, the Cubs payroll was $20-30m more a year than the Tigers]

So no, his record over 5 years with payroll considered isn't enough to convict him of anything. That said if you look at the rest of the circumstances too, it's more than enough to convict.

August 18, 2007

Why is everyone being such as ass to CubsWin? He's one of the better posters on here, and because he took issue with gooney's 383-385 post (which, yes, if you go back and actually read you'll see), he's being called out by several people? That's just stupid.

Let me show the quotes where I entered the conversation and you tell me if I was an ass (at first - I was definitely an ass later)...

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.

This was my first post. Notice that I directly address the question of Dombrowski here. I challenge you to find anything inflammatory here.

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.

Please note the "lol" to begin things here - it was meant as a light-hearted poke at someone who is banging their head against the wall for something he was doing himself. I guess you could call that being an ass, but if you are going to interpret my statement in the harshest possible way, then you have to do the same with his statement criticizing the reading abilities of everyone on the site (or at least those in the conversation, which I was part of at this point).

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?

CubsWin starts getting very defensive already...

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. :)

I again responded in a light-hearted manner trying to emphasize this wasn't meant to be a scathing attack, but just a friendly poke.

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.

And then he completely goes off on me. At which point, I said things I shouldn't have.

No question I was an ass at the end of the argument. But CubsWin is hardly free from guilt here.

Tracer Bullet · August 18, 2007

Why is everyone being such as ass to CubsWin? He's one of the better posters on here, and because he took issue with gooney's 383-385 post (which, yes, if you go back and actually read you'll see), he's being called out by several people? That's just stupid.

Yes, I saw Gooney's post about Hendry's record. I also saw and then quoted his response to this question about how to evaluate a GM. At that point everyone accept Cubswin understood that neither Gooney, nor anyone else was trying to say that W-L was the only way to evaluate a GM. Then he started questioning people's reading ability. That to me is belittling and something we could do without.

I've been here since the beginning and I can count on one hand the number of times Tim has called someone out. Think about that for a while.

The "simple & ridiculous" comment over and over, added to the questioning of people's ability to read was unnecessary. But it's frustrating to argue against people here when it seems that everyone is against you. As I just said, I think Cubswin had a very valid point and I agree that Goony's quoted post is not a good way to evaluate a GM (and it is an oversimplification). But I don't agree w/ all of his tactics for trying to make that point.

August 18, 2007

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?

I hate to stick my head in the lion's mouth, but I agree w/ Cubswin to a point. In fact, if I had more time yesterday, I was going to post Dombrowski's record, b/c I had just been discussing it w/ a buddy this week. Goony's post says "5 years, top payroll, 383-385 record = indict, try, convict JH as a bad GM."

Dombrowski: 5+ years, roughly equal payroll, 403-528 record.

I don't like the repetition of "simple & ridiculous" for this method of evaluating GMs, but I think Cubswin did a good job of pointing out the obvious flaw. No reasonable person would consider Dombrowski a worse GM than Hendry, but he's got a far worse record with roughly the same payroll. Hendry inherited a good/average team and didn't improve it much. Dombrowski inherited a large pile of manure and turned it into a contender in 4 years. Nevertheless, he has a much worse record w/ the Tigers. [the flaw in Cubswin counter is that the Tigers payroll is only similar this year, before 2006, the Cubs payroll was $20-30m more a year than the Tigers]

So no, his record over 5 years with payroll considered isn't enough to convict him of anything. That said if you look at the rest of the circumstances too, it's more than enough to convict.

Again, consider the point I made when I first posted in this thread. Money is not the only resource a GM has at his disposal. When Hendry took over the Cubs, they had the #1 rated farm system in baseball. When Dombrowski took over the Tigers, they had a farm system in the bottom five in the majors. The talent level at the major league level was also very different. The Cubs had some quality young talent in the bigs and Detroit as a barren wasteland.

The example comparing the two on W/L and payroll ignores these other resources that have to be considered when evaluating the performances of the two GM's.

August 18, 2007

Why is everyone being such as ass to CubsWin? He's one of the better posters on here, and because he took issue with gooney's 383-385 post (which, yes, if you go back and actually read you'll see), he's being called out by several people? That's just stupid.

Yes, I saw Gooney's post about Hendry's record. I also saw and then quoted his response to this question about how to evaluate a GM. At that point everyone accept Cubswin understood that neither Gooney, nor anyone else was trying to say that W-L was the only way to evaluate a GM. Then he started questioning people's reading ability. That to me is belittling and something we could do without.

I've been here since the beginning and I can count on one hand the number of times Tim has called someone out. Think about that for a while.

The "simple & ridiculous" comment over and over, added to the questioning of people's ability to read was unnecessary. But it's frustrating to argue against people here when it seems that everyone is against you. As I just said, I think Cubswin had a very valid point and I agree that Goony's quoted post is not a good way to evaluate a GM (and it is an oversimplification). But I don't agree w/ all of his tactics for trying to make that point.

Please note that CubsWin never responded to my point on Dombrowski and later accused me of completely ignoring that point when he went off on me (before I went off on him). The ironic part is that his post about people not being able to read was in between my response to him on Dombrowski and him later telling me that I didn't respond to it! :D

jjgman21 · August 18, 2007

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.

allow me to disagree with this part of your post

100

106

73

91

95

68

89

79

121

wazzat? that's the IsoD of the 9 batters who lead Boise in ABs. the walk rates of many of the Iowa hitters also detracts from this claim.

Tracer Bullet · August 18, 2007

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?

I hate to stick my head in the lion's mouth, but I agree w/ Cubswin to a point. In fact, if I had more time yesterday, I was going to post Dombrowski's record, b/c I had just been discussing it w/ a buddy this week. Goony's post says "5 years, top payroll, 383-385 record = indict, try, convict JH as a bad GM."

Dombrowski: 5+ years, roughly equal payroll, 403-528 record.

I don't like the repetition of "simple & ridiculous" for this method of evaluating GMs, but I think Cubswin did a good job of pointing out the obvious flaw. No reasonable person would consider Dombrowski a worse GM than Hendry, but he's got a far worse record with roughly the same payroll. Hendry inherited a good/average team and didn't improve it much. Dombrowski inherited a large pile of manure and turned it into a contender in 4 years. Nevertheless, he has a much worse record w/ the Tigers. [the flaw in Cubswin counter is that the Tigers payroll is only similar this year, before 2006, the Cubs payroll was $20-30m more a year than the Tigers]

So no, his record over 5 years with payroll considered isn't enough to convict him of anything. That said if you look at the rest of the circumstances too, it's more than enough to convict.
Again, consider the point I made when I first posted in this thread. Money is not the only resource a GM has at his disposal. When Hendry took over the Cubs, they had the #1 rated farm system in baseball. When Dombrowski took over the Tigers, they had a farm system in the bottom five in the majors. The talent level at the major league level was also very different. The Cubs had some quality young talent in the bigs and Detroit as a barren wasteland.

The example comparing the two on W/L and payroll ignores these other resources that have to be considered when evaluating the performances of the two GM's.

I agree with all of that Tim. But goony's post clearly says 5 years, top payroll, sub .500 record = bad GM. That's all it says. I totally agree that Dombrowski came into a totally different situation and you can't expect a GM to take a bad team and turn it into a great one immediately (and frankly, I'm surprised he got the results he did in the few years it took).

But that's never been the point Cubswin is trying to make. Goony stated very clearly the formula for judging a GM. Cubswin disagrees with it. I disagree with it (and I think several others do too). Maybe goony doesn't really think that his post up there is a fair representation of his beliefs on the matter, but he hasn't come here to post an amendment to it.

This, frankly, was Cubswin's frustration. It's not about resources or other circumstances. It's payroll + years + record. That's the formula goony set forth. Dombrowski clearly establishes the flaw in goony's post.

Tracer Bullet · August 18, 2007

Why is everyone being such as ass to CubsWin? He's one of the better posters on here, and because he took issue with gooney's 383-385 post (which, yes, if you go back and actually read you'll see), he's being called out by several people? That's just stupid.

Yes, I saw Gooney's post about Hendry's record. I also saw and then quoted his response to this question about how to evaluate a GM. At that point everyone accept Cubswin understood that neither Gooney, nor anyone else was trying to say that W-L was the only way to evaluate a GM. Then he started questioning people's reading ability. That to me is belittling and something we could do without.

I've been here since the beginning and I can count on one hand the number of times Tim has called someone out. Think about that for a while.

The "simple & ridiculous" comment over and over, added to the questioning of people's ability to read was unnecessary. But it's frustrating to argue against people here when it seems that everyone is against you. As I just said, I think Cubswin had a very valid point and I agree that Goony's quoted post is not a good way to evaluate a GM (and it is an oversimplification). But I don't agree w/ all of his tactics for trying to make that point.
Please note that CubsWin never responded to my point on Dombrowski and later accused me of completely ignoring that point when he went off on me (before I went off on him). The ironic part is that his post about people not being able to read was in between my response to him on Dombrowski and him later telling me that I didn't respond to it! :D

My comment wasn't really aimed at you. I agree with your post from earlier this morning - Cubswin isn't free from fault. But others were jumping all over him too. And feeling like everyone's against you is frustrating.

And I think the people not reading comment was aimed at the folks who had been arguing with him from the beginning - not you. I don't really know, obviously only Cubswin does, but given the way it plays out now, it looks like he was directing that at other posters.

UK1679666180 · August 18, 2007

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.

It's pretty telling of how bad this team was last year when the Cubs spent as much as anyone last off-season and is hovering right around .500 in the worst division in MLB . The Cubs had a good off-season as well, probably as good as anyone in MLB so it's not like they didn't maximize their potential improvement.

I don't think it gets any easier in this...

Would you want Hendry as the GM next year or take a chance and see what is out there? I'd be curious to see how that hiring process would go given the team president?

Cynosure · August 18, 2007

LOL This flame war is still going on?

Tracer Bullet · August 18, 2007

LOL This flame war is still going on?

Are you reading the posts Tim and I are writing or are you just basing this off of the fact that there are new posts in this thread so you assume its some sort of flame war? That post makes no sense.

SouthSideRyan · August 18, 2007

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.

Then the alternative is never signing a pitcher to more than a 2 year deal, and then you get stuck with a piecemeal rotation every year unless you can consistently churn out starters from the minors. There is an inherent risk with all pitchers, but if you don't take the risk you have a rotation of retreads and projects and you have a 70 win team.

To CFICT, late response, but is it your contention that Z has been hurt the past 2 seasons? I don't know when it began that every time a guy slumps that there is speculation that he's injured, but it seems to be really popular lately. An increase in BB rate/HR rate could mean a pitcher is injured, but it'd be pretty far down on my list of reasons for the increase.

CubinNY · August 19, 2007

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?

I hate to stick my head in the lion's mouth, but I agree w/ Cubswin to a point. In fact, if I had more time yesterday, I was going to post Dombrowski's record, b/c I had just been discussing it w/ a buddy this week. Goony's post says "5 years, top payroll, 383-385 record = indict, try, convict JH as a bad GM."

Dombrowski: 5+ years, roughly equal payroll, 403-528 record.

I don't like the repetition of "simple & ridiculous" for this method of evaluating GMs, but I think Cubswin did a good job of pointing out the obvious flaw. No reasonable person would consider Dombrowski a worse GM than Hendry, but he's got a far worse record with roughly the same payroll. Hendry inherited a good/average team and didn't improve it much. Dombrowski inherited a large pile of manure and turned it into a contender in 4 years. Nevertheless, he has a much worse record w/ the Tigers. [the flaw in Cubswin counter is that the Tigers payroll is only similar this year, before 2006, the Cubs payroll was $20-30m more a year than the Tigers]

So no, his record over 5 years with payroll considered isn't enough to convict him of anything. That said if you look at the rest of the circumstances too, it's more than enough to convict.
Again, consider the point I made when I first posted in this thread. Money is not the only resource a GM has at his disposal. When Hendry took over the Cubs, they had the #1 rated farm system in baseball. When Dombrowski took over the Tigers, they had a farm system in the bottom five in the majors. The talent level at the major league level was also very different. The Cubs had some quality young talent in the bigs and Detroit as a barren wasteland.

The example comparing the two on W/L and payroll ignores these other resources that have to be considered when evaluating the performances of the two GM's.

I'd also like to add his odd (to put it politely) handling of the 40 man roster. Hendry has not been good on the balance of things. When he's traded well, he's been the recipeient of largess from another GM.

-Lee got traded to Baltimore first

-Aramis was a disgruntled, hurt, player and Lofton was making a lot of money

-Nomar was persona no grata in Boston

He's set the market for medicore middle relievers at least twice during his tenure and his, "I decided I like guys who can catch the ball" bears no more elaboration.

He's gone and done exactly what he's wanted to in two seasons, make the Cubs competitive within the division. And he's outspent everybody to do it. Those are pedestrian goals by anybody's standard.

He's been a bad GM on balance and I hope this is his last season running the Cubs.

sethuel1 · August 19, 2007

LOL This flame war is still going on?

simple and ridiculous

Rob · August 19, 2007

If memory serves, the Cubs (and by extension, Jim Hendry) were dead last in the majors last year as far as what they spent per marginal win. If Hendry had inherited a bunch of horrible old contracts and a bad farm system, and was still fairly new to the Cubs GM position, it would be understandable. He didn't, and it isn't.

Just like any other GM, he has strengths and weaknesses. He does seem fairly good at convincing players he wants to sign contracts with us (and for hometown discounts). He's also capable of making fairly good trades.

However, he completely lacks an understanding of the values that make the game tick... preferring instead to rely on the conventional "wisdom" of things like the importance of a speedy leadoff hitter, and having high batting averages.

As is, Hendry's skills are not enough to outweigh his deficiencies. I do applaud the signing of Z to an extension, but it is not nearly enough to redeem him.

frostwyrm · August 19, 2007

Huge 2007 payroll and tons of deferred debt looming, just to be barely above .500 while playing a creampuff schedule in a horrible division in a weak league. It's pathetic. There's no defending it.

NCCubFan · August 19, 2007

-Lee got traded to Baltimore first

No he didn't. If Lee was traded to Baltimore then Florida wouldn't have been able to trade him to the Cubs.

Rob · August 19, 2007

-Lee got traded to Baltimore first
No he didn't. If Lee was traded to Baltimore then Florida wouldn't have been able to trade him to the Cubs.

He was essentially traded to Baltimore, who balked at the last minute. Florida then called up Hendry hoping to dump DLee and his salary and Hendry capitalized on their impatience.

baseball7897 · August 19, 2007

LOL This flame war is still going on?

Stay hot.

soccer10k · August 19, 2007

-Nomar was persona no grata in Boston

While this is true, he not only got Nomar for virtually nothing but he got the Red Sox to give the Cubs Matt Murton as well.

chuckywang · August 19, 2007

-Nomar was persona no grata in Boston

While this is true, he not only got Nomar for virtually nothing but he got the Red Sox to give the Cubs Matt Murton as well.

I wouldn't call Brendan Harris virtually nothing.

RynoRules · August 19, 2007

-Nomar was persona no grata in Boston

While this is true, he not only got Nomar for virtually nothing but he got the Red Sox to give the Cubs Matt Murton as well.

But its easier to ignore the facts that disfavor your argument (see the comment about the Lee aquisition above), like the fact that we have had better young pitching under the Hendry regime than perhaps at any other time in franchise history.

The pure hate towards Hendry is strange to me. He has done a poor job during at least half of his tenure (if you measure season by season), but he has also done some good things. There also seems to be some discounting or ignorance of MacPhail and Baker's roles in all of this.

I don't understand why it is so hard for some of you to acknowledge the things Hendry has done well. It's like the guy owes some of you money.

Edited August 19, 2007 by RynoRules

Jim Hendry Appreciation thread.

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest

Guest

Guest

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs