Will Hendry be fired if the Cubs miss the playoffs?

[biittner77]

I don't think that Hendry has had the ability to go after the Top FA before this year. Sure he made offers but was really never close to what it was going to take before Soriano.

 

it's important to note that when hendry finally got the chance to go after the Top FA, he gave an 8 year contract to a guy who is OPSing 847 as a 31 year old.

 

 

EDIT: OPSing 847 as a 31 year old and very much meeting expectations, i should add.

 

OPSing .847 while playing left field -- the easiest position to fill and the one with the highest offensive expectations.

 

Not that I'm defending the Soriano signing but when was the last time the Cubs had a LF that put together back to back seasons of .900 ops or better?

[inari]

I don't think that Hendry has had the ability to go after the Top FA before this year. Sure he made offers but was really never close to what it was going to take before Soriano.

 

it's important to note that when hendry finally got the chance to go after the Top FA, he gave an 8 year contract to a guy who is OPSing 847 as a 31 year old.

 

 

EDIT: OPSing 847 as a 31 year old and very much meeting expectations, i should add.

 

OPSing .847 while playing left field -- the easiest position to fill and the one with the highest offensive expectations.

 

Not that I'm defending the Soriano signing but when was the last time the Cubs had a LF that put together back to back seasons of .900 ops or better?

 

Not anytime in recent memory, but Soriano's not going to change that.

[CuseCubFan69]

I think they will let the new owners decide Hendry's fate.

[TheDude]

Firing Hendry in the offseason makes no sense at this point, whether they make the playoffs or not. The team that is currently headed into '08 and even '09 is the team Hendry built, with all the critical pieces locked-up long-term under his watch. All 5 rotation starters are the Cubs property for at least the next 2 years. 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, CF, and LF as well. The bullpen probably all returns, or kids fill holes.

 

By replacing Hendry in the offseason, all a new owner will be doing is adding a GM that will fill 2 positional starters and the bench, and work any mid-season deals. It's also possible the new owner forces flat salary, so the 2 positional starters come from the farm (Murton, Soto), so at the lowest expected margin a new GM would have only the bench to fill.

 

Hendry detractors needed him gone last offseason IMO. The team he has currently constructed has his fingerprints for several more years regardless of whether or not he gets replaced.

[biittner77]

Firing Hendry in the offseason makes no sense at this point, whether they make the playoffs or not. The team that is currently headed into '08 and even '09 is the team Hendry built, with all the critical pieces locked-up long-term under his watch. All 5 rotation starters are the Cubs property for at least the next 2 years. 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, CF, and LF as well. The bullpen probably all returns, or kids fill holes.

 

By replacing Hendry in the offseason, all a new owner will be doing is adding a GM that will fill 2 positional starters and the bench, and work any mid-season deals. It's also possible the new owner forces flat salary, so the 2 positional starters come from the farm (Murton, Soto), so at the lowest expected margin a new GM would have only the bench to fill.

 

Hendry detractors needed him gone last offseason IMO. The team he has currently constructed has his fingerprints for several more years regardless of whether or not he gets replaced.

 

I don't disagree with any of this but filling out the bench has been one of Hendry's biggest weaknesses.

[RynoRules]

I think they will let the new owners decide Hendry's fate.

 

Good to see you around again. I agree to some extent, but I think Hendry has to win a playoff series to insulate himself from the inevitable ax.

[TheDude]

Firing Hendry in the offseason makes no sense at this point, whether they make the playoffs or not. The team that is currently headed into '08 and even '09 is the team Hendry built, with all the critical pieces locked-up long-term under his watch. All 5 rotation starters are the Cubs property for at least the next 2 years. 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, CF, and LF as well. The bullpen probably all returns, or kids fill holes.

 

By replacing Hendry in the offseason, all a new owner will be doing is adding a GM that will fill 2 positional starters and the bench, and work any mid-season deals. It's also possible the new owner forces flat salary, so the 2 positional starters come from the farm (Murton, Soto), so at the lowest expected margin a new GM would have only the bench to fill.

 

Hendry detractors needed him gone last offseason IMO. The team he has currently constructed has his fingerprints for several more years regardless of whether or not he gets replaced.

 

I don't disagree with any of this but filling out the bench has been one of Hendry's biggest weaknesses.

 

Under the Dusty era it was hit or miss, with the misses pissing people off so badly that they overshadow the decent guys. I thought the 2003 bench wasn't too bad, but it's the Perez and Macias type names that dwarf any positive guys from the Dusty days.

 

But this year's bench is very solid, and I give Lou credit for influencing the decisions on certain guys. For example, Sunday the Cubs had Kendall, Ward, Murton, DeRosa, and Pie available in the 2nd half of the game off the bench. That's pretty good.

[soapy]

Firing Hendry in the offseason makes no sense at this point, whether they make the playoffs or not. The team that is currently headed into '08 and even '09 is the team Hendry built, with all the critical pieces locked-up long-term under his watch. All 5 rotation starters are the Cubs property for at least the next 2 years. 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, CF, and LF as well. The bullpen probably all returns, or kids fill holes.

 

By replacing Hendry in the offseason, all a new owner will be doing is adding a GM that will fill 2 positional starters and the bench, and work any mid-season deals. It's also possible the new owner forces flat salary, so the 2 positional starters come from the farm (Murton, Soto), so at the lowest expected margin a new GM would have only the bench to fill.

 

Hendry detractors needed him gone last offseason IMO. The team he has currently constructed has his fingerprints for several more years regardless of whether or not he gets replaced.

 

Just because his fingerprints are on the team, doesn't mean he deserves to stay. Saying all a new GM would need to do is fill the bench also doesn't factor in. Besides, I think it's untrue.

 

The Cubs should not be satisfied heading into next season with the OF as it's currently constructed. If Murton and Pie are going to ride the pine for the remainder of 2007, they probably shouldn't both be relied upon as starters in 2008. Additionally, Lou has showed this year he's not happy waiting on a youngster to adjust at the MLB level if he has other mediocre options at his disposal (Floyd, Jones, etc.). Considering Pie's ceiling and ability, I think he's the more likely to stay. Trading Murton in a package for a productive RF is probably the best option at this point, aside from signing Arod if he opts out. I hate to see that as a big Murton fan, but I think it's true. I tend to think bringing Monroe on board spelled the end for Murton as a Cub.

[jersey cubs fan]

Firing Hendry in the offseason makes no sense at this point, whether they make the playoffs or not. The team that is currently headed into '08 and even '09 is the team Hendry built, with all the critical pieces locked-up long-term under his watch. All 5 rotation starters are the Cubs property for at least the next 2 years. 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, CF, and LF as well. The bullpen probably all returns, or kids fill holes.

 

By replacing Hendry in the offseason, all a new owner will be doing is adding a GM that will fill 2 positional starters and the bench, and work any mid-season deals. It's also possible the new owner forces flat salary, so the 2 positional starters come from the farm (Murton, Soto), so at the lowest expected margin a new GM would have only the bench to fill.

 

Hendry detractors needed him gone last offseason IMO. The team he has currently constructed has his fingerprints for several more years regardless of whether or not he gets replaced.

 

Just because his fingerprints are on the team, doesn't mean he deserves to stay. Saying all a new GM would need to do is fill the bench also doesn't factor in. Besides, I think it's untrue.

 

Seriously, that's a terrible reason to keep a GM around. Who cares if his fingerprints are on the team. That's the point. His fingerprints are all over the team and the team isn't good. That's exactly why you get rid of a GM.

[Soul]

Firing Hendry in the offseason makes no sense at this point, whether they make the playoffs or not. The team that is currently headed into '08 and even '09 is the team Hendry built, with all the critical pieces locked-up long-term under his watch. All 5 rotation starters are the Cubs property for at least the next 2 years. 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, CF, and LF as well. The bullpen probably all returns, or kids fill holes.

 

By replacing Hendry in the offseason, all a new owner will be doing is adding a GM that will fill 2 positional starters and the bench, and work any mid-season deals. It's also possible the new owner forces flat salary, so the 2 positional starters come from the farm (Murton, Soto), so at the lowest expected margin a new GM would have only the bench to fill.

 

Hendry detractors needed him gone last offseason IMO. The team he has currently constructed has his fingerprints for several more years regardless of whether or not he gets replaced.

 

Just because his fingerprints are on the team, doesn't mean he deserves to stay. Saying all a new GM would need to do is fill the bench also doesn't factor in. Besides, I think it's untrue.

 

Seriously, that's a terrible reason to keep a GM around. Who cares if his fingerprints are on the team. That's the point. His fingerprints are all over the team and the team isn't good. That's exactly why you get rid of a GM.

 

+1

[TheDude]

Firing Hendry in the offseason makes no sense at this point, whether they make the playoffs or not. The team that is currently headed into '08 and even '09 is the team Hendry built, with all the critical pieces locked-up long-term under his watch. All 5 rotation starters are the Cubs property for at least the next 2 years. 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, CF, and LF as well. The bullpen probably all returns, or kids fill holes.

 

By replacing Hendry in the offseason, all a new owner will be doing is adding a GM that will fill 2 positional starters and the bench, and work any mid-season deals. It's also possible the new owner forces flat salary, so the 2 positional starters come from the farm (Murton, Soto), so at the lowest expected margin a new GM would have only the bench to fill.

 

Hendry detractors needed him gone last offseason IMO. The team he has currently constructed has his fingerprints for several more years regardless of whether or not he gets replaced.

 

Just because his fingerprints are on the team, doesn't mean he deserves to stay. Saying all a new GM would need to do is fill the bench also doesn't factor in. Besides, I think it's untrue.

 

Seriously, that's a terrible reason to keep a GM around. Who cares if his fingerprints are on the team. That's the point. His fingerprints are all over the team and the team isn't good. That's exactly why you get rid of a GM.

 

+1

 

So explain to what a new GM could do? Sit as a mostly lame duck?

[biittner77]

So explain to what a new GM could do? Sit as a mostly lame duck

 

Most GMs take over and the first task is to clean up the last guys mess. The 2008 Cubs aren't that big of a mess. In fact they have fewer holes to fill now than any other time during the Hendry regime.

 

In an odd kind of way Hendry could wind up being better off by getting fired now while the team is still in moderately good shape. If the Cubs do anything in 2008, BBTN types will give him share of the credit. Then when his bad contracts start to look really terrible in 3 years he will already have been hired by the Orioles.

[jersey cubs fan]

Firing Hendry in the offseason makes no sense at this point, whether they make the playoffs or not. The team that is currently headed into '08 and even '09 is the team Hendry built, with all the critical pieces locked-up long-term under his watch. All 5 rotation starters are the Cubs property for at least the next 2 years. 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, CF, and LF as well. The bullpen probably all returns, or kids fill holes.

 

By replacing Hendry in the offseason, all a new owner will be doing is adding a GM that will fill 2 positional starters and the bench, and work any mid-season deals. It's also possible the new owner forces flat salary, so the 2 positional starters come from the farm (Murton, Soto), so at the lowest expected margin a new GM would have only the bench to fill.

 

Hendry detractors needed him gone last offseason IMO. The team he has currently constructed has his fingerprints for several more years regardless of whether or not he gets replaced.

 

Just because his fingerprints are on the team, doesn't mean he deserves to stay. Saying all a new GM would need to do is fill the bench also doesn't factor in. Besides, I think it's untrue.

 

Seriously, that's a terrible reason to keep a GM around. Who cares if his fingerprints are on the team. That's the point. His fingerprints are all over the team and the team isn't good. That's exactly why you get rid of a GM.

 

+1

 

So explain to what a new GM could do? Sit as a mostly lame duck?

 

What? A lame duck is a guy who everybody knows is going to be leaving the position in the near future. A new GM would clean up the mess that Hendry created. They would have to fine tune a roster that's ridiculously expensive for the quality of product on the field. There's plenty to do for a new guy. This isn't some rock solid roster that doesn't need changes.

[Soul]

Firing Hendry in the offseason makes no sense at this point, whether they make the playoffs or not. The team that is currently headed into '08 and even '09 is the team Hendry built, with all the critical pieces locked-up long-term under his watch. All 5 rotation starters are the Cubs property for at least the next 2 years. 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, CF, and LF as well. The bullpen probably all returns, or kids fill holes.

 

By replacing Hendry in the offseason, all a new owner will be doing is adding a GM that will fill 2 positional starters and the bench, and work any mid-season deals. It's also possible the new owner forces flat salary, so the 2 positional starters come from the farm (Murton, Soto), so at the lowest expected margin a new GM would have only the bench to fill.

 

Hendry detractors needed him gone last offseason IMO. The team he has currently constructed has his fingerprints for several more years regardless of whether or not he gets replaced.

 

Just because his fingerprints are on the team, doesn't mean he deserves to stay. Saying all a new GM would need to do is fill the bench also doesn't factor in. Besides, I think it's untrue.

 

Seriously, that's a terrible reason to keep a GM around. Who cares if his fingerprints are on the team. That's the point. His fingerprints are all over the team and the team isn't good. That's exactly why you get rid of a GM.

 

+1

 

So explain to what a new GM could do? Sit as a mostly lame duck?

 

What? A lame duck is a guy who everybody knows is going to be leaving the position in the near future. A new GM would clean up the mess that Hendry created. They would have to fine tune a roster that's ridiculously expensive for the quality of product on the field. There's plenty to do for a new guy. This isn't some rock solid roster that doesn't need changes.

 

+1 8-)

 

OK, I'll stop now.

[soapy]

 

So explain to what a new GM could do? Sit as a mostly lame duck?

 

like I said, for starters:

 

The Cubs should not be satisfied heading into next season with the OF as it's currently constructed. If Murton and Pie are going to ride the pine for the remainder of 2007, they probably shouldn't both be relied upon as starters in 2008. Additionally, Lou has showed this year he's not happy waiting on a youngster to adjust at the MLB level if he has other mediocre options at his disposal (Floyd, Jones, etc.). Considering Pie's ceiling and ability, I think he's the more likely to stay. Trading Murton in a package for a productive RF is probably the best option at this point, aside from signing Arod if he opts out. I hate to see that as a big Murton fan, but I think it's true. I tend to think bringing Monroe on board spelled the end for Murton as a Cub.

 

There's more beyond that including going younger/cheaper on the bench and in the pen to get the funds to upgrade in RF, or at SS (Arod). Namely ridding the roster of the Eyre, Jones, Blanco, Floyd types who use up money that can be better spent elsewhere.

[TheDude]

A new GM would clean up the mess that Hendry created. They would have to fine tune a roster that's ridiculously expensive for the quality of product on the field. There's plenty to do for a new guy. This isn't some rock solid roster that doesn't need changes.

 

There is very little a new GM can do next year other than fine-tuning. As I already pointed out, the same starting rotation could be returning for the next 2 years, as all are under Cubs control. Other than Catcher and one OF, the field is also all under contract, and if desired there is MLB ready talent from the farm to fill those holes (though it isn't the ideal).

 

Exactly what 'mess' is there to clean-up? Move Eyre and Jones. That's it, and honestly, there is very little wiggle room any GM has with these two 'assets'. They're trade value is established and isn't much.

 

Assuming best case scenario for fans around here and likely maximum moves a GM of the Cubs this offseason could make:

-Trade Jones

-Trade Eyre

-Acquire all-star quality OF

-Fill Catcher

-Fill holes with farm system

-Fill bench

 

At minimum, it's:

-Fill holes with farm system

-Fill bench

 

And given the timing of team sale and new hire for GM, and the known value of Jones and Eyre, I would bet on the minimum happening, rather than our notion of the ideal.

 

So my question is this: if you assume the minimum, as I do, what is the point of acquiring a new GM? And even if you stretch out to say Jones and Eyre could be moved, and an all-star quality OF acquired, how much greater value would a new GM bring back over Hendry with these moves?

 

It seems to me that a new GM at this stage brings diminishing returns.

[jersey cubs fan]

A new GM would clean up the mess that Hendry created. They would have to fine tune a roster that's ridiculously expensive for the quality of product on the field. There's plenty to do for a new guy. This isn't some rock solid roster that doesn't need changes.

 

There is very little a new GM can do next year other than fine-tuning.

 

Next year is not the only year his work will matter.

 

So it seems to me that your basic defense of keeping Hendry around is that he spent so much money this offseason, that the team doesn't have much flexibility to maneuver in the near future, so there's very little a new GM could do right away, and therefore Hendry should stay.

 

This is rather backward logic. The Cubs are a $100+ million team that's barely breaking even this year. They should be a 95-100 win team, given the resources. And over the course of 5 seasons, Jim Hendry has shown no ability to bring about such performance. Another GM should. It probably won't happen right away, but that's no reason not to get started right away.

[Shavo]

I'm wondering how this team isn't good?

 

They have won more games then they have lost, and are in 1st place.

 

They may not be the best team in the NL, or even top 5, but there still a pretty good team.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm wondering how this team isn't good?

 

They have won more games then they have lost, and are in 1st place.

 

They may not be the best team in the NL, or even top 5, but there still a pretty good team.

 

They are what now, 2 or 3 games over .500? They are barely above average. That's not good. They are okay. They are lucky to be in a terrible division where there record equates to first place, but that doesn't mean they are good.