Jim Hendry Appreciation Thread

[David]

 

Out of curiosity, who set up the Dodgers for this surge of great young players that they have now?

Were most of those players drafted/acquired during DePo's tenure?

 

Logan White.

 

OK, bring him here, then. And then let him trade our older players for all those damn young and inexperienced players that Coletti wants to get rid of.

[UMFan83]

Again, I don't think people realize how screwed we are long term. Look at this.

 

The Cubs will have these 7 players under contract though 2009 (there are more than these 7 but these players have either high salaries or backloaded deals). Derrek Lee, Aramis Ramirez, Ted Lilly, Carlos Zambrano, Alfonso Soriano, Jason Marquis, Mark DeRosa.

 

 

Here is how much these players collectively made in 2007:

 

$54.9 million

 

Here is how much it escalates to in 2008:

 

$73.175 million

 

And now the alarming 2009 rate:

 

$89.525.

 

Their salaries rise over 63% over a 2 year period. Basically we are spending $34.625 million more on our players salary and getting nothing back in return. For reference, the Devil Rays spent $24 million on their roster of 25 men this year.

 

With the team going up for sale, and potentially going to an owner with shallower pockets, you should expect to see little to no improvements being made to this club via free agency. Our only hope of improving is some team helping us out and taking on some of this salary. This is all Jim Hendry's doing, make no mistake. He mortgaged the team's future because he knew if he didn't win this year, he'd be fired.

 

Who cares! Don't you think that our team payroll will rise? If not then we are in trouble regardless of back loaded contracts. There is no reason our payroll should not be a minimum of 120 million.

 

Ok, so $90 million to 7 players means $30 million to 18 players, an average of $1.67 million per person. Sure some rookies will be paid the league minimum, but pretty much on average we have to allot very little money to improving the ballclub in the near future. You need a starter? Good luck because any decent one is going for $9 million a year at least. A good reliever? $4-5 million. A patient bat? $6-7 million. For the most part, we won't be able to afford these players.

[Banedon]

One other thing...for all the Hendry bashers: Who would you want to see replace Hendry? Really, how many GMs out there do a consistently above average job? Maybe a half dozen?

 

First name that comes to mind is Paul DePodesta. Maybe he can get his old team to give up some of those young players like Kemp, Billingsley, Loney, etc that are such trouble makers.

 

DePodesta was a GM for a total of 2 years. That hardly qualifies as "consistently above average."

 

That is my problem with people that constantly complain about Hendry and how easy it would be to replace him with a better GM. Sure, potentially there are better GMs, but the names that keep getting thrown around are terrible. DePodesta? Hendry has had more success than Depodesta.

 

As you pointed out, Depodesta got 2 years. Hard to really get a lot of success, dontcha think? How do you know he's terrible when he has barely gotten a shot?

 

Way to avoid defending DePodesta. If you can't win with facts try to win by playing semantics? What about DePodesta makes him a "consistently above average GM?

 

Well I never said that he was. So I'm not going to defend that statement. That said, I do believe he would be a better GM than Hendry given the chance.

[C.C.]

Again, I don't think people realize how screwed we are long term. Look at this.

 

The Cubs will have these 7 players under contract though 2009 (there are more than these 7 but these players have either high salaries or backloaded deals). Derrek Lee, Aramis Ramirez, Ted Lilly, Carlos Zambrano, Alfonso Soriano, Jason Marquis, Mark DeRosa.

 

 

Here is how much these players collectively made in 2007:

 

$54.9 million

 

Here is how much it escalates to in 2008:

 

$73.175 million

 

And now the alarming 2009 rate:

 

$89.525.

 

Their salaries rise over 63% over a 2 year period. Basically we are spending $34.625 million more on our players salary and getting nothing back in return. For reference, the Devil Rays spent $24 million on their roster of 25 men this year.

 

With the team going up for sale, and potentially going to an owner with shallower pockets, you should expect to see little to no improvements being made to this club via free agency. Our only hope of improving is some team helping us out and taking on some of this salary. This is all Jim Hendry's doing, make no mistake. He mortgaged the team's future because he knew if he didn't win this year, he'd be fired.

 

I don't foresee the team going to an owner with shallower pockets and an unwillingness to spend. Potential owners would be coming in knowing how much money is tied up for the future in contracts and would already be spending a crapload to buy the team.

 

 

But who knows with all the reports out there? I suppose Bud could really screw us if he wants to. I guess you could look at the situation in one of two ways. Either the new owner, knowing what the Cubs cost and what the Cubs have committed in payroll for the next several years, will be one that is going to come in here, and try to spend a ton of money and win, or the new ownership will have their hands tied and completely cheap out after spending upwards of a billion dollars on the team and having much of the payroll tied up for years (and years).

 

After spending around a billion dollars to buy the club, I can't imagine a new owner coming in here and not spending big money to win, What I see happening is raise the ticket prices and raise the payroll.

[UK1679666180]

 

Out of curiosity, who set up the Dodgers for this surge of great young players that they have now?

Were most of those players drafted/acquired during DePo's tenure?

 

Logan White.

 

OK, bring him here, then. And then let him trade our older players for all those damn young and inexperienced players that Coletti wants to get rid of.

 

Earlier in thread from me...

 

I've said it before, I think Logan White is the best avail. GM. If you gave me the choice of the potnetial unknown of White and the expected results of Hendry, I'd go with White.

[David]

Ok, so $90 million to 7 players means $30 million to 18 players, an average of $1.67 million per person. Sure some rookies will be paid the league minimum, but pretty much on average we have to allot very little money to improving the ballclub in the near future. You need a starter? Good luck because any decent one is going for $9 million a year at least. A good reliever? $4-5 million. A patient bat? $6-7 million. For the most part, we won't be able to afford these players.

 

You really don't know this. There's no way to know how much the new ownership is going to spend. There's really no way to even know who the new owners are going to be at this point, despite all the conjecture from the papers so far.

[Banedon]

Ok, so $90 million to 7 players means $30 million to 18 players, an average of $1.67 million per person. Sure some rookies will be paid the league minimum, but pretty much on average we have to allot very little money to improving the ballclub in the near future. You need a starter? Good luck because any decent one is going for $9 million a year at least. A good reliever? $4-5 million. A patient bat? $6-7 million. For the most part, we won't be able to afford these players.

 

You really don't know this. There's no way to know how much the new ownership is going to spend. There's really no way to even know who the new owners are going to be at this point, despite all the conjecture from the papers so far.

 

Isn't it a little like maxing out your credit card and hoping that your future salary will be able to afford your current purchases though? It's an irresponsible way to live your life, and it's an irresponsible way to run a business. The only way it pays off, is if we win a WS this year.

[David]

I've said it before, I think Logan White is the best avail. GM. If you gave me the choice of the potnetial unknown of White and the expected results of Hendry, I'd go with White.

 

An older and short, but good piece on White..

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/columnists/040224callis.html

[David]

Ok, so $90 million to 7 players means $30 million to 18 players, an average of $1.67 million per person. Sure some rookies will be paid the league minimum, but pretty much on average we have to allot very little money to improving the ballclub in the near future. You need a starter? Good luck because any decent one is going for $9 million a year at least. A good reliever? $4-5 million. A patient bat? $6-7 million. For the most part, we won't be able to afford these players.

 

You really don't know this. There's no way to know how much the new ownership is going to spend. There's really no way to even know who the new owners are going to be at this point, despite all the conjecture from the papers so far.

 

Isn't it a little like maxing out your credit card and hoping that your future salary will be able to afford your current purchases though? It's an irresponsible way to live your life, and it's an irresponsible way to run a business. The only way it pays off, is if we win a WS this year.

 

It certainly is. I don't think I've defended Hendry once in this thread. If I have come across that way, I've misrepresented myself.

[C.C.]

Ok, so $90 million to 7 players means $30 million to 18 players, an average of $1.67 million per person. Sure some rookies will be paid the league minimum, but pretty much on average we have to allot very little money to improving the ballclub in the near future. You need a starter? Good luck because any decent one is going for $9 million a year at least. A good reliever? $4-5 million. A patient bat? $6-7 million. For the most part, we won't be able to afford these players.

 

You really don't know this. There's no way to know how much the new ownership is going to spend. There's really no way to even know who the new owners are going to be at this point, despite all the conjecture from the papers so far.

 

Isn't it a little like maxing out your credit card and hoping that your future salary will be able to afford your current purchases though? It's an irresponsible way to live your life, and it's an irresponsible way to run a business. The only way it pays off, is if we win a WS this year.

 

It is, but if the gamble pays off we are all happy. Where would this team be without those purchases this year?

[David]

Ok, so $90 million to 7 players means $30 million to 18 players, an average of $1.67 million per person. Sure some rookies will be paid the league minimum, but pretty much on average we have to allot very little money to improving the ballclub in the near future. You need a starter? Good luck because any decent one is going for $9 million a year at least. A good reliever? $4-5 million. A patient bat? $6-7 million. For the most part, we won't be able to afford these players.

 

You really don't know this. There's no way to know how much the new ownership is going to spend. There's really no way to even know who the new owners are going to be at this point, despite all the conjecture from the papers so far.

 

Isn't it a little like maxing out your credit card and hoping that your future salary will be able to afford your current purchases though? It's an irresponsible way to live your life, and it's an irresponsible way to run a business. The only way it pays off, is if we win a WS this year.

 

It is, but if the gamble pays off we are all happy. Where would this team be without those purchases this year?

 

Ultra-screwed because of JH's many terrible decisions.

[UMFan83]

Ok, so $90 million to 7 players means $30 million to 18 players, an average of $1.67 million per person. Sure some rookies will be paid the league minimum, but pretty much on average we have to allot very little money to improving the ballclub in the near future. You need a starter? Good luck because any decent one is going for $9 million a year at least. A good reliever? $4-5 million. A patient bat? $6-7 million. For the most part, we won't be able to afford these players.

 

You really don't know this. There's no way to know how much the new ownership is going to spend. There's really no way to even know who the new owners are going to be at this point, despite all the conjecture from the papers so far.

 

Isn't it a little like maxing out your credit card and hoping that your future salary will be able to afford your current purchases though? It's an irresponsible way to live your life, and it's an irresponsible way to run a business. The only way it pays off, is if we win a WS this year.

 

It is, but if the gamble pays off we are all happy. Where would this team be without those purchases this year?

 

If we win the World Series, of course it will all be worth it. And we are in the playoffs, which means we have more than a fighting chance now. But if we dont, and even with the laziest odds, we have a 1-8 shot at getting to that point, how bad could the next 2-3 years be?

[C.C.]

Ok, so $90 million to 7 players means $30 million to 18 players, an average of $1.67 million per person. Sure some rookies will be paid the league minimum, but pretty much on average we have to allot very little money to improving the ballclub in the near future. You need a starter? Good luck because any decent one is going for $9 million a year at least. A good reliever? $4-5 million. A patient bat? $6-7 million. For the most part, we won't be able to afford these players.

 

You really don't know this. There's no way to know how much the new ownership is going to spend. There's really no way to even know who the new owners are going to be at this point, despite all the conjecture from the papers so far.

 

Isn't it a little like maxing out your credit card and hoping that your future salary will be able to afford your current purchases though? It's an irresponsible way to live your life, and it's an irresponsible way to run a business. The only way it pays off, is if we win a WS this year.

 

It is, but if the gamble pays off we are all happy. Where would this team be without those purchases this year?

 

Ultra-screwed because of JH's many terrible decisions.

 

Pretty much... :lol:

[Banedon]

Ok, so $90 million to 7 players means $30 million to 18 players, an average of $1.67 million per person. Sure some rookies will be paid the league minimum, but pretty much on average we have to allot very little money to improving the ballclub in the near future. You need a starter? Good luck because any decent one is going for $9 million a year at least. A good reliever? $4-5 million. A patient bat? $6-7 million. For the most part, we won't be able to afford these players.

 

You really don't know this. There's no way to know how much the new ownership is going to spend. There's really no way to even know who the new owners are going to be at this point, despite all the conjecture from the papers so far.

 

Isn't it a little like maxing out your credit card and hoping that your future salary will be able to afford your current purchases though? It's an irresponsible way to live your life, and it's an irresponsible way to run a business. The only way it pays off, is if we win a WS this year.

 

It is, but if the gamble pays off we are all happy. Where would this team be without those purchases this year?

 

I understand that, and I'm certainly not complaining about this year...

 

This thread is about Hendry, and his value or lack thereof. I think Hendry mortgaged the future of this team to try to win right now in order to save his job. What he did this year doesn't require a ton of GM skill. He spent an unknown future owners money to win now by overpaying for FA's.

[UK1679666180]

I've said it before, I think Logan White is the best avail. GM. If you gave me the choice of the potnetial unknown of White and the expected results of Hendry, I'd go with White.

 

An older and short, but good piece on White..

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/columnists/040224callis.html

 

http://sportsblogs.latimes.com/sports_baseball_dodgers/2007/02/talking_with_lo_1.html

 

http://sportsblogs.latimes.com/sports_baseball_dodgers/2007/02/in_part_i_of_ou.html

Edited October 2, 2007 by UK

[C.C.]

Ok, so $90 million to 7 players means $30 million to 18 players, an average of $1.67 million per person. Sure some rookies will be paid the league minimum, but pretty much on average we have to allot very little money to improving the ballclub in the near future. You need a starter? Good luck because any decent one is going for $9 million a year at least. A good reliever? $4-5 million. A patient bat? $6-7 million. For the most part, we won't be able to afford these players.

 

You really don't know this. There's no way to know how much the new ownership is going to spend. There's really no way to even know who the new owners are going to be at this point, despite all the conjecture from the papers so far.

 

Isn't it a little like maxing out your credit card and hoping that your future salary will be able to afford your current purchases though? It's an irresponsible way to live your life, and it's an irresponsible way to run a business. The only way it pays off, is if we win a WS this year.

 

It is, but if the gamble pays off we are all happy. Where would this team be without those purchases this year?

 

If we win the World Series, of course it will all be worth it. And we are in the playoffs, which means we have more than a fighting chance now. But if we dont, and even with the laziest odds, we have a 1-8 shot at getting to that point, how bad could the next 2-3 years be?

 

It depends on the new owners. I'm not going to worry about unknowns. We have no idea what the team salary will be 2-3 years from now, so why worry about it now? All I know is right now we have a chance to go to the World Series. That's all I care about.

[The Voice of Reason]

I think Bob Cook nails it pretty well.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21085505/

 

 

Even with the big money thrown around, the Cubs’ payroll total for 2007 shows them to be economically astute. The Cubs’ $99.6 million payroll is the highest among any of the NL playoffs entries, but only third in the NL overall, behind the New York Mets and the Los Angeles Dodgers. In fact, of the seven teams with higher payrolls with the Cubs, only three — the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox and Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim — made the playoffs. (As an aside, four of the five teams still left in contention — Cleveland, San Diego, Colorado and Arizona — are all in the bottom 10 in major league payrolls

 

Still, the Cubs might end up wishing they spent a little more money this offseason — or perhaps spent it a little differently.

 

Jason Marquis (three years, $21 million) never lost his spot in the starting rotation, but now it’s possible that, like last year when he was with St. Louis, he will be left off the postseason roster. Marquis (12-9, 4.60) had a 6.21 September ERA and got bombed for four runs in two-thirds of an inning in the season finale — and his postseason audition — against Cincinnati

 

Perhaps the money spent on Marquis could have been better used on a closer. Ryan Dempster (three years, $15.5 million, signed before last season) is the weakest link of the Cubs’ strong bullpen. Dempster successfully converted 28 of 31 save situations, the third-best save percentage in the NL. But in September Dempster had a 9.82 ERA, and his 2-7 record belies the trouble he’s had finishing games. A save is still a save if you give up one or two runs when you have a three-run lead — the sort of saves Dempster has made lately. Marmol, one out of two in save situations this year, could be called on if Dempster falters.

 

Many of the free-agent contracts outlined start with a relatively low first-year salary, which then might double by the time the contract reaches its final year. Depending on who buys the team from current Tribune Co. owner Samuel Zell, the Cubs won’t have the financial flexibility to make major moves. That’s especially true if the likes of Theriot, Marmol and Hill seek much bigger money very soon. Certainly, there are still deals for the likes of first baseman Derrek Lee (five years, $65 million, signed before last season) and center fielder Jacque Jones (three years, $16 million, signed before last season) that also still have a ways to go.

 

So right now, the Cubs’ spending spree looks like a wise investment. Without a deep playoff run — let’s face it, without a World Series — the risk is that the Cubs in 2007 end up looking like another team that tried to buy a championship, and failed.

[CubColtPacer]

Ok, I'm going to give Jim Hendry appreciation for one thing in this thread.

 

Yes, he did spend a lot of money in the 2006 offseason. The big thing was though, he spent it on the right players! There were a ton of horrible contracts thrown out last season. Here is what Hendry did:

 

got the best second baseman on the market, but didn't pay him anywhere near that level.

 

got the best outfielder on the market

 

got the second and sixth best pitchers on the market, and avoided every disaster in the pitching market (for those who are understandably upset about Marquis's contract, think about having Padilla, Eaton, Igawa, Scmidt, or Zito's contracts instead). If you look at the pitching market and look at the 1 year deals, they either were hometown deals or they were absolutely awful pitchers. Most of the long-term deals failed as well, and the only person that you could say Hendry missed on was Gil Meche.

 

got the best bench player by quite a bit on the market for an affordable price.

 

A lot of teams threw around money, but the Cubs were the only team to significantly improve through free agency. The Cubs overpaid for some productive players, but they got the best players. Most teams overpaid for bad players.

 

The Hendry mistakes are well known and some of them are still continuing. The reason they needed such a major overhaul in 2006 was because of Hendry's mistakes. At the same time, if he hadn't done a brilliant job picking the right players to give contracts to in the 2006 offseason the Cubs wouldn't be in the playoffs now.

 

In fact, let's not even look at the total value of the players. Did any team get more value for their money then the Cubs last offseason?

[Soul]

I think Bob Cook nails it pretty well.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21085505/

 

 

Even with the big money thrown around, the Cubs’ payroll total for 2007 shows them to be economically astute. The Cubs’ $99.6 million payroll is the highest among any of the NL playoffs entries, but only third in the NL overall, behind the New York Mets and the Los Angeles Dodgers. In fact, of the seven teams with higher payrolls with the Cubs, only three — the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox and Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim — made the playoffs. (As an aside, four of the five teams still left in contention — Cleveland, San Diego, Colorado and Arizona — are all in the bottom 10 in major league payrolls

 

Still, the Cubs might end up wishing they spent a little more money this offseason — or perhaps spent it a little differently.

 

Jason Marquis (three years, $21 million) never lost his spot in the starting rotation, but now it’s possible that, like last year when he was with St. Louis, he will be left off the postseason roster. Marquis (12-9, 4.60) had a 6.21 September ERA and got bombed for four runs in two-thirds of an inning in the season finale — and his postseason audition — against Cincinnati

 

Perhaps the money spent on Marquis could have been better used on a closer. Ryan Dempster (three years, $15.5 million, signed before last season) is the weakest link of the Cubs’ strong bullpen. Dempster successfully converted 28 of 31 save situations, the third-best save percentage in the NL. But in September Dempster had a 9.82 ERA, and his 2-7 record belies the trouble he’s had finishing games. A save is still a save if you give up one or two runs when you have a three-run lead — the sort of saves Dempster has made lately. Marmol, one out of two in save situations this year, could be called on if Dempster falters.

 

Many of the free-agent contracts outlined start with a relatively low first-year salary, which then might double by the time the contract reaches its final year. Depending on who buys the team from current Tribune Co. owner Samuel Zell, the Cubs won’t have the financial flexibility to make major moves. That’s especially true if the likes of Theriot, Marmol and Hill seek much bigger money very soon. Certainly, there are still deals for the likes of first baseman Derrek Lee (five years, $65 million, signed before last season) and center fielder Jacque Jones (three years, $16 million, signed before last season) that also still have a ways to go.

 

So right now, the Cubs’ spending spree looks like a wise investment. Without a deep playoff run — let’s face it, without a World Series — the risk is that the Cubs in 2007 end up looking like another team that tried to buy a championship, and failed.

 

KILL THIS GUY.

[Lefty]

I'm not going to read through all 5 pages, so I apologize if I am repeating others' posts. But if it were up to Hendry, Izturis and Kendall would be everyday players. Monroe and Trachsel had some value to him.

 

I am not saying all his moves were bad, but spending money will tend to raise a GM's success factor. Signing Lilly for $10 million and Soriano for $17 worked this year, but that latter contract might hamstring this franchise for years.

 

The fact is that the yahoos on this board, and that includes me, could have spent money on our personal favorites, Beltran, Drew, Schmidt etc., racked up a $100 million payroll and also won 85 games.

 

I thought Hendry had to make the playoffs to avoid being fired. Well I'll be damned, he did. I just hope he doesn't get an extension right before the Cubs are sold.

[The Voice of Reason]

I think Bob Cook nails it pretty well.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21085505/

 

 

Even with the big money thrown around, the Cubs’ payroll total for 2007 shows them to be economically astute. The Cubs’ $99.6 million payroll is the highest among any of the NL playoffs entries, but only third in the NL overall, behind the New York Mets and the Los Angeles Dodgers. In fact, of the seven teams with higher payrolls with the Cubs, only three — the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox and Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim — made the playoffs. (As an aside, four of the five teams still left in contention — Cleveland, San Diego, Colorado and Arizona — are all in the bottom 10 in major league payrolls

 

Still, the Cubs might end up wishing they spent a little more money this offseason — or perhaps spent it a little differently.

 

Jason Marquis (three years, $21 million) never lost his spot in the starting rotation, but now it’s possible that, like last year when he was with St. Louis, he will be left off the postseason roster. Marquis (12-9, 4.60) had a 6.21 September ERA and got bombed for four runs in two-thirds of an inning in the season finale — and his postseason audition — against Cincinnati

 

Perhaps the money spent on Marquis could have been better used on a closer. Ryan Dempster (three years, $15.5 million, signed before last season) is the weakest link of the Cubs’ strong bullpen. Dempster successfully converted 28 of 31 save situations, the third-best save percentage in the NL. But in September Dempster had a 9.82 ERA, and his 2-7 record belies the trouble he’s had finishing games. A save is still a save if you give up one or two runs when you have a three-run lead — the sort of saves Dempster has made lately. Marmol, one out of two in save situations this year, could be called on if Dempster falters.

 

Many of the free-agent contracts outlined start with a relatively low first-year salary, which then might double by the time the contract reaches its final year. Depending on who buys the team from current Tribune Co. owner Samuel Zell, the Cubs won’t have the financial flexibility to make major moves. That’s especially true if the likes of Theriot, Marmol and Hill seek much bigger money very soon. Certainly, there are still deals for the likes of first baseman Derrek Lee (five years, $65 million, signed before last season) and center fielder Jacque Jones (three years, $16 million, signed before last season) that also still have a ways to go.

 

So right now, the Cubs’ spending spree looks like a wise investment. Without a deep playoff run — let’s face it, without a World Series — the risk is that the Cubs in 2007 end up looking like another team that tried to buy a championship, and failed.

 

KILL THIS GUY.

 

Which of his points do you disagree with?

[CubColtPacer]

I'm not going to read through all 5 pages, so I apologize if I am repeating others' posts. But if it were up to Hendry, Izturis and Kendall would be everyday players. Monroe and Trachsel had some value to him.

 

I am not saying all his moves were bad, but spending money will tend to raise a GM's success factor. Signing Lilly for $10 million and Soriano for $17 worked this year, but that latter contract might hamstring this franchise for years.

 

The fact is that the yahoos on this board, and that includes me, could have spent money on our personal favorites, Beltran, Drew, Schmidt etc., racked up a $100 million payroll and also won 85 games.

 

I thought Hendry had to make the playoffs to avoid being fired. Well I'll be damned, he did. I just hope he doesn't get an extension right before the Cubs are sold.

 

I don't think that team would have won 85 games this year. You've tied up 47 million of your 100 million already in 3 players. Beltran has been close to Soriano offensively this year, Drew is identical to Cliff Floyd this year, and Schmidt has pitched 25 innings of over a 6 ERA.

 

Your other 53 million would have to be very well spent in order to get a team that won over 75 games with that start.

[CubinNY]

Does anyone think the Cubs are on the precipice of a dynasty?

 

Hendry's best acquisition in recent years was Piniella, (thanks Bruce Miles for the article yesterday. It really changed my mind about sweet Lou). But that might just be a contrast effect from the dark days of Dusty.

 

His second best was Lilly. But Lilly had a career year this year. Let's all hope he can keep it up in the post season and beyond.

 

Marquis was about what we all expeceted since May.

 

DeRosa was another good signing, but he had another career year at age 32.

 

We all know abut Soriano, how can you not like the guy? However, we won't be liking his contract in two or three years (if you like it now).

 

The thing about Jim is that in order for his teams to do well he needs to have far too many career years from too many guys. In ballance he had a good offseason, but in total he's been a very mediocre GM with a very mediocre record, and spent a lot of money to do so. Unfortunately for us, he's likely to be around for a few more years hoping to catch lightning in a bottle.

[CoolHandLuke]

One other thing...for all the Hendry bashers: Who would you want to see replace Hendry? Really, how many GMs out there do a consistently above average job? Maybe a half dozen?

 

First name that comes to mind is Paul DePodesta. Maybe he can get his old team to give up some of those young players like Kemp, Billingsley, Loney, etc that are such trouble makers.

 

DePodesta was a GM for a total of 2 years. That hardly qualifies as "consistently above average."

 

That is my problem with people that constantly complain about Hendry and how easy it would be to replace him with a better GM. Sure, potentially there are better GMs, but the names that keep getting thrown around are terrible. DePodesta? Hendry has had more success than Depodesta.

 

As you pointed out, Depodesta got 2 years. Hard to really get a lot of success, dontcha think? How do you know he's terrible when he has barely gotten a shot?

 

Way to avoid defending DePodesta. If you can't win with facts try to win by playing semantics? What about DePodesta makes him a "consistently above average GM?

 

I think GR was answering the other question: "Who would you want to see replace Hendry?" So he was never saying that DePodesta is consistenly above average.

 

 

 

My thoughts on Logan White: It might not be good logic, but after Hendry I am leary of scouting guys. Hendry did a great job of building up our system but he has no clue when it comes to managing payroll and maximizing the dollar.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Which of his points do you disagree with?

 

I'll go with "all of them".