Jim Hendry Appreciation Thread

[David]

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?

 

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.

 

Yes, this.

As well as Logan White has done as a farm director, I'm not sure how well this translates into being a good GM. Our current GM who everyone bashes was hired when he was the farm director of the #1 farm system in baseball. I'm not sure how well these skills translate from one job to another.

I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment, but I don't think the Cubs ever had the #1 farm system in baseball. I could be wrong though.

 

They were definitely considered one of the 3 or 4 best, at least, in the early 2000's when they had Prior, Z, Cruz, Choi, Hill, etc.

 

There was a year or two where BA had the Cubs vs. the A's as their "future" WS matchup (based on their minor league systems).

Edited October 2, 2007 by David

[C.C.]

 

Marquis was a necessary evil. 2006 showed that we can't just hope for the best with multiple young players in the rotation(for several reasons) and expect to be competitive. 3/21 is a stiff price for Marquis, but 33% of the way through the contract he's proved one of the better gambles, and with the way the market has gone it wouldn't be a surprise that he's considered appropriately or underpaid after a couple offseasons.

 

Dempster is fine. He had a horrible month. So did Bob Howry in may. He's not going to be completely lock down, but we knew that going in and he's paid appropriately. Bob Cook is really over dramatizing Dempster's performance.

 

The point about backloading hurting the team is a weak one. First of all, if the new owner spends money, it's a moot point. If he doesn't, then we were screwed anyway. The contracts with the most severe backloading are the shorter ones to the likes of Marquis and DeRosa rather than Ramirez or Zambrano. It's silly to think that the team will be forced to unload someone like Hill or Marmol(who will either not be arbitration eligible or first year by the time Marquis, Howry, Eyre, DeRosa, etc. are through with their contract) because of those middling FA deals. Never mind the fact that forecasting payroll problems 3 years in advance is a fruitless exercise for many reasons, not the least of which is that we don't know who's going to be available as a cost-effective option from within. Who saw Theriot as our everyday SS this year after the collapse in 2004?

 

And finally, the "trying to buy a world series" gimmick is cliche and tired. The Cubs aren't even close to being at the top of the payroll ladder, and their run this year is heavily influenced by their own system with players developed by the team or traded for with those players.

 

I couldn't agree more on every single point. Well said.

[C.C.]

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?

 

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.

 

Yes, this.

As well as Logan White has done as a farm director, I'm not sure how well this translates into being a good GM. Our current GM who everyone bashes was hired when he was the farm director of the #1 farm system in baseball. I'm not sure how well these skills translate from one job to another.

I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment, but I don't think the Cubs ever had the #1 farm system in baseball. I could be wrong though.

 

They were definitely considered one of the 3 or 4 best, at least, in the early 2000's when they had Prior, Z, Cruz, Choi, Hill, etc.

 

There was a year or two where BA had the Cubs vs. the A's as their "future" WS matchup (based on their minor league systems).

 

Don't forget Patterson.

[David]

True, but he got his first callup in 2000 and then had a decent amount of time in 2001, I believe.

[C.C.]

True, but he got his first callup in 2000 and then had a decent amount of time in 2001, I believe.

 

Wasn't Bobby Hill highly regarded?

[David]

True, but he got his first callup in 2000 and then had a decent amount of time in 2001, I believe.

 

Wasn't Bobby Hill highly regarded?

 

Yea, I included him.

[Guest]

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?

 

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.

 

Yes, this.

As well as Logan White has done as a farm director, I'm not sure how well this translates into being a good GM. Our current GM who everyone bashes was hired when he was the farm director of the #1 farm system in baseball. I'm not sure how well these skills translate from one job to another.

I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment, but I don't think the Cubs ever had the #1 farm system in baseball. I could be wrong though.

 

They were #1 in 2002 (Prior, Cruz, Choi, Zambrano, Kelton, Hill, Jackson) and #3 in 2003 (Choi, Guzman, Sisco, Pie, Jackson) according to Baseball America.

[The Voice of Reason]

Which of his points do you disagree with?

 

I'll go with "all of them".

 

Interesting.

 

So you think the Cubs won't come to regret the three year $21 million contract they game Marquis and aren't concerned about his 6.21 ERA in September.

 

Aren't the least bit concerned with Dempster's 9.82 ERA in September.

 

Don't think the backloaded contracts Hendry handed out may limit flexibility in the future.

 

Will be satisfied with a 85 win season if the Cubs don't make a deep playoff run.

 

No, I said I disagreed with the points he made, please don't try to make my argument for me.

 

Marquis was a necessary evil. 2006 showed that we can't just hope for the best with multiple young players in the rotation(for several reasons) and expect to be competitive. 3/21 is a stiff price for Marquis, but 33% of the way through the contract he's proved one of the better gambles, and with the way the market has gone it wouldn't be a surprise that he's considered appropriately or underpaid after a couple offseasons.

 

Dempster is fine. He had a horrible month. So did Bob Howry in may. He's not going to be completely lock down, but we knew that going in and he's paid appropriately. Bob Cook is really over dramatizing Dempster's performance.

The point about backloading hurting the team is a weak one. First of all, if the new owner spends money, it's a moot point. If he doesn't, then we were screwed anyway. The contracts with the most severe backloading are the shorter ones to the likes of Marquis and DeRosa rather than Ramirez or Zambrano. It's silly to think that the team will be forced to unload someone like Hill or Marmol(who will either not be arbitration eligible or first year by the time Marquis, Howry, Eyre, DeRosa, etc. are through with their contract) because of those middling FA deals. Never mind the fact that forecasting payroll problems 3 years in advance is a fruitless exercise for many reasons, not the least of which is that we don't know who's going to be available as a cost-effective option from within. Who saw Theriot as our everyday SS this year after the collapse in 2004?

 

And finally, the "trying to buy a world series" gimmick is cliche and tired.

 

The Cubs aren't even close to being at the top of the payroll ladder, and their run this year is heavily influenced by their own system with players developed by the team or traded for with those players.

 

Dempster has a 3 - 16 record and an ERA around 4.75 over the last two years. His lack of control and the number of times he is hit hard is troubling. Hitters are no longer swinging at his breaking balls in the dirt like they did in 2005 and are waiting for walks or until he grooves one. Hence the high ERA. To say it's just been one bad month is a stretch IMO.

 

Giving players high priced long contracts, especially for years when their skills will be diminishing can most certainly hamstrung a GM. Just look at how harmful the long term contract MacPhail gave to Sosa was (the Cubs couldn't sign free agents because they were stuck with a $20 million contract for a player no one wanted) or the ridiculous contract the Rangers gave Chan Ho Park.

[Omar]

This is Hendry's second playoff run as the Cubs GM. You cant say that about many front office people who have worked with the Cubs. That'll be strongly looked at when his contract runs out.

[David]

This is Hendry's second playoff run as the Cubs GM. You cant say that about many front office people who have worked with the Cubs. That'll be strongly looked at when his contract runs out.

 

Why would you judge him against the inept history of this franchise rather than against his actual, you know, competition?

[UK1679666180]

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?

 

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.

 

Yes, this.

As well as Logan White has done as a farm director, I'm not sure how well this translates into being a good GM. Our current GM who everyone bashes was hired when he was the farm director of the #1 farm system in baseball. I'm not sure how well these skills translate from one job to another.

 

It translates well if you have solid evaluation skills and combine with the desire to obtain as much info. as possible as far as a statistical side and a scouting side.

 

I think he would put forth a greater emphasis on building from within than Hendry has and not deviate from that, like Hendry did.

 

For me, that's the comparison in a nutshell, I believe White has better evaluation skills and would bring a better plan as to how maximize the team.

[NewUserName]

This is Hendry's second playoff run as the Cubs GM. You cant say that about many front office people who have worked with the Cubs. That'll be strongly looked at when his contract runs out.

 

Neither time with a team that won 90 games

[C.C.]

This is Hendry's second playoff run as the Cubs GM. You cant say that about many front office people who have worked with the Cubs. That'll be strongly looked at when his contract runs out.

 

Neither time with a team that won 90 games

 

So?

[David]

This is Hendry's second playoff run as the Cubs GM. You cant say that about many front office people who have worked with the Cubs. That'll be strongly looked at when his contract runs out.

 

Neither time with a team that won 90 games

 

So?

 

So his teams ultimately might not have been that good, they were just the best of a bad lot.

 

That's not to say that I don't think this year's team is better than its record. Just pointing out why his point is valid.

[C.C.]

This is Hendry's second playoff run as the Cubs GM. You cant say that about many front office people who have worked with the Cubs. That'll be strongly looked at when his contract runs out.

 

Neither time with a team that won 90 games

 

So?

 

So his teams ultimately might not have been that good, they were just the best of a bad lot.

 

That's not to say that I don't think this year's team is better than its record. Just pointing out why his point is valid.

 

Because they didn't win 90 games? Wasn't the 2003 team 5 outs away from a World Series. How is that that being not that good?

[David]

 

Because they didn't win 90 games? Wasn't the 2003 team 5 outs away from a World Series. How is that that being not that good?

 

Well, first of all, the Cardinals WON the World Series last year. They weren't that good.

 

Postseason success does not equal being good. It means that you got into the playoffs (usually that means being good, other times it means being the best of a bad bunch), and then got hot.

[C.C.]

 

Because they didn't win 90 games? Wasn't the 2003 team 5 outs away from a World Series. How is that that being not that good?

 

Well, first of all, the Cardinals WON the World Series last year. They weren't that good.

 

Postseason success does not equal being good. It means that you got into the playoffs (usually that means being good, other times it means being the best of a bad bunch), and then got hot.

 

So the D'backs won 90 games so they are better then us and the Phillies. Correct?

[Lefty]

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 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.

 

I didn't mean all three. I meant that many of us could have made the macro-personnel moves over the last three years which would have also led to a $100 million payroll and 85 wins. I thought mentioning these three would pretty much bring in everyone on this board. I guess I should have added the Giles brothers.

[David]

 

Because they didn't win 90 games? Wasn't the 2003 team 5 outs away from a World Series. How is that that being not that good?

 

Well, first of all, the Cardinals WON the World Series last year. They weren't that good.

 

Postseason success does not equal being good. It means that you got into the playoffs (usually that means being good, other times it means being the best of a bad bunch), and then got hot.

 

So the D'backs won 90 games so they are better then us and the Phillies. Correct?

 

Nobody is saying that.

[NewUserName]

This is Hendry's second playoff run as the Cubs GM. You cant say that about many front office people who have worked with the Cubs. That'll be strongly looked at when his contract runs out.

 

Neither time with a team that won 90 games

 

So?

 

 

Because that is the traditional standard of a good team. It doesnt mean anything but I would venture to say that every team that has ever made the post season with less than 90 wins probably have a very low percentage of returning the next season.

 

 

Edit. So after shooting off my typing I looked up every team that won less than 90 and made the playoffs. A surprisingly high number of them made the playoffs the next year. 10 of them made it the next season and 14 didnt make it. I only went back to 1969. I figured before divisional play there probably wasnt very many non 90 win teams to make the World Series.

[CubColtPacer]

This is Hendry's second playoff run as the Cubs GM. You cant say that about many front office people who have worked with the Cubs. That'll be strongly looked at when his contract runs out.

 

Neither time with a team that won 90 games

 

So?

 

 

Because that is the traditional standard of a good team. It doesnt mean anything but I would venture to say that every team that has ever made the post season with less than 90 wins probably have a very low percentage of returning the next season.

 

That's an interesting question. Let's look at the WC era (I have no idea what the results will be until I type them out):

1995: only played 144 games

1996: Baltimore and St. Louis made it. Baltimore went back the next year while St. Louis did not.

1997: Cleveland and Houston made it, reached the next year

1998: Cleveland and Texas made it, reached the next year

1999: nobody made it

2000: Yankees made it, reached the next year

2001: Cleveland, Atlanta, and Arizona made the postseason with less than 90 wins. Atlanta and Arizona returned the next year, Cleveland did not.

2002: no team reached the postseason with less than 90 wins

2003: Cubs reached the postseason, didn't return

2004: nobody reached

2005: Houston and San Diego reached. San Diego returned, Houston did not

2006: St. Louis, Los Angeles, and San Diego reached, none returned in 2007.

 

So 9 out of the 16 went back to the playoffs the next year. Of the 7 who did not, 3 of them were very close to making the playoffs (Cubs in 04, Houston in 06, San Diego in 07). Only 3 of the 15 had a losing record the next year (Cardinals in 97, Indians in 02, Cardinals in 07)

 

Still not a lot of evidence, but it seems to show that if you make the playoffs with less than 90 wins you'll tend to have a pretty good shot of making it again.

[Careless]

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.

More like maxing the card, knowing for certain that your wife is going to be making enough money to cover it, but not knowing if you'll be able to use her money to pay for it.

This is Hendry's second playoff run as the Cubs GM. You cant say that about many front office people who have worked with the Cubs. That'll be strongly looked at when his contract runs out.

If whoever is in charge at that point compares him to the worst of the history of MLB instead of the rest of the league, they, too, should be fired.

Edited October 3, 2007 by Careless

[CubColtPacer]

This is Hendry's second playoff run as the Cubs GM. You cant say that about many front office people who have worked with the Cubs. That'll be strongly looked at when his contract runs out.

 

Neither time with a team that won 90 games

 

So?

 

 

Because that is the traditional standard of a good team. It doesnt mean anything but I would venture to say that every team that has ever made the post season with less than 90 wins probably have a very low percentage of returning the next season.

 

 

Edit. So after shooting off my typing I looked up every team that won less than 90 and made the playoffs. A surprisingly high number of them made the playoffs the next year. 10 of them made it the next season and 14 didnt make it. I only went back to 1969. I figured before divisional play there probably wasnt very many non 90 win teams to make the World Series.

 

I didn't see your edit before you made your post. I think the pre-WC era is so different in terms of records needed to make the playoffs that it's hard to take data from that and try to extrapolate to the future in the WC era. As much as a 12 year data sample of the WC era is still too small, I think that's the only thing we can go on right now.

[CubinNY]

This is Hendry's second playoff run as the Cubs GM. You cant say that about many front office people who have worked with the Cubs. That'll be strongly looked at when his contract runs out.

 

Neither time with a team that won 90 games

 

So?

 

 

Because that is the traditional standard of a good team. It doesnt mean anything but I would venture to say that every team that has ever made the post season with less than 90 wins probably have a very low percentage of returning the next season.

 

 

Edit. So after shooting off my typing I looked up every team that won less than 90 and made the playoffs. A surprisingly high number of them made the playoffs the next year. 10 of them made it the next season and 14 didnt make it. I only went back to 1969. I figured before divisional play there probably wasnt very many non 90 win teams to make the World Series.

 

I didn't see your edit before you made your post. I think the pre-WC era is so different in terms of records needed to make the playoffs that it's hard to take data from that and try to extrapolate to the future in the WC era. As much as a 12 year data sample of the WC era is still too small, I think that's the only thing we can go on right now.

I think the better question is how many 90 or less win teams make the payoffs each year and of the 90 or less win teams that do, what is their win total the next year. I'd venture to guess that the 90 or less win teams that made the playoffs the following year had a higher number of wins the following year. I'd also venture to guess that the 90 or less win teams that made the playoffs one and didn't the next failed to win 90 games the following year.

 

The question is (I guess) are the Cubs a 90+ win team next year? I think that answer remains to be seen.

[mhuber92211]

This is Hendry's second playoff run as the Cubs GM. You cant say that about many front office people who have worked with the Cubs. That'll be strongly looked at when his contract runs out.

 

Why would you judge him against the inept history of this franchise rather than against his actual, you know, competition?

 

Ok, what other GM's with the similar Lengths of service have had similar success?