The Insanity of Hendry's (apparent) Plan.

[CubFanPhilly]

The Cubs are committed to a win now mode. Lou's got two years left. Hendry's working on borrowed time. $106 mil. committed for 2008 and plans to take that payroll to $115-120 mil. $107 mil. committed for 2009 without replacing Howry, Eyre or Dempster in the bullpen. $81 mil. in 2010 for five players. $53 mil. in 2011-2012 for three. Most of the players with big contracts also have NTCs: Zambrano, Lee, Ramirez, Soriano, & Lilly.

 

So, while I don't like the situation, I think the only reasonable course of action is to go for it. But give me short-term commitments over the next two years. Let a new GM work with as clean of a slate as possible in 2010 and beyond.

 

I'd be looking for productive players at the end of their contracts over long-term FA contracts.

 

Give me: Crawford, Griffey, Tejada, Dunn, Church, Burrell, Freel, etc.

-or short-term or "make good" deals to fill a hole: Bradley, Lofton, or L. Gonzalez

 

Instead, Hendry's reportedly pursuing Fukudome and Matsui. If he gets them, the Cubs will likely overpay for both. And unless they have money to burn, the new ownership will be hamstrung for the next five years.

[craig]

I don't think it's "insane" to do the following:

1. Think baseball payroll will inflate. (Other than year post-strike, when has it not?)

2. Think that the guys you sign will remain productive, when the guys long-term are people like Aram, Lee, and Soriano, each of whom has performed at a level that is good or better than good over a while, without being old.

3. Believe in scouting. Every GM and his scouts are wrong in their scouting evalutions sometimes, and they may be wrong in thinking Fukudome is any good. But it would be insane to hire/retain scouts who you assume will always be wrong. If they believe that Fukudome is good, why would it be insane to try to acquire him?

4. Try to maximize your talent. If you sign Fukudome, assuming he's good, you've increased your talent. If you trade, the norm is that you are exchanging talent for talent. If you sign a FA, you add talent; if you trade, you reshuffle talent. It doesn't seem insane to try to increase your talent if you can afford to do so.

5. It would seem to be insane to assume that players who have been good in past and/or whom your scouting people project to be good will play bad and get you fired. Where would be the sanity in that?

 

Is hendry a good scout? Is his plan a good one? I don't know. If they get Fukudome and he proves to be the player they project him to be, I think he'd be a good fit. A good plan. Don't see how trading good talent for Church is better.

 

Personally I think there can be value in long-term deals.... if the guys you sign to them say healthy and play well. Salaries inflate. Contracts signed in 2006 may be huge value bargains by 2010, etc.. Having some defined contracts also makes it easier to plan ahead, when at least some of the dollar stuff is pre-known and some of the positions are known ahead of time. There is higher risk and also higher reward. Baseball team-building is inherently risky. It's not "insane" to take on long-term contract risk. It would be insane not to.

 

The question is how many, which player, etc..

[rawaction]

I

 

Personally I think there can be value in long-term deals.... if the guys you sign to them say healthy and play well. Salaries inflate. Contracts signed in 2006 may be huge value bargains by 2010, etc.. Having some defined contracts also makes it easier to plan ahead, when at least some of the dollar stuff is pre-known and some of the positions are known ahead of time. There is higher risk and also higher reward. Baseball team-building is inherently risky. It's not "insane" to take on long-term contract risk. It would be insane not to.

 

I agree with all but this sentence. I know it wasn't the point of the post, though. I think when you take into account backloaded contracts and the fact that the players in 2010 will be 4 years older than they were when they signed that free agent contract, which usually happens around the mid-to-late prime years (28-32), then I doubt you see a bunch of future bargains. Sure Soriano may still be a 115+ player in 2010 and salaries may balloon to make his $20M/yr in the middle of the pack, but both are extremely unlikely and may or may not be worth the risk depending on other factors.

[UK1679666180]

It shows a greater inability of the Cubs to develop position players from within rather than an insane plan.

[Backtobanks]

The Cubs are committed to a win now mode. Lou's got two years left. Hendry's working on borrowed time. $106 mil. committed for 2008 and plans to take that payroll to $115-120 mil. $107 mil. committed for 2009 without replacing Howry, Eyre or Dempster in the bullpen. $81 mil. in 2010 for five players. $53 mil. in 2011-2012 for three. Most of the players with big contracts also have NTCs: Zambrano, Lee, Ramirez, Soriano, & Lilly.

 

So, while I don't like the situation, I think the only reasonable course of action is to go for it. But give me short-term commitments over the next two years. Let a new GM work with as clean of a slate as possible in 2010 and beyond.

 

I'd be looking for productive players at the end of their contracts over long-term FA contracts.

 

Give me: Crawford, Griffey, Tejada, Dunn, Church, Burrell, Freel, etc.

-or short-term or "make good" deals to fill a hole: Bradley, Lofton, or L. Gonzalez

 

Instead, Hendry's reportedly pursuing Fukudome and Matsui. If he gets them, the Cubs will likely overpay for both. And unless they have money to burn, the new ownership will be hamstrung for the next five years.

 

Crawford, Griffey, and Tejada are okay depending on the cost.

Bradley is fine as long as everyone understands his role (4th OF, platoon, pinch hitter).

[CubFanPhilly]

Craig,

 

First off, most of this rant reflects an anti-Hendry bias. I believe his actions are harming the future of the club.

 

I don't think it's "insane" to do the following:

1. Think baseball payroll will inflate. (Other than year post-strike, when has it not?)

 

Agreed. Payroll inflates. If payroll grows at the same average rate as the last five years, the commitments roughly represent: 2008 93%, 2009 88%, 2010 64%, 2011 40%. Without assuming any back-loading, I'll layer on a 3-year and 4-year deals to Matsui & Fukudome: 2008 100%, 2009 101%, 2010 76%, 2011 49%. That's without filling three holes in the bullpen left by Howry, Dempster & Eyre in 2009. There's always the possibility of moving contracts, but the 2009 contracts are already almost immovable: Marquis will be earning $9.8 mil., Lilly $13 mil. Meanwhile a couple of young talents like Hill, Murton, Marmol and Marshall will be moving into arbitration years.

 

2. Think that the guys you sign will remain productive, when the guys long-term are people like Aram, Lee, and Soriano, each of whom has performed at a level that is good or better than good over a while, without being old.

 

True, if you pick wisely. I don't trust Hendry to do so. I'd rather he picked up someone with a track record a short contract and gamble that the player stays healthy and productive. As an organizational philosophy, I agree with your point. In the context of the Cub situation, I think it's a potential disaster.

 

3. Believe in scouting. Every GM and his scouts are wrong in their scouting evalutions sometimes, and they may be wrong in thinking Fukudome is any good. But it would be insane to hire/retain scouts who you assume will always be wrong. If they believe that Fukudome is good, why would it be insane to try to acquire him?

 

4. Try to maximize your talent. If you sign Fukudome, assuming he's good, you've increased your talent. If you trade, the norm is that you are exchanging talent for talent. If you sign a FA, you add talent; if you trade, you reshuffle talent. It doesn't seem insane to try to increase your talent if you can afford to do so.

 

Fukudome may turn out to be a very good ML player. And I think there's a decent chance he will be. But in my opinion, it would be disasterous for the Cubs to be wrong about him.

 

5. It would seem to be insane to assume that players who have been good in past and/or whom your scouting people project to be good will play bad and get you fired. Where would be the sanity in that?

 

I'm confused on this one. I agree it would be a bad idea to assume Tejada, Griffey or others would perform. I'd want to hear from my scouts, have a full medical report, etc. It's a sane decision because it's lower risk in both the short-term and the long-term. It's the right thing for Hendry to do, knowing the ownership is about to change.

 

Personally I think there can be value in long-term deals.... if the guys you sign to them say healthy and play well. Salaries inflate. Contracts signed in 2006 may be huge value bargains by 2010, etc.. Having some defined contracts also makes it easier to plan ahead, when at least some of the dollar stuff is pre-known and some of the positions are known ahead of time. There is higher risk and also higher reward. Baseball team-building is inherently risky. It's not "insane" to take on long-term contract risk. It would be insane not to.

 

Again, I agree with your point as an organizational philosophy. I disgree that it's the right thing to do in the Cubs present situation.

 

CFP

[craig]

Contracts signed in 2006 may be huge value bargains by 2010, etc..

 

I agree with all but this sentence. I know it wasn't the point of the post, though. I think when you take into account backloaded contracts and the fact that the players in 2010 will be 4 years older than they were when they signed that free agent contract, which usually happens around the mid-to-late prime years (28-32), then I doubt you see a bunch of future bargains. Sure Soriano may still be a 115+ player in 2010 and salaries may balloon to make his $20M/yr in the middle of the pack, but both are extremely unlikely and may or may not be worth the risk depending on other factors.

 

Cordero just got a deal at $12-per. Torii Hunter got a deal that averages $16. Inflation this year continues. I suspect it will continue again next year, and in 2010. When hasn't that happened?

 

So, let's look at the Cub contracts in 2010:

*Aram: $15.75. Very large bargain potential, I'd say, for a guy who's .900+'d over the last many years, and was a gold glove candidate this year.

*Lee: $13 in 2010. There's a chance he'll still be a high-OBP hitter with some HR's then. Bargain potential. (Granted, his was a 2005 contract).

*Zambrano: $17.85 in 2010. He's a pitcher, so he's well likely to have a shot arm by then. But given the way the market is going for starting pitchers, he has a chance to be a bargain then. (Granted, he was a 2007 contract).

*Lilly: $12 in 2010. By 2010, any average rotation pitcher might be getting that much or more on the free market. OK, not bargain potential, but could very well be good value.

*Alf: $18.25 in 2010. Not much bargain potential, granted. But Torii Hunter will be averaging $16, so it's plausible that he'll be fair market if not bargain.

 

The market price keeps rising. I seriously think that at least in the cases of Aram, Lee, and Z (the resignings), they have bargain potential in future. Granted, Soriano, not so much. He'd have to be a strong all-star, even in the MVP discussion, to make $18.25 a "bargain".

[CubFanPhilly]

It shows a greater inability of the Cubs to develop position players from within rather than an insane plan.

 

I agree that's a big factor, but I think the 2004 disaster, the pending ownership change, and the hiring of Lou ignited this disaster.

 

[New Rant]

The insane plan starts around the 2004-2005 offseason. After the disappointment in 2003, there's the awful Maddux signing. Hey, I love the guy, but did anyone think a backloaded $24 mil. deal was the smart thing to do? Especially when he slotted as the fourth or fifth starter? The Nomar acquisition was a bold move, but it didn't overcome a dismal performance of a 2004 team loaded with talent. Sosa's performance dropped off a cliff while he was still owed $33 mil. So the Cubs re-sign Nomar to a reasonable deal, each the last year of Sosa's contract, and start to get desperate. $35 mil. of the 2005 payroll goes to players who contribute little or nothing (Sosa, Wood, Nomar). In 2006 it's $27 mil. wasted. MacPhail resigns, and the Tribune makes a bold committment. Hire Lou, open the vault, and sign everybody in sight. Sign Soriano to a huge backloaded contract even though he plays a position where you have one of your best young talents. Sign him even though he's 30. Even though his career OBP is not much better than the god awful .319 put up by the 2006 team. Now there's far too much committed - promises to the fans, Lou, Soriano, Lilly, et. al. Surely they must find the one or two bats to put them over the top...

 

I fear 2009-2010 may look a lot like 2005-2006.

 

[/End Rant]

 

*Edit - in fairness, the "insane plan" is probably no plan at all. It's the lack of a plan. Reaction to bad luck (Wood, Prior, Nomar injuries), and mistakes (Pierre, and multitudes of smaller errors: Rusch, Izturis, Jones, Blanco et. al.).

 

**Edit two typos.

Edited November 25, 2007 by CubFanPhilly

[inari]

I can't come up with any justification for calling the Maddux signing "awful."

[CubFanPhilly]

I can't come up with any justification for calling the Maddux signing "awful."

 

Well, I admit I loved the signing for sentimental reasons, but I recall thinking it was a dumb personnel decision.

 

- It wasn't an area of need on a team with a few holes (terrible SS, awful bench, weak bullpen). Starters were Wood, Prior, Clement, Zambrano, with plenty of cheap options for fifth starter.

 

- The contract wasn't a bargain. There were at least a dozen guys signed for less (Buehrle, Batista, Eaton, F. Garcia, D. Lowe, Ponson, Suppan to name a few.) In fact it was the the fifth richest SP contract that off-season, behind Colon, Wood, Pettite, and Halladay.

 

- Very mediocre performance: ERA+ 109, 104, 99

 

With the Wood and Prior injuries, Hendry came out looking smarter than he deserved.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

With the Wood and Prior injuries, Hendry came out looking smarter than he deserved.

 

I'm not a big Hendry fan, in fact I'd probably go all Sean Marshall on his cats if given the chance, but this statement is not fair. Hendry has been flogged over and over and over and over again about not having a backup plan for Wood and Prior's injuries. The fact that he had one in there in Maddux is supposed to be a strike against him? Signing an above average starter for 8M per is a strike against him? There's A LOT to bring out against Hendry, the Maddux signing is not one of those things.

[SouthSideRyan]

And the players you listed were either not free agents, worse, or some of them both. We would've been better off signing Sidney Ponson?? I'm not following here.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

- Very mediocre performance: ERA+ 109, 104, 99

 

An average starter has an ERA+ around 95.

[CubFanPhilly]

 

With the Wood and Prior injuries, Hendry came out looking smarter than he deserved.

 

I'm not a big Hendry fan, in fact I'd probably go all Sean Marshall on his cats if given the chance, but this statement is not fair. Hendry has been flogged over and over and over and over again about not having a backup plan for Wood and Prior's injuries. The fact that he had one in there in Maddux is supposed to be a strike against him? Signing an above average starter for 8M per is a strike against him? There's A LOT to bring out against Hendry, the Maddux signing is not one of those things.

 

I believe those who flogged Hendry for failing to a have a backup plan did so during the 2005 season. Wood and Prior were healthy in 2003. I've never blamed Hendry for failing to have a backup plan in 2005. In fact, I'd argue if he had gone out and signed another FA starter in the 2004-2005 offseason we'd be in a bigger mess now.

 

And the players you listed were either not free agents, worse, or some of them both. We would've been better off signing Sidney Ponson?? I'm not following here.

 

I was trying give the context of the market price that off season, not compare signings. Sure, there were much worse signings than Maddux that year (I wasn't trying to cherry-pick). But the Maddux contract was no bargain and a waste of resource allocation. Do you really think the cost/benefit analysis of the Maddux signing doesn't bear that out? I remember plenty of others on the board saying the same thing at the time of the signing - long before I ever did. They were right.

[CubFanPhilly]

- Very mediocre performance: ERA+ 109, 104, 99

 

An average starter has an ERA+ around 95.

 

Yes, and what's your point? Those numbers are very mediocre considering what the Cubs paid Maddux.

[nilodnayr]

- Very mediocre performance: ERA+ 109, 104, 99

 

An average starter has an ERA+ around 95.

 

Yes, and what's your point? Those numbers are very mediocre considering what the Cubs paid Maddux.

 

3/24 was very much the market price for a slightly above average, no health concerns starter in 2004.

[neely crenshaw]

by talking about the insanity of hendry's plan...you forget the fact that he has no plan...