MacPhail: Deal is dead (p. 297), stop posting, go outside

[Ding Dong Johnson]

is it really out of the ordinary to see scouts of different teams in the stands?

[C.C.]

is it really out of the ordinary to see scouts of different teams in the stands?

 

When they are in different leagues I'd assume so.

[ctcf]

Rotoworld on what YODC posted:

 

Brian Roberts finished 1-for-3 with a run scored in front of two Cubs scouts on Tuesday.

The long-rumored trade that would send Roberts to Chicago continues to seem like it's just a matter of time. Roberts has seven stolen bases in just 22 at-bats this spring.

 

For Ron's sake people wth is going on

[CuseCubFan69]

is it really out of the ordinary to see scouts of different teams in the stands?

 

I would think they'd be there all the time. I'm curious as to why the Cubs would have multiple scouts there, who else are they looking at or are they just verifying what they already know about Roberts? I wonder if they are still worried about the steroid thing and want to make sure they are getting the real thing.

[Derwood]

Rotoworld on what YODC posted:

 

Brian Roberts finished 1-for-3 with a run scored in front of two Cubs scouts on Tuesday.

The long-rumored trade that would send Roberts to Chicago continues to seem like it's just a matter of time. Roberts has seven stolen bases in just 22 at-bats this spring.

 

For Ron's sake people wth is going on

 

 

7 steals in 22 at-bats? wow! i hear he has 12 put-outs in 27 plate appearances too!

 

/weird stat

[ThePenguin11]

Now that it's 23 pages later (269), do you think we should edit the thread title to "nothing imminent"? It's probably too late anyway, since a new 'serious' trade rumor is probably due anytime now.

[Post Count Padder]

Haven't we had scouts looking at him since ST games started? Why is this different?

[UMFan83]

Haven't we had scouts looking at him since ST games started? Why is this different?

 

Because now they are looking at him.....WITH THEIR EYES!

[CyHawk_Cub]

The Cubs finished dead last in offense from the shortstop position in the NL in 2007. So what is Jim Hendry's fabulous plan? Declare that Theriot is fantastic and do nothing to address the situation but spend 3+ months getting jerked around in pursuit of another 2b. Instead of, you know, actually getting a sack and telling the Orioles at some point "This is my best offer. Take it or leave it."

 

Gutless. Absolutely gutless. After 3 months there should be nothing left to discuss. **** or get off the pot.

 

Yeah, I think Hendry keeps forgetting that he no longer works for MacPhail....

[RedFlash]

Wait, my standards are lower? I think our GM, who despite a huge payroll and years on the job with this team, can't put a consistent winner together is bad. You think our GM is good b/c he wants to win and tries to win. And you think winning 90 games in the worst division in baseball with a payroll clearly higher than the competition is good performance? And my standards are lower? Are you serious?

 

This isn't junior high. Wanting to win and trying to win don't get you any points. I don't know of any GMs that want to lose. Some may make really stupid moves, but they still want to win - so that makes them all good? We certainly have some good players. But Hendry has done a terrible job of compiling a team. This team in this division should win 90 games in a down year and 100 or more in a good year.

 

Let me say it again, as obviosuly the point was missed. Hendry has no control over how the players are used on the field. That job belongs to the manager (Piniella in this case). What Hendry has done is put together a very solid team, that has the potential to be a really good team. Now it is the job of Pineilla (NOT Hendry) to get the team to play well.

 

If the players don't play to their potentials, or the manager doesn't get the players t play to their potential, makes the GM look bad, but in this case, it is unwarranted. Calling Hendry a "bad Gm" or "Hendry sucks" is simply not true.

 

I know he has made some questionable moves, but he also made some good moves.

[jersey cubs fan]

Let me say it again, as obviosuly the point was missed. Hendry has no control over how the players are used on the field. That job belongs to the manager (Piniella in this case). What Hendry has done is put together a very solid team, that has the potential to be a really good team. Now it is the job of Pineilla (NOT Hendry) to get the team to play well.

 

If the players don't play to their potentials, or the manager doesn't get the players t play to their potential, makes the GM look bad, but in this case, it is unwarranted. Calling Hendry a "bad Gm" or "Hendry sucks" is simply not true.

 

I know he has made some questionable moves, but he also made some good moves.

 

It's actually quite true. Hendry has put together a highly flawed expensive team. With the resources he's had, there's no reason why this team should have ever finished below .500 once in his tenure, let alone be under .500 for most of it. And not one 90 win season is just despicable. Hendry sucks.

[David]

Wait, my standards are lower? I think our GM, who despite a huge payroll and years on the job with this team, can't put a consistent winner together is bad. You think our GM is good b/c he wants to win and tries to win. And you think winning 90 games in the worst division in baseball with a payroll clearly higher than the competition is good performance? And my standards are lower? Are you serious?

 

This isn't junior high. Wanting to win and trying to win don't get you any points. I don't know of any GMs that want to lose. Some may make really stupid moves, but they still want to win - so that makes them all good? We certainly have some good players. But Hendry has done a terrible job of compiling a team. This team in this division should win 90 games in a down year and 100 or more in a good year.

 

Let me say it again, as obviosuly the point was missed. Hendry has no control over how the players are used on the field. That job belongs to the manager (Piniella in this case). What Hendry has done is put together a very solid team, that has the potential to be a really good team. Now it is the job of Pineilla (NOT Hendry) to get the team to play well.

 

If the players don't play to their potentials, or the manager doesn't get the players t play to their potential, makes the GM look bad, but in this case, it is unwarranted. Calling Hendry a "bad Gm" or "Hendry sucks" is simply not true.

 

I know he has made some questionable moves, but he also made some good moves.

 

 

The point wasn't missed. The point is just wrong. Hendry is ultimately accountable for the product on the field and the performance of said product. Hendry hired the managers. Hendry put the players on the field.

[RedFlash]

The point wasn't missed. The point is just wrong. Hendry is ultimately accountable for the product on the field and the performance of said product. Hendry hired the managers. Hendry put the players on the field.

 

I'm sorry if Hendry is held accountable for the players on the field, then I just don't get it. He's not the MANAGER. Now if Hendry doesn't do everything in his power to improve the holes on this team, then yes, I would him accountable. But to hold him accountable for the players on the field, is simply wrong.

[David]

The point wasn't missed. The point is just wrong. Hendry is ultimately accountable for the product on the field and the performance of said product. Hendry hired the managers. Hendry put the players on the field.

 

I'm sorry if Hendry is held accountable for the players on the field, then I just don't get it. He's not the MANAGER. Now if Hendry doesn't do everything in his power to improve the holes on this team, then yes, I would him accountable. But to hold him accountable for the players on the field, is simply wrong.

 

What on earth are you talking about?

 

You're right. General managers shouldn't be held accountable for how their teams perform. Or not.

[ctcf]

How many separate threads could you make if you went back through this thread and took out every offtopic subject?

 

Over/Under: 15

 

Personally, I'll take over.

Edited March 12, 2008 by ctcf

[UMFan83]

The point wasn't missed. The point is just wrong. Hendry is ultimately accountable for the product on the field and the performance of said product. Hendry hired the managers. Hendry put the players on the field.

 

I'm sorry if Hendry is held accountable for the players on the field, then I just don't get it. He's not the MANAGER. Now if Hendry doesn't do everything in his power to improve the holes on this team, then yes, I would him accountable. But to hold him accountable for the players on the field, is simply wrong.

 

What on earth are you talking about?

 

You're right. General managers shouldn't be held accountable for how their teams perform. Or not.

 

If you spent $120 million on a baseball team and they don't win 80 games, you can and should be held accountable. I don't care if all the players hit 50 OPS points below their average or give up a run more than their career averages. The GM must be held responsible for that. Fire the manager too if you have to.

[RedFlash]

The point wasn't missed. The point is just wrong. Hendry is ultimately accountable for the product on the field and the performance of said product. Hendry hired the managers. Hendry put the players on the field.

 

I'm sorry if Hendry is held accountable for the players on the field, then I just don't get it. He's not the MANAGER. Now if Hendry doesn't do everything in his power to improve the holes on this team, then yes, I would him accountable. But to hold him accountable for the players on the field, is simply wrong.

 

What on earth are you talking about?

 

You're right. General managers shouldn't be held accountable for how their teams perform. Or not.

 

If you spent $120 million on a baseball team and they don't win 80 games, you can and should be held accountable. I don't care if all the players hit 50 OPS points below their average or give up a run more than their career averages. The GM must be held responsible for that. Fire the manager too if you have to.

 

That I will agree to. But to hold Hendry accountable for the players ON THE FIELD, and their play is totally unreasonable.

[Soul]

The point wasn't missed. The point is just wrong. Hendry is ultimately accountable for the product on the field and the performance of said product. Hendry hired the managers. Hendry put the players on the field.

 

I'm sorry if Hendry is held accountable for the players on the field, then I just don't get it. He's not the MANAGER. Now if Hendry doesn't do everything in his power to improve the holes on this team, then yes, I would him accountable. But to hold him accountable for the players on the field, is simply wrong.

 

What on earth are you talking about?

 

You're right. General managers shouldn't be held accountable for how their teams perform. Or not.

 

If you spent $120 million on a baseball team and they don't win 80 games, you can and should be held accountable. I don't care if all the players hit 50 OPS points below their average or give up a run more than their career averages. The GM must be held responsible for that. Fire the manager too if you have to.

 

Fire everyone. Christ, the goal is to win the damn World Series and we're not even close. This team would get slaughtered by any of the top AL clubs, and probably a few of the NL clubs as well. Are we supposed to be happy we have a shot at winning a horrible division? Excuse me for not giving in to low expectations, but that's just not good enough where I come from.

[fromthestretch]

The point wasn't missed. The point is just wrong. Hendry is ultimately accountable for the product on the field and the performance of said product. Hendry hired the managers. Hendry put the players on the field.

 

I'm sorry if Hendry is held accountable for the players on the field, then I just don't get it. He's not the MANAGER. Now if Hendry doesn't do everything in his power to improve the holes on this team, then yes, I would him accountable. But to hold him accountable for the players on the field, is simply wrong.

 

Hendry hires the manager. He is the manager's boss. He is ultimately responsible for what the manager does. If the manager isn't getting the job done, then Hendry needs to work with the guy to improve the situation or find a replacement.

[David]

The point wasn't missed. The point is just wrong. Hendry is ultimately accountable for the product on the field and the performance of said product. Hendry hired the managers. Hendry put the players on the field.

 

I'm sorry if Hendry is held accountable for the players on the field, then I just don't get it. He's not the MANAGER. Now if Hendry doesn't do everything in his power to improve the holes on this team, then yes, I would him accountable. But to hold him accountable for the players on the field, is simply wrong.

 

What on earth are you talking about?

 

You're right. General managers shouldn't be held accountable for how their teams perform. Or not.

 

If you spent $120 million on a baseball team and they don't win 80 games, you can and should be held accountable. I don't care if all the players hit 50 OPS points below their average or give up a run more than their career averages. The GM must be held responsible for that. Fire the manager too if you have to.

 

That I will agree to. But to hold Hendry accountable for the players ON THE FIELD, and their play is totally unreasonable.

 

 

This is ridiculous. How, on any planet, is that at all (much less "totally") unreasonable?

[fromthestretch]

But to hold Hendry accountable for the players ON THE FIELD, and their play is totally unreasonable.

 

He signed, traded for, or drafted those players. He hired the person responsible for making sure they perform. He should definitely be held accountable if the team isn't performing.

[RedFlash]

But to hold Hendry accountable for the players ON THE FIELD, and their play is totally unreasonable.

 

He signed, traded for, or drafted those players. He hired the person responsible for making sure they perform. He should definitely be held accountable if the team isn't performing.

 

I'm not going to get stuck in a vicious cycle.

 

We can agree to disagree.

[fromthestretch]

But to hold Hendry accountable for the players ON THE FIELD, and their play is totally unreasonable.

 

He signed, traded for, or drafted those players. He hired the person responsible for making sure they perform. He should definitely be held accountable if the team isn't performing.

 

I'm not going to get stuck in a vicious cycle.

 

We can agree to disagree.

 

To say that you feel Hendry shouldn't be held accountable for it is one thing. To label it unreasonable is, well...unreasonable.

 

Management is management. If you manage someone who manages a dozen other people, you are still ultimately responsible for those other 12 people. One of my employees is an Assistant Manager and manages 14 people. If one of them does something wrong, and my boss hears about it, he doesn't go to my Assistant Manager, he comes to me. Why? Because in the end, I'm still responsible for my department, whether I created the problem or someone two levels away from me did. I'm still responsible for making sure the issue gets resolved.

 

Saying that Hendry should be held accountable doesn't make the manager or the player any less accountable for their own performance. No one is shifting blame away from the manager or from the player. But the blame does certainly go higher than them, especially when Hendry is the one that assembled this team.

[craig]

is it really out of the ordinary to see scouts of different teams in the stands?

 

No. An organization like the cubs has like 30 scouts.

 

Spring training is an ideal time for scouting, because you can get to see a lot of players. You see more practice than during season game, in addition to the exhibition games. In exhibition games you get to see more pitchers than you would during a regular season game. And by this point, the minor league camp is rolling, so you can spend hours scouting prospects. Often I think the practice stuff (including minor league camp) is done in the morning, well before the exhibition games. So you can scout prospects and practices all morning and still get an exhibition game in the afternoon.

 

If you've got 30 scouts, you can have a scout in every camp all spring. That the Cubs have scout(s) in Oriole camp and vice versa doesn't prove much.

 

I don't know that the cubs are spending multiple scouts to watch Roberts play. He's pretty much a known commodity. For Baltimore to send scouts to watch our prospects, that's different, since they are talking volume, and those prospects aren't well established. It's not like Cubs are trying to decide if they want Roberts or Millar. But the Orioles might be wanting to decide if they want Cedeno or Patterson, or whatever.

 

I wonder if the Cubs don't have people in Orioles camp to scout other guys than Roberts. Maybe they want more than we're willing to give for Roberts. Maybe we won't offer what they want for Roberts. So, no deal straight. But maybe if we scout their system and find some prospects that we like, we give them the prospects they like and want from us, we get Roberts, but they level the deal by adding some A-ball prospect that we like or something.

[C.C.]

Are we still discussing whether Jim Hendry is worthless or not?