Theriot to host clinic

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't see how anyone could look at those projections as steps backwards. Yes Theriot is a hole at full-time SS. Yes DeRosa becomes displaced everyday. Yes 7-8 are questionable, low production spots. But it's not backwards movement overall.

 

Getting these players wouldn't be a step backwards. But, to finally address this problem 5 years later is rather pathetic. And, while it's all nice that they are talking about Roberts and Fukudome, neither has a Cub jersey of their very own quite yet.

 

That he is still around to make these decisions is the biggest problem of all. You shouldn't get as many chances as he's been given.

 

If they managed to finish with back to back .500 seasons for the second time under his leadership, he should get a lifetime contract.

 

You know very well I never stated such a thing. I take a more moderate view rather than extremist and I get labeled a Hendry supporter. The majority of Hendry's mistakes have been minor, even if too numerous. He hasn't made any tragic, residual mistakes with the best talent in the system, like a Kazmir, and that's important. The parts he traded away, once the Cub-obsessed hyper-evaluation is removed, have been average major leaguers at best and non-factors at the majors at worst. He has brought in talent that is the current face of the team, with deals that seem like absolute highway robbery in retrospect. So I could give or take Hendry. You could do better, but you also could do a lot worse.

 

If he wants to keep his job, he will need to pull the trigger on several of these good looking rumors without stripping the farm and the future of the franchise, and that's something he shown he can do.

 

All that proved was that he was as bad a minor league coordinator as he has been a GM.

[jersey cubs fan]

Wait. Waitwaitwaitwaitwait. Wait.

 

Wait a minute.

 

Is somebody giving props to Hendry for moving the team in the right direction from the lows of where he initially brought them?

 

That is just absurdity at its finest. What a ridiculous notion. Hendry is why 85 wins looked halfway decent this year. 85 wins should be a disgusting disappointment by now. 5 years into a string of extremely high payrolls when you already had lots of talent on hand should be giving you 90 wins each and every year, with 95-100 on occasion. Going from worst to first is only good if you ignore the fact that he brought them to worst in the first place, and first was only first because the competition was so weak.

 

90 wins as the bare minimum every year for 5 years? That's a ridiculously high standard. The only teams to pull that off in recent memory were the Braves (with one of the greatest GM/manager combos in history) and the Yankees (with twice the payroll as the Cubs). Not saying Hendry's done a great job, but considering the injuries we've had to deal with from our best players basically every year, I don't think anyone could have pulled 90 wins every year in the past 5 years.

 

Quit with the injury excuse nonsense. Hendry shouldn't have built a team that could only win if young pitchers stayed healthy to begin with, and he shouldn't have let a manager like Dusty Baker manage them if that's what he wanted.

 

Who said anything about bare minimum? 90 wins should be expected year in and year out. 85 wins should be considered a disappointment. 95-100 should be attainable on occasion. There's no excuse for sub .500. I'm not saying fire a guy the first time his team goes under 90 wins. But I'm not interested in C students running the ship. Excellence should be the only accepted performance level, and Hendry hasn't even come close.

[Abe Frohman]

Hendry has already destroyed his ability to wheel and deal, now. Hendry's plan is the same plan that saw us take 3 steps back in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Yeah, great, he won a horrible division with 85 wins.

 

What's the problem? We won the division with most of the team having off-years. We were in the Post Season. Say that a few times. Would you rather we didn't make the playoffs? It's an improvement. It's better than last place.

 

You keep overlooking that Hendry took over with payroll and prospects, and was the creator of the mess in the first place. He should not get credit for partially cleaning up a mess he created through his incompetence in the first place, especially when cleaning it up meant crippling us beyond 2010 with superstar contracts for merely very good players.

 

Merely very good players? Ted Lilly is a good starting pitcher. That was a gamble that worked out in year one. Soriano (remember, he's 27 ;) and his contract is huge now, but is proving to be about on par for Type A OFers. Who knows what the market or payroll will be in 2010 - those are looking to be good contracts.

 

Hopefully some of the youngs guys will be productive and step up. I think that is what we all want to see. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have Ichiro, Vlade, or Beltran for $18 million a year.

[Guest]

Wait. Waitwaitwaitwaitwait. Wait.

 

Wait a minute.

 

Is somebody giving props to Hendry for moving the team in the right direction from the lows of where he initially brought them?

 

That is just absurdity at its finest. What a ridiculous notion. Hendry is why 85 wins looked halfway decent this year. 85 wins should be a disgusting disappointment by now. 5 years into a string of extremely high payrolls when you already had lots of talent on hand should be giving you 90 wins each and every year, with 95-100 on occasion. Going from worst to first is only good if you ignore the fact that he brought them to worst in the first place, and first was only first because the competition was so weak.

 

90 wins as the bare minimum every year for 5 years? That's a ridiculously high standard. The only teams to pull that off in recent memory were the Braves (with one of the greatest GM/manager combos in history) and the Yankees (with twice the payroll as the Cubs). Not saying Hendry's done a great job, but considering the injuries we've had to deal with from our best players basically every year, I don't think anyone could have pulled 90 wins every year in the past 5 years.

 

How about 90 wins once?

[UK1679666180]

As far as whether or not you want Hendry as the GM is to ask yourself, "is there anyone out there who is available and you'd feel confident would do a better job than Hendry?"

 

It doesn't get any easier than that.

 

You might like Hendry regardless of potential candidates, or realize that even though I'm not 100% on board with what he is doing he's better than what is out there, or person X would likely do a better so the Cubs would be better off firing Hendry and going with person X.

[KingCubsFan]

Wait. Waitwaitwaitwaitwait. Wait.

 

Wait a minute.

 

Is somebody giving props to Hendry for moving the team in the right direction from the lows of where he initially brought them?

 

That is just absurdity at its finest. What a ridiculous notion. Hendry is why 85 wins looked halfway decent this year. 85 wins should be a disgusting disappointment by now. 5 years into a string of extremely high payrolls when you already had lots of talent on hand should be giving you 90 wins each and every year, with 95-100 on occasion. Going from worst to first is only good if you ignore the fact that he brought them to worst in the first place, and first was only first because the competition was so weak.

 

90 wins as the bare minimum every year for 5 years? That's a ridiculously high standard. The only teams to pull that off in recent memory were the Braves (with one of the greatest GM/manager combos in history) and the Yankees (with twice the payroll as the Cubs). Not saying Hendry's done a great job, but considering the injuries we've had to deal with from our best players basically every year, I don't think anyone could have pulled 90 wins every year in the past 5 years.

 

Quit with the injury excuse nonsense. Hendry shouldn't have built a team that could only win if young pitchers stayed healthy to begin with, and he shouldn't have let a manager like Dusty Baker manage them if that's what he wanted.

 

Who said anything about bare minimum? 90 wins should be expected year in and year out. 85 wins should be considered a disappointment. 95-100 should be attainable on occasion. There's no excuse for sub .500. I'm not saying fire a guy the first time his team goes under 90 wins. But I'm not interested in C students running the ship. Excellence should be the only accepted performance level, and Hendry hasn't even come close.

Yeah, blame Hendry for building around 3 young aces. Stupid him. You can't objectively look at Hendry's tenure and not take injuries into consideration. Sure, he deserves blame for bringing Dusty Baker into the organization, but he also lost Nomar and Lee to basically season-ending injuries two years in a row. I don't think Hendry's done a particularly good job, but he's not the complete failure this board likes to tout him as.

[KingCubsFan]

Wait. Waitwaitwaitwaitwait. Wait.

 

Wait a minute.

 

Is somebody giving props to Hendry for moving the team in the right direction from the lows of where he initially brought them?

 

That is just absurdity at its finest. What a ridiculous notion. Hendry is why 85 wins looked halfway decent this year. 85 wins should be a disgusting disappointment by now. 5 years into a string of extremely high payrolls when you already had lots of talent on hand should be giving you 90 wins each and every year, with 95-100 on occasion. Going from worst to first is only good if you ignore the fact that he brought them to worst in the first place, and first was only first because the competition was so weak.

 

90 wins as the bare minimum every year for 5 years? That's a ridiculously high standard. The only teams to pull that off in recent memory were the Braves (with one of the greatest GM/manager combos in history) and the Yankees (with twice the payroll as the Cubs). Not saying Hendry's done a great job, but considering the injuries we've had to deal with from our best players basically every year, I don't think anyone could have pulled 90 wins every year in the past 5 years.

 

How about 90 wins once?

Is there a huge difference between 88, 89, and 90 wins as long as you win the division? Would Hendry be considered more of a success if we won one more game in 2004 and 2 more in 2003?

[UK1679666180]

 

Is there a huge difference between 88, 89, and 90 wins as long as you win the division? Would Hendry be considered more of a success if we won one more game in 2004 and 2 more in 2003?

 

No, but it should be noted you're going back 3-4 years to make your stance.

[Abe Frohman]

Will the Cubs be better in 2008?

 

That's all I really care about. I think they could be, since they won the division with inconsistant starting pitching, revolving players, and several sub-par seasons. I just really hope Rich Hill continues to improve and Lilly wasn't a fluke.

[TheDude]

I don't see how anyone could look at those projections as steps backwards. Yes Theriot is a hole at full-time SS. Yes DeRosa becomes displaced everyday. Yes 7-8 are questionable, low production spots. But it's not backwards movement overall.

 

Getting these players wouldn't be a step backwards. But, to finally address this problem 5 years later is rather pathetic. And, while it's all nice that they are talking about Roberts and Fukudome, neither has a Cub jersey of their very own quite yet.

 

That he is still around to make these decisions is the biggest problem of all. You shouldn't get as many chances as he's been given.

 

If they managed to finish with back to back .500 seasons for the second time under his leadership, he should get a lifetime contract.

 

You know very well I never stated such a thing. I take a more moderate view rather than extremist and I get labeled a Hendry supporter. The majority of Hendry's mistakes have been minor, even if too numerous. He hasn't made any tragic, residual mistakes with the best talent in the system, like a Kazmir, and that's important. The parts he traded away, once the Cub-obsessed hyper-evaluation is removed, have been average major leaguers at best and non-factors at the majors at worst. He has brought in talent that is the current face of the team, with deals that seem like absolute highway robbery in retrospect. So I could give or take Hendry. You could do better, but you also could do a lot worse.

 

If he wants to keep his job, he will need to pull the trigger on several of these good looking rumors without stripping the farm and the future of the franchise, and that's something he shown he can do.

 

All that proved was that he was as bad a minor league coordinator as he has been a GM.

 

That would be true if the Cubs never received any notable talent return. But they have, even all-stars. And that's noteworthy.

[BigbadB]

That would be true if the Cubs never received any notable talent return. But they have, even all-stars. And that's noteworthy.

 

Oh no you didn't. Please tell me you aren't referring to Cesar Izturis.

[BigbadB]

Will the Cubs be better in 2008?

 

That's all I really care about. I think they could be, since they won the division with inconsistant starting pitching, revolving players, and several sub-par seasons. I just really hope Rich Hill continues to improve and Lilly wasn't a fluke.

 

You should care about more than that. You should care if the person in charge of personnel on this ball club has a vision of how to make the team good in 2008 and stay good for many seasons to come. I don't think Hendry has that vision. He also appears to change his vision of what this team needs to move forward. Guys who can catch the ball, guys who hit left handed, etc.....

[NCCubFan]

Of course the GM has to take responsibility, but this club is going in the right direction.

Four years in a row and still not even back to where they were in 2003 is NOT going in the right direction. To be going in the right direction they'd have to progress beyond where they were in 2003 (which would mean making the World Series). But if you want to consider three steps forward after taking four steps back going in the right direction, be my guest.

 

How exactly is going from last place to winning a division a step backwards again?

We're looking at it from a different perspective. I'm looking at Hendry's entire tenure, not just comparing 2007 with 2006. And his tenure overall is not a success, when you consider they still haven't gotten back to the level of 2003 despite the promising outlook at the time. I concede that 2007 was an improvement over 2006, but that doesn't excuse his letting them fall to the 2006 level in the first place.

[UK1679666180]

Will the Cubs be better in 2008?

 

That's all I really care about. I think they could be, since they won the division with inconsistant starting pitching, revolving players, and several sub-par seasons. I just really hope Rich Hill continues to improve and Lilly wasn't a fluke.

 

I think the Cubs would be estatic to get the same pitching they had last year. Of course, they have to get at least 1 more hitter (two would be better) and expect Soto to outproduce the revolving door of catchers last year could generate both offensively and defensively, which was well below par.

 

The Cubs have quite a bit of distance to get that offense where it needs to be, Fukudome isn't the only piece, IMO.

Edited December 10, 2007 by UK

[David]

That would be true if the Cubs never received any notable talent return. But they have, even all-stars. And that's noteworthy.

 

Oh no you didn't. Please tell me you aren't referring to Cesar Izturis.

 

Seemed to me he was referring to Aramis and Lee.... ?

[Abe Frohman]

 

I think the Cubs would be estatic to get the same pitching they had last year. Of course, they have to get at least 1 more hitter (two would be better) and expect Soto to outproduce the revolving door of catchers last year could generate both offensively and defensively, which was well below par.

 

The Cubs have quite a bit of distance to get that offense where it needs to be, Fukudome isn't the only piece, IMO.

 

I absolutely agree. For instance, the Cubs haven't had a true #5 hitter in a few years. IMO, they did last year, but he was hitting leadoff (or first in the order) most of the year. Fukudome (if the Cubs can land him) will help the team OB%, and I think it seems he would be perfect for the #2 spot. Stick him in CF, let Murton play some, and either one of them could hit 2 or 5 and the offense is instimaticly transformed. I think Murton and Fook will be similar players offensively, and if they can add Roberts too we'll be in business.

[Sammy Sofa]

Sit Theriot most of the season and we'll be in SUPER-business.

[Abe Frohman]

Would DeRosa be that bad at SS?

[Sammy Sofa]

Nope.

[Abe Frohman]

Nope.

 

2B Roberts

RF Murton

1B Lee

3B Ramirez

CF Fukudome

LF Soriano

SS DeRosa

CA Soto

[UK1679666180]

 

I absolutely agree. For instance, the Cubs haven't had a true #5 hitter in a few years. IMO, they did last year, but he was hitting leadoff (or first in the order) most of the year. Fukudome (if the Cubs can land him) will help the team OB%, and I think it seems he would be perfect for the #2 spot. Stick him in CF, let Murton play some, and either one of them could hit 2 or 5 and the offense is instimaticly transformed. I think Murton and Fook will be similar players offensively, and if they can add Roberts too we'll be in business.

 

I agree with the needed improvements, but Fukudome and Murton as the CF and RF would be horrible for this team defensively while fine offensively.

 

Everything I've read on Fukudome is that he would be a RF'er playing CF and Murton would be a LF'er playing RF. Soriano projects as more of a RF'er than Murton, which would make more sense as far as switch, but I haven't heard where the Cubs would consider shifting Soriano to RF. They didn't last year despite Soriano having similar range before the leg injury and stronger arm than Jones.

 

If they get Fukudome, they'd need to upgrade SS or CF even if they did get Roberts.

[Abe Frohman]

I never really understood why Soriano wasn't a RF project last year instead of a CF project. FWIW, Murton had a fine first season, and was pretty decent defensively in LF. You are right, Soriano does have the arm for RF even though he doesn't throw like an OFer - so some of those sidearm quick throws of his that work in LF would be balls bouncing out of line with his target with the longer throws from RF.

 

And those damned "hops" before he catches the ball are one day going to cost the Cubs a big run or two.

[UK1679666180]

Soriano has good but not great arm strength, his ability to throw like a middle infielder from the OF helps him more than anything.

 

They had Jones in RF, who had been a RF'er in recent memory and the Cubs had no CF'er. It was just an odd and ineffective OF group last year. Getting a legit CF'er and a RF'er instead of bunches of stiff & weak armed OF'ers would help them in that regard.

[BigbadB]

Soriano has good but not great arm strength, his ability to throw like a middle infielder from the OF helps him more than anything.

 

They had Jones in RF, who had been a RF'er in recent memory and the Cubs had no CF'er. It was just an odd and ineffective OF group last year. Getting a legit CF'er and a RF'er instead of bunches of stiff & weak armed OF'ers would help them in that regard.

 

Heh. Don't stop there. No one on the Cubs roster last year was a true RF. Not Jones, not Floyd, not Murton and not Ward.

 

It's nonsensical to play musical chairs in RF with 4 guys, all who are not RFers.

[Keener98]

Wait. Waitwaitwaitwaitwait. Wait.

 

Wait a minute.

 

Is somebody giving props to Hendry for moving the team in the right direction from the lows of where he initially brought them?

 

That is just absurdity at its finest. What a ridiculous notion. Hendry is why 85 wins looked halfway decent this year. 85 wins should be a disgusting disappointment by now. 5 years into a string of extremely high payrolls when you already had lots of talent on hand should be giving you 90 wins each and every year, with 95-100 on occasion. Going from worst to first is only good if you ignore the fact that he brought them to worst in the first place, and first was only first because the competition was so weak.

 

90 wins as the bare minimum every year for 5 years? That's a ridiculously high standard. The only teams to pull that off in recent memory were the Braves (with one of the greatest GM/manager combos in history) and the Yankees (with twice the payroll as the Cubs). Not saying Hendry's done a great job, but considering the injuries we've had to deal with from our best players basically every year, I don't think anyone could have pulled 90 wins every year in the past 5 years.

 

Quit with the injury excuse nonsense. Hendry shouldn't have built a team that could only win if young pitchers stayed healthy to begin with, and he shouldn't have let a manager like Dusty Baker manage them if that's what he wanted.

 

Who said anything about bare minimum? 90 wins should be expected year in and year out. 85 wins should be considered a disappointment. 95-100 should be attainable on occasion. There's no excuse for sub .500. I'm not saying fire a guy the first time his team goes under 90 wins. But I'm not interested in C students running the ship. Excellence should be the only accepted performance level, and Hendry hasn't even come close.

Yeah, blame Hendry for building around 3 young aces. Stupid him. You can't objectively look at Hendry's tenure and not take injuries into consideration. Sure, he deserves blame for bringing Dusty Baker into the organization, but he also lost Nomar and Lee to basically season-ending injuries two years in a row. I don't think Hendry's done a particularly good job, but he's not the complete failure this board likes to tout him as.

 

No you cant blame Hendry for injuries. However, you can blame him for continually relying on pitchers who have been injured to be a major part of his staff. It took Hendry way to long to quit depending on Wood and Prior.

 

Lets not even get into Hendrys complete mismanagement of contracts. Its a joke.