Bruce's Take on the Hendry Regime

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I thought everyone here would like to read Bruce's latest on Jim Hendry. I also think there's much here that could spark some debate.

 

Link.

 

In my opinion, it's very fair assessment of the Hendry era. He's had some good and some bad. If this season stays on the upswing, Hendry could be very well regarded in Cubs lore.

[Backtobanks]

Excellent column. I think Bruce was very fair in his analysis. I do think some of the moves that he has made were moves that Baker asked for and he complied. I still think that many of the Hendry-bashers don't realize what a tough (and usually thankless) job it is. As I've stated before, he gets criticized for every move he makes and every move he doesn't make.

[Bruce Miles]

Thanks for the link. I tried to be fair. Jim was a bit touchy about the whole OBP and stats thing, but at least they're moving in the right direction on it. Yes, there's a lot there that I'm sure is debatable, but that's part of the fun of following sports. Now that the Cubs are fully using their resources, that may make a big difference. Of course, it's always HOW you spend the money.

 

As was the case with the Theriot story I did the other day, I put some tough questions to both, and they were gracious enough to answer.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I've always found Hendry very likeable even if I didn't always agree with how he put the team together. This year's team, I like.

 

If he's truly recognized the need for OBP-centric hitting (whether newly recognized or not), then I think things will start to look up for this franchise.

[RynoRules]

I've always found Hendry very likeable even if I didn't always agree with how he put the team together. This year's team, I like.

 

If he's truly recognized the need for OBP-centric hitting (whether newly recognized or not), then I think things will start to look up for this franchise.

 

Well put. Hendry seems to be a decent guy for whom the lightbulb is now finally going on.

[Bote McBoteface]

I've always found Hendry very likeable even if I didn't always agree with how he put the team together. This year's team, I like.

 

If he's truly recognized the need for OBP-centric hitting (whether newly recognized or not), then I think things will start to look up for this franchise.

 

Well put. Hendry seems to be a decent guy for whom the lightbulb is now finally going on.

 

Edmonds

[bhogg]

Why does he get touchy about the stat/ obp thing?

 

Is it like guys who think they'll be labeled as "gay" for wearing a pink shirt??

[Bruce Miles]

Why does he get touchy about the stat/ obp thing?

 

Is it like guys who think they'll be labeled as "gay" for wearing a pink shirt??

 

I just think he feels that the whole world thinks they never paid attention to it in the past. I know, I know, the evidence suggests they didn't, and I've told him that. Things started to change, though in a serious way during the organization meetings in the fall of '06 (wow, after Dusty was gone!), when they really started to acknowledge the importance of OBP.

[SouthSideRyan]

Why does he get touchy about the stat/ obp thing?

 

Is it like guys who think they'll be labeled as "gay" for wearing a pink shirt??

 

I just think he feels that the whole world thinks they never paid attention to it in the past. I know, I know, the evidence suggests they didn't, and I've told him that. Things started to change, though in a serious way during the organization meetings in the fall of '06 (wow, after Dusty was gone!), when they really started to acknowledge the importance of OBP.

 

What worries me is I've yet to hear a good thing about Wasserstrom. He has no background in stats, moving to his current job from the media relations department. Maybe he's grown into the job along with the organization, but I fear his work includes way too much small sample size/fluke splits rather than helpful stats.

[OleMissCub]

Why does he get touchy about the stat/ obp thing?

 

Is it like guys who think they'll be labeled as "gay" for wearing a pink shirt??

 

I just think he feels that the whole world thinks they never paid attention to it in the past. I know, I know, the evidence suggests they didn't, and I've told him that. Things started to change, though in a serious way during the organization meetings in the fall of '06 (wow, after Dusty was gone!), when they really started to acknowledge the importance of OBP.

 

What worries me is I've yet to hear a good thing about Wasserstrom. He has no background in stats, moving to his current job from the media relations department. Maybe he's grown into the job along with the organization, but I fear his work includes way too much small sample size/fluke splits rather than helpful stats.

 

They should hire Mephistopheles.

[sneakypower]

Why does he get touchy about the stat/ obp thing?

 

Is it like guys who think they'll be labeled as "gay" for wearing a pink shirt??

 

I just think he feels that the whole world thinks they never paid attention to it in the past. I know, I know, the evidence suggests they didn't, and I've told him that. Things started to change, though in a serious way during the organization meetings in the fall of '06 (wow, after Dusty was gone!), when they really started to acknowledge the importance of OBP.

 

What worries me is I've yet to hear a good thing about Wasserstrom. He has no background in stats, moving to his current job from the media relations department. Maybe he's grown into the job along with the organization, but I fear his work includes way too much small sample size/fluke splits rather than helpful stats.

 

They should hire Mephistopheles.

it is a shame that guy got banned. nearly every prediction i can remember him making looks pretty awful right now. i'd love to hear defense for some of them.

 

-barry zito pitching like a #1 starter again

-jr towles being the most valuable rookie

-brian mccann settling in as .270, 18 hr guy

-khalil greene repeating fluke season

-brandon phillips regressing hard

[NCCubFan]

I was very down on Hendry after 2005 and 2006, but my opinion of him has gradually improved over the past couple of years. I still want to see the Cubs move forward rather than just getting back to the 2003 level, but they're on the right track.

[shnsajax]

Why does he get touchy about the stat/ obp thing?

 

Is it like guys who think they'll be labeled as "gay" for wearing a pink shirt??

 

I just think he feels that the whole world thinks they never paid attention to it in the past. I know, I know, the evidence suggests they didn't, and I've told him that. Things started to change, though in a serious way during the organization meetings in the fall of '06 (wow, after Dusty was gone!), when they really started to acknowledge the importance of OBP.

 

This got me thinking, how easy is it to make massive improvements in keys areas in 1 year, however looking at a two year change.

 

2006 the Cubs were 2nd to last in runs scored, with a .268/.319/.422/.741

2008 the Cubs are 1st in runs scored, .286/.370/.450/.820

 

Considering only Lee and Ramirez remain in the starting lineup since 2006 its been a pretty big overhaul. Despite that we know Hendry has tried to make a few more moves that never happened.

[Outshined_One]

I feel that one of Hendry's weakest areas has been with the bench. He's gotten a number of players who...

 

-Play to his manager's weaknesses, such as Dusty Baker's love of veterans over young players (Neifi Perez over Ronny Cedeno) and Lou Piniella's lack of willingness to platoon guys, despite clear splits (Reed Johnson and Pie).

 

-Are, quite frankly, terrible players who should never have been bench options for this team in the first place (Neifi Perez, Damian Jackson, Jose Macias, etc.).

 

-Are overpaid (Henry Blanco).

 

-Are well beyond any past success they once had (Ben Grieve, Todd Hollandsworth, Jim Edmonds).

 

It's not to say that Hendry has been all bad with the acquisitions. Reed Johnson would have been a good pickup if he were used solely against LHPs. Daryl Ward has come up with some big hits and has been productive in a limited role. Henry Blanco would have been a decent pickup if he hadn't been paid so much. However, it seems like Hendry has had a lot of misses in this area.

 

His draft history has also been...underwhelming. Since 2003, here's a list of Hendry's draftees who have signed and attracted attention, either through being in the majors or being named a top prospect:

 

2003: Ryan Harvey, Jake Fox, Sean Marshall

2004: Grant Johnson, Mark Reed, Eric Patterson, Mitch Atkins, Sam Fuld, Sean Gallagher, Jeremy Blevins

2005: Mark Pawelek, Donnie Veal, Mark Holliman

2006: Tyler Colvin, Jeff Samardzija, Chris Huseby

2007: Josh Vitters, Josh Donaldson, Tony Thomas

 

Granted, there still is plenty of time left before we can pass a final verdict on most of these guys. However, the returns over the past five years have not yielded very good results. None of these guys have been bona fide superstar prospects for much longer than two years after they were drafted, losing their status due to injuries or ineffectiveness. Some of those guys who are close to the majors could become above average major leaguers down the line, but none of them seem like a surefire bet to be above average. Those guys with big ceilings either have a long way to go before they reach those ceilings or there are enough red flags to cause someone to mitigate any optimism for those guys.

 

I don't know if it's been bad scouting, bad luck, or what, but in spite of Hendry being able to up the scouting budget and personnel, it has not paid dividends to the Cubs. It's a bit worrying seeing a number of prospects the Cubs have passed on or been unable to sign have gone on to have success in the major leagues while the Cubs' draftees have not seen that same level of success.

 

Maybe five years from now we'll be talking about Josh Vitters as the Cubs' All Star 3B with Donnie Veal and Mark Pawelek vying for the Cy Young. But, unfortunately, I worry that scenario is rather unlikely.

[SouthSideRyan]

O_O I gotta disagree with your classifciation of Grieve and Hollandsworth. Hollandsworh was a great bench guy, he fit into the profile of the Cubs not realizing the difference between a good bat off the bench and a good bat playing every day.

 

As far as Grieve he was fine for us, being a bat who actually had a patient approach and could drive the ball a bit.

[Outshined_One]

O_O I gotta disagree with your classifciation of Grieve and Hollandsworth. Hollandsworh was a great bench guy, he fit into the profile of the Cubs not realizing the difference between a good bat off the bench and a good bat playing every day.

 

As far as Grieve he was fine for us, being a bat who actually had a patient approach and could drive the ball a bit.

 

I should have clarified that point a little bit better.

 

I didn't lump him into the terrible players group for a reason. He was not a terrible player. However, I also felt that his previous success made him overrated in the eyes of the front office and management. It's like they were willing to give him more of a break, you know? For that reason, I think him, Grieve, and Edmonds did not fit into the other categories, given that their past reputations did a lot to get them signed. Hendry has a long track record of picking up reclamation projects and has been slow to jettison a lot of those guys when they don't pan out or when they are not used as they should be.

 

Hollandsworth was one of the more enjoyable players of the Dusty era. However, he had no business starting every day, given his production. He wasn't terrible, but he was a bench guy, through and through. Frankly, what happened to Hollandsworth while with the Cubs is what I worry ends up happening with Jim Edmonds.

 

Also, after a bit of research, Grieve was with the Cubs for a much shorter period than I remembered. He wasn't particularly memorable, although his numbers weren't too bad. His inclusion on that list might be merited due to his past success, but the Cubs were relatively quick to dump him.

[wvcbxl]

I think Bruce's piece gave a fair assessment of the Hendry regime so far (the way this years team is playing, Hendry will be around for quite a while).

 

Ultimately, he will be judged on results. If he can maintain an organization that is competitive every season (as I believe this year's team is), he will be viewed as one of the better Cubs GMs

[BudHouse]

I think Bruce was soft on Hendry's failures in talent evaluation and bloated contracts. Was it really necessary to sign Marquis to a 3 year contract? Who exactly were we bidding against? Hendry's evaluation of Brownlie, both Pattersons, Johnson, etc.. Please explain Neifi, Jerome Williams, Chad Fox, etc...

 

Didn't Hendry know that with the testing for steroids, that players would get smaller, HRs would drop and that OBP and taking pitches would be more important?

 

Hendry has failed to develop not only a long range plan for the Cubs, but also a team philosophy. Each year it's another overhaul, a different direction and more frustration with the fans.

[Backtobanks]

-Play to his manager's weaknesses, such as Dusty Baker's love of veterans over young players (Neifi Perez over Ronny Cedeno) and Lou Piniella's lack of willingness to platoon guys, despite clear splits (Reed Johnson and Pie).

 

-Are, quite frankly, terrible players who should never have been bench options for this team in the first place (Neifi Perez, Damian Jackson, Jose Macias, etc.).

 

Actually, I find that one of his biggest weaknesses is the fact that he listens to the manager too much about roster issues. I think he acquired some of the over-the-hill and incompetent veterans because his managers didn't feel confident in playing youngsters. Nearly every spring, Hendry has been quoted as saying that 1 or 2 youngsters would be playing important roles on the Cubs only to be shot down by his managers who insist on not giving some of those youngsters the chance to play regularly.

[erik316wttn]

-Play to his manager's weaknesses, such as Dusty Baker's love of veterans over young players (Neifi Perez over Ronny Cedeno) and Lou Piniella's lack of willingness to platoon guys, despite clear splits (Reed Johnson and Pie).

 

-Are, quite frankly, terrible players who should never have been bench options for this team in the first place (Neifi Perez, Damian Jackson, Jose Macias, etc.).

 

Actually, I find that one of his biggest weaknesses is the fact that he listens to the manager too much about roster issues. I think he acquired some of the over-the-hill and incompetent veterans because his managers didn't feel confident in playing youngsters. Nearly every spring, Hendry has been quoted as saying that 1 or 2 youngsters would be playing important roles on the Cubs only to be shot down by his managers who insist on not giving some of those youngsters the chance to play regularly.

 

If that's the case, he needs to step up and let the manager know who is really in charge. I'm all for the GM sitting back and letting the manager do his thing, but you have to step in sometimes and assert your authority.

 

There is no valid excuse for having players on the team (and in the lineup, AND hitting 2nd, no less!) that shouldn't have even been on a major league roster in the first place. I don't care if it was his idea or Dusty's. Probably his biggest strike above all is (a), acquiring these players to begin with, (b) letting Dusty misuse them as he did, and © acquiring MORE players like this that Dusty could misuse, showing a complete inability or unwillingness to learn from his past mistakes.

[Larry Horse]

I don't really know how anyone could find Jim Hendry "likeable".

 

Any interview I've ever heard with him, where someone like say Derosa is brought up, Jim's first response always is something along the lines "We took a lot of heat when we signed him" or "A lot of people criticized us about that signing". I don't think I've heard a G.M. of a baseball team who automatically likes to point out how wrong people were about something, rather than say something like "Our scouts really did their homework on him and we felt he would be a good addition to our club".

 

He seems to have extremely thin skin when anything negative is brought up regarding what is perceived as a bad trade/signing.

 

I just don't think he handles himself like Theo Epstein or Cashman does.

[mcgoobs]

Bruce, any thoughts on how Hendry views the organizations ability to develop talent from the minors? Hendry's best transactions have been those that you pointed to - trading attractive prospects for established players (Lee, Ramirez), with the traded prospects later flaming out. Additonally whether it was the intention or not, the last two managers have had a low tolerance for giving younger players the innings in the majors.

 

The recent success of Soto and (dare I say) Theriot would suggest that the organization is latching onto something good but it would be interesting to know if this has been an area where the organization has had another shift in thinking.

[nilodnayr]

When I read between the lines, it kinda seems that Bruce is saying that A LOT of the problems with the past cubs teams were MacPhail and not Hendry.

 

Obviously, without insider information, I would think the following COULD be MacPhail's fault:

 

Spending on scouts

Spending on scouts specifically in the Pac Rim

Spending on the draft (aren't we pretty average/above average here)

Spending on payroll (we spent plenty on payroll)

 

what else?

 

Hendry's problem has been that he makes terrible little moves that negate a lot of the value of his great big moves.

[javy knows my name]

I've always found Hendry very likeable even if I didn't always agree with how he put the team together. This year's team, I like.

 

If he's truly recognized the need for OBP-centric hitting (whether newly recognized or not), then I think things will start to look up for this franchise.

 

Well put. Hendry seems to be a decent guy for whom the lightbulb is now finally going on.

 

Edmonds

Yes, this

[Tracer Bullet]

My biggest issue with Hendry's regime is his use of young players. The revolving door with Iowa, the very short leashes, not giving guys a chance to adjust. It makes no sense. When the team's terrible, we still play vets. When the offense is on fire, we can't find a spot to give a young guy a chance to adjust, though we'll find a way to get a washed-up vet some ABs to see if we'll get lucky. Part of our inability to develop young players is the failure to give them a real chance at the majors. Or to block them after they've had some success.

 

Oh, and I was surprised Bruce didn't list the Lilly signing as a good move, which makes a nice contrast to the Marquis signing. Those 2 deals are good examples of the roller coaster that is JH. For every Choi for Lee, there's a JP. For every ARam/Loften there's a Trachsel. Hard to say what the net effect of Hendry has been on the trades/signing front.