Jim Hendry signs 4-year contract extension

[Backtobanks]

Bruce confirms the horrible news:

 

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/770

 

Yep, awful news that the 1st Cubs GM to bring the team to consistent respectability would get an extension. Worst. News. Ever.

 

Not saying I agree with everything he does or even his overall philosophy, but, hey, we could have Ed Wade or Ned Colletti.

 

 

Hmmmm....consistent respectability. That's quite a standard of success.

 

Hendry has basically been given an open checkbook since he started and the Cubs have one playoff series win to show for it. If "consistent respectability" is what Cub fans are looking for then I guess Hendry has done a great job.

 

"Consistent respectability" is a lot better than watching the Cubs of the 50's and 60's go through 20 years of 4th and 5th (and lower) place finishes. To be honest, a GM can only put together a team that is strong "on paper", the performance is basically up to the players, coaches, and manager. According to the "experts", Hendry put together the best team "on paper" in the NL (and maybe in all of baseball). The players slumped at the wrong time (or choked) and the Cubs lost 3 in a row, but it doesn't diminish the fact that Hendry assembled a 97-win team.

[Larry Horse]

Bruce confirms the horrible news:

 

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/770

 

Yep, awful news that the 1st Cubs GM to bring the team to consistent respectability would get an extension. Worst. News. Ever.

 

Not saying I agree with everything he does or even his overall philosophy, but, hey, we could have Ed Wade or Ned Colletti.

 

 

Hmmmm....consistent respectability. That's quite a standard of success.

 

Hendry has basically been given an open checkbook since he started and the Cubs have one playoff series win to show for it. If "consistent respectability" is what Cub fans are looking for then I guess Hendry has done a great job.

 

"Consistent respectability" is a lot better than watching the Cubs of the 50's and 60's go through 20 years of 4th and 5th (and lower) place finishes. To be honest, a GM can only put together a team that is strong "on paper", the performance is basically up to the players, coaches, and manager. According to the "experts", Hendry put together the best team "on paper" in the NL (and maybe in all of baseball). The players slumped at the wrong time (or choked) and the Cubs lost 3 in a row, but it doesn't diminish the fact that Hendry assembled a 97-win team.

 

.....which means absolutely nothing. He may have "assembled a 97 win team" in the regular season, but somehow his handpicked "best team "on paper"" can't quite make that leap in the postseason. I don't want to be one of those Cub fans who 30 years from now is still waiting for a World Series win and I'm not going to give Hendry any props until it happens. He has had a financial advantage that no other Cub G.M. has ever had, so back-to-back division titles sure isn't much of a return on the humongous amount of money he has been allowed to spend.

[JimSorgi]

Bruce confirms the horrible news:

 

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/770

 

Yep, awful news that the 1st Cubs GM to bring the team to consistent respectability would get an extension. Worst. News. Ever.

 

Not saying I agree with everything he does or even his overall philosophy, but, hey, we could have Ed Wade or Ned Colletti.

 

 

Hmmmm....consistent respectability. That's quite a standard of success.

 

Hendry has basically been given an open checkbook since he started and the Cubs have one playoff series win to show for it. If "consistent respectability" is what Cub fans are looking for then I guess Hendry has done a great job.

 

"Consistent respectability" is a lot better than watching the Cubs of the 50's and 60's go through 20 years of 4th and 5th (and lower) place finishes. To be honest, a GM can only put together a team that is strong "on paper", the performance is basically up to the players, coaches, and manager. According to the "experts", Hendry put together the best team "on paper" in the NL (and maybe in all of baseball). The players slumped at the wrong time (or choked) and the Cubs lost 3 in a row, but it doesn't diminish the fact that Hendry assembled a 97-win team.

 

.....which means absolutely nothing. He may have "assembled a 97 win team" in the regular season, but somehow his handpicked "best team "on paper"" can't quite make that leap in the postseason. I don't want to be one of those Cub fans who 30 years from now is still waiting for a World Series win and I'm not going to give Hendry any props until it happens. He has had a financial advantage that no other Cub G.M. has ever had, so back-to-back division titles sure isn't much of a return on the humongous amount of money he has been allowed to spend.

 

The playoffs are a crapshoot. You can't blame Hendry for what happened. He put together a great team, and that is all a GM can do.

[Larry Horse]

Bruce confirms the horrible news:

 

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/770

 

Yep, awful news that the 1st Cubs GM to bring the team to consistent respectability would get an extension. Worst. News. Ever.

 

Not saying I agree with everything he does or even his overall philosophy, but, hey, we could have Ed Wade or Ned Colletti.

 

 

Hmmmm....consistent respectability. That's quite a standard of success.

 

Hendry has basically been given an open checkbook since he started and the Cubs have one playoff series win to show for it. If "consistent respectability" is what Cub fans are looking for then I guess Hendry has done a great job.

 

"Consistent respectability" is a lot better than watching the Cubs of the 50's and 60's go through 20 years of 4th and 5th (and lower) place finishes. To be honest, a GM can only put together a team that is strong "on paper", the performance is basically up to the players, coaches, and manager. According to the "experts", Hendry put together the best team "on paper" in the NL (and maybe in all of baseball). The players slumped at the wrong time (or choked) and the Cubs lost 3 in a row, but it doesn't diminish the fact that Hendry assembled a 97-win team.

 

.....which means absolutely nothing. He may have "assembled a 97 win team" in the regular season, but somehow his handpicked "best team "on paper"" can't quite make that leap in the postseason. I don't want to be one of those Cub fans who 30 years from now is still waiting for a World Series win and I'm not going to give Hendry any props until it happens. He has had a financial advantage that no other Cub G.M. has ever had, so back-to-back division titles sure isn't much of a return on the humongous amount of money he has been allowed to spend.

 

The playoffs are a crapshoot. You can't blame Hendry for what happened. He put together a great team, and that is all a GM can do.

 

No he did not put together a "great team". A "great" team would not be swept two years in a row in the playoffs. He has put together a team that dominated a weaker division during the regular season and was embarrassed in the postseason. If that's your definition of "great", we'll agree to disagree.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

No he did not put together a "great team". A "great" team would not be swept two years in a row in the playoffs. He has put together a team that dominated a weaker division during the regular season and was embarrassed in the postseason. If that's your definition of "great", we'll agree to disagree.

 

A weaker division? The NL Central was pretty clearly the best division in the NL this year.

[JimSorgi]

Bruce confirms the horrible news:

 

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/770

 

Yep, awful news that the 1st Cubs GM to bring the team to consistent respectability would get an extension. Worst. News. Ever.

 

Not saying I agree with everything he does or even his overall philosophy, but, hey, we could have Ed Wade or Ned Colletti.

 

 

Hmmmm....consistent respectability. That's quite a standard of success.

 

Hendry has basically been given an open checkbook since he started and the Cubs have one playoff series win to show for it. If "consistent respectability" is what Cub fans are looking for then I guess Hendry has done a great job.

 

"Consistent respectability" is a lot better than watching the Cubs of the 50's and 60's go through 20 years of 4th and 5th (and lower) place finishes. To be honest, a GM can only put together a team that is strong "on paper", the performance is basically up to the players, coaches, and manager. According to the "experts", Hendry put together the best team "on paper" in the NL (and maybe in all of baseball). The players slumped at the wrong time (or choked) and the Cubs lost 3 in a row, but it doesn't diminish the fact that Hendry assembled a 97-win team.

 

.....which means absolutely nothing. He may have "assembled a 97 win team" in the regular season, but somehow his handpicked "best team "on paper"" can't quite make that leap in the postseason. I don't want to be one of those Cub fans who 30 years from now is still waiting for a World Series win and I'm not going to give Hendry any props until it happens. He has had a financial advantage that no other Cub G.M. has ever had, so back-to-back division titles sure isn't much of a return on the humongous amount of money he has been allowed to spend.

 

The playoffs are a crapshoot. You can't blame Hendry for what happened. He put together a great team, and that is all a GM can do.

 

No he did not put together a "great team". A "great" team would not be swept two years in a row in the playoffs. He has put together a team that dominated a weaker division during the regular season and was embarrassed in the postseason. If that's your definition of "great", we'll agree to disagree.

Remember, the playoffs are a crapshoot. A terrible team could dominate a great team in a five game series. And the NL Central was the strongest division in the NL.

[Larry Horse]

 

No he did not put together a "great team". A "great" team would not be swept two years in a row in the playoffs. He has put together a team that dominated a weaker division during the regular season and was embarrassed in the postseason. If that's your definition of "great", we'll agree to disagree.

 

A weaker division? The NL Central was pretty clearly the best division in the NL this year.

 

 

O.K., point taken...and what about the rest of the post?

[SouthSideRyan]

 

No he did not put together a "great team". A "great" team would not be swept two years in a row in the playoffs. He has put together a team that dominated a weaker division during the regular season and was embarrassed in the postseason. If that's your definition of "great", we'll agree to disagree.

 

A weaker division? The NL Central was pretty clearly the best division in the NL this year.

 

 

O.K., point taken...and what about the rest of the post?

 

We differ on our beliefs of the ability to build a team for the playoffs. There's little sense arguing it.

[mul21]

Bruce confirms the horrible news:

 

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/770

 

Yep, awful news that the 1st Cubs GM to bring the team to consistent respectability would get an extension. Worst. News. Ever.

 

Not saying I agree with everything he does or even his overall philosophy, but, hey, we could have Ed Wade or Ned Colletti.

 

 

Hmmmm....consistent respectability. That's quite a standard of success.

 

Hendry has basically been given an open checkbook since he started and the Cubs have one playoff series win to show for it. If "consistent respectability" is what Cub fans are looking for then I guess Hendry has done a great job.

 

 

Not true. I think it's become pretty clear that MacPhail kept the purse strings much tighter than Hendry would have like while he was still around, as is evidenced by the signing of Soriano the 1st off season Andy was gone.

[erik316wttn]

Bruce confirms the horrible news:

 

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/770

 

Yep, awful news that the 1st Cubs GM to bring the team to consistent respectability would get an extension. Worst. News. Ever.

 

Not saying I agree with everything he does or even his overall philosophy, but, hey, we could have Ed Wade or Ned Colletti.

 

 

Hmmmm....consistent respectability. That's quite a standard of success.

 

Hendry has basically been given an open checkbook since he started and the Cubs have one playoff series win to show for it. If "consistent respectability" is what Cub fans are looking for then I guess Hendry has done a great job.

 

"Consistent respectability" is a lot better than watching the Cubs of the 50's and 60's go through 20 years of 4th and 5th (and lower) place finishes. To be honest, a GM can only put together a team that is strong "on paper", the performance is basically up to the players, coaches, and manager. According to the "experts", Hendry put together the best team "on paper" in the NL (and maybe in all of baseball). The players slumped at the wrong time (or choked) and the Cubs lost 3 in a row, but it doesn't diminish the fact that Hendry assembled a 97-win team.

 

.....which means absolutely nothing. He may have "assembled a 97 win team" in the regular season, but somehow his handpicked "best team "on paper"" can't quite make that leap in the postseason. I don't want to be one of those Cub fans who 30 years from now is still waiting for a World Series win and I'm not going to give Hendry any props until it happens. He has had a financial advantage that no other Cub G.M. has ever had, so back-to-back division titles sure isn't much of a return on the humongous amount of money he has been allowed to spend.

 

The playoffs are a crapshoot. You can't blame Hendry for what happened. He put together a great team, and that is all a GM can do.

 

I just wonder if all the people who are lessening the Cubs loss in the playoffs by calling it a crapshoot would be doing the same thing had the Cubs gotten to the World Series. Would it be a crapshoot then?

[JimSorgi]

Bruce confirms the horrible news:

 

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/770

 

Yep, awful news that the 1st Cubs GM to bring the team to consistent respectability would get an extension. Worst. News. Ever.

 

Not saying I agree with everything he does or even his overall philosophy, but, hey, we could have Ed Wade or Ned Colletti.

 

 

Hmmmm....consistent respectability. That's quite a standard of success.

 

Hendry has basically been given an open checkbook since he started and the Cubs have one playoff series win to show for it. If "consistent respectability" is what Cub fans are looking for then I guess Hendry has done a great job.

 

"Consistent respectability" is a lot better than watching the Cubs of the 50's and 60's go through 20 years of 4th and 5th (and lower) place finishes. To be honest, a GM can only put together a team that is strong "on paper", the performance is basically up to the players, coaches, and manager. According to the "experts", Hendry put together the best team "on paper" in the NL (and maybe in all of baseball). The players slumped at the wrong time (or choked) and the Cubs lost 3 in a row, but it doesn't diminish the fact that Hendry assembled a 97-win team.

 

.....which means absolutely nothing. He may have "assembled a 97 win team" in the regular season, but somehow his handpicked "best team "on paper"" can't quite make that leap in the postseason. I don't want to be one of those Cub fans who 30 years from now is still waiting for a World Series win and I'm not going to give Hendry any props until it happens. He has had a financial advantage that no other Cub G.M. has ever had, so back-to-back division titles sure isn't much of a return on the humongous amount of money he has been allowed to spend.

 

The playoffs are a crapshoot. You can't blame Hendry for what happened. He put together a great team, and that is all a GM can do.

 

I just wonder if all the people who are lessening the Cubs loss in the playoffs by calling it a crapshoot would be doing the same thing had the Cubs gotten to the World Series. Would it be a crapshoot then?

Sure, I guess. I really wouldn't care.

[SouthSideRyan]

Bruce confirms the horrible news:

 

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/770

 

Yep, awful news that the 1st Cubs GM to bring the team to consistent respectability would get an extension. Worst. News. Ever.

 

Not saying I agree with everything he does or even his overall philosophy, but, hey, we could have Ed Wade or Ned Colletti.

 

 

Hmmmm....consistent respectability. That's quite a standard of success.

 

Hendry has basically been given an open checkbook since he started and the Cubs have one playoff series win to show for it. If "consistent respectability" is what Cub fans are looking for then I guess Hendry has done a great job.

 

"Consistent respectability" is a lot better than watching the Cubs of the 50's and 60's go through 20 years of 4th and 5th (and lower) place finishes. To be honest, a GM can only put together a team that is strong "on paper", the performance is basically up to the players, coaches, and manager. According to the "experts", Hendry put together the best team "on paper" in the NL (and maybe in all of baseball). The players slumped at the wrong time (or choked) and the Cubs lost 3 in a row, but it doesn't diminish the fact that Hendry assembled a 97-win team.

 

.....which means absolutely nothing. He may have "assembled a 97 win team" in the regular season, but somehow his handpicked "best team "on paper"" can't quite make that leap in the postseason. I don't want to be one of those Cub fans who 30 years from now is still waiting for a World Series win and I'm not going to give Hendry any props until it happens. He has had a financial advantage that no other Cub G.M. has ever had, so back-to-back division titles sure isn't much of a return on the humongous amount of money he has been allowed to spend.

 

The playoffs are a crapshoot. You can't blame Hendry for what happened. He put together a great team, and that is all a GM can do.

 

I just wonder if all the people who are lessening the Cubs loss in the playoffs by calling it a crapshoot would be doing the same thing had the Cubs gotten to the World Series. Would it be a crapshoot then?

 

This has been argued before. Just because we view the postseason as influenced by luck doesn't mean we can't enjoy when the Cubs win those games, luck be damned. At that point you don't care why they won a game, because they won a damn game.

[Vanilla Ice]

it would be a crapshoot, but i wouldn't care one bit.

[cubsfan26]

In my opinion Hendry deserves an extension. He had a ton of pressure the last two seasons to get this team to the postseason, and his job was basically on the line. Yes he's had some money to spend, but alot of GM's have money to spend. How many teams have had pay rolls simliar or higher then us and missed the playoffs the last two seasons? Sure not every one of his moves have been good ones, and Fukudome does look a little scary right now. But most of Hendry moves lately have been good ones, and our regular season results speak for themselves.

 

 

 

As for sucking in the postseason, I don't really see how we can really blame Hendry. Is it Hendrys fault that guys like Lilly,Hill, Harden and Dempster pitched good all season then had bad starts in the postseason? Is it Hendry fault that Ramirez, Soriano, Soto, Theriot, Edmonds/Jones and so on couldn't hit at all in the postseason? When a GM is putting together a team, it's very hard to know how good or bad these players will play, once the postseason starts. What happen in the postseason the last two years could have happen to any GM. It's not his fault that the good players on the team, didn't play like good players. It's not like the Cubs weren't good enough to beat the Dbacks or Dodgers. They just played alot better then us, and there's nothing a GM can do about that.

[Backtobanks]

If winning a WS is the standard for being a good GM, then every GM is bad except one each year. Look at the top payrolls (Yanks, Red Sox, Angels, Cubs, Mets, White Sox, etc.) and you see all losers this year. While I'm frustrated about 1st round playoff losses, would we feel any better if they lost in the 1st round 3 games to 2? Would it be any better to lose in the NLCS?

[JeffH]

In my opinion Hendry deserves an extension. He had a ton of pressure the last two seasons to get this team to the postseason, and his job was basically on the line. Yes he's had some money to spend, but alot of GM's have money to spend. How many teams have had pay rolls simliar or higher then us and missed the playoffs the last two seasons? Sure not every one of his moves have been good ones, and Fukudome does look a little scary right now. But most of Hendry moves lately have been good ones, and our regular season results speak for themselves.

 

 

 

As for sucking in the postseason, I don't really see how we can really blame Hendry. Is it Hendrys fault that guys like Lilly,Hill, Harden and Dempster pitched good all season then had bad starts in the postseason? Is it Hendry fault that Ramirez, Soriano, Soto, Theriot, Edmonds/Jones and so on couldn't hit at all in the postseason? When a GM is putting together a team, it's very hard to know how good or bad these players will play, once the postseason starts. What happen in the postseason the last two years could have happen to any GM. It's not his fault that the good players on the team, didn't play like good players. It's not like the Cubs weren't good enough to beat the Dbacks or Dodgers. They just played alot better then us, and there's nothing a GM can do about that.

 

Can we please stop saying that our 2007 regular season was good?

[SCCubbieFAN]

 

No he did not put together a "great team". A "great" team would not be swept two years in a row in the playoffs. He has put together a team that dominated a weaker division during the regular season and was embarrassed in the postseason. If that's your definition of "great", we'll agree to disagree.

 

A weaker division? The NL Central was pretty clearly the best division in the NL this year.

 

 

O.K., point taken...and what about the rest of the post?

 

Don't forget, the Angels almost got swept too in the first round, and they were considered the best team in the AL hands down for most of the year.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

No he did not put together a "great team". A "great" team would not be swept two years in a row in the playoffs. He has put together a team that dominated a weaker division during the regular season and was embarrassed in the postseason. If that's your definition of "great", we'll agree to disagree.

 

A weaker division? The NL Central was pretty clearly the best division in the NL this year.

 

 

O.K., point taken...and what about the rest of the post?

 

Don't forget, the Angels almost got swept too in the first round, and they were considered the best team in the AL hands down for most of the year.

 

By some people, but many saw the Angels flaws.

 

I think the Cubs were close to great, but not quite there because they were essentially a team with a lot of good players and few really bad ones. That made their lineup solid on most days and meant their pitchers kept them in games. But they didn't have any great individual performers and I think that's what keeps them from being a truly great team.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

 

No he did not put together a "great team". A "great" team would not be swept two years in a row in the playoffs. He has put together a team that dominated a weaker division during the regular season and was embarrassed in the postseason. If that's your definition of "great", we'll agree to disagree.

 

A weaker division? The NL Central was pretty clearly the best division in the NL this year.

 

 

O.K., point taken...and what about the rest of the post?

 

Don't forget, the Angels almost got swept too in the first round, and they were considered the best team in the AL hands down for most of the year.

"hands down" doesn't fit there. I considered them the 3rd best team as did a whole lot of other people

[YearofDaCubs]

4 year extension is extreme in my eyes.

[Clem Fandango]

Cubs agreed to terms with general manager Jim Hendry on a four-year contract extension.

The Cubs have gone 537-513 (.511) with Hendry as GM and he's led them to four winning campaigns in six full seasons on the job, including an NL-best 97 wins this year.

[Burtonbell]

4 years...

 

Here's the Tribune link

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-081020-chicago-cubs-jim-hendry,0,455594.story

[shnsajax]

In my opinion Hendry deserves an extension. He had a ton of pressure the last two seasons to get this team to the postseason, and his job was basically on the line. Yes he's had some money to spend, but alot of GM's have money to spend. How many teams have had pay rolls simliar or higher then us and missed the playoffs the last two seasons? Sure not every one of his moves have been good ones, and Fukudome does look a little scary right now. But most of Hendry moves lately have been good ones, and our regular season results speak for themselves.

 

 

 

As for sucking in the postseason, I don't really see how we can really blame Hendry. Is it Hendrys fault that guys like Lilly,Hill, Harden and Dempster pitched good all season then had bad starts in the postseason? Is it Hendry fault that Ramirez, Soriano, Soto, Theriot, Edmonds/Jones and so on couldn't hit at all in the postseason? When a GM is putting together a team, it's very hard to know how good or bad these players will play, once the postseason starts. What happen in the postseason the last two years could have happen to any GM. It's not his fault that the good players on the team, didn't play like good players. It's not like the Cubs weren't good enough to beat the Dbacks or Dodgers. They just played alot better then us, and there's nothing a GM can do about that.

 

Can we please stop saying that our 2007 regular season was good?

 

Considering how bad the first 6-8 weeks of 2007 were, I think the 2007 was pretty good.

[JeffH]

In my opinion Hendry deserves an extension. He had a ton of pressure the last two seasons to get this team to the postseason, and his job was basically on the line. Yes he's had some money to spend, but alot of GM's have money to spend. How many teams have had pay rolls simliar or higher then us and missed the playoffs the last two seasons? Sure not every one of his moves have been good ones, and Fukudome does look a little scary right now. But most of Hendry moves lately have been good ones, and our regular season results speak for themselves.

 

 

 

As for sucking in the postseason, I don't really see how we can really blame Hendry. Is it Hendrys fault that guys like Lilly,Hill, Harden and Dempster pitched good all season then had bad starts in the postseason? Is it Hendry fault that Ramirez, Soriano, Soto, Theriot, Edmonds/Jones and so on couldn't hit at all in the postseason? When a GM is putting together a team, it's very hard to know how good or bad these players will play, once the postseason starts. What happen in the postseason the last two years could have happen to any GM. It's not his fault that the good players on the team, didn't play like good players. It's not like the Cubs weren't good enough to beat the Dbacks or Dodgers. They just played alot better then us, and there's nothing a GM can do about that.

 

Can we please stop saying that our 2007 regular season was good?

 

Considering how bad the first 6-8 weeks of 2007 were, I think the 2007 was pretty good.

 

Do those weeks not count?

[jersey cubs fan]

In my opinion Hendry deserves an extension. He had a ton of pressure the last two seasons to get this team to the postseason, and his job was basically on the line. Yes he's had some money to spend, but alot of GM's have money to spend. How many teams have had pay rolls simliar or higher then us and missed the playoffs the last two seasons? Sure not every one of his moves have been good ones, and Fukudome does look a little scary right now. But most of Hendry moves lately have been good ones, and our regular season results speak for themselves.

 

 

 

As for sucking in the postseason, I don't really see how we can really blame Hendry. Is it Hendrys fault that guys like Lilly,Hill, Harden and Dempster pitched good all season then had bad starts in the postseason? Is it Hendry fault that Ramirez, Soriano, Soto, Theriot, Edmonds/Jones and so on couldn't hit at all in the postseason? When a GM is putting together a team, it's very hard to know how good or bad these players will play, once the postseason starts. What happen in the postseason the last two years could have happen to any GM. It's not his fault that the good players on the team, didn't play like good players. It's not like the Cubs weren't good enough to beat the Dbacks or Dodgers. They just played alot better then us, and there's nothing a GM can do about that.

 

Can we please stop saying that our 2007 regular season was good?

 

Considering how bad the first 6-8 weeks of 2007 were, I think the 2007 was pretty good.

 

Do those weeks not count?

 

I'm not sure the original poster said the 2007 regular season was good, but I don't see why you can't call it that. If somebody said really good or great, that would be pushing it, but how isn't 85-77, with a pythag record of 87-75, and an NL ranking of 8 in runs scored and 2 in ERA not good? It was the 6th best record in the NL, which generally qualifies you for the playoffs in any US sport aside from baseball, and they did win their division. Clearly they were nothing special but it was a pretty good team.