For The Hendry Bashers

[erik316wttn]

i can see where hendry would value piniella's opinion, but to say that he has now taken over the role of GM as well seems a bit outlandish

 

It's not that outlandish. Hendry did the same thing for Dusty. Why do you think Neifi, Ordonez, Macias, etc stayed around as long as they did?

 

Because Hendry thought they were valuable players?

 

No, because Dusty did. I can guarantee you if Dusty didn't want them here, they wouldn't have been here.

 

Hendry wasn't the one putting them in the lineup (and batting them 1-2 no less) at the expense of some of the other players. That was all Dusty.

[KingCubsFan]

i can see where hendry would value piniella's opinion, but to say that he has now taken over the role of GM as well seems a bit outlandish

 

It's not that outlandish. Hendry did the same thing for Dusty. Why do you think Neifi, Ordonez, Macias, etc stayed around as long as they did?

 

Because Hendry thought they were valuable players?

 

No, because Dusty did. I can guarantee you if Dusty didn't want them here, they wouldn't have been here.

 

Hendry wasn't the one putting them in the lineup (and batting them 1-2 no less) at the expense of some of the other players. That was all Dusty.

Don't forget people like Pierre too. Listening too much to the manager is Hendry's biggest downfall, and why we constantly overpay for pieces that can be filled by minor leaguers

[Hairyducked Idiot]

i can see where hendry would value piniella's opinion, but to say that he has now taken over the role of GM as well seems a bit outlandish

 

It's not that outlandish. Hendry did the same thing for Dusty. Why do you think Neifi, Ordonez, Macias, etc stayed around as long as they did?

 

Because Hendry thought they were valuable players?

 

No, because Dusty did. I can guarantee you if Dusty didn't want them here, they wouldn't have been here.

 

Hendry wasn't the one putting them in the lineup (and batting them 1-2 no less) at the expense of some of the other players. That was all Dusty.

 

This isn't an either/or. It's quite possible that *both* Hendry and Baker thought they were good players.

 

There is absolutely no evidence that Hendry and Baker disagreed on player development. There is nothing but wishful thinking.

[JonnyRed]

Hendry hired Lou, so its still Hendry's fault.

 

Yeah, and all that's gotten us is two playoff appearances in the two years he has been here...that sucks!

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Hendry hired Lou, so its still Hendry's fault.

 

Yeah, and all that's gotten us is two playoff appearances in the two years he has been here...that sucks!

 

same number of playoff wins as pittsburgh, kansas city and tamp- oh, wait...

[Soul]

Hendry hired Lou, so its still Hendry's fault.

 

Yeah, and all that's gotten us is two playoff appearances in the two years he has been here...that sucks!

 

same number of playoff wins as pittsburgh, kansas city and tamp- oh, wait...

 

Can't have it both ways. Either the playoffs are a crap shoot or they aren't. If they're a crap shoot, then Hendry & Lou should get credit for building solid regular season teams the past 2 years. If they aren't a crap shoot, then they should be blamed for not winning a World Series so far given the resources they've had available to them.

 

There's a lot of straddling the bridge on this issue around here (not you specifically KJRM). It either is or it isn't, that's all I'm saying. My view is until someone delivers a championship to the North Side they don't impress me as much as someone who does deliver a championship.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Hendry hired Lou, so its still Hendry's fault.

 

Yeah, and all that's gotten us is two playoff appearances in the two years he has been here...that sucks!

 

same number of playoff wins as pittsburgh, kansas city and tamp- oh, wait...

 

Can't have it both ways. Either the playoffs are a crap shoot or they aren't. If they're a crap shoot, then Hendry & Lou should get credit for building solid regular season teams the past 2 years. If they aren't a crap shoot, then they should be blamed for not winning a World Series so far given the resources they've had available to them.

 

There's a lot of straddling the bridge on this issue around here (not you specifically KJRM). It either is or it isn't, that's all I'm saying. My view is until someone delivers a championship to the North Side they don't impress me as much as someone who does deliver a championship.

 

They are a crapshoot, but I don't give Hendry and Piniella a ton of credit for building one good regular season team and one decent one on the back of a ton of backloaded contracts.

[Soul]

Hendry hired Lou, so its still Hendry's fault.

 

Yeah, and all that's gotten us is two playoff appearances in the two years he has been here...that sucks!

 

same number of playoff wins as pittsburgh, kansas city and tamp- oh, wait...

 

Can't have it both ways. Either the playoffs are a crap shoot or they aren't. If they're a crap shoot, then Hendry & Lou should get credit for building solid regular season teams the past 2 years. If they aren't a crap shoot, then they should be blamed for not winning a World Series so far given the resources they've had available to them.

 

There's a lot of straddling the bridge on this issue around here (not you specifically KJRM). It either is or it isn't, that's all I'm saying. My view is until someone delivers a championship to the North Side they don't impress me as much as someone who does deliver a championship.

 

They are a crapshoot, but I don't give Hendry and Piniella a ton of credit for building one good regular season team and one decent one on the back of a ton of backloaded contracts.

 

Relatively speaking, they deserve more credit that the cavalcade of bozos we've had roll through this town who never even produced a playoff appearance. I agree with the notion that they aren't great.

[nilodnayr]

Hendry hired Lou, so its still Hendry's fault.

 

Yeah, and all that's gotten us is two playoff appearances in the two years he has been here...that sucks!

 

 

For the record, since this has taken off a bit, that wasn't what I was saying in the slightest.

[The Other 15]

Who cares if the contracts are back loaded or front loaded as long as the guys produce? So far, everyone he's signed has been productive. He's not the GM of the Pirates. If and/or when those contracts prove to be obstructive to fielding a competitive team, that would be the appropriate time to judge them as bad contracts.

[SouthSideRyan]

Who cares if the contracts are back loaded or front loaded as long as the guys produce? So far, everyone he's signed has been productive. He's not the GM of the Pirates. If and/or when those contracts prove to be obstructive to fielding a competitive team, that would be the appropriate time to judge them as bad contracts.

 

Aren't those backloaded contracts obstructive to us fielding a more competitive team this year?

[The Other 15]

Who cares if the contracts are back loaded or front loaded as long as the guys produce? So far, everyone he's signed has been productive. He's not the GM of the Pirates. If and/or when those contracts prove to be obstructive to fielding a competitive team, that would be the appropriate time to judge them as bad contracts.

 

Aren't those backloaded contracts obstructive to us fielding a more competitive team this year?

 

We'll be better able to judge that in 9 months or so. One thing we already do know, is that those contracts are responsible for the Cubs being competitive to begin with.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Who cares if the contracts are back loaded or front loaded as long as the guys produce? So far, everyone he's signed has been productive. He's not the GM of the Pirates. If and/or when those contracts prove to be obstructive to fielding a competitive team, that would be the appropriate time to judge them as bad contracts.

 

Backloading contracts allow you to borrow from the future in order to pay for the present. You can't give Hendry full credit for the present until you see what it looks like when you have to pay the piper (and we're already beginning to see that, having to dump DeRosa for salary reasons)

[The Other 15]

Who cares if the contracts are back loaded or front loaded as long as the guys produce? So far, everyone he's signed has been productive. He's not the GM of the Pirates. If and/or when those contracts prove to be obstructive to fielding a competitive team, that would be the appropriate time to judge them as bad contracts.

 

Backloading contracts allow you to borrow from the future in order to pay for the present. You can't give Hendry full credit for the present until you see what it looks like when you have to pay the piper (and we're already beginning to see that, having to dump DeRosa for salary reasons)

Kyle, as always a plan must work for it to be considered good.

 

The players under multiple year contracts are (remaining yrs not counting team opt):

Soriano (6)

Zambrano (5)

Ramirez (3)

Lee (2)

Dempster (4)

Lilly (2)

Fukudome (3)

Bradley (3)

 

2009 - Obviously the payroll for this season is pretty much set so with Hardens option picked up that group costs $109.9 mil.

 

2010 - $111.1 mil

 

2011 - Minus Lee and Lilly $89.5 mil

 

2012 - minus Fuku and Bradley is $50 mil.

 

2013 minus Demp is $37.3

 

These backloaded contracts are basically in effect for the next 3 years where the Cubs are automatically tied down for $109.9 in 2009, $111.1 in 2010, $89.5 in 2011. Coincidentally these are the years that that core group was signed to win in. Only Soriano, Zambrano and Dempster have more than 3 guaranteed years remaining on their deals.

 

If the payroll stays around $140 mil over the next three years, or grows marginally (we don't know what new owners will do) they should be fine. If it is ordered cut by ownership, you will likely see something similar to a fire sale where Soriano and Zambrano are moved for prospects.

 

The bottom line is that after 2006, they decided they would go all out to win and the cost was signing free agents. They had two shots in the playoffs, they hope to get at least that many more over the next 3 years.

 

So, like I said earlier, if the players perform and the Cubs continue winning division titles or wild cards, the plan would have been worth it. If they fail miserably, it's just two more years of "bad contracts" provided they don't reach the playoffs.

 

(note: to those that will reply that making the playoffs is not good enough that is a separate argument so save it. I only mention playoffs because I believe it's understood that it takes more than a great roster to win the WS.)

Edited February 6, 2009 by The Other 15%

[cubsfan26]

and we're already beginning to see that, having to dump DeRosa for salary reasons

 

 

The Cubs payroll is currently 137.2m, take away Miles 2.2m and keep DeRosa and our payroll is 140.5m. I'm starting to think getting rid of DeRosa had more to do with getting Fontenot regular AB's then anything. Because I don't think the 3.3m saved is really the issue. I think they like Fontenot bat alot, and feel he can put up simliar numbers to DeRosa, but from the LH side of the plate. Now I wouldn't have made the move, because I'm worried about the outfield depth. But I can understand the Cubs liking Fontenot and wanting to give him regular AB's. We will just have to wait and see how these moves work out next year. I have a feeling they will work out alot better then some think.

[SouthSideRyan]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for backloading contracts. It's always better to backload than to pay it out evenly, but it has to be staggered correctly. They all seemed to hit (and big) this coming season.

[17 Seconds]

and we're already beginning to see that, having to dump DeRosa for salary reasons

 

 

The Cubs payroll is currently 137.2m, take away Miles 2.2m and keep DeRosa and our payroll is 140.5m. I'm starting to think getting rid of DeRosa had more to do with getting Fontenot regular AB's then anything. Because I don't think the 3.3m saved is really the issue. I think they like Fontenot bat alot, and feel he can put up simliar numbers to DeRosa, but from the LH side of the plate. Now I wouldn't have made the move, because I'm worried about the outfield depth. But I can understand the Cubs liking Fontenot and wanting to give him regular AB's. We will just have to wait and see how these moves work out next year. I have a feeling they will work out alot better then some think.

 

I don't know. Fontenot got a nice chunk of PAs last season (284) and you'd figure that since they just added a right fielder who is a virtual lock to miss time (whether Hendry wants to admit it or not) he figured to get a lot this year even if DeRosa was still on the team. Either way, you can never have too many good hitters, especially when you've got more than one injury prone starters. For a team that's admittedly in "all out win mode", I don't think they woud trade away a good hitter just to get another guy at-bats when the one they're trading away is pretty much a sure thing to produce and can play multiple positions. For those reasons 9not to mention the less than stellar package Hendry got back), I think it was 100% a salary dump. I probably would have been indifferent on the offseason had they kept DeRosa. I just don't see how you can plan to sign Bradley and then get rid of your number 1 insurance policy. That's really bad planning to me. Every other option for when Bradley goes down seems pretty ugly. Johnson against RHP, Fukudome against LHP, Gathright Hoffpauir, Miles.... all those guys look pretty gross. I've heard the argument that Jim could go out and get somebody if Bradley goes down.....but unless he goes down with a significant injury where you know he'll be out for months, I don't see Jim trading for anybody good to fill in... not if it's only for a few weeks and we have limited trading pieces as it is.

[cubsfan26]

For those reasons 9not to mention the less than stellar package Hendry got back), I think it was 100% a salary dump

 

 

Well I think in the long run, what we got for DeRosa will end up looking a little better then it does right now. I know alot of scouts are pretty high on Archer, but he still has a long way to go. I guess I don't understand it being a salary dump, when were only saving 3.3m. Especialy when the payroll was suppose to be between 140-145m, and is only at 137m right now(and look pretty much done). If we keep DeRosa our payroll would still only be at 140m. I really don't think it's a huge difference between 137m or 140m, especially when it comes down to having DeRosa or not. Unless we just basically wanted to go with Fontenot and give him primary AB's at 2b. But who knows maybe Hendry is still gonna make another move.

Edited February 6, 2009 by cubsfan26

[series65cubsfan]

 

"Young" is a relative term, I guess. Wuertz is 30. Hill is soon to be 29. Cedeno will be 26 soon. The quandary the Cubs found themselves in was that each of these players was in a situation where he was facing competition for a job while being out of minor-league options. It's likely each would be claimed on waivers at the end of spring training. At the very least, the Cubs got warm bodies for players who may or may not pan out for their new teams.

 

I feel this should be posted again.

[17 Seconds]

For those reasons 9not to mention the less than stellar package Hendry got back), I think it was 100% a salary dump

 

 

Well I think in the long run, what we got for DeRosa will end up looking a little better then it does right now. I know alot of scouts are pretty high on Archer, but he still has a long way to go. I guess I don't understand it being a salary dump, when were only saving 3.3m. Especialy when the payroll was suppose to be between 140-145m, and is only at 137m right now. If we keep DeRosa our payroll would still only be at 140m right now. But who knows maybe Hendry is still gonna make another move.

 

Did we even get a top 15 prospect in the Indians organization? The best prospexct in the deal is a 25 year old reliever.

 

Unless Hendry and the FO think that this is an outstanding package that they couldn't pass up, I don't see how it can be qualified as anything other than a salary dump. Teams that are in "all out win mode" don't just trade away valuable and proven players like that so they can give a few more at-bats to a guy like Fontenot. I could maybe see if if we had some stud Evan Longoria type guy, but Fontenot isn't that (not bashing Fontenot).

 

I think it was a combination of a salary dump to prepare for Bradley and possibly Peavy, and that Hendry thought they could get by without him.... which I think is a mistake. I think he was too focused on "getting more left handed" instead of just keeping/getting the best players.

 

If Bradley stays healthy then the loss of DeRosa shouldn't hurt much, but the odds are heavily against that.

[17 Seconds]

 

"Young" is a relative term, I guess. Wuertz is 30. Hill is soon to be 29. Cedeno will be 26 soon. The quandary the Cubs found themselves in was that each of these players was in a situation where he was facing competition for a job while being out of minor-league options. It's likely each would be claimed on waivers at the end of spring training. At the very least, the Cubs got warm bodies for players who may or may not pan out for their new teams.

 

I feel this should be posted again.

 

What is new there? I think everybody understands they were out of options and had to be traded.

[wastra]

It's silly to try to pin blame on Hendry or Piniella and excuse the other.

 

Hendry is the general manager, Piniella is a manager. They work together. they come up with a plan for the on-field product together, and it's hendry's job to find a way to make it work financially, in terms of numbers, and still consider the rest of the organization.

 

In terms of roster management, this duo has issues.

 

 

 

.

[Bull]

Who cares if the contracts are back loaded or front loaded as long as the guys produce? So far, everyone he's signed has been productive. He's not the GM of the Pirates. If and/or when those contracts prove to be obstructive to fielding a competitive team, that would be the appropriate time to judge them as bad contracts.

 

Aren't those backloaded contracts obstructive to us fielding a more competitive team this year?

 

Not at all! Those backloaded contracts ARE the competitive team this year.

 

A certain level of backloading of contracts is fine. and contract 7,8,9 million in consecutive years is just natural inflation, and or the expectation of increased ability/production in the player.

I know Hendry has backloaded more than this (eg Marquis) but its not like he's heavily backloading or deferring ala the D-backs.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Who cares if the contracts are back loaded or front loaded as long as the guys produce? So far, everyone he's signed has been productive. He's not the GM of the Pirates. If and/or when those contracts prove to be obstructive to fielding a competitive team, that would be the appropriate time to judge them as bad contracts.

 

Aren't those backloaded contracts obstructive to us fielding a more competitive team this year?

 

Not at all! Those backloaded contracts ARE the competitive team this year.

 

A certain level of backloading of contracts is fine. and contract 7,8,9 million in consecutive years is just natural inflation, and or the expectation of increased ability/production in the player.

I know Hendry has backloaded more than this (eg Marquis) but its not like he's heavily backloading or deferring ala the D-backs.

 

Those contracts give us this year and nothing much beyond it, I'm guessing. The current core is already moving past their primes.

[The Other 15]

Who cares if the contracts are back loaded or front loaded as long as the guys produce? So far, everyone he's signed has been productive. He's not the GM of the Pirates. If and/or when those contracts prove to be obstructive to fielding a competitive team, that would be the appropriate time to judge them as bad contracts.

 

Aren't those backloaded contracts obstructive to us fielding a more competitive team this year?

 

Not at all! Those backloaded contracts ARE the competitive team this year.

 

A certain level of backloading of contracts is fine. and contract 7,8,9 million in consecutive years is just natural inflation, and or the expectation of increased ability/production in the player.

I know Hendry has backloaded more than this (eg Marquis) but its not like he's heavily backloading or deferring ala the D-backs.

 

Those contracts give us this year and nothing much beyond it, I'm guessing. The current core is already moving past their primes.

Well a couple of years is considered "nothing much beyond it" Which was the plan.

Soriano (33)

Zambrano (27)

Ramirez (31)

Lee (33)

Dempster (32)

Lilly (33)

Fukudome (33)

Bradley (29)

I'm worried about Dempsters contract, Bradley is a injury risk, and obviously Fuku will have to rebound to respectability for his contract to be OK. Granted, there is concern, but it's not like it's a given that every contract will be bad. I know it's not popular to say this, but Hendry has been good at some things. He's done well at trades (this year to be judged later when it's fair to judge trades) and he's been pretty good at giving contracts to players that repay with performance. Not 100% but which GM is?