Chicago Tribune Live reports Hendry/Kenney to remain.

[Sammy Sofa]

It's not hard to find fault with the job Jim Hendry has done.... he has made some mistakes. He has also shown an ability to evaluate and learn from those mistakes. Right now, I would neither extend his contract nor throw him under the bus. I would evaluate 2009 with hindsight and evaluate whether progress is being made. In spite of the payroll figures and the playoff losses these last 2 years, it's pretty hard to argue with the performance of the major league club. You have to go back to 1936/37 to find a CUBS team that won 182 games over 2 years.

 

 

This is a very reasonable argument.

 

My problem with using the Cubs history as a barometer for progress doesn't mean much because it's a *bad* history in terms of on the field results. Also, in the 2007/2008 playoffs, for whatever reason this was a team that was incapbale of competing for even one game. I'd like to think maybe a healthy Bradley, some power from Font and Hoff from the left side would improve our chances against the RHP pitching that has owned us. Maybe that's just wishful thinking.

 

I do know that I now dread the playoffs, and am disheartened at the lack of performance by the pitching staff along with Ramirez and Soriano in those crucial times.

 

Well, that first round is pretty much a crapshoot. It's totally up in the air whether a team will be "on" or not to win it. It's not really something you can or should build a team around for the rest of the season.

[jersey cubs fan]

yeah seriously, this is the first year we have been top 6-7 in payroll. it is really annoying when people say the cubs outspend everyone. (especially white sox fans when they have had a higher payroll every year before now)

 

 

Haven't the Cubs had a top 5 NL payroll for Hendry's entire tenure?

 

No. The Cubs are 3rd in payroll this year, but before that were no higher than 7th. I posted earlier in this thread a breakdown of every year the Cubs have had higher than a $90 million payroll (since 2006) and outside of this year they were 7th once and 8th twice in that time span.

 

You are looking at MLB totals, not NL, as was asked. Also opening day payrolls only talk about the 25 man roster on opening day. They don't count things like money paid to other teams to get rid of guys you had to dump because you overpaid them, or released guys or other stuff like that. The Cubs have been among the top NL payrolls ever since Hendry took over, and they are one of the very few to consistently raise their payroll every year. Some top teams, including the Mets, Braves and Dodgers, have actually had years where they cut back due to ownership issues.

[dew1679666265]

yeah seriously, this is the first year we have been top 6-7 in payroll. it is really annoying when people say the cubs outspend everyone. (especially white sox fans when they have had a higher payroll every year before now)

 

 

Haven't the Cubs had a top 5 NL payroll for Hendry's entire tenure?

 

No. The Cubs are 3rd in payroll this year, but before that were no higher than 7th. I posted earlier in this thread a breakdown of every year the Cubs have had higher than a $90 million payroll (since 2006) and outside of this year they were 7th once and 8th twice in that time span.

 

You are looking at MLB totals, not NL, as was asked. Also opening day payrolls only talk about the 25 man roster on opening day. They don't count things like money paid to other teams to get rid of guys you had to dump because you overpaid them, or released guys or other stuff like that. The Cubs have been among the top NL payrolls ever since Hendry took over, and they are one of the very few to consistently raise their payroll every year. Some top teams, including the Mets, Braves and Dodgers, have actually had years where they cut back due to ownership issues.

 

Yeah, mul pointed out that I missed the NL part of the question. I pointed out that the Cubs have been a top 3 NL payroll team for the past four years at least.

 

And really, the money you pay out to guys you cut, etc. don't really matter on the field of play - which is what this discussion is about. The Cubs' on-field payroll this season is just over $134 million, and these current players are the ones that will decide whether we make the playoffs and how far we go in them (save for a midseason trade).

 

Any players who are cut loose will still impact the final 25-man roster payroll, even if they don't directly count against it. For instance, our payroll is likely down a bit from where it potentially could be because we have to count Gaudin and Vizcaino's salaries against it.

[YearofDaCubs]

Jim Hendry a top 10 GM? LOL. If you give this type of payroll to most GM's I would expect a better roster. This is the same guy who just recently traded DeRo for peanuts only to one up his mistake by signing Miles to a 2 year deal. We can go wayyy back and find so many flaws in Jim Hendry. I've seen enough of him to know he is no better than an average GM and that may be stretching it.

[jersey cubs fan]

And really, the money you pay out to guys you cut, etc. don't really matter on the field of play - which is what this discussion is about.

 

No, that is not what the discussion is about. It doesn't matter about wins and losses, but it sure as hell matters when you are talking about the job your GM is doing. If you have $150m to play with and $30m is dead money, that's a waste of resources. That's why the Washington Redskins are a contender on paper every year but never actually win. Hendry keeps covering up mistakes with more money because the team keeps increasing payroll, even through recessions, ownership limbo/changes and disappointing seasons. Overpay a guy like Marquis to eat innings then pay somebody else to take him off your handes, then dump the guy you got back. Overpay relievers with multi year deals, then go out and buy more when those guys fail, or release them as well. How many GMs get the opportunity to buy 2 very expensive corner outfielders in 2 consecutive years?

[dew1679666265]

And really, the money you pay out to guys you cut, etc. don't really matter on the field of play - which is what this discussion is about.

 

No, that is not what the discussion is about. It doesn't matter about wins and losses, but it sure as hell matters when you are talking about the job your GM is doing. If you have $150m to play with and $30m is dead money, that's a waste of resources. That's why the Washington Redskins are a contender on paper every year but never actually win. Hendry keeps covering up mistakes with more money because the team keeps increasing payroll, even through recessions, ownership limbo/changes and disappointing seasons. Overpay a guy like Marquis to eat innings then pay somebody else to take him off your handes, then dump the guy you got back. Overpay relievers with multi year deals, then go out and buy more when those guys fail, or release them as well. How many GMs get the opportunity to buy 2 very expensive corner outfielders in 2 consecutive years?

 

Dead money for many teams is fairly inevitable. As long as it doesn't pile up too high - and you have a large payroll - it's not a major issue. I'm pretty sure the only dead money on the payroll this season is from Gaudin and Vizcaino (through Marquis). Hendry was still able to do all the things he wanted to do (good or bad) with the dead money on the roster and he hasn't had a problem with amassing gross amounts of it in his tenure. He's pretty good about dumping contracts on others. There are criticisms of Hendry that are very valid. I don't think having a little dead money here and there is very near the top.

 

And also, my response was to Arnold Layne, who said that Hendry's performance has been poor specifically because we haven't been winning in the playoffs despite a high payroll. There is no one to my knowledge that we have gotten rid of (I still think DeRosa is gone because of a fascination with being left handed and a desire for him to start somewhere instead of being on our bench, not for money) or passed on signing because of a little dead money on this year's payroll, so I think the dead money is moot to his specific complaint.

[Arnold Layne]

Yeah I was talking about NL payroll, the teams we face most often.

[Arnold Layne]

Well, that first round is pretty much a crapshoot. It's totally up in the air whether a team will be "on" or not to win it. It's not really something you can or should build a team around for the rest of the season.

 

If it's a crapshot, why are the Cubs so consistent with landing on the bad side of the coin?

[Gmoney08]

Well, that first round is pretty much a crapshoot. It's totally up in the air whether a team will be "on" or not to win it. It's not really something you can or should build a team around for the rest of the season.

 

If it's a crapshot, why are the Cubs so consistent with landing on the bad side of the coin?

 

0/2 is such a large sample size right?

[Arnold Layne]

Well, that first round is pretty much a crapshoot. It's totally up in the air whether a team will be "on" or not to win it. It's not really something you can or should build a team around for the rest of the season.

 

If it's a crapshot, why are the Cubs so consistent with landing on the bad side of the coin?

 

0/2 is such a large sample size right?

 

When you break it down, that's 54 post season innings. And when you observe the performance, you conclude that the Cubs did not compete for one single inning. Is it just bad luck?

 

Maybe.

[dew1679666265]

Well, that first round is pretty much a crapshoot. It's totally up in the air whether a team will be "on" or not to win it. It's not really something you can or should build a team around for the rest of the season.

 

If it's a crapshot, why are the Cubs so consistent with landing on the bad side of the coin?

 

0/2 is such a large sample size right?

 

When you break it down, that's 54 post season innings. And when you observe the performance, you conclude that the Cubs did not compete for one single inning. Is it just bad luck?

 

Maybe.

 

Part of it is bad luck, but I also think last year's team was under a huge amount of pressure to win (mainly after the 07 sweep) and didn't handle it well. For evidence, look at plays like DeRosa's bobbled ground ball that should have ended an inning, etc.

 

Keep in mind, though, that Hendry also was the GM during the highly successful 03 playoff run. It ended in utter disappointment, but to be an inning away from the World Series is quite an accomplishment.

[Gmoney08]

Well, that first round is pretty much a crapshoot. It's totally up in the air whether a team will be "on" or not to win it. It's not really something you can or should build a team around for the rest of the season.

 

If it's a crapshot, why are the Cubs so consistent with landing on the bad side of the coin?

 

0/2 is such a large sample size right?

 

When you break it down, that's 54 post season innings. And when you observe the performance, you conclude that the Cubs did not compete for one single inning. Is it just bad luck?

 

Maybe.

 

The Cubs may have got their ass kicked up they competed for about 10 innings in all. They got out to a lead early in the dodgers game 1 last year with Dero's homer. Also game 1 vs the Dbacks the year before it was a great game till about the 8th inning and Marmol gave up a HR (possibly 7th inning).

 

Its all semantics but 54 innings isnt a significant sample size either.

[manbearcub]

Well, that first round is pretty much a crapshoot. It's totally up in the air whether a team will be "on" or not to win it. It's not really something you can or should build a team around for the rest of the season.

 

If it's a crapshot, why are the Cubs so consistent with landing on the bad side of the coin?

you cant expect them to get to the final 2 in the NL when they are 3rd in payroll. hendry is behind the 8 ball here.

[Arnold Layne]

 

Part of it is bad luck, but I also think last year's team was under a huge amount of pressure to win (mainly after the 07 sweep) and didn't handle it well. For evidence, look at plays like DeRosa's bobbled ground ball that should have ended an inning, etc.

 

Keep in mind, though, that Hendry also was the GM during the highly successful 03 playoff run. It ended in utter disappointment, but to be an inning away from the World Series is quite an accomplishment.

 

 

That was a team that Hendry mostly inherited. Of course I give him credit for adding two key pieces in Ramirez and Lofton. But I think my main point still stands. I would love to see a team built entirely of "Hendry guys" win a playoff game. That has yet to happen under his watch. Until then, I think it's premature to offer any kind of extension, even for one day.

 

I agree the team is under pressure in those situations, but that's where leaders and cool hands rise to the occasion. There's a word for players who can't play under pressure, and it's not very kind. When you get as badly dominated in back to back post seasons as the Cubs have, you could say a pattern is emerging - especially with the very poor offensive showing by two key players in Aram and Soriano.

 

If this team can't handle playoff pressure, then a GM at some point has to consider getting new players.

[Andy]

A pattern of playing worse than an inferior team for three-game stretches is called 'baseball', and the fact that we try and pretend playoff baseball is a completely different sport gets more annoying each time I read it.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Maybe without as much money, Hendry will be less inclined to make pointless signings like Miles and Gathright and put some trust in the farm system. Just invite guys like German or Cintron to spring training on minor league deals, meanwhile see what the farm is worth. As we founf out this past off season, there will be utility guys and backups available until the last minute, even later, so theres no reason to jump all over Aaron Miles like hes some kind of prize. Give guys like Scales or Doug Deeds a chance.

[Sammy Sofa]

 

Part of it is bad luck, but I also think last year's team was under a huge amount of pressure to win (mainly after the 07 sweep) and didn't handle it well. For evidence, look at plays like DeRosa's bobbled ground ball that should have ended an inning, etc.

 

Keep in mind, though, that Hendry also was the GM during the highly successful 03 playoff run. It ended in utter disappointment, but to be an inning away from the World Series is quite an accomplishment.

 

 

That was a team that Hendry mostly inherited. Of course I give him credit for adding two key pieces in Ramirez and Lofton. But I think my main point still stands. I would love to see a team built entirely of "Hendry guys" win a playoff game. That has yet to happen under his watch. Until then, I think it's premature to offer any kind of extension, even for one day.

 

I agree the team is under pressure in those situations, but that's where leaders and cool hands rise to the occasion. There's a word for players who can't play under pressure, and it's not very kind. When you get as badly dominated in back to back post seasons as the Cubs have, you could say a pattern is emerging - especially with the very poor offensive showing by two key players in Aram and Soriano.

 

If this team can't handle playoff pressure, then a GM at some point has to consider getting new players.

 

That seems like an overreaction. You seem to be implying we should dump players who are critical to the team succeeding over the course of the regular season. You're likely not going to get to the playoffs if you shed the players you specifically mentioned.

 

Players get cold. Soriano is notrious for his cold streaks in between when he's pounding the hell out of the ball. Even Aramis has stretches where he doesn't play well. Sometimes it just happens by the time the playoffs roll around. There's little that can be done about it and you really just have to hope it doesn't happen. On the flipside, it's pretty ridiculous to think you can construct a team for playoff success since playoff numbers are such a small smaple size. A player who was hot one playoff month might be cold the next year. A player might be amazing one playoff series and then horrible the next. David-freakin'-Eckstein can be your WS MVP. That in and of itself should indicate above anything else how nuts the playoffs are.

[Arnold Layne]

Players get cold. Soriano is notrious for his cold streaks in between when he's pounding the hell out of the ball. Even Aramis has stretches where he doesn't play well. Sometimes it just happens by the time the playoffs roll around. There's little that can be done about it and you really just have to hope it doesn't happen. On the flipside, it's pretty ridiculous to think you can construct a team for playoff success since playoff numbers are such a small smaple size. A player who was hot one playoff month might be cold the next year. A player might be amazing one playoff series and then horrible the next. David-freakin'-Eckstein can be your WS MVP. That in and of itself should indicate above anything else how nuts the playoffs are.

 

 

I completely agree with this logic. But it leads me to ask, if it's a "hot/cold" thing, why do the Cubs key hitters consistentyly end up on the cold side of the equation? For example, when looking at a simple stat of a lead off man, Soriano has a .125 OBP the last two post seasons for the Chicago Cubs. His job at the top is to get on base. He has failed in a freakishly spectacular fashion, perhaps setting an overall tone of futility from the first pitch of the series. Ramirez, the Cubs most consistent run producer and "clutch" hitter in the regular season goes compeltely ice cold under the pressure. His OBP is .163 with *zero* rbi's and three total bases the past two post seasons. Soriano also has three total bases and zero RBI.

 

There's "going cold", and then there is a very bleak and recognizable pattern from your best hitters when the post season pressure is on.

[CyHawk_Cub]

Players get cold. Soriano is notrious for his cold streaks in between when he's pounding the hell out of the ball. Even Aramis has stretches where he doesn't play well. Sometimes it just happens by the time the playoffs roll around. There's little that can be done about it and you really just have to hope it doesn't happen. On the flipside, it's pretty ridiculous to think you can construct a team for playoff success since playoff numbers are such a small smaple size. A player who was hot one playoff month might be cold the next year. A player might be amazing one playoff series and then horrible the next. David-freakin'-Eckstein can be your WS MVP. That in and of itself should indicate above anything else how nuts the playoffs are.

 

 

I completely agree with this logic. But it leads me to ask, if it's a "hot/cold" thing, why do the Cubs key hitters consistentyly end up on the cold side of the equation? For example, when looking at a simple stat of a lead off man, Soriano has a .125 OBP the last two post seasons for the Chicago Cubs. His job at the top is to get on base. He has failed in a freakishly spectacular fashion, perhaps setting an overall tone of futility from the first pitch of the series. Ramirez, the Cubs most consistent run producer and "clutch" hitter in the regular season goes compeltely ice cold under the pressure. His OBP is .163 with *zero* rbi's and three total bases the past two post seasons. Soriano also has three total bases and zero RBI.

 

There's "going cold", and then there is a very bleak and recognizable pattern from your best hitters when the post season pressure is on.

 

Not to nitpick, but Sori's job is to score runs...and he does a good job of that. In a small sample size of the playoffs, not good, but the point still stands

[Sammy Sofa]

Players get cold. Soriano is notrious for his cold streaks in between when he's pounding the hell out of the ball. Even Aramis has stretches where he doesn't play well. Sometimes it just happens by the time the playoffs roll around. There's little that can be done about it and you really just have to hope it doesn't happen. On the flipside, it's pretty ridiculous to think you can construct a team for playoff success since playoff numbers are such a small smaple size. A player who was hot one playoff month might be cold the next year. A player might be amazing one playoff series and then horrible the next. David-freakin'-Eckstein can be your WS MVP. That in and of itself should indicate above anything else how nuts the playoffs are.

 

 

I completely agree with this logic. But it leads me to ask, if it's a "hot/cold" thing, why do the Cubs key hitters consistentyly end up on the cold side of the equation? For example, when looking at a simple stat of a lead off man, Soriano has a .125 OBP the last two post seasons for the Chicago Cubs. His job at the top is to get on base. He has failed in a freakishly spectacular fashion, perhaps setting an overall tone of futility from the first pitch of the series. Ramirez, the Cubs most consistent run producer and "clutch" hitter in the regular season goes compeltely ice cold under the pressure. His OBP is .163 with *zero* rbi's and three total bases the past two post seasons. Soriano also has three total bases and zero RBI.

 

There's "going cold", and then there is a very bleak and recognizable pattern from your best hitters when the post season pressure is on.

 

You're overstating the "recognizable pattern" aspect of this. It's 6 games.

 

Besides, if you think this is a pressure thing, what player exists out there that knows how to deal with the "pressure" of more than a century without a WS and 9 consecutive playoff losses? This mythical playoff superman doesn't exist. That best you can hope for is put together a very good team that can get you there in the first place and hope for the best.

[dew1679666265]

That was a team that Hendry mostly inherited. Of course I give him credit for adding two key pieces in Ramirez and Lofton. But I think my main point still stands. I would love to see a team built entirely of "Hendry guys" win a playoff game. That has yet to happen under his watch. Until then, I think it's premature to offer any kind of extension, even for one day.

 

You can also consider that Hendry was in charge of the farm system for a long period of time and was a major factor in bringing in and developing the young talent that contributed to that 2003 team (CPatt, Wood, Cruz, Z and Choi). He also developed Hill and Bruback, who helped us get Aramis and Lofton.

 

He also made a trio of key moves that, without them, we don't make it as far as we did (do we even make the playoffs?). He acquired Matt Clement and dumped Hundley for Grudz and Karros in the offseason and then dealt Bruback and Hill for Aramis and Lofton. I don't think we're an inning away from the World Series without those key moves.

 

There's no denying Hendry's fingerprints were all over that 2003 club.

 

I agree the team is under pressure in those situations, but that's where leaders and cool hands rise to the occasion. There's a word for players who can't play under pressure, and it's not very kind. When you get as badly dominated in back to back post seasons as the Cubs have, you could say a pattern is emerging - especially with the very poor offensive showing by two key players in Aram and Soriano.

 

If this team can't handle playoff pressure, then a GM at some point has to consider getting new players.

 

It's not as simple as just "getting new players." Guys like Soriano, Aramis, Lee, Lilly, etc. are signed to contracts and must be traded elsewhere and we must get similar value in return. We could go through a massive firesale, but after it was over we'd be farther away from postseason success than when we started.

 

I'm not ready to get rid of guys who can produce exceptionally well for 162 game seasons, but have struggled for a couple of three game stretches.

[Arnold Layne]

Besides, if you think this is a pressure thing, what player exists out there that knows how to deal with the "pressure" of more than a century without a WS and 9 consecutive playoff losses? This mythical playoff superman doesn't exist. That best you can hope for is put together a very good team that can get you there in the first place and hope for the best.

 

 

I sure hope our advance scouts and coaches are doing more than "hoping", although it really does seem like that's what they did prior to the NLDS's in 2007 and 2008.

[Arnold Layne]

You can also consider that Hendry was in charge of the farm system for a long period of time and was a major factor in bringing in and developing the young talent that contributed to that 2003 team (CPatt, Wood, Cruz, Z and Choi). He also developed Hill and Bruback, who helped us get Aramis and Lofton.

 

 

And in that period of time the farm still failed to produce a starting major league caliber outfielder. The Cubs *were* stocked with starting pitching, which I believe is Hendry's strength in talent evaluation. Hendry did add key pieces, but it was not his team.

 

He also made a trio of key moves that, without them, we don't make it as far as we did (do we even make the playoffs?). He acquired Matt Clement and dumped Hundley for Grudz and Karros in the offseason and then dealt Bruback and Hill for Aramis and Lofton. I don't think we're an inning away from the World Series without those key moves.

 

I think they were really good moves, and I think that's where Jim Hendry peaked.

 

 

It's not as simple as just "getting new players." Guys like Soriano, Aramis, Lee, Lilly, etc. are signed to contracts and must be traded elsewhere and we must get similar value in return.

 

Since when has that stopped Jim Hendry? He's the king of selling low and buying high since 2004.

 

 

We could go through a massive firesale, but after it was over we'd be farther away from postseason success than when we started.

 

I see what you are saying, but this team doesn't show up in the post season though.

 

I'm not ready to get rid of guys who can produce exceptionally well for 162 game seasons, but have struggled for a couple of three game stretches.

 

When the entire team struggles and implodes at those exact moments, it's something to take note of.

[Sammy Sofa]

And then...?

 

You keep dancing around it, but you're essentially suggesting that the team needs to be rebuilt or that the Cubs could target guys who would be locks to succeed in the uniqueness of the Cubs' postseason situation. Neither is practical or realistic at all.

[Illini Iceman]

Players get cold. Soriano is notrious for his cold streaks in between when he's pounding the hell out of the ball. Even Aramis has stretches where he doesn't play well. Sometimes it just happens by the time the playoffs roll around. There's little that can be done about it and you really just have to hope it doesn't happen. On the flipside, it's pretty ridiculous to think you can construct a team for playoff success since playoff numbers are such a small smaple size. A player who was hot one playoff month might be cold the next year. A player might be amazing one playoff series and then horrible the next. David-freakin'-Eckstein can be your WS MVP. That in and of itself should indicate above anything else how nuts the playoffs are.

 

 

I completely agree with this logic. But it leads me to ask, if it's a "hot/cold" thing, why do the Cubs key hitters consistentyly end up on the cold side of the equation? For example, when looking at a simple stat of a lead off man, Soriano has a .125 OBP the last two post seasons for the Chicago Cubs. His job at the top is to get on base. He has failed in a freakishly spectacular fashion, perhaps setting an overall tone of futility from the first pitch of the series. Ramirez, the Cubs most consistent run producer and "clutch" hitter in the regular season goes compeltely ice cold under the pressure. His OBP is .163 with *zero* rbi's and three total bases the past two post seasons. Soriano also has three total bases and zero RBI.

 

There's "going cold", and then there is a very bleak and recognizable pattern from your best hitters when the post season pressure is on.

 

Nice of you to selectively choose the past two post seasons when analyzing Ramirez's performances. Wouldn't want to mention that .956 OPS in the 2003 playoffs, huh? I guess he just forgot how to be "clutch" at some point after 2003. Or maybe 23 combined AB's in the 2007/2008 postseasons is too small a sample size.

 

As for Soriano, he does seem to struggle in the post season. Not sure why that is, it might be because he is a mistake type hitter and since he will generally see more elite level pitchers he doesn't get as many mistakes. However, his value in putting up production that is vital to a team getting a team to the post season probably offsets the fact that his production may drop off once that team reaches the post season.