Chicago Tribune Live reports Hendry/Kenney to remain.

[dew1679666265]

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 either acquired or played a major role in developing 3/5 of the starting rotation, 4/9 of the starting lineup and a large part of the bench and bullpen.

 

No, it was not "his team," but he deserves a great deal of the credit for building and developing many of the players on the 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.

 

I don't agree with the peaked part, since after that he picked up DLee for Choi and Nomar and Murton (who eventually, along with EPatt and Gallagher, turned into Rich Harden) for Justin Jones and Brendan Harris. He's made some very good trades in his tenure.

 

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.

 

And do you want him to dump Sori, Aramis, DLee, Lilly, Kosuke, Soto and all the other very good players who struggled for 6 games and get nothing for them?

 

If he can upgrade the team by trading those players, then he should go for it. But it's extremely unlikely that we could trade all of those guys and be better after it was over - I don't care if our GM is Jim Hendry, Billy Beane or me.

 

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.

 

Can you give me a reason why you think they don't? I think we both agree that the core of this team is very, very talented. Thus, if you think Hendry did a poor job building this core, you must think it's because of something besides talent. Do you think they struggle because they choke in the postseason, or some other reason?

 

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.

 

I can agree with that. You take note of it, but a team-wide slump for 6 games is not enough reason to tear the thing apart and start over. Especially when the assortment of players has achieved 180-something wins the past two regular seasons.

[Arnold Layne]

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.

 

 

What I am saying is that no one has the answers, and the only thing we do know is that the Cubs are very, very bad in the playoffs. In the end, you can only go with what you do know.

[Arnold Layne]

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.

 

 

Aramis has been *abysmal* the past two playoff appearances with a .300 OPS. That's not "struggling", that's nothing at all. What he did in 2003 was fantastic, and it made him my favorite player. But his inability to show up for a NLDS game the last two years is disturbing. If he was contributing in some fashion, it would be one thing. But he's not doing that at all.

 

 

 

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.

 

His production "may" drop? That's a very, very polite way of putting it. As a Cub in the post season, he has a .243 OPS, and a .125 OBP. That's not struggling or "dipping in production". That's simply not showing up in any way, shape or fashion. Sure, he's great in the regular beating up on Latroy Hawkins, but the goal here is to get to the world series. If he stinks in the playofffs in a tone-setting position(leadoff) and is up there flailing away at bad pitches(like the Cubs seem to do in the NLDS), what's the point?

[Sammy Sofa]

You can find plenty of stretches during the season where the best Cubs hitters put up "disturbing" numbers or "don't show up at all." Sometimes those stretches fall at the worst possible times. Not too much you can do about it except to keep putting together a team that can win the regular season and then set them loose in the playoffs. You can't train or order a player to do well in the tiny span of games that is the first round. They either do or they don't. So far they haven't, but that has little bearing on how they'll do if they go again this year.

[Arnold Layne]

You can find plenty of stretches during the season where the best Cubs hitters put up "disturbing" numbers or "don't show up at all." Sometimes those stretches fall at the worst possible times. Not too much you can do about it except to keep putting together a team that can win the regular season and then set them loose in the playoffs. You can't train or order a player to do well in the tiny span of games that is the first round. They either do or they don't. So far they haven't, but that has little bearing on how they'll do if they go again this year.

 

We saw basically the same exact performance in 2007 and 2008. Same key problems(dominance of our hitters with RH pitching, errors, weak starting pitching). If the Cubs had put up a fight, maybe taken a game or two in one of the series, you might have a point. But this team didn't show up for even one game in all facets of play. They couldn't pitch, hit or field. So that rules out any possible team wide slump with offense as being the only cause.

 

If you look at the overall performance of the ball club, there is something fundamentally wrong with them in the post season. Until they win a playoff series(or stunningly, even a single game), those are the facts on the table that we can pick apart.

 

I really don't know what else to say. There wasn't a glimmer of hope or promise for two straight NLDS's. None.

[Illini Iceman]

You can find plenty of stretches during the season where the best Cubs hitters put up "disturbing" numbers or "don't show up at all." Sometimes those stretches fall at the worst possible times. Not too much you can do about it except to keep putting together a team that can win the regular season and then set them loose in the playoffs. You can't train or order a player to do well in the tiny span of games that is the first round. They either do or they don't. So far they haven't, but that has little bearing on how they'll do if they go again this year.

 

We saw basically the same exact performance in 2007 and 2008. Same key problems(dominance of our hitters with RH pitching, errors, weak starting pitching). If the Cubs had put up a fight, maybe taken a game or two in one of the series, you might have a point. But this team didn't show up for even one game in all facets of play. They couldn't pitch, hit or field. So that rules out any possible team wide slump with offense as being the only cause.

 

If you look at the overall performance of the ball club, there is something fundamentally wrong with them in the post season. Until they win a playoff series(or stunningly, even a single game), those are the facts on the table that we can pick apart.

 

I really don't know what else to say. There wasn't a glimmer of hope or promise for two straight NLDS's. None.

 

Aaaah, so now along with Ramirez now becoming a choking dog some time between the end for the 2003 playoffs and the start of the 2007 playoffs you now have focused in on the starting pitching. You do realize, of course, that Z is the only pitcher that made starts in both the 2007 and 2008 postseason and actually he had one very good start in 2007 and then one mediocre one in 2008 that would have been much better if the defense had supported him better. So the Cubs swapped out 2/3 of their playoff starters from the 2007 playoffs to the 2008 playoffs but, darn it, they should have instead gotten some of those gritty pitchers that would do well in the postseason. By your logic they should start grooming Cotts as their closer now in preparation for this year's postseason since he has never given up a run in a playoff appearance. That is the type of mentally strong, clutch players we need more of!!! Marmol? Ha! Look at him crap the bed in the playoffs. DFA him now and save yourself the inevitable failure in October.

[USSoccer]

I don't think I've seen as many meaningless aphorisms crammed into one thread in a very long time.

 

"doesn't show up"

"can't handle the pressure"

"goes ice cold in the playoffs"

 

Seriously, it's like watching a talk radio host post.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't think I've seen as many meaningless aphorisms crammed into one thread in a very long time.

 

"doesn't show up"

"can't handle the pressure"

"goes ice cold in the playoffs"

 

Seriously, it's like watching a talk radio host post.

 

No kidding. He's talking about the playoffs like they're radically different from the other 162 games. You can't plan for a player to do well during them so much as you could plan for a player to do well during a single week at any other point during the year.

 

Teams have bad games. Players have bad games. The Cubs have had the misfortune of playing bad games during the last two playoff runs. That's really all there is to it. Changing the players doesn't lower or raise the odds of it happening again.

[Arnold Layne]

I don't think I've seen as many meaningless aphorisms crammed into one thread in a very long time.

 

"doesn't show up"

"can't handle the pressure"

"goes ice cold in the playoffs"

 

Seriously, it's like watching a talk radio host post.

 

 

This post contains 0% Cubs baseball and 100% talk radio style put downs.

[Arnold Layne]

I don't think I've seen as many meaningless aphorisms crammed into one thread in a very long time.

Teams have bad games. Players have bad games. The Cubs have had the misfortune of playing bad games during the last two playoff runs. That's really all there is to it. Changing the players doesn't lower or raise the odds of it happening again.

 

 

If the Cubs make the playoffs and get swept again, what would your reaction be? "Oh well, it's just a crapshoot, go get 'em next time fellas..."?

[Guest]

I don't really have a problem with the Cubs sticking with Hendry for a year or so until Ricketts can figure things out. Hopefully he's smart enough to see Hendry's faults along with his virtues.

 

To the post above mine: Yes.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't think I've seen as many meaningless aphorisms crammed into one thread in a very long time.

Teams have bad games. Players have bad games. The Cubs have had the misfortune of playing bad games during the last two playoff runs. That's really all there is to it. Changing the players doesn't lower or raise the odds of it happening again.

 

 

If the Cubs make the playoffs and get swept again, what would your reaction be? "Oh well, it's just a crapshoot, go get 'em next time fellas..."?

 

No, ideally you want to make improvements where possible, but drastic sweeping changes aren't needed given the regular season success this team has had for the last two seasons. 6 games do not outweigh 324.

 

Please, since you've yet to do it, spell out what steps you would take to make this team playoff ready.

[USSoccer]

I don't think I've seen as many meaningless aphorisms crammed into one thread in a very long time.

 

"doesn't show up"

"can't handle the pressure"

"goes ice cold in the playoffs"

 

Seriously, it's like watching a talk radio host post.

 

 

This post contains 0% Cubs baseball and 100% talk radio style put downs.

 

Riiiiiiiiight

 

Honestly, you want to get rid of players that have contributed to the most successful period of play in the modern era due to 6 games over two years.

 

It's a complete overreaction, and there's simply no way to "build a team for the postseason". Unless you want to fill your roster with the Jim Leyritzes and Mark Lemkes of the worl.

 

Which is fine, but your team is going to suck.

[Backtobanks]

I don't think I've seen as many meaningless aphorisms crammed into one thread in a very long time.

Teams have bad games. Players have bad games. The Cubs have had the misfortune of playing bad games during the last two playoff runs. That's really all there is to it. Changing the players doesn't lower or raise the odds of it happening again.

 

 

If the Cubs make the playoffs and get swept again, what would your reaction be? "Oh well, it's just a crapshoot, go get 'em next time fellas..."?

 

Anybody who has paid attention to the recent playoffs should realize that the playoffs are a crapshoot. It's just a matter of which team is hot at that point. Look at how many times the "best team", the "best hitters", and the "best pitchers" fail in the playoffs. Look at the number of times a mediocre team, hitter, or pitcher is successful in the playoffs.

[USSoccer]

I don't think I've seen as many meaningless aphorisms crammed into one thread in a very long time.

Teams have bad games. Players have bad games. The Cubs have had the misfortune of playing bad games during the last two playoff runs. That's really all there is to it. Changing the players doesn't lower or raise the odds of it happening again.

 

 

If the Cubs make the playoffs and get swept again, what would your reaction be? "Oh well, it's just a crapshoot, go get 'em next time fellas..."?

 

Anybody who has paid attention to the recent playoffs should realize that the playoffs are a crapshoot. It's just a matter of which team is hot at that point. Look at how many times the "best team", the "best hitters", and the "best pitchers" fail in the playoffs. Look at the number of times a mediocre team, hitter, or pitcher is successful in the playoffs.

 

The problem with using reason to refute his line of thinking is that American sports tend to exaggerate the importance of the postseason and vilify those otherwise great players that tend not to succeed in the small sample size of games used. This leads to players like Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, ARod, Bonds, Barkley...I could go on, but you get the point-not getting all the credit for great careers due to random perfomance flukes or the failure of teammates, or random chance.

 

Performance over the regular season, like it or not, is far more indicative of quality that anything else. I posted it in another thread, but it bears repeating: form is temporary, class is permanent. I'll take the class of Aramis, Soriano, Soto, Z , Marmol and whoever else over the fleeting form of the 2007 D'Backs and 2008 Dodgers.

 

So he can build his "postseason team of clutchy goodness" and I'll take the 2008 Cubs, and I'll demolish him 95% of the time.

[Arnold Layne]

No, ideally you want to make improvements where possible, but drastic sweeping changes aren't needed given the regular season success this team has had for the last two seasons. 6 games do not outweigh 324.

 

Please, since you've yet to do it, spell out what steps you would take to make this team playoff ready.

 

 

I don't have the answers(and apparently neither does Jim Hendry), but these are some things I would try:

 

First I would make sure our advance scouts are up to par. That didn't seem to be the case the last two post season appearances.

 

Secondly, I would make sure Lou Piniella doesn't pull another "Jokers Wild" Game 1 starter announcement. Pitch Z in game 1, end of story. Show some consistency and resolve, a calm shore in the storm.

 

Walk Manny Ramirez.

 

The Cubs seem to fold after a game one loss. I have no idea how to remedy that.

 

I would consider moving Soriano out of the leadoff spot for the playoffs. He simply doesn't do what a lead off man needs to do in that situation. You have to create something, and he's swinging at pitches in the dirt.

 

Reinforce the plate discipline which makes the Cubs significantly stronger. Ram it through their heads in pre-playoff meetings. When the Cubs go "agressive" on RHP playoff pithcing, they lose.

 

There's nothing that can be done with personel thanks to Hendry's hilarious NTC's. I'd look at moving Dempster by the trade deadline to free up room for more firepower. I doubt anyone would consider his contract, however.

[Arnold Layne]

The problem with using reason to refute his line of thinking is that American sports tend to exaggerate the importance of the postseason and vilify those otherwise great players that tend not to succeed in the small sample size of games used. This leads to players like Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, ARod, Bonds, Barkley...I could go on, but you get the point-not getting all the credit for great careers due to random perfomance flukes or the failure of teammates, or random chance.

 

 

So the Jordan era Bulls were flukes? The 90's Cowboys? The 96-2003 Yankees were flukes? The 80's 49'ers?

 

I guess "American" sports are just inferior that way. Good thing we have soccer here to enjoy. What were we thinking with our zany baseball and NFL? Crazy Americans and their wild eyed games! The things they do!

 

 

Performance over the regular season, like it or not, is far more indicative of quality that anything else.

 

Not when your competition is the Pirates, Astros and Reds. The Cubs played weak teams and got mauled when they faced real competition.

 

 

I posted it in another thread, but it bears repeating: form is temporary, class is permanent. I'll take the class of Aramis, Soriano, Soto, Z , Marmol and whoever else over the fleeting form of the 2007 D'Backs and 2008 Dodgers.

 

Sounds like you are more interested in players than in teams.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't have the answers(and apparently neither does Jim Hendry), but these are some things I would try:

 

First I would make sure our advance scouts are up to par. That didn't seem to be the case the last two post season appearances.

 

About the only thing you've said that I agree with. The Cubs' scouting, on all levels, needs to be improved.

 

Secondly, I would make sure Lou Piniella doesn't pull another "Jokers Wild" Game 1 starter announcement. Pitch Z in game 1, end of story. Show some consistency and resolve, a calm shore in the storm.

 

I don't understand how you think this fixes anything. Zambrano pitched the first playoff game in 2007. He declared Dempster to pitch the first game and it was so. Where is the inconsistency? He picked his starters and went with them.

 

Walk Manny Ramirez.

 

The Cubs don't play Manny Ramirez every playoff series. It's also not like the Dodgers didn't have other good ideas. It's generally a bad idea to reguarly walk players at will if you're trying to win a game. Teams in the playoffs are there either because they're a really good team or they're a decent team that got hot. You don't want to give them more baserunners.

 

The Cubs seem to fold after a game one loss. I have no idea how to remedy that.

 

Win the first game. Or the second. Or the third.

 

I would consider moving Soriano out of the leadoff spot for the playoffs. He simply doesn't do what a lead off man needs to do in that situation. You have to create something, and he's swinging at pitches in the dirt.

 

This is a horrible idea. Why are you going to suddenly pull him out of the spot where he's been most effective over the entire season? You expect him to suddenly take over a new role in the playoffs, and another player to suddenly end up hitting #1 when they haven't been doing so all year?

 

Reinforce the plate discipline which makes the Cubs significantly stronger. Ram it through their heads in pre-playoff meetings. When the Cubs go "agressive" on RHP playoff pithcing, they lose.

 

So pep talks? You honestly think they just told the players they could relax on the plate discipline? Or that the players forgot? Yelling at a player doesn't accomplish squat. They're either going to perform or not.

 

There's nothing that can be done with personel thanks to Hendry's hilarious NTC's. I'd look at moving Dempster by the trade deadline to free up room for more firepower. I doubt anyone would consider his contract, however.

 

Why trade Dempster?

[Sammy Sofa]

The problem with using reason to refute his line of thinking is that American sports tend to exaggerate the importance of the postseason and vilify those otherwise great players that tend not to succeed in the small sample size of games used. This leads to players like Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, ARod, Bonds, Barkley...I could go on, but you get the point-not getting all the credit for great careers due to random perfomance flukes or the failure of teammates, or random chance.

 

 

So the Jordan era Bulls were flukes? The 90's Cowboys? The 96-2003 Yankees were flukes? The 80's 49'ers?

 

Nonsensical strawman. He was talking about how great players are pointlessly branded as failures or flawed due to the extremely limited sample size of postseason performances. You can't construct a team around the idea of "playoff grit."

 

 

Performance over the regular season, like it or not, is far more indicative of quality that anything else.

 

Not when your competition is the Pirates, Astros and Reds. The Cubs played weak teams and got mauled when they faced real competition.

 

You might want to take a look at how the Cubs did against teams above .500 last year. How did they end up with the record they had if they were "mauled" every time they played good teams?

 

I posted it in another thread, but it bears repeating: form is temporary, class is permanent. I'll take the class of Aramis, Soriano, Soto, Z , Marmol and whoever else over the fleeting form of the 2007 D'Backs and 2008 Dodgers.

 

Sounds like you are more interested in players than in teams.

 

Another ridiculous strawman.

 

I'm starting to think you're some kind of clever message board character.

[USSoccer]

The problem with using reason to refute his line of thinking is that American sports tend to exaggerate the importance of the postseason and vilify those otherwise great players that tend not to succeed in the small sample size of games used. This leads to players like Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, ARod, Bonds, Barkley...I could go on, but you get the point-not getting all the credit for great careers due to random perfomance flukes or the failure of teammates, or random chance.

 

 

So the Jordan era Bulls were flukes? The 90's Cowboys? The 96-2003 Yankees were flukes? The 80's 49'ers?

 

I guess "American" sports are just inferior that way. Good thing we have soccer here to enjoy. What were we thinking with our zany baseball and NFL? Crazy Americans and their wild eyed games! The things they do!

 

 

This is a terrible response. Use some critical thinking.

 

No one is saying that those teams were flukes, and all of those teams have one thing in common. With probably few exceptions, those teams romped over the regular season. Your argument is a worthless strawman.

 

Like I said before, go ahead and construct your gritty team and put into place your vague motivational ploys and quasi-random changes, and make decisions based on form rather than class, and I'll stick with a team that won 97 games.

[Fred Hornkohl]

Just for the record, the 2008 CUBS were.......

 

CUBS are 8-7 vs. Cincinnati 
CUBS are 8-9 vs. Houston 
CUBS are 9-7 vs. Milwaukee 
CUBS are 14-4 vs. Pittsburgh 
CUBS are 9-6 vs. St. Louis 
CUBS are 6-0 vs. Atlanta 
CUBS are 4-3 vs. Florida 
CUBS are 3-3 vs. Washington 
CUBS are 4-2 vs. New York 
CUBS are 3-4 vs. Philadelphia 
CUBS are 4-2 vs. Arizona 
CUBS are 5-1 vs. Colorado 
CUBS are 5-2 vs. Los Angeles 
CUBS are 5-2 vs. San Diego 
CUBS are 4-3 vs. San Francisco 
CUBS are 3-3 vs. Chicago (AL) 
CUBS are 1-2 vs. Baltimore 
CUBS are 0-3 vs. Tampa Bay 
CUBS are 2-1 vs. Toronto 

CUBS are 48-34 vs. the NLC Division
CUBS are 20-11 vs. the NLE Division
CUBS are 23-12 vs. the NLW Division
CUBS are 6-9 vs. the AL

[Arnold Layne]

This is a terrible response. Use some critical thinking.

 

It was the only response to your negative generalization of American sports. If such a damaging flaw exists, why engage in conversation on a baseball forum? Surely the more intelligent soccer forums would suit you and the superior European sports.

 

 

No one is saying that those teams were flukes, and all of those teams have one thing in common. With probably few exceptions, those teams romped over the regular season. Your argument is a worthless strawman.

 

"Strawman" accusations are a convenient out for someone who has no real response. Yes, those teams romped over the regular season, but they romped in the playoffs too. Why can't the Cubs?

 

What will be your response if the Cubs get swept again in the NLDS? Bad luck?

 

Like I said before, go ahead and construct your gritty team and put into place your vague motivational ploys and quasi-random changes, and make decisions based on form rather than class, and I'll stick with a team that won 97 games.

 

The team that won 97 games was completely humliated in every facet of the game.

 

As for the gritty players comment, I never said I wanted a team of grit, but rather a team that executes simple baseball fundamentals when the big lights shine. The Cubs don't do that.

[Arnold Layne]

The Cubs don't play Manny Ramirez every playoff series. It's also not like the Dodgers didn't have other good ideas. It's generally a bad idea to reguarly walk players at will if you're trying to win a game. Teams in the playoffs are there either because they're a really good team or they're a decent team that got hot. You don't want to give them more baserunners.

 

The path to the world series in 2009 will include the Dodgers, and Manny will likely be in the lineup. Walk him or be destroyed.

 

 

Win the first game. Or the second. Or the third.

 

They can't win the first game. How do you stop the give-up afdter that?

 

 

This is a horrible idea. Why are you going to suddenly pull him out of the spot where he's been most effective over the entire season?

 

Because he isn't effective in the post season when you need your lead off man to get on? Do you want a guy with a .125 OBP getting the most AB's in the post season?

 

You expect him to suddenly take over a new role in the playoffs, and another player to suddenly end up hitting #1 when they haven't been doing so all year?

 

Yeah, I do. The Cubs don't compete in the post season with Soriano at #1.

 

 

So pep talks?

 

No. Focus, video and coaching.

 

Why trade Dempster?

 

 

Because he's nowhere worth his contract. I'd use the money saved for bullpen help at the DL.

[Little Slide Rooter]

The new guys usually back down after being attacked from multiple directions. Got to respect the resilience.

[SouthSideRyan]

The new guys usually back down after being attacked from multiple directions. Got to respect the resilience.

 

Hitler was resilient.