Hendry defends Derosa trade

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Still not loving the 5.00 projection for the fill-ins, and I think PECOTA is way too bearish on Zambrano and Marquis.

 

But even then, a 4.45 above the league average for starters two of the last three seasons. You can't compare starters' ERA to league ERA, as relievers tend to have better ERAs.

[davearm2]

Still not loving the 5.00 projection for the fill-ins, and I think PECOTA is way too bearish on Zambrano and Marquis.

 

But even then, a 4.45 above the league average for starters two of the last three seasons. You can't compare starters' ERA to league ERA, as relievers tend to have better ERAs.

Better to use median than mean, so as not to skew the results with outliers.

 

As I've illustrated with the rank data, a 4.45 would've been in the upper half of the league in one of the last 5 years.

[Backtobanks]

I'll repeat what I posted earlier: It's amazing how smart hindsight makes everyone. All of a sudden everyone knew who would slump this year, what trades (and signings) would be terrible, what players we should have signed, how much we should have payed FAs, etc. None of us have to deal with other GMs involving trades, try to acquire the players that our manager wants on the team, and deal with the agents of FAs all while trying to stay within some kind of bugetary constraints. Looking at deals made and players stats 2 months into the season isn't the fairest way to judge a GM.

 

Unfortunately, Hendry wasn't hired this off season, so we have a lot more than just 2 months of regular season games on which to judge him.

 

You're correct. Check out his regular season record as a GM for the past two seasons and you might judge him to be among the best.

[Backtobanks]

I'll repeat what I posted earlier: It's amazing how smart hindsight makes everyone. All of a sudden everyone knew who would slump this year, what trades (and signings) would be terrible, what players we should have signed, how much we should have payed FAs, etc. None of us have to deal with other GMs involving trades, try to acquire the players that our manager wants on the team, and deal with the agents of FAs all while trying to stay within some kind of bugetary constraints. Looking at deals made and players stats 2 months into the season isn't the fairest way to judge a GM.

Let's see.

 

- Everyone here knew signing Miles, especially as basically DeRosa's replacement, was a stupid idea.

 

- Everyone here knew that Bradley was injury-prone.

 

- Everyone here, for the most part, could see that Derrek Lee had been declining throughout most of 2008. (I'm glad he's on the uptick right now, but he's got a long way to go before having a productive full season.)

 

- Most here, while glad to be rid of Jason Marquis, thought it was iffy to bring in a nothing reliever for him.

 

- Everyone here was skeptical as to why we were shedding like 5M in bullpen pitchers for no apparent reason less than two weeks in when we weren't exactly loaded with great relievers.

 

- Most here were skeptical of Dempster's contract considering his career numbers.

 

This isn't hindsight. For the most part, these moves were bad even in foresight.

 

 

Spot on.

 

Miles was signed as a reserve IF and not as an everyday player (like DeRosa). Also, it was pointed out that the Cubs ended up paying him what the Cards were offering.

 

Everyone knew Bradley was injury prone, but he was the most productive OF available.

 

DLee was signed to a large NTC after a great year like dozens of other ML players, some of whom are mediocre at best.

 

Trading Marquis for Viscaino is a perfect example of hindsight, since nobody knew if there were any other offers for Marquis. Everyone wanted Marquis gone and the deal saved app. 5 million.

 

The bullpen has been a problem, so I'll give you that one.

 

Dempster was signed at the going rate for pitchers coming off of a very good season. Not signing him would have left a hole in the rotation that would have meant signing some other pitcher.

 

Given all the the information that Hendry had at the time and the parameters he had to use, I'm sure he thought he was doing the right thing. Of course, in our fantasy-league minds with no information at the time, all of us could have done better.

[davearm2]

Still not loving the 5.00 projection for the fill-ins

Then you'll probably be surprised to learn that the Cubs' fill-in starters over the last two seasons (since Marquis and Lilly arrived) have combined for an even 6.00 ERA (Gallagher, Guzman, Trachsel, Miller, and Lieber).

[kroth1342]

I'll repeat what I posted earlier: It's amazing how smart hindsight makes everyone. All of a sudden everyone knew who would slump this year, what trades (and signings) would be terrible, what players we should have signed, how much we should have payed FAs, etc. None of us have to deal with other GMs involving trades, try to acquire the players that our manager wants on the team, and deal with the agents of FAs all while trying to stay within some kind of bugetary constraints. Looking at deals made and players stats 2 months into the season isn't the fairest way to judge a GM.

Let's see.

 

- Everyone here knew signing Miles, especially as basically DeRosa's replacement, was a stupid idea.

 

- Everyone here knew that Bradley was injury-prone.

 

- Everyone here, for the most part, could see that Derrek Lee had been declining throughout most of 2008. (I'm glad he's on the uptick right now, but he's got a long way to go before having a productive full season.)

 

- Most here, while glad to be rid of Jason Marquis, thought it was iffy to bring in a nothing reliever for him.

 

- Everyone here was skeptical as to why we were shedding like 5M in bullpen pitchers for no apparent reason less than two weeks in when we weren't exactly loaded with great relievers.

 

- Most here were skeptical of Dempster's contract considering his career numbers.

 

This isn't hindsight. For the most part, these moves were bad even in foresight.

 

 

Spot on.

 

Miles was signed as a reserve IF and not as an everyday player (like DeRosa). Also, it was pointed out that the Cubs ended up paying him what the Cards were offering.

Everyone knew Bradley was injury prone, but he was the most productive OF available.

 

DLee was signed to a large NTC after a great year like dozens of other ML players, some of whom are mediocre at best.

 

Trading Marquis for Viscaino is a perfect example of hindsight, since nobody knew if there were any other offers for Marquis. Everyone wanted Marquis gone and the deal saved app. 5 million.

 

The bullpen has been a problem, so I'll give you that one.

 

Dempster was signed at the going rate for pitchers coming off of a very good season. Not signing him would have left a hole in the rotation that would have meant signing some other pitcher.

 

Given all the the information that Hendry had at the time and the parameters he had to use, I'm sure he thought he was doing the right thing. Of course, in our fantasy-league minds with no information at the time, all of us could have done better.

 

Agreed, on a PA basis. But you can't tell me offering him $10 mm a year to play in an estimated 100-120 games was a good idea. As has been his trademark, Hendry identified the player he wanted most and went hard after him - but in this case, a little more caution could have warranted a better return. Perhaps a reduced avg annual salary that allowed us to keep DeRosa?

[Tracer Bullet]

I'll repeat what I posted earlier: It's amazing how smart hindsight makes everyone. All of a sudden everyone knew who would slump this year, what trades (and signings) would be terrible, what players we should have signed, how much we should have payed FAs, etc. None of us have to deal with other GMs involving trades, try to acquire the players that our manager wants on the team, and deal with the agents of FAs all while trying to stay within some kind of bugetary constraints. Looking at deals made and players stats 2 months into the season isn't the fairest way to judge a GM.

 

Unfortunately, Hendry wasn't hired this off season, so we have a lot more than just 2 months of regular season games on which to judge him.

 

You're correct. Check out his regular season record as a GM for the past two seasons and you might judge him to be among the best.

 

I'll give you last year, but the '07 team wasn't one of the best. We won a pretty crappy NLC, but had what the 6th best NL record (and we had the benefit of playing a bunch of mediocre teams more than the teams in other divisions). Go back one more year and we were the worst team in the league. But the GM isn't judged year-to-year. And his overall tenure has been pretty spotty.

 

The point remains - we've had much more than 2 months to judge Hendry. But with the way he's structured the contracts and left the farm without any talent, we're entering a pretty tough stretch for him.

[UK1679666180]

Fwiw, that farm has improved dramatically recently under Wilken and recent moves around the Pacific Rim. The Cubs have likely aged past their peak w/out winning it all and Hendry had a poor off-season where the team with increasing age and players lost did not improve and likely regressed over last year. The Cubs had a mediocre bullpen at best last year and instead of improving on it, they replaced an expensive but productive part with several mediocre parts. Hendry likely rec'd maximium value for Derosa for the 3 pitchers but did not follow up with someone to replace Derosa. (Based on expected production) Miles would likely be considered a replacement for someone like Cedeno, not Derosa. Someone like Wigginton would likely have been similar replacement value for Derosa. It's extremely frustrating knowing that they went into the season with a poor bench with such a fragile roster.

[CubColtPacer]

Fwiw, that farm has improved dramatically recently under Wilken and recent moves around the Pacific Rim. The Cubs have likely aged past their peak w/out winning it all and Hendry had a poor off-season where the team with increasing age and players lost did not improve and likely regressed over last year. The Cubs had a mediocre bullpen at best last year and instead of improving on it, they replaced an expensive but productive part with several mediocre parts. Hendry likely rec'd maximium value for Derosa for the 3 pitchers but did not follow up with someone to replace Derosa. (Based on expected production) Miles would likely be considered a replacement for someone like Cedeno, not Derosa. Someone like Wigginton would likely have been similar replacement value for Derosa. It's extremely frustrating knowing that they went into the season with a poor bench with such a fragile roster.

 

Exactly. They needed a strong bench precisely because of the state of their roster, but instead they decided to go with players who would be somewhat valuable in the playoffs when you have giant benches but are terrible players to compose a 5 man bench.

 

I definitely agree with the farm comment. They may not start hitting the majors until 2011, but the Cubs have lots of interesting guys that are coming. The state of the farm system is much improved over 1 year ago. There aren't really many at all can't miss guys down there (as much as that exists with prospects) but there's a large quantity of good prospects that make it pretty likely that a few of them will pan out. 2010 will likely be about the same roster as 2009 (the Cubs have decisions to make on Harden and Gregg, but everyone else returns) and then hopefully when 2011 hits a minor leaguer or two can be mixed in to provide some cheap production and the Cubs can fill their other holes with the large amount of money that is likely coming available that season.

[Guest]

Hendry likely rec'd maximium value for Derosa for the 3 pitchers but did not follow up with someone to replace Derosa. (Based on expected production) Miles would likely be considered a replacement for someone like Cedeno, not Derosa. Someone like Wigginton would likely have been similar replacement value for Derosa. It's extremely frustrating knowing that they went into the season with a poor bench with such a fragile roster.

 

Exactly. This is my biggest gripe against Hendry from this past offseason. It's difficult to put a price on the value DeRosa brought to this team when he was filling in for Soriano in left last year. When he was splitting some time with Fukudome when he was struggling. When he was filling in for Ramirez when he was banged up. And when he wasn't doing that, he was giving us decent production at 2nd based. And what does Hendry do? He goes out and signs the most injury prone RF in the history of mankind, and then trades the one guy who might have made the Bradley signing make some sort of sense.

 

For a team in win now mode, the DeRosa trade made zero sense. Teams in win now mode need guys like Mark DeRosa to fill in where necessary without losing too much production in the line up.

 

To date, DeRosa would have been a real busy guy so far. While Soriano hasn't really missed much time, Bradley, Lee and Ramirez sure have.

 

Nice job, Jim.

[Gingerballs Lives]

Hendry likely rec'd maximium value for Derosa for the 3 pitchers but did not follow up with someone to replace Derosa. (Based on expected production) Miles would likely be considered a replacement for someone like Cedeno, not Derosa. Someone like Wigginton would likely have been similar replacement value for Derosa. It's extremely frustrating knowing that they went into the season with a poor bench with such a fragile roster.

 

Exactly. This is my biggest gripe against Hendry from this past offseason. It's difficult to put a price on the value DeRosa brought to this team when he was filling in for Soriano in left last year. When he was splitting some time with Fukudome when he was struggling. When he was filling in for Ramirez when he was banged up. And when he wasn't doing that, he was giving us decent production at 2nd based. And what does Hendry do? He goes out and signs the most injury prone RF in the history of mankind, and then trades the one guy who might have made the Bradley signing make some sort of sense.

 

For a team in win now mode, the DeRosa trade made zero sense. Teams in win now mode need guys like Mark DeRosa to fill in where necessary without losing too much production in the line up.

 

To date, DeRosa would have been a real busy guy so far. While Soriano hasn't really missed much time, Bradley, Lee and Ramirez sure have.

 

Nice job, Jim.

 

 

Exactly. In addition to being a good second baseman, he provided instant insurance for your four best and most expensive players. And it's worth noting that 3 of those players vary from somewhat injury-prone to incredibly injury-prone. Also, any GM who thought Aaron Miles, Joey Gathright and Paul Bako were worthwhile bench pieces to a championship caliber club needs to have his head examined.

 

Just an awful descision to get rid of Derosa, and I flat out hate the Dempster and Miles contracts. And for much of this board, this isn't hindsight being 20/20.

 

Throw in the two things that are out of Hendry's control, Bradley not producing and Aramis getting hurt, and you've got a pretty mediocre ballclub. Hopefully we can win in spite of Hendry's offseason changes.

[Arnold Layne]

Jim Hendry. Yeah.

 

DeRosa goes yard again and is 20 RBI ahead of the highest Cub.

[Gingerballs Lives]

Jim Hendry. Yeah.

 

DeRosa goes yard again and is 20 RBI ahead of the highest Cub.

 

 

I bet DeRosa, blind-folded, hitting with only his left hand, could out-hit what Bradley and Miles have done so far.

 

 

:facedesk

[champaignchris]

Through 6/16:

 

Derosa

vs. L: 54 AB 352/417/704

vs. R: 197 AB 259/330/416

 

Fontenot

vs. L: 30 AB 133/176/233

vs. R: 152 AB 257/352/428

 

Bradley

vs. L: 38 AB 289/372/447

vs. R: 103 AB 204/322/359

 

Miles

v. L: 93 AB 183/224/215

v. R: 22 AB 273/304/409

 

So, thus far this year, DeRosa is performing decently against right handers and absolutely murdering lefties. Fontenot is performing about the same against righties, but can't hit lefties to save his life. Bradley is performing decent against lefties, but not as well as DeRosa, while looking completely lost against righties. Miles isn't horrible against righties, but is just as useless against lefties as Fontenot is, begging the question as to why he continues to get any at bats at all.

 

The really weird thing in all this is that if the Cubs don't sign Miles and stand pat with DeRosa, it only costs them about $2.5 million, which might seem huge to you or me, or even to a small payroll team like the Pirates or Marlins, but to the Cubs and their ~$120 million roster is pocket change.

[erik316wttn]

It's actually kind of comical when Hendry tries to save his own worthless butt. It's like he actually believes he didn't do anything wrong. It's amazing.

[MSG T]

I'll repeat what I posted earlier: It's amazing how smart hindsight makes everyone. All of a sudden everyone knew who would slump this year, what trades (and signings) would be terrible, what players we should have signed, how much we should have payed FAs, etc. None of us have to deal with other GMs involving trades, try to acquire the players that our manager wants on the team, and deal with the agents of FAs all while trying to stay within some kind of bugetary constraints. Looking at deals made and players stats 2 months into the season isn't the fairest way to judge a GM.

Let's see.

 

- Everyone here knew signing Miles, especially as basically DeRosa's replacement, was a stupid idea.

 

- Everyone here knew that Bradley was injury-prone.

 

- Everyone here, for the most part, could see that Derrek Lee had been declining throughout most of 2008. (I'm glad he's on the uptick right now, but he's got a long way to go before having a productive full season.)

 

- Most here, while glad to be rid of Jason Marquis, thought it was iffy to bring in a nothing reliever for him.

 

- Everyone here was skeptical as to why we were shedding like 5M in bullpen pitchers for no apparent reason less than two weeks in when we weren't exactly loaded with great relievers.

 

- Most here were skeptical of Dempster's contract considering his career numbers.

 

This isn't hindsight. For the most part, these moves were bad even in foresight.

 

 

Spot on.

 

Miles was signed as a reserve IF and not as an everyday player (like DeRosa). Also, it was pointed out that the Cubs ended up paying him what the Cards were offering.

 

Everyone knew Bradley was injury prone, but he was the most productive OF available.

 

DLee was signed to a large NTC after a great year like dozens of other ML players, some of whom are mediocre at best.

 

Trading Marquis for Viscaino is a perfect example of hindsight, since nobody knew if there were any other offers for Marquis. Everyone wanted Marquis gone and the deal saved app. 5 million.

 

The bullpen has been a problem, so I'll give you that one.

 

Dempster was signed at the going rate for pitchers coming off of a very good season. Not signing him would have left a hole in the rotation that would have meant signing some other pitcher.

 

Given all the the information that Hendry had at the time and the parameters he had to use, I'm sure he thought he was doing the right thing. Of course, in our fantasy-league minds with no information at the time, all of us could have done better.

 

 

Not that they even considered him, but Adam Dunn was available over the winter, right?

[Arnold Layne]

If Lou gets his own "idiot thread", I think it's more than fitting that Hendry does as well.

 

This guy has no clue what he is doing when it comes to anything other than starting pitching. Unfortunately you need a GM who can do more than that.

[dew1679666265]

Not that they even considered him, but Adam Dunn was available over the winter, right?

 

Dunn was available and I think the Cubs considered him to a point. But Hendry seemed focused on Bradley.

 

Also, while I was in favor of Dunn, there was definitely a good argument to be made in the offseason that Bradley would be more productive.

[Arnold Layne]

How can you be more productive with 250 or so less AB a year?

[dew1679666265]

How can you be more productive with 250 or so less AB a year?

 

He's actually averaged around 340 plate appearances a year in his career. His injuries and time missed is the biggest argument against him being more productive than Dunn, but Dunn's defense hurts him very badly.

[Vanilla Ice]

How can you be more productive with 250 or so less AB a year?

 

He's actually averaged around 340 plate appearances a year in his career. His injuries and time missed is the biggest argument against him being more productive than Dunn, but Dunn's defense hurts him very badly.

And dew is definitely not a fan of Bradley

[Arnold Layne]

Does Dunn throw the ball into the bleachers with only two outs? I'll take a consistent 40 HR and 100 RBI on bad teams over an injury prone "lefty bat" who is actually better form the right side.

[dew1679666265]

Does Dunn throw the ball into the bleachers with only two outs? I'll take a consistent 40 HR and 100 RBI on bad teams over an injury prone "lefty bat" who is actually better form the right side.

 

I haven't seen that specifically, but there's plenty of dropping easy fly balls, muffing slow roller grounders, throwing the ball directly into the ground and (not 100% sure of this) but I think I remember a ball bouncing off his head and over the fence for a home run (ala Devil Ray Canseco).

 

He also has a career -44.6 UZR/150 in right field. That's worse than Ryan Braun at third base.

[dew1679666265]

How can you be more productive with 250 or so less AB a year?

 

He's actually averaged around 340 plate appearances a year in his career. His injuries and time missed is the biggest argument against him being more productive than Dunn, but Dunn's defense hurts him very badly.

And dew is definitely not a fan of Bradley

 

I don't hate him, but would definitely have preferred Dunn.

[jersey cubs fan]

How can you be more productive with 250 or so less AB a year?

 

He's actually averaged around 340 plate appearances a year in his career. His injuries and time missed is the biggest argument against him being more productive than Dunn, but Dunn's defense hurts him very badly.

 

Injuries, time off and the fact that he was most productive as a DH, not a regular RF. Because he's clearly not a good fielder anyway and there's no way it provides any significant advantage over Dunn in the debate.