DeRosa a Cardinal (p. 5) + DL'd (p. 13)

[illiniguy]

Good god. can we please get a mulligan from October 1, 2008? Please?

[Schwarber Fan]

Well that tears it. Saturday, June 27th, 2009: The worst day in MLB history.

[Little Slide Rooter]

redverbs : objectivity :: jim hendry : general managing

 

by the way hendry might be the worst manager of all time. i'm not talking just baseball, i'm talking about everything. it's possible that nobody has ever managed anything as poorly as jim hendry has generally managed the cubs.

 

I dont know, Lou Piniella does a pretty lousy job at managing a bullpen.

[Old Style]

This is from the Trib's article on the trade. The irony just slapped me in the face.

 

DeRosa can play all over the infield, which makes him a perfect fit for the Cardinals. St. Louis has been trying to fill at hole at third base this season because Troy Glaus has been out with an injured shoulder. Cardinals manager Tony La Russa has also been juggling middle infielders for much of the season.

[fasttrack21]

The Cubs had the best offense in baseball last year and won the division. We had Mark DeRosa. The Cardinals had Aaron Miles. The Cubs now have Aaron Miles, and one of the worst offenses in baseball. The Cardinals have Mark DeRosa.

 

Thank you, Aaron Miles, for destroying this team. I'm obviously partially kidding. But man does it suck to basically swap Miles for DeRosa with the Cards.

[erik316wttn]

The worst GM in MLB in case you ever wondered.

Who else takes a 90+ win team and dismantles it because he needed more lefties? None other than the worst gm in MLB.

 

I've been saying this for years. It's about time everyone else starts seeing the light.

[nolanwood]

I'm no longer a Cub fan until Jim Hendry and Lou Piniella are gone.

 

Yeah, Piniella is the problem... :think:

[Guest]

redverbs : objectivity :: jim hendry : general managing

 

by the way hendry might be the worst manager of all time. i'm not talking just baseball, i'm talking about everything. it's possible that nobody has ever managed anything as poorly as jim hendry has generally managed the cubs.

 

Matt Millen say :wave:

[Guest]

how does another team getting a former Cubs player make Jim Hendry terrible? Because he traded him to begin with or because he didn't reacquire him?

 

Trading him because the team needed to be more left handed. That's just working so well. Just like needing guys who can catch the ball worked so well.

 

I don't really care that he didn't trade back for DeRosa. The damage was done when he traded him in the first place.

[Guest]

Anybody who really buys into the whole "too right handed" theory, should probably wander through the box scores of the 2003 Marlins team that defeated the Cubs in the National League Championship series while facing nothing but a bunch of RH Cubs starting pitchers.

 

Outside of Juan Pierre batting first and SH Luis Castillo batting 2nd, the rest of their team were all RH.

[mhuber92211]

this is a perfect example of pure overreaction here. Basically those that hated the DeRosa trade at the beginning are just using this to piss all over Hendry again. it ridiculous to assume that DeRosa - a utilityman - will made a difference to put anyone over the top. Perhaps waiting to see if DeRosa actaully does something before the cries for Lou & Hendry's head would be more prudent.

 

Realize 1 thing people, Hendry is all a better GM than all of you. the Bellyaching and general ego that someone here knows more than the GM of a baseball team is ridiculous.

[questionmarkgrace]

For the record the bullpen is our biggest problem: second to last in appearances and the second highest batting average against. We've been extremely lucky that our starting pitching has been lights out.

 

Maybe the indians gm didnt want to deal with the cubs again? Hes already looks bad for giving up three prospects to us which have been playing real well. Chances are we would be giving him back someone like Ascanio. Perez is probably better/has more potential and softens the blow of giving us those three prospects earlier and then giving Derosa back 6 months later for a lesser player than any of the three we acquired.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

After a really rough weekend, this thread makes me laugh.

[Guest]

this is a perfect example of pure overreaction here. Basically those that hated the DeRosa trade at the beginning are just using this to piss all over Hendry again. it ridiculous to assume that DeRosa - a utilityman - will made a difference to put anyone over the top. Perhaps waiting to see if DeRosa actaully does something before the cries for Lou & Hendry's head would be more prudent.

 

Realize 1 thing people, Hendry is all a better GM than all of you. the Bellyaching and general ego that someone here knows more than the GM of a baseball team is ridiculous.

 

Dude, it wasn't just the DeRosa trade. The body of work sucks. The results suck. Just how long is everyone expected to be a Hendry apologist?

 

You can continue to bow before him as if he's the greatest GM to ever walk the face of the earth, but I've found better things to do with this summer than watch this god awful team.

 

And when you are the last person holding the candlelight vigil for the awesomeness that is Jim Hendry, we will continue holding a place for you on the other side.

 

The last holdout for Matt Millen in Detroit was the team owner. Let us all hope that this will not be the case on the north side.

 

If Hendry makes it through this next offseason, I beg that his preemptive strike on all that failed on the previous season will be:

 

That's it, I'm only signing or trading for players who play baseball GOOD!

[Sammy Sofa]

Because he traded him to begin with or because he didn't reacquire him?

 

Equal amounts of both, I think.

More the first.

 

There is LITERALLY no reason whatsoever DeRosa should've been traded. None. Maybe if you were going to get a good return on him, it's an argument, but three minor league pitchers, unless at least two are pretty highly rated, is not a good return.

 

Actually, there was LITERALLY many good reasons to trade a player as old as DeRosa with only one year on his contract. The return on DeRosa was decent and has the potential to be very good (in terms of the players being trading chips or as pitchers). The problem falls to how Hendry attempted to replace him on the team. With the latter Hendry completely dropped the ball. If he had, say, traded DeRosa and then signed Dunn instead of Bradley and Ray Durham to platoon 2B with Fontenot, this likely wouldn't be the mess it is now.

[Rusch33]

Because he traded him to begin with or because he didn't reacquire him?

 

Equal amounts of both, I think.

More the first.

 

There is LITERALLY no reason whatsoever DeRosa should've been traded. None. Maybe if you were going to get a good return on him, it's an argument, but three minor league pitchers, unless at least two are pretty highly rated, is not a good return.

 

Actually, there was LITERALLY many good reasons to trade a player as old as DeRosa with only one year on his contract. The return on DeRosa was decent and has the potential to be very good (in terms of the players being trading chips or as pitchers). The problem falls to how Hendry attempted to replace him on the team. With the latter Hendry completely dropped the ball. If he had, say, traded DeRosa and then signed Dunn instead of Bradley and Ray Durham to platoon 2B with Fontenot, this likely wouldn't be the mess it is now.

 

 

Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

Bradley raked last year along with Fontenot.

[mhuber92211]

For all the complaints that Hendry never sold high on anyone, he certainly did with DeRosa. Looking at Fontenot last season, it was a possibility that he would be a fine replacement at 2B and much cheaper. Looking at the DeRosa trade objectively it was a highly logical move.

 

For the record, I am not a Hendry apologist. I respect what he has done during he tenure and recognize some of the errors of his regime but I choose not to ignore the gains and the positives of his regime. There are many good things to happen during Hendry's time and I still believe that the good outweighs the bad.

[Guest]

Actually, there was LITERALLY many good reasons to trade a player as old as DeRosa with only one year on his contract. The return on DeRosa was decent and has the potential to be very good (in terms of the players being trading chips or as pitchers). The problem falls to how Hendry attempted to replace him on the team. With the latter Hendry completely dropped the ball. If he had, say, traded DeRosa and then signed Dunn instead of Bradley and Ray Durham to platoon 2B with Fontenot, this likely wouldn't be the mess it is now.

 

There's some truth to this, but I'm not personally impressed with the return for DeRosa. A team in win now mode should not be trading major league talent for guys who can not help you RIGHT NOW.

 

Secondly, DeRosa could play just about any position on the field, and was extremely valuable filling in for guys who were injured or struggling. What does Hendry do? Signs the most injury prone player in the history of the game, and then tosses the guy most likely to fill in for him with decent production to the curb.

 

That right there is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Having DeRosa on the team made it a safe pick to sign Bradley. Signing Bradley and getting rid of DeRosa was just plain stupid. Unless you found someone as good or better than DeRosa to take DeRosa's place, of course.

 

You can argue with me all you want on that one, but you'll still be wrong.

[Guest]

For all the complaints that Hendry never sold high on anyone, he certainly did with DeRosa. Looking at Fontenot last season, it was a possibility that he would be a fine replacement at 2B and much cheaper. Looking at the DeRosa trade objectively it was a highly logical move.

 

For the record, I am not a Hendry apologist. I respect what he has done during he tenure and recognize some of the errors of his regime but I choose not to ignore the gains and the positives of his regime. There are many good things to happen during Hendry's time and I still believe that the good outweighs the bad.

 

Well, when the Cubs AA affliate finishes in first place and captures the league crown, I'm sure every Cub fan will rejoice and change their tune about the awesomeness of Jim Hendry.

 

Logical? It is not logical to trade your best utility guy when you just signed the most injury plagued player in the history of the game, unless you have someone better in mind.

 

Aaron Miles can never be confused as such.

[Illini Iceman]

So everyone ripped Hendry in the offseason when he traded DeRosa and one of the complaints was he did not get back nearly enough.

 

Now the Indians trade DeRosa to the Cardinals what appears to be even less than what Hendry got.

 

I think at this point it is fair to say that the perceived value of DeRosa among posters here is much higher than what the market values him at.

 

I liked DeRosa as a player and would rather have him on the team than Miles. However, I really don't think he is a huge difference maker one way or the other. I get the feeling if you played one full season with DeRosa on the Cards and Miles on the Cubs and then switched it around with all else being equal the final results of both teams would be pretty close to the same. The other factors (bullpen, Harden, Bradley, etc for the Cubs and Carpenter health, etc for the Cards) are going to be what winds up making or breaking each team.

 

My feeling still is that Hendry was told he had to clear the DeRosa salary to sign Bradley. While admittedly it has not worked out well to this point, in the offseason switching out Bradley for DeRosa seemed to be an upgrade. As for signing Miles, that one is a mystery to me and I think even Hendry at this point would admit that was a big mistake. Blanco and Scales have shown they can do just as much or more so the Miles salary is a waste and Hendry probably wishes he had a mulligan on that one.

[JonJayCutler]

Well I was hoping to wake up and read that Jim had countered the DeRosa trade with a trade of his own. Stupid me.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Personally, I think when Hendry traded DeRosa, he all intentions of getting Peavy. I think the ownership debacle along with Trib declaring bankruptcy put the kibosh on all that. Yes, I know there have been a lot of public comments to the contrary, but I think Hendry was restricted in what future financial commitments could be taken on.

[Deder]

DeRosa has been 1 win above replacement on the year which makes him a roughly average player. I think selling high on him was probably the right move though I don't really like the package they got back so maybe it wasn't really selling high.

[Backtobanks]

Personally, I think when Hendry traded DeRosa, he all intentions of getting Peavy. I think the ownership debacle along with Trib declaring bankruptcy put the kibosh on all that. Yes, I know there have been a lot of public comments to the contrary, but I think Hendry was restricted in what future financial commitments could be taken on.

 

I've said that all along. The pitchers we received would have either been part of the package or replacements for the prospects we were going to send. As for all of this Hendry bashing, he has made his share of mistakes, but some of us remember when the Cubs were never in contention as opposed to being favorites every year. Many posters favored Dunn or Ibanez over Bradley at the time, but NOBODY doubted he could hit. Everyone knew he had health issues (mental and physical), but he has yet to produce offensively. Most posters wanted Fontenot to get regular playing time, but he has not produced as hoped. Everybody's frustrated and disappointed, but hopefully things will straighten out in the 2nd half.

[Guest]

So everyone ripped Hendry in the offseason when he traded DeRosa and one of the complaints was he did not get back nearly enough.

 

Now the Indians trade DeRosa to the Cardinals what appears to be even less than what Hendry got.

 

I think at this point it is fair to say that the perceived value of DeRosa among posters here is much higher than what the market values him at.

 

I liked DeRosa as a player and would rather have him on the team than Miles. However, I really don't think he is a huge difference maker one way or the other. I get the feeling if you played one full season with DeRosa on the Cards and Miles on the Cubs and then switched it around with all else being equal the final results of both teams would be pretty close to the same. The other factors (bullpen, Harden, Bradley, etc for the Cubs and Carpenter health, etc for the Cards) are going to be what winds up making or breaking each team.

 

My feeling still is that Hendry was told he had to clear the DeRosa salary to sign Bradley. While admittedly it has not worked out well to this point, in the offseason switching out Bradley for DeRosa seemed to be an upgrade. As for signing Miles, that one is a mystery to me and I think even Hendry at this point would admit that was a big mistake. Blanco and Scales have shown they can do just as much or more so the Miles salary is a waste and Hendry probably wishes he had a mulligan on that one.

 

I'd like to second this post. The myth of Mark DeRosa grows by the day. The Cubs obviously didn't value him that highly as he was a plug-in player and used him as a fungible asset to clear payroll. However, it sure would be nice to have DeRosa at 2nd v. the pathetic offensive crap they've had this year.