Bruce Miles on inefficient Cubs

[Transmogrified Tiger]

UK, did you mean Fleita when you typed Minaya, or were you talking about the Mets?

 

And I have a hard time grouping Watkins in with guys like Cliff Andersen when he's got a 1:1 K/BB ratio as a pro and is hitting .336/.401/.408 in Boise as an 18 year old.

[TruffleShuffle]

It could get much worse for the Cubs. Ricketts may have grossly overpayed for the Cubs. If that's the case we can forget about ever increasing payrolls.

 

i'm sure he did overpay, but the way to recoup your losses isn't by shrinking payroll, letting the team slide into mediocrity and watching fan support go down the toilet.

[TruffleShuffle]

UK, did you mean Fleita when you typed Minaya, or were you talking about the Mets?

 

And I have a hard time grouping Watkins in with guys like Cliff Andersen when he's got a 1:1 K/BB ratio as a pro and is hitting .336/.401/.408 in Boise as an 18 year old.

 

i'm certainly not judging watkins as a bust, just saying that he was given a bonus that shocked a lot of people. it may turn out to be a smart move, but most of them have been foolish.

[Guest]

It could get much worse for the Cubs. Ricketts may have grossly overpayed for the Cubs. If that's the case we can forget about ever increasing payrolls.

 

i'm sure he did overpay, but the way to recoup your losses isn't by shrinking payroll, letting the team slide into mediocrity and watching fan support go down the toilet.

 

He may have no choice. Hendry's left this team a mess financially with the backloaded, no-trade contracts of players past their prime. People were talking about the Baltimore earlier, but I'd liken them more to the Mets or Angels situation (Just before Moreno bought them).

 

If he overpayed the only way for Ricketts to go is down unless profit and loss don't factor into the equation.

[Guest]

That article gives voice to many of my feelings about Hendry, and the club's direction.

 

I'm sure nearly all of us have at least felt some worry about the overpaying of some of these guys. And I'm still very unhappy with the production of our minors, even though there have been a few players to come up. I want us producing actual super star position players that contribute for years & years at a high level. I'm still not seeing that, nor do I see it coming down the pike.

 

Just a question but how many teams product superstars for years on years? I give you Yankees, Boston, and Dodgers but off the top of my head thats got to be it?

 

No, that's not it. There are many more teams that consistently produce major league talent year after year. Tampa has a great track record at this point, and they aren't close to being done. Even with all the talent they have produced already, they are still miles ahead of the Cubs in talent still in the minors.

 

The Cubs biggest issue has been the constant change in philosophy and/or complete ignorance in what is needed to produce major league talent.

 

Hendry still needs to be fired yesterday. He needed to be fired yesterday a few years ago.

[Gmoney08]

That article gives voice to many of my feelings about Hendry, and the club's direction.

 

I'm sure nearly all of us have at least felt some worry about the overpaying of some of these guys. And I'm still very unhappy with the production of our minors, even though there have been a few players to come up. I want us producing actual super star position players that contribute for years & years at a high level. I'm still not seeing that, nor do I see it coming down the pike.

 

Just a question but how many teams product superstars for years on years? I give you Yankees, Boston, and Dodgers but off the top of my head thats got to be it?

 

No, that's not it. There are many more teams that consistently produce major league talent year after year. Tampa has a great track record at this point, and they aren't close to being done. Even with all the talent they have produced already, they are still miles ahead of the Cubs in talent still in the minors.

 

The Cubs biggest issue has been the constant change in philosophy and/or complete ignorance in what is needed to produce major league talent.

 

Hendry still needs to be fired yesterday. He needed to be fired yesterday a few years ago.

 

Tampa also had top pick after top pick after top pick in every draft. Its also took now 10 years for them to finally accumulate this talent into a playoff team.

[biggers car]

That article gives voice to many of my feelings about Hendry, and the club's direction.

 

I'm sure nearly all of us have at least felt some worry about the overpaying of some of these guys. And I'm still very unhappy with the production of our minors, even though there have been a few players to come up. I want us producing actual super star position players that contribute for years & years at a high level. I'm still not seeing that, nor do I see it coming down the pike.

 

Just a question but how many teams product superstars for years on years? I give you Yankees, Boston, and Dodgers but off the top of my head thats got to be it?

 

No, that's not it. There are many more teams that consistently produce major league talent year after year. Tampa has a great track record at this point, and they aren't close to being done. Even with all the talent they have produced already, they are still miles ahead of the Cubs in talent still in the minors.

 

The Cubs biggest issue has been the constant change in philosophy and/or complete ignorance in what is needed to produce major league talent.

 

Hendry still needs to be fired yesterday. He needed to be fired yesterday a few years ago.

 

Tampa also had top pick after top pick after top pick in every draft. Its also took now 10 years for them to finally accumulate this talent into a playoff team.

 

To add to this the cubs are closer to the title then Rays are. Having future stars means nothing now....

[biggers car]

This is the old argument. Start new or try to win every year. I like both but at times you can't have both. We all can go back and see the Cubs making bad trades or bad contract signings, but for the last ten years or so the Cubs have been trying to win the big one. Maybe trying to start new is something the Cubs can't afford to do? With the White Sox and other teams close to Chicago losing fan base is something the Cubs can't do.

[Guest]

UK, did you mean Fleita when you typed Minaya, or were you talking about the Mets?

 

And I have a hard time grouping Watkins in with guys like Cliff Andersen when he's got a 1:1 K/BB ratio as a pro and is hitting .336/.401/.408 in Boise as an 18 year old.

 

i'm certainly not judging watkins as a bust, just saying that he was given a bonus that shocked a lot of people. it may turn out to be a smart move, but most of them have been foolish.

 

To be fair, Rundle and Andersen were actually thought of as guys to give over slot bonuses to (Andersen didn't get much of an overslot either). Watkins, Cerda, Huseby and Ryan Acosta (also out of the system) were the shockers.

[UK1679666180]

UK, did you mean Fleita when you typed Minaya, or were you talking about the Mets?

 

And I have a hard time grouping Watkins in with guys like Cliff Andersen when he's got a 1:1 K/BB ratio as a pro and is hitting .336/.401/.408 in Boise as an 18 year old.

 

I was talking about Minaya as far as him and Hendry being in similar situations (high pressure market, huge payrolls, disappointing results) and both likely on thin ice if things cont. to go poorly.

[UK1679666180]

That article gives voice to many of my feelings about Hendry, and the club's direction.

 

I'm sure nearly all of us have at least felt some worry about the overpaying of some of these guys. And I'm still very unhappy with the production of our minors, even though there have been a few players to come up. I want us producing actual super star position players that contribute for years & years at a high level. I'm still not seeing that, nor do I see it coming down the pike.

 

Just a question but how many teams product superstars for years on years? I give you Yankees, Boston, and Dodgers but off the top of my head thats got to be it?

 

No, that's not it. There are many more teams that consistently produce major league talent year after year. Tampa has a great track record at this point, and they aren't close to being done. Even with all the talent they have produced already, they are still miles ahead of the Cubs in talent still in the minors.

 

The Cubs biggest issue has been the constant change in philosophy and/or complete ignorance in what is needed to produce major league talent.

 

Hendry still needs to be fired yesterday. He needed to be fired yesterday a few years ago.

 

Tampa also had top pick after top pick after top pick in every draft. Its also took now 10 years for them to finally accumulate this talent into a playoff team.

 

No, much of Tampa's base of prospects came later on. They've missed on guys like Neimann (not elite but decent), Townsend, etc.

 

It's the Davis, Hellickson, Jennings, Barnese, etc. that has separated them from the other systems.

 

To add to this the cubs are closer to the title then Rays are. Having future stars means nothing now....

 

Tampa is currently a better team than the Cubs, just sucks for them that the two most talented teams in MLB are in the division. If they played in the NLC, they would be easily leading this division.

[davearm2]

No, that's not it. There are many more teams that consistently produce major league talent year after year. Tampa has a great track record at this point, and they aren't close to being done. Even with all the talent they have produced already, they are still miles ahead of the Cubs in talent still in the minors.

 

The Cubs biggest issue has been the constant change in philosophy and/or complete ignorance in what is needed to produce major league talent.

 

Hendry still needs to be fired yesterday. He needed to be fired yesterday a few years ago.

I'm sure people will take issue with what I'm about to say and that's fine.

 

As I see it, Hendry's job is to put the Cubs in the best possible position to win the World Series every year. Period. How he gets there, whether it be with shrewd trades, great drafting, superior player development, and/or successful free agent signings, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. The result is all that matters.

 

I'm also a firm believer that the postseason is a crapshoot. Any team that's good enough to get there, is good enough to get hot and win it all. You can tweak things here and there, but generally each team that gets into the postseason has roughly a 1-in-8 chance of being that team.

 

Moreover, the work of the GM is basically over a month or more before the playoffs even start. What happens in October is totally out of his control at that point.

 

So having said all of that, here are the clubs that have had the most success at reaching the postseason since Hendry's first full season in 2003:

 

[u] TEAM   APPEARANCES[/u]
Boston           5
New York -A      5
Los Angeles -A   4
Atlanta          3
Chicago          3
Los Angeles -N   3
Minnesota        3
St. Louis        3
Chicago -A       2
Houston          2
Oakland          2
Philadelphia     2
San Diego        2
Arizona          1
Cleveland        1
Colorado         1
Detroit          1
Florida          1
Milwaukee        1
New York -N      1
San Francisco    1
Tampa Bay        1
Baltimore        0
Cincinnati       0
Kansas City      0
Pittsburgh       0
Seattle          0
Texas            0
Toronto          0
Washington       0

So basically Hendry has been outperformed by the behemoths (Boston and NYY), and a team that plays in a pretty poor 4-team division (LAA).

 

That's it.

 

He's matched the success of allegedly model franchises like STL, ATL, and MIN, and matched or excdeeded the success of similarly-payrolled franchises like LAD, Philly, NYM, CWS, etc.

 

In light of the fact that the guy's batting .500 taking his clubs to the postseason, a success rate that very few other GMs can match, I have a real hard time with the "fire Hendry" warcry.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Hendry has benefitted from some very low-hanging fruit in that analysis. There's got to be a little more to being a good GM than having a ton of money in a crappy division.

[17 Seconds]

To use that list and then disregard payroll is absolutely ridiculous.

[davearm2]

To use that list and then disregard payroll is absolutely ridiculous.

Good thing I didn't do that, huh?

 

In fact I expressly noted that two of the three teams ahead of the Cubs are the mega-spenders (BOS and NYY), while the similar-spenders (LAD, NYM, PHI, CHW) have been as successful or worse.

[Sammy Sofa]

Hendry has benefitted from some very low-hanging fruit in that analysis. There's got to be a little more to being a good GM than having a ton of money in a crappy division.

 

Eh, odds are whoever replaces him will be on par with Hendry or worse. Truly good GM's are few and far between.

[MPrior]

As I see it, Hendry's job is to put the Cubs in the best possible position to win the World Series every year. Period. How he gets there, whether it be with shrewd trades, great drafting, superior player development, and/or successful free agent signings, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. The result is all that matters.

 

I'm also a firm believer that the postseason is a crapshoot. Any team that's good enough to get there, is good enough to get hot and win it all. You can tweak things here and there, but generally each team that gets into the postseason has roughly a 1-in-8 chance of being that team.

 

Moreover, the work of the GM is basically over a month or more before the playoffs even start. What happens in October is totally out of his control at that point.

 

What you say up to this point is, for the most part, true - sure, we could nitpick, but generally, it's all logical. However, your further argument - that the Cubs have been to the playoffs more times than most people - doesn't really help your point much. You said that "Hendry's job is to put the Cubs in the best possible position to win the World Series every year. Period." But just because they've made the postseason 3 times since he's been here does NOT mean that he's put them in the best position to do so. I'm in agreement with Goony (I think it was him), who said that the Aaron Miles-type signings (the ones that cost a relatively small but nonetheless substantial amount of money for essentially zero or even negative value) are the most aggravating, and Hendry is guilty of more than enough of them. Those signings alone prove that he's NOT putting his team in the best position to win the World Series.

 

Then, of course, there are plenty of other complaints, some more legitimate than others, that further demonstrate that Hendry has actually been underperforming, despite his 3 playoff appearances.

[17 Seconds]

To use that list and then disregard payroll is absolutely ridiculous.

Good thing I didn't do that, huh?

 

In fact I expressly noted that two of the three teams ahead of the Cubs are the mega-spenders (BOS and NYY), while the similar-spenders (LAD, NYM, PHI, CHW) have been as successful or worse.

 

So why do you include a list of all 30 MLB teams, even though the majority of them don't have nearly the same amount of money to spend as the Cubs do?

 

And you did it again when you said this

 

He's matched the success of allegedly model franchises like STL, ATL, and MIN

 

Those teams all have significantly lower payrolls, yet you just compared Hendry's work to their work without even mentioning the payroll differences.

[davearm2]

As I see it, Hendry's job is to put the Cubs in the best possible position to win the World Series every year. Period. How he gets there, whether it be with shrewd trades, great drafting, superior player development, and/or successful free agent signings, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. The result is all that matters.

 

I'm also a firm believer that the postseason is a crapshoot. Any team that's good enough to get there, is good enough to get hot and win it all. You can tweak things here and there, but generally each team that gets into the postseason has roughly a 1-in-8 chance of being that team.

 

Moreover, the work of the GM is basically over a month or more before the playoffs even start. What happens in October is totally out of his control at that point.

 

What you say up to this point is, for the most part, true - sure, we could nitpick, but generally, it's all logical. However, your further argument - that the Cubs have been to the playoffs more times than most people - doesn't really help your point much. You said that "Hendry's job is to put the Cubs in the best possible position to win the World Series every year. Period." But just because they've made the postseason 3 times since he's been here does NOT mean that he's put them in the best position to do so. I'm in agreement with Goony (I think it was him), who said that the Aaron Miles-type signings (the ones that cost a relatively small but nonetheless substantial amount of money for essentially zero or even negative value) are the most aggravating, and Hendry is guilty of more than enough of them. Those signings alone prove that he's NOT putting his team in the best position to win the World Series.

 

Then, of course, there are plenty of other complaints, some more legitimate than others, that further demonstrate that Hendry has actually been underperforming, despite his 3 playoff appearances.

I don't think anyone's suggesting there isn't room for improvement, and naturally not all of Hendry's moves have worked out.

 

But what GM can't you say the same thing about?

 

If you look at the complete body of work, though, Hendry's tenure has been successful despite whatever missteps one could point to.

[davearm2]

To use that list and then disregard payroll is absolutely ridiculous.

Good thing I didn't do that, huh?

 

In fact I expressly noted that two of the three teams ahead of the Cubs are the mega-spenders (BOS and NYY), while the similar-spenders (LAD, NYM, PHI, CHW) have been as successful or worse.

 

So why do you include a list of all 30 MLB teams, even though the majority of them don't have nearly the same amount of money to spend as the Cubs do?

 

And you did it again when you said this

 

He's matched the success of allegedly model franchises like STL, ATL, and MIN

 

Those teams all have significantly lower payrolls, yet you just compared Hendry's work to their work without even mentioning the payroll differences.

Perhaps I overestimated the board's ability to take payroll considerations into account without me having to spell them out more thorougly than I have.

 

Or, maybe just yours.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

To play the devil's advocate, the Cubs and Cardinals payrolls haven't been that far apart, iirc, and Hendry didn't fluke into the greatest hitter of our generation.

[Tracer Bullet]

To play the devil's advocate, the Cubs and Cardinals payrolls haven't been that far apart, iirc, and Hendry didn't fluke into the greatest hitter of our generation.

 

Jocketty isn't the first guy I'd want to replace Hendry, but he did hire TLR. As much as I hate him, since hiring him means you get Dave Duncan, it's worth it.

[jersey cubs fan]

How have the Cubs and Cards payrolls been anything but far apart? The Cubs have spent more and more every year that Hendry has been at the helm. STL has actually had to reduce costs in some seasons. The Cubs opening day payroll doesn't even reflect how much more they pay since they have to constantly eat the contracts of overpaid players that don't even contributed to the team.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

How have the Cubs and Cards payrolls been anything but far apart? The Cubs have spent more and more every year that Hendry has been at the helm. STL has actually had to reduce costs in some seasons. The Cubs opening day payroll doesn't even reflect how much more they pay since they have to constantly eat the contracts of overpaid players that don't even contributed to the team.

 

The quickest data I could find was from 2006-2008, when the average payroll for the Cubs was $115 million and the Cardinals was $102 million. http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/2009/03/mlb-team-payrolls-2006-2007-2008-efficiency-analysis/

 

I guess it's semantics whether that qualifies as "far apart" or not.

[Tracer Bullet]

How have the Cubs and Cards payrolls been anything but far apart? The Cubs have spent more and more every year that Hendry has been at the helm. STL has actually had to reduce costs in some seasons. The Cubs opening day payroll doesn't even reflect how much more they pay since they have to constantly eat the contracts of overpaid players that don't even contributed to the team.

 

The quickest data I could find was from 2006-2008, when the average payroll for the Cubs was $115 million and the Cardinals was $102 million. http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/2009/03/mlb-team-payrolls-2006-2007-2008-efficiency-analysis/

 

I guess it's semantics whether that qualifies as "far apart" or not.

 

~ 10% seems significant