Bruce Miles on inefficient Cubs

[Fro]

The contract situation isn't *that* bad... Soriano's the only really bad contract.

 

We will have a lot of flexibility after 2011 and 2012 to retool the team.

 

IMHO, the window closes for the current group of guys after 2011.

[Backtobanks]

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.

 

I totally agree with you Dave and have posted often about this point. I'm not advocating that we ignore payroll, but the bottom line is that Hendry has, and continues to, put the Cubs in a position to get to the playoffs every year. Piniella stated the other day that the Cubs had their "starting" lineup on the field for 2 games in the first half of the season and yet they're currently in 1st place. While we would all love to see a WS title, I've been a fan long enough to remember a decade full of Cub teams trying to get out of the cellar. Now that ARam is back, Soriano and Bradley are starting to hit, and the kids (Wells, Hart, and Fox) are helping, we should be okay. When Soto, Dempster, and Lilly return, we will have a better team on paper than any other NL team except the Dodgers and Hendry deserves credit for that.

[jersey cubs fan]

The contract situation isn't *that* bad... Soriano's the only really bad contract.

 

We will have a lot of flexibility after 2011 and 2012 to retool the team.

 

A lot of flexibility or a lot of needs? They won't have that much flexibility. They will have to spend a lot just to keep the team on the status quo, which will eat up that flexibility in a hurry. To actually improve this team they will have to be very creative, and get lucky.

[jersey cubs fan]

Why are people so willing to shrug off 2005/2006? The highest payroll in the division finishing well below .500, that's unacceptable. They have had one 90-win season in his tenure, meaning he absolutely is not coming close to putting the best team he can on the field every year. This should have been a 92-95 win team nearly every year of his tenure, given the resources available to him when he took over and how much those resources have grown while others have stayed relatively stagnant or even declined in certain cirumstances.

[davearm2]

Why are people so willing to shrug off 2005/2006? The highest payroll in the division finishing well below .500, that's unacceptable. They have had one 90-win season in his tenure, meaning he absolutely is not coming close to putting the best team he can on the field every year. This should have been a 92-95 win team nearly every year of his tenure, given the resources available to him when he took over and how much those resources have grown while others have stayed relatively stagnant or even declined in certain cirumstances.

Not that this in any way completely excuses the failures of 05 and 06, but something to consider is that those teams likely would've looked much different if Hendry had the authority/autonomy then that he seems to have now.

 

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I have the distinct recollection that Hendry was hot after guys like Tejada, Beltran, Vlad, and later Furcal, but MacPhail wouldn't OK the sort of contracts required to seal the deal with those A-list guys.

 

MacPhail resigns after 06, and boom, within weeks Hendry's signed two FA contracts (Soriano and Lilly) that were bigger than any accepted by non-Cub FAs, ever. Prior to that, the $28M given to a 34-year old Moises Alou I believe was the highest.

[cubfan]

Why are people so willing to shrug off 2005/2006? The highest payroll in the division finishing well below .500, that's unacceptable. They have had one 90-win season in his tenure, meaning he absolutely is not coming close to putting the best team he can on the field every year. This should have been a 92-95 win team nearly every year of his tenure, given the resources available to him when he took over and how much those resources have grown while others have stayed relatively stagnant or even declined in certain cirumstances.

 

In 2005 at least, I think the St. Louis Cardinals had the highest payroll in the division. The Cubs had the second highest, not that this is an excuse for being below .500.

[soapy]

teams are typically going to have to over-pay for "elite" type players. it's the absurd contracts given out to the middle relievers, back-up catchers and end of the bench guys that drive me insane when equal or similar production can typically be found in the system. those contracts add up and end up costing the team chances at signing (or re-signing) those elite players.

[jersey cubs fan]

teams are typically going to have to over-pay for "elite" type players.

 

Yes, but they actually get elite type players.

[Exile on Waveland]

(Opening Day) Payrolls rounded up to nearest Million according to Cot's:

 

Cards Cubs

2003 $84 Million $80 Million

2004 $83 Million $91 Million

2005 $92 Million $87 Million

2006 $89 Million $94 Million

2007 $90 Million $100 Million

2008 $100 Million $118 Million

2009 $89 Million $135 Million

[jersey cubs fan]

(Opening Day) Payrolls rounded up to nearest Million according to Cot's:

 

Cards Cubs

2003 $84 Million $80 Million

2004 $83 Million $91 Million

2005 $92 Million $87 Million

2006 $89 Million $94 Million

2007 $90 Million $100 Million

2008 $100 Million $118 Million

2009 $89 Million $135 Million

 

opening day payrolls are not a great way to measure how efficiently a GM uses the resources available to him. If he trades a guy away but eats the salary, or if he cuts a guy, that doesn't count toward opening day payroll, but it certainly counts in the money wasted department.

[Exile on Waveland]

(Opening Day) Payrolls rounded up to nearest Million according to Cot's:

 

Cards Cubs

2003 $84 Million $80 Million

2004 $83 Million $91 Million

2005 $92 Million $87 Million

2006 $89 Million $94 Million

2007 $90 Million $100 Million

2008 $100 Million $118 Million

2009 $89 Million $135 Million

 

opening day payrolls are not a great way to measure how efficiently a GM uses the resources available to him. If he trades a guy away but eats the salary, or if he cuts a guy, that doesn't count toward opening day payroll, but it certainly counts in the money wasted department.

 

Agreed. I made sure to put the "Opening Day" caveat in my post. The above was all I could find though.

[CubColtPacer]

(Opening Day) Payrolls rounded up to nearest Million according to Cot's:

 

Cards Cubs

2003 $84 Million $80 Million

2004 $83 Million $91 Million

2005 $92 Million $87 Million

2006 $89 Million $94 Million

2007 $90 Million $100 Million

2008 $100 Million $118 Million

2009 $89 Million $135 Million

 

opening day payrolls are not a great way to measure how efficiently a GM uses the resources available to him. If he trades a guy away but eats the salary, or if he cuts a guy, that doesn't count toward opening day payroll, but it certainly counts in the money wasted department.

 

The Cubs have eaten a significant amount of money in two of those seasons. 2005 and 2009. The other 4 seasons they released no more than a couple million worth of players at most. I'm not sure about the Cardinals and their money management during that time.

[jersey cubs fan]

(Opening Day) Payrolls rounded up to nearest Million according to Cot's:

 

Cards Cubs

2003 $84 Million $80 Million

2004 $83 Million $91 Million

2005 $92 Million $87 Million

2006 $89 Million $94 Million

2007 $90 Million $100 Million

2008 $100 Million $118 Million

2009 $89 Million $135 Million

 

opening day payrolls are not a great way to measure how efficiently a GM uses the resources available to him. If he trades a guy away but eats the salary, or if he cuts a guy, that doesn't count toward opening day payroll, but it certainly counts in the money wasted department.

 

The Cubs have eaten a significant amount of money in two of those seasons. 2005 and 2009. The other 4 seasons they released no more than a couple million worth of players at most. I'm not sure about the Cardinals and their money management during that time.

 

It also doesn't take into account contracts taken on via trade during the season.

 

Regardless, anybody trying to argue that Hendry has not had a huge financial advantage over his rivals just is not paying attention, or they are blatantly lying.

[Exile on Waveland]

(Opening Day) Payrolls rounded up to nearest Million according to Cot's:

 

Cards Cubs

2003 $84 Million $80 Million

2004 $83 Million $91 Million

2005 $92 Million $87 Million

2006 $89 Million $94 Million

2007 $90 Million $100 Million

2008 $100 Million $118 Million

2009 $89 Million $135 Million

 

opening day payrolls are not a great way to measure how efficiently a GM uses the resources available to him. If he trades a guy away but eats the salary, or if he cuts a guy, that doesn't count toward opening day payroll, but it certainly counts in the money wasted department.

 

The Cubs have eaten a significant amount of money in two of those seasons. 2005 and 2009. The other 4 seasons they released no more than a couple million worth of players at most. I'm not sure about the Cardinals and their money management during that time.

 

It also doesn't take into account contracts taken on via trade during the season.

 

Regardless, anybody trying to argue that Hendry has not had a huge financial advantage over his rivals just is not paying attention, or they are blatantly lying.

 

Being in a virtual tie with a team that you're outspending by $46 million dollars is inexcusable -- at least excepting anomalies like the Rays loaded with pre-arbitration, top-tier draft picks (of which the Cardinals aren't). Hendry is the prodigal GM.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Exile on Waveland

[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.

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.

 

Haha. I'll go back to my original statement. Comparing the success of 2 different teams who have completely different payroll situations is pointless, yet you did it. You compared hendry to Minnesota (among others) when you simply can't compare the success of the 2 when they are in completely different situations.

 

I've seen you do this many times with hendry. You constantly dismiss the payroll advantages he has and try to compare him to better GMs with much more limited resources and then say things like "all that matters is that he wins with what he says...it doesn't matter how he does it". Umm, well, yeah.... it does matter how he does it. A GM with more money to spend than most franchises is held to a different standard, whether you like it or not. It would be foolish to not hold him to a higher standard.

 

Compare Hendry to teams with similar payrolls, and that's it. Don't try to ocmpare him to teams like Minnesota. You can't do that. It's like giving one person 10 grand to buy a car and another person 50 grand, then congratulating the second person for coming home with a BMW while the other comes home with a Saturn.

[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.

 

Haha. I'll go back to my original statement. Comparing the success of 2 different teams who have completely different payroll situations is pointless, yet you did it. You compared hendry to Minnesota (among others) when you simply can't compare the success of the 2 when they are in completely different situations.

 

I've seen you do this many times with hendry. You constantly dismiss the payroll advantages he has and try to compare him to better GMs with much more limited resources and then say things like "all that matters is that he wins with what he says...it doesn't matter how he does it". Umm, well, yeah.... it does matter how he does it. A GM with more money to spend than most franchises is held to a different standard, whether you like it or not. It would be foolish to not hold him to a higher standard.

 

Compare Hendry to teams with similar payrolls, and that's it. Don't try to ocmpare him to teams like Minnesota. You can't do that. It's like giving one person 10 grand to buy a car and another person 50 grand, then congratulating the second person for coming home with a BMW while the other comes home with a Saturn.

I included all 30 teams in MLB for sake of completeness. So shoot me.

 

Nowhere did I brag up Hendry for smoking the cheapskate clubs like PIT and WAS. That's all you imagining things that aren't there.

 

I've repeatedly made explicit comparisons to teams with similar payrolls (NYM, PHI, LAD, and CHW). You're conveniently ignoring that that's been the crux of my argument all along.

[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.

 

Haha. I'll go back to my original statement. Comparing the success of 2 different teams who have completely different payroll situations is pointless, yet you did it. You compared hendry to Minnesota (among others) when you simply can't compare the success of the 2 when they are in completely different situations.

 

I've seen you do this many times with hendry. You constantly dismiss the payroll advantages he has and try to compare him to better GMs with much more limited resources and then say things like "all that matters is that he wins with what he says...it doesn't matter how he does it". Umm, well, yeah.... it does matter how he does it. A GM with more money to spend than most franchises is held to a different standard, whether you like it or not. It would be foolish to not hold him to a higher standard.

 

Compare Hendry to teams with similar payrolls, and that's it. Don't try to ocmpare him to teams like Minnesota. You can't do that. It's like giving one person 10 grand to buy a car and another person 50 grand, then congratulating the second person for coming home with a BMW while the other comes home with a Saturn.

I included all 30 teams in MLB for sake of completeness. So shoot me.

 

Nowhere did I brag up Hendry for smoking the cheapskate clubs like PIT and WAS. That's all you imagining things that aren't there.

 

I've repeatedly made explicit comparisons to teams with similar payrolls (NYM, PHI, LAD, and CHW). You're conveniently ignoring that that's been the crux of my argument all along.

[Vanilla Ice]

who is bruce miles