Remember this article?

[jersey cubs fan]

I see nothing in that article about Soriano dissolving before our eyes like the bad guys in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

 

He's also the moron who signed that guy to a ridiculous contract that was always going to be a noose around this team's neck eventually.

 

 

 

And you can't use injuries as excuse when you fill your team with 30-somethings who have injury histories.

[Exile on Waveland]

I think it's pretty clear DeRosa has been more valuable than Bradley this year, despite their numbers being substantially the same as noted previously:

 

DeRosa: 257/326/451/777 for a 101 OPS+, with 23 homers and 76 RBI (team dependent nebulous rate stat, obviously).

Bradley: 257/378/397/775 for a 100 OPS+, with 12 homers and 40 RBI.

 

However, Bradley is producing at that rate while playing right field -- a premium offensive position -- and ostensibly making $9 million this year (and $21 million over the next two). Meanwhile, DeRosa is producing at that rate while having the ability to play second base, third base and the outfield corners. He's also only making $5.5 million in the last year of his deal. (Admittedly, Bradley changed teams/leagues before the season, but DeRosa has changed teams and leagues twice since the end of last year which can't be terribly easy.) Finally, for whatever it's worth in baseball, Bradley has pretty clearly been a clubhouse distraction.

 

That said, the Bradley situation has been way overblown, and the DeRosa trade likely will end up in the "good" column in retrospect.

[dew1679666265]

See this is where OPS. does not win the argument. You look at what Bradley was signed for and yes it is a run producer, where he was placed in the lineup may defeat this argument but I would have taken DeRosa's bat in the 5th or 6th spot of the lineup over Bradley's simply because Bradley has not hit with people on, not even to the tune of a good sac fly hitter. He sucks with people in scoring position, the only reason Bradley is close to DeRosa is run created is because his resurgent second half in getting on base in front of DLEE. Bradley hit .205 with runners in scoring position.

 

Here's the problem with situational stats like batting average with RISP. Overall, Bradley is OPSing .701 with RISP. However, he's OPSing .831 with a runner on 2nd and he's OPSing .883 with the bases loaded. The situational numbers that are closest to his overall OPS are with men on and with the bases empty (he's been better with men on, by the way). Also, those situations are, logically, the situations in which he has had the most ABs. With the exception of RISP, the more ABs he gets, the better he's done.

 

The likely reasoning behind that is sample size. His overall RISP numbers are being dragged down by a few situations where he hasn't gotten many opportunities and has not come through in those very few opportunities. That's the flaw with trying to analyze a player's performance in specific situations.

 

Incidentally, Bradley's OPS with RISP last year was better than DeRosa's (.971 vs .924). Also, Bradley's career OPS with RISP is higher than DeRo's (.804 vs .788).

[Tarver]

Jim Hendry made a lot of good moves this offseason... including the DeRosa deal.

 

Personally, i had always been of the mind to play Pie and let him adjust (which he's finally done), but once Lou decided he couldn't bear to witness a young player trying to adjust slowly, signing Bradley was actually a good move considering what was available and the pricetags associated. He could've done better had he known Abreu's price would drop so drastically, but nobody knew that.

 

Just because the moves didn't pan out doesn't mean he made the wrong ones. We can only judge him with the information he had available at the time.

 

Do you think Hendry deserves to keep his job?

[Rob]

Jim Hendry made a lot of good moves this offseason... including the DeRosa deal.

 

Personally, i had always been of the mind to play Pie and let him adjust (which he's finally done), but once Lou decided he couldn't bear to witness a young player trying to adjust slowly, signing Bradley was actually a good move considering what was available and the pricetags associated. He could've done better had he known Abreu's price would drop so drastically, but nobody knew that.

 

Just because the moves didn't pan out doesn't mean he made the wrong ones. We can only judge him with the information he had available at the time.

 

Do you think Hendry deserves to keep his job?

 

I think he deserves to keep his job unless we find a better GM to replace him. I wouldn't see much point in firing him if we couldn't get a Logan White or Mark Antonetti... it may actually make our team worse.

[RedFlash]

I think he deserves to keep his job unless we find a better GM to replace him. I wouldn't see much point in firing him if we couldn't get a Logan White or Mark Antonetti... it may actually make our team worse.

 

I agree. Hendry should be able to get one more year to fixed this mess. This is a team that made the playoffs two straight years, and the last time the Cubs did that was 1906-08. Not to mention the Cubs have made the playoffs 3 out of the last 7 years, thelast time the Cubs made the playoffs 3 or more times in a 7 year stretch was 1932-38. Suffice to say the Cubs, under Hendry, are enjoying one of their better stretches of periods in franchise history. Not that it is saying much, but still Hendry has earned the right to correct his mess. If the Cubs don't turn it around in 2010, then yeah you have to let Hendry go, but you have to give Jim 2010 to right to ship.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'd have zero problem firing Hendry after this season if there's any kind of significant money to spend. If there's not I'd rather just hold onto Hendry until there is. I don't see the point of saddling a new GM with a mess they can't do much of anything about via the payroll. If trades are the only moves that can be made I'll take my chances with Hendry until the pursestrings can be opened or some money is off the books.

[Tarver]

I just don't see how his position is tenable past the ownership transition. He's been given almost a decade in a top 5 market and has nothing to show for it but a multitude of questionable contracts which have the potential to hamstring this team for years to come.

 

And the "playoffs two years in a row" argument is not only tiresome but irrelevant. This team has consistently had one of the highest payrolls throughout his tenure. I'm not sure why some people need to see more of this.

[Tyrant]

I just don't see how his position is tenable past the ownership transition. He's been given almost a decade in a top 5 market and has nothing to show for it but a multitude of questionable contracts which have the potential to hamstring this team for years to come.

 

I'm far from the world's biggest Hendry supporter, but that's not entirely fair. The Cubs will have made the playoffs in three of Hendry's seven years as GM, along with a near-miss in 2004. 2005 and 2006 sucked, but I think Dusty deserves more of the blame there for his destruction of the pitching staff. This year has been a big disappointment, but not all of it can be blamed on Hendry; a lot of players severely underperformed and that had a major effect.

 

Clearly, we should expect more given the Cubs' market and payroll, but you can't say he has "nothing" to show for his efforts. The Cubs have been about as competitive during Hendry's tenure any non Yankees or Red Sox team during that time.

[Tarver]

I'd compare them more to the Angels, Cards, or Sox. The Yanks and Bosox are in a different stratosphere re: payroll.

[Exile on Waveland]

I'd compare them more to the Angels, Cards, or Sox. The Yanks and Bosox are in a different stratosphere re: payroll.

 

Red Sox 2009 opening day payroll: $121,745,999

Cubs 2009 opening day payroll: $134,809,000.

[jersey cubs fan]

I just don't see how his position is tenable past the ownership transition. He's been given almost a decade in a top 5 market and has nothing to show for it but a multitude of questionable contracts which have the potential to hamstring this team for years to come.

 

I'm far from the world's biggest Hendry supporter, but that's not entirely fair. The Cubs will have made the playoffs in three of Hendry's seven years as GM, along with a near-miss in 2004. 2005 and 2006 sucked, but I think Dusty deserves more of the blame there for his destruction of the pitching staff. This year has been a big disappointment, but not all of it can be blamed on Hendry; a lot of players severely underperformed and that had a major effect.

 

Clearly, we should expect more given the Cubs' market and payroll, but you can't say he has "nothing" to show for his efforts. The Cubs have been about as competitive during Hendry's tenure any non Yankees or Red Sox team during that time.

 

Hendry hired Dusty when it was easy to predict that move would not work out. It's his fault Dusty had the chance to ruin that staff.

 

They've had some success, but not nearly enough. They've blown a perfectly good opportunity to dominate their divison throughout his tenure.

[Tarver]

I'd compare them more to the Angels, Cards, or Sox. The Yanks and Bosox are in a different stratosphere re: payroll.

 

Red Sox 2009 opening day payroll: $121,745,999

Cubs 2009 opening day payroll: $134,809,000.

 

I was referring to the decade as a whole. They outspent the Cubs prior to '08.

[Exile on Waveland]

I'd compare them more to the Angels, Cards, or Sox. The Yanks and Bosox are in a different stratosphere re: payroll.

 

Red Sox 2009 opening day payroll: $121,745,999

Cubs 2009 opening day payroll: $134,809,000.

 

I was referring to the decade as a whole. They outspent the Cubs prior to '08.

 

True, but the gap had been closing and the Cubs eventually surpassed Boston this year. I don't think that constitutes a "different stratosphere" at all.

[Tarver]

I'd compare them more to the Angels, Cards, or Sox. The Yanks and Bosox are in a different stratosphere re: payroll.

 

Red Sox 2009 opening day payroll: $121,745,999

Cubs 2009 opening day payroll: $134,809,000.

 

I was referring to the decade as a whole. They outspent the Cubs prior to '08.

 

True, but the gap had been closing and the Cubs eventually surpassed Boston this year. I don't think that constitutes a "different stratosphere" at all.

 

Which only strengthens my argument. Hendry can't point at a lack of resources.