michael wuertz season wrapup

[Sammy Sofa]

So instead we give him one more year to put a different set of limitations on the next guy? I mean what do you let him keep going, but not make any more moves? Because any moves he makes this offseason would then limit the team for another year going forward. When would it ever be ok to fire him then? He's always going to have given out contracts that extend into the future.

 

If the new guy doesn't have any money to work with, how does Hendry have any money to work with? If it effectively comes down to that the only significant moves the Cubs can make are trades until the payroll can be expanded or contracts come off the table I'd rather just keep Hendry since trades have been the one thing he's largely tolerable to really good at getting done. Once the money situation is more workable go ahead and fire him, but until then it seems largely redundant.

[illiniguy]

So instead we give him one more year to put a different set of limitations on the next guy? I mean what do you let him keep going, but not make any more moves? Because any moves he makes this offseason would then limit the team for another year going forward. When would it ever be ok to fire him then? He's always going to have given out contracts that extend into the future.

 

If the new guy doesn't have any money to work with, how does Hendry have any money to work with? If it effectively comes down to that the only significant moves the Cubs can make are trades until the payroll can be expanded or contracts come off the table I'd rather just keep Hendry since trades have been the one thing he's largely tolerable to really good at getting done. Once the money situation is more workable go ahead and fire him, but until then it seems largely redundant.

It just doesn't seem likely that ownership is going to allow him to make trades and not sign people. This offseason he's going to trade milton Bradley to get money back. Harden is also gonna walk. So he's going to have money to spend. Odds are he won't spend it wisely. Chone Figgins comes to mind. Unless he's told not to sign anyone long term another year of Hendry can do even more damage and push our team even further away.

[Tarver]

So instead we give him one more year to put a different set of limitations on the next guy? I mean what do you let him keep going, but not make any more moves? Because any moves he makes this offseason would then limit the team for another year going forward. When would it ever be ok to fire him then? He's always going to have given out contracts that extend into the future.

 

If the new guy doesn't have any money to work with, how does Hendry have any money to work with? If it effectively comes down to that the only significant moves the Cubs can make are trades until the payroll can be expanded or contracts come off the table I'd rather just keep Hendry since trades have been the one thing he's largely tolerable to really good at getting done. Once the money situation is more workable go ahead and fire him, but until then it seems largely redundant.

 

I'll agree about his knack for trades, but some fans have been using the fear crutch since '05.

 

"Don't get rid of him, who's better?"

"Only if we get Antonetti/Depo/White"

"What if we hire someone like Duquette?"

 

I think it's more important for Ricketts to restructure from the top down; bring in a good baseball man to be president and have him pick the GM. But this offseason or next, this FO has to go. They've taken this train as far as they can.

[Sammy Sofa]

So instead we give him one more year to put a different set of limitations on the next guy? I mean what do you let him keep going, but not make any more moves? Because any moves he makes this offseason would then limit the team for another year going forward. When would it ever be ok to fire him then? He's always going to have given out contracts that extend into the future.

 

If the new guy doesn't have any money to work with, how does Hendry have any money to work with? If it effectively comes down to that the only significant moves the Cubs can make are trades until the payroll can be expanded or contracts come off the table I'd rather just keep Hendry since trades have been the one thing he's largely tolerable to really good at getting done. Once the money situation is more workable go ahead and fire him, but until then it seems largely redundant.

It just doesn't seem likely that ownership is going to allow him to make trades and not sign people. This offseason he's going to trade milton Bradley to get money back. Harden is also gonna walk. So he's going to have money to spend. Odds are he won't spend it wisely. Chone Figgins comes to mind. Unless he's told not to sign anyone long term another year of Hendry can do even more damage and push our team even further away.

 

Odds are a new GM wouldn't spend it wisely. Again, I'm not saying that that's a reason to hold onto Hendry: I just don't realistically expect a new GM to be significantly better since most GM's, like managers, tend to be barely tolerable at best and horrendous at worst. We also don't know what the new owners are telling Hendry what he can spend and how he can spend it. For all we know they are placing specific limitations on how much he can spend and for how long. I'm also not sure how trading Milton is likely to get significant "money back" since it would take a miracle to not still be paying most of his salary.

 

At the end of the day I don't care if Hendry is fired. I'm not arguing for the Cubs to keep him like they need to. I just don't think that the time is opportune to do so because of the sale because it ties up the next guy from making any significant changes.

[CubColtPacer]

This is kinda ridiculous.

 

I'll give you Michael Weurtz, he got a raw deal and should still be here.

 

 

Everybody was calling for Eyre to get released. Nobody gave 2 craps about Aardsma.

 

correct, Eyre sucked and Aardsma got let go by Kenny Williams and GMJesus before he found a home in Seattle.

 

Maybe it has to do with the extremely flukey nature bullpens are.

 

I wanted to keep Eyre and give Howry the boot. They released the wrong guy last year.

I love that Jim could eat Eyre's contract, but wouldn't Neifi's. The guy that had some value to the team, no problem we'll send him packing. The troll that saved us, no way, not going anywhere.

 

Hendry ended up trading both of them. I'm not sure that's the best comparison.

[jersey cubs fan]

At the end of the day I don't care if Hendry is fired. I'm not arguing for the Cubs to keep him like they need to. I just don't think that the time is opportune to do so because of the sale because it ties up the next guy from making any significant changes.

 

That doesn't make much sense. The sale is all but over. That was an excuse the last two years, but no longer. Jim Hendry has been in this organization for well over a decade, a very influential personel man for nearly a decade and in complete control for 7+ seasons. He's been a disappointment. The fear of a worse GM is pointless. Most GMs don't get the financial benefit that Hendry has had. As long as they don't go out and sign Jim Bowden or some retread bum, they should be able to improve. This is a disappointing organization that hasn't won nearly as many games as they should have given their competitive advantages.

[illiniguy]

This is kinda ridiculous.

 

I'll give you Michael Weurtz, he got a raw deal and should still be here.

 

 

Everybody was calling for Eyre to get released. Nobody gave 2 craps about Aardsma.

 

correct, Eyre sucked and Aardsma got let go by Kenny Williams and GMJesus before he found a home in Seattle.

 

Maybe it has to do with the extremely flukey nature bullpens are.

 

I wanted to keep Eyre and give Howry the boot. They released the wrong guy last year.

I love that Jim could eat Eyre's contract, but wouldn't Neifi's. The guy that had some value to the team, no problem we'll send him packing. The troll that saved us, no way, not going anywhere.

 

Hendry ended up trading both of them. I'm not sure that's the best comparison.

I knew he had traded Neifi, but I thought we released Eyre?

Edit: for Brian Schlitter, huh. I thought he was all worked up at us last year because we released him.

Edited October 1, 2009 by illiniguy

[CubColtPacer]

This isnt a case of, oh man, we shouldnt of let that guy go, who knew he'd be so good, bla bla. We all said at the time it was stupid. And it was.

 

I dooooo draw the line at bringing up Aardsma though. That's reaching.

 

Why is it reaching? Hendry is the paid professional. He's supposed to be able to see the upside these guys have. He's the one constantly looking for bullpen help. Why shouldn't he be criticized for letting quality arms go for crap when he's constantly bringing in others?

 

Aardsma is a reach because the Cubs would have had to let him be terrible in the majors for at least 1 year and part of another in order to get his 1 quality season. That isn't good roster management. Two other organizations had also DFA'd him already after the Cubs. Should all 3 of those organizations be blamed for that decision?

 

Wuertz was a really bad decision though by Hendry (although I don't think even the people who liked Wuertz best expected a year like this with such a better K/BB ratio than he ever has). The trading of Wuertz also becomes a worse decision because it was so unnecessary..he never would have been the worst arm in any bullpen that the Cubs would have built.

[CubColtPacer]

I love that Jim could eat Eyre's contract, but wouldn't Neifi's. The guy that had some value to the team, no problem we'll send him packing. The troll that saved us, no way, not going anywhere.

 

Hendry ended up trading both of them. I'm not sure that's the best comparison.

I knew he had traded Neifi, but I thought we released Eyre?

 

They DFA'd Eyre to get the roster spot for those few days, but they ended up trading him to the Phillies before they had to release him (they got Brian Schlitter in exchange). I don't think they ever planned on releasing him because they knew some team would take a chance on him.

[Sammy Sofa]

At the end of the day I don't care if Hendry is fired. I'm not arguing for the Cubs to keep him like they need to. I just don't think that the time is opportune to do so because of the sale because it ties up the next guy from making any significant changes.

 

That doesn't make much sense. The sale is all but over. That was an excuse the last two years, but no longer. Jim Hendry has been in this organization for well over a decade, a very influential personel man for nearly a decade and in complete control for 7+ seasons. He's been a disappointment. The fear of a worse GM is pointless. Most GMs don't get the financial benefit that Hendry has had. As long as they don't go out and sign Jim Bowden or some retread bum, they should be able to improve. This is a disappointing organization that hasn't won nearly as many games as they should have given their competitive advantages.

 

I don't "fear" a worse GM: I simply recognize the odds of getting one that's actually good are tremendously slim. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to getting rid of Hendry.

 

And I'm not making the limited payroll excuse. The language coming from the organization seems to be making it abundantly clear that money is going to be very tight for the forseeable future. If that's not actually the case, and I hope it isn't, fantastic, but as of right now they're indicating that it is.

[illiniguy]

At the end of the day I don't care if Hendry is fired. I'm not arguing for the Cubs to keep him like they need to. I just don't think that the time is opportune to do so because of the sale because it ties up the next guy from making any significant changes.

 

That doesn't make much sense. The sale is all but over. That was an excuse the last two years, but no longer. Jim Hendry has been in this organization for well over a decade, a very influential personel man for nearly a decade and in complete control for 7+ seasons. He's been a disappointment. The fear of a worse GM is pointless. Most GMs don't get the financial benefit that Hendry has had. As long as they don't go out and sign Jim Bowden or some retread bum, they should be able to improve. This is a disappointing organization that hasn't won nearly as many games as they should have given their competitive advantages.

 

I don't "fear" a worse GM: I simply recognize the odds of getting one that's actually good are tremendously slim. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to getting rid of Hendry.

 

And I'm not making the limited payroll excuse. The language coming from the organization seems to be making it abundantly clear that money is going to be very tight for the forseeable future. If that's not actually the case, and I hope it isn't, fantastic, but as of right now they're indicating that it is.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but where have you seen the organization saying that?

[Rob]

I'll agree about his knack for trades, but some fans have been using the fear crutch since '05.

 

"Don't get rid of him, who's better?"

"Only if we get Antonetti/Depo/White"

"What if we hire someone like Duquette?"

 

I think it's more important for Ricketts to restructure from the top down; bring in a good baseball man to be president and have him pick the GM. But this offseason or next, this FO has to go. They've taken this train as far as they can.

 

So what supposed benefit do we get from firing Hendry without figuring out whether we can do better or not?

 

Bottom line, firing Jim Hendry doesn't automatically make our team better. I could give a [expletive] whether or not he deserves to be fired. I'm concerned with the team going forward, and would like to see somebody better lined up to take the job before I risk backing myself into a corner by firing Hendry without a viable replacement. It's not being scared. It's being able to look past my own nose.

[Tarver]

If you want to imply I'm being shortsighted, fine. I'll state you're being cautious to the point of paralysis. How often do teams publicly state replacement candidates before a FO change is made? The next one will be the first one I can remember. By your logic Hendry may as well be our Connie Mack, because we'll never be certain who his replacement may be.

[TruffleShuffle]

i don't understand why lou couldn't tolerate wuertz' chronic wildness but he'll run marmol out there in every situation. wuertz was always a pretty good pitcher; you shouldn't let a half-senile manager dictate player personnel decisions.

[Rob]

If you want to imply I'm being shortsighted, fine. I'll state you're being cautious to the point of paralysis. How often do teams publicly state replacement candidates before a FO change is made? The next one will be the first one I can remember. By your logic Hendry may as well be our Connie Mack, because we'll never be certain who his replacement may be.

 

Where did I say publicly announce candidates?

 

I'm saying that before you fire Hendry, you call up a few teams and ask if they'd be willing to let us interview their guys should we decide to make a change. Put a feeler out to some out of work GMs. This isn't "being cautious to the point of paralysis"... it's doing your homework.

[javy knows my name]

If you want to imply I'm being shortsighted, fine. I'll state you're being cautious to the point of paralysis. How often do teams publicly state replacement candidates before a FO change is made? The next one will be the first one I can remember. By your logic Hendry may as well be our Connie Mack, because we'll never be certain who his replacement may be.

Not FO, but Riggleman was basically announced as manager before Acta was fired this year

[Eric Clipperton]

So instead we give him one more year to put a different set of limitations on the next guy? I mean what do you let him keep going, but not make any more moves? Because any moves he makes this offseason would then limit the team for another year going forward. When would it ever be ok to fire him then? He's always going to have given out contracts that extend into the future.

 

If the new guy doesn't have any money to work with, how does Hendry have any money to work with? If it effectively comes down to that the only significant moves the Cubs can make are trades until the payroll can be expanded or contracts come off the table I'd rather just keep Hendry since trades have been the one thing he's largely tolerable to really good at getting done. Once the money situation is more workable go ahead and fire him, but until then it seems largely redundant.

 

I'll agree about his knack for trades, but some fans have been using the fear crutch since '05.

 

"Don't get rid of him, who's better?"

"Only if we get Antonetti/Depo/White"

"What if we hire someone like Duquette?"

 

I think it's more important for Ricketts to restructure from the top down; bring in a good baseball man to be president and have him pick the GM. But this offseason or next, this FO has to go. They've taken this train as far as they can.

 

Anyone a "good baseball man" selected would most likely be mediocre at best. The GM should be held to the same standard of competence Ricketts would hold for hiring in a non-baseball business worth nearly $1B, that is to say they should be way smarter than anyone currently associated with the organization.

[Tarver]

So instead we give him one more year to put a different set of limitations on the next guy? I mean what do you let him keep going, but not make any more moves? Because any moves he makes this offseason would then limit the team for another year going forward. When would it ever be ok to fire him then? He's always going to have given out contracts that extend into the future.

 

If the new guy doesn't have any money to work with, how does Hendry have any money to work with? If it effectively comes down to that the only significant moves the Cubs can make are trades until the payroll can be expanded or contracts come off the table I'd rather just keep Hendry since trades have been the one thing he's largely tolerable to really good at getting done. Once the money situation is more workable go ahead and fire him, but until then it seems largely redundant.

 

I'll agree about his knack for trades, but some fans have been using the fear crutch since '05.

 

"Don't get rid of him, who's better?"

"Only if we get Antonetti/Depo/White"

"What if we hire someone like Duquette?"

 

I think it's more important for Ricketts to restructure from the top down; bring in a good baseball man to be president and have him pick the GM. But this offseason or next, this FO has to go. They've taken this train as far as they can.

 

Anyone a "good baseball man" selected would most likely be mediocre at best. The GM should be held to the same standard of competence Ricketts would hold for hiring in a non-baseball business worth nearly $1B, that is to say they should be way smarter than anyone currently associated with the organization.

 

When I said baseball man I meant more Beinfest than Kenney. Someone focused on sound baseball strategy as opposed to generating new revenue streams (not that that's not important, but what good is it if you continue to blow the money recklessly?)

[CyHawk_Cub]

So instead we give him one more year to put a different set of limitations on the next guy? I mean what do you let him keep going, but not make any more moves? Because any moves he makes this offseason would then limit the team for another year going forward. When would it ever be ok to fire him then? He's always going to have given out contracts that extend into the future.

 

If the new guy doesn't have any money to work with, how does Hendry have any money to work with? If it effectively comes down to that the only significant moves the Cubs can make are trades until the payroll can be expanded or contracts come off the table I'd rather just keep Hendry since trades have been the one thing he's largely tolerable to really good at getting done. Once the money situation is more workable go ahead and fire him, but until then it seems largely redundant.

 

I'm not trying to get in the middle of a conversation, and I typically hate "addition by subtraction" & "slippery slope" arguments.... However, with that said, I see illiniguy's POV. I liken it to an argument I had w/ a buddy during Dusty's last year. Everyone knew he would be done. My opinion was that he should've been canned in-season. My buddy argued, "Why? What difference would it make?" Well, we saw the typical Dusty shenanigans; he wouldn't play the young guys, kept mis-using pitchers, etc. Keeping guys like Dusty/Hendry around absolutely could have a detrimental effect on the future. Allowing them to stay gives them more opportunity to make bad decisions. I'd rather take a chance on a new guy

[Rob]

With Towers getting the boot from San Diego, now we can go ahead and fire Hendry. There's a suitable replacement guaranteed to be available.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

With Towers getting the boot from San Diego, now we can go ahead and fire Hendry. There's a suitable replacement guaranteed to be available.

 

 

Really? Towers?

[Rob]

With Towers getting the boot from San Diego, now we can go ahead and fire Hendry. There's a suitable replacement guaranteed to be available.

 

 

Really? Towers?

 

Best on the market? No. But we aren't guaranteed to be allowed to talk to White, Antonetti, Ng, DePo, and other random people still employed.

 

The catch is simply that Towers is definitely available, and I'd rather have him than Hendry.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The catch is simply that Towers is definitely available, and I'd rather have him than Hendry.

 

 

Why's that?