Bruce Levine: Cubs Won't Offer Harden Arbitration

[LuvChicagoSports]

I think it's comical that people want to point out Beane's record since Zito left. How about the fact that other GM's in baseball now abide by the same philosophies? The fact that Theo Epstein looks at the same numbers, just as one example, but has far greater resources available makes it even harder on Beane.

 

The book Moneyball was an attempt to explain how the A's were competitive in an unfair game. Since that book was written, statistical analysis in the front office has become much more accepted and much more common. The tools that Beane was using to give him an advantage over teams with money don't work as much now because other teams with more money will pay more for guys that Beane would target.

 

It is absurd to think that teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, and Dodgers don't have an advantage over the competition simply based on the idea that they can buy the players they want. The Yankees and Red Sox keep developing talent from their system in addition to spending in free agency which is what has really made those organizations so great on a consistent basis.

 

Sure a Tampa Bay can be good and catch lightning in a bottle every once in a while, but without financial resources the window is small to remain that competitive.

 

I won't say that Beane would be a great GM here for sure because he has never had a big payroll to work with and I don't know how wise he would be with the money, but Hendry has played with a HUGE advantage over the competition and doesn't have the results needed to keep his job. The Cubs past history shouldn't come into play here because until recently the Cubs did not play with the advantage that they do now.

 

Are you ok paying such high prices with such poor results?

 

What is your definition of a good GM then? Everyone seems to want to pick up on irrelevant little mistakes by Banks (like Beane not writing Moneyball), instead of addressing the argument. I don't blame them, it is much easier to mock someone and take the attention away from the valid points they make, rather than disputing them.

 

You are right, Beane has a lower payroll. But, you seem to be implying that as long as you are in a small market team it is ok to lose season after season. I disagree with the premise that small market team GM is automatically given a pass.

 

In last three years, Hendry run teams have made it to the playoffs 2 of 3 times or 66.667% of the time. Beane run teams have made it 0 of 3 times or 0% of the time. Yet somehow Hendry is a terrible GM and Beane is a good GM? There seems to be a disconnect.

 

Do you measure a good GM by wins? Playoff appearances? Surely you would agree that even small market teams have to have some sort of criteria by which to gauge effectiveness.

 

I agree with you and I think Beane gets a pass because of his past. If the losing continues then of course he gets axed and he would deserve it. If he were the Cubs GM the last three seasons with that record, I would say he deserves to get fired. When your team is poor and doesn't provide you with the resources needed to stay competitive, I think you deserve a few more years of bad play to get it all together, but you do not deserve a free pass forever because you are a small market club.

 

My definition of a good GM is someone that consistently makes smart, efficient moves. Of course some moves aren't going to work out, but if there is a consistent pattern of good moves it will show. Hendry consistently makes terrible moves when it comes to payroll. Neifi Perez, Jose Macias, Mike Remlinger, Kevin Gregg, Aaron Miles, and Joey Gathright to name a few. Just looking at these guys and ignoring the big contracts of our current OF shows that he doesn't spend money wisely. VORP is a good statistic to keep in mind when looking to sign a bench player. Is his value really worth 2 years for 5 million or can you bring up a AAA player for the same production and make better use of the money?

 

Then you cannot look at a GM of a baseball team without looking at what the farm system has done while under his control. There is no other way to put it than the Cubs have completely failed in that aspect under his control.

 

People will talk about Hendry's good trades for Ramirez and Lee. He took advantage of poor teams inability to keep their own players and he deserves credit for that. He did determine which players had high value and didn't give up much to get them. But he also deserves blame for trades that didn't work out well and for the lack of a quality farm system.

 

With Beane and Hendry it is unfair to look at only the past 3 seasons as they have both been in control for significantly longer. Since 2003 (Hendry's first full season) Beane's A's have gone 594-539 while Hendry's Cubs have gone 587-545. Beane has lost key players through that entire time and had significantly less money to work with.

 

The bottom line is that Hendry's body of work is not impressive when you look at the financial advantage he has had over the competition. The Cubs MUST compare themselves to the Red Sox an Yankees because the payroll is closer to those teams than the Marlins and A's. If Hendry had a 587-545 record as GM of the Yankees in 7 seasons of work there wouldn't even be a question of if he will still have a job. He would have been canned a while ago. The Cubs spend like a winning organization, so the results need to reflect that.

[KingCubsFan]

Prior's success was short lived, but he was phenomenal. Zambrano has been one of the best pitchers in baseball if you look at that entire span. Few teams in baseball can match the success of those two alone during that time span. Add to that players like Wells, Marshall, Cruz, Marmol, Guzman, Hart, Ascanio, Caridad, Wuertz, Hill, Ohman. Add on guys like Gallagher, Nolasco, Mitre and others who got traded as they were breaking into the majors.

 

The Cubs farm system has been extremely productive over the past 5-6 years. The only problem is that the vast majority of the production has come from the mound.

Not to mention Patterson had two productive seasons before Dusty tried to turn him into Lou Brock

[CP_414]

Prior's success was short lived, but he was phenomenal. Zambrano has been one of the best pitchers in baseball if you look at that entire span. Few teams in baseball can match the success of those two alone during that time span. Add to that players like Wells, Marshall, Cruz, Marmol, Guzman, Hart, Ascanio, Caridad, Wuertz, Hill, Ohman. Add on guys like Gallagher, Nolasco, Mitre and others who got traded as they were breaking into the majors.

 

The Cubs farm system has been extremely productive over the past 5-6 years. The only problem is that the vast majority of the production has come from the mound.

Not to mention Patterson had two productive seasons before Dusty tried to turn him into Lou Brock

 

I'll give you the half season in 03, but what was the other season?

[CUBZ99]

I agree with you and I think Beane gets a pass because of his past. If the losing continues then of course he gets axed and he would deserve it. If he were the Cubs GM the last three seasons with that record, I would say he deserves to get fired. When your team is poor and doesn't provide you with the resources needed to stay competitive, I think you deserve a few more years of bad play to get it all together, but you do not deserve a free pass forever because you are a small market club.

 

My definition of a good GM is someone that consistently makes smart, efficient moves. Of course some moves aren't going to work out, but if there is a consistent pattern of good moves it will show. Hendry consistently makes terrible moves when it comes to payroll. Neifi Perez, Jose Macias, Mike Remlinger, Kevin Gregg, Aaron Miles, and Joey Gathright to name a few. Just looking at these guys and ignoring the big contracts of our current OF shows that he doesn't spend money wisely. VORP is a good statistic to keep in mind when looking to sign a bench player. Is his value really worth 2 years for 5 million or can you bring up a AAA player for the same production and make better use of the money?

 

Then you cannot look at a GM of a baseball team without looking at what the farm system has done while under his control. There is no other way to put it than the Cubs have completely failed in that aspect under his control.

 

People will talk about Hendry's good trades for Ramirez and Lee. He took advantage of poor teams inability to keep their own players and he deserves credit for that. He did determine which players had high value and didn't give up much to get them. But he also deserves blame for trades that didn't work out well and for the lack of a quality farm system.

 

With Beane and Hendry it is unfair to look at only the past 3 seasons as they have both been in control for significantly longer. Since 2003 (Hendry's first full season) Beane's A's have gone 594-539 while Hendry's Cubs have gone 587-545. Beane has lost key players through that entire time and had significantly less money to work with.

 

The bottom line is that Hendry's body of work is not impressive when you look at the financial advantage he has had over the competition. The Cubs MUST compare themselves to the Red Sox an Yankees because the payroll is closer to those teams than the Marlins and A's. If Hendry had a 587-545 record as GM of the Yankees in 7 seasons of work there wouldn't even be a question of if he will still have a job. He would have been canned a while ago. The Cubs spend like a winning organization, so the results need to reflect that.

 

Well thought out post. :D

[Rob]

The easiest way to quantify a GM would be team salary minus league minimum x 25 divided by marginal wins over replacement. You should probably include investments into the farm system into that too, but that'd get messy.

 

It might not be fair to some GMs who know they're overpaying for reasons other than baseball (i.e. Jeter's contract), but all in all it would do a good job of showing who does the best job of squeezing wins out of their money.

[KingCubsFan]

Prior's success was short lived, but he was phenomenal. Zambrano has been one of the best pitchers in baseball if you look at that entire span. Few teams in baseball can match the success of those two alone during that time span. Add to that players like Wells, Marshall, Cruz, Marmol, Guzman, Hart, Ascanio, Caridad, Wuertz, Hill, Ohman. Add on guys like Gallagher, Nolasco, Mitre and others who got traded as they were breaking into the majors.

 

The Cubs farm system has been extremely productive over the past 5-6 years. The only problem is that the vast majority of the production has come from the mound.

Not to mention Patterson had two productive seasons before Dusty tried to turn him into Lou Brock

 

I'll give you the half season in 03, but what was the other season?

2004. 24 homers and plus plus defense out of a CF making almost nothing is pretty good

[Guest]

The easiest way to quantify a GM would be team salary minus league minimum x 25 divided by marginal wins over replacement. You should probably include investments into the farm system into that too, but that'd get messy.

 

It might not be fair to some GMs who know they're overpaying for reasons other than baseball (i.e. Jeter's contract), but all in all it would do a good job of showing who does the best job of squeezing wins out of their money.

That doesn't work because of diminishing returns. The additional talent you get for each dollar spent is not a linear equation.

[CP_414]

Prior's success was short lived, but he was phenomenal. Zambrano has been one of the best pitchers in baseball if you look at that entire span. Few teams in baseball can match the success of those two alone during that time span. Add to that players like Wells, Marshall, Cruz, Marmol, Guzman, Hart, Ascanio, Caridad, Wuertz, Hill, Ohman. Add on guys like Gallagher, Nolasco, Mitre and others who got traded as they were breaking into the majors.

 

The Cubs farm system has been extremely productive over the past 5-6 years. The only problem is that the vast majority of the production has come from the mound.

Not to mention Patterson had two productive seasons before Dusty tried to turn him into Lou Brock

 

I'll give you the half season in 03, but what was the other season?

2004. 24 homers and plus plus defense out of a CF making almost nothing is pretty good

 

Eh. Its a stretch to call it a productive offensive season, maybe with defense...but using defense some here who know a lot more about UZR than I, might be able to argue he would still be a productive player. His 04 was not terrible considering position, but .266/.320/.452 with an OPS+ of 95 isn't really good either. I'm no Baker fan, but I'm not going to pin Patterson's failings on him. Corey has bounced around a lot since leaving the Cubs and he just isn't very good.

[Tarver]

If Dusty was a horse he would've been shot long ago, but I can't blame him for Patterson. The guy can't hit at all. It's amazing he ever accomplished a 95 OPS+.

[SouthSideRyan]

If Dusty was a horse he would've been shot long ago, but I can't blame him for Patterson. The guy can't hit at all. It's amazing he ever accomplished a 95 OPS+.

 

He also put up a 94 in '06. And a 114 in a little over half a season in '03. The guy could absolutely hit. It's possible to be a good hitter with below average command of the zone. He just seemed to just lose it completely, and I have to believe a hacktastic hitting coach/manager hepled contribute to that.

[Outshined_One]

Patterson learned a lot of bad habits at the plate and he never managed to shake them. Whether it was piss-poor coaching as a young man in HS, terrible development on the Cubs' part while he was in the minors, bad managing and coaching in the majors, his own fault, or some combination of the above, the fact remained that he had plenty of issues at the plate.

 

Now, whether or not you'd consider him a hit or a miss for the Cubs depends on how you evaluate him relative to his hype. If you look at him like any other prospect coming out of the minors, he was a marginal hit in that he provided high-quality defense, occasional pop, and some speed on the basepaths. If you look at him as someone who was once one of the top prospects in baseball and should have been a middle of the order staple for the Cubs for years to come, he was a miss.

[jersey cubs fan]

Patterson learned a lot of bad habits at the plate and he never managed to shake them. Whether it was piss-poor coaching as a young man in HS, terrible development on the Cubs' part while he was in the minors, bad managing and coaching in the majors, his own fault, or some combination of the above, the fact remained that he had plenty of issues at the plate.

 

Now, whether or not you'd consider him a hit or a miss for the Cubs depends on how you evaluate him relative to his hype. If you look at him like any other prospect coming out of the minors, he was a marginal hit in that he provided high-quality defense, occasional pop, and some speed on the basepaths. If you look at him as someone who was once one of the top prospects in baseball and should have been a middle of the order staple for the Cubs for years to come, he was a miss.

 

It still bothers me that when they drafted him, they made a point to say he was not a leadoff hitter, but a middle of the order guy with some pop. And then they allowed the freaking coaching staff to try and turn him into a slappy leadoff hitter. Absolutely ridiculous.

[Guest]

Patterson learned a lot of bad habits at the plate and he never managed to shake them. Whether it was piss-poor coaching as a young man in HS, terrible development on the Cubs' part while he was in the minors, bad managing and coaching in the majors, his own fault, or some combination of the above, the fact remained that he had plenty of issues at the plate.

 

Now, whether or not you'd consider him a hit or a miss for the Cubs depends on how you evaluate him relative to his hype. If you look at him like any other prospect coming out of the minors, he was a marginal hit in that he provided high-quality defense, occasional pop, and some speed on the basepaths. If you look at him as someone who was once one of the top prospects in baseball and should have been a middle of the order staple for the Cubs for years to come, he was a miss.

 

It still bothers me that when they drafted him, they made a point to say he was not a leadoff hitter, but a middle of the order guy with some pop. And then they allowed the freaking coaching staff to try and turn him into a slappy leadoff hitter. Absolutely ridiculous.

Interesting story I've heard on Corey's development...

 

MacPhail wanted to draft a college player in that spot that could reach the majors faster, but Hendry was enamored with Patterson. So he promised that Corey was such a special HS talent that would be in the majors very shortly after he was drafted. Then Corey backs it up with a huge first year at Lansing. After that, he was rushed through the org in order to fulfill the promise that was made in the draft room.

 

I can't be 100% certain of the story, but I trust the source an awful lot.

[CyHawk_Cub]

Patterson learned a lot of bad habits at the plate and he never managed to shake them. Whether it was piss-poor coaching as a young man in HS, terrible development on the Cubs' part while he was in the minors, bad managing and coaching in the majors, his own fault, or some combination of the above, the fact remained that he had plenty of issues at the plate.

 

Now, whether or not you'd consider him a hit or a miss for the Cubs depends on how you evaluate him relative to his hype. If you look at him like any other prospect coming out of the minors, he was a marginal hit in that he provided high-quality defense, occasional pop, and some speed on the basepaths. If you look at him as someone who was once one of the top prospects in baseball and should have been a middle of the order staple for the Cubs for years to come, he was a miss.

 

It still bothers me that when they drafted him, they made a point to say he was not a leadoff hitter, but a middle of the order guy with some pop. And then they allowed the freaking coaching staff to try and turn him into a slappy leadoff hitter. Absolutely ridiculous.

Interesting story I've heard on Corey's development...

 

MacPhail wanted to draft a college player in that spot that could reach the majors faster, but Hendry was enamored with Patterson. So he promised that Corey was such a special HS talent that would be in the majors very shortly after he was drafted. Then Corey backs it up with a huge first year at Lansing. After that, he was rushed through the org in order to fulfill the promise that was made in the draft room.

 

I can't be 100% certain of the story, but I trust the source an awful lot.

 

Ahhh, that Hendry & his salesmanship... Rushing a prospect to save face...CYA at its finest