Re: Cubs Step up pursuit of Byrd

[Ding Dong Johnson]

A guy doesn't have to have sustained success in the majors in order to have upside.

 

Josh Vitters has more upside than Ryan Theriot even though Theriot's established himself as a starter over the past 3 years and Vitters will be in AA.

 

That makes no sense. Vitters hasn't touched the majors while Theriot has. If Vitters had some major league experience than you can compare him to Theriot's early major league career.

 

As for Pie, Pie has had more time in the Majors than Fuld. Pie has been in the majors for about 2 1/2 years and his numbers dont scream potential. He had one good month but what about the rest of his time in the majors. I guess batting .333 with a OBP of .394 with 5 Hr and 13 RBIs scream potential. But then what do you have to say about his september numbers?

it makes perfect sense if you understand the meaning of upside as it relates to a baseball player

[Sever82]

A guy doesn't have to have sustained success in the majors in order to have upside.

 

Josh Vitters has more upside than Ryan Theriot even though Theriot's established himself as a starter over the past 3 years and Vitters will be in AA.

 

That makes no sense. Vitters hasn't touched the majors while Theriot has. If Vitters had some major league experience than you can compare him to Theriot's early major league career.

 

As for Pie, Pie has had more time in the Majors than Fuld. Pie has been in the majors for about 2 1/2 years and his numbers dont scream potential. He had one good month but what about the rest of his time in the majors. I guess batting .333 with a OBP of .394 with 5 Hr and 13 RBIs scream potential. But then what do you have to say about his september numbers?

it makes perfect sense if you understand the meaning of upside as it relates to a baseball player

 

 

No it doesn't make sense in when it relates to Pie. If Pie had just last year of service time and posted those numbers, than i would definitely say he has way more upside but the fact that Pie has had a decent amount of playing time but yet hasn't made a huge jump statistically, doesn't scream upside. If last year was his first year and you saw the supposed speed, fielding ability, etc. Then you would say, yes Pie has huge upside, look at his intangibles. But the fact that he hasn't done well on the basepaths and only had about maybe two good months in about a 30 month career, doesn't scream upside to me. I mean how old til people stop labeling PIe a high upside type of player?

[Guancous]

A guy doesn't have to have sustained success in the majors in order to have upside.

 

Josh Vitters has more upside than Ryan Theriot even though Theriot's established himself as a starter over the past 3 years and Vitters will be in AA.

 

That makes no sense. Vitters hasn't touched the majors while Theriot has. If Vitters had some major league experience than you can compare him to Theriot's early major league career.

 

As for Pie, Pie has had more time in the Majors than Fuld. Pie has been in the majors for about 2 1/2 years and his numbers dont scream potential. He had one good month but what about the rest of his time in the majors. I guess batting .333 with a OBP of .394 with 5 Hr and 13 RBIs scream potential. But then what do you have to say about his september numbers?

it makes perfect sense if you understand the meaning of upside as it relates to a baseball player

 

No it doesn't make sense in when it relates to Pie. If Pie had just last year of service time and posted those numbers, than i would definitely say he has way more upside but the fact that Pie has had a decent amount of playing time but yet hasn't made a huge jump statistically, doesn't scream upside. If last year was his first year and you saw the supposed speed, fielding ability, etc. Then you would say, yes Pie has huge upside, look at his intangibles. But the fact that he hasn't done well on the basepaths and only had about maybe two good months in about a 30 month career, doesn't scream upside to me. I mean how old til people stop labeling PIe a high upside type of player?

 

26

[Sever82]

A guy doesn't have to have sustained success in the majors in order to have upside.

 

Josh Vitters has more upside than Ryan Theriot even though Theriot's established himself as a starter over the past 3 years and Vitters will be in AA.

 

That makes no sense. Vitters hasn't touched the majors while Theriot has. If Vitters had some major league experience than you can compare him to Theriot's early major league career.

 

As for Pie, Pie has had more time in the Majors than Fuld. Pie has been in the majors for about 2 1/2 years and his numbers dont scream potential. He had one good month but what about the rest of his time in the majors. I guess batting .333 with a OBP of .394 with 5 Hr and 13 RBIs scream potential. But then what do you have to say about his september numbers?

it makes perfect sense if you understand the meaning of upside as it relates to a baseball player

 

No it doesn't make sense in when it relates to Pie. If Pie had just last year of service time and posted those numbers, than i would definitely say he has way more upside but the fact that Pie has had a decent amount of playing time but yet hasn't made a huge jump statistically, doesn't scream upside. If last year was his first year and you saw the supposed speed, fielding ability, etc. Then you would say, yes Pie has huge upside, look at his intangibles. But the fact that he hasn't done well on the basepaths and only had about maybe two good months in about a 30 month career, doesn't scream upside to me. I mean how old til people stop labeling PIe a high upside type of player?

 

26

 

Fair enough. Just saying cause i've been a Pie fan for the longest but after seeing fail over and over again with the Cubs, kind of funny to me that people still hold hope that he'll realize his supposed potential.

[jersey cubs fan]

No it doesn't make sense in when it relates to Pie. If Pie had just last year of service time and posted those numbers, than i would definitely say he has way more upside but the fact that Pie has had a decent amount of playing time but yet hasn't made a huge jump statistically, doesn't scream upside. If last year was his first year and you saw the supposed speed, fielding ability, etc. Then you would say, yes Pie has huge upside, look at his intangibles. But the fact that he hasn't done well on the basepaths and only had about maybe two good months in about a 30 month career, doesn't scream upside to me. I mean how old til people stop labeling PIe a high upside type of player?

 

A lack of eye popping major league stats by age 24 does not indicate anything about a player's upside. In fact, nothing you are talking about relates to upside in anyway.

[soapy]

OK then, so apparently what folks really want is not a new GM, but rather for the Cub to no longer be a big-market team, since big-market teams inherently waste lots of money.

No, I don't really think you're correctly stating what it is that people want.

Ok then where'd I jump the tracks:

 

Chorus: "Hendry wastes too much money so we need a new GM."

Davearm: "Hendry doesn't spend differently or less effectively than other big-market teams."

Tim: "All big-market teams waste money."

Davearm: "So the big-market thing is the problem, not the GM."

Tim: "Wrong."

Davearm: :confused:

 

there is absolutely no way that you are this dense. no [expletive] way.

I'm neither dense nor obtuse. But I can recognize and illustrate the logical flaws being espoused here.

 

The best, and perhaps only way to avoid wasting money is to operate your club like the Marlins have.

 

So don't get on Hendry for his foolish spending unless you would prefer that alternative, because all big-market teams have a few expensive, high-profile screwups on their resume. It goes with the territory.

 

I really don't understand how you can think you aren't being either dense or obtuse. You basically just said there are two ways to run clubs: like the Marlins or like the Cubs. Come on.

 

I accept that a big market team will likely overspend in some area(s). That's the luxury they have. Ideally though, you overpay (by necessity) for top-tier talent, not replacement level (or worse) bench players and relievers. The only two top-tier players that Hendry can even try to pretend he signed are Zambrano and Soriano and both of those are a stretch. He sure as hell overpaid guys like Miles, Perez, Blanco, J. Jones, Bradley and a whole host of relievers though.

 

The choice isn't the Marlins or the Cubs (though the Marlins have been just as successful as the Cubs). For you to act like people in this thread are advocating such is a joke and an insult to everyone.

[Sever82]

No it doesn't make sense in when it relates to Pie. If Pie had just last year of service time and posted those numbers, than i would definitely say he has way more upside but the fact that Pie has had a decent amount of playing time but yet hasn't made a huge jump statistically, doesn't scream upside. If last year was his first year and you saw the supposed speed, fielding ability, etc. Then you would say, yes Pie has huge upside, look at his intangibles. But the fact that he hasn't done well on the basepaths and only had about maybe two good months in about a 30 month career, doesn't scream upside to me. I mean how old til people stop labeling PIe a high upside type of player?

 

A lack of eye popping major league stats by age 24 does not indicate anything about a player's upside. In fact, nothing you are talking about relates to upside in anyway.

 

The numbers dont have to be eye popping, i'm not saying that. But they do have to show something. And looking at his numbers, I dont think there's anything that shows "Oh you know what, i think this kid will be something."

[SouthSideRyan]

I wish the Cubs actually let Pie fail over and over again with the Cubs.

[davearm2]

The best, and perhaps only way to avoid wasting money is to operate your club like the Marlins have.

 

Seriously, you don't even care about trying now.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. I'm not advocating that the Cubs should be run like the Marlins.

[Sever82]

I wish the Cubs actually let Pie fail over and over again with the Cubs.

 

Actually i agree with you on that. I dont think Pie is a potential star by any means. But i hope the cubs let Castro work through his funks and dont give him a short leash. Same thing goes for vitters, Jackson, etc. I know i may be in the minority on this but i would prefer the cubs go in the direction of rebuilding and i think Ryno would be a better manager than Piniella when it comes to this. Before anybody comes at me, just my opinion but i think Sanberg, having worked with most of the cubs prospects, has more a feel of what they bring to the table. Piniella on the other hand isn't as patient and prefers his vets, you can tell him countless times that Castro is a special player but you better believe he'll pull him if he doesn't produce. Pie's had a decent amount of time to prove himself but he was jerked around a bit.

 

Not to say Ryno is the best option to this, i mean if Piniella leaves after this season and Larussa is available, i'm all for going after Larussa. Whoever manages this cubs team when the youngsters come up needs to have some patience and i dont think piniella's that kind of manager. Whats going to be hard for whoever manages some of these cubs prospects, is dealing with the fans and media that wont want to go through the aches and pains of developing players. We'll see though, i'd rather have them rebuild than to continue overpaying for players coming off career years.

[mul21]

The best, and perhaps only way to avoid wasting money is to operate your club like the Marlins have.

 

Seriously, you don't even care about trying now.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. I'm not advocating that the Cubs should be run like the Marlins.

 

No, but you're trying to make an issue that isn't nearly black and white be black and white. Marlins or Yankess with no middle ground when there clearly is. The Cardinals are a mid-level payroll team and have done a pretty good job of being competitive most years. They've made smart moves in acquiring players and have mostly avoided that deadly long term deal that cripples you for years. They also haven't sold off players and rebuilt every 3-4 years. And they haven't signed any huge FAs either. It can be done. People are pissed because Hendry has not only made some questionable moves in wasting money on lower level FAs, but has now effectively handcuffed the club for the future by signing guys like Bradley, Soriano, and Z to huge deals and dishing out the NTCs he has.

[davearm2]

there is absolutely no way that you are this dense. no [expletive] way.

I'm neither dense nor obtuse. But I can recognize and illustrate the logical flaws being espoused here.

The best, and perhaps only way to avoid wasting money is to operate your club like the Marlins have.

 

So don't get on Hendry for his foolish spending unless you would prefer that alternative, because all big-market teams have a few expensive, high-profile screwups on their resume. It goes with the territory.

 

I really don't understand how you can think you aren't being either dense or obtuse. You basically just said there are two ways to run clubs: like the Marlins or like the Cubs. Come on.

I didn't say anything of the sort. All I said was the Marlins style was perhaps the only way to avoid wasting money, which seems to be a major strike folks have against Hendry. Meanwhile folks seem oblivious to the fact that Theo Epstein has got his share of Lugos, Cashman his share of Pavanos, Coletti his share of Schmidts and Andruw Jonses, the Angels their share of Sarge Jrs. etc. etc. That's not to excuse the mistakes, but rather to acknowledge that having one or two is basically unavoidable.

 

I accept that a big market team will likely overspend in some area(s). That's the luxury they have. Ideally though, you overpay (by necessity) for top-tier talent, not replacement level (or worse) bench players and relievers. The only two top-tier players that Hendry can even try to pretend he signed are Zambrano and Soriano and both of those are a stretch. He sure as hell overpaid guys like Miles, Perez, Blanco, J. Jones, Bradley and a whole host of relievers though.

I strongly suspect a careful analysis would show that Hendry hasn't operated particularly differently than his big-market colleagues in this area, either, although it'd be a much more difficult question to research.

 

The choice isn't the Marlins or the Cubs (though the Marlins have been just as successful as the Cubs). For you to act like people in this thread are advocating such is a joke and an insult to everyone.

I'm lost now. Obviously nobody, myself included, is advocating running the Cubs like the Marlins.

[cubsfan26]

I doubt the Cubs would have much interest in Pie. Just because they will be looking for a guy who has a little more of a track record. Pie hitting well in 140 something AB's isn't gonna all of the sudden change their opinions on him as a hitter. Because it could very likely be a fluke good stretch. The Orioles are smart and trying to sell high on him while he still has value. Especially since they don't really have a spot for him. But for the Cubs he's probably not a good fit, since were trying to win this season. Pie still a project and still gonna have his ups and downs IMO.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

No it doesn't make sense in when it relates to Pie. If Pie had just last year of service time and posted those numbers, than i would definitely say he has way more upside but the fact that Pie has had a decent amount of playing time but yet hasn't made a huge jump statistically, doesn't scream upside. If last year was his first year and you saw the supposed speed, fielding ability, etc. Then you would say, yes Pie has huge upside, look at his intangibles. But the fact that he hasn't done well on the basepaths and only had about maybe two good months in about a 30 month career, doesn't scream upside to me. I mean how old til people stop labeling PIe a high upside type of player?

 

A lack of eye popping major league stats by age 24 does not indicate anything about a player's upside. In fact, nothing you are talking about relates to upside in anyway.

 

The numbers dont have to be eye popping, i'm not saying that. But they do have to show something. And looking at his numbers, I dont think there's anything that shows "Oh you know what, i think this kid will be something."

you mean like his minor league numbers?

[davearm2]

The best, and perhaps only way to avoid wasting money is to operate your club like the Marlins have.

 

Seriously, you don't even care about trying now.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. I'm not advocating that the Cubs should be run like the Marlins.

 

No, but you're trying to make an issue that isn't nearly black and white be black and white. Marlins or Yankess with no middle ground when there clearly is. The Cardinals are a mid-level payroll team and have done a pretty good job of being competitive most years. They've made smart moves in acquiring players and have mostly avoided that deadly long term deal that cripples you for years. They also haven't sold off players and rebuilt every 3-4 years. And they haven't signed any huge FAs either. It can be done. People are pissed because Hendry has not only made some questionable moves in wasting money on lower level FAs, but has now effectively handcuffed the club for the future by signing guys like Bradley, Soriano, and Z to huge deals and dishing out the NTCs he has.

If that's what you're taking away, then you're misunderstanding.

 

I completely get that there's a continuum of ways to run a ballclub. Nowhere did I mean to suggest it's Yankees or Marlins with no middle ground.

 

What I'm saying is you have to live all the way at the low end of that continuum to eliminate the risk of having costly mistakes.

 

In other words the only way to prevent getting burned by bad contracts is to have no large contracts at all.

 

Nobody here wants the Cubs to be run that way, so you basically have to do your due diligence, accept the risk, and live with the fallout when things go south, as they inevitably will eventually.

[Sever82]

No it doesn't make sense in when it relates to Pie. If Pie had just last year of service time and posted those numbers, than i would definitely say he has way more upside but the fact that Pie has had a decent amount of playing time but yet hasn't made a huge jump statistically, doesn't scream upside. If last year was his first year and you saw the supposed speed, fielding ability, etc. Then you would say, yes Pie has huge upside, look at his intangibles. But the fact that he hasn't done well on the basepaths and only had about maybe two good months in about a 30 month career, doesn't scream upside to me. I mean how old til people stop labeling PIe a high upside type of player?

 

A lack of eye popping major league stats by age 24 does not indicate anything about a player's upside. In fact, nothing you are talking about relates to upside in anyway.

 

The numbers dont have to be eye popping, i'm not saying that. But they do have to show something. And looking at his numbers, I dont think there's anything that shows "Oh you know what, i think this kid will be something."

 

you mean like his minor league numbers?

 

 

Wouldn't put much into minor league numbers, Cedeno had better minor league stats than Pie if i remember.

[jersey cubs fan]

The best, and perhaps only way to avoid wasting money is to operate your club like the Marlins have.

 

Seriously, you don't even care about trying now.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. I'm not advocating that the Cubs should be run like the Marlins.

 

No but you are intentionally acting like a moron by pretending others are. The problem is the Cubs are no better than the Marlins, when they should be much, much better.

[Guest]

The best, and perhaps only way to avoid wasting money is to operate your club like the Marlins have.

 

Seriously, you don't even care about trying now.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. I'm not advocating that the Cubs should be run like the Marlins.

 

No, but you're trying to make an issue that isn't nearly black and white be black and white. Marlins or Yankess with no middle ground when there clearly is. The Cardinals are a mid-level payroll team and have done a pretty good job of being competitive most years. They've made smart moves in acquiring players and have mostly avoided that deadly long term deal that cripples you for years. They also haven't sold off players and rebuilt every 3-4 years. And they haven't signed any huge FAs either. It can be done. People are pissed because Hendry has not only made some questionable moves in wasting money on lower level FAs, but has now effectively handcuffed the club for the future by signing guys like Bradley, Soriano, and Z to huge deals and dishing out the NTCs he has.

If that's what you're taking away, then you're misunderstanding.

 

I completely get that there's a continuum of ways to run a ballclub. Nowhere did I mean to suggest it's Yankees or Marlins with no middle ground.

 

What I'm saying is you have to live all the way at the low end of that continuum to eliminate the risk of having costly mistakes.

 

In other words the only way to prevent getting burned by bad contracts is to have no large contracts at all.

 

Nobody here wants the Cubs to be run that way, so you basically have to do your due diligence, accept the risk, and live with the fallout when things go south, as they inevitably will eventually.

 

This isn't about how the money is spent. It's the RESULTS from the money that is spent.

 

It seems as though you have a completely different level of expectancy for this team. That's great, but you're flying that plane by yourself. Everyone else believes for the money that the Cubs have allotted to the payroll, more trips to the playoffs are in order.

 

Let's look at the Braves. They went to the playoffs every year for like 14 years in a row. That's pretty amazing considering for parts of that time, their budget was not in the top half of major league teams. This makes the GM of the Braves better than Hendry, better than Cashman, better than Epstein, better than everyone. This is what you are paying your GM to do. Build from within and then spend to fill the holes and make the right moves to keep your team on top for not just this year, but the next several years in a row.

 

You are right that just about every GM wastes money on someone at some point or another. However, if the results are there, while it's never acceptable to waste money, it's more forgiveable. The results aren't there for Hendry, therefore it's not forgiveable.

 

The list of other teams where the GM's have been replaced should be evidence enough. The only reason Hendry hasn't been removed at this point is probably because the team ownership has been in transition. The sadness is that everyday he stays in office could end up being more damaging than the previous day. He's running this team right now like he's trying to save his job when he should be running this team with the future of the team in mind.

[davearm2]

The best, and perhaps only way to avoid wasting money is to operate your club like the Marlins have.

 

Seriously, you don't even care about trying now.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. I'm not advocating that the Cubs should be run like the Marlins.

 

No but you are intentionally acting like a moron by pretending others are. The problem is the Cubs are no better than the Marlins, when they should be much, much better.

What you're accusing me of ("pretending others are") is flat out wrong, and illustrates a failure on your part to comprehend what I'm saying.

[Garwilly]

Byrd discussion?

[davearm2]

If that's what you're taking away, then you're misunderstanding.

 

I completely get that there's a continuum of ways to run a ballclub. Nowhere did I mean to suggest it's Yankees or Marlins with no middle ground.

 

What I'm saying is you have to live all the way at the low end of that continuum to eliminate the risk of having costly mistakes.

 

In other words the only way to prevent getting burned by bad contracts is to have no large contracts at all.

 

Nobody here wants the Cubs to be run that way, so you basically have to do your due diligence, accept the risk, and live with the fallout when things go south, as they inevitably will eventually.

 

This isn't about how the money is spent. It's the RESULTS from the money that is spent.

 

It seems as though you have a completely different level of expectancy for this team. That's great, but you're flying that plane by yourself. Everyone else believes for the money that the Cubs have allotted to the payroll, more trips to the playoffs are in order.

 

Let's look at the Braves. They went to the playoffs every year for like 14 years in a row. That's pretty amazing considering for parts of that time, their budget was not in the top half of major league teams. This makes the GM of the Braves better than Hendry, better than Cashman, better than Epstein, better than everyone. This is what you are paying your GM to do. Build from within and then spend to fill the holes and make the right moves to keep your team on top for not just this year, but the next several years in a row.

 

You are right that just about every GM wastes money on someone at some point or another. However, if the results are there, while it's never acceptable to waste money, it's more forgiveable. The results aren't there for Hendry, therefore it's not forgiveable.

 

The list of other teams where the GM's have been replaced should be evidence enough. The only reason Hendry hasn't been removed at this point is probably because the team ownership has been in transition. The sadness is that everyday he stays in office could end up being more damaging than the previous day. He's running this team right now like he's trying to save his job when he should be running this team with the future of the team in mind.

It'd be interesting to see what the mood around here would be if the Cubs had made the postseason in 2009, giving the Cubs three straight and 4 in Hendry's 7 years. As you said yourself this is a results-based business and it'd be hard to argue with those results. I suspect many of the especially-vocal folks would still want Hendry gone, but I bet they would be the minority.

 

But as we well know the Cubs didn't make the postseason in 2009. So in the end if folks want Hendry fired because his offseason moves last year backfired and turned a 97-win team into an 83-win team, I'll certainly listen to that. Heck I'm not particularly opposed to it myself, to be frank, because he's ultimately responsible for that failure.

 

What I won't listen to, however, is the notion that Hendry has been an unmitigated disaster who's done more harm than good since taking over, and that there's no sane reason to keep him around, and especially the notion that just about anyone else could do a better job given the same opportunity and resources. To me that's just a bunch of nonsense borne out of frustration and impatience.

[pitchcs]

I don't think most around here actually mean that almost ANYONE could have done better than JH, but rather that there are/will be better options available come next year and there are others that could have done more with what JH has had available to him the past however many years.

[soapy]

If that's what you're taking away, then you're misunderstanding.

 

I completely get that there's a continuum of ways to run a ballclub. Nowhere did I mean to suggest it's Yankees or Marlins with no middle ground.

 

What I'm saying is you have to live all the way at the low end of that continuum to eliminate the risk of having costly mistakes.

 

In other words the only way to prevent getting burned by bad contracts is to have no large contracts at all.

 

Nobody here wants the Cubs to be run that way, so you basically have to do your due diligence, accept the risk, and live with the fallout when things go south, as they inevitably will eventually.

 

This isn't about how the money is spent. It's the RESULTS from the money that is spent.

 

It seems as though you have a completely different level of expectancy for this team. That's great, but you're flying that plane by yourself. Everyone else believes for the money that the Cubs have allotted to the payroll, more trips to the playoffs are in order.

 

Let's look at the Braves. They went to the playoffs every year for like 14 years in a row. That's pretty amazing considering for parts of that time, their budget was not in the top half of major league teams. This makes the GM of the Braves better than Hendry, better than Cashman, better than Epstein, better than everyone. This is what you are paying your GM to do. Build from within and then spend to fill the holes and make the right moves to keep your team on top for not just this year, but the next several years in a row.

 

You are right that just about every GM wastes money on someone at some point or another. However, if the results are there, while it's never acceptable to waste money, it's more forgiveable. The results aren't there for Hendry, therefore it's not forgiveable.

 

The list of other teams where the GM's have been replaced should be evidence enough. The only reason Hendry hasn't been removed at this point is probably because the team ownership has been in transition. The sadness is that everyday he stays in office could end up being more damaging than the previous day. He's running this team right now like he's trying to save his job when he should be running this team with the future of the team in mind.

It'd be interesting to see what the mood around here would be if the Cubs had made the postseason in 2009, giving the Cubs three straight and 4 in Hendry's 7 years. As you said yourself this is a results-based business and it'd be hard to argue with those results. I suspect many of the especially-vocal folks would still want Hendry gone, but I bet they would be the minority.

 

But as we well know the Cubs didn't make the postseason in 2009. So in the end if folks want Hendry fired because his offseason moves last year backfired and turned a 97-win team into an 83-win team, I'll certainly listen to that. Heck I'm not particularly opposed to it myself, to be frank, because he's ultimately responsible for that failure.

 

What I won't listen to, however, is the notion that Hendry has been an unmitigated disaster who's done more harm than good since taking over, and that there's no sane reason to keep him around, and especially the notion that just about anyone else could do a better job given the same opportunity and resources. To me that's just a bunch of nonsense borne out of frustration and impatience.

 

IMPATIENCE?! that's rich.

 

we're simply not going to agree on this so i'll try to make this my last response on the topic. I think you need to take into account that two of Hendry's playoff teams were extremely fortunate to be in incredibly weak divisions (03 & 07). what if Houston hadn't tanked in 2003 or Milwaukee hadn't tanked in 2007 (the Cubs also got extremely hot in the second half that year, I acknowledge)? the 2003 team won 88 games while the 2007 team was even worse with 85. in 2003, the only division bad enough to be won with 88 wins was the NL Central. In 2007, the only division bad enough to be won with 85 wins was the NL Central. backing into the playoffs because you're in a weak division isn't much of an accomplishment in my mind. sure, there's an extremely slim chance that team will get absurdly hot at the right time circa 2006 Cardinals, but it's extremely unlikely. the only very good team in the Hendry era was 2008. the overall record of his teams is sub-par.

 

even if you wish to dismiss the (IMO) glaring evidence that he's wasted a decided financial advantage over the competition in the last few years (which I do not), the results are simply not good enough. end of story.

[mul21]

If that's what you're taking away, then you're misunderstanding.

 

I completely get that there's a continuum of ways to run a ballclub. Nowhere did I mean to suggest it's Yankees or Marlins with no middle ground.

 

What I'm saying is you have to live all the way at the low end of that continuum to eliminate the risk of having costly mistakes.

 

In other words the only way to prevent getting burned by bad contracts is to have no large contracts at all.

 

Nobody here wants the Cubs to be run that way, so you basically have to do your due diligence, accept the risk, and live with the fallout when things go south, as they inevitably will eventually.

 

You can't eliminate the risk of a bad deal because of the dollars we're talking about, but you do have to minimize risk to allow for future spending and improvements. Nearly everyone with a brain in their heads cringed when the Soriano deal was announced. Not because of the annual value, but because of the 8 freaking years in length. $17-18M for 5 years wouldn't have been bad, but the those last 3 years are going to kill the payroll.

 

Which, getting back to Byrd, is why there wouldn't be outrage at a 2/$12 deal, but when you go to 3/$20-21M, people start getting a little bent out of shape. The next 2 years, you probably need him, but why give him the extra year when you may well have production available from Colvin, Burke, or even Jackson in CF by that time.

[UK1679666180]

To me that's just a bunch of nonsense borne out of frustration and impatience.

 

While Hendry isn't the best or worst GM out there, he has had plenty of time to determine whether or not he is the most qualified and most likely to put the Cubs in a position to field a playoff team. There should be frustration at this point with Hendry, he tried to win it all by spending like drunken sailor and has more than likely failed while putting two teams with the talent to expect 90 wins '04 (despite coming up short) and '08. Both the '03 and '07 teams were products of the division rather than products of outstanding talent.

 

He's a medicore GM when it comes to roster moves and when you don't have the payroll of the evil empires or a good farm system that unless there's some players playing above their heads like in '08 (that was a 90 win team playing above their heads), the Cubs will likely cont. to fail to live up to expectations more times than not with Hendry running the show. Now with all these backloaded and expensive contracts, it will make his job even more difficult without the ability to try and outbid anyone for a possible important piece as the Cubs likely need another good starter, middle of the order bat, and another real good bullpen arm to get them near that legit playoff contender and no way to get them without giving up Vitters and/or Castro