Who to fire?

[Schwarber Fan]

Lou, Hendry, or both?

[17 Seconds]

i don't think we'll really need to fire lou. assuming the cubs don't make the playoffs this year, i think lou walks.... especially if hendry is fired. he seems like he's pretty much done with this

[Sammy Sofa]

Hendry should be fired. Lou should just be allowed to walk when his deal is up at the end of the season.

[Tracer Bullet]

Lou's already given up. But this team isn't going anywhere this year, so there's no need to fire him. The only reason I'd do it is if Trammell would be given the team for the rest of the year and allowed to stay on next year. But Sandberg is clearly going to be manager next year, so screw it.

[jersey cubs fan]

The most important person to fire is Hendry, but you might as well let Lou go with him and have the new GM start fresh.

[soapy]

I'm curious to see the reasoning for people who chose "neither".

[CubColtPacer]

I'm curious to see the reasoning for people who chose "neither".

 

I haven't chosen one, but I'm at least considering neither. In fact, the only one of the four I'm not considering is Hendry alone. I would agree that their performance to date should make both of them not feel very safe and their firing would be deserved.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm curious to see the reasoning for people who chose "neither".

 

I haven't chosen one, but I'm at least considering neither. In fact, the only one of the four I'm not considering is Hendry alone. I would agree that their performance to date should make both of them not feel very safe and their firing would be deserved.

 

why?

 

He's been given chance after chance and has failed.

[rawaction]

I'm curious to see the reasoning for people who chose "neither".

 

I haven't chosen one, but I'm at least considering neither. In fact, the only one of the four I'm not considering is Hendry alone. I would agree that their performance to date should make both of them not feel very safe and their firing would be deserved.

 

That doesn't make sense to me. Both deserve to be fired, but you are considering that neither should be?

[Guest]

Hendry hasn't done a very good job, but there is a good deal he does right. He's also not bad enough that he's actively destroying something like, say, Dusty was. As someone who's risk averse and solution-oriented to begin with, I'd like to think about the situation in a "who are we hiring that is better than Hendry?" fashion rather than "Hendry has failed, he must go". Obviously, evaluating GM candidates is difficult to impossible for message board posters(especially those who haven't been in the position), so I guess I'm kinda ambivalent on Hendry.

 

Lou, on the other hand, I have little to no interest in firing.

[CubColtPacer]

I'm curious to see the reasoning for people who chose "neither".

 

I haven't chosen one, but I'm at least considering neither. In fact, the only one of the four I'm not considering is Hendry alone. I would agree that their performance to date should make both of them not feel very safe and their firing would be deserved.

 

That doesn't make sense to me. Both deserve to be fired, but you are considering that neither should be?

 

The short answer is that I don't necessarily believe that what Hendry did 5 years ago is indicative of what he would do today. I think he's much better at trying to find the right kinds of players now and I absolutely love his ability to find talent. I like the majority of things the team has done since the cupboard was basically bare at the end of 2006 on both the minor and major league levels.

 

As for Lou, he hasn't really done anything significantly right or wrong. He deserves to be fired for the underachieving his team has done in 2009/early 2010 because managers take the fall for such things. I'm actually closer to wanting to fire him over things like his bullpen usage, but it hasn't been a big enough problem that if he kept his job I'd be concerned either. I'm more concerned about keeping both the hitting and pitching coaches and so I'm happy to keep Lou to keep the whole staff together.

[jersey cubs fan]

Hendry hasn't done a very good job, but there is a good deal he does right. He's also not bad enough that he's actively destroying something like, say, Dusty was. As someone who's risk averse and solution-oriented to begin with, I'd like to think about the situation in a "who are we hiring that is better than Hendry?" fashion rather than "Hendry has failed, he must go". Obviously, evaluating GM candidates is difficult to impossible for message board posters(especially those who haven't been in the position), so I guess I'm kinda ambivalent on Hendry.

 

Lou, on the other hand, I have little to no interest in firing.

 

So accept mediocrity instead of risking failure while you try to actually be great. Hasn't that been the defining principle of the Cubs for decades? Take the proven veteran who you know won't get the job done.

[jersey cubs fan]

and I absolutely love his ability to find talent.

 

How so? What talent has he found? He doesn't draft, he doesn't sign international free agents. The most involved he's been finding talent in recent history has to be Jeff Samardzija. He signs and trades for established big league players with easily discernible track records.

[Guest]

Hendry hasn't done a very good job, but there is a good deal he does right. He's also not bad enough that he's actively destroying something like, say, Dusty was. As someone who's risk averse and solution-oriented to begin with, I'd like to think about the situation in a "who are we hiring that is better than Hendry?" fashion rather than "Hendry has failed, he must go". Obviously, evaluating GM candidates is difficult to impossible for message board posters(especially those who haven't been in the position), so I guess I'm kinda ambivalent on Hendry.

 

Lou, on the other hand, I have little to no interest in firing.

 

So accept mediocrity instead of risking failure while you try to actually be great. Hasn't that been the defining principle of the Cubs for decades? Take the proven veteran who you know won't get the job done.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

[jersey cubs fan]

Hendry hasn't done a very good job, but there is a good deal he does right. He's also not bad enough that he's actively destroying something like, say, Dusty was. As someone who's risk averse and solution-oriented to begin with, I'd like to think about the situation in a "who are we hiring that is better than Hendry?" fashion rather than "Hendry has failed, he must go". Obviously, evaluating GM candidates is difficult to impossible for message board posters(especially those who haven't been in the position), so I guess I'm kinda ambivalent on Hendry.

 

Lou, on the other hand, I have little to no interest in firing.

 

So accept mediocrity instead of risking failure while you try to actually be great. Hasn't that been the defining principle of the Cubs for decades? Take the proven veteran who you know won't get the job done.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

 

How is it not? You are afraid the next guy will be worse and justifying your faith in Hendry because some things have actually worked out even though the big picture proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he's terrible at his job.

[Guest]

Hendry hasn't done a very good job, but there is a good deal he does right. He's also not bad enough that he's actively destroying something like, say, Dusty was. As someone who's risk averse and solution-oriented to begin with, I'd like to think about the situation in a "who are we hiring that is better than Hendry?" fashion rather than "Hendry has failed, he must go". Obviously, evaluating GM candidates is difficult to impossible for message board posters(especially those who haven't been in the position), so I guess I'm kinda ambivalent on Hendry.

 

Lou, on the other hand, I have little to no interest in firing.

 

So accept mediocrity instead of risking failure while you try to actually be great. Hasn't that been the defining principle of the Cubs for decades? Take the proven veteran who you know won't get the job done.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

 

How is it not? You are afraid the next guy will be worse and justifying your faith in Hendry because some things have actually worked out even though the big picture proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he's terrible at his job.

 

You are almost impossible to talk with with the way you mischaracterize things into right and ridiculously, terribly wrong. No, I never said "don't fire Hendry because the replacement could be worse". I'm saying that finding a good GM is hard, and as a conservative person I'd like there to at least be someone in mind if they were to fire him.

[jersey cubs fan]

You are almost impossible to talk with with the way you mischaracterize things into right and ridiculously, terribly wrong. No, I never said "don't fire Hendry because the replacement could be worse". I'm saying that finding a good GM is hard, and as a conservative person I'd like there to at least be someone in mind if they were to fire him.

 

I'm impossible to talk with because I refuted your half assed defense of Hendry. You said you were ambivalent toward him. That makes no sense. The most important person in the organization is the GM, Hendry is the one constant over the past 15+ years of this organization. He was involved in some good things as far as rebuilding the minors early on, but fell flat on his face as GM. It does not matter that there are some good deals he has made. Every failed GM has to have a good deal or two under his belt, especially if they are given 8 years at the helm, ever increasing payrolls and the ability to always take on more money in transactions. If he was the one that had to dump Lee and Ramirez due to payroll problems, I'm sure he wouldn't look as good.

[CubColtPacer]

and I absolutely love his ability to find talent.

 

How so? What talent has he found? He doesn't draft, he doesn't sign international free agents. The most involved he's been finding talent in recent history has to be Jeff Samardzija. He signs and trades for established big league players with easily discernible track records.

 

I probably should have said identify rather than find. The first thing is his trades. Hendry has done a very good job of trading away players whose trade value ended up being higher than their future actual value. He doesn't always get full trade value for them, but he has done a good job of not trading away talent.

 

Then he has done a good job of acquiring players with question marks. DeRosa, Lilly, Marquis are good examples from the same offseason. All were players who ended up performing better to much better than they were expected to. Gorzelanny, Silva, and Byrd could end up being examples of the same thing from this year's team. With a couple of exceptions, Hendry has been able to avoid the contracts where the player gives you nothing. And there have been a lot out there in the years that the Cubs have been active in free agency.

[Guest]

You are almost impossible to talk with with the way you mischaracterize things into right and ridiculously, terribly wrong. No, I never said "don't fire Hendry because the replacement could be worse". I'm saying that finding a good GM is hard, and as a conservative person I'd like there to at least be someone in mind if they were to fire him.

 

I'm impossible to talk with because I refuted your half assed defense of Hendry. You said you were ambivalent toward him. That makes no sense. The most important person in the organization is the GM, Hendry is the one constant over the past 15+ years of this organization. He was involved in some good things as far as rebuilding the minors early on, but fell flat on his face as GM. It does not matter that there are some good deals he has made. Every failed GM has to have a good deal or two under his belt, especially if they are given 8 years at the helm, ever increasing payrolls and the ability to always take on more money in transactions. If he was the one that had to dump Lee and Ramirez due to payroll problems, I'm sure he wouldn't look as good.

 

This is not difficult to understand.

 

Good GMs are hard to find -> I'd like to have a replacement in mind when they fire Hendry -> It's impossible for me to gauge the quality of GM candidates -> I can't know to have a replacement in mind -> Hendry has done a bad job and I'm ambivalent about replacing him

 

 

Now, please continue with your cartoonishly aggressive negative criticism.

[Tracer Bullet]

You are almost impossible to talk with with the way you mischaracterize things into right and ridiculously, terribly wrong. No, I never said "don't fire Hendry because the replacement could be worse". I'm saying that finding a good GM is hard, and as a conservative person I'd like there to at least be someone in mind if they were to fire him.

 

I'm impossible to talk with because I refuted your half assed defense of Hendry. You said you were ambivalent toward him. That makes no sense. The most important person in the organization is the GM, Hendry is the one constant over the past 15+ years of this organization. He was involved in some good things as far as rebuilding the minors early on, but fell flat on his face as GM. It does not matter that there are some good deals he has made. Every failed GM has to have a good deal or two under his belt, especially if they are given 8 years at the helm, ever increasing payrolls and the ability to always take on more money in transactions. If he was the one that had to dump Lee and Ramirez due to payroll problems, I'm sure he wouldn't look as good.

 

you're impossible to talk with because you set up false dichotomies of right (you) and COMPLETELY INSANE (those that disagree with you). Even when I agree with you, as I do here, I find myself frustrated by your posts. You're refusing to acknowledge that TT's position could even be rational, let alone right. Anyone that has read this board for more than a few minutes knows that if there's one thing you can count on, it's TT being logical (even when he's wrong).

[CubColtPacer]

Looking back, 2006 was a very, very low point. There were a few things that got the Cubs there:

 

1) The franchise was not exactly stocked when Hendry got there. The offense was ancient. The bullpen wasn't much better. The starting pitching had some excellent young arms which was the strength of the franchise. There also wasn't that much help coming from the minors anymore.

2) Dusty Baker. He helped destroy the one thing the Cubs had left and that was their young starting pitching.

3)Draft coordinator. The drafts in the early-middle part of the decade were terrible. By 2006, the talent in the minors was quickly drying up because of a lack of quality drafted players.

4) Hendry. He did get Lee and Ramirez which helped replace some of the quickly aging offense. He also got Barrett who was useful for a few years. He had an inability to replace the OF talent that started to decline though and that really hurt the club. He let Baker continue to destroy the arms. He went after the wrong areas of the club and for the wrong players.

 

The Cubs had three choices. They could either 1) wait it out, trade away all their useful talent, and slowly rebuild and go through another 2-3 years of losing, 2) spend money, hope to rebuild the farm system and trade away players from there to get quick veteran fixes, or 3) spend money, hope to rebuild the farm system, hold onto the players on the farm and then start to incorporate the farm system to where less money needs to be spent.

 

The Cubs chose 3. They spent lots of money and returned to winning ways. They had to spend lots of money to do so because even though they got a couple of surprises from the farm (Soto, Wells) it isn't enough to build a team around. They've hung onto most all their talent in the farm system and the talent level slowly began to grow.

 

Now they are at the next phase of that development. They need to start incorporating young players and slowly let some of the other contracts unwind. Castro is the first and it sounds very encouraging that they are going to stick with him. There are other players on his heels and if the Cubs develop 2-3 players here, they won't need a rapidly expanding payroll to keep a winning ballclub.

 

The next step once that happens is to find an elite player to which to build around. The Cubs haven't found that yet from their farm system. They may eventually need to trade for one if they can't find one but it's too soon right now to really trade for one. They need the quantity of possible starters from the farm right now too much.

 

My concern is not what Hendry and Piniella have done so far the last 3+ years but that they will impede the development of the next step. But so far, they seem to be willing to take that path. As long as that is so, I am just fine with them staying on because I really like some aspects of both of them. I think Hendry in particular will have his strengths magnified and his weaknesses will not matter as much in the next phase.

[soapy]

Being worried that a new GM may actually be worse than Hendry is a legitimate concern, but it in no way justifies him keeping his job. I don't really consider that as part of the question of should he be fired. I think the answer to that is certainly yes as he hasn't met the standards I expect, particularly given his resources. The certainly could hire someone worse, but I think that's a seperate consideration altogether.

[soapy]

CCP, Don't you think 2 and 3 in your 2006 breakdown also point to Hendry? He's ultimately responsible for those, IMO. Particularly hiring and keeping Baker (I want to say he hired him, yes?).

[Guest]

CCP, Don't you think 2 and 3 in your 2006 breakdown also point to Hendry? He's ultimately responsible for those, IMO. Particularly hiring and keeping Baker (I want to say he hired him, yes?).

 

I think part of his point is that he's fixed those things since they caused the events leading through 2006.

[soapy]

CCP, Don't you think 2 and 3 in your 2006 breakdown also point to Hendry? He's ultimately responsible for those, IMO. Particularly hiring and keeping Baker (I want to say he hired him, yes?).

 

I think part of his point is that he's fixed those things since they caused the events leading through 2006.

 

So...he was bad but he's improved type of thing? I mean, that's oversimplifying what he's saying, but that's sort of what it sounds like. He put the people in place that made those mistakes and let things decline for three years before he acted.