Is there a precedent?

[jersey cubs fan]

by "spreading it around overpaying for the wrong guys" are you talking about wasting it on the bench and RPs that combine to eat up the payroll or the Z and Soriano contracts?

 

Both.

 

Do you think that's really different than most big payroll teams? Maybe he spends more on RPs and role players than other teams, but I don't know the details of some other rosters. Seems to me like he just picks the wrong guys to go after.

 

I think he's a little unique in the 3/9 type deals he hands out to backups and utility players. I'm not sure many teams sign the Miles/Neifi kind of contract. Or if they do, they actually get players who are useful in those roles, instead of 26th man type players.

[lumafia]

In Hendry's defense (I can't believe I'm saying that), when healthy, Lee has been more productive since the extension. This year has certainly been an unusual year for Lee, and if he were on his career averages from the past 5 years, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

 

Nonsense. Lee was nearly just as bad from May 2008-April 2009. He's had a very unspectaculiar career for a 1B, with a couple stand out years.

 

 

Hogwash. Didn't Lee finish 09 with a .972 OPS? His numbers have been better since the extension. Based on 162 game averages, his OPS prior to his extension with the Cubs in 06, his career OPS was .847. After the extension, his career OPS is .877. It depends on how you would define "spectacular", but i think he has been very good, and deserves the contract he got.

 

Also, he has had a .908 OPS in a Cub uni, which puts him among the top 20 active OPS in all of baseball right now.

 

If you remove his 2 worst years and his 2 best years, he still has a career OPS of .871, which is very respectable. Also, having the 122nd highest OPS in the history of MLB baseball is spectacular.

 

Lee sucks this year, but he also sucked from May 2008 - April 2009. This is not unprecedented. I'm not saying he didn't necessarily deserve his contract, but he's been a second rate 1B the vast majority of his career, and should not be a high payroll team's three hitter year in year out.

 

Well, why didn't you just say "I can't believe the #3 hitter on a $150 mil payrol team is a career .870 OPS 1B"? Then you could have saved me some typing.

[jersey cubs fan]

Well, why didn't you just say "I can't believe the #3 hitter on a $150 mil payrol team is a career .870 OPS 1B"? Then you could have saved me some typing.

 

Because there were other things to mention, like Lee sucking not being unusual.

[J.R.]

It seems multiple people are thinking I'm saying that the Cubs shouldn't have signed Lee and Aramis or that their contracts were unreasonable or bad singings; I'm not. I'm saying that when a team's payroll is able to top out near $150 million then Aramis and Lee should not and cannot be expected to be the very best offensive players that that team has. That's not saying they shouldn't have been signed; I'm saying that if almost $150 million is spent and they're expected to be the offensive cornerstones then something's been [expletive] up.

 

Absolutely. Ramirez is a fabulous second banana. Lee has on occasion been a star, but he's usually just an also ran in the 1B department. The really good lineups have ARod or Manny or Pujols or Utley. If you are a huge budget team, you should have one of that type of player, plus the Aramis type.

 

Exactly. Both guys are incredibly useful players to have, but you don't build a team around either one of them as the Cubs attempted to do.

 

This was very much the mindset of Tribune, even in its biggest spending years - try to get by with the least expense.

[Guest]

Looking at the allocation of dollars on the position players, there's really only one single problem. If you take the salaries and line them up in decreasing order, every single contract would be very worthy of it's spot on that list except the one at the top. If Soriano were a fairly reliable .900+ hitter for the $18M we're giving him, then you're looking at the contracts to Ramirez and Lee being pretty good for the #2 and #3 options on offense that they should represent.

 

I guess you could look at Fukudome as an issue, but his total contribution isn't bad for that money. Even if he isn't worth his money, he's not a bad mistake there.

 

1     $18.0    Soriano
2     $15.8    Ramirez
3     $13.0    Lee
4     $13.0    Fukudome
5     $ 3.3    Nady
6     $ 3.0    Byrd
7     $ 2.6    Theriot
8     $ 1.0    Fontenot
9     $ 0.9    Baker

[champaignchris]

Haven't the Mets had similar teams?

 

The Mets of recent years have had bad pitching (everyone but Santan) and injuries (Beltran, Reyes, Delgado).

 

The Mets were my first thought, but not the current Mets. Rather the post-Subway Series Piazza/Mo Vaughn/Leiter Mets from about 2001 to 2005.

[CubsWin]

The Chicago Cubs have the highest payroll in the league, an above average pitching staff and have been relatively injury-free, yet they are floundering at 6 games under .500. This has to be an anomaly, right? It seems whenever a top-payroll team vastly underperforms it is due to a rash of injuries or terrible pitching. Is there a precedent for this? If not, does it tell us anything about this team (other than,"fire Lou, fire Hendry, etc")?

Well, the Cubs haven't had a rash of injuries but for all intents and purposes, they've lost their two best hitters (albeit not to injury) and had to replace them with horrible versions of themselves. Zambrano and Wells have been pretty freakin' bad compared to last season, that's 40% of rotation right there. Throw in the struggles with the pen in April and May and the Cubs record is not an anomaly. Freakish injuries or freakish underperforming, it's the same result.

[questionmarkgrace]

Basically what we are looking at a is a history of the cubs spending big for the flavor of the month, based on one or two amazing years Lee, Aram, Soriano, Z, Bradley, etc. All fit this bill. None of these guys were the marquis player at their position either but rather the splashy move to make. None of these guys have improved with the cubs either. The cubs sign guys for big contracts and they become complacent and or lose their new found skill level. The Yankees sign huge contracts but get the most our of their players. Four reasons why, 1) The cubs never go after that guy who has proven he can put a team on his back in general because the yankees and redsox always overpay for that guy. We are always stuck with that guy who was that guy for a bad team or did it for a year but never the guy who is a pure stud. 2) the cubs always look for the one move solution because they are and have been too budget conscious despite egregious unwarranted spending. its a contradiction of philosophy spend big to get the man of the moment, and ignore other holes that are often huge, assuming that the new guy will carry the team. When the redsox sign a guy there are 8 other guys in the line up that are top players at their position. When the cubs do its just the new guy and a couple of real solid players, and a couple mediocre guys, but not the guys that can make up for one or the other top tier players missing half a season. Thus we are always one player away. 3) We havent drafted nor really developed any really good hitters so our chances of getting these guys are highly dependent upon free agency, which as I have pointed out we are not the best at. 4) finally, there is entirely too much organizational promotion within the cubs, Wilkens the exception to the rule. In general our scouts have been our scouts for a long time, Hendry & Oneri Flieta have been here for a long time. When your organization has a poor philosophy and that is continually stressed upon all new employees due to the seniority of the management personal you will have little change. Sure we spend more, but with little effect or repercussions. And yeah we get new managers but they are similarly f-ed because they are so dependent upon the scouts and the gm poor drafting etc.

 

hopefully rickets sees some of these problems and addresses them. But like all other owners he will try to avoid rebuilding on these levels with band aids because of the economic effects of the cubs not contending.

[Backtobanks]

Basically what we are looking at a is a history of the cubs spending big for the flavor of the month, based on one or two amazing years Lee, Aram, Soriano, Z, Bradley, etc. All fit this bill. None of these guys were the marquis player at their position either but rather the splashy move to make. None of these guys have improved with the cubs either. The cubs sign guys for big contracts and they become complacent and or lose their new found skill level. The Yankees sign huge contracts but get the most our of their players. Four reasons why, 1) The cubs never go after that guy who has proven he can put a team on his back in general because the yankees and redsox always overpay for that guy. We are always stuck with that guy who was that guy for a bad team or did it for a year but never the guy who is a pure stud. 2) the cubs always look for the one move solution because they are and have been too budget conscious despite egregious unwarranted spending. its a contradiction of philosophy spend big to get the man of the moment, and ignore other holes that are often huge, assuming that the new guy will carry the team. When the redsox sign a guy there are 8 other guys in the line up that are top players at their position. When the cubs do its just the new guy and a couple of real solid players, and a couple mediocre guys, but not the guys that can make up for one or the other top tier players missing half a season. Thus we are always one player away. 3) We havent drafted nor really developed any really good hitters so our chances of getting these guys are highly dependent upon free agency, which as I have pointed out we are not the best at. 4) finally, there is entirely too much organizational promotion within the cubs, Wilkens the exception to the rule. In general our scouts have been our scouts for a long time, Hendry & Oneri Flieta have been here for a long time. When your organization has a poor philosophy and that is continually stressed upon all new employees due to the seniority of the management personal you will have little change. Sure we spend more, but with little effect or repercussions. And yeah we get new managers but they are similarly f-ed because they are so dependent upon the scouts and the gm poor drafting etc.

 

hopefully rickets sees some of these problems and addresses them. But like all other owners he will try to avoid rebuilding on these levels with band aids because of the economic effects of the cubs not contending.

 

Almost every FA signing could be described as the "flavor of the month, based on one or two amazing years." If a player has a great season or two just before he hits free agency, he's going to be ridiculously overpaid by some team (and not just the Cubs). The economy has slowed this down some, but a few years ago #3 starters were getting contracts in the $10 million per year for 3 years range. I think the real killer in most bad deals is the years rather than the money.

[Guest]

Basically what we are looking at a is a history of the cubs spending big for the flavor of the month, based on one or two amazing years Lee, Aram, Soriano, Z, Bradley, etc. All fit this bill. None of these guys were the marquis player at their position either but rather the splashy move to make. None of these guys have improved with the cubs either. The cubs sign guys for big contracts and they become complacent and or lose their new found skill level. The Yankees sign huge contracts but get the most our of their players. Four reasons why, 1) The cubs never go after that guy who has proven he can put a team on his back in general because the yankees and redsox always overpay for that guy. We are always stuck with that guy who was that guy for a bad team or did it for a year but never the guy who is a pure stud. 2) the cubs always look for the one move solution because they are and have been too budget conscious despite egregious unwarranted spending. its a contradiction of philosophy spend big to get the man of the moment, and ignore other holes that are often huge, assuming that the new guy will carry the team. When the redsox sign a guy there are 8 other guys in the line up that are top players at their position. When the cubs do its just the new guy and a couple of real solid players, and a couple mediocre guys, but not the guys that can make up for one or the other top tier players missing half a season. Thus we are always one player away. 3) We havent drafted nor really developed any really good hitters so our chances of getting these guys are highly dependent upon free agency, which as I have pointed out we are not the best at. 4) finally, there is entirely too much organizational promotion within the cubs, Wilkens the exception to the rule. In general our scouts have been our scouts for a long time, Hendry & Oneri Flieta have been here for a long time. When your organization has a poor philosophy and that is continually stressed upon all new employees due to the seniority of the management personal you will have little change. Sure we spend more, but with little effect or repercussions. And yeah we get new managers but they are similarly f-ed because they are so dependent upon the scouts and the gm poor drafting etc.

 

hopefully rickets sees some of these problems and addresses them. But like all other owners he will try to avoid rebuilding on these levels with band aids because of the economic effects of the cubs not contending.

I think you have it mostly correct, especially the part I bolded. The only thing I would disagree with is that Hendry lets the manager dictate personnel too much.

[illiniguy]

Wait a second, Armais Ramirez has been up until this year, one of the best 3B in the game. I don't think anyone could have predicted this year happening to him this early.

[Soul]

Yeah, I still consider Ramirez to be among Hendry's positives.

[dew1679666265]

Basically what we are looking at a is a history of the cubs spending big for the flavor of the month, based on one or two amazing years Lee, Aram, Soriano, Z, Bradley, etc. All fit this bill.

 

Z doesn't fit this at all. He had three years of xFIPs in the 3-range (3.82, 3.88, 3.54) from 2003-2005. Since then his xFIPs have been 4.20, 4.62, 4.45, 4.27 and 4.26. He re-signed with the Cubs in 2008, the 4.45 xFIP year. Since signing, he's been about the same to a little better than the two years immediately preceeding the extension.

 

Aramis is much the same way. Before re-signing with the Cubs, he had OPS' of .956, .921, .912 and .915. Since the 2007 extension – .898 and .905. A bit of a dropoff, but not huge

 

In both cases, if the contract had been given out because of one amazing year, it would have been given out much earlier than it was. If anything, both of them got big contracts for consistently very good performance over a number of years.

 

None of these guys have improved with the cubs either. The cubs sign guys for big contracts and they become complacent and or lose their new found skill level.

 

Soriano: As a Yankee: .824 OPS. As a Ranger: .814 OPS. As a National: .911 OPS (1 year). As a Cub: .840 OPS.

 

Lee: As a Cub: .909 OPS. As a Marlin: .822 OPS.

 

Both have been better as a Cub than anywhere else, with the exception of Soriano's breakout year with Washington (which he almost matched in Chicago with an .897 OPS). ARam has been better as a Cub than Pirate by a huge margin, but that would be expected. Z has only been a Cub.

 

The Yankees sign huge contracts but get the most our of their players. Four reasons why, 1) The cubs never go after that guy who has proven he can put a team on his back in general because the yankees and redsox always overpay for that guy. We are always stuck with that guy who was that guy for a bad team or did it for a year but never the guy who is a pure stud. 2) the cubs always look for the one move solution because they are and have been too budget conscious despite egregious unwarranted spending. its a contradiction of philosophy spend big to get the man of the moment, and ignore other holes that are often huge, assuming that the new guy will carry the team. When the redsox sign a guy there are 8 other guys in the line up that are top players at their position. When the cubs do its just the new guy and a couple of real solid players, and a couple mediocre guys, but not the guys that can make up for one or the other top tier players missing half a season. Thus we are always one player away. 3) We havent drafted nor really developed any really good hitters so our chances of getting these guys are highly dependent upon free agency, which as I have pointed out we are not the best at. 4) finally, there is entirely too much organizational promotion within the cubs, Wilkens the exception to the rule. In general our scouts have been our scouts for a long time, Hendry & Oneri Flieta have been here for a long time. When your organization has a poor philosophy and that is continually stressed upon all new employees due to the seniority of the management personal you will have little change. Sure we spend more, but with little effect or repercussions. And yeah we get new managers but they are similarly f-ed because they are so dependent upon the scouts and the gm poor drafting etc.

 

You make some good points in this, but a couple of issues:

 

On point #2: The Cubs have been one of the least budget conscious teams since Hendry took over. They've consistently raised the budget anytime a player they felt could help was available. I do agree that they've misspent a lot of that budget, but until the past couple of years they really haven't been all that budget conscious.

 

Also on point #2: The Red Sox rarely have the best player at every position. The Yankees come close because of their ridiculous payroll, but the Red Sox generally have good to very good players at every position, but not top players at each. Just this year, they have less than top 5 production at 2B, SS, RF, CF, LF and DH. Looking just at players, they have David Ortiz DHing, Marco Scutaro at SS, J.D. Drew in RF and Adrian Beltre at 3B. I doubt any of those guys, entering the year, would be considered top players at their position.

[Backtobanks]

Basically what we are looking at a is a history of the cubs spending big for the flavor of the month, based on one or two amazing years Lee, Aram, Soriano, Z, Bradley, etc. All fit this bill.

 

Z doesn't fit this at all. He had three years of xFIPs in the 3-range (3.82, 3.88, 3.54) from 2003-2005. Since then his xFIPs have been 4.20, 4.62, 4.45, 4.27 and 4.26. He re-signed with the Cubs in 2008, the 4.45 xFIP year. Since signing, he's been about the same to a little better than the two years immediately preceeding the extension.

 

Aramis is much the same way. Before re-signing with the Cubs, he had OPS' of .956, .921, .912 and .915. Since the 2007 extension – .898 and .905. A bit of a dropoff, but not huge

 

In both cases, if the contract had been given out because of one amazing year, it would have been given out much earlier than it was. If anything, both of them got big contracts for consistently very good performance over a number of years.

 

None of these guys have improved with the cubs either. The cubs sign guys for big contracts and they become complacent and or lose their new found skill level.

 

Soriano: As a Yankee: .824 OPS. As a Ranger: .814 OPS. As a National: .911 OPS (1 year). As a Cub: .840 OPS.

 

Lee: As a Cub: .909 OPS. As a Marlin: .822 OPS.

 

Both have been better as a Cub than anywhere else, with the exception of Soriano's breakout year with Washington (which he almost matched in Chicago with an .897 OPS). ARam has been better as a Cub than Pirate by a huge margin, but that would be expected. Z has only been a Cub.

 

The Yankees sign huge contracts but get the most our of their players. Four reasons why, 1) The cubs never go after that guy who has proven he can put a team on his back in general because the yankees and redsox always overpay for that guy. We are always stuck with that guy who was that guy for a bad team or did it for a year but never the guy who is a pure stud. 2) the cubs always look for the one move solution because they are and have been too budget conscious despite egregious unwarranted spending. its a contradiction of philosophy spend big to get the man of the moment, and ignore other holes that are often huge, assuming that the new guy will carry the team. When the redsox sign a guy there are 8 other guys in the line up that are top players at their position. When the cubs do its just the new guy and a couple of real solid players, and a couple mediocre guys, but not the guys that can make up for one or the other top tier players missing half a season. Thus we are always one player away. 3) We havent drafted nor really developed any really good hitters so our chances of getting these guys are highly dependent upon free agency, which as I have pointed out we are not the best at. 4) finally, there is entirely too much organizational promotion within the cubs, Wilkens the exception to the rule. In general our scouts have been our scouts for a long time, Hendry & Oneri Flieta have been here for a long time. When your organization has a poor philosophy and that is continually stressed upon all new employees due to the seniority of the management personal you will have little change. Sure we spend more, but with little effect or repercussions. And yeah we get new managers but they are similarly f-ed because they are so dependent upon the scouts and the gm poor drafting etc.

 

You make some good points in this, but a couple of issues:

 

On point #2: The Cubs have been one of the least budget conscious teams since Hendry took over. They've consistently raised the budget anytime a player they felt could help was available. I do agree that they've misspent a lot of that budget, but until the past couple of years they really haven't been all that budget conscious.

 

Also on point #2: The Red Sox rarely have the best player at every position. The Yankees come close because of their ridiculous payroll, but the Red Sox generally have good to very good players at every position, but not top players at each. Just this year, they have less than top 5 production at 2B, SS, RF, CF, LF and DH. Looking just at players, they have David Ortiz DHing, Marco Scutaro at SS, J.D. Drew in RF and Adrian Beltre at 3B. I doubt any of those guys, entering the year, would be considered top players at their position.

 

I think all of us are guilty of "the grass is always greener" syndrome. Most of us eat, sleep, and pour over every aspect of the Cubs without realizing that other teams overspend, under produce, and frustrate their fans as much as the Cubs. As frustrating as the Cubs are, can you imagine living in a city where the owners refuse to spend the money and have last place teams every single year?

[dew1679666265]

I think all of us are guilty of "the grass is always greener" syndrome. Most of us eat, sleep, and pour over every aspect of the Cubs without realizing that other teams overspend, under produce, and frustrate their fans as much as the Cubs. As frustrating as the Cubs are, can you imagine living in a city where the owners refuse to spend the money and have last place teams every single year?

 

The Cubs have definitely underperformed their payroll in the Hendry years overall, but his era certainly hasn't been some kind of awful mess. We're certainly not the only organization – or even the only good organization – that gives out bad contracts, overpays for relievers or underperforms at times. Though they have had their share of each.

[Backtobanks]

I think all of us are guilty of "the grass is always greener" syndrome. Most of us eat, sleep, and pour over every aspect of the Cubs without realizing that other teams overspend, under produce, and frustrate their fans as much as the Cubs. As frustrating as the Cubs are, can you imagine living in a city where the owners refuse to spend the money and have last place teams every single year?

 

The Cubs have definitely underperformed their payroll in the Hendry years overall, but his era certainly hasn't been some kind of awful mess. We're certainly not the only organization – or even the only good organization – that gives out bad contracts, overpays for relievers or underperforms at times. Though they have had their share of each.

 

Having been a Cub fan for 56 years and watching those horrible teams in the mid-50's, it is hard to get too upset with the team that bounces between underperforming and contending.

[jersey cubs fan]

I think all of us are guilty of "the grass is always greener" syndrome. Most of us eat, sleep, and pour over every aspect of the Cubs without realizing that other teams overspend, under produce, and frustrate their fans as much as the Cubs. As frustrating as the Cubs are, can you imagine living in a city where the owners refuse to spend the money and have last place teams every single year?

 

The Cubs have definitely underperformed their payroll in the Hendry years overall, but his era certainly hasn't been some kind of awful mess. We're certainly not the only organization – or even the only good organization – that gives out bad contracts, overpays for relievers or underperforms at times. Though they have had their share of each.

 

Having been a Cub fan for 56 years and watching those horrible teams in the mid-50's, it is hard to get too upset with the team that bounces between underperforming and contending.

 

I despise the notion of this is as good as we've seen it, be happy. It was this same mindset that tried telling people to be happy with back to back .500 seasons and stop complaining about the Baker years.

 

The Hendry years have been horrible in comparison to how they should have been. Back in 98/99/00, this team was on the verge of becoming a force, ownership went from providing a middle fo the road payroll, to top ten and kept climbing to top 5. The fact that other organizations have struggled is meaningless. The Cubs are a top payroll club, but a middle of the road performer in the Jim Hendry era. That is abysmal. It would be one thing if this club won 90-95 a few times and when they struggled, they only won 85. But this team has lost 90 three times this past decade, are flirting with 90-loss pace again this year. Struggling on occasion is completely forgiveable, but Hendry's track record has been terrible. You cannot seperate the underperforming payroll from the judgement of the job he has done.

[javy knows my name]

Wait a second, Armais Ramirez has been up until this year, one of the best 3B in the game. I don't think anyone could have predicted this year happening to him this early.

I think the list of Hendry's accomplishments starts and ends with the Aramis trade. No way you can put this year's lack of production on him.

[dew1679666265]

Wait a second, Armais Ramirez has been up until this year, one of the best 3B in the game. I don't think anyone could have predicted this year happening to him this early.

I think the list of Hendry's accomplishments starts and ends with the Aramis trade. No way you can put this year's lack of production on him.

 

I'm confused by this. Are you saying the Aramis trade is the only thing Hendry has done well? Or am I misunderstanding you?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Ramirez is about to turn 32, is an infielder and has a history of nagging injuries. A lot of people predicted he could be a collapse candidate.

[Backtobanks]

I think all of us are guilty of "the grass is always greener" syndrome. Most of us eat, sleep, and pour over every aspect of the Cubs without realizing that other teams overspend, under produce, and frustrate their fans as much as the Cubs. As frustrating as the Cubs are, can you imagine living in a city where the owners refuse to spend the money and have last place teams every single year?

 

The Cubs have definitely underperformed their payroll in the Hendry years overall, but his era certainly hasn't been some kind of awful mess. We're certainly not the only organization – or even the only good organization – that gives out bad contracts, overpays for relievers or underperforms at times. Though they have had their share of each.

 

Having been a Cub fan for 56 years and watching those horrible teams in the mid-50's, it is hard to get too upset with the team that bounces between underperforming and contending.

 

I despise the notion of this is as good as we've seen it, be happy. It was this same mindset that tried telling people to be happy with back to back .500 seasons and stop complaining about the Baker years.

 

The Hendry years have been horrible in comparison to how they should have been. Back in 98/99/00, this team was on the verge of becoming a force, ownership went from providing a middle fo the road payroll, to top ten and kept climbing to top 5. The fact that other organizations have struggled is meaningless. The Cubs are a top payroll club, but a middle of the road performer in the Jim Hendry era. That is abysmal. It would be one thing if this club won 90-95 a few times and when they struggled, they only won 85. But this team has lost 90 three times this past decade, are flirting with 90-loss pace again this year. Struggling on occasion is completely forgiveable, but Hendry's track record has been terrible. You cannot seperate the underperforming payroll from the judgement of the job he has done.

 

Nobody said you should be happy or satisfied with the Cubs under Hendry. You state that "It would be one thing if this club won 90-95 a few times and when they struggled, they only won 85", but if they don't win the WS, what's the point? I agree the Cubs should be doing better than they are, but if payroll is the only consideration, then why play the games.

[Tracer Bullet]

I agree the Cubs should be doing better than they are, but if payroll is the only consideration, then why play the games.

 

so we will know when the GM has failed?

[jersey cubs fan]

Nobody said you should be happy or satisfied with the Cubs under Hendry. You state that "It would be one thing if this club won 90-95 a few times and when they struggled, they only won 85", but if they don't win the WS, what's the point? I agree the Cubs should be doing better than they are, but if payroll is the only consideration, then why play the games.

 

Who said it was the only consideration? The problem with the job Hendry has done is that this team has very mediocre results and a very high payroll. If they were a low payroll team with the same results, you'd probably give the GM some credit for making due. But this team has underperformed teams that have spent less than it throughout the Hendry era, and he has outlived much of his competition during that time.

[Guest]

Ramirez is about to turn 32, is an infielder and has a history of nagging injuries. A lot of people predicted he could be a collapse candidate.

 

There's collapsing, and then there's what Ramirez was doing. A collapse would be dropping like 200 points in OPS to the low .700s. I don't care who you are, no one could see Ramirez struggling to OPS .520 in an extended sample.

[Backtobanks]

Nobody said you should be happy or satisfied with the Cubs under Hendry. You state that "It would be one thing if this club won 90-95 a few times and when they struggled, they only won 85", but if they don't win the WS, what's the point? I agree the Cubs should be doing better than they are, but if payroll is the only consideration, then why play the games.

 

Who said it was the only consideration? The problem with the job Hendry has done is that this team has very mediocre results and a very high payroll. If they were a low payroll team with the same results, you'd probably give the GM some credit for making due. But this team has underperformed teams that have spent less than it throughout the Hendry era, and he has outlived much of his competition during that time.

 

But if the object is to win 90-95 games consistently (or the WS), why would we give credit to some GM of a low-budget team for finishing at .500?