Should Hednry get another chance?

[dew1679666265]

BR lists Cherry and Moore in the Trachsel deal, but the Cubs also gave up RHP Jake Renshaw, a potentially intriguing prospect down in Peoria back in 2007 (who fell off the face of the planet in 2009). What ticked me off the most about that deal was the fact that the Cubs even gave up anything of value for Trachsel, who honestly was not any better than any of the AAA filler in the Cubs' system at the time.

 

I forgot we included Renshaw in the deal. I guess my question was more nitpicking your wording. The Trachsel trade wasn't a good one, but I just don't see that it was "horrific." It was a pretty neutral overall deal, I thought, even considering we traded Renshaw.

 

Hendry's had some good trades, but one of his nasty tendencies is selling low on players. Felix Pie, Corey Patterson, Sammy Sosa, Rich Hill, Jacque Jones, Kyle Farnsworth, and Juan Cruz all come to mind. Also, a number of his bad deals tend to be ones that are easily forgotten or glossed over. Bill Mueller, Mark Bellhorn, and Michael Wuertz are some guys Hendry sold off for pennies. He also traded for such illustrious names as Tony Womack, Jose Macias, Aaron Heilman, and Neal Cotts.

 

I do agree that he tends to hold onto players too long. You also make a good point about the Wuertz trade, dealing him wasn't a good idea. Hendry didn't get much for Mueller and Bellhorn, but were they really worth that much?

 

Bellhorn was coming off an .886 OPS season, but before that his best OPS was .681. After that season he had one .817 OPS season and that was it. Jose Hernandez was a very similar player and helped us (however much he did in that trade) to get Aramis and Lofton.

 

Mueller was better than Bellhorn, but still was a third baseman with a career .797 OPS. I don't know much about Verplancke, but I don't know that Mueller should have brought a significant amount despite the quality OBP.

 

I'm not saying Hendry sucks at trades, but I think some people on this board overrate him because of three really good deals (Nomar, Harden, and A-Ram). In reality, he's had plenty of bad trades.

 

My main thought in liking Hendry's trades is that he very rarely gives up quality talent in a deal. Whether acquiring a good player or a mediocre player, Hendry generally gives up guys we don't end up missing. The best players he's traded are pretty much Nolasco, Wuertz and maybe Pie. Considering the talent he's brought in, that's really good.

 

He does, however, have that heavy traditional streak in him that makes him like guys like Womack and Macias because they're considered "leadoff type" hitters and the scout in him ocassionally makes him like guys like Heilman. However, just about any GM is going to make questionable trades (Beane traded for Aaron Miles), but Hendry's good trades well outweigh his bad (both in quantity and quality).

[jersey cubs fan]

I forgot we included Renshaw in the deal. I guess my question was more nitpicking your wording. The Trachsel trade wasn't a good one, but I just don't see that it was "horrific." It was a pretty neutral overall deal, I thought, even considering we traded Renshaw.

 

The major problem with the Trachsel trade is that they traded for Steve Trachsel.

 

 

And I'm sick and tired of the idiotic practice of trying to quantify Jim Hendry's worthiness to be GM based on specific deals he supposedly won.

 

Jim Hendry is not the executive vice president of trading. He's not the chief trading executive. He's the General Freaking Manager. He's in charge of the entire team, both short-term and long-term. It's all on him. The most important thing to look at are wins and losses, with the one condition of resource advantages. Jim Hendry has been here for 8 freaking seasons, and over that time has essentially constructed an 83 win team. They've had one truly great season in 8 years, several horrible years and even more disappointing ones. And throughout this time Jim's been given more resources than virtually all of the competition. He's been neck and neck with the Florida Marlins, the epitome of zero resource teams. He's been blown away by the Phillies and White Sox, two teams that have no business running circles around the Cubs. And even the A's, who have been afterthought for nearly half a decade have been more successful in the Jim Hendry era.

 

There is only one reasonable answer to the question. Obviously he should not get another chance. To think otherwise you would have to be happy with .500 ballclubs (but willing to accept less on a regular basis).

[soapy]

Not only should he not get another chance, firing him is probably the critical first step in getting things turned around. If they don't fire Hendry, replacing anyone else is pretty pointless, IMO.

[dew1679666265]

The major problem with the Trachsel trade is that they traded for Steve Trachsel.

 

I've not argued that the Trachsel trade was good. Only that it wasn't horrific as O_O stated. The only thing that made it bad, as you said, was that we targeted a mediocre pitcher.

 

And I'm sick and tired of the idiotic practice of trying to quantify Jim Hendry's worthiness to be GM based on specific deals he supposedly won.

 

I've also not said a word about his "worthiness" as GM from his ability to trade. I wasn't making a comment as to whether he's a good GM, bad GM, whether he should remain or go after the year. I was responding to O_O's comment that he's generally overrated in his ability to make trades.

[SouthSideRyan]

I found the Trachsel trade to be a really sad indictment of the front office. I agree that it wasn't horrific in a vaccuum, but it showed that the people in charge didn't know how to interpret the simplest of statistics, and were more concerned with cramming an empty ERA from a veteran into the rotation at the expense of a young pitcher who was clearly better.

[jersey cubs fan]

The major problem with the Trachsel trade is that they traded for Steve Trachsel.

 

I've not argued that the Trachsel trade was good. Only that it wasn't horrific as O_O stated. The only thing that made it bad, as you said, was that we targeted a mediocre pitcher.

 

And I'm sick and tired of the idiotic practice of trying to quantify Jim Hendry's worthiness to be GM based on specific deals he supposedly won.

 

I've also not said a word about his "worthiness" as GM from his ability to trade. I wasn't making a comment as to whether he's a good GM, bad GM, whether he should remain or go after the year. I was responding to O_O's comment that he's generally overrated in his ability to make trades.

 

I'm sick and tired of that discussion taking place. It's a meaningless distinction. You make trades to make a team better. The trade is not the end game, it's a part of the process. This notion that Jim Hendry is some fantastic trader is just unbelievably pointless. All his supposed trading genius has accomplished nothing. He is not a trader, he's the GM, in charge of creating a baseball team that wins a lot of games. He's failed. End of story, no need for arguing the finer points of any specific deal that went into creating that mediocre team.

[dew1679666265]

I'm sick and tired of that discussion taking place. It's a meaningless distinction. You make trades to make a team better. The trade is not the end game, it's a part of the process. This notion that Jim Hendry is some fantastic trader is just unbelievably pointless. All his supposed trading genius has accomplished nothing. He is not a trader, he's the GM, in charge of creating a baseball team that wins a lot of games. He's failed. End of story, no need for arguing the finer points of any specific deal that went into creating that mediocre team.

 

I'll never understand a disinterest in analyzing particular parts of a person's job. GMs have strengths and weaknesses and I simply don't understand the thought that discussing those strengths and weaknesses is a bad thing.

[Guest]

I'm sick and tired of that discussion taking place. It's a meaningless distinction. You make trades to make a team better. The trade is not the end game, it's a part of the process. This notion that Jim Hendry is some fantastic trader is just unbelievably pointless. All his supposed trading genius has accomplished nothing. He is not a trader, he's the GM, in charge of creating a baseball team that wins a lot of games. He's failed. End of story, no need for arguing the finer points of any specific deal that went into creating that mediocre team.

 

They were talking about whether it would be better to keep Hendry through the year to let him orchestrate the fire sale before firing him, since he's been good at trades(supposedly). Not everything has to roll up to "Hendry HAS FAILED, rabble rabble rabble".

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm sick and tired of that discussion taking place. It's a meaningless distinction. You make trades to make a team better. The trade is not the end game, it's a part of the process. This notion that Jim Hendry is some fantastic trader is just unbelievably pointless. All his supposed trading genius has accomplished nothing. He is not a trader, he's the GM, in charge of creating a baseball team that wins a lot of games. He's failed. End of story, no need for arguing the finer points of any specific deal that went into creating that mediocre team.

 

They were talking about whether it would be better to keep Hendry through the year to let him orchestrate the fire sale before firing him, since he's been good at trades(supposedly). Not everything has to roll up to "Hendry HAS FAILED, rabble rabble rabble".

 

And that is an asinine idea. If he's gone, don't give him an opportunity to makes moves that affect the future he has no stake in.

 

And yes, everything should be rolled up into the only point that matters, Hendry has failed and he should be gone. Nitpicking over the proper distinction of a poor/bad/horrible trade is pointless.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm sick and tired of that discussion taking place. It's a meaningless distinction. You make trades to make a team better. The trade is not the end game, it's a part of the process. This notion that Jim Hendry is some fantastic trader is just unbelievably pointless. All his supposed trading genius has accomplished nothing. He is not a trader, he's the GM, in charge of creating a baseball team that wins a lot of games. He's failed. End of story, no need for arguing the finer points of any specific deal that went into creating that mediocre team.

 

I'll never understand a disinterest in analyzing particular parts of a person's job. GMs have strengths and weaknesses and I simply don't understand the thought that discussing those strengths and weaknesses is a bad thing.

 

Because it's not analyzing, it's meaningless subjective ratings. Hendry's job is to build a team with the resources provided. He's been terrible at that. Trying to go through a list of trades he "won" is stupid. He's not a great trader, he's a GM who has failed at his job. That's the only thing that matters.

[dew1679666265]

I'm sick and tired of that discussion taking place. It's a meaningless distinction. You make trades to make a team better. The trade is not the end game, it's a part of the process. This notion that Jim Hendry is some fantastic trader is just unbelievably pointless. All his supposed trading genius has accomplished nothing. He is not a trader, he's the GM, in charge of creating a baseball team that wins a lot of games. He's failed. End of story, no need for arguing the finer points of any specific deal that went into creating that mediocre team.

 

I'll never understand a disinterest in analyzing particular parts of a person's job. GMs have strengths and weaknesses and I simply don't understand the thought that discussing those strengths and weaknesses is a bad thing.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm sick and tired of that discussion taking place. It's a meaningless distinction. You make trades to make a team better. The trade is not the end game, it's a part of the process. This notion that Jim Hendry is some fantastic trader is just unbelievably pointless. All his supposed trading genius has accomplished nothing. He is not a trader, he's the GM, in charge of creating a baseball team that wins a lot of games. He's failed. End of story, no need for arguing the finer points of any specific deal that went into creating that mediocre team.

 

I'll never understand a disinterest in analyzing particular parts of a person's job. GMs have strengths and weaknesses and I simply don't understand the thought that discussing those strengths and weaknesses is a bad thing.

 

I heard you the first time, and it still holds no water.

[Guest]

I'm sick and tired of that discussion taking place. It's a meaningless distinction. You make trades to make a team better. The trade is not the end game, it's a part of the process. This notion that Jim Hendry is some fantastic trader is just unbelievably pointless. All his supposed trading genius has accomplished nothing. He is not a trader, he's the GM, in charge of creating a baseball team that wins a lot of games. He's failed. End of story, no need for arguing the finer points of any specific deal that went into creating that mediocre team.

 

They were talking about whether it would be better to keep Hendry through the year to let him orchestrate the fire sale before firing him, since he's been good at trades(supposedly). Not everything has to roll up to "Hendry HAS FAILED, rabble rabble rabble".

 

And that is an asinine idea. If he's gone, don't give him an opportunity to makes moves that affect the future he has no stake in.

 

And yes, everything should be rolled up into the only point that matters, Hendry has failed and he should be gone. Nitpicking over the proper distinction of a poor/bad/horrible trade is pointless.

 

You forgot to add rabble rabble rabble.

[Guest]

I'm with Gonny. So what if Hendry made some good trades? It's not a point that is meaningful in the overall status of the Cubs during his tenure. People seem to act like these crappy seasons are freak occurrences ("no one expected Aramis to be this bad?" So what?). Maybe it's not wise to build a team based on the best possible outcome and instead build a team based on the fact that players are going to get injured or underperform.

 

There certainly is a lot of luck involved in a winning season, but Hendry seems to build a team that cannot withstand any amount of bad luck.

[dew1679666265]

I'm with Gonny. So what if Hendry made some good trades? It's not a point that is meaningful in the overall status of the Cubs during his tenure. People seem to act like these crappy seasons are freak occurrences ("no one expected Aramis to be this bad?" So what?). Maybe it's not wise to build a team based on the best possible outcome and instead build a team based on the fact that players are going to get injured or underperform.

 

There certainly is a lot of luck involved in a winning season, but Hendry seems to build a team that cannot withstand any amount of bad luck.

 

The discussion of trades has nothing to do with discussion of his overall job performance. It is a factor in it, but I can believe he's good at making trades but bad as a GM overall. I just don't get the idea that because he's been bad overall, we have to focus only on that and should not be allowed to break down where he's been good and where he's been bad.

[dew1679666265]

I'm sick and tired of that discussion taking place. It's a meaningless distinction. You make trades to make a team better. The trade is not the end game, it's a part of the process. This notion that Jim Hendry is some fantastic trader is just unbelievably pointless. All his supposed trading genius has accomplished nothing. He is not a trader, he's the GM, in charge of creating a baseball team that wins a lot of games. He's failed. End of story, no need for arguing the finer points of any specific deal that went into creating that mediocre team.

 

I'll never understand a disinterest in analyzing particular parts of a person's job. GMs have strengths and weaknesses and I simply don't understand the thought that discussing those strengths and weaknesses is a bad thing.

 

I heard you the first time, and it still holds no water.

 

And I heard you the first time you complained about a legitimate discussion and it still makes no sense.

[Guest]

I just don't get the idea that because he's been bad overall, we have to focus only on that and should not be allowed to break down where he's been good and where he's been bad.

If were here doing a post-mortem on Hendry's tenure, nock yourself out, but If the discussion is "Should Hendry get another chance?" Who gives a [expletive]? The answer is no and no amount of dissection is going to change that.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm with Gonny. So what if Hendry made some good trades? It's not a point that is meaningful in the overall status of the Cubs during his tenure. People seem to act like these crappy seasons are freak occurrences ("no one expected Aramis to be this bad?" So what?). Maybe it's not wise to build a team based on the best possible outcome and instead build a team based on the fact that players are going to get injured or underperform.

 

There certainly is a lot of luck involved in a winning season, but Hendry seems to build a team that cannot withstand any amount of bad luck.

 

The discussion of trades has nothing to do with discussion of his overall job performance. It is a factor in it, but I can believe he's good at making trades but bad as a GM overall. I just don't get the idea that because he's been bad overall, we have to focus only on that and should not be allowed to break down where he's been good and where he's been bad.

 

Because he's not a freaking role player that can be slotted into another position of just trading. He's the [expletive] GM, therefore you focus on the job he has done as GM.

 

It's pointless nonsense to constantly bicker about how to properly classify a trade, be it horrible, bad or poor. It doesn't matter. Any GM who has been on the job for 8 freaking years (and allowed to take on money in deals) is going to get back talent at some point. It doesn't matter. It's like talking about a RF with a line of .230/.250/.350 and talking up the few hits he did have. Any one move is meaningless on it's own. The only thing that matters is how a GM puts together a team.

[dew1679666265]

I just don't get the idea that because he's been bad overall, we have to focus only on that and should not be allowed to break down where he's been good and where he's been bad.

If were here doing a post-mortem on Hendry's tenure, nock yourself out, but If the discussion is "Should Hendry get another chance?" Who gives a [expletive]? The answer is no and no amount of dissection is going to change that.

 

I realize this is a thread about whether Hendry should be re-hired, but the discussion between me and O_O that gooney had a problem with had veered from the title of the thread. It had nothing to do with whether or not Hendry should be kept on.

[dew1679666265]

Because he's not a freaking role player that can be slotted into another position of just trading. He's the [expletive] GM, therefore you focus on the job he has done as GM.

 

It's pointless nonsense to constantly bicker about how to properly classify a trade, be it horrible, bad or poor. It doesn't matter. Any GM who has been on the job for 8 freaking years (and allowed to take on money in deals) is going to get back talent at some point. It doesn't matter. It's like talking about a RF with a line of .230/.250/.350 and talking up the few hits he did have. Any one move is meaningless on it's own. The only thing that matters is how a GM puts together a team.

 

You're still talking as if I'm offering my opinion on his tenure as a whole. I'm not. Hendry has consistently gotten good return for very little cost in trades throughout his tenure (with exceptions, obviously). That statement, however, does not imply, state, or even refer to his job as a whole or whether or not I feel he should keep said job. That's it. I'm not making a statement on the greater picture of Hendry's job as Cubs GM nor am I trying to make him look better in any way. I'm simply discussing good and bad trades he's orchestrated.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Hendry has consistently gotten good return for very little cost in trades throughout his tenure (with exceptions, obviously).

I don't think consistently is the right word there. I would accept intermittently.

 

I'm simply discussing good and bad trades he's orchestrated.

That has nothing to do with this thread, unless your overall conclusion is that he deserves another chance based on the results of his deals.

[dew1679666265]

Hendry has consistently gotten good return for very little cost in trades throughout his tenure (with exceptions, obviously).

I don't think consistently is the right word there. I would accept intermittently.

 

Intermittenly to the former, consistently for the latter. He's rarely given up good players, but off and on has gotten good return. How about that?

 

I'm simply discussing good and bad trades he's orchestrated.

That has nothing to do with this thread, unless your overall conclusion is that he deserves another chance based on the results of his deals.

 

I know it has nothing to do with the thread title. It was an offshoot discussion.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'm going to open a can of worms here and I know I'm going to get flamed for it, but so what.

 

Isn't judging a GM simply based on a W/L record without looking at the particulars akin to judging a pitcher based only on his w/l record?

 

Now, I'm not saying the GM isn't responsible for the product put on the field, and hence has a great influence over the record, but that record isn't entirely under his control. Things can and will occur (both positively and negatively) that can be largely unforseen. Now, if we want to hold a GM responsible for those things, then surely that is our right. On the other hand, sometimes breaking down the individual components of his performance might give us a better view of whether or not he has done a good job and whether anyone else could have done better.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I'm going to open a can of worms here and I know I'm going to get flamed for it, but so what.

 

Isn't judging a GM simply based on a W/L record without looking at the particulars akin to judging a pitcher based only on his w/l record?

 

Now, I'm not saying the GM isn't responsible for the product put on the field, and hence has a great influence over the record, but that record isn't entirely under his control. Things can and will occur (both positively and negatively) that can be largely unforseen. Now, if we want to hold a GM responsible for those things, then surely that is our right. On the other hand, sometimes breaking down the individual components of his performance might give us a better view of whether or not he has done a good job and whether anyone else could have done better.

If we're talking about a single season, perhaps, but the record is pretty telling over an 8 year period.

[Rob]

We all need to remember that, in general, firing a GM during the season simply results in the assistant GM taking over for the rest of the season. The real search to fill the position is done after the season. So really, the question is whether you'd rather have Jim Hendry or Randy Bush the rest of the season.

 

I know who I'd choose.