Should Hednry get another chance?

[CubColtPacer]

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.

 

That's assuming a GM is consistent over an 8 year period which I am not sure is the case. There certainly could be a disconnect between what he has done in the past and what he might do in the future as there is evidence of learning. That's especially true when the philosophy above him has changed so dramatically from what it was earlier in his tenure. An analysis of his individual components might yield whether he would fit better under the new philosophy then he did under the old one.

[bukie]

I think the thing that annoys me the most about Hendry is that he never really built a team for long-term success. Each season, he'd look to catch lightning in a bottle with his plan-du-jour of the year, and it worked...twice? It's not that the teams performed poorly, it's more that so many of the teams predictably performed poorly.

[lumafia]

Poor Jim. He is too much of a purist. During his tenure he has been completely obsessed with lefties (at the plate and on the mound), lead-off hitters and speed. Nobody cares about those things anymore. Even when he attempted to embrace the dark-side by signing the AL's leader in OPS, he was later disappointed to discover that it was Milton Bradley. Not to mention the fact that he gave a position player (who wasn't among the top 40 active players in OPS) the 5th largest baseball contract in history.

 

I think Hendry's heart is in the right place, but he isn't qualified to run this team. I have been waiting for an owner who is a Cubs fan, so there is some emotional equity in decisions that are made. Ricketts is supposed to be that guy, but if Jim isn't fired, I will know for sure that he sees this as more of a business and we can expect another decade of mediocrity and disappointment.

[hardcorecubfan]

His positive quality is that he has recognized when to get rid of the so called talent before they hit skid row. IE: All former cubs that are being DFA

[risico]

If some think that Hendry is a "good trader" based on only the deals he's made, then I think that's an incomplete analysis of Hendry as a trader.

 

Sure, Hendry rarely gives away good talent in a deal. But one of his greatest vices is that he's so reluctant to trade away players that he keeps them long enough for them to lose value.

 

I think it's impossible to judge Hendry as a trader when we don't know what kind of deals he nixed. There were plenty of Cub players that could have been traded at the height of their value but were kept and dealt away for nothing.

 

Case in point: Rich Hill

[Backtobanks]

If some think that Hendry is a "good trader" based on only the deals he's made, then I think that's an incomplete analysis of Hendry as a trader.

 

Sure, Hendry rarely gives away good talent in a deal. But one of his greatest vices is that he's so reluctant to trade away players that he keeps them long enough for them to lose value.

 

I think it's impossible to judge Hendry as a trader when we don't know what kind of deals he nixed. There were plenty of Cub players that could have been traded at the height of their value but were kept and dealt away for nothing.

 

Case in point: Rich Hill

 

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. First you say "we don't know what kind of deals he nixed" and then you say "There were plenty of Cub players that could have been traded at the height of their value but were kept and dealt away for nothing". We never know what another team is offering for a player, so how can we criticize Hendry for holding on to them or dealing them for nothing. Using your example of Rich Hill, what amazing offer was made at the height of his career?

[chasinf5s]

So he gets one chance after 2005, another after 2006, another after 2009 and yet another after 2010? He dismantled a 98 win team and made a horrible signing in bradley. Overtime his magic in 2003 wears off. They have not won a single game that mattered since game 4 of the 2003 NLCS

 

And Marquis, what a moron trade that was, gave up a ok pitcher for a reliever they cut 2 weeks into the season so they could bring shark up.

[dew1679666265]

If some think that Hendry is a "good trader" based on only the deals he's made, then I think that's an incomplete analysis of Hendry as a trader.

 

Sure, Hendry rarely gives away good talent in a deal. But one of his greatest vices is that he's so reluctant to trade away players that he keeps them long enough for them to lose value.

 

I think it's impossible to judge Hendry as a trader when we don't know what kind of deals he nixed. There were plenty of Cub players that could have been traded at the height of their value but were kept and dealt away for nothing.

 

Case in point: Rich Hill

 

You make a good point, the problem is we don't know - and won't know - what deals he's had on the table and nixed. We can only evaluate with the information in front of us and we simply don't have much info on what deals he nixed.

 

It's true that he's held on to some players too long, but with many that's viewing in hindsight. As in your example, what reason did anyone have to believe that after posting a 3.92 ERA (4.13 xFIP), 1.19 WHIP, 8.45 K/9 and a 3:1 K:BB ratio, he'd simply forget how to throw strikes? Selling high is great when either the peripherals or the scouting (when it's good) tells you that the success won't last. There was nothing in Hill's numbers, that I've seen, telling us he'd forget how to throw strikes one year after his best season.

 

Like I said, Hendry has held onto some guys too long, but there's no real way to know what offers he had for those players. And for others (Hill, Prior) there was no way to predict the collapse. One thing I'd have liked to see him do for guys like Hill and Pie is to not trade them at all, but to hold onto them and see if they could come around a bit.

[UK1679666180]

I think the thing that annoys me the most about Hendry is that he never really built a team for long-term success. Each season, he'd look to catch lightning in a bottle with his plan-du-jour of the year, and it worked...twice? It's not that the teams performed poorly, it's more that so many of the teams predictably performed poorly.

 

He had the right plan going into '03 as far as building a team around young pitching but had the wrong person at the wheel. That plan had long-term success but it shifting from winning for the next 5 years to winning it next year.

[Sammy Sofa]

And Marquis, what a moron trade that was

 

??????

[risico]

If some think that Hendry is a "good trader" based on only the deals he's made, then I think that's an incomplete analysis of Hendry as a trader.

 

Sure, Hendry rarely gives away good talent in a deal. But one of his greatest vices is that he's so reluctant to trade away players that he keeps them long enough for them to lose value.

 

I think it's impossible to judge Hendry as a trader when we don't know what kind of deals he nixed. There were plenty of Cub players that could have been traded at the height of their value but were kept and dealt away for nothing.

 

Case in point: Rich Hill

 

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. First you say "we don't know what kind of deals he nixed" and then you say "There were plenty of Cub players that could have been traded at the height of their value but were kept and dealt away for nothing". We never know what another team is offering for a player, so how can we criticize Hendry for holding on to them or dealing them for nothing. Using your example of Rich Hill, what amazing offer was made at the height of his career?

 

It's very true that we have no idea what offers Hendry has turned down over his tenure as Cubs GM.

 

All I am saying is that there are plenty of examples of players that Hendry held onto whose value dropped significantly before they were traded. I have no idea what offers were on the table, but I do know that Hendry tends to hold onto players.

 

You can't say, "Hendry is good at trading because he doesn't give up much talent" while ignoring the fact that this is often due to his reluctance to trade players at the height of their value. Reluctance to trade away players is a double-edged sword of sorts.

[Backtobanks]

If some think that Hendry is a "good trader" based on only the deals he's made, then I think that's an incomplete analysis of Hendry as a trader.

 

Sure, Hendry rarely gives away good talent in a deal. But one of his greatest vices is that he's so reluctant to trade away players that he keeps them long enough for them to lose value.

 

I think it's impossible to judge Hendry as a trader when we don't know what kind of deals he nixed. There were plenty of Cub players that could have been traded at the height of their value but were kept and dealt away for nothing.

 

Case in point: Rich Hill

 

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. First you say "we don't know what kind of deals he nixed" and then you say "There were plenty of Cub players that could have been traded at the height of their value but were kept and dealt away for nothing". We never know what another team is offering for a player, so how can we criticize Hendry for holding on to them or dealing them for nothing. Using your example of Rich Hill, what amazing offer was made at the height of his career?

 

It's very true that we have no idea what offers Hendry has turned down over his tenure as Cubs GM.

 

All I am saying is that there are plenty of examples of players that Hendry held onto whose value dropped significantly before they were traded. I have no idea what offers were on the table, but I do know that Hendry tends to hold onto players.

 

You can't say, "Hendry is good at trading because he doesn't give up much talent" while ignoring the fact that this is often due to his reluctance to trade players at the height of their value. Reluctance to trade away players is a double-edged sword of sorts.

 

But again, how can you say that he's reluctant to trade players at the height of their value if you don't know whst's being offered. If somebody offers at low A ball player for Marmol (now at the height of his value), should Hendry accept it because Marmol's value might decrease? The whole discussion is based on what is being offered at the time and none of us have that information.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

If some think that Hendry is a "good trader" based on only the deals he's made, then I think that's an incomplete analysis of Hendry as a trader.

 

Sure, Hendry rarely gives away good talent in a deal. But one of his greatest vices is that he's so reluctant to trade away players that he keeps them long enough for them to lose value.

 

I think it's impossible to judge Hendry as a trader when we don't know what kind of deals he nixed. There were plenty of Cub players that could have been traded at the height of their value but were kept and dealt away for nothing.

 

Case in point: Rich Hill

 

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. First you say "we don't know what kind of deals he nixed" and then you say "There were plenty of Cub players that could have been traded at the height of their value but were kept and dealt away for nothing". We never know what another team is offering for a player, so how can we criticize Hendry for holding on to them or dealing them for nothing. Using your example of Rich Hill, what amazing offer was made at the height of his career?

 

It's very true that we have no idea what offers Hendry has turned down over his tenure as Cubs GM.

 

All I am saying is that there are plenty of examples of players that Hendry held onto whose value dropped significantly before they were traded. I have no idea what offers were on the table, but I do know that Hendry tends to hold onto players.

 

You can't say, "Hendry is good at trading because he doesn't give up much talent" while ignoring the fact that this is often due to his reluctance to trade players at the height of their value. Reluctance to trade away players is a double-edged sword of sorts.

 

But again, how can you say that he's reluctant to trade players at the height of their value if you don't know whst's being offered. If somebody offers at low A ball player for Marmol (now at the height of his value), should Hendry accept it because Marmol's value might decrease? The whole discussion is based on what is being offered at the time and none of us have that information.

He's already said he doesn't know what was being offered.

[jersey cubs fan]

I think the thing that annoys me the most about Hendry is that he never really built a team for long-term success. Each season, he'd look to catch lightning in a bottle with his plan-du-jour of the year, and it worked...twice? It's not that the teams performed poorly, it's more that so many of the teams predictably performed poorly.

 

He had the right plan going into '03 as far as building a team around young pitching but had the wrong person at the wheel. That plan had long-term success but it shifting from winning for the next 5 years to winning it next year.

 

And that Dusty Baker signing was all on him, and easy to predict as a disaster.

[dew1679666265]

It's very true that we have no idea what offers Hendry has turned down over his tenure as Cubs GM.

 

All I am saying is that there are plenty of examples of players that Hendry held onto whose value dropped significantly before they were traded. I have no idea what offers were on the table, but I do know that Hendry tends to hold onto players.

 

You can't say, "Hendry is good at trading because he doesn't give up much talent" while ignoring the fact that this is often due to his reluctance to trade players at the height of their value. Reluctance to trade away players is a double-edged sword of sorts.

 

It's a legitimate point you're making, but I think BacktoBanks is right as well. Holding onto players too long is not a good attribute, however, we don't know which instances to criticize Hendry and which ones not to because we don't have all the information. If, after the 2007 season, Hendry decided to shop Rich Hill and the best offer he got was the As offering up Daric Barton and a AA pitcher not in their top 30 prospects, then Hendry made the right decision holding onto Hill and seeing if he could repeat his success. However, if he offered up Hill and got an offer from Cleveland for Carlos Santana and Fausto Carmona, he should have taken it. (Names are off the top of my head, there may be some inaccuracies). Without all the information, I just don't know how legitimate a criticism it is.

 

My issue is trading guys at their lowest value. Guys like Pie, Hill, Jacque Jones, etc., could have raised their value at some point, but Hendry preferred to get some form of value over being more patient with them. I would have preferred he show more patience there.

[Backtobanks]

It's very true that we have no idea what offers Hendry has turned down over his tenure as Cubs GM.

 

All I am saying is that there are plenty of examples of players that Hendry held onto whose value dropped significantly before they were traded. I have no idea what offers were on the table, but I do know that Hendry tends to hold onto players.

 

You can't say, "Hendry is good at trading because he doesn't give up much talent" while ignoring the fact that this is often due to his reluctance to trade players at the height of their value. Reluctance to trade away players is a double-edged sword of sorts.

 

It's a legitimate point you're making, but I think BacktoBanks is right as well. Holding onto players too long is not a good attribute, however, we don't know which instances to criticize Hendry and which ones not to because we don't have all the information. If, after the 2007 season, Hendry decided to shop Rich Hill and the best offer he got was the As offering up Daric Barton and a AA pitcher not in their top 30 prospects, then Hendry made the right decision holding onto Hill and seeing if he could repeat his success. However, if he offered up Hill and got an offer from Cleveland for Carlos Santana and Fausto Carmona, he should have taken it. (Names are off the top of my head, there may be some inaccuracies). Without all the information, I just don't know how legitimate a criticism it is.

 

My issue is trading guys at their lowest value. Guys like Pie, Hill, Jacque Jones, etc., could have raised their value at some point, but Hendry preferred to get some form of value over being more patient with them. I would have preferred he show more patience there.

 

That's been my point in all of these Hendry discussions - you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't and all of the criticism comes with the advantage of hindsight.

[jersey cubs fan]

That's been my point in all of these Hendry discussions - you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't and all of the criticism comes with the advantage of hindsight.

 

You're damned if you spend a billion dollars on a .500 ballclub. You are not damned if you actually build a winner. End of story.

 

 

The nitpicking over how to rate specific moves is pointless.

[fromthestretch]

That's been my point in all of these Hendry discussions - you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't and all of the criticism comes with the advantage of hindsight.

 

You're acting as if no one here criticizes some of his decisions at the time he makes them.

[UK1679666180]

I think the thing that annoys me the most about Hendry is that he never really built a team for long-term success. Each season, he'd look to catch lightning in a bottle with his plan-du-jour of the year, and it worked...twice? It's not that the teams performed poorly, it's more that so many of the teams predictably performed poorly.

 

He had the right plan going into '03 as far as building a team around young pitching but had the wrong person at the wheel. That plan had long-term success but it shifting from winning for the next 5 years to winning it next year.

 

And that Dusty Baker signing was all on him, and easy to predict as a disaster.

 

Agreed, it was the wrong roster composition for someone like him. He needs pitchers like Leake and Arroyo (although Leake is to be determined whether or not he can maintain a higher usage at this stage).

[Backtobanks]

That's been my point in all of these Hendry discussions - you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't and all of the criticism comes with the advantage of hindsight.

 

You're acting as if no one here criticizes some of his decisions at the time he makes them.

 

That's exactly my point. If he makes a trade we hear he sold low, paid too much, got a player that's over-the-hill, etc. If he doesn't make a trade we hear he holds onto players too long, overvalues his prospects, etc. All of that comes from the fact we have no information on the trade negotiations (except rumors and speculation) and hindsight after the players involved succeed or fail. As other Hendry discussions have pointed out, for the most part Hendry's strength is trading. His major weakness is offering up contracts to free agents.

[Tarver]

It says a lot about the this teams historic stretch of futility that some people are actually content with someone as obviously flawed as Hendry.

 

This guy is one of the longest-tenured GMs, in one of the 3 biggest markets, and has absolutely nothing to show for his efforts. His [expletive] wouldn't have got him fired almost anywhere else.

[SouthSideRyan]

That's exactly my point. If he makes a trade we hear he sold low, paid too much, got a player that's over-the-hill, etc. If he doesn't make a trade we hear he holds onto players too long, overvalues his prospects, etc

 

That's exactly your point...that you completely made up. You act like every trade Hendry has made has been torn to shreds.

[risico]

That's been my point in all of these Hendry discussions - you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't and all of the criticism comes with the advantage of hindsight.

 

You're acting as if no one here criticizes some of his decisions at the time he makes them.

 

That's exactly my point. If he makes a trade we hear he sold low, paid too much, got a player that's over-the-hill, etc. If he doesn't make a trade we hear he holds onto players too long, overvalues his prospects, etc. All of that comes from the fact we have no information on the trade negotiations (except rumors and speculation) and hindsight after the players involved succeed or fail. As other Hendry discussions have pointed out, for the most part Hendry's strength is trading. His major weakness is offering up contracts to free agents.

 

Hendry, as a GM, has the responsibility to make decisions regarding when to trade players. We have hindsight to evaluate him, sure, but his job is to have foresight to make the correct moves.

 

In much the same way you can't evaluate the trades Hendry made, you can't evaluate him as a trader. The information you have on him as a trader is incomplete and doesn't tell the entire story.

 

Just look at the rosters he's assembled with the resources he's been granted and you see that he's been a bad GM. There are other reasons (e.g. roster mismanagement), but he's had the budget to win with the Cubs and over his tenure they've been quite average.

[Backtobanks]

That's been my point in all of these Hendry discussions - you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't and all of the criticism comes with the advantage of hindsight.

 

You're acting as if no one here criticizes some of his decisions at the time he makes them.

 

That's exactly my point. If he makes a trade we hear he sold low, paid too much, got a player that's over-the-hill, etc. If he doesn't make a trade we hear he holds onto players too long, overvalues his prospects, etc. All of that comes from the fact we have no information on the trade negotiations (except rumors and speculation) and hindsight after the players involved succeed or fail. As other Hendry discussions have pointed out, for the most part Hendry's strength is trading. His major weakness is offering up contracts to free agents.

 

Hendry, as a GM, has the responsibility to make decisions regarding when to trade players. We have hindsight to evaluate him, sure, but his job is to have foresight to make the correct moves.

 

In much the same way you can't evaluate the trades Hendry made, you can't evaluate him as a trader. The information you have on him as a trader is incomplete and doesn't tell the entire story.

 

Just look at the rosters he's assembled with the resources he's been granted and you see that he's been a bad GM. There are other reasons (e.g. roster mismanagement), but he's had the budget to win with the Cubs and over his tenure they've been quite average.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The Cubs' rosters during the Hendry tenure have been very good and for the most part were picked to win or contend almost every year. Even now, most experts agree that this roster ought to be much better than it is playing. That's the GM's job. Unfortunately, it doesn't always translate to the field. The Cubs have had more than their share of injuries over the last 8-9 years and that combined with unexpected underproduction (i.e. DLee and ARam) at times has resulted in the results we have.

[UK1679666180]

The Cubs' rosters during the Hendry tenure have been very good and for the most part were picked to win or contend almost every year.

 

1) With the resources the Cubs have given him, it shouldn't be too difficult to do so.

 

2) Which years were they predicted to win/compete, '04, '05, '08, '09? That's 50%, that's not even close to being enough.

 

I don't understand how a GM receive credit when a team overachieves yet doesn't deserve blame when they underachieve.

 

During his entire body of work, the results haven't been there and the talent on the field hasn't been there. They've had one real good team in the last 8 years.