Brutal, brutal season - worst I can remember

[Sammy Sofa]

And the Mets are "changing philosophies and going a different way?" Have you not met the Mets before?

[illiniguy]

Yes, the Ricketts' plan with the Cubs is to not make money.

Who said that?

[illiniguy]

And the Mets are "changing philosophies and going a different way?" Have you not met the Mets before?

at least they have came out and said what they had wasn't working based on what they are spending. Why can't we do the same?

[Sammy Sofa]

Everyone who talk about the owners like they're going to remain in some perpetual cycle of looking to cut costs.

[LeftCoastCubFan]

Zambrano crashed his car yesterday. Fitting end to this season. Quite fitting.

Z would have to crashed his train to make it fitting

[illiniguy]

Everyone who talk about the owners like they're going to remain in some perpetual cycle of looking to cut costs.

Well I said I was afraid that's what they are doing, not that they are doing it. I think we will all know more after this offseason. But, I do think people have the right to be worried.

[Sammy Sofa]

And the Mets are "changing philosophies and going a different way?" Have you not met the Mets before?

at least they have came out and said what they had wasn't working based on what they are spending. Why can't we do the same?

 

We have done the same. Then we just move on to another shitty theme/philosophy. The Mets will likely do the same regardless of who their GM is, as will the Cubs. Trading managers/GM is usually just trading one crappy, outdated baseball mentality for another, not dissimilar to Hendry going from "we need guys who can catch the ball" on year to "we need to be more left-handed."

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't understand like the last 6 posts.

[champaignchris]

I hated this year. It wasn't fun to watch. But most brutal?

 

I don't think anything that happened this year compares to how I felt after being swept out of the playoffs in '08.

 

As bad as this team year's team was, it was nowhere near as bad as the 2006 team, which I still say is the worst Cubs team I've ever seen.

 

2004 was just a strange, gut-wrenching trial, in which one weird thing after another seemed to get into the team's way. They won 89 games. It felt like much less than that. They were a game better than 2003's playoff team, but missed the post-season by three games.

 

2003... 5 outs away. Ugh.

 

2001... the complete August collapse, beginning with that road trip to Sand Diego.

 

Really, 2010 is going to go into the same mental file as 2005, 2002, 2000, 1999, 1996, 1992, etc. Just another bad year to go on top of a bunch of other bad years.

[illiniguy]

And the Mets are "changing philosophies and going a different way?" Have you not met the Mets before?

at least they have came out and said what they had wasn't working based on what they are spending. Why can't we do the same?

 

We have done the same. Then we just move on to another [expletive] theme/philosophy. The Mets will likely do the same regardless of who their GM is, as will the Cubs. Trading managers/GM is usually just trading one crappy, outdated baseball mentality for another, not dissimilar to Hendry going from "we need guys who can catch the ball" on year to "we need to be more left-handed."

But, that's the problem. Hire a guy who values the ability to get on base. Not someone like Hendry, who has proven time and time again, that he just doesn't get what's wrong with the teams that he has constructed.

[Sammy Sofa]

Everyone who talk about the owners like they're going to remain in some perpetual cycle of looking to cut costs.

Well I said I was afraid that's what they are doing, not that they are doing it. I think we will all know more after this offseason. But, I do think people have the right to be worried.

 

I don't think you have to worry about someone squashing someone's "rights" to be worried.

 

I do, however, think it deserves some patience, since coming back from dropping the type of money it takes to buy the Cubs takes time. Also, has it come out that guys like Wilken were insisting they needed to spend more money in this year's draft?

[jersey cubs fan]

I hated this year. It wasn't fun to watch. But most brutal?

 

I don't think anything that happened this year compares to how I felt after being swept out of the playoffs in '08.

 

As bad as this team year's team was, it was nowhere near as bad as the 2006 team, which I still say is the worst Cubs team I've ever seen.

 

2004 was just a strange, gut-wrenching trial, in which one weird thing after another seemed to get into the team's way. They won 89 games. It felt like much less than that. They were a game better than 2003's playoff team, but missed the post-season by three games.

 

2003... 5 outs away. Ugh.

 

2001... the complete August collapse, beginning with that road trip to Sand Diego.

 

Really, 2010 is going to go into the same mental file as 2005, 2002, 2000, 1999, 1996, 1992, etc. Just another bad year to go on top of a bunch of other bad years.

 

2008 was a great year that ended badly. 2010 is much worse than that. Enduring the 8th year of Jim Hendry's failed regime and losing far too many games without even an inkling of potentially fixing the problem that is Jim Hendry running the Cubs is really brutal.

[Sammy Sofa]

And the Mets are "changing philosophies and going a different way?" Have you not met the Mets before?

at least they have came out and said what they had wasn't working based on what they are spending. Why can't we do the same?

 

We have done the same. Then we just move on to another [expletive] theme/philosophy. The Mets will likely do the same regardless of who their GM is, as will the Cubs. Trading managers/GM is usually just trading one crappy, outdated baseball mentality for another, not dissimilar to Hendry going from "we need guys who can catch the ball" on year to "we need to be more left-handed."

But, that's the problem. Hire a guy who values the ability to get on base. Not someone like Hendry, who has proven time and time again, that he just doesn't get what's wrong with the teams that he has constructed.

 

I know I'm a broken record on this (and it always inevitably leads to the "YOU'RE SAYING THEY SHOULDN'T FIRE HENDRY!" one-sided argument), but guys like that tend to not get hired as GM's. Most GM's are not as good at their job as they need to be, especially if they have a lot of money to spend. The odds are, unfortunately, the Cubs will hire someone to replace Hendry who isn't necessarily better, but just bad in different ways.

[illiniguy]

Everyone who talk about the owners like they're going to remain in some perpetual cycle of looking to cut costs.

Well I said I was afraid that's what they are doing, not that they are doing it. I think we will all know more after this offseason. But, I do think people have the right to be worried.

 

I don't think you have to worry about someone squashing someone's "rights" to be worried.

 

I do, however, think it deserves some patience, since coming back from dropping the type of money it takes to buy the Cubs takes time. Also, has it come out that guys like Wilken were insisting they needed to spend more money in this year's draft?

No and I don't mean to say that it was. Just that it worries me that we seemed to go cheap and overdrafted our first round pick big time. I could be wrong. But, I am pretty sure we only signed the two kids from the international pool. That is a cause for worry as if you want to build from the farm you have to spend in one of those two areas. I hope he is just trying to recuperate his funds.

[jersey cubs fan]

But that is a completely misguided reason to stick with what they have. What they have is failure. What they hire next may be more failure, but there's plenty of more successful franchises out there run much better than the Cubs to indicate the next regime could actually not suck like Jim Hendry.

[illiniguy]

And the Mets are "changing philosophies and going a different way?" Have you not met the Mets before?

at least they have came out and said what they had wasn't working based on what they are spending. Why can't we do the same?

 

We have done the same. Then we just move on to another [expletive] theme/philosophy. The Mets will likely do the same regardless of who their GM is, as will the Cubs. Trading managers/GM is usually just trading one crappy, outdated baseball mentality for another, not dissimilar to Hendry going from "we need guys who can catch the ball" on year to "we need to be more left-handed."

But, that's the problem. Hire a guy who values the ability to get on base. Not someone like Hendry, who has proven time and time again, that he just doesn't get what's wrong with the teams that he has constructed.

 

I know I'm a broken record on this (and it always inevitably leads to the "YOU'RE SAYING THEY SHOULDN'T FIRE HENDRY!" one-sided argument), but guys like that tend to not get hired as GM's. Most GM's are not as good at their job as they need to be, especially if they have a lot of money to spend. The odds are, unfortunately, the Cubs will hire someone to replace Hendry who isn't necessarily better, but just bad in different ways.

Yeah I know what you mean, but there is no reason why Ricketts can't look at the fact that every year the teams that are in the playoffs and make runs are the teams that value the ability to get on base and have pitchers who prevent that very thing. He claims to be a big stats guy so it shouldn't be too hard for him to read the stats and hire according to them.

[Sammy Sofa]

(and it always inevitably leads to the "YOU'RE SAYING THEY SHOULDN'T FIRE HENDRY!" one-sided argument)

 

But that is a completely misguided reason to stick with what they have. What they have is failure. What they hire next may be more failure, but there's plenty of more successful franchises out there run much better than the Cubs to indicate the next regime could actually not suck like Jim Hendry.

 

And there it is.

 

It baffles me the number of people who think I'm saying that means they should stick with Hendry.

 

I'd love to see Hendry fired; I wish he had been fired a long time ago. I'm just not confident that his replacement will be significantly, if at all, better.

 

I would obviously love step A, but I'm expecting step B to suck.

 

Get it?

[jersey cubs fan]

(and it always inevitably leads to the "YOU'RE SAYING THEY SHOULDN'T FIRE HENDRY!" one-sided argument)

 

But that is a completely misguided reason to stick with what they have. What they have is failure. What they hire next may be more failure, but there's plenty of more successful franchises out there run much better than the Cubs to indicate the next regime could actually not suck like Jim Hendry.

 

And there it is.

 

It baffles me the number of people who think I'm saying that means they should stick with Hendry.

 

I'd love to see Hendry fired; I wish he had been fired a long time ago. I'm just not confident that his replacement will be significantly, if at all, better.

 

I would obviously love step A, but I'm expecting step B to suck.

 

Get it?

 

No I don't. You're just making a pointless statement.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah I know what you mean, but there is no reason why Ricketts can't look at the fact that every year the teams that are in the playoffs and make runs are the teams that value the ability to get on base and have pitchers who prevent that very thing. He claims to be a big stats guy so it shouldn't be too hard for him to read the stats and hire according to them.

 

I'd like to think that idealized image of all that is true, but it seems like too many of the players/coaches/analysts/managers/owners/etc. who claim to be "stat guys" really aren't.

[Sammy Sofa]

(and it always inevitably leads to the "YOU'RE SAYING THEY SHOULDN'T FIRE HENDRY!" one-sided argument)

 

But that is a completely misguided reason to stick with what they have. What they have is failure. What they hire next may be more failure, but there's plenty of more successful franchises out there run much better than the Cubs to indicate the next regime could actually not suck like Jim Hendry.

 

And there it is.

 

It baffles me the number of people who think I'm saying that means they should stick with Hendry.

 

I'd love to see Hendry fired; I wish he had been fired a long time ago. I'm just not confident that his replacement will be significantly, if at all, better.

 

I would obviously love step A, but I'm expecting step B to suck.

 

Get it?

 

No I don't. You're just making a pointless statement.

 

Yes, as opposed to all of the meaningful pontifications this place is just bursting at the seams with.

 

I don't want Hendry as the GM, but looking around the sport year after year it doesn't fill me with confidence that his replacement would be able to regularly accomplish much outside of putting an average team at best on the field. That's perfectly reasonable. That doesn't mean it's actually what will happen, and I hope I'm completely wrong in that prediction, but in the meantime that's my opinion.

[illiniguy]

Yeah I know what you mean, but there is no reason why Ricketts can't look at the fact that every year the teams that are in the playoffs and make runs are the teams that value the ability to get on base and have pitchers who prevent that very thing. He claims to be a big stats guy so it shouldn't be too hard for him to read the stats and hire according to them.

 

I'd like to think that idealized image of all that is true, but it seems like too many of the players/coaches/analysts/managers/owners/etc. who claim to be "stat guys" really aren't.

True. Still though I look at it like this. We know what we have isn't going to work. It's foolish to keep using it expecting to do anything but fail. It would be like knowing that brushing your teeth with sugar is bad, but using something else could be worse. So you never try anything else and just continue to brush with the sugar. At some point we have to make the move reguardless of the outcome.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't see the point of you criticizing somebody talking about the need to replace Hendry by pointing out the next guy might not be better and then complaining that people will then question why you want to keep Hendry. Any replacement could be worse. It's a meaningless point to make.

[Sammy Sofa]

What are the financial implications of effectively cleaning house in the front office?

 

Seriously, I have no idea, so I'm asking.

[illiniguy]

What are the financial implications of effectively cleaning house in the front office?

 

Seriously, I have no idea, so I'm asking.

I'm not sure, but if you were gonna be this cash strapped that you can't do anything for a long while, why did you even buy the team? Better yet, why did MLB approve you to buy the team? I would assume they have enough money to be able to clean house and start over.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't see the point of you criticizing somebody talking about the need to replace Hendry by pointing out the next guy might not be better and then complaining that people will then question why you want to keep Hendry. Any replacement could be worse. It's a meaningless point to make.

 

If I'm "criticizing" anything, it's the idea that the Ricketts are likely to hire someone significantly better than Hendry. I don't think that's a "meaningless point" (what a bizarre and ironic thing for you to keep saying) when you look at the end result of most GMs' work each year. In no way am I "criticizing the need to get rid of Hendry;" they should get rid of Hendry. I am critical of the Cubs'/Ricketts' ability to hire someone significantly better. It's not an argument in support of Hendry; it's a statement of how I'm worried/depressed that the end result won't be much different. Like I said, I wish and hope that I'm completely wrong.

Edited October 5, 2010 by Sammy Sofa