Dempster

[Sammy Sofa]

What the [expletive] is filler.

[Tarver]

80% of the ingredients inside a burrito at Chipotle.

[Sammy Sofa]

That still doesn't explain what you think all of those players are. So they're all just terrible and useless?

[Tarver]

They're neither. They're complimentary role players to fill in a roster around your "stars". Unfortunately this team is a little short in 5+ WAR players.

 

This team really needed Gonzalez.

[Sammy Sofa]

Your expectations seem a tad unrealistic.

[bukie]

The only real problem the offense has is an inability to score runs, due largely to a lack of walks and extra base hits. Getting hits, though, is not the offense's problem, and it's unrealistic to expect the offense to average over 5 runs a game, so in reality it's the pitching that needs to improve for the Cubs to do better.

[SouthSideRyan]

What the [expletive] is filler.

 

a 500 OBP

[Bull]

What the [expletive] is filler.

 

a 500 OBP

 

a >.950 OPS. with only 1 XBH. crazy.

[Tarver]

Your expectations seem a tad unrealistic.

 

For one of the premier franchises in the sport? No.

[Sammy Sofa]

"Old" doesn't automatically equal "premier." A premier team wouldn't have been so notoriously bad and cheap for 60+ years.

[Tarver]

"Old" doesn't automatically equal "premier." A premier team wouldn't have been so notoriously bad and cheap for 60+ years.

 

I'm talking about the cost of tickets Mojo.

 

I spend more than I can really afford every year for tickets, meanwhile I"m living in StL and they're consistently outperforming us?

 

We pay premium prices. We should have elite teams.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yes, we should...but we don't. And that's not going to turn around on a dime. Yeah, I agree, I'd like to see a turnover when it comes to Hendry and co. (and it should have happened already), but even when it does there's an excellent chance that things don't get better or even get worse.

 

And the ticket prices are indicative of demand for Wrigley, not the Cubs.

[Tarver]

Yes, we should...but we don't. And that's not going to turn around on a dime. Yeah, I agree, I'd like to see a turnover when it comes to Hendry and co. (and it should have happened already), but even when it does there's an excellent chance that things don't get better or even get worse.

 

And the ticket prices are indicative of demand for Wrigley, not the Cubs.

 

That"s what kills me. I've never seen someone wearing a "Busch Stadium" shirt.

 

You brought up the average fan angle before. Are we more dedicated fans just supposed to acquiesce?

[Tarver]

I was spoiled growing up with the Sosa/Big Mac thing. Those guys made this rivalry. I'll never understand the hate towards them.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yes, we should...but we don't. And that's not going to turn around on a dime. Yeah, I agree, I'd like to see a turnover when it comes to Hendry and co. (and it should have happened already), but even when it does there's an excellent chance that things don't get better or even get worse.

 

And the ticket prices are indicative of demand for Wrigley, not the Cubs.

 

That"s what kills me. I've never seen someone wearing a "Busch Stadium" shirt.

 

You brought up the average fan angle before. Are we more dedicated fans just supposed to acquiesce?

 

People are going to do what they want. If you don't want to support the product on the field then don't. Personally, I haven't been to a game since April of '09 despite living 10 minutes away from Wrigley because of my frustration with the team. I also can't think of any Cubs merchandise I've bought in that time, either. I'm not saying this to brag or boast; it's simply been my response to an underwhelming team. I'm not going to fault people who are spending their money on Cubs' gear and tickets and so on. I also can't really fault the Cubs organization for courting/"exploiting" casual fans of the Cubs/Wrigley; yeah, there's the competitive aspect, but it's also a business. If they've found an avenue that enables them to make money without having an elite team I can't really fault them for generally following that path. I don't agree with it and it frustrates me and I'll respond by closing my wallet to them, but that's just me.

[Tarver]

Hey, at least you're letting your wallet do the talking.

 

I've been bitching about Hendry since '04, and to be honest last year was the first time I felt guilty buying tickets. It's a tough choice; this is just entertainment after all, but I hate supporting the status quo.

 

That's why I really had my heart set on Gonzalez. If we're not gonna seriously compete, let's at least give show some power, give the bleacher folks some souvenirs.

[Sammy Sofa]

Hey, at least you're letting your wallet do the talking.

 

I've been bitching about Hendry since '04, and to be honest last year was the first time I felt guilty buying tickets. It's a tough choice; this is just entertainment after all, but I hate supporting the status quo.

 

That's why I really had my heart set on Gonzalez. If we're not gonna seriously compete, let's at least give show some power, give the bleacher folks some souvenirs.

 

Eh, I'm still willing to give the Ricketts time to right the ship. They've had the team for a very short while, and while I've wanted Hendry gone since '05 I can see why they didn't just rush in and clean house when they took over. I also understand why the team was largely in a holding pattern from 2010 to 2011: the FA market was not very impressive at all and the Cubs are, hopefully, in the process of seeing several young players break out. Yeah, I would have loved to have landed Gonzalez, but I really don't know if the Cubs could have swung a deal similar to what the Red Sox offered. I kind of assume that getting a really promising corner IF prospect was critical to what the Padres wanted, and the Cubs really have nobody to offer along those line besides Vitters, and personally I think someone like Rizzo would be much more appealing from that standpoint. I just don't see how they could have landed Gonzalez without a deal similar to what it took to get Garza plus Castro. I also really wanted the Cubs to get Dunn, but I'm willing to wait and see if the Cubs can land Fielder or Pujols. If they can do that (and there's no reason they shouldn't also be eying Kemp for 2013 if the Dodgers' financial woes prevent them from re-signing him) while giving guys like Vitters and Brett Jackson a really shot and not the Patterson/Pie treatment and keep making more smart signings like Byrd and Pena (yeah, I'll still stick by both right now) it'll go a long way to restoring my faith in this team. I was and am fully prepared to give the Ricketts a good 4-5 years of grace when it comes to "fixing" the team given the mess they took over.

[Tarver]

There's nothing wrong with the Pena deal. I think people don't understand that he's an even streakier guy than Soriano. Watch him slug .700 for about three weeks in May, then go ice cold again.

 

The thing that really stands out to me about Hendry's tenure is just how reactionary everything is. No long term stategy. I have more faith that Jackson will be a contributor, but that's because of Wilken.

 

Don't you think it's kind of a trickle down effect? If we dedicated fans take the time to educate the less knowledgeable maybe that'll be more effective than cheap beer night.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't think so, because that's just the nature of sports fans. The bottom line is that most people look at it as something they enjoy, whether its because their team is good or they like griping about them when they suck or whatever, but it's ultimately something that they enjoy relatively casually peppered with periodic insane emotional outbursts. If their team is good, it's good and if it's bad it's bad and they have only a few passing ideas/theories as to why that is, and they're usually wrong.

 

I really don't think the Ricketts need to see that having a bad team consistently is going to drive their profits down; it's just common sense. Again, I think people need to have more of a wait and see attitude given how new the ownership still is. It's going to take at least a couple more years to "fix" things based on what FA are available, what contracts are coming off the books and as well as seeing as how this latest group of promising young players plays out.

[Tarver]

I'll give the Ricketts the benefit of the doubt for now.

 

But how long do we have to wait and see this FO? Hendry's had ten years now, where is the accountability?

 

We deserve better.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'll give the Ricketts the benefit of the doubt for now.

 

But how long do we have to wait and see this FO? Hendry's had ten years now, where is the accountability?

 

We deserve better.

 

The sad reality is that while Hendry has often been bad, he's been "averagely bad." In short, most GM's are adequate at best (with scattered moments of success) at their job. Again, this isn't an argument to keep him, but it's should be readily apparent why he still has his job. The Cubs simply have not been a continual failure under his tenure (look at this from a technical/business standpoint and not the "ANYTHING LESS THAN A WS IS A FAILURE"-type of mentality) and given that you have new owners still getting their feet back under them in terms of the money that can be invested in the team it makes sense that they'd be apprehensive to overhaul the front office, especially when Hendry is generally well-regarded amongst "baseball people." I think that last part is key for a number of reasons, namely in explaining why the new owners would want to stick with him him for the time being and why I'm not optimistic that his replacement will likely be much better.

[dew1679666265]

The thing that really stands out to me about Hendry's tenure is just how reactionary everything is. No long term stategy. I have more faith that Jackson will be a contributor, but that's because of Wilken.

 

Hendry has actually gotten a bit better at this in the past couple of years. Just looking at this past offseason, the bullpen was terrible but he didn't go out and hand out big, multi-year contracts to mediocre relievers (even though a number of them were out there), he didn't give huge money/long years to aging veterans in hopes of marginal improvement and he didn't block kids like Cashner and Wells by signing mediocre veteran pitchers.

 

Hendry has shown a bit more patient approach and has relied on the minors more recently. He's paved the way for Cashner to pitch consistently, for Jackson to take over in the outfield, for Vitters to take over either first or third within a year or two and he's given opportunities to young, cheap relievers like Mateo, Russell and others rather than giving out contracts to guys like Grabow. And whether you like them or not, he's given opportunities to young guys like Barney and Colvin - whose spots would have been filled by Luis Castillo and Rick Ankiel in the past.

 

It's a step in the right direction, if nothing else.

[Sammy Sofa]

Well, I think the financial restraints have dictated a lot of that.

[Guest]

Well, I think the financial restraints have dictated a lot of that.

 

Yeah. Having plenty of money to spend and spending it on relievers and then not having money to spend and not spending it on relievers is not a clear indicator that he's improved in this area.

[Tarver]

I'll give the Ricketts the benefit of the doubt for now.

 

But how long do we have to wait and see this FO? Hendry's had ten years now, where is the accountability?

 

We deserve better.

 

The sad reality is that while Hendry has often been bad, he's been "averagely bad." In short, most GM's are adequate at best (with scattered moments of success) at their job. Again, this isn't an argument to keep him, but it's should be readily apparent why he still has his job. The Cubs simply have not been a continual failure under his tenure (look at this from a technical/business standpoint and not the "ANYTHING LESS THAN A WS IS A FAILURE"-type of mentality) and given that you have new owners still getting their feet back under them in terms of the money that can be invested in the team it makes sense that they'd be apprehensive to overhaul the front office, especially when Hendry is generally well-regarded amongst "baseball people." I think that last part is key for a number of reasons, namely in explaining why the new owners would want to stick with him him for the time being and why I'm not optimistic that his replacement will likely be much better.

 

I agree. Hendry isn't Coletti or Bowden, he's been more or less competent. But considering our resources we should be a perennial playoff contender.

 

I just hope Ricketts doesn't look at this team as mostly a vanity object.