By all means Mr. Rosenthal, lets give Hendry an extension.

[Guest]

I wonder how much of Oakland's success back in the day was Beane and how much was the rest of the team Sandy Alderson put into place - Grady Fuson, JP Ricciardi, etc. Beane hasn't done much since those guys left.

Tim trying harder than ever to support nonsensical pro hendry stance

That's far more pro-Alderson than pro-Hendry. Really has nothing to do with Jim.

 

Billy Beane has been GM of that team since October 1997. Starting in 2000 they won 90+ games in six of seven seasons, with a payroll that paled in comparison to the normal contenders. And that payroll has not grown in the years since. But you question whether Billy Beane deserves accolades for the job he did while supporting the notion that the Cubs should hang on to Jim Hendry because things could somehow get worse with a different GM.

I'm questioning how much of that success was Beane and how much was the rest of the team Alderson put together: DePodesta, Ricciardi, Fuson, etc. Since those guys all left, Beane hasn't done squat.

[jersey cubs fan]

I wonder how much of Oakland's success back in the day was Beane and how much was the rest of the team Sandy Alderson put into place - Grady Fuson, JP Ricciardi, etc. Beane hasn't done much since those guys left.

Tim trying harder than ever to support nonsensical pro hendry stance

That's far more pro-Alderson than pro-Hendry. Really has nothing to do with Jim.

 

Billy Beane has been GM of that team since October 1997. Starting in 2000 they won 90+ games in six of seven seasons, with a payroll that paled in comparison to the normal contenders. And that payroll has not grown in the years since. But you question whether Billy Beane deserves accolades for the job he did while supporting the notion that the Cubs should hang on to Jim Hendry because things could somehow get worse with a different GM.

 

He had a terrific 9 year run, and dealt with no payroll. It's hard enough to find success for a season or two in their situation, you can't expect them to maintain dominance over a decade and a half.

[Guest]

I wonder how much of Oakland's success back in the day was Beane and how much was the rest of the team Sandy Alderson put into place - Grady Fuson, JP Ricciardi, etc. Beane hasn't done much since those guys left.

Tim trying harder than ever to support nonsensical pro hendry stance

That's far more pro-Alderson than pro-Hendry. Really has nothing to do with Jim.

 

Billy Beane has been GM of that team since October 1997. Starting in 2000 they won 90+ games in six of seven seasons, with a payroll that paled in comparison to the normal contenders. And that payroll has not grown in the years since. But you question whether Billy Beane deserves accolades for the job he did while supporting the notion that the Cubs should hang on to Jim Hendry because things could somehow get worse with a different GM.

 

He had a terrific 9 year run, and dealt with no payroll. It's hard enough to find success for a season or two in their situation, you can't expect them to maintain dominance over a decade and a half.

Again...how much of that success was really attributable to Beane and how much to the rest of the guys that were there?

[jersey cubs fan]

Again...how much of that success was really attributable to Beane and how much to the rest of the guys that were there?

 

You are asking an unanswerable, and meaningless question. Beane was in charge. He's been in charge since 1997 and his results blow away Jim Hendry's results.

 

Fuson and Ricciardi were gone for a long time. Oakland won a hell of a lot of games long after they left, at a better rate than the Cubs.

[UK1679666180]

I believe Hendry is not entirely at fault for their current situation given Zell's desires to pump up the value of the team short-term. Although, I still question signing stop-gap FAs like Pena when Colvin has no position and still undetermined what his likely future impact is.

 

I do blame Hendry from deviating from their original pre 03' and trying to piece in a good but not great team starting in 04' and stunting future development in Latin America with the promotions of Oneri and Serra.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Again...how much of that success was really attributable to Beane and how much to the rest of the guys that were there?

 

You are asking an unanswerable, and meaningless question. Beane was in charge. He's been in charge since 1997 and his results blow away Jim Hendry's results.

 

Fuson and Ricciardi were gone for a long time. Oakland won a hell of a lot of games long after they left, at a better rate than the Cubs.

 

"Better than Hendry" is not a valid reason to hire a guy, although looking at his record the A's have been better than I thought in recent years.

[dew1679666265]

I believe Hendry is not entirely at fault for their current situation given Zell's desires to pump up the value of the team short-term. Although, I still question signing stop-gap FAs like Pena when Colvin has no position and still undetermined what his likely future impact is.

 

I agree with you to a degree with Hendry signing stopgaps instead of giving young guys a shot, though he's been better at that recently. The exact example of Pena over Colvin isn't a good one, though, because there's pretty much no projection I've seen or, likely, that anybody could point to where Colvin is at all likely to produce at the level of a first baseman - especially when you factor in that his defense is likely to be pretty weak there.

 

Whether you think the Cubs can contend or not, with Hendry's job on the line, fans getting really antsy and a really bad division, you have to make some effort to contend. Passing on all FA first basemen and simply going with Colvin would not have been a move in line with making an effort to compete, so I have no problem with giving a one-year deal to a guy who could very well give us 2-3 wins - which Colvin just barely missed while hitting an unreal amount of flyballs for home runs.

[dew1679666265]

Again...how much of that success was really attributable to Beane and how much to the rest of the guys that were there?

 

From 1998-2001, the As had an average record of 88-74. After Ricciardi and Fuson left (02-09, Fuson returned in 2010) the As posted an average 87-75 record. I'm not seeing that huge a difference between Ricciardi and Fuson vs Beane. Alderson left the As in 98 when Beane took over and they were winning 88 and 93 games in 2005 and 2006.

[UK1679666180]

I believe Hendry is not entirely at fault for their current situation given Zell's desires to pump up the value of the team short-term. Although, I still question signing stop-gap FAs like Pena when Colvin has no position and still undetermined what his likely future impact is.

 

I agree with you to a degree with Hendry signing stopgaps instead of giving young guys a shot, though he's been better at that recently. The exact example of Pena over Colvin isn't a good one, though, because there's pretty much no projection I've seen or, likely, that anybody could point to where Colvin is at all likely to produce at the level of a first baseman - especially when you factor in that his defense is likely to be pretty weak there.

 

Whether you think the Cubs can contend or not, with Hendry's job on the line, fans getting really antsy and a really bad division, you have to make some effort to contend. Passing on all FA first basemen and simply going with Colvin would not have been a move in line with making an effort to compete, so I have no problem with giving a one-year deal to a guy who could very well give us 2-3 wins - which Colvin just barely missed while hitting an unreal amount of flyballs for home runs.

 

If Pena, Garza, and Wood could bring them into contention, that would be fine but its going to take far than those 3 to do so. Its a shame, when you play for a 01' season and get 02'.

 

Go and spend whatever you want bring Gillick in for two years as team president. Have him around for two years, hire scouting and development staffs, new GM who hires the new manager, basically have Gillick rebuild the whole damn thing.

[dew1679666265]

If Pena, Garza, and Wood could bring them into contention, that would be fine but its going to take far than those 3 to do so. Its a shame, when you play for a 01' season and get 02'.

 

Without all the injuries, there's a chance those three players plus Reed and Barney could have kept us around .500 and a .500 record has us within 4-6 games of first place. Not ideal and not what you build for, but it's contention. And I understand injuries will occur, but not generally to this degree, this often, this early.

 

Go and spend whatever you want bring Gillick in for two years as team president. Have him around for two years, hire scouting and development staffs, new GM who hires the new manager, basically have Gillick rebuild the whole damn thing.

 

That'd be fine with me. Built the late 90s/early 2000s Mariners and the current Phillies.

[Guest]

Again...how much of that success was really attributable to Beane and how much to the rest of the guys that were there?

 

You are asking an unanswerable, and meaningless question. Beane was in charge. He's been in charge since 1997 and his results blow away Jim Hendry's results.

 

Fuson and Ricciardi were gone for a long time. Oakland won a hell of a lot of games long after they left, at a better rate than the Cubs.

 

How long does Beane get to be mired in mediocrity before we start to question if maybe the landscape has changed to the point where he's not as effective as he once was? He's at a .468 winning percentage the last 5 years and his roster and farm system don't look to be on the brink of breaking out of that funk. It might be that he would be just as effective as he used to be if he had the Cubs' resources, but it's a more than fair question to ask.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

Go and spend whatever you want bring Gillick in for two years as team president. Have him around for two years, hire scouting and development staffs, new GM who hires the new manager, basically have Gillick rebuild the whole damn thing.

 

That'd be fine with me. Built the late 90s/early 2000s Mariners and the current Phillies.

 

He didn't build the current Phillies, he just stayed out the way(which to be fair Ed Wade was likely incapable of, but he's barely capable of breathing without swallowing his own tongue)

[jersey cubs fan]

Again...how much of that success was really attributable to Beane and how much to the rest of the guys that were there?

 

You are asking an unanswerable, and meaningless question. Beane was in charge. He's been in charge since 1997 and his results blow away Jim Hendry's results.

 

Fuson and Ricciardi were gone for a long time. Oakland won a hell of a lot of games long after they left, at a better rate than the Cubs.

 

How long does Beane get to be mired in mediocrity before we start to question if maybe the landscape has changed to the point where he's not as effective as he once was? He's at a .468 winning percentage the last 5 years and his roster and farm system don't look to be on the brink of breaking out of that funk. It might be that he would be just as effective as he used to be if he had the Cubs' resources, but it's a more than fair question to ask.

 

It's kind of a pointless question. You can't answer it until he gets a better job. He's a GM who produced terrific results with an extremely low level of resources at his disposal. He wasn't able to maintain those terrific results into a second decade of extremely low resources. He's certainly a better option than Hendry. If you can find somebody better, go right ahead.

[Guest]

Again...how much of that success was really attributable to Beane and how much to the rest of the guys that were there?

 

You are asking an unanswerable, and meaningless question. Beane was in charge. He's been in charge since 1997 and his results blow away Jim Hendry's results.

 

Fuson and Ricciardi were gone for a long time. Oakland won a hell of a lot of games long after they left, at a better rate than the Cubs.

 

How long does Beane get to be mired in mediocrity before we start to question if maybe the landscape has changed to the point where he's not as effective as he once was? He's at a .468 winning percentage the last 5 years and his roster and farm system don't look to be on the brink of breaking out of that funk. It might be that he would be just as effective as he used to be if he had the Cubs' resources, but it's a more than fair question to ask.

 

It's kind of a pointless question. You can't answer it until he gets a better job. He's a GM who produced terrific results with an extremely low level of resources at his disposal. He wasn't able to maintain those terrific results into a second decade of extremely low resources. He's certainly a better option than Hendry. If you can find somebody better, go right ahead.

 

It's pointless to ask if maybe the guy who hasn't had a winning season since 2006 might have some other reasons for falling off than lack of money alone?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

They've underperformed their pythagorean wins by 18 the post-winning era. I wonder if that means anything one way or the other.

[jersey cubs fan]

It's pointless to ask if maybe the guy who hasn't had a winning season since 2006 might have some other reasons for falling off than lack of money alone?

 

It's pointless to ask a question that can't be answered. Seriously, "maybe the landscape has changed to the point where he can't be effective"? The baseball landscape always changes. A bad 4-5 year stretch should be assumed for a team spending $55m on payroll every season. The fact that he had 9 year stretch of terrific results is much more impressive than his 4-5 years of middling performance is a bad sign. He's 49 years old. He's blown Jim Hendry out of the water in the GM game and yet some people support keeping Hendry because the next guy might be worse. And we're bringing up nonsense about how the landscape of baseball might have passed Billy Beane by while guys like Brian Sabean can win a WS and Kenny Williams can be praised for putting together another sub .500 ballclub on a $100+ million payroll.

[CubColtPacer]

Beane can be blamed for the lack of offense his team has. He has had Nelson Cruz, Andre Ethier, and Carlos Gonzalez all in his hands at one point and has virtually nothing to show for them leaving during their cost controlled years. His trading away his high priced stars was a mixed bag. He got great value for one and almost nothing for a couple of others. He's had enough breaks to build a good team even with the lowering of payroll (which hit almost 80 million dollars before dropping sharply), but he's made too many major mistakes to capitalize on it. He also hasn't had that much wiggle room, and it can certainly be argued that he has to gamble more because of his payroll. I would still be just fine with him being hired, but he probably shouldn't be considered the expert talent evaluator he once was considered to be. If I had to pick any GM in the league right now he probably would be in the 10-15 range.

[UK1679666180]

If Pena, Garza, and Wood could bring them into contention, that would be fine but its going to take far than those 3 to do so. Its a shame, when you play for a 01' season and get 02'.

 

Without all the injuries, there's a chance those three players plus Reed and Barney could have kept us around .500 and a .500 record has us within 4-6 games of first place. Not ideal and not what you build for, but it's contention. And I understand injuries will occur, but not generally to this degree, this often, this early.

 

Go and spend whatever you want bring Gillick in for two years as team president. Have him around for two years, hire scouting and development staffs, new GM who hires the new manager, basically have Gillick rebuild the whole damn thing.

 

That'd be fine with me. Built the late 90s/early 2000s Mariners and the current Phillies.

I disagree, I don't see them near .500 even if they had everyone healthy, would have 7 more wins or close to the 70 runs they've been outscored.

[SouthSideRyan]

We're a hilarious 3-17 in games started by fill-in starting pitchers. It's not a stretch to say we'd be 500 with perfect healthy.

[jersey cubs fan]

We're a hilarious 3-17 in games started by fill-in starting pitchers. It's not a stretch to say we'd be 500 with perfect healthy.

 

It's a stretch to believe this team would ever have been perfectly healthy (also it's their failure to not have any decent pitching depth).

[Tarver]

Please, let's stop making excuses for our FO's failure, they are more than capable of doing that for themselves.

[SouthSideRyan]

We're a hilarious 3-17 in games started by fill-in starting pitchers. It's not a stretch to say we'd be 500 with perfect healthy.

 

It's a stretch to believe this team would ever have been perfectly healthy (also it's their failure to not have any decent pitching depth).

 

I never said it wasn't, I was responding to UK's assertion

[UK1679666180]

We're a hilarious 3-17 in games started by fill-in starting pitchers. It's not a stretch to say we'd be 500 with perfect healthy.

So the Cubs are 22-22 (not including one start from Wells/Cashner)) basically when Zambrano, Garza, and Dempster throw? Color me skeptical they'd maintain that ratio.

[Men in Blue]

We'll be fine once Woody gets back. Seriously, it will be interesting to see how empty Wrigley is this week.

[UK1679666180]

Its pretty telling STL can replace one of the top 3 starters in the NL and barely skip a beat. The Cubs bring up Coleman.