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

[Guest]

When Ricketts took over he specifically mentioned using the farm system to develop from within rather than signing FA's.

 

That's just a fancy way of saying "I'm broke and payroll will be coming down significantly."

 

And with attendance taking a nose dive this year, he's probably going to have to stick to this plan, although it's likely to provide more fruit than what Hendry has been providing with an open wallet.

 

Of course, Hendry already had an opportunity to build from within with a freed up payroll and a young core of prospects in 2004, and he could not turn that into a winner. It's just time to let someone else have a shot at it.

[UMFan83]

Zambrano's contract is not awful, and Dempster's is pretty good.

 

And backloading is smart.

 

True, good points.

[Sammy Sofa]

When Ricketts took over he specifically mentioned using the farm system to develop from within rather than signing FA's.

 

That's just a fancy way of saying "I'm broke and payroll will be coming down significantly."

 

And with attendance taking a nose dive this year, he's probably going to have to stick to this plan, although it's likely to provide more fruit than what Hendry has been providing with an open wallet.

 

Of course, Hendry already had an opportunity to build from within with a freed up payroll and a young core of prospects in 2004, and he could not turn that into a winner. It's just time to let someone else have a shot at it.

 

The Ricketts are not "broke." That's just a silly thing to say.

[CubColtPacer]

I don't think it's Hendrys fault that he spent so much money. I believe the Trib told him to up the payroll to get a winner however possible. But it's definitely his fault who he spent the money on, with no long term plan or strategy. It should have been blatantly obvious as far back as 2007 that the 2010-2012 years were likely to field mediocre teams. But Hendry was trying to save his job, so f the future right? The worst contract by far for the Cubs is the Soriano contract, and the rumors say his hands are clean on that.

 

Other bad contracts....

-Badley/Silva (his fault given the choices out there and the needs we had this is a inexcusable failure)

-Zambrano (definitely gave him way too many years for a pitcher who at the point was proven to be a level short of elite....everyone let that slide in 2008 when we were winning 97 games but now its awful)

-Fukudome (misjudged his ability to transition his game to US, but then again a lot of us did. I don't remember a single dissenter when we signed him)

-Dempster (pretty damn inexcusable to give a pitcher his age that much money after 1 great season...especially with Z, Lilly, Harden already on the team at the time)

-Grablow (what the hell was he thinking? Seriously. I would pay money to hear him explain his way out of that one)

 

The worst thing about all those contracts (and others)....they are all backloaded and we are paying for it now.

-Soriano is making $9 mil a year more than he made the first year of his deal (07)

-Zambrano is making $~3 million a year more than he made in 08

-Ramirez is making $7.75 million a year more than the first year of his extension (07)

-Fukudome has gotten a $7.5 million raise since the first year on the Cubs

-Dempster's deal has gone up $5.5 million since his first year in 09

-Pena is a 1 year deal paid over 2 years

-Marlon Byrd is making $2.5 million more than he made last year and will make another $1 million next year

-John [expletive] Grabow got a $2.1 million raise after that disaster of a season last year.

-Marmol will make $3.2 mil this year, and $9.8 million in 2 years (but this one is at least arby raises)

-Lilly's contract paid him $5 million in 07 and $12 million last year, a $7 million raise.

 

All in all (excluding Marmol, Pena and Lilly) that's $37.35 in raises from the first year of their deals (all signed between 07-09) to now. How can Hendry get away with this short sighted general managing? Does Tom Ricketts want to know why only 25k are attending games this year? Hendry is a big reason why.

 

Hendry has done a few nice things from time to time. I can't deny that. But what I listed above are fatal errors that demand immediate termination. I will be sick to my stomach if Hendry is in charge of building the next incarnation of the Cubs. Please don't let this happen.

 

Most of those raises are just accounting tricks. Soriano may have only got 9 million in 2007, but he also got an 8 million dollar signing bonus that the Cubs probably counted in either 07 or maybe 07 and 08. Zambrano (5 million dollar signing bonus), Ramirez (5 million), Fukudome (4 million), Dempster (4 million), and Lilly (4 million) were the same way. All of those contracts were backloaded but not nearly to the extent as what looking at the first year salary would give you because of the signing bonuses.

[Guest]

When Ricketts took over he specifically mentioned using the farm system to develop from within rather than signing FA's.

 

That's just a fancy way of saying "I'm broke and payroll will be coming down significantly."

 

And with attendance taking a nose dive this year, he's probably going to have to stick to this plan, although it's likely to provide more fruit than what Hendry has been providing with an open wallet.

 

Of course, Hendry already had an opportunity to build from within with a freed up payroll and a young core of prospects in 2004, and he could not turn that into a winner. It's just time to let someone else have a shot at it.

 

Or because he realizes you can't buy an entire team through free agency. Teams must have some home grown talent or be able to trade some young talent from the minors in exchange for top level players to have success.

[Tarver]

How many years have we had this same Hendry argument?

 

What "Hendry argument?"

 

How much more time does he need?

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't think anybody is arguing that he needs or deserves more time.

[pccubfan]

Hendry has been given enough time and money to succeed and hasn't. He should be gone. However, I'm not real confident that the Cubs will make a good hire.

[Abe Frohman]

I have to respect the fact that more GOOD things have happened on Hendry's watch than any other GM I have seen the Cubs have - but it also has to be noted that he has had financial opportunites that no other has.

 

One thing that I really want to comment on that I have trouble getting over is the changes Hendry made after the 2008 season. I really wish he would have retained EVERY player on that team. Everything seemed to work. From what we hear, Wood didn't want to leave, and DeRosa should have been respected more.

 

The excuse was "we have to get more left handed," which was kind of a crap mentality when you consider:

 

* against LHP as RH batters, the Cubs were productive. The 2008 team hit .300 with a .377 ob% and a .845 OPS. That is great team production in my book, but for some reason the Cubs LHP is the reason the Cubs were swept by LA??? Give me a break.

 

* the team as a whole against LHP hit .288 with a .366 ob% and a .807 OPS. What the hell is wrong with that production AS A TEAM?

 

This team HIT, and bad decisions were obviously made. Am I right?

[Sammy Sofa]

Wood was an expensive injury risk and they sold high on DeRosa. Neither would have "saved" 2009. Most of the key offensive players from 2008 (Lee, Aramis, Soto, Soriano) were retained.

 

And what does this even mean?

 

DeRosa should have been respected more.

 

How was he disrespected?

Edited May 10, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[Rob]

I have to respect the fact that more GOOD things have happened on Hendry's watch than any other GM I have seen the Cubs have - but it also has to be noted that he has had financial opportunites that no other has.

 

One thing that I really want to comment on that I have trouble getting over is the changes Hendry made after the 2008 season. I really wish he would have retained EVERY player on that team. Everything seemed to work. From what we hear, Wood didn't want to leave, and DeRosa should have been respected more.

 

The excuse was "we have to get more left handed," which was kind of a crap mentality when you consider:

 

* against LHP as RH batters, the Cubs were productive. The 2008 team hit .300 with a .377 ob% and a .845 OPS. That is great team production in my book, but for some reason the Cubs LHP is the reason the Cubs were swept by LA??? Give me a break.

 

* the team as a whole against LHP hit .288 with a .366 ob% and a .807 OPS. What the hell is wrong with that production AS A TEAM?

 

This team HIT, and bad decisions were obviously made. Am I right?

 

The whole decision to make our lineup more left handed was meant to alleviate our issues against RHP. Do you really not understand that?

 

Also, the DeRosa trade has worked out perfectly. He sucked in the year after leaving the Cubs, we got three good prospects for it, and one of those prospects (Chris Archer) was the centerpiece of the trade that netted us Matt Garza. How so many people still have a problem with this trade is absurd to me...

 

Also, the Cubs couldn't afford to bring Wood back at anywhere near the contract he was going to demand on the open market. Any offer we made was going to be an insult. If he wanted to come back at a substantially reduced price (like he did this year), all he had to do was ask.

[MembersOnlyJacket]

I have to respect the fact that more GOOD things have happened on Hendry's watch than any other GM I have seen the Cubs have - but it also has to be noted that he has had financial opportunites that no other has.

 

One thing that I really want to comment on that I have trouble getting over is the changes Hendry made after the 2008 season. I really wish he would have retained EVERY player on that team. Everything seemed to work. From what we hear, Wood didn't want to leave, and DeRosa should have been respected more.

 

The excuse was "we have to get more left handed," which was kind of a crap mentality when you consider:

 

* against LHP as RH batters, the Cubs were productive. The 2008 team hit .300 with a .377 ob% and a .845 OPS. That is great team production in my book, but for some reason the Cubs LHP is the reason the Cubs were swept by LA??? Give me a break.

 

* the team as a whole against LHP hit .288 with a .366 ob% and a .807 OPS. What the hell is wrong with that production AS A TEAM?

 

This team HIT, and bad decisions were obviously made. Am I right?

 

What on earth has Mark DeRosa done since he was traded from Chicago besides inhabit the DL ?

 

Hendry has made some very poor decisions as GM and generally has operated without a plan, but trading DeRosa is not one of his mistakes. In a roundabout way, it netted Matt Garza.

 

However, you did point out one of the flaws in Hendry's GM skills. He never goes after the best baseball player. A lot of his moves appear to have ulterior motives or were just not well thought out. Hitting left or right-handed is meaningless. It only matters if you can or cannot hit which is independent of which batters box you stand in. Lineup L/R balance is a fatal flaw.

 

The Cubs will evolve into a good team by getting players who have a history of staying off the DL, a strong young core, mixed with a few guys who are 27-32 and in their prime. And, a bullpen (Wood / Marshall / Marmol is as good as anyone else has to start with).

[Tarver]

We can all agree Hendry isn't even close to being the one of the worst GMs in MLB, and if Ned f'ckin Coletti is seriously being considered as a replacement, then yes give him another season.

 

But it's been eight years of wildly fluctuating results and mostly reactionary moves. The buck stops with him.

 

He wouldn't have survived '09 in any other comparable market.

[Backtobanks]

We can all agree Hendry isn't even close to being the one of the worst GMs in MLB, and if Ned f'ckin Coletti is seriously being considered as a replacement, then yes give him another season.

 

But it's been eight years of wildly fluctuating results and mostly reactionary moves. The buck stops with him.

 

He wouldn't have survived '09 in any other comparable market.

 

It does crack me up that for all of the "Hendry hate", the bottom line is Hendry is somewhere in the middle of the pack when it comes to GMs. As you stated, the results have wildly fluctuated. His weaknesses start with spending money on secondary players and following the advice of his managers too often. Hendry has always pushed for developing a better farm system and promoting through the farm system, but Chicago (Tribune, fans, and media) push for immediate results. It's the nature of the job to be criticized for every move you make or don't make. All of the discussion over the years about all of the brilliant GMs that could work miracles with Hendry's budget are just opinion since there's no way of proving it. As others have posted, Hendry has raised the expectation level, but failed to deliver. If Ricketts decides to fire him, hopefully it will be for a better GM and not one that's worse (Coletti).

[Tarver]

If Hendry had a definable strategy that was derailed by outside machinations like the Zell takeover I would be more sympathetic. But since his brilliance of '03 and 4 it's just been too reactionary. He waited 2 years too long to can Dusty. Three PTBNLs for Trachsel. The Pie/Hill fiascoes. He got a better return for Hawkins than I thought possible; one of his better moves. But there's never been a plan.

[soapy]

Hendry being less than terrible or somewhere in the middle of the pack (or however you want to phrase it) doesn't justify him continuing on as the Cubs GM. The bottom line is he hasn't really succeeded other than making the playoffs a few times with financial resources that dwarf much of his competition. Saying he's better than what the Cubs had before doesn't really mean much to me.

 

Obviously it's not a "anyone but Hendry" situation, but the Cubs can and should look for better. I certainly won't pan every move he's made (he's made a few very nice trades, in fact) but I really would rather he not be in charge of handing out $60 million.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Another problem with the Cubs is the farm systems failure to produce a superstar, so maybe Fleita should go as well. We've produced 2 great relievers in Marmol and Marshall, and a very good starter in Zambrano, but as far as position players go, we produce role players. Granted, the jury is still out on Soto, Castro, and Colvin, but when you look at the teams who regularly contend or are contending now, they get just as much out of their farm system as they do from FAs. Look at the Phillies, Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers, Braves, Brewers, Rangers, Reds, and Rockies. In each of those cases, there is a legitamate chunk of talent coming from the farm, be it players they produced or that they traded for young. The Cubs have been unable to produce anything along those lines. Even our current systen seems loaded with future major leaguers, maybe everyday players but nobody who projects to be a star.

[CubColtPacer]

Another problem with the Cubs is the farm systems failure to produce a superstar, so maybe Fleita should go as well. We've produced 2 great relievers in Marmol and Marshall, and a very good starter in Zambrano, but as far as position players go, we produce role players. Granted, the jury is still out on Soto, Castro, and Colvin, but when you look at the teams who regularly contend or are contending now, they get just as much out of their farm system as they do from FAs. Look at the Phillies, Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers, Braves, Brewers, Rangers, Reds, and Rockies. In each of those cases, there is a legitamate chunk of talent coming from the farm, be it players they produced or that they traded for young. The Cubs have been unable to produce anything along those lines. Even our current systen seems loaded with future major leaguers, maybe everyday players but nobody who projects to be a star.

 

The Cubs are just coming out of the dark ages as far as prospects go. They had a horrible run in drafting from 2002-2006 (Hendry's biggest mistake in his entire career was not making a change on this earlier) which led to having to buy so much talent from 2007-2010. I wouldn't call Soto or Castro role players though. They'll probably both be legitimate All-Star quality players at their position for several years. Cashner has that type of capability in him. But yes, the Cubs system doesn't seem to be designed to produce superstars. And that's an ok strategy when you think of this question. Where are baseball teams most inefficient? Usually it's at 2B, SS, the bench, 3rd/4th/5th starters, and the bullpen. Since there is a scarcity at all those positions, teams tend to overpay for bad players there. If the Cubs can develop good players at those types of positions (plus at C) it gives them a lot of money flexibility to go out and buy elite bats for the corners.

 

I look at the Cubs over Hendry's tenure as 3 eras (and getting close to entering a 4th).

 

2003-2006- this was a period where the future got bleaker for the Cubs every single year. Hendry did a pretty good job of restocking the offense but between the young pitching getting hurt and the minor league drafts consistently being bad by 06 there was very little hope. The organization was in a complete mess both in the majors and minors

2007-2009-the Cubs decided to make a run for it right then. This part I blame on the ownership change. A responsible owner would have fired Hendry after 2006 and attempted to slowly build up the team and farm system instead of trying to suddenly buy a winner. Hendry actually did an admirable job building that team together though. He avoided most of the free agent land mines. The 2006-2007 offseason was particularly impressive where the Cubs spent a ton of money and only came out of it with 1 bad contract relative to production when there were tons of horrid contracts handed out that offseason. But it was still the wrong strategy to take because even though Hendry did a lot right, you have to be absolutely perfect when just buying a winner without help from your farm and the Cubs weren't perfect. The Cubs did make huge strides in their farm system during this time though.

2009-2011-Ricketts comes in and says that buying a winner. The Cubs continue to develop their farm system. Hendry stops giving out long-term deals. The team slowly starts unwinding the long-term commitments they gave out.

 

The 4th era is when the team really starts sticking their toes into the FA market again and signing a couple long-term contracts to complement the guys they have in their developing core. That will probably come in the next two offseasons.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Another problem with the Cubs is the farm systems failure to produce a superstar, so maybe Fleita should go as well. We've produced 2 great relievers in Marmol and Marshall, and a very good starter in Zambrano, but as far as position players go, we produce role players. Granted, the jury is still out on Soto, Castro, and Colvin, but when you look at the teams who regularly contend or are contending now, they get just as much out of their farm system as they do from FAs. Look at the Phillies, Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers, Braves, Brewers, Rangers, Reds, and Rockies. In each of those cases, there is a legitamate chunk of talent coming from the farm, be it players they produced or that they traded for young. The Cubs have been unable to produce anything along those lines. Even our current systen seems loaded with future major leaguers, maybe everyday players but nobody who projects to be a star.

 

The Cubs are just coming out of the dark ages as far as prospects go. They had a horrible run in drafting from 2002-2006 (Hendry's biggest mistake in his entire career was not making a change on this earlier) which led to having to buy so much talent from 2007-2010. I wouldn't call Soto or Castro role players though. They'll probably both be legitimate All-Star quality players at their position for several years. Cashner has that type of capability in him. But yes, the Cubs system doesn't seem to be designed to produce superstars. And that's an ok strategy when you think of this question. Where are baseball teams most inefficient? Usually it's at 2B, SS, the bench, 3rd/4th/5th starters, and the bullpen. Since there is a scarcity at all those positions, teams tend to overpay for bad players there. If the Cubs can develop good players at those types of positions (plus at C) it gives them a lot of money flexibility to go out and buy elite bats for the corners.

 

I look at the Cubs over Hendry's tenure as 3 eras (and getting close to entering a 4th).

 

2003-2006- this was a period where the future got bleaker for the Cubs every single year. Hendry did a pretty good job of restocking the offense but between the young pitching getting hurt and the minor league drafts consistently being bad by 06 there was very little hope. The organization was in a complete mess both in the majors and minors

2007-2009-the Cubs decided to make a run for it right then. This part I blame on the ownership change. A responsible owner would have fired Hendry after 2006 and attempted to slowly build up the team and farm system instead of trying to suddenly buy a winner. Hendry actually did an admirable job building that team together though. He avoided most of the free agent land mines. The 2006-2007 offseason was particularly impressive where the Cubs spent a ton of money and only came out of it with 1 bad contract relative to production when there were tons of horrid contracts handed out that offseason. But it was still the wrong strategy to take because even though Hendry did a lot right, you have to be absolutely perfect when just buying a winner without help from your farm and the Cubs weren't perfect. The Cubs did make huge strides in their farm system during this time though.

2009-2011-Ricketts comes in and says that buying a winner. The Cubs continue to develop their farm system. Hendry stops giving out long-term deals. The team slowly starts unwinding the long-term commitments they gave out.

 

The 4th era is when the team really starts sticking their toes into the FA market again and signing a couple long-term contracts to complement the guys they have in their developing core. That will probably come in the next two offseasons.

 

The bolded kind of sums up the Cubs as a team and an organization. Full of solid, productive players, but we just dont have that 1 guy you can almost always count on, like a Pujols, Braun, Votto, Morneau, A Rod, A Gon, etc. If we could take what we have now, and just plant one star 3 or 4 hitter into the lineup, I feel we would have a very good team that could easily contend. If you look at your average NL lineup, aside from the pitcher, theres usually 1-2, sometimes 3 blackholes in there. The Cubs dont have that, but they also dont have that one go to guy.

 

Another thing that we have sorely lacked is a legit ace, something very valuable,especially when the playoffs roll around. I just wich there was some way to pry King Felix away from the God foresaken Mariners before the Yankees know hes available.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Little Slide Rooter

[UK1679666180]

The Cubs are the victim of not having a baseball guy be the middle man between Hendry and ownership.

 

This is obviously exaggerated since the Cubs were spending with borrowed money (basically bad and backloaded contracts) and no one to put any restrictions on Hendry with any knowledge of the game.

 

As much as I think Hendry has been proven to be unsuccessful, they need a Kasten/Alderson first and foremost hiring a GM and creating a more structured pyramid.

[Little Slide Rooter]

The Cubs are the victim of not having a baseball guy be the middle man between Hendry and ownership.

 

This is obviously exaggerated since the Cubs were spending with borrowed money (basically bad and backloaded contracts) and no one to put any restrictions on Hendry with any knowledge of the game.

 

As much as I think Hendry has been proven to be unsuccessful, they need a Kasten/Alderson first and foremost hiring a GM and creating a more structured pyramid.

 

Which reminds me, what is the purpose of Crain Kenneys existance? Even the name agitates me.

[SouthSideRyan]

I see no need to have a baseball guy ahead of the GM

[UK1679666180]

His role is the one I'm speaking of. If you're going to be the middle man between the GM and ownership, I would prefer that position be occupied by someone who understands the operation functions of the game.

 

Have Ricketts hire some sort of committee to hire a team president, have the president hopefully been involved in the game in a FO role, hire a GM, when Quade's contract expires determine whether he will be retained, same with the scouting director and trickle down from there.

[UK1679666180]

I see no need to have a baseball guy ahead of the GM

The move proven the GM, the less they need a middle man. Without the middle man, there is an increased chance of the owners playing fantasy baseball.

[SouthSideRyan]

I see no need to have a baseball guy ahead of the GM

The move proven the GM, the less they need a middle man. Without the middle man, there is an increased chance of the owners playing fantasy baseball.

 

If your GM is poor enough that he needs a president to babysit him, then the problem isn't the team president, it's the GM. I don't want my team president meddling in baseball activities. They should worry about the business side.