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.

 

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

 

Of course he's not broke. Way to take my comment entirely out of context. He just spent hundreds of millions of dollars purchasing a baseball team. Payroll where it was when he bought the team will not help him earn back some of what he spent as quickly as it would if he lowers payroll.

 

It is not silly to believe that part of the reason he lowered the payroll this year was because of money.

[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.

 

Of course he's not broke. Way to take my comment entirely out of context. He just spent hundreds of millions of dollars purchasing a baseball team. Payroll where it was when he bought the team will not help him earn back some of what he spent as quickly as it would if he lowers payroll.

 

It is not silly to believe that part of the reason he lowered the payroll this year was because of money.

 

And nobody said otherwise. You're the one that brought up "broke," and effectively hung the idea of pursuing better internal development as an excuse to mask that supposed reality.

 

Look, if you don't want people to respond that way then don't say:

 

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.

 

That clearly makes it sound like you think they're making excuses for effectively being out of money and that they'll only "stick to the plan" out of necessity.

[Guest]

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.

 

Hendry hate? As if we started hating on him like he's only held a GM job as long as Ned Colletti or something. He's been here forever now and the results aren't there. Even if you want to prop him up to somewhere in the middle of the pack as far as how well he has performed his job over the years, the results do not approve of yet another extension.

 

Realistically, Hendry probably would have already been gone if he didn't go through an influx of ownership changes during his last few years.

 

You seem to have this fear of change. Sure, we may get another bad GM. I hope not, but the only way to find out is to bring someone new in. You can't live your baseball life as the owner of a baseball team afraid of firing the GM because the next guy might suck worse than the one you already have. What's the result? Little or no playoffs? Already experiencing that, so no huge loss.

 

Meanwhile, other teams are hiring baseball minds that are turning their organizations around.

[Sammy Sofa]

Realizing that most GM's are average at best isn't necessarily "fear of change."

[Guest]

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).

Except Hendry's not in the "middle of the pack". No one has done less with more than Hendry in the entire history of professional baseball and held on to his job for 10 years.

 

He's a terrible GM.

[Sammy Sofa]

No one has done less with more than Hendry in the entire history of professional baseball

 

Curious to see if you can back that up.

[Guest]

No one has done less with more than Hendry in the entire history of professional baseball

 

Curious to see if you can back that up.

I don't need to, it's prima facie. You forgot to include the part about holding on to his job. I'm sure there have been worse, but there probably haven't been worse that kept on being terrible through four or five managers and an ever increasing payroll.

 

Also, by definition most GMs cannot be average.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Realizing that most GM's are average at best isn't necessarily "fear of change."

 

I do often wonder what would happen if you took a small market GM like Billy Beane, Dayton Moore, or one of the like and give them an open checkbook or at least a much higher payroll than what they are used to. Simialrly, what would happen if you took Jim Hendry or Omar Minaya and put them in charge of the Royals or Astros.

[SouthSideRyan]

No one has done less with more than Hendry in the entire history of professional baseball

 

Curious to see if you can back that up.

 

Mike Flanagan (started in '03, his first full season, same as Hendry) has topped out at 78 wins.

 

Ed Wade GMd the Phillies for 8 years, never reaching the postseason, he then got a job with Houston after one year off and has led them to 0 postseason appearances in 3 seasons.

 

Dan O' Dowd has been pretty terrible with the Rockies, but they've been superior to the Cubs recently.

 

ETA: That's just current guys, and there aren't many that qualify in terms of having been around a long time with big payrolls.

Edited May 10, 2011 by SouthSideRyan

[Guest]

Also, by definition most GMs cannot be average.

True, no more than one could be exactly average.

 

However, most GM's are within one standard deviation of average, you know, by definition.

[DivineBovine]

I don't have strong feelings on Hendry. He's made some good moves and some bad ones.

 

But I'm certainly not going to praise him for freeing up payroll recently. Any idiot can free up payroll. Just don't sign anyone. But let's see how the Cubs decide to spend the money they've freed up. Or even if they decide to do it.

[erik316wttn]

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).

Except Hendry's not in the "middle of the pack". No one has done less with more than Hendry in the entire history of professional baseball and held on to his job for 10 years.

 

He's a terrible GM.

 

I wouldn't say "in history", but in a major market with a top 5 payroll there's no damn reason at all to have performed as poorly as he has. He made some good moves in 2003 and 2004 to get us some key players (Lofton, Aram, Lee, Nomar) but some of his just plain idiotic moves have offset his good ones. He's given out some very questionable contracts that either have or will turn into albatrosses very soon.

 

Jim Hendry is not a good GM. I don't know if I'd say "worst ever" or even "worst in the game today", but certainly bottom 5, and if not that then he's absolutely bottom 10.

[erik316wttn]

No one has done less with more than Hendry in the entire history of professional baseball

 

Curious to see if you can back that up.

 

Mike Flanagan (started in '03, his first full season, same as Hendry) has topped out at 78 wins.

 

Ed Wade GMd the Phillies for 8 years, never reaching the postseason, he then got a job with Houston after one year off and has led them to 0 postseason appearances in 3 seasons.

 

Dan O' Dowd has been pretty terrible with the Rockies, but they've been superior to the Cubs recently.

 

ETA: That's just current guys, and there aren't many that qualify in terms of having been around a long time with big payrolls.

 

Is O'Dowd still there? Because the Rockies have had a pretty kickass farm system (look at their core) and could very well win the pennant this year. I'd say that's a pretty decent job.

[dew1679666265]

He's given out some very questionable contracts that either have or will turn into albatrosses very soon.

 

Besides the Soriano contract (which we all accept was awful), what are these contracts?

[SouthSideRyan]

Yes, O' Dowd is still there. As I said they've been superior recently, but if we're judging the accuracy of CubinNY's statement, O' Dowd definitely qualified. '99-'06 - 1 winning record (82 wins)

[Bryants Disco Ball]

He's given out some very questionable contracts that either have or will turn into albatrosses very soon.

 

Besides the Soriano contract (which we all accept was awful), what are these contracts?

 

I love the guy as a player, but Fukudome is overpaid by a lot.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Milton Bradley also comes to mind.

[dew1679666265]

Is O'Dowd still there? Because the Rockies have had a pretty kickass farm system (look at their core) and could very well win the pennant this year. I'd say that's a pretty decent job.

 

He's still there, starting his 13th year (1999 was his first season). With O'Dowd in charge, the Rockies have averaged 77 wins per year. In comparison, Hendry's Cubs have won 82 games per year on average.

[dew1679666265]

He's given out some very questionable contracts that either have or will turn into albatrosses very soon.

 

Besides the Soriano contract (which we all accept was awful), what are these contracts?

 

I love the guy as a player, but Fukudome is overpaid by a lot.

 

Not really. He's overpaid, but has been fairly productive overall. However, there's no possibility that an overpaid but productive player whose contract ends after this season could be considered an albatross going forward.

[Guest]

He's given out some very questionable contracts that either have or will turn into albatrosses very soon.

 

Besides the Soriano contract (which we all accept was awful), what are these contracts?

 

I love the guy as a player, but Fukudome is overpaid by a lot.

Neither player fits the definition of an "albatross", though. With a payroll above $130M, the contract has to be pretty sizeable to effectively prevent the team from making desired moves. Neither Fukudome nor Bradley fits that definition.

 

As for contracts that will turn into albatrosses very soon, the only possibilities are Soriano & Zambrano. There really are no other high dollar contracts that stretch that far into the future.

[dew1679666265]

Milton Bradley also comes to mind.

 

The Bradley contract was bad, but at no point was it ever an albatross. We got about 3 WAR out of the contract over the three years it's been on the books. Not worth it, sure, but nowhere near an albatross.

[dew1679666265]

Neither player fits the definition of an "albatross", though. With a payroll above $130M, the contract has to be pretty sizeable to effectively prevent the team from making desired moves. Neither Fukudome nor Bradley fits that definition.

 

As for contracts that will turn into albatrosses very soon, the only possibilities are Soriano & Zambrano. There really are no other high dollar contracts that stretch that far into the future.

 

Yeah, Soriano and Z are the only possibilities I could come up with. Soriano no doubt will be an albatross before his contract is up, but Z has still been fairly productive and there's only two seasons left on his deal after this year. The likelihood that he completely falls off a cliff in those two years is low and unless he spends the next two years mostly on the DL, I can't imagine it becoming an albatross.

[CubColtPacer]

Neither player fits the definition of an "albatross", though. With a payroll above $130M, the contract has to be pretty sizeable to effectively prevent the team from making desired moves. Neither Fukudome nor Bradley fits that definition.

 

As for contracts that will turn into albatrosses very soon, the only possibilities are Soriano & Zambrano. There really are no other high dollar contracts that stretch that far into the future.

 

Yeah, Soriano and Z are the only possibilities I could come up with. Soriano no doubt will be an albatross before his contract is up, but Z has still been fairly productive and there's only two seasons left on his deal after this year. The likelihood that he completely falls off a cliff in those two years is low and unless he spends the next two years mostly on the DL, I can't imagine it becoming an albatross.

 

There's actually only one season on Z's contract after this year. The only way he vests the 2013 option at this point (since he is not going to finish top 2 in the Cy Young vote this year) is to finish top 4 next year. That's unlikely to happen and if it does the contract won't be a problem anyway!

 

Soriano and Marmol are the only 2 Cubs signed beyond 2012 at this point.

[Little Slide Rooter]

More so than albatrosses, Hendry just seems to nickel and dime too much, giving unnecessary money to the likes of Todd Hollandsworth, Neifi Perez, Aaron MIles, and John Grabow, when these are the types of role players you should be pulling from the farm system.

[dew1679666265]

There's actually only one season on Z's contract after this year. The only way he vests the 2013 option at this point (since he is not going to finish top 2 in the Cy Young vote this year) is to finish top 4 next year. That's unlikely to happen and if it does the contract won't be a problem anyway!

 

Soriano and Marmol are the only 2 Cubs signed beyond 2012 at this point.

 

I saw "vesting player option" on Cot's and thought that meant it could be picked up either automatically by vesting or he could pick it up himself if it doesn't vest. If he can't pick it up on his own, then the likelihood that his contract becomes an albatross is basically none.