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

[dew1679666265]

If it was that easy, it would be super, but I dont think theres anybody out there who thinks for a moment that even if the Cards dont get him locked up, which I still think they will that he'll be the Cubs for the taking. There will be plenty of teams lining up. This is a guy who will be able to turn pretty much any team into a contender, not only that, but get him into a major market, and he also likely becomes quite profitable.

 

The Cubs will have plenty of money freed up to spend, a hole at first base and a good, young core of players on the verge of making the majors (along with a good, young core of players already in the majors). Plus you have the curse, Wrigley and all the other history and tradition that makes the Cubs a free agency favorite.

 

The Cubs will have as good a shot as anybody - if not better - to lock up Pujols if he hits free agency.

[dew1679666265]

Look, the DeRosa trade worked out great for the Cubs since they did sell high - but the mentality that he was just the odd man out in a lineup that needed to get "Left handed" was still a stupid notion because it got the Cubs the Milton Bradley/Carlos Silva contract that is now wasted money. DeRosa was basically replaced by Bradley, was he not?

 

Yes, DeRosa was traded for Archer and 2 other prospects that led to the Cubs acquiring Matt Garza (who may or may not prove to be a good signing for a LOT of prospects who may or may not be better), but my point is that DeRosa WAS a solid player who was a big part of a good team. Hindsight proves that the trading of DeRosa led to good things, but it was bad reasoning, IMO.

 

My point is weak, but it IS a point. It is related to wasted money on bums like Silva and Bradley, and bad decisions by the Cubs front office. Not to mention, Rich Hill was supposedly the "untouchable" that would have gotten the Cubs Brian Roberts - but not adding him to the pot supposedly killed the deal. Look at the Orioles now, as all of those pieces are playing for them (whether good or really bad), and no Brian Roberts!

 

The Cubs would have still needed a right fielder even if they had kept DeRosa. Trading DeRo saved a bit of money to go after one of the big FA RFs (Bradley, Dunn, Ibanez), but there was a hole in right either way. I wasn't a fan of the DeRo trade at the time because of the motivation of it (to get more lefthanded), but it clearly worked out. The problem was not trading DeRosa, it was signing Bradley and Aaron Miles.

[Little Slide Rooter]

If it was that easy, it would be super, but I dont think theres anybody out there who thinks for a moment that even if the Cards dont get him locked up, which I still think they will that he'll be the Cubs for the taking. There will be plenty of teams lining up. This is a guy who will be able to turn pretty much any team into a contender, not only that, but get him into a major market, and he also likely becomes quite profitable.

 

The Cubs will have plenty of money freed up to spend, a hole at first base and a good, young core of players on the verge of making the majors (along with a good, young core of players already in the majors). Plus you have the curse, Wrigley and all the other history and tradition that makes the Cubs a free agency favorite.

 

The Cubs will have as good a shot as anybody - if not better - to lock up Pujols if he hits free agency.

 

Maybe as good a chance. I dont know about better. Again, there are a lot of teams who would love to have him. While Prince Fielder would be a nice consolation prize, hes not Albert Pujols. Also, if Aramis leaves, thats another hole we need to fill, unless we want Blake DeWitt and Jeff Baker platooning, and I dont see Josh Vitters being ready to step into that role just yet. Sorianos aging. Byrd is a productive player, but has 1 year left. Basically, we need a guy to build around.

 

As for Hendry, while he has made his mess, its already made. I dont think he should be extended, but theres no reason to just fire him at this point. What needs to be done is sign Pujols or Fielder as the cornerstone, use guys like Castro, Soto, Jacskon, and Soriano by default as blocks to build around him, and go from there. Pick up some quality guys. If we can get a Felix Hernandez to anchor the pitching staff, that would be great. I dont think we need an elite GM to figure that out and make it happen.

 

When your the 1 big market team in a sea of small markets, theres no reason not to be a strong contender every year.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Little Slide Rooter

[Tarver]

So status quo ad infinitum, got it.

[Tarver]

4) LASTLY, I'm concerned that with Hendry correcting many of the faults that previously led him astray, the next GM would be worse than the one we have. If you don't feel this is a concern, can you name a surefire elite GM who is available for hire?

 

4) This sounds like something Al Yellon would say. I understand if you have relationships with these people because of your website and don't begrudge you if you feel the need to defend them, but don't expect fans with less access to want change.

 

Like I said, he wouldn't have survived this long in any other major market.

 

Change for the sake of change is an awful idea. There needs to be somebody out there that's better then Hendry and is likely to be available for it to make any sense at all to fire him. Is it really so crazy to think a full one-step ahead?

 

You were on board for ditching him when Towers was available.

[SouthSideRyan]

But...Brian Roberts is bad now. And acquiring him before the '08 season would have been disrespectful to DeRosa.

[Abe Frohman]

The Cubs would have still needed a right fielder even if they had kept DeRosa. Trading DeRo saved a bit of money to go after one of the big FA RFs (Bradley, Dunn, Ibanez), but there was a hole in right either way. I wasn't a fan of the DeRo trade at the time because of the motivation of it (to get more lefthanded), but it clearly worked out. The problem was not trading DeRosa, it was signing Bradley and Aaron Miles.

 

Financially, it did work out. We know that now. I agree that the problem wasn't trading DeRosa - it was partially those bad signings. The point I am trying to make, is it really more important to have LH hitters scattered throughout the lineup, or is it better to have RH hitters who can hit LHP?

 

Ideally, of course it is good to have a balance of RH and LH hitters - but that is not why the Cubs were swept by the Dodgers in the playoffs.

 

It's a dumb arguement, and at this point is not even in line with the flow of this thread. I think Hendry is a fine GM, and I like the young players coming up. I think the key is having a good farm, and the Cubs are certainly stronger now than they were with the young talent. Big acquisitions are needed, and all of these young players will be getting paid in a few short years. Hope they are planning well - because so far the 2011 Cubs are crap.

[dew1679666265]

Maybe as good a chance. I dont know about better. Again, there are a lot of teams who would love to have him. While Prince Fielder would be a nice consolation prize, hes not Albert Pujols. Also, if Aramis leaves, thats another hole we need to fill, unless we want Blake DeWitt and Jeff Baker platooning, and I dont see Josh Vitters being ready to step into that role just yet. Sorianos aging. Byrd is a productive player, but has 1 year left. Basically, we need a guy to build around.

 

I don't know of any other team out there that has the money we have to spend, the need at first base we do and the big market we have to support a mega contract. The Dodgers and Mets don't have the finances to make a move if they want to and the Yankees and Red Sox have no hole for Pujols.

 

The Red Sox just gave a monster deal to Adrian Gonzalez. DH might be an option, but would Pujols prefer to play first or DH? The Cubs are in a better financial situation than the Red Sox and will likely be able to offer more money, along with the opportunity to play first.

 

The Yankees have Teixeira at first, leaving DH as the only option to place Pujols. If he prefers playing first, the Cubs are again the better option.

 

The Angels could make a run at him. They'll probably be the biggest competition, along with the Blue Jays - if the Jays are willing to spend $25+ mil on one player.

 

The Cubs will have at least $60 million to spend in the offseason, meaning they can give Pujols a 10/300 deal and still have $30 million left to plug holes such as third base. With as many young players we have on the verge of being ML-ready, that should be plenty to work with.

[dew1679666265]

So status quo ad infinitum, got it.

 

Who's argued that in this thread?

[Abe Frohman]

But...Brian Roberts is bad now. And acquiring him before the '08 season would have been disrespectful to DeRosa.

 

Brian Roberts was not bad then, though - and DeRosa was able to play multiple positions. How would it have disrespectful to DeRosa to acquire Roberts?

[dew1679666265]

But...Brian Roberts is bad now. And acquiring him before the '08 season would have been disrespectful to DeRosa.

 

Brian Roberts was not bad then, though - and DeRosa was able to play multiple positions. How would it have disrespectful to DeRosa to acquire Roberts?

 

Rich Hill wasn't bad then either. If you're going to look at that portion in hindsight, you should look at the entirety of the deal in hindsight. At the time of the trade, Hill appeared to be a very good young pitcher who was going to provide very good production cheaply.

[soapy]

Tim, I enjoyed your posts because they explained everything in a calm, rational manner instead of the posters who are blinded by hate for Hendry.

 

ugh...Yes, anyone who thinks Hendry should be replaced because they are not satisfied with the results under his regime is BLINDED BY HATE! Very helpful. But at least you appreciate Tim's rational approach.

 

It's perfectly rational to be of the opinion that the Cubs are better off entering next off-season, one in which they potentially have a large amount of money to spend, with a different GM. Tim, CCP, TT and others have given perfectly reasonable arguments against booting Hendry, but disagreeing with them doesn't make one blinded by hatred. I already stated I'd like to see him replaced, but I fully acknowledge I don't have an available, sure-fire improvement in mind.

 

Again, it's not an "anybody but Hendry" situation, but as far as I can tell, nobody in this thread is saying it is. I don't understand why people are suggesting otherwise.

[Abe Frohman]

Rich Hill wasn't bad then either. If you're going to look at that portion in hindsight, you should look at the entirety of the deal in hindsight. At the time of the trade, Hill appeared to be a very good young pitcher who was going to provide very good production cheaply.

 

Hold on - I know Hill wasn't bad. I'm not advocating that we should have traded Hill to get Roberts, I'm just saying that Baltimore got ALL of them (eventually), and what did the Cubs get?

[SouthSideRyan]

Rich Hill wasn't bad then either. If you're going to look at that portion in hindsight, you should look at the entirety of the deal in hindsight. At the time of the trade, Hill appeared to be a very good young pitcher who was going to provide very good production cheaply.

 

Hold on - I know Hill wasn't bad. I'm not advocating that we should have traded Hill to get Roberts, I'm just saying that Baltimore got ALL of them (eventually), and what did the Cubs get?

 

Who are you talking about besides Pie?

[Abe Frohman]

Who are you talking about besides Pie?

 

Who was in that alledged package for Roberts...... Pie, Eric Patterson, Rich Hill, and a couple of other "good at that time" prospects? None of which really proved to be anything - but at the time it was a big chunk of what was thought to be the future of the organization.

[Tarver]

So status quo ad infinitum, got it.

 

Who's argued that in this thread?

 

Several people.

[SouthSideRyan]

Who are you talking about besides Pie?

 

Who was in that alledged package for Roberts...... Pie, Eric Patterson, Rich Hill, and a couple of other "good at that time" prospects? None of which really proved to be anything - but at the time it was a big chunk of what was thought to be the future of the organization.

 

I guess I'm not understanding where you're going with this. Are you faulting Hendry for not seeing that certain prospects wouldn't succeed? Also, Eric Patterson and Sean Gallagher turned into Rich Harden later that year. And I believe Sean Marshall was discussed as a target in that trade as well.

[erik316wttn]

I personally think "We shouldn't replace him because the next guy could be worse" is very bad logic.

[Guest]

Tim, I enjoyed your posts because they explained everything in a calm, rational manner instead of the posters who are blinded by hate for Hendry.

 

ugh...Yes, anyone who thinks Hendry should be replaced because they are not satisfied with the results under his regime is BLINDED BY HATE! Very helpful. But at least you appreciate Tim's rational approach.

 

It's perfectly rational to be of the opinion that the Cubs are better off entering next off-season, one in which they potentially have a large amount of money to spend, with a different GM. Tim, CCP, TT and others have given perfectly reasonable arguments against booting Hendry, but disagreeing with them doesn't make one blinded by hatred. I already stated I'd like to see him replaced, but I fully acknowledge I don't have an available, sure-fire improvement in mind.

 

Again, it's not an "anybody but Hendry" situation, but as far as I can tell, nobody in this thread is saying it is. I don't understand why people are suggesting otherwise.

Of course there are perfectly rational reasons for wanting to move on at GM. The results haven't been there for the money that has been invested. I can certainly appreciate the perspective of someone saying that they want someone else to try to take the Cubs to the next level.

 

What I've seen from Hendry over the past 10 years is someone who was initially dominated by his big name managers (and corporate overlords). Based on a number of reasons, I believe that Hendry has changed paths and is now doing things in a more rational manner. However, that IS conjecture on my part and is by no means certain.

 

There are people in this thread saying they want "anyone but Hendry". Tarver is one of them. While I can agree with the emotion behind that position and feel the same frustration with the results, I cannot agree that Hendry is a bottom five GM in the game and that we'd be better off blindly firing him and taking whomever in his place.

 

I'll throw out the challenge again to those who disagree again: name some candidates that are better for certain than Hendry who are likely to be available this offseason.

[Backtobanks]

Tim, I enjoyed your posts because they explained everything in a calm, rational manner instead of the posters who are blinded by hate for Hendry.

 

ugh...Yes, anyone who thinks Hendry should be replaced because they are not satisfied with the results under his regime is BLINDED BY HATE! Very helpful. But at least you appreciate Tim's rational approach.

 

It's perfectly rational to be of the opinion that the Cubs are better off entering next off-season, one in which they potentially have a large amount of money to spend, with a different GM. Tim, CCP, TT and others have given perfectly reasonable arguments against booting Hendry, but disagreeing with them doesn't make one blinded by hatred. I already stated I'd like to see him replaced, but I fully acknowledge I don't have an available, sure-fire improvement in mind.

 

Again, it's not an "anybody but Hendry" situation, but as far as I can tell, nobody in this thread is saying it is. I don't understand why people are suggesting otherwise.

 

If you have read all of the many threads about Hendry, I would say that there are more than a few posters who think Hendry needs to be replaced because he's the worst GM (or in the bottom 5) in baseball. When some posters can't acknowledge anything positive that he has done, I think those posters are blinded by hate. My point is that Hendry has done some good things and some not-so-good things. If you look at Hendry's record, it's not a slam dunk that he should be fired (or kept). You are correct that there isn't an available, sure-fire improvement out there.

[Guest]

So status quo ad infinitum, got it.

 

Who's argued that in this thread?

 

Several people.

again, you certainly don't understand the arguments being made if you feel that's the case.

[Guest]

I personally think "We shouldn't replace him because the next guy could be worse" is very bad logic.

1) That's the central point of whose argument again?

 

2) Do you want Aramis replaced at 3b next year or do you want the team to pick up the option? Or do you feel it depends on who they'll get to fill third in his place?

[Elwood]

I don't really have an opinion in this matter either way, but I am curious to hear the names of possible replacement GMs.

 

Who's on the wish list? Who's available?

 

It seems there's a lot of people that want rid of Hendry, but I don't see many candidates being discussed.

[champaignchris]

The Cubs have one gigantic goal this next offseason, and we all know what it is. Whatever is to be done with the GM position should be made with signing Albert Pujols in mind, and it needs to be done before the offseason begins. I don't want the press conference announcing our new GM on the same day the Angels are introducing their new super-star first baseman.

 

I'm not a big fan of Hendry and would have liked to see him go last year. However, as things seem to be playing out right now, unless Ricketts' choice to replace him is out of baseball or already in the organization, it might be best to extend Hendry a couple years and then open the vaults for Albert.

[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.

 

I posted this on page two, Tim.