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

[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.

 

I posted this on page two, Tim.

ok - so you're for firing Hendry no matter what (NO MORE STATUS QUO!!!!), but acknowledging that he "isn't even close to being one of the worst GMs in MLB". So what is your plan to make things better by firing Hendry? Who are you going to target? How deep do your changes go?

 

And so forth.

 

Otherwise, I'll stand by that you're just seeking change for the sake of change out of frustration.

[CubColtPacer]

We also should throw in here too that according to reports, firing Hendry means replacing the entire front office-including Wilken.

[SouthSideRyan]

Can we hire Pujols as GM?

[Guest]

Can we hire Pujols as GM?

As long as he still plays first base.

[Little Slide Rooter]

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.

 

But assume that The Cards do work out some kind of team friendly ridiculous backloaded contract which has them paying him for all eternity. All of the sudden, Prince Fielder becomes the number 1 FA target, and while his price goes up, hes still more affordable to other teams tha Pujols would have been. Next thing you know, Pujols stays in St. Lou, and were in a bidding war for Fielder. If we lose out, whats our next option? Mortgage the farm for Felix Hernandez and David Wright?

Edited May 10, 2011 by Little Slide Rooter

[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.

ok - so you're for firing Hendry no matter what (NO MORE STATUS QUO!!!!), but acknowledging that he "isn't even close to being one of the worst GMs in MLB". So what is your plan to make things better by firing Hendry? Who are you going to target? How deep do your changes go?

 

And so forth.

 

Otherwise, I'll stand by that you're just seeking change for the sake of change out of frustration.

 

So you think it's worth keeping him another year just to land Pujols? I'm sure even Jim Bowden could handle saying "200/8" on a conference call.

[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.

 

I posted this on page two, Tim.

ok - so you're for firing Hendry no matter what (NO MORE STATUS QUO!!!!), but acknowledging that he "isn't even close to being one of the worst GMs in MLB". So what is your plan to make things better by firing Hendry? Who are you going to target? How deep do your changes go?

 

And so forth.

 

Otherwise, I'll stand by that you're just seeking change for the sake of change out of frustration.

 

So you think it's worth keeping him another year just to land Pujols? I'm sure even Jim Bowden could handle saying "200/8" on a conference call.

One of Hendry's strengths has been getting the free agents he was pursuing. I'd much rather have him leading that charge than bowden losing out because he's saying 200/8 on a call.

 

And you continue to avoid the questions. Which I'd guess means you don't have a clue how to make things better once you fire Hendry.

[jersey cubs fan]

We also should throw in here too that according to reports, firing Hendry means replacing the entire front office-including Wilken.

 

So what? This organization blows. Why would anybody miss the people who have put together a mediocre team on a huge budget and an average at best farm system?

 

But at the same time, it's pretty ridiculous to worry about "reports indicating that losing Hendry mean losing everybody." There's no rule that says you have to lose everybody. If you want to keep a couple guys, you can, with ease.

 

 

The scaredy cat view that things could actually be worse if they hire an even bigger failure so let's just hang onto him because we're comfortable with our occasional flirtations with 88 wins is ridiculous. This isn't a mid major college team that should be happy with the occasional bowl game. This organization should be a hell of a lot better than they have been under Hendry and the only way to fix that is by replacing him.

[dew1679666265]

So status quo ad infinitum, got it.

 

Who's argued that in this thread?

 

Several people.

 

Can you name one or two of them and give posts that state that position? Because I haven't seen them.

[jersey cubs fan]

One of Hendry's strengths has been getting the free agents he was pursuing.

 

Unfortunately.

[jersey cubs fan]

So status quo ad infinitum, got it.

 

Who's argued that in this thread?

 

Several people.

 

Can you name one or two of them and give posts that state that position? Because I haven't seen them.

 

tim and cubcoltpacer appear to doing so in painfully obvious fashion

[dew1679666265]

But assume that The Cards do work out some kind of team friendly ridiculous backloaded contract which has them paying him for all eternity. All of the sudden, Prince Fielder becomes the number 1 FA target, and while his price goes up, hes still more affordable to other teams tha Pujols would have been. Next thing you know, Pujols stays in St. Lou, and were in a bidding war for Fielder. If we lose out, whats our next option? Mortgage the farm for Felix Hernandez and David Wright?

 

If the Cards re-up Pujols, we have no shot at him, obviously. But the chances of that happening at this point are pretty slim. It certainly could, and that's not good for us, but if Pujols hits the FA market, we have as good a shot as anybody to get him. And the chances of him hitting free agency are pretty good now.

[dew1679666265]

So status quo ad infinitum, got it.

 

Who's argued that in this thread?

 

Several people.

 

Can you name one or two of them and give posts that state that position? Because I haven't seen them.

 

tim and cubcoltpacer appear to doing so in painfully obvious fashion

 

I've read every post each has made in this thread and I haven't seen that articulated at all. I've seen them both argue that you should have a clear plan and a clear successor in mind before you make a move. That's completely different than "status quo ad infinitum."

 

Can you steer me in the direction of these posts?

[dew1679666265]

The scaredy cat view that things could actually be worse if they hire an even bigger failure so let's just hang onto him because we're comfortable with our occasional flirtations with 88 wins is ridiculous. This isn't a mid major college team that should be happy with the occasional bowl game. This organization should be a hell of a lot better than they have been under Hendry and the only way to fix that is by replacing him.

 

There's a big difference between not favoring a move at all because the next guy might be worse (a position no one I've seen has taken) and arguing that there should be a clear plan and specific targets in mind before making a move (a position I, CCP, Tim, TT, Rob and others have made).

 

And I doubt anyone on this board is comfortable with occassional 88 win seasons. I don't know where you're seeing that either.

[CubColtPacer]

So status quo ad infinitum, got it.

 

Who's argued that in this thread?

 

Several people.

 

Can you name one or two of them and give posts that state that position? Because I haven't seen them.

 

tim and cubcoltpacer appear to doing so in painfully obvious fashion

 

I don't think I've said once in this thread that Hendry should be given an extension. All I've said is that Hendry has done several things that I like in the last couple years and if he was given an extension I have many reasons to believe he'll be better than he was in the past. But I've also said I wouldn't be upset if they fired him because they could bring somebody in who could also make those moves.

 

Although I am a bit scared by Wilken leaving because I think he has done very good things for this farm system which is a big reason why the Cubs are in pretty good shape like they are right now. It's still less than 5 years after Wilken's first draft and the Cubs have 6 players who were drafted by Wilken and 1 who was signed internationally after Wilken took over. That's pretty solid especially since two of those players have All-Star ceilings. Plus Wilken draftees (or signed internationally under his watch) have been used as major pieces in two major trades on the major league level already.

[Guest]

So status quo ad infinitum, got it.

 

Who's argued that in this thread?

 

Several people.

 

Can you name one or two of them and give posts that state that position? Because I haven't seen them.

 

tim and cubcoltpacer appear to doing so in painfully obvious fashion

Read again.

1. "status quo ad infinitum" would imply something like a lifetime contract. I don't see anyone suggesting that.
   
2. I've stated that I can certainly agree with and understand the frustration with the results
   
3. if by "status quo" you mean developing role players through the farm, investing heavily in the draft and internationally to start finding home grown stars, building a solid bullpen in the same way, handing out smart FA contracts to plug gaps where necessary and hoarding cash to go after the prize free agents that will actually make a difference...then that's exactly what I'm suggesting.
   
4. Hendry under the trib didn't operate that way
   
5. Hendry under Ricketts has operated that way (mostly)
   
6. In the absence of other great choices, I'm willing to give Hendry 1-2 more years to see if he can continue the trend of operating the way I like to see
   
7. If there is a good choice out there and a quick change can be made, I'm for it
   
8. However, I don't want to be undergoing a GM change that will interfere with the single most important action of the past few years (or next few years) this team needs to take
   
9. I think that the moves that need to be made this offseason are straightforward enough that I trust Hendry not to screw it up

But I guess that's the exact same thing as "status quo ad infinitum"

[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.

ok - so you're for firing Hendry no matter what (NO MORE STATUS QUO!!!!), but acknowledging that he "isn't even close to being one of the worst GMs in MLB". So what is your plan to make things better by firing Hendry? Who are you going to target? How deep do your changes go?

 

And so forth.

 

Otherwise, I'll stand by that you're just seeking change for the sake of change out of frustration.

 

So you think it's worth keeping him another year just to land Pujols? I'm sure even Jim Bowden could handle saying "200/8" on a conference call.

One of Hendry's strengths has been getting the free agents he was pursuing. I'd much rather have him leading that charge than bowden losing out because he's saying 200/8 on a call.

 

And you continue to avoid the questions. Which I'd guess means you don't have a clue how to make things better once you fire Hendry.

 

Why is it my responsibility to vet their candidates for them? I'm not going to assume I know more people in the baseball business than people who are in the baseball business.

 

It's as simple as this: The cost of attending games is ridiculously overpriced considering the miserable teams they've fielded the past few years. Hendry is the man in charge. If Ricketts wants to slash prices I'll bitch less about him being extended.

[Tarver]

[*]I think that the moves that need to be made this offseason are straightforward enough that I trust Hendry not to screw it up

 

So you concede that you don't really trust Hendry. This also assumes new management won't come up with alternative ways to improve the team in the offseason that Hendry might not.

[erik316wttn]

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?

 

1) Not a "central point" of anyone's argument, but the "the next guy we get could be worse" argument has been brought up a few times.

 

2) I guess it depends on who is available at 3rd. If Aram is the best option, pick him up. If not, test the market. It's too early to say yet.

[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?

 

1) Not a "central point" of anyone's argument, but the "the next guy we get could be worse" argument has been brought up a few times.

 

2) I guess it depends on who is available at 3rd. If Aram is the best option, pick him up. If not, test the market. It's too early to say yet.

...

 

waiting for the light bulb to come on between those points

 

...

[erik316wttn]

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?

 

1) Not a "central point" of anyone's argument, but the "the next guy we get could be worse" argument has been brought up a few times.

 

2) I guess it depends on who is available at 3rd. If Aram is the best option, pick him up. If not, test the market. It's too early to say yet.

...

 

waiting for the light bulb to come on between those points

 

...

 

Why are you so testy? I'm trying to debate reasonably and you just seem pissy.

 

And you know what, the next guy we get COULD be worse than Aram. But does that mean we shouldn't make a move this offseason if we think he just doesn't have it anymore? Because some other guy could be even worse than the over-the-hill (possibly) 3B we have now?

Edited May 10, 2011 by erik316wttn

[Guest]

[*]I think that the moves that need to be made this offseason are straightforward enough that I trust Hendry not to screw it up

 

So you concede that you don't really trust Hendry. This also assumes new management won't come up with alternative ways to improve the team in the offseason that Hendry might not.

I've said many times in this thread that there are valid reasons for not trusting him.

 

I feel like your thinking is way too binary here. It's possible to not be in love with the job Hendry has done and still feel that it may be the best thing to retain him for a bit longer.

[erik316wttn]

[*]I think that the moves that need to be made this offseason are straightforward enough that I trust Hendry not to screw it up

 

So you concede that you don't really trust Hendry. This also assumes new management won't come up with alternative ways to improve the team in the offseason that Hendry might not.

I've said many times in this thread that there are valid reasons for not trusting him.

 

I feel like your thinking is way too binary here. It's possible to not be in love with the job Hendry has done and still feel that it may be the best thing to retain him for a bit longer.

 

I can agree with this point, at least. If you're going to fire Hendry, do it relatively early in the season. Don't wait until after the year, because a front-office in flux would not be attractive to potential FA targets. However, if Hendry were fired tomorrow, I would not shed a single tear. But you gotta ride him out at least till Opening Day next year if he makes it to the offseason.

[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?

 

1) Not a "central point" of anyone's argument, but the "the next guy we get could be worse" argument has been brought up a few times.

 

2) I guess it depends on who is available at 3rd. If Aram is the best option, pick him up. If not, test the market. It's too early to say yet.

...

 

waiting for the light bulb to come on between those points

 

...

 

Why are you so testy? I'm trying to debate reasonably and you just seem pissy.

 

I guess you'll have to explain the correlation to me, because I'm not seeing it. Enlighten me.

I'm not really being testy - I thought the correlation was obvious.

 

In each situation, you've got a person currently inhabiting a role for the cubs. In each situation, the team has the "option" of retaining them or letting them move on. In one case, you're in favor of jettisoning the person without any kind of a plan on how to replace him. In the other, you feel you need to have at least some idea of how to proceed to actually improve that position before making a decision.

 

I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency in your logic.

[BeerHere]

Oh look! Another NSBB thread that devolved into petty arguments and minutea.