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

[Guest]

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

funny, I thought there was enough good talk going on in this thread to invest the time to post quite a bit.

[erik316wttn]

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.

 

I'll concede that point to you, and I edited. The bad thing about the internet is sometimes it's hard to tell intention. My bad.

 

But I'll restate: If Aram has a poor year this year and we think he's no longer a productive player, we shouldn't keep him because there may be a "chance" that the next guy will be worse. It's a calculated risk that you need to take. And I think comparing Aram to Hendry is flawed. Aram, with the exception of the first half of last year and this year so far, has been good-to-very good for us during his Cubs tenure. Hendry has had some flashes of brilliance (I'll give him the Lee trade, Aram/Lofton trades, Nomar trade, etc as some very good moves that he's made), but I think that his negatives cancel out his positives. There's no proof to back this up, but I have a strong feeling he pretty much let Dusty pick out most of his roster during his tenure here. In fact, keeping Dusty (and Lou after it became apparent he no longer gave a crap) are black marks on him. The Soriano deal is a black mark, as is Neifi, Grabow, etc. He has these idiotic philosophies that he just throws together on a whim and doesn't stick with from year to year (guys who can "catch the ball", getting more left handed, etc). He over-pursues the guys he wants that he feels fill this philosophy at the expense of other, better players who may actually be a better fit on the team.

 

Does absolutely everything Jim Hendry touches turn to crap? No. But I think we've let him coast on the big moves he's made for too long.

 

but again, like I said, if you're going to make a change, do it soon, because a front office in flux is not going to be attractive to any worthwhile free agents. I'd be willing to stick with Hendry at least until next Opening Day if it means landing Pujols and some other useful pieces this winter.

[Guest]

Replacing your gm mid-season dramatically reduces the pool of available candidates.

[imb]

I have a hard time believing that there's not someone out there better than Jim Hendry. If the Ricketts, or whoever, can't find him, then that's a bigger problem.

[Rob]

Replacing your gm mid-season dramatically reduces the pool of available candidates.

 

We've got plenty of options in house between Randy Bush and Dave Littlefield. What are we waiting for?

[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.

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 understand your point, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

[erik316wttn]

Replacing your gm mid-season dramatically reduces the pool of available candidates.

 

 

I'd think if you finished the season with a GM who has the "interim" tag, yes. If you fire Hendry then name someone the permanent replacement right now it wouldn't affect us.

[Tracer Bullet]

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.

 

believe me, i do not want to be defending erik here. but the question you've posed isn't really a test of his logic. erik's in no position to know what gm candidates are available any more than any average fan would be. he's likely not in a much better position to know much about possible 3B candidates, but he, like most fans, likely believes that he has a better grasp on those candidates (and at least has decent info available about those candidates online). you've done the same with tarver - asking him to detail who will replace hendry and how far cuts will go, etc, etc. you're asking people to make decisions well beyond their means simply b/c they don't like the job the current guy has done.

 

You don't have to have a plan in place to fix the Cubs in order to want the current GM fired. I frankly think imb stated it best: there's someone better than hendry out there. if the ricketts can't find that person, we're in deep.

[jersey cubs fan]

[*]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.

 

Not in any logical way. This isn't a guy in his third or fourth year that we have questions about. He's proven his inability quite repeatedly. The time for hemming and hawwing was a long time ago. Every year there is a new excuse to hold onto him for some people, and those excuses stopped making sense a long time ago. The man's job is to put a baseball team on the field that wins a lot more than it loses. He hasn't done it. There's no reason to pretend a true deep thinker would look beyond that and see some mythological reason why keeping him is the best option. Rickets has had more than enough time to consult with the right people and find the right man for the job. If, at this point, he sticks with Hendry any further, he will have made it clear he has very little interest in winning. He will have chosen the cowardly comfort of barely passable mediocrity over the potential for actual success based on the nonsensical fear that "things could be worse".

[Guest]

Slight change of questiining here...

 

What are the qualities people want in a new GM?

[erik316wttn]

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.

 

believe me, i do not want to be defending erik here.

 

God forbid. :roll: :roll:

Edited May 11, 2011 by erik316wttn

[dew1679666265]

Replacing your gm mid-season dramatically reduces the pool of available candidates.

 

 

I'd think if you finished the season with a GM who has the "interim" tag, yes. If you fire Hendry then name someone the permanent replacement right now it wouldn't affect us.

 

It's actually the other way around. If Ricketts were to fire Hendry now and name Randy Bush the interim GM, he could conduct a full search in the offseason and have most all of the candidates available to him. The bad part is, however, we have Randy Bush making any and all decisions on either a firesale or acquiring players at the deadline and there's a very real chance that if we're 12-15 games out of first at the deadline we may still see Bush (or another interim) buying at the deadline, dealing some important minor leaguers, in a desperate attempt to earn himself the full-time job. Ricketts could demand that Bush sell in that situation, but an owner doesn't really want to cripple his GM (even just an interim) in that way most of the time.

 

If Ricketts were to fire Hendry now and quickly name a replacement, the pool of candidates would be very low. Most people aren't going to want to go through an interview process in the middle of the season while games are going on, meaning most of the candidates we'll have are internal guys (Bush, Littlefield) and unemployed former GMs (Ned Coletti). The absolute worst thing we could do is fire Hendry in-season and name a permanent replacement in-season.

 

If the Ricketts decide to make a change (which is fine with me), then the best option would be to keep Hendry all season, narrow the list of candidates down during the season to 1-3 guys and then go through the interview process immediately after the season ends. That way most of your information is gathered in-season, you knock out the interview process quickly and then name a GM shortly after that. It reduces the front office chaos and gives the new GM and staff more time to prepare for free agency/trade strategies. With that strategy, however, you have to have a pretty good idea of the type of GM you want, who exactly is out there that fits that mold and who would be most interested in taking a new job. Whether the Ricketts are that familiar with things at this point I don't know and that's why I'm not gung-ho behind the idea of making a change.

[jersey cubs fan]

If the Ricketts decide to make a change (which is fine with me), then the best option would be to keep Hendry all season, narrow the list of candidates down during the season to 1-3 guys and then go through the interview process immediately after the season ends.

 

If you are creating a list of candidates in season then it is pretty much a waste of time to keep Hendry through to the end. Certainly you want to begin the process before you can him, but that should already be done. You can't really narrow it to 1-3 guys while he's still in the role. If you want to keep him until August, it doesn't matter. It's not like he is some fantastic fire seller or anything. But if you do keep him with the intent of getting rid of him then you have to watch his movement like a hawk and potentially nix any trade he does come up with.

[dew1679666265]

If the Ricketts decide to make a change (which is fine with me), then the best option would be to keep Hendry all season, narrow the list of candidates down during the season to 1-3 guys and then go through the interview process immediately after the season ends.

 

If you are creating a list of candidates in season then it is pretty much a waste of time to keep Hendry through to the end. Certainly you want to begin the process before you can him, but that should already be done. You can't really narrow it to 1-3 guys while he's still in the role. If you want to keep him until August, it doesn't matter. It's not like he is some fantastic fire seller or anything. But if you do keep him with the intent of getting rid of him then you have to watch his movement like a hawk and potentially nix any trade he does come up with.

 

The reasoning for keeping him around while you're narrowing your list is because he's less likely to mortgage the future than a guy with an interim tag. You still have to watch him, sure, but an established GM like Hendry is going to feel more job security than a guy with an interim tag on his title. He's going to be aware that he's very much on the hot seat, but may be less prone to desperation moves than an interim guy.

 

And you can cut down a list to 1-3 guys in-season if you have a good idea of who's out there and what you want. You have to be pretty familiar with candidates that may come available when the season ends and through a search firm and back channels you can find out more specific details about guys you like. Given their short tenure as owners, however, I don't know that the Ricketts would be that familiar with possible candidates and, thus, would need a more long-term search that extends well into the offseason. If that happens, it significantly reduces our chances of landing Pujols and signing Albert is more important than replacing our GM.

[TruffleShuffle]

Slight change of questiining here...

 

What are the qualities people want in a new GM?

 

i'd say that there are two qualities i'd be most interested in - a strong understanding of player valuation, and a consistent vision of what it takes to succeed in the long run. i definitely want someone who will improve the farm system and dedicate considerable resources to international free agency and the draft - that goes more into the second point i raised.

 

i think hendry is pretty poor when it comes to player valuation - he doesn't give me any impression that he understands or uses advanced metrics with respect to defense, he consistently overpays for relievers with mediocre peripherals but good ERAs, etc. it also drives me crazy that every offseason his plan seems to change based on a random weakness of the previous year's team - get more lefthanded, get more speed, etc. it's like playing whack a mole - you steal more bases the next year, but your team doesn't get on base... or you can hit RHP a little better but the team defense takes a hit. have a vision of what it takes to build a good ballclub and stick to it.

[Sammy Sofa]

Just give me a GM who is able to envision how to make a team that ideally can compete year in and year out because the construction is well-rounded instead of playing catch-up with whatever pet peeve the manager and GM think made things go wrong the year before.

[Guest]

While I agree that this is what Hendry has done in the past, do you feel that he has been doing the reàctionary thing the past couple years since Ricketts took over?

[TruffleShuffle]

While I agree that this is what Hendry has done in the past, do you feel that he has been doing the reàctionary thing the past couple years since Ricketts took over?

 

not that much, but i think that lack of funds is as much the reason for that as any sort of growth on his part.

[CubColtPacer]

While I agree that this is what Hendry has done in the past, do you feel that he has been doing the reàctionary thing the past couple years since Ricketts took over?

 

not that much, but i think that lack of funds is as much the reason for that as any sort of growth on his part.

 

Well, I certainly think the reliever thing is not nearly as important to Hendry as it used to be. He's signed 1 free agent reliever to a multi-year deal in the last 5 years even though in a couple of years the bullpen looked to be a possible major issue and the Cubs spent a ton of money in those years. In those 5 years, the only year I remember a theme for the offseason was after 2008.

[erik316wttn]

Just give me a GM who is able to envision how to make a team that ideally can compete year in and year out because the construction is well-rounded instead of playing catch-up with whatever pet peeve the manager and GM think made things go wrong the year before.

 

Pretty much this. If you're going to organize one of your philosophies like "catch the ball" or what have you, stick with it for more than a year, because then you're just going to get a mismatch of players who don't fit with what you're trying to do with the organization.

 

And I was disappointed that Ricketts didn't fire Hendry upon taking over the team. He hadn't lived up to expectations before Ricketts took over, and I don't know what made him think that Hendry would after he took over, either.

Edited May 11, 2011 by erik316wttn

[Tracer Bullet]

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.

 

believe me, i do not want to be defending erik here.

 

God forbid. :roll: :roll:

 

well, you havent actually made much of an argument.

[erik316wttn]

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.

 

believe me, i do not want to be defending erik here.

 

God forbid. :roll: :roll:

 

well, you havent actually made much of an argument.

 

That wasn't what you meant by that statement, and you know it. We both know your problem wasn't with my argument, but with me.

[Tracer Bullet]

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.

 

believe me, i do not want to be defending erik here.

 

God forbid. :roll: :roll:

 

well, you havent actually made much of an argument.

 

That wasn't what you meant by that statement, and you know it. We both know your problem wasn't with my argument, but with me.

 

dear lord, let it go

[Guest]

While I agree that this is what Hendry has done in the past, do you feel that he has been doing the reàctionary thing the past couple years since Ricketts took over?

 

not that much, but i think that lack of funds is as much the reason for that as any sort of growth on his part.

 

Well, I certainly think the reliever thing is not nearly as important to Hendry as it used to be. He's signed 1 free agent reliever to a multi-year deal in the last 5 years even though in a couple of years the bullpen looked to be a possible major issue and the Cubs spent a ton of money in those years. In those 5 years, the only year I remember a theme for the offseason was after 2008.

 

Having Marmol become an elite closer has a nice trickle-down effect in that regard. Of course, that goes back to the point earlier about Wilken's drafts making Hendry look good. We all got angry with the reliever contracts given out, but with rare exception, there wasn't much MLB caliber talent filling out those pens from the system. That creates a need for stability, and Hendry chokes on his own tongue trying to fill that void.

[TruffleShuffle]

it doesn't help when you piss away useful young arms like wuertz and jerry blevins for basically nothing.