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

[erik316wttn]

 

dear lord, let it go

 

The fact that you're not denying it speaks volumes, but yes, I'm letting it go. Did you really think I wasn't going to call you out on this?

 

And now back to your regularly-scheduled Hendry discussion!

 

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

 

Yes. Especially the Wuertz trade. That was asinine from the start and we really could have used him in the pen in the years after we traded him away.

[questionmarkgrace]

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

 

I'm not a Hendry fan but if all he has given up was two middle relievers thats probably pretty good in the grand scheme of things. If you want to be upset that he gave up too much in a trade be so about Nolasco or the guys in the garza trade that may come back to bite us.

[Guest]

Slight change of questiining here...

 

What are the qualities people want in a new GM?

 

I got this one folks......

 

Winning....Duh!

[Guest]

I'm guilty of not knowing who would be a good replacement for Hendry. Heck, I can't name half the GM's out there and I know even fewer Assistant GM's.

 

I'd like to see someone with a background in drafting talent, keeping the good ones while parlaying the not so good ones into something better and most importantly, winning.

 

Sure, not every trade or signing is going to work out. But, you have to have made enough good moves to suffocate the bad one and keep it from resisting success.

 

Maybe there is an upstart whippersnapper out there just waiting for his shot. Maybe it's a veteran guy who took a few years off and would love to have the resources the Cubs will have to offer over the next few years. Maybe there is a guy we can steal from a team who doesn't offer the resources the Cubs do. Not sure where he is, but I hope someone is out there looking for him while yet another season Mr. Hendry is not sustaining anything resembling success.

 

He hasn't been as bad as he has in past years. I commend his last offseason. But, the results aren't there once again, so I guess that just makes us both wrong. Do not hire me, I'd probably suck at it.

 

I said it earlier in this thread, but I don't even know how one can compare GM's. There are too many factors to say one was way worse than another, and there are probably too many factors to say one is way better than another. But, winning sure can resolve a lot of disputes on whether you are good or not, and Hendry just hasn't done enough of that to get labeled as good. Especially with the amount of resources at his disposal in the eyes of his very own peers. Many of them would probably be thrilled with that opportunity.

 

Has Theo run out of understudies yet?

 

And it's not like Hendry was this veteran GM that everyone was beating the door down for to hire. He was an in house replacement through promotions, and probably well deserved promotions in all honesty. Unfortunately, the last promotion might have been more than he could handle.

[TruffleShuffle]

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

 

I'm not a Hendry fan but if all he has given up was two middle relievers thats probably pretty good in the grand scheme of things. If you want to be upset that he gave up too much in a trade be so about Nolasco or the guys in the garza trade that may come back to bite us.

 

except it's not. he did give up good prospects for a fungible outfielder with no skills other than speed and decent hitting ability. the jury is still out on the garza trade but i think he gave up too much there.

 

it goes back to his inability to properly evaluate players. blevins was a legitimate prospect and he gave him up for a catcher who promised to provide replacement-level production, when we already had soto sitting around destroying AAA. then he traded another effective middle reliever for two non-prospects, and lo and behold that middle reliever was one of the best middle relievers in the game in 2009. these might seem like relatively minor mistakes individually, but then when you consider that he's pays a guy like grabow twice as much as mike wuertz to be much less effective, you start to figure out why the cubs are completely mediocre.

[wvcbxl]

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.

 

So you want the Cubs as an organisation to operate like FC Barcelona, not like Real [expletive] Madrid? I can agree with that.

Organisational philosophy is the key to this debate, imho. I too feel that Ricketts has said the right things on that subject (so far), and that there are at least some indications that the Cubs are moving in that direction. So the question should be (regardless of the years past): is Hendry the right fit for that (new) approach? And if he isn't, who is?

[Guest]

Blevins and Wuertz, relievers with a combined 3.3 WAR(2.3 of which are Wuertz's 2009) in their roughly 6 MLB seasons, might be the "best" players Hendry has gotten rid of since the Nolasco trade five and a half years ago. For comparison, Marmol had a 3.0 WAR last year alone.

 

 

ETA - bizarro McGehee is probably the best, but I don't think very many reasonable people can blame Hendry too much for him.

[Splendid Splinter]

If I was Rickett, I would ask Greg Maddux if he would seriously consider being a GM for the Cubs instead of "special assistant" or whatever the title is right now.

[Sammy Sofa]

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICKEEEEEEEEETT!!!

 

*BOOM*

[Little Slide Rooter]

If I was Rickett, I would ask Greg Maddux if he would seriously consider being a GM for the Cubs instead of "special assistant" or whatever the title is right now.

 

What qualifications does he have? Why dont we ask Ernie Banks, Billy Williams or Andre Dawson of he turns it down?

[erik316wttn]

If I was Rickett, I would ask Greg Maddux if he would seriously consider being a GM for the Cubs instead of "special assistant" or whatever the title is right now.

 

What qualifications does he have? Why dont we ask Ernie Banks, Billy Williams or Andre Dawson of he turns it down?

 

Maddux is widely known as one of the smartest baseball minds out there.

[Little Slide Rooter]

If I was Rickett, I would ask Greg Maddux if he would seriously consider being a GM for the Cubs instead of "special assistant" or whatever the title is right now.

 

What qualifications does he have? Why dont we ask Ernie Banks, Billy Williams or Andre Dawson of he turns it down?

 

Maddux is widely known as one of the smartest baseball minds out there.

 

And there are a lot of people out there who say the same thing about Steve Stone. Would you want him as our GM, although Im sure hed jump at the opportunity faster than Hawk can say .

[Sammy Sofa]

If I was Rickett, I would ask Greg Maddux if he would seriously consider being a GM for the Cubs instead of "special assistant" or whatever the title is right now.

 

What qualifications does he have? Why dont we ask Ernie Banks, Billy Williams or Andre Dawson of he turns it down?

 

Maddux is widely known as one of the smartest baseball minds out there.

 

And Hendry's really popular with "baseball people."

 

I'd much rather have someone who has some front office experience as a GM or under a GM who has shown that they know that they're doing in some capacity.

[Tarver]

Besides having a singular plan (obviously it better be a good one) I'd want our new GM to let his managers know who works for who. No more left-handed/speedy leadoff men/Neifi Perez nonsense. He should listen to the manager, but not let him dictate acquisitions.

[Sammy Sofa]

Besides having a singular plan (obviously it better be a good one) I'd want our new GM to let his managers know who works for who. No more left-handed/speedy leadoff men/Neifi Perez nonsense. He should listen to the manager, but not let him dictate acquisitions.

 

See, it's the bolded stuff that always makes me apprehensive to think whoever replaces Hendry isn't likely to be all THAT different (AGAIN, THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT TO KEEP HENDRY). Being obsessed with finding the perfect speedy leadoff guy or overpaying for crappy veterans is hardly unique to Hendry and is practically de rigueur around baseball. I definitely I think a lot of the expectations for the Cubs' next GM aren't nearly as tempered as they should be.

 

Let's try something: I'm curious to see which current or recent GM's (let's say anyone who hasn't been out of the GM spot for more than 5 years) or assistant GM's people would want for the Cubs. How many of them can we truly come to a consensus on that they're a "good GM?"

[Tarver]

Depodesta

[Guest]

Besides having a singular plan (obviously it better be a good one) I'd want our new GM to let his managers know who works for who. No more left-handed/speedy leadoff men/Neifi Perez nonsense. He should listen to the manager, but not let him dictate acquisitions.

 

See, it's the bolded stuff that always makes me apprehensive to think whoever replaces Hendry isn't likely to be all THAT different (AGAIN, THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT TO KEEP HENDRY). Being obsessed with finding the perfect speedy leadoff guy or overpaying for crappy veterans is hardly unique to Hendry and is practically de rigueur around baseball. I definitely I think a lot of the expectations for the Cubs' next GM aren't nearly as tempered as they should be.

 

Let's try something: I'm curious to see which current or recent GM's (let's say anyone who hasn't been out of the GM spot for more than 5 years) or assistant GM's people would want for the Cubs. How many of them can we truly come to a consensus on that they're a "good GM?"

 

This is similar to attempting to ask for comparisons of GM's, which is probably too difficult of a task to actually get the results you are asking for.

 

You can name the best managers out there and someone can make a list of things they screwed up in their past to make them not look as good as we think they are.

 

Who really knows if Brian Cashman is good or not. He has money to hide any weakness he might have. He also might be better today than he was when he started. Paul DePodesta had 6 months to screw up the Dodgers or something to that timeframe, and he's never been given another job. What would he have done as a GM if he had as many years as Hendry to build a winner? Who knows? People can learn from mistakes, and it's possible that even Hendry has learned from many of his over the years.

 

But, how many more years can one be given if it's just the same results every year with all those resources at your fingertips? Maybe he can be great going forward, but it's hard for fans to get on board with him until the results are there. More of the same is a tough pill to swallow 8 years in a row.

 

Ownership can dictate what limitations to place on a GM, thereby handcuffing them from possibly showing their true abilities. Small market teams handcuff their GM financially, and if a GM can be successful with that limitation, I definitely am going to be interested in that GM, because if they can find success by finding hidden talent and being successful year after year, giving them money while maintaining that same philosophy could be quite fruitful.

[Sammy Sofa]

Depodesta

 

He's an interesting choice. Obviously, you've got the whole Beane connection, and his short career with the Dodgers is difficult to evaluate since he was fired by someone like McCourt and replaced by Ned [expletive] Colletti.

[Tarver]

Depodesta

 

He's an interesting choice. Obviously, you've got the whole Beane connection, and his short career with the Dodgers is difficult to evaluate since he was fired by someone like McCourt and replaced by Ned [expletive] Colletti.

 

He's had problems with the press, so he'd be the antithesis of Hendry in that regard. But the LoDuca trade shows he won't bend to the will of his managers.

[Guest]

Depodesta

 

He's an interesting choice. Obviously, you've got the whole Beane connection, and his short career with the Dodgers is difficult to evaluate since he was fired by someone like McCourt and replaced by Ned [expletive] Colletti.

 

And ironically a name I threw out in my post. Not that I can say DePodesta would be good. I just don't think he was given a fair shot. And I'm not sure the Cubs should be the team to give him that shot.

[Sammy Sofa]

Depodesta

 

He's an interesting choice. Obviously, you've got the whole Beane connection, and his short career with the Dodgers is difficult to evaluate since he was fired by someone like McCourt and replaced by Ned [expletive] Colletti.

 

And ironically a name I threw out in my post. Not that I can say DePodesta would be good. I just don't think he was given a fair shot. And I'm not sure the Cubs should be the team to give him that shot.

 

Why not?

[KingCubsFan]

Depodesta

Not sure why people still think he'd be a good GM, other than the fact Billy Beane likes him. He wasn't particularly good in LA.

[Guest]

I suppose I'm guilty of being a Hendry hater and wanting him gone regardless of what he does going forward. I credit him for this past offseason, but not nearly as much as I am frustrated with the previous 2 offseasons and his entire body of work.

 

How many managers is Hendry on at this point? How many batting coaches has he replaced? People who serve under him lose their jobs when the team does not find the success that is expected when you are spending the kind of money the Cubs have spent. It wasn't the batting coach or the manager that are responsible for assembling the team. It's Hendry's job. That people below him get let go for his failures is probably why I have a tough time with the thought of Hendry signing yet another extension.

 

A GM's performance can really only be evaluated on wins, IMO. Maybe it's a bit unfair if your players end up getting hurt and production sags because of it. But, it is what it is. If you win every year, your ability to do the job will not be called into question. Hendry isn't doing that, therefore it's someone else's turn to prove they can do the job much better.

[Guest]

Depodesta

Not sure why people still think he'd be a good GM, other than the fact Billy Beane likes him. He wasn't particularly good in LA.

 

How long was he actually in LA? It can take quite a bit of time to change an organizational philosophy and then apply that philosophy and bring in your own personnel to apply that philosophy, especially the players.

[Guest]

Depodesta

 

He's an interesting choice. Obviously, you've got the whole Beane connection, and his short career with the Dodgers is difficult to evaluate since he was fired by someone like McCourt and replaced by Ned [expletive] Colletti.

 

And ironically a name I threw out in my post. Not that I can say DePodesta would be good. I just don't think he was given a fair shot. And I'm not sure the Cubs should be the team to give him that shot.

 

Why not?

 

I don't know all the details as to why he was let go so quickly. Maybe someone with a much smarter baseball mind in the Dodgers organization could see immediately that he was not the man for the job. Why has no one else given him a job? These are questions I don't know the answers to.