Awful Gene Woj Article Bashing Ricketts

[questionmarkgrace]

I'm not sure what kind of "plan" Ricketts could even be showing us right now honestly. I think the big picture comes out during this offseason. It'll be the first time we've had money truly coming off the books. And until you have someone out there to replace Hendry, there's no real reason to fire him just to fire him. Not to mention, it probably doesn't look all that attractive to GM's coming into a situation where they're going to be hamstrung the entire first year of their era anyway.

 

Couple that with the type of guys we drafted, the amounts it's probably going to take to sign most of them and the talk of increased spending on IFA as well and I'm OK with his approach so far.

 

 

Lots of people are saying that Ricketts may fire Hendry in the offseason, but if his performance has been bad enough to justify firing him why trust him to make competent moves at the trade deadline? Its far too late to fire hendry before the trade deadline because teams are now setting the frame work for trades that are a couple of weeks away. It seems to me that there is little point to firing a gm after the season in which you have let him head up an important draft, pursue international free agents, and make trade deadline deals (which I think it is safe to assume that he will). Its not improbable that he is fired but if he is what was the point of letting him stay at the helm for so long? THis leads me to believe that if Hendry is still here at the trade deadline he will still be here next year in some capacity, which of course frightens me.

[dew1679666265]

Lots of people are saying that Ricketts may fire Hendry in the offseason, but if his performance has been bad enough to justify firing him why trust him to make competent moves at the trade deadline? Its far too late to fire hendry before the trade deadline because teams are now setting the frame work for trades that are a couple of weeks away. It seems to me that there is little point to firing a gm after the season in which you have let him head up an important draft, pursue international free agents, and make trade deadline deals (which I think it is safe to assume that he will). Its not improbable that he is fired but if he is what was the point of letting him stay at the helm for so long? THis leads me to believe that if Hendry is still here at the trade deadline he will still be here next year in some capacity, which of course frightens me.

 

I don't know if that's the case at all. Like I said earlier, if you fire Hendry tomorrow, who replaces him? Unless there's just some random awesome GM sitting around doing nothing, then the answer is Randy Bush. If Randy Bush becomes the interim GM, his #1 job is not going to be making the Cubs better in the long run, it's going to be making desperation moves in hopes to make the Cubs better in the short term so that he can win the job outright.

 

As for keeping the GM around for the draft and international FA signings, Wilken is much more in charge of those than Hendry. Keeping Hendry around doesn't really make a difference in those areas unless you plan on dumping Wilken as well midseason and then you're way behind on draft preparation with whoever replaces Wilken. Just because Hendry is the GM today doesn't mean he's any more likely to be the GM after the year.

[ctcf]

I don't know if that's the case at all. Like I said earlier, if you fire Hendry tomorrow, who replaces him? Unless there's just some random awesome GM sitting around doing nothing, then the answer is Randy Bush. If Randy Bush becomes the interim GM, his #1 job is not going to be making the Cubs better in the long run, it's going to be making desperation moves in hopes to make the Cubs better in the short term so that he can win the job outright.

 

For the sake of playing devil's advocate, couldn't you just as easily assume that the Hendry will make desperate, short-term minded moves in order to retain his position?

[Guest]

I don't know if that's the case at all. Like I said earlier, if you fire Hendry tomorrow, who replaces him? Unless there's just some random awesome GM sitting around doing nothing, then the answer is Randy Bush. If Randy Bush becomes the interim GM, his #1 job is not going to be making the Cubs better in the long run, it's going to be making desperation moves in hopes to make the Cubs better in the short term so that he can win the job outright.

 

For the sake of playing devil's advocate, couldn't you just as easily assume that the Hendry will make desperate, short-term minded moves in order to retain his position?

 

You would think if Hendry were going to something like that, this past offseason would have turned out differently than it did.

[ctcf]

I don't know if that's the case at all. Like I said earlier, if you fire Hendry tomorrow, who replaces him? Unless there's just some random awesome GM sitting around doing nothing, then the answer is Randy Bush. If Randy Bush becomes the interim GM, his #1 job is not going to be making the Cubs better in the long run, it's going to be making desperation moves in hopes to make the Cubs better in the short term so that he can win the job outright.

 

For the sake of playing devil's advocate, couldn't you just as easily assume that the Hendry will make desperate, short-term minded moves in order to retain his position?

 

You would think if Hendry were going to something like that, this past offseason would have turned out differently than it did.

 

You could also say that perhaps he didn't foresee this season going quite so disastrously. In the off season there weren't a bunch of articles calling for his job and it looked like the Cubs were situated to do marginally better than last year and might even be able to make a run at what looked to be a weak division. Given that situation and the tons of money coming off the books after this year, why would he do something desperate?

[TruffleShuffle]

Edit: The Cubs are such a unique situation. In one hand, it's perfectly reasonable for him to be taking this year to really assess the entire organization from the ground up. Multiple new owners across all sports have done the exact same thing. Unfortunately, there's are a lot of different factors with this team from the pesky century plus thing, Wrigley, bad contracts etc that make this year of toiling very frustrating

 

the century plus thing really should not factor into decision-making, and the bad contracts are already signed so there's no sense in doing anything with them other than just allowing them to expire.

[Guest]

I just think it's not very consistent to have Hendry not do much this offseason, then with pretty much the same roster and financial restraints, make some seriously rash move because he thinks he'll lose his job. If he was going to make desperation moves and if he thought his job would be in jeopardy with a poor start to 2011, wouldn't it make sense that it would manifest itself more than Carlos Pena and Matt Garza(two very good moves, btw)? Maybe he would have if not for the financial constraints, that's been a topic of debate as to whether he's learned from the 2007 spending binge or not. But those restrictions are still there now, so the only way he could go spend-crazy would be if he got another year, in which case his job wasn't in much jeopardy after all.

[davearm2]

I'm not sure what kind of "plan" Ricketts could even be showing us right now honestly. I think the big picture comes out during this offseason. It'll be the first time we've had money truly coming off the books. And until you have someone out there to replace Hendry, there's no real reason to fire him just to fire him. Not to mention, it probably doesn't look all that attractive to GM's coming into a situation where they're going to be hamstrung the entire first year of their era anyway.

 

Couple that with the type of guys we drafted, the amounts it's probably going to take to sign most of them and the talk of increased spending on IFA as well and I'm OK with his approach so far.

 

 

Lots of people are saying that Ricketts may fire Hendry in the offseason, but if his performance has been bad enough to justify firing him why trust him to make competent moves at the trade deadline? Its far too late to fire hendry before the trade deadline because teams are now setting the frame work for trades that are a couple of weeks away. It seems to me that there is little point to firing a gm after the season in which you have let him head up an important draft, pursue international free agents, and make trade deadline deals (which I think it is safe to assume that he will). Its not improbable that he is fired but if he is what was the point of letting him stay at the helm for so long? THis leads me to believe that if Hendry is still here at the trade deadline he will still be here next year in some capacity, which of course frightens me.

The point of letting him stay for now is because the best replacement candidates won't be available mid-season, and keeping Hendry until October makes more sense than installing an interim GM for 3 months.

 

EDIT: pretty much what Dew said

[dew1679666265]

I don't know if that's the case at all. Like I said earlier, if you fire Hendry tomorrow, who replaces him? Unless there's just some random awesome GM sitting around doing nothing, then the answer is Randy Bush. If Randy Bush becomes the interim GM, his #1 job is not going to be making the Cubs better in the long run, it's going to be making desperation moves in hopes to make the Cubs better in the short term so that he can win the job outright.

 

For the sake of playing devil's advocate, couldn't you just as easily assume that the Hendry will make desperate, short-term minded moves in order to retain his position?

 

Along with what TT said, there's the issue of certainty with Hendry. Sure he might start feeling the pressure now if something's changed with the Ricketts, but it's pretty much a sure thing an interim GM would make rash desperation moves.

 

There's nothing to gain and a near certainty of quite a bit of loss if Hendry is fired midseason. There's just no point to it.

[questionmarkgrace]

I don't know if that's the case at all. Like I said earlier, if you fire Hendry tomorrow, who replaces him? Unless there's just some random awesome GM sitting around doing nothing, then the answer is Randy Bush. If Randy Bush becomes the interim GM, his #1 job is not going to be making the Cubs better in the long run, it's going to be making desperation moves in hopes to make the Cubs better in the short term so that he can win the job outright.

 

For the sake of playing devil's advocate, couldn't you just as easily assume that the Hendry will make desperate, short-term minded moves in order to retain his position?

 

Along with what TT said, there's the issue of certainty with Hendry. Sure he might start feeling the pressure now if something's changed with the Ricketts, but it's pretty much a sure thing an interim GM would make rash desperation moves.

 

There's nothing to gain and a near certainty of quite a bit of loss if Hendry is fired midseason. There's just no point to it.

 

oh i completely agree with that. He should have been gone at least a month and a half ago if they were planning on firing him. The thing is though after you let him have the wheel all season and make important future decisions such as who to trade for what; there is little point of getting rid of him next season. unfortunately I think this is where we are headed. Of course its just speculation but my gut says that because he is here now he will be here to start next season in some capacity.

[davearm2]

I don't know if that's the case at all. Like I said earlier, if you fire Hendry tomorrow, who replaces him? Unless there's just some random awesome GM sitting around doing nothing, then the answer is Randy Bush. If Randy Bush becomes the interim GM, his #1 job is not going to be making the Cubs better in the long run, it's going to be making desperation moves in hopes to make the Cubs better in the short term so that he can win the job outright.

 

For the sake of playing devil's advocate, couldn't you just as easily assume that the Hendry will make desperate, short-term minded moves in order to retain his position?

 

Along with what TT said, there's the issue of certainty with Hendry. Sure he might start feeling the pressure now if something's changed with the Ricketts, but it's pretty much a sure thing an interim GM would make rash desperation moves.

 

There's nothing to gain and a near certainty of quite a bit of loss if Hendry is fired midseason. There's just no point to it.

 

oh i completely agree with that. He should have been gone at least a month and a half ago if they were planning on firing him. The thing is though after you let him have the wheel all season and make important future decisions such as who to trade for what; there is little point of getting rid of him next season. unfortunately I think this is where we are headed. Of course its just speculation but my gut says that because he is here now he will be here to start next season in some capacity.

Doesn't that suggest that the only window to fire a GM is during the season? We obviously know that isn't true.

[dew1679666265]

oh i completely agree with that. He should have been gone at least a month and a half ago if they were planning on firing him. The thing is though after you let him have the wheel all season and make important future decisions such as who to trade for what; there is little point of getting rid of him next season. unfortunately I think this is where we are headed. Of course its just speculation but my gut says that because he is here now he will be here to start next season in some capacity.

 

Most GMs get fired in the offseason or very late in the season, which means most GMs are given the wheels for the entire season or most of it and then are let go. It's not all that odd an occurrence and I don't think it plays into whether they'll keep him next season at all.

[questionmarkgrace]

Off the top of my head Josh Byrnes, Bill Bavasi, and paul depodesta were all fired in season. It happens probably not as often however. But that doesn't mean its a bad idea it has worked quite well for the diamondbacks because they found a capable guy.

[davell]

I'm not even convinced Hendry won't be here next year, but why would you fire a guy right now who's shown his best quality is making trades to begin with? Especially when you have Friedman and Cashman both possibly available AFTER the season's over.

[CubColtPacer]

Off the top of my head Josh Byrnes, Bill Bavasi, and paul depodesta were all fired in season. It happens probably not as often however. But that doesn't mean its a bad idea it has worked quite well for the diamondbacks because they found a capable guy.

 

Arizona named an interim general manger when Byrnes was fired from inside the organization. The Mariners also named a interim general manager from inside the organization when Bavasi was fired midseason. DePodesta was fired after the season. If the Cubs fired Hendry now the precedent that other teams have set would have Bush take over as the interim.

[dew1679666265]

Off the top of my head Josh Byrnes, Bill Bavasi, and paul depodesta were all fired in season. It happens probably not as often however. But that doesn't mean its a bad idea it has worked quite well for the diamondbacks because they found a capable guy.

 

Like CCP said, neither of the two you mentioned who were fired midseason (Byrnes and Bavasi) were replaced by permanent GMs until after the season. You can fire Hendry in season if you want, but his replacement for the rest of the season would almost certainly be Randy Bush and the best case scenario would be that he'd be no worse than Hendry. There's a really good chance he'd be far worse, though.

 

What is the advantage the Cubs would get from firing Hendry midseason and naming Randy Bush as the interim GM?

[jersey cubs fan]

The advantage is they can openly look for the new guy.

[davell]

The advantage is they can openly look for the new guy.

 

Not if they're currently working for other teams.

[dew1679666265]

The advantage is they can openly look for the new guy.

 

They likely can't interview anybody because teams won't want their top front office guys focusing on finding another job in July and August. They can hire a search firm whether Hendry's employed or not.

 

I'm not sure exactly what they can do toward finding the right guy during the season that they can't do while Hendry is employed. They can just do it more openly if they fire Hendry.

[jersey cubs fan]

The advantage is they can openly look for the new guy.

 

They likely can't interview anybody because teams won't want their top front office guys focusing on finding another job in July and August. They can hire a search firm whether Hendry's employed or not.

 

I'm not sure exactly what they can do toward finding the right guy during the season that they can't do while Hendry is employed. They can just do it more openly if they fire Hendry.

 

And they can make sure they are first to pounce on the best prospects. Waiting is dumb. Letting a guy you know won't be running your team next year run your team right now is dumb. The only reason to hold onto the guy now is if you want him to run your team in the future, and if that is the case, they are dumb.

 

 

Stop making up nonsensical reasons to support keeping Hendry here. It's ridiculous.

[Guest]

Letting Randy Bush run the team for a half season just to prove to you that Hendry will be fired is probably, no, definitely more nonsensical.

[Guest]

Some of these reasons given for not getting rid of Hendry are like the terrible reasons that Republicans use for not raising taxes. We can't raise taxes when things are going well, it will kill a growing economy. We can't raise taxes when things are in the crapper, it will put us deeper in the crap hole.

 

Getting rid of Hendry should be done sooner rather than later, if that's what Ricketts intends to do. It means the process of transition to whatever is going to come next begins sooner rather than later. Sooner is always better.

 

The best time to do it was right after the draft, the next best time will be right after the trade deadline. After that, as soon as the season is over. Each of the preceding times is worse than the time that came before it.

 

I'm not convinced that Ricketss intends to get rid of Hendry at all.

[dew1679666265]

And they can make sure they are first to pounce on the best prospects. Waiting is dumb. Letting a guy you know won't be running your team next year run your team right now is dumb. The only reason to hold onto the guy now is if you want him to run your team in the future, and if that is the case, they are dumb.

 

So firing the guy you don't want to run your team next year so that you can name another guy who you don't want to run your team next year as the interim guy is a better idea?

 

How do the Cubs get a leg up on hiring the best prospects by firing Hendry now? They can't interview anybody with a job during the season with or without Hendry, they can hire a search firm to narrow down candidates whether Hendry's on the job or not and they can gauge interest through backchannels and whatnot with or without Hendry employed. What specifically can they do during the season to get a leg up on other teams without Hendry that they can't do with him?

 

If they've got a long term candidate in mind they can hire now, fine, make the move. But I don't get the push to have Randy Bush as the interim GM.

 

Stop making up nonsensical reasons to support keeping Hendry here. It's ridiculous.

 

This has nothing whatsoever to do with keeping Hendry beyond day one of the offseason. This has to do with what's in the best interests of the Cubs from today to the end of the season, and what's in the best interest of the Cubs is not to have Randy Bush as the desperate interim GM.

Edited June 24, 2011 by dew

[dew1679666265]

Getting rid of Hendry should be done sooner rather than later, if that's what Ricketts intends to do. It means the process of transition to whatever is going to come next begins sooner rather than later. Sooner is always better.

 

How? You and gooney have both said this, but neither of you have said what they can do without Hendry that they can't do with him. Like I've said, if they've got a long term candidate in mind who will take the job midseason, fine. But I don't see how the team benefits by having Randy Bush replace Jim Hendry.

 

The best time to do it was right after the draft, the next best time will be right after the trade deadline. After that, as soon as the season is over. Each of the preceding times is worse than the time that came before it.

 

I'm not convinced that Ricketss intends to get rid of Hendry at all.

 

The best time to get rid of Hendry was at the end of last season, the next best time to get rid of Hendry would be immediately after the 162nd game has been played this year.

[Guest]

Getting rid of Hendry should be done sooner rather than later, if that's what Ricketts intends to do. It means the process of transition to whatever is going to come next begins sooner rather than later. Sooner is always better.

 

How? You and gooney have both said this, but neither of you have said what they can do without Hendry that they can't do with him. Like I've said, if they've got a long term candidate in mind who will take the job midseason, fine. But I don't see how the team benefits by having Randy Bush replace Jim Hendry.

 

The best time to do it was right after the draft, the next best time will be right after the trade deadline. After that, as soon as the season is over. Each of the preceding times is worse than the time that came before it.

 

I'm not convinced that Ricketss intends to get rid of Hendry at all.

 

The best time to get rid of Hendry was at the end of last season, the next best time to get rid of Hendry would be immediately after the 162nd game has been played this year.

I wrote it. They can begin the transition to whatever comes next sooner and hopefully get better sooner. Keeping Hendry around IF they intend to get rid of him is not smart.