Hendry's Worst 10 Moves (Non including draft)

[XZero771679666304]

If signing Dusty was considered a bad move, then what was Lou Piniella? At least Dusty won us games in the playoffs and almost got us to the World Series and didn't quit on the team during his third season as manager. Maybe Hendry hiring Lou over Girardi should be considered an even bigger mistake.

 

Hiring Dusty was a bad move not because of the W-L record, but as others have mentioned, it was bad because Dusty significantly overused Prior, Wood and Z and probably had a huge effect on Prior and Wood having significant injury issues throughout their careers.

 

Lou, on the other hand, never really abused his starting pitchers, he promoted a very solid approach at the plate and brought in coaches (Perry, Joshua) who believed in that philosophy, and generally stayed out of the way during games. He was actually a very good manager his first two seasons and his teams posted 85 wins and 97 wins in those years. Dusty won 88 and 89 his first two years and then tailed off, plus he had the negative effects after he left that Lou did not.

 

I can blame Dusty for ruining Prior, but not Wood. Wood already had major surgery before Dusty arrived and already had bad mechanics to contribute to his many stints on the DL.

 

Doesn't going 0-6 in two straight playoff appearances and mailing in his manager duties for half of 09 and all of 2010 have any significance?

 

The only thing Lou did that had any tangible effect on the W-L record at any point was his refusal to remove Lee/Ramirez from the 3/4 spots when they were stinking out loud and everyone else was hitting last year. Beyond that he was pretty benign, as most managers are.

[KingCubsFan]

What could Lou have done to prevent the crappy postseason play? There's really nothing a manager can do besides play the best players, and he did that. He was a fine manager, nothing great, but not awful either.

 

Sure, Dusty got us farther, but he also destroyed our team.

The only problem I had with Lou in the playoffs was playing Fukudome in 2008. He was clearly done for the season, and Fontenot should have been out there. Obviously wasn't the reason we lost though.

[UMFan83]

"From now on I don't want to hear about Fukudome anymore as far as whether he's going to play or not. I'm gonna play Fontenot or Reed Johnson or somebody else and that's the end of that story. The kid's struggling and there's no sense sending him out there anymore."

 

Classic Lou quotes.

[SouthSideRyan]

What could Lou have done to prevent the crappy postseason play? There's really nothing a manager can do besides play the best players, and he did that. He was a fine manager, nothing great, but not awful either.

 

Sure, Dusty got us farther, but he also destroyed our team.

The only problem I had with Lou in the playoffs was playing Fukudome in 2008. He was clearly done for the season, and Fontenot should have been out there. Obviously wasn't the reason we lost though.

 

I wanted Pie in CF and Edmonds in RF, and said as much somewhere on here before the playoffs started.

[Warren Brusstar]

1. Signing Milton Bradley

2. Signing Alfonso Soriano

3. Overpaying mediocre players (Grabow, Neifi, Rusch, etc...)

4. NOT signing Beltran or Tejada

5. Allowing Lou Piniella and Dusty Baker to kill the careers of Patterson, Pie, Murton, & R. Hill

6. Meeting Koyie Hill

7. Trading Gorzellany for nothing and cutting Silva

8. Not allowing Ryne Sandberg to prove he was a bad manager

9. General mismanagement of young bullpen arms (letting Wuertz and Aardsma go for 0)

10. Not having the foresight to draft Josh Hamilton in Rule 5 draft.

 

Could be in depending on your view: Zambrano extension, Jacque Jones, Nomar, Kosuke, throwing Sosa under the bus, thus killing his trade value

 

Future: Giving up Hak Ju Lee

 

Other: Basically drafting like crap for the past 8 years

 

Outside of the draft, Hendry has actually been decent, but a few high profile errors have killed his term as a GM and hamstrung the Cubs for a 3-5 year window starting in 2009. If the Cubs could have finished the job that he laid the groundwork for in either 03, 04, 07, or especially 08, he would have been a God in this town. Instead, he sucks like the rest of them. See you later, Jimbo.

 

I'm pretty sure that the Cubs did draft Hamilton in the R5 draft, then immediately sent him to the Reds for basically nothing. Jacque Jones has to be higher on the list IMO. I also disagree about "drafting like crap" - Castro, Hak Ju Lee, Cashner is a pretty good haul and his picks contributed to Derek Lee and Garza among others. I completely agree that Hendry has been crap though and should be gone along with the rest of this garbage team.

 

Hamilton was never a Cub. Hamilton was never slated to be a Cub. The Cubs never had interest in Josh Hamilton. There was a deal in place from the get go that we drafted him for the sole purpose of sending him to the Reds. We can debate what would be if the Cubs did draft Josh Hamilton for the purpose of playing for the Cubs until were blue in the face, but it was never to be.

 

This has always been the silliest semantic argument, and people get hilariously OUTRAGED by it. Phrase it as follows -- "Agreeing to trade the rights to their R5 pick to the Reds when they could have chosen Josh Hamilton" -- and the statement is 100% accurate and isn't substantively different in any way. Whether "missing" on Hamilton is a reasonable criticism (I don't think so) is a different question, but the semantic nonsense that people get outraged about is a ridiculous red herring.

[dew1679666265]

This has always been the silliest semantic argument, and people get hilariously OUTRAGED by it. Phrase it as follows -- "Agreeing to trade the rights to their R5 pick to the Reds when they could have chosen Josh Hamilton" -- and the statement is 100% accurate and isn't substantively different in any way. Whether "missing" on Hamilton is a reasonable criticism is a different question, but the semantic nonsense that people get outraged about is a ridiculous red herring.

 

The semantic argument is there, however, because if you word it that Josh Hamilton was drafted by the Cubs, then people get all up in arms that we didn't keep him. The fact is, we never had the opportunity to keep Hamilton because we didn't draft him, the Reds did in a previously agreed upon deal.

 

However you want to word the semantics it doesn't change that the Cubs didn't possess Hamilton and there was no real reason to draft him in the first place.

[jersey cubs fan]

This has always been the silliest semantic argument, and people get hilariously OUTRAGED by it. Phrase it as follows -- "Agreeing to trade the rights to their R5 pick to the Reds when they could have chosen Josh Hamilton" -- and the statement is 100% accurate and isn't substantively different in any way. Whether "missing" on Hamilton is a reasonable criticism is a different question, but the semantic nonsense that people get outraged about is a ridiculous red herring.

 

The semantic argument is there, however, because if you word it that Josh Hamilton was drafted by the Cubs, then people get all up in arms that we didn't keep him. The fact is, we never had the opportunity to keep Hamilton because we didn't draft him, the Reds did in a previously agreed upon deal.

 

However you want to word the semantics it doesn't change that the Cubs didn't possess Hamilton and there was no real reason to draft him in the first place.

 

Never had the opportunity? Didn't draft him? Didn't possess him and there was no real reason to draft him? For somebody trying to justify the use of semantics you are doing a terrible job at arguing your point.

[Little Slide Rooter]

This has always been the silliest semantic argument, and people get hilariously OUTRAGED by it. Phrase it as follows -- "Agreeing to trade the rights to their R5 pick to the Reds when they could have chosen Josh Hamilton" -- and the statement is 100% accurate and isn't substantively different in any way. Whether "missing" on Hamilton is a reasonable criticism is a different question, but the semantic nonsense that people get outraged about is a ridiculous red herring.

 

The semantic argument is there, however, because if you word it that Josh Hamilton was drafted by the Cubs, then people get all up in arms that we didn't keep him. The fact is, we never had the opportunity to keep Hamilton because we didn't draft him, the Reds did in a previously agreed upon deal.

 

However you want to word the semantics it doesn't change that the Cubs didn't possess Hamilton and there was no real reason to draft him in the first place.

 

Never had the opportunity? Didn't draft him? Didn't possess him and there was no real reason to draft him? For somebody trying to justify the use of semantics you are doing a terrible job at arguing your point.

 

If it makes anyone feel any better, I'm sure that The Reds wish they'd kept him. Granted Volquez was great in 2008, when the Reds sucked anyway, but he hasn't been anything special since. In fact, you could go as far as calling him bad. Phillips, Votto, Hamilton, and Bruce would be a pretty mean heart of the lineup.

[Warren Brusstar]

This has always been the silliest semantic argument, and people get hilariously OUTRAGED by it. Phrase it as follows -- "Agreeing to trade the rights to their R5 pick to the Reds when they could have chosen Josh Hamilton" -- and the statement is 100% accurate and isn't substantively different in any way. Whether "missing" on Hamilton is a reasonable criticism is a different question, but the semantic nonsense that people get outraged about is a ridiculous red herring.

 

The semantic argument is there, however, because if you word it that Josh Hamilton was drafted by the Cubs, then people get all up in arms that we didn't keep him. The fact is, we never had the opportunity to keep Hamilton because we didn't draft him, the Reds did in a previously agreed upon deal.

 

However you want to word the semantics it doesn't change that the Cubs didn't possess Hamilton and there was no real reason to draft him in the first place.

 

Whether we drafted him or not is irrelevant. If the Cavs had traded the rights to the #1 pick to the Bulls before the draft, and Kyrie Irving turned out to be a superstar, would it be a defense to criticism that "THE CAVS NEVER DRAFTED HIM!" Of course not.

 

If you want to argue that no one other than the Reds thought taking Hamilton was a good idea, and that it certainly wasn't a mistake for Hendry not to do so, that's fine. But the order in which the trade/pick occurred is completely irrelevant. And it's utterly hilarious that such OUTRAGE over a meaningless semantical distrinction has pervaded this board for so long.

[SouthSideRyan]

Then every [expletive] GM is a moron for not offering the Cubs 75K so they could draft him. All hail lord Wayne [expletive] Krivsky for he is a true king among men.

[SouthSideRyan]

Because morons like 98% of Cubs fans exist, language that shows we didn't miss on Josh Hamilton is necessary. This buffoonery has gone on on this site alone roughly a bajillion times.

[dew1679666265]

I can blame Dusty for ruining Prior, but not Wood. Wood already had major surgery before Dusty arrived and already had bad mechanics to contribute to his many stints on the DL.

 

It would make sense, then, to be careful with him to preserve his health and usefulness. Instead, under Dusty, Wood was 2nd in the majors in pitcher abuse points in 2003, 11th in 2004 (in only 22 games), and then he was only able to start 14 games the next two seasons combined.

 

Kerry was fragile to begin with when Dusty took over and he did nothing to keep him healthy.

 

Doesn't going 0-6 in two straight playoff appearances and mailing in his manager duties for half of 09 and all of 2010 have any significance?

 

The "mailing it in" thing is very subjective and I don't think there's much behind it. To back that up, the primary argument was that he was relaxed in the dugout and after the games. That's not a convincing enough argument for me to believe he was mailing it in. That said, he didn't do a particularly good managerial job in 2010, though I don't recall a lot of issues with him in 2009. Between 2007 and 2008, he was quite good.

 

And the performance in the playoffs is hard to pin on him. Is it his fault the players who won 85 and 97 games in two seasons struggled for 6 total games? Is there anything he could have done differently that would have won us either of those series? Is their poor play his fault and, if so, how can you prove that? Those questions have to be answered before I pin the blame on Lou for the team underperforming for 6 games after being very successful for 324.

[Warren Brusstar]

Because morons like 98% of Cubs fans exist, language that shows we didn't miss on Josh Hamilton is necessary. This buffoonery has gone on on this site alone roughly a bajillion times.

 

We DID miss on Josh Hamilton. No one stuck a gun to Jim Hendry's head and forced him to trade the pick to the Reds.

 

Whether Hendry should be criticized for that is a different issue.

[dew1679666265]

Never had the opportunity? Didn't draft him? Didn't possess him and there was no real reason to draft him? For somebody trying to justify the use of semantics you are doing a terrible job at arguing your point.

 

I see your point on a couple of those, but I was right on the last one. I would imagine since the deal was in place beforehand that the two transactions were instantaneous - the Reds' selection was handed in by the Cubs and Hamilton immediately was sent to the Reds. The time to back out was before ever making the pick.

 

And there really was no reason to take Hamilton from the Cubs' perspective. He had been out of baseball for three years, had only 55 PAs (.687 OPS) the year he returned and was 25 years old in A ball. There was no reason to believe that player could stick on the Cubs' 25 man roster for an entire season even if you thought there might be a very slim chance he'd actually recapture his former potential.

[Post Count Padder]

I can't believe there are still people mad about us "trading" Hamilton.

 

Actually, I'm not surprised at all. People fail to grasp simple concepts. He was never gonna be a Cub. Not something you can fault Hendry for. End of story.

[Warren Brusstar]

He was never gonna be a Cub.

 

Why not? No one put a gun to Hendry's head and forced him to trade the pick. IIRC, the Cubs had the first pick and Hamilton was a potential pick. They chose to trade the pick when the could have chosen to draft Hamilton. That Hamilton "was never gonna be a Cub" was solely a decision made my the Cubs. The order of the draft and trade is completely irrelevant.

 

Again, I don't "blame" Hendry for not taking Hamilton.

[dew1679666265]

Whether we drafted him or not is irrelevant. If the Cavs had traded the rights to the #1 pick to the Bulls before the draft, and Kyrie Irving turned out to be a superstar, would it be a defense to criticism that "THE CAVS NEVER DRAFTED HIM!" Of course not.

 

Those aren't similar situations. People argue that the Cubs drafted Hamilton and there was no reason not to keep him once we drafted him. In reality, Hamilton was the Reds' selection who the Cubs simply handed the card (or whatever method they use) in for and the Reds handed them 75K. The main point isn't that the Cubs never drafted him, it's that when they handed in the card with his name on it, they were making the Reds' selection and not their own. There was no option from that point on to keep Hamilton because of the previously agreed upon deal.

 

But the order in which the trade/pick occurred is completely irrelevant. And it's utterly hilarious that such OUTRAGE over a meaningless semantical distrinction has pervaded this board for so long.

 

It actually is important if the opposing argument is that the Cubs had Hamilton in hand and then decided they didn't want him. That's not true. They had an opportunity to select him had they chosen to do so before agreeing to the deal with the Reds, but once the deal was consummated there was no real opportunity to back out on the deal - and no reason to whatsoever.

[Warren Brusstar]

Whether we drafted him or not is irrelevant. If the Cavs had traded the rights to the #1 pick to the Bulls before the draft, and Kyrie Irving turned out to be a superstar, would it be a defense to criticism that "THE CAVS NEVER DRAFTED HIM!" Of course not.

 

Those aren't similar situations. People argue that the Cubs drafted Hamilton and there was no reason not to keep him once we drafted him. In reality, Hamilton was the Reds' selection who the Cubs simply handed the card (or whatever method they use) in for and the Reds handed them 75K. The main point isn't that the Cubs never drafted him, it's that when they handed in the card with his name on it, they were making the Reds' selection and not their own. There was no option from that point on to keep Hamilton because of the previously agreed upon deal.

 

But the order in which the trade/pick occurred is completely irrelevant. And it's utterly hilarious that such OUTRAGE over a meaningless semantical distrinction has pervaded this board for so long.

 

It actually is important if the opposing argument is that the Cubs had Hamilton in hand and then decided they didn't want him. That's not true. They had an opportunity to select him had they chosen to do so before agreeing to the deal with the Reds, but once the deal was consummated there was no real opportunity to back out on the deal - and no reason to whatsoever.

 

You see that all of this is semantic nonsense, right?

 

The Cubs had the first pick. They traded the rights to the first pick for $75k. They could have chosen Josh Hamilton. The chose not to. There is no material difference between criticizing the Cubs for "trading Josh Hamilton" and "trading the 1st pick of the Rule 5 draft with which they could have taken Josh Hamilton."

[SouthSideRyan]

The Cubs could've drafted Albert Pujols. The Cubs could've signed Miguel Cabrera.

 

And the Cubs didn't have the 1st overall pick, they just didn't want anyone in the draft so they traded away the rights to the smartest baseball mind in the world Wayne Krivsky.

[Warren Brusstar]

The Cubs could've drafted Albert Pujols. The Cubs could've signed Miguel Cabrera.

 

And the Cubs didn't have the 1st overall pick, they just didn't want anyone in the draft so they traded away the rights to the smartest baseball mind in the world Wayne Krivsky.

 

3rd pick, but the point remains. Also, please see the 12 instances in this thread in which I've said that I don't blame Hendry for not taking Hamilton.

 

My sole point is that the OUTRAGE about people supposedly mischaracterizing the failure to get Hamilton as a trade v. a missed pick is silly.

 

As to Krivisky, I don't get your point. Obviously you think Krivsky is a moron. I agree. But grabbing Hamilton was undoubtedly a good move, no?

[dew1679666265]

You see that all of this is semantic nonsense, right?

 

The Cubs had the first pick. They traded the rights to the first pick for $75k. They could have chosen Josh Hamilton. The chose not to. There is no material difference between criticizing the Cubs for "trading Josh Hamilton" and "trading the 1st pick of the Rule 5 draft with which they could have taken Josh Hamilton."

 

Both of those statements are silly to criticize Hendry for. However, what most of the people on here jump at is not the insinuation that the Cubs traded Hamilton, but that they had the option to keep him after handing in the Reds' pick. From the time we handed in the card and on, we didn't have the choice to keep Hamilton because we had already agreed to trade whoever the Reds selected. However, the insinuation by those who criticize the trade is largely that the Cubs possessed Hamilton, had the opportunity after the draft to keep him and yet decided to trade him to the Reds. That's not true and when you debunk that mentality, it's important to note the sequence of events.

[MSG T]

The Cubs could've drafted Albert Pujols. The Cubs could've signed Miguel Cabrera.

 

And the Cubs didn't have the 1st overall pick, they just didn't want anyone in the draft so they traded away the rights to the smartest baseball mind in the world Wayne Krivsky.

 

3rd pick, but the point remains. Also, please see the 12 instances in this thread in which I've said that I don't blame Hendry for not taking Hamilton.

 

My sole point is that the OUTRAGE about people supposedly mischaracterizing the failure to get Hamilton as a trade v. a missed pick is silly.

 

As to Krivisky, I don't get your point. Obviously you think Krivsky is a moron. I agree. But grabbing Hamilton was undoubtedly a good move, no?

 

 

The problem isn't that people innocently mischaracterize it. It's that there are tons of meatheads that think Hendry drafted Hamilton, then on a whim of insanity, traded him to the Reds. It's not semantics when there are people out there that think he actually belonged to the Cubs. Whether Hendry could have drafted him is immaterial, people think he did. You are correct in saying that Hendry could have chosen him, had they not made the deal with the Reds. But people that say "the Cubs traded away Josh Hamilton" don't get the slight differences in there. They actually think the Cubs drafted him then traded him. Whether you want to call it semantics or not, the people that think that just don't get how the deal went down.

[MSG T]

The Cubs could've drafted Albert Pujols. The Cubs could've signed Miguel Cabrera.

 

And the Cubs didn't have the 1st overall pick, they just didn't want anyone in the draft so they traded away the rights to the smartest baseball mind in the world Wayne Krivsky.

 

3rd pick, but the point remains. Also, please see the 12 instances in this thread in which I've said that I don't blame Hendry for not taking Hamilton.

 

My sole point is that the OUTRAGE about people supposedly mischaracterizing the failure to get Hamilton as a trade v. a missed pick is silly.

 

As to Krivisky, I don't get your point. Obviously you think Krivsky is a moron. I agree. But grabbing Hamilton was undoubtedly a good move, no?

 

 

The problem isn't that people innocently mischaracterize it. It's that there are tons of meatheads that think Hendry drafted Hamilton, then on a whim of insanity, traded him to the Reds. It's not semantics when there are people out there that think he actually belonged to the Cubs. Whether Hendry could have drafted him is immaterial, people think he did. You are correct in saying that Hendry could have chosen him, had they not made the deal with the Reds. But people that say "the Cubs traded away Josh Hamilton" don't get the slight differences in there. They actually think the Cubs drafted him then traded him. Whether you want to call it semantics or not, the people that think that just don't get how the deal went down.

[Sammy Sofa]

What "outrage" is Warren talking about?

[Little Slide Rooter]

DAMN HENDRY FOR NOT PAYING OVERSLOT FOR TIM LINCECUM!!!