Joe Mather Batting Third

[jersey cubs fan]

By contrast, Rizzo was BA's 47th going into this year and 75th going into last year.

 

What's the point?

 

Choi when he was traded is nothing like Rizzo now, or when he was traded.

[Guest]

Acting like Hee Seop Choi was exposed as a bust or something when he was traded is a little less silly than it would be to say Rizzo wasn't a prospect when he was traded. Choi just had some more service time.

 

It's not like he wasn't a valuable piece at the time.

 

Choi didn't "just have more service time". He wasn't nearly the PCL destroyer that he appeared to be on pace to becoming or that other PCL hitters were. He had a decent outset to his major league time, but by the time he was traded his reputation was already on the decline from where it was after his AA time. He wasn't exposed as a bust, but the shine was well off, especially after his head broke.

 

BA had him as the 22nd best prospect in baseball going into 03, PCL destroyer or not.

 

A year after dropping him from 22 to 40. And the trade happened a year after that ranking, after his reputation continued to slide. Lots of people lost love for Choi that year, plus he broke his head.

 

So his shine wore off significantly despite being ranked the 22nd best prospect in baseball by a respected publication and immediately following that up with like a .900 OPS in the major leagues (IIRC) prior to the injury?

 

Sure, his "head broke" and he struggled badly after. That probably hurt him a bit, but as much as you're trying to let on?

 

EDIT - It was more like an .850 OPS.

[jersey cubs fan]

So his shine wore off significantly despite being ranked the 22nd best prospect in baseball by a respected publication and immediately following that up with like a .900 OPS in the major leagues (IIRC) prior to the injury?

 

Sure, his "head broke" and he struggled badly after. That probably hurt him a bit, but as much as you're trying to let on?

 

EDIT - It was more like an .850 OPS.

 

He had a nice start, broke his head then looked really bad. Yes, the shine was off. Seriously, how is this even a conversation?

[Guest]

So his shine wore off significantly despite being ranked the 22nd best prospect in baseball by a respected publication and immediately following that up with like a .900 OPS in the major leagues (IIRC) prior to the injury?

 

Sure, his "head broke" and he struggled badly after. That probably hurt him a bit, but as much as you're trying to let on?

 

EDIT - It was more like an .850 OPS.

 

He had a nice start, broke his head then looked really bad. Yes, the shine was off. Seriously, how is this even a conversation?

 

There is no point in having this argument when it's coming down to something as subjective as "the shine was off." How can I even argue with something like that?

 

The guy had significant value. Period.

[Little Slide Rooter]

my biggest problem with Hendry and his organization is their inability to ever trade a prospect for a proven talent. We were(allegedly) loaded with prospects at various times especially pitching but the names were "untouchable". So we held on to them until everyone saw they weren't what we thought, and then it seemed we traded them to baltimore for game balls and fungo bats.

At a time when we were pretty close to getting to the world series, we couldn't pull the trigger on a deal for a proven commodity to get us over the top.

 

Tavarez + Dontrelle Willis for Matt Clement and Alfonseca

Todd Hundley for Grudzielanck + Karros

Bobby Hill + Jose Hernandez for Kenny Lofton + Aramis Ramirez

Choi for Derrek Lee

A. Gonzalez, Justin Jones, Brendan Harris, F. Beltran for Nomar Garciaparra + Matt Murton

 

I'd say it was more getting te prospects we kept to pan out, and those that did to stay panned. We had some pan out, but so many of the top prospects we had busted.

[Guest]

By contrast, Rizzo was BA's 47th going into this year and 75th going into last year.

 

What's the point?

 

Choi when he was traded is nothing like Rizzo now, or when he was traded.

 

You seemed to take issue with the fact that I alluded to the fact that they both were highly regarded prospects who struggled in the majors and that Choi just had more service time (104 games vs. 49 - either way, not nearly enough to even begin to write off a top 25 prospect). I then provided evidence that Choi was even more highly regarded than Rizzo.

Edited May 31, 2012 by David

[jersey cubs fan]

By contrast, Rizzo was BA's 47th going into this year and 75th going into last year.

 

What's the point?

 

Choi when he was traded is nothing like Rizzo now, or when he was traded.

 

You seemed to take issue with the fact that I alluded to the fact that they both were highly regarded prospects who struggled in the majors and that Choi just had more service time (104 games vs. 49 - either way, not nearly enough to write off a top 25 prospect). I then provided evidence that Choi was even more highly regarded than Rizzo.

 

He didn't "just have more service time". There is a bigger difference than that. Choi wasn't a prospect at all when he was traded. It's not the same damn thing. Choi had completed his age 24 season when he was traded. Rizzo started destroying AAA ball at 21. There was a 1.5 year age difference when they saw their first major league service time. Rizzo is a younger more productive hitter than Choi was when he was poised to hit the big leagues. Their rankings relative to any given year's class a decade apart do not compare them as individuals.

[KingCubsFan]

By contrast, Rizzo was BA's 47th going into this year and 75th going into last year.

 

What's the point?

 

Choi when he was traded is nothing like Rizzo now, or when he was traded.

 

You seemed to take issue with the fact that I alluded to the fact that they both were highly regarded prospects who struggled in the majors and that Choi just had more service time (104 games vs. 49 - either way, not nearly enough to write off a top 25 prospect). I then provided evidence that Choi was even more highly regarded than Rizzo.

 

He didn't "just have more service time". There is a bigger difference than that. Choi wasn't a prospect at all when he was traded. It's not the same damn thing. Choi had completed his age 24 season when he was traded. Rizzo started destroying AAA ball at 21. There was a 1.5 year age difference when they saw their first major league service time. Rizzo is a younger more productive hitter than Choi was when he was poised to hit the big leagues. Their rankings relative to any given year's class a decade apart do not compare them as individuals.

They were (are) both highly regarded. Couldn't you argue that Rizzo had lost some his "shine" as well coming into this season? He had struggled in the majors, and the Padres essentially chose Yonder Alonso over him.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

They were (are) both highly regarded. Couldn't you argue that Rizzo had lost some his "shine" as well coming into this season? He had struggled in the majors, and the Padres essentially chose Yonder Alonso over him.

 

HE'S 22 YEARS OLD AND IS NOT 24 YEARS OLD AT THE END OF A FULL MAJOR LEAGUE SEASON IN WHICH HE BROKE HIS HEAD AND THEN LOOKED LIKE CRAP. Not to mention Choi played in a more hitter friendly era and ballpark.

 

Hee Seop Choi's pre-2003 ranking is meaningless. He wasn't a prospect when he was traded. He was a major league player who was pretty okay and then broke his head.

[javy knows my name]

What the hell? I can't tell the difference between Jersey and neely in this thread.

[Guest]

What the hell? I can't tell the difference between Jersey and neely in this thread.

 

i just chortled

[Backtobanks]

The discussion kind of went off on a tangent. My point was that for all of the bad things about Hendry, there were quite a few good things. There were many years where he had assembled the best team in the NL Central on paper, but "stuff happens" and they never got to the World Series. Some of that "stuff" certainly included way more than our share of injuries to key players during his tenure.

[SouthSideRyan]

There was only one year you can definitively say Jim Hendry organized the best team in the NL Central.

[javy knows my name]

The discussion kind of went off on a tangent. My point was that for all of the bad things about Hendry, there were quite a few good things. There were many years where he had assembled the best team in the NL Central on paper, but "stuff happens" and they never got to the World Series. Some of that "stuff" certainly included way more than our share of injuries to key players during his tenure.

 

If your point is that Hendry would have been good if not for injuries, then you really aren't conceding any weaknesses on his part, and thus you shouldn't be listened to.

 

Every GM has injuries, every GM makes several good trades (in ten years! I think I saw FIVE trades listed. Give him a medal) and every GM makes good and bad signings. Hendry's strengths were less and his weaknesses greater than a "good" GM. (And this is not to mention his reactionary attitude toward sabermetrics.)

[SouthSideRyan]

I'd sum him up as being good in the micro, horrendous in the macro.

[bukie]

I'd sum him up as being good in the micro, horrendous in the macro.

Plus, changing his organizational philosophy a couple times a year didn't help.

[KingCubsFan]

I'd sum him up as being good in the micro, horrendous in the macro.

Exactly. You can go back and forth about the various good/bad moves he made in a vacuum, but in the end his teams overall were poorly constructed, and the results reflected that.

[Backtobanks]

The discussion kind of went off on a tangent. My point was that for all of the bad things about Hendry, there were quite a few good things. There were many years where he had assembled the best team in the NL Central on paper, but "stuff happens" and they never got to the World Series. Some of that "stuff" certainly included way more than our share of injuries to key players during his tenure.

 

If your point is that Hendry would have been good if not for injuries, then you really aren't conceding any weaknesses on his part, and thus you shouldn't be listened to.

 

Every GM has injuries, every GM makes several good trades (in ten years! I think I saw FIVE trades listed. Give him a medal) and every GM makes good and bad signings. Hendry's strengths were less and his weaknesses greater than a "good" GM. (And this is not to mention his reactionary attitude toward sabermetrics.)

 

I only listed 5 trades to prove a point, but obviously he made many more. As for the injuries, the Cubs had more than their share including Wood and Prior. There aren't many teams that could absorb the loss of their 2 top pitchers and two of the most dominant pitchers in the league. Hendry had weaknesses which I stated in my post, but far too many posters refuse to admit his strengths. Let's not forget the condition of the team and the minor league system when he took over. As I originally posted, Hendry's situation is completely different than what's going on now. Hopefully, Theo & Co. will get us a World Series Championship.

[KingCubsFan]

The discussion kind of went off on a tangent. My point was that for all of the bad things about Hendry, there were quite a few good things. There were many years where he had assembled the best team in the NL Central on paper, but "stuff happens" and they never got to the World Series. Some of that "stuff" certainly included way more than our share of injuries to key players during his tenure.

 

If your point is that Hendry would have been good if not for injuries, then you really aren't conceding any weaknesses on his part, and thus you shouldn't be listened to.

 

Every GM has injuries, every GM makes several good trades (in ten years! I think I saw FIVE trades listed. Give him a medal) and every GM makes good and bad signings. Hendry's strengths were less and his weaknesses greater than a "good" GM. (And this is not to mention his reactionary attitude toward sabermetrics.)

 

I only listed 5 trades to prove a point, but obviously he made many more. As for the injuries, the Cubs had more than their share including Wood and Prior. There aren't many teams that could absorb the loss of their 2 top pitchers and two of the most dominant pitchers in the league. Hendry had weaknesses which I stated in my post, but far too many posters refuse to admit his strengths. Let's not forget the condition of the team and the minor league system when he took over. As I originally posted, Hendry's situation is completely different than what's going on now. Hopefully, Theo & Co. will get us a World Series Championship.

When Hendry took over, he had the best farm system in the game and some of the best young talent in the game (Prior, Wood, Zambrano, Patterson, etc.).

 

 

Theo started with Starlin Castro.

[Vanilla Ice]

Hendry is not blameless for the injuries to Wood and Prior

[Guest]

The discussion kind of went off on a tangent. My point was that for all of the bad things about Hendry, there were quite a few good things. There were many years where he had assembled the best team in the NL Central on paper, but "stuff happens" and they never got to the World Series. Some of that "stuff" certainly included way more than our share of injuries to key players during his tenure.

 

If your point is that Hendry would have been good if not for injuries, then you really aren't conceding any weaknesses on his part, and thus you shouldn't be listened to.

 

Every GM has injuries, every GM makes several good trades (in ten years! I think I saw FIVE trades listed. Give him a medal) and every GM makes good and bad signings. Hendry's strengths were less and his weaknesses greater than a "good" GM. (And this is not to mention his reactionary attitude toward sabermetrics.)

 

I only listed 5 trades to prove a point, but obviously he made many more. As for the injuries, the Cubs had more than their share including Wood and Prior. There aren't many teams that could absorb the loss of their 2 top pitchers and two of the most dominant pitchers in the league. Hendry had weaknesses which I stated in my post, but far too many posters refuse to admit his strengths. Let's not forget the condition of the team and the minor league system when he took over. As I originally posted, Hendry's situation is completely different than what's going on now. Hopefully, Theo & Co. will get us a World Series Championship.

When Hendry took over, he had the best farm system in the game and some of the best young talent in the game (Prior, Wood, Zambrano, Patterson, etc.).

 

 

Theo started with Starlin Castro.

 

I think he's referring to the fact that Hendry had a lot to do with the farm system being the best in the game.

[Sammy Sofa]

Hendry is not blameless for the injuries to Wood and Prior

 

It's hard to blame all of Wood's injury issues on him since Wood started missing major time a good 3 years before Hendry became the GM.

[XZero771679666304]

Hendry is not blameless for the injuries to Wood and Prior

 

It's hard to blame all of Wood's injury issues on him since Wood started missing major time a good 3 years before Hendry became the GM.

 

You can blame Wood's problems primarily on his high school coach, Jim Riggleman and Dusty Baker. Hendry is not high on the list.

[Guest]

Hendry is not blameless for the injuries to Wood and Prior

 

It's hard to blame all of Wood's injury issues on him since Wood started missing major time a good 3 years before Hendry became the GM.

 

You can blame Wood's problems primarily on his high school coach, Jim Riggleman and Dusty Baker. Hendry is not high on the list.

 

Hendry is directly responsible for 1/3 of those names.

[17 Seconds]

i'll never forgive hendry for not stepping in late in the 2003 and telling dusty "hey, this guy is kind of important. stop doing what you're doing to him"