Hendry seems somewhat clueless in the Trib...

[thedaymen]

Hendry said he and Baker remain on the same page and he has "absolutely" no problem with the job Baker has done. "We've had a little hiccup here, but hopefully we'll play well the last five weeks," he said. "Hopefully we still have a chance, and if we don't, hopefully we'll still finish over .500. Either way, we're going to get to work early and get ready for the off-season."

 

You don't have a chance. The Cubs don't have a chance. The team's overall record isn't as important as preparing for next season. Risking Prior, Wood and Aramis to get to .500 is a terrible baseball decision.

 

The Cubs can plug in youngsters such as shortstop Ronny Cedeno, left fielder Matt Murton and center fielder Felix Pie in 2006, but starting a youth movement with Baker as manager appears unlikely. "I can see ourselves having a good balance," Hendry said. "We've done that with the pitching."

 

Exactly what balance is he talking about? Why not have a youth movement. Can't the manager handle it? We all know thats the case, but lets be honest here.

 

Injuries to Kerry Wood and Mark Prior have hurt the Cubs in each of the last two seasons, and the Cubs haven't had the pitching depth to make up for their absences. "It's not something they did wrong or they didn't try to fight through," Hendry said. "It kills a guy like Woody when he misses that much time. Prior, for the first time in his life in '04, had [arm] problems …

 

Yeah, it sure isn't Wood's fault he has crappy mechanics and is constantly getting hurt because of it. Its, uhm, can't be Dusty's either, so it must be, uhm, not Rothschild, uhm....its Riggleman's fault.

 

Hendry is not looking to trade Corey Patterson, who he says will have an "interesting and important off-season" while getting mentally prepared for 2006. "We all thought not too long ago he was heading to All-Star-type potential," Hendry said. But Patterson has regressed and now is hitting .227 overall, .174 against left-handeders. The Cubs are unlikely to ask Patterson to play winter ball. "He still has talent and he still has aptitude," Hendry said. "He's still capable of being a very good player."

 

So what exactly does he think Corey is going to learn this "interesting and important" offseason if he isn't playing?

 

Disheartening. Glad I already decided to stop watching the games.

[gflore34]

Hendry said he and Baker remain on the same page and he has "absolutely" no problem with the job Baker has done. "We've had a little hiccup here, but hopefully we'll play well the last five weeks," he said. "Hopefully we still have a chance, and if we don't, hopefully we'll still finish over .500. Either way, we're going to get to work early and get ready for the off-season."

 

You don't have a chance. The Cubs don't have a chance. The team's overall record isn't as important as preparing for next season. Risking Prior, Wood and Aramis to get to .500 is a terrible baseball decision.

 

The Cubs can plug in youngsters such as shortstop Ronny Cedeno, left fielder Matt Murton and center fielder Felix Pie in 2006, but starting a youth movement with Baker as manager appears unlikely. "I can see ourselves having a good balance," Hendry said. "We've done that with the pitching."

 

Exactly what balance is he talking about? Why not have a youth movement. Can't the manager handle it? We all know thats the case, but lets be honest here.

 

Injuries to Kerry Wood and Mark Prior have hurt the Cubs in each of the last two seasons, and the Cubs haven't had the pitching depth to make up for their absences. "It's not something they did wrong or they didn't try to fight through," Hendry said. "It kills a guy like Woody when he misses that much time. Prior, for the first time in his life in '04, had [arm] problems …

 

Yeah, it sure isn't Wood's fault he has crappy mechanics and is constantly getting hurt because of it. Its, uhm, can't be Dusty's either, so it must be, uhm, not Rothschild, uhm....its Riggleman's fault.

 

Hendry is not looking to trade Corey Patterson, who he says will have an "interesting and important off-season" while getting mentally prepared for 2006. "We all thought not too long ago he was heading to All-Star-type potential," Hendry said. But Patterson has regressed and now is hitting .227 overall, .174 against left-handeders. The Cubs are unlikely to ask Patterson to play winter ball. "He still has talent and he still has aptitude," Hendry said. "He's still capable of being a very good player."

 

So what exactly does he think Corey is going to learn this "interesting and important" offseason if he isn't playing?

 

Disheartening. Glad I already decided to stop watching the games.

 

 

"He still has talent and he still has aptitude,"... Did Hendry mean Patterson has a baseball aptitude or aptitude in general? Because someone with a Baseball aptitude would have gathered that a LHP with a breaking ball has yet throw him (Patterson) a strike this season. Or, its a good idea to take a pitch, most especially after the pitcher has just issued a BB to previous batter on 4-5 pitches.

[wastra]

I read the article this morning, and while on one hand, Hendry says the blame for the team should fall squarely on his shoulders, he then proceeds to issues about 15 excuses of why it wasn't his (or anyone else's) fault.

 

 

Now, I understand that it's important for him to keep up a positive image to keep the team from folding entirely or keep the fans somewhat interested, but I'm really getting fed up with the "enabling" mindset of thsi organization. It's never directly anyone's fault. Everything's just peachy, and it's always some extinuating circumstance beyond their control. It's never the pitcher's fault, the players' the manager's, the General Manager's. And they talk as if the team is right on the cusp of the post season...like it's really close to being a dominant team.

 

Here's a news flash- we're not even on the "cusp" of being a .500 team. This organization needs drastic overhauls on everything- from how they build and manage the 25 and 40 man rosters to how they scout and draft, to how they instruct hitters, to how they teach pitching mechanics, to how the major league team approaches hitting, fielding, and defense, to how the manager uses and abuses his players.

 

There is very very little being done superbly in this organziation right now. We mangled the 40-man roster to the point where we lost one of our best pitching prospects for practically nothing and perhaps our best relief prospect coming into this season and during this season isn't even on the 40 man roster, so we are going to have to scramble to get him up. We've mangled the 25 man roster all season going with 12 pitchers (only about 5 of whom are mildly effective anyway), and adding ineffective veterans with bad approaches to hitting throughout the year. We've mangled the USE of the 25-man roster, having guys with sub-.300 OBP hitting at the top for about 1/3 of the season (or more) while not using younger players who at least have the potential to be more effective. Our players at the major league level have generally underperformed, with the exception of Lee and Ramirez. Our training staff certainly doesn't get any awards- the number of strains, pains, sprains, and pulls the past 2-3 years is unbelievable. Our minor league instructors haven't exactly done a great job teaching plate discipline, or working with pitchers to correct mechanical flaws that can lead to injury. Our scouts haven't exactly focused their talents on guys who demonstrate such batting approaches either.

 

So from the front office down to the training staff, I think this organization needs to stop making excuses and start making changes.

[CuseCubFan69]

I think the Cubs were just a bad hop from winning it all in 2005.

[goonys evil twin]

So from the front office down to the training staff, I think this organization needs to stop making excuses and start making changes.

 

But with all the day games, the wind blowing in, white guys in the sun, the thick grass, the rain, the wind blowing out, all the youth, bad breaks, bad luck, bad MRIs, unknown pitching opponents, wind blowing sideways, different starting times, hurricane season, the witch hunt for steroid users, completely unpredictable injuries, wind not blowing at all and the booing, changes might not be enough to turn things around.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Why are so many people essentially throwing away 2006 by suggesting a youth movement? The Cubs don't have that many positional prospects that are good enough to plug in, but they do have a solid farm system and a high payroll that they can revamp the team for success in 2006 and the long-term. Now, there might be doubts that this management can effectively do that, but essentially giving up on the progress the organization has made seems wrong to me.

[goonys evil twin]

Why are so many people essentially throwing away 2006 by suggesting a youth movement? The Cubs don't have that many positional prospects that are good enough to plug in, but they do have a solid farm system and a high payroll that they can revamp the team for success in 2006 and the long-term. Now, there might be doubts that this management can effectively do that, but essentially giving up on the progress the organization has made seems wrong to me.

 

A) What progress has this organization made? The big league team has fallen drastically since 2003, the minor leagues are nowhere near what they were like in the late 90's early 00's.

 

B) Why does a youth movement equate to giving up a season? I am so sick of the attitude that you can't win with youth. Atlanta is doing it right now. Oakland has done it time and time again.

 

C) This front office has shown absolutely no ability to capitalize on their ability to outspend most other teams, wasting money on mediocre replacable veterans.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Why are so many people essentially throwing away 2006 by suggesting a youth movement? The Cubs don't have that many positional prospects that are good enough to plug in, but they do have a solid farm system and a high payroll that they can revamp the team for success in 2006 and the long-term. Now, there might be doubts that this management can effectively do that, but essentially giving up on the progress the organization has made seems wrong to me.

 

A) What progress has this organization made? The big league team has fallen drastically since 2003, the minor leagues are nowhere near what they were like in the late 90's early 00's.

 

B) Why does a youth movement equate to giving up a season? I am so sick of the attitude that you can't win with youth. Atlanta is doing it right now. Oakland has done it time and time again.

 

C) This front office has shown absolutely no ability to capitalize on their ability to outspend most other teams, wasting money on mediocre replacable veterans.

 

I'm not one to celebrate mediocrity, but I'd like not to regress back to the pre-2003 performance and expectations. Playing youth doesn't mean losing or giving up, but going full out with one certainly hurts your chances. Cedeno, Murton, and Pie are really the only viable starting prospects we have. Pie isn't ready, Murton may not hit for enough power to be a corner OF, and Cedeno looks like he'll be a decent SS. Greenberg, Fontenot, maybe Frese/Bacon could be good reserves, but having them in conjunction with the above in the lineup would be a disaster. You know I'm not about paying mediocre veterans, but at the same time, people are suggesting Lee/Fontenot/Cedeno/Ramirez/Murton/Patterson/Pie as our lineup, that's going to lose a ton of games for us. I have no problem with playing youngsters, and as you probably know I prefer them in a matchup of similar talents, but going young for the sake of going young doesn't improve the team.

[goonys evil twin]

I'm not one to celebrate mediocrity, but I'd like not to regress back to the pre-2003 performance and expectations.

 

The Cubs won 90 games in 1998, 88 in 2001, 88 in 2003 and 89 in 2004. They'll be lucky to win 80 this year. They've already regressed back to the pre-2003 performances, and they did it by sticking with the theory of relying on "proven veterans" over "untested prospects".

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'm not one to celebrate mediocrity, but I'd like not to regress back to the pre-2003 performance and expectations.

 

The Cubs won 90 games in 1998, 88 in 2001, 88 in 2003 and 89 in 2004. They'll be lucky to win 80 this year. They've already regressed back to the pre-2003 performances, and they did it by sticking with the theory of relying on "proven veterans" over "untested prospects".

 

Did you read the rest of my post? It's one thing to play "untested prospects", but you need prospects that are any good in the first place. The Cubs don't have all that many that are close enough to Chicago to warrant such a drastic overhaul to get them on the team.

[erik316wttn]

Didn't Hoops say a week or so back that Hendry is actively trying to trade Patterson, or will be trying to in the offseason?

[CubDad4Ever]

I agree with points from both gooney and cpatt. I would like to see a greater infusion of youth but need to see players that can help at the ml .level. We have some strong core pieces. Lee Rameriz , likey Barrett. But we cant fill the rest of the wholes with minor leaguers at this juncture. I will keenly follow the prep for murton, cedeno and Pie along with CPatt, Sooner or later my friends we will hit it on some positonal prospects. But the system needs to address greater devlop. and improve scouting , not just say we major in pitching and can trade it for offense. Pitching has not had the depth we needed this year , though with hill possibly nolasco, pinto we could help that quickly. God Bless and Pick it Ronny C

[goonys evil twin]

I'm not one to celebrate mediocrity, but I'd like not to regress back to the pre-2003 performance and expectations.

 

The Cubs won 90 games in 1998, 88 in 2001, 88 in 2003 and 89 in 2004. They'll be lucky to win 80 this year. They've already regressed back to the pre-2003 performances, and they did it by sticking with the theory of relying on "proven veterans" over "untested prospects".

 

Did you read the rest of my post? It's one thing to play "untested prospects", but you need prospects that are any good in the first place. The Cubs don't have all that many that are close enough to Chicago to warrant such a drastic overhaul to get them on the team.

 

They can't go all young, but there are plenty of spots to fit guys like Fontenot (backup 3b/2b), Theriot (utility/ss), Bacon (pr/backup OF), (Kelton backup of/1b/emergency 3b), Murton (starting corner OF or backup OF if they sign some studs), Sing (backup 1b/of), Greenberg (backup of) and not to mention all the possible pitching candidates. There's nothing wrong with going with some guys like that instead of going back to the well again to overspend on crappy veterans.

 

I just have a big problem with equating "giving up" with "going young" it's a bogus line of reasoning.

[biittner77]

So from the front office down to the training staff, I think this organization needs to stop making excuses and start making changes.

 

But with all the day games, the wind blowing in, white guys in the sun, the thick grass, the rain, the wind blowing out, all the youth, bad breaks, bad luck, bad MRIs, unknown pitching opponents, wind blowing sideways, different starting times, hurricane season, the witch hunt for steroid users, completely unpredictable injuries, wind not blowing at all and the booing, changes might not be enough to turn things around.

 

But think of all the good things the Cubs org. has done this season.

 

*Neifi Perez showed why he's unvaluable

*Macias showed his versatility by being able to butcher multiple positions

*Cedeno gained valuable bench riding experience

*Murton showed himself to be the best young player that Dusty won't play because of lack of experience

 

best of all, Kerry Wood won his 100th simulated game!

[wastra]

I agree with points from both gooney and cpatt. I would like to see a greater infusion of youth but need to see players that can help at the ml .level. We have some strong core pieces. Lee Rameriz , likey Barrett. But we cant fill the rest of the wholes with minor leaguers at this juncture. I will keenly follow the prep for murton, cedeno and Pie along with CPatt, Sooner or later my friends we will hit it on some positonal prospects. But the system needs to address greater devlop. and improve scouting , not just say we major in pitching and can trade it for offense. Pitching has not had the depth we needed this year , though with hill possibly nolasco, pinto we could help that quickly. God Bless and Pick it Ronny C

 

 

I doubt anyone here is arguing that we shold load up a roster of rookies around Lee and ramirez. But if hendry manages to have a roster with a solid right and center field, 2B, and 1-4 starters, there's no reason they shouldn't expect a Cedeno and/or Murton to be a starter in that lineup as well, and have a young pitcher or two from the system man the 5th rotation spat or a bullpen spot.

 

Realistically, you can't just buy a team unless like the Yanks, you have $170MM to spend. You need SOME homegrown talent to let you offest the cost of signing then keeping the Lees, Ramirezes, and whomever we get to fill holes next year.

 

the problem arises when you have a coupel young players on the team, and surround them with mediocre veterans (and then, of course, don't plat the youth).

 

The best way for a youth movement is to surround them with top-notch veterans. You can have a rookie start at short if your offense isn't deficient everywhere else. You can have a murton in left if your right and center fielders can caryy a big offensive load.

 

With Burnitz and Patterson, you cannot have a murton. With Neifi or Macias at second, you cannot have a Cedeno. At least you can't if you truly plan to contend.

 

 

So I think what most of us argue is to actually spend on a couple positions in ORDER to let us try out the kids at the others.

[thedaymen]

Wastra and some others nailed the point I try to make when discussing a "youth movement." At this point in time, I would like to see Cedeno at short and Murton playing one of the corner outfield spots the rest of the way. Why? Because if Murton can give numbers similar to Lawton's good numbers, then the Cubs have one outfield position covered. If Cedeno can give us Neifi or better numbers, the same holds true with shortstop.

 

I actually think the Cubs should work out a trade with the Mets this offseason for Cameron and Trachsel (assuming he does allright from here to the end of the season. Both players are available and are stopgag players for two years while the guys at A and AA have a shot to develop. Cameron can play center and could give numbers very similar to Burnitz's offensively with much more speed. Not the move that will propel them to a title, but it improves the rotation and the outfield.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'm not one to celebrate mediocrity, but I'd like not to regress back to the pre-2003 performance and expectations.

 

The Cubs won 90 games in 1998, 88 in 2001, 88 in 2003 and 89 in 2004. They'll be lucky to win 80 this year. They've already regressed back to the pre-2003 performances, and they did it by sticking with the theory of relying on "proven veterans" over "untested prospects".

 

Did you read the rest of my post? It's one thing to play "untested prospects", but you need prospects that are any good in the first place. The Cubs don't have all that many that are close enough to Chicago to warrant such a drastic overhaul to get them on the team.

 

They can't go all young, but there are plenty of spots to fit guys like Fontenot (backup 3b/2b), Theriot (utility/ss), Bacon (pr/backup OF), (Kelton backup of/1b/emergency 3b), Murton (starting corner OF or backup OF if they sign some studs), Sing (backup 1b/of), Greenberg (backup of) and not to mention all the possible pitching candidates. There's nothing wrong with going with some guys like that instead of going back to the well again to overspend on crappy veterans.

 

I just have a big problem with equating "giving up" with "going young" it's a bogus line of reasoning.

 

Of all the players you listed, all of them sans Murton you listed as bench players. I don't have a problem with that at all, especially since most of them have the ceiling of a good reserve/spot starter. What I'm saying is that throwing half those guys in the everyday lineup is a terrible idea. The positional prospects just aren't that strong, so unfortunately in this case, "going young" in that instance would essentially be "giving up", barring some unforseen breakouts.

[Beer Kaese]

Hendry said he and Baker remain on the same page and he has "absolutely" no problem with the job Baker has done. "We've had a little hiccup here, but hopefully we'll play well the last five weeks," he said. "Hopefully we still have a chance, and if we don't, hopefully we'll still finish over .500. Either way, we're going to get to work early and get ready for the off-season."

 

You don't have a chance. The Cubs don't have a chance. The team's overall record isn't as important as preparing for next season. Risking Prior, Wood and Aramis to get to .500 is a terrible baseball decision.

 

The Cubs can plug in youngsters such as shortstop Ronny Cedeno, left fielder Matt Murton and center fielder Felix Pie in 2006, but starting a youth movement with Baker as manager appears unlikely. "I can see ourselves having a good balance," Hendry said. "We've done that with the pitching."

 

Exactly what balance is he talking about? Why not have a youth movement. Can't the manager handle it? We all know thats the case, but lets be honest here.

 

Injuries to Kerry Wood and Mark Prior have hurt the Cubs in each of the last two seasons, and the Cubs haven't had the pitching depth to make up for their absences. "It's not something they did wrong or they didn't try to fight through," Hendry said. "It kills a guy like Woody when he misses that much time. Prior, for the first time in his life in '04, had [arm] problems …

 

Yeah, it sure isn't Wood's fault he has crappy mechanics and is constantly getting hurt because of it. Its, uhm, can't be Dusty's either, so it must be, uhm, not Rothschild, uhm....its Riggleman's fault.

 

Hendry is not looking to trade Corey Patterson, who he says will have an "interesting and important off-season" while getting mentally prepared for 2006. "We all thought not too long ago he was heading to All-Star-type potential," Hendry said. But Patterson has regressed and now is hitting .227 overall, .174 against left-handeders. The Cubs are unlikely to ask Patterson to play winter ball. "He still has talent and he still has aptitude," Hendry said. "He's still capable of being a very good player."

 

So what exactly does he think Corey is going to learn this "interesting and important" offseason if he isn't playing?

 

Disheartening. Glad I already decided to stop watching the games.

 

Hendry should have canned Bakker a month ago. Instead he put a noose around his neck and tied it to Bakker's wagon.

[Satch80]

We are going to have to pick our spots carefully where we go cheap/young. Obviously the cheap LF with the rookie/bench player platoon was horrible and coupled with Corey's down year, was a disaster.

 

Murton and Cedeno are the two most likely choices to consider for a contending team because they have some MLB experience and yes we are a contending team as long as we have DLee, Aramis, Prior, Wood and Z. But our window isn't forever so we can't afford to throw a season away with a lot of OJT in key spots.

 

I think Cedeno should have the SS and let Nomar go. I think the best thing this team can do for itself ( the pitching staff) is to have a good, stable, healthy DP combination all year. This means letting Walker go and trading for or signing a defensive minded 2B.

 

Playing Cedeno will free up Nomar money to acquire an experienced, decent LF . Sammy off the books can sign the RF. Corey remains an unknown . There is a reasonable option of putting Murton in LF, and trading for/signing a RF and CF. But that's as far as we should go with rookie starters.

 

Hendry seems committed to Barrett and that's where I disagree. He is a defensive liability which somewhat neutralizes our strength which is our starting rotation. Causing them to throw extra pitches by not framing the ball well. and dropping strike 3 fouls,. Also failing to block balls allowing runners to advance, seldom making plays at the plate or throwing accurately to second. I hope Hendry lets his contract run out and brings in a defensive catcher even if we lose some B.A.

 

I would agree with him about keeping Dempster as closer and saving Wagner type money to upgrade the bench and the rest of the bullpen.

A lot of what Hendry does with the pitching will depend upon where Kerry goes.

 

Aramis really needs to be put in a good strength and conditioning program because he is a good candidate to break down more and more.

Hendry needs to focus more on injury histories of players he signs because it's obviously becoming mentally disruptive to the team.

Regardless why, it's a fact.

 

2006 will be a good/great year!

[NCCubFan]

best of all, Kerry Wood won his 100th simulated game!

He's a first ballot lock for the Simulated Hall of Fame. :D

Hendry should have canned Bakker a month ago. Instead he put a noose around his neck and tied it to Bakker's wagon.

It would be hard for Hendry to fire Jim or Tammy Faye' date=' since they don't work for him. [b']Baker[/b], on the other hand, definitely should be fired. :D