Maybe Hendry just doesn't get it.

[YearofDaCubs]

Since 2003 it always seems to me that we look forward to the offseason with the same holes every year. Seriously, it really feels like every year we are looking for a leadoff man, bullpen help, and looking to improve the bench. This offseason is no different. Maybe Hendry just doesn't get it, and that just scares me.

[swordsman]

Perhaps that is the nature of baseball these days. Aren't the majority of clubs looking for those things every year?

[YearofDaCubs]

That might be the nature of the beast but so far we have been unsuccessful in upgrading those holes. With FA, Trades, and Minor league available it shouldn't take that long to fix those problems, especially with a 100mil payroll. That is my opinion.

[cjbucks]

That might be the nature of the beast but so far we have been unsuccessful in upgrading those holes. With FA, Trades, and Minor league available it shouldn't take that long to fix those problems, especially with a 100mil payroll. That is my opinion.

 

I agree that it probably is the nature of the beast but with a 100 mil payroll we should have the advantage over all but a couple of teams in solving the problems.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

what teams have all the pieces to the puzzle? none. even the top teams are looking to improve in some aspect of their game.

 

although good teams look for that last one or two pieces, we seems to need more than a few.

 

honestly, did anyone expect CPat to tank like he did? I can see the hole in LF and the bullpen...maybe another starter to cover for Wood's eventual DL stint, but beyond that, we looked good on paper going into the season.

[YearofDaCubs]

what teams have all the pieces to the puzzle? none. even the top teams are looking to improve in some aspect of their game.

 

although good teams look for that last one or two pieces, we seems to need more than a few.

 

honestly, did anyone expect CPat to tank like he did? I can see the hole in LF and the bullpen...maybe another starter to cover for Wood's eventual DL stint, but beyond that, we looked good on paper going into the season.

Looked good on paper? Maybe in 2004.

[AC036198]

We have AT LEAST 30M coming off the payroll. Get Damon and/or Furcal. If we don't: ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

[TheDude]

There is a premium on leadoff hitter talent in baseball. Nobody is going to give it up if they have it, and when it hits free agency, you must be willing to overpay (relative to other position production).

 

I don't believe you can fault Hendry. He tried to get Roberts, not Hairston, to leadoff for this team. Baltimore wouldn't do it.

 

Hendry signed/traded for 3 top quality relievers (at the time of relevance) over the last several years: Remlinger, Hawkins, Alfonseca.

 

Hendry traded for Garciaparra to fill the SS position, viewed as a weakness for several years prior to his arrival.

 

Hendry traded for Ramirez, a position long held as weak since Santo, and he is the best 3B the Cubs have had in years.

 

Hendry gets it, better than all of us. It just doesn't always work out.

[Flames24Rulz]

We have AT LEAST 30M coming off the payroll. Get Damon and/or Furcal. If we don't: ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

 

i agree, Furcal is a MUST signing in the offseason. I'd still prefer Giles over Damon because he won't cost as much and I definitely don't want to get in a bidding war with the Yanks.

[goonys evil twin]

Hendry signed/traded for 3 top quality relievers (at the time of relevance) over the last several years: Remlinger, Hawkins, Alfonseca.

 

Hendry traded for Garciaparra to fill the SS position, viewed as a weakness for several years prior to his arrival.

 

 

Hendry gets it, better than all of us. It just doesn't always work out.

 

Alfonseca was never top quality. He was crap. Florida was trying to pawn his fat out of shape overpaid butt off on people. His 45 save season was a fluke, and was done without very impressive peripherals.

 

Hendry traded for an injured SS to fill a need. It wouldn't take much thought to think Nomar could possibly still be injured.

 

I haven't seen any proof that Hendry "gets it'. He certainly hasn't done a good job putting together a team, and it could be argued he's done a horrible team, seeing as how the team is now worse than what it was when he took over.

[TheDude]

I haven't seen any proof that Hendry "gets it'. He certainly hasn't done a good job putting together a team, and it could be argued he's done a horrible team, seeing as how the team is now worse than what it was when he took over.

What team did Hendry inherit though? The talent is definately not worse than what is was when he took over, even if the results are not the best. If your criteria for a quality GM is that every move has to brilliant and work out - then good luck.

 

This team is exceptionally talented and improved in many areas, most of which can be attributed to Hendry (Ramirez, Lee, Barret).

 

His gambles, trades, and signings have been 50/50 overall, which can be said about most GMs. So Nomar didn't work out. Dempster did, and so might Williamson. Rusch was a solid gamble as well, while Hollandsworth was not. Neither was giving away Cruz or Cisco.

 

But the ones that did work out, worked out big time, exceeding the ones that did not. Lee and Ramirez for forgettable spare parts. Those were coups. Grudz and Karros for Hundley? Another coup.

 

There is no reason to think that the team is 2 or 3 quality offseason moves from contention again. I for one won't siphon off frustration from Dusty to Hendry, because I don't think it is justified.

[SouthSideRyan]

WE HAVE A QUALITY LEADOFF HITTER. HIS NAME IS TODD WALKER.

[YearofDaCubs]

WE HAVE A QUALITY LEADOFF HITTER. HIS NAME IS TODD WALKER.

How many times did Walker leadoff for us this year? Exactly.

[Garwilly]

WE HAVE A QUALITY LEADOFF HITTER. HIS NAME IS TODD WALKER.

How many times did Walker leadoff for us this year? Exactly.

 

So are you coming down on Hendry for bringing in the wrong guys, or coming down on Baker for using them "incorrectly"?

[YearofDaCubs]

WE HAVE A QUALITY LEADOFF HITTER. HIS NAME IS TODD WALKER.

How many times did Walker leadoff for us this year? Exactly.

 

So are you coming down on Hendry for bringing in the wrong guys, or coming down on Baker for using them "incorrectly"?

Obviously Walker hasnt been used as a leadoff hitter because Dusty didnt find that as an option. But how exactly do we know if Walker is a good leadoff hitter for us if we never used him in that role?

Edited August 29, 2005 by YearofDaCubs

[goonys evil twin]

I haven't seen any proof that Hendry "gets it'. He certainly hasn't done a good job putting together a team, and it could be argued he's done a horrible team, seeing as how the team is now worse than what it was when he took over.

What team did Hendry inherit though? The talent is definately not worse than what is was when he took over, even if the results are not the best. If your criteria for a quality GM is that every move has to brilliant and work out - then good luck.

 

There is no reason to think that the team is 2 or 3 quality offseason moves from contention again. I for one won't siphon off frustration from Dusty to Hendry, because I don't think it is justified.

 

Is there any reason to believe Hendry can pull off those deals?

 

I don't think there's any value in judging a GM's worth by saying whether a specific trade or signing was good, bad, or not his fault. The GM's job is to make the team as good as it can be. The Cubs are a $100 million joke of a ballclub. There are many reasons for that, but Jim has to take part of the hit.

 

Hendry inherited a pretty fantastic situation. There were a lot of mediocre veterans, but the young talent was tremendous. Now, I give Jim credit for amassing much of that young talent, but that was his doing as the head of the minor leagues. What I'm critical of is his work as GM. He became GM just as this team was poised for greatness. The payroll kept going up and up in a time when most other team's payrolls were declining (only Boston and NYY kept going up, Atlanta was cutting hard, the Mets were stagnant during an ownership changeover). He was given a top 5 payroll to build a team, and he had loads of young cheap talent with which to work. And the results speak for themselves. 88 and 89 win seasons, followed by disaster. The team hasn't come close to greatness, and they appear very far from reaching that goal.

 

Jim's biggest problem may be that he is far too focused on talent alone, and pays very little attention to production. He loves his former 1st round picks, ROY winners and toolsy athletes, but you can't win with just talent, you need good productive baseball players. Jim has done a terrible job filling this team with good productive baseball players.

[Warpticon]

WE HAVE A QUALITY LEADOFF HITTER. HIS NAME IS TODD WALKER.

How many times did Walker leadoff for us this year? Exactly.

 

So are you coming down on Hendry for bringing in the wrong guys, or coming down on Baker for using them "incorrectly"?

Obviously Walker hasnt been used as a leadoff hitter because Dusty didnt find that as an option. But how exactly do we know if Walker is a good leadoff hitter for us if we never used him in that role?

 

.294/.370/.505/.904, 15 2B, 12 HR, 30 RBI, 45 R leading off in 2004--228 ABs.

[CubfaninCA]

Hendry signed/traded for 3 top quality relievers (at the time of relevance) over the last several years: Remlinger, Hawkins, Alfonseca.

 

Hendry traded for Garciaparra to fill the SS position, viewed as a weakness for several years prior to his arrival.

 

 

Hendry gets it, better than all of us. It just doesn't always work out.

 

Alfonseca was never top quality. He was crap. Florida was trying to pawn his fat out of shape overpaid butt off on people. His 45 save season was a fluke, and was done without very impressive peripherals.

 

Hendry traded for an injured SS to fill a need. It wouldn't take much thought to think Nomar could possibly still be injured.

 

I haven't seen any proof that Hendry "gets it'. He certainly hasn't done a good job putting together a team, and it could be argued he's done a horrible team, seeing as how the team is now worse than what it was when he took over.

 

As I recall, you really griped about trading Choi. Lee, ARam and Barrett were very good acquisitions. If the Cubs got anything from Wood, Nomar and Patterson, they'd still be in the wildcard race.

[Sarcastic]

WE HAVE A QUALITY LEADOFF HITTER. HIS NAME IS TODD WALKER.

How many times did Walker leadoff for us this year? Exactly.

 

So are you coming down on Hendry for bringing in the wrong guys, or coming down on Baker for using them "incorrectly"?

Obviously Walker hasnt been used as a leadoff hitter because Dusty didnt find that as an option. But how exactly do we know if Walker is a good leadoff hitter for us if we never used him in that role?

 

.294/.370/.505/.904, 15 2B, 12 HR, 30 RBI, 45 R leading off in 2004--228 ABs.

 

Does the fact that a player has done well in one spot of the order in the past, especially based on a small sample size, really mean that he will do that well in that spot in the future? It seems to me like it shouldn't make that huge of a difference. Is there any evidence that it actually does mean anything?

 

I'd like to see Walker come back next year, but not as the leadoff man. He should only be used as the leadoff man if the team cant get a half decent deal for a high OBP player. Walker is good, but considering his decent power, high batting average, and relatively low K totals, I think he'd be better suited for the 2nd spot. Not that it makes a gigantic difference, but that's the way I'd prefer it.

[imb]

That's about half a season of rocking out in the leadoff spot. All I know is that Walker hits wherever he is, but Dusty is too stupid to put a slow white guy in the leadoff spot.

[Sarcastic]

That's about half a season of rocking out in the leadoff spot. All I know is that Walker hits wherever he is, but Dusty is too stupid to put a slow white guy in the leadoff spot.

 

Yes he did well out of the leadoff spot for a little over 200 ABs, but who's to say he would have kept that pace if he had batted leadoff for the whole year? Unless I see some solid evidence, I refuse to believe that a player's performance could be that seriously affected by what spot in the order he bats.

 

EDIT: My point is, if we stuck Walker at leadoff for the whole year, I think it would be reasonable to expect him to put up his normal numbers. A .370 OBP would probably be a stretch. I think the team would be better off with Walker in the two hole next season, if it is at all possible to get a guy with a good OBP.

 

And by extension, I'm saying that Hendry hasn't done a good job finding a leadoff batter. That said, it isn't an easy thing to do, and it wouldn't have been such a problem if Dusty hadn't stuck Patterson and Perez at one and two.

[Warpticon]

WE HAVE A QUALITY LEADOFF HITTER. HIS NAME IS TODD WALKER.

How many times did Walker leadoff for us this year? Exactly.

 

So are you coming down on Hendry for bringing in the wrong guys, or coming down on Baker for using them "incorrectly"?

Obviously Walker hasnt been used as a leadoff hitter because Dusty didnt find that as an option. But how exactly do we know if Walker is a good leadoff hitter for us if we never used him in that role?

 

.294/.370/.505/.904, 15 2B, 12 HR, 30 RBI, 45 R leading off in 2004--228 ABs.

 

Does the fact that a player has done well in one spot of the order in the past, especially based on a small sample size, really mean that he will do that well in that spot in the future? It seems to me like it shouldn't make that huge of a difference. Is there any evidence that it actually does mean anything?

 

I'd like to see Walker come back next year, but not as the leadoff man. He should only be used as the leadoff man if the team cant get a half decent deal for a high OBP player. Walker is good, but considering his decent power, high batting average, and relatively low K totals, I think he'd be better suited for the 2nd spot. Not that it makes a gigantic difference, but that's the way I'd prefer it.

 

Okay, I'm not understanding. First it was a matter of not having any evidence that he could succeed since he hadn't batted leadoff, then when we show his excellent numbers leading off, it's not enough and it could mean something else? That first sentence applies to EVERYBODY. In ANYTHING, EVER. Okay? All we have is past performance to try to project future performance. Look, the guy hits everywhere, and there's zero evidence that he's bothered by leading off. Maybe a .370 OBP is a stretch, but not much of one. .350-.360 is pretty much a foregone conclusion with Walker the last 5 years--Boston being the lone exception. You want his three-year splits batting leadoff? .297/.353/.459/.830. 46 2B, 18 HR, 63 RBI, 97 R, 602 AB. That's not such a small sample size, is it? That's a full season of being a very good leadoff hitter. That's pretty close to his "normal numbers," as well, so I don't know why it'd be a terrible thing if he regressed to those. It's much better than most teams have leading off. Maybe he'd be better batting 2nd, but he'd be better than any of the other options batting 1st.

[AC036198]

Walker is good # 2 hitter. The Cubs have AT LEAST 30M coming off the books this off-season. We need to get Damon and Furcal. Just fuckin' pay Damon the 10-15M he's going to get, as his agent is Boras and there will be a Red Sox-Yankees bidding war for him. The Yankees might not need him, but they might go after him to play the triangle defense game. PM me for an explination. Get Furcal as well, move Niefi to 2B, and let Nomar walk. Get Burnett through FA. My infied: Lee, Niefi, Furcal, Ramirez, Barrett. Flank Damon w/ some platoon combo of Walker/Burnitz/Murton/Pie (Walker can play OF). I know Mad Dog is't the Cy Young pitcher he once was, but he has lead the team in wins since the 2004 season. Rotation: Big Z, Prior, Mad Dog, Burnett, Williams. Pen: Wood, Williamson, Dempster, Novoa, Ohman, and get someone through FA. All FA's can be found on http://mlb4u.com/freeagent.html

 

The Farns and Taverez are FA. Te Cubs should go after them, IMO.

[JC]

We need to get Damon and Furcal. Just ****' pay Damon the 10-15M he's going to get, as his agent is Boras and there will be a Red Sox-Yankees bidding war for him.

 

No.

 

$10-$15M for an aging center fielder who relies on speed to play in the jungle grass of Wrigley? Also, for that kind of money, I'd prefer my centerfielder be able to throw the ball all the way to second base on the fly from shallow center.

[CubfaninCA]

Walker is good # 2 hitter. The Cubs have AT LEAST 30M coming off the books this off-season. We need to get Damon and Furcal. Just ****' pay Damon the 10-15M he's going to get, as his agent is Boras and there will be a Red Sox-Yankees bidding war for him. The Yankees might not need him, but they might go after him to play the triangle defense game. PM me for an explination. Get Furcal as well, move Niefi to 2B, and let Nomar walk. Get Burnett through FA. My infied: Lee, Niefi, Furcal, Ramirez, Barrett. Flank Damon w/ some platoon combo of Walker/Burnitz/Murton/Pie (Walker can play OF). I know Mad Dog is't the Cy Young pitcher he once was, but he has lead the team in wins since the 2004 season. Rotation: Big Z, Prior, Mad Dog, Burnett, Williams. Pen: Wood, Williamson, Dempster, Novoa, Ohman, and get someone through FA. All FA's can be found on http://mlb4u.com/freeagent.html

 

The Farns and Taverez are FA. Te Cubs should go after them, IMO.

 

 

Doubtful the Cubs will put up the money for Damon. The length of his contract will be enough to scare them away. Same goes for Burnett. Name the last guy the Cubs sign for over 4 years??

 

If they can get Furcal and Giles, and either Millwood or Weaver, I'll be thrilled.