Maybe Hendry just doesn't get it.

[nilodnayr]

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.

 

Id have to agree, after sosa the cubs are quite hesitant to sign longer term contracts. The only way I can see them doing it is for extensions for players that have at least a year under their belts in chicago.

[CubsWin]

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.

Yes, but apparently a good GM would have known that Wood was going to get injured and would have traded him. A good GM would have known that Nomar would get injured again and would not have resigned him. And a good GM would have known that Corey was going to regress and would have signed someone else and traded Corey while his stock was still high.

 

I don't know about you, but if Hendry had done all that he would be much more than just good, he'd be clairvoyant. Now, I'm not disagreeing with goony's evil twin that having a clairvoyant GM is better than just having a good one. But I am disagreeing with him/her that Hendry doesn't "get it" and has put together a "horrible team".

 

Has Hendry taken some gambles during his time as GM? Yes. The Nomar gamble didn't pay off. The trade Sosa and sign Burnitz gamble did. The Hawkins gamble didn't pay off. The Dempster gamble did.

 

How was he to know that Baker wouldn't use Dempster as the closer from the beginning of the year? How was he to know that Corey would go into the tank? How was he to know that the pitcher with absolutely perfect mechanics and effortless delivery would be on the shelf for a huge chunk of the season due to injury?

 

The Cubs OBP has gone up every season since Hendry has taken over. So has their batting average for that matter. If and when Baker is let go, they're walks should start to climb and the OBP should go even higher. If players like Nomar, Walker and Ramirez didn't miss as much time as they have this season, the Cubs OBP would be even higher. He gets it. But higher team OBP doesn't always translate into wins when you are dealing with 2/5ths of your rotation missing due to injury. Or the mental meltdown of your closer who should never have been used as the closer. Or the complete offensive disappearance of your CFer. Or...

 

Are there moves of his that I have disagreed with? Yes. But no one can say that he isn't collectively improving this team each year with those moves. It is, after all, up to the players and the manager to win the games.

[CubfaninCA]

The Cubs offense in 03 vs. the Cub offense in 05.

 

03. C. Miller. 05 C. Barrett

03. 1B. Choi/Simon/Karros. 05. 1B. Lee

03. 2b. Grudz 05. 2b. Walker

03. SS. Gonzo 05. SS. Nomar/Nef

03. 3b. Harris/ARam 05. 3B. ARam

03. Lf. Alou 05. LF. Holla/Murton/Lawton

03. CF. Patterson/Lofton 05. CF. Patterson/Hairston

03. RF. Sosa 05. RF. Burnitz.

 

I see an improvement from 03 to 05. Given the Cubs budget constraint, I'm not really certain who the Cubs should have got to replace Alou or Sosa. As I recall many wanted Alou gone & nearly slit their wrists over Choi being traded. Saying Hendry doesn't have a clue is a load of crap.

[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.

 

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.

 

I'm not saying he'd be bothered by leading off. Maybe I didn't read some of the posts carefully enough, but I don't believe I actually said I thought Walker would be uncomfortable in the leadoff spot. Like I said in that post, I am not inclined to believe that where a player bats has a huge affect on their performance, which is why I think we should expect a .350ish OBP from Walker if he were to lead off, as opposed to the numbers he had there last year. That would probably make hiim our best option to lead of now though.

 

I guess that you weren't necessarily saying he would put up those exact numbers from the leadoff spot in the future, but it bugs me when people use stats sorted by spot in the order.

[DonnieD]

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)

Why in the world would you make Neifi Perez your starting second baseman and make Todd Walker into a platoon outfielder? Walker has been one of the few bright spots in this anemic offense and you would move him from 2B where he is an above average offensive player and an average to slightly above average defensive player to a corner OF spot where he would be a below average offensive and defensive player, and reduce his playing time while giving Neifi Perez and his stellar .304 OBP even more plate appearances. Why don't we just let Walker be the first option off the bench and have Jose Macias play LF every day? He is hitting .278. :roll:

[neely crenshaw]

of course hendry has had some good moves. they can't all be bad. lee was a good pick up but no one could have forseen him being a triple crown threat. many are saying trade him now or do not resign him until he proves this is what he will do....not a ringing endorsement for his superstar status. definitely an upgrade but do not give hendry credit for trading choi for the 2nd coming of al pujols. aram was a huge gamble that worked. he was an underachieving,pouting, overpaid player in pittsburgh that came back for us. it could have stayed status quo just as easily.

here is where i will always blame hendry. after 2003 we were a player or two away from being the dominate team in the nl, if not mlb. we needed a closer, we needed bullpen help, we needed a leadoff man and an upgrade at short. yes, it would have cost the team some bucks but it could have been done. one year of spending 120 mil and we would have been the red sox. think of all the closers and shortstops that have changed teams in the last 2 years....

i think it was said best last week, there is a difference between trying to win and being committed to winning. i think it is pretty clear were hendry lies. after 2003 we had one of the best all round lineups in the league now we have arguably the 2nd worst(maybe 3rd) colorado and LA. you can not blame that all on the manager. the team hendry has given us is absolutely horrible.

[XZero771679666304]

of course hendry has had some good moves. they can't all be bad. lee was a good pick up but no one could have forseen him being a triple crown threat. many are saying trade him now or do not resign him until he proves this is what he will do....not a ringing endorsement for his superstar status. definitely an upgrade but do not give hendry credit for trading choi for the 2nd coming of al pujols. aram was a huge gamble that worked. he was an underachieving,pouting, overpaid player in pittsburgh that came back for us. it could have stayed status quo just as easily.

here is where i will always blame hendry. after 2003 we were a player or two away from being the dominate team in the nl, if not mlb. we needed a closer, we needed bullpen help, we needed a leadoff man and an upgrade at short. yes, it would have cost the team some bucks but it could have been done. one year of spending 120 mil and we would have been the red sox. think of all the closers and shortstops that have changed teams in the last 2 years....

i think it was said best last week, there is a difference between trying to win and being committed to winning. i think it is pretty clear were hendry lies. after 2003 we had one of the best all round lineups in the league now we have arguably the 2nd worst(maybe 3rd) colorado and LA. you can not blame that all on the manager. the team hendry has given us is absolutely horrible.

 

I blame Hendry for much of the bullpen mess this year, but going into 2004, Farnsworth looked to be developing, Remmy was good, Borowski was a very good closer, and Hendry brought in the top setup man on the market. In fact, I recall reading many opinions in March 2004 saying that the Cubs had a top 5 bullpen, and if you looked at the talent at that time, it was hard to argue with that. But JoBo went down, Hawk was thrust in to the closer's role, Farns ran out of gas, and Remmy flopped. It's hard to fault Hendry for that.

 

Hie didn't address the SS issue in 2004, but Walker did a great job leading off before Baker benched him, and the rest of the talent was more than enough to win it all. All in all, Hendry really improved the team from 2003 to 2004, and he went out and got an impact player at the deadline in 2004.

 

From 2004 to 2005 is a different story. Even with that being the case, who would have predicted a team with the Cubs rotation and a lineup with a core of Walker, Lee, Ramirez, Garciaparra and Burnitz would finish under .500?

 

Hendry sold the team short this year, but not short enough to explain this mess.

[Banghart]

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?

I am not sure where this idea that Todd Walker cannot be a leadoff hitter has come from, but other managers besides Dusty have seen no reason why Walker cannot leadoff. He has 200 more ABs batting leadoff than any other spot in the lineup, and played 60 more games as a leadoff hitter than any other spot. Walker can also clearly hit, and has been a high OBP guy during his career. The Cubs don't have to go out and overpay for Furcal or Damon. They just need to find another guy who can OBP at a .350 or better clip that Dusty will put at the top of the lineup along with Walker.

 

-Banghart

[XZero771679666304]

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?

I am not sure where this idea that Todd Walker cannot be a leadoff hitter has come from, but other managers besides Dusty have seen no reason why Walker cannot leadoff. He has 200 more ABs batting leadoff than any other spot in the lineup, and played 60 more games as a leadoff hitter than any other spot. Walker can also clearly hit, and has been a high OBP guy during his career. The Cubs don't have to go out and overpay for Furcal or Damon. They just need to find another guy who can OBP at a .350 or better clip that Dusty will put at the top of the lineup along with Walker.

 

-Banghart

 

As others have pointed out, todd has had 600+PA as a leadoff hitter in the past 3 years, posting a .297/.353/.830 line. Not stellar, but do people remember when sub .300 OBP Corey and Neifi were 1-2 while Walker batted 6th to "protect" Ramirez?

 

Walker is more than capable of leading off, and should have been leading off very day he has been healthy over the past two seasons.

[frostwyrm]

I do actually think Dusty has gotten too much blame at times. Going into the season I thought the OF offense was lousy and not enough to compensate if any IF studs(Lee, Nomar, Ramirez) missed time, particularly because the backup IF's were lousy. Patterson was terrible and the pitching health was very shaky. Hawkins suffered a complete meltdown, Remlinger is washed up, and Jobo couldn't return to form(for us anyway). Dusty did plenty to mess things up but a lot of stuff was out of his control.

[goonys evil twin]

Are there moves of his that I have disagreed with? Yes. But no one can say that he isn't collectively improving this team each year with those moves. It is, after all, up to the players and the manager to win the games.

 

No one?

 

Collectively, the team is worse than it was. 88, 89 and now we'll be lucky to see 80 wins. That is not improving the team.

[TheDude]

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.

You don't recall correctly. I liked Choi, but viewed then (and still do) Lee as a far better player, as was one of the few that didn't have a negative knee-jerk reaction to the trade.

 

I am a defense and fundamentals type of person. Lee fits my ideal for 1B.

[TheDude]

Collectively, the team is worse than it was. 88, 89 and now we'll be lucky to see 80 wins. That is not improving the team.

It seems you measure Hendry's value differently some others. I don't look at this season and blame Hendry. He assembled a team that should have made the playoffs.

 

Number of wins is a reflection on the manager more than the general manager. Omar Minaya assembled a quality team in NY, but how many wins would that team have if Dusty Baker was the manager there?

 

I measure Hendry's worth in value of deals. Hendry creates the plan, Baker (fails to) execute it. That doesn't make the plan a bad one.

[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.

 

I'm not saying he'd be bothered by leading off. Maybe I didn't read some of the posts carefully enough, but I don't believe I actually said I thought Walker would be uncomfortable in the leadoff spot. Like I said in that post, I am not inclined to believe that where a player bats has a huge affect on their performance, which is why I think we should expect a .350ish OBP from Walker if he were to lead off, as opposed to the numbers he had there last year. That would probably make hiim our best option to lead of now though.

 

I guess that you weren't necessarily saying he would put up those exact numbers from the leadoff spot in the future, but it bugs me when people use stats sorted by spot in the order.

 

I was just responding to your question that we wouldn't know how Walker could do in the leadoff spot because he hasn't been used there, when he's actually batted there more than anywhere in his career and has done quite well. I think we have a very good idea of what Walker would do in the top spot, but he doesn't play there currently for, as far as I can determine, the sole reason that he's not a base stealing threat.

[YearofDaCubs]

You say Hendry is improving the team but I dont see it. Sure, he has traded for and signed some good players but those are individual stats as far as I'm concerned because when it all said and done we have regressed from last year and there is no way you can deny that. What a slap in the fact to have an OF consisting of Burnitz,Patterson, Holla. It doesnt get any worse than that. Few people on this forum knew what was to happen to the Cubs this year and they were right. We had no chance of winning this year.

[JC]

Collectively, the team is worse than it was. 88, 89 and now we'll be lucky to see 80 wins. That is not improving the team.

It seems you measure Hendry's value differently some others. I don't look at this season and blame Hendry. He assembled a team that should have made the playoffs.

 

Number of wins is a reflection on the manager more than the general manager. Omar Minaya assembled a quality team in NY, but how many wins would that team have if Dusty Baker was the manager there?

 

I measure Hendry's worth in value of deals. Hendry creates the plan, Baker (fails to) execute it. That doesn't make the plan a bad one.

 

But, isn't Baker an integral part of Hendry's plan?

 

As far as I'm concerned, it was poor execution of a flawed plan.

[YearofDaCubs]

Collectively, the team is worse than it was. 88, 89 and now we'll be lucky to see 80 wins. That is not improving the team.

It seems you measure Hendry's value differently some others. I don't look at this season and blame Hendry. He assembled a team that should have made the playoffs.

 

Number of wins is a reflection on the manager more than the general manager. Omar Minaya assembled a quality team in NY, but how many wins would that team have if Dusty Baker was the manager there?

 

I measure Hendry's worth in value of deals. Hendry creates the plan, Baker (fails to) execute it. That doesn't make the plan a bad one.

This team was not a playoff ready team. Not with the onconsistent offense we have had the past 2 years. And our pitchign has regressed as well. You say injuries? Well, I say bs because Hendry knew we have a roster full of injury prone players. You say it's Dusty's fault? Sure, he is part of the blame no doubt but it is Hendrys job to do the right thing and fire his butt if he is not working out which he is not.

[YearofDaCubs]

As far as the Walker stats some have posted. I agree his numbers are good enough where he would be a good option at leadoff. I would like to see more speed but you guys are right the man can indeed leadoff.

[Backtobanks]

I don't blame Hendry because the harshest critics thought he had assembled a team that would be .500. Since .500 is looking like an impossible goal, it must be the way the players are being used. In other words, Hendry didn't assemble a team capable of winning the division, but Baker misuse of the players has this team near the bottom of the division.

[YearofDaCubs]

I do have a problem when our organization's priority to get rid of Sosa is bigger than putting a better team on the field which is exactly what the Cubs did.

[goonys evil twin]

Collectively, the team is worse than it was. 88, 89 and now we'll be lucky to see 80 wins. That is not improving the team.

It seems you measure Hendry's value differently some others. I don't look at this season and blame Hendry. He assembled a team that should have made the playoffs.

 

Number of wins is a reflection on the manager more than the general manager.

 

I measure Hendry's worth in value of deals.

 

Or maybe you are the one who measures it differently. Wins and losses are the only things that matter. How can you possibly measure the value of a deal, if collectively, all those deals fail to produce more wins? I don't see how a manager can be held accountable for the record, but not the GM. Managers don't win games. They can lose some, and Dusty has lost a few on his own with his silliness. Players win the games, and the GM assembles the players. With a top 5 payroll the past 3 years, Hendry simply has not assembled a good enough team. There is no justification for this team not averaging more than 90 wins per year the past three years. Some say 2003 was overachieving, but there was nothing overly impressive or surprising about 88 wins. It was only the failures of the rivals that allowed 88 wins to be meaningful. 88 was nothing to get giddy over. It was an acceptable progression. But last year's team should have been 92-95 wins easily. Dusty hurt the team's chances, but the team still came up short. And this year there was no justification for the giant step back. This entire organization's focus has been in the wrong spot. Hendry has to take blame, Dusty gets blamed, but he deflects it like he typically does. Hendry has actually stepped up and accepted blame, fans shouldn't feel sorry for him and stop assigning blame to him just because he's the one with the guts to accept it.

[YearofDaCubs]

Collectively, the team is worse than it was. 88, 89 and now we'll be lucky to see 80 wins. That is not improving the team.

It seems you measure Hendry's value differently some others. I don't look at this season and blame Hendry. He assembled a team that should have made the playoffs.

 

Number of wins is a reflection on the manager more than the general manager.

 

I measure Hendry's worth in value of deals.

 

Or maybe you are the one who measures it differently. Wins and losses are the only things that matter. How can you possibly measure the value of a deal, if collectively, all those deals fail to produce more wins? I don't see how a manager can be held accountable for the record, but not the GM. Managers don't win games. They can lose some, and Dusty has lost a few on his own with his silliness. Players win the games, and the GM assembles the players. With a top 5 payroll the past 3 years, Hendry simply has not assembled a good enough team. There is no justification for this team not averaging more than 90 wins per year the past three years. Some say 2003 was overachieving, but there was nothing overly impressive or surprising about 88 wins. It was only the failures of the rivals that allowed 88 wins to be meaningful. 88 was nothing to get giddy over. It was an acceptable progression. But last year's team should have been 92-95 wins easily. Dusty hurt the team's chances, but the team still came up short. And this year there was no justification for the giant step back. This entire organization's focus has been in the wrong spot. Hendry has to take blame, Dusty gets blamed, but he deflects it like he typically does. Hendry has actually stepped up and accepted blame, fans shouldn't feel sorry for him and stop assigning blame to him just because he's the one with the guts to accept it.

I agree with you 100%.

[TheDude]

Or maybe you are the one who measures it differently. Wins and losses are the only things that matter.

This isn't a competition. I am not suggesting your opinion is off or wrong because it is different. I am simply stating and acknowledging that we measure value differently.

 

I do find it interesting that you think Wins is a perfectly acceptable metric to measure a GM by, but not a starting pitcher.

 

Anyway, from my perspective, Hendry inherited an aging team at a cross-roads. Declining Sosa, Alou, McGriff, Hundley. That was fused with promising youth at pitching and CF; Prior, Zambrano, Wood, Patterson.

 

2003 was a bizarre hodge-podge that somehow worked - but IMO it was a less talented team. Since, Hendry hasn't done a good job replacing Sosa and Alou, but has at replacing the core of the infield.

 

Lee is 29. Ramirez 27. Barret is 28. All of those pitchers are still under 30. Hendry has replaced most of the declining veterans with youth. The veterans stop-gaps in other places didn't work out - but you know what? They didn't work out for Atlanta either. They had a manager who gambled on the farm and it worked out for them. But that is on the manager's head.

 

But, this year's win-loss total aside, Hendry has assembled a team core that young and talented. All the critical parts are still under 30 years old! I cannot honestly asses Hendry as a failure when I look at the talent, age, core philosophy (pitching).

 

I believe that 2 solid offseason acquisitions (all-star or near all-star) will propel the plan back into action. It is up to the manager to not screw it up.

 

[edit - correcting numerous smelling pistakes]

[goonys evil twin]

I do find it interesting that you think Wins is a perfectly acceptable metric to measure a GM by, but not a starting pitcher.

 

 

It's quite simple really. A pitcher can only pitch. Everybody else fields and hits. A pitcher cannot determine whether the team wins or loses, unless he throws a shutout and hits a homerun. But that's kind of a ridiculous request to make. The GM though actually influences every aspect of the team. He decides who will be pitching, who will be hitting and who will be fielding, not to mention, who will be managing. Hendry has the responsibility for the record because it is his responsibility to create the entire team. The pitcher only has the responsibility of pitching.

 

I find it quite unbelievable that you can't see the difference.

[CubsWin]

Are there moves of his that I have disagreed with? Yes. But no one can say that he isn't collectively improving this team each year with those moves. It is, after all, up to the players and the manager to win the games.

 

No one?

 

Collectively, the team is worse than it was. 88, 89 and now we'll be lucky to see 80 wins. That is not improving the team.

Boy, are you oversimplifying things. You keep mentioning only one statistic, wins. Why is that?

 

I mentioned a whole lot of complexities in my post. Did you respond to any of them? No.

 

You don't seem very willing, or perhaps able in this case, to make a solid argument that Hendry put together a "horrible team".