Marlins May Look to Package Delgado and Lowell in a Deal

[erik316wttn]

But, unlike the manager, JH has had done more good than bad in the last couple of years.

 

I'm not sure what kind of support you could possibly have for such a statement. The team went from 88 to 89 to desperate for 80 wins. I don't know how a GM can do more good than bad and have his team get worse.

If I look at the structure of the team today and compare it to the structure of the team at the beginning of 2003, I'd say he's improved the overall talent level and condition of the team (including age of core, etc.).

 

Talent is worthless without production.

 

The team has gotten worse under his watch.

But Hendry didn't take over an 88 win team. He inherited a 67 win team at the end of 2002, didn't he?

 

80 is still greater than 67, isn't it?

 

Yes, however it's less than 89. The team keeps getting worse under Hendry's watch, and yet he seems reluctant or just plain unwilling to do anything to fix it.

They must have changed math since I went to school.

 

67 - 88 - 89 - ~79 == "keeps getting worse"? I count two increases in record and one decrease. How is that, "keeps getting worse"? Hyperbole is not your friend when putting together a convincing argument.

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but simply only looking at wins is not helping your argument much.

 

Yes. The team improved from 2002 to 2003 no matter how you look at it. I'll give you that.

 

However, we went from 5 outs away from the World Series to choking away the WC in the last two weeks of the season. We sat home and watched the playoffs last year. This year we never even had a sniff.

 

That's two years of getting worse, despite the talent being better than it was in 2003.

 

Doing less with more talent is not an indicator of success. It is quite the opposite, in fact.

[Tim]

The fundamental responsibility that Hendry has is to continually increase the talent level of the team and organization, as well as position it for future success. Let's focus on the position players here...

 

He inherited a team in 2002 that was one of the oldest in the majors and based around a fading superstar. That team only won 67 games. Since then, he has not only led the team to the playoffs, but has also turned the team around so that it is based nearly entirely on players at or below 30 years in age. He has assembled a core group of players that are young and that can be built around for the future.

 

It is true that the team was in the playoffs in 2003 and then missed the playoffs in 2004. So it may look like the team declined. However, the team in 2004 was actually stronger than the one in 2003, both in record and in talent. What other teams do is outside of Hendry's control. All he can do is make the team better from year to year. He has done that more often than not so far during his tenure.

 

To say that he's reluctant or unwilling to fix the team is ridiculous. You may not agree with the choices he's made. But to deny his intentions or effort is flat out being blind to what is going on.

[erik316wttn]

To say that he's reluctant or unwilling to fix the team is ridiculous. You may not agree with the choices he's made. But to deny his intentions or effort is flat out being blind to what is going on.

 

There is one major thing wrong with this team. Let's call him "Johnny B". Not only has Hendry not considered throwing Johnny B out on his ample posterior, he has actually given him the players HE likes, to the detriment of the team. A very good factor to judge Hendry by is if Neifi and/or Macias are back on this team next year. That should tell you who is in charge, or at the very least what his philosophy is.

 

Hendry is responsible for Baker. Yes, he's not responsible for the day to day decisions Baker makes, but he IS responsble for the players that he gives Dusty, and he is responsible if Dusty keeps failing and costing this team wins.

 

To me, it would make Hendry look stronger, not weaker, if he fired Baker even though Hendry was the guy who brought him in. It would mean he's willing to admit his mistake and cut his losses while he still can.

[nilodnayr]

To say that he's reluctant or unwilling to fix the team is ridiculous. You may not agree with the choices he's made. But to deny his intentions or effort is flat out being blind to what is going on.

 

There is one major thing wrong with this team. Let's call him "Johnny B". Not only has Hendry not considered throwing Johnny B out on his ample posterior, he has actually given him the players HE likes, to the detriment of the team. A very good factor to judge Hendry by is if Neifi and/or Macias are back on this team next year. That should tell you who is in charge, or at the very least what his philosophy is.

 

Hendry is responsible for Baker. Yes, he's not responsible for the day to day decisions Baker makes, but he IS responsble for the players that he gives Dusty, and he is responsible if Dusty keeps failing and costing this team wins.

 

To me, it would make Hendry look stronger, not weaker, if he fired Baker even though Hendry was the guy who brought him in. It would mean he's willing to admit his mistake and cut his losses while he still can.

 

Now thats a good argument against Hendry, and IMO really the only bad thing hes done (unfortunately its quite significant). Using wins is pretty useless either way because we know that if this team was healthy in 2004/5 they would have won the wildcard. Make up of the team, as well as the rest of the organization and current and future budget management have all improved under Hendry.

[goonys evil twin]

But, unlike the manager, JH has had done more good than bad in the last couple of years.

 

I'm not sure what kind of support you could possibly have for such a statement. The team went from 88 to 89 to desperate for 80 wins. I don't know how a GM can do more good than bad and have his team get worse.

If I look at the structure of the team today and compare it to the structure of the team at the beginning of 2003, I'd say he's improved the overall talent level and condition of the team (including age of core, etc.).

 

Talent is worthless without production.

 

The team has gotten worse under his watch.

But Hendry didn't take over an 88 win team. He inherited a 67 win team at the end of 2002, didn't he?

 

80 is still greater than 67, isn't it?

 

And they won 88 the year before 67.

 

Make all the excuses you want, Jim's tenure has been a failure. I can't, for the life of me, comprehend the support for a man who has put all his eggs in Baker's basket, and has continued to support an organization philosophy of swing early, swing often, and ignore the problems with early high pitch counts and walks. He's a tools over production guy, he's had a top 5 payroll and he doesn't have one stinking 90 win season.

 

Failure. It's defined this organization for decades and that fact has not changed under Jim. Sure, they're less bad, but they still aren't contenders.

[Tim]

Ah, but I never contended that Hendry has been a raging success. All I've contended is that he has done, on balance, more right than wrong. And that he has tried to make this a better team. I do not personally agree with all the moves he's made or his complete faith in Baker.

 

But there are far worse GM's out there. And I don't personally believe that only the team that wins the world series in any given year has been successful. Success, to me, isn't an either/or proposition. In my view, Hendry's tenure has not been close to a failure. It has been a success in many ways. However, I am nowhere close to satisfied with where the team is at and I honestly believe that some of the things that we have recommended would have worked out far better than what Hendry actually has done during his reign.

[goonys evil twin]

Now thats a good argument against Hendry, and IMO really the only bad thing hes done (unfortunately its quite significant). Using wins is pretty useless either way because we know that if this team was healthy in 2004/5 they would have won the wildcard. Make up of the team, as well as the rest of the organization and current and future budget management have all improved under Hendry.

 

Was there a decree brought down by this website to soften any criticism of Hendry in an attempt to get him to appear in an Q&A forum? If so, I apologize. If not, can we stop giving the guy a free pass?

 

The "only" bad thing he's done is hire Baker? Only? First off, at least you mentioned it's quite a significant booboo on his part. However, how is that the only argument against him? Top 5 payroll, no 90 win season, that's a pretty big argument. Wins are not a useless stat to judge a GM, and no, we don't know how they'd do without injuries. Anyway, who cares how they'd do without injuries? No team goes without injuries. You have to plan for injuries, and you especially have to plan for injuries when you rely so heavily on oft-injured players to carry much of the load.

 

No, Hendry isn't as bad as Cubs GM of days past. But so what. To me, that's just like getting all excited over back to back .500+ seasons. Yippee, he doesn't suck!

 

Jim's job is to field a team that can win 90+ games repeatedly, and hang with the big boys year-in, year-out. He hasn't done that. He's repeatedly overpaid for mediocrity, and in my opinion, perhaps the one of the main reasons he compares so favorably to Cubs GMs of the past is because he's been given a lot more room to work with that top 5 payroll, compared to the middle of the pack payrolls the Trib used to allow.

 

This Cubs team is terribly inefficient. They pay for tools and talent over production. They pay for guys who had a nice RBI total in their resume as opposed to somebody who is likely to help increase the number of runs the team will score today. They've ignored the Japanese market when even the White Sox have gotten value from that crop. This organization contradicts itself at almost every turn, lamenting their pitchers' struggles to get through 7+ innings economically, then handing their opponent 7 innings of 80 pitch ball. They worry about not rushing prospects, then reportedly try and throw guys like Pie, with the same exact problems as Patterson, into the role of savior. They talk about stockpiling great young pitchers, both to use in the big leagues and as trade bait, then refuse to trade any of them for a potential difference maker, instead leaving themselves vulnerable to the rule 5 draft.

 

Is Baker Jim Hendry's only mistake?

 

I think not. I've got a few more for you:

 

Alfonseca, then resigning Alfonseca for a huge raise when everybody thought he'd be non-tendered and end up on the scrap heap.

 

Macias, then expressing pleasure with Jose's 2004 by giving him a raise to come back in 2005.

 

Macias and Neifi on the same team.

 

Your 2005 outfield, Hollandsworth, Patterson, Burnitz, with a little Dubois mixed in.

 

Maddux, $18 million in 2005 and 2006.

 

Cubs ranks in the NL in 2003, 2004, 2005 for Runs, Walks, OBP:

9, 14, 13

7, 14, 11

8, 16, 11

That's called failure to address your biggest problem.

 

Has it all been bad? No. I'm not trying to say that at all. But it's been an overall failure, with some huge mistakes and other smaller ones. I'm not even counting things like the Remlinger or Hawkins contracts, that could be second guessing. I'm talking about predictable mistakes, things Jim did that many, many fans were worried about before they happened.

[goonys evil twin]

Ah, but I never contended that Hendry has been a raging success. All I've contended is that he has done, on balance, more right than wrong. And that he has tried to make this a better team. I do not personally agree with all the moves he's made or his complete faith in Baker.

 

But there are far worse GM's out there. And I don't personally believe that only the team that wins the world series in any given year has been successful. Success, to me, isn't an either/or proposition. In my view, Hendry's tenure has not been close to a failure. It has been a success in many ways. However, I am nowhere close to satisfied with where the team is at and I honestly believe that some of the things that we have recommended would have worked out far better than what Hendry actually has done during his reign.

 

Teams that could call 2005 a success, with or without winning the WS:

 

White Sox (although that could change)

Cleveland

Oakland

Atlanta

maybe Washington

 

Teams that must win the WS to make this a success:

Yankees

Red Sox

 

Teams that must at least get very close to winning the world series to considering 2005 successful:

Cardinals

Astros

Phillies

Angels

Marlins

Padres

 

 

Teams that have no reason even thinking about this season being a success:

 

Cubs

everybody else

Cubs again

 

 

 

I don't question Jim's desire. I question his ability, and his record doesn't speak well about his ability to make this team a champion. Pros trying to win should be expected, not applauded.

[Tim]

It was someone else questioning Jim's dedication to the cause, not you.

 

And I said that overall, Hendry's tenure has been a success. I wouldn't term 2005 to be a successful year, either. Even in my more generous definition.

[goonys evil twin]

It was someone else questioning Jim's dedication to the cause, not you.

 

And I said that overall, Hendry's tenure has been a success. I wouldn't term 2005 to be a successful year, either. Even in my more generous definition.

 

So if the Cubs win 88 games in 2006 would it be a success? Seems to me that those who are willing to give him a free pass for this disaster, would also be willing to judge his 2006 season based on how it improved from 2005.

 

When Hendry took over the team the Cubs were about 12th in payroll. They've moved up to around the top 5 throughout his tenure. Improvement should have been expected. Turning a top 5 payroll into a 88/89 win team is hardly what I would call impressive, even if it's a perennial 88 win team with no disaster seasons mixed in. Going from 12th to ~5th in payroll gets you to 88 wins, it's the GM's job to turn that into a 95-100 win team by maximizing the production/payroll ratio. It's hard to do that when you continue to inneficiently toss money after failed strategies.

[CubinNY]

I have to agree with goony. In additon, I'd like to say that one cannot criticize Baker without also tacitly criticizing Hendry. Hendry got rid of Sosa. He got rid of Fransworth. He got rid of Merker. He got rid of Stone. He has done everything except get rid of Baker.

[nilodnayr]

Now thats a good argument against Hendry, and IMO really the only bad thing hes done (unfortunately its quite significant). Using wins is pretty useless either way because we know that if this team was healthy in 2004/5 they would have won the wildcard. Make up of the team, as well as the rest of the organization and current and future budget management have all improved under Hendry.

 

Was there a decree brought down by this website to soften any criticism of Hendry in an attempt to get him to appear in an Q&A forum? If so, I apologize. If not, can we stop giving the guy a free pass?

 

Was there a decree brought down by this webite that youre the only one who can have an opinon? If you want to have a discussion about this dont start your post off by being a jerk.

 

The "only" bad thing he's done is hire Baker? Only? First off, at least you mentioned it's quite a significant booboo on his part. However, how is that the only argument against him? Top 5 payroll, no 90 win season, that's a pretty big argument. Wins are not a useless stat to judge a GM, and no, we don't know how they'd do without injuries. Anyway, who cares how they'd do without injuries? No team goes without injuries. You have to plan for injuries, and you especially have to plan for injuries when you rely so heavily on oft-injured players to carry much of the load.

By "really the only bad thing hes done" I meant the only significant bad thing hes done. This year I was not happy with getting rid of farns (although this was his walk year, and it looks like novoa could be promising in middle relief) and a fwe other moves but nothing anywhere near the significance of Baker. Wins are not a useless to stat to judge a GM, but to ONLY judge a GM on wins is ignorant. Injuries are something that in most cases the GM does not have control over. A GM does his best to prepare his team in case of injuries but you cant have 6 Aces and allstars as backups. Even with wood out this team is much different with Nomar.

 

No, Hendry isn't as bad as Cubs GM of days past. But so what. To me, that's just like getting all excited over back to back .500+ seasons. Yippee, he doesn't suck!

 

Jim's job is to field a team that can win 90+ games repeatedly, and hang with the big boys year-in, year-out. He hasn't done that. He's repeatedly overpaid for mediocrity, and in my opinion, perhaps the one of the main reasons he compares so favorably to Cubs GMs of the past is because he's been given a lot more room to work with that top 5 payroll, compared to the middle of the pack payrolls the Trib used to allow.

I would argue that if generally healthy (and without baker) this IS a team that can win 90+ games not only now but in the forseeable future.

 

This Cubs team is terribly inefficient. They pay for tools and talent over production. They pay for guys who had a nice RBI total in their resume as opposed to somebody who is likely to help increase the number of runs the team will score today. They've ignored the Japanese market when even the White Sox have gotten value from that crop. This organization contradicts itself at almost every turn, lamenting their pitchers' struggles to get through 7+ innings economically, then handing their opponent 7 innings of 80 pitch ball. They worry about not rushing prospects, then reportedly try and throw guys like Pie, with the same exact problems as Patterson, into the role of savior. They talk about stockpiling great young pitchers, both to use in the big leagues and as trade bait, then refuse to trade any of them for a potential difference maker, instead leaving themselves vulnerable to the rule 5 draft.

 

Is Baker Jim Hendry's only mistake?

 

I would agree with most of that. However, for every Preston Wilson talk, there are the aquisitions of DLee, Murton, JHJR.

 

I think not. I've got a few more for you:

 

Alfonseca, then resigning Alfonseca for a huge raise when everybody thought he'd be non-tendered and end up on the scrap heap.

 

I would agree, resigning Alfonseca regardless of the raise, was a bad idea (although I dont know how huge a raise of less than 1M can be). But then again in 2004 he had an excellent year, you never know with the pen.

 

Macias, then expressing pleasure with Jose's 2004 by giving him a raise to come back in 2005.

Exactly the type of insignificant beef that I am talking about. This also brings baker into play because Macias is a fine 25th man if used properly.

 

Macias and Neifi on the same team.

Same thing, and Neifi isnt a bad backup, late inning defensive replacement. It just so happened that he was forced into the role of starter for which he is not adequate.

 

Your 2005 outfield, Hollandsworth, Patterson, Burnitz, with a little Dubois mixed in.

It was bad, but with Pie, Murton, Dubois knocking on the door, it was an ok, lets bite the bullet on OF this year and rely on our amazing infield offense to get us through this year. Unfortunately Nomar got hurt.

 

Maddux, $18 million in 2005 and 2006.

Seemed like more of a nostalgic/jersey selling move at the time...still does. I'd bet there was a good amount of influence from above on that decision. Plus that was "extra money" that the trib gave him.

 

Cubs ranks in the NL in 2003, 2004, 2005 for Runs, Walks, OBP:

9, 14, 13

7, 14, 11

8, 16, 11

That's called failure to address your biggest problem.

Partly a Hendry, partly a Baker problem. As stated above, although its the general feeling that Hendry doesnt value a walk, his recent acquisitions prove otherwise.

 

Has it all been bad? No. I'm not trying to say that at all. But it's been an overall failure, with some huge mistakes and other smaller ones. I'm not even counting things like the Remlinger or Hawkins contracts, that could be second guessing. I'm talking about predictable mistakes, things Jim did that many, many fans were worried about before they happened.

[RynoRules]

The fundamental responsibility that Hendry has is to continually increase the talent level of the team and organization, as well as position it for future success. Let's focus on the position players here...

 

He inherited a team in 2002 that was one of the oldest in the majors and based around a fading superstar. That team only won 67 games. Since then, he has not only led the team to the playoffs, but has also turned the team around so that it is based nearly entirely on players at or below 30 years in age. He has assembled a core group of players that are young and that can be built around for the future.

 

It is true that the team was in the playoffs in 2003 and then missed the playoffs in 2004. So it may look like the team declined. However, the team in 2004 was actually stronger than the one in 2003, both in record and in talent. What other teams do is outside of Hendry's control. All he can do is make the team better from year to year. He has done that more often than not so far during his tenure.

 

To say that he's reluctant or unwilling to fix the team is ridiculous. You may not agree with the choices he's made. But to deny his intentions or effort is flat out being blind to what is going on.

 

Thanks for expanding on my point for me - I was at work when I made it and did not have time to go into detail:

 

I think some of us have forgotten (or may not know b/c of youth) just how poorly run the scouting dept and front office were between Dallas Green and Hendry (and arguably, Green did nothing to help the minor leagues get any better, so you can go back even farther than that if you wish).

 

Hendry's arrival has lead to some pretty good drafts and a consistent top ten talent pool in our minor leagues. I know that some of you will not like this as a comparison, but the organization's overall talent is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was 10 years ago, when we were a joke.

 

The majority of Hendry's ML acquistions have been very good, with some exceptions, but I challenge you to find someone with a perfect record. He has been active in acquiring top level talent without giving up our highest rated propects (Willis was not in our top ten at the time he was traded). The fact that Nomar has been hurt is not his fault, and may I remind you that Murton came from that deal also, and he looks the OF that we on this bd have been waiting for.

 

The new challenge is to change the club's culture, and I - and may of you - believe that starts with the manager. Dusty's Kool Aid worked in 03', but hasn't since, and thus its time for change in the dugout, not the GM's box.

[RynoRules]

I have to agree with goony. In additon, I'd like to say that one cannot criticize Baker without also tacitly criticizing Hendry. Hendry got rid of Sosa. He got rid of Fransworth. He got rid of Merker. He got rid of Stone. He has done everything except get rid of Baker.

 

That's not much of an argument, IMO.

 

Do you really believe those three guys would have been difference makers on this team? Farns is an overgrown frat boy who cannot be counted on. Merker acted like an unprofessional baby last year w/ his stupid and insubordinate attacks on Stone. And do I really have to show you Sosa's stats?

 

Please show me the evidence you have that Hendry was responsible for getting rid of Stone.

 

And Dusty earned the right to fail last year and a second chance this year b/c he got a recently horrendous team within 5 outs of the WS. However, I agree that his time has now come.

[RynoRules]

Was there a decree brought down by this website to soften any criticism of Hendry in an attempt to get him to appear in an Q&A forum? If so, I apologize. If not, can we stop giving the guy a free pass?

 

Oh, c'mon Goony. You are a veteran and respected member of this community and you know that's nonsense.

 

I respect that you wish to criticiize Hendry, and he certainly bears some responsibility for this team. Many of us, however, disagree with those who say he has done a poor job. I am one of them.

[CubinNY]

I have to agree with goony. In additon, I'd like to say that one cannot criticize Baker without also tacitly criticizing Hendry. Hendry got rid of Sosa. He got rid of Fransworth. He got rid of Merker. He got rid of Stone. He has done everything except get rid of Baker.

 

That's not much of an argument, IMO.

 

Do you really believe those three guys would have been difference makers on this team? Farns is an overgrown frat boy who cannot be counted on. Merker acted like an unprofessional baby last year w/ his stupid and insubordinate attacks on Stone. And do I really have to show you Sosa's stats?

 

Please show me the evidence you have that Hendry was responsible for getting rid of Stone.

 

And Dusty earned the right to fail last year and a second chance this year b/c he got a recently horrendous team within 5 outs of the WS. However, I agree that his time has now come.

 

Sorry for not being more clear.

 

Hendry got rid of those people becuase they were percieved to be trouble makers. Both Merker and Farnsworth have been good bullpen arms that the Cubs could have used this year. But that is largely beside my point. My point is that Hendry cleared the way for Dusty this year. This year was the make or break year for Dusty. And to paraphrase JC, in Dusty the Cubs busted. And Hendry is responsible for Dusty.

[Backtobanks]

Hendry and Baker have to work together to run the Cubs. Hendry has stated often that it is Baker's job to handle the daily on-field duties and he would not interfere. As has been stated before, Hendry did not do a great job in acquiring players, but I still think the biggest problems come done to the decisions made by Baker. Hendry acquired an excellent offensive SS with a very good substitute. Unfortunately, the SS was injured and the sub had to play most of the season, but he did not have to bat at the top of the lineup. Hendry acquired a closer, but Baker decided to start him and use Hawkins as a closer for too long a period of time. Hendry brought some talented young players (Murton, Cedeno, Novoa, Ohman, etc.) to the team, but Dusty hesitated to use them as opposed to the veterans (Perez, Hollandsworth, Remlinger, Hawkins, etc.). I could go on with this list, but the bottom line is that this most of the failures of this club come from injuries and the misuse of players and bad decisions by the manager. Was this team capable of winning the Division? Probably not, but I do think they were capable of being a 90+ win team.