Rusch signed through '07 (Cubs.com)

[CUBZ99]

So giving DuBois a shot, and not spending money on Alou wasn't a plan?? Many would have disagreed w/ you back in March of 2005.

 

You mean Hollandsworth, look at the game logs from early on, it was a one sided platoon.

 

It was a stupid idea to have a 4th OF'er as a starting LF'er.

 

It's not like he didn't play. DuBois got 142 at-bats. They tried working him in there and he didn't produce after April.

 

People want to complain about prospects getting no shot. Yet when the prospects get a shot and fail they like to wash their hands and blame it on Dusty and Hendry.

 

If there's blame, it's on Hendry's poor assessment of DuBois. Of course, many had the same poor assessment.

 

Jesus Christ. Can you make a single point without incorporating some levle of poster bashing?

 

Yes, you're correct, there are those who may have overvalued Dubois. Then again, there are legitimate arguments that Dubois was not handled properly. Not to mention myriad other aspects/issues/components of the Dubois situation. But, you like to skew issues into black and white arguments in support of your often weak positions.

 

Every freaking post doesn't need to have a shot at other posters, either specifically or generally.

 

Do you think you are perhaps being a little overly sensitive? #-o You complain about his statement that many had a poor assesment, and then make a statement like

"But, you like to skew issues into black and white arguments in support of your often weak positions."

 

Pot meet kettle.

 

Not even remotely germane to what I referenced in my post. So, the over used and unclever "pot meet kettle" remark isn't applicable. Further, oversensitivity is not an issue because many times, my beliefs don't apply to his remarks. However, I fail to see why anyone needs to repeatedly point fingers at other posters. You can make your point without doing so. If you make it part of your common posting habits, it demonstrates that you are more interested in pissing people off than simply supporting your position.

 

Then why do you continue to try to make smart remarks? I was just pointing out the irony of your post. You may not agree with his remarks but to act like an immature 12 year old because he does not agree with you doesn't make any sense. In the post you refered to all he said was that many poster made a poor assessment, you have to be pretty sensitive to believe that is "poster-bashing"

[CubfaninCA]

So giving DuBois a shot, and not spending money on Alou wasn't a plan?? Many would have disagreed w/ you back in March of 2005.

 

You mean Hollandsworth, look at the game logs from early on, it was a one sided platoon.

 

It was a stupid idea to have a 4th OF'er as a starting LF'er.

 

It's not like he didn't play. DuBois got 142 at-bats. They tried working him in there and he didn't produce after April.

 

People want to complain about prospects getting no shot. Yet when the prospects get a shot and fail they like to wash their hands and blame it on Dusty and Hendry.

 

If there's blame, it's on Hendry's poor assessment of DuBois. Of course, many had the same poor assessment.

 

Jesus Christ. Can you make a single point without incorporating some levle of poster bashing?

 

Yes, you're correct, there are those who may have overvalued Dubois. Then again, there are legitimate arguments that Dubois was not handled properly. Not to mention myriad other aspects/issues/components of the Dubois situation. But, you like to skew issues into black and white arguments in support of your often weak positions.

 

Every freaking post doesn't need to have a shot at other posters, either specifically or generally.

 

Truth hurts? What level of "bashing" was I incorporating? That was a pretty tame post.

[CubfaninCA]

our 2005 starting OF was a joke. anyone who thought differently was entirely too optimistic. cpat might have been expected to have a good season, but LF and RF were a shambles.

 

Iirc the general consensus was that the OF was a little weak, but the infield was quite strong. Lots depended on Nomar and Patterson. Unfortunately, both failed big time.

 

No. Use the search button and you'll find lots of complaining about the outfield in the spring. I myself thought it totally sucked. The LF platoon was almost universally condemned. Whenever you have a straight L/R platoon the left-handed hitter is essentially the starter, and nobody but ZZthorn thought Hollandsworth was a legit everyday LF. Backing up glass-bodied Nomar with Neifi was also widely condemned, and many pointed out that Neifi would bat at the top of the order.

 

Many were ticked about Burnitz and rightly so, but what were the options for rf given the budget?? Slim and none??

[CubfaninCA]

So giving DuBois a shot, and not spending money on Alou wasn't a plan?? Many would have disagreed w/ you back in March of 2005.

 

You mean Hollandsworth, look at the game logs from early on, it was a one sided platoon.

 

It was a stupid idea to have a 4th OF'er as a starting LF'er.

 

It's not like he didn't play. DuBois got 142 at-bats. They tried working him in there and he didn't produce after April.

 

People want to complain about prospects getting no shot. Yet when the prospects get a shot and fail they like to wash their hands and blame it on Dusty and Hendry.

 

If there's blame, it's on Hendry's poor assessment of DuBois. Of course, many had the same poor assessment.

 

Jesus Christ. Can you make a single point without incorporating some levle of poster bashing?

 

Yes, you're correct, there are those who may have overvalued Dubois. Then again, there are legitimate arguments that Dubois was not handled properly. Not to mention myriad other aspects/issues/components of the Dubois situation. But, you like to skew issues into black and white arguments in support of your often weak positions.

 

Every freaking post doesn't need to have a shot at other posters, either specifically or generally.

 

Do you think you are perhaps being a little overly sensitive? #-o You complain about his statement that many had a poor assesment, and then make a statement like

"But, you like to skew issues into black and white arguments in support of your often weak positions."

 

Pot meet kettle.

 

Not even remotely germane to what I referenced in my post. So, the over used and unclever "pot meet kettle" remark isn't applicable. Further, oversensitivity is not an issue because many times, my beliefs don't apply to his remarks. However, I fail to see why anyone needs to repeatedly point fingers at other posters. You can make your point without doing so. If you make it part of your common posting habits, it demonstrates that you are more interested in pissing people off than simply supporting your position.

 

Then why do you continue to try to make smart remarks? I was just pointing out the irony of your post. You may not agree with his remarks but to act like an immature 12 year old because he does not agree with you doesn't make any sense. In the post you refered to all he said was that many poster made a poor assessment, you have to be pretty sensitive to believe that is "poster-bashing"

 

Apparently, sarcasm is ok. That doesn't piss people off.

[MPrior]

I think, with regards to the spat going on here, that JC's point was not that CubfaninCA's remark was in itself hurtful, but that he's noticed that he does similar things with a remarkable regularity - that is, calling out other posters when the discussion in question had nothing to do with them or the content he was bringing up. I'm speaking up here because I've noticed it as well - it seems to me that CubfaninCA does not hesitate to mock other posters in any of his posts, provoked or not (derogatorily using terms like "walk romanticists" in a thread which had nothing to do with walks, for example). And that trend, I believe, is what JC is responding to, not this one isolated incident. And that's also why some people have accused CubfaninCA of picking fights, and covering up his (some would say) weak arguments with nothing more than argumentativeness. Just throwin' in my two cents.

[UK1679666180]

Many were ticked about Burnitz and rightly so, but what were the options for rf given the budget?? Slim and none??

 

This is the same budget that was dictated by the Sosa debacle. There were limited options at the time b/c free agency was coming to an end and all potential options had already been signed. Had the Cubs used any foresight, they would've known if they had to trade Sosa it would've been key to find a RF'er ASAP once they made the decision they were going to trade him instead of few possible options such as Burnitz.

 

Hendry had to sign Burnitz, he had to sign him b/c the Cubs waited so damn long in trading Sosa and deciding not to sign anyone until after the trade was completed likely b/c of budget constraints and potentially eating more than they already did.

 

The flaw isn't in signing Burnitz, it's waiting till he's the last avail. option.

[CUBZ99]

I think, with regards to the spat going on here, that JC's point was not that CubfaninCA's remark was in itself hurtful, but that he's noticed that he does similar things with a remarkable regularity - that is, calling out other posters when the discussion in question had nothing to do with them or the content he was bringing up. I'm speaking up here because I've noticed it as well - it seems to me that CubfaninCA does not hesitate to mock other posters in any of his posts, provoked or not (derogatorily using terms like "walk romanticists" in a thread which had nothing to do with walks, for example). And that trend, I believe, is what JC is responding to, not this one isolated incident. And that's also why some people have accused CubfaninCA of picking fights, and covering up his (some would say) weak arguments with nothing more than argumentativeness. Just throwin' in my two cents.

 

Point well taken.

[USSoccer]

Many were ticked about Burnitz and rightly so, but what were the options for rf given the budget?? Slim and none??

 

This is the same budget that was dictated by the Sosa debacle. There were limited options at the time b/c free agency was coming to an end and all potential options had already been signed. Had the Cubs used any foresight, they would've known if they had to trade Sosa it would've been key to find a RF'er ASAP once they made the decision they were going to trade him instead of few possible options such as Burnitz.

 

Hendry had to sign Burnitz, he had to sign him b/c the Cubs waited so damn long in trading Sosa and deciding not to sign anyone until after the trade was completed likely b/c of budget constraints and potentially eating more than they already did.

 

The flaw isn't in signing in Burnitz, it's waiting till he's the last avail. option.

 

Actually, I think the budgetary concerns were nonexistent. We picked up most of Sosa's salary anyway-did Hendry think he was going to be able to unload all of it on some other team, especially considering the hackjob the Tribune pulled on Sosa.

 

If Sosa's 18m was a hinderance to singing a top flight RF, it would have been a hinderance if he were traded or not, so what's the difference? Beteween Hairston, Burnitz and Sosa's salary we ate, we lost money on that deal.

 

 

I think the team uses Sosa's trade as an easy out to the question of: Why didn't you sign a FA OF? At the very least they could have brought back Alou. He signed, what, a $7m contract with a $6m option for 2006? The excuse for not bringing him back was that Hendry wasn't sure he could move Sosa, so he didn't want to commit money to Alou just in case. Then he signed Burnitz for $4.5. Hendry couldn't have found an extra 2.5m somewehre in the budget to accomodate that? It's in that chain of events like overpaying for Macias, Perez and, to a lesser extent, Blanco came back to bite Hendry. As irritating as Alou was to us (especially Tim), an Alou/Patterson/Whoever OF would have been light years better than the one we ended up with.

 

Hendry completely jacked up last winter in nearly every respect. The only thing that saved it was the extension Ramirez signed, and even THAT has an out clause in it after this season! Hendry needs to really play catch up this winter if we're going to maintain our window of opportunity.

[UK1679666180]

Many were ticked about Burnitz and rightly so, but what were the options for rf given the budget?? Slim and none??

 

This is the same budget that was dictated by the Sosa debacle. There were limited options at the time b/c free agency was coming to an end and all potential options had already been signed. Had the Cubs used any foresight, they would've known if they had to trade Sosa it would've been key to find a RF'er ASAP once they made the decision they were going to trade him instead of few possible options such as Burnitz.

 

Hendry had to sign Burnitz, he had to sign him b/c the Cubs waited so damn long in trading Sosa and deciding not to sign anyone until after the trade was completed likely b/c of budget constraints and potentially eating more than they already did.

 

The flaw isn't in signing in Burnitz, it's waiting till he's the last avail. option.

 

Actually, I think the budgetary concerns were nonexistent. We picked up most of Sosa's salary anyway-did Hendry think he was going to be able to unload all of it on some other team, especially considering the hackjob the Tribune pulled on Sosa.

 

If Sosa's 18m was a hinderance to singing a top flight RF, it would have been a hinderance if he were traded or not, so what's the difference? Beteween Hairston, Burnitz and Sosa's salary we ate, we lost money on that deal.

 

 

I think the team uses Sosa's trade as an easy out to the question of: Why didn't you sign a FA OF? At the very least they could have brought back Alou. He signed, what, a $7m contract with a $6m option for 2006? The excuse for not bringing him back was that Hendry wasn't sure he could move Sosa, so he didn't want to commit money to Alou just in case. Then he signed Burnitz for $4.5. Hendry couldn't have found an extra 2.5m somewehre in the budget to accomodate that? It's in that chain of events like overpaying for Macias, Perez and, to a lesser extent, Blanco came back to bite Hendry. As irritating as Alou was to us (especially Tim), an Alou/Patterson/Whoever OF would have been light years better than the one we ended up with.

 

At that time, they were coming to an end financially. They had to have known they'd be eating most if not all of his contract. But, the 7 or so mil did help land Burnitz and I don't think they would've been able to if they didn't get Balt. to pay part of Sosa's '05.

[USSoccer]

Many were ticked about Burnitz and rightly so, but what were the options for rf given the budget?? Slim and none??

 

This is the same budget that was dictated by the Sosa debacle. There were limited options at the time b/c free agency was coming to an end and all potential options had already been signed. Had the Cubs used any foresight, they would've known if they had to trade Sosa it would've been key to find a RF'er ASAP once they made the decision they were going to trade him instead of few possible options such as Burnitz.

 

Hendry had to sign Burnitz, he had to sign him b/c the Cubs waited so damn long in trading Sosa and deciding not to sign anyone until after the trade was completed likely b/c of budget constraints and potentially eating more than they already did.

 

The flaw isn't in signing in Burnitz, it's waiting till he's the last avail. option.

 

Actually, I think the budgetary concerns were nonexistent. We picked up most of Sosa's salary anyway-did Hendry think he was going to be able to unload all of it on some other team, especially considering the hackjob the Tribune pulled on Sosa.

 

If Sosa's 18m was a hinderance to singing a top flight RF, it would have been a hinderance if he were traded or not, so what's the difference? Beteween Hairston, Burnitz and Sosa's salary we ate, we lost money on that deal.

 

 

I think the team uses Sosa's trade as an easy out to the question of: Why didn't you sign a FA OF? At the very least they could have brought back Alou. He signed, what, a $7m contract with a $6m option for 2006? The excuse for not bringing him back was that Hendry wasn't sure he could move Sosa, so he didn't want to commit money to Alou just in case. Then he signed Burnitz for $4.5. Hendry couldn't have found an extra 2.5m somewehre in the budget to accomodate that? It's in that chain of events like overpaying for Macias, Perez and, to a lesser extent, Blanco came back to bite Hendry. As irritating as Alou was to us (especially Tim), an Alou/Patterson/Whoever OF would have been light years better than the one we ended up with.

 

At that time, they were coming to an end financially. They had to have known they'd be eating most if not all of his contract. But, the 7 or so mil did help land Burnitz and I don't think they would've been able to if they didn't get Balt. to pay part of Sosa's '05.

 

We ate, IIRC, $13m of the $18.5m of Sosa's 2005. Hairston made $1.8m last season, and Burnitz signed for $4.5m. At best, that's a wash. The budgetary issue is a total red herring for a complete lack of planning from the second the final out occurred against Atlanta last October.

[RockTheIvy]

Many were ticked about Burnitz and rightly so, but what were the options for rf given the budget?? Slim and none??

 

This is the same budget that was dictated by the Sosa debacle. There were limited options at the time b/c free agency was coming to an end and all potential options had already been signed. Had the Cubs used any foresight, they would've known if they had to trade Sosa it would've been key to find a RF'er ASAP once they made the decision they were going to trade him instead of few possible options such as Burnitz.

 

Hendry had to sign Burnitz, he had to sign him b/c the Cubs waited so damn long in trading Sosa and deciding not to sign anyone until after the trade was completed likely b/c of budget constraints and potentially eating more than they already did.

 

The flaw isn't in signing in Burnitz, it's waiting till he's the last avail. option.

 

Actually, I think the budgetary concerns were nonexistent. We picked up most of Sosa's salary anyway-did Hendry think he was going to be able to unload all of it on some other team, especially considering the hackjob the Tribune pulled on Sosa.

 

If Sosa's 18m was a hinderance to singing a top flight RF, it would have been a hinderance if he were traded or not, so what's the difference? Beteween Hairston, Burnitz and Sosa's salary we ate, we lost money on that deal.

 

 

I think the team uses Sosa's trade as an easy out to the question of: Why didn't you sign a FA OF? At the very least they could have brought back Alou. He signed, what, a $7m contract with a $6m option for 2006? The excuse for not bringing him back was that Hendry wasn't sure he could move Sosa, so he didn't want to commit money to Alou just in case. Then he signed Burnitz for $4.5. Hendry couldn't have found an extra 2.5m somewehre in the budget to accomodate that? It's in that chain of events like overpaying for Macias, Perez and, to a lesser extent, Blanco came back to bite Hendry. As irritating as Alou was to us (especially Tim), an Alou/Patterson/Whoever OF would have been light years better than the one we ended up with.

 

At that time, they were coming to an end financially. They had to have known they'd be eating most if not all of his contract. But, the 7 or so mil did help land Burnitz and I don't think they would've been able to if they didn't get Balt. to pay part of Sosa's '05.

 

We ate, IIRC, $13m of the $18.5m of Sosa's 2005. Hairston made $1.8m last season, and Burnitz signed for $4.5m. At best, that's a wash. The budgetary issue is a total red herring for a complete lack of planning from the second the final out occurred against Atlanta last October.

 

I agree. If we're gonna get creative, let's do it in a different way please.

[CubfaninCA]

I think, with regards to the spat going on here, that JC's point was not that CubfaninCA's remark was in itself hurtful, but that he's noticed that he does similar things with a remarkable regularity - that is, calling out other posters when the discussion in question had nothing to do with them or the content he was bringing up. I'm speaking up here because I've noticed it as well - it seems to me that CubfaninCA does not hesitate to mock other posters in any of his posts, provoked or not (derogatorily using terms like "walk romanticists" in a thread which had nothing to do with walks, for example). And that trend, I believe, is what JC is responding to, not this one isolated incident. And that's also why some people have accused CubfaninCA of picking fights, and covering up his (some would say) weak arguments with nothing more than argumentativeness. Just throwin' in my two cents.

 

I used "romanticist" after goony had used it a few times. It's an approved label. :) People need to lighten up. This isn't the Lifetime board.

[Illini Iceman]

Many were ticked about Burnitz and rightly so, but what were the options for rf given the budget?? Slim and none??

 

This is the same budget that was dictated by the Sosa debacle. There were limited options at the time b/c free agency was coming to an end and all potential options had already been signed. Had the Cubs used any foresight, they would've known if they had to trade Sosa it would've been key to find a RF'er ASAP once they made the decision they were going to trade him instead of few possible options such as Burnitz.

 

Hendry had to sign Burnitz, he had to sign him b/c the Cubs waited so damn long in trading Sosa and deciding not to sign anyone until after the trade was completed likely b/c of budget constraints and potentially eating more than they already did.

 

The flaw isn't in signing in Burnitz, it's waiting till he's the last avail. option.

 

Actually, I think the budgetary concerns were nonexistent. We picked up most of Sosa's salary anyway-did Hendry think he was going to be able to unload all of it on some other team, especially considering the hackjob the Tribune pulled on Sosa.

 

If Sosa's 18m was a hinderance to singing a top flight RF, it would have been a hinderance if he were traded or not, so what's the difference? Beteween Hairston, Burnitz and Sosa's salary we ate, we lost money on that deal.

 

 

I think the team uses Sosa's trade as an easy out to the question of: Why didn't you sign a FA OF? At the very least they could have brought back Alou. He signed, what, a $7m contract with a $6m option for 2006? The excuse for not bringing him back was that Hendry wasn't sure he could move Sosa, so he didn't want to commit money to Alou just in case. Then he signed Burnitz for $4.5. Hendry couldn't have found an extra 2.5m somewehre in the budget to accomodate that? It's in that chain of events like overpaying for Macias, Perez and, to a lesser extent, Blanco came back to bite Hendry. As irritating as Alou was to us (especially Tim), an Alou/Patterson/Whoever OF would have been light years better than the one we ended up with.

 

At that time, they were coming to an end financially. They had to have known they'd be eating most if not all of his contract. But, the 7 or so mil did help land Burnitz and I don't think they would've been able to if they didn't get Balt. to pay part of Sosa's '05.

 

We ate, IIRC, $13m of the $18.5m of Sosa's 2005. Hairston made $1.8m last season, and Burnitz signed for $4.5m. At best, that's a wash. The budgetary issue is a total red herring for a complete lack of planning from the second the final out occurred against Atlanta last October.

 

Say what you will about the results that Hendry has produced but saying that he has a "complete lack of planning" is absurd. From all accounts Hendry is one of the hardest working GM's around, so I seriously doubt that he just sat around all winter without thinking about the direction of the ballclub.

The difficulty in moving Sosa is highly underestimated. I think Hendry probably worked daily in trying to get this done. It also seems to me that he had a unofficial agreement with Burnitz that he would sign him as soon as he found a taker for Sosa that would free up the position and the necessary cash. Otherwise it makes no sense that Burnitz would be the only guy still unsigned considering the numbers he put up the year before and the fact that he did get interest from other teams.

Hendry had been interested in Burnitz since at least two years ago when he was with the Dodgers. I can respect the argument that Hendry overvalued Burnitz and that was an error in judgement by him, but I don't buy this hyperbole about Hendry not having a plan.

[USSoccer]

Say what you will about the results that Hendry has produced but saying that he has a "complete lack of planning" is absurd. From all accounts Hendry is one of the hardest working GM's around, so I seriously doubt that he just sat around all winter without thinking about the direction of the ballclub.

The difficulty in moving Sosa is highly underestimated. I think Hendry probably worked daily in trying to get this done. It also seems to me that he had a unofficial agreement with Burnitz that he would sign him as soon as he found a taker for Sosa that would free up the position and the necessary cash. Otherwise it makes no sense that Burnitz would be the only guy still unsigned considering the numbers he put up the year before and the fact that he did get interest from other teams.

Hendry had been interested in Burnitz since at least two years ago when he was with the Dodgers. I can respect the argument that Hendry overvalued Burnitz and that was an error in judgement by him, but I don't buy this hyperbole about Hendry not having a plan.

 

The difficulties in moving Sosa would have been somewhat alleviated had the Cubs not made it clear that they *had* to move him through the PR job they pulled. If you want to trade a guy, you don't torpedo his value by proclaiming what a bad guy he is and that you need to get rid of him.

 

Next, I think moving Sosa became such a priority publicly (thanks again to the PR job) that Hendry spent far, far too much time trying to do it.

 

Hendry may work hard, and I'm sure he gave the direction of the ballclub plenty of thought last winter. It was the execution, or the plan itself, that was severely lacking. Severely. The plan for moving Sosa, for instance, was fatally flawed from the start. Similarly, the idea that Burnitz was a suitable replacement and that Hollandsworth and Dubois were starters on a championship club were also very bad plans.

 

And again, as I pointed out, you could have brought back Alou with, at worst, minimal impact on the payroll even before December of 2004, with plenty of time left to deal Sosa. So there too was a lack of planning, or a lack of logic, if you prefer,as Hendry publicly stated that it was fear of getting stuck with Both of them led to Alou not coming back. Salary wise, that should not have been the case.

 

*edit #1* Perhaps I shouldn't say "lack of planning", and term it "poor planning and execution". But I think that's splitting hairs in the context of this discussion.

 

*edit #2* I'm not saying I wanted Alou back. At the start of last offseason, I wanted him gone, but in hindsight having him here would have made a very big difference in our season, and the fact that Hendry's logic in not bringing him back was faulty is what I'm criticizing.

[RockTheIvy]

I think, with regards to the spat going on here, that JC's point was not that CubfaninCA's remark was in itself hurtful, but that he's noticed that he does similar things with a remarkable regularity - that is, calling out other posters when the discussion in question had nothing to do with them or the content he was bringing up. I'm speaking up here because I've noticed it as well - it seems to me that CubfaninCA does not hesitate to mock other posters in any of his posts, provoked or not (derogatorily using terms like "walk romanticists" in a thread which had nothing to do with walks, for example). And that trend, I believe, is what JC is responding to, not this one isolated incident. And that's also why some people have accused CubfaninCA of picking fights, and covering up his (some would say) weak arguments with nothing more than argumentativeness. Just throwin' in my two cents.

 

I used "romanticist" after goony had used it a few times. It's an approved label. :) People need to lighten up. This isn't the Lifetime board.

 

While that may be true, I don't think anyone would mind if we had a little more Meredith Baxter on the board. :lol:

[CubfaninCA]

Many were ticked about Burnitz and rightly so, but what were the options for rf given the budget?? Slim and none??

 

This is the same budget that was dictated by the Sosa debacle. There were limited options at the time b/c free agency was coming to an end and all potential options had already been signed. Had the Cubs used any foresight, they would've known if they had to trade Sosa it would've been key to find a RF'er ASAP once they made the decision they were going to trade him instead of few possible options such as Burnitz.

 

Hendry had to sign Burnitz, he had to sign him b/c the Cubs waited so damn long in trading Sosa and deciding not to sign anyone until after the trade was completed likely b/c of budget constraints and potentially eating more than they already did.

 

The flaw isn't in signing in Burnitz, it's waiting till he's the last avail. option.

 

Actually, I think the budgetary concerns were nonexistent. We picked up most of Sosa's salary anyway-did Hendry think he was going to be able to unload all of it on some other team, especially considering the hackjob the Tribune pulled on Sosa.

 

If Sosa's 18m was a hinderance to singing a top flight RF, it would have been a hinderance if he were traded or not, so what's the difference? Beteween Hairston, Burnitz and Sosa's salary we ate, we lost money on that deal.

 

 

I think the team uses Sosa's trade as an easy out to the question of: Why didn't you sign a FA OF? At the very least they could have brought back Alou. He signed, what, a $7m contract with a $6m option for 2006? The excuse for not bringing him back was that Hendry wasn't sure he could move Sosa, so he didn't want to commit money to Alou just in case. Then he signed Burnitz for $4.5. Hendry couldn't have found an extra 2.5m somewehre in the budget to accomodate that? It's in that chain of events like overpaying for Macias, Perez and, to a lesser extent, Blanco came back to bite Hendry. As irritating as Alou was to us (especially Tim), an Alou/Patterson/Whoever OF would have been light years better than the one we ended up with.

 

At that time, they were coming to an end financially. They had to have known they'd be eating most if not all of his contract. But, the 7 or so mil did help land Burnitz and I don't think they would've been able to if they didn't get Balt. to pay part of Sosa's '05.

 

We ate, IIRC, $13m of the $18.5m of Sosa's 2005. Hairston made $1.8m last season, and Burnitz signed for $4.5m. At best, that's a wash. The budgetary issue is a total red herring for a complete lack of planning from the second the final out occurred against Atlanta last October.

 

Say what you will about the results that Hendry has produced but saying that he has a "complete lack of planning" is absurd. From all accounts Hendry is one of the hardest working GM's around, so I seriously doubt that he just sat around all winter without thinking about the direction of the ballclub.

The difficulty in moving Sosa is highly underestimated. I think Hendry probably worked daily in trying to get this done. It also seems to me that he had a unofficial agreement with Burnitz that he would sign him as soon as he found a taker for Sosa that would free up the position and the necessary cash. Otherwise it makes no sense that Burnitz would be the only guy still unsigned considering the numbers he put up the year before and the fact that he did get interest from other teams.

Hendry had been interested in Burnitz since at least two years ago when he was with the Dodgers. I can respect the argument that Hendry overvalued Burnitz and that was an error in judgement by him, but I don't buy this hyperbole about Hendry not having a plan.

 

Hyperbole indeed. Hendry had a good plan for 6 of the 8 positions. Unfortunately, Nomar and Patterson were brutal. He had a so-so plan for LF, which failed miserably, until Murton came up and looked real good in September. He tried to fix the LF problem by trading for Lawton @ the end of July, but that flopped too. The plan for RF sucked, but AGAIN, what was out there?? If people think Burnitz was bad, look @ the alternatives..

 

Drew 72 games.

Ordonez 82 games and a .795 ops.

Sosa 102 games and .671 ops.

Huff .749 and would have cost multiple prospects.

Yes, they could have went w/ Alou in LF & Holla/Dubi in RF, but Alou missed 40 games and cost SF $13 million over 2 years and did Alou really want to come back or play for his father instead??

 

Unfortunately, Ichiro, Vlad, Giles, Sheff and Abreu weren't available. Shawn Green could have been had, but does anyone want to pay him what AZ did?

 

Sure Hendry could have been creative and picked up a bat, but that would probably have meant dealing off Pie & another prospect. Of course, then he'd get ripped apart for not giving the kids a shot.

 

The bottom line is that the season was over when that line drive hit Prior and Wood went down. An extra bat wouldn't have got the Cubs into the playoffs.

[Illini Iceman]

Say what you will about the results that Hendry has produced but saying that he has a "complete lack of planning" is absurd. From all accounts Hendry is one of the hardest working GM's around, so I seriously doubt that he just sat around all winter without thinking about the direction of the ballclub.

The difficulty in moving Sosa is highly underestimated. I think Hendry probably worked daily in trying to get this done. It also seems to me that he had a unofficial agreement with Burnitz that he would sign him as soon as he found a taker for Sosa that would free up the position and the necessary cash. Otherwise it makes no sense that Burnitz would be the only guy still unsigned considering the numbers he put up the year before and the fact that he did get interest from other teams.

Hendry had been interested in Burnitz since at least two years ago when he was with the Dodgers. I can respect the argument that Hendry overvalued Burnitz and that was an error in judgement by him, but I don't buy this hyperbole about Hendry not having a plan.

 

The difficulties in moving Sosa would have been somewhat alleviated had the Cubs not made it clear that they *had* to move him through the PR job they pulled. If you want to trade a guy, you don't torpedo his value by proclaiming what a bad guy he is and that you need to get rid of him.

 

Next, I think moving Sosa became such a priority publicly (thanks again to the PR job) that Hendry spent far, far too much time trying to do it.

 

Hendry may work hard, and I'm sure he gave the direction of the ballclub plenty of thought last winter. It was the execution, or the plan itself, that was severely lacking. Severely. The plan for moving Sosa, for instance, was fatally flawed from the start. Similarly, the idea that Burnitz was a suitable replacement and that Hollandsworth and Dubois were starters on a championship club were also very bad plans.

 

And again, as I pointed out, you could have brought back Alou with, at worst, minimal impact on the payroll even before December of 2004, with plenty of time left to deal Sosa. So there too was a lack of planning, or a lack of logic, if you prefer,as Hendry publicly stated that it was fear of getting stuck with Both of them led to Alou not coming back. Salary wise, that should not have been the case.

 

*edit #1* Perhaps I shouldn't say "lack of planning", and term it "poor planning and execution". But I think that's splitting hairs in the context of this discussion.

 

*edit #2* I'm not saying I wanted Alou back. At the start of last offseason, I wanted him gone, but in hindsight having him here would have made a very big difference in our season, and the fact that Hendry's logic in not bringing him back was faulty is what I'm criticizing.

 

I don't think the whole Alou issue can necessarily be hung on Hendry. If management gave him a budget and he could not fit Alou and Sosa into that budget then his hands were tied. He couldn't make an offer to Alou until he had moved Sosa if he didn't have the financial OK to potentially be stuck with both salaries.

He makes some moves that are head scratchers but as a whole I think he does a good job. The Hundley, Lee, Nomar and Hawkins trades were all excellent IMO so that buys him some benefit of the doubt from me.

That being said, this is a BIG offseason for him.

[RockTheIvy]

Many were ticked about Burnitz and rightly so, but what were the options for rf given the budget?? Slim and none??

 

This is the same budget that was dictated by the Sosa debacle. There were limited options at the time b/c free agency was coming to an end and all potential options had already been signed. Had the Cubs used any foresight, they would've known if they had to trade Sosa it would've been key to find a RF'er ASAP once they made the decision they were going to trade him instead of few possible options such as Burnitz.

 

Hendry had to sign Burnitz, he had to sign him b/c the Cubs waited so damn long in trading Sosa and deciding not to sign anyone until after the trade was completed likely b/c of budget constraints and potentially eating more than they already did.

 

The flaw isn't in signing in Burnitz, it's waiting till he's the last avail. option.

 

Actually, I think the budgetary concerns were nonexistent. We picked up most of Sosa's salary anyway-did Hendry think he was going to be able to unload all of it on some other team, especially considering the hackjob the Tribune pulled on Sosa.

 

If Sosa's 18m was a hinderance to singing a top flight RF, it would have been a hinderance if he were traded or not, so what's the difference? Beteween Hairston, Burnitz and Sosa's salary we ate, we lost money on that deal.

 

 

I think the team uses Sosa's trade as an easy out to the question of: Why didn't you sign a FA OF? At the very least they could have brought back Alou. He signed, what, a $7m contract with a $6m option for 2006? The excuse for not bringing him back was that Hendry wasn't sure he could move Sosa, so he didn't want to commit money to Alou just in case. Then he signed Burnitz for $4.5. Hendry couldn't have found an extra 2.5m somewehre in the budget to accomodate that? It's in that chain of events like overpaying for Macias, Perez and, to a lesser extent, Blanco came back to bite Hendry. As irritating as Alou was to us (especially Tim), an Alou/Patterson/Whoever OF would have been light years better than the one we ended up with.

 

At that time, they were coming to an end financially. They had to have known they'd be eating most if not all of his contract. But, the 7 or so mil did help land Burnitz and I don't think they would've been able to if they didn't get Balt. to pay part of Sosa's '05.

 

We ate, IIRC, $13m of the $18.5m of Sosa's 2005. Hairston made $1.8m last season, and Burnitz signed for $4.5m. At best, that's a wash. The budgetary issue is a total red herring for a complete lack of planning from the second the final out occurred against Atlanta last October.

 

Say what you will about the results that Hendry has produced but saying that he has a "complete lack of planning" is absurd. From all accounts Hendry is one of the hardest working GM's around, so I seriously doubt that he just sat around all winter without thinking about the direction of the ballclub.

The difficulty in moving Sosa is highly underestimated. I think Hendry probably worked daily in trying to get this done. It also seems to me that he had a unofficial agreement with Burnitz that he would sign him as soon as he found a taker for Sosa that would free up the position and the necessary cash. Otherwise it makes no sense that Burnitz would be the only guy still unsigned considering the numbers he put up the year before and the fact that he did get interest from other teams.

Hendry had been interested in Burnitz since at least two years ago when he was with the Dodgers. I can respect the argument that Hendry overvalued Burnitz and that was an error in judgement by him, but I don't buy this hyperbole about Hendry not having a plan.

 

Hyperbole indeed. Hendry had a good plan for 6 of the 8 positions. Unfortunately, Nomar and Patterson were brutal. He had a so-so plan for LF, which failed miserably, until Murton came up and looked real good in September. He tried to fix the LF problem by trading for Lawton @ the end of July, but that flopped too. The plan for RF sucked, but AGAIN, what was out there?? If people think Burnitz was bad, look @ the alternatives..

 

Drew 72 games.

Ordonez 82 games and a .795 ops.

Sosa 102 games and .671 ops.

Huff .749 and would have cost multiple prospects.

Yes, they could have went w/ Alou in LF & Holla/Dubi in RF, but Alou missed 40 games and cost SF $13 million over 2 years and did Alou really want to come back or play for his father instead??

 

Unfortunately, Ichiro, Vlad, Giles, Sheff and Abreu weren't available. Shawn Green could have been had, but does anyone want to pay him what AZ did?

 

Sure Hendry could have been creative and picked up a bat, but that would probably have meant dealing off Pie & another prospect. Of course, then he'd get ripped apart for not giving the kids a shot.

 

The bottom line is that the season was over when that line drive hit Prior and Wood went down. An extra bat wouldn't have got the Cubs into the playoffs.

 

You know who would have though?

 

Ramon Hernandez.

[USSoccer]

CubfaninCA,

 

I think that if you just look at last season's numbers, you may be right that those players you listed may not have been all stars for us. However, the idea was to not just think short term but also think long term. For instance, Carlos Beltran may never live up to that insane contract he signed, and he had a down year last year, but wouldn't we all feel better about our OF if he were in it going into this year and next? Magglio was not likely to put up big numbers after missing nearly a whole year, but this coming year he may have a breakout year. JD Drew got hurt, but if he were here he'd have been playing a corner OF spot and not CF, so he may not have gotten injured.

 

Why just look at the OF, too? What about Jeff Kent instead of Walker at 2b?

 

I don't know-there are a lot of variables when you play the "What If" game, but I'm positive that Hendry should have played his cards a whole lot better than he did.

[RockTheIvy]

CubfaninCA,

 

I think that if you just look at last season's numbers, you may be right that those players you listed may not have been all stars for us. However, the idea was to not just think short term but also think long term. For instance, Carlos Beltran may never live up to that insane contract he signed, and he had a down year last year, but wouldn't we all feel better about our OF if he were in it going into this year and next? Magglio was not likely to put up big numbers after missing nearly a whole year, but this coming year he may have a breakout year. JD Drew got hurt, but if he were here he'd have been playing a corner OF spot and not CF, so he may not have gotten injured.

 

Why just look at the OF, too? What about Jeff Kent instead of Walker at 2b?

 

I don't know-there are a lot of variables when you play the "What If" game, but I'm positive that Hendry should have played his cards a whole lot better than he did.

 

I also think he tried to get too much for Sosa and wound up getting too little. IIRC, there was a Cliff Floyd deal almost ready to go. That would have solved the RF problem. There was also a Wilkerson deal that would have had the Cubs picking up all of Sosa's salary. That seemed crazy then, but as it turned out, as you pointed out, we ended up paying it and then some in order to sign Burnitz. Both of these players could have handled an OF spot better than Burnitz, yet Hendry somehow thought he could do better. But all he got was a supersub and some minor leauge relievers.

[USSoccer]

Say what you will about the results that Hendry has produced but saying that he has a "complete lack of planning" is absurd. From all accounts Hendry is one of the hardest working GM's around, so I seriously doubt that he just sat around all winter without thinking about the direction of the ballclub.

The difficulty in moving Sosa is highly underestimated. I think Hendry probably worked daily in trying to get this done. It also seems to me that he had a unofficial agreement with Burnitz that he would sign him as soon as he found a taker for Sosa that would free up the position and the necessary cash. Otherwise it makes no sense that Burnitz would be the only guy still unsigned considering the numbers he put up the year before and the fact that he did get interest from other teams.

Hendry had been interested in Burnitz since at least two years ago when he was with the Dodgers. I can respect the argument that Hendry overvalued Burnitz and that was an error in judgement by him, but I don't buy this hyperbole about Hendry not having a plan.

 

The difficulties in moving Sosa would have been somewhat alleviated had the Cubs not made it clear that they *had* to move him through the PR job they pulled. If you want to trade a guy, you don't torpedo his value by proclaiming what a bad guy he is and that you need to get rid of him.

 

Next, I think moving Sosa became such a priority publicly (thanks again to the PR job) that Hendry spent far, far too much time trying to do it.

 

Hendry may work hard, and I'm sure he gave the direction of the ballclub plenty of thought last winter. It was the execution, or the plan itself, that was severely lacking. Severely. The plan for moving Sosa, for instance, was fatally flawed from the start. Similarly, the idea that Burnitz was a suitable replacement and that Hollandsworth and Dubois were starters on a championship club were also very bad plans.

 

And again, as I pointed out, you could have brought back Alou with, at worst, minimal impact on the payroll even before December of 2004, with plenty of time left to deal Sosa. So there too was a lack of planning, or a lack of logic, if you prefer,as Hendry publicly stated that it was fear of getting stuck with Both of them led to Alou not coming back. Salary wise, that should not have been the case.

 

*edit #1* Perhaps I shouldn't say "lack of planning", and term it "poor planning and execution". But I think that's splitting hairs in the context of this discussion.

 

*edit #2* I'm not saying I wanted Alou back. At the start of last offseason, I wanted him gone, but in hindsight having him here would have made a very big difference in our season, and the fact that Hendry's logic in not bringing him back was faulty is what I'm criticizing.

 

I don't think the whole Alou issue can necessarily be hung on Hendry. If management gave him a budget and he could not fit Alou and Sosa into that budget then his hands were tied. He couldn't make an offer to Alou until he had moved Sosa if he didn't have the financial OK to potentially be stuck with both salaries.

He makes some moves that are head scratchers but as a whole I think he does a good job. The Hundley, Lee, Nomar and Hawkins trades were all excellent IMO so that buys him some benefit of the doubt from me.

That being said, this is a BIG offseason for him.

 

 

Alou signed for $7m with a $6m option for 2006. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the money you spent on Hairston and Burnitz would have nearly paid for all of that. Would Alou have taken less than $9m to stay here? Maybe not, but then you don't go and sign Macias and Perez to a combined $2.5m. Then you would certainly have been able to fit Alou in with or without Sosa.

 

Numbers are numbers. You can't get around simple math. Proper money management or a simple realization that Sosa would be hard to move and they would have to make do somehow could have netted us a much more productive OF.

 

I'm only pressing this home because I think it's a sign of a greater problem with Hendry than just his love of toolsy players and possible overreliance on Gary Hughes' advice.

[MPrior]

I'm largely in agreement with you here, USSoccer - I think that saying Hendry misplayed his cards is a very good way of putting it. I do buy into the fact that his hands were tied, to a certain extent, and I don't believe that last offseason could have been *much* better given the circumstances, but Hendry certainly could have gone about things a little differently, and not gone into 2005 with a team so riddled with holes.

[CubfaninCA]

CubfaninCA,

 

I think that if you just look at last season's numbers, you may be right that those players you listed may not have been all stars for us. However, the idea was to not just think short term but also think long term. For instance, Carlos Beltran may never live up to that insane contract he signed, and he had a down year last year, but wouldn't we all feel better about our OF if he were in it going into this year and next? Magglio was not likely to put up big numbers after missing nearly a whole year, but this coming year he may have a breakout year. JD Drew got hurt, but if he were here he'd have been playing a corner OF spot and not CF, so he may not have gotten injured.

 

Why just look at the OF, too? What about Jeff Kent instead of Walker at 2b?

 

I don't know-there are a lot of variables when you play the "What If" game, but I'm positive that Hendry should have played his cards a whole lot better than he did.

 

I wanted Drew or Beltran, but the budget wouldn't allow it. Perhaps the finger pointing should be directed @ the Trib, who makes a ton of money off this team.

 

Basically, I was just pointing out that Drew wouldn't have panned out either. Also, I said in an earlier post that Kent and Eckstein would have been superior to Walker and Nomar, but I can't fault Hendry for going w/ Walker and Nomar. Now if he goes back to Nomar and Walker, I'll rip him apart.

 

I can't recall when Jermaine Dye signed, but that would have worked out better than Burnitz. Of course, Dye could have got hurt again or given the Cubs a .780 ops. Altogether, it wasn't the Cubs year.

[CubfaninCA]

CubfaninCA,

 

I think that if you just look at last season's numbers, you may be right that those players you listed may not have been all stars for us. However, the idea was to not just think short term but also think long term. For instance, Carlos Beltran may never live up to that insane contract he signed, and he had a down year last year, but wouldn't we all feel better about our OF if he were in it going into this year and next? Magglio was not likely to put up big numbers after missing nearly a whole year, but this coming year he may have a breakout year. JD Drew got hurt, but if he were here he'd have been playing a corner OF spot and not CF, so he may not have gotten injured.

 

Why just look at the OF, too? What about Jeff Kent instead of Walker at 2b?

 

I don't know-there are a lot of variables when you play the "What If" game, but I'm positive that Hendry should have played his cards a whole lot better than he did.

 

I also think he tried to get too much for Sosa and wound up getting too little. IIRC, there was a Cliff Floyd deal almost ready to go. That would have solved the RF problem. There was also a Wilkerson deal that would have had the Cubs picking up all of Sosa's salary. That seemed crazy then, but as it turned out, as you pointed out, we ended up paying it and then some in order to sign Burnitz. Both of these players could have handled an OF spot better than Burnitz, yet Hendry somehow thought he could do better. But all he got was a supersub and some minor leauge relievers.

 

Didn't one of the Mets owners nix the Sosa deal?? Iirc it was after some steroid fiasco came out and Sosa was named. I don't recall the Wilkerson deal.

[Illini Iceman]

Say what you will about the results that Hendry has produced but saying that he has a "complete lack of planning" is absurd. From all accounts Hendry is one of the hardest working GM's around, so I seriously doubt that he just sat around all winter without thinking about the direction of the ballclub.

The difficulty in moving Sosa is highly underestimated. I think Hendry probably worked daily in trying to get this done. It also seems to me that he had a unofficial agreement with Burnitz that he would sign him as soon as he found a taker for Sosa that would free up the position and the necessary cash. Otherwise it makes no sense that Burnitz would be the only guy still unsigned considering the numbers he put up the year before and the fact that he did get interest from other teams.

Hendry had been interested in Burnitz since at least two years ago when he was with the Dodgers. I can respect the argument that Hendry overvalued Burnitz and that was an error in judgement by him, but I don't buy this hyperbole about Hendry not having a plan.

 

The difficulties in moving Sosa would have been somewhat alleviated had the Cubs not made it clear that they *had* to move him through the PR job they pulled. If you want to trade a guy, you don't torpedo his value by proclaiming what a bad guy he is and that you need to get rid of him.

 

Next, I think moving Sosa became such a priority publicly (thanks again to the PR job) that Hendry spent far, far too much time trying to do it.

 

Hendry may work hard, and I'm sure he gave the direction of the ballclub plenty of thought last winter. It was the execution, or the plan itself, that was severely lacking. Severely. The plan for moving Sosa, for instance, was fatally flawed from the start. Similarly, the idea that Burnitz was a suitable replacement and that Hollandsworth and Dubois were starters on a championship club were also very bad plans.

 

And again, as I pointed out, you could have brought back Alou with, at worst, minimal impact on the payroll even before December of 2004, with plenty of time left to deal Sosa. So there too was a lack of planning, or a lack of logic, if you prefer,as Hendry publicly stated that it was fear of getting stuck with Both of them led to Alou not coming back. Salary wise, that should not have been the case.

 

*edit #1* Perhaps I shouldn't say "lack of planning", and term it "poor planning and execution". But I think that's splitting hairs in the context of this discussion.

 

*edit #2* I'm not saying I wanted Alou back. At the start of last offseason, I wanted him gone, but in hindsight having him here would have made a very big difference in our season, and the fact that Hendry's logic in not bringing him back was faulty is what I'm criticizing.

 

I don't think the whole Alou issue can necessarily be hung on Hendry. If management gave him a budget and he could not fit Alou and Sosa into that budget then his hands were tied. He couldn't make an offer to Alou until he had moved Sosa if he didn't have the financial OK to potentially be stuck with both salaries.

He makes some moves that are head scratchers but as a whole I think he does a good job. The Hundley, Lee, Nomar and Hawkins trades were all excellent IMO so that buys him some benefit of the doubt from me.

That being said, this is a BIG offseason for him.

 

 

Alou signed for $7m with a $6m option for 2006. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the money you spent on Hairston and Burnitz would have nearly paid for all of that. Would Alou have taken less than $9m to stay here? Maybe not, but then you don't go and sign Macias and Perez to a combined $2.5m. Then you would certainly have been able to fit Alou in with or without Sosa.

 

Numbers are numbers. You can't get around simple math. Proper money management or a simple realization that Sosa would be hard to move and they would have to make do somehow could have netted us a much more productive OF.

 

I'm only pressing this home because I think it's a sign of a greater problem with Hendry than just his love of toolsy players and possible overreliance on Gary Hughes' advice.

 

I agree - you can't get around simple math.

 

The money paid to Hairston and Burnitz was AFTER the trade of Sosa to Baltimore so therefore AFTER management was 100% sure that the equal Sosa money was off the books.

 

You are suggesting he commit to the Alou money BEFORE a Sosa deal was complete. If he wound up not being able to swing a deal where another team absorbed $6M worth of salary then he would be over budget and that may not have been acceptable to the Trib bean counters.

 

Your arguments may make sense from a fan's perspective, but any manager that has worked under a budget knows that you sometimes can't do what you want because you aren't being given the money. You suggest in another post that he should have considered Kent over Walker or Drew, Maggs or Beltran because of their long term benefit. Where's the money coming from?

 

This year Hendry has plenty of payroll flexibility so he can show us what he can do. If he fails again then he will be in the hot seat. However, I find it hard to put too much blame on him for moves he did not make last year when, by all accounts, he probably did not have the budget to make them.