Marlins trade Castillo to Twins (Complete)

[Blueheart05]

Sorry, I'm not telling you how to judge Hendry but I do stand by my earlier comments. It's hard to say he isn't doing anything we just having seen the fruits of it yet.

 

But some people can look at what he's done in 3 years, form a reasonable opinion about his tendencies, and say he hasn't done a thing to improve the team. Whether or not he's trying to is irrelevent, it's whether or not he has that's the issue. So far, he hasn't improved the team to any significant amount in my opinion. And I don't get why people get criticized for pointing that out.

 

If you feel "criticized" it's because your comments are extreme. To say that he "hasn't improved the team to any significant amount" is out of step with reality. In 2002 the team lost 95 games. Since that time, there have been changes at every position except for CF (and there is now a rumored change to come). In all, only 4 players remain from that 25 man roster (Patterson, Wood, Prior,and Zambrano). Hendry made all those deals.

 

Obviously, with the team having a losing 2005 (and disappointing 2004) much more needs to be done but at the same time I recognize that the man is actively working to create a winning team.

[brinoch]

Respectfully, jma, I have disagree with you. You don't wait until October to judge a GM's moves, because by then it's way too late. By then, the season is over and you're on to 2007 -- when you'll judge the moves again after the season. No, as the offseason is ending and Spring Training approaching is about the time to judge a GM's moves. Then you'll have knowledge of the team, its likely tendencies, its strengths, its weaknesses, and what can still be improved. Indeed, each and every move can and should be judged. I'll grant that the body of work should be examined, rather than individual moves. But, that said, individual moves still should be examined given Hendry's full body of work.

 

And what have we seen so far? What I consider to be terrible, wasteful signings of Rusch and Perez. An excellent contract with Dempster, but questionable signings for Eyre and Howry. Mabry, too, was brought into the fold. Had we signed only Eyre, Howry, Dempster and Mabry to date I wouldn't be too annoyed. But the money spent on Rusch and Perez was way out of line when compared to their value. A MIF of (presumably) Furcal, Walker, Cendeno and Hairston would serve well both day in and day out in the lineup and for the bench. Neifi is superfluous.

 

Rusch, too, is mediocre. I like the guy, I really do. But he's just not that great. And where are we going to put him? He was terrible in the 'pen last year, and his peripherals weren't much to write home about while starting. We have Jerome Williams, whose upside is significantly higher than Rusch's.

 

Meanwhile, the OF still languishes. I'll grant that perhaps Giles didn't want to come to Chicago, that he always wanted to stay in San Diego. But get out there publicly and make an offer. If he turns it down, so be it. He was clearly the class of this year's FA's, so make a play. Or find a way to get Manny. Offer some Rule 5 pitchers and take on his whole contract. He's worth it.

 

I don't want to waste another year of Prior and Zambrano while they are still relatively inexpensive. I don't like overpaying for mediocre bench players who are no better than the cheap young guys in our system.

[brinoch]

Sorry, I'm not telling you how to judge Hendry but I do stand by my earlier comments. It's hard to say he isn't doing anything we just having seen the fruits of it yet.

 

But some people can look at what he's done in 3 years, form a reasonable opinion about his tendencies, and say he hasn't done a thing to improve the team. Whether or not he's trying to is irrelevent, it's whether or not he has that's the issue. So far, he hasn't improved the team to any significant amount in my opinion. And I don't get why people get criticized for pointing that out.

 

If you feel "criticized" it's because your comments are extreme. To say that he "hasn't improved the team to any significant amount" is out of step with reality. In 2002 the team lost 95 games. Since that time, there have been changes at every position except for CF (and there is now a rumored change to come). In all, only 4 players remain from that 25 man roster (Patterson, Wood, Prior,and Zambrano). Hendry made all those deals.

 

Obviously, with the team having a losing 2005 (and disappointing 2004) much more needs to be done but at the same time I recognize that the man is actively working to create a winning team.

 

Sure, if you compare the 2005 team to 2002, that's an improvement. But this team made a lateral step in 2004 and took a clear step back in 2005. The offensive problems of '03, '04, and '05 were all related to a serious lack of team OBP. Hendry didn't upgrade the team in this manner in '04, and he downgraded the team, effectively, in '05. And for '06 we've seen no improvement (or even a visible attempt to improve) the overall team OBP. Signing a no OBP guy like Neifi, bringing back Hollandsworth, and signing Burnitz were not steps forward last year. Likewise, rewarding Nefi and Rusch with multi-year, multi-million dollar contracts is not a step forward.

 

Personally, I don't look at 2002 as the benchmark. I look at the team in 2003 -- 5 outs away from the World Series -- as my benchmark. 2004 and 2005 were terrible disappointments, and much of the blame lies at Hendry's feet.

 

I want a team built to win, and win now. Not to be "competitive" within the division. Why is this too much to ask? Hendry's had his chance, and his philosophy doesn't work. It's based on toolsy guys who swing away, rather than guys with plate discipline who are willing to talk a base if there's nothing to hit. We know the Cubs need to improve their team OBP -- so why haven't the Cubs made a concerted effort to do so for the past three years?

[goonys evil twin]

Sorry, I'm not telling you how to judge Hendry but I do stand by my earlier comments. It's hard to say he isn't doing anything we just having seen the fruits of it yet.

 

But some people can look at what he's done in 3 years, form a reasonable opinion about his tendencies, and say he hasn't done a thing to improve the team. Whether or not he's trying to is irrelevent, it's whether or not he has that's the issue. So far, he hasn't improved the team to any significant amount in my opinion. And I don't get why people get criticized for pointing that out.

 

If you feel "criticized" it's because your comments are extreme. To say that he "hasn't improved the team to any significant amount" is out of step with reality. In 2002 the team lost 95 games. Since that time, there have been changes at every position except for CF (and there is now a rumored change to come). In all, only 4 players remain from that 25 man roster (Patterson, Wood, Prior,and Zambrano). Hendry made all those deals.

 

Obviously, with the team having a losing 2005 (and disappointing 2004) much more needs to be done but at the same time I recognize that the man is actively working to create a winning team.

 

He "hasn't improved the team to any significant amount" this year, and based on what he's done since taking over the job, I don't feel the any responsibility to give him the benefit of the doubt that he'll suddenly address issues that have plagued this team for years.

 

Extreme? I don't think so.

[UK1679666180]

just offering up a possible scenario where you'd look back at this lack of a move and regret not getting one of the few guys that could offset the loss of Walker's bat.

 

Sure, you'd regret it b/c they would have likely regressed if they traded Walker after Castillo was traded.

 

But, I fail to see that scenario taking place over the original fact that Hendry traded a player who is productive, inexpensive, and fills a huge need as far as hitting at the top.

 

I think it is a moot point inserting Castillo into the equation beyond trading them straight up for each other.

[goonys evil twin]

just offering up a possible scenario where you'd look back at this lack of a move and regret not getting one of the few guys that could offset the loss of Walker's bat.

 

Sure, you'd regret it b/c they would have likely regressed if they traded Walker after Castillo was traded.

 

But, I fail to see that scenario taking place over the original fact that Hendry traded a player who is productive, inexpensive, and fills a huge need as far as hitting at the top.

 

I think it is a moot point inserting Castillo into the equation beyond trading them straight up for each other.

 

It's hardly a moot point the day the guy was traded.

[mg420]

Respectfully, jma, I have disagree with you. You don't wait until October to judge a GM's moves, because by then it's way too late. By then, the season is over and you're on to 2007 -- when you'll judge the moves again after the season. No, as the offseason is ending and Spring Training approaching is about the time to judge a GM's moves. Then you'll have knowledge of the team, its likely tendencies, its strengths, its weaknesses, and what can still be improved. Indeed, each and every move can and should be judged. I'll grant that the body of work should be examined, rather than individual moves. But, that said, individual moves still should be examined given Hendry's full body of work.

 

And what have we seen so far? What I consider to be terrible, wasteful signings of Rusch and Perez. An excellent contract with Dempster, but questionable signings for Eyre and Howry. Mabry, too, was brought into the fold. Had we signed only Eyre, Howry, Dempster and Mabry to date I wouldn't be too annoyed. But the money spent on Rusch and Perez was way out of line when compared to their value. A MIF of (presumably) Furcal, Walker, Cendeno and Hairston would serve well both day in and day out in the lineup and for the bench. Neifi is superfluous.

 

Rusch, too, is mediocre. I like the guy, I really do. But he's just not that great. And where are we going to put him? He was terrible in the 'pen last year, and his peripherals weren't much to write home about while starting. We have Jerome Williams, whose upside is significantly higher than Rusch's.

 

Meanwhile, the OF still languishes. I'll grant that perhaps Giles didn't want to come to Chicago, that he always wanted to stay in San Diego. But get out there publicly and make an offer. If he turns it down, so be it. He was clearly the class of this year's FA's, so make a play. Or find a way to get Manny. Offer some Rule 5 pitchers and take on his whole contract. He's worth it.

 

I don't want to waste another year of Prior and Zambrano while they are still relatively inexpensive. I don't like overpaying for mediocre bench players who are no better than the cheap young guys in our system.

 

before 2005 kenny williams was considered a buffoon & a terrible gm. just because people dont agree with some of hendry's moves doesnt mean they wont work out. many people here were VERY upset when the cubs didnt sign thome & traded choi for lee and that turned out to be a pretty good move. if rusch is the #5 starter and wins 15 games, i think most people will be very happy with him. how can you judge a gm on the moves you want him to make instead of how well the team he assembles does?

[Blueheart05]

Sorry, I'm not telling you how to judge Hendry but I do stand by my earlier comments. It's hard to say he isn't doing anything we just having seen the fruits of it yet.

 

But some people can look at what he's done in 3 years, form a reasonable opinion about his tendencies, and say he hasn't done a thing to improve the team. Whether or not he's trying to is irrelevent, it's whether or not he has that's the issue. So far, he hasn't improved the team to any significant amount in my opinion. And I don't get why people get criticized for pointing that out.

 

If you feel "criticized" it's because your comments are extreme. To say that he "hasn't improved the team to any significant amount" is out of step with reality. In 2002 the team lost 95 games. Since that time, there have been changes at every position except for CF (and there is now a rumored change to come). In all, only 4 players remain from that 25 man roster (Patterson, Wood, Prior,and Zambrano). Hendry made all those deals.

 

Obviously, with the team having a losing 2005 (and disappointing 2004) much more needs to be done but at the same time I recognize that the man is actively working to create a winning team.

 

Sure, if you compare the 2005 team to 2002, that's an improvement. But this team made a lateral step in 2004 and took a clear step back in 2005. The offensive problems of '03, '04, and '05 were all related to a serious lack of team OBP. Hendry didn't upgrade the team in this manner in '04, and he downgraded the team, effectively, in '05. And for '06 we've seen no improvement (or even a visible attempt to improve) the overall team OBP. Signing a no OBP guy like Neifi, bringing back Hollandsworth, and signing Burnitz were not steps forward last year. Likewise, rewarding Nefi and Rusch with multi-year, multi-million dollar contracts is not a step forward.

 

Personally, I don't look at 2002 as the benchmark. I look at the team in 2003 -- 5 outs away from the World Series -- as my benchmark. 2004 and 2005 were terrible disappointments, and much of the blame lies at Hendry's feet.

 

I want a team built to win, and win now. Not to be "competitive" within the division. Why is this too much to ask? Hendry's had his chance, and his philosophy doesn't work. It's based on toolsy guys who swing away, rather than guys with plate discipline who are willing to talk a base if there's nothing to hit. We know the Cubs need to improve their team OBP -- so why haven't the Cubs made a concerted effort to do so for the past three years?

 

Frankly, 2002 has to be the starting point because Hendry became GM on July 5, 2002.

 

It's hard to agree when you say his philosophy doesn't work. There is a degree of luck involved in winning. The Cardinals have been much more than competitve within the division over the last two years yet they don't have a championship to show for it. Also, championships have been won by teams with less than stellar offensive attacks so securing high OBP players isn't a guarantee of success.

 

I think the failures of the pitching staff (specifically the starters) is much more tellling about the problems of the last two years. It was the pitching that propelled the team to the playoffs in 2003 and it has been the lack of healthy pitchers that has contributed to the current problems.

 

It is up to Hendry to rectify the problems and provide safety nets against injuries. He has already mentioned that he'd like to get another starter, bullpen help, and guys who can "catch the ball." I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt right now; Heck, the Winter Meetings haven't even started yet. Next week we may feel better about the team's position. In either case, Hendry will deserve criticism if he allows this team to go into 2006 with the same glaring holes it's had over the last two seasons. Right now, he still has time to fill them.

[goonys evil twin]

if rusch is the #5 starter and wins 15 games, i think most people will be very happy with him. how can you judge a gm on the moves you want him to make instead of how well the team he assembles does?

 

That's a mighty big IF.

 

The thing with Hendry is we've already seen his results. I'm not judging Jim just on what he's done this offseason. I'm judging him on what his stated beliefs are, what he did as asst GM, what he's talked about liking in a player and what he's done so far as GM. I've fully acknowledged that there is more than one way to build a winning team. But the fact is Jim hasn't built a big time winner here. They achieved some postseason success in 03, but they were only an 88 win team that season. They won just 89 in 04 and 79 last year. The results are in. The teams he has assembled have not done particularly well.

 

If you are wondering what I would have been happy with, it would have been more like an 85, 90 and 95 win team.

 

But this team was bad in 2005 not just because of bad luck and freak injuries, they had several faults and came up way short. They were many of the same faults, only amplified, as the team in 2004.

[goonys evil twin]

I think the failures of the pitching staff (specifically the starters) is much more tellling about the problems of the last two years.

 

And that pitching staff was entirely his staff.

 

Like I said before, there are different ways to build a winner. Jim and Andy decided long ago this team's success would rely heavily on the arms of the pitching staff. When you make that decision, and forego many possible offensive upgrades along the way, you take certain risks, among them, that injuries are more prevelent among pitchers. And you also are at the mercy of your manager's ability to run that staff, without running it into the ground. Jim chose the strategy, Jim chose the people to carry out the strategy. When those people fail, he is held accountable. That is what management is all about.

 

Perhaps if he chose to build a better all-around team, one that wasn't consistently average or below average in the runs scoring stat, and did away with the "it's all on the pitchers" theory, then he wouldn't have to endure the slings and arrows of those people who think it's absurd to accept a mediocre offense when your payroll affords you the ability to be great at both scoring runs and preventing runs.

[mg420]

if rusch is the #5 starter and wins 15 games, i think most people will be very happy with him. how can you judge a gm on the moves you want him to make instead of how well the team he assembles does?

 

That's a mighty big IF.

 

The thing with Hendry is we've already seen his results. I'm not judging Jim just on what he's done this offseason. I'm judging him on what his stated beliefs are, what he did as asst GM, what he's talked about liking in a player and what he's done so far as GM. I've fully acknowledged that there is more than one way to build a winning team. But the fact is Jim hasn't built a big time winner here. They achieved some postseason success in 03, but they were only an 88 win team that season. They won just 89 in 04 and 79 last year. The results are in. The teams he has assembled have not done particularly well.

 

If you are wondering what I would have been happy with, it would have been more like an 85, 90 and 95 win team.

 

But this team was bad in 2005 not just because of bad luck and freak injuries, they had several faults and came up way short. They were many of the same faults, only amplified, as the team in 2004.

 

fair enough. but to judge the players he has signed this offseason before they have played one game doesnt make any sense. many things about baseball are big if's. if prior & wood stay healthy, if lee can have another big year, if dempster can close like he did last year, if howry & erye can be as effective as they were last year. i cringe as much as the next guy to think about having perez as a starter next year but he does have a great glove and got some big hits for the cubs last year. if he is used as a bench player he can be a big asset. that among other things is baker's shortcoming not the gm's.

[goonys evil twin]

fair enough. but to judge the players he has signed this offseason before they have played one game doesnt make any sense.

 

Why not? Neifi and Rusch have both played in more than enough games with the Cubs for us to judge their worthiness. Howry and Eyre are established and have a long enough track record for us to judge them as well. The latter two are fine additions to the team, but when you look at their contracts coupled up with the bad deals for the others, and look at the enormous need for massive upgrades elsewhere, the big picture doesn't look that great.

[mg420]

fair enough. but to judge the players he has signed this offseason before they have played one game doesnt make any sense.

 

Why not? Neifi and Rusch have both played in more than enough games with the Cubs for us to judge their worthiness. Howry and Eyre are established and have a long enough track record for us to judge them as well. The latter two are fine additions to the team, but when you look at their contracts coupled up with the bad deals for the others, and look at the enormous need for massive upgrades elsewhere, the big picture doesn't look that great.

 

because what they did in the past is not always indicative of what they can/will do in the future. eyre had a pretty poor career before the last 2 seasons when he was good to great. i want to see what rusch can do starting a full season. who knows how well he would have done last year if he stayed in the rotation? if i told yu what garlands & contreares (sp?) #'s would be for the white sox before last season, would you have said that no way thats possible because of their career stats? same thing with d lee.

[brinoch]

before 2005 kenny williams was considered a buffoon & a terrible gm. just because people dont agree with some of hendry's moves doesnt mean they wont work out. many people here were VERY upset when the cubs didnt sign thome & traded choi for lee and that turned out to be a pretty good move. if rusch is the #5 starter and wins 15 games, i think most people will be very happy with him. how can you judge a gm on the moves you want him to make instead of how well the team he assembles does?

 

Well, let me be clear -- I've been on the record as caring more about the Cubs winning than winning the way I would construct a team. I don't particularly care about being right; I care about the Cubs winning.

 

With respect to Thome, Choi, and Lee, people weren't unhappy with passing Thome up -- in fact, I think most people were pretty pleased (I know I was). That was a bad deal for Philly, and it would have been for the Cubs. The Choi for Lee deal was upsetting because the Cubs let McGriff go for a stupid record rather than breaking in the rookie, and then he was seriously mishandled in '03 after he was injured. (I'll leave that to CPatterson20 and Tim to discuss). And then, when we had positions that needed filling, the Cubs expend money on a position that many felt was adequately filled by Choi when there were other pressing needs. It's not that Lee wasn't liked, or wasn't valued (although no one predicted his breakout season of course), it's that the fundamental economics of the deal didn't make sense.

 

Baseball payroll is a limited resource, and you should be allocating your resources to maximally upgrade the team. Spending $5M for Rusch and Perez is hardly maximizing your advantage. At best, they are eminently replaceable parts. At worst, they hurt the team by blocking a rookie is likely to exceed that player's production or who will do no worse at about 1/10th the cost. (see: Neifi Perez playing every day over Ronnie Cedeno).

 

I'm not judging Hendry based only on the moves that I'd like him to make. Of course I can't know what's possible and what's not -- we're fans with opinions and scattered bits of the whole picture. But we certainly can judge Hendry for the type of players he prioritizes and actively seeks out. When a Brian Giles is out there, you make some noise. When Vlad Guerrero is out there, you make some noise. When Miguel Tejada is out there, you make some noise.

 

When I say I care only about the Cubs winning, it's also true that the Cubs aren't maximizing their chances to win. They have a distinct flaw; they don't get on base. There is an extremely obvious and very high correlation between OBP and runs scored. For a baseball executive to continually ignore and have a staff that effectively belittles statistical analysis and encourages players to be aggressive is nothing short of malpractice. Get on base and you'll score runs -- I don't care how you do it, either. Make a bunch of outs, and you won't score a lot of runs. It's pretty simple. And it's obvious that Hendry doesn't recognize this problem to the degree that others do.

 

All that said, I like the fact that he's created a core of players in their prime -- Carlos Zambrano, Mark Prior, Derrek Lee, Aramis Ramirez and Michael Barrett (and Wood if he's healthy). He's looking to add Rafael Furcal to that list, as well. Bring Matt Murton and Todd Walker to the table with a power hitting RF, and you can insert Patterson, or Lofton, or whoever in CF, and you have a nice lineup. He's got some pieces, but he needs to continue filling the holes with guys in their prime.

[Blueheart05]

I think the failures of the pitching staff (specifically the starters) is much more tellling about the problems of the last two years.

 

And that pitching staff was entirely his staff.

 

Like I said before, there are different ways to build a winner. Jim and Andy decided long ago this team's success would rely heavily on the arms of the pitching staff. When you make that decision, and forego many possible offensive upgrades along the way, you take certain risks, among them, that injuries are more prevelent among pitchers. And you also are at the mercy of your manager's ability to run that staff, without running it into the ground. Jim chose the strategy, Jim chose the people to carry out the strategy. When those people fail, he is held accountable. That is what management is all about.

 

Perhaps if he chose to build a better all-around team, one that wasn't consistently average or below average in the runs scoring stat, and did away with the "it's all on the pitchers" theory, then he wouldn't have to endure the slings and arrows of those people who think it's absurd to accept a mediocre offense when your payroll affords you the ability to be great at both scoring runs and preventing runs.

 

I don't disagree that it's his staff but he had no control over their injuries. He was caught off guard in 2004 with Wood's injury and Prior's freak injury. In 2005 it looked like a repeat performance and I do fault him for assuming pitchers (Wood in particular) would be healthy but there were other problems. The team went into 2005 without a legit RF'er (there's no excuse for that), the Bullpen was completely useless ( who would know that they would all be injured or just plain bad?), Nomar had a catastrophic injury, Corey completely failed, Walker got hurt, then much later Aramis was injured. I'm not saying he isn't to blame for some of that but much of the problems with last year's team had to do with failed pitching and using bench players because the intended starters were injured or ineffective.

 

RF-- Legit gripe anytime Holly/Dubois were out there

CF-- Patterson bombed and Hairston/Macias started

2B-- Walker was injured and Neifi started

SS-- Nomar was injured and Neifi started

 

Bullpen-- Borowski broke his hand in ST, LaTroy Choked, Remlinger fell off the map, and Chad Fox's arm fell off before they brought in/up Wuertz, Novoa, Ohman etc

 

Starters-- Same deal with Wood and Prior caught a liner. Koronka, Mitre, Williams, Rusch--a hodgepodge

 

 

Let me put it this way, the Sox would have been no where without their pitching last year. They stayed healthy and were lucky to boot. However, the Sox did not have a well rounded offense. If a team is pitching dependent (like the Cubs) problems will be exposed when they don't pitch well and don't execute (good pitching can sometimes overcome stupid mistakes). At the same time, many of the batters Hendry was relying on either didn't produce or got injured for stretches of the season.

 

Like I said earlier, if Hendry goes into 2006 without addressing those problems he should be crticized. right now I expect him to do all the things he said he would this offseason

[BigbadB]

Goony and Brinoch have made very good arguments here. I've really enjoyed reading this thread.

 

Of course, I'd rather read that the Cubs have signed players that will help this team more, but I suppose that will have to be another day.

 

I said at the beginning that I would hold off final judgment on Hendry until this offseason was over. However, that does not necessarily mean that I will hold off judgment on each individual move made or NOT made.

 

Castillo would have been nice, but he wasn't necessarily on my radar. I'm fine with Walker. I'd also be fine with Cedeno if we got that good power bat in RF, a good CF and a good SS, one of which is an exceptional lead off hitter.

 

Signing Rusch was probably an insurance move. Insurance in case Williams was to be used in a trade, and insurance in case Wood is not ready to go in April. That move was probably the move that bothered me the least.

 

The continued rostering of Jose Macias baffles me beyond belief.

 

The Scott Eyre signing was bad. No doubt, we needed relievers. Better ones than we had last year. But, we had a plethora of young and cheap relievers, along with prospects and major league trade commodity to upgrade the pen, like Patterson, Hairston and Walker if he is truly on the market. Rather than blow up the budget on an overpriced market, why not offer trades to small market teams worried about losing their arby eligible bullpen arms? Would Florida have turned down Novoa and Wuertz for Mota? Or Novoa and Wellemeyer? Pick and choose an arm or two to throw at another team for another guy like Mota. Why not consider taking a look at Ramiro Mendoza? Fact is, between Rusch, Eyre and Howry, they spent 10m on the bullpen when they might have gotten away with only spending 2-3m by trading surplus. I'm not the slightest bit convinced that Scott Eyre will be a better reliever next year than Will Ohman.

 

The Bob Howry signing is okay, but the money is once again horrible.

 

The Neifi signing made little to no sense. D'Angelo Jimenez will make 3x less than Neifi and can play all the positions Neifi can, and he hits better. Why panic and re-sign Neifi so quickly. Heck, let someone else panic and take him. He might have been worth a supplemental pick if someone wanted him bad enough.

 

Giles ignored. It could go either way. It could be that Brian Giles called Jim Hendry on the day he filed free agency and told Jim "don't bother knockin'." Why Giles would do that would be beyond me. Why Jim Hendry wouldn't at one point say that they were very interested, but Giles didn't want to come here is beyond me as well. It would certainly take the public pressure off him.

 

Bringing back Neifi, letting people know he's interested in guys like Soriano, Jacque Jones, Preston Wilson and the like only further proves that they value tools over anything else. "Catch the ball" tells me that they believe defense will win them more games than a good offense.

 

It's not too late to salvage this offseason. Scrap the tools ideas like Soriano, and stick with Walker and go get Bradley. Since they are committed to Furcal, might as well go the distance. The mere thought of Neifi Perez playing SS and hitting at the top of the order again next year makes the hair on my skin stand straight up.

 

No one has to agree with my opinions or judgments on the deals that have been made so far. That's why we have this message board in the first place. To discuss stuff like that. I don't understand in the slightest why anyone would expect us all to wait until the end of the 2006 season before we make any wisecracks about the assembly of the 2006 team.

[BigbadB]

I think the failures of the pitching staff (specifically the starters) is much more tellling about the problems of the last two years.

 

And that pitching staff was entirely his staff.

 

Like I said before, there are different ways to build a winner. Jim and Andy decided long ago this team's success would rely heavily on the arms of the pitching staff. When you make that decision, and forego many possible offensive upgrades along the way, you take certain risks, among them, that injuries are more prevelent among pitchers. And you also are at the mercy of your manager's ability to run that staff, without running it into the ground. Jim chose the strategy, Jim chose the people to carry out the strategy. When those people fail, he is held accountable. That is what management is all about.

 

Perhaps if he chose to build a better all-around team, one that wasn't consistently average or below average in the runs scoring stat, and did away with the "it's all on the pitchers" theory, then he wouldn't have to endure the slings and arrows of those people who think it's absurd to accept a mediocre offense when your payroll affords you the ability to be great at both scoring runs and preventing runs.

 

I don't disagree that it's his staff but he had no control over their injuries. He was caught off guard in 2004 with Wood's injury and Prior's freak injury. In 2005 it looked like a repeat performance and I do fault him for assuming pitchers (Wood in particular) would be healthy but there were other problems. The team went into 2005 without a legit RF'er (there's no excuse for that), the Bullpen was completely useless ( who would know that they would all be injured or just plain bad?), Nomar had a catastrophic injury, Corey completely failed, Walker got hurt, then much later Aramis was injured. I'm not saying he isn't to blame for some of that but much of the problems with last year's team had to do with failed pitching and using bench players because the intended starters were injured or ineffective.

 

RF-- Legit gripe anytime Holly/Dubois were out there

CF-- Patterson bombed and Hairston/Macias started

2B-- Walker was injured and Neifi started

SS-- Nomar was injured and Neifi started

 

Bullpen-- Borowski broke his hand in ST, LaTroy Choked, Remlinger fell off the map, and Chad Fox's arm fell off before they brought in/up Wuertz, Novoa, Ohman etc

 

Starters-- Same deal with Wood and Prior caught a liner. Koronka, Mitre, Williams, Rusch--a hodgepodge

 

 

Let me put it this way, the Sox would have been no where without their pitching last year. They stayed healthy and were lucky to boot. However, the Sox did not have a well rounded offense. If a team is pitching dependent (like the Cubs) problems will be exposed when they don't pitch well and don't execute (good pitching can sometimes overcome stupid mistakes). At the same time, many of the batters Hendry was relying on either didn't produce or got injured for stretches of the season.

 

Like I said earlier, if Hendry goes into 2006 without addressing those problems he should be crticized. right now I expect him to do all the things he said he would this offseason

 

Attempting to mirror the 2005 White Sox is not the best of plans. Every team has a different make up. Each team has its strengths and weaknesses. Utilizing the strengths while hiding the weaknesses is exactly what the White Sox did last year.

 

They didn't bat guys with .330+ OBP's at the bottom of the order, they hit them at the top. The Cubs, day in and day out put garbage OBP guys at the top of the order. They didn't utilize a strength, they utilized a weakness. A week goes by, two weeks go by, and Patterson isn't getting any better. Walker has been a respectable lead off hitter everywhere he's been. He didn't bat lead off on the 2005 Cubs. Why? Later in the season, Matt Murton was blazing the ball and his OBP was practically twice as good as Neifi or Macias, yet Macias and Neifi got the top of the order at bats. Why?

 

The White Sox put decent OBP guys in front of the meat of their order and they maximized their limited offensive potential. The Cubs did not.

 

In the end, the White Sox pitching stayed healthy and the team won a lot of close games to win their division. Same thing that the Cubs did in '03. Since '03, the Cubs have added more than 20m to the payroll and they have regressed. The pitching has regressed because of injury. I won't complain about that. The offense has regressed because they fail to put a team on the field that has the capability of scoring a lot of runs.

 

The Cubs seem to have this appeal for driving a guys value into the ground, and THEN trading him or letting them go for little to no return. Farnsworth, Sosa, Patterson, Dubois, Juan Cruz, Choi, Hawkins, Nomar, Hairston if he is sent packing, etc.......

 

They need to change this line of thinking. It isn't working.

[Mark_R]

The Cubs seem to have this appeal for driving a guys value into the ground, and THEN trading him or letting them go for little to no return. Farnsworth, Sosa, Patterson, Dubois, Juan Cruz, Choi, Hawkins, Nomar, Hairston if he is sent packing, etc.......

 

What? Choi? LaTroy Hawkins? I would say we got good value for those guys despite driving their value into the ground.

 

Patterson is still here. Until he is dealt and we know the package, how can you say that this is the case. If we deal him as a piece for Milton Bradley, is that still getting little to no return after driving his value into the ground? No arguments on Sosa or Farnsworth. At the beginning of last season, what would a guy like Jason DuBois have netted you? A 26 year old non hyped prospect doesn't bring much more than a type of guy that they got.

[BigbadB]

I'll believe Patterson for Bradley when I see it.

 

Okay, we got a great return on Choi. But, Florida was trying to dump Lee for 2 years with no takers. We lucked out on that deal.

[BigbadB]

Amusingly enough, Derrek Lee was originally traded in a salary dump move by the Marlins. San Diego sent Lee and two minor leaguers for Kevin Brown.

 

Choi and a minor leaguer to Florida for Lee. Salary dump.

[Mark_R]

I'll believe Patterson for Bradley when I see it.

 

Okay, we got a great return on Choi. But, Florida was trying to dump Lee for 2 years with no takers. We lucked out on that deal.

I didn't say Patterson for Bradley straight up. I said as a piece of a deal.

[Guancous]

I'm still a Hendry fan but I grew up during the Himes/Ed Lynch regimes. I'll start believing the murmurs if Hendry doesn't make any moves during the Winter Meetings. I fully expect an outfielder shakeup to be made after Furcal is signed. Now, if the OF going into Valentine's Day is Mench/Hairston/J. Encarnacion, then I will join all the haters on the front line of the protest.

 

Let me also say that I thought that the Eyre/Dempster/Howry troika was overpaid at the time. Now they look a lot better. What do you think that Dempster would have gotten in this market? $25 million? $27? Would you rather have Dempster or Farnsworth for an extra $3 million?

 

I think Hendry's greatest skill is not talent evaluation but market evaluation. That's why he makes such great in-season moves. There's a lot more extenuating circumstances that he can exploit.

[Blueheart05]

I think the failures of the pitching staff (specifically the starters) is much more tellling about the problems of the last two years.

 

And that pitching staff was entirely his staff.

 

Like I said before, there are different ways to build a winner. Jim and Andy decided long ago this team's success would rely heavily on the arms of the pitching staff. When you make that decision, and forego many possible offensive upgrades along the way, you take certain risks, among them, that injuries are more prevelent among pitchers. And you also are at the mercy of your manager's ability to run that staff, without running it into the ground. Jim chose the strategy, Jim chose the people to carry out the strategy. When those people fail, he is held accountable. That is what management is all about.

 

Perhaps if he chose to build a better all-around team, one that wasn't consistently average or below average in the runs scoring stat, and did away with the "it's all on the pitchers" theory, then he wouldn't have to endure the slings and arrows of those people who think it's absurd to accept a mediocre offense when your payroll affords you the ability to be great at both scoring runs and preventing runs.

 

I don't disagree that it's his staff but he had no control over their injuries. He was caught off guard in 2004 with Wood's injury and Prior's freak injury. In 2005 it looked like a repeat performance and I do fault him for assuming pitchers (Wood in particular) would be healthy but there were other problems. The team went into 2005 without a legit RF'er (there's no excuse for that), the Bullpen was completely useless ( who would know that they would all be injured or just plain bad?), Nomar had a catastrophic injury, Corey completely failed, Walker got hurt, then much later Aramis was injured. I'm not saying he isn't to blame for some of that but much of the problems with last year's team had to do with failed pitching and using bench players because the intended starters were injured or ineffective.

 

RF-- Legit gripe anytime Holly/Dubois were out there

CF-- Patterson bombed and Hairston/Macias started

2B-- Walker was injured and Neifi started

SS-- Nomar was injured and Neifi started

 

Bullpen-- Borowski broke his hand in ST, LaTroy Choked, Remlinger fell off the map, and Chad Fox's arm fell off before they brought in/up Wuertz, Novoa, Ohman etc

 

Starters-- Same deal with Wood and Prior caught a liner. Koronka, Mitre, Williams, Rusch--a hodgepodge

 

 

Let me put it this way, the Sox would have been no where without their pitching last year. They stayed healthy and were lucky to boot. However, the Sox did not have a well rounded offense. If a team is pitching dependent (like the Cubs) problems will be exposed when they don't pitch well and don't execute (good pitching can sometimes overcome stupid mistakes). At the same time, many of the batters Hendry was relying on either didn't produce or got injured for stretches of the season.

 

Like I said earlier, if Hendry goes into 2006 without addressing those problems he should be crticized. right now I expect him to do all the things he said he would this offseason

 

Attempting to mirror the 2005 White Sox is not the best of plans. Every team has a different make up. Each team has its strengths and weaknesses. Utilizing the strengths while hiding the weaknesses is exactly what the White Sox did last year.

 

They didn't bat guys with .330+ OBP's at the bottom of the order, they hit them at the top. The Cubs, day in and day out put garbage OBP guys at the top of the order. They didn't utilize a strength, they utilized a weakness. A week goes by, two weeks go by, and Patterson isn't getting any better. Walker has been a respectable lead off hitter everywhere he's been. He didn't bat lead off on the 2005 Cubs. Why? Later in the season, Matt Murton was blazing the ball and his OBP was practically twice as good as Neifi or Macias, yet Macias and Neifi got the top of the order at bats. Why?

 

The White Sox put decent OBP guys in front of the meat of their order and they maximized their limited offensive potential. The Cubs did not.

 

In the end, the White Sox pitching stayed healthy and the team won a lot of close games to win their division. Same thing that the Cubs did in '03. Since '03, the Cubs have added more than 20m to the payroll and they have regressed. The pitching has regressed because of injury. I won't complain about that. The offense has regressed because they fail to put a team on the field that has the capability of scoring a lot of runs.

 

The Cubs seem to have this appeal for driving a guys value into the ground, and THEN trading him or letting them go for little to no return. Farnsworth, Sosa, Patterson, Dubois, Juan Cruz, Choi, Hawkins, Nomar, Hairston if he is sent packing, etc.......

 

They need to change this line of thinking. It isn't working.

 

I certainly wasn't talking about mirroring the Sox but the Cubs team was constructed to be pitcher reliant and when that failed they weren't left with anything to fall back on (just as the Sox would have been if their pitching had failed).. Also, I was only commenting on Hendry's portion of things. While he was ultimately responsible for Baker's presence, he had nothing to do with the game to game lineups.

[jmajew]

When I was saying don't judge until after the season, I meant don't judge his strategy and don't go around calling the guy a moran because he isn't doing what you want him to. You never know how well it may work out. I think it is fair to discuss how much he gave up for certain players; a prime example being 3/11 for Eyre. I think he could have gotten him for a bit cheaper. You can judge him on who he gives up in a trade. If we trade Pie and Walker for Bradley (strictly hypothetical) I would expect there to be a healthy debate on whether we gave up too much. But if we end up winning the world series with that move wouldn't it be seen as a good one still?

 

I guess that is my main point. If the Cubs have to overpay just for one Championship would we be mad? I know I wouldn't. I will not be upset with any of his moves if we win the World Series. I'm not criticizing people for having opinions, I just want them to give Hendry a shot. At least wait til he assembles the team we are going to battle with for the entire season to judge his strategy.

[BigbadB]

When I was saying don't judge until after the season, I meant don't judge his strategy and don't go around calling the guy a moran because he isn't doing what you want him to. You never know how well it may work out. I think it is fair to discuss how much he gave up for certain players; a prime example being 3/11 for Eyre. I think he could have gotten him for a bit cheaper. You can judge him on who he gives up in a trade. If we trade Pie and Walker for Bradley (strictly hypothetical) I would expect there to be a healthy debate on whether we gave up too much. But if we end up winning the world series with that move wouldn't it be seen as a good one still?

 

I guess that is my main point. If the Cubs have to overpay just for one Championship would we be mad? I know I wouldn't. I will not be upset with any of his moves if we win the World Series. I'm not criticizing people for having opinions, I just want them to give Hendry a shot. At least wait til he assembles the team we are going to battle with for the entire season to judge his strategy.

 

No, I wouldn't want him to mortgage what could be several trips to the pennant for one World Series. The best team does not always win the World Series. What if he mortgaged the future, and they fell short of winning the World Series that year?

 

The Cubs, as of 2004, were in a position to be good for a long time. I didn't include 2003, since they did play better than anyone would have imagined. We are still waiting for them to be good.