Tracer Bullet

Yes, I saw Gooney's post about Hendry's record. I also saw and then quoted his response to this question about how to evaluate a GM. At that point everyone accept Cubswin understood that neither Gooney, nor anyone else was trying to say that W-L was the only way to evaluate a GM. Then he started questioning people's reading ability. That to me is belittling and something we could do without. I've been here since the beginning and I can count on one hand the number of times Tim has called someone out. Think about that for a while. The "simple & ridiculous" comment over and over, added to the questioning of people's ability to read was unnecessary. But it's frustrating to argue against people here when it seems that everyone is against you. As I just said, I think Cubswin had a very valid point and I agree that Goony's quoted post is not a good way to evaluate a GM (and it is an oversimplification). But I don't agree w/ all of his tactics for trying to make that point. Please note that CubsWin never responded to my point on Dombrowski and later accused me of completely ignoring that point when he went off on me (before I went off on him). The ironic part is that his post about people not being able to read was in between my response to him on Dombrowski and him later telling me that I didn't respond to it! :D My comment wasn't really aimed at you. I agree with your post from earlier this morning - Cubswin isn't free from fault. But others were jumping all over him too. And feeling like everyone's against you is frustrating. And I think the people not reading comment was aimed at the folks who had been arguing with him from the beginning - not you. I don't really know, obviously only Cubswin does, but given the way it plays out now, it looks like he was directing that at other posters.

Honest questions: Is the top GM rated by his team's record? How do you personally calculate GM worth? I don't think there's any one way to do it. But 5 years of near the top payroll producing a record as mediocre as 383-385 is more than enough evidence to indict, try and convict Jim Hendry for being a bad GM. Cubswin, Read this post- it's on the first page of this thread-then apologize to Tim etal for being so obtuse. You're arguing to disprove a point that no one is trying to make. Back to the actual topic: If the Cubs make the playoffs this year that will be twice in 5 years. Does that change anybody's perception of Hendry as a GM? I hate to stick my head in the lion's mouth, but I agree w/ Cubswin to a point. In fact, if I had more time yesterday, I was going to post Dombrowski's record, b/c I had just been discussing it w/ a buddy this week. Goony's post says "5 years, top payroll, 383-385 record = indict, try, convict JH as a bad GM." Dombrowski: 5+ years, roughly equal payroll, 403-528 record. I don't like the repetition of "simple & ridiculous" for this method of evaluating GMs, but I think Cubswin did a good job of pointing out the obvious flaw. No reasonable person would consider Dombrowski a worse GM than Hendry, but he's got a far worse record with roughly the same payroll. Hendry inherited a good/average team and didn't improve it much. Dombrowski inherited a large pile of manure and turned it into a contender in 4 years. Nevertheless, he has a much worse record w/ the Tigers. [the flaw in Cubswin counter is that the Tigers payroll is only similar this year, before 2006, the Cubs payroll was $20-30m more a year than the Tigers] So no, his record over 5 years with payroll considered isn't enough to convict him of anything. That said if you look at the rest of the circumstances too, it's more than enough to convict. Again, consider the point I made when I first posted in this thread. Money is not the only resource a GM has at his disposal. When Hendry took over the Cubs, they had the #1 rated farm system in baseball. When Dombrowski took over the Tigers, they had a farm system in the bottom five in the majors. The talent level at the major league level was also very different. The Cubs had some quality young talent in the bigs and Detroit as a barren wasteland. The example comparing the two on W/L and payroll ignores these other resources that have to be considered when evaluating the performances of the two GM's. I agree with all of that Tim. But goony's post clearly says 5 years, top payroll, sub .500 record = bad GM. That's all it says. I totally agree that Dombrowski came into a totally different situation and you can't expect a GM to take a bad team and turn it into a great one immediately (and frankly, I'm surprised he got the results he did in the few years it took). But that's never been the point Cubswin is trying to make. Goony stated very clearly the formula for judging a GM. Cubswin disagrees with it. I disagree with it (and I think several others do too). Maybe goony doesn't really think that his post up there is a fair representation of his beliefs on the matter, but he hasn't come here to post an amendment to it. This, frankly, was Cubswin's frustration. It's not about resources or other circumstances. It's payroll + years + record. That's the formula goony set forth. Dombrowski clearly establishes the flaw in goony's post.

Yes, I saw Gooney's post about Hendry's record. I also saw and then quoted his response to this question about how to evaluate a GM. At that point everyone accept Cubswin understood that neither Gooney, nor anyone else was trying to say that W-L was the only way to evaluate a GM. Then he started questioning people's reading ability. That to me is belittling and something we could do without. I've been here since the beginning and I can count on one hand the number of times Tim has called someone out. Think about that for a while. The "simple & ridiculous" comment over and over, added to the questioning of people's ability to read was unnecessary. But it's frustrating to argue against people here when it seems that everyone is against you. As I just said, I think Cubswin had a very valid point and I agree that Goony's quoted post is not a good way to evaluate a GM (and it is an oversimplification). But I don't agree w/ all of his tactics for trying to make that point.

Honest questions: Is the top GM rated by his team's record? How do you personally calculate GM worth? I don't think there's any one way to do it. But 5 years of near the top payroll producing a record as mediocre as 383-385 is more than enough evidence to indict, try and convict Jim Hendry for being a bad GM. Cubswin, Read this post- it's on the first page of this thread-then apologize to Tim etal for being so obtuse. You're arguing to disprove a point that no one is trying to make. Back to the actual topic: If the Cubs make the playoffs this year that will be twice in 5 years. Does that change anybody's perception of Hendry as a GM? I hate to stick my head in the lion's mouth, but I agree w/ Cubswin to a point. In fact, if I had more time yesterday, I was going to post Dombrowski's record, b/c I had just been discussing it w/ a buddy this week. Goony's post says "5 years, top payroll, 383-385 record = indict, try, convict JH as a bad GM." Dombrowski: 5+ years, roughly equal payroll, 403-528 record. I don't like the repetition of "simple & ridiculous" for this method of evaluating GMs, but I think Cubswin did a good job of pointing out the obvious flaw. No reasonable person would consider Dombrowski a worse GM than Hendry, but he's got a far worse record with roughly the same payroll. Hendry inherited a good/average team and didn't improve it much. Dombrowski inherited a large pile of manure and turned it into a contender in 4 years. Nevertheless, he has a much worse record w/ the Tigers. [the flaw in Cubswin counter is that the Tigers payroll is only similar this year, before 2006, the Cubs payroll was $20-30m more a year than the Tigers] So no, his record over 5 years with payroll considered isn't enough to convict him of anything. That said if you look at the rest of the circumstances too, it's more than enough to convict.

I haven't read it all, but I'd probably keep the top 3 right where they are. Though Schuerholz would be my #4.

You were wrong then and -- by failing to offer a mea culpa -- you look foolish now. Your post is an a--hole

I stand by the comment. I didn't say it wouldn't happen and I didn't say he'd maintain his OPS that was .200 points below his career average. At the time, there wasn't a good chance that he would OPS .825 in the 2nd half. The fact that something happened doesn't mean that it was either likely to happen or that it was the result of a good decision. Might have been a good decision, might have been blind luck. BTW - So the solution to the crack down on bumping old threads is to cut posts out of multiple-page threads in an attempt to call out other posters? I think I'd rather allow posters to bump a month-old thread than cut one paragraph from a post you disagreed with and create a new thread.

Really? I haven't noticed that trend at all. And he wasn't mocking Floyd's father.

Its a little early in his career as a hitter to be saying that. Ankiel is homerun or nothing. He doesnt take walks at all. There have been plenty of guys to come up, and look like world beaters at first, only to have the league figure him out rather quickly, i.e. Mike Fontenot, Bo Hart, etc... Chris Shelton, Jack Cust.... Cust is still hitting. yes, but just 1 HR in his last 19 games, and just 3 in his last 32 Overall: .403/.525/.928 August: .524/.484/1.008 He struggled in July, but bounced back well so far in August. He's not hitting 6 HRs a week like he did right away, but I don't think the league has figured him out.

You're probably right that Soriano will be in LF and leading off when he returns, but Lou hasn't exactly stuck to everything he's said this year, so it's not a guarantee.

You want Murton to play center :shock: :?: Yeah I also want him to bat in 2 batting order positions in the same game. In fairness, that was pretty confusing. I assume you mean JJ in CF and Murton in RF or Pie in CF and Murton in RF. So you'd have Murton play every day, but JJ and Pie platoon in CF? Odd. Or Jones in RF and Pie in CF. Playing the matchups, as far as when you want your best defense(Pie/Jones), best offense (Jones/Murton), vs. a lefty(Pie/Murton) Right, so like I said, confusing.

Well you bone their daughter, so it's the price you have to pay. The man has a point.

You want Murton to play center :shock: :?: Yeah I also want him to bat in 2 batting order positions in the same game. In fairness, that was pretty confusing. I assume you mean JJ in CF and Murton in RF or Pie in CF and Murton in RF. So you'd have Murton play every day, but JJ and Pie platoon in CF? Odd.

I'm not sure who this is directed at. Did you really come to a Cubs board to tell all of us to stop whining and that bad luck happens to everyone? Are you kidding me? We're pressing 100 years since a WS win and over 60 since we've even been there. And you're going to tell us that this happens to everyone? When you and your terrible and unlucky team made the WS 2 of the last 3 years and won it last year?

bi-curious? just pray the gay away!! This is the oddest thread in recent memory. YOU'RE the oddest thread in recent memory ATTACK THE POST NOT THE POSTER!

bi-curious? just pray the gay away!! This is the oddest thread in recent memory.

Far to small a sample size for that stat. I'm not saying ba w/risp is useless but a measly 19 ab's is a bad way too judge. To post on this board is it required to have a borderline insane attachment to one player? What is it about his "19 ABs is a small sample size" argument that you object to? Not so much this one post as more of pointing out that among some of the recent new active posters you know who to count on for a quick argument in favor of Murt, even over Soriano, and who to indict the whole team for poor play... except little Mikey. Little Mikey? I don't know what you're talking about. He has taken rather extreme positions with regard to Murton & Theriot, but the Fontenot backer is another guy (if Fontenot is "Little Mikey"). Either way - can your post be read in any way other than attacking the poster? And of all of his posts that show this "borderline insane attachment," you pick this one to attack him about? Weird.

Far to small a sample size for that stat. I'm not saying ba w/risp is useless but a measly 19 ab's is a bad way too judge. To post on this board is it required to have a borderline insane attachment to one player? What is it about his "19 ABs is a small sample size" argument that you object to?

I'm not disputing that having Soriano in our lineup is better than not having him (although Murton's been pretty good, but if Soriano comes back and the OF has both of them, that would be even better). But the WL record with someone playing well v the WL record when someone is slumping is a pretty bad way to determine a particular player's value to the team. There are just way too many factors not accounted for. For one - pitching and defense, Soriano has very little effect on our overall Runs Allowed when he's playing LF (and his hot streak or slump offensively has no effect). If you wanted to say Soriano's a big plus b/c we score more runs when he's in the lineup, that makes more sense to me. But overall team performance? Way too broad.

I'll take GlenAllen Hill with good RF defense, that's pretty much Soriano. ok, that's not completely fair because Hill was platooned but he was a useful player. I didn't realize how good Hill was during his "peak" years (which oddly came from about age 31-35). I sure hope Ankiel is never putting up an OPS+ around 125-135. He will. He plays for God's team. :pukel: Oh yes. We have been so lucky this year. So lucky that a pitcher killed himself, our manager fell asleep drunk at the wheel, a player's drug addiction came to a head, Pujols (highest paid player) has been battling various bicep, knee and quad injuries all year, our ace (second highest paid player with fresh extension) went out for two years after opening day, our supposed number two pitcher hasn't come back from injury yet, our best set up man went out for the year in ST, our center fielder and 3rd basemen (3rd and 4th highest paid players) look like they are toast after careers filled with debilitating injuries and our front office is seemingly fighting amongst itself. Oh, and I heard Rick Ankiel found a penny head's up at the beginning of the year and thats how he is hitting with such great power. And despite arguably being the worst team to make the playoffs last year, it's been less than 11 months since you won the world series. BTW - if the Cubs were also "unlucky" b/c a run of the mill pitcher got drunk and killed himself or b/c their manager got drunk and fell asleep at the wheel, or a backup infielder was addicted to drugs, maybe you'd get some sympathy - but those things were all brought about by the individuals involved. Oh, and our highest paid player is on the DL right now, and our 2 other great hitters have been hurt and/or recovering from a wrist injury. We haven't had our 2 best pitchers play together since 2003, and we can't apparently add payroll (not that our GM would spend it wisely) b/c we're being sold. Meanwhile, our #1 prospect is barely hitting 200 at the ML level and our manager routinely plays 3 or 4 second basemen at once. Oh, and did I mention you won the world series last year? Your sob story posts aren't going to get you too far here.

Exactly so send down Fontenot now damnit! Fontenot does his job as a backup. Pie was supposed to lead to Cubs to glory. Maybe he will on day, but not yet. Theres no purpose to sending Fontnot down. He'll do there what hes doing here. As for Pie, he can either stay in the Majors as a backup/pinch runner and waste his talent and loose confidence or he can play out the AAA season as a top player in the league, and come back up in September as a back up, play some winter ball, and see what happens out of Spring Training. DeRosa, Theriot, Fontenot, Cedeno, Patterson...how many backup 2B do we need?

No matter what the cost, it makes no sense to add an OF specifically to hit in the 2-spot. Especially in this lineup. As sad as it sounds, Jones has been pretty good there in the last couple games and if not him, put Murton there (and in LF). BTW - although I appreciate you changing your avatar to a smaller pic, am I seeing your new avatar correctly? Is the bear in the Cubs logo being...um...taken from behind, so to speak? Weird. Its not that its being taken from behind that makes it, its whats taking it from behind that does. I get it. Very funny. And by funny, I mean trollish.

That's a bit too broad. Soriano had plenty of cold streaks/slumps/whatever you want to call them during the two months the Cubs were dominating because he is and always has been a very streaky hitter. Yes, he's missed now, but his injury combined with Lee's slump and Aramis being hurt/out is the much larger issue. If the latter two weren't happening, or even just one of them was mashing, Soriano's absence wouldn't be nearly as obvious. Yeah - that's terrible analysis Soul and you know it. There were a lot of factors that went into our terrible start. Soriano didn't help but Z was crap too. And Soriano isn't the only player hurt or not playing well now. Mojo mentioned Lee and ARam, but our SP has been suspect recently (Marquis was good in his last outing, bad the one before it, Marshall's had 2 bad turns in a row, Z and Hill both got rocked this week - all hail Ted Lilly, eh?). When Soriano finally got hot, he wasn't the only one. Lee and ARam have been consistent basically all year, but DeRosa had a great June and good July, Jones had a good July, Fontenot had a great June, Theriot was great in July (our SS position was pathetic for 3 months). There's a lot more analysis needed. "As Soriano goes, so go the Cubs" is far, far, far from accurate. There's no other analysis needed in terms of Soriano being important to this team. Or didn't you realize there are people lurking around here who think losing Soriano meant nothing? Well, that's not what your post said. You said he was hot - the Cubs were hot, he was cold - the Cubs cooled off and "we could really use his bat." Seems to me you were saying that Soriano's performance directly correlates with and possibly even solely accounts for the results of the team.

go to espn, yahoo, baseballreference or just type in matt murton RISP into google and see what comes up.

That's a bit too broad. Soriano had plenty of cold streaks/slumps/whatever you want to call them during the two months the Cubs were dominating because he is and always has been a very streaky hitter. Yes, he's missed now, but his injury combined with Lee's slump and Aramis being hurt/out is the much larger issue. If the latter two weren't happening, or even just one of them was mashing, Soriano's absence wouldn't be nearly as obvious. Yeah - that's terrible analysis Soul and you know it. There were a lot of factors that went into our terrible start. Soriano didn't help but Z was crap too. And Soriano isn't the only player hurt or not playing well now. Mojo mentioned Lee and ARam, but our SP has been suspect recently (Marquis was good in his last outing, bad the one before it, Marshall's had 2 bad turns in a row, Z and Hill both got rocked this week - all hail Ted Lilly, eh?). When Soriano finally got hot, he wasn't the only one. Lee and ARam have been consistent basically all year, but DeRosa had a great June and good July, Jones had a good July, Fontenot had a great June, Theriot was great in July (our SS position was pathetic for 3 months). There's a lot more analysis needed. "As Soriano goes, so go the Cubs" is far, far, far from accurate.