davell

So then hiring a baseball man as president isn't going to change that. Why? If you hire a President of Baseball Ops, he would have the authority to make that sort of move, in all likelihood. The bottom line for me is this: I'm not happy with the current situation of the Cubs and I want some changes. Since it doesn't appear Ricketts will be firing Hendry anytime soon, this is an option for us that can bring us something different. Would he necessarily fire Hendry? Maybe not. Would he conceivably make changes that Hendry wouldn't make? Probably so. Would they necessarily be good for the Cubs? Who knows? But, I'm willing to take the chance on something new and I really don't see how anyone could say anything differently, unless you're content on having an average baseball team with a very high payroll. So to anyone who disagrees with this statement, answer this question for me: Assuming Hendry is around through the end of his contract(2 more years) do you want to wait it out and see what state we're in once he's done at that point? That's not what I want but if I have to make that assumption than that's what we are left with. A president isn't going to change Jim Hendry. See, that's where our disagreement lies. Because I think a president A) could fire him B) could change some of his habits by not giving in to them(ie tunnel vision each offseason into one basic idea) and/or perhaps tweak things that can help longterm(alotting monies spent differently) Is this what we would get from a president? No idea, but I'm willing to take a shot, since Hendry doesn't appear to be going anywhere currently and I'm not thrilled at the posibilites of what kind of damage he could do, if he falls into "save job" mode in about a year.

So then hiring a baseball man as president isn't going to change that. Why? If you hire a President of Baseball Ops, he would have the authority to make that sort of move, in all likelihood. The bottom line for me is this: I'm not happy with the current situation of the Cubs and I want some changes. Since it doesn't appear Ricketts will be firing Hendry anytime soon, this is an option for us that can bring us something different. Would he necessarily fire Hendry? Maybe not. Would he conceivably make changes that Hendry wouldn't make? Probably so. Would they necessarily be good for the Cubs? Who knows? But, I'm willing to take the chance on something new and I really don't see how anyone could say anything differently, unless you're content on having an average baseball team with a very high payroll. So to anyone who disagrees with this statement, answer this question for me: Assuming Hendry is around through the end of his contract(2 more years) do you want to wait it out and see what state we're in once he's done at that point?

Of course not. And a baseball man becoming president wouldn't change my confidence one iota unless that baseball man's first order of business was canning Jim Hendry. And isn't that potentially a great reason for hiring one in the first place? No. Just fire Jim Hendry now. There's no reason to hire somebody else to fire Hendry. But, they are NOT going to fire Hendry right now. If they were, they wouldn't be letting him conduct the managerial search.

Of course not. And a baseball man becoming president wouldn't change my confidence one iota unless that baseball man's first order of business was canning Jim Hendry. And isn't that potentially a great reason for hiring one in the first place?

Archer comes in at number TWO. :D Ahead of Jacob Turner. Brett Jackson is at 7. McNutt missed the list by one start. No other Cubs make it.

Or you go get a GOOD GM. But, do you have the faith in this organization to actually go and do THAT????? If the reason the Cubs can't get a good GM is because the organization is dumb, why can we get a good, baseball lifer President? I'm saying I don't see Hendry going anywhere, which IS dumb. I'm not saying that they don't have the ability to make a good hire, they're just choosing not to do so evidently. If Hendry sticks around here for another 2 seasons, do you have confidence he'll do things correctly?

I'm sure we'll get Archer and Brett Jackson on here, McNutt as well, assuming he pitched enough innings to qualify. Maybe a slight hope for Junior Lake? I doubt it, but I guess there's a chance anyway.

Or you go get a GOOD GM. But, do you have the faith in this organization to actually go and do THAT?????

If the Cubs got rid of Hendry and found someone more capable as a GM, I wouldn't necessarily think a President is all that important of a hire. But, since we have Hendry and I'm not sure when he leaves we'll find someone better equipped than him anyway, it makes sense to me to have someone else who's a baseball guy as well you have to answer to.

I was always under the impression that MacPhail tried to run the Cubs in much the same way he had run the Twins, when he could have made more "impact" type moves than what he had done with the Twins. Basically, just way too conservative for a major market team. If I'm wrong about this, I apologize up front, but that's what I always thought anyway. At any rate, I think a hire of a baseball mind for Hendry to answer to is a very important move myself. But, not one I see the Ricketts' making, because I think it would have been one of the very first things they would have done, since it really wouldn't have required firing anyone. Just moving some people around to different spots.

That's one of the most correct questions yet. The Ricketts have no experience running a ballclub, and they have the former legal counsel for the Tribune Company doing it for them. This guy should have been out the door the minute he had a Greek Orthodox minister spray holy water in the dugout before the 08 playoffs. I wonder what kind of job Hendry would be able to do if he had someone with a baseball knowledge base as his boss. At least someone who has the authority to tell him whether he can go in a given direction. An appropriate president may have prevented Hendry from viewing the off-season with tunnel vision on a particular aspect of the team. Kenney's job is to build the business, and he's really good at it. He's probably the only one good at his job in the entire front office. Well, then couldn't you put him in charge of marketing and give someone else his job? It just seems to me that the President of the Cubs should be someone who knows the game.

Why hasn't Ricketts gotten rid of Crane Kenney? He's the Cubs President and to my knowledge, isn't a baseball guy whatsoever. What exactly does he do and why is he a better fit than someone who's title would be something more along the lines of President of Baseball Operations? Without having any idea of what Kenney's job actually is, it seems to me having a President that actually knows the game makes more sense......

I don't expect the Pads to trade A-Gom this season, unless it's at the deadline, because they're out of the race. That said, if they do, I would think they'd ask for a package much like the Texeira trade to the Braves. That trade netted Texas Saltalamacchia(sp?), Beau Jones, Matt Harrison(3rd rated Braves prospect at the time) Elvis Andrus and Neftali Feliz. Needless to say, quite a haul. What do we have that is in THAT realm? Hak Ju Lee(Andrus), Cashner(Feliz), McNutt(Harrison), Colvin(Salty, same status or close anyway), and some fringe guy to take Jones' place? If that's what it would take, I'd pass.

If all there was to get out of Koyie Hill in September / Oct was a .195 BA / .250 OBP / .293 SLG then hopefully the Cubs are smart enough that Koyie won't be around in Mesa next spring to greet whoever gets the permanent job. I'm truly hoping Koyie spoke out of turn by using the term "we" right there. No matter who the damn manager is next season, Hill should be on a roster(AAA most likely) far away from Chicago.

Very true man...... :D

Fine form on the last game of the season to clinch the 9th pick. Here's to a big name dropping to us, due to signability and the Cubs actually flexing their muscles and taking that guy for once! :good:

Castro's sitting to preserve the .300 BA. :lol:

And of course, here we are.......If Dempster wins tomorrow, we'll wind up with the 11th pick. And you can just already hear Dempster talking about what a great note to end the year on, after he pitches his ass off tomorrow, can't you?

Other than thinking Koyie Hill is a "must start" during games against teams still in it, I think Quade has done just fine. I'd rather have him than anyone else next year at this point., since Gonzalez isn't an option for us.

I'm not so sure about that sentiment. The Cubs won't necessarily become a WS contender by trading for Gonzalez, but he would be a substantial upgrade over Dunn in terms of youth and production. With Gonzalez at 1B and the bullpen shored up, this team could conceivably win 88-90 games next year. Moreover, if you trade for Gonzalez and sign him to an extension (which would be the goal, in my mind), you can still try out some of the prospects next season, let money fall off the books, and aim for a WS title in 2012/2013 with Gonzalez on the team. To me, the key questions are whether the Padres would be willing to trade him (doubtful), what the Padres would want for him (a lot), and the likelihood of signing Gonzalez to an extension is (pretty good, from the looks of it). If this team can get Gonzalez without giving up half the farm, I say do it. A couple of caveats that make me think this way include the fact I think we're trading Fukudome, which would be a mistake as far as I'm concerned, since he gets on base better than anyone on our team(other than Soto) and by giving up THAT much for Gonzo,(that scenario included potentially 4 of our top 6 prospects) it'd cripple our system and I'm just not confident in ownership to spend the money to replenish it quickly. And I definitely think we're going to need our system to produce a good bit for us to be contenders for any length of time.

I think it was Levine who said a few days ago that Boston would/will have lots of interest in Aramis this offseason. Has there been any speculation on what they'd be willing to give up for him? Nah, it was just a blurb.

Mainly though, I wish they had answered Raisin's question. I don't think we've gotten any scouting news on Ha, other than a few things from AZPhil.......

It may be a fair offer, but personally I wouldn't give up that much for him. Not unless the Cubs are going to go "all in" next year. Gonzo only makes 5.5 mill next season, which makes him a bigtime bargain obviously. But, he's not enough to make this team a contender immediately. If you can go get Cliff Lee in this scenario, then I'd be maybe I'd be willing to part with this much. Otherwise, just go sign Dunn and try out some more of the youngsters next season, let some more money fall off the books and build around the youth we have currently.

Well, I guess we better be prepared to only have 3 top 100 guys this year from BA. Not that it matters honestly. A couple of months ago, Frankie Piliere had Lee at 23 overall anyway on his list.

Unless I'm mistaken, the Pads have already came out and said they won't have him on the market over the offseason. They'll try and contend next year and if they fall back to normality, they'll shop him at the deadline...... That said, if we DO try and trade for him now, Castro isn't going anywhere.