Exile on Waveland

While I don't think anything in this post is an epiphany, I concur and think it's well put. There is a solid group of veterans signed for the foreseeable future. Included are bad contracts (Soriano, Marquis), contracts I support that are potentially bad (Zambrano and maybe Lilly) and what I hope continue to be pretty good deals (Ramirez, Lee, and DeRosa). Still, those are productive players that should help the team win. I'm optimistic that the young players listed above will also be productive -- some at higher levels than others. As much as I think Hendry is a poor GM, I do believe that with another big bat and a little luck the team could be pretty good for the next couple seasons.

I watched almost the entire LA-NY match last night. Its probably stating the obvious, but 3 players were clearly the best on the pitch: Beckham, Alitdore, and Angel. I'm so excited to watch Altidore grow into an even better player. Beckham is a monster. His passing is so crisp and the free kicks he assisted on were beautiful, while the NY defense on them was atrocious. 66,000 people were there to watch it to. Big Chelsea-Liverpool match this morning at Anfield. I don't have a good feeling, but I'd be happy with a point coming out of this one. Go Liverpool! :wink: Wish I could watch, though...

How many World Series titles has moneyball won Billy Beane? I don't discount his thoughts entirely...but the constant references to "moneyball" drive me nuts. Hendry's done some good things and Hendry's done some bad...for the last several years people have thought Jockety was great...this year he organizes a team with a starting rotation of 3 converted relievers, and Kip Wells...he gave the same contract to Juan Encarnicon as Hendry did to Jones...Beane traded us a catcher that's hit .291 with a .404 OBP for us, for a guy who doesn't really play at all for them... Hendry resigned Z for a nice contract, Resigned A-ram for a nice contract, looks pretty smart with the Lilly deal...got about 5 more wins from Marquis than I ever expected...DeRosa has been a great signing... There are many GMs that are worse...at least two in our own division. You're judging a GM off World Series titles? You might want to look at Oakland's yearly records, playoff appearances and payroll. Then you'll understand why people think Beane is a good -- no, great -- GM. Then, after judging a GM on World Series titles, you go on to bash Jocketty. He just won a World Series, which was your only criterion for maligning Beane. Finally, you can list some good moves for any GM -- especially one that's been on the job for about five years. Hendry's made some good moves, sure. It was inevitable. But, in the end, his teams have not performed. That's all that matters.

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? No. He will have made the playoffs with 88 and approx. 84-85 wins. That's not good GMing, that's simply luck. In any other division, he'd have zero playoff appearances.

Yes, I agree. That's why I said I didn't know if it was really helpful. It's pretty random. Truffle (or was it TT? Eh, someone with a T-name) asked about similar pitchers that had thrown similar innings, that's what I found. Obviously, no two players are the same and therefore basically any analysis like this will be pretty tenuous.

Most similar players to Zambrano, at the same age, according to baseball-reference.com: Ramon Martinez, Dave Boswell, Jim Maloney, Pedro Martinez, Ismael Valdez, Jim Nash, Dan Petry, Jake Peavy, Andy Benes and Steve Barber. Zambrano has thus far pitched 1145 innings. With 41 games left Zambrano should make eight more starts, accruing approximately 52 more innings (he's averaging about 6.5 innings per start this season) putting him at 1197 for his career. He will have pitched more innings than everyone on the list except Maloney and Petry, though most everyone is close. Ramon Martinez pitched 206 innings as a 27-year-old, then never threw more than 168 and wasn't the same. Boswell threw only 29 innings after turning 27. Maloney had three more successful seasons before completely collapsing, Pedro is the hopeful archetype (ERA+'s of 245, 285, 189, 196, 212, 125, 148, 96), Valdez was pretty good for two more seasons, Nash pitched only one more (poor) season, Petry was below average for six more seasons, Peavy is obviously incomplete, Benes was a reliable starter for seven more seasons (three above average and four just below), and, finally, Barber pitched through age 36 but didn't do much. Now, I have no idea if this is helpful in the least. The lone pitcher that stood out after age 26 on the list was Pedro, who is virtuoso. That's not to say history portends a complete collapse for Zambrano, however.

Agreed. So who's going to work on finding that data?

i wouldn't either. Maybin could be Soriano at a very cheap price for the next few years. I wonder how Dombrowski meant that. Did he mean it as a comparison? That Maybin will actually be better than Soriano over the next couple seasons? Or that factoring in age and cost, that Maybin is a better value?

I actually looked at Mussina first. His ERA+'s were 142, 108, 129, 98 and 101 in his first five years with the Yankees. While that's not bad, it's not four years out of five of ace-level production.

Ha ha. I definitely agree with your point. I certainly won't be able to name many (if any) more. I bet there's a couple more though. The list of such deals that didn't work out will be nigh interminable. Edit: It also helps prove your point that I had to go to an all-time great to find an exception.

well whatss your definition of "worked out". I'm pretty confident that Z has 5 more years of consistent production in him. Name a 5 year or longer, high money deal that produced even four years of ace-quality pitching. I really have a hard time believing there are none. I didn't look much, but Greg Maddux was signed by the Braves in 1993 for 5-years, $28 million. Obviously, that's chump change now, but it wasn't then. Wikipedia says the Yankees offered $6 million more, however. That deal definitely produced four years of ace-quality pitching (astounding ERA+'s of 171, 273, 259, 162, 191), though maybe one can protest "high money" -- though I believe it was. That said, I agree with your overarching point. The deal is a gamble; albeit a gamble I'd make.

Only because he didn't let Hendry outspend his mistakes.

I agree. I think the Cubs were in a far more favorable position in 2002 than they are now. In 2002 the team was stocked with young, cheap talent and didn't have the potential millstone contracts the current squad is saddled with. It sickens me to think what might have been had Dusty Baker not gotten his claws into Wood and Prior. Sammy's contract was no picnic, but he was still producing 5 years ago. As for the contracts now, I think only Soriano's is unmovable as is. Barring an injury, I think Z and even Lee could be moved to a New York team or Boston as an in-season deal. The only potential millstone I see is Soriano. I really wonder what the future would have held for Prior and Wood if the club would've exercised caution with their careers. Without Dusty, I think the past couple seasons might've looked much different. It sickens me as well. Unfortunately, Zambrano's has the potential to be a millstone. He's a young pitcher that has been pushed pretty hard in innings, pitch counts and such. Don't get me wrong, I definitely, definitely am happy about the deal. I think it's a good deal relative to the market. But it could certainly be a millstone. Other than that, I agree that the other contracts (outside of Soriano's) aren't bad.

I agree. I think the Cubs were in a far more favorable position in 2002 than they are now. In 2002 the team was stocked with young, cheap talent and didn't have the potential millstone contracts the current squad is saddled with.

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done. That said, over simplify away... Excuses excuses excuses. Record vs resources. It's simple because that's all that matters. Excuse away, and you'll just keep getting the same results. So what kind of job would you say Dave Dombrowski has done with the Detroit Tigers? I would take Dombrowski as GM of the Cubs any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but if we judged him the same way you are judging Hendry, our analysis would tell us to stay far, far away. Never mind that Dombrowski took an organization that was losing terribly and turned them into a team that went to the World Series last year and is currently leading their division this year. His won-loss record during his tenure at Detroit is 403-527. That's 124 games under .500!!!! OMG!!!! Simple and ridiculous. Detroit was a train wreck and they're now a very good team that's well-positioned for the future. Hendry took over a team that had won 88 games the previous year. Since then he hired Dusty Baker, who was an outright disaster and who was at least partly responsible for major injuries to two very good young pitchers. He's built a team that is 3 games above .500 in a terrible division, in a weak National League. He's also got several very large contracts which may hinder the options available to the team in the future. Dombrowski inherited a team that had lost 106 games, had bad players and little promise for the future. He's turned them into a very good team with some of the best young talent in the game - a team that should be playoff contenders for years to come. They're 13 games over .500 in a pretty good division, in what's considered by just about everybody to be the superior league. The very large contracts that the Tigers have are Mags - that one expires in 2009 if the Tigers choose not to exercise his options, Sheffield (expires in '09), Carlos Guillen (expires in 2011, but $12M a year for his production is probably a bargain) and Bonderman (4 years, $38M - who wouldn't take that?) So Dombrowski has taken a worse product and turned it into a better team with a better outlook for the future. Simple and ridiculous. That's exactly my point. Go back and re-read the post you are responding to. I would take Dombrowski as the Cubs GM in a heartbeat and yet his won-loss record at Detroit is abysmal. Way worse than Hendry's is with the Cubs. So should we rely solely on won-loss record when judging a GM? Is that the be all end all stat that says it all? No, of course not. That argument is simple and ridiculous. 88-89-79-66-(80 something). Hendry didn't lift a team out of an extended doldrums like Dombrowski; and, if he did, he returned them three seasons later. What does it take to get people to read before they respond around here. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) That's what I'm saying. Judging a GM on his won-loss record alone is a terrible idea. Dombrowski better than Hendry. Dombrowski's won-loss record with Detroit a lot worse than Hendry's with the Cubs. What do you think 88, 89, 79 and 66 are? Those are wins, half of the team's record. Yes, sometimes you have to split up the overall record of a GM -- I've said there are many variables and that's certainly one. Whether it's combined or year-by-year, the team's record is the way to judge a GM. Good. So then we agree that what Goony posted is not the be all end all of judging a GM. That's the point I have made. Are you disagreeing with it? The trend of those wins and losses should be taken into account. The wins and losses of the seasons immediately preceding that GM's tenure should be taken into account. Other extenuating circumstances should be taken into account like major debilitating injuries at unusual rates should be taken into account. I think when these things are considered, Hendry has clearly improved the Cubs team he took over in July of '02, but that doesn't mean that he is a great GM or given a contract extension. It depends. If Gooney is saying overall win/loss + resources is the only way to measure a GM, then I don't agree. But I seriously doubt that's what he meant. Win/loss + resources is the way to judge a GM, though sometimes the win/loss may be overall or seasonal. In this case, I'm guessing Gooney quoted the overall mark because it's simpler and the seasonal record isn't more favorable to Hendry. Also, I still don't agree that the Cubs faced major debilitating injuries at unusal rates. All teams have injuries. I also think the Cubs were basically the same in the five years prior to Hendry. Though I do agree, and have throughout the thread, that these variables should be weighted.

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done. That said, over simplify away... Excuses excuses excuses. Record vs resources. It's simple because that's all that matters. Excuse away, and you'll just keep getting the same results. So what kind of job would you say Dave Dombrowski has done with the Detroit Tigers? I would take Dombrowski as GM of the Cubs any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but if we judged him the same way you are judging Hendry, our analysis would tell us to stay far, far away. Never mind that Dombrowski took an organization that was losing terribly and turned them into a team that went to the World Series last year and is currently leading their division this year. His won-loss record during his tenure at Detroit is 403-527. That's 124 games under .500!!!! OMG!!!! Simple and ridiculous. Detroit was a train wreck and they're now a very good team that's well-positioned for the future. Hendry took over a team that had won 88 games the previous year. Since then he hired Dusty Baker, who was an outright disaster and who was at least partly responsible for major injuries to two very good young pitchers. He's built a team that is 3 games above .500 in a terrible division, in a weak National League. He's also got several very large contracts which may hinder the options available to the team in the future. Dombrowski inherited a team that had lost 106 games, had bad players and little promise for the future. He's turned them into a very good team with some of the best young talent in the game - a team that should be playoff contenders for years to come. They're 13 games over .500 in a pretty good division, in what's considered by just about everybody to be the superior league. The very large contracts that the Tigers have are Mags - that one expires in 2009 if the Tigers choose not to exercise his options, Sheffield (expires in '09), Carlos Guillen (expires in 2011, but $12M a year for his production is probably a bargain) and Bonderman (4 years, $38M - who wouldn't take that?) So Dombrowski has taken a worse product and turned it into a better team with a better outlook for the future. Simple and ridiculous. That's exactly my point. Go back and re-read the post you are responding to. I would take Dombrowski as the Cubs GM in a heartbeat and yet his won-loss record at Detroit is abysmal. Way worse than Hendry's is with the Cubs. So should we rely solely on won-loss record when judging a GM? Is that the be all end all stat that says it all? No, of course not. That argument is simple and ridiculous. 88-89-79-66-(80 something). Hendry didn't lift a team out of an extended doldrums like Dombrowski; and, if he did, he returned them three seasons later. What does it take to get people to read before they respond around here. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) That's what I'm saying. Judging a GM on his won-loss record alone is a terrible idea. Dombrowski better than Hendry. Dombrowski's won-loss record with Detroit a lot worse than Hendry's with the Cubs. What do you think 88, 89, 79 and 66 are? Those are wins, half of the team's record. Yes, sometimes you have to split up the overall record of a GM -- I've said there are many variables and that's certainly one. Whether it's combined or year-by-year, the team's record is the way to judge a GM.

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done. That said, over simplify away... Excuses excuses excuses. Record vs resources. It's simple because that's all that matters. Excuse away, and you'll just keep getting the same results. So what kind of job would you say Dave Dombrowski has done with the Detroit Tigers? I would take Dombrowski as GM of the Cubs any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but if we judged him the same way you are judging Hendry, our analysis would tell us to stay far, far away. Never mind that Dombrowski took an organization that was losing terribly and turned them into a team that went to the World Series last year and is currently leading their division this year. His won-loss record during his tenure at Detroit is 403-527. That's 124 games under .500!!!! OMG!!!! Simple and ridiculous. Detroit was a train wreck and they're now a very good team that's well-positioned for the future. Hendry took over a team that had won 88 games the previous year. Since then he hired Dusty Baker, who was an outright disaster and who was at least partly responsible for major injuries to two very good young pitchers. He's built a team that is 3 games above .500 in a terrible division, in a weak National League. He's also got several very large contracts which may hinder the options available to the team in the future. Dombrowski inherited a team that had lost 106 games, had bad players and little promise for the future. He's turned them into a very good team with some of the best young talent in the game - a team that should be playoff contenders for years to come. They're 13 games over .500 in a pretty good division, in what's considered by just about everybody to be the superior league. The very large contracts that the Tigers have are Mags - that one expires in 2009 if the Tigers choose not to exercise his options, Sheffield (expires in '09), Carlos Guillen (expires in 2011, but $12M a year for his production is probably a bargain) and Bonderman (4 years, $38M - who wouldn't take that?) So Dombrowski has taken a worse product and turned it into a better team with a better outlook for the future. Simple and ridiculous. That's exactly my point. Go back and re-read the post you are responding to. I would take Dombrowski as the Cubs GM in a heartbeat and yet his won-loss record at Detroit is abysmal. Way worse than Hendry's is with the Cubs. So should we rely solely on won-loss record when judging a GM? Is that the be all end all stat that says it all? No, of course not. That argument is simple and ridiculous. 88-89-79-66-(80 something). Hendry didn't lift a team out of an extended doldrums like Dombrowski; and, if he did, he returned them three seasons later.

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done. That said, over simplify away... It's not an oversimplification; it's the only thing that matters. Winning is the bottom line, and Hendry's teams have not done so. While it is true that winning is the only thing that matters, to hold one person solely responsible for the win-loss record of a team, especially one that was so much worse before he took it over, one that suffered an unusual amount of injuries to key, star players and one that had a quickly declining superstar making a ton of money from a contract that Hendry did not give him, is really rather silly. It is an extreme over-simplification. Does that mean that I think he is a great GM? No. But using this team's won-loss record as the lone justification for how well it's GM did is simple and ridiculous. 1. Hendry's job includes drafting, signing and trading for the players that make up the roster. He is SOLELY responsible for what players make up the team. He also hires the manager. Holding a GM responsible for wins and losses is the correct thing to do, seeing as that's the GM's job. There is no one else to blame -- if the players or manager were bad, you must look to who hired them. 2.. The Cubs were not that much worse before Hendry took over. Hendry took over in July 2002 so this is his fifth full year on the job. His teams are now 384-385. The previous five years, including 2002 (which obviously wasn't his team) the Cubs were 377-434. The winning percentages are .499 to .465. So, the club was marginally worse, but Hendry certainly worked no miracles. Plus, this ignores the fact that Hendry was helped by youngsters like Zambrano and Prior waiting in the wings and the yearly payroll increases. 3. The Cubs suffered an unusual amount of injuries to key star players? Does this mean Wood and Prior? Young pitcher get hurt, every team deals with this. Every team deals with injuries. Prior's injuries certainly have been flukish, though Hendry waited to long for a backup plan. However, Wood has always battled injuries and further DL-time should have come as no surprise. 4. I really, really don't think the Sosa contract hindered the club much at all. Sure, it likely didn't help, but every team has a player making too much money. This money could've easily been made up by not signing crappy replacement level players to multi-million dollar deals. Oh, and even in his last year with the Cubs, Sosa was productive with a 110 OPS+. 5. 88-89-79-66. Those are the Cubs wins totals in Hendry's tenure. That's an ugly trend. Now, of course, the win total will increase this year, but, sheesh, how could it not with the amount of money Hendry was allowed to throw around in the offseason? And, even with the spending money, the team is barely over .500 in a middling division. So you truly believe that a GM should be solely judged on his won-loss record? There are always variables and everything is relative. I don't hold the GM of the Royals to the same standard as the GM of the Yankees. But Hendry is the GM of a major market team with a very large payroll and has not won accordingly. Hendry has every advantage to field a successful team, and has not done so.

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done. That said, over simplify away... It's not an oversimplification; it's the only thing that matters. Winning is the bottom line, and Hendry's teams have not done so. While it is true that winning is the only thing that matters, to hold one person solely responsible for the win-loss record of a team, especially one that was so much worse before he took it over, one that suffered an unusual amount of injuries to key, star players and one that had a quickly declining superstar making a ton of money from a contract that Hendry did not give him, is really rather silly. It is an extreme over-simplification. Does that mean that I think he is a great GM? No. But using this team's won-loss record as the lone justification for how well it's GM did is simple and ridiculous. 1. Hendry's job includes drafting, signing and trading for the players that make up the roster. He is SOLELY responsible for what players make up the team. He also hires the manager. Holding a GM responsible for wins and losses is the correct thing to do, seeing as that's the GM's job. There is no one else to blame -- if the players or manager were bad, you must look to who hired them. 2.. The Cubs were not that much worse before Hendry took over. Hendry took over in July 2002 so this is his fifth full year on the job. His teams are now 384-385. The previous five years, including 2002 (which obviously wasn't his team) the Cubs were 377-434. The winning percentages are .499 to .465. So, the club was marginally worse, but Hendry certainly worked no miracles. Plus, this ignores the fact that Hendry was helped by youngsters like Zambrano and Prior waiting in the wings and the yearly payroll increases. 3. The Cubs suffered an unusual amount of injuries to key star players? Does this mean Wood and Prior? Young pitcher get hurt, every team deals with this. Every team deals with injuries. Prior's injuries certainly have been flukish, though Hendry waited to long for a backup plan. However, Wood has always battled injuries and further DL-time should have come as no surprise. 4. I really, really don't think the Sosa contract hindered the club much at all. Sure, it likely didn't help, but every team has a player making too much money. This money could've easily been made up by not signing crappy replacement level players to multi-million dollar deals. Oh, and even in his last year with the Cubs, Sosa was productive with a 110 OPS+. 5. 88-89-79-66. Those are the Cubs wins totals in Hendry's tenure. That's an ugly trend. Now, of course, the win total will increase this year, but, sheesh, how could it not with the amount of money Hendry was allowed to throw around in the offseason? And, even with the spending money, the team is barely over .500 in a middling division.

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done. That said, over simplify away... It's not an oversimplification; it's the only thing that matters. Winning is the bottom line, and Hendry's teams have not done so.

Honest questions: Is the top GM rated by his team's record? How do you personally calculate GM worth? Dollars per win? Maybe that works because clearly a guy like Cashman can sign whomever he wants... And how do we take into account the luck factor? No one denies that Hendry put together an amazing team for the 2004 season, but we didn't do much. How are injuries taken into account? Wins are clearly the most important factor. Hendry hasn't won enough. If he was leading the Kansas City Royals or Tampa Bay Devil Rays and was 383-385, then he'd have done a decent job. However, he wouldn't be 383-385 because he wouldn't have the huge payroll to mask his mistakes. With the resources the Cubs have, 383-385 is totally unacceptable.

Ok, so all that means is Hill catches pitchers when they have a good day. CERA means nothing. Yeah CERA seems to have fallen out of favor as a valid measure of a catcher's abilities. I really don't know of a good way to quantify how a catcher 'calls' a game, but then again I'm not a big stats guy (though I'm trying to improve). I don't think CERA was ever in favor. There are just way too many variables for the stat to be insightful.

Yay! I'm happy, but figured this would get done at some point.

I have no idea why he's still here. Soto should obviously be up and Hill should be gone. It's about as mind-boggling as to why Soriano isn't in RF (when healthy). The only justification -- however spurious it is -- for keeping Hill was how well Zambrano pitched to him. But he's not even catching Zambrano anymore, Kendall is. So now I have no idea what possible justification there is for Hill on the roster.

I gave jones plenty of chances, and at this point he's the best option that the cubs have in CF. But that's saying more about the condition of their CF situation than about jock. He was fine at 2006 production, but this year he's been lousy. Jones may have been given plenty of chances, though he is certainly producing now. He's not great and it didn't help that he was Hendry's big free agent acquisition when the team was desperate for an offensive stud. Honestly, that may be Jones's greatest sin -- and it's not his fault. Or, more cynically, his greatest sin is simply being average. However, Kendall was basically given no chance at all. Even at this point, people speak as if catcher is a huge hole offensively. Now, I'm not sure how much I trust Kendall to continue producing -- obviously he won't at this rate -- but I think he's earned kudos thus far.