His teams were highly flawed because he had no interest in finding players that could get on base. The one truly good team he built (2008) was built on a bunch of career years. The good teams he built on paper (2004 specifically) were ruined by his hand-picked manager. He wasn't very good (although certainly not the worst, as some made him out to be at the time). Although it seems many on this board are suddenly pining for an 80-win juggernaut with a huge payroll. Hendry was pretty good at those. Those "bunch of career years" being the middle IF and Dempster? While not technically a career year, getting what we got out of Edmonds was obscenely lucky, FWIW. I'm still not sure what the hell that was. Also, while not really career years, we did manage to get good-for-them seasons out of pretty much everyone. Ok, but those guys were in their prime putting up the types of seasons you'd expect. It's not like they were an out of nowhere '89 Cubs team. They were a great team on paper. That team had two starters under 30: Theriot and Soto. Most were 31-33. Unless you subscribe to the Dusty Baker theory of player performance, most of those guys were theoretically past their prime.