Yes and no. Given the new owners I can see the appeal of getting someone new in and signaling a "new era," but that typically requires paying big for such "newness." If the money is there, great, get the new guy in. If not, eh, limit Hendry basically to trades only and I can live with it for another year. Either way, I'm not losing sleep. If they want to still fire Hendry and there's not the money to make a big splash I'm not going to be worked up over it. I guess technically I could live with it for another year, but there's no good reason why we should have to. He's been in charge for a very long time and the team is barely over .500 with a huge financial advantage over the competition. I'm not all that upset that Joshua has been canned, but it's a weak move by Jim who typically finds something else to blame for a lack of success. He goes year to year on bizarre tangents, and he's the one who put them in this tight spot with so much money tied into just a few guys for several years. So if they somehow make it so his moves can't cripple the team going further, fine. But much like "Dusty-proofing" a roster, I don't see the point in hanging onto a guy you have to prevent from screwing up the team when he does what he wants to do. I agree with all of this.