Sammy Sofa

The money issue of the Cubs likely having little to no payroll flexibility this upcoming offseason and through 2010. I'm not talking about that in terms of affording a new GM: I'm talking about in terms of no GM, Hendry or otherwise, having the means to make significant changes. It's arguably redundant to fire Hendry just to fire him when whoever replaces him won't have the means to change anything. Why not wait to fire Hendry until there is more payroll and whoever replaces him can actually do something?

Not sure if that was directed at me, but I can say that I understand some of the disgust over the doom & gloom that is pronounced here almost every day. Speaking for myself, I DO get "down" within gamethreads, but mostly it's me being sarcastic/tongue-in-cheek. Sometimes I do a poor job of relating that in my posts. I seriously haven't given up on the season. I DO give up on certain games, because this team has been so frustrating this year. But as far as the season goes, I think any rational poster here would agree that a fully healthy team could still make a serious run at the post-season. And if we can sneak in, anything is possible... Not really directed at you, more in general to those that seemingly bemoan the being a Cubs fan more often than not.

If only even just a fraction of all the promises to give up were true.

That wouldn't be a stretch. I seem to recall the hamstring injury that moved him from CF to LF occured pretty early that April.

Neither has Soriano. Very true. Has Soriano been 100% healthy since he signed with the Cubs? He was initially in 2007.

At the time? Yes. Both of those years he was worth much more than he was actually paid.

So then explain why hiring someone new when they can do almost nothing (smart) of significance to make changes for the forseeable future makes any sense? They can't do anything. Hendry can't do anything. It's Hendry's team/mess, so what's the point of hiring someone new to do basically nothing? Fire Hendry and hire someone new when the team actually has money to make changes. i would think that if hendry were to be fired and a new GM hired then there would also be some other changes in the front office...not saying for certain, but i think they would bring in a couple of new guys to flank them... also...the GM, i thought, was the headmaster...in charge of the final decisions in relation to acquisitions (both statewide and foreign) and also in charge of final decisions on draft selections, as well as managing the farm system... why in the world would you not someone new doing this very important job? The drafts and the farm system have noticeably improved over the last 3 seasons, so even if the GM was as hands-on in these matters like you describe that rather effectively counters your argument. And you keep dancing around the money issue like it doesn't matter: it doesn't matter how much you shuffle the staff if the money is not there. That's the crux of my suggestion in keeping Hendry through next season: there likely isn't going to be any money for major changes to the team for him or anyone new that would be hired. There's no point in firing Hendry and having to pay him and hiring someone new who is also going to effectively be paid to do nothing. Fire Hendry when the means are there for someone to come in and make changes. Change just for the sake of change in this situation doesn't accomplish squat.

Or they could have let Dempster walk AND traded DeRosa since the latter was actually a smart move given the player's age and cost. You're looking at this through wishful thinking that acts like DeRosa would have automatically been immune to the cold stretches this team has gone through. DeRosa is not a gamechanger along those lines. When this team went cold in the 2 years he was here he typically would as well. Besides, the Cubs would have signed a new pitcher regardless and that's far more important than holding on to someone like DeRosa. If you truly think he was traded just to make money for a pitching contract then he would have been gone no matter what.

Holy God. What a weak arm.

I predict it will be the team with the highest OBP Get outta here.

Yeah, he was [expletive] horrible in 2007 and 2008. Oh, wait.

Neither has Soriano.

So then explain why hiring someone new when they can do almost nothing (smart) of significance to make changes for the forseeable future makes any sense? They can't do anything. Hendry can't do anything. It's Hendry's team/mess, so what's the point of hiring someone new to do basically nothing? Fire Hendry and hire someone new when the team actually has money to make changes.

Which is completely different than he "he traded Derosa so he could resign Dempster and sign Miles." Disagree. There was a number of reasons as to why DeRosa was traded (some of which were and are very smart). To say he was traded simply to resign Dempster and sign Miles simply is not correct. Dempster would have likely been resigned regardless of whether DeRosa was traded or not. Miles was signed BECAUSE DeRosa was traded. DeRosa was not traded so Miles could be signed.

I understand some people have this irrational fear/hatred of Hendry, but do you honestly belive that given the limited money available and the circumstances that if he did trade Zambrano his only move would be to then overpay for someone as historically bad as Aaron Miles? The odds of some whiz kid being hired who can make magic with the very limited resources the Cubs will likely be facing this offseason and next season aren't pretty slim to nil. I'm not at all opposed to Hendry being replaced, but I'd rather it be when someone new coming in would actually have something to work with. Irrational? He traded DeRosa to save $5 million so he could give Dempster $9 million for 4 YEARS and Miles $2.2 million. He brought in a player that can't handle the pressure to play in RF at Wrigley. Don't get me started on Soriano. That's not the reason why DeRosa was traded. Bradley has been very good at home. Soriano is a major reason the Cubs made the playoffs the last two years (albeit with a terrible contract). He needed to save money. He traded DeRosa. This created a need at second base. He signed Miles. So, Miles + $2.5-$3 million for DeRosa. Then he gave that money he saved to Dempster/Bradley. I'm sure there have been other options that would have lifted the Cubs to the playoffs that wouldn't have strapped them for 8 years. Which is completely different than he "he traded Derosa so he could resign Dempster and sign Miles."

Because Hendry isn't even close to being the worst case scenario, because he's still owed a lot of money and he'd have to be paid if fired and because whoever came in would have nothing to work with. Hendry's not going to "destroy" the team with the payroll all but locked up. He'll have as little freedom and leeway to make changes as anyone else. Again, I'm not saying this in that I think Hendry is the ideal GM or that I'd even be opposed to him being fired: I just don't see the benefit of firing him and still having to pay him and then paying someone else who can't do anything and is just going to take the fall if the team does poorly again.

I understand some people have this irrational fear/hatred of Hendry, but do you honestly belive that given the limited money available and the circumstances that if he did trade Zambrano his only move would be to then overpay for someone as historically bad as Aaron Miles? The odds of some whiz kid being hired who can make magic with the very limited resources the Cubs will likely be facing this offseason and next season aren't pretty slim to nil. I'm not at all opposed to Hendry being replaced, but I'd rather it be when someone new coming in would actually have something to work with. Irrational? He traded DeRosa to save $5 million so he could give Dempster $9 million for 4 YEARS and Miles $2.2 million. He brought in a player that can't handle the pressure to play in RF at Wrigley. Don't get me started on Soriano. That's not the reason why DeRosa was traded. Bradley has been very good at home. Soriano is a major reason the Cubs made the playoffs the last two years (albeit with a terrible contract).

I understand some people have this irrational fear/hatred of Hendry, but do you honestly belive that given the limited money available and the circumstances that if he did trade Zambrano his only move would be to then overpay for someone as historically bad as Aaron Miles? The odds of some whiz kid being hired who can make magic with the very limited resources the Cubs will likely be facing this offseason and next season aren't pretty slim to nil. I'm not at all opposed to Hendry being replaced, but I'd rather it be when someone new coming in would actually have something to work with.

I understand some people have this irrational fear/hatred of Hendry, but do you honestly belive that given the limited money available and the circumstances that if he did trade Zambrano his only move would be to then overpay for someone as historically bad as Aaron Miles? The odds of some whiz kid being hired who can make magic with the very limited resources the Cubs will likely be facing this offseason and next season aren't pretty slim to nil. I'm not at all opposed to Hendry being replaced, but I'd rather it be when someone new coming in would actually have something to work with.

If the means to rebuild aren't there for the time being, why? What's the new guy going to do without any money that Hendry can't? Say we do get a chance to move a contract or two, don't you want the guy making those moves for possible prospects to be the guy that's going to be there building the contending team? Hendry's been reasonably good with the trades, so, no, I don't see the need to be paying someone new and paying Hendry to not have a job. This simply is not the ideal time to bring in a new GM until there's more payroll room.

That's definitely a good 3-4 duo, but outside of DeRosa and Molina and Ludwick (sometimes) the rest of that lineup is pretty unimpressive.

If the means to rebuild aren't there for the time being, why? What's the new guy going to do without any money that Hendry can't?

A great team? They're a decent team in a medicore to bad divison with one of the easiest schedules in baseball. They made a couple of very good moves this year but calling them a "great team" is pretty generous.

Keep thinking that. Like I brought up in another thread, the new owners are unlikely to fire the GM when there's likely next to no payroll flexibility in the offseason. Why hire someone new if they can't do anything about the mess they inherit? Well, it prevents the current GM for prolonging this mess. He's already tied up a ton of money for the next couple years. Keeping him around gives him the opportunity to mess up the years beyond that. I do agree though that Hendry will most likely be back. Why would Hendry have money to spend? He'd have his hands tied just as much by the all but frozen payroll the same as his replacement would. If the purse strings are tightened, correct, the damage he could do would be minimal. If they aren't, get him the hell out of there. Sure, but my point is that it's redundant to hire someone new for the time being if there's no money to spend. It wasn't an argument in favor of keeping Hendry if that's not the case.

2 things: That's all it takes? Hendry and Lou don't want to win? Set aside their obvious faults....you're saying they prefer losing?