Backtobanks

I don't have a problem with keeping or firing Hendry. He has made plenty of mistakes during his tenure, but he has also raised the expectation level. He's done better than average on trades, but worse than average on money issues and free agents. One trait that could be considered a positive or negative is that he is a hands-off GM, letting the manager run the team. Personally, I think the Cubs have a better chance to rebound in the next 1-2 years with Hendry rather than with a new GM simply because he knows the personnel in the whole system and has built a relationship with the other GMs.

My thought was that any big money/long term contracts would have to be okayed by Ricketts. I would think Ricketts would want the same situation with a new GM too.

I disagree with your opinion whether Hendry will be retained. Hendry knows the personnel in the system and obviously will start the dismantling of the current team. Also, I'm not sure Ricketts wants to wait a few more years with 2011 "to be the start of the "molding the team into what I'd like it to become" process." If Hendry can unload Fukudome and possibly Zambrano (eating money) along with losing DLee and Lilly, he will have money to work with to build a competitive team with a few free agents and an infusion of youth. Hendry with money to work with isnt a good thing. Hendry with a short, tight leash being held by Ricketts would be okay.

I disagree with your opinion whether Hendry will be retained. Hendry knows the personnel in the system and obviously will start the dismantling of the current team. Also, I'm not sure Ricketts wants to wait a few more years with 2011 "to be the start of the "molding the team into what I'd like it to become" process." If Hendry can unload Fukudome and possibly Zambrano (eating money) along with losing DLee and Lilly, he will have money to work with to build a competitive team with a few free agents and an infusion of youth.

From MLBTR: Cardinals Looking To Add Personality To Clubhouse :lol: :lol: :lol:

Salty has really dropped off since going to Texas. His top OPS in the majors since the trade is .716 and he's currently OPSing .753 in 211 PAs in AAA as a 25-year-old. Hypothetically, if they were to give him up for Nady, it would still be worth it, and maybe stick him in Iowa and try to convert him to 1B. I'd be very interested in a Nady for Salty swap and if he's having Ankiel/Glass-esque throwing issues, it might be realistic. He's not the top of the line guy that he was when the Braves dealt him, though. A move to first base would help his issues, but then the question is can he hit enough. Looking at his numbers, he would be an offensive liability at 1B unless he really starts hitting.

I still can't see teams offering big money over 3-4 years to him because of his injury history. The Cubs owe him at least $16.6 (with the 2012 buyout), so you're talking at least $50-$60 million over 3-4 years. The mega deals are going to "sure things" (Lee, Mauer, Pujols, Halladay, etc.), not players with a history of injury. Teams are trying to re-sign their own stars and build with young players.

From MLBTR: •Jamey Newberg says the Rangers should seriously consider trading Chris Davis or Justin Smoak if there's a real chance to improve the club Lilly for one of those guys to replace DLee sounds good to me.

There really isn't one. Hopefully Diamond has made enough of an impression where he has become option as a starter next year, Jackson and Cashner should be candidates as well but who knows what the organization is thinking. Between those 3, hopefully 2 of them can step up in case they do trade Lilly and Silva and don't bring them back. This is the reason you might want to bring Lilly back.

You're acting as if no one here criticizes some of his decisions at the time he makes them. That's exactly my point. If he makes a trade we hear he sold low, paid too much, got a player that's over-the-hill, etc. If he doesn't make a trade we hear he holds onto players too long, overvalues his prospects, etc. All of that comes from the fact we have no information on the trade negotiations (except rumors and speculation) and hindsight after the players involved succeed or fail. As other Hendry discussions have pointed out, for the most part Hendry's strength is trading. His major weakness is offering up contracts to free agents. Hendry, as a GM, has the responsibility to make decisions regarding when to trade players. We have hindsight to evaluate him, sure, but his job is to have foresight to make the correct moves. In much the same way you can't evaluate the trades Hendry made, you can't evaluate him as a trader. The information you have on him as a trader is incomplete and doesn't tell the entire story. Just look at the rosters he's assembled with the resources he's been granted and you see that he's been a bad GM. There are other reasons (e.g. roster mismanagement), but he's had the budget to win with the Cubs and over his tenure they've been quite average. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The Cubs' rosters during the Hendry tenure have been very good and for the most part were picked to win or contend almost every year. Even now, most experts agree that this roster ought to be much better than it is playing. That's the GM's job. Unfortunately, it doesn't always translate to the field. The Cubs have had more than their share of injuries over the last 8-9 years and that combined with unexpected underproduction (i.e. DLee and ARam) at times has resulted in the results we have.

You're acting as if no one here criticizes some of his decisions at the time he makes them. That's exactly my point. If he makes a trade we hear he sold low, paid too much, got a player that's over-the-hill, etc. If he doesn't make a trade we hear he holds onto players too long, overvalues his prospects, etc. All of that comes from the fact we have no information on the trade negotiations (except rumors and speculation) and hindsight after the players involved succeed or fail. As other Hendry discussions have pointed out, for the most part Hendry's strength is trading. His major weakness is offering up contracts to free agents.

It's a legitimate point you're making, but I think BacktoBanks is right as well. Holding onto players too long is not a good attribute, however, we don't know which instances to criticize Hendry and which ones not to because we don't have all the information. If, after the 2007 season, Hendry decided to shop Rich Hill and the best offer he got was the As offering up Daric Barton and a AA pitcher not in their top 30 prospects, then Hendry made the right decision holding onto Hill and seeing if he could repeat his success. However, if he offered up Hill and got an offer from Cleveland for Carlos Santana and Fausto Carmona, he should have taken it. (Names are off the top of my head, there may be some inaccuracies). Without all the information, I just don't know how legitimate a criticism it is. My issue is trading guys at their lowest value. Guys like Pie, Hill, Jacque Jones, etc., could have raised their value at some point, but Hendry preferred to get some form of value over being more patient with them. I would have preferred he show more patience there. That's been my point in all of these Hendry discussions - you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't and all of the criticism comes with the advantage of hindsight.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. First you say "we don't know what kind of deals he nixed" and then you say "There were plenty of Cub players that could have been traded at the height of their value but were kept and dealt away for nothing". We never know what another team is offering for a player, so how can we criticize Hendry for holding on to them or dealing them for nothing. Using your example of Rich Hill, what amazing offer was made at the height of his career? It's very true that we have no idea what offers Hendry has turned down over his tenure as Cubs GM. All I am saying is that there are plenty of examples of players that Hendry held onto whose value dropped significantly before they were traded. I have no idea what offers were on the table, but I do know that Hendry tends to hold onto players. You can't say, "Hendry is good at trading because he doesn't give up much talent" while ignoring the fact that this is often due to his reluctance to trade players at the height of their value. Reluctance to trade away players is a double-edged sword of sorts. But again, how can you say that he's reluctant to trade players at the height of their value if you don't know whst's being offered. If somebody offers at low A ball player for Marmol (now at the height of his value), should Hendry accept it because Marmol's value might decrease? The whole discussion is based on what is being offered at the time and none of us have that information.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. First you say "we don't know what kind of deals he nixed" and then you say "There were plenty of Cub players that could have been traded at the height of their value but were kept and dealt away for nothing". We never know what another team is offering for a player, so how can we criticize Hendry for holding on to them or dealing them for nothing. Using your example of Rich Hill, what amazing offer was made at the height of his career?

I'm all for letting him play somewhere for the rest of the season and then make a decision as to whether he is a starting OF during the offseason. I agree that he's not someone you build your team around, but he might be a young, cheap role player.

I know he had no intentions of keeping Hamilton, but that is a horrible decision he made. He didn't really make that decision, though. For the gazillionth time on this board, he agreed to trade the pick to the Reds BEFORE he even knew who the Reds wanted. He would never have stuck with the Cubs as a Rule 5 pick because the Cubs didn't have room on the major league roster for another outfielder. Why let facts get in the way of the Hendry bashers.

Beane would lose his "Genius" label if you gave him a big market team. I really believe Beane is totally overrated.

If Ricketts is a hands-on owner starting next year, it might not hurt to keep Hendry. Most posters agree that trading is Hendry's strong point, so dumping him when the club needs to trade off dead weight might not be a good idea. Also paying off Hendry (2 years) plus paying a new GM adds to the financial woes. Just keep a close eye on him when it comes to signing free agents.

I might understand this deal if Hendry already had a deal with another team set up to take an OF, but like you said it doesn't make much sense to add another OF.

I think he was just saying that Soriano is setting the sights a bit low to be content with a split. The problem is that he doesn't seem to even know the Reds are the team in first place right now. I'm well aware of the fact the Reds are in 1st place, but it's not exactly like they're the 1927 Yankees. Everyone makes a big deal about how mediocre the NL Central is. For a player to hope for a split at home against the Reds just goes to show how lost this team is. The discussion about "firing Piniella" should be centered on the fact that this team that this team has no fire and doesn't seem to care. Thats actually about the last thing that thread should be centered on as it has no merit or proof. Z tried fighting a teammate showing the "fire" and boy has it done wonders. Lee slammed his helmet down after hitting into another DP, there is that fire and care, but yet Cubs still lose. Actually what I should have said was the manager and coaches seem to be totally disinterested and have accepted failure. Two perfect examples today with the breakup of the double play at 2B where the runner was obviously out of the base path and the game ending double play where Colvin should have been called safe. Nobody argued either call and DeJesus kind of shrugged his shoulders as he walked off the field. Combine the comatose demeanor of Lou with the terrible record and you have a reason to fire him.

I think he was just saying that Soriano is setting the sights a bit low to be content with a split. The problem is that he doesn't seem to even know the Reds are the team in first place right now. I'm well aware of the fact the Reds are in 1st place, but it's not exactly like they're the 1927 Yankees. Everyone makes a big deal about how mediocre the NL Central is. For a player to hope for a split at home against the Reds just goes to show how lost this team is. The discussion about "firing Piniella" should be centered on the fact that this team that this team has no fire and doesn't seem to care.

That makes this Soriano quote funnier... I'd love to see what a Jim Hendry fire sale looks like. All those NTC's. Nothing like hoping to split a series at home against a team that was picked to finish below you. That's a great way to gain ground on the leaders.

On MLBTR they listed a bunch of possibilities on trading Zambrano for other bad contracts. Personally, I don't think the Cubs have to trade him now (at the deadline) or would necessarily have to take back 2 or 3 bad contracts because I would think there will be teams interested in Zambrano at a reduced price. Having said that, the one deal that had slight possibilities is: •The Indians could match the Cubs' Zambrano commitment almost perfectly with Travis Hafner, Kerry Wood, and Jake Westbrook. It seems pointless, though, and Hafner isn't able to play first base. How about: Zambrano + Baker + Atkins + $7 million for Westbrook + Wood + Peralta Contracts: Zambrano - $17.8, $17.8, $18 Baker - $1 Westbrook -$11 Wood - $10.5 Peralta - $4.8 Club options not included Indians get Zambrano for app $25 million over 2 1/2 years. Cubs financial burden could end after season.

I agree with you Tim, but I still don't think he'll opt out. In this economy, I can't believe he'll get offers of around $40 million over 3 years with his history of injury and his "down" years. If he comes back next year ($14.6 million) and shows that he's healthy, he would be in line to get $16 million in 2012 from the Cubs or a 2-3 year deal from another team.

It's borderline adequate, from what I've seen. The bigger issue with him is whether or not he'd accept a one year deal, and if not, what could be done with him after 2011. I think he'll be able to get a multi-year deal again. Having said that, I would very much approve of using him as a stop gap between Lee and Adrian/Prince/whoever. As for 2011, I think the Cubs can content next year is things are played shrewdly between now and then. And while I think Hendry will be shown the door immediately after the season ends, it's up to him to effectively sell before this years deadline. I know as a lame duck GM that might not seem likely (to many), but it would behoove him to do it to the best of his abilities for his long term employment chances. I would trade Lilly, Lee, Nady, Silva and Theriot before the deadline, for prospect packages. I think Hendry really would like to trade Z, but wonder if Ricketts will allow it. I hope no, since he and Lou are doing their best to drive his trade value down, and the Cubs would take a huge bath in a Z deal. Kosuke may be traded, but I doubt it. Ramirez would have to be a fool to opt out after this season. Given that, my best case, realistic scenario 2011 roster is this: C: Soto 1B: Dunn 2B: Fontenot/Baker SS: Castro 3B: Ramirez LF: Soriano CF: Byrd RF: Fukudome Bench: Castillo, Barney, Baker, Colvin, Snyder Rotation: Dempster, Gorzelanny, Cashner, Jackson, Zambrano/Wells/Marshall Bullpen: Marmol, Stevens, Russell/Gaub/Parker, Grabow, Marshall No, it's not inspiring, to say the least. Pretty similar in the lineup, but utilizing a lot more of the farm instead of nickel and dime contracts for bit players. But in this division, it's capable of contention, provided a decent manager and Ramirez not absolutely sucking again. When Ramirez and Fukudome come off the books, it will open up a few more options. If the Cubs add a premier 1B and allocate resources better, I can see the team being a championship contender a couple years down the road. Looking at the FA class, Dunn is probably the 2nd best positon players behind Crawford, and he may ver well end up with a 3-4 year deal. Also, Im not so sure that the Nats wont keep him around for a few more years. For this same reason, even if Ramirez has a slight bounceback in the 2nd half, he'll probably opt out for a 3-4 year deal, as the only other 3B that might generate any interest is Jorge Cantu, who I might be interested in if Ram does opt out. Give him a 2-3 year deal, and hope that by the time it winds down Vitters will be ready. He'll only be 22-23 by then. I can't see ARam opting out of his contract. Nobody is going to offer him a 3-4 year deal after 2009-2010. He would have to stay healthy, hit .315-.320 with 24 HRs., and slug about 1.000 the rest of the way to end up at .260/30 HR/.730 slugging. Obviously, his best option is to stay healthy, take his $14.6 million in 2011, and go after a 2-3 year deal after that.