Backtobanks

My point is that Ricketts has to put a product on the field next year to sell tickets. Following some of the posts here, we should trade ARam, Marmol, Byrd, Theriot, Gorzelanny, Colvin, Lilly, Lee, Fukudome, etc. As I've posted before, the Cubs will go into 2011 with a team they think can compete with their eye on contending in 2012. Obviously Ricketts plans to cut the payroll (at least for 2011). I would think that you need to keep players like Byrd, ARam, Colvin, Gorzelanny, Castro, Soto, Cashner, Marshall, Marmol, Dempster, Soriano (unfortunately), and Wells to be the core so that you can fill in the rest of the spots with prospects and/or reasonably priced FAs. As for the Hendry part of the discussion, my point has always been that he will be criticized no matter what he does or doesn't do. If he "sells high" on Marmol, there will be dozens of pages criticizing him for not geting enough and paying too much for relief help in 2012 (if they're contending). Everybody knows who they should be trying to trade - Lilly, DLee, Silva, Soriano, Fukudome, Zambrano, Theriot, Nady, etc. to open spots and get salary relief. Listen to offers for anybody on the team, but unless you're going to get the second coming of Albert Pujols, you don't trade away a young, superstar closer who is still very affordable.

I got a great idea, let's sell high on Marmol now and then bitch when Hendry gets him back in 2012 when he's making $13 million per year and the Cubs need a closer.

And the "lame duck" manager is still using him in tight situations.

How about having Lou retire now and letting Trammel take over. If he does a decent job, his name could be thrown in the hat for next year.

As I often posted, the Cubs are going into 2011 thinking they can compete and not go into a rebuilding mode. To me that means keeping Byrd to replace DLee's production. Assuming ARam stays and rebounds along with Byrd, Soriano, Soto, Castro, and Colvin forms a decent offensive nucleus depending on who they get to replace Lee @ 1B. They also need a starter to replace Lilly/Zambrano, but hopefully some of the young guys can step into that role. They certainly won't be the preseason favorites to win the NL Central, but they should have a decent shot depending on offseason moves.

From Yahoo: Big League Stew Wed Jul 14 12:23pm PDT Reds' Votto dislikes Cubs, disses All-Star teammate Byrd By David Brown Apparently, Cincinnati Reds slugger Joey Votto(notes) never caught the All-Star spirit. Votto refused to congratulate Chicago Cubs outfielder Marlon Byrd(notes) on his performance — one that helped the National League claim home-field advantage in the World Series — because Votto's temporary teammate comes from a despised division rival. Byrd made a head's up play in right field that forced Boston's David Ortiz(notes) at second base, and also worked a key walk in a seventh-inning rally that led to the NL's first victory at the All-Star game since 1996. Such an effort certainly is worth a high five ... a handshake ... a wave ... a wink ... a nod ... a glance ... a happy thought. Not from Pal Joey. Via the planetary front-runner, ESPN: "I don't like the Cubs," Votto said. "And I'm not going to pat anybody with a Cubs uniform on the back. But because he made that really cool play, it turned out to be a really cool experience. I'm really glad we got the win today." What a leech — and a sorry excuse for an All-Star. Even if the harmless Cubs weren't 10 1/2 games behind the first-place Reds in the NL Central, you're supposed to check the intraleague rivalries at the door for the All-Star Game. Ask ... oh, anybody who's ever made a team for either side. Votto obviously is new here. And, how did he help the NL win? Oh, yeah, he didn't. Votto went 0 for 2. It's a good thing Votto had Reds teammates on either side (Brandon Phillips(notes), pictured, and Scott Rolen(notes) to the left) during introductions, or else he would have had to interact with the "enemy." The horror. He should have made the NL roster the first time around but needed to win a final Internet vote to be recognized. The "Vote Votto" process should have made Votto especially happy to be in Anaheim. Yet, he seems to be harboring lingering bitterness about ... something. Or maybe that's just how he is.

I'm surprised nobody has tried to blame Hendry for the poor facilities.

He did play first base his junior year at Clemson but he would provide below average offensive production at first. Kinda like the 1B production this year. Or Hoffpauir in 2011. Remember the payroll will probably be lower. Cantu might be an interesting option.

It might be interesting to keep Colvin and see if he can take over at 1B next year. I think I read that he played 1B at Clemson. It might not be bad to have a Nady (or clone)/ Colvin platoon at 1B next year.

He's already got a bum arm and shoulder and now you want him to pull an ankle? =D>

The bottom line is that if DLee, ARam, and Zambrano were producing anywhere near what was expected of them, the Cubs would be right at or near the top of the NL Central. Nobody expected all 3 of them to fall apart at the same time. For those of you would will claim that you predicted 1 or more of them would suck for half a season, Hendry made sure he had decent substitutes in Nady/Tracy, Tracy/Fontenot/Baker, and Gorzelanny/Silva. If I remember correctly, signing Nady and Tracy was considered a very positive move by most of us. As for the payroll issue, I think Hendry had a lot to do with convincing the Tribune company to raise the payroll.

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?