Backtobanks

Hendry can fire Baker, just as he hired him. While you are correct that many of the problems faced by the Cubs are caused, in my opinion, by Baker, Hendry shares culpability by providing the players and giving Baker the autonomy to misuse them. For example, if Hendry wants Remlinger used against righties, the kids to get a real chance to play, etc., etc., he needs to either lay down he law -- impose his will from above -- or fire Baker. If he shares Baker's philosophy... well, let's just say he's still guilty! I think Hendry is stuck in the middle. He wants to let Baker run the team, but I'm not sure the Tribune Company would back him on firing Baker (and eating his salary) or forcing him to play the kids with a $100 million budget. [/b]So to answer your post, he can fire him or impose his will on Baker, but the end results for this year would not change dramatically and all of the criticism and pressure would then be put on Hendry for a mediocre season. If Hendry was managing this team all year, I guarantee you would have seen the kids playing 80% of the time, but again the result might not show up in the standings this year.

Most of your post points to the fact that the biggest problems have been caused by Baker and not Hendry. Hendry has been very adamant about giving the kids a chance to play, having Dempster as closer out of spring training, etc. As for Hollandsworth, he is an excellent 4th OF/PH and that is what he was signed to do, not to play regularly. Hendry believes it is his job to provide the players and let the manager make the on-field decisions. As for firing Baker, that decision is up to MacPhail and the Tribune. I think the Tribune Company won't be sorry to see Dusty leave, but aren't willing to eat his salary.

There is only one thing that I think you can blame Hendry for and that is that he has a tendency to overpay for bench players (Blanco, Macias, etc.). He had a closer coming out of spring training (Dempster), but Dusty wanted Hawkins to close. He suggested that Dubois play regularly in LF, but Dusty wanted Hollandsworth to play. He has built a minor league system that is considered to be very good. He made sure that the team had an adequate substitute in case Nomar got injured. He made sure that the team had a couple of pitchers who could start in case Wood or Prior got injured. He did addition by subtraction to rid the team of Sosa. Besides injuries, I think the biggest problem has been Baker's misuse of the players that Hendry has provided. It didn't take a genius to figure out that Patterson wasn't a leadoff hitter, that Hairston and Walker ought to bat at the top of the lineup, that Hawkins wasn't a closer, that Remlinger isn't a loogy, that Macias shouldn't be the first bat off the bench, etc. I would assume that many of you are long time Cub fans who are just as frustrated as I am, but Hendry isn't the problem. He has put together a team that, when healthy, should have challenged the Cards last year and this year. With the reserves that he has provided, this team is still in the hunt for the WC (and should have won it last year). And finally, Murton, Pie, Hill, Van Buren, Pinto, etc. give us hope for the future.

I'm not sure Kearns price would be a lot lower. His value is low and he's not making a lot of money, so I don't know why the Reds have any motivation to trade him right now. Cubs would end up overpaying for him. At least with Dunn you know what you're getting. I would think that Kearns (especially when he was in the minors) could have been had for Mitre with a little tinkering on both sides. Mitre's sinker is what's needed in Great America Ball Park. Whatever the deal would be, I think it would be significantly lower than 3-4 players you would have to offer in the Dunn bidding war.

Exactly. Let's pay another $8-$10 Million a year to a pitcher that is hurt all the time (I believe Burnett has never made 30 starts in a year). Not to mention his sub-.500 record for a team that has been pretty good for the most part of his career. Burnett is a perfect solution: He is healthy half of a season and Wood is healthy the other half of a season.

Why Carlos Lee? He's nothing special outside his RBI totals. I'd prefer every guy on that list to him. Maybe b/c he'll hit for around a .290 avg, hit about 35 HR and drive in around 120+ RBI..... nothing special eh? I'd rather have Lee than any of those guys actually The same Carlos Lee that's hitting .261? HR totals don't matter to me a ton, and RBI mean little to nothing to me. His lower OBP (albeit with a high SLG) diminishes his production. All 4 of those other guys create more runs than Lee. This thinking is getting out of control. How can Rbi's and Hr's mean nothing. Some of you guys like to talk about runs created, and I have no idea how all that stuff works. What I do know is that the best way to create a run is to hit a homerun. I'll also take a guy with a 150 rbi over a guy with a 150 walks. Agreed . A lot of peolpe on this board are on the verge of ODing on the stats only the arm chair gm's care about. Amen on that one. I'm getting tired of reading about some obscure stats as to why Adam Dunn is the second coming of Babe Ruth, when all I see is a Dave Kingman who walks a lot. Also, all of the people who discount W/L as an important statistic for a starting pitcher. The object is to win games. I would take my chances on trading for Kearns (at a lesser price) than Dunn anyday of the week.

I understand the frustration, but what do you really think you could get for Wood right now. I can see them moving him to the pitching starved Rangers for a player like Mench (who I like A LOT!). If they did that, they would probably still have to pick up a ton of his contract. No team is looking to get a 10 mil a year injury prone starter. Every reason you would like to get rid of him is why he will be hard to move. Potential can only get you so far. (are you listening corey patterson?) I didn't say to trade him now, what I did say was to get him healthy enough to trade him in the off season. The only sticking point is his no trade contract. Other than that, I think teams would be lined up around the corner to get Wood and his contract. Going to Texas for Mench would be a fabulous deal.

Now we see why Wood has never been a big winner in the Majors. Wood's "stuff" is as good as anyone pitching, but his body just continues to break down. I like Wood a lot, but I think the Cubs need to get him healthy enough to trade in the off season. His "stuff" and reputation will get the Cubs a quality player(s) for him. Also, by next year some more of our highly touted prospects should be ready to pitch for the Cubs.

I'm not saying the trade will happen, but we all know about Patterson's potential and Mitre And Hill probabily could start for the Reds now. Also, Mitre is a ground ball pitcher and Hill is a strikeout pitcher, both would help in Great America Ballpark.

In last night's game, Kaspar & Brenley pointed out the brace on Gerut's knee and said he was only about 75% back from the surgery. He could end up being a good acquisition if and when he fully recovers.

Backe/Lane/Patton is not that hard to beat. Then Rusch/Mitre/IF prospect is enough then. If we could get Dunn for Rusch, Mitre, and an IF prospect, Hendry would have made that deal a long time ago.

I just don't get it. Grieve has done a great job every time they have called him up. I didn't understand when they called up the 2 rookies instead of Grieve. Grieve has proven that he is a valuable commodity off the bench and the Cubs treat him like crap. Meanwhile, Mitre is sitting in the bullpen doing nothing.

What would you accept for a player of Aramis Ramirez's value? That's pretty close to what Dunn is. Please don't compare Dunn with his .240 BA, horrible defense, and 8 trillion strikeouts with Ramirez. With all of these outrageous proposals (and demands from the other side), I'd rather try to get Kearns. As Kaspar & Brenley said, with Dunn it's either a HR, K, or a walk.

I totally agree. Hendry picked up a decent piece of insurance for someone who didn't fit in the Cubs' plans. I do think that Hendry will make at least one more deal, but I don't think this has anything to do with the next one. He got a part-time OF/pinch-hitter who can play good defense. Case closed.

I liked Dubois too, but he needs regular at-bats and he wasn't going to get them with the Cubs. Dubois is 26 and has fallen behind Patterson, Pie, Murton, Burnitz, Hollandsworth, etc. I think future is as a DH, unless he can get some regular playing time in a place with a bandbox park.

Yes. Yes, but not for the 5 for 1 deals mentioned in some of the other posts.

Dubois wasn't ever going to play for the Cubs and couldn't hit off the bench. It's pretty obvious that Dubois had fallen behind Pie & Murton as OF prospects and he is 26 years old (don't forget that Patterson is younger than Dubois). I liked Dubois, but as a LF he looked like a great DH.

I was just going to make the same suggestion: CP for Pierre. This would allow the Cubs to give Pie the time he needs in the minors. When Pie is ready, Pierre becomes reasonably attractive trade bait.

Phil Rogers suggests in today's Tribune that the trade of Raffy for Mitch Williams was worse than the Brock for Broglio trade. I disagree because Williams filled a need on the Cubs and helped them win a Division title. Also, the Cubs did have a pretty decent 1B in Mark Grace. Broglio never helped the Cubs while Brock went on to a HOF career. Of course, hindsight is always 20-20 and the Cubs would love to have had Brock & Raffy for their whole careers.

I like Dunn, but I still say he is not worth stripping the Cubs of 5 players under 25 years old. I would love to see the Cubs win the WS in the next few years, but to restock another team's future is silly. Knowing the Cubs, they would trade 5 players for Dunn and lose in the playoffs this year and next and then lose Dunn to free agency and watch the Reds overtake us with the 5 players we traded to them.

I'm not sure it's entirely fair to compare the offensive numbers of the consensus best fielder of all-time at the most important fielding position to those of a first baseman. Just saying. Also, despite some overlap in their careers, Grace played in a much more hitting-centric time. Grace was great and all, but no Hall of Famer. Yeah, I agree with you. You can't compare a middle infielder's numbers to a power position player's numbers. If you did, you might not have any 2B or SS in the HOF. During most of baseball's history, 2B & SS were manned by slick-fielding, mediocre-hitting players and they were appreciated for those skills that they brought to the game. 1B, 3B, LF, & RF are positions of power. I think Raffy is a 1st ballot HOF probability, even though he always seemed to fly under the radar as a great player.

I don't know when Hendry will pull the trigger on a trade, but the Cubs certainly won't be sellers with their payroll.

Hendry has been quoted as saying that the Cubs might solve their problems "in house" (waiting for Nomar & Williamson). Neither one of these guys are going to be ready by the trade deadline, so how can he make a determination as to whether they can help us. Or is Hendry just saying that to keep his plans secret?

I agree that the Yanks aren't compatible with our needs, but let's figure out a 3-team or 4-team trade. The Yankees are really desparate for starting pitchers (Rusch, Mitre, or Williams), like Patterson (according to thr rumors), and have nothing at AAA. It looks like we have a lot to offer the Yanks, but short of Sheffield I don't see much that we want from them. Get those creative minds working.

Also, he said that he is a quick learner. I don't see much proof of that over the years.