Backtobanks

Except he's at least going to be used as a starter. Unfortunately our rotation is 60% is "revolving door of middle relievers ".

Just don't let Marmol listen in on the negotiations. :yahoo:

30 years? I guess you're counting his college days. Oh, so it's his managing 1 year of rookie ball and 1 year of low-A ball that you keep referring to when celebrating his illustrious coaching career. No he coached college ball, but I assumed Davell was talking about their accomplishments in the ML.

30 years? I guess you're counting his college days.

Apparently smarter than the owner that hired him. The owner fell for a guy that talked about sports (like posters) as opposed to someone who actually had experience in coaching, scouting, managing, and player development.

Yeah the reality is that we're posting on message boards and he's had a long-time career on many levels of baseball, but in you go ahead and keep believing that you're smarter than he is and he's just been lucky all of his life. So you think that Jim Hendry is definitely smarter than everyone else in the world because he's had that career? Or at least smarter than everyone posting on message boards and not working in baseball? He made some awful decisions, and a lot went wrong for him, but the fact is that there are 30 MLB GM jobs, and a ton of guys that would love to take them, and I'm not just talking about message board posters and radio callers here. Anyone who managed to hold down one of the the most sought after jobs in sports for as long as Hendry did suggests that he was clearly doing a lot of things right, though we might not know just what. AMEN to that.

Yeah the reality is that we're posting on message boards and he's had a long-time career on many levels of baseball, but in you go ahead and keep believing that you're smarter than he is and he's just been lucky all of his life. At least I understand that this message board is for entertainment purposes. It's a shame that you really believe that the fact that you post every 30 seconds somehow makes you smarter than the rest of the world.

Yeah it's great that all of us smart people can post on message boards while the not-so-smart can be special assistant to the GM of the most successful franchise in the history of team sports. Ah, the ever so solid "if they have the job, they must be better at it than the rest of the entire world" argument... made even stronger by the boys club hiring that goes on in professional sports. Well Hendry has had a job in baseball as a coach, scout, general manager, and special assistant to a general manager all of his adult life which puts him a few steps ahead of posters on a message board.

I never said that Theo wasn't a good hire. As for my bitching, I read post after post about Hendry from others before I respond. I don't have a problem about spending big now, but as I mentioned before Cespedes was there for the taking and Darvish was a possibility instead of sitting on the money. I accepted the complete dismantling for 2012, but I think completely tanking 2013 makes a turnaround difficult for 2014. In the end, none of us have any other choice but to hope that Theo's plan works. I'm just not as confident or patient as some of you probably because I've waited longer than most of you.

Yeah it's great that all of us smart people can post on message boards while the not-so-smart can be special assistant to the GM of the most successful franchise in the history of team sports.

I agree that Theo's track record has earned him complete control. Hendry did not have the same ability as Theo because he didn't inherit a consistent 89 win team. Theo's track record has no experience at taking a bad team and making them contenders. Theo's track record has no experience at selling off all assets and starting from scratch. As I've posted before, Theo will improve the system over the long haul, but I think the timeline is going to be much longer than anticipated. Two years of 90-105 losses isn't going to magically turn around without signing multiple FAs to fill all of the holes. As for jumping back into FA, yes starting with Cespedes and Darvish who are both young enough to plan for the future.

Wait. That's not fair. Perhaps the owners of the Cubs pushed Jimbo into signing the same contracts that Theo did. And what path did Theo put into place? He already had his core before he took over. It IS fair, because I won't even deny that Hendry may have had pressure to do those contracts. But he blamed Theo, therefore blaming Jimbo is fair game too. Theo's path was always build thru the system and add when it made sense to do so. Same thing he's starting out here doing. I listed reasons as to why Hendry was NOT a good GM and never did mention FA contracts. It's impossible for some of you to admit that Theo has any faults. Theo's record is that he took a team that averaged 89 wins per season for 5 years and turned it into a team that averaged 93 wins per season for the next 9 years. That is very impressive and he did it by drafting and developing young players and spending a ton of money on contracts. He now has complete autonomy to do and spend whatever he wants - something Hendry never had. I think he will improve the system and develop some young players, but if the Cubs win the WS it will be with a payroll that would make Hendry blush. The CBA and starting with 100 losses for a year or two will eventually make him get back into buying a winner. Are you saying Hendry never had complete autonomy on his decisions? It's hilarious you say others can't admit Theo has faults when you've decided Hendry can't be blamed for problems during his tenure. If you have read my posts you will see that I admitted that Hendry had faults and it was time to move on. Now that Theo has purged the organization of anything having to do with Hendry, I wonder how long it will take some posters to move on. Hendry never had complete autonomy like Theo has now. I'm still waiting for the Koolaide drinkers to admit that Theo has any faults or has ever made a mistake.

I always get accused of bringing Hendry's name into these discussions and being a Hendry apologist, but many of you can't seem to discuss anything without bringing up Hendry As I've pointed out many times before that the situation was completely different because ownership gave Hendry the money and told him to buy a winning team. Theo has been given complete autonomy to spend money or cut payroll as he pleases. As for bloated contracts on a underperforming team, you might look at $262 million in contracts that the Red Sox are sending to the Dodgers and guess who negotiated those deals. BOY GENIUS!!!!!!!!! And you know what? That's not even a given. Lucchino wanted to compete so badly, they veered off the path Theo had put into place previously. Theo surely had something to do with signing those guys, but where he's learned and isn't making the same mistake twice, good ole Jimbo wouldn't have a single issue with giving Pujols 250 mill and probably a big name pitcher as well and we'd be right back to being a longterm 75 win team that needed a lot to go right to even sniff the playoffs. Wait. That's not fair. Perhaps the owners of the Cubs pushed Jimbo into signing the same contracts that Theo did. And what path did Theo put into place? He already had his core before he took over. It IS fair, because I won't even deny that Hendry may have had pressure to do those contracts. But he blamed Theo, therefore blaming Jimbo is fair game too. Theo's path was always build thru the system and add when it made sense to do so. Same thing he's starting out here doing. I listed reasons as to why Hendry was NOT a good GM and never did mention FA contracts. It's impossible for some of you to admit that Theo has any faults. Theo's record is that he took a team that averaged 89 wins per season for 5 years and turned it into a team that averaged 93 wins per season for the next 9 years. That is very impressive and he did it by drafting and developing young players and spending a ton of money on contracts. He now has complete autonomy to do and spend whatever he wants - something Hendry never had. I think he will improve the system and develop some young players, but if the Cubs win the WS it will be with a payroll that would make Hendry blush. The CBA and starting with 100 losses for a year or two will eventually make him get back into buying a winner.

That or when the Trib/Zell finally allowed him (or even forced him) to spend money there weren't great options on the market for the long term deals. It's been put out there that the trib was more behind signing Soriano than Hendry, or at least forced him to add some years/$$. In no way am I a Hendry apologist but I think part of the awful contracts was him being forced to spend money by ownership. I always get accused of bringing Hendry's name into these discussions and being a Hendry apologist, but many of you can't seem to discuss anything without bringing up Hendry As I've pointed out many times before that the situation was completely different because ownership gave Hendry the money and told him to buy a winning team. Theo has been given complete autonomy to spend money or cut payroll as he pleases. As for bloated contracts on a underperforming team, you might look at $262 million in contracts that the Red Sox are sending to the Dodgers and guess who negotiated those deals.

Even though the Cubs are probably going to lose 100 games this year, I bet Theo is glad he got out when he did. That's an even bigger mess than the one he took on in Chicago. It will be interesting to see which team becomes competitive first, though Theo has a 1-year head start.

like this? http://espn.go.com/mlb/freeagents/_/type/dollars Let's try some trivia to test some assumptions. If we were picking out the ideal FA target, I think most would agree that the player would still be in their prime, and would sign a multi-year deal to give the team some control, but wouldn't sign for an insane length to hamper future flexibility. So here's a question, in the last 6 years, how many free agents under the age of 30 have signed multi-year contracts? How many when you exclude international signings? None because most players don't get to free agency until they're 29 or 30 years old unless they're international signings.

Who is saying that? I firmly in the "add if it helps but doesn't hinder the long term product" camp. In that mindset, adding Darvish/Cespedes would have made sense, but Pujols/Fielder would not have. At all. And I think the evidence indicates that Theo and Jed made legitimate plays for the former pair. I'd like to see more wins as much as anyone, but I'm not going to delude myself into the belief that with a few sensible additions the Cubs could have been good this year or next. You can say that comparing WAR and the like to gauge how many wins the team might or might not have had is silly, but it is at least grounded in some logic. WAR does provide some idea. Adding a couple superstar players isn't going to have a magical transformative effect. This isn't the NBA. In order to have fielded a team that was at all competitive, we'd have had to keep guys like Marshall, Cashner (given the state of the bullpen going into the season) and Ramirez, on top of adding 2-3 top tier FAs. You can go on all day about how the team could have been decent and the same system gains could have been made at the same time, but it doesn't make it true. Everything that I have read makes it sound like Cespedes wanted to play for the Cubs and the FO refused to shorten the deal. The bidding process on Darvish was expected to be in the $48-$51 million range and speculation is that the FO bid under $20 million. So how are those "legitimate plays"?

No he didn't, but I'm starting to see more posters finally wondering if this is going to turn around using a reasonable timeline. I've said all along that Theo is very smart and will end up making the organization much better, but I was hoping for a decent team in 2012, .500 team in 2013, contender in 2014, and WS appearance in 2015 and beyond. Many posters seem to think that a 95-win juggernaut yearly is a guarantee in a few years and I'm not convinced of that. All of this speculation is based on the vast majority of our home grown prospects becoming productive ML players and the odds of that happening aren't great. Good lord, for someone who LIVES for the fictitional trade scenario, you really have no clue how to grasp what a farm system does. I can unequivocally say that NO, we will NOT win 90ish games with basically a homegrown team within the next 2-3 years. Guess what? The FO doesn't think that either. But they know if you've got an excess of bigtime prospects, you can go out and add around a FEW of the younger guys that stick via trade(for younger cost controlled guys, not 33 year olds, for the most part) and still have more prospects either coming or that can be traded later on as well. Add in a few FA to fill in as well and not only do you have a very good, very young team, you still have plenty of financial flexibility as well moving forward. Go ask the Angels or the Marlins if they would have done things differently this past offseason right about now...... I totally understand what a farm system does. Perhaps you don't understand the odds of us having "an excess of bigtime prospects". Right now we have an excess of bigtime prospect's names. Until our ML prospects and our 19-20 year old prospects prove something at their respective levels, we aren't going to be able to trade for those young, cost controlled guys. As for the "fictional trade scenario", why don't you look at how many other posters have suggested trading Vitters or Jackson for some young, cost-controlled, and productive player. Yes, as I suspected, you have NO CLUE. The guys in our system now are not nearly enough to do anything with, as far as what I'm talking about. You need another year or two's worth of high impact guys before you have enough to bother attempting what I think the plan is. And guess what? It's not the current admin's fault as to why our farm system wasn't able to do that immediately for them. The last year was the only year they spent big in a time when you could and should have been doing it all the time. This takes time and as I just outlined, your idea of having a decent team on the field at all times hurts the longterm idea of having a great one at some point. As for trading Brett or Vitters? I'm actually one of the posters that's mentioned it. Unfortunately, either or both would have to really come on strong as hell the rest of the season in order to bother justifying it, because neither is worth anything close to being able to get a true young difference maker as the lead piece at this exact moment. So you rpobably work with them and hope they become a guy that can be thought of as a lead trade piece or a longterm starter, but right now, neither guy is either option. So you are in favor of tanking another year or two to get enough "high impact guys" in the farm system? So your plan is 3 years of lousy baseball to accumulate draft choices so we can then hope all of these prospects reach their potential and we can use them at the ML level or trade for young cost-controlled players? Of course that's dependent on most prospects reaching their potential and hoping nobody gets a career threatening injury. I guess you're much more patient than I am.

No he didn't, but I'm starting to see more posters finally wondering if this is going to turn around using a reasonable timeline. I've said all along that Theo is very smart and will end up making the organization much better, but I was hoping for a decent team in 2012, .500 team in 2013, contender in 2014, and WS appearance in 2015 and beyond. Many posters seem to think that a 95-win juggernaut yearly is a guarantee in a few years and I'm not convinced of that. All of this speculation is based on the vast majority of our home grown prospects becoming productive ML players and the odds of that happening aren't great. Good lord, for someone who LIVES for the fictitional trade scenario, you really have no clue how to grasp what a farm system does. I can unequivocally say that NO, we will NOT win 90ish games with basically a homegrown team within the next 2-3 years. Guess what? The FO doesn't think that either. But they know if you've got an excess of bigtime prospects, you can go out and add around a FEW of the younger guys that stick via trade(for younger cost controlled guys, not 33 year olds, for the most part) and still have more prospects either coming or that can be traded later on as well. Add in a few FA to fill in as well and not only do you have a very good, very young team, you still have plenty of financial flexibility as well moving forward. Go ask the Angels or the Marlins if they would have done things differently this past offseason right about now...... I totally understand what a farm system does. Perhaps you don't understand the odds of us having "an excess of bigtime prospects". Right now we have an excess of bigtime prospect's names. Until our ML prospects and our 19-20 year old prospects prove something at their respective levels, we aren't going to be able to trade for those young, cost controlled guys. As for the "fictional trade scenario", why don't you look at how many other posters have suggested trading Vitters or Jackson for some young, cost-controlled, and productive player.

No he didn't, but I'm starting to see more posters finally wondering if this is going to turn around using a reasonable timeline. I've said all along that Theo is very smart and will end up making the organization much better, but I was hoping for a decent team in 2012, .500 team in 2013, contender in 2014, and WS appearance in 2015 and beyond. Many posters seem to think that a 95-win juggernaut yearly is a guarantee in a few years and I'm not convinced of that. All of this speculation is based on the vast majority of our home grown prospects becoming productive ML players and the odds of that happening aren't great.

Volquez would be a hollow acquisition. Someone to acquire for the sake of acquiring him without providing any sort of major positive repercussions on the team's chances for success in the future. The FO does have to field a team in 2013. The rotation filler that we've used since the trade deadline certainly doesn't inspire confidence for 2013 or the future. Of course all of this is based on getting Volquez cheaply.

If it takes this administration 3 years to make us competitive than that's fail. That's crazy for a major market team to suck for three years just to gain draft picks, and never knowing if any of those picks will even pan out. We aren't the freaking Marlins. It's been my point all along that my big disagreement with this administration has been the timeline. It looks like 2012 & 2013 are going to be historically bad and with the CBA it's going to be hard to make a 20-25 game turn around in 2014 to become competitive. As others have pointed out that Shark and Wood are good for the middle and back of the rotation, there's nothing on the horizon to be optimistic about for the rest of the pitching staff. We can keep our fingers crossed about Jackson and Vitters, but they're certainly questionable at best. The bright hopes all seem to be 3-4 years away, but they are still just promising prospects that could be great ML players or busts.

From MLBTR: Edinson Volquez On Waivers By Ben Nicholson-Smith [August 22 at 3:32pm CST] The Padres have placed right-hander Edinson Volquez on waivers, Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe reports (on Twitter). Volquez drew interest leading up to the non-waiver trade deadline, so it would be surprising if he goes unclaimed. Teams routinely place players on waivers, even if they don't plan on trading them, so this is not an indication that the Padres intend to move Volquez. If he goes unclaimed, the Padres will be able to complete a trade just as easily as they could have before the current waiver period began three weeks ago. If a team claims Volquez, the Padres will have three choices. They can let him (and his contract) go to the claiming team, they can complete a trade with the claiming team, or they can pull him back off of waivers. National League teams will have claiming priority on Volquez. Volquez earns $2.24MM this year and is under team control through 2013 as an arbitration eligible player. The 29-year-old has a 4.18 ERA with 8.7 K/9 and 5.4 BB/9 in 148 2/3 innings over the course of 26 starts. Might be worth making a claim and getting him in a trade. Can't be worse than Volstad/Coleman/etc.

From MLBTR: •"It's no secret, we're going to need to improve our offense," said Indians manager Manny Acta to Paul Hoynes of The Cleveland Plain-Dealer when asked what his team needs to improve in 2013. "We're going to have to find a solution in left field, we're going to have to find a solution at first base and we're going to have to find a solution at DH. That's pretty obvious. And the third base situation is not determined either."

sometimes it's a player turning 27 and hitting their prime. The key word in your post is "sometimes".