jersey cubs fan

I think that's ludicrous. The budget didn't change. He blew it. So they were negotiating with Z just for fun then? They got all the way to the point where the contract would be signed, and then Hendry looked at Z and said "Oh yeah, I forgot, I don't have any money to give you. I've known about this for a couple months, but I negotiated with you anyway. Sorry" I think that's a lot more ludicrous then to think the budget changed directly after the sale. Z's contract has nothing to do with the 2007 team. Hendry had over $100m to spend on the 2007 team and blew it, just like the $100m he blew in 2006 and the $90+ he blew in 2005. Yes, he didn't make the roster right. We're conceding that. We're talking about the trade deadline though. Hendry thought he had the budget to add a player at the deadline, and he would have had it, except the budget changed on Opening Day. Therefore, Hendry gets the blame for the 2007 roster, but not the blame for adding nobody of significance at the deadline, because the only guys he could add would be rentals. If he didn't think there might be budget issues by July, he's more of a moron than I thought. The Trib ownership was in flux and the team was likely to be in play. If he put together a team with the expectation of adding $5m in July, he's just a freaking moron.

Gotta be Cedeno Not if they want a backup SS on the roster. Patterson is the most redundent. They have 4 others capable of playing 2B and many others capable of playing LF.

I'm not sure you can included somebody on the 40 man roster as a PTBNL.

Let's carry this thought forward. Oakland has three choices here: (1) Pull him back from waivers. (2) Just let him go to the Cubs - Cubs would assume the remaining contract. (3) Make a trade. If I understand waivers correctly with item 3, the Cubs can only trade 3 types of players: (a) player(s) from the Cubs 40-man who has (have) cleared waivers; (b) a player from the Cubs 40-man, who was claimed on waivers first by Oakland; © player(s) who is (are) not on the 40 man roster. If it's scenario 3a or 3b, there would be no impact on the 40-man roster; however, if it's scenario 2 or 3c, the Cubs would have to remove somebody from their 40 man roster to add Stewart. That would be either a player who has cleared waivers or somebody the Cubs would have to DFA. Interested to see how all this unfolds. Are we assuming the Cubs are the highest priority team to put in a claim?

at least i'll be entertained by the cubs playing with two guys in CF. that's something, i guess. They have to go with Murton, Pie, Jones at this point, don't they? Floyd has to sit. Seeing him run into right center over and over made me wince, and those swings are just pathetic.

I think that's ludicrous. The budget didn't change. He blew it. So they were negotiating with Z just for fun then? They got all the way to the point where the contract would be signed, and then Hendry looked at Z and said "Oh yeah, I forgot, I don't have any money to give you. I've known about this for a couple months, but I negotiated with you anyway. Sorry" I think that's a lot more ludicrous then to think the budget changed directly after the sale. Z's contract has nothing to do with the 2007 team. Hendry had over $100m to spend on the 2007 team and blew it, just like the $100m he blew in 2006 and the $90+ he blew in 2005.

I think that's ludicrous. The budget didn't change. He blew it.

That's my point. Most GMs operate under a budget and can't just add to payroll. You have to build a winner in those circumstances, no excuses. Now people are trying to excuse Jim's failures because of a perceived handcuffing by ownership, when he's really just operating under the same rules as everybody else. Fair enough, but you said it backwards. "Not being able to add money to the payroll is an excuse most GM's don't get to use." = most GM's are able to add money to the payroll. No, what I said was they can't use the excuse. Everybody knows going in they have a budget. Saying in July that a GM had his hands tied by ownership isn't an excuse for not building a better team in the first place. My point is people need to quit offering up this excuse for Hendry. He's had the benefit of vastly more resources than most GMs during his tenure, now that his hands may be tied (while still using a much bigger budget) it's no excuse for failure.

I think you can. He built a team that would need trades, and he isn't able to figure out how to get one done. I highly doubt he's been told he can't make trades that add marginally to the payroll. Besides, he's the GM, he needs to figure out how to make the team better. The excuse of not being able to add money to the payroll is an excuse most GM's don't get to use. If he could only improve the team by significantly increasing payroll, that just exposes a major flaw in his ability. That's a fine argument, but he's not the only GM who builds a team with an eye towards the trading deadline. The best teams and best run orgs do it. It's one thing to build a 92 win team that might need a trade for two to get to 95 or so. But Jim has a barely above .500 team (that costs over $100m). There's no reason why going into 2007 the Cubs couldn't have been a near lock for 90 wins. None. That's Jim's doing.

That's my point. Most GMs operate under a budget and can't just add to payroll. You have to build a winner in those circumstances, no excuses. Now people are trying to excuse Jim's failures because of a perceived handcuffing by ownership, when he's really just operating under the same rules as everybody else.

Really? No fault? Ownership has been putting up tons of cash for 4+ years under Hendry and he's produced disappointment after disappointment. He invested a crap load this offseason in a mismatched group of players. Don't you think some of the hand tying could be his fault, since the team is in the position it is today precisely because of what Hendry has done to screw up? GMs work with budgets every day in MLB. Very few can just willy-nilly add to payroll. Yet repeatedly, year after year, GMs with far lower payrolls can far better results than Hendry gets. I think your hatred of Jim has clouded your understanidng of what I posted. His hands are currently tied b/c ownership is in limbo. This is not his fault. Everything that came before that - good and bad - is his responsibility. EDIT: You also ignored the part where I said that the genesis of this team's problems are found in the GM's office. I didn't ignore anything. I just disagree that there is no fault of his own. I believe that if Hendry didn't have such a horrible track record, that ownership would actually be willing to toss a couple bones the Cubs' way. But because there's absolutely no reason to trust Jim to spend it wisely, there's no reason to throw good money after bad. Jim's history of repeated screws ups and money wasting gives ownership more justification to cut off funds. If he had a great track record, I could see them being willing to spend an extra couple million in hopes of making many more millions in revenue through the end of the playoffs.

Nice AVG and SLG over the course of a week, but he's still got a 8:1 K:BB ratio and he's about to turn 23 and is repeating A ball. A guy with power and talent like that is going to look good over short bursts (like many Cubs), but his biggest flaws are what keep him from maintaining any conssitency and having a chance to succeed at higher levels.

Really? No fault? Ownership has been putting up tons of cash for 4+ years under Hendry and he's produced disappointment after disappointment. He invested a crap load this offseason in a mismatched group of players. Don't you think some of the hand tying could be his fault, since the team is in the position it is today precisely because of what Hendry has done to screw up? GMs work with budgets every day in MLB. Very few can just willy-nilly add to payroll. Yet repeatedly, year after year, GMs with far lower payrolls can far better results than Hendry gets.

It's too late. The trading deadline is a deadline for a reason. The only stuff you get off waivers is spare parts. The Cubs have needed impact bats for years and Hendry has ignored the need, instead focusing on nonsense like leadoff hitters, more left handers and utility players. I don't think this is the whole story. See my prior comments about Tejada and Beltran (to name two). I believe that if Hendry had been given the latitude to offer market-setting, Sorianoesque contracts to elite FAs from Day 1, this team would look much different today. You mean there'd be more grossly overpaid players who couldn't even come close to justifying their contracts?

I think you can. He built a team that would need trades, and he isn't able to figure out how to get one done. I highly doubt he's been told he can't make trades that add marginally to the payroll. Besides, he's the GM, he needs to figure out how to make the team better. The excuse of not being able to add money to the payroll is an excuse most GM's don't get to use. If he could only improve the team by significantly increasing payroll, that just exposes a major flaw in his ability.

The Cubs don't have anybody who even has a chance to reach 155 games played this year. Nobody will get 150 starts (Lee might play 152 games - but at least 3 have already been as a late inning sub). This team has been rested up the whazoo, so there's no reason for them to be tired. I think the problem is they don't have enough legit everyday players. They've got a bunch of role players all over the place.

It's too late. The trading deadline is a deadline for a reason. The only stuff you get off waivers is spare parts. The Cubs have needed impact bats for years and Hendry has ignored the need, instead focusing on nonsense like leadoff hitters, more left handers and utility players.

Sounds about right. Thank God someone else recognizes that. It's pretty obvious that this is the case to me. Thirded. The Hendry bashing may be warranted in many instances, but not in this one... especially since the passing of the July 31 deadline. He made his bed in the years leading up to this season. He spent a crapload of dough on a crappy offense long before he was held back by any ownership issues. It's his own damn fault this wasn't a good offense going into this year (let alone 2006, 2005 and 2004). We're talking about a team that has, at its best, been middle of the road in scoring and OPS, due to Hendry's poor management decisions. There's no reason to start giving him a break now because he might be handcuffed.

More like missing Steve McNair and Derrick Mason from the Ravens offense. Remember, Soriano hadn't done much this season and was hitting like crap in the weeks leading up to his injury. Ramirez had also been a bit off his peak performance.

Stewart doesn't do much for me. I guess he could be an improvement over some Cubs, like if he's subbing for Floyd or Jones. But if the OF has Stewart, Jones, Floyd I don't see much improvement.

I guess Lou likes to lose :( Huh?

No, I'm not telling you that. I'm telling you I'm not about to embrace the okayness. I'm moderately pleased with what has transpired so far. I'm ecstatic that they have a chance. I'm not ecstatic that this is all we've got.

What does that mean exactly? The other team put them on waivers but then pulled them after a claim was made? Claimed guys that other teams with higher priority also claimed.

I'm not tempering anything. This team isn't very good and it annoys me. What you are doing is saying we should embrace it because it's the best we've seen in a while. Pennant run? A pennant run is a thing of the past. A pennant run was contending to have the best record in the league. Now the Cubs are just trying to win a bad division. I can be excited about that while not being fooled by the marketing department trying to get me to embrace the okayness. I'm glad the Cubs have a chance. That doesn't change the fact I'm disappointed that they aren't very good and haven't been very good in a very long time. The blew a great opportunity from 2003-2006, and Hendry didn't do enough to make up for it this year. Sorry, I'm not going to embrace the okayness and I don't see why any fan every would.

Having read this post, I can't help but wonder how you would've viewed the 2006 season if you were a Cardinal fan. That Cards team was every bit as flawed and disappointing as this year's Cubs, and probably moreso (as 2007 is proving): overpaid, underachieving players; questionable managerial choices; finger-pointing at the GM; infighting; and horrific play late in the year that nearly led to a historic collapse. I wonder if, as a fan, their October success would have been enough to overcome all of that suffering and disappointment, or whether you would've remained miserable to the very end, frustrated that a run of good luck, and not dynastic superiority, was the key to success. You don't seriously want to compare them do you? The Cardinals regularly fielded great teams that came up short in the playoffs. Then they got lucky with a mediocre team that finally won. I'd have been happy as hell if the Cubs went on the kind of run STL went on from 2000-2006. If the Cubs won 95+ games 4 out of 6 years (93 and 85 the other two), I wouldn't be in anywhere close to the same frame of mind about the Cubs. You can't seriously be trying to compare the situations. My lord, how ridiculous.