Tarver

He's an interesting choice. Obviously, you've got the whole Beane connection, and his short career with the Dodgers is difficult to evaluate since he was fired by someone like McCourt and replaced by Ned [expletive] Colletti. He's had problems with the press, so he'd be the antithesis of Hendry in that regard. But the LoDuca trade shows he won't bend to the will of his managers.

Last year, his BABIP indicates he was a bit unlucky. However, his FB rates the last two years have been 44.9% and 42.0%. That's not a good idea in Safeco. But even beyond that, his plate discipline seems to be eroding as quickly as his mental state. His strikeout rate is up over 30% and his once-prolific walk rate has dipped as well. He's already burned through 8 teams in the league, none of which is likely to welcome his return. Of the remaining teams, I can't imagine more than a couple would have any more than a passing interest. The way I see it, it's likely Tampa Bay or bust. They're a saber-oriented front office which makes them more likely to value his potential contributions, they are in contention and trying to make due with a Fuld/Damon/Johnson trio across LF/DH, and Bradley's league-minimum pricetag matches up nicely with their thrifty ways. Also worth noting is that the media coverage is pretty light. Of course, the wildcard in that proposal is Desmond Jennings. The Rays will delay free agency by a year if they keep him in the minors until this Saturday, but it will likely take into July to avoid Super-2 status. If they're inclined to think Bradley may rebound, it may do them some good to pick him up and give him a shot until July or so. But ultimately, I think they'll pass. As will the rest of the league. Baltimore needs help at 1st. What's the thought process there? Bench DLee (who has been a notorious slow starter), move Scott to 1B, and Bradley in left over Pie/Reimold? I wont put anything past the O's, but considering how close MacPhail and Hendry are, I'm sure he's privy to all the awful things Bradley did in his tenure with the Cubs that never made it to the press. Besides which, it seems awful early to pull the plug on a "big FA acquisition" like the O's sold DLee as being to the fans. I was just hoping to see what would happen with Scott and MB in the same locker room.

Depodesta

Last year, his BABIP indicates he was a bit unlucky. However, his FB rates the last two years have been 44.9% and 42.0%. That's not a good idea in Safeco. But even beyond that, his plate discipline seems to be eroding as quickly as his mental state. His strikeout rate is up over 30% and his once-prolific walk rate has dipped as well. He's already burned through 8 teams in the league, none of which is likely to welcome his return. Of the remaining teams, I can't imagine more than a couple would have any more than a passing interest. The way I see it, it's likely Tampa Bay or bust. They're a saber-oriented front office which makes them more likely to value his potential contributions, they are in contention and trying to make due with a Fuld/Damon/Johnson trio across LF/DH, and Bradley's league-minimum pricetag matches up nicely with their thrifty ways. Also worth noting is that the media coverage is pretty light. Of course, the wildcard in that proposal is Desmond Jennings. The Rays will delay free agency by a year if they keep him in the minors until this Saturday, but it will likely take into July to avoid Super-2 status. If they're inclined to think Bradley may rebound, it may do them some good to pick him up and give him a shot until July or so. But ultimately, I think they'll pass. As will the rest of the league. Baltimore needs help at 1st.

All undersized white players get unwarranted love. And I wouldn't be surprised if he gets an ovation, either. You still watch with the sound up? Hrabosky and Dan might be the worst broadcast duo in MLB. It's like the Cards are directing traffic to KMOX.

Besides having a singular plan (obviously it better be a good one) I'd want our new GM to let his managers know who works for who. No more left-handed/speedy leadoff men/Neifi Perez nonsense. He should listen to the manager, but not let him dictate acquisitions.

So you concede that you don't really trust Hendry. This also assumes new management won't come up with alternative ways to improve the team in the offseason that Hendry might not. I've said many times in this thread that there are valid reasons for not trusting him. I feel like your thinking is way too binary here. It's possible to not be in love with the job Hendry has done and still feel that it may be the best thing to retain him for a bit longer. I understand your point, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

So you concede that you don't really trust Hendry. This also assumes new management won't come up with alternative ways to improve the team in the offseason that Hendry might not.

I posted this on page two, Tim. ok - so you're for firing Hendry no matter what (NO MORE STATUS QUO!!!!), but acknowledging that he "isn't even close to being one of the worst GMs in MLB". So what is your plan to make things better by firing Hendry? Who are you going to target? How deep do your changes go? And so forth. Otherwise, I'll stand by that you're just seeking change for the sake of change out of frustration. So you think it's worth keeping him another year just to land Pujols? I'm sure even Jim Bowden could handle saying "200/8" on a conference call. One of Hendry's strengths has been getting the free agents he was pursuing. I'd much rather have him leading that charge than bowden losing out because he's saying 200/8 on a call. And you continue to avoid the questions. Which I'd guess means you don't have a clue how to make things better once you fire Hendry. Why is it my responsibility to vet their candidates for them? I'm not going to assume I know more people in the baseball business than people who are in the baseball business. It's as simple as this: The cost of attending games is ridiculously overpriced considering the miserable teams they've fielded the past few years. Hendry is the man in charge. If Ricketts wants to slash prices I'll bitch less about him being extended.

I posted this on page two, Tim. ok - so you're for firing Hendry no matter what (NO MORE STATUS QUO!!!!), but acknowledging that he "isn't even close to being one of the worst GMs in MLB". So what is your plan to make things better by firing Hendry? Who are you going to target? How deep do your changes go? And so forth. Otherwise, I'll stand by that you're just seeking change for the sake of change out of frustration. So you think it's worth keeping him another year just to land Pujols? I'm sure even Jim Bowden could handle saying "200/8" on a conference call.

I posted this on page two, Tim.

Who's argued that in this thread? Several people.

4) This sounds like something Al Yellon would say. I understand if you have relationships with these people because of your website and don't begrudge you if you feel the need to defend them, but don't expect fans with less access to want change. Like I said, he wouldn't have survived this long in any other major market. Change for the sake of change is an awful idea. There needs to be somebody out there that's better then Hendry and is likely to be available for it to make any sense at all to fire him. Is it really so crazy to think a full one-step ahead? You were on board for ditching him when Towers was available.

So status quo ad infinitum, got it.

To stay out of the way of the baseball side of things. Also, would it irritate you less if his name was Crane? On Hendry, I like what CCP and Tim have said here. The last 2 years the team's big problem has been a lack of a superstar, and that just isn't all that easy to address, especially with the contractural situation Hendry put himself in. If you believe that Hendry has made some strides in learning from his mistakes(as has been documented in this thread as well), then there are definitely worse things than letting him try to finish off the plan that CCP articulated. That's not an irrational fear of something different, it's a belief that Hendry should be evaluated on the progress he's made; not in the win column, but in his decision making that will drive future win totals. But was this "improvement" planned or just a result of painting himself into a corner?

The number of those contracts handed out by Hendry lately has been nearly nil. We are filling the bench with young players and cheap veterans. The bullpen is almost entirely home grown at this point. Grabow is really the only bad role player contract on the team right now and I wouldn't be surprised if he's shipped off before the end of the season to be replaced internally. Koyie Hill could be considered a bad contract, but it's probably better to have Castillo in the minors getting ab's anyway. And I have a feeling that with the glut of serviceable backup C's in the upper levels of the minors, Koyie's tenure with the team won't last all that much longer, anyway. A lot of the traditional criticisms of Hendry have been addressed the past few years. The plan for next year is pretty easy: put Pujols at 1B, a placeholder at 3B if Aramis doesn't pick up the pace and put Brett Jackson in the OF in Kosuke's role. The bullpen is pretty well set already, but Chris Carpenter will take Grabow's place and be another realistic late inning option. The big question is Dempster's spot in the rotation. We should have enough money to go out and sign a starter in addition to bringing in Pujols, but McNutt might also be ready for the role at that point. We should also have the assets to make a bold move for someone like King Felix if Seattle decides to shop him. Frankly, I wouldn't mind extending Hendry at this point to a very modest extension - say, 1-2 years - and letting him continue the current process. I certainly wouldn't mind a new GM, either, but I'd be very nervous about the hire. I'd also be nervous about it impacting the signing of Pujols or Prince, which is easily the most important thing this team has to get done in the next few years. You have to be kidding. Two more years just because the next guy may be worse? Fear is a terrible way to run a business. By this rationale we may as well keep the FO intact forever. You obviously didn't comprehend the post if that's what you got out of it. 1) Hendry has corrected many of his past faults 2) He has the team well positioned to be elite with the addition of a Pujols or Fielder 3) This offseason has that one critical transaction that I don't want interrupted due to a change in leadership 4) LASTLY, I'm concerned that with Hendry correcting many of the faults that previously led him astray, the next GM would be worse than the one we have. If you don't feel this is a concern, can you name a surefire elite GM who is available for hire? 1) A bold assumption 2) Another one 3) A valid point 4) This sounds like something Al Yellon would say. I understand if you have relationships with these people because of your website and don't begrudge you if you feel the need to defend them, but don't expect fans with less access to want change. Like I said, he wouldn't have survived this long in any other major market.

The number of those contracts handed out by Hendry lately has been nearly nil. We are filling the bench with young players and cheap veterans. The bullpen is almost entirely home grown at this point. Grabow is really the only bad role player contract on the team right now and I wouldn't be surprised if he's shipped off before the end of the season to be replaced internally. Koyie Hill could be considered a bad contract, but it's probably better to have Castillo in the minors getting ab's anyway. And I have a feeling that with the glut of serviceable backup C's in the upper levels of the minors, Koyie's tenure with the team won't last all that much longer, anyway. A lot of the traditional criticisms of Hendry have been addressed the past few years. The plan for next year is pretty easy: put Pujols at 1B, a placeholder at 3B if Aramis doesn't pick up the pace and put Brett Jackson in the OF in Kosuke's role. The bullpen is pretty well set already, but Chris Carpenter will take Grabow's place and be another realistic late inning option. The big question is Dempster's spot in the rotation. We should have enough money to go out and sign a starter in addition to bringing in Pujols, but McNutt might also be ready for the role at that point. We should also have the assets to make a bold move for someone like King Felix if Seattle decides to shop him. Frankly, I wouldn't mind extending Hendry at this point to a very modest extension - say, 1-2 years - and letting him continue the current process. I certainly wouldn't mind a new GM, either, but I'd be very nervous about the hire. I'd also be nervous about it impacting the signing of Pujols or Prince, which is easily the most important thing this team has to get done in the next few years. You have to be kidding. Two more years just because the next guy may be worse? Fear is a terrible way to run a business. By this rationale we may as well keep the FO intact forever.

If Hendry had a definable strategy that was derailed by outside machinations like the Zell takeover I would be more sympathetic. But since his brilliance of '03 and 4 it's just been too reactionary. He waited 2 years too long to can Dusty. Three PTBNLs for Trachsel. The Pie/Hill fiascoes. He got a better return for Hawkins than I thought possible; one of his better moves. But there's never been a plan.

We can all agree Hendry isn't even close to being the one of the worst GMs in MLB, and if Ned f'ckin Coletti is seriously being considered as a replacement, then yes give him another season. But it's been eight years of wildly fluctuating results and mostly reactionary moves. The buck stops with him. He wouldn't have survived '09 in any other comparable market.

What "Hendry argument?" How much more time does he need?

How many years have we had this same Hendry argument? Should no one be held accountable for failure? He should've been gone years ago, let's not extend our failure.

Does anyone know if Mark Cuban is having health problems or has he just started drinking potfuls of melted butter? He looks like a younger Joe Don Baker out there.

They said the same thing about us back in 2000. These guys aren't all gonna stick.

He's likely gone by August anyway.

The sad reality is that while Hendry has often been bad, he's been "averagely bad." In short, most GM's are adequate at best (with scattered moments of success) at their job. Again, this isn't an argument to keep him, but it's should be readily apparent why he still has his job. The Cubs simply have not been a continual failure under his tenure (look at this from a technical/business standpoint and not the "ANYTHING LESS THAN A WS IS A FAILURE"-type of mentality) and given that you have new owners still getting their feet back under them in terms of the money that can be invested in the team it makes sense that they'd be apprehensive to overhaul the front office, especially when Hendry is generally well-regarded amongst "baseball people." I think that last part is key for a number of reasons, namely in explaining why the new owners would want to stick with him him for the time being and why I'm not optimistic that his replacement will likely be much better. I agree. Hendry isn't Coletti or Bowden, he's been more or less competent. But considering our resources we should be a perennial playoff contender. I just hope Ricketts doesn't look at this team as mostly a vanity object.