CubsWin

Nothing? He didn't make any trades? Trading Hawkins, Dubois and Gerut is doing nothing? He didn't bring up any of the Cubs minor leaguers that were performing well? Bringing up Hill, Cedeno, Murton and others was doing nothing? I have never argued that Hendry is perfect, the best GM in baseball or totally blameless. I simply respond to posts that I think go too far in one extreme or the other and present evidence to show that comments like "Hendry did nothing" don't hold up under scrutiny. 1. So Dubois' level of play could have been predicted? A guy who showed a proven ability to take a walk and get on base as well as hit HRs at almost every level of competition should have been expected to walk a grand total of 7 times in 142 at bats for an OBP of .289? 2. Hendry should have expected Walker to get injured and miss 40 games and expected Prior, he of the perfect mechanics and effortless delivery, to miss as many games as he did? And even if he did expect Prior to get injured, what was he to do about it? Go out and acquire someone else's ace at the beginning of the season when everyone is still in it? Or was he supposed to assume the worst and acquire another team's ace during the off-season? 3. He should have known that Hairston, who had OBPs of .353 and .378 the previous 2 seasons and is in his prime, would revert to an OBP of .339 and completely fail in his time in the lead-off role with a OBP of .302 in the lead-off spot? 4. He should have expected Hollandsworth to have an OPS 85 points lower than his career average? 5. He should have expected Remlinger to have a 4.91 ERA when the two previous seasons he had ERAs of 3.44 and 3.65? 6. He should have expected Lawton to tank upon arrival? Or Wellemeyer to not progress at all? Or Leicester to regress and disappear? When you add those performances and injuries to the other ones that were planned for but still happened, even the best plans will be overrun. Your statement of "all except for Corey could have been easily expected" doesn't hold up under scrutiny and isn't supported by the facts.

Yes, I agree that no one could have seen Corey's poor performance coming. Yes, I agree that looking back now and saying that Hendry should have made other moves would be 20/20 hindsight and second-guessing and that we simply don't know what other possibilities Hendry had to choose from. No, I don't agree that Hendry's plan was a poor one. I think his plan was overrun by poor performances and injuries, some which he could anticipate and some which he could not. Yes, I agree that the A's and Braves have shown the ability to have sustained success. But is that because their GMs had infallible back-up plans, who knows? Whether a GMs back-up plan works or not is largely out of their hands. Every trade, signing, draft choice, promotion, etc., is a gamble. Some years those gambles pay off. Some years they don't. Is Hendry as good a GM as Billy Beane or John Schuerholz? I don't think so. Is he responsible for the Cubs record every year? No. Is he partially responsible? Of course. Is he horrible at putting a team together? I don't see the evidence supporting that statement. If the Cubs didn't have as many injuries to key players as they did and didn't compound those injuries with poor performances from key players who actually stayed healthy, the Cubs record would likely be quite different this season. I have still seen no evidence that Hendry failed to provide the best possible back-up plans for the injury risks of Nomar and Wood this season. As far as LF is concerned, I disagreed with Baker when he chose to start Hollandsworth and that pushed back the amount of time in which Hendry had to evaluate Dubois and make a trade to get a new and better LFer. I agree that it would have been better to have that trade happen sooner in the year, but I have no way of knowing whether or not that was even possible without giving up someone like Pie. Are there things that he could have done better? Of course. Is he the reason why so many things went wrong all in the same year? I don't see how you could support the position that any GM has that much control.

I figured you would say that. Murton has spent a little over a year in the Cubs system. In that time, he has put numbers way beyond anything he ever did in the Boston organization. But, you're right. There is no way, shape or form that Matt Murton learned anything in the last 12 months. You are absolutely right that the Cubs instructors have nothing to do with his growth as a player. It is absolute coincidence that the numbers he has put up with the DJaxx and Cubs this season were much better than any of the stats he put up in 2 1/2 years with Boston. Thats just luck or baseball variance, right goony? Murton has a ridiculously high BABIP, which accounts for much of the difference between this year and last year's performance. Well he has had it consistently all year long then.

I figured you would say that. Murton has spent a little over a year in the Cubs system. In that time, he has put numbers way beyond anything he ever did in the Boston organization. But, you're right. There is no way, shape or form that Matt Murton learned anything in the last 12 months. You are absolutely right that the Cubs instructors have nothing to do with his growth as a player. It is absolute coincidence that the numbers he has put up with the DJaxx and Cubs this season were much better than any of the stats he put up in 2 1/2 years with Boston. Thats just luck or baseball variance, right goony? Here is something for which Jim Hendry is 100% responsible: Murton being on the Cubs roster.

What? What? Darn good? It's been awful. It's been awful for over a decade. They've produced nobody. They've been one of the worst in baseball. Chill, goony. Its really not as "awful" as you think it is. They have produced major leaguers over the last decade. Check the stats. Do the words "of late" mean anything to you? This season, the Cubs had breakthrough years for several position players. Murton, Pie, Moore among others. Ryan Harvey showed what he could do with a prolonged streak in the 2nd half of this year where he put up crazy numbers. He is just 20 years old. Eric Patterson put up great numbers in A-ball and is now at AA in his 1st pro season. The year before it was Dopirak and Cedeno who had breakout seasons. Cedeno took another step up this season. Brandon Sing continues to prove himself as a possible contributor at the big league level. Geovany Soto's bat is improving. His OBP has been quite respectable all season long and he did it with above average defense as a 22-year-old at AAA. Other catching prospects Jake Fox and Tony Ritchie put up pretty darn good numbers at High-A Daytona this season and appear more than ready for AA next season. Then there is Adam Greenburg, who appears ready to contribute at the major league level so long as he can get out of the way of the pitches coming at his head. Only a few of those mentioned have a shot at becoming great (Pie, Harvey, maybe Murton and Cedeno) but that is true for most teams. And not all position players have to stay with their parent club to be of value to them. Choi and Hill were turned into Lee and Ramirez, and that ain't bad in my book.

No, it couldn't. Burnitz isn't good. Outside of Coors he hasn't been good. Many, many people predicted very similar numbers to what he has done. Should Hendry have known? Lots of people looked at this ballclub at predicted .500. Some predicted sub .500. Most predicted nowhere near the playoffs. I was not confident in the least, but I was hoping for a lot of breaks coming there way, but even still I thought 89 wins would have been a stretch. Perhaps nobody could have specifically predicted any of the individual occurences that went wrong, but many people did predict this would not be a contending team. The details do not matter, the overall picture tells the story. Well, is that convenient. No, the overall picture tells the story you want it to tell. But the details always provide greater accuracy. If the details supported your opinion, you would be relying on them to make your case stronger, but in this case, they don't. You have yet to provide one move he should have made, and why you knew that at the time and why this isn't just 20/20 hindsight. Do you have any better ideas than Jim Hendry? You keep criticizing him like you do, but you haven't written one down in this thread yet.

I'm only repeating it because you used it and continue to use it to describe the team Hendry put together. It shouldn't be baffling to you. I have laid out reason after reason why the number of wins a team gets is largely out of the GMs hands. You have yet to respond to any of those specific reasons. No, he is partially responsible for their mediocrity. True, it is possible that any pitcher could decline in any given year, but isn't also possible that they won't or they could even do a little better than the year before? Bad things can happen, and good things can happen. I agree that it is more likely that a 39-year-old pitcher will decline than not, that is why I was against signing him in the first place, but in '04, he basically matched his numbers from the previous year, so why should it have been sooooooo obvious to Hendry that he would be so much worse this season? And thats not even the most important question you need to answer to make your case. That question is: what should Jim have done in this off-season about Maddux, and how do you know he didn't try to do that? Was it Hendry who filled out the line-up card everyday? So what, its was obvious then that Dubois, Hollandsworth, Patterson and to some extent Burnitz and Hairston would all perform below expectations? Only one player was above expectations, Lee. You are right, there are variances in baseball, and this year, many of those variances went against the Cubs. But, according to you, Hendry should have know this before it happened. Yes, yes, yes. You have clearly stated your opinion over and over again. What he did was inexcusable. We know that is how you feel. But you have yet to offer up one move that he should have done instead. It real easy to look at the win-loss record and say, they didn't do what I expected them to do. Its not so easy to say, if he would have done this and this and this, they would have been better and here is why I knew he should have done that at the time and why this isn't just 20/20 hindsight.

Careful. It sounds like you think Hendry intentionally designed the Cubs so that they would have a losing season this year. That's not what you are saying, is it? You do realize position players that were drafted and developed by the Cubs were traded to get Lee and Ramirez, right? And that Murton and Cedeno contributed this season? I'd check the minor league discussion boards to find out about the Cubs ability to develop position players. Of late, its been pretty darn good. I thought CF wasn't garbage until this year. How as Hendry supposed to know that Patterson would tank the way he did? And didn't most everyone on this board wanted to see what Dubois would do in LF? So, I think what made the Cubs offense "putrid" was that Patterson hit poorly this season, both LFers hit poorly, Walker missed time at the beginning of the year, Ramirez missed time and played hurt and Nomar went down early in the year and missed about 100 games. It's borderline, but it could be argued effectively with stats that both Burnitz and Hairston performed under their capabilities this year as well. Are you saying the Hendry should have seen all of that coming?

Oh, I see, so now the "best possible plan" isn't good enough because it didn't work out the way you wanted it to. And now we are going further back in time to condemn him as a bad GM. The guy has only had 2 off-seasons that didn't result in going to the NLCS. And you still haven't offered any other moves he was supposed to have made that would have been better. How can you say that Hendry did a terrible job if you can't come up with a better idea? And do you remember what Hendry inherited at the SS position? I'd say Nomar, Neifi and Cedeno are a vast improvement over what he got 3 years ago. And the stats clearly support that statement. What stats do you have to support your position? And, no, I don't just say "oh, well" and throw up my hands. I want some specific moves made. I want a trade made for a power-hitting, high-OBP OFer. I want a lead-off hitter signed or find out if Walker can effectively hit lead-off and sign Giles. I want Baker let go and for the Cubs to hire someone who recognizes the value of pitch selection and taking a walk and someone with the quiet leadership skills of Joe Girardi. But making those things happen aren't that simple. There are 29 other teams in the league who may be targeting the same people. Free agents have desires of where and for whom to play and they get to choose. GMs have desires of who they want in a trade and they get to choose. So, if a GM fails at signing or trading for the player you wanted him to get, is it because he didn't do everything he could to sign the guy? Everything short of mortgaging the team's future to get one guy? No, of course not. So why are we saying that Hendry is "horrible" at putting a team together? Is it because many of the gambles he took this year didn't go his way? Is it because there isn't enough talent in the major leagues for some teams to have 2 great SSs on their roster just in case one of them goes down? Is it because several players on the Cubs roster had off years? Are these the reasons why Hendry is "horrible" at putting a team together? Of course, Hendry should share the blame for the Cubs woes this season. It was his gambles that didn't work out. But every GM takes gambles. No team is filled with sure things top to bottom. Sometimes those gambles pay off and sometimes they don't. And when you compound the gambles not working out with several players having off years and other non-injury-prone players missing big chunks of time (Prior, Walker, Ramirez), you get the results that the Cubs got. But to only look at the win-loss record and use that as your only criteria for whether a GM "gets it" or is "horrible" or not is to over-simplify things a lot.

Why? Last year Nomar was hurt throughout the season. Last year and for most Kerry's career he has been hurt. Last year Borowski was injured, Chad Fox's arm was held together by duct tape, and LaTroy was putrid. Why is it unexpected that it would happen again this year? 1. No one was counting on Chad Fox to remain healthy all year long. The Cubs had several deserving options in the bullpen at AAA for when Fox went down. They broke camp with Chad on the roster because he was performing better than the other guys. But its not like they needed him. And it certainly isn't accurate to say that Hendry didn't give himself a lot of options for when Fox's arm gave way. 2. LaTroy wasn't putrid. He faltered in the closer's role, a role he shouldn't have ever been in with a healthy Dempster on the roster. I never agreed with Baker's decision to have Dempster in the rotation. LaTroy was actually pretty darn good in the set-up role while with the Cubs. And had he been used that way this season, who knows how well he would have done. 3. I don't see how Borowski applies to this discussion. His peripherals were strong this season. 4. Nomar played full seasons in 2002 and 2003 before missing half of the year last year. In fact, he had between 529 at bats and 684 at bats in every season except '01 and last year coming into this season. So why is it that Hendry should have "known" that he would miss over 100 games this year? And even if he did, who else should he have gotten? Cabrera? Were you on the phone when Renteria made the decision to sign with Boston? What makes you so certain that Hendry could have made him sign with the Cubs? And who else would you have gotten to back-up Nomar? What other SS who would have been willing to sit on the bench behind Nomar would have put up better numbers than Neifi and do just as good in the field? 5. Yes, of course, everyone, including Jim Hendry, knows that Wood is an injury risk. So what did you want him to do about it. Bring in actor Pat Morita so he can rub his hands together and do that thing he did in Karate Kid? How better should Hendry have prepared for Wood getting injured? He had Mitre and Rusch waiting in the wings. Was he supposed to trade Wood? What? Well, that's all five of your examples. Do you have any more? Look, almost every team, no matter the payroll, has holes in their bullpens. Both the Yankees and the Red Sox were scrambling this season to find arms for their bullpens. Its a fact of life in baseball. There are several reasons to justify thinking that going into the season with the players the Cubs had in the pen would give them just as good a chance of succeeding as most other clubs. But many of the players did not perform up to their justifiable expectations, injuries or no. Was Hendry supposed to see the poor performances coming as well as the injuries?

So, goony, what was Hendry supposed to do that he didn't? Trade Wood? Not resign Nomar and get Cabrera instead? Or should he have been able to get Renteria to sign with the Cubs instead of the World Champs? Or resign Nomar and have a better back-up than Neifi Perez? Should he have signed Percival or Benitez? Should he not have traded Sammy? Should he have signed Beltran before he was able trade Sosa? Should he have retained Alou? You've done an excellent job of listing everything that went wrong this season and blaming Hendry for not seeing it all coming. But you have yet to state what moves you think he should have done. And what makes you think he didn't plan for the eventualities of Wood going down and Nomar getting hurt? What realistic moves should he have made to better plan for those eventualities?

This Cubs team is horrible. Hendry put it together. The title of this thread is about "getting it". Any use of that phrase on my part is strictly trying to play along with that line. There's not one way to win baseball games, nor is there one way to field a team. But Hendry failed to put together a winner, and he did so with a top 5 payroll. By the end of this season, Jim's 3 years will average to about 85 wins per year, not impressive, not acceptable. Why don't you just get over your hatred for me and have an actual discussion. I don't know why you insist on getting so emotional and personal in this debate. My only concern in this discussion is what the score of the Cubs game is every day, what the record of the team is at the end of the season, and how far they go in the playoffs. I'm really not interested in the personal jabs, insults and other misc. points. I'm attempting to have a discussion with you about this subject. I keep stating my retort to your one-note, overly-simpliflied argument that because the team didn't win the amount of games you wanted it to that that means it was put together horribly. But instead of expanding upon your one-note argument, you chose to insult those that disagreed with you by comparing them to Barry Rozner, calling them ignorant about history and saying that they live in fairy tale land. I have no hatred for you. I am simply calling you on your insults and apparent big-headedness you have displayed when responding to anyone who has disagreed with you. So if you are done picking a fight with me, lets get back to the discussion. Do you have any other criteria than team wins or is that it?

How did Hendry not plan for setbacks. What other/better back-up SS was he supposed to have on the roster? What moves was he supposed to have done that he didn't do? It isn't enough just to make the accusation that Hendry fell down on the job, you have to show your evidence for making such a claim. Oh, I see. So now anyone who disagrees with you is simply ignorant about history. For your information, I knew exactly what Maddux's numbers were last season and the season before when I included his name in the list of underachievers. I didn't expect him to win 15 games again, nor did I expect him to have an ERA under or around 4. But I also didn't expect him to have an ERA near 4.50. And I didn't expect him to have a 2nd half ERA of 4 or above when last year it was 3.48. I don't think a keener understanding of "history" would have changed my expectations. I'm not Barry Rozner. I don't base my expectations of a pitcher on how many games he won the year before. I expected further decline. Just not this much decline. Not everyone who dares to disagree with you does so from a place of baseball ignorance. I guess you really do know it all, don't you. Wow. I hope you get to be a GM someday. Then we will know how much of what you just wrote is 20/20 hindsight. No, you're right, you didn't. You just said that he doesn't "get it" and that he puts together "horrible teams".

Okay, if you are so able, show me what you got besides the number of wins a team has. I've listed several pieces of evidence in this thread alone. You have only listed the team's record. If you want me to go back over the last 3 years of posts and find your argument why Hendry puts together "horrible" teams, no thanks. And I find your attempt at an insult laughable. I guess the only way for someone to disagree with the almighty you is if they live in "fairy tale land". My suggestion is you deflate your head before you respond to a post next time. No one here is calling you an idiot. Just saying that your opinion lacks evidence.

I don't feel venomous at all when I think of this move, but I do think the guys we got aren't worth wasting bandwith to analyze their "talents". The Braves know their business, and these guys were practically given away. If they ever make it to the majors this will be a fleecing of the highest order. I agree. I never said that you specifically did, though.

Riiiiiiiight. :roll:

It's quite simple really. A pitcher can only pitch. Everybody else fields and hits. A pitcher cannot determine whether the team wins or loses, unless he throws a shutout and hits a homerun. But that's kind of a ridiculous request to make. The GM though actually influences every aspect of the team. He decides who will be pitching, who will be hitting and who will be fielding, not to mention, who will be managing. Hendry has the responsibility for the record because it is his responsibility to create the entire team. The pitcher only has the responsibility of pitching. I find it quite unbelievable that you can't see the difference. I find it quite unbelievable that you can't see the myriad of other factors that go into a team winning baseball games. Actually, I believe you can see all the factors, I think you just don't want to because, for some reason, stubborness maybe, you are sticking to your ridiculous claim that Hendry doesn't "get it" and that he put together a "horrible team", instead of just admitting that your anger got the better of you when you first wrote those baseless comments. A GM doesn't have complete control over who will be playing. Injuries and the manager's decisions take a lot of the GMs supposed control away. Let's see, did the Cubs suffer any major injuries over the past couple of seasons? Hmm. Do the Cubs have a manager that plays people we wish he would not? Yeah, I think they do. Did Hendry decide to put Dempster in the rotation at the beginning of the year or was that Baker? Another factor that mitigates the GMs control and thus responsibility over a team's win-loss record is player performance. When players perform well below their normal level (Patterson, Hawkins, Leicester, Hollandsworth, Dubois, Lawton, Maddux, Wood, Remlinger, Mitre, Wellemeyer, etc.), some do to possible misuse by the manager, how is that the GMs fault? Are GMs supposed to be clairvoyant as well as good scouts and baseball men?

No one? Collectively, the team is worse than it was. 88, 89 and now we'll be lucky to see 80 wins. That is not improving the team. Boy, are you oversimplifying things. You keep mentioning only one statistic, wins. Why is that? I mentioned a whole lot of complexities in my post. Did you respond to any of them? No. You don't seem very willing, or perhaps able in this case, to make a solid argument that Hendry put together a "horrible team".

Their right hand, both of them.

Of course, I would have no problem signing both Giles and Damon, but we'd be lucky to get one of them let alone both. But just to dream for a second... Damon leads off. Nomar bats second. Then Giles, Lee, Ramirez, Walker, Barrett and Murton. Trade Corey if/when he starts tearing up AAA. In '07, rotate in Cedeno for Nomar. If Pie is ready, trade either Giles or Damon and eat some of the salary or, if Murton is less than great, move Damon to left and start Pie in center. Pie and Cedeno's league minimum contracts allow for the expense of Giles and Damon in the same outfield. In '08, maybe EPatt is ready to man 2B. Kinda makes you go hmmmm, doesn't it?

Some people are calling for Giles to get 10 mill or more per year and 3-4 years. If the Cubs sign the soon-to-be 35 Brian Giles and stick him in right, bring back Corey to play CF and have Murton in LF, who is going to lead off? Furcal? Are you willing to pay the huge amount of money it is going to take to sign both Giles and Furcal when over the last 3 full seasons, Furcal's OBP in the lead-off spot is just .340? Why not spend a lot less to sign Damon and Nomar? Damon is 3 years younger than Giles, and can lead-off. Yes, Damon's OPS pales next to Giles's, but Furcal's OPS pales next to Nomar's. Signing Giles is great. He is just what the Cubs offense needs, but he is not a lead-off hitter. So if you sign Giles, you almost have to sign Furcal or deal Corey for a lead-off guy or sign Lawton to play LF and lead-off, but that means sitting Murton. Also, if you sign Furcal, it blocks Cedeno. But signing Nomar to an incentive-laden one year deal with a low base salary does not. The younger and lead-off capable Damon will likely command what you are willing to pay Giles. So why not kill two birds with one stone, save some money and years by signing Nomar instead of Furcal and leave the door open for Cedeno in the process?

Who says? Id rather have two average defenders who are in the top 25% offensively for relatively cheap. Especially considering the offensive question marks we will undoubtedly once again be entering the season with in the OF. Ever notice the pitching and defense aren't that good either. Get Giles to solve the offensive problem. Getting Giles may not be enough, though. If the Cubs gamble with unproven bats in LF and SS and a question mark of a bat in CF, they could easily be out of it by June if those gambles don't pay off even with Giles in the line-up. 3 question marks in the same line-up is 2 too many, IMO. If Nomar will come back for a base salary of 3-4 million with heavy incentives for plate appearances, the Cubs had better take it. Then all they would have to worry about is how to acquire 2 great offensive OFers... :roll: If Murton's as good as some say, a 1-6 of Furcal, Murton, Giles, Lee, ARam and Barrett's pretty solid. Put Patterson in cf and Cedeno @ 2b. People should be happy that the kids are finally getting a shot. But thats the thing. Murton is still an "if". So is Cedeno, and so is Patterson. Is there a decent possibility that each of those "ifs" can perform well next season? Sure. But I would much rather have 1 question mark in the line-up, especially if the Cubs are going to have a solid chance at competing next season. So the question remains, where do you want the 1 "if" to play? If Corey isn't traded and no other CFer is acquired, the Cubs will almost have no choice but to stick him in CF again, and there goes your 1 "if". That means signing Giles/Damon or trading for an all-star caliber OFer, re-signing Nomar or signing Furcal and at least having a decent back-up plan in case Murton falters is a must, as I see it. I would feel a lot more comfortable with Walker manning 2B than sticking a rookie SS there out of position and counting on him to produce. Walk is good, cheap and a leader in the clubhouse, apparently. If I'm Hendry, I'm picking up his option unless I know I have a deal on the table that will net me a clearly better 2B. With Walker in the fold, I would go for Nomar at a lower base salary with PA incentives knowing that I have Cedeno there in case of an injury. The presence of Cedeno combined with a possible low base salary for Nomar trumps a high-salary, long-term deal for Furcal in my book. The decent back-up plan in case Murton isn't as advertised could be Lawton.

Who says? Id rather have two average defenders who are in the top 25% offensively for relatively cheap. Especially considering the offensive question marks we will undoubtedly once again be entering the season with in the OF. Ever notice the pitching and defense aren't that good either. Get Giles to solve the offensive problem. Getting Giles may not be enough, though. If the Cubs gamble with unproven bats in LF and SS and a question mark of a bat in CF, they could easily be out of it by June if those gambles don't pay off even with Giles in the line-up. 3 question marks in the same line-up is 2 too many, IMO. If Nomar will come back for a base salary of 3-4 million with heavy incentives for plate appearances, the Cubs had better take it. Then all they would have to worry about is how to acquire 2 great offensive OFers... :roll:

Alfonseca was never top quality. He was crap. Florida was trying to pawn his fat out of shape overpaid butt off on people. His 45 save season was a fluke, and was done without very impressive peripherals. Hendry traded for an injured SS to fill a need. It wouldn't take much thought to think Nomar could possibly still be injured. I haven't seen any proof that Hendry "gets it'. He certainly hasn't done a good job putting together a team, and it could be argued he's done a horrible team, seeing as how the team is now worse than what it was when he took over. As I recall, you really griped about trading Choi. Lee, ARam and Barrett were very good acquisitions. If the Cubs got anything from Wood, Nomar and Patterson, they'd still be in the wildcard race. Yes, but apparently a good GM would have known that Wood was going to get injured and would have traded him. A good GM would have known that Nomar would get injured again and would not have resigned him. And a good GM would have known that Corey was going to regress and would have signed someone else and traded Corey while his stock was still high. I don't know about you, but if Hendry had done all that he would be much more than just good, he'd be clairvoyant. Now, I'm not disagreeing with goony's evil twin that having a clairvoyant GM is better than just having a good one. But I am disagreeing with him/her that Hendry doesn't "get it" and has put together a "horrible team". Has Hendry taken some gambles during his time as GM? Yes. The Nomar gamble didn't pay off. The trade Sosa and sign Burnitz gamble did. The Hawkins gamble didn't pay off. The Dempster gamble did. How was he to know that Baker wouldn't use Dempster as the closer from the beginning of the year? How was he to know that Corey would go into the tank? How was he to know that the pitcher with absolutely perfect mechanics and effortless delivery would be on the shelf for a huge chunk of the season due to injury? The Cubs OBP has gone up every season since Hendry has taken over. So has their batting average for that matter. If and when Baker is let go, they're walks should start to climb and the OBP should go even higher. If players like Nomar, Walker and Ramirez didn't miss as much time as they have this season, the Cubs OBP would be even higher. He gets it. But higher team OBP doesn't always translate into wins when you are dealing with 2/5ths of your rotation missing due to injury. Or the mental meltdown of your closer who should never have been used as the closer. Or the complete offensive disappearance of your CFer. Or... Are there moves of his that I have disagreed with? Yes. But no one can say that he isn't collectively improving this team each year with those moves. It is, after all, up to the players and the manager to win the games.

Seconded. Although if Cedeno does well in the last 30 games I wouldnt mind handing it over to him. However of course he may be playing against other extended roster players. But id rather bring back nomar cheaply with incentives and give ronny another year to break in giving nomar a day or two off a week and being a late inning defensive replacement if we are up. Thirded. Call me a glutton for punishment, but I want Nomar back. I think Cedeno is ready to spell Nomar once or twice a week, as well as back-up Walker at 2B. There is one major problem with this plan, however. The likelihood of Nomar getting injured is fair, and the likelihood of Cedeno not hitting very well if Nomar goes down is also fair. If both of those things happen, the Cubs will have a shortstop-shaped hole in their batting order. That means that they are going to have to be very solid in 7, or maybe 6 of the other batters in the line-up, and right now, they don't have that. Can the Cubs afford to hand LF over to Murton or any other unproven commodity with a SS tandem of Nomar/Cedeno? Can they afford to take another chance on Corey playing CF when there is also a good chance that Cedeno and Murton will be filling up 2 of the 8 spots in the same line-up? I guess that is what the next month will be about. Finding out the answers to those questions...