Arnold Layne

I sure hope our advance scouts and coaches are doing more than "hoping", although it really does seem like that's what they did prior to the NLDS's in 2007 and 2008.

I completely agree with this logic. But it leads me to ask, if it's a "hot/cold" thing, why do the Cubs key hitters consistentyly end up on the cold side of the equation? For example, when looking at a simple stat of a lead off man, Soriano has a .125 OBP the last two post seasons for the Chicago Cubs. His job at the top is to get on base. He has failed in a freakishly spectacular fashion, perhaps setting an overall tone of futility from the first pitch of the series. Ramirez, the Cubs most consistent run producer and "clutch" hitter in the regular season goes compeltely ice cold under the pressure. His OBP is .163 with *zero* rbi's and three total bases the past two post seasons. Soriano also has three total bases and zero RBI. There's "going cold", and then there is a very bleak and recognizable pattern from your best hitters when the post season pressure is on.

That was a team that Hendry mostly inherited. Of course I give him credit for adding two key pieces in Ramirez and Lofton. But I think my main point still stands. I would love to see a team built entirely of "Hendry guys" win a playoff game. That has yet to happen under his watch. Until then, I think it's premature to offer any kind of extension, even for one day. I agree the team is under pressure in those situations, but that's where leaders and cool hands rise to the occasion. There's a word for players who can't play under pressure, and it's not very kind. When you get as badly dominated in back to back post seasons as the Cubs have, you could say a pattern is emerging - especially with the very poor offensive showing by two key players in Aram and Soriano. If this team can't handle playoff pressure, then a GM at some point has to consider getting new players.

If it's a crapshot, why are the Cubs so consistent with landing on the bad side of the coin? 0/2 is such a large sample size right? When you break it down, that's 54 post season innings. And when you observe the performance, you conclude that the Cubs did not compete for one single inning. Is it just bad luck? Maybe.

If it's a crapshot, why are the Cubs so consistent with landing on the bad side of the coin?

Yeah I was talking about NL payroll, the teams we face most often.

This is a very reasonable argument. My problem with using the Cubs history as a barometer for progress doesn't mean much because it's a *bad* history in terms of on the field results. Also, in the 2007/2008 playoffs, for whatever reason this was a team that was incapbale of competing for even one game. I'd like to think maybe a healthy Bradley, some power from Font and Hoff from the left side would improve our chances against the RHP pitching that has owned us. Maybe that's just wishful thinking. I do know that I now dread the playoffs, and am disheartened at the lack of performance by the pitching staff along with Ramirez and Soriano in those crucial times.

504-467 while dominating your division in payroll isn't really all that hot. Also, there's the context. The Cubs are past the point where any season which does not involve a world series appearance can be deemed a "success". And I'm not even asking for that. What I would like to see is Jim Hendry assemble a Cubs team that is entirely his own group of people that can win a playoff game. That has yet to happen.

Haven't the Cubs had a top 5 NL payroll for Hendry's entire tenure? Hendry has proven he can throw lots of money around. That's about it. The farm system is bare, the Cubs are unable to win a post season game and they have limited felixibility despite a massive budget. That's not exactly the work of someone you want running the ship. Hendry has been in control of a team that has made the playoffs 50% of his tenure? Hard to think of another Cub's GM in recent history with that type of success rate. Why is that an accomplishment when you grossly outspend the rest of the division? He should make the playoffs with the highest NLCD payrol year in and year out. A good GM would do that with a balanced farm system and wise FA picks. Instead, Hendry depletes the farm (or his men make bad picks). We outspent the Cardinals by $18 mill last year, the Astros by $30 million., the Brewers by $37 million and the Pirates by $68 million. In 2009, we are outspending the Astros by $30 million (the next closest budget in the division) and outspending the Cardinals by $57 million, the Brewers by $52 million and the Pirates by $85 million. Yeah, not a big deal making the playoffs when you have complete and total budget dominance over the rest of your division. You could set loose a racoon with that budget and do well. But then again, they really haven't done well, have they? Back to back playoff sweeps where it looks like the team completely quit after game 1 - where it looked like our scouts were outfoxed very badly in both sweeps. Where Hendry did go right was 2003. He inherited some key pieces, and then made a great move during the season bringing in Lofton and Ramirez. Since then, it's been big budget after big budget, then streaks of competence followed by embarrassment. Wake me up when Jim Hendry puts together a team that can win a playoff game. Until then, I'd hold off on contact extension II.

Haven't the Cubs had a top 5 NL payroll for Hendry's entire tenure? Hendry has proven he can throw lots of money around. That's about it. The farm system is bare, the Cubs are unable to win a post season game and they have limited felixibility despite a massive budget. That's not exactly the work of someone you want running the ship.