soapy

This isn't about how the money is spent. It's the RESULTS from the money that is spent. It seems as though you have a completely different level of expectancy for this team. That's great, but you're flying that plane by yourself. Everyone else believes for the money that the Cubs have allotted to the payroll, more trips to the playoffs are in order. Let's look at the Braves. They went to the playoffs every year for like 14 years in a row. That's pretty amazing considering for parts of that time, their budget was not in the top half of major league teams. This makes the GM of the Braves better than Hendry, better than Cashman, better than Epstein, better than everyone. This is what you are paying your GM to do. Build from within and then spend to fill the holes and make the right moves to keep your team on top for not just this year, but the next several years in a row. You are right that just about every GM wastes money on someone at some point or another. However, if the results are there, while it's never acceptable to waste money, it's more forgiveable. The results aren't there for Hendry, therefore it's not forgiveable. The list of other teams where the GM's have been replaced should be evidence enough. The only reason Hendry hasn't been removed at this point is probably because the team ownership has been in transition. The sadness is that everyday he stays in office could end up being more damaging than the previous day. He's running this team right now like he's trying to save his job when he should be running this team with the future of the team in mind. It'd be interesting to see what the mood around here would be if the Cubs had made the postseason in 2009, giving the Cubs three straight and 4 in Hendry's 7 years. As you said yourself this is a results-based business and it'd be hard to argue with those results. I suspect many of the especially-vocal folks would still want Hendry gone, but I bet they would be the minority. But as we well know the Cubs didn't make the postseason in 2009. So in the end if folks want Hendry fired because his offseason moves last year backfired and turned a 97-win team into an 83-win team, I'll certainly listen to that. Heck I'm not particularly opposed to it myself, to be frank, because he's ultimately responsible for that failure. What I won't listen to, however, is the notion that Hendry has been an unmitigated disaster who's done more harm than good since taking over, and that there's no sane reason to keep him around, and especially the notion that just about anyone else could do a better job given the same opportunity and resources. To me that's just a bunch of nonsense borne out of frustration and impatience. IMPATIENCE?! that's rich. we're simply not going to agree on this so i'll try to make this my last response on the topic. I think you need to take into account that two of Hendry's playoff teams were extremely fortunate to be in incredibly weak divisions (03 & 07). what if Houston hadn't tanked in 2003 or Milwaukee hadn't tanked in 2007 (the Cubs also got extremely hot in the second half that year, I acknowledge)? the 2003 team won 88 games while the 2007 team was even worse with 85. in 2003, the only division bad enough to be won with 88 wins was the NL Central. In 2007, the only division bad enough to be won with 85 wins was the NL Central. backing into the playoffs because you're in a weak division isn't much of an accomplishment in my mind. sure, there's an extremely slim chance that team will get absurdly hot at the right time circa 2006 Cardinals, but it's extremely unlikely. the only very good team in the Hendry era was 2008. the overall record of his teams is sub-par. even if you wish to dismiss the (IMO) glaring evidence that he's wasted a decided financial advantage over the competition in the last few years (which I do not), the results are simply not good enough. end of story.

No, I don't really think you're correctly stating what it is that people want. Ok then where'd I jump the tracks: Chorus: "Hendry wastes too much money so we need a new GM." Davearm: "Hendry doesn't spend differently or less effectively than other big-market teams." Tim: "All big-market teams waste money." Davearm: "So the big-market thing is the problem, not the GM." Tim: "Wrong." Davearm: :confused: there is absolutely no way that you are this dense. no [expletive] way. I'm neither dense nor obtuse. But I can recognize and illustrate the logical flaws being espoused here. The best, and perhaps only way to avoid wasting money is to operate your club like the Marlins have. So don't get on Hendry for his foolish spending unless you would prefer that alternative, because all big-market teams have a few expensive, high-profile screwups on their resume. It goes with the territory. I really don't understand how you can think you aren't being either dense or obtuse. You basically just said there are two ways to run clubs: like the Marlins or like the Cubs. Come on. I accept that a big market team will likely overspend in some area(s). That's the luxury they have. Ideally though, you overpay (by necessity) for top-tier talent, not replacement level (or worse) bench players and relievers. The only two top-tier players that Hendry can even try to pretend he signed are Zambrano and Soriano and both of those are a stretch. He sure as hell overpaid guys like Miles, Perez, Blanco, J. Jones, Bradley and a whole host of relievers though. The choice isn't the Marlins or the Cubs (though the Marlins have been just as successful as the Cubs). For you to act like people in this thread are advocating such is a joke and an insult to everyone.

No, I don't really think you're correctly stating what it is that people want. Ok then where'd I jump the tracks: Chorus: "Hendry wastes too much money so we need a new GM." Davearm: "Hendry doesn't spend differently or less effectively than other big-market teams." Tim: "All big-market teams waste money." Davearm: "So the big-market thing is the problem, not the GM." Tim: "Wrong." Davearm: :confused: there is absolutely no way that you are this dense. no [expletive] way.

Davearm is the one who brought $/win into this to show that Hendry is doing a decent job. Rob made a correction (and a valid one, btw). You questioned whether that would make the small market teams look artificially better (they're better using the average analysis in addition to the marginal analysis, btw). I pointed out why small market teams ARE better from an efficiency standpoint. The only one who is using any of this to justify anything is davearm. I'm not justifying anything. I'm just dispelling the misconception that Hendry's spending has been either more prolific or less efficient per win than other big-market teams around baseball. This notion that Hendry's constantly throwing away good money after bad just simply is not supported by the data. No, your data doesn't really say that. It means he's been around as efficient as the other top 10 spending teams, who also may have a habit of wasting lots of money. OK then, so apparently what folks really want is not a new GM, but rather for the Cub to no longer be a big-market team, since big-market teams inherently waste lots of money. oh man, you busted us.

You can see where this is headed already. Hendry will feel the need to out-bid the Nationals. Gah...

I've never seen the point of keeping on a coach/manager/etc. to finish a season if you know you're certain that you're going to fire him at season's end anyway. Do it immediately so it is clear that the position is open and you can begin openly interviewing the next coach ASAP. I think it's particularly important in this instance because of the available (and highly sought after) coaching candidates on the market right now.

Yeah, I think I've pretty much missed Theriot's alleged comments as well. I'm still down with trading him though.

sigh...

I am absolutely on board with exploring trade options with Theriot. I think this coupled with moving someone like Zambrano makes quite a bit of sense at this juncture. I don't think the team necessarily needs to be blown up though. I think you can move, for example, Theriot and Zambrano and still be very competitive in 2010 depending on their replacements (via trade and/or FA). With the Cubs budget and current roster, I don't think they need to start over to put this team in the mix. They would clearly need bounce-back seasons from guys like Soto, Soriano and to a lesser extent Marmol (none of which are sure things). If those things can happen and some reasonable moves are made to replace Zambrano (for example, something along the lines of Hughes as mentioned in Tim's article) they could still field a potential contender in 2010. They then have the money to go after someone like Bay or make a trade for a big bat mid-season (Beltran?).

The words "classy" and "Milton Bradley" should never be used in the same sentence unless you are referring to a board game. which is funny because Mariners fans would probably say the same thing about Carlos Silva. that's okay, we replaced a dick who can actually produce on the field with a dick who can't.

I should have taken your advice. Expected, but still frustrating. I was a little disappointed in some of Bruce's comments too. Whatever, I'm going to go get drunk

I can't believe there are actually people trying to shine this turd. I guess I always knew there were some people that would defend Hendry no matter what, but this is a new low.

Oh, Jesus Christ. Get a freaking clue. "love major fancrush on bradley". Yeah...that's what's happening here. Carlos Silva a horrible, horrible baseball player with an even worse contract. Nobody hates him, they just think he sucks. This isn't hard to figure out.

I would seriously rather they just released Bradley. This is amazing.

Of course the Cubs will cave if he's still around in February. They've gone out of their way to make it very clear that they have absolutely no intentions of keeping Milton Bradley on this team in 2010. There is no incentive for any potential trade partner to do anything now unless they believe someone else is competing for Bradley. Without that, why not just sit around and wait for spring training to keep getting closer and closer with the Cubs becoming more and more desperate to rid themselves of Bradley before all other FA replacement options are gone?

Sounds like WR is a position they'll probably leave as-is. they can only fill so many holes in one off-season, particularly with no picks in the first two rounds. they don't really have much choice, IMO. at least WR is a position with several young guys who might develop.

You're right, he's done a damn good job putting together that impressive 587-545 record with one of the top payrolls in the league. Let's just give him some time, fellas. At this point, he really doesn't have any kind of track record or body of work on which to base our criticism.

Yeah, i don't think them drafting a CF indicates anything about their faith in Colvin. Also, most of the CF options currently being discussed are short-term guys and, again, I don't think necessarily indicate doubts from the Cubs about Colvin.

It clearly isn't, which is insane. I have the same feeling I had before Hendry signed J. Jones. I mean, Pods just fits right into Hendry's MO. Left handed, CFer, "lead-off" hitter, "fast", etc... I'm hoping the seemingly recent fascination with RBI (re: Bradley) will steer him away from Podsednik. Shoulda put CF in quotes too. The media is foolishly portraying it as a "no choice" situation, and Hendry will be more than happy to fall back on that when he eventually does get screwed over. And you're right, Pods is hardly a LF, but he'll be portrayed as a "CF" if need be. But I do believe they will be looking for an RBI guy. Good point about "CF", SSR. And yes, it is annoying that Hendry seems to be getting a pass (from the media in particular) because his hands are tied money-wise and he can't get a huge payroll bump from the new owner. That is insane. Hendry has had a tremendous payroll advantage over much of the league (and still does). He's the one who made this mess, not Ricketts. The blame falls squarly at his feet and nobody else.

It clearly isn't, which is insane. I have the same feeling I had before Hendry signed J. Jones. I mean, Pods just fits right into Hendry's MO. Left handed, CFer, "lead-off" hitter, "fast", etc... I'm hoping the seemingly recent fascination with RBI (re: Bradley) will steer him away from Podsednik.

I'm kinda rooting for Indiana in this game. It's a weird feeling. Maybe you'll feel better if you just consider it rooting against UK rather than rooting for IU.

This still wouldn't keep current players from deciding to transfer/leave early or current recruits from de-committing during that time. I imagine that's a big part of what Kelly will be dealing with immediately. True, and this isn't simply an ND related issue; Cincinnati needs to get a new coach in to try to retain the Bearcat recruits who might now be bailing out with Kelly leaving. True, but at least the Cincinnati players are focused on their bowl game and likely won't get to mixed up in what they're doing next year until after the game. Can't say the same for the recruits though.

This still wouldn't keep current players from deciding to transfer/leave early or current recruits from de-committing during that time. I imagine that's a big part of what Kelly will be dealing with immediately.

http://espn.go.com/chicago/columns/blog?name=levine Every time I see it I get a little more terrified.

Heading down to the IU/UK game tomorrow. Should be a fun atmosphere (to start at least), but I'm not expecting much of a contest. Hopefully it's competitive.