UMFan83

Then later in the article.. Makes me wonder if he would take Randy Bush, leaving the Cubs without a worthwhile GM. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-081016-chicago-cubs-jim-hendry,0,582070.story Yeah I think there would be interest for Hendry then some think. I know many have not like some of his moves in the past, but even the best GM's make subpar moves.When it comes down to it Hendry has made alot more good moves then bad. Then when you consider he's put a competitive team on the field 5 of 6 years(05 team could have contended for playoff spot without all the injuries) he's been the GM, and has 3 division titles in 6 years. His resume is actually pretty solid, and I can see the Mariners, Blue Jays and a few other teams interested. But I would be surprised if Hendry isn't back, he seems to like it here, and the team is happy with him. I don't see his style working well with a mid-sized market team like Seattle. Hendry makes good moves, but he also throws a lot of money at his problems as well. I can't see him having the flexibility to do that in Seattle, a market that has let very good players leave due to money. And if they do give him some money to spend, are they going to give him more money to spend when he makes mistakes on some of his big money acquisitions? The Mariners spent around 1 million less than the Cubs this year and outspent them last year. They are plenty willing to spend money. They just haven't spent it on the right people. Touche. I stand corrected.

Then later in the article.. Makes me wonder if he would take Randy Bush, leaving the Cubs without a worthwhile GM. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-081016-chicago-cubs-jim-hendry,0,582070.story Yeah I think there would be interest for Hendry then some think. I know many have not like some of his moves in the past, but even the best GM's make subpar moves.When it comes down to it Hendry has made alot more good moves then bad. Then when you consider he's put a competitive team on the field 5 of 6 years(05 team could have contended for playoff spot without all the injuries) he's been the GM, and has 3 division titles in 6 years. His resume is actually pretty solid, and I can see the Mariners, Blue Jays and a few other teams interested. But I would be surprised if Hendry isn't back, he seems to like it here, and the team is happy with him. I don't see his style working well with a mid-sized market team like Seattle. Hendry makes good moves, but he also throws a lot of money at his problems as well. I can't see him having the flexibility to do that in Seattle, a market that has let very good players leave due to money. And if they do give him some money to spend, are they going to give him more money to spend when he makes mistakes on some of his big money acquisitions?

I'm not sure. Before the Cubs, the national media used the playoff failures by the Red Sox to play up the long history of falling short. Since the Red Sox won in 2004, the whole "umpteenth year without a WS" has fallen squarely on the shoulders of Cubs . This wasn't a big issue to the Cubs in 1984 or 89. As a matter of fact both years the media used 1969 as the indicator of how long it's been since the Cubs were that good. So how'd the Red Sox win it in '04 with that on their shoulders. They "Cowboyed up"

Whoops...maybe I am wrong Then later in the article.. Makes me wonder if he would take Randy Bush, leaving the Cubs without a worthwhile GM. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-081016-chicago-cubs-jim-hendry,0,582070.story

Why? what he do wrong? From someone who isn't a diehard hockey fan, I always thought his teams played better than his predecessor Trent Yawney. When he took over the team immediately played better IIRC. He got a young team that was carried by 2 rookies within 3 points on the playoffs last year. Certainly he deserved a better fate than what he got based on that. Makes me believe that he was not the coach that McDonough wanted.

Meh, not especially happy not especially sad. We've gone over the Hendry tenure ad nauseum here. There are some things that he's done that I've liked, there are a lot of things that he's done that I don't like. But there really isnt anyone besides Randy Bush who would be able to step in and be the GM if Hendry opted out and left. Bringing anyone from outside the organization would probably not be a good idea at this point. On the other hand, I get the sense that despite his success, Jimbo isn't exactly revered among baseball circles. Not to say he is thought of as bottom of the barrel either, but basically I don't think there would be much demand for Jim as another teams GM, meaning that his threatened (or rumored) opt-out is mostly just a leveraging tactic for a new deal coming off consecutive playoff appearances. Of course I could be really wrong about that, there are people on this board with a much better grasp of the industry than I.

I don't think a bad three games means the team folded under pressure, but that's just me. No, but when it happens two years in a row, it can't outright be dismissed.

Wow? That's really really weird. Not that he was fired, but 4 games into the season. I don't think this is a good move. This will put more pressure on a young team.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-corpse-on-the-dissecting-table/ Hurts to read a lot of this, but he makes some good points. An excerpt:

Haha wrong year to be the Phillies

If you had to choose between the Cubs adding a top ace pitcher (let's say Jake Peavy) or a top hitter (think Manny Ramirez), and everything else is equal (salary, years, age, consistency, etc), which do you think the Cubs would benefit more from. Assume the hitter would play at a position that would maximize his effectiveness (meaning its not a 3B that would replace Ramirez), and assuming adding an ace pitcher wouldn't have a bearing on resigning someone like Dempster. I'm putting tons of conditions on this poll, but to make it simple, which would we benefit more from?

That's absolutely true. The front 4 is pretty vital. Everyone knows there is an exposed pocket between the CB and the S in the Cover 2. Allow the QB time to find that pocket and urine trouble (thanks Moises).

Easily the worst fans in baseball. In fact, 2 days ago I was able to pull up tickets on the Dodgers website for games 4 and 5. This is when it was a 2-1 series! The NLCS! Unbelievable. Just makes us losing to them much more annoying.

I remember back in June when the Red Sox and Phillies were playing, Cole Hamels said something like "this is a World Series preview in my mind", and I just laughed because you know the Cubs were totally destined for the World Series. Well he was half right. Screw him and screw the Phillies for enjoying what we should be enjoying right now :(

Went to the game last night. It was a fun time. I had seats in Section 109, 8 rows from the ice (the side where the Hawks scored 3 of their 4 goals). Good times, the crowd was lively, but there was a lot of no shows. The 300 level was packed, but the 200 and 100 levels had open seats everywhere. Must be no shows because the paid attendance they announced was over 20,000. There couldn't have been more than 16k there though. It's probably why I got $125 seats for only $50 on CL :)

Captain or not, when a 19 year old player is calling team meetings 3 games into the season, I get a little worried.

I think by the point the crowd expected the Cubs to win the game and go to the World Series, unlike this year's crowds who expected a Cubbie occurance to happen. I doubt it has any tangible effect on the performance either way, but its nice to see a Cubs crowd that isn't scared and tentative. You could cut the tension with a knife in game 1 this year. Not enjoyable at all. I think the difference was that the Cubs actually played well that year, whereas they were pretty awful from start to finish this year. Can't cheer when there's nothing to cheer about. I agree the crowd was a bit tentative in Game 1 after the grand slam, but that's a big difference when you have a lead in Game 6 of the NLCS. I agree. We split the road games in the NLDS, but we were very much in both games, so we had something to be excited about. I think its possible the NLDS could have gone much different had we been in a 2-3 format. If we were away from the pressures of the home crowd and we won even 1 of those 2 games, the fans wouldn't have been so nervous, the players wouldn't have felt the pressure and things could have gone differently. At least in theory. As I said earlier, I'm not sure how much of a tangible effect the crowd could have. Ultimately its up to the players to ignore the outside factors and play.

Great analysis Meph. Wish it didn't take almost an entire page to get it out of you, but great analysis nonetheless.

The Cubs are influential. They are a modern example of what not to do. This influences teams to not emulate them.

I think by the point the crowd expected the Cubs to win the game and go to the World Series, unlike this year's crowds who expected a Cubbie occurance to happen. I doubt it has any tangible effect on the performance either way, but its nice to see a Cubs crowd that isn't scared and tentative. You could cut the tension with a knife in game 1 this year. Not enjoyable at all.

Yeah...the Cowboys have 3 legit receivers, the Bears have 0 and we are 1 game different from them.

Good point. How the heck are they goin to distinguish between the 2? Roy E. Williams (WR)?

Roy Williams supposedly just got traded to the Cowboys for 2 draft picks, 1 of them a 1st

Players rejoice as their OBP's plan to go up

That is the coverage you would like to run in that situation? The situation Lovie, is that if you keep them in bounds the game is over. It doesn't matter where they are in bounds, game over you win. They could be in bounds @ midfield, at the 30, or at the 1 yard line. It doesn't matter, the game is over. The only thing that beats you is a sideline pass were the receiver can get out of bounds. So you guard the sticking sideline..bracket the damn reciever! Is this guy for real? I cannot believe the stupidiy of this coaching staff, specfically Lovie. Not that the TO would have been called in time, but technically Atlanta had 2 timeouts left. Theoretically they could have passed inbounds and gotten the TO.