TheDude

On the Fox pre-game show for the Yankees game today, Ken Rosenthal said that the Cubs might be looking at Bruce Bochy from San Diego. I don't know much about Bochy, but it falls in with the theory some on the board have that Hendry might be waiting on someone as manager that is currently employed and not available for interview. Rosenthal also said that Torre might get fired in the Yankees get eliminated today, and that Piniella would be the top name on George's list. Just chruning the rumormill.

He's done that only with Baker and Barrett. Everybody else was a matter of teams dumping players, or being left with the last guy on the list. He got guys like Burnitz, Jones, Pierre only after flirting with others first and then settling. I don't see how anybody can defend Hendry as eagerly as you do. He's a failure. I don't see it that way at all. He targeted and acquired/signed Hawkins, Howry, Pierre, and Eyre also. Very rarely does he name someone in public and not get that person. The fact that he hasn't floated out the exact target for manager indicates ot me that either he isn't the only one making the decision or that other factors (such as permissions) have stalled the activity. There are certainly signings/acquisitions that have been wait and see, but only in situations where the guy is mum. I think this managerial signing is a different. In fact, if he had signed someone already, and it wasn't the prefered choice of the Beane-ballers, he would probably get jumped on for being hasty and not puting enough thought into how to make the team better (and just going after a name).

What has happened with Hendry and the Cubs in the past clearly has a bearing on the current situation. We know Hendry's MO. Others know Hendry's MO. He's indecisive, incompetent, and in the end will be left with few options and be forced to bid against himself, as usual. No. Hendry's MO has been to target the guy he wants and go get him. He has done this time and again, so I don't see how anyone could say otherwise.

I love how there is only one single supportive statement in the article to back up the claim. His only answer to 'why' he is taking too long is because uncited other teams might hire the presumed top candidates first. Hrm. He talks about other teams successes when jumping the gun, which has zero impact on the reality of the Cubs situation. He talks about what should have been done (in his opinion) a year ago, which again has zero bearing on the current situation. I'm not impressed with the article. Show me a source that says Piniella or Girardi is being interviewed by other teams and maybe a point is made.

I think the Yankees claims that they won't trade him is just a way to drive up the price. Basically, they aren't going to foot the bill and not get talent back. I think if you take on the bulk of the salary, they will settle for less than equal talent. But it will be more than just prospects. Chiefly, I think they'd love to get some middle relief. Throw Eyre and Aardsma/Novoa into the mix, and I think they'd listen. Include a starting pitcher prospect as well, and one good prospect. Eyre, Aardsma/Novoa, Marmol and Pie for ARod and $3m per year, dropping the cost to the Cubs to $13m per year. You got yourself a 900 OPS for the next several years I think you're certainly on the right track. I'm not buying the 'no less than your top MLB talent' arguments pervaisive in the thread, because when the money is that high, it just doesn't work out that way.

I believe pitching must be a focus as well. The team certainly needs one major bat to slide in among Ramirez, Lee, Jones, and Barret, but it's not a bad lineup if managed correctly, and healthy. But the Cubs starting pitching was as ugly I have ever seen, with dozens of starts under 5 innings. Three starters with 100 innings. Almost 700 bloddy walks. No team can win that. The team needs two starting pitchers with light historical health issues, at least one of which is named Schmidt :).

My feeling is that they're trying to talk themselves into Girardi because he seems to be the overwhelming "people's choice." They have concerns about what went on in Florida. At this point, I think they like Piniella best, can be talked into Girardi and would like Brenly if the other options failed. What I don't understand is why the Cubs have to take so long when they knew Baker wasn't coming back since September at the latest, I mean really, what the heck has Hendry been doing all this time? In fairness, they had to wait to see how the Girardi thing played out. It's one thing for the Marlins to seek permission to talk to a team's third base coach, quite another for the Cubs to ask to talk with another team's manager while that team was still playing. On top of that, they need to ask some questions on both sides on what exactly happened down there. The Giants will take their time hiring a manager, too. As long as you get it done by the organizational meetings in November and don't lose out on your man, there's no real reason to rush. If this is your last chance to get it right, you better well take your time and get it right. I'm glad you posted this because people have been absolutely hammering Hendry on this issue all week long. It doesn't seem nearly as black-and-white as folks want it to be.

Why do people assume the cost in talent to get A-Rod would be huge? The Yankees won't play the top young talent in a deal anyway, preferring to spend another 10-20 million to fill the hole created. If a team like the Cubs absorbed the entirety of the contract, then the talent going back doesn't have to be anything more than a few propsects, and none of the premiere ones. With large salary trades, teams have 'buy' the top propects by eating a sizable percentage of the contract. They more they eat in salary, the better the prospect package becomes. The Cubs best bet is to take on the entire contract and give them 3 B prospects.

... there's no reason the Cubs couldn't have done the same. And most every business out there, including sports teams, have their ducks lined up in advance through back channel communications. At the very least, you should have a list of who you'd like, and you should have a decent idea of who would be interested in the job. Anything less than that is incompetent management. I would imagine that the FL owner is such a vindictive rectum that he would have (did?) denied permission to speak with Girardi. I'm sure the Braves allowed contact w/ F. Gonzo as soon as asked. I'm inclined to think that way as well. If Hendry views Girardi as a top candidate, I'm not sure I understand why he becomes incompetant because he hasn't hired him after one day. Hendry says all the PC things people say when in front of the camera. I never look at that when trying to judge him. He has a history of going after the target he wants and getting that person, so I am not concerned today.

Mid-November would be pathetic. As I said in another thread, as a sitting GM who is looking to replace a lame duck manager whom he previously hired, and following several months of knowing he was likely going to need to replace the guy, and hopefully at least several weeks of knowing he was going to replace him, there is no justification to wait out October looking for that replacement. Hendry should have had a list by early August, at the latest. When he was "reviewing" everything, he should have included contingencies for if he made a move. That would entail a list, and that list would include his assessment on the likelihood/possibility of getting a guy. This hiring process, like almost everything else Hendry has done, is flawed from the beginning. Just playing the advocate here, but how does Hendry have a complete list in August when some of his likely candidates were still gainfully employed and not allowed to be contacted?

The White Sox should be focusing on Juan Pierre instead. Seconded. They are, according to ESPN Insider. They are also interested in Blanco.

and that shouldn't determine individual value. How do you figure? How can you have individual value in that lineup? The answer is easy - you can't. None of the individuals on that team could ever qualify as making or breaking that lineup, or being the difference between a playoff team and a non-playoff, which is often cited as the top criteria for an MVP.

You don't have took too far back to find the consistency, even within the Cubs. Zambrano's stretch earlier this year was extremely impressive.

If you were running the DRays would you accept that deal? I sure as hell wouldn't. There's no way that deal even gets into the door. Suggesting Hill is even a stretch IMO.

The pen has had unbalanced innings. There is no reason to consider dropping Dempster, Howry, or Eyre just because you keep Wood. Assuming Rusch doesn't come back because of his injury, you slot Wood in his place.

A lineup like that is the reason no Yankee hitter should be considered for MVP this year, or any future until team salaries balance out. The loss of any of the studs on that team doesn't matter one bit.

Why does everyone think Crawford would make a difference on the Cubs? This year he is having a career year, and he wouldn't even be an improvement over the Cubs current OF's. Crawford .303 BA/.345 OBP /835 OPS Jones .287 BA/ .335 OBP/ .839 OPS Murton .298 BA/ .365 OBP/ .811 OPS It seems like the Cubs already have 2 similar players in the OF. You conveniently left out the outfielder he would be replacing: Pierre: .291/.330/.390/.720 Crawford is only 25 so there is the potential for him to improve even more and his OPS has improved every year. :oops: I saw him listed as a LF on his stat page. Even considering there is a spot for him to fit in the OF, would you trade Rich Hill for Jacque Jones? Considering how much everyone complains about how bad Jones is and how big of a waste of money he was, it is interesting to see everyone clamouring for a guy that actually puts up worse numbers(outside of SBs). It is also worth repeating that Crawford puts up his numbers at nearly half the salary of Jones and probably at least half of what Pierre will seek, at least for 2007. You simply cannot ignore the production per dollar and the expected increase in productivity. Hill is not a sure thing. He is probably going to be very good, but he could suffer a 2007 sophmore slump. I am sure that Hill would not be enough actually.

The Cubs will have the money go 50 million on Schmidt. Chicago is a desirable place to play. If you can't land Schmidt, then you use Pie as trade bait for a young pitcher to replace Hill. The fact of the matter is this: the Cubs have one primary tradable commidity - young pitchers. If you want to improve the offense through trade, you have to deal some young pitching. If you can land a cheap 25 year old highly productive player then you have to do it.

The Marlins almost showed us it's possible to break .500, technically a winning team, with a 14 million dollar team.

What you've said here doesn't make sense. we can all agree Paterson is an impatient hitter with a large strike zone. So what requires more change: - Dusty asking him to be his version of a leadoff hitter - Asking him to suddenly develop into a OBP count-working hitter. Clearly the second requires a lot more change than the first. what you're asking of him would be far more destructive to his progress than what Dusty asked of him, IMO.

But here's the thing - adding Crawford adds only 4 million for 2007, a cost made up by pursuing a couple 1 million dollar bench players (or cheaper) instead of some higher profile 2.5 million bench guys. In other words, you can almost wash the salary of Crawford while adding an .850 OPS CF to your roster. So adding Crawford could allow the team to also add Soriano and Schmidt, while retaining Ramirez. The opportunity cost of losing Hill is worth it, IMO.

Exactly right. Trading Hill or a similar prospect package for Crawford is a great idea. It gives a solid offensive production player at a discounted rate, which then allows the team to put out the money for a guy like Schmidt and have the flexibility necessary for Ramirez and another high-end bat. Crawford also has the side benefit of making Pierre unnecessary. Get it done Hendry.

Except that Dusty and his staff tried to turn him into something he was not: a leadoff hitter. Sure, Corey was fast, but he was brought up in the minors as a middle-of-the order, power-type player. Corey never wanted to be a leadoff hitter; Baker and his staff forced it on him, and that's why he "could not carry what he did in practice and instruction into the batter's box." His lack of plate discipline may have never allowed him to reach his full potential, but he could still have been a very valuable player. Basically, Baker's staff had a potential 30/30 player in CF, and instead of trying to teach him to be more patient to bring out his natural abilities(not necessarily take walks, just not swinging at the first pitch at every at bat), they tried to completely alter his style and make him Lou Brock. It was a disservice to him, the Cubs and the fans. Corey deserves some blame, but the coaching staff (and Hendry to an extent) deserve more. Patterson doesn't have middle-of-the-order potential. It's disservice to him and the team to let him think he does and to play him there. It wasn't the brightest idea to hit him leadoff, but he stunk out loud everywhere he was batting last year. After leadoff in 2005, his next highest total of ABs was in the 8-hole, and his numbers there were even worse. You can blame whatever coaching staff you want, but if the player doesn't listen and can't adapt to any form of change, then the progress evaluation is on the player.

Patterson deserves the bulk of the blame. The man simply could not carry what he did in practice and instruction into the batter's box and it became a mental block to his advancement. It's not as if he was uncoachable, but when he stepped up to bat, all the coaching was ignored. The only way he was going to improve was to get a fresh start and clear out that mental block. You can blame the organization for rushing him, but don't put his short-comings on Dusty and his staff.

This is yet another in the line of 'how can pile on unrelated crap to Dusty and then overreact to it' threads.