UK1679666180

No, b/c that's not a proper delegation of duties. That chain of command never ends, there has to be a break along it. (Now here's an extreme hyperbole) If you have the CEO of the Trib. wanting to play GM would he rightfully be able to say who to get? I don't think so, b/c it's not area of expertise. MacPhail or anyone else higher up has not talked to the scouts Hendry has or did the dirty work behind the scenes to get as accurate of a gauge as did Hendry in deciding whether to go after Furcal. If it Hendry's job to all to do the research, it is his job to make the call. Now, if the higher ups did all of the work that Hendry did and have the same level of experience and made a decision that's one thing. There's no chance anyone besides Hendry did the nec. research that Hendry in deciding to go after Furcal.

Why? It's not their job to determine a player's value, not over a GM. Ultimately, the GM answers to the President and the President answers to the Board (who answers to the stock holders). The Chicago Cubs is a business with a chain of command. There is no business person (not even an entrepreneur) who doesn't have to answer to some higher authority (either directly or indirectly). Hendry has higher authorities above him and they set the budget for him, they should leave it at that. MacPhail should be able to make suggestions, but should not be in the role to have the final say over which players to sign and wish to pass on, which it comes down to in this case. Hendry has people to answer to, they give a certain amount to allocate towards the payroll and how well he does w/that is largely how he is evaluated. Hendry has a set limit in which to spend, how he spend it should be up to him.

I think trying to say that Andy has no right to be involved in contract talks is rather illogical and naive. The Cubs just went through the Sammy thing, Andy was very much involved. Just like Hendry should tell Dusty, I got you this guy to be the starting LF, Andy should get involved. I would be pissed if they came up $500,000 short for 3 years on a really good player like Giles who would fill a big need position, but that's because they would have failed to sign a really good player at a big need position, not because Andy "stuck his nose where it didn't belong." Talk about hyperbole. He's not the president's wife determining tax policy. He's very much involved, and should be. Everybody has different levels of input. The top guy should have final say, and get involved when he things it's necessary, that is why he is the top guy. It's not like he's muddling up every move they try to make. If Hendry was willing to trade Pie, Hill, Guzman and Pawelek for Scott Podsednik because he knew he had to "win now" or lose his job, I'd expect Andy to step in and enforce organizational philosophy. Nothing naive or illogical about it. This isn't a spot for MacPhail to initiate his clause as the enforcer. Furcal's contract demands would've fit under the Cubs budget, I'm sure both him and Hendry both agreed that Furcal should be the main target. Now, there would be no doubt that it would have been overpaying, but that Hendry's mistake to potentially make. I also disagree with Hendry telling Dusty who he should play and who he shouldn't, leave it up to Dusty regradless of how much I disagree with it. If they were in conjunction that Furcal is the prime target, whomever decided against increasing the offer crossed the line as far as interfering. Called a hyperbole or whatever stupid remark you want, but that should've been a Hendry decision w/out someone stepping in. It is up to the GM to set the parameters. Hoops, by saying you're glad they didn't spend extra to get Furcal, either you're content with upper management clouding the role of Hendry or you're ignoring the principle of it.

Why? It's not their job to determine a player's value, not over a GM.

I would expect MacPhail to have input on contract structures. Just like his refusal to go to arbitration, or his recent unwillingness to go longterm, it's a organization philosophy issue. My only problem would be if they said "we've already spent $2.5m on Neifi, we can't spend $12.5m total on our shortstop position." But that's more of a Jim hasn't figured out how to efficiently use his payroll yet. Of course, Andy might have realized that if Jim was so screwed up to be thinking about 5/50 for Furcal, maybe he needs to be fired, but he can't fire him in the middle of winter meetings so he simply stepped in and didn't let Jim screw up before he fired him. This has nothing to do with arbitration, that's a separate issue, Hendry and him likely have the same intentions of bring that player back w/out going to a 3rd party in the care of arbitration. This is about them having a disagreement and someone higher up having the authortative power to overrule, the one who should be making the decision. I don't care how badly Hendry could mismanage a payroll, it isn't MacPhail's job to get his hands in the cookie jar. What if it was a different player, let's say Hendry could sign Giles for 3yr at 11mil but the orig. offer was for 3yr at 9mil and the upper management would'nt allow the increase? Would you have the same laissez faire attitude towards them putting their noses where they don't belong. I've been critical of Hendry's off-season, but they need to stay out of it. If Andy wants to play GM again, fire Hendry.

As rare as it is for me to compliment the work of KW, he has done a couple of very good things this off-season.

Personally, I'm glad the Cubs did not try and bid against the offer of the Dodgers. But, if the assumptions report from the radio station is true that Hendry had targeted Furcal as the Cubs #1 target (which isn't a stretch) and that he was willing to exceed their current offer. Then, the upper end of the Cubs' totem pole would not increase the offer stinks of an inability to delegate duties. Think about it, this isn't an issue where the Trib. set the budget too low and this signing would exceed it, like in the Maddux case where they expanded the budget to fit him in Chicago. If they would've signed Furcal, the budget would be intact, just more difficult to add more pieces. But, that isn't their job to determine who should be in the budget as long as it doesn't exceed it. I wouldn't expect Hendry to manage the line-ups and I wouldn't expect MacPhail or anyone higher up to determine whom to go after. I hope that report was false, if not I have to question Hendry's authority as far as his role as GM. This doesn't include Baker, as a GM and manager should have a productive relationship working together on whom to bring in or release, but MacPhail should not dictate the roster.

I do too. I'm trying to look at this in a positive way, as well. I can see some positives in it, and some negatives. I'm choosing to believe the positives. These positives being? He has the speed to be one of the quickest to run back to the dugout after a higher rate of failed ABs. (yes, I'm joking)

Not the best option. I'll leave it with this.... Michaels>>>>Pierre. Hendry either overvalued Pierre or undervalued Michaels. Take your pick as to why he likely went after Pierre more than Michaels. Simply put, he spent just as much to get an inferior player.

To me, a CF'er like Michaels has more value than Williams. I like Williams, but if Philly wanted Williams, I'd do it. Michaels is a great backup plan if Pie struggles and you'll get one year of above avg. production in the process. Michaels will have a better '06 than Williams.

Pierre will rebound, there's no doubt in my mind about that. Now, what is his value if he produces at his career norms is up for debate.

I don't know if Pinto/Nolasco would? I would try it though. If not, I'd try Williams. Players get type cast, Philly projected him as a 4th OF'er out of Miami. He's earned a chance to start, I wouldn't let the futility of Philly dictate the value of Michaels.

Bob, wouldn't Michaels essentially be a one year rental? I'm going off the assumption that Pie would be ready in 2007. Michaels doesn't appear to project enough from a slugging standpoint to be a productive enough corner outfielder. Plus, he's not exactly a spring chicken, either, age wise. He's arby eligible, Pie performs well and it gives the Cubs more options as far as trading him. Michaels performs like I expect and the Cubs want to trade him to make room for Pie and they'd more in return than losing Pierre for a draft pick.

YES Several of us have echoed that same thought. He's simply not the most productive player avail. and under the cloud of not knowing, assumptions have been made about it being similar costs to obatin him in regards to Bradley and Michaels.

Those 2 guys could get Michaels and I think if the offered Williams, Philly would take it as well.

FTR, the Phillies have supposedly asked for Wang for the Yankees. That'll give you somewhat of an idea.

What players are you speaking of, on the trade block, that'll bite at an offer of Nolasco/Pinto? Give that offer to Philly and you'll likely have Jason Michaels. Yes, Michaels is better than Pierre. I've seen Michaels' numbers and they are impressive but he hasn't played full time as far as I can remember. Truthfully I don't know much about the guy. Philly platooned him with Lofton last year and they platoon him while Marlon Byrd became a bust based on huge potential. He keeps chugging along and producing. Give him 145 starts and he'll probably be the best leadoff hitter in the NL.

Let's say Pierre does well and Pie struggles at AAA, the Cubs get to enter a bidding war for Pierre the following year. Or they sign him to a long-term deal this Spring to prevent him from becoming a FA and then let the battle begin. I can tell you right now, Pie is better defensively than Pierre at this moment. If Pie struggles at AAA, do you want him up at the ML level? He's pretty young still, so why rush him? No, I don't want him rushed, but it doesn't be completed by only Pierre. It isn't a Pierre or bust scenario, there are better options. My problem isn't with Pierre, he's an upgrade, he's just not the biggest upgrade out there. Are you still thinking of Michaels? Sure, the Yankees are interested in him and not the Cubs. He's a better player than Pierre, cheaper, more productive, better both offenisvely and defensively, if you made that same offer to Philly, I'd assume they consider it similar to Florida pondering the offer for Pierre.

Let's say Pierre does well and Pie struggles at AAA, the Cubs get to enter a bidding war for Pierre the following year. Or they sign him to a long-term deal this Spring to prevent him from becoming a FA and then let the battle begin. I can tell you right now, Pie is better defensively than Pierre at this moment. I don't think we have a burning need of a defensive CFer. We need offense badly, and Pie hasen't even played at AAA yet, let alone perform at the MLB level. Its a huge assumption that he'll be ready in 2007. Why does it have to be Pierre or bust? There are other avail. Cf'ers out there. That is my point. Hendry is settling for a CF'er who isn't the best available.

Let's say Pierre does well and Pie struggles at AAA, the Cubs get to enter a bidding war for Pierre the following year. Or they sign him to a long-term deal this Spring to prevent him from becoming a FA and then let the battle begin. I can tell you right now, Pie is better defensively than Pierre at this moment. If Pie struggles at AAA, do you want him up at the ML level? He's pretty young still, so why rush him? No, I don't want him rushed, but it doesn't be completed by only Pierre. It isn't a Pierre or bust scenario, there are better options. My problem isn't with Pierre, he's an upgrade, he's just not the biggest upgrade out there.

What players are you speaking of, on the trade block, that'll bite at an offer of Nolasco/Pinto? Give that offer to Philly and you'll likely have Jason Michaels. Yes, Michaels is better than Pierre.

Let's say Pierre does well and Pie struggles at AAA, the Cubs get to enter a bidding war for Pierre the following year. Or they sign him to a long-term deal this Spring to prevent him from becoming a FA and then let the battle begin. I can tell you right now, Pie is better defensively than Pierre at this moment.

Perhaps they think that between Lee, ARam and Barrett, they have enough power to get by, but need OBP from the top 2 slots, and feel that all they need is a 6 hole hitter from RF. Just trying to think like Hendry. Who would bat 5th? Barrett becomes one of the worst #5 hitters on a team with a thought of making the playoffs. Murton will probably below avg. and then factor Dusty and Pierre Walker (assuming he's still w/the Cubs) Lee Ramirez ?-SS RF'er Murton Barrett

All this for a potential stop-gap? If Pierre was the missing piece, god bless them. But, Pierre would need to look his left to find the impact that makes the difference. B/c, you could get away with a less productive RF'er if they acq'd Bradley, Wilkerson, or even Michaels. If they get Pierre they'll have to go get an elite RF'er. Someone like Huff or Jones won't cut it.

The Cubs OBP had to be higher than .308 last year, probably in the .320-.330 range. But if those improvements occured, (won't happen) but fun to spectulate. The Cubs Cf'ers had a .281 OBP in 705 PAs. I'd predict Bradley to have an OBP in the .350-.360 range. The Cubs SS had a .307 OBP in 706 PAs. I'd predict Lugo will have an OBP in the .340-.350 range. The Cubs LF'ers had an OBP of .319 in 664 PAs, that includes Murton's .390 OBP in limited action. I'd predict Murton to have an OBP in the .350-.360 range next year. The Cubs RF'ers had an OBP of .320 in 697 PAs. If the put Wilkerson there, I'd predict he'd have an OBP in the .365-.375 range. These are likely the 4 spots that would see the biggest increase that need the most improvement. As the OBP would go up, so would the SLG over last year as well. If the Cubs pulled it off, they'd be in the top 5 as far as runs scored and improve on standard deviation as well. While I expect Lee to regress, I am encouraged that Ramirez will likely play more than 119 games.