dew1679666265

Again, I'm not evaluating Hendry's overall job performance at all. I'm simply discussing a few of the great trades he's made. It's not an evaluation in any way, shape, or form. Outshined One asked what awesome trades Hendry has made other than the ones he mentioned, I brought up a pretty nice trade. It's not an evaluation nor a statement on his overall job performance. And I still find it silly. It reminds me of women that say "I know my boyfriend beats the [expletive] out of me but sometimes he buys me nice stuff". Or it's like talking about the good plays of an overall bad player. People on the board have reminisced about Glendon Rusch's good year, etc. and nobody has been appalled by that idea. It's a discussion about a baseball topic. I thought that's what this board was here for.

Again, I'm not evaluating Hendry's overall job performance at all. I'm simply discussing a few of the great trades he's made. It's not an evaluation in any way, shape, or form. Outshined One asked what awesome trades Hendry has made other than the ones he mentioned, I brought up a pretty nice trade. It's not an evaluation nor a statement on his overall job performance.

The Sosa trade was pretty bad, especially considering this organization did everything it could to railroad him out of town. Most people around here expected a better return than what we got for Sosa (remember, Fontenot wasn't well thought of at the time), but the problem was the Cubs pretty much shot themselves in the foot when they made it blindly obvious they were trying to trade him and distance themselves for him. Even worse, that whole fiasco handcuffed the Cubs in an offseason where (potentially) they could have pursued high quality replacements for Sosa (which included Beltran and JD Drew). Instead, they ended up with Jeromy Burnitz. Hendry also traded away potentially useful guys like Bill Mueller, Mark Bellhorn, and Felix Pie. Plus, Cruz and Wuertz weren't the only bullpen guys who got shipped off for scrap; there have been plenty of those trades during Hendry's tenure.[ Yeah, the Sosa trade wasn't particularly good. I think they got good value for the time (especially seeing how Fontenot turned out), but his value really shouldn't have been driven down so much. That's definitely one of Hendry's bad trades. If we're going to talk about his good trades, we also need to talk about his bad trades, imo. I have no problem with that. I was just responding to your question about his awesome trades.

Every GM has made bad trades, not nearly as many have acquired talent like Lee, Ramirez, Lofton, Harden, Nomar, Karros and Grudz for guys who have done little in the majors. With the exceptions of the Maddux and Pierre trades, Hendry's bad trades have consisted of trading decent to solid bullpen guys (Cruz, Wuertz) for players who didn't turn out. Those are bad trades, but are overshadowed by the very good trades. Like TT said, I'm not arguing that Hendry has been great. I'm not even defending Hendry in any way. I think it's time for a new GM. I just don't see what the big deal is about discussing good trades he's made and how, overall, he's good at pulling off trades.

Talking about the great trades Hendry had made doesn't have to mean that you're a fan of his. I don't see a problem with it. It's absurd. It's like talking about the great outings Shawn Estes had. Sure, he had a couple gems, but he sucked. So if a player, coach or executive isn't good overall you can't discuss the good points about him? That doesn't make much sense. Hendry hasn't been good overall, but I see no reason why we should be forbidden from discussing some of the good things he's done.

How awesome is a trade when you get a half a season of use out of a guy? The trade also got us Murton and, in turn, a piece for the Harden deal. A guy who pitched 200 innings for the Cubs over 1.5 seasons and left for nothing. Not that I didn't want the guy, but how awesome can these deals be if all it does is create a team that wins 83 games a year? They can be plenty awesome. A few great trades doesn't make a great team, but they also shouldn't be dismissed or ignored. And that guy who pitched 200 innings for us also posted a 1.77 ERA and a 0.97 WHIP in a year that we made the playoffs and we gave up Murton, a utility guy and a Single A prospect for him.

Talking about the great trades Hendry had made doesn't have to mean that you're a fan of his. I don't see a problem with it.

How awesome is a trade when you get a half a season of use out of a guy? The trade also got us Murton and, in turn, a piece for the Harden deal.

The first Barrett trade is the first one that pops into my mind. The second Barrett trade that netted us Kyler Burke is looking quite nice too, but I wouldn't call it awesome.

Girardi isn't nearly the legendary figure in Chicago that Sandberg is, I don't think. Ryno appeals to hardcore and non-hardcore baseball fans alike, while probably a large majority of casual fans in Chicago likely had little idea of who Joe Girardi was before the Yankee job (and maybe still don't know him).

The owner of the Orioles hasn't made Cal Ripken Jr. Manager of the Orioles. What do I win? Does Ripken want to manage?

The worrying thing to me is that the Cubs supposedly have played the "easy" part of their schedule. My numbers might be a bit off, but as of today, the combined record of the Cubs' opponents is 116-133 (.465). It would be one thing if the Cubs had played a really difficult stretch against teams like the Cardinals, Phillies, Padres, and Giants...but the Cubs haven't played any of those teams yet. If this team can't post a winning record against teams like the Pirates and the Astros, they're in serious trouble. Yeah, the 1-5 stretch we just had really hurts. We'll need to play a bit above our heads for a while to have a good chance at the postseason.

4 games under .500, 10th place in the wild card. It's a fairly daunting task. 130 games to go makes it less so. Yes, but expecting this team to play 20 games under .500 the rest of the way to get to 89 wins seems a bit unrealistic considering the extreme difficulty they have getting above .500 currently. I agree, but there's a big, big difference between 4 games under .500 and 10 back of the WC with 50 games left and the same scenario with 130 games left. There's still time to improve, but improving enough will be difficult. To clarify a bit more, I don't think how many teams are ahead of us in the WC race right now really matters that much. We're not in the stretch run and none of the teams in front of us have proven themselves as quality teams. The record right now means much more than how many teams are in front of us.

No kidding. Any talk like he's slacking off or burnt out or whatever is just absurd. He has every motivation to do well this year in what his likely his last opportunity for a really big payday. Except for the fact that he has a player option for next year, that at this point, he would be crazy to opt out of. Isn't the player option the exact reason why he wouldn't be slacking off in the offseason and into this year? That's the point N&G is making and I think it's valid.

4 games under .500, 10th place in the wild card. It's a fairly daunting task. 130 games to go makes it less so.

His .176 BABIP isn't helping his numbers a bit right now. His LD% is down quite a bit as well (14% now vs a career 19%), but that's a really abysmal BABIP. I don't, however, know if it's completely out of whack after his drop in LD%.

I totally agree with you. If the Cubs play .538 ball the rest of the way they end up 84-78 and have a decent shot at the Wild Card. Now I agree that they have sucked this season, but you can't tell me that they can't play .538 ball assuming ARam and DLee start hitting. ARam might have a "down" year, but he's not going to stay in "Aaron Miles land" the whole season. The average wild card winner in the NL the past 5 years has had 89 wins (92, 90, 90, 88, 89). Winning 84 games this year may not give us much of a chance at a wild card. With 130 games to go, we have to go 75-55 to hit 89 wins. That's a .576 winning percentage.

Probably, but as others have said, the likelihood that he'll be making contact even if he struggles should help the general perception of him. Pie and Patterson often looked lost at the plate because of their high K rates when they struggled. Castro has struck out at a much lower rate (pretty much half) than Pie and Patterson.

It'd be naive if I assumed they were going to handle him perfectly. It'd also be overly cynical if I simply assumed they were going to screw him up beyond repair. There's a much greater chance that if he struggles for a while that they'd send him back to Iowa than that Lou would stick him on the end of the bench for 2 months.

September callup would mean no risk of burning an option. July/August callup would keep that risk to a minimum. Early May callup means we've got an entire season of worrying what Lou will do with him. Early May callup after getting swept by the Pirates moving well under .500 and 5 games out of 1st puts a lot of expectation on him to be the savior. If he's handled properly, though, he could help turn this team around if he hits well. My expectations aren't real high for this year, but if he's ready to contribute – which, while opinions are split on whether he should have been called up, most seem to feel he can produce at this level – then this speeds up his development. I agree there's risk involved in this move, but I don't agree with assuming awful handling any more than I agree with assuming great handling. The move in and of itself is fine to me. Now it's important that Lou uses Starlin well. We'll have to wait and see if he does, though.

it decreases every day he's down though. part of the issue is him not being settled into an everyday role by the time his options are up. 3 years is a long time. If Castro doesn't develop to the point that they want to send him down in 2014, then 1) they probably wouldn't have a problem getting him through waivers, and 2) he isn't going to pan out to make the fretting over the option worthwhile. Or he tore his ACL or robbed a bank or something. It wouldn't take much for it to become an issue. Send him down sometime this year. Maybe he's banged up a little next season and suddenly it's 2012, he's burned 2 options and it's now or never time, and he's only 22 years old. So he shouldn't have been called up at all this year?

Seems like the expert opinions vary on both sides of this. It seems like most of the opinion is that it's too early, but even those aren't strong opinions for the most part.

Who was it that reported Castro's promotion was imminent? Bruce Levine said it could happen "at any point." I haven't seen anything from Sullivan on it. Some dude from ESPN Deportes reported it first via Twitter....then everybody else grabbed it. Yeah, Enrique Rojas first reported that he was called up. I thought gooney was referring to an earlier column reporting "sources" saying that Castro's call-up was eminent. That's why I posted that link and mentioned Levine.

It's still a risk. If he spends a few months sitting too frequently, then gets sent down, burning an option, then that puts a little more urgency into the situation. The move in and of itself won't hurt his development, though. It's the handling of him after the move that could. Which is where the jeopardizing comes into play and where most of the concern has been placed. Right. And if they call him up and stick him on the bench, I really don't like this move. However, Nuts&Gum said it doesn't jeopardize his development if they call him up and play him. You refuted a point he didn't make.

Who was it that reported Castro's promotion was imminent? Bruce Levine said it could happen "at any point." I haven't seen anything from Sullivan on it.