Good thing I didn't do that, huh? In fact I expressly noted that two of the three teams ahead of the Cubs are the mega-spenders (BOS and NYY), while the similar-spenders (LAD, NYM, PHI, CHW) have been as successful or worse. So why do you include a list of all 30 MLB teams, even though the majority of them don't have nearly the same amount of money to spend as the Cubs do? And you did it again when you said this Those teams all have significantly lower payrolls, yet you just compared Hendry's work to their work without even mentioning the payroll differences. Perhaps I overestimated the board's ability to take payroll considerations into account without me having to spell them out more thorougly than I have. Or, maybe just yours. Haha. I'll go back to my original statement. Comparing the success of 2 different teams who have completely different payroll situations is pointless, yet you did it. You compared hendry to Minnesota (among others) when you simply can't compare the success of the 2 when they are in completely different situations. I've seen you do this many times with hendry. You constantly dismiss the payroll advantages he has and try to compare him to better GMs with much more limited resources and then say things like "all that matters is that he wins with what he says...it doesn't matter how he does it". Umm, well, yeah.... it does matter how he does it. A GM with more money to spend than most franchises is held to a different standard, whether you like it or not. It would be foolish to not hold him to a higher standard. Compare Hendry to teams with similar payrolls, and that's it. Don't try to ocmpare him to teams like Minnesota. You can't do that. It's like giving one person 10 grand to buy a car and another person 50 grand, then congratulating the second person for coming home with a BMW while the other comes home with a Saturn.