Posts: 157
Threads: 19
Joined: May 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=101492:date=Jun 15 2010, 12:31 PM:name=ColoradoCub)-->QUOTE (ColoradoCub @ Jun 15 2010, 12:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=101489:date=Jun 15 2010, 11:23 AM:name=BackyardLegend)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BackyardLegend @ Jun 15 2010, 11:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=101463:date=Jun 15 2010, 11:11 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jun 15 2010, 11:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I don't think Hendry is the worst GM out there. He's made some great trades and done some really good things as the Cubs' GM. He also has his fair share of shortcomings.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is spot on. Hendry has overseen a decade of relative success for the Cubs
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
nevermind, I've got my timeline all messed up
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Keyword: relative.
"Last year, I was sort of a kid and I was a little scared, I ain't scared any more."
Quote:- Hank Aaron
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
I said it once and I'll say it again, I think Hendry (and Lou) should not only be retained, but they should be extended. Seriously. How can anyone argue with the results? I'll even take it a step further and say that I wish the Tribune would have stayed on as owners. Continuity trumps winning any day.
Wang.
Posts: 2,696
Threads: 47
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=101509:date=Jun 15 2010, 02:12 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Jun 15 2010, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I said it once and I'll say it again, I think Hendry (and Lou) should not only be retained, but they should be extended. Seriously. How can anyone argue with the results? I'll even take it a step further and say that I wish the Tribune would have stayed on as owners. Continuity trumps winning any day.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What's your point?
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=101513:date=Jun 15 2010, 02:21 PM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Jun 15 2010, 02:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=101509:date=Jun 15 2010, 02:12 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jun 15 2010, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I said it once and I'll say it again, I think Hendry (and Lou) should not only be retained, but they should be extended. Seriously. How can anyone argue with the results? I'll even take it a step further and say that I wish the Tribune would have stayed on as owners. Continuity trumps winning any day.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What's your point?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought it was pretty obvious.
Wang.
Posts: 11,837
Threads: 390
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
With the Cubs' payroll, in relation to the other teams in the NL Central, we shouldn't have to go through these down years. Take a look at the Boston Red Sox. Their team payroll is consistently a little higher than ours, but it is always a distant 2nd to the Yankees'.
Since Theo Epstein took over (he was hired at the end of the 2002 season), here's what they've done:
2003 -- 95 wins
2004 -- 98 wins and they win their first World Series since 1918
2005 -- 95 wins
2006 -- 86 wins (miss the playoffs for the first time since Epstein took over)
2007 -- 96 wins and they win the World Series *again*
2008 -- 95 wins
2009 -- 95 wins
They've missed the playoffs *once* since Epstein took over and won the World Series twice.
Lets take a look at Jim Hendry's tenure during that same period (he took over the GM position in July of 2002):
2003 -- 88 wins (5 outs away)
2004 -- 89 wins (missed the playoffs)
2005 -- 79 wins
2006 -- 66 wins
2007 -- 85 wins (playoffs)
2008 -- 97 wins (playoffs)
2009 -- 83 wins
We've made the playoffs three times in that same timeframe, but with a greater payroll advantage in our division than Epstein has in his.
The Red Sox have averaged 94.28 wins in the NL East while we have averaged 83.85 wins in the NL Central.
So, again, I'll be the first to say that Hendry has done more for this Cubs team than I've seen any other GM do in my lifetime. But, he isn't an elite GM. Theo Epstein is an elite GM. And with the monetary advantage we have over the rest of the teams in the NL Central, there is no reason an elite GM couldn't replicate what the Red Sox do.
Hendry is a decent GM. Let's get an elite GM.
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=101534:date=Jun 15 2010, 03:32 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jun 15 2010, 03:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->With the Cubs' payroll, in relation to the other teams in the NL Central, we shouldn't have to go through these down years. Take a look at the Boston Red Sox. Their team payroll is consistently a little higher than ours, but it is always a distant 2nd to the Yankees'.
Since Theo Epstein took over (he was hired at the end of the 2002 season), here's what they've done:
2003 -- 95 wins
2004 -- 98 wins and they win their first World Series since 1918
2005 -- 95 wins
2006 -- 86 wins (miss the playoffs for the first time since Epstein took over)
2007 -- 96 wins and they win the World Series *again*
2008 -- 95 wins
2009 -- 95 wins
They've missed the playoffs *once* since Epstein took over and won the World Series twice.
Lets take a look at Jim Hendry's tenure during that same period (he took over the GM position in July of 2002):
2003 -- 88 wins (5 outs away)
2004 -- 89 wins (missed the playoffs)
2005 -- 79 wins
2006 -- 66 wins
2007 -- 85 wins (playoffs)
2008 -- 97 wins (playoffs)
2009 -- 83 wins
We've made the playoffs three times in that same timeframe, but with a greater payroll advantage in our division than Epstein has in his.
The Red Sox have averaged 94.28 wins in the NL East while we have averaged 83.85 wins in the NL Central.
So, again, I'll be the first to say that Hendry has done more for this Cubs team than I've seen any other GM do in my lifetime. But, he isn't an elite GM. Theo Epstein is an elite GM. And with the monetary advantage we have over the rest of the teams in the NL Central, there is no reason an elite GM couldn't replicate what the Red Sox do.
Hendry is a decent GM. Let's get an elite GM.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dammit! Bt, Scarey and rapp had just convinced me that we should keep Hendry (and Lou) and you go and sway me the other way.
Wang.
Posts: 2,696
Threads: 47
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=101534:date=Jun 15 2010, 03:32 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jun 15 2010, 03:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->With the Cubs' payroll, in relation to the other teams in the NL Central, we shouldn't have to go through these down years. Take a look at the Boston Red Sox. Their team payroll is consistently a little higher than ours, but it is always a distant 2nd to the Yankees'.
Since Theo Epstein took over (he was hired at the end of the 2002 season), here's what they've done:
2003 -- 95 wins
2004 -- 98 wins and they win their first World Series since 1918
2005 -- 95 wins
2006 -- 86 wins (miss the playoffs for the first time since Epstein took over)
2007 -- 96 wins and they win the World Series *again*
2008 -- 95 wins
2009 -- 95 wins
They've missed the playoffs *once* since Epstein took over and won the World Series twice.
Lets take a look at Jim Hendry's tenure during that same period (he took over the GM position in July of 2002):
2003 -- 88 wins (5 outs away)
2004 -- 89 wins (missed the playoffs)
2005 -- 79 wins
2006 -- 66 wins
2007 -- 85 wins (playoffs)
2008 -- 97 wins (playoffs)
2009 -- 83 wins
We've made the playoffs three times in that same timeframe, but with a greater payroll advantage in our division than Epstein has in his.
The Red Sox have averaged 94.28 wins in the NL East while we have averaged 83.85 wins in the NL Central.
So, again, I'll be the first to say that Hendry has done more for this Cubs team than I've seen any other GM do in my lifetime. But, he isn't an elite GM. Theo Epstein is an elite GM. And with the monetary advantage we have over the rest of the teams in the NL Central, there is no reason an elite GM couldn't replicate what the Red Sox do.
Hendry is a decent GM. Let's get an elite GM.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All good points. I can't disagree with any of it although you're providing one GM as an example of an elite GM though. Is there ANYONE in baseball that has this type of reputation? Schuerholz? That's two GMs I can think of in my generation that have been on this elite of a level. I would love to have a guy that produces these type of results, and so would every fan of every other team in the world. It's not just as easy as firing a guy and hiring the next one though.
Posts: 4,641
Threads: 210
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
Just a brief moment to do what BT was offering we could do: I take issue with any "stat" that says Jason Marquis' performance with the Cubs was worth more than $7 million per year. His ERA plus in those two years was 100 and 102. That makes him almost perfectly average. Is an average starting pitcher worth $7 million? I say no.
Posts: 8,043
Threads: 101
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=101574:date=Jun 15 2010, 08:52 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Jun 15 2010, 08:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Just a brief moment to do what BT was offering we could do: I take issue with any "stat" that says Jason Marquis' performance with the Cubs was worth more than $7 million per year. His ERA plus in those two years was 100 and 102. That makes him almost perfectly average. Is an average starting pitcher worth $7 million? I say no.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm trying to find a number. It was 4.49 mil in 2008.
Posts: 4,641
Threads: 210
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=101579:date=Jun 15 2010, 10:10 PM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ Jun 15 2010, 10:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=101574:date=Jun 15 2010, 08:52 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Jun 15 2010, 08:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Just a brief moment to do what BT was offering we could do: I take issue with any "stat" that says Jason Marquis' performance with the Cubs was worth more than $7 million per year. His ERA plus in those two years was 100 and 102. That makes him almost perfectly average. Is an average starting pitcher worth $7 million? I say no.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm trying to find a number. It was 4.49 mil in 2008.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That sounds about right. $4.5 million for average starting pitchers, $10 million total for a bullpen, $4 million for average starting positional players, $3 million for a bench, and you've got about $65 million. If anything, those numbers might be a bit high.
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=101574:date=Jun 15 2010, 08:52 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Jun 15 2010, 08:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Just a brief moment to do what BT was offering we could do: I take issue with any "stat" that says Jason Marquis' performance with the Cubs was worth more than $7 million per year. His ERA plus in those two years was 100 and 102. That makes him almost perfectly average. Is an average starting pitcher worth $7 million? I say no.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's got nothing to do with what "BT was offering we could do". I have nothing to do with Fangraphs valuations. They are based on WAR, which is about a billion times better stat than ERA.
You think his ERA makes him an average pitcher? Fine. WAR says in 2008 Marquis was more valuable than Marmol, even though Marmol's ERA was much better. You don't have to accept that, I can't make you accept that, but the fact is virtually every sabremetrician on the planet accepts that.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=101509:date=Jun 15 2010, 02:12 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Jun 15 2010, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I said it once and I'll say it again, I think Hendry (and Lou) should not only be retained, but they should be extended. Seriously. How can anyone argue with the results? I'll even take it a step further and say that I wish the Tribune would have stayed on as owners. Continuity trumps winning any day.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tom, make an argument, or don't. This shit is getting beyond tiresome.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 11,837
Threads: 390
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=101645:date=Jun 16 2010, 08:40 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jun 16 2010, 08:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You think his ERA makes him an average pitcher? Fine. WAR says in 2008 Marquis was more valuable than Marmol, even though Marmol's ERA was much better. You don't have to accept that, I can't make you accept that, but the fact is virtually every sabremetrician on the planet accepts that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting. Do you think any GM (sabre-minded or not) would trade 2008 Marmol for 2008 Marquis, straight up? Remove salary from the equation.
I'm thinking not, but I suppose I could be wrong.
Sort of makes me question the value of WAR as a metric...
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=101659:date=Jun 16 2010, 09:30 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jun 16 2010, 09:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=101645:date=Jun 16 2010, 08:40 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jun 16 2010, 08:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You think his ERA makes him an average pitcher? Fine. WAR says in 2008 Marquis was more valuable than Marmol, even though Marmol's ERA was much better. You don't have to accept that, I can't make you accept that, but the fact is virtually every sabremetrician on the planet accepts that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting. Do you think any GM (sabre-minded or not) would trade 2008 Marmol for 2008 Marquis, straight up? Remove salary from the equation.
I'm thinking not, but I suppose I could be wrong.
Sort of makes me question the value of WAR as a metric...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They might. You'd have to ask them. Is 87 innings of really good pitching more valuable to a team over the course of a season than 166 innings of decent pitching ? I don't think the answer is as clear cut as you do.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 11,837
Threads: 390
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=101675:date=Jun 16 2010, 10:21 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jun 16 2010, 10:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=101659:date=Jun 16 2010, 09:30 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jun 16 2010, 09:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=101645:date=Jun 16 2010, 08:40 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jun 16 2010, 08:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You think his ERA makes him an average pitcher? Fine. WAR says in 2008 Marquis was more valuable than Marmol, even though Marmol's ERA was much better. You don't have to accept that, I can't make you accept that, but the fact is virtually every sabremetrician on the planet accepts that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting. Do you think any GM (sabre-minded or not) would trade 2008 Marmol for 2008 Marquis, straight up? Remove salary from the equation.
I'm thinking not, but I suppose I could be wrong.
Sort of makes me question the value of WAR as a metric...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They might. You'd have to ask them. Is 87 innings of really good pitching more valuable to a team over the course of a season than 166 innings of decent pitching ? I don't think the answer is as clear cut as you do.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll start making some calls.
How about this. Would <b>you</b> trade 2008 Marmol for 2008 Marquis, straight up? Remove salary and age from the equation.
|
