Hendry's offseason grade

[Butcher]

Now that it's pretty safe to say that there won't be any surprise Peavy deals, give Hendry a grade for the offseason -- and please explain why.

[ruby23]

Spun the wheels, changed some names, pretty much the same team, I give him a C.

[Clapp]

I don't know what I'd grade right now, it's way too difficult to tell. If Bradley stays healthy, Hendry looks like a genius. If Bradley doesn't, everybody's going to be furious Hendry didn't keep DeRosa, AND gave Bradley all that money.

If a deal is made before the deadline though, that all goes back to the Marquis and DeRosa trades to free up salary. People have to remember that.

I don't know if this is a better regular season team than last year, but I think it's better for the playoffs.

Probably a "B" or "C", but we won't really know for awhile.

[bz]

[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blowjob.gif[/img] <!--quoteo(post=25249:date=Mar 26 2009, 05:51 PM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Mar 26 2009, 05:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Spun the wheels, changed some names, pretty much the same team, I give him a C.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yea, what he said.

[Butcher]

I'm going with a C. But I actually think this team might be just a little worse than last season.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=25250:date=Mar 26 2009, 05:57 PM:name=Clapp)-->QUOTE (Clapp @ Mar 26 2009, 05:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->If Bradley stays healthy, Hendry looks like a genius. If Bradley doesn't, everybody's going to be furious Hendry didn't keep DeRosa, AND gave Bradley all that money.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bradley won't stay healthy. Unless you mean he plays about 120 games, give or take.

[Clapp]

<!--quoteo(post=25253:date=Mar 26 2009, 05:00 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Mar 26 2009, 05:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=25250:date=Mar 26 2009, 05:57 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Mar 26 2009, 05:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->If Bradley stays healthy, Hendry looks like a genius. If Bradley doesn't, everybody's going to be furious Hendry didn't keep DeRosa, AND gave Bradley all that money.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bradley won't stay healthy. Unless you mean he plays about 120 games, give or take.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was considering more like half the season and healthy for the playoffs as "healthy". If he plays 20 games and is healthy for the playoffs, that's fine by me.

[Fella]

I'll say C, team looks about the same, not any better but not really any worse.

[jeffy]

I'll say a B. If Bradley can stay healthy, then we are a better team, but that is a big IF.

[AtlantaBob]

Grade: D

Letting DeRosa go will haunt him this year. You fucked up Hendry. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/finger.gif[/img]

[Kid]

I went C, but it really could be at least a B. I think on paper, we've improved. There's 2 risks which really stand out to me though: Bradley's health and Fontenot/Miles at 2B. That's a lot of risk and I don't know if they had to be taken, especially since they could have kept DeRosa. If Hendry got those right, it's at least a B, but for the moment: C+.

[kbwsb]

The DeRosa thing was completely inexplicable. Clapp and folk will defend it by saying "we just don't know what Jim has up his sleeve, but I'm sure there was a very good reason for the trade."
Then you think about the Angels signing Gary Mathews for 5 years/$50 million, or the Dodgers giving Juan Pierre $44 Mil, and you realize, "Oh yeah, many GM's are idiots, and often make stunningly stupid decisions."

The DeRosa trade was one of those.

Letting Wood go sucked, but, if you had a gun to your head and were an excellent bullshitter, you could at least make an attempt to justify it. (unlike the DeRosa thing).
And he WAY overpaid for Dempster, although in that case, I think Jim was just a victim of bad timing.

On the plus side, signing Bradley was a fun gamble. Could be lucky 7, could be snake eyes, but it's a worthwhile gamble.
Getting Heilman was a good thing. I definitely like the idea of giving Fontenot more AB's.

Plus, Jim held fast, and didn't scuttle the farm system when the Pads asked for too much with Peavy. That took balls.
So I guess a C or C-, with C being average.

[liner]

went with B. i think we're the same with a possibility of being a little better. post season aside, that's not a terrible thing. i know we're grading the offseason but he built the thing, saw we were already good and kind of stayed the course. i wish there were more "wow" moments, of course, but hopefully we can pull the trigger on at least one of those by the deadline. bradley/harden, 2B, CF - hopefully they all work out, if not the grade goes down

[Mikey]

C

[savant]

<!--quoteo(post=25252:date=Mar 26 2009, 05:59 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Mar 26 2009, 05:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm going with a C. But I actually think this team might be just a little worse than last season.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Butch, do you really mean not quite as good?

This is the first ever 100 win Cub team I have ever seen. Enjoy the next 162 games, and let's get ready for the postseason.