Bradley

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=68936:date=Nov 13 2009, 02:31 PM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Nov 13 2009, 02:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=68896:date=Nov 13 2009, 11:38 AM:name=Dirk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dirk @ Nov 13 2009, 11:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Plus, in regards to the Bradly contract, does a lack of decent FA options mean that we need to dole out ridiculous contracts? Suppose Bradly was the only FA capable of playing RF in all of baseball. Does that make him worth $30 mil? Hell, if we could have gotten him for a one year deal or at a bargain, I would've been ok with rolling the dice but I have a hard time believing that there was much other demand for his services. I would've much rather broke spring training with Hoffapaur in RF. It wouldn't have been the end of the world. Then, who knows- with the extra payroll flexibility it might have been the Cubs trading for Holliday.
In short, Hendry = not to blame for the way Bradly was handled at the end of the season. But he was to blame for giving the asshole a 3 year deal in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I think people keep forgetting that Hendry did not give Bradley a three year deal. He gave Bradley a two year deal with a vesting option if he played enough games. EVERYBODY here was most worried about Bradley staying healthy. Anyone that says otherwise is fibbing. Hendry took care of that by offering an extremely rare played-games clause in Bradley's contract.

I seem to remember an awful lot of people saying at the beginning of the season that they were willing to put up with Bradley as long as he stayed healthy. I was one of them and I don't want to put up with him anymore. I was wrong. Same as Hendry. Same as all of you. I just find it hypocritical to call out Hendry on his mistake when he had pretty much everyone else's flawed logic.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->



no, EVERYBODY was worried about bradley staying healthy AND keeping his mouth shut. there were polls before the season even started about when bradley was going to go off. It didn't take long, did it?

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=69027:date=Nov 13 2009, 06:32 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Nov 13 2009, 06:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=68936:date=Nov 13 2009, 02:31 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Nov 13 2009, 02:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=68896:date=Nov 13 2009, 11:38 AM:name=Dirk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dirk @ Nov 13 2009, 11:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Plus, in regards to the Bradly contract, does a lack of decent FA options mean that we need to dole out ridiculous contracts? Suppose Bradly was the only FA capable of playing RF in all of baseball. Does that make him worth $30 mil? Hell, if we could have gotten him for a one year deal or at a bargain, I would've been ok with rolling the dice but I have a hard time believing that there was much other demand for his services. I would've much rather broke spring training with Hoffapaur in RF. It wouldn't have been the end of the world. Then, who knows- with the extra payroll flexibility it might have been the Cubs trading for Holliday.
In short, Hendry = not to blame for the way Bradly was handled at the end of the season. But he was to blame for giving the asshole a 3 year deal in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I think people keep forgetting that Hendry did not give Bradley a three year deal. He gave Bradley a two year deal with a vesting option if he played enough games. EVERYBODY here was most worried about Bradley staying healthy. Anyone that says otherwise is fibbing. Hendry took care of that by offering an extremely rare played-games clause in Bradley's contract.

I seem to remember an awful lot of people saying at the beginning of the season that they were willing to put up with Bradley as long as he stayed healthy. I was one of them and I don't want to put up with him anymore. I was wrong. Same as Hendry. Same as all of you. I just find it hypocritical to call out Hendry on his mistake when he had pretty much everyone else's flawed logic.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->



no, EVERYBODY was worried about bradley staying healthy AND keeping his mouth shut. there were polls before the season even started about when bradley was going to go off. It didn't take long, did it?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Everyone knew from the start that he would have issues. Everyone here said they would deal with it as long as he stayed healthy though.

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=69044:date=Nov 13 2009, 08:24 PM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Nov 13 2009, 08:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69027:date=Nov 13 2009, 06:32 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Nov 13 2009, 06:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=68936:date=Nov 13 2009, 02:31 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Nov 13 2009, 02:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=68896:date=Nov 13 2009, 11:38 AM:name=Dirk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dirk @ Nov 13 2009, 11:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Plus, in regards to the Bradly contract, does a lack of decent FA options mean that we need to dole out ridiculous contracts? Suppose Bradly was the only FA capable of playing RF in all of baseball. Does that make him worth $30 mil? Hell, if we could have gotten him for a one year deal or at a bargain, I would've been ok with rolling the dice but I have a hard time believing that there was much other demand for his services. I would've much rather broke spring training with Hoffapaur in RF. It wouldn't have been the end of the world. Then, who knows- with the extra payroll flexibility it might have been the Cubs trading for Holliday.
In short, Hendry = not to blame for the way Bradly was handled at the end of the season. But he was to blame for giving the asshole a 3 year deal in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I think people keep forgetting that Hendry did not give Bradley a three year deal. He gave Bradley a two year deal with a vesting option if he played enough games. EVERYBODY here was most worried about Bradley staying healthy. Anyone that says otherwise is fibbing. Hendry took care of that by offering an extremely rare played-games clause in Bradley's contract.

I seem to remember an awful lot of people saying at the beginning of the season that they were willing to put up with Bradley as long as he stayed healthy. I was one of them and I don't want to put up with him anymore. I was wrong. Same as Hendry. Same as all of you. I just find it hypocritical to call out Hendry on his mistake when he had pretty much everyone else's flawed logic.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->





no, EVERYBODY was worried about bradley staying healthy AND keeping his mouth shut. there were polls before the season even started about when bradley was going to go off. It didn't take long, did it?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Everyone knew from the start that he would have issues. Everyone here said they would deal with it as long as he stayed healthy though.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


then trade health for lack of production. what's the difference? hendry rolled the dice and he lost. it's a big deal.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=69059:date=Nov 14 2009, 12:07 AM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Nov 14 2009, 12:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69044:date=Nov 13 2009, 08:24 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Nov 13 2009, 08:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69027:date=Nov 13 2009, 06:32 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Nov 13 2009, 06:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=68936:date=Nov 13 2009, 02:31 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Nov 13 2009, 02:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=68896:date=Nov 13 2009, 11:38 AM:name=Dirk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dirk @ Nov 13 2009, 11:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Plus, in regards to the Bradly contract, does a lack of decent FA options mean that we need to dole out ridiculous contracts? Suppose Bradly was the only FA capable of playing RF in all of baseball. Does that make him worth $30 mil? Hell, if we could have gotten him for a one year deal or at a bargain, I would've been ok with rolling the dice but I have a hard time believing that there was much other demand for his services. I would've much rather broke spring training with Hoffapaur in RF. It wouldn't have been the end of the world. Then, who knows- with the extra payroll flexibility it might have been the Cubs trading for Holliday.
In short, Hendry = not to blame for the way Bradly was handled at the end of the season. But he was to blame for giving the asshole a 3 year deal in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I think people keep forgetting that Hendry did not give Bradley a three year deal. He gave Bradley a two year deal with a vesting option if he played enough games. EVERYBODY here was most worried about Bradley staying healthy. Anyone that says otherwise is fibbing. Hendry took care of that by offering an extremely rare played-games clause in Bradley's contract.

I seem to remember an awful lot of people saying at the beginning of the season that they were willing to put up with Bradley as long as he stayed healthy. I was one of them and I don't want to put up with him anymore. I was wrong. Same as Hendry. Same as all of you. I just find it hypocritical to call out Hendry on his mistake when he had pretty much everyone else's flawed logic.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->





no, EVERYBODY was worried about bradley staying healthy AND keeping his mouth shut. there were polls before the season even started about when bradley was going to go off. It didn't take long, did it?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Everyone knew from the start that he would have issues. Everyone here said they would deal with it as long as he stayed healthy though.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


then trade health for lack of production. what's the difference? hendry rolled the dice and he lost. it's a big deal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


The difference is nobody was worried that Bradley wouldn't produce either.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=69059:date=Nov 14 2009, 12:07 AM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Nov 14 2009, 12:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69044:date=Nov 13 2009, 08:24 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Nov 13 2009, 08:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69027:date=Nov 13 2009, 06:32 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Nov 13 2009, 06:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=68936:date=Nov 13 2009, 02:31 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Nov 13 2009, 02:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=68896:date=Nov 13 2009, 11:38 AM:name=Dirk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dirk @ Nov 13 2009, 11:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Plus, in regards to the Bradly contract, does a lack of decent FA options mean that we need to dole out ridiculous contracts? Suppose Bradly was the only FA capable of playing RF in all of baseball. Does that make him worth $30 mil? Hell, if we could have gotten him for a one year deal or at a bargain, I would've been ok with rolling the dice but I have a hard time believing that there was much other demand for his services. I would've much rather broke spring training with Hoffapaur in RF. It wouldn't have been the end of the world. Then, who knows- with the extra payroll flexibility it might have been the Cubs trading for Holliday.
In short, Hendry = not to blame for the way Bradly was handled at the end of the season. But he was to blame for giving the asshole a 3 year deal in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I think people keep forgetting that Hendry did not give Bradley a three year deal. He gave Bradley a two year deal with a vesting option if he played enough games. EVERYBODY here was most worried about Bradley staying healthy. Anyone that says otherwise is fibbing. Hendry took care of that by offering an extremely rare played-games clause in Bradley's contract.

I seem to remember an awful lot of people saying at the beginning of the season that they were willing to put up with Bradley as long as he stayed healthy. I was one of them and I don't want to put up with him anymore. I was wrong. Same as Hendry. Same as all of you. I just find it hypocritical to call out Hendry on his mistake when he had pretty much everyone else's flawed logic.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->





no, EVERYBODY was worried about bradley staying healthy AND keeping his mouth shut. there were polls before the season even started about when bradley was going to go off. It didn't take long, did it?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Everyone knew from the start that he would have issues. Everyone here said they would deal with it as long as he stayed healthy though.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


then trade health for lack of production. what's the difference? hendry rolled the dice and he lost. it's a big deal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


The difference is nobody was worried that Bradley wouldn't produce either.

[dk123]

<!--quoteo(post=69063:date=Nov 14 2009, 01:30 AM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Nov 14 2009, 01:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69059:date=Nov 14 2009, 12:07 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Nov 14 2009, 12:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69044:date=Nov 13 2009, 08:24 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Nov 13 2009, 08:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69027:date=Nov 13 2009, 06:32 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Nov 13 2009, 06:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=68936:date=Nov 13 2009, 02:31 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Nov 13 2009, 02:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=68896:date=Nov 13 2009, 11:38 AM:name=Dirk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dirk @ Nov 13 2009, 11:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Plus, in regards to the Bradly contract, does a lack of decent FA options mean that we need to dole out ridiculous contracts? Suppose Bradly was the only FA capable of playing RF in all of baseball. Does that make him worth $30 mil? Hell, if we could have gotten him for a one year deal or at a bargain, I would've been ok with rolling the dice but I have a hard time believing that there was much other demand for his services. I would've much rather broke spring training with Hoffapaur in RF. It wouldn't have been the end of the world. Then, who knows- with the extra payroll flexibility it might have been the Cubs trading for Holliday.
In short, Hendry = not to blame for the way Bradly was handled at the end of the season. But he was to blame for giving the asshole a 3 year deal in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I think people keep forgetting that Hendry did not give Bradley a three year deal. He gave Bradley a two year deal with a vesting option if he played enough games. EVERYBODY here was most worried about Bradley staying healthy. Anyone that says otherwise is fibbing. Hendry took care of that by offering an extremely rare played-games clause in Bradley's contract.

I seem to remember an awful lot of people saying at the beginning of the season that they were willing to put up with Bradley as long as he stayed healthy. I was one of them and I don't want to put up with him anymore. I was wrong. Same as Hendry. Same as all of you. I just find it hypocritical to call out Hendry on his mistake when he had pretty much everyone else's flawed logic.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->





no, EVERYBODY was worried about bradley staying healthy AND keeping his mouth shut. there were polls before the season even started about when bradley was going to go off. It didn't take long, did it?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Everyone knew from the start that he would have issues. Everyone here said they would deal with it as long as he stayed healthy though.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


then trade health for lack of production. what's the difference? hendry rolled the dice and he lost. it's a big deal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


The difference is nobody was worried that Bradley wouldn't produce either.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What would it take for you to hold Hendry accountable for his decisions? You treat him like he should have the same level of skill and accountability as the average fan would have.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=69087:date=Nov 14 2009, 11:30 AM:name=dk123)-->QUOTE (dk123 @ Nov 14 2009, 11:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->What would it take for you to hold Hendry accountable for his decisions? You treat him like he should have the same level of skill and accountability as the average fan would have.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Here's my problem. I agreed with the decision at the time. I KNOW that a lot of people agreed with the decision at the time. I just personally find it hard to criticize him for the decision AFTER matter when I didn't criticize him before hand. I find it hypocritical.

It would be a different matter to me if Tom for instance disagreed from the beginning. If he had the opinion of "Hendry messed up, Bradley is too much of a risk and though it may turn out to be a good decision in the end, the potential risk is greater than the potential reward." from the beginning, I would find no fault in his criticism. However, I seem to remember him being agreeable with the risk for the chance of the positive results that Bradley could have brought.

I'm not saying he or anyone else should be happy with the situation. I'm unhappy, but I knew this was a possibility when Bradley signed and I'm not going to act outraged at Hendry for signing Bradley. Just gotta deal with the hand we were dealt.

Once again, I just want to state that this is my opinion on this particular topic. Overall, I think Hendry has done a so-so job recently, and if our new owner finds that a change is beneficial, I won't shed a tear for Hendry's departure.

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=69103:date=Nov 14 2009, 11:21 AM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Nov 14 2009, 11:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Here's my problem. I agreed with the decision at the time. I KNOW that a lot of people agreed with the decision at the time. I just personally find it hard to criticize him for the decision AFTER matter when I didn't criticize him before hand. I find it hypocritical.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You and Jim could have both been wrong.

It could be a signing that didn't work out as well as it should have but was just fine on paper or it could have been a bad idea and only looked good on paper if it was loaded up with best-case-scenarios.

You're not duty-bound to say it wasn't a bad signing simply because you didn't feel that way at the time.

This is how why wars last so long.

[veryzer]

exactly. I was wrong, but i'm not getting paid to be right. hendry is. i liked the deal, though i thought 3 years was too much and i knew it may blow up in his face, but generally I liked it.

if i was the GM, I'd be accountable for my actions and I'd be right to be accountable. Hendry fucked up. Period. It dodesn't matter if I liked the deal or not. I was wrong, he was wrong, and scarey is wrong. The difference is, it shouldn't cost us our job. It should cost Hendry his job though, because he fucked up.

He fucked up wih Fukudome too and it's looking more and more like the Soriano thing isn't gonna work out. Doesn't matter if we liked it or not at the time. He made the deals, they didn't pan out, he needs to be held accountable.

How many years has he been here? How much money has he been given? where has it gotten us? Time for a new direction.

[leonardsipes]

I was against Bradley at the time. The Cubs needed a guy to bat 5th and drive in 90 runs. Hendry tried to take a chance and get a better overall player. For a team like the Reds, it might be a good move. They need a guy to OPS 1.000 over 600+ PAs, or they have no chance of making the playoffs. Hendry did not need to make the choice with the hightest ceiling. He should have signed the guy most likely to meet the Cubs needs.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=69114:date=Nov 14 2009, 01:40 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Nov 14 2009, 01:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->How many years has he been here? How much money has he been given? where has it gotten us? Time for a new direction.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I'm not advocating keeping Hendry, but this has been the most successful Cub era that anyone alive today can remember experiencing. I realize that's not good enough, but I feel like people are demanding a change with the predetermination that the person who follows Hendry will be more successful.

[BT]

Man it sucks being out of town and missing so many terrible arguments. But that's the choice I made when I had kids.

I'll leave it with 3 (out of about 1000) thoughts I have on the subject.

-I find it profoundly amusing to see that NO ONE has noticed the irony of the fact that, during the millions of posts explaining what a fucking douchebag retard moron idiot know nothing dunce fuckwit assbag Hendry is for signing Bradely instead of Ibanez, there is a post hinting that the Phillies are already trying to unload Ibanez.

-there is a huge fucking difference between saying Hendry made decisions that could be justified at the time, and saying that Hendry shouldn't be held responsible for those decisions. No one in their right fucking mind is saying the latter.

-I find it appalling that people point to Hendry's record (3 playoffs in the last 7, 3 winning seasons in a row, 97 wins only a year ago), and somehow use that as a reason he SHOULD be fired. It might not be a reason to give him a lifetime contract (as I'm sure KB is tempted to argue), but it's hardly a record that should be used against him.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=69153:date=Nov 14 2009, 08:32 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Nov 14 2009, 08:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Man it sucks being out of town and missing so many terrible arguments. But that's the choice I made when I had kids.

I'll leave it with 3 (out of about 1000) thoughts I have on the subject.

-I find it profoundly amusing to see that NO ONE has noticed the irony of the fact that, during the millions of posts explaining what a fucking douchebag retard moron idiot know nothing dunce fuckwit assbag Hendry is for signing Bradely instead of Ibanez, there is a post hinting that the Phillies are already trying to unload Ibanez.

-there is a huge fucking difference between saying Hendry made decisions that could be justified at the time, and saying that Hendry shouldn't be held responsible for those decisions. No one in their right fucking mind is saying the latter.

-I find it appalling that people point to Hendry's record (3 playoffs in the last 7, 3 winning seasons in a row, 97 wins only a year ago), and somehow use that as a reason he SHOULD be fired. It might not be a reason to give him a lifetime contract (as I'm sure KB is tempted to argue), but it's hardly a record that should be used against him.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Man, I was waiting for you BT. I've been getting roughed up around here the last couple of days.

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=69153:date=Nov 14 2009, 07:32 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Nov 14 2009, 07:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Man it sucks being out of town and missing so many terrible arguments. But that's the choice I made when I had kids.

I'll leave it with 3 (out of about 1000) thoughts I have on the subject.

-I find it profoundly amusing to see that NO ONE has noticed the irony of the fact that, during the millions of posts explaining what a fucking douchebag retard moron idiot know nothing dunce fuckwit assbag Hendry is for signing Bradely instead of Ibanez, there is a post hinting that the Phillies are already trying to unload Ibanez.

-there is a huge fucking difference between saying Hendry made decisions that could be justified at the time, and saying that Hendry shouldn't be held responsible for those decisions. No one in their right fucking mind is saying the latter.

-I find it appalling that people point to Hendry's record (3 playoffs in the last 7, 3 winning seasons in a row, 97 wins only a year ago), and somehow use that as a reason he SHOULD be fired. It might not be a reason to give him a lifetime contract (as I'm sure KB is tempted to argue), but it's hardly a record that should be used against him.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Not sure that this was aimed at me or not, but if you go back to my original post, I listed a lot of good things he did. I even forgot some. For the most part, he's done a good job, as I've mentioned. I don't hate Hendry like KB does, and I sure don't love him like you and Scarey do. All I'm saying is, given the amount of resources he's had, he hasn't done enough. I don't know how this is an earth shattering thing.

Yes, firing Hendry doesn't guarantee that the next guy is going to do better, but does that mean Hendry should never be fired? Keeping him doesn't guarantee anything either. He's been here for a long time, and though the team has played well, playing well is no longer good enough. It's time for a new direction. The worst thing that can happen is the same thing that's happened for 101 years.

[bz]

<!--quoteo(post=69153:date=Nov 14 2009, 07:32 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Nov 14 2009, 07:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Man it sucks being out of town and missing so many terrible arguments.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/spit.gif[/img]