Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72831:date=Dec 23 2009, 06:38 AM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 23 2009, 06:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Wow - that chart is an absolute indictment of Hendry's time as GM. And it would look much, much worse if we included 2009.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it wouldn't actually. They would basically be the same as the Dodgers with just under 2 fewer wins. Payroll would be 120.4, wins would be 82.75. In fact, if you want to include last year, and do another 3 year span, 2007-2009, the cubs end up with 128 million average and 88.3 wins average. That puts them 3rd in payroll (barely ahead of the mets), and 7th in wins. Really not all that shocking. So by shifting the time line one year, it goes from train wreck to just about average. Which basically shows you that stats like this don't mean a whole hell of a lot.
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: 1,440
Threads: 63
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
I'm much more interested in payroll balance. This business of "dollars per win" is the kind of half-witted analysis tossed around by glib TV guys.
And, the difference between a $100 and $120 million dollar payroll can be one or two players who have gone through arbitration...or, a dip into the free agency market.
Thing is...when you're trying to explain someone's professional inadequacy or ineptitude, it shouldn't be this hard. You guys use harsh terms, but can only back them up with esoteric (often outlandish) arguments. You continue to make a luke warm case, and pretend it's black and white.
How many great trades get made in a year? How many does the average GM make in his professional lifetime? Hendry has more on the books now, than most will ever have the aptitude, guts, or determination to make.
None of you mention that the bankruptcy court specifically told the Cubs to watch their payroll this year...
Some of this stuff is generational. You want what you want...and you want it now. A little perspective is necessary.
We're not flies on their office walls. We don't know the inside story. Those of you arguing as though you've got divine insight need to stop. Stop pretending you have the inside line.
Hendry is a good GM.
Posts: 1,795
Threads: 49
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Hendry is a good GM.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good post, Rapp.
Now back this part up.
If Angelo had picked McClellin, I would have been expecting to hear by training camp that kid has stage 4 cancer, is actually 5'2" 142 lbs, is a chick who played in a 7 - 0 defensive scheme who only rotated in on downs which were 3 and 34 yds + so is not expecting to play a down in the NFL until the sex change is complete and she puts on another 100 lbs. + but this is Emery's first pick so he'll get a pass with a bit of questioning. - 1060Ivy
Posts: 2,806
Threads: 110
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72872:date=Dec 23 2009, 03:38 PM:name=Rappster)-->QUOTE (Rappster @ Dec 23 2009, 03:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm much more interested in payroll balance. This business of "dollars per win" is the kind of half-witted analysis tossed around by glib TV guys.
And, the difference between a $100 and $120 million dollar payroll can be one or two players who have gone through arbitration...or, a dip into the free agency market.
Thing is...when you're trying to explain someone's professional inadequacy or ineptitude, it shouldn't be this hard. You guys use harsh terms, but can only back them up with esoteric (often outlandish) arguments. You continue to make a luke warm case, and pretend it's black and white.
How many great trades get made in a year? How many does the average GM make in his professional lifetime? Hendry has more on the books now, than most will ever have the aptitude, guts, or determination to make.
None of you mention that the bankruptcy court specifically told the Cubs to watch their payroll this year...
Some of this stuff is generational. You want what you want...and you want it now. A little perspective is necessary.
We're not flies on their office walls. We don't know the inside story. Those of you arguing as though you've got divine insight need to stop. Stop pretending you have the inside line.
Hendry is a good GM.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a great post.
"I'm not sure I know what ball cheese or crotch rot is, exactly -- or if there is a difference between the two. Don't post photos, please..."
- Butcher
Posts: 1,440
Threads: 63
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72873:date=Dec 23 2009, 03:57 PM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Dec 23 2009, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->Hendry is a good GM.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good post, Rapp.
Now back this part up.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's made good trades and signings, which have put us in a position to win.
He's done his job...bring in talent, and put it on the field.
Not every reason for winning/losing is definable. You can yell at the rain all you want, and blame the clouds for gathering...sometimes, it just comes.
Posts: 4,641
Threads: 210
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72874:date=Dec 23 2009, 04:59 PM:name=PcB)-->QUOTE (PcB @ Dec 23 2009, 04:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72872:date=Dec 23 2009, 03:38 PM:name=Rappster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rappster @ Dec 23 2009, 03:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm much more interested in payroll balance. This business of "dollars per win" is the kind of half-witted analysis tossed around by glib TV guys.
And, the difference between a $100 and $120 million dollar payroll can be one or two players who have gone through arbitration...or, a dip into the free agency market.
Thing is...when you're trying to explain someone's professional inadequacy or ineptitude, it shouldn't be this hard. You guys use harsh terms, but can only back them up with esoteric (often outlandish) arguments. You continue to make a luke warm case, and pretend it's black and white.
How many great trades get made in a year? How many does the average GM make in his professional lifetime? Hendry has more on the books now, than most will ever have the aptitude, guts, or determination to make.
None of you mention that the bankruptcy court specifically told the Cubs to watch their payroll this year...
Some of this stuff is generational. You want what you want...and you want it now. A little perspective is necessary.
We're not flies on their office walls. We don't know the inside story. Those of you arguing as though you've got divine insight need to stop. Stop pretending you have the inside line.
Hendry is a good GM.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a great post.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It really, truly isn't. It's a guy criticizing those using metrics as "glib," and then ranting with a bunch of empty platitudes.
Dollars spent per win is reflective of the bang a GM is getting for his spending buck. In that regard, Jim Hendry has been poor when compared with his peers.
For anyone to suggest that Jim Hendry, with all of the resources he's been given, has done a good or even adequate job since 2004, is absolutely ludicrous. I really can't wrap my mind around such a thought.
When you look at Hendry's moves - move by move - over the past 5 years, he looks unsuccessful. When you look at Hendry's moves in the collective, he's been factually unsuccessful.
How is this a debate?
Posts: 1,719
Threads: 102
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72881:date=Dec 23 2009, 06:23 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 23 2009, 06:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72874:date=Dec 23 2009, 04:59 PM:name=PcB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PcB @ Dec 23 2009, 04:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72872:date=Dec 23 2009, 03:38 PM:name=Rappster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rappster @ Dec 23 2009, 03:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm much more interested in payroll balance. This business of "dollars per win" is the kind of half-witted analysis tossed around by glib TV guys.
And, the difference between a $100 and $120 million dollar payroll can be one or two players who have gone through arbitration...or, a dip into the free agency market.
Thing is...when you're trying to explain someone's professional inadequacy or ineptitude, it shouldn't be this hard. You guys use harsh terms, but can only back them up with esoteric (often outlandish) arguments. You continue to make a luke warm case, and pretend it's black and white.
How many great trades get made in a year? How many does the average GM make in his professional lifetime? Hendry has more on the books now, than most will ever have the aptitude, guts, or determination to make.
None of you mention that the bankruptcy court specifically told the Cubs to watch their payroll this year...
Some of this stuff is generational. You want what you want...and you want it now. A little perspective is necessary.
We're not flies on their office walls. We don't know the inside story. Those of you arguing as though you've got divine insight need to stop. Stop pretending you have the inside line.
Hendry is a good GM.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a great post.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It really, truly isn't. It's a guy criticizing those using metrics as "glib," and then ranting with a bunch of empty platitudes.
Dollars spent per win is reflective of the bang a GM is getting for his spending buck. In that regard, Jim Hendry has been poor when compared with his peers.
For anyone to suggest that Jim Hendry, with all of the resources he's been given, has done a good or even adequate job since 2004, is absolutely ludicrous. I really can't wrap my mind around such a thought.
When you look at Hendry's moves - move by move - over the past 5 years, he looks unsuccessful. When you look at Hendry's moves in the collective, he's been factually unsuccessful.
How is this a debate?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To me, this argument is a little of both: a mixture of metrics and a bigger picture. By any stretch of the imagination, Jim Hendry has been the best GM the Cubs have ever had. That being said, is that a proper measure of his performance? No Cubs GM has ever been given the financial latitude that Hendry has had. I don't think you can strictly measure this on dollars vs. wins, etc. Putting together a team is gambling--you try to make the best play given everything you know and how much you have in your kitty, but a lot of times you bust.
And then there is the complete unknown: would a different GM, given the same circumstances have done better? No one can possibly know that. With the exception of 2009, I've been generally pleased with the Cubs over the past few years, given the context of history.
I'm 100% fine with this. I'm just glad there's an actual plan in place that isn't, "Let's load up on retreads and hope we get lucky." I'm a little tired of that plan.
Butcher
Posts: 3,736
Threads: 119
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
Agreed that payroll $ per win is a BS stat but as more people criticize Cubs spending it comes in handy.
Regarding Hendry era, the Cubs have operated in 2 extremely different modes and as GM Hendry has operated accordingly. It's extremely difficult to evaluate a guy who spends his first 4 years as GM operating in a tight spending environment followed by 2 years of spending like a drunken sailor then returning to a tight spending environment.
With the Tribune and Andy MacPhail in charge, the Cubs operated under a small market team atmosphere. MacPhail made his mark with the Twins a small market team with an excellent farm system. The Tribune thought the Twins model of developing home grown talent made sense so he and was brought in to revamp the Cubs organization. By the time, Hendry was made GM 2002/3 MacPhail's tenure was getting old but the Cubs still operated under relatively tight budgets. The Cubs would sign occasional veteran to make certain the bleachers were packed and would kick the tires on big name free agents but rarely made a truly, significant free agent signing. Probably the best example of this activity would be Carlos Beltran free agency in 2004/5. The Cubs showed up at the table to check out Carlos but no way were they interested in actually spending enough cash to sign him.
Everything changes in 2007. When Zell took over in 2007 and decided to sell the Cubs, the Tribune opened up its coffers and decided to spend like a drunken sailor in order to improve the team as quickly as possible. In 2007, Hendry overpays for Soriano and Z but makes decent deals for Lilly, DeRosa and Aramis. In 2008, again Hendry overpays for Fukudome.
In 2009 with bankruptcy looming for the Tribune, the Cubs go back to a tight budget and Hendry screws up leaving the team without backup third baseman and trading away enough budget to sign Bradley and Gregg.
It appears that 2010 is another tight budget year. He moved Bradley and got cash but who knows what the hell is going to happen.
The only issue I'm pointing out is that the guy has operated under near polar opposite budgetary environments so judging him over this span becomes challenging.
Posts: 1,440
Threads: 63
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72881:date=Dec 23 2009, 05:23 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 23 2009, 05:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72874:date=Dec 23 2009, 04:59 PM:name=PcB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PcB @ Dec 23 2009, 04:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72872:date=Dec 23 2009, 03:38 PM:name=Rappster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rappster @ Dec 23 2009, 03:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm much more interested in payroll balance. This business of "dollars per win" is the kind of half-witted analysis tossed around by glib TV guys.
And, the difference between a $100 and $120 million dollar payroll can be one or two players who have gone through arbitration...or, a dip into the free agency market.
Thing is...when you're trying to explain someone's professional inadequacy or ineptitude, it shouldn't be this hard. You guys use harsh terms, but can only back them up with esoteric (often outlandish) arguments. You continue to make a luke warm case, and pretend it's black and white.
How many great trades get made in a year? How many does the average GM make in his professional lifetime? Hendry has more on the books now, than most will ever have the aptitude, guts, or determination to make.
None of you mention that the bankruptcy court specifically told the Cubs to watch their payroll this year...
Some of this stuff is generational. You want what you want...and you want it now. A little perspective is necessary.
We're not flies on their office walls. We don't know the inside story. Those of you arguing as though you've got divine insight need to stop. Stop pretending you have the inside line.
Hendry is a good GM.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a great post.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It really, truly isn't. It's a guy criticizing those using metrics as "glib," and then ranting with a bunch of empty platitudes.
Dollars spent per win is reflective of the bang a GM is getting for his spending buck. In that regard, Jim Hendry has been poor when compared with his peers.
For anyone to suggest that Jim Hendry, with all of the resources he's been given, has done a good or even adequate job since 2004, is absolutely ludicrous. I really can't wrap my mind around such a thought.
When you look at Hendry's moves - move by move - over the past 5 years, he looks unsuccessful. When you look at Hendry's moves in the collective, he's been factually unsuccessful.
How is this a debate?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a great argument...it's simply not what you wanted to hear.
Instead of measuring spending per win...measure actualities. Create a spreadsheet which measures the actual moves/careers of existing GM's. Simply saying that Hendry "hasn't been a good GM since 2004" is as empty as cotton candy. Measure specifics...you don't get to control the parameters of the discussion. You want to make a point? Show me.
People often feel that the "best way to be an 'expert' is to be a critic". You've taken that bait once too often, Princess.
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
I'm ready for a new GM. Rapp convinced me of it.
Wang.
Posts: 1,602
Threads: 114
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72891:date=Dec 23 2009, 06:51 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Dec 23 2009, 06:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm ready for a new GM. Rapp convinced me of it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]
Posts: 4,641
Threads: 210
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
How is $ per win a BS stat in evaluating a GM's performance? If we were trying to use it for just one season, then sure, I'd agree with you. But we're talking about 5 years of underperformance compared to peer-type-teams.
Again, I sincerely have trouble wrapping my head the counterargument to that. That's not a dig - I just don't get it.
Posts: 2,894
Threads: 72
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
Just a casual aside...but did any of you read the articles by Stark on ESPN about the Most Valuable Players of the decade? No Cubs, of course, made the list, but Stark also had a list for top 10 <i>Least</i> Valuable Players of the decade.
And of course, 3 of Hendry's fellas made the list:
1. Juan Gone
2. Carl Everett
3. Raul Mondesi
<!--coloro:#0000FF--><!--/coloro-->4. Corey Patterson<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->
5. Carl Pavano
6. Kenji Johjima
<!--coloro:#0000FF--><!--/coloro-->7. Milton Bradley<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->
8. Pat Burrell
9. Sidney Ponson
<!--coloro:#0000FF--><!--/coloro-->10. Neifi Perez<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->
Again, this doesn't prove anything at all. I just found it interesting.
There's nothing better than to realize that the good things about youth don't end with youth itself. It's a matter of realizing that life can be renewed every day you get out of bed without baggage. It's tough to get there, but it's better than the dark thoughts. -Lance
Posts: 209
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72829:date=Dec 23 2009, 02:00 AM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 23 2009, 02:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Well, this chart shows that Boston did outspend us, averaging 145 mil to our 115 mil. They also averaged the 2nd most victories in baseball over than period, while we played .500 ball (actually, one game over .500).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just for payroll. Add in posting fees for Dice K and money spent on scouting and the minors...that's a freaking boatload more....
<!--quoteo(post=72829:date=Dec 23 2009, 02:00 AM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 23 2009, 02:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Then last year, we outspent them by a good margin and totaled 83 wins. Not one, but TWO games over .500!
The Red Sox won 95.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree that the Cubs outspent the Red Sox when you include all spending. But none-the-less this is only one season, and the Cubs performance was specifically tied to the performance of a few players making a ton of money, who were worth it recently but did not deliver to it in 2009.
<!--quoteo(post=72829:date=Dec 23 2009, 02:00 AM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 23 2009, 02:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Are you going to seriously argue that we spend our payroll dollars more intelligently than the Red Sox? Or deny that our payroll has been amongst the top 5 in MLB for most of Hendry's "reign?"<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't believe the Red Sox are a WISE spender of money. They just spend a lot of money and can afford to take a lot of risks and cover it up if it doesn't work out. They spend a lot of money - and they do it well sometimes. But the Cubs have the same issue. They have good spend and bad spend.
<!--quoteo(post=72829:date=Dec 23 2009, 02:00 AM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 23 2009, 02:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->And BTW, fuck the Red Sox.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That - we agree on.
<!--quoteo(post=72829:date=Dec 23 2009, 02:00 AM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 23 2009, 02:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I just wish to have someone in the front office who vaguely understands player value, and things like WAR.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sure Jim "understands". I am also sure he doesn't believe the mathematical gyrations that are used to calculate these things. That doesn't leave him alone.
<!--quoteo(post=72829:date=Dec 23 2009, 02:00 AM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 23 2009, 02:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Someone who comprehends how absurd it is to throw tons of cash at legions of middle relievers. Is that asking too much?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He spent money on JD Drew. Not wise. Lowell? Not smart. DiceK? Ridiculous. 6mm per for 2 years for Scutaro? Ridiculous.
The amount of money they spent over slot for pitching, plus the international money explains how they fill a pen. If Hendry did that, with his current payroll, he would have about 15-20mm less to spend on major league talent per year.
I'm not saying Theo isn't good. He is. But it's easy to be good with the kind of money that he has to work with. Cashman is good too - with that much money. Look what the Dodgers did once they got rid of Depodesta - back at winning fairly quickly.
It's not WAR or VOP or CHIPSTAOCKLOSL that makes Theo good. It is Theo's skills at talent evaluation and an assload of money. Hendry's talent evaluation skills are darn good - that's how the Cubs have been so good the past few years. If he had another 20-30mm like Theo has...he'd probably still spend it on Milton Bradley or Alfonso Soriano and the Cubs would still be hit or miss year to year.
Give me a GM who comes from the scouting world any day. Hendry is no better or no worse than most. Soto, Soriano, Bradley and Zambrano (and others) were the problem last year - not Hendry.
Posts: 209
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72898:date=Dec 23 2009, 09:20 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 23 2009, 09:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Just a casual aside...but did any of you read the articles by Stark on ESPN about the Most Valuable Players of the decade? No Cubs, of course, made the list, but Stark also had a list for top 10 <i>Least</i> Valuable Players of the decade.
And of course, 3 of Hendry's fellas made the list:
1. Juan Gone
2. Carl Everett
3. Raul Mondesi
<!--coloro:#0000FF--> <!--/coloro-->4. Corey Patterson<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->
5. Carl Pavano
6. Kenji Johjima
<!--coloro:#0000FF--> <!--/coloro-->7. Milton Bradley<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->
8. Pat Burrell
9. Sidney Ponson
<!--coloro:#0000FF--> <!--/coloro-->10. Neifi Perez<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->
Again, this doesn't prove anything at all. I just found it interesting.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Without Kevin Brown and Mike Hampton, this list means...NOTHING
|
![[Image: lou.jpg]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/cubsbz/lou.jpg)