07-04-2010, 01:09 PM
<!--quoteo(post=104005:date=Jul 3 2010, 11:19 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jul 3 2010, 11:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=103972:date=Jul 3 2010, 01:17 AM:name=Gracie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gracie @ Jul 3 2010, 01:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Hendry's strength has always been in making trades. Unfortunately, it's in free agency where he's been lackluster. He seems to think that everyone we sign or re-sign needs a deal giving them twice as much cash as they're worth with a no-trade clause as the cherry on top.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've stayed out of this for a while, but this theme seems to be pretty universally accepted. And it's wrong.
Ramirez signed an under market contract
Zambrano signed an under market contract (see Zito, Barry)
Fukudome was offered more than the Cubs offered, but chose the Cubs anyway.
I think that leaves Soriano in the no-trade clause category. You might convince me that the Cubs paid way more than anyone else was offering (despite the fact that no one one this board can possibly have any actual proof of this), but one contract does not make Hendry guilty on ALL contracts.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For me it's not a matter of how good/bad each individual contract looks when you stack it up against the rest of baseball, it's about the sum of the parts- what can you get for a top 3 payroll? Compare the Cubs to the Red Sox who have a similar payroll the last few years. Yeah, the Red Sox have 2-3 bad contracts that I can think of, but they've had a lot more to show for it too. Furthermore, why is it that none of the Cubs contracts look pretty good in hindsight? I can understand a bad contract or two (by the way- you're not counting Grabow and Bradly), but shouldn't the majority of FA deals that you hand out be good ones? 4 years into all the big deals being handed out, how many still look good? Maybe Dempster and Lilly? So yeah, maybe he got a few guys under market value, good for him. They were still huge ass contracts that are now burdensome.
I've stayed out of this for a while, but this theme seems to be pretty universally accepted. And it's wrong.
Ramirez signed an under market contract
Zambrano signed an under market contract (see Zito, Barry)
Fukudome was offered more than the Cubs offered, but chose the Cubs anyway.
I think that leaves Soriano in the no-trade clause category. You might convince me that the Cubs paid way more than anyone else was offering (despite the fact that no one one this board can possibly have any actual proof of this), but one contract does not make Hendry guilty on ALL contracts.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For me it's not a matter of how good/bad each individual contract looks when you stack it up against the rest of baseball, it's about the sum of the parts- what can you get for a top 3 payroll? Compare the Cubs to the Red Sox who have a similar payroll the last few years. Yeah, the Red Sox have 2-3 bad contracts that I can think of, but they've had a lot more to show for it too. Furthermore, why is it that none of the Cubs contracts look pretty good in hindsight? I can understand a bad contract or two (by the way- you're not counting Grabow and Bradly), but shouldn't the majority of FA deals that you hand out be good ones? 4 years into all the big deals being handed out, how many still look good? Maybe Dempster and Lilly? So yeah, maybe he got a few guys under market value, good for him. They were still huge ass contracts that are now burdensome.