12-23-2009, 08:51 PM
<!--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.
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.