12-27-2009, 09:03 PM
<!--quoteo(post=73022:date=Dec 27 2009, 03:27 PM:name=cherp)-->QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 03:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73013:date=Dec 27 2009, 09:22 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 27 2009, 09:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73012:date=Dec 27 2009, 10:19 AM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 10:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73011:date=Dec 27 2009, 08:18 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 27 2009, 08:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73008:date=Dec 27 2009, 12:31 AM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 27 2009, 12:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm sorry - must be Hendry's fault that half his lineup was hurt (Aramis, Lee, Soriano and Soto) or completely underperformed expectations (Nutty Milton).
Hendry put together a team that should have won a lot of games last year. He was missing exactly what you say he shouldn't have gone after (a strong veteran reliever to support a young pen (Gregg was a disaster).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cherp makes some goods points, with the exception of the bullpen point - as Scarey pointed out - and these two points.
Just want to note, cherp, that of course it was Hendry's fault that Milton underperformed. Everyone knew that Milton was deeply flawed, both as a teammate and as a player in the National League. Hendry took the risk, and it back-fired. How is that not Hendry's fault?
Second, you can't on the one hand use Gregg's failure as a closer/reliever for the Cubs as support for the notion that Hendry should go out and get relievers and on the other hand completely ignore that Hendry CHOSE to go out and get Gregg in the first place.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ace - I agree with your point. But in my opinion, those are calculated gambles. They were moves that could have worked and may not have. I wasnt around when Milton signed, but was there a large # of people who said it was a bad signing? And Greggs failure shouldn't deter JH from doing the right thing in the future. A pen cant live on kids alone.
Scarey - I agree there are SOME candidates out there. I just hate seeing teams count on their farm to make a pen. That often blows up ij their face. (agreee - so does signing guys.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh yes. Many, many of us thought the Bradley signing was really, really risky, and was for too much money and too many years.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that both the length and $ were risky - but were people peojecting him to be a year 1 complete and total disaster...so bad that the best Hendry could get for him was Carlos Silva's crappy contract? I think most reasonably conservative baseball minds (myself included) questioned the wisdom/riskyness of the deal. But I didn't project year 1 catastrophe. Did people here?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps I'm confused, but are you asking me whether the consensus was that Bradley would be so bad, both in performance and attitude/behavior, that the Cubs would have to dump him for nothing after the first year?
If that's what you're asking, the answer is of course not. But I don't think that's a very informative question; if that's what you're asking.
Hendry put together a team that should have won a lot of games last year. He was missing exactly what you say he shouldn't have gone after (a strong veteran reliever to support a young pen (Gregg was a disaster).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cherp makes some goods points, with the exception of the bullpen point - as Scarey pointed out - and these two points.
Just want to note, cherp, that of course it was Hendry's fault that Milton underperformed. Everyone knew that Milton was deeply flawed, both as a teammate and as a player in the National League. Hendry took the risk, and it back-fired. How is that not Hendry's fault?
Second, you can't on the one hand use Gregg's failure as a closer/reliever for the Cubs as support for the notion that Hendry should go out and get relievers and on the other hand completely ignore that Hendry CHOSE to go out and get Gregg in the first place.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ace - I agree with your point. But in my opinion, those are calculated gambles. They were moves that could have worked and may not have. I wasnt around when Milton signed, but was there a large # of people who said it was a bad signing? And Greggs failure shouldn't deter JH from doing the right thing in the future. A pen cant live on kids alone.
Scarey - I agree there are SOME candidates out there. I just hate seeing teams count on their farm to make a pen. That often blows up ij their face. (agreee - so does signing guys.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh yes. Many, many of us thought the Bradley signing was really, really risky, and was for too much money and too many years.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that both the length and $ were risky - but were people peojecting him to be a year 1 complete and total disaster...so bad that the best Hendry could get for him was Carlos Silva's crappy contract? I think most reasonably conservative baseball minds (myself included) questioned the wisdom/riskyness of the deal. But I didn't project year 1 catastrophe. Did people here?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps I'm confused, but are you asking me whether the consensus was that Bradley would be so bad, both in performance and attitude/behavior, that the Cubs would have to dump him for nothing after the first year?
If that's what you're asking, the answer is of course not. But I don't think that's a very informative question; if that's what you're asking.
Cubs News and Rumors at Bleacher Nation.