Credit to Jim Hendry

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=74501:date=Jan 7 2010, 02:08 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 7 2010, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=74498:date=Jan 7 2010, 01:23 PM:name=Prometheus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Prometheus @ Jan 7 2010, 01:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=74361:date=Jan 6 2010, 03:27 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jan 6 2010, 03:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I've got to go to a meeting. I'll come back to this later. I'll come back to it because I am genetically incapable of reading this much nonsense, and not responding to it. The sheer volume of wrongness is staggering. I'll give you just one retort from now, because I can keep it short.

You are blaming the cubs being swept in the post season on the GM? You think the GM, who makes up the team should get no credit for 97 wins, but SHOULD be held accountable for what those very same players did for 3 games? Do you have the slightest idea how absurdly, staggeringly, comically wrong that notion is?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So you don't think there's a difference between playoff baseball and regular season baseball? You don't think it's at least partially the responsibility of the GM to figure out how to build a team that can compete once the postseason starts?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Trying to build a "playoff" team is an exercise in futility. It's a problem of sample size. Over 162 games, the best teams will win more games. In a 5 game series? With a little luck and a few breaks, the Nationals can beat the Yankees. In 2008, the Cubs were the best team in the National League. They got swept by a very good Dodger team -- not because of some flaw (too right handed) in the makeup of the Cubs' roster, but because sometimes good teams get swept. It happens.

The 2008 Cubs *should* have won the NL pennant. They didn't, but that wasn't Hendry's fault. The team was good enough to win, but they didn't. It happens. Simple as that.

You have to give Hendry credit for building the 2008 Cubs.

I'm all in favor of bringing in a new GM. I don't think Hendry is an elite GM -- he has plenty of flaws. I desperately WANT an elite GM, so I want Hendry to go. But saying he's one of the worst GMs in the league is either hyperbole or insanity.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Agreed. He's in the middle of the pack as far as I'm concerned. Good, but not good enough.

[BT]

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The Cubs frequently do this because Hendry doesn't understand the importance of roster spots.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I could spend quite a bit of time on this, but suffice to say that ripping a GM because he didn't put specific troubled players on the 40 man roster on the off off off chance that another team would pick them AND keep them on the roster for the year AND the prospect would then add up to anything, seems silly to me.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->They never really gave the guy a chance to succeed, but certainly they knew that a guy like Gathright wasn't going to be much more valuable in the short run.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

no, they didn't. They knew Pie was not doing well, and looked uncomfortable. they knew they couldn't send him down to the minors without losing him for nothing. they also didn't trade him for Gathright. They traded a guy they were NOT going to use, taking a gamble that Heilman could help them. Heilman didn't. Pie's value was lowered completely by the fact he was out of options. Which brings me to...

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Give me a break. He was a top prospect in the organization for years and there were plenty of reports of teams with interest. Hendry had his chances to trade him earlier but he held on, then the organization jerked him around, then Hendry traded him at about his lowest possible value. You don't think he could have been traded for a better return earlier in his career?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This is silly. Yes, of course he could have been traded when his value was higher. But when his value was higher, WHY would you want to trade him?? If you are going to blame Hendry for not know the EXACT moment a player goes from prospect to suspect, and for not seizing that moment and trading him, then you are essentially indicting every GM of virtually every team on the planet. It's beyond unfair.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The overall budget has little to do with Hendry's problems in contract negotiations. Just because the organization tells you to spend what you need to in order to win doesn't mean you go out and give guys like Bradley, Soriano, and Zambrano the contracts they got.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

OF COURSE IT DOES. If the organization tells you "we don't care WHAT it costs, go out there and get us a winner", the translation is "overpay if you have to, but get us some stars". That is all fine and dandy until the day they come back to you and say "Umm, just kidding. We really DO care what it costs". Hendry overpaid for Soriano because he needed to. Because, for once, the Cubs weren't taking the high road, and being careful. They were saying screw it.

Let me ask you. Do you think the Cardinals think Holliday will be worth anything near what he is being paid in the final year of his contract? Or do you think they realize they totally overpaid for him, but are doing because they want to win now? Does this, by definition, make Mozeliak an idiot?

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Zambrano was paid based on a projection for improvement. He hasn't improved. At the time there was no way he merited the contract he received. There are plenty of better pitchers out there on better contracts.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Do you understand how free agents work? No one gets what they "merit". They get what the market dictates. The market dictates that the Cubs should have paid MORE for Zambrano than they did. And by the way, even though he was hurt last year, according to Fangraphs, Zambrano was within one million of his contract, value wise.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->I DID bring up WAR when referencing Fukudome. His WAR is similar to Byrd's, yet he's paid twice as much. He's overpaid by WAR standards, about $4.75MM per win. Would you want Byrd on the same contract?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

No, this is what you did. Because Zambrano earned less than his WAR would indicate he was worth, you make the comparison of value to contract. But since Fukudome has actually earned what his WAR indicated he was worth, you change the comparison. Instead, you compare him to another guy, a guy being paid less, so NOW the comparison is between the contracts of 2 guys with equal WAR, but unequal contracts. Then, since Wood far surpassed his contract as far as WAR is concerned, you drop WAR completely, and now start comparing Wood's contract to "market value". So, for 3 different players, you use 3 different metrics, since any one metric would hurt your case. That's unfair.

[Ace]

Thanks for the chart, Van. It's truly amazing how many prospects turn into pumpkins.