Posts: 3,702
Threads: 119
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=74357:date=Jan 6 2010, 03:11 PM:name=Prometheus)-->QUOTE (Prometheus @ Jan 6 2010, 03:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It's impossible to determine whether Sisco would have panned out with the Cubs if he was allowed to stick around in the minors and wasn't forced to the big leagues. Still, he was a decent young LH arm that the Cubs didn't protect.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't mean to pile on here but rushing Sisco to the majors as an example of Hendry's follies is kinda of lacking based on Sisco history and the Rule 5 draft.
Sisco was and is known for having a million dollar arm and a 10 cent head. BTW, I still like the story about him getting kicked out of the Mexican League for eating tacos during a game.
Sisco was drafted in 2001 in the second round by the Cubs. In Sisco's 4 years with the Cubs he pitched a total of something like 230 innings in lower A and higher A ball. Other than being a giant, lefty the guy didn't have it.
In 2005, he gets picked by KC in a Rule 5 draft, sheds a ton of weight, shows up in shape and pitches well enough to make the roster. He makes 67 appearances, 75 innings, with a 3.11 ERA and WHIP 1.46. 2005 was by far Sisco's best year.
After this season, Sisco goes back to being a piece of crap, goes back to the minors, gets traded, injured and maybe out of baseball.
It appears that you are blaming Hendry for the Royals rushing Sisco into the majors. You understand the Royals had to keep him on the roster in 2005 or they would have lost him because he was a Rule 5 pick up.
Posts: 1,720
Threads: 41
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
Let's not also forget that the incomparable Sisco broke his throwing hand by punching a wall with the Cubs.
Posts: 2,696
Threads: 47
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
Despite disagreeing with most of what Prometheus has said in this thread, I just wanted to welcome him to SOI. Hope you stick around.
Posts: 2,911
Threads: 67
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
I also disagree with a lot of the over the top comments he's made, but I do agree with his main point. Hendry is in over his head and should be a scouting director instead of a GM. He's not the worst GM in the game, probably middle of the pack, but I wish the Cubs would can him and bring in an entire different philosophy.
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
Yep, I agree with him too, just not for the same reasons and not so vehemently.
Wang.
Posts: 11,802
Threads: 390
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
I like Prometheus. I hope he sticks around.
Posts: 3,165
Threads: 12
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation:
0
To help jog all our memories, <i>MLB Trade Rumors</i> had a spreadsheet up detailing Hendry's trades (they're doing this for each current GM):
Hendry Trade Spreadsheet
I, for one, am tickled plaid that Chad Hermansen kicked off the Hendry era.
One dick can poke an eye out. A hundred dicks can move mountains.
--Veryzer
Posts: 14,113
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
I like the choice of Prometheus as a screen name quite a bit. Hopefully he sticks around and doesn't try so hard next time. I also disagree with him a lot, but he showed a lot of balls the way he hung in there with BT and others.
Posts: 3,165
Threads: 12
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=74459:date=Jan 7 2010, 11:31 AM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Jan 7 2010, 11:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I like the choice of Prometheus as a screen name quite a bit.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bcReu_d9h4o&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bcReu_d9h4o&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
One dick can poke an eye out. A hundred dicks can move mountains.
--Veryzer
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
I loved my semester in film school.
Posts: 2,100
Threads: 41
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=74458:date=Jan 7 2010, 11:31 AM:name=VanSlawAndCottoCheese)-->QUOTE (VanSlawAndCottoCheese @ Jan 7 2010, 11:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->To help jog all our memories, <i>MLB Trade Rumors</i> had a spreadsheet up detailing Hendry's trades (they're doing this for each current GM):
Hendry Trade Spreadsheet
I, for one, am tickled plaid that Chad Hermansen kicked off the Hendry era.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hendry had to get him to make the Hundley for Grudz/Karros deal.
Posts: 19
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->But it's NOT impossible. Sisco and Veal, in a large part, were given up on by the Cubs. They WEREN'T going to make it with them. Sisco was supposedly lazy, and Veal couldn't find the strike zone. It's certainly possible that the Pirates figured out what was wrong with Veal, and he will be effective from here on out (and if that is the case, someone IS to blame, but it's not Hendry), but the one thing we do know is that these guys weren't likely to be effective with the Cubs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, it is not so much what these players became, but the fact that, when they were allowed to be taken via Rule 5, the Cubs had inferior players on the 40 man roster that contributed very little to the major league squad. The Cubs frequently do this because Hendry doesn't understand the importance of roster spots.
Perfect example: how many guys with injury histories has Hendry taken a chance on? These guys may sign to "cheap" contracts from a cash perspective, but they take up roster spots which might be better used to protect minor leaguers. Veal and Sisco may not have made it with the Cubs, but the fact that teams decided to draft them and keep them for an entire year suggests that they had at least some value on the trade market.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->because he was BAD. For right or wrong, the Cubs felt that a veteran like Gathright was more likely to help them than Pie was. They were trying to win the World Series. The Orioles were not. The Orioles could afford the luxury of bringing Pie along. The Cubs could not.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Cubs jerked Pie around. They brought him up as an injury fill-in for a while, sent him down, then brought him up to ride the pine for awhile. 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. Pie will be much more valuable in the long-run. It was bad asset management by Hendry to trade a former top prospect for next to nothing only to later sign an older player to a more expensive contract to play the exact same role on the team. The fact that Gathright was signed and that the Cubs looked all of last season for a defensive CF says Pie had a place on the team.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->I have no idea. How in God's name do you?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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?
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->This can't possibly be a serious question. I can't believe I have to explain this to you. I'll be short. There is a VAST difference between ownership saying "spend whatever you need to spend in order to win" and them saying "We are cutting your budget". As Cherp and I have pointed out on other threads, the almighty GM of the Red Sox overpays for people ALL THE TIME. Because he can. However, he hasn't had the rug subsequently pulled out from under him later.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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. There is a way to let star players go and spend your money wisely instead of trying desperately to keep them by offering them more than what they are worth.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Possibly, but he was UNDERPAID according to the market, when he signed. He signed for less than he would have got on the open market. And WAR aside, the market is the only thing that matters.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Soriano is overpaid. everyone on the planet knows this, INCLUDING Hendry. And he knew it at the time. However, he did it because he could.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't see anything wrong with overpaying simply because he had the payroll THAT year? Don't you think a GM should have a bit of foresight and understand that an albatross contract to a player already in his 30s is likely to hurt the team long-term? Bad contracts have killed this team's payroll flexibility, anyone with a brain foresaw this when the contract was signed. I suppose Hendry didn't give it enough thought.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->As for the rest of this, you don't see how dishonest your arguments are? You bring up WAR for Zambrano, but you ignore it for Wood because Wood was FAR more valuable than his contract. Fukdome has actually played pretty much in line with his contract according to WAR, but instead of bringing it up, you compare him to another player. You keep changing the argument to suit your point.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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?
As for Wood, I admit I was wrong about him. I personally would have never taken the risk of awarding him with that kind of contract though.
Posts: 19
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=74389:date=Jan 6 2010, 05:30 PM:name=1060Ivy)-->QUOTE (1060Ivy @ Jan 6 2010, 05:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=74357:date=Jan 6 2010, 03:11 PM:name=Prometheus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Prometheus @ Jan 6 2010, 03:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It's impossible to determine whether Sisco would have panned out with the Cubs if he was allowed to stick around in the minors and wasn't forced to the big leagues. Still, he was a decent young LH arm that the Cubs didn't protect.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't mean to pile on here but rushing Sisco to the majors as an example of Hendry's follies is kinda of lacking based on Sisco history and the Rule 5 draft.
Sisco was and is known for having a million dollar arm and a 10 cent head. BTW, I still like the story about him getting kicked out of the Mexican League for eating tacos during a game.
Sisco was drafted in 2001 in the second round by the Cubs. In Sisco's 4 years with the Cubs he pitched a total of something like 230 innings in lower A and higher A ball. Other than being a giant, lefty the guy didn't have it.
In 2005, he gets picked by KC in a Rule 5 draft, sheds a ton of weight, shows up in shape and pitches well enough to make the roster. He makes 67 appearances, 75 innings, with a 3.11 ERA and WHIP 1.46. 2005 was by far Sisco's best year.
After this season, Sisco goes back to being a piece of crap, goes back to the minors, gets traded, injured and maybe out of baseball.
It appears that you are blaming Hendry for the Royals rushing Sisco into the majors. You understand the Royals had to keep him on the roster in 2005 or they would have lost him because he was a Rule 5 pick up.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not blaming Hendry for anything there. I'm saying it's impossible to know whether Sisco would have turned out the same had he spent his time in the minors instead of in the MLB when he wasn't really ready for it.
And hindsight is 20/20 with prospects. You think Sisco is an irreparable dimwit with nothing upstairs, but had he turned out the other way, you likely would have blamed his antics on youth.
The important aspect of Rule 5 is that these players obviously had value to other teams. Both Sisco and Veal were drafted early in the Rule 5 draft and were kept for an entire year. The Cubs didn't want to protect them and thus they lost them for nothing. Both could have been involved in a trade if the Cubs didn't think they were going to be successful.
Posts: 19
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=74361:date=Jan 6 2010, 03:27 PM:name=BT)-->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?
Posts: 11,802
Threads: 390
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=74498:date=Jan 7 2010, 01:23 PM:name=Prometheus)-->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.
|
