Posts: 209
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72796:date=Dec 22 2009, 02:16 PM:name=Destined)-->QUOTE (Destined @ Dec 22 2009, 02:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72795:date=Dec 22 2009, 11:57 AM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 22 2009, 11:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm amazed at how much Jim Hendry has fallen in the eyes of Cub fans. Now I am not praising him - but at the same time, his record does have a lot of pluses on it also. No - he hasn't won it all, and yes, he's made some awful decisions. But he has also put together the nucleus of a team that has won 265 games in the past 3 years and will again likely be the favorite to win the division.
I wouldnt' want Hendry running my club, because I don't like his philosophy of dumpster diving. But he has done a darn good job of it. For all the complaining about the types of deals Hendry makes, he has brought Derek Lee, Aramis Ramirez and Ryan Dempster, Ted Lilly, etc. here via trade or signing when those guys were not seen to be the types of players they were.
My biggest issue with him is actually his choices for hiring managers. To me, the guys he has brought in, and the money he spent on them, is shocking. I hated Baker and never saw Lou being the type of guy still motivated to lead this club.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hendry took away DeRo and Woody and gave us Miles and Gregg. It only makes sense to gripe, right?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah...he did make the "mistake" of letting go of fan favorites. But you guys are saavy enough to know he couldn't (shouldn't) have paid what Cleveland gave Kerry Wood. That was silly. And the Derosa deal was questionable - but didn't that enable him to spend the money on Bradley? (a discussion of its own I suppose). Miles was bad - most knew that - but you can't blame Miles for the Cubs not making it to the post season last year.
Trading away fan favorites is always touchy. Certainly Wood was a key part that the fanbase identified with, and letting him go was risky from a perception perspective, but was the right move from the baseball perspective.
The Soriano deal was a problem. He was too attached to the need to get his man, and missed the fact that he was overpaying significantly, even at the time. The market turn has made that deal even worse. He gave Carlos a ton, but that's the price you pay for what they bill him as. He's an ace - so you have to pay him like one.
Hendry, in my eyes, is a much better scout than a GM. Take the wallet away from him and make him do more of the legwork. I think the results might be better. He just makes sketchy decisions when the big money is on the line.
Posts: 209
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72804:date=Dec 22 2009, 03:10 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Dec 22 2009, 03:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72790:date=Dec 22 2009, 01:41 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 22 2009, 01:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><b><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->I don't have any faith in Hendry's ability to pull off a good trade for Zambrano. First, he'd decide to trade him, then he would tell every member of the media that the Cubs *have* to move him. Then he'd suspend him for the first month of the season. Then he'd trade him for a replacement-level 2B and eat all of Zambrano's salary.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--></b>
Damn, that was good, Butch. Painful, but spot-on.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, that was spot on. I mean, when you think of how bad Jim Hendry has done, the FIRST thing that pops into your head is all the bad trades he made. I mean there was the Pierre trade (because we traded away a guy who baseball reference shows has comps to Mike Harkey), and then there was..well....ummm...let's see....oh yeah, the fucking moron traded away Aardsma!!!!!!!! Who, after being traded 2 more times, actually had a pretty decent year!
Geez, that record really speaks for itself, doesn't it? Painful, but spot-on.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a double edged sword in some ways...More than moves he made that we regret, Hendry has no made moves that he could have made that we would have benefitted from. He is well known for holding prospects, overvaluing them, and not making moves until the guys are valueless. One thing that I would imagine Cubs fans would like to see more of is the Cubs using their own prospects to trade for people's veteran stars. Instead, Hendry sat on Patterson and Pie, and many others from that highly rated farm system from a long time ago until those guys had no value. If he used them over time to add pieces to the team, one could say things may have been different - no way to be sure, of course...it's all speculation.
Hendry hasn't made many deals that bit him in the ass. That's a good thing. But his lack of willingness to trade top prospects for bigtime players is concerning. He's done it well many of the times he tried.
Posts: 2,911
Threads: 67
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72803:date=Dec 22 2009, 04:08 PM:name=cherp)-->QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 22 2009, 04:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72798:date=Dec 22 2009, 02:45 PM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Dec 22 2009, 02:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You see Cherp, if you outspend the next highest club in your division by $40M you should have a team that wins 95 games a season. It's really that simple. We have a huge fucking advantage and JH cannot do a damn thing with it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure you should - ideally - but it doesn't always play out that way. Spending, while it does have a correlation to winning, is not the only variable. BT is correct - he spent money that didn't pan out. Now some of that, I agree, was predictable. But some wasn't. It can't be nearly as much of his fault as some make it sound.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, so you guys are saying that a GM job performance shouldn't be judged on the results of his spending. Basically you guys are giving him a pass because his signings were phsycotic, hurt, or did not perform. I call bullshit. It is JH's job to limit this risk and he has done a pathetic job of it. You protect against injury by having back-up players available. You protect against psychosis by not signing physchotic individuals. You protect against non-performance by proper scouting and back-ups. We have a substantial advantage with our payroll where our margin of error is much greater. Unfortunately, Hendry's error rate pisses away that safety margin more often than not.
To add one thing, I could care less that we didn't offer Wood a contract and he signed with Cleveland. I think that was the right move. I am also not very critical of the DeRosa deal.
Posts: 209
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72807:date=Dec 22 2009, 03:22 PM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ Dec 22 2009, 03:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72803:date=Dec 22 2009, 04:08 PM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 22 2009, 04:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72798:date=Dec 22 2009, 02:45 PM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Dec 22 2009, 02:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You see Cherp, if you outspend the next highest club in your division by $40M you should have a team that wins 95 games a season. It's really that simple. We have a huge fucking advantage and JH cannot do a damn thing with it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure you should - ideally - but it doesn't always play out that way. Spending, while it does have a correlation to winning, is not the only variable. BT is correct - he spent money that didn't pan out. Now some of that, I agree, was predictable. But some wasn't. It can't be nearly as much of his fault as some make it sound.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, so you guys are saying that a GM job performance shouldn't be judged on the results of his spending. Basically you guys are giving him a pass because his signings were phsycotic, hurt, or did not perform. I call bullshit. It is JH's job to limit this risk and he has done a pathetic job of it. You protect against injury by having back-up players available. You protect against psychosis by not signing physchotic individuals. You protect against non-performance by proper scouting and back-ups. We have a substantial advantage with our payroll where our margin of error is much greater. Unfortunately, Hendry's error rate pisses away that safety margin more often than not.
To add one thing, I could care less that we didn't offer Wood a contract and he signed with Cleveland. I think that was the right move. I am also not very critical of the DeRosa deal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not saying give him a pass or not hold him accountable. I'm just saying that with any move, there are percentages. Sometimes a move that makes sense works out - other times it doesn't. Ultimately - yes - results are what you should measure him on. He built a team that made it to the playoffs two years in a row, and has the talent to be a contender again. Is it a perfect team? Nope. Did he get value for signings like Soriano and Bradley - hell no. He should take some heat. But he also deserves credit for what he has done. All in all, I see him a middle of the pack GM. He's at his best evaluating players, not making financial decisions. The more money involved, the less comfortable I am with his analysis and the more I feel he goes into "safe mode" and spends the most he can assuming that gets the least risk - when the opposite is likely true.
Posts: 2,894
Threads: 72
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
Cherp, BT,
We spend about the same amount of money as the Red Sox. The Red Sox are in a significantly tougher division, in a tougher league. Yet they are always better.
Why?
Theo Epstein took the GM job about the same time as Hendry. Trust me, I don't think Theo is Joe Cool, but in their concurrent times as GM, he has the Red Sox in the playoffs almost every single year.
And there's those 2 world championships. Yeah, that too.
I don't even hate Hendry. I like him, in the same way that I Mike Fontenot...cool guy, occasionally gets hold of one, etc.
But both guys are in over their heads.
Cherp actually made an excellent quote that accurately sums up the Hendry skill-set:
"Hendry, in my eyes, is a much better scout than a GM. Take the wallet away from him and make him do more of the legwork. I think the results might be better. He just makes sketchy decisions when the big money is on the line."
Sums it up well.
There's nothing better than to realize that the good things about youth don't end with youth itself. It's a matter of realizing that life can be renewed every day you get out of bed without baggage. It's tough to get there, but it's better than the dark thoughts. -Lance
Posts: 209
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72822:date=Dec 22 2009, 05:02 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 22 2009, 05:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Cherp, BT,
We spend about the same amount of money as the Red Sox. The Red Sox are in a significantly tougher division, in a tougher league. Yet they are always better.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Last year was the first year the Cubs spent money like the Red Sox on the MLB payrolls. In previous years the gap was as much as 50%.
<!--quoteo(post=72822:date=Dec 22 2009, 05:02 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 22 2009, 05:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Why?
Theo Epstein took the GM job about the same time as Hendry. Trust me, I don't think Theo is Joe Cool, but in their concurrent times as GM, he has the Red Sox in the playoffs almost every single year. And there's those 2 world championships. Yeah, that too.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What you forget (or just fail to mention) is that not only are they outspending the Cubs (except last year) on the MLB payroll, but they far outspend the Cubs organizationally. They outspend on the draft, on development, and internationally. It isn't even close. The Red Sox spend on an annual basis far outweighs what the Cubs spend.
<!--quoteo(post=72822:date=Dec 22 2009, 05:02 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 22 2009, 05:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I don't even hate Hendry. I like him, in the same way that I Mike Fontenot...cool guy, occasionally gets hold of one, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nobody believes you. It may be true, but nobody believes you.
The Red Sox do a lot of things better than the Cubs. Spending money (more and better) is one of them.
If Cubs want to compete on the Red Sox/Yanks plane, then they need to raise the cost of tickets to match the Sawx payroll. Tickets are already very expensive. The Sawx generate more revenue than the Cubs do - and spend more of it. Now getting rid of the Trib may well help - depending on how much the Ricketts have to pay to manage debt service...but in any case, the Red Sawx outspend the Cubs significantly on an organizational level.
Posts: 2,894
Threads: 72
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
Well, this chart shows that Boston did outspend us, averaging 145 mil to our 115 mil. They also averaged the 2nd most victories in baseball over than period, while we played .500 ball (actually, one game over .500).
Then last year, we outspent them by a good margin and totaled 83 wins. Not one, but TWO games over .500!
The Red Sox won 95.
Are you going to seriously argue that we spend our payroll dollars more intelligently than the Red Sox? Or deny that our payroll has been amongst the top 5 in MLB for most of Hendry's "reign?"
And BTW, fuck the Red Sox. I just wish to have someone in the front office who vaguely understands player value, and things like WAR. Someone who comprehends how absurd it is to throw tons of cash at legions of middle relievers. Is that asking too much?
![[Image: AVERAGE%20PAYROLL%20AND%20WINS,%202006-2008%20.png]](http://baseballanalysts.com/AVERAGE%20PAYROLL%20AND%20WINS,%202006-2008%20.png)
There's nothing better than to realize that the good things about youth don't end with youth itself. It's a matter of realizing that life can be renewed every day you get out of bed without baggage. It's tough to get there, but it's better than the dark thoughts. -Lance
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72829:date=Dec 23 2009, 02:00 AM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 23 2009, 02:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Well, this chart shows that Boston did outspend us, averaging 145 mil to our 115 mil. They also averaged the 2nd most victories in baseball over than period, while we played .500 ball (actually, one game over .500).
Then last year, we outspent them by a good margin and totaled 83 wins. Not one, but TWO games over .500!
The Red Sox won 95.
Are you going to seriously argue that we spend our payroll dollars more intelligently than the Red Sox? Or deny that our payroll has been amongst the top 5 in MLB for most of Hendry's "reign?"
And BTW, fuck the Red Sox. I just wish to have someone in the front office who vaguely understands player value, and things like WAR. Someone who comprehends how absurd it is to throw tons of cash at legions of middle relievers. Is that asking too much?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First let me stipulate that Epstien is a much better GM than Hendry. I'm not arguing that. But.
You say you have a problem with Hendry's player valuation.
Let me ask you this. How would you feel if Hendry was paying:
A guy like Ortiz, OPS+ 101, basically league average, 26 million dollars in 2009 and 2010?
Mike Lowell, OPS+106, a bit better than average, 25 Million in 2009 and 2010?
Julio Lugo, OPS+ 86, much worse than average, 18.5 million in 09-10?
DiceK, in addition to paying 50 million to sign him, owe him another 37 million for 2009-2012?
You would rake Hendry over the coals for these kinds of signings. Right? So even the "best" GM, who passes your litmus tests, still fails from time to time.
Hendry should be judged on his entire body of work. That should include the resources he's had to work with. And I'd agree his resume has some glaring holes. But you seem to hold him to standards that you don't hold others to.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 4,641
Threads: 210
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
Wow - that chart is an absolute indictment of Hendry's time as GM. And it would look much, much worse if we included 2009.
Posts: 1,440
Threads: 63
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72831:date=Dec 23 2009, 06:38 AM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 23 2009, 06:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Wow - that chart is an absolute indictment of Hendry's time as GM. And it would look much, much worse if we included 2009.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ace...explain thoroughly. That's not good enough.
Posts: 1,440
Threads: 63
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72831:date=Dec 23 2009, 06:38 AM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 23 2009, 06:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Wow - that chart is an absolute indictment of Hendry's time as GM. And it would look much, much worse if we included 2009.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ace...explain thoroughly. That's not good enough.
Posts: 4,641
Threads: 210
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
Look at the teams surrounding the Cubs. Look at the average wins. Heck, the six teams BELOW the Cubs in payroll all won as many or more games than the Cubs except the woeful Mariners (the Cards are effectively tied). In all, there are 10 teams that have spent less than the Cubs, but won more (or the same). And we're not talking about small payroll differences with some of these teams. If the Cubs are going to keep spending like they do, they should be winning far, FAR more than about half their games. That's just ridiculous, and it is reflective of the way that money is being spent. And that's on Hendry.
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
I love the Yankees and Jeter is a first ballot Hall of Famer and deservedly so.
Wang.
Posts: 560
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72836:date=Dec 23 2009, 09:25 AM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Dec 23 2009, 09:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I love the Yankees and Jeter is a first ballot Hall of Famer and deservedly so.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree. I named my son Thurman Munson-Mustache. Had to hyphenate. My wife's a liberal.
Posts: 3,707
Threads: 119
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72829:date=Dec 23 2009, 02:00 AM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 23 2009, 02:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Well, this chart shows that Boston did outspend us, averaging 145 mil to our 115 mil. They also averaged the 2nd most victories in baseball over than period, while we played .500 ball (actually, one game over .500).
Then last year, we outspent them by a good margin and totaled 83 wins. Not one, but TWO games over .500!
The Red Sox won 95.
Are you going to seriously argue that we spend our payroll dollars more intelligently than the Red Sox? Or deny that our payroll has been amongst the top 5 in MLB for most of Hendry's "reign?"
And BTW, fuck the Red Sox. I just wish to have someone in the front office who vaguely understands player value, and things like WAR. Someone who comprehends how absurd it is to throw tons of cash at legions of middle relievers. Is that asking too much?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to the chart, the Yankees spent $2.3 MM per win during this period compared to the Cubs $1.4 MM or 66% more per win so should we now infer that the Cubs were a better, more efficient organization than the Yankees. I don't think you would find a baseball person that would make that statement.
The Yankees just spent the cash because they have more cash just as other major market teams do. The Yankees, Mets, Angels, Dodgers, Cubs and White Sox are major market teams. They should be spending more for their team as they should be getting more revenue.
Sorry but who the hell cares about how much a team spends to win? It's about winning and the only people who should be pissed that they team overspends or misspent cash are the teams with more limited or stretched resources. Sorry middle market and small market teams but the deck is stacked against you. The only long term strategy these teams have to compete is to scout, draft and develop talent more effectively.
The Cubs have a poor record regarding scouting, drafting and developing talent until these skills are improved, the organization is going to over and mis-spend their resources. Get used to it. The hopes are that the resources aren't as stretched or limited as other teams and that they can acquire/develop these skills and consistently win.
|
