Posts: 1,792
Threads: 49
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72990:date=Dec 25 2009, 11:20 AM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 25 2009, 11:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72986:date=Dec 25 2009, 12:09 PM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Dec 25 2009, 12:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Damn. I'm sorry I missed this argument, but I really wouldn't have added anything to it since I am in Ace's corner. He is right. The rest of you are wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right about what? Did you actually read through this whole thing?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not convinced that he can actually read.
If Angelo had picked McClellin, I would have been expecting to hear by training camp that kid has stage 4 cancer, is actually 5'2" 142 lbs, is a chick who played in a 7 - 0 defensive scheme who only rotated in on downs which were 3 and 34 yds + so is not expecting to play a down in the NFL until the sex change is complete and she puts on another 100 lbs. + but this is Emery's first pick so he'll get a pass with a bit of questioning. - 1060Ivy
Posts: 2,911
Threads: 67
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72995:date=Dec 26 2009, 01:16 PM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Dec 26 2009, 01:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72990:date=Dec 25 2009, 11:20 AM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 25 2009, 11:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72986:date=Dec 25 2009, 12:09 PM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Dec 25 2009, 12:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Damn. I'm sorry I missed this argument, but I really wouldn't have added anything to it since I am in Ace's corner. He is right. The rest of you are wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right about what? Did you actually read through this whole thing?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not convinced that he can actually read.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ace is right. Hendry has underperformed for several years. You guys are wrong. Scarey, I skimmed through most of it so I may have missed something. BZ, you can lick my scrote.
Posts: 2,894
Threads: 72
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72995:date=Dec 26 2009, 12:16 PM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Dec 26 2009, 12:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72990:date=Dec 25 2009, 11:20 AM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 25 2009, 11:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72986:date=Dec 25 2009, 12:09 PM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Dec 25 2009, 12:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Damn. I'm sorry I missed this argument, but I really wouldn't have added anything to it since I am in Ace's corner. He is right. The rest of you are wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right about what? Did you actually read through this whole thing?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not convinced that he can actually read.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He can read. And he's right. So is Ace.
That doesn't mean anyone else is <i>wrong</i>, per se.
Coldneck and Ace and I are saying the Cubs could be better. A lot better. Indeed, they <i>should</i> be better, given their massive money advantages.
The other guys are not arguing that. Many of them have even <i>conceded</i> that. What they are arguing is that Hendry is a better GM than the stunningly abysmal shitheads who have run the team for the past 64 years. Different argument.
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: 14,115
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Coldneck and Ace and I are saying the Cubs could be better. A lot better. Indeed, they should be better, given their massive money advantages.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the majority of the SOI members would agree with that statement for the most part. It's all this stuff about portraying Hendry as the worst baseball mind on the planet that spurs these arguments in the first place, and you have to admit, it gets old after a while. I doubt anyone here would shed a tear if he were let go tomorrow. I'm certain of it.
Posts: 2,894
Threads: 72
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
Rok, nobody here thinks Jim is a drooling idiot. He somehow scored a dream job despite not being qualified for it; that alone makes him both savvy, and a stud, in my mind. Good for him.
Bad for us.
I applaud his positive efforts. And I weep when he does things like sign Grabow, and pursue Capps. One thing seems clear, though. He does not know how to put together a consistently good offense.
Let's look at the most elemental, all-encompassing statistic.
The most <i>important</i> offensive stat (really, the only one that matters): Runs scored.
Rank in MLB for Runs Scored (Cubs)
2009: -22nd
2008: -2nd
2007: -18th
2006: -28th
2005: -20th
2004: -16th
2003: -20th
Average rank during Hendry's 7 years: 18th in MLB.
And, you can see by looking at the chart, that 2008 was an outlier. Take out that year, and Jim's teams are surprisingly consistent: they rank in the lower 3rd of MLB teams almost every year.
Is someone now going to argue that there is no link between scoring runs and winning baseball games?
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: 14,115
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
Again, I'm not sure what we're arguing about. NO ONE to my knowledge is saying that Hendry has been a great GM.
On the flipside, your analysis is only looking at half of the story. I'm too lazy to do this today, but I bet if you laid out our Pitching staff rankings over the above period, it would show that we've done a good job over Hendry's tenure of putting together above average pitching staffs, even considering all the injuries we've experienced. We've been in the top third of the league in ERA, whip, and K's for quite some time.
You can't just look at one deficiency and ignore everything else. I think that is what people are growing tired of discussing. No one is claiming that Hendry's record is impeccable or that he has done the best possible job given the resources provided to him compared to his contemporaries or his predecessors. I think we mostly agree, but it's the fact that the issue keeps coming up for discussion that annoys a large number of people. I doubt anyone will commit suicide once Hendry is let go, but let's not act as though these have been the worst of times either.
Posts: 7,162
Threads: 138
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72999:date=Dec 26 2009, 12:56 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 26 2009, 12:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Rok, nobody here thinks Jim is a drooling idiot. He somehow scored a dream job despite not being qualified for it; that alone makes him both savvy, and a stud, in my mind. Good for him.
Bad for us.
I applaud his positive efforts. And I weep when he does things like sign Grabow, and pursue Capps. One thing seems clear, though. He does not know how to put together a consistently good offense.
Let's look at the most elemental, all-encompassing statistic.
The most <i>important</i> offensive stat (really, the only one that matters): Runs scored.
Rank in MLB for Runs Scored (Cubs)
2009: -22nd
2008: -2nd
2007: -18th
2006: -28th
2005: -20th
2004: -16th
2003: -20th
Average rank during Hendry's 7 years: 18th in MLB.
And, you can see by looking at the chart, that 2008 was an outlier. Take out that year, and Jim's teams are surprisingly consistent: they rank in the lower 3rd of MLB teams almost every year.
Is someone now going to argue that there is no link between scoring runs and winning baseball games?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not disproving your point, but you have to look at run-scoring from an NL-only perspective to be fair, because...
2009: 7 of top 10 teams in AL
2008: 7 of top 10 teams in AL
2007: 6 of top 10 teams in AL
2006: 6 of top 10 teams in AL
2005: 6 of top 10 teams in AL
2004: 7 of top 10 teams in AL
2003: 6 of top 10 teams in AL
Cubs' rank in <b>NL</b> in runs scored...
2009: 10th
2008: 1st
2007: 8th
2006: 15th
2005: 9th
2004: 7th
2003: 9th
Average: 8th
@TheBlogfines
Posts: 7,162
Threads: 138
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=73001:date=Dec 26 2009, 01:57 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Dec 26 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Again, I'm not sure what we're arguing about. NO ONE to my knowledge is saying that Hendry has been a great GM.
On the flipside, your analysis is only looking at half of the story. I'm too lazy to do this today, but I bet if you laid out our Pitching staff rankings over the above period, it would show that we've done a good job over Hendry's tenure of putting together above average pitching staffs, even considering all the injuries we've experienced. We've been in the top third of the league in ERA, whip, and K's for quite some time.
You can't just look at one deficiency and ignore everything else. I think that is what people are growing tired of discussing. No one is claiming that Hendry's record is impeccable or that he has done the best possible job given the resources provided to him compared to his contemporaries or his predecessors. I think we mostly agree, but it's the fact that the issue keeps coming up for discussion that annoys a large number of people. <b>I doubt anyone will commit suicide once Hendry is let go, but let's not act as though these have been the worst of times either.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bingo.
@TheBlogfines
Posts: 2,894
Threads: 72
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
Has anyone on the site said that these are the worst of times? I don't recall ever reading it here.
I certainly never said it...I've said many times that I <i>loved</i> the 2008 season, playoff collapse and all (which wasn't Jim's fault).
Also, there's no doubt that Jim is better at assembling a pitching staff than he is at putting together a starting lineup. And I applaud his efforts at run prevention, which is exactly equal in importance to run scoring.
But why are many high-budget teams capable of doing <i>both</i>? It's interesting that according to Clapp's post, the nicest thing he could say about Jim/Cub's offense is that his teams have averaged to score the 8th most runs in a 16-team league over the course of 7 years.
That's a <i>good</i> thing?
Yeah, the Jim-bashing gets old after awhile, even for me. It'll lie dormant for awhile; then Jim will import Carlos Silva and vie for Capps in the same week, and it's simply impossible for a Cub fan to not gnash teeth.
What is an internet website dedicated to a baseball team <i>for</i>, if not to discuss the direction of the team?
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: 7,162
Threads: 138
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=73004:date=Dec 26 2009, 02:45 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 26 2009, 02:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Has anyone on the site said that these are the worst of times? I don't recall ever reading it here.
I certainly never said it...I've said many times that I <i>loved</i> the 2008 season, playoff collapse and all (which wasn't Jim's fault).
Also, there's no doubt that Jim is better at assembling a pitching staff than he is at putting together a starting lineup. And I applaud his efforts at run prevention, which is exactly equal in importance to run scoring.
But why are many high-budget teams capable of doing <i>both</i>? <b>It's interesting that according to Clapp's post, the nicest thing he could say about Jim/Cub's offense is that his teams have averaged to score the 8th most runs in a 16-team league over the course of 7 years.
That's a <i>good</i> thing?
</b>
Yeah, the Jim-bashing gets old after awhile, even for me. It'll lie dormant for awhile; then Jim will import Carlos Silva and vie for Capps in the same week, and it's simply impossible for a Cub fan to not gnash teeth.
What is an internet website dedicated to a baseball team <i>for</i>, if not to discuss the direction of the team?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say it was. 16th is indeed better than 18th though [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img] . Just saying it's how you have to assess their performance with that statistic, since the AL gets around 145 more games with a position player batting ninth. I know how you like to twist things to make Hendry look as shitty as possible, and I wasn't going to let you and your Simba hair by this time, Kabes.
@TheBlogfines
Posts: 14,115
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
I didn't say we shouldn't discuss these things at all, but that the discussion is getting tiresome is all, and people just assume that there exist drastic differences in opinion more than is the actual case. My point is that we're not far off in our assessments of Hendry, no matter what the argument is perceived to be. No one thinks he's the best, but there are a few that act as though he's an abomination to the human race. I would prefer a change as well, but us snapping at each other about it isn't going to make it happen any sooner. In due time.
Posts: 209
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72999:date=Dec 26 2009, 01:56 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 26 2009, 01:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Rok, nobody here thinks Jim is a drooling idiot. He somehow scored a dream job despite not being qualified for it; that alone makes him both savvy, and a stud, in my mind. Good for him.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why exactly do you think he wasn't qualified? He was the assistant GM, director of scouting, and the director of Minor League Ops for the Cubs. He lead Creighton to tremendous successes and worked for Dombrowski for a while. We know you dislike him, but I don't see how he wasn't qualified.
Just to compare to "your boy", Theo, got the job at age 28 with relatively no experience - a Yale degree, a job with the Padres in Media Relations, and 2 years in baseball ops - again - for the Padres. He had connections - and was a very smooth talker. But it is so ridiculous to say Hendry, a career baseball guy was unqualified while praising the likes of Epstein.
<!--quoteo(post=72999:date=Dec 26 2009, 01:56 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 26 2009, 01:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I applaud his positive efforts. And I weep when he does things like sign Grabow, and pursue Capps.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We get it KB. RPs grow on trees. Hendry should go out back and pick himself a few of them. But, for arguement's sake, lets say the Cubs farm system doesn't produce a full pen. Aren't you better off with Grabow and Capps than with guys like Kevin Hart 5.26/1.75, Rich Hill 4.87/1.36, Angel Guzman 4.82/1.43 and Jae Kuk Ryu 7.49/1.81? Now of course I cherrypicked horsecrap from the past few years, but there's nothing wrong with Grabow who's last two years were 2.84/1.28 and 3.36/1.41. Really - he should be your biggest issue next year for under 4mm. And Capps, while he had a bad year last year, has been awesome every other year of his career. Who else is in the bullpen next year? Jeff S? Guzman? Marshall? Parisi? Silva? You NEEDED Matt Capps. You NEED Grabow. I get the concept of not paying for RP - and that works if your farm produces them. If it doesn't, not having a bullpen is the easiest way to suck.
<!--quoteo(post=72999:date=Dec 26 2009, 01:56 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 26 2009, 01:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->One thing seems clear, though. He does not know how to put together a consistently good offense.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bullshit. Not knowing is different than not succeeding. Last year everything that could have gone wrong did. The offense had no reason to be as bad as it was. This was the best offense in the league in 2008. The fact that shit happened and the guys you counted on weren't healthy all season doesn't mean Hendry didn't put together a good offense. It means the players didn't deliver to expectations. You can't blame (well - you can, but it makes you look silly) a GM for injuries/performances outside of trend lines from nearly everyone on his team.
<!--quoteo(post=72999:date=Dec 26 2009, 01:56 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 26 2009, 01:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Rank in MLB for Runs Scored (Cubs)
2009: -22nd
2008: -2nd
2007: -18th
2006: -28th
2005: -20th
2004: -16th
2003: -20th
Average rank during Hendry's 7 years: 18th in MLB.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not going to bother looking...but you know full well that comparing an NL team to an AL team in Runs Scored is completely fucking stupid.
<!--quoteo(post=72999:date=Dec 26 2009, 01:56 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 26 2009, 01:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Is someone now going to argue that there is no link between scoring runs and winning baseball games?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There sure is...so having guys like Derek Lee and Aramis Ramirez, and getting them cheaply, must be a good thing? Having a catcher who was ROY with a .285/.364/.504 line must be damn good? Having a LF who should hit ~.285/.350/.500 would be pretty good? Bringing in a guy to play RF who just went .321/.426/.563 and .306/.402/.545 the year before that would have been good too, right? 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). Capps and Grabow would have made a nice support for Marmol, Marshall, Jeff S, Ascaino, etc... But other than that, the team was set up quite nicely when it broke camp.
Your blind hatred for your team's GM clouds your perspective.
Posts: 2,696
Threads: 47
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
I agree with almost all of your points there cherp, but the Cubs have a glut of MLB ready prospects for the bullpen. That's why a lot of Cubs fans (including myself) are unhappy that Hendry spent money on Grabow. If you assume Marmol, Guzman, and Marshall all will be in the bullpen next year, that leaves six guys in the farm system that could make the pen out of spring training.
That, and Grabow's stats are deceiving. His WHIP is way too high for a guy that does not strike out batters very much.
But really, Grabow should not be a huge worry. It sucks to pay a player of his caliber anything significant, but it's not gonna make or break the team.
Posts: 4,641
Threads: 210
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=73008:date=Dec 27 2009, 12:31 AM:name=cherp)-->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.
Posts: 209
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=73011:date=Dec 27 2009, 08:18 AM:name=Ace)-->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.)
|
