Would things have been different if......
Back during the strike in 1994 the Cubs hired Andy MacPhail who brought a new era of sweater vest wearing to the north side of Chicago and boy were most Cub fans excited.
He took over the team completely and hired Ed Lynch one of the oddest looking people ever to wear the uniform as his GM and an unknown man Jim Hendry to run player development.
I often wonder what might have been different if MacPhail had been the GM, hired a Kenney type to be the team President and not had Lynch at all and had just developed the prized pupil in Hendry who would wind up taking the job eventually anyway.
I think we're starting to see the rumors Hendry was sat on by MacPhail and maybe there was friction there may have been true.
I wonder also what might have been if Hendry had had more free reign earlier.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation, Bleed Cubbie Blue, or Al Yellon, editor-in-chief. FanPost opinions are, however, valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
0 recs |
19
comments
Comments
MacPhail
I’ve been one of the few defenders of MacPhail in these parts. First off, IIRC, the Cubs would not have been able to hire MacPhail simply to the GM post. He had a contract with the Twins who were not willing to let him go simply to go to another team in the same position. MacPhail joining the Cubs was contingent upon him getting a promotion, thus him becoming the team president.
There were two big mistakes made off the bat. The big one was the hiring on Lynch. The man had no business being a major league GM, lacked any clear vision, and aside from rescuing one or two guys off the scrap heap, really did nothing well. The second big mistake made by the MacPhail/Lynch regime was that they didn’t tear things down. They came to the Cubs, felt that they were closer to a winner than they actually were, and from that point on, the regime tried to build a winner piecemeal.
But the real issue was that MacPhail was hired not to the job he was successful in with the Twins, but rather to a job often reserved for anonymous corporate types. MacPhail had the belief that you let people do the job you hire them to do, unfortunately he hired a complete idiot to be the team’s GM. He waited far too long to fire Lynch.
I cannot speak for any rumored friction between MacPhail and Hendry. This is the first I’ve heard of it. But MacPhail clearly had a fiscal philosophy that many believe led to the team’s unwillingness to sign big name free agents. I frankly believe that its just as likely that the higher ups at Trib Co were unwilling to open up the purse strings until after Dennis Fitzsimons departed. But I will say this, once MacPhail did leave, Jim Hendry got free reign to do what he thought best. He went as far away from the fiscal philosophy of MacPhail as possible. Most people loved that. Unfortunately, we’re not starting to really see the effects of Hendry’s complete lack of fiscal discipline. One of the things that MacPhail believed in was maintaining a significant degree of flexibility. The Cubs now have next to no flexibility due to the backloaded contracts that are now coming due as well as the players in early or middle stages of long term deals for big dollars with no-trade clauses.
I know many here are glad that MacPhail is gone. I believe he did a lot of good things and a lot of bad things. I will say this, though, the Cubs likely would be in better shape moving forward had someone in the Cubs brain trust exercised a degree of the fiscal philosophy that MacPhail advocated.
by dmlichte on Oct 12, 2008 1:50 AM CDT 0 recs
cubs
no if,s ands or but,s. no maybe,s no close but no cigar and no almost,s. LET,S WIN
by NOMAR on Oct 12, 2008 7:41 AM CDT 0 recs
I think
you’ve confused your “commas” for “apostrophes”.
Then again’ things look a little more interesting when you don,t use the correct punctuation mark? So’ at least it,ll keep people interested! Maybe"
by CubFan81 on
Oct 12, 2008 8:28 AM CDT
up
0 recs
The MacPhail Approach
During Andy MacPhail’s presidency, it seemed as if it were more important to run a fiscally responsible organization that would embody his vision of the model franchise than it was to do everything possible to resuscitate a championship-starved club. He was reticent to deviate from his conservative inclinations, even when assets were at his disposal that would allow him to spend lavishly on necessary additions to the lineup. Even though the Cubs’ identity as a lucrative national brand was a whole different species than the small-market Minnesota Twins, he saw them as the same type of creature and therefore ran the Cubs in his ledger-conscious manner.
I’ve gleaned from comments MacPhail made regarding making and advancing through the postseason a definition of success as a matter of getting the breaks more than a conscious effort to proactively amass as much talent available on the market. His goal every year was to compete within the division – winning it depended on other teams faltering and getting injured as much as the Cubs outslugging and outpitching the competition. He credited luck far more than he did actual and quantifiable talent when asked why the Astros or Cardinals or Reds fared better than the Cubs.
This is where MacP’s “spread it around” method of payroll allocation originated. Talent being more or less equal in his eyes, he did nothing to bring in MVP-caliber free agents that the organization badly needed to build around. Rather, he viewed the market as a place where you go bargain shopping, hoping to catch lightning in a bottle with role players (as he did with the Twins).
Now, this FA approach may have worked had the Cubs’ farm system been a top-notch producer of young talent that churned out two quality players per season. Sadly, however, the farm stayed dry. MacPhail’s reputation as a guy able to implement a solid S&D system is questionable; with the Twins, the young core or Hrbek, Gaetti, Puckett, and others was already in place when he came aboard. He wasn’t the one who oversaw the drafting and development of the home-grown guys on the 1987 and 1991 champs.
Where MacP excelled was in augmenting a solid nucleus that was already in a position to contend for the pennant. He made an excellent trade with the Mets in 1989, swapping Frank Viola for Rick Aguilera and Kevin Tapani. He wisely picked up Jack Morris and Chili Davis for the 1991 team. Although the 1992 team only finished second, he did add 16-game winner John Smiley from Pittsburgh before the season began.
FWIW I’ve met Andy MacPhail and he is a kind, gracious gentleman. He is nowhere near the carpetbagger that Wayne Huizenga was. If anything, MacPhail’s business model outlived its usefulness and his loyalty to underachieving underlings retarded the organization’s progress. Both ultimately hindered what all of us hoped would be a successful tenure running the Chicago Cubs.
Never, but NEVER, put ketchup on a hot dog.
by CaliCub on Oct 12, 2008 12:19 PM CDT 0 recs
The rise in payroll
I think one of the things that people generally assume is that the Cubs were willing to spend big dollars throughout the MacPhail era, he just choose not to go after the big name free agents. I certainly agree with you that MacPhail spent a significant amount of time focusing on running the model franchise and retaining fiscal discipline. I guess, in the end, that doesn’t work when everyone else around you is spending beyond reason.
Once MacPhail left, we saw a huge infusion of money into player acquisition. The question I have is whether or not that money had been there all along. I really believe that, at the time MacPhail departed, Tribco realized that it was time to take the next step and decided to allocate nearly $30M more to payroll. We certainly don’t know for sure.
by dmlichte on
Oct 12, 2008 2:37 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I think it was John McDonough and Crane Kenney...
… convincing the Tribco higher-ups to do that. MacPhail didn’t really seem interested, as pointed out above, and further, I have heard he made bonus money for himself by keeping payroll down.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on
Oct 12, 2008 4:30 PM CDT
up
0 recs
well then...
… it would seem to be a directive from above, not from MacPhail. If MacPhail got a bonus for keeping the payroll down then clearly that (a low payroll) was something his bosses valued. Your boss comes up with the basis for performance bonuses. So it seems to be that while MacPhail may never have gone to the mat to get Tribco to up the Cubs payroll, they were the ones who wanted it low and as such, rewarded him for following their demands.
by dmlichte on
Oct 12, 2008 6:25 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Then explain to me why...
… Kenney and McDonough got the purse strings opened up so quickly?
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on
Oct 12, 2008 7:55 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Just A Guess As To Why
By the end of 2006, the Cubs’ bitterest rivals had won a World Series (Cards, White Sox). Add to that the pitiful showing of the Cubs that year, the dissatisfaction with Dusty Baker after coming oh-so-close in 2003, and Year Twelve of Andy MacPhail’s Five-Year-Plan. There were more than a few empty seats at the Friendly Confines that September – and if anything was going to get the attention of the Trib, it was a decline in attendance.
Never, but NEVER, put ketchup on a hot dog.
by CaliCub on
Oct 12, 2008 9:31 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Kenney vs Fitzsimons
I forget the exact timeline but along with MacPhail departing, the Cubs also saw MacPhail’s boss, Dennis Fitzsimons leave. Ultimately the main guy in charge of the Cubs at TribCo would become Crane Kenney. Fitzsimons was an old school guy who was around for a long time. Beyond that, as has been said, the Sox were not far removed from a World Series and Tribco likely felt the need to be much more aggressive to maintain the Cubs edge in Chicago.
Look, none of us know exactly why money was not spend before MacPhail left. I don’t believe that MacPhail would have ever spent on the order that we’ve seen lately had he been given the green light. I think at this point many of us may of us would prefer that Hendry weren’t so tied down by some of the cumbersome contracts he now is buried under. But I also believe that had MacPhail had the money available that Hendry did, we might have seen the team more aggressive before his departure.
by dmlichte on
Oct 13, 2008 12:59 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I think the Trib knowing...
…the club was going on the market was the big reason the opened up the check book to all new levels. and had little to do with McPhail. Also, I think McPhail devlivered exactly what the Trib wanted him to do for the time that he was here; try and be competitive, keep a big name or two on the club and fill the place up. There is no question in my mind, the Trib’s number one goal was not to “win” until they knew the team was for sale.
Regarding what could have been different; IMO, what has caused the club to have to search every year in FA is because they have been very poor in developing position players for a long time. You have to keep in mind, Hendry ran the farm from 94 until the end of 02 and in all honesty, can’t receive a very good grade during that time period.
The best thing they can do is learn from their mistakes and put their vast resources to the best use possible. You can’t go back and try and figure out what could have been different, because you just don’t know.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
by MPH73 on
Oct 13, 2008 2:08 PM CDT
up
0 recs
The thing I remember most from MacPhail
Don’t remember the year, but it was either near the trading deadline or towards the end of the season. Cubs were reasonably still in the thick of things and MacPhail said something like his objective was for the Cubs to compete for the wild card.
Wrong! You compete for the division title (and beyond) – you settle for the wild card…
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
by ballhawk on
Oct 12, 2008 4:08 PM CDT
up
0 recs
That may have been 2004...
… when the Cubs (and everyone else) were basically eliminated by mid-July by that 104-win Cardinal team. That year only, it would have been right to focus on the wild card.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on
Oct 12, 2008 7:55 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Rebuilding Was Never An Option for MacPhail
Whenever the Cubs came off a horrid year like 1997 or 2000, I would hope that MacPhail and Lynch would go into wholesale rebuilding mode and hold a fire sale of their tradeable commodities. Peddle off Sosa, Grace, HRod, etc and restock the system with prospects. Other clubs have done so, some even landing genuine talent that allowed them to compete a year or so afterward. But you never saw the Cubs even try.
In his book “The Million To One Team”, George Castle quoted Andy MacPhail as saying that conducting fire sales was akin to giving up and wasting a year that could have otherwise been devoted to competing for the division title. That always struck me as quite short-sighted and evidence of the front office looking down at the field through a pair of rose-colored glasses.
I couldn’t understand why MacPhail wouldn’t trade for prospects on one hand, nor go out and sign a Robin Ventura or Randy Johnson on the other (‘tho I’m glad he missed out on Mike Hampton). As a fan, it felt like being caught between a rock and a hard place – no expensive All-Star caliber signings, but no development of youth either. Then I came across another MacPhail quote in which he said that his approach was to just cobble together the best team you can on a year-to-year basis. And that’s when I really started having doubts about a guy who was well-spoken and intelligent yet mired in a peculiar baseball mindset.
Never, but NEVER, put ketchup on a hot dog.
by CaliCub on Oct 12, 2008 9:50 PM CDT 0 recs
the thing about the rebuilding
Thing about rebuilding is I think MacPhail felt the fans would not accept tearing it up and rebuilding.
Thngs of worth are worth fighting for regardless of the odds.
by cubstoseriesby100 on Oct 13, 2008 7:23 PM CDT 0 recs
I am not sure what we missed out on with Hendry?
Excellent at identifying MLB arms. Poor at development. Over pay for past performance. Extreme loyalty and an ability to sell a losing franchise to some quality players.
I’d agree with with one of the observations in DML’s post at the beginning of this thread and that is the lack of flexibility we now have from these contracts. If Hendry wants to do something big this year then tis off-season is a huge test for him to pull something off.
IMO, the Cubs had a superior team in 2003, due to the SPs. Since then we’ve spent a lot of time and money being loyal to Dusty and gambling that some guys would return to that magic form.
There are other faults to overcome besides the budget ceiling. However, I think he’s capable of fielding winning teams consistently and that’s what we are seeing.
by DudeVf11 on Oct 13, 2008 11:24 PM CDT 0 recs
The Cub's better win...
…pretty quickly, or they will be in a position of having overpaid talent that will not be able to be dealt without eating lots and lots of money.
This is what happens when your farm goes 12+ years only producing one position player and you have to go shopping every offseason.
Again, I think Hendry has made some good recent hires that could improve the outlook, but the clock is ticking and you better hope both Zell and the new owner are willing to SPEND.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
by MPH73 on
Oct 13, 2008 11:40 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I think we agree.
I have bashed Hendry plenty in past seasons but what’s done is done. Other than turning over the SPs to Dusty, his biggest failing “on the field” is the abysmal farm system for position players. If we have to go to the FA market all the time for every day players to start then it’s going to be pretty tough to avoid dog contracts and players who suddenly are getting older and less productive.
All of us I think see the Cubs as close again in 2009, so am trying not look past 2009, but if we don’t make some major changes soon the future could be tough. I think Hendry is loyal to the nucleus of this club that he has built.
by DudeVf11 on
Oct 13, 2008 11:51 PM CDT
up
0 recs


















