Aramis: Not Hendry's Fault

"It's not his fault," Ramirez said of Hendry's decision to sign Bradley. "Milton put up great numbers last year. It didn't work out. (Hendry's) the same guy who put back-to-back (division) championship teams together.

"We went to the playoffs in '07, last year and this year we were in the race even though we didn't have the production we're supposed to have from a lot of players. I don't think its Jim Hendry's fault. If the guys in here would've done their job, and I didn't go down, we would've been in better position."

over 2 years ago DGU 32 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Well...

… I agree with Aramis that his injury was a significant factor, and others (I presume he was referring to Soriano and Soto) had done their jobs, the Cubs would have been in better position.

However, it IS Hendry’s fault that he had no backup plans for such events.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al Yellon on Oct 7, 2009 6:28 PM CDT reply actions

I still blame him for Bradley

The guy had a career year at 31 and was unlikely to put up the same numbers. He, along with a lot of other people, were fooling themselves into thinking he put up great numbers like he did in Texas every year. Not to mention he’s an idiot. Everything else however, was not his fault.

"That pitch wasn’t down and in, that pitch was down and up." Tim McCarver

by wrigleyrocker12 on Oct 7, 2009 6:34 PM CDT up reply actions

but..but.. the media!

Geovany Soto is the new 2008 Derrek Lee

by jesus christos on Oct 7, 2009 6:38 PM CDT up reply actions

Yeah, but the thing is...

…Bradley didn’t need to put up the same numbers he did in Texas. I mean, geez, he gave the Rangers a .999 OPS in 509 PAs. That’s insane production.

But lop even 100 points off that and you’ve still got an .899 OPS – a great result and a fairly reasonable expectation. And, sure enough, ZiPs had him projected to give the Cubs a .907 OPS. There was plenty of solid data supporting the signing of Milton Bradley. The downsides were: 1) his health, and 2) his attitude. Obviously, the latter came back to bite Hendry in the ass.

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by daver on Oct 8, 2009 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions

Was a .907 OPS prediction reasonable?

Bradley came into 2009 with a .827 OPS. Should it have been expected for him to top that by as much as 80 points?

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al Yellon on Oct 8, 2009 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions

A sabermagician could probably better answer that.

I’m guessing based on his age and hitting at Wrigley field that it must have been at least approaching reasonable. I believe ZiPS is a pretty well-respected projection system.

I mean, even a .850 OPS with some decent power and good defense would’ve put Milton in pretty good standing. I guess my point is I don’t think Hendry was expecting Bradley to be exactly as good as he was in Texas but that, even if he dropped off a little, he’d still be a better, younger “total player” than some of the other options. This is, of course, disregarding Bradley’s personality issues, which Jimbo clearly and drastically underestimated.

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by daver on Oct 8, 2009 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions

I think the key with Bradley is to remember that the median prediction is a median prediction.

Other players are more likely to stick closer to their medians, but Bradley can run a .200 OPS pt spread because he is easily injured and doesn’t play nearly as well when injured.

I still contend that the biggest mistake Hendry made with Bradley was the games played clause. I think Hendry should have given him a guaranteed contract (for less money), should have announced at the press conference that it will be a challenge for Bradley to play everyday in the field and that the Cubs expect him to take regular days off, and even a few weeks here and there, but that he’s worth it. I believe that tactic would have set a better tone and relaxed the expectations all the way around.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 8, 2009 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions

Yes, that's about right

You usually weigh a players most recent seasons more heavily, and Bradley was coming off of two really good years.

by vivaelpujols on Oct 8, 2009 8:09 PM CDT up reply actions

Sabermagician confirmation - thanks!

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by daver on Oct 9, 2009 8:17 AM CDT up reply actions

I'm blushing!

by vivaelpujols on Oct 9, 2009 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions

Agreed

I’m not gonna blame Hendry for Soriano and Soto’s failures, which I think were the two biggest factors in this team’s failures. However, it was his final call to give Fontenot a full time job, which really bit the cubs hard. And almost the whole bench the team had opening day proved to be pretty bad. Plus his poor bullpen additions.

Anyway, Aramis is a classy guy. Can’t say I’d expect him to throw his boss under the bus regardless.

by shoemile on Oct 7, 2009 9:03 PM CDT up reply actions

Nope

Aramis has now defended Hendry at least twice in interviews. You don’t get to wave away his ongoing statements as him being polite.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 8, 2009 7:54 AM CDT up reply actions

Isn't this the same interview?

I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson

by Shanghai Badger on Oct 8, 2009 9:50 AM CDT up reply actions

I thought it was different.

I could be confused. The quotes seemed different and I thought I was reading a week older article.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 8, 2009 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions

What is it we're expecting him to say?

The GM sucked? People put too much stock into these kind of quotes. Even with Bradley, no players came forward to call out the boss for suspending him and everyone claimed this meant the team hated the guy. Is that true? Possibly. But I don’t take the things players like D-Lee or Aram say all too seriously because they’re not the type of guys interested in stirring up controversy.

by shoemile on Oct 8, 2009 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions

It's Aramis Ramirez.

He doesn’t have to say anything, like usual. Aramis wanted to stand up and defend Jim Hendry.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 8, 2009 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions

I suppose

We don’t know the exact question either, whether it was leading or not. I guess I just don’t feel like there’s much to be gleaned from a quote like this, good or bad.

by shoemile on Oct 8, 2009 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions

I only blame Hendry for one thing

It’s inexcusable not to have a qualified backup 3rd baseman. Just like my wild tee shot finds the only tree on the course, the injury bug always bites where you’re most vulnerable.

I think it was worth a gamble on Bradley. If (and I know it’s a big if) he had hit like he did in 2008, Hendry would have been a genius. Since he didn’t, Hendry becomes an idiot. Everyone that knows Bradley says he can be very personable when he wants to be. I think Bradley probably did an incredible sales job when he met with Hendry last winter. Maybe Hendry was naive to believe him, but he still hits more than he misses. He’s probably a lot better with trades than free agents, though.

by CubbieFaninOhio on Oct 7, 2009 7:26 PM CDT reply actions

how about not having a lefty in the pen

aside from neal freakin’ cotts? that was a pretty boneheaded move. grabow has been a fine addition and i hope he stays on.

by nathew on Oct 8, 2009 9:42 AM CDT up reply actions

Doesn't change my mind that Hendry whiffed on all of his swings

this year, Baker excepted.

It does drive home the thought that Aramis has matured since his Pittsburgh days and must like it in Chicago.

if this was still new to me, i wouldn't understand

by N Oakley on Oct 8, 2009 8:13 AM CDT reply actions

What about Gorzelanny and Grabow?

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by daver on Oct 8, 2009 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions

I'm with Aramis on this one.

BTW-Any word on Aramis’ shoulder? Does he need surgery or not? I’m a litte concerned that if doesn’t do it now, he’ll go home, come back to ST and find out in March that he does need it after all and be out for most of the season. Tell me I’m just being a fusspot.

"Fasten those seatbelts"-Pat Hughes

by katie casey on Oct 8, 2009 8:33 AM CDT reply actions

In a year where it took months to realize that Soriano needed surgery...

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 8, 2009 8:37 AM CDT up reply actions

that's not what I wanted to hear

"Fasten those seatbelts"-Pat Hughes

by katie casey on Oct 8, 2009 8:40 AM CDT up reply actions

I don't mean I know something

I just mean it’s hard to have confidence in the Cubs’ medical decision making process without explanations of where the decision was made to have Soriano play injured.

And the irony is that all the Cubs decisions that were made affecting the 2009 season, this one, more than any other one, affected our chances of winning, and it is the one least villified or questioned.

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 8, 2009 8:46 AM CDT up reply actions

The two situations are not comparable.

I think it was explained here several times that Soriano’s injury was of a type that made him feel OK to play, only to have it bother him after he got into games.

With Ramirez, it was known exactly what he had, and how long it would take to heal.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al Yellon on Oct 8, 2009 8:47 AM CDT up reply actions

If I'm a fusspot about Aramis' injury, I'm a curmudgeon when it comes to Soriano's.

I hate to say it, but I’m a bit cynical of the whole thing. Not that it’s been made it up as an excuse, but I do think it may have been blown out of proportion a bit so he could save face. I’d rather believe the medical decison making wasn’t that bad.

"Fasten those seatbelts"-Pat Hughes

by katie casey on Oct 8, 2009 9:26 AM CDT up reply actions

Yes, they're different situations

but it’s the same training staff and chain of command.

So, if Soriano was feeling bad after getting into games, why did it take so many games to figure this was a problem?

Inspector #23 certifies that the above post is sarcasm free, most certainly not what she said, and chock full of intangibles, although regressing to the intangible mean, as you'd expect.

by DGU on Oct 8, 2009 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions