A Call for Hendry to be tasered and waterboarded

hendry builds a team that’s the worst in the division, and then the next year, builds a team that’s the best, BUT THAT’S NOT A SUCCESS, OH, NO!

If you are the 4th best team in a 4 team tournament, your odds are not good.

I don’t think the Cubs have had the best overall talent in the NL in Hendry’s tenure except perhaps 2004 assuming a healthy Wood and Prior. Aside from that, they have been taking the crapshoot approach with predictable results.

I just don’t think Hendry is the guy “to get the Cubs to the next level” as someone in this town once said. Thats all.

But do you honestly think that my statement of “they don’t look like they’ll be in the top of the NL” is premature? They don’t LOOK like it to me. Does a 12-13 record against the schedule they’ve played really look like a team that will have a better record than the other 15? I didn’t say that they CAN’T, but they sure don’t have the look of a team that WILL.

wicubfan’s comment about the talent level of teams is indeed correct.

The best team doesn’t always win a short series, but the best team always has the better CHANCE to win a short series.

Expounding on it, while I still don’t entirely agree, made your argument more reasonable.

His job is to get them a team capable of doing so. The players have to execute. A GM isn’t the Almighty with the power to decree that thou shalt not strike out with a runner on third. At some point, it’s the player’s responsibility.

IMO, Hendry should be on the hook because he hasn’t assembled a good enough team to have a reasonable chance with consistency.

2003 wasn’t a great team – it was a solid team that had one hell of a run for 6 weeks. 2004 was a bunch of whiny brats that under-achieved (I don’t give a damn that they won one more game than 2003 or battled injuries – it was there for the taking at the end and they didn’t get it done).

2005 and 2006 looked bad going in, and while I hope they win in 2010, I had low expectations from the outset.

Again, by not expounding on your argument, you’re really weakening it. Essentially, you’re saying if they made the playoffs every year, with the best record in MLB, then the GM should be fired if they don’t win it all, and extended if they made it once winning 82 games but somehow squeaked through. No offense intended, but that’s nonsense. If they had a team that finished 1st every year with 90+ wins and didn’t get it done, that’s on the players.

But they don’t – and THAT’S why Hendry should be on the hook IMO. He has gotten little out of the resources available to him.

I agree that it’s silly to point to getting to the playoffs 3 times as success, but not for the same reasons as you. Payroll, watered down requirements for getting in compared to decades past are why.

Al remembers more of the lean years than I do, so maybe that’s why he’s more forgiving than I am and willing to say a winning record in 6 of 10 years is acceptable. I say it’s encouraging, but it’s not enough. The game and its economics have changed, and the Cubs SHOULD compete to be the best team in the NL most seasons. Other than 2008, they haven’t.

Torre has four, Francona has two, LaRussa has two (although by your logic, i assume those won for other teams don’t count), Bobby Cox has one, Girardi has one, Charlie Manuel has one… i’m certain i’m missing a few, but by your logic, all the rest of the current MLB managers haven’t exhibited “success”, right? Should they be shown the door, just as you advocate for Hendry?

But let me know when they start giving Stanley Cups based on shots on goal

You guys are bending over backwards to defend a really bad analogy.

My answer is yes, occasionally. That was not meant to address the usefulness of the shots on goal stat.

The correlation between shots on goal and wins is probably stronger than the correlation between playoff appearances and world series wins. 16 teams make the playoffs every year, and 1 wins. However, we can all agree that you can’t have the world series wins without playoff appearances. Yet wicubfan (wi indeed?) places no value on playoff appearances. Common sense would dictate that playoff appearances are a necessary prerequisite, a step in the right direction, but they just seem to torque him off.

I also think that everyone arguing on this thread would agree that we want an owner and management that is focused on building a team to win it all, not to win the National League Central. That said, even well-constructed teams need to get hot at the right time, because baseball does not lend itself strictly to buying championships and guaranteed wins.

my mistake.

Sure, we’ll all stop whining when the Cubs stop losing series to teams like the Nationals.

They should be ashamed. Hendry should be ashamed. If he were any bit a man, he would apologize to his boss and the fans and bow out. He is a disgrace.

how the income for the Cubs organization is spent. “We” are spending money on seats and hot dogs. Once it’s given to the Cubs, it is, in fact, THEIR money.

I would rather out situation of “we” than other teams where the money spent DOES NOT go towards the team, as they keep payroll at a minimum. I say stick with Hendry and the devil we klnow instead of making changes for the sake of it

I rarely goto games…

were also fewer teams…

tell you what. You go back to cherrypicking, and I’ll simply exit the conversation, because clearly, the only facts you want to acknowledge and the ones you think support your argument.

As long as we are in the division with the Cardinals how are we the big fish? Phillies, Mets, do their payrolls mean nothing?

Thanks, D98.