http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/4417

You want to justify it by letting him make poor moves??

at least he can’t screw this franchise up any further

My theory is, keep him with the team and move him somewhere like scouting (not a suggestion, just throwing a placement out there). That way, nobody has to necessarily eat his contract.

I find it funny that there were very few to no complaints about the job Hendry did until last year.

That’s just not true.

Hendry does not get enough credit for his successes, but there were plenty of moves (and non-moves) that looked bad at the time and proved to be just that. The Pierre deal and Z extension were two such moves (while admitting that some certainly supported those moves).

Even some of the “successes” come with flip sides. Take Jason Marquis. This deal was blasted at the time, but Marquis turned out to be a very solid 5th starter. So was this deal a “success”? Given the cost of the contract, I would still argue no… it just turned out to be not as bad as we thought. At his peak, Marquis was a solid 5th starter or even a fringe 4th starter. But at $9M? Isn’t that money better spent somewhere else while getting similar production from someone much cheaper?

All that said, Hendry’s biggest failing BY FAR is buckling to his manager. He always has gone out and gotten “Dusty guys” or whatever Lou wanted (get more left-handed… obsess over a LOOGY, etc.). And if Hendry really agreed with all of those moves… well, that’s all the more reason he should go.

I was working on a measured and thoughtful response to BD when the Interwebz gremlins took it away. Aargh! So I’ll do my best to sum up the points I was trying to make:

1) I would like to see Jim Hendry return to the minor league system where I think his strengths are best suited. He’s a guy who gets fully behind his players, and he has an understanding of just how hard it is to play baseball let alone make it all the way to the top. Plus, his inclinations to seek and acquire all-around guys with tools isn’t necessarily a bad thing at the level of combing the country for diamonds in the rough.

2) Jim has something of the cheerleader in him, and I don’t mean that in a negative way. It seems to me you’d want a guy who’s enthusiastic and who sees the upside of players working within the organization. Much about the Cubs sells itself to players (unless you’re Torii Hunter), and Hendry does a good job embodying that good will. He welcomes input and does his best to please those he works with. The man is likeable.

3) It’s the way Hendry goes about planning as a GM that really makes me shakes my head. I’ll cite Aaron Heilman as an example of how Jim can steadfastly lock his sights on a player, even if the guy’s numbers don’t bear out the unwavering interest. It also backfired when Rafael Furcal changed his mind and went to LA, and when the Jake Peavy deal didn’t come through. There weren’t any good fallback options after those players didn’t become Cubs, and in the case of Peavy the Cubs were stuck with the spare parts that the DeRosa deal brought.

3A) It was also during the 2005-2006 offseason that Hendry declared, “I’ve decided I like guys who can catch the ball”. While all GMs should value good defense, the issue with this statement was it implied that Hendry wasn’t working off a solid organizational philosophy. Couple that statement with his proclivity for roster construction based on the whims of the field manager, and you get an idea of why I think he’s not the best at planning beyond a year or two.

4) The contracts. The long, bloated, comes-with-a-no-trade-clause contracts. Now, BD is right when he says Hendry was under orders to spend, but to me he could have spent a little more wisely and a tad less generously.

5) I’m revoking my criticism of Hendry that he mismatches managers with the level of talent. Baker and Piniella are at their best when they’re handed a foolproof team bulging with talent that they can manage with the push of a button. I used to complain that the Cubs never had rosters like that, and therefore needed a LaRussa or Cox known for doing more with less. I used to think, “Why did Hendry pair mediocre rosters with managers that need powerhouses?” But now I understand that, in Hendry’s eyes, the talent on the Cubs was “powerhouse” level that underachieved because of bad breaks.

One final thing I’ll agree with BD on is that I prefer there being other paths of discussion than just the narrow ones that tend to take over the discourse.

would be hiring Sandberg.

To me, that would signal A) don’t bother being competitive for quite a while and B) that marketing and kowtowing to fans is more important than winning.

I’m reserving judgment on him until I see who is the next manager.

disturbing.