DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bleacher Bums Forum
HTML https://bbf.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Archives
*****************************************************
#Post#: 31725--------------------------------------------------
Re: Next GM for the Cubs
DIR By: Ron
Date: September 6, 2011, 12:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: CurtOne link ---
>
> Don't recall claiming infallibility. Just passed on something
I saw elsewhere by a poster who has credibility on another
board. I'm really really really sorry I did it. I won't let it
happen again.
>
--- End Quote ---
Curt - Just to be clear, I didn't mean to taunt you - just the
person came up with this silly conclusion.
#Post#: 31726--------------------------------------------------
Re: Next GM for the Cubs
DIR By: craig
Date: September 6, 2011, 12:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Arguello thing is explicitly speculative. He doesn't claim
he's got dope that it's true.
Beane would be an interesting sign. I wonder. His "Moneyball"
stuff used to make him such a talked about guy back a decade
ago. I always wondered.
He certainly seemed intelligent, and that doesn't go away. At
the same time, there are a lot of intelligent guys around.
Being more smart than Hendry might be possible for a lot of
guys.
But I also got the sense that he was not necessarily the
smoothest people guy, perhaps some arrogance there. He might be
a radical change from Hendry. Hendry always gave his players a
ton of support and latitude, Prior is about the only guy who
didn't love him. And Hendry likewise gave his managers complete
latitude, once he hired them he let them do whatever they
wanted. Beane had the reputation for being much less permissive
with his managers. I assume some of that might carry over to
other executives. For whatever reason, I always got the
impression that Beane might not be the most enjoyable guy to
work under.
I mention that in part because Ricketts strikes me more on the
get-along nice-guy side, more up Hendry's alley. I wonder if
he'd like to work with somebody like Beane? Or if soon enough
Beane would be acting like he's the know-it-all and that
Ricketts is dumb, and Ricketts might not like it? Of course, it
could be that have a know-it-all in charge who notices and
doesn't tolerate dumb stuff underneath him might be a welcome
change for the organization.
Could also be a situation where Ricketts was one of the guys who
a decade ago got swept up in the Moneyball, Beane-is-genius
mania, and wished his favorite team could have somebody smart
like that, and now he's got a chance to make that wish come
true.
I admit I always wondered about whether Beane really was
especially good? I thought some of his thinking was
intelligent. 1. WE've got a limited scouting and procurement
budget, we don't have enough scouts to do a good job on
everybody or enough money to overslot as HS picks require. So
we may as well focus our scouting on guys we can sign and given
our small staff scout well on some guys (college) than scout
badly on everybody (once HS pool added.) 2. I also thought his
process of trading pitchers early (Mulder, Hudson) before they
got free-agency dollars and before their arms went bad, made a
lot of sense. 3. And of course I liked some statistical
analysis, rather than "We liked Burnitz because he hit well with
runners in scoring position last year..." stuff, even though it
was a fluke stat and had no long-term substance. 4. Of course
I liked his appreciation of OBP and walks and encouraging young
players along those lines.
But I admit I always wondered whether all the Moneyball stuff
really produced success, or if it was coincidence. Beane had
some really good teams. But why?
*Jason Giambi, Eric Chavez, Miguel Tejada. Giambi and Chavez
were both high draft picks, and Tejada was a Latin who worked
out. Chavez was a HS pick, not one of Beane's college pick; and
Tejada never walked much, contrary to Beane's values. So 2/3 of
his cornerstones were in some sense anti-Beane type guys.
*Mulder, Hudson, and Zito. Mulder and Zito were very high
picks, nothing cheap or "finding market inefficiencies" to draft
talent in the top ten. Those two weren't genius selections,
they weren't "inefficiencies" steals, they were just standard
market-dollar draft choices who happened to stay healthy for 4-5
years before their arms went out. He had plenty of other high
draft picks that didn't work out, so it's not as if his staff
illustrated some extraordinary vision for talent scouting. For
all I know, he just got randomly lucky.
Hendry hit on Lee and Aram, ten years ago, doesn't mean he's a
good GM now. Himes hit on Ventura and Frank thomas in the 80's,
didn't mean he was good GM for Cubs in the 90's. That Beane had
some hits in the 90's wouldn't ensure that he'd be a good GM for
the Cubs now. He might, but it's hard to know.
Hendry hit on Lee and Aram, and rode them to some good teams and
a long run as GM. But it didn't mean he'd be able to keep
making good choices. Larry Himes hit on Frank Thomas and Robin
Ventura, and Jack McDowell. Beane's former Mulder/Giambi/Zito
hits wouldn't guarantee the same for us.
#Post#: 31727--------------------------------------------------
Re: Next GM for the Cubs
DIR By: Jes Beard
Date: September 6, 2011, 12:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: craig link ---
>
>
> But I also got the sense that he was not necessarily the
smoothest people guy.... He might be a radical change from
Hendry. Hendry always gave his players a ton of support and
latitude, Prior is about the only guy who didn't love him....
For whatever reason, I always got the impression that Beane
might not be the most enjoyable guy to work under.
>
--- End Quote ---
Those qualities might well help the country club Cubs.
#Post#: 31729--------------------------------------------------
Re: Next GM for the Cubs
DIR By: Jes Beard
Date: September 6, 2011, 12:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: craig link ---
>
> Hendry hit on Lee and Aram, and rode them to some good teams
and a long run as GM. But it didn't mean he'd be able to keep
making good choices. Larry Himes hit on Frank Thomas and Robin
Ventura, and Jack McDowell. Beane's former Mulder/Giambi/Zito
hits wouldn't guarantee the same for us.
>
--- End Quote ---
ARam helped the Cubs in 2003. Lee, not so much. Both were
still around and productive in 2007 and 2008, but those years
did not show Hendry's strength so much as they actually showed
his weakness. The Cubs won in 2007 and 2008 because ownership
said spend whatever it takes. If there had been no ARam or Lee
on the roster, but the order was the same, Hendry (or any
remotely competent GM) could presumably have done the same and
bought a couple of pennants in a weak division. But as a GM
with an open checkbook, Hendry was only able to buy pennants in
2007 and 2008 by locking the team into so many ugly contracts
that it left the Cubs where they are now.
So I would have to argue with the idea that Hendry got lucky
with the ARam and Lee deals in 2003 and then rode them for
several years. Regardless how good either of them did, there
was not much "ride" in 2004, or 2005 or 2006.
#Post#: 31730--------------------------------------------------
Re: Next GM for the Cubs
DIR By: CurtOne
Date: September 6, 2011, 12:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: shasson link ---
>
> Curt One, just in general, I see you as the Pope of BBF.
>
--- End Quote ---
You are definitely going to get me kicked out of the Lutheran
church.
#Post#: 31733--------------------------------------------------
Re: Next GM for the Cubs
DIR By: craig
Date: September 6, 2011, 1:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Jes, I think Lee and Aram were the core of the team for a lot of
years. The 3+4 hitters, and very good ones for most of their
years with the Cubs. Without those two critical trades, I don't
think the Cubs would have won nearly as many games as they did.
Without those two trades, I don't think Hendry would have lasted
nearly this many years. IMO.
Regardless, my point is that sometimes guys make a couple of
good moves. Those two moves that Hendry made in 2003 were
incredibly good and successful. But in retrospect we see that
they were kind of random, not a proof that Hendry could make
consistently good moves year after year after year. He must
have made some good moves since, but when his best moves have
been Lilly, DeRosa, and maybe Reed Johnson, it's not like he's
strung together a long list of effective moves. But a guy can
survive for a pretty long time when you build an effective
middle-of-the-lineup with moves like Aram and Lee.
#Post#: 31739--------------------------------------------------
Re: Next GM for the Cubs
DIR By: Jes Beard
Date: September 6, 2011, 1:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: craig link ---
>
> Jes, I think Lee and Aram were the core of the team for a lot
of years.
>
--- End Quote ---
They were. And for most of those years, the Cub teams were
pretty crappy. Lee was not around in 2003, other than to help
beat the Cubs in the playoffs, and ARam was only around for the
last couple months of 2003. I will admit, however, that they
were both around during the dynamic, memorable seasons of 2004,
2005, 2006, 2009 and 2010. Key parts of those teams.
The Cubs won in 2007 and 2008 because Hendry was given an open
checkbook. It was not because of ARam and Lee. Had they not
been on the Cubs, and Hendry had an open checkbook, presumably
he could have won then, too.
I really don't consider myself in the Hendry bashing camp, but
the reality is that very little he did which anyone would
consider positive was a result of anything other than deep
pockets for the Cubs. The ARam and Lee deals were both a result
of the Cubs being able to absorb salary. And 2007 and 2008 were
the result of a wild spending spree. But given a nice budget
advantage during most of his tenure, Hendry was able to do
little with it, and nothing which was not a direct result of
budget advantage, and even then he spent the money in a way
which tied the teams hands in 2009 and 2010 and left us in a
deep hole in 2011 and beyond.
Nice guy. Tried hard. But really did not do well.
#Post#: 31744--------------------------------------------------
Re: Next GM for the Cubs
DIR By: Ron
Date: September 6, 2011, 1:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm thinking the Cubs being way out of contention, this not
being a draft or trade period, and things so up in the air may
possibly lead to a bit of over-thinking (not to mention
over-speculating). Maybe.
#Post#: 31845--------------------------------------------------
Re: Next GM for the Cubs
DIR By: Cactus
Date: September 7, 2011, 12:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Barry Rozner reports that Phillies Assistant GM Chuck LaMar has
abruptly resigned.
#Post#: 31846--------------------------------------------------
Re: Next GM for the Cubs
DIR By: Deeg
Date: September 7, 2011, 12:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hmm. That is odd and interesting, I have to admit. He
certainly isn't my first (or second, or third) choice.
*****************************************************
Page 16 of 159
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page