Rick Morrissey with the Tribune says that Cubs fans need to give Jim Hendry a break and look at his whole body of work instead of just the less than stellar results in 2009:
The consensus seems to be that Hendry might want to consider a new line of work and that porta-potty cleaner matches his skill set.
To take that tack means two things: A) last season’s 97-victory effort meant zilch and B) the first back-to-back postseason appearances since 1908 didn’t count for anything either.
That’s unfair.
Hendry deserves one more year to fix this mess, a mess for which he, more than anyone else in the organization, is responsible. I understand it’s hard to make an argument for his retention when forced to write the following sentence: Jim Hendry is the man who signed Milton Bradley and Alfonso Soriano. It’s like saying, “If it weren’t for my tin ear and awful voice, I’d be Stevie Wonder.”
While the arguments raged over whether Soriano was a leadoff hitter (answer: no), Soriano was intent on proving he wasn’t a left fielder either. Bradley proved to be a poison who at the outset presented himself in sugary lozenge form. Hendry fell for the packaging. So did I.
But his instincts were correct. The Cubs did need somebody else to get them over the hump after the Dodgers swept them in the 2008 playoffs. The club had a long history of soft, fan-friendly teams that never went anywhere. What was wrong with rolling the dice on a little nastiness?
Well, now we know. Meltdown Bradley proved over and over again this season that he is toxic. Baseball, by nature, seemed to be immune to that kind of poison. I’ve long held baseball is an individual sport in a team sport’s clothing. Bradley is proof the theory is dead wrong.
In a strange, unintended way, he was the final confirmation that the Cubs lacked leadership in the clubhouse. There was nobody on the team to tell him, in no uncertain terms, and show him, in no uncertain body language, that he was out of line.
That’s on Hendry too.
But there’s a body of work to consider here, not just the butt-ugly side. Keeping Hendry would demonstrate that pulling off the trades that brought Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez to the Cubs had substance. Keeping him would demonstrate the Ryan Dempster and Ted Lilly signings meant something.
Keeping Hendry would demonstrate there’s another approach besides the knee-jerk one. And it would say the window of opportunity is still open a crack for the guy who created the window.
I don’t know it is unfair at all. Sure Hendry put together last year’s 97-win team, and in 2003 he may have had the best year of any MLB general manager. But at the same time, he almost systematically dismantled last year’s 97-win team, and quite literally every move he made this season has been wrong.
Going into 2009, it was just a fact that this Cubs team would be a step down from last year, but would probably be good enough to get back to the post-season again, and the balance in the lineup would be enough to get them further into October… that was clearly Hendry’s logic, and it was very clearly wrong. Everything had to move like clockwork, and when Soriano, Bradley and Soto all had terrible seasons and Ramirez was hurt for 1/3 of the season. That’s a lot to deal with in one season, but at the end of the day they suddenly went from being just good enough to get to the playoffs to struggling to score runs for days on end.
That’s all on Hendry, and it’s tough to excuse it… it wasn’t brought about by budget issues or even the ownership situation… he just made bonehead moves.
Of course the Cubs could always keep Hendry around for 2010, then fire him and promote Lou to GM and Ryne Sandberg to manager. Howse that for a baseless rumor?
My predictions almost always end up being wrong, so it hardly seems worth making them. But here we go:
