Jim Hendry Close to Extension with Cubs
The sale of the Cubs is still up in the air, delayed due to the economic crisis and Joe the Plumber trying to figure out what net income means. That isn't stopping the Cubs from doing business though. They already extended Piniella before the playoffs started and it looks like Jim Hendry might get three more years or at least three more years worth of paychecks from the Chicago Cubs.
Kenney has previously said only that he would put his recommendation of
a Hendry extension "on a tee'' for new ownership. But sources indicate
that position has changed, possibly because the worldwide financial
crisis may have devalued the franchise while making it highly unlikely
the team will be under new ownership before the start of the 2009
One source indicated that a three-year extension is being discussed and could be completed soon.
Nothing is official yet, but the link above goes on to say the Mariners, the only team searching for a GM this offseason, asked the Cubs for permission to speak to Hendry about their vacancy and were turned down. Hendry had a an option he could exercise for 2009, but was a little weary of being a lame-duck GM with the pending ownership change.
The Cubs being in a state of prosperity on the field and I'm sure on the accounting books, probably couldn't be happier with Hendry right now, thus the extension.
I know Hendry has his enemies around here, I mean 2005 and 2006 were bloody awful, but I'm all for the extension. He didn't hit every ball out of the park the last two years, but
under his watch and with the people that he's surrounded himself with, he's responsible for the best Cubs team most of us have ever seen
and the best team in the NL in 2008...at least on paper. And while that seems like a hollow achievement, it's actually the one every GM should strive to accomplish - to put together the best team out there year after year and make the playoffs. As the playoffs taught us all this year, anyone can win or lose a 5-game series, no matter the tremendous difference in talent, so just get there and hope the cards flip the right way for you. The Cubs are now in that position and a large part of that is due to who Jim Hendry has traded for, signed, listened to and hired.
Here are some possible corresponding minor league moves we might see in the aftermath of the Chapman trade:
SOUTH BEND to MYRTLE BEACH: OF Donnie Dewees and INF Bryant Flete
EUGENE to SOUTH BEND: OF Robert Garcia and INF Vimael Machin
There is really no reason to replace Billy McKinney at Tennessee because both Chris Coghlan and Jorge Soler are doing their rehab at Tennessee.
And there are plenty of pitchers at Iowa. No need to replace Warren at AAA. .
I am 70 years old. The Cubs last played in the World Series in 1945. I was born in 1946. I hate to lose a prospect like Torres, but when the opportunity is there to get that World Series ring, you go for it. This was the idea in stock piling all this young talent. I would like to see Reddick added now and the Cubbies should be done.
I would expect Richard to accept an optional assignment because based on how he's played this season, there is a decent chance that he won't find work elsewhere. Rather stay and potentially get a ring. Same goes for Coghlan since he's struggled mightily this year.
Edwards should not go down. He's pitched very well and Maddon is very impressed with him. I would expect Grimm to go down for Cahill so he can get back on track (he's pitched better in July, but he's not getting enough appearances).
chitownmvp01: Indeed Clayton Richard would seem to be odd man out once Chapman reports, but Richard might accept a minor league assignment if he is promised a return to Chicago on 9/1 when MLB Active List rosters expand (Richard has minor league ioptions left).
The only player in the deal that would cause me a second thought is Gleyber Torres.
McKinney and Crawford are decent prospects but both are redundant/replaceable in the system and Warren was really only a middle-reliever or #6 starter, so to me it's really just Torres for Chapman.
There is no Comp pick for players traded mid-season. 2+ months of Chapman is it.
to get one of the best you have to give up one/some of your best...but it's a bit painful to watch the system's best prospect walk for any 2-3 month rental, especially one that's not an everyday player.
I assume Chapman will replace Richard on the roster, but who goes down when Cahill gets activated? Maybe Grimm?
And when Soler and Coghlan get healthy, how do they fit them on the roster when they're ready to be activated?
We are giving up a lot, but it's not like we're trading Addison Russell for 2+ months of Jason Hammel. When impact players become available, they are going to cost you. The other bids could also have been high.
Having Chapman as a rental is potentially less disruptive than having him come in with an extension in place.
Billy McKinney had season-ending knee surgery last August and came to Minor League Camp this year somewhat restricted. (He was used mostly as a DH in Cactus League Minor League Camp games), and I'm not sure he's 100% right now (he's repeating AA, and his XBH numbers are way down, like he's not getting good rotation in his lowev half). That might have been part of the reason why the trade wasn't completed right away.
Rashad Crawford was a basketball star in HS (he was known as "Baby Jordan", and baseball was only his second sport) and he has plus-speed and athleticism, so when the Cubs drafted him (Keith Lockhart was the scout) he was seen as a long-term project.
I was at Fitch Park the day that Rashad Crawford became a LH hitter, He waa never a switch-hitter, He went directly from being a RH hitter to a LH hitter, which I had never seen before.
I'm with Rob G and Johann here. It's not about Chapman as a pitcher. I just don't want to have to block out a real problem (the domestic violence) in order to try to enjoy the frivolous ball and stick game.
ROB G & BOB R: You're right. The QO can only be extended if the player spends the entire previous season with one club, so only the Yankees could have offered one to Chapman (if he wasn't traded). If an Article XX-B FA is traded during the season, the new club can't offer a QO. .
i was going off what AZPhil said above...they keep talking about tweaking the rules, i didn't know if that had been changed or not. my winter/spring was way too hectic aside from a couple weeks vacation in janurary and i missed a lot of stuff.
if not, this is one hell of an expensive trade for what looks to be 30-40 innings of play...including the playoffs. damn.
Did the QO rules change?
unless there's a TARDIS involved, I dont believe that's a possibility
I didn't think you could offer a QO to a player who was traded during the season? For example, Lester was not offered a QO when the Cubs signed him.