Bleacher Bums Forum

From the Scotti/Hendry/Rosenthal article . . .
 
Shortstop Starlin Castro, second baseman Darwin Barney and right-hander Andrew Cashner are the vanguard of a wave of young talent that should leave the Cubs positioned to contend for the next several years.
 
I hate saying it, but you're talking about two guys in Castro (patience, fielding, possibly power) and Cashner (lack of proven durability and innings, hasn't shown consistency) who are pretty flawed players and may not ever totally overcome all of them.  And whether you love Barney or still worry if he's a little bit of a fluke, you have to at least admit his ceiling no higher than a role player that you'll be looking to move once he starts becoming expensive.  Basically Barney is Jeff Keppinger or Mark Grudzielanek right now, and while the farm needs to produce players of that caliber, those are not cornerstone type players either. 
 
If two relatively flawed players and a role player make up the "vanguard" of the Cubs farm system talent, while I still like Castro and Cashner's potential, I'm not sure it's making for a convincing argument for keeping Hendry either.
 
As far as there being a wave of young talent on the horizon, about the only two true impact guys we have on the farm right now for the near term are Brett Jackson and Trey McNutt, and it's still questionable what kinds of ceilings those two have.  We may not be talking about two future perennial all-stars there either. 
 
We have fairly respectable farm system production, but this isn't a Kansas City or Tampa circa 2008 wave that's going on here.  Right now at least in 2011, the farm system certainly isn't saving Jim Hendry, and it hasn't done enough to make up for all of the old expensive players that are dragging down the roster.

I'd like to keep wilkin.  Not sure that hiring a new GM would necessitate junking Wilken or the commitment to drafting, scouting, and international procurement.

The notion that this farm system is a bonanza about to produce a glorious age is ludicrous.  Before the Garza trade, it was above-average.  Now, it's probably charitable to call it an average system, especially in terms of impact players.  It still has a decent quantity of guys who have the potential to make MLB rosters.  It has very few that have a chance to be All-stars.  To say that Hendry should keep his job because the team is about to soar on wings of his genius in an incredibly lame argument, even by Rosenthal's standards.  Hendry has failed - he needs to be fired with extreme prejudice.

You could make a case that Wilkin has been good enough to warrant keeping his job, but for me it's borderline.  He's wasted far too many high picks on guys no other scouting director has ever heard of, most of whom has flamed out already.  I think it's difficult to make a case that any of his first-round picks aside from Brett Jackson look really smart in retrospect.  He's done a decent job stocking the system with pitching depth and he's found a few gems on the international market, as it looks today.  He hasn't been terrible but I'd shed no tears if he were jettisoned as part of a complete housecleaning.

Alas, I suspect Ricketts has no intentions of firing Hendry and it wouldn't shock me if he signed him to a new deal after 2012, even if it's another mediocre (or worse) season.  I've seen nothing since Ricketts bought the team that would indicate he has either the inclination, ability, or deep pockets to be a "win at any costs" owner.  He seems to view the Cubs as his personal plaything and to be someone who would overvalue "personal loyalty" such as he sees in Hendry.

"He's wasted far too many high picks on guys no other scouting director has ever heard of, most of whom has flamed out already."

I have lost track.  How many have flamed out already?

Stolen from a friend at another board, regarding the argument to keep Hendry in Rosenthal's article because there's free agents to be signed:

I wonder if Rosenthal is aware of that deal (for Grabow) along with Bradley, Miles and Fukudome when he suggests that the Cubs should resign Hendry because they might have $60 mil to spend in free agency. I'm not a big Rosenthal basher, nor am I a fan, but that line of logic is as convoluted as one can be.

What he intended was that Rosenthal is inferring that the Cubs should WANT Jim Hendry at the controls when we start spending all that free agent money.  He is pointing out that Jimbo Buffet has not had a good track record with free agent spending per $$$ or years for the past three or four years.

In re the comparisons between the Ricketts and the McCaskeys that are starting to appear:  Wouldn't it be nice if the Cubs were some day as good as the Bears, relatively speaking?