Intriguing.

From the press conference, apparently MacPhail offered his resignation in July, and was told it would be accepted a couple weeks later, but he should stay through the season. Then, with all the turmoil at the Tribune Corp., they didn't approach McDonough until a few weeks ago about the interim post.

Sounds like good news for Cubs fans. Now they just need Hendry to go.

They really kept this under wraps. At the press conference, Macphail said some of this stuff was being discussed back in July.

It doesn't make me unhappy, though it's one more offseason distraction that has to be dealt with. Hopefully they get their ducks in a row quickly and don't let it drag out into free agency while they watch other teams sign away guys they might want to keep. Not to mention resolving the Aramis Ramirez situation and deciding what to do about Kerry Wood.

Hendry's not going anywhere, at least not this offseason.

Congrats, Cub fans.

Hendry's not going anywhere, at least not this offseason.

It makes him a bit of a lame duck, however, which may not be the best idea for the Cubs going into this offseason. Or perhaps it will free Hendry to be the GM that he always wanted to be, but felt constrained from really being. Who knows?

It also could make the Cubs managerial job less desirable, if Hendry is now perceived as a lame duck that could put the new manager under a new GM after his first season on the job, who may want to bring in his own guy.

In the long run, I think this is an unambigously good thing. In the short run, however, it could make a mess of an organization even less organized than before.

I find it telling that we saw separate articles from Morissey and Rogers in the past few days criticizing MacPhail after years of nothing but praise from the Trib writers. I wonder if Hendry smashed his boombox too?

Halle ####### llujah!

Hendry's not going anywhere, at least not this offseason.

Which is fine. I see this as a possible long-term victory. The Tribune just might hire someone who will cultivate a culture of accountability.

I assume this was MacPhail's idea, so he can work fulltime for MLB and perhaps be the next commissioner.

So which is more important: getting rid of MacPhail or Hendry?

So which is more important: getting rid of MacPhail or Hendry?

Long-run: McPhail, because he sets the tone for the team under which Hendry ultimately operates.

Short-run: Hendry, because he's the guy that's going to hire the next manager and fill out the roster for next season's team.

Unless it turns out that Hendry was being unduly hampered by pressure from above (McPhail) and/or below (Baker) and he's really a top-5 "true-talent" GM when given free rein - which I think is VERY unlikely - it's a moot question anyway. Hendry was McPhail's boy, and with McPhail gone, I think so is Hendry, at the absolute latest at the end of his current contract (end of 2008 season, right?) and much more likely, after next season.

It makes him a bit of a lame duck, however, which may not be the best idea for the Cubs going into this offseason. Or perhaps it will free Hendry to be the GM that he always wanted to be, but felt constrained from really being. Who knows?

I disagree somewhat. The relationship between a president and a GM isn't quite the same as that between a GM and a manager. I don't believe that bringing in a new president will necessarily make Hendry a lame duck. (He may be one due to his own incompetence, but that's another story.)

If anything, I believe part of the explanation for this is that they don't want to saddle the new president with the immediate task of picking a GM to lead your franchise for the next decade or so. Because the GM should have a longer focus than the manager, the hiring process for GMs should be much different, and I think it's entirely reasonable for a new president to want to hold off until he can get a feel of the dynamics of the organization.

So which is more important: getting rid of MacPhail or Hendry?

MacPhail, unquestionably. The problems with this franchise permeate far deeper than the GMs office. They extend to philosophies about how to run the operation, how to treat the public, how to care for Wrigley Field, how to find new revenue streams, etc.

To the extent they relate to on-field operations, MacPhail and his successor set the tone of how they want the team to function simply by whom they pick as a GM. There is virtually no chance that Andy MacPhail would even interview Paul DePodesta, for instance.

I believe Hendry's days are numbered, but they have been numbered ever since the 2004-05 offseason. Unfortunately, this April the number was pushed up, but the clock is ticking either way, and it has little to do with the fact that a new president is coming in.

OTOH, it is certainly true that if/when Hendry goes, it will be because of problems for which both he and MacPhail (and Dusty) are responsible.

MacPhail took responsibility for the Cubs' failure to field a winner during his tenure.

"It's not just that we had a terrible season," he said. "I've been here 12 years, 12 seasons, and we've had only two postseasons. That's not what I came here to do. Obviously I haven't been as effective as I wanted to be.

"I think it's pretty thin soup for a franchise that's had a payroll generally in the top four, or five or six or seven over the course of that time. We should be doing better, and we're not. And I'm the CEO, and I'm responsible."

Classy, stand-up exit line by McPhail.

This is the first hope I've felt in quite some time. Just getting rid of Dusty alone, wouldn't have changed anything. Does Fitzsimmons have any idea of what does make a successful baseball operation? If so, Hendry's foolish extension should be looked at as a sunk cost. Make him an "advisor."

This is good news. I don't know how much to expect in terms of FitzSimons's ability to find a team pres with a clue, but MacPhail needed to go. (And if one of the three of MacPhail/Baker/Hendry had to stay, I'm glad it's Hendry.)

I still think Hendry could be a pretty good GM in a better organization. I think the problem with the Cubs is that he is never called on his mistakes.

I think MacPhail is stepping down because he wants to work for MLB, but I do get the impression that the Cubs are going to move toward a more conventional management model, where the GM is head of baseball operations and the President is hands-off when it comes to the baseball product. I think MacPhail has been trying to operate this way for the last couple of years, but he had to cast a long shadow on Hendry, who knew very well how his boss operated as GM and probably had no choice but to emulate it.

I think MacPhail is stepping down because he wants to work for MLB

That was my first thought too. Coupled with speculation in the recent story that Macphail is in line to replace Selig as commissioner - and his likely role in the upcoming labor negotiations - I wonder if Macphail isn't just going to see to it that the new CBA goes off without a hitch, then maybe take over for Selig after 2007 when Bud's contract expires.

This is good news. I don't know how much to expect in terms of FitzSimons's ability to find a team pres with a clue

Well it sounds to me like the job is MacDonough's to lose. As far as I know, MacDonough is purely a marketing guy, which would suggest that his role will be completely on the business end. Again, I think that was how MacPhail was acting as Pres, but I think his long experience in baseball operations, particularly in this organization, meant that no matter what he was setting the tone baseball-wise.

I don't think this helps Hendry at all. He's in a very bad position. The bosses are only saying good things about him, but his job is on the bubble. If the Cubs are bad next year, and it looks like they will be and there is little he can do about it, he is going to be out of a job. On the positive side, he is now THE baseball guy in the organization and he can do whatever he thinks is best. On the negative side, I think he learned what is best in the second or third most clueless organization in baseball, and the chances of him figuring all of that out right now seem pretty slim. It's too late for him to learn how to run a baseball team in this organization. He will have to implement the lessons he learned in the Cub organization somewhere else, and the chances of him getting that opportunity are pretty slim. It's really pretty sad.

Strange I had no inkling of this, but I was doing a tour of Graceland cemetery this afternoon, which is less then a mile from Wrigley. From there you can hear big crowd cheers. The first one I heard, I said Baker was fired. The next one I said there goes Hendry. The third one I said McPhail just fell on his sword. Well a .333 average isn't bad.

BTW at the grave site of Hall of Famer HULBERT we were told the original White Stockings became the "Cubbies" becaust they lost many players to World War I and had to bring up players from their farm system. I really don't like correcting people and if she would have said that Lincoln drowned in a butt of Malmsey or the moon is made of green cheese I would have not said anything but some things are sacred and the amazed and somewhat frightened tour group got a lecture on Cap Anson (buried in a different Chicago cemetery in a predominantly black neighborhood).

The McPhail quiting is just about the only good news Cub fans have gottened this year. Can the Tribune take away enough control of baseball operations from Hendry that he quits too?

Does Fitzsimmons have any idea of what does make a successful baseball operation?

No, but when the Tribune Company hired MacPhail, they were hiring someone with what were considered excellent baseball credentials. They didn't hire him because of his proven profit-generating track record, they did it because the perception was that he was an excellent GM in Minnesota who won two World Series. And really, that's all you can ask the corporate suits to do, hire someone who knows what they are doing.

Unfortunately, the Tribune Company is so clueless about success in baseball that they don't understand that success means winning more than you lose. Still, if they hire someone with excellent baseball credentials, it will be up to that person to deliver, and if that person is self-motivated and knows what he's doing, that shouldn't matter.

Also unfortunately, it appears that that person is going to be Jim Hendry.

I still think Hendry could be a pretty good GM in a better organization. I think the problem with the Cubs is that he is never called on his mistakes.

I'm curious -- when Hendry goes to another organization, presumably one where he'll be the head baseball guy, and he makes mistakes for that team, how is he going to be called on them and who is going to do it?

As for the new president (or McDonough), I'll repeat what I posted in the other thread:

They need to find a good executive -- even if that person has no baseball experience whatsoever. (By "baseball experience," I mean as a player, manager, GM, scout, etc.) They need someone with a philosophy about how to run a successful organization, what types of people to hire and to weed out, what values the organization will have, etc. That person could be within baseball, of course, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.

I don't know how much of an "interim president" McDonough is, but I don't yet see any reason to think he can't succeed in the role. If there is a reason, it's more an issue of Tribune ownership (i.e., no president can succeed so long as the Tribune owns the team) than an issue with McDonough.

Schadenfreuderific!

I'm curious -- when Hendry goes to another organization, presumably one where he'll be the head baseball guy, and he makes mistakes for that team, how is he going to be called on them and who is going to do it?

Well, I don't think Hendry is ever going to go to another organization, unfortunately for him.

Hendry had a team that won 88 games in 2003 and 89 in 2004. At that point it appeared that things were spinning out of control, and it should have been made very clear to him that he'd better get the bull by the horns or he'd be out. Instead, he was given a two year extension after the 2005 team won 79 games.

I guess I should summarize my thoughts on Hendry -- I believe that the 2002-04 Hendry can succeed in many organizations, including the Cubs.

I don't believe the 2005-present Hendry can succeed with the Cubs or with anyone else, even if he gets another chance.

I don't know how much of an "interim president" McDonough is

This suggests to me that the job is MacDonough's to lose:

Team president Andy MacPhail resigned after 12 years on the job, and John McDonough, senior vice-president of marketing and broadcasting, was named interim president, with no timetable offered for when the promotion might become permanent.

I agree with you. I have no problem with the idea of the President being someone with no baseball experience. All he needs to know is that twelve years of .475 baseball is unacceptable, and it's up to the GM to do better. With MacPhail, the Cubs had a baseball guy in charge of all operations. Many teams don't have that, which is certainly a valid model. What was odd about the MacPhail era is that they had a baseball guy for twelve years as the club President, and yet they were pretty bad at fielding a good baseball team.

Short-run: Hendry, because he's the guy that's going to hire the next manager and fill out the roster for next season's team.

Even miracle teams don't come from 95 losses, though. The long term is so much more important than the short term for the Cubs right now and if I were a Cubs fan I'd be ecstatic with how things have begun developing.

MacPhail will find work elsewhere, as he's been an insider forever. As Roy Hobbs pointed out above, he left classy.

The long term is so much more important than the short term for the Cubs right now and if I were a Cubs fan I'd be ecstatic with how things have begun developing.

I agree. My point was more exactly along the lines as you - this isn't going to suddenly make the 2007 Cubs playoff contenders.

I also agree with retro-shiite's comment above that if the Cubs have to keep one of the big 3, I'm glad it's Hendry.

Even miracle teams don't come from 95 losses, though. The long term is so much more important than the short term for the Cubs right now and if I were a Cubs fan I'd be ecstatic with how things have begun developing.

The thing that worried me about today's press conference was MacDonough saying he expects the Cubs to be contenders next year, and to win the World Series in the near future.

Maybe that's just public relations BS, the kind of thing he has to say. But if he really believes it, then I think we're in trouble. There has to be someone in that organization who can step back, look at what happened this year, and say "let's not worry about shooting for 2007. Let's plan for the future."

Super. I'm thrilled by this.

This suggests to me that the job is MacDonough's to lose:

I agree. And not knowing anything about how MacDonough would be as the team president, I'm already disappointed. I don't trust a single person in the entire organization to make the Cubs a consistent winning franchise. Yes, that's unfair to a lot of people who may or may not be able to do a good job. But I would just like for them to reach outside of this organization (find someone from a winning organization). That doesn't guarantee success, of course (just like an internal promotion doesn't guarantee failure).

That was my first thought too. Coupled with speculation in the recent story that Macphail is in line to replace Selig as commissioner - and his likely role in the upcoming labor negotiations

A Trib story a couple days ago indicated (actually, I think it just flat out said) he'd been active in the ongoing labor negotiations for much of this year's second half.

I have no problem with the idea of the President being someone with no baseball experience.

He used to own the Rangers.

The thing that worried me about today's press conference was MacDonough saying he expects the Cubs to be contenders next year,

Given the direction the NL's taken lately, 65 wins will be enough to make a team a serious contendor soon.

Even miracle teams don't come from 95 losses, though.

2003 NL Cent 88-74 (.543)
2002 NL Cent 67-95 (.414)

and ...

2001 Cubs 88-74
2000 Cubs 65-97

1998 Cubs 90-73
1997 Cubs 68-94

The Cubs aren't that far from having a shot at upper 80s wins, especially if by some miracle Prior is reasonably healthy. If they can get over their obsession with lousy bench players and not walking, an average offense is attainable (too bad no good FA 2B/SS are available). The starters will probably be thin. Anyway, "true" talent in the area of 500 is possible and then a little luck.

The Cubs aren't that far from having a shot at upper 80s wins, especially if by some miracle Prior is reasonably healthy.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "having a shot", but I would call it quite unlikely. The starting pitching could gel, and if they managed to field an average offense, they could be winners. But even if Prior were healthy, the starting staff looks like Prior and Zambrano and pray for...something that rhymes with Zambrano.

He used to own the Rangers.

Really? He's been with the Cubs for 22 years.

I have no problem with the idea of the President being someone with no baseball experience.

He used to own the Rangers.

Really? He's been with the Cubs for 22 years.

Have another cup of coffee, Andere, and think about this.

I don't trust a single person in the entire organization to make the Cubs a consistent winning franchise. Yes, that's unfair to a lot of people who may or may not be able to do a good job. But I would just like for them to reach outside of this organization (find someone from a winning organization). That doesn't guarantee success, of course (just like an internal promotion doesn't guarantee failure).

I have to admit that I have some doubts as well, but I do think that it's entirely possible that McDonough can do a good job, even on an interim basis. The one thing we know is that McDonough wildly succeeded in his role as marketing czar, and to the extent it is the result of superior management/administrative abilities, overall vision, and the willingness to think outside the box, these things would serve him well in the role.

OTOH, I do have some real fears about his values and what changes, if any, he'll bring to the team.