Welcome to Round 3 of the Goat Riders of the Debateacolypse. Joining me again for another round of crude insults and EMails threatening physical altercation is the Uncouth Sloth. The Sloth is best known for that time he pummelled me for saying it was okay to call them the Cubbies.

I'd like to remind you to feel free contribute your own perspective in the comments, which we will be sure to address at some point during the debate. Anyway... onward:

The Topic: Jim Hendry - a good GM, or fortunate to have a lot of money at his disposal, coupled with the incompetence of an ownership too ambivalent to fire him.

Kurt: I'll start this off, as usual. Contrary to my previous public statements, I'm taking the Pro. Why, you ask? Have I had a weird moment of clarity in which I realized how fortunate the Cubs are to have Jim Hendry? Naah. I'm taking the Pro because I know how to work.

So, let me say this. The Cubs would not be where they are today were it not for Jim Hendry. Be you a detractor or a fan, I think everybody can agree to that. But, to get a little more specific...

It's true that the Cubs have a lot of money to spend on free agents, and Jim Hendry's level of success in picking up those free agents has been high since the departure of MacSweaterVest.

But, you know, it's not actually that easy to pick up good free agents. It's not easy to make huge trades. But what Hendry has done well is, so far, he's avoided signing lemons to long-term deals. Hendry went after Lilly instead of Zito. He wisely left Schmidt alone. Compared to many of the free agent pitchers who were available - some with good pedigrees - even Marquis has been a strong addition.

Not to mention the fact that he has doggedly pursued and acquired every player he's wanted. He landed Soriano and Fukudome, and while Rob will perhaps disagree with this a bit, both are important to the success of the Cubs.

Hendry has also kept everybody he's needed to keep. The Cubs haven't lost a star to free agency since Henry's tenure. (They've let some go, but they've never lost them, or were outbid for them.) Ramirez, Lee, and Zambrano are prime examples.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, Hendry made the right choice in signing Lou Piniella. He could have gone a number of routes that winter, and against my own better judgment he chose Uncle Lou. It was the right choice.

For all those reasons, I say Hendry: Pro. Rob, can you really disagree with any of that?

Rob: (starting this week without a technical disadvantage)

Kurt, you ignorant slut! I thought I was more known for my stance on nun rape. Which, in case you forgot, is "dog style".

Anyway, while it is hard to find fault with a GM who has guided the Cubs to this recent string of Relatively Good Cubs Fortune, I'm going to by beating the same dead mule I've been beating since Day One. Nothing but a World Series is going to make ME happy, and I'm not happy yet.

You may be thinking - do ye hath any specific arguments? I admit that my discontent may be circumstantial in nature, and I may be more successful in swaying the casual cubbie fan than the True Blue.

It is true that the Cubs do not have the largest payroll, but it is plenty large enough to attract and retain talent. They have managed to both attract (Fukudome, Soriano, Lilly) and retain (Lee, Ramirez, Zambrano), but is that really a tribute to Hendry's expertise? It is actually more due to an organizational direction change to spend the really big moneys for the really big boys.

And even considering the recent accomplishments of Messrs. Theriot and Soto, our farm system still sucks. "But you just named off two of our starters, and that's not even counting the great Felix Pee-Aay! And Thunder Matt!" You might say all this, especially if you hail from a certain four-named Cubs site. We compare the recent trickle of talent to the complete, utter dearth of the past 30 years, and the Hendry Farm System seems fertile. Compared to other organizations, though, it still lacks. If you were to note, however, that starting from nothing is quite difficult, I may accept that.

I guess my biggest gripe is Hendry's inability to address key needs the past few years via trade. He has never matched the impact of the Ramirez & Lee deals. He TRIED the next year with the Nomar deal. It didn't net us much, although it didn't really cost us anything either. He hasn't done much since - which MAY be a symptom of the entire league. But as recently as a few years ago, our farm system was regarded as teeming with pitching talent. As it turned out, this determination was a bit generous. And possibly the other clubs' scouts did their jobs when it came to the Bobby Brownlies and Angel Guzmans of the world. Fact is, Hendry was given a gift when his farm system's value was inflated. Rather than let all the fruit rot on the vine, he should have turned it around quickly for the various things we have needed over the years, such as a LEADOFF HITTER?!?!?!!!

Kurt: I will concede that Hendry doesn't have a good track record with developing hitters. However, he has done pretty well with pitchers. Marmol, Wuertz, Wood, Zambrano, Gallagher, Marshall, these are all guys who may make valuable contributions to this year's team, and they were all drafted or developed by Hendry.

Although Jim has failed to find an offensively strong talent, he has used what talent he's had to make some spectacular trades. Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez are both products of the Cubs farm system.

I agree with you that a World Series is the goal - even if that makes us closet Yankee fans, according to some of the morons who follow this team - and that goal has never been more reachable than this year. ...or maybe it was 2003 or 2004. Either way, this is a great chance.

Addressing a comment from Goat Writer Byron:

A mildly (deceivingly) competent GM whose many shortcomings are obscured by a large budget.

If Hendry was in Pittsburgh, Minnesota, or Oakland, would the teams be cellar dwellers, .500, or division winners?

I think the answer is cellar dwellers.

Different GMs have different strengths. Hendry is not a moneyball guy, and his concept of hitting is antiquated at best. But let's not forget about the guys who came before ... we used to have a GM who chased Greg Maddux out of town, incited Ryne Sandberg into retirement, and waved goodbye to a Cubs right fielder on the brink of hitting 400 homeruns. Hendry has built great relationships with all of his players - except for Mark Prior - and there is a strong sense of loyalty amongst the guys who've been in Chicago for a while.

All of these things give Hendry an advantage.

Rob: it is possible to categorize General Managers, and in fact all Management, into three or more categories:

• Total, complete, gross negligence
• Competence
• World class

Category 1 includes pretty much all Cubs management in our lifetimes. From Andy McSweatervest, to the guy who brought in Sosa, lost Maddux and drove Sandberg to early retirement, to the bozos who established the College of Coaches.

Category 2 includes pretty much Dallas Green and Jim Hendry. They throw much money at the big free agents, throw even more money at our incumbent free agents who can walk and chew gum simultaneously, and win a division once in a while.

Category 3, in our case, is going to be a Jim Finks type figure who is able to construct a powerhouse so unstoppable, so infallible that they not only win over 100 games a year, but leap the karmic hurdle that is weighing down on every man, woman and child wearing the Cubs pinstripes. (Yep, talking to YOU, Mark Prior).

Jim Finks, for the uninitiated, is the guy who built the 1985 Bears who not only swept to the only Super Bowl ever won by that team, but are still wanted in six states for assault and battery. Their karmic hurdle was only 23 years high.

Point is, it is unconvincing to me to compare Hendry to his predecessors, who were too greedy and/or dumb to manage their way out of a wet paper sack. Yes, he hasn't managed to muck things up. But that isn't enough for me to call him a Great GM.

Kurt: Hey, I wouldn't even call him a Great GM, and I'm on his side. I'm simply arguing that he's a Good GM. Whatever he did before 2007 almost can't count, because he had a douche of a team president holding him down.

He does a lot of things wrong, particularly in how he drafts and develops his hitters, but Hendry has also done a lot of things right. Maybe he's scrambling to save his job, and maybe the Cubs will someday pay for the big contracts he's given players over the age of 30, but for the immediate future the Cubs are in a good position to play into the post season.

Actually, this season will really tell the tale for Hendry, at least on some level. He looks like he's going to keep his job, and the Cubs look like they will reach the post season, but will they make any valuable additions between now and October? Will Jimbo be able to buckle down and sacrifice some - or many - prospects for another ace-caliber pitcher?

If the answer is yes, I'll 180 and voice full support for the guy, even if the Cubs ultimately fail in October. But if Hendry's big move is for another Steve Traschel ... ahem. Anyway. I almost forgot that I'm taking the Pro here.

Rob: my esteemed opponent mentioned Steve Trachsel?

The Prosecution rests, with one addendum:

Even though there is most certainly a sense of urgency in the front office, probably more than ever before (if only in the name of Driving Up Market Value for Old Sam, not to mention avoiding the 100-Year Curse), I do not believe this is a make-or-break for Hendry. He returns next year, regardless. If a more competitive-minded owner such as Mark Cuban ends up with the car keys, then certainly Hendry's 2008 will go a long way towards determining his future.

After having re-read Kurt's opening sentence one more time, a "good" GM is someone you would rate, say, 8 out of 10. I wouldn't give him such a grade. Any one of us would have signed Soriano if given carte blanche to do so, even though it was the right thing to do.. Any one of us would have re-upped Z, Lee, and Ramirez, even though it was the right thing to do. Any one of us could have given away Sammy Sofa for spare parts, even though it was the right thing to do.

A "good" GM evaluates the product, and makes effective adjustments. When Jason Kendall is your most effective adjustment of the past four years, you are not a "good" GM.

Kurt: Let us conclude. First, every GM makes bad trades. You and I could look at the highly esteemed Red Sox and Yankees, and even amongst those perennial winners you'll see more than a fair share of bonehead trades. That said, while Hendry has excelled at doing the obvious, he's also avoided some dastardly pitfalls - Zito, Schmidt, etc. While he has had trouble making a big trade since Nomar sprained every part of his body while wearing Cubbie Blue, there haven't been many - if any - big trades at the deadlines regardless.

Is Hendry a good GM? I'll submit to you that he's good at some things. In reality, I'd sooner set my precious head of hair on fire rather than see him return as GM for another year or five. But I actually find some of my arguments compelling - he's done everything within possibility to build this Cubs team, and he's built them well. I again submit that the true test will be his ability to upgrade the rotation. If he can't - or won't - do that, then chuck him to the wolves. But if he can bring the Cubs a Burnett and a Maddux, then I will support a renewal of his contract.

Lastly, some more comments from the crowd:

Byron:

As for weather Hendry & Co will be around next year, it's mostly dependent on new ownership. I think they're fighting for their continued employment in baseball.

'McSweatervest used to crow about how good the Cubs were at developing young arms... there's actually a few decent arms scattered around the bigs that are Cubs cast-offs... mainly from the disastrous Juan Pierre trade.

Also, Kurt, Hendry did miss his man once in Rafael Furcal. The result of that miss was TWO HORRIBLE years. Hendry's weakness is and always has been plan B. As in, there is none.

Now, let's start screaming for a CC Sabathia trade, or maybe Jake Peavy. The Padres suck.

Keep in mind that if the Cubs are sold, Hendry has a clause in his contract to automatically kick in for another year. Smart move on his part.

I agree that Hendry is no good with Plan B. He seems to put all of his energy into Plan A - and I mean all of it. Just ask Ted Lilly about Jim Hendry's dedication to acquiring talent. Considering that Furcal was available during the McSweatervest Era, it's hard to put that one on Hendry's tab. Regardless, while we all hope he goes after a starter, I would be shocked to see Peavy or Sabathia dealt. Shocked.

boredblue:

I gotta go with Hendry is a decient GM, Im looking forward to when he steps into the tv booth with Len and Bob and anounces his big trade for the year. Hopefully its the Rich Hill- Matt Murton and Sean Marshall(yes Kurt Sean Marshall) for Roy Halladay or A.J Burnett trade i keep drooling about. Then the Cubs go to the Series and Jim Hendry is a legend.

Unfortunately,"decent" doesn't cut it. The best organizations should have the best GMs, and the Cubs should be one of the best organizations. As far as your trade idea there ... no GM in his right mind would make that kind of deal. Not even JP Ricciardi, who falls far on the side of Flaming Idiot.

In Conclusion: Jim Hendry has made some brilliant moves as Cubs GM. He brought Chicago two of the greatest offensive corner infielders in perhaps the long history of the organization. He drafted or developed multiple aces who were side-tracked by injuries or insanity (but we love you anyway, Carlos). When the Trib opened up their coffers, he went out and signed the best players available. While he nearly brought ruin to the organization in signing Dusty Baker, he provided its salvation through Lou Piniella.

In other words, he brings good, he brings bad. Right now, the Cubs are good, and they are an instrument of Hendry's orchestrations. But I can't help but think that, with better planning, the Cubs could be even better. Had Dusty Baker not been able to torpedo the arms of Prior and Wood - and had he been fired after '05 - had the Cubs drafted a single, solid offensive player between the years of 1997 and 2006, had Jim been able to make a single outstanding trade in the past four years, then the Cubs might be unspeakably good right now.

Unfortunately, that wasn't to be. I'll leave it up to the reader to conclude which side they fall on, but I'm leaning toward Rob's view. Then again, I agreed with Rob's view before this debate ever began. Feel free to comment below.