The Ricketts family has done a very good job of setting the capital position of the Cubs for the long term. They will have the ability to set both capital construction and payroll budgets going forward for the next 13 years due to the actions they have taken during the past 10 weeks since taking over the club.

Reality check: The Ricketts have had control of the Cubs for 10 weeks. That's it. Before then, they had no decision power on club actions for multiple reasons, the biggest of which was that there was no lock guaranty that the deal would close.

Deals fall apart at the 11th hour all the time (and it's really ugly when that happens).

Without 100% certainty that a deal would close, there's no way that the Tribune would let a non-executive of their corporation have decision making power over any business transactions related to the team. If they had allowed a prospective owner such power, and the deal cratered, the Tribune could open themselves to major problems, not the least of which could be lawsuits from all sorts of sources.

All that changed on October 30, 2009.

So, why hasn't the prediction of this page, that Jim Hendry and Crane Kenney would be canned, occurred? Well, there are a couple of reasons.

First, Hendry and Kenney's multi-year contracts were transferred to the Ricketts along with every other contract that the Cubs have executed. Firing them and hiring replacements would be tantamount to creating additional debt in the form of paying their salaries for the next several years. The Ricketts are looking for less debt, not more.

Second, look at the sports world. No one is getting fired these days. The NFL saw 7 coaches change in 2008 and another 9 coaches change going into the 2009 season. Major League Baseball saw 8 managers change jobs in 2008 and 5 managers in 2009.

This year? Hardly any changes. Why? A big reason is the economy. Teams have seen their franchise values drop. In MLB, one third of teams saw enterprise values fall, while, in the NFL, 25% of teams saw their value fall.

With cash flows tightening, and economic uncertainty, professional sports teams are trying to save money.

How capitalistic of them!

Now, the finances of keeping Crane and Hendry makes sense, but does it from a business case?

Well, believe it or not, keeping Crane Kenney probably makes sense. The guy is a lawyer from a media company. He's probably very competent at negotiating media contracts, something the Cubs now have to do for themselves. He would be a good representative for the Cubs at league meetings. And, he could probably be a good sounding board for pending capital improvement projects (e.g. the Triangle Building project).

That said, the guy has no business being anywhere near a blade of Wrigley Field grass, much less attending the Winter Meetings as he did this year. It's up to the Ricketts to lay out a job description for Kenney that clearly defines limits to his role.

With well defined limits (which should be very limited), Kenney can be an effective member of Cubs management.

Which brings us to Jim Hendry.

The case for Jim Hendry's inability to create a major league roster and develop a strong minor league system has been well documented. Jim's only sustained success (sustained for 2 consecutive years) has been at the major league level, and that required an unlimited budget to cure team ills.

As we all well now know, that budget is no longer unlimited as cash flow is committed elsewhere.

Should Jim be fired? Certainly. But, he hasn't been so far. But, as they were joking around on WSCR this morning, it's not a secret that Jim has to "get it done" this year or he's out. So, it's in Jim's interest to place the 2010 on-field performance ahead of all other interests. Not a good idea. People who fear for their jobs have an incentive to make decisions that enhance the short term benefit at long term detriment. Strong business do not allowed decisions for an organization by people under duress.

Tom Ricketts can immediately fix this situation and not fire Jim at the same time. How?

Ricketts can hold a press conference and announce Jim Hendry's contract has been extended.

Such a move would give Jim a clear path to set a long term plan for the team on the field. This move would make the new manager brought in after Lou Piniella leaves at the end of the 2010 season certain who his boss would be. It give agents a signal that Hendry wasn't negotiating contracts out of desperation.

A lot of uncertainty about the Cubs would be removed.

This page does not endorse the return of Jim Hendry. But allowing Jim Hendry to make roster decisions for 2010 and beyond with the possibility that he could be fired very soon, is potentially a worse scenario than bringing him back.

Tom Ricketts has been a fan for at least 20 years, and has been doing due diligence on the team for the last three years. One hopes he already has a feeling for Jim Hendry's work.

Leaving Jim Hendry's status as uncertain beyond the 2010 season is the biggest mistake the new owners have made so far. They need to fix this very quickly.