What if Hendry has to quit as GM for the Cubs?

[goonys evil twin]

Denigrating someone because you don't like their method of getting things done is totally unfair and closed minded.

 

I'm denigtrating them based on the results.

 

Everybody in baseball is a "good baseball man". There doesn't seem to be much recognition in the community that some of these guys have to be bad at their job, in comparison to others, because this is a competitive win or lose environment. This isn't a case of 3 fast food restaurants competing with 3 distinctly different markets, where everybody can come out winners because the ultimate goal is to make money. They can all make money. And baseball men can all find baseball players. But what counts is wins and losses. And while it's possible to win the Hughes/Hendry way, it's quite difficult. These guys have their fingerprints all over the Cubs, and the Cubs suck.

 

Guys like Hughes and Hendry are good for scouting, they are not good for management decisions. They are good for advicing, then enacting. They know what they know, and they may well it know. But they are terrible and putting the whole thing together and creating a smooth running efficient and effective machine. Not every good soldier is meant to be an officer. Not every good employee is mean to be boss. Not every good writer can become an effective publisher.

 

The Cubs are, by far, the most inefficiently run organization in the league. They still have a chance to succeed, based solely on the economies of scale. The size of their revenues keep them afloat in a market where they would otherwise not be able to compete. The failings are because of the way these men think about the game of baseball.

[goonys evil twin]

Gary Hughes may know a ton about baseball and may be the greatest scout ever, I still don't want him to have the final say in player acquisition. I'd want his input, but I wouldn't want him making the decisions.

 

You can know everything there is to know about designing, buildind and maintaining an automobile, and still run a car company into the ground.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Denigrating someone because you don't like their method of getting things done is totally unfair and closed minded.

 

I'm denigtrating them based on the results.

 

Everybody in baseball is a "good baseball man". There doesn't seem to be much recognition in the community that some of these guys have to be bad at their job, in comparison to others, because this is a competitive win or lose environment. This isn't a case of 3 fast food restaurants competing with 3 distinctly different markets, where everybody can come out winners because the ultimate goal is to make money. They can all make money. And baseball men can all find baseball players. But what counts is wins and losses. And while it's possible to win the Hughes/Hendry way, it's quite difficult. These guys have their fingerprints all over the Cubs, and the Cubs suck.

 

Guys like Hughes and Hendry are good for scouting, they are not good for management decisions. They are good for advicing, then enacting. They know what they know, and they may well it know. But they are terrible and putting the whole thing together and creating a smooth running efficient and effective machine. Not every good soldier is meant to be an officer. Not every good employee is mean to be boss. Not every good writer can become an effective publisher.

 

The Cubs are, by far, the most inefficiently run organization in the league. They still have a chance to succeed, based solely on the economies of scale. The size of their revenues keep them afloat in a market where they would otherwise not be able to compete. The failings are because of the way these men think about the game of baseball.

 

It's too bad Hughes doesn't post over here b/c then you couldn't get away with your crap. Attack the post and not the poster, right? If he/she doesn't post here, then feel free to run your mouth about them.

[goonys evil twin]

It's too bad Hughes doesn't post over here b/c then you couldn't get away with your crap. Attack the post and not the poster, right? If he/she doesn't post here, then feel free to run your mouth about them.

 

What?

 

I'm attacking the style in which Hendry and Hughes go about constructing a baseball team. Stuff like "we did a good job getting guys on base because we had a good average" and all that nonsense. If they posted here, I would right about what a terrible job they did, that's not attacking them, that's attacking their pathetic work as personel decision makers of the Chicago Cubs.

 

Get away with my crap?

[Tracer Bullet]

Gary Hughes may know a ton about baseball and may be the greatest scout ever, I still don't want him to have the final say in player acquisition. I'd want his input, but I wouldn't want him making the decisions.

 

You can know everything there is to know about designing, buildind and maintaining an automobile, and still run a car company into the ground.

 

Exactly my point. Being very good at one thing that should play a role in decision-making doesn't mean you should be the decision maker.

 

It sounds like Hughes is very good at scouting (or at least highly-regarded). I'm in no position to judge that. But I haven't read anything that makes me think he'd be a good GM and what I have seen, even what Bruce posted here, doesn't make me think "that's the guy I want making decisions for this team."

 

My biggest issue with Hughes might be this - if he's a great scout, why don't we have any home-grown players on the big league team? In fact, how many players drafted by the Cubs are regular all stars for any team? There might be some (Willis, I suppose), but I can't think of many.

[Drew Doughty]

No thank you to Kenny Williams. He's the lucky version of Hendry. It's bound to run out some time.

 

Wow. You're not biased or anything. I mean, it's not like he won a World Series.

 

He totally caused his pitchers to have freakishly good postseasons. Saying he's a lucky version of Hendry is an overstatement. He is not a good GM, and I would not be happy if he took over for Hendry.

 

He what? "Caused his pitchers to have freakishly good postseasons"???

 

Explain that one to me, because I think every GM on the planet would like to know how Kenny did that.

 

Sarcasm.

[Tracer Bullet]

It's too bad Hughes doesn't post over here b/c then you couldn't get away with your crap. Attack the post and not the poster, right? If he/she doesn't post here, then feel free to run your mouth about them.

 

What?

 

I'm attacking the style in which Hendry and Hughes go about constructing a baseball team. Stuff like "we did a good job getting guys on base because we had a good average" and all that nonsense. If they posted here, I would right about what a terrible job they did, that's not attacking them, that's attacking their pathetic work as personel decision makers of the Chicago Cubs.

 

Get away with my crap?

 

Put another way - if Bruce were a terrible sports writer (and thank goodness he's not, I happen to think he does a great job), people would and should be able to voice that opinion here.

[neely crenshaw]

i have some spare time on my hands...

[Andy]

Kenny Williams, not a moneyball guy.

 

Walt Jocketty, not a moneyball guy.

 

Moneyball is overrated. Stat-head GM'ing, overrated.

 

Not saying I want Gary Hughes as my GM, but the whole Moneyball flap should be viewed as an important contribution to the evolution of effective baseball management, NOT as the end-all be-all of how to produce a winner.

I'm not sure you can say Jocketty is a flat-out moneyball guy, but he sure does seem to know how to get good players at little cost (Spiezio, Carp, Kennedy, etc.), which was the entire idea behind Moneyball.

[goonys evil twin]

Kenny Williams, not a moneyball guy.

 

Walt Jocketty, not a moneyball guy.

 

Moneyball is overrated. Stat-head GM'ing, overrated.

 

Not saying I want Gary Hughes as my GM, but the whole Moneyball flap should be viewed as an important contribution to the evolution of effective baseball management, NOT as the end-all be-all of how to produce a winner.

I'm not sure you can say Jocketty is a flat-out moneyball guy, but he sure does seem to know how to get good players at little cost (Spiezio, Carp, Kennedy, etc.), which was the entire idea behind Moneyball.

 

Not to mention Williams used the money earmarked for Ordonez and Lee to get some fairly similar (or better) producers at lesser cost. He might not be a walk-o-phile, but he seems to like to run a fairly efficient operation, and he isn't satisfied with a ho-hum offense that depends on hitting with RISP.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I don't doubt that Hughes is a fantastic scout. I'm sure that he has a near unparalleled eye for talent. But that's not what a GM does. I don't really care if people have qualms about statistical evaluations, it's not perfect, etc. etc. My problem is when people dismiss things out of hand without exploring their value. From both the quotes in the roundtable and that Bruce provided, I don't think there's any reason to expect that if Hughes were the GM he'd put very much stock into true statistical analysis(not just "hey this guy has an OBP higher than that guy, he must be better"). I guess you could say that since he's always been on the scouting end that he's never needed to explore that, but since as a GM you need a balance of the two and Hughes doesn't really show a respect for that balance, he'd be a very poor choice for GM.

[Bruno7481]

I don't doubt that Hughes is a fantastic scout. I'm sure that he has a near unparalleled eye for talent. But that's not what a GM does. I don't really care if people have qualms about statistical evaluations, it's not perfect, etc. etc. My problem is when people dismiss things out of hand without exploring their value. From both the quotes in the roundtable and that Bruce provided, I don't think there's any reason to expect that if Hughes were the GM he'd put very much stock into true statistical analysis(not just "hey this guy has an OBP higher than that guy, he must be better"). I guess you could say that since he's always been on the scouting end that he's never needed to explore that, but since as a GM you need a balance of the two and Hughes doesn't really show a respect for that balance, he'd be a very poor choice for GM.

 

Okay then, so why would a guy, Depodesta for example, be a better choice? Do you think Depodesta recognizes the need for a balance of two worlds?

 

Wasn't he instrumental in cutting a lot of Oakland's scouts? Seems to me that he may not recognize that balance either.

 

I am in total agreement with you though. You need to look at both, and then try and make the best decision.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I don't doubt that Hughes is a fantastic scout. I'm sure that he has a near unparalleled eye for talent. But that's not what a GM does. I don't really care if people have qualms about statistical evaluations, it's not perfect, etc. etc. My problem is when people dismiss things out of hand without exploring their value. From both the quotes in the roundtable and that Bruce provided, I don't think there's any reason to expect that if Hughes were the GM he'd put very much stock into true statistical analysis(not just "hey this guy has an OBP higher than that guy, he must be better"). I guess you could say that since he's always been on the scouting end that he's never needed to explore that, but since as a GM you need a balance of the two and Hughes doesn't really show a respect for that balance, he'd be a very poor choice for GM.

 

Okay then, so why would a guy, Depodesta for example, be a better choice? Do you think Depodesta recognizes the need for a balance of two worlds?

 

Wasn't he instrumental in cutting a lot of Oakland's scouts? Seems to me that he may not recognize that balance either.

 

I am in total agreement with you though. You need to look at both, and then try and make the best decision.

 

I'm not the one who suggested DePo(or anyone for that matter). I will say that given that much of the stats/scouts thing is stats fighting for market share(for lack of an appropriate term) in terms of acceptance by front offices, that I would prefer that the head be a more stat-oriented person. That way since most of baseball's executive infrastructure is made up of scouts, "baseball men", etc., a check and balance situation can occur with someone who holds a differing POV being at the top.

[baseball7897]

I don't doubt that Hughes is a fantastic scout. I'm sure that he has a near unparalleled eye for talent. But that's not what a GM does. I don't really care if people have qualms about statistical evaluations, it's not perfect, etc. etc. My problem is when people dismiss things out of hand without exploring their value. From both the quotes in the roundtable and that Bruce provided, I don't think there's any reason to expect that if Hughes were the GM he'd put very much stock into true statistical analysis(not just "hey this guy has an OBP higher than that guy, he must be better"). I guess you could say that since he's always been on the scouting end that he's never needed to explore that, but since as a GM you need a balance of the two and Hughes doesn't really show a respect for that balance, he'd be a very poor choice for GM.

 

What?

[goonys evil twin]

I don't doubt that Hughes is a fantastic scout. I'm sure that he has a near unparalleled eye for talent. But that's not what a GM does. I don't really care if people have qualms about statistical evaluations, it's not perfect, etc. etc. My problem is when people dismiss things out of hand without exploring their value. From both the quotes in the roundtable and that Bruce provided, I don't think there's any reason to expect that if Hughes were the GM he'd put very much stock into true statistical analysis(not just "hey this guy has an OBP higher than that guy, he must be better"). I guess you could say that since he's always been on the scouting end that he's never needed to explore that, but since as a GM you need a balance of the two and Hughes doesn't really show a respect for that balance, he'd be a very poor choice for GM.

 

What?

 

Scouts like to find needles in haystacks. GM's have to field a roster of 25 competent major league baseball players, which involves intense negotiations, cost/benefit analysis and other skills a scout does not necessarily have. A scouting background could be nice, but it's no requirement, and a lifetime scout would probably not be a great GM.

[Tracer Bullet]

I don't doubt that Hughes is a fantastic scout. I'm sure that he has a near unparalleled eye for talent. But that's not what a GM does. I don't really care if people have qualms about statistical evaluations, it's not perfect, etc. etc. My problem is when people dismiss things out of hand without exploring their value. From both the quotes in the roundtable and that Bruce provided, I don't think there's any reason to expect that if Hughes were the GM he'd put very much stock into true statistical analysis(not just "hey this guy has an OBP higher than that guy, he must be better"). I guess you could say that since he's always been on the scouting end that he's never needed to explore that, but since as a GM you need a balance of the two and Hughes doesn't really show a respect for that balance, he'd be a very poor choice for GM.

 

What?

 

What?

[Tracer Bullet]

I don't doubt that Hughes is a fantastic scout. I'm sure that he has a near unparalleled eye for talent. But that's not what a GM does. I don't really care if people have qualms about statistical evaluations, it's not perfect, etc. etc. My problem is when people dismiss things out of hand without exploring their value. From both the quotes in the roundtable and that Bruce provided, I don't think there's any reason to expect that if Hughes were the GM he'd put very much stock into true statistical analysis(not just "hey this guy has an OBP higher than that guy, he must be better"). I guess you could say that since he's always been on the scouting end that he's never needed to explore that, but since as a GM you need a balance of the two and Hughes doesn't really show a respect for that balance, he'd be a very poor choice for GM.

 

Okay then, so why would a guy, Depodesta for example, be a better choice? Do you think Depodesta recognizes the need for a balance of two worlds?

 

Wasn't he instrumental in cutting a lot of Oakland's scouts? Seems to me that he may not recognize that balance either.

 

I am in total agreement with you though. You need to look at both, and then try and make the best decision.

 

I think Depo would be a great GM and I think he got hosed in LA (and Colleti is killing that org, imo).

 

As for firing a lot of scouts in Oakland, I don't think that means he doesn't think a scout's perspective is important. But if you're a team with a small budget and you have to choose between flying a bunch of people around the country to watch a bunch of HS or college baseball or, well, doing anything else with that money, it's probably more cost effective to cut some scouts.

 

Rely on stats to narrow a large field of HS and college players and send a handful of scouts to see the guys that the stats indicate have the highest likelihood of success. No one is going to be 100% accurate in picking players (scouts or SABR guys), but you can use a combination of the two to see as many guys as possible that have a high likelihood of success in a cost-effective way.

 

I think that's a great strategy for a team without a ton of money to throw around. Sure beats sending an armada of scouts all around the country.

[Bruno7481]

I don't doubt that Hughes is a fantastic scout. I'm sure that he has a near unparalleled eye for talent. But that's not what a GM does. I don't really care if people have qualms about statistical evaluations, it's not perfect, etc. etc. My problem is when people dismiss things out of hand without exploring their value. From both the quotes in the roundtable and that Bruce provided, I don't think there's any reason to expect that if Hughes were the GM he'd put very much stock into true statistical analysis(not just "hey this guy has an OBP higher than that guy, he must be better"). I guess you could say that since he's always been on the scouting end that he's never needed to explore that, but since as a GM you need a balance of the two and Hughes doesn't really show a respect for that balance, he'd be a very poor choice for GM.

 

Okay then, so why would a guy, Depodesta for example, be a better choice? Do you think Depodesta recognizes the need for a balance of two worlds?

 

Wasn't he instrumental in cutting a lot of Oakland's scouts? Seems to me that he may not recognize that balance either.

 

I am in total agreement with you though. You need to look at both, and then try and make the best decision.

 

I think Depo would be a great GM and I think he got hosed in LA (and Colleti is killing that org, imo).

 

 

What makes him such a great option? How was he hosed?

 

He came in in 2004 and the team made the playoffs, and I beleive were swept by St. Louis. He then had a whole winter to engineer the team he wanted and they went on to finish with 2nd worst record for the LA franchise since they moved out there in 1958.

 

Coletti came in last year and the team made the playoffs, they were then swept out by the Mets, sound familiar? We'll have to see how they do this year.

 

He wasn't a great GM in LA, why are so many convinced he would be elsewhere?

[Tracer Bullet]

What makes him such a great option? How was he hosed?

 

He came in in 2004 and the team made the playoffs, and I beleive were swept by St. Louis. He then had a whole winter to engineer the team he wanted and they went on to finish with 2nd worst record for the LA franchise since they moved out there in 1958.

 

Coletti came in last year and the team made the playoffs, they were then swept out by the Mets, sound familiar? We'll have to see how they do this year.

 

He wasn't a great GM in LA, why are so many convinced he would be elsewhere?

 

He basically had a little more than a year to put a team together. That's not nearly enough time. And let's not pretend that none of the moves he made helped the team get to the playoffs last year. Coletti used a lot of the parts Depo got and they didn't really miss the guys he got rid of.

 

I like his approach and he studied under Beane. That's a lot of the reason I think he deserves a shot as GM. Give him the Cubs payroll and 5 years and see what happens. It won't happen, but I think we'd be in a much better position than we are now.

[CoolHandLuke]

Depo doesn't seem to be a crazy scout hating robot to me. He smartly kept the guy who runs the dodgers scouting didnt he? I think he knows the value in scouts and realizes having a good scouting department is crucial. In my opinion it seems like the SABR guys understand the value of scouting, but the scouting guys refuse to acknowledge the value in statistical analysis.

[Soul]

Kenny Williams, not a moneyball guy.

 

Walt Jocketty, not a moneyball guy.

 

Moneyball is overrated. Stat-head GM'ing, overrated.

 

Not saying I want Gary Hughes as my GM, but the whole Moneyball flap should be viewed as an important contribution to the evolution of effective baseball management, NOT as the end-all be-all of how to produce a winner.

I'm not sure you can say Jocketty is a flat-out moneyball guy, but he sure does seem to know how to get good players at little cost (Spiezio, Carp, Kennedy, etc.), which was the entire idea behind Moneyball.

 

Not to mention Williams used the money earmarked for Ordonez and Lee to get some fairly similar (or better) producers at lesser cost. He might not be a walk-o-phile, but he seems to like to run a fairly efficient operation, and he isn't satisfied with a ho-hum offense that depends on hitting with RISP.

 

Yeah, and that's great. Except it's not MoneyBall. It's good GM'ing, which is what it's all about.

 

Jocketty takes players who Beane wouldn't sniff at and gets career performances out of them. That's something way beyond MoneyBall.

 

Kenny is doing the same thing, except he has a knack for doing it with his starting rotation in a addition to filling holes effectively with decent role players at little cost.

 

People on this board are so confused by a guy like Kenny Williams all they can come back with is, "he's lucky."

 

He's not lucky, people. He's damn good. Same for Jocketty.

 

Of course none of this addresses Hughes, who I think is very valuable to the Cubs. He just could benefit from some additional perspective, that's all.

[goonys evil twin]

Yeah, and that's great. Except it's not MoneyBall. It's good GM'ing, which is what it's all about.

 

Jocketty takes players who Beane wouldn't sniff at and gets career performances out of them. That's something way beyond MoneyBall.

 

What do you think moneyball is? It's about getting value out of a player, it's not about getting a specific type of player.

[Soul]

Yeah, and that's great. Except it's not MoneyBall. It's good GM'ing, which is what it's all about.

 

Jocketty takes players who Beane wouldn't sniff at and gets career performances out of them. That's something way beyond MoneyBall.

 

What do you think moneyball is? It's about getting value out of a player, it's not about getting a specific type of player.

 

Everyone's trying to get value out of a player. Moneyball is about using statistics to find undervalued players. And that's fine, but winning a World Series is more than just that.

[UK1679666180]

I don't doubt that Hughes is a fantastic scout. I'm sure that he has a near unparalleled eye for talent. But that's not what a GM does. I don't really care if people have qualms about statistical evaluations, it's not perfect, etc. etc. My problem is when people dismiss things out of hand without exploring their value. From both the quotes in the roundtable and that Bruce provided, I don't think there's any reason to expect that if Hughes were the GM he'd put very much stock into true statistical analysis(not just "hey this guy has an OBP higher than that guy, he must be better"). I guess you could say that since he's always been on the scouting end that he's never needed to explore that, but since as a GM you need a balance of the two and Hughes doesn't really show a respect for that balance, he'd be a very poor choice for GM.

 

What?

 

Scouts like to find needles in haystacks. GM's have to field a roster of 25 competent major league baseball players, which involves intense negotiations, cost/benefit analysis and other skills a scout does not necessarily have. A scouting background could be nice, but it's no requirement, and a lifetime scout would probably not be a great GM.

 

Scouts like to find needles in haysticks like GMs want to find bargain players that become productive per dollar spent. It becomes a nec. part of the overall picture but...

 

A scout's career isn't defined by that premise throughout his career.

 

His 1-8 rd picks will determine how well he has been as a scout compared to sleeper picks.

 

Scouts (espec. area scouts) do get involved w/intense negotiations (as a GM, there's no direct loss of being out-bid for a FA beyond what that player would bring, with draft picks if they don't sign him and he goes to a 4yr school, he loses the kid and the team loses the pick on probably someone similar in ceiling that would've signed) cost/benefit analysis, etc.

[RynoRules]

I am still trying to figiure out how goony has enough insider info to know that the Cubs are the least efficiently run org. in MLB. Can you help me out on that one, goony? Do you want to at least qualify it?