Randy Bush promoted to Assistant GM

[abuck1220]

Hendry and his special assistants have different views all the time over players. It's not a "group think" organization. Just b/c they're not on the forefront with the use of stats doesn't mean they don't accept opposing viewpoints.

 

BTW, those viewpoints almost got us to the WS in '03. It may be popular to complain about the last 2 seasons, but '03 and '04 were fantastic.

 

They might argue over which toolsy gold glover hits the best with RISP, but the end result is the same. They keep making the same mistakes.

 

Yeah, mistakes like acquiring DLee, Ramirez, Murton, Barrett, and Howry. Mistakes like developing Zambrano, Hill, Wuertz, Ohman, Wood, and Prior.

 

These guys are so incompetent. Why do they even have jobs? I could do better with my elementary knowledge of statistics!

 

i know, the cubs have been totally awesome since hendry took over!

 

5 outs from the WS. Hendry hasn't done jack. FIRE HIM NOW!

 

Oh, and viva la revolution!

 

you know what, if you're satisfied with an 88 win team that almost went to the world series four years ago followed by three non-playoff seasons that have gotten progressively worse (capped off by a 96 loss season), all built with one of the highest payrolls in the game, then i guess we just have to agree to disagree.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

http://cubs.scout.com/2/547584.html

[BigbadB]

Yep, a winning record each year shouldn't be that difficult a feat with what the Cubs front office has to work with.

 

The Cardinals have had 2 losing seasons during the LaRussa regime. The Cubs during that same time span? 7

 

The Cardinals have won 100 or more a few times in that span. The Cubs? Well, they hit 90 once. The Cubs haven't won more than 90 games in a season since 1989. And consistency? Forget about it.

 

I'm sorry that I prefer results over promises. As illogical as that may seem, it's still my preference. Just call me unrealistic.

[RichHillIsABeast]

More like 3, but who's counting? Oh and 2004 was pretty darn good too. 2 bad years.

 

It's the guillotine for Hendry.

 

Liberty, equality, fraternity, or death! Scouts are an affront to liberty. Equality now!

 

2006, 2005, 2004, 2003

 

That was 4 seasons ago. Celebrate the back to back over .500 acccomplishment all you want, the fact is the Cubs have lost more than they've won with Hendry as a GM, and they've gotten considerably worse the more moves he's made.

 

88 and 89 win seasons are hardly an accomplishment, especially for a team that was a top 3 payroll in the NL during thoses seasons. And when you top off those seasons with back to back sub .500 campaigns, you lose whatever minimal amount of goodwill you've built up (unless the people who are handing out the goodwill are so excited about back to back .500 seasons that they don't really care about back to back sub .500 seasons. This should be a 90 win team every year, with multiple 95+ win seasons. The inability to reach that point is the GM's responsibility.

 

The word was "years" not "seasons." 3 years.

[RichHillIsABeast]

http://cubs.scout.com/2/547584.html

 

The Cubs organization hates Rich Hill. Here's proof.

 

Randy Bush: We still think the world of Rich Hill. He’s going to pitch in the big leagues for a long, long time. Some pitchers, for whatever reason, take a little longer to figure it out. He’s already proven with the success he’s had at Double-A and Triple-A that he has tremendous major league stuff. The biggest thing is just to keep his composure and his confidence. Once he does that, he’s going to be fine. It’s just growing pains and we think he has a great, great future.

[Wes Mantooth]

http://cubs.scout.com/2/547584.html

 

The Cubs organization hates Rich Hill. Here's proof.

 

Randy Bush: We still think the world of Rich Hill. He’s going to pitch in the big leagues for a long, long time. Some pitchers, for whatever reason, take a little longer to figure it out. He’s already proven with the success he’s had at Double-A and Triple-A that he has tremendous major league stuff. The biggest thing is just to keep his composure and his confidence. Once he does that, he’s going to be fine. It’s just growing pains and we think he has a great, great future.

I may be missing the point here, or maybe I'm not getting the possible sarcasm, but I don't see any hate for Rich Hill in this article. This was posted July 18, 2006 and at that time this is would be a positive thing to say about a struggling young pitcher.

[RichHillIsABeast]

http://cubs.scout.com/2/547584.html

 

The Cubs organization hates Rich Hill. Here's proof.

 

Randy Bush: We still think the world of Rich Hill. He’s going to pitch in the big leagues for a long, long time. Some pitchers, for whatever reason, take a little longer to figure it out. He’s already proven with the success he’s had at Double-A and Triple-A that he has tremendous major league stuff. The biggest thing is just to keep his composure and his confidence. Once he does that, he’s going to be fine. It’s just growing pains and we think he has a great, great future.

I may be missing the point here, or maybe I'm not getting the possible sarcasm, but I don't see any hate for Rich Hill in this article. This was posted July 18, 2006 and at that time this is would be a positive thing to say about a struggling young pitcher.

 

It was sarcasm. There is this conspiracy theory that the Cubs organization hates Rich Hill and that's why he didn't spend all last season in the bigs. :lol:

[Ding Dong Johnson]

http://cubs.scout.com/2/547584.html

 

The Cubs organization hates Rich Hill. Here's proof.

 

Randy Bush: We still think the world of Rich Hill. He’s going to pitch in the big leagues for a long, long time. Some pitchers, for whatever reason, take a little longer to figure it out. He’s already proven with the success he’s had at Double-A and Triple-A that he has tremendous major league stuff. The biggest thing is just to keep his composure and his confidence. Once he does that, he’s going to be fine. It’s just growing pains and we think he has a great, great future.

I may be missing the point here, or maybe I'm not getting the possible sarcasm, but I don't see any hate for Rich Hill in this article. This was posted July 18, 2006 and at that time this is would be a positive thing to say about a struggling young pitcher.

 

Somebody said the Cubs don't "have a thing" for Rich Hill, and somebody still thinks that person said the Cubs hate him. It's really become quite annoying.

[abuck1220]

http://cubs.scout.com/2/547584.html

 

The Cubs organization hates Rich Hill. Here's proof.

 

Randy Bush: We still think the world of Rich Hill. He’s going to pitch in the big leagues for a long, long time. Some pitchers, for whatever reason, take a little longer to figure it out. He’s already proven with the success he’s had at Double-A and Triple-A that he has tremendous major league stuff. The biggest thing is just to keep his composure and his confidence. Once he does that, he’s going to be fine. It’s just growing pains and we think he has a great, great future.

I may be missing the point here, or maybe I'm not getting the possible sarcasm, but I don't see any hate for Rich Hill in this article. This was posted July 18, 2006 and at that time this is would be a positive thing to say about a struggling young pitcher.

 

Somebody said the Cubs don't "have a thing" for Rich Hill, and somebody still thinks that person said the Cubs hate him. It's really become quite annoying.

 

seriously.

[UMFan83]

Yep, a winning record each year shouldn't be that difficult a feat with what the Cubs front office has to work with.

 

The Cardinals have had 2 losing seasons during the LaRussa regime. The Cubs during that same time span? 7

 

The Cardinals have won 100 or more a few times in that span. The Cubs? Well, they hit 90 once. The Cubs haven't won more than 90 games in a season since 1989. And consistency? Forget about it.

 

I'm sorry that I prefer results over promises. As illogical as that may seem, it's still my preference. Just call me unrealistic.

 

I don't even count the year that they won 90 games, 1998 as legit either seeing as it took them 163 games to do it. Just think 17 seasons without a 90 win season (in 162 games). Pretty amazing.

 

Last year we were 30 games under .500. The last time a team like the Red Sox was 30 games under .500 in any point in the season? 1963 I believe. This has gotta stop, and I don't think Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis are the answer to that.

[Hosak8]

Hendry and his special assistants have different views all the time over players. It's not a "group think" organization. Just b/c they're not on the forefront with the use of stats doesn't mean they don't accept opposing viewpoints.

 

BTW, those viewpoints almost got us to the WS in '03. It may be popular to complain about the last 2 seasons, but '03 and '04 were fantastic.

 

They might argue over which toolsy gold glover hits the best with RISP, but the end result is the same. They keep making the same mistakes.

 

Yeah, mistakes like acquiring DLee, Ramirez, Murton, Barrett, and Howry. Mistakes like developing Zambrano, Hill, Wuertz, Ohman, Wood, and Prior.

 

These guys are so incompetent. Why do they even have jobs? I could do better with my elementary knowledge of statistics!

 

hahahha are you a fake account or something?

 

Off topic, but I just threw up on my monitor, thanks to your signature.

[Jehrico]

Hendry and his special assistants have different views all the time over players. It's not a "group think" organization. Just b/c they're not on the forefront with the use of stats doesn't mean they don't accept opposing viewpoints.

 

BTW, those viewpoints almost got us to the WS in '03. It may be popular to complain about the last 2 seasons, but '03 and '04 were fantastic.

 

They might argue over which toolsy gold glover hits the best with RISP, but the end result is the same. They keep making the same mistakes.

 

Yeah, mistakes like acquiring DLee, Ramirez, Murton, Barrett, and Howry. Mistakes like developing Zambrano, Hill, Wuertz, Ohman, Wood, and Prior.

 

These guys are so incompetent. Why do they even have jobs? I could do better with my elementary knowledge of statistics!

 

hahahha are you a fake account or something?

 

Off topic, but I just threw up on my monitor, thanks to your signature.

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm going to start blocking Tree until that sig is gone so I don't have to see it!

[soapy]

Yep, a winning record each year shouldn't be that difficult a feat with what the Cubs front office has to work with.

 

The Cardinals have had 2 losing seasons during the LaRussa regime. The Cubs during that same time span? 7

 

The Cardinals have won 100 or more a few times in that span. The Cubs? Well, they hit 90 once. The Cubs haven't won more than 90 games in a season since 1989. And consistency? Forget about it.

 

I'm sorry that I prefer results over promises. As illogical as that may seem, it's still my preference. Just call me unrealistic.

 

I don't even count the year that they won 90 games, 1998 as legit either seeing as it took them 163 games to do it. Just think 17 seasons without a 90 win season (in 162 games). Pretty amazing.

 

Last year we were 30 games under .500. The last time a team like the Red Sox was 30 games under .500 in any point in the season? 1963 I believe. This has gotta stop, and I don't think Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis are the answer to that.

 

Those really are some astonishing (and depressing) numbers. I'm always amazed at how willing Cubs fans are to give Hendry the benefit of the doubt and always throw out the old, "Let's wait for things to shake-out before we crusify the guy." Hendry has been here long enough and done enough to warrant judging him on what he's done so far. In the simplist terms, he's developed a team that went from mediocre in 2003-2004 (yeah, they got lucky and snuck into the playoffs with 88 wins in 2003), to bad in 2005, to horrible in 2006. All while spending $100 million to put it together.

 

Of course has made some nice moves, but the overall body of work is quite unremarkable and is, to me, unacceptable.

[treebird]

Hendry and his special assistants have different views all the time over players. It's not a "group think" organization. Just b/c they're not on the forefront with the use of stats doesn't mean they don't accept opposing viewpoints.

 

BTW, those viewpoints almost got us to the WS in '03. It may be popular to complain about the last 2 seasons, but '03 and '04 were fantastic.

 

They might argue over which toolsy gold glover hits the best with RISP, but the end result is the same. They keep making the same mistakes.

 

Yeah, mistakes like acquiring DLee, Ramirez, Murton, Barrett, and Howry. Mistakes like developing Zambrano, Hill, Wuertz, Ohman, Wood, and Prior.

 

These guys are so incompetent. Why do they even have jobs? I could do better with my elementary knowledge of statistics!

 

hahahha are you a fake account or something?

 

Off topic, but I just threw up on my monitor, thanks to your signature.

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm going to start blocking Tree until that sig is gone so I don't have to see it!

 

THESE COLORS DON'T RUN

[Fred Hornkohl]

Yep, a winning record each year shouldn't be that difficult a feat with what the Cubs front office has to work with.

 

The Cardinals have had 2 losing seasons during the LaRussa regime. The Cubs during that same time span? 7

 

The Cardinals have won 100 or more a few times in that span. The Cubs? Well, they hit 90 once. The Cubs haven't won more than 90 games in a season since 1989. And consistency? Forget about it.

 

I'm sorry that I prefer results over promises. As illogical as that may seem, it's still my preference. Just call me unrealistic.

 

I don't know what constitutes "a few", nor when LaRussa took over the Cardinals, but for the record, the St. Louis Cardinals have eclipsed the 100 win mark 8 times in their history; 1931, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1967, 1985, 2004 & 2005.

[BigbadB]

I define a few as "as little as 2". I also define a "good" baseball team as a team that wins 95 or more. The Cardinals have done that 4 times during the LaRussa era.

 

But, my argument is not to show the Cardinals dominance. It's to show that a team that is fairly comparable in team budget with the Cubs can go out and build a team that wins pretty consistently. They've had 2 losing seasons under LaRussa. The Cubs have had 7 in that same span. That span is a total of 11 seasons. That's pretty pathetic.

 

And my argument is not to show that LaRussa is some sort of great manager, because I'm not trying to argue that either. The Dodgers have only had 2 losing seasons in that span. Houston has only had 1.

 

The Cubs have been behaving like a big market team during most of the last 11 seasons, but they sure don't win like one.

[UK1679666180]

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-061220cubsgm,1,3194241.story?coll=cs-home-headlines