Gary Hughes Not Returning Next Year

[UK1679666180]

Somewhere me and Bruce Miles are both somewhat disappointed about this, despite the fact it was certain to happen.

 

Well here, we're celebrating.

 

Which is unfortunate, he's been good to great at scouting throughout his professional career. It's not his fault that Hendry did not combine his talents with someone well-versed in statistics to view it from an analysis basis as well. Hendry only looked at it from one side ledger.

 

His body of work is far more relevant than one Baseball America interview.

 

this sounds like you're blaming hendry for not hiring a guy to correct hughes' mistakes. and that with someone there to tell him what a terrible job he was doing, hughes would have been really successful.

 

No, each FO needs a successful statistical side and a scouting side though. Hendry created the flawed philosophy, it stems from that and trickles down.

[SouthSideRyan]

Could you point me in the direction of his body of work with the Cubs?

 

No one's work has been good under the Cubs since '02. I have no problem with him leaving, given his age and lack of ties with the team but most likely he does still provide good evaluation skills despite the Cubs as a whole not performing up to par for the last 10 years.

 

He's been bad at his job for 10 years, and you're disappointed to see him go?

[jersey cubs fan]

No, each FO needs a successful statistical side and a scouting side though. Hendry created the flawed philosophy, it stems from that and trickles down.

 

Hendry didn't create anything. That was how it was done before he took the job. It was a philosophy that Hughes himself lauded and preferred to work under. He really sucked at his job and now he is gone.

[UK1679666180]

Could you point me in the direction of his body of work with the Cubs?

 

No one's work has been good under the Cubs since '02. I have no problem with him leaving, given his age and lack of ties with the team but most likely he does still provide good evaluation skills despite the Cubs as a whole not performing up to par for the last 10 years.

 

He's been bad at his job for 10 years, and you're disappointed to see him go?

 

No, but I'm also not using one interview as the main parameter whether or not, I'm actually happy or sad to see him go. If Maddux or Randy Bush (who I don't like) had done something similar or had Hughes had a better interview, opinions wouldn't be like this.

[SouthSideRyan]

Could you point me in the direction of his body of work with the Cubs?

 

No one's work has been good under the Cubs since '02. I have no problem with him leaving, given his age and lack of ties with the team but most likely he does still provide good evaluation skills despite the Cubs as a whole not performing up to par for the last 10 years.

 

He's been bad at his job for 10 years, and you're disappointed to see him go?

 

No, but I'm also not using one interview as the main parameter whether or not, I'm actually happy or sad to see him go. If Maddux or Randy Bush (who I don't like) had done something similar or had Hughes had a better interview, opinions wouldn't be like this.

 

You just said no one has been good with the Cubs since '02. A day after you said you were disappointed to see him go. Help me out here.

[Guest]

No, but I'm also not using one interview as the main parameter whether or not, I'm actually happy or sad to see him go. If Maddux or Randy Bush (who I don't like) had done something similar or had Hughes had a better interview, opinions wouldn't be like this.

 

Yes, if someone else had exposed themselves as ignorant and dismissive at parts of player evaluation, or if Hughes hadn't done those things, then the opinions would be different. Opinions of the Cubs would also likely be different if they currently had 95 wins too.

[jersey cubs fan]

Could you point me in the direction of his body of work with the Cubs?

 

No one's work has been good under the Cubs since '02. I have no problem with him leaving, given his age and lack of ties with the team but most likely he does still provide good evaluation skills despite the Cubs as a whole not performing up to par for the last 10 years.

 

He's been bad at his job for 10 years, and you're disappointed to see him go?

 

No, but I'm also not using one interview as the main parameter whether or not, I'm actually happy or sad to see him go. If Maddux or Randy Bush (who I don't like) had done something similar or had Hughes had a better interview, opinions wouldn't be like this.

 

It's one interview but we all knew pretty much where he stood long before he ever made that interview. It wasn't an offhand comment. That's like suspecting your uncle is a bigoted homophobe and finally hearing him go off on gays and blacks and all the rest while drunk, then dismissing the comments because it was a drunken rant. We knew what Hughes was about with or without an interview.

[UK1679666180]

Could you point me in the direction of his body of work with the Cubs?

 

No one's work has been good under the Cubs since '02. I have no problem with him leaving, given his age and lack of ties with the team but most likely he does still provide good evaluation skills despite the Cubs as a whole not performing up to par for the last 10 years.

 

He's been bad at his job for 10 years, and you're disappointed to see him go?

 

No, but I'm also not using one interview as the main parameter whether or not, I'm actually happy or sad to see him go. If Maddux or Randy Bush (who I don't like) had done something similar or had Hughes had a better interview, opinions wouldn't be like this.

 

You just said no one has been good with the Cubs since '02. A day after you said you were disappointed to see him go. Help me out here.

 

You would fail as a trial attorney.

 

Its unfortunate it ended like this, I feel if he did con"t that he can be of benefit, but with his age and the transition as well as the state and results of the team, its best for both.

[abuck1220]

Could you point me in the direction of his body of work with the Cubs?

 

No one's work has been good under the Cubs since '02. I have no problem with him leaving, given his age and lack of ties with the team but most likely he does still provide good evaluation skills despite the Cubs as a whole not performing up to par for the last 10 years.

 

He's been bad at his job for 10 years, and you're disappointed to see him go?

 

No, but I'm also not using one interview as the main parameter whether or not, I'm actually happy or sad to see him go. If Maddux or Randy Bush (who I don't like) had done something similar or had Hughes had a better interview, opinions wouldn't be like this.

 

yeah, but hughes didn't have a better interview because the interview reflects his opinion.

 

that's like saying, yeah, but if he had been good at his job instead of bad at his job, he would have been good at his job.

[UK1679666180]

No, but I'm also not using one interview as the main parameter whether or not, I'm actually happy or sad to see him go. If Maddux or Randy Bush (who I don't like) had done something similar or had Hughes had a better interview, opinions wouldn't be like this.

 

Yes, if someone else had exposed themselves as ignorant and dismissive at parts of player evaluation, or if Hughes hadn't done those things, then the opinions would be different. Opinions of the Cubs would also likely be different if they currently had 95 wins too.

 

How did have success prior to the Cubs? I'm sure those same traits will still there.

[bukie]

No, but I'm also not using one interview as the main parameter whether or not, I'm actually happy or sad to see him go. If Maddux or Randy Bush (who I don't like) had done something similar or had Hughes had a better interview, opinions wouldn't be like this.

 

Yes, if someone else had exposed themselves as ignorant and dismissive at parts of player evaluation, or if Hughes hadn't done those things, then the opinions would be different. Opinions of the Cubs would also likely be different if they currently had 95 wins too.

 

How did have success prior to the Cubs? I'm sure those same traits will still there.

Then the real question is, did the development game change that much the past 10 years, or did his skills change that much? The Cubs have had such little success from within in recent history that it's a wonder Hughes has lasted this long.

[UK1679666180]

No, each FO needs a successful statistical side and a scouting side though. Hendry created the flawed philosophy, it stems from that and trickles down.

 

Hendry didn't create anything. That was how it was done before he took the job. It was a philosophy that Hughes himself lauded and preferred to work under. He really sucked at his job and now he is gone.

 

Hendry created the team's approach. It is a philosophy and a relationship with Hendry he felt comfortable with. Hendry learned as much from Dombrowski as Hughes.

[Guest]

No, but I'm also not using one interview as the main parameter whether or not, I'm actually happy or sad to see him go. If Maddux or Randy Bush (who I don't like) had done something similar or had Hughes had a better interview, opinions wouldn't be like this.

 

Yes, if someone else had exposed themselves as ignorant and dismissive at parts of player evaluation, or if Hughes hadn't done those things, then the opinions would be different. Opinions of the Cubs would also likely be different if they currently had 95 wins too.

 

How did have success prior to the Cubs? I'm sure those same traits will still there.

 

His role was different. A scouting director who can't spell DIPS is much different than the special assistant to the GM trying to influence organizational decisions. Neither are ideal, but it's far easier to be effective as the former than the latter.

[jersey cubs fan]

No, but I'm also not using one interview as the main parameter whether or not, I'm actually happy or sad to see him go. If Maddux or Randy Bush (who I don't like) had done something similar or had Hughes had a better interview, opinions wouldn't be like this.

 

Yes, if someone else had exposed themselves as ignorant and dismissive at parts of player evaluation, or if Hughes hadn't done those things, then the opinions would be different. Opinions of the Cubs would also likely be different if they currently had 95 wins too.

 

How did have success prior to the Cubs? I'm sure those same traits will still there.

 

Did he really have a lot of success or was it just like most "good baseball men" where all you had to do was be in the game for a long time to be considered by your peers to be a good baseball man? Maybe he did have success 20 years ago, but every business evolves and if he failed to evolve then he wasn't good at his job. Just because somebody once did something well does not mean they are currently good at doing that thing.

[UK1679666180]

No, but I'm also not using one interview as the main parameter whether or not, I'm actually happy or sad to see him go. If Maddux or Randy Bush (who I don't like) had done something similar or had Hughes had a better interview, opinions wouldn't be like this.

 

Yes, if someone else had exposed themselves as ignorant and dismissive at parts of player evaluation, or if Hughes hadn't done those things, then the opinions would be different. Opinions of the Cubs would also likely be different if they currently had 95 wins too.

 

How did have success prior to the Cubs? I'm sure those same traits will still there.

Then the real question is, did the development game change that much the past 10 years, or did his skills change that much? The Cubs have had such little success from within in recent history that it's a wonder Hughes has lasted this long.

Hughes had more success under Dombrowski than Hendry.

[Magnetic Curses]

Could you point me in the direction of his body of work with the Cubs?

 

No one's work has been good under the Cubs since '02. I have no problem with him leaving, given his age and lack of ties with the team but most likely he does still provide good evaluation skills despite the Cubs as a whole not performing up to par for the last 10 years.

 

He's been bad at his job for 10 years, and you're disappointed to see him go?

 

No, but I'm also not using one interview as the main parameter whether or not, I'm actually happy or sad to see him go. If Maddux or Randy Bush (who I don't like) had done something similar or had Hughes had a better interview, opinions wouldn't be like this.

 

the interview sums up his philosophy and explains why he was a failure, it's not in itself reason to hate him, it just tells us why we hated him and how shitty he was at his job.

[Magnetic Curses]

No, each FO needs a successful statistical side and a scouting side though. Hendry created the flawed philosophy, it stems from that and trickles down.

 

Hendry didn't create anything. That was how it was done before he took the job. It was a philosophy that Hughes himself lauded and preferred to work under. He really sucked at his job and now he is gone.

 

Hendry created the team's approach. It is a philosophy and a relationship with Hendry he felt comfortable with. Hendry learned as much from Dombrowski as Hughes.

 

hughes was poison in hendry's ear. sure, the GM is ultimately the decision-maker, and hendry paid the price for it, but his influence was clear. we had to put a noose around hughes's neck and toss him off the battlement to show the prospective GMs that we are serious about changing our ways.

[jersey cubs fan]

Hughes had more success under Dombrowski than Hendry.

 

How do we objectively declare that Hughes was the one who had the success?

[SouthSideRyan]

You just said no one has been good with the Cubs since '02. A day after you said you were disappointed to see him go. Help me out here.

 

You would fail as a trial attorney.

 

Its unfortunate it ended like this, I feel if he did con"t that he can be of benefit, but with his age and the transition as well as the state and results of the team, its best for both.

 

I'm serious, I want you to explain what you're trying to say. You said you're disappointed to see him go. And then couldn't provide a single example of worth he brought to the Cubs in the past 10 years. If you can't provide any value unless you have a great boss, then you're pretty worthless.

[SouthSideRyan]

Hughes had more success under Dombrowski than Hendry.

 

How do we objectively declare that Hughes was the one who had the success?

 

Because somehow he saw the talent in a 2nd generation baseball player who went 2nd overall.

[UK1679666180]

Hughes had more success under Dombrowski than Hendry.

 

How do we objectively declare that Hughes was the one who had the success?

 

By the talent he was credited and the success of the organization/farm systems.

 

To SSR:

 

Its unfortunate it ended like this for him and that people will remember him more for that one article than his body of work, not that I'm disappointed to see him gone. In the right role (in Det) he could be of use.

[SouthSideRyan]

And that's fine on a personal level, if he's somebody you respect, but on an organizational level, this is good news.

 

I'd be surprised if he doesn't wind up somewhere. He won't be as high up as he was with the Cubs (nor should he have been), but old baseball guys are employed for life.

[Magnetic Curses]

Hughes had more success under Dombrowski than Hendry.

 

How do we objectively declare that Hughes was the one who had the success?

 

By the talent he was credited and the success of the organization/farm systems.

 

To SSR:

 

Its unfortunate it ended like this for him and that people will remember him more for that one article than his body of work, not that I'm disappointed to see him gone. In the right role (in Det) he could be of use.

 

again, UK, that interview was a summary of his body of work.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Hughes had more success under Dombrowski than Hendry.

 

How do we objectively declare that Hughes was the one who had the success?

 

Does this mean he has had no success? I feel like you can raise that question legitimately for anyone.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The man's job was to evaluate amateur talent, and he clearly didn't understand why there might be a difference in the odds of a high school pitcher vs. a college pitcher reaching their ceiling.

 

One bad interview didn't make him look dumb. His dumb made him look dumb.