Managerial Changes: There's Gonna Be A Flood
by Al Yellon on Sep 27, 2010 1:30 PM CDT
in Chicago Cubs News
Email
Print
With all the discussion, analysis, speculation and outright guessing as to who will inhabit the Cubs' manager's office in 2011, I thought it would be useful to take a look at all 29 other teams and the status of their managerial positions.
I believe that years from now, the 2010-11 offseason will be looked at as a watershed year in managerial changes, a generational shift, if you will. As many as 15 manager's spots may be open this offseason, and several longtime managers (Bobby Cox, Lou Piniella, Cito Gaston, Joe Torre and perhaps even Tony LaRussa) are retiring. All those men are age 65-70 and the men replacing them (and taking other jobs as well) are likely to be 15-20 years younger.
Follow me past the jump to see every team in baseball and the status of its managerial chair. I have purposely left the Cubs job out of this list, because everyone here has discussed it at length, you all know who my personal choice is (and the choices of many other BCB'ers as well), and no matter what, you're likely to talk about it in the comments anyway.
NL East
Atlanta Braves -- current manager: Bobby Cox. Status: Cox is retiring at the end of the season. Possible replacements: former Marlins manager Fredi Gonzalez is the front-runner for this job and is widely expected to get it. He spent four years as third base coach under Cox from 2004-2007.
Florida Marlins -- current manager: Edwin Rodriguez. Status: Rodriguez was a surprise pick after Gonzalez was fired. There were several names mentioned as possible replacements during the year, including Bobby Valentine, but now Rodriguez is on the list of David Samson's candidates, as well as Tony Pena, Ted Simmons, Jim Fregosi and Ozzie Guillen.
New York Mets -- current manager: Jerry Manuel. Status: Manuel's contract expires at the end of this year and he is expected to be let go. Mets GM Omar Minaya may be fired, too, even though he has two years left on his deal. Possible replacements: who knows? It's been rumored that Joe Torre would take this job -- the same one he started his managerial career with -- but I can't see that.
Philadelphia Phillies -- current manager: Charlie Manuel. Manuel is under contract through 2011, and with the Phillies sporting the best record in the NL and poised for a deep playoff run, Manuel isn't going anywhere.
Washington Nationals -- current manager: Jim Riggleman. Status: Riggleman is expected to be retained for 2011; the Nats could improve by more than 10 wins over last year.
NL Central
Cincinnati Reds -- current manager: Dusty Baker. Status: signed through this season. Oddly, in a year when the Reds are posting their first winning year since 2000 and first trip to the playoffs since 1995, Baker is still mulling a contract extension he was offered last month. Regardless of what the Reds do in the postseason, it's their best year in a long time; it would be an upset if Dusty wasn't back.
Houston Astros -- current manager: Brad Mills. Status: signed through 2011 with an option year for 2012. The Astros have had a strong finish after a poor start.
Milwaukee Brewers -- current manager: Ken Macha. Status: Macha is signed through 2011, but GM Doug Melvin has waffled on whether Macha will be back next year. Prediction: despite the Brewers' disappointing season, Macha will return.
Pittsburgh Pirates -- current manager: John Russell. Status: under contract through 2011. However, Pirates GM Frank Coonelly recently said "nobody's job is absolutely safe"; it's very possible Russell could be let go. Possible replacements: who knows? And does it really matter?
St. Louis Cardinals -- current manager: Tony LaRussa. Status: signed only through the end of this season. The Cardinals have had a disappointing year and LaRussa is under fire. It's possible he could leave on his own, not be renewed or even retire. Possible replacements: Cardinals 3B coach Jose Oquendo has long been seen as a manager-in-waiting, though other St. Louis coaches like Dave McKay or bench coach Joe Pettini could get consideration, or they could go outside the organization. One thing for sure: LaRussa won't be managing the Cubs next year.
NL West
Arizona Diamondbacks -- current manager: Kirk Gibson. Status: signed through the end of 2010. Gibson replaced A.J. Hinch at midseason and his record hasn't been any better than Hinch's. However, there are already rumblings that new GM Kevin Towers will retain Gibson. If not, the D'backs could consider Mike Quade or Ryne Sandberg, if either is not hired by the Cubs.
Colorado Rockies -- current manager: Jim Tracy. Status: Tracy got a three-year extension through 2012 after being named NL Manager of the Year in 2009. The Rockies are likely going to miss the playoffs after a strong September, but Tracy isn't going anywhere.
Los Angeles Dodgers -- current manager: Joe Torre. Status: retiring. Torre announced he was leaving the Dodgers a couple of weeks ago; Don Mattingly will take over in 2011.
San Diego Padres -- current manager: Bud Black. Status: the Padres gave Black a three-year extension in July with two option years for 2014 and 2015.
San Francisco Giants -- current manager: Bruce Bochy. Status: signed through 2011; with the Giants having a good year and likely headed to the playoffs, Bochy's job is safe.
AL East
Baltimore Orioles -- current manager: Buck Showalter. Status: signed through 2013. Showalter was hired in August and the Orioles have played better since he was hired; Showalter has a 29-21 record. Is this real? Or is it what we might call "Mike Quade Syndrome?" Only time will tell.
Boston Red Sox -- current manager: Terry Francona. Status: signed through 2011. He's not going anywhere. The Red Sox hung in there until the season's final week despite multiple injuries to key players. They'll still likely win 90 games this year.
New York Yankees -- current manager: Joe Girardi. Status: signed through 2010. With the Yankees' magic number for the playoffs at one, Girardi is employed at least through the first 10 days or so of October. If they win their ALDS, that puts him in Yankee pinstripes for another 10 days. Prediction: he'll be offered a three-year extension soon after the season ends to stay in NY.
Tampa Bay Rays -- current manager: Joe Maddon. Status: signed through 2012. Maddon has been outstanding in Tampa; the Rays are serious World Series contenders.
Toronto Blue Jays -- current manager: Cito Gaston. Status: retiring at the end of 2010. Possible replacements include Quade, Sandberg, Jays bench coach Nick Leyva, Angels bench coach Ron Roenicke, and, according to this article, "200 others". I think he was joking, but other names mentioned there include Bob Melvin, Don Baylor, Pat Listach, Sal Fasano, Don Wakamatsu, Luis Rivera, Juan Samuel, Rob Thompson and Blue Jays 3B coach Brian Butterfield. GM Alex Anthopoulos is going to be a busy guy in October.
AL Central
Chicago White Sox -- current manager: Ozzie Guillen. Status: signed through 2011 with an option for 2012 that gets guaranteed if the Sox win the 2011 World Series. Most human beings have some sort of block that's placed between thought process and mouth to filter out what they don't want made public. It seems at times that Ozzie didn't get one of those. His statements lately have almost been dares to GM Kenny Williams to fire him. Or, Ozzie could quit and go manage the Marlins. If he does, the Sox could hire Tony LaRussa -- or bench coach Joey Cora, or 1B coach Harold Baines, or Wakamatsu, who was once a backup Sox catcher.
Cleveland Indians -- current manager: Manny Acta. Status: signed through 2012 with an option for 2013. He's not going anywhere... and likely, neither are the Indians. This isn't necessarily Acta's fault.
Detroit Tigers -- current manager: Jim Leyland. Status: signed through 2011. Leyland doesn't get enough credit for the job he did this year; the Tigers had significant injuries but are going to wind up over .500, though far off the Twins' division lead. He is almost exactly the same age as LaRussa. He'll likely finish up his deal and retire after next season.
Kansas City Royals -- current manager: Ned Yost. Status: signed through 2012. We all liked to poke fun at Ned for his inexplicable bullpen use in Milwaukee -- at one point he had a 14-man pitching staff during the 25-man roster limit -- and his complaints about CC Sabathia being "robbed" of a no-hitter, which promptly sent the Brewers into a tailspin, almost costing them a playoff spot in 2008. Ned's gone 51-69 as Royals manager since replacing Trey Hillman. That's a .425 winning percentage. In two-plus seasons with KC, Hillman had a .423 winning percentage. The Cubs will see Ned next year when they visit KC in June.
Minnesota Twins -- current manager: Ron Gardenhire. Status: signed through 2011. Gardenhire has done an outstanding job in Minnesota; they're likely going to offer him an extension after this season.
AL West
Los Angeles Angels -- current manager: Mike Scioscia. Status: Scioscia signed a ten (yes, 10) year deal with the Angels before the 2009 season that runs through 2018. The Angels had injuries galore this year. Scioscia does an excellent job and never ducks accountability or responsibility.
Oakland Athletics -- current manager: Bob Geren. Status: signed through 2011. About two weeks ago, the A's picked up Geren's contract option; before that there were rumors he'd be let go. Despite that, you'd have to think he'd be vulnerable to being replaced next year if the A's muddle around .500 again.
Seattle Mariners -- current manager: Daren Brown. Status: signed through 2010. Brown was named interim manager after Don Wakamatsu was fired; though GM Jack Zdurencik said all the right things about Brown's tenure, he is not expected to be a candidate for the permanent position. Ted Simmons' name has been prominently mentioned for this job; Ryne Sandberg may be considered, as might Bobby Valentine, ex-Mariner Joey Cora and even Dusty Baker if he is not extended in Cincinnati.
Texas Rangers -- current manager: Ron Washington. Status: signed through 2010. Just before this season started, Washington was on the hot seat for reported cocaine use. But Rangers management backed him up and he led the team to its first playoff spot since 1999. Though nothing has been decided yet, it was reported last month that the Rangers will likely extend Washington after the season is over.
In summary, nine teams are guaranteed to begin 2011 with a different manager than they had at the start of 2010 (Braves, Cubs, Diamondbacks, Marlins, Dodgers, Orioles, Blue Jays, Royals, and Mariners). Six other teams (White Sox, Pirates, Athletics, Cardinals, Reds and Yankees) have varying levels of uncertainty about next year's field leader, depending on various factors.
So up to half of major league teams may have new leaders from 2010 to 2011. It is a time of great change in baseball, and no matter who the new Cubs manager is, he will no doubt be a very different type of leader than we have been accustomed to over the last 10-15 years.
154 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Going out on a limb...
…I’ll say Brenly will get one of these open positions in 2011.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Possibly.
In my research for this post I did not find a single article that mentioned him as a candidate for any of the obviously open jobs.
Sure, he could be a candidate in Toronto, Seattle, maybe Florida. But can you see him leaving the booth for those situations? I can’t. And he’s not going back to Arizona.
I think he stays where he is.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I agree with you
Brenly is not really considered a serious managerial candidate anymore. He hasn’t managed in over six seasons right now and most of the credit he got for leading the Diamondbacks to the WS was that he wasn’t Buck Showalter. Bob Melvin got a lot of the credit for being the bench coach.
Brenly has not helped his image as a color guy—he’s portrayed himself as both outspoken/cranky and as a clown with a self-depreciating sense of humor. Both are great characteristics for the job he currently has, but neither does his image as a manager any good.
I think Bob’s found the right job for himself.
by Josh Timmers on Sep 27, 2010 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Those same thing could have been said about Leo Durocher before the Cubs hired him...
well, except for the color/analyst part.
There are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. Who says baseball isn't a religion?
And the whole
People giving credit for his WS championship to other people.
And Brenly was never suspended for associating with gamblers with ties to organized crime.
And that Durocher was Alston’s bench coach in LA just a year before he was hired.
And the fact that you’re even wrong about Durocher not working as a color commentator, since he did work as one in the late 50s (although not just before getting hired.)
Also, that Durocher was hired 45 years ago when the game was a heck of a lot different.
Yep, hiring Brenly would be just like hiring Durocher.
by Josh Timmers on Sep 27, 2010 5:16 PM CDT up reply actions
Durocher wasn't a "bench coach" per se.
There really weren’t bench coaches then as we know them today. Durocher coached 3B, and “assisted” Alston.
If you read Durocher’s “Nice Guys Finish Last,” you realize that Alston barely tolerated him.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Fair point
but just because Alston barely tolerated him didn’t mean he didn’t get a lot of credit for the Dodgers. In fact, that was one reason Alston hated him—the media was always giving Durocher credit for things Alston did.
by Josh Timmers on Sep 27, 2010 6:35 PM CDT up reply actions
My tongue was firmly in my cheek when I wrote that Josh. ;)
Also I was about 3 years old in the late 1950’s so I didn’t know about Leo doing color…
…our TV was in black and white anyway…
…THERE I GO AGAIN…being all ‘tongue in cheeky’…
There are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. Who says baseball isn't a religion?
What you said about the Pirates is worth mentioing for the Cubs:
And does it really matter?
Nope. Not in 2011.
1B Nady or Nady type (unless Dunn)
2B DeWitt/Baker/Barney
SS Castro
3B Ramirez
LF Soriano
CF Byrd
RF Colvin
4OF Fukudome
SP Dempster
SP Zambrano
SP Wells
SP Coleman
SP Silva/Samardzija/etc.
Mgr. Sandberg
90 losses
Wherever you go, there you are!
by Dan Serafini on Sep 27, 2010 1:45 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
So basically, you're saying the Cubs will make no roster moves at all this offseason?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
none that will be
a) smart
or
b) helpful enough to keep them from finishing 4th in the division next year
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Sep 27, 2010 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions
May I respectfully ask you to...
give me an example of a roster move that they can realistically make which will be either a) , b) or both?
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Sep 27, 2010 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions
May I respectfully ask you to...
… wait till the season is over and I can post my thoughts on next year’s team?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
You seemed to be OK with signing Adam Dunn a few weeks ago.
You’re not anymore?
I'm OK with it...heck, I even hope they do...
but it’s not going to keep them from sucking.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Sep 27, 2010 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Honestly?
I think signing Dunn to a reasonable contract, signing a good righty setup guy to a reasonable contract and maybe trading for a low-priced No. 3 starter could put this team at or above .500.
The team as it is right now isn’t 2006 bad. It’s more like 2005 bad. And if the Cubs seriously address a few needs — needs that really weren’t addressed after 2005 — the team could surprise next year.
Just my 2 cents.
The problem is...
… you probably aren’t getting Dunn for a “reasonable” amount of money. Plus, I think he’s staying in DC.
I do agree with you that this team isn’t 2006-bad. And even that team made the playoffs one year later.
So did the 95-loss 2002 team.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
You might be right.
My point was that signing Dunn to a reasonable deal wouldn’t be a bad move that would help the team. I wasn’t really saying whether it was all that likely — but I don’t think it’s impossible.
I’m not expecting a 21-game improvement in 2011 (that’s what happened in 2003). The rotation’s potential upside this time around is nowhere near as good as it was after 2003. And I don’t think the Cubs will ever be so lucky again as to absolutely fleece two teams in separate trades in one calendar year. Which is what happened in the Grudz/Karros and Aramis/Lofton trades.
Whoa
You gotta imagine that the OF will look a little different. Fuk or Byrd will be gone after this year. We’ll see who we get back. And Nady will not be back for more than a back up role. I really like the idea of Marcus Thames if you ask me.
I also have to imagine that the pen will be better and so will the rotation.
With improved play from the defense and better timely hitting (Aram won’t be this bad next year and lee is gone), the team can be .500 again
"Baseball is almost the only orderly thing in a very unorderly world. If you get three strikes, even the best lawyer in the world can't get you off." ~ Bill Veeck
Byrd's not going anywhere.
He’s relatively cheap, he’s a good clubhouse guy AND he’s a fan favorite. And, not to be too cynical, but I think the Cubs are very happy to have an African American player who’s a fan favorite after all the stupid comments from Milton.
Besides all that, trading Byrd would leave centerfield open or poorly filled, unless they turn around and get another CF. Otherwise, we’ll get Sam Fuld, or a really bad defensive centerfielder.
Last point: I doubt Hendry will trade Marlon after the (mostly reasonable) fallout surrounding the DeRosa trade. Good clubhouse guys who are cheap, durable and productive are hard to find.
by elgato on Sep 27, 2010 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yay!
"Well-behaved women seldom make History"---Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
by cooliogirl47 on Sep 27, 2010 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Well said elgato.
A lovely story:
One day, long, long ago, there lived a woman who didn't whine, nag or bitch. That would be me....
But that was a long time ago and it was just that one day.
The end
Thanks.
For the record, I wouldn’t absolutely write off the idea of shopping Byrd, or really anyone on the roster not named Starlin Castro or Geovanny Soto. But I don’t think there’s anyway the Cubs could replace his production, his defensive or his attitude.
What a horrible last sentence.
Byrd’s production, his defense or his attitude.
The emphatic nature of the pronouncements are premature
As for Byrd he is not essential. He has good value and did what was expected but he has potential value for the Cubs with $11M in liabilities and production and good locker room. I could see him going to Angels, Dodgers, Padres among others.
Cubs could move Colvin mostly full time and let Fukudome play out his contract and bring up BJackson when he is ready.
As for the roster get some imagination, Cubs are going to turn over 8-10 players.
Piniella: "This is a tougher job than I thought it would be, I'm going to be honest with you."
The indecipherable nature of your pronouncements IS hard to fathom.
I’m not even really sure what you’re trying to say, Ivy. Are you actually saying Colvin should be our full-time centerfielder? And what do you mean by “$11M in liabilities” regarding Byrd?
Finally, are you saying I need to get some imagination regarding the roster? Because I doubt I’ll have much say in what Jim Hendry does.
I love what he brings to the game
and his attitude/good club house guy are just pluses.
A lovely story:
One day, long, long ago, there lived a woman who didn't whine, nag or bitch. That would be me....
But that was a long time ago and it was just that one day.
The end
I think we should sell high on Fukudome and Byrd
Both have been adequate players over their contracts, but they aren’t going to be as valuable toward the end of them. I think it would be best, if possible, to deal both of them and see what we can get in return. We’d have those contracts at least somewhat off the books and we can give the youngsters a chance, or even potentially sign someone like Dunn in the offseason to play RF.
Viva la Cubs Révolution!!!
Please tell me you're joking.
Adam Dunn in right field every day is a terrible idea. If he’s a Cub next year, he should ONLY play first base. Why would you sign Dunn, put him in right and also sign someone like Nady?
Also, Kosuke is TOWARD the end of his contract, and he most certainly has NOT been adequate considering his pricetag. He’s a severely limited player who is only passable because he plays good defense and takes a good number of walks. There’s no way we ‘sell high’ on Kosuke Fukudome.
And, altogether, why would you trade two good defensive outfielders prompting you to sign a terrible defensive outfielder (to play the arguably the hardest right field in the majors) and also open up center to be filled by someone else?
I’m all for trading Kosuke. But trading Kosuke AND Byrd only means that the outfield would be potentially the worst defensively in major league history. Soriano, Colvin and Dunn in the outfield. I’m trying not to gag!
by elgato on Sep 27, 2010 2:46 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Fukudome has performed the best he ever has in his career this season
I would say that would be “selling high for him.” And I realize that would be a terrible defense, but I’m thinking about this team in the long run. Our chances of winning the world series seems pretty bleak for next season, so I’d just assume give the youngsters a starting job.
Byrd probably will be kept, but I think it would be financially best to deal him. I like him as a player, though.
The Dunn signing was a suggestion, but wouldn’t be ideal. it just seems like something Hendry would do.
Viva la Cubs Révolution!!!
Why would you sign Dunn and NOT play him at first?
It’s not like there’s a better option on the roster.
And, yes, Kosuke’s 2010 has been his best season. But he’s still a platoon outfielder who’s extremely overpaid. I suppose I can see why you would say trading him now would be selling high — and the fact that he has only 1 year remaining on his deal helps. But the difference in Kosuke’s performance, comparing this year with last year, isn’t near enough for teams to take a flyer on him without a lot of money coming with him from the Cubs — or unless they take another bad contract in return.
Why do you assume Coleman will be in the rotation?
Give me Gorz.
"You've got to get your damn shirts rolled up and go out and kick somebody's ass. That's what you've got to do. Period." -- Lou Piniella
Did Gorz
do something in particular to not even rate a mention on the 4th or 5th starter lines?
Speaking of which, I see no plan where Coleman has a cemented spot (you have him 4th, with no other candidates listed) in the rotation.
I think Casey can, will, and should have a shot to compete with Silva & Shark for the 5th starter’s spot.
Shut up Joe Morgan.
I forgot about Gorz...
Wrote the lineup and rotation pretty much off the top of my head…
Everything I hear from Ricketts and the talking heads leads me to believe there will be no big investments.
Wherever you go, there you are!
by Dan Serafini on Sep 27, 2010 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions
A few things I'd like to see out of our next manager
1. FUNDAMENTALS. It frustrates me to no end that there are so many occurrences of bad base running, not knowing where to throw the ball, failed bunt attempts, swinging at horrible pitches from year to year on this team. Some of that is just mental lapses, which happen. A lot of it can be fixed. It seemed like Jaramillo was a step forward with hitting for a few guys this year. Not sure what happened to Aramis and DLee with him. I know Aramis resisted initially going to him. Fielding is a huge issue for a lot of guys, especially now that there’s a lot of kids coming up. Our next manager needs to be able to say to the veterans as well as the kids, “hey, i see this as an area of weakness, can I help?” and players need to be willing to earn their paycheck.
2. Respect for the manager position. The whole not playing hard for Lou these last two years was sad. It happens. How this is fixed I’m not sure. But even Ozzie has his players working hard for him.
3. Established career. Being a good player doesn’t always translate to a good manager. And there are plenty of candidates who didn’t do well in their last gigs. Somebody who deserves respect as well as earns it.
I don’t think the organization knowledge is important. If anything its better if the manager doesn’t know all these things because that might ease the pressure.
Just my two cents
"Baseball is almost the only orderly thing in a very unorderly world. If you get three strikes, even the best lawyer in the world can't get you off." ~ Bill Veeck
Fundamentals are taught in the minor leagues....and only reinforced at the ML level.
One of the problems with this organization is that they’ve promoted far too many players (position and pitching) that have gotten by on talent alone and not forced them to hone their fundamentals before putting them up at the ML level. Once guys get to The Show and you discover they don’t have good fundamentals…it’s already too late. Look at the Twins and Padres….you don’t even sniff the ML roster unless you’ve proven you know what base to throw to and when.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Sep 27, 2010 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Question about that:
Have younger Cubs displayed better fundamentals in the past couple years? I’d have to say mostly no.
And that, frankly, makes me wonder about Sandberg. He’s managed all or almost all of the youngsters currently on the MLB roster.
Again...
…teams like the Twins make fundementals part of the organizational bread and butter. You either have them, or you don’t play for them, it’s very simple.
The GM has to make this happen by making it a priority number one, and number two putting the right people in place (managers, coaches, roaving instructers, etc.) to make it happen.
Hendry has always been an “old school” tools guy and for the most part, these are the type of people he puts in place.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I'm confused.
Are you saying Hendry doesn’t sign and draft fundamentally sound players, or that his minor league folks (like Sandberg) don’t do enough to teach fundamentals because Hendry is old school?
Anyway, since when is being old school the opposite of being fundamentally sound?
I don't think we can put much blame on Sandberg
for poor fundamentals. Who has he actually spent time with that has shown poor fundamentals? The problem that the team has had was with players like Soriano and Ramirez who were brought here from other teams.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
When I say "old school"...
…I mean someone who heavily relies are rating a players pure physical abilities to judge whether they will be a good major league player.
The problem with this thought process has been played out time and time again. To make the adjustment to the major league level, it is usually more of a mental thing than physical. If you don’t have the skill to be able to predict who may or may not be able to make those adjustments, your failure rate goes up quite a bit and you also end up with guys with poor baseball instincts that don’t know which base to throw to.
Maybe “old school” is the wrong way to label what I am trying to say, but teams like the Twins clearly look for different ingrediants and emphasize the fundemental part of the game more than most.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
In fact...
… the Twins seem to do an excellent job in finding, for lack of a better term, “character guys” who are both talented, good clubhouse people and can handle the mental part of the game. Look at the team they have right now and you’ll see a ton of players like that.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
your point's fine
your example’s a bit poor. the Twins are an old-school outfit. they’ve “broken through” by trying to act like a big market club this year (look at the payroll).
Call it what you will...
…but the Twins have been known to have the best scouting department in major league baseball for quite some time now. They also know what to do with the talent once they have identified it and this is a nice combo to have.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
that's overstating it
Best scouting department in major league baseball for quite some time now? I can think of at least 2 organizations that have been clearly better than the Twins for the past decade at “scouting” – the Atlanta Braves and the Tampa Bay Rays (and I could probably think of a few more if I thought long and hard about it). Their farm system is currently in the bottom third in the game, having failed to develop enough talent in recent years to provide them the impact to push their core over the top. They’ve got a lot of mid-rotation arms, to go with an upside bat in Hicks, and some raw talent, but it’s a very pedestrian system.
The thing about systems is that they fluctuate quicker than people think. The Dodgers were hyped up earlier this decade, but since their last “tier” graduated, the system is quite pedestrian right now. Prior to the last 2 drafts, Eddie Bane and Co. with the Angels have struggled badly. The Cubs system took a big jump in recent years on account of one draft – the 2008 draft, which provided the system with 3 arms that zoomed to the top of the lists. One draft, one good year can change a lot of things. There are few organizations that are immune from that sort of change. The Braves might be one – they haven’t missed a beat despite the change in GM, the change in scouting director. Their philosophy seems to be a bit different now, so let’s wait and see what the end results are.
There are a lot of things that the Cubs have to do better at, but the idea that they are simply chasing physical tools is flawed. If they were chasing tools, they’d be adding some power hitters and more power arms. They clearly need a boost in that area.
…I mean someone who heavily relies are rating a players pure physical abilities to judge whether they will be a good major league player.
The idea, though, that this is all the Cubs look for, under Wilken, is flawed. Under Stockstill, you could make that case. The Cubs have a clear focus on finding athletes. There is a strong rationale for that – quality up the middle talent has high value, and athletic pitchers are less likely to be injury prone and more capable of repeating their mechanics (obviously, generalized statements, as each individual case is unique). The Cubs, though, have placed an emphasis on finding sinkerballer types. If you scan the Wilken drafts, they’ve actually taken a lot of “floor” guys early on, moreso on the pitching side, but even guys like Barney fit that.
The reality is this – almost all organizations draft a variety of different talent. Wilken has acknowledged changing his philosophy a touch to fit the Cubs organizational focus, and one wonders how Wilken would draft if he was elsewhere. That said, they have focused largely on experienced players, and a case could be made that the focus of that is to find mentally tougher individuals and “baseball IQ” players. For example, Casey Coleman (granted, not a high pick) was considered a high IQ type of pick as a pitcher. Austin Reed has received rave reviews for his “IQ” early on. Micah Gibbs fits that mold.
In fact, some of us have argued exactly the opposite that you have argued – that we’d like to see the Cubs take some more chances on potential and impact (for example, I was fine with the Brett Jackson pick because it provided potential, but others pushed for AJ Pollock, who seems to be a Trevor Crowe/Sam Fuld type to me), rather than the play it relatively safe route. This isn’t to say the Cubs scouting is great – everyone misses, things happen, but it’s not nearly as narrow as you seem to suggest. There are valid questions/issues on the developmental side of things, but they are hiring, by most accounts, good teachers.
Let’s take it back full circle and look at the vaunted Twins and their system right now. Aaron Hicks was a tools pick. Ben Revere was a "tool’ pick (speed). Look up and down their system – a lot of their intriguing young talent is, as you term it, “old-school” type picks. This isn’t to bash the Twins either. They did a great job earlier last decade, but let’s not overstate the Twins and understate the Cubs simply because.
meant to say
Let’s not overstate the Twins abilities to scout right now and understate the Cubs simply because the Cubs history isn’t that strong in that regards. It’s easy to forget that before the Stockstill era, the Cubs had one of the better systems in the game from a value perspective, so the scouting hasn’t been consistently bad. If you want to focus on development, fair game, but keep in mind that scouting directors, philosophies and so forth for each organization typically change/adjust every few years.
Rays & Braves...
…are very good indeed and there are probably another 4-5 teams with good reputations.
I have talked to people in baseball that should have a good read on this, and the Twins have been known to have the mast talented group of scouts for the last 20+ years.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I'd venture a guess that
different folks, different strokes. In the 1990’s, many people felt that the Toronto Blue Jays had the best scouting department in place, from a major league level to a minor league level to scouting international and amateur players. Combined with a relatively solid developmental team, the Blue Jays were able to churn out young talent. Those folks have moved on.
A lot of the Twins scouts from the 1990’s have moved on as well, and several of them are sprinkled throughout baseball. Scouts don’t wholly stick in one organization. The point is, changes happen. I’d venture a guess that most people (at least those that I’ve talked to) would tell you that the Twins have struggled a bit on the amateur scouting side in the last 5 years. They really haven’t had a strong draft since maybe 2005.
A few guys
Player A – Born: December 25, 1958, MLB Debut: June 24, 1979
Player B – Born: July 5, 1951, MLB Debut: April 16, 1972
Player C – Born: September 18, 1959, MLB Debut: September 2, 1981
Player D – Born: August 24, 1960, MLB Debut: August 10, 1981
All of those guys had a lot of talent, but were fairly raw when they made their debuts.
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
Well said...
…and “tools” are great to have, but teams like the Twins view baseball intelligence and fundementals as a criteriajust as important as physical tools. The Cubs have not done this under the current leadership.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
My take...
Number 1. if you want good fundementals, it has to be instilled from the top of the organization down and not specifically from the manager. By the time a major league manager gets these guys, improving weak fundementals is not realistic.
Number 2. Lou was tired at the end no question, but again, if you want players who hustle, bring in guys who have this trait already in place as it’s not easy again for any manager to take a guy like Soriano or Ramirez and get them to run out pop flies.
Number 3. Good managers are as much made by being in a good spot with organizations as anything else. A lot of guys could manage and win in the big leagues if they were supported the right way (see Twins, Red Sox, Angels, etc. etc.).
This criterial of being familar with the Cubs history is total BS to me, but it sounds good to the media.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I don't accept that players can't improve their
fundamentals after they hit the bigs. If the team has a core leader or leaders, they can insist that undisciplined players do the right thing. In the NBA, it’s a common occurrence for rookies to learn their trade on the job. The problem to me is the lack of will for a manager to hold his key players accountable. Most prefer being popular rather than alienating pampered multimillionaires.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
Baseball is a different animal...
…and although I won’t say there can’t be some improvement at the big league level, the core has to be instilled in the farm system when players are more moldable.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I agree that the minors
are the most significant influence in teaching baseball fundamentals. However, I refuse to accept that a manager can’t have a strong impact on players. I recall when Quade had the opportunity to teach Soriano what was expected and he passed on the chance only to make that point to Castro.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
To task your manager...
…with changing the habits of guys like Soriano or a Ramirez is putting them in a very difficult spot. These guys were this way before they got here, have continued that trend here and will be the way they are until they retire.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
So what if it's a difficult task
When someone is brought in to manage a team and is paid $1M, he’s expected to make the team play as well as possible. If that means he has to insist the game be played the right way, that’s what I want him to do. I want high expectations from my manager, not a compilation of “What can I do” responses.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
I think your misinterpreting...
…what I am saying.
Of course you want your manager to promote fundemental baseball and to play the game the right way. I’m simply saying, if you acquire a veteran who has played a certain way their whole career, good luck getting him to change, even if you insist.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I understand your belief
and I realize it may be difficult, However, a manager’s job is to manage and part of that is getting everyone playing the right way. If a manager isn’t willing to make every effort to do that, he’s not doing his job. I’ve found it incredible that Piniella in the past and Quade now haven’t insisted that our veterans do a better job in holding our veterans to a higher standard.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
It should tell you something...
…that neither Piniella or Quade (or Baker before) could get any of these guys to change their habits. Even a hard core guy like Leyland can’t get Ordonez to hustle and he was the one who got in Bonds face years ago.
If this was 1970, managers had more control over players because the culture of the game was different. Today, it is much more challenging. This is why your top organizations concentrate so much on farm system development when a player is in a “pleasing mode” and they are moldable. Furthermore, these other organizations will simply stay away from certain veterans if they feel they won’t play the way they would like.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
MPH73 hits on an excellent point
If this was 1970, managers had more control over players because the culture of the game was different.
My long-suffering wife is tired of hearing me say, “Back in the day, guys like Sparky Anderson and Billy Martin and Dick Williams would get this outfit in order”. Why? Because players back then weren’t making more money than the GDP of Liberia.
These days it’s impossible to drop the hammer on a lollygagger making between $15-20M a year. You can’t bench him because the owner will start screaming to high heaven and the 24/7 sports media will turn you into a punchline.
When baseball – and really all professional sports – became showbiz, the traditional methods of motivation became extinct. However, that’s not to say athletes aren’t deserving of their salaries or that they make too much money to care. The thing to do, as has been suggested, is to ingrain a sense of professionalism and an appreciation for the less glamorous but nevertheless essential parts of the game through scouting and development.
Diamondbacks
If Gibson isn’t kept, one of the rumors on the D-backs job is that Tim Wallach would get the nod, as Towers, iirc, interviewed him in the past and came away impressed.
I think they're keeping Gibby
but I can see Wallach getting the job if they go in a different direction.
by Josh Timmers on Sep 27, 2010 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Brenly will be in the Cubs booth next year
Unless there is some kind of a knock-your-socks off deal out there. He wants to manage a team that can win, not rebuild a team. He will want to work with an established GM. Otherwise he has a sweet gig going on right now. He gets a little leeway to see his son play once or twice a year, that’s a good perk.
It’ll be interesting to see how many teams go for younger managers, or if there is considerable recycling this offseason. If I am the fan of a team that hires Jim Fregosi, Don Baylor, Bobby Valentine, or Tony Pena I’d let out a big yawn.
Torre and LaRussa Both Going Back to Where They Started?
How weird would it be for Torre to go back to the Mets and LaRussa to go back to the White Sox? That brings back memories of BJ and The Bear and Buck Rogers in the 25th Century being on NBC. That’s going way back.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
LaRussa to the Sox is a possibility...
… largely because he and Reinsdorf are still close friends.
Torre to the Mets? Not so much.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I think the Mets intrigued Torre
until he stuck his foot in his mouth and started talking about the job while Jerry Manuel still had it. Now I don’t think he feels he could honorably take it.
I think he retires now.
by Josh Timmers on Sep 27, 2010 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions
I think LaRussa will think seriously about it, too
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
Really?
I doubt TLR would want to handle the New York media. I could see him taking a high-profile job if one were available. But NYC is so different than anything else.
Isn't there still bad blood between TLR and the Sox?
Notably with Hawk Harrelson?
Possibly
As Al has noted, LaRussa and Reinsdorf are close. That would trump any animosity between TLR and Harrelson.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
Tony on the South Side.
I know he was there back in the day. But to go from the Cardinals job to the White Sox job would make for some interesting crosstown games.
Also, I bet Duncan could do wonders with the Sox pitching — which has always been about live arms.
Then the Hawk can take over in StL
and continue making an arse of himself in front of the Best Fans At Telling You They’re The Best Fans In Baseball.
Whoops
I mean think seriously about retiring, not taking the Mets gig.
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
Heyman article
Nothing really new, but in case people didn’t read it, Jon Heyman had a new article out with the first section devoted to the Cubs search. A couple weeks back, on MLB Network, Heyman made it sound like Sandberg was a shoo-in, but now, in this article, he adds that Quade has a real good shot at getting the gig.
IMO
NO chance Q gets the job….
if he was Hendry’s choice…I see Rickets saying,,,,um no……then would Jim quit for being overruled??
by cozmotaylor123 on Sep 27, 2010 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions
Ricketts
He’s made it clear that his SOP is to let the guys he puts in place do the work and make the decisions. Whether one likes it or not, I get the feeling that, whoever Hendry’s pick is will get the job, as long as he makes a good case to Ricketts for the individual.
Personally, as I’ve stated before, I’ve long been a fan of Quade and over the last few weeks, I’ve come to the conclusion that he is the best candidate for the job, and I think there’s a decent gap between Quade and my number 2 option (Wedge, Sandberg would be 3rd).
What?
Why would you put Wedge ahead of Sandberg?
I Disagree with Wedge Ahead of Sandberg, But...
Wedge has major league managerial experience that Sandberg doesn’t, and Wedge managed the Indians in 2007 to within a win of the World Series. That being written, I personally would rather have Sandberg than Eric Wedge.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
The Cubs seem set on picking someone with ties to the Cubs.
I think that’s a good idea, given the likely candidates who don’t have Cubs ties (i.e. Wedge, Melvin, etc.). That said, if Mike Scioscia or Joe Maddon were suddenly available …
honest answer?
Let me reiterate, I feel like my comments might make people think I’m coming down harsh on Sandberg. I’m not. Like I just typed in another post, I think he’s a fine candidate and still feel that way. I’m just not sure that
a) He’s ready
b) He’s the right fit for this Cubs roster (barring a dramatic overhaul).
Why Wedge over Sandberg? I feel like
a) Wedge offers all of Sandberg’s positive attributes …. and more . Sandberg’s worked hard to become more outgoing, but Wedge is fairly strong in that regards. Wedge is noted as an excellent teacher who has no problem building a strong rapport with players. Sandberg is a leader through example, but there haven’t been any type of Bill Dancy stories (where the players were exuberant in their praise for Dancy and, by all accounts, genuinely liked him and connected with him). Minor league players respect Sandberg, but can he build that rapport? Is he a leader of men when it comes to the bigs? Wedge is still a risk, but the unknowns are far less.
b) I think … I feel like a lot of people are taking the angle that Ryno eases pressure. I’m just not sure of that. I think the pressure ratchets up with Ryno in place, and I still believe the organization is better off taking a step back to take a step forward. Ricketts quote could be interpreted as simply wanting a guy with major league experience that knows how to deal with the daily stress. I don’t think an outsider is a bad thing.
C) Along with A, most accounts I have heard suggest that Wedge is more open to the statistical, quantitative side of baseball.
Eric Wedge is kind of a generic manager to me.
I don’t see that he makes the team better or worse. The Indians made the playoffs under him, but they also had 90+ loss seasons.
I don’t see that he’s the right choice at this time, nor does he “fit” at all.
I believe, unlike many here, that Hendry will present a couple of choices to Ricketts and that Ricketts may exercise veto power. Eric Wedge probably has as much chance as becoming Cubs manager as I do.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
fit
I think he’s a fit. He went through the meatgrinder in Cleveland, despite the odds being stacked against him due to what happened with the club. He’s an excellent teacher. I mean, between Wedge/Quade/Sandberg, i’d venture to say that most people would say that Wedge is the best teacher of the three. He is very well lauded for his capability to work and develop young players. Here’s a guy who is a proven leader of men, who had to deal with a difficult situation in Cleveland, is an excellent teacher and builds good relationships, inside and outside of the clubhouse.
He’s everything that Sandberg offers … except he comes with far less risk as he’s managed in the bigs and knows the daily grind. He also doesn’t bring the additional pressure that Sandberg would bring. Furthermore, from what I understand, he understands the value and role of statistics, although like Quade, he may not consider himself a “statistics” guy (or whatever Quade’s quote from the other day was).
I think Wedge is in the running (his status as a top young managerial mind didn’t suffer), although betting money probably has him, at best, 3rd right now. But on paper, outside of “Q” rating, I think Wedge has Sandberg beat in almost all areas as it relates to being a manager.
I’ll be surprised if Ricketts deviates from his SOP. He’s indicated he wants Hendry to make a decision and sell it to him, basically. If Hendry chickens out and offers a couple of choices (which everything suggests he won’t do), then he should be fired. I’d want my GM to stick to his guns and not waffle.
This is all plausible, but in the end, you're just guessing.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Geez Al, outside of something direct from Deep Goat...
…doesn’t that describe everything you (and most everyone else here) post?
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Admittedly a bit confused
What exactly am I guessing on? Wedge’s status as a great teacher who builds good relationship is well-acknowledged. I’ve read articles that said he utilized statistics, although not recently since he’s been out for a year.
The last paragraph isn’t a guess either – it’s my opinion. I guess saying Wedge is in the running is a “guess”, but when only two people have had formal interviews so far and he’s one of them, it seems like a pretty decent chance that he’s in the running.
I just don't think there's an "in the running".
It’s not a horse race, where one person is “ahead” and someone else then “goes ahead” based on news reports. Jim Hendry doesn’t operate that way and never has. He’ll gather all the information and, from what I understand, he and Tom Ricketts will sit down and make the decision.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al Yellon on Sep 27, 2010 11:25 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
okay, i think you are reading something that's not there
I specifically used “in the running” to mean that I think he is a legitimate candidate. The closest I come to suggesting it’s a horse race is when I say betting money is on two others ahead of him, but that hardly implies horse-race. You seem to suggest that Wedge isn’t a legitimate candidate (saying that you think you have as good a chance as Wedge in getting the job). What we know is that Wedge is well respected by not only baseball people, but specifically, Cubs people and the fact that he is one of two people to have a formal interview suggests to me that he is a legitimate candidate. Now, the easy counter to that is that Wedge was available to be interviewed, whereas some weren’t, so to that extent, maybe it’s a guess, but I meant it more as an opinion.
But speaking on Hendry’s MO, here’s where I disagreed with your previous point, in case it wasn’t clear for some reason – Hendry’s MO as a manager, from player acquisition to managerial hires (and even tracking back to his days as the Scouting Director, has largely been to stack his order of who he wants and work down that list. You said
I believe, unlike many here, that Hendry will present a couple of choices to Ricketts and that Ricketts may exercise veto power.
From Dusty to Lou, from Rafael Furcal to Juan Pierre, from Milton Bradley, the general picture of Hendry as a manager is that he makes his decisions and he goes with it. He’ll make his suggestion and he’ll have to make his case for that individual, but I’ll be a bit surprised if he offers up a couple of choices. That said, folks do change their stripes from time to time, so who knows.
Remember...
… that Tom Ricketts wasn’t the team owner when all those decisions were made. I have the impression that things are operating differently now.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
no doubt about it
and as noted, folks do change their stripes from time to time. But on paper, we have
a) Ricketts MO beiing to let the people put in their places make a decision and make the “sale” to him
b) Ricketts indicating that this is Hendry’s decision
c) Hendry’s history on how he makes decisions
I recall...
…Ricketts stating that Hendry will narrow down the group and than Ricketts will interview each in that small group.
I would guess, Ricketts will tell Hendry to not rate the final candidates for him, but to let him talk with them and then they can compare notes with each other without pre-conceived notions.
If at the end of the day, Ricketts has a different guy ranked as number one, he would give Hendry the opportunity to sell him on why he feels differently.
I could be wrong, but if I was Ricketts, that is the way I would do it.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Letting Hendry Make the Choice
I agree that Ricketts will let Hendry do that. If Quade happens to be Hendry’s choice, Ricketts will not overrule him. I wouldn’t be upset with Quade, but I still prefer Sandberg.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
Hendry's contract runs through 2012.
Choosing the next manager could be seen as Ricketts giving Hendry one last piece of rope.
Choose wisely, and have the team show signs of improvement and success, and Hendry lives to see another contract. Presumably the new manager as well.
Choose poorly, and have the Cubs show little to no signs of improvement and/or massive amounts of sucktitude, and it makes it real easy to can the manager – and the GM he rode in on. In other words, the massive housecleaning many were clamoring for as soon as Ricketts took ownership.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Totally agree.
And I think the improved play post-Lou has helped Hendry as well. Ricketts might think, with reason, that the team has played better as more and more young guys get looks — young guys who came up through Hendry’s farm system.
Ricketts also might think that the glut of bad contracts came about because Hendry was told to spend like a wild man to make the team more attractive to buyers after 2006.
And, finally, Ricketts might think that Lou’s lack of energy/focus/whatever made the team that Hendry assembled play worse than it should have.
Now, I’m not saying I agree with all of those points — No. 2, especially, is hard to fathom because a lot of the bad contracts came post 2007 and even post 2008. I’m just coming up with reasons as to why Ricketts might be giving Hendry the benefit of the doubt. For now.
side note
there were indications pre-Quade interim tenure that the reason Hendry had a lock on coming back in 2011 was because he sold Ricketts on the improvement in the farm early. The Quade era might push that argument a bit more, but all indications seemed to be suggest that Hendry was confident on being back.
Makes sense.
I was mostly theorizing as to why Ricketts is still willing to give Hendry some rope.
Rope?
There are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. Who says baseball isn't a religion?
Good one
Not as good as “Rear Window”, but very little is.
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
Unless you are in France:
There are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. Who says baseball isn't a religion?
Actually, I liked Rope better than Rear Window
except for all the scenes with Grace Kelly of course…
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Rope is more tension-filled
Rear Window has better acting, though. I’m also a little burnt out on cute tricks like one-room dramas. It’s a nice technical achievement, but you may as well keep it on the stage and make it a one-act, IMHO.
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
how can you guys forget about The Byrds? I mean The Birds??????? :)
that, to me was one of the scariest!
"Well-behaved women seldom make History"---Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
by cooliogirl47 on Sep 27, 2010 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions
No James Stewart ;)
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
I liked JS in Harvey...not a Hitchcock movie tho
"Well-behaved women seldom make History"---Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
by cooliogirl47 on Sep 27, 2010 5:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Stewart did four Hitchcock flicks
Nobody talks about “The Man Who Knew Too Much”, except when the trivia question, “What movie won the Oscar for ‘Que Sera Sera’?” is asked.
And “Vertigo” was kinda “meh” in my opinion. It was more of a love letter to Northern California than a truly defined three-act movie. Maybe Hitch was a little too close to the subject matter, but it starts to lose cohesion around the hour mark. By the time the “suspense-filled” conclusion rolls around, I was just wanting it to end already.
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
Geez, a Hitchcock part of the thread...
… and nobody mentions “North By Northwest”? Wonderful.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I was restricting myself to Jimmy Stewart's pictures
If I had expanded, it probably would have been to the under-discussed “I Confess” featuring possibly the best performance Hitch ever got out of one of his actors. Montgomery Clift was sublime.
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
yeah but, seeing a bunch of birds gathered overhead still gives me the creeps
scariest of the bunch, IMHO….and that’s the important thing! :)
"Well-behaved women seldom make History"---Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
by cooliogirl47 on Sep 27, 2010 6:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Strangers on a Train
Now there was some psychopathic tension…
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Indeed
And on everybody’s part. The fun in that movie is wondering who will blink first.
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
Please...
…don’t give Hendry any more excuses than he already has had and he has had plenty.
With that said, I don’t doubt Kenney backed Hendry by saying exactly what you stated above and it may have bought him a little time, but I still think it is a big mistake on Ricketts part.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I doubt anyone with any decision-making power ...
will read my comments and sign Hendry for another three years.
6th Straight Season That the Pirates Will Have Lost...
at least 94 games. The Tampa Bay Devil Rays never did that. I don’t know if any team has done that since the 1962-1967 Mets. I don’t see the Pirates getting to a World Series any time soon like the Rays and Mets did shortly after having running a long run of truly putrid seasons.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
Losing 94+ games six years in a row.
San Diego Padres 1969-74
The Orioles have a streak of five straight years including this year.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Thanks for the Info
I didn’t know the Padres were that terrible, when they first started out. It’s hard to believe now that the Pirates and Orioles were two of the most successful teams of the 1970’s. The Orioles won the most games of any AL team in the 1970’s. The Pirates were second to Cincinnati in games won in the NL in the 1970’s.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
The Mariners likely would have done it too if not for the 1981 strike.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
OT: Dusty Baker
Baker is about to become the first manager in NL history to lead three different NL clubs to division titles.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
That is impressive, but remember- divisional play began in 1969.
So while Dusty HAS done a good job in SF, CHI and CIN, we’re talking 41 years, not 141.
Still,… congrats ‘man’.
There are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. Who says baseball isn't a religion?
Has Torre said he's retiring?
I thought it was only that he was leaving the Dodgers.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Dude's 70
I’d presume he’ll retire from managing and take a consultant position somewhere. Maybe he and Lou can be the backbone of the Yankees braintrust.
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
I don't remember Torre's exact quote,
but I thought he said that he hoped that baseball would continue to be a part of his life in some other capacity.
I spent 90% of my money on women and drink. The rest I wasted - George Best
I'm tanned, I'm rested, and I'm ready to manage
for 1/10th of the cost of those ‘high-priced’ managers! Give me a call. I don’t even use an agent!
There are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. Who says baseball isn't a religion?
and I have my own uniform!
There are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. Who says baseball isn't a religion?
WHAT! Sal Fasano as the new Blue Jays manager????
You mean the Lugnuts will have to break in ANOTHER first year manager in 2011?
Sal has the most awesome ’stash in baseball since Rollie Fingers.
There are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. Who says baseball isn't a religion?
Rollie's is STILL cool:
There are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. Who says baseball isn't a religion?
OT and probably a stupid question.....do the Ricketts own the Cubs AAA, AA and A teams too???
if not, are they privately run?
"Well-behaved women seldom make History"---Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
There's no such thing as a stupid question...
Well, there IS, but I’m being polite…
There are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. Who says baseball isn't a religion?
As the scholar Chris Berman said
There are no stupid questions, only stupid people who ask questions.
Not saying that’s the case here, I just like the quote a lot.
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
Answer: No.
Minor league teams have independent owners. Major league teams sign limited-term working agreements with those minor league franchises. The MLB teams supply the field personnel (players, managers, coaches) and the minor league teams supply the support and stadium operations staff.
There are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. Who says baseball isn't a religion?
oh, I get it now. and thanks Zeke :)
"Well-behaved women seldom make History"---Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
by cooliogirl47 on Sep 27, 2010 4:48 PM CDT up reply actions
side note
i’m fairly certain that the Red Sox actually bought up a high A squad to get them out of the Cal League a couple years back, so not all minor league teams are independent. With Nolan in Texas, look for all of his minor league squads to shift eventually. I believe the AAA squad is making the move, but am too lazy to google right now.
that said, yeah, the cubs are independent from their minor league squads.
Round Rock and OKC Switching Affiliations
Round Rock will be with Texas now. Oklahoma City will be with Houston.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
There are several
minor league teams owned by their major league affiliates. The Red Sox did buy the Salem Red Sox, but the Braves own the Gwinnett Braves, the Phillies own the Reading Phillies, the Cardinals own the Springfield Cardinals, the Giants own the San Jose Giants and the Daytona Cubs are one of only three teams in the Florida State League NOT owned by the parent club (Brevard County and Ft. Myers are the other two.)
So to answer the original question, most minor league teams are owned by separate owners who operate with Player Development contracts with the parent clubs. The parent club pays the salaries of the players and coaching staff and the minor league team covers all other expenses. They also take home whatever profits (or losses) the team might make operating the ballclub.
by Josh Timmers on Sep 27, 2010 6:36 PM CDT up reply actions
wow, thanks for all the info...never knew this
"Well-behaved women seldom make History"---Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
by cooliogirl47 on Sep 27, 2010 6:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Now, that's not true for every franchise.
SOME major league teams own some of their minor league affiliates. For example, the Atlanta Braves own their Triple-A team, which is located in suburban Atlanta (Gwinnett County).
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Couple of Other Examples
The Cardinals own their Texas League AA affiliate in Springfield, MO, and the Braves own their Pearl, MS, AA affiliate in the Southern League.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
Reading and Frisco
The Reading, PA, AA franchise in the Eastern League is owned by the Phillies. The Frisco Roughriders in the AA Texas League are owned by the Rangers.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
I say this everyday...I learn something new about baseball all the time
thanks you all!
"Well-behaved women seldom make History"---Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
by cooliogirl47 on Sep 27, 2010 6:48 PM CDT up reply actions
something new at BCB***
"Well-behaved women seldom make History"---Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
by cooliogirl47 on Sep 27, 2010 6:48 PM CDT up reply actions
True. I should have said MOST minor league teams have independent owners.
Admittedly, my experience is in the MWL. I didn’t mean to imply that model was true for every situation.
It would be interesting to research this across MiLB and see what the complete numbers are. Looks like I have a winter project!
There are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. Who says baseball isn't a religion?
>sigh<...
Mets GM Omar Minaya may be fired, too, even though he has two years left on his deal. Possible replacements: who knows?
I know where they can find a replacement.
Joe Girardi...2011 Chicago Cubs Manager...Book it!!
Adam Dunn..2011 Chicago Cubs First Baseman - 3 yrs/$42 mill with a club option for a 4th.
Perhaps a replacement but is it an improvement
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
why
does the name jim fregosi always come up? does anyone even remember the last time he managed? i just hope quade and sandberg find jobs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bleed Cubbie Blue
Related FanShots on Bleed Cubbie Blue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Chicago Cubs Game Threads
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
