Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
MLB News & Notes (other than Cubs or Sox)
Multi-million, multi-year deals to managers seem solid lower risk/higher reward. You buy him a little extra cred in the clubhouse for cheap (and his influence over these nouveau riche man-boys is largely what you are employing your field manager for). If you need to upgrade, it just costs money, the extra year or three of one of the lowest paid key guys on your club. You just say, "Thank you, Ricky"; keep sending his timecard to payroll; and keep on rolling.  

And his financial burden to fully mature or maxed out systems (Angels, Dodgers, Red Sox, Yankees, Tigers to a degree, to date) each year he is managing doesn't count against the cap, as big market teams like the Nationals (especially healthy ones like the Cubs) are maturing toward the cap.

Reply
Believe this year's experience with Maddon may be glossing over studies which state that the managers impact on a team's wins appears to be minimal so why waste the cash.

 

Can understand the approach - if you are already spending over $100 MM on payroll what's another $3-4 MM on a manager but if payroll is limited, why waste the cash on something that doesn't appear to make much of difference.

Reply
I think Maddon is pretty unique, though. I'm not sure who else in baseball I can say has such a (seemingly) huge impact on their team's W/L record.

Reply
a) I think having managers mainly concerned with saving their own asses at the end of one year contract after one year contract is a bad idea.

 

b) I think changing the clubhouse culture over and over again is a bad idea.

 

c) I think the constant reshuffling of the coaching staff that comes with managerial changes is a bad idea.

 

Sure, burn it down if you're in a rebuild mode or a MAJOR upgrade becomes available...otherwise, no.

Reply
Fuck that annoying emoji.

Reply
Quote:Believe this year's experience with Maddon may be glossing over studies which state that the managers impact on a team's wins appears to be minimal so why waste the cash.

 

Can understand the approach - if you are already spending over $100 MM on payroll what's another $3-4 MM on a manager but if payroll is limited, why waste the cash on something that doesn't appear to make much of difference.
 

The fact that data and its analysis can't see the value of manager may be a fault in the data (super small sample sizes for one) or the analysis. Just because something is un-measurable doesn't mean it is unimportant. I agree with you and Butch that Maddon, here, is a one-off (see ssss above) and each manager roster-pairing makes each one (and even each year) unique. That makes the right one invaluable.

 

I am comfortable, even if I am in a minority, in thinking that a manager can be vital. I think I started feeling this way when I realized that I am more like the managers than the players (age for one), so there is probably something psychologically self-serving in my belief, too.  

Reply
I agree managers can play a huge difference. Sometimes positively (Maddon), but sometimes negatively (Williams). I think more often than not though they lean towards the neutral zone over the course of a full season.
Signature.
Reply
https://twitter.com/whitesox/status/661967966477688832
Reply
Castro for Sale.

Reply
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KeKLo10lwrI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

One dick can poke an eye out. A hundred dicks can move mountains.
--Veryzer

Reply
So Ramirez officially retired today. Good for him. Loved that guy.
Signature.
Reply
It begins.

 

https://twitter.com/mlbtraderumors/statu...9704318976

Reply
That just seems like a whole lot of mediocrity changing teams.
Reply
I almost forgot Logan Morrsion existed.

Reply
Quote:I almost forgot Logan Morrsion existed.
Probably because Logan Morrsion
doesn't exist.

 

To your point, he's gone from super prospect to nobody very quickly.
I got nothin'.


Andy
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 53 Guest(s)