Joe Girardi re-signs with the Yankees

Joe Girardi re-signs with the Yankees

Well, we can stop reading tea leaves...

Yankees announce Manager Joe Girardi will be back for four more years after signing a contract through the 2017 season.

The Cubs will turn to candidates such as Manny Acta and A.J. Hinch, who have already met wit the Cubs and Rick Renteria, who will meet with the Cubs.  Regardless of what happpened with Girardi, the Cubs intend to get this done quickly.

UPDATE 3:12 PM:  The Padres have announced that all coaches are returning.  That may rule out Rick Renteria, though you'd have to think that they'd let him go for a managing position if offered.

UPDATE: 3:17 PM: I've mentioned Tony Pena in passing but I think he could possibly become an interesting candidate if he's looking to manage again.  He is known in the industry as a motivator and a guy who works well with young players.  His knowledge of analytics has probably improved working under Girardi and the Yankees in general.

I wrote about Acta, Hinch, and a few other candidates here.

As I said, while I am a Girardi fan, I am not heartbroken about this development.  There is plenty of managerial talent available and the Cubs front office has a much better handle on this organization and what it needs.  We can be assured that the Cubs will take the manager who is the best fit given where the organization is now and where it expects to be in 3 years.

Girardi was the only proven manager available, so the Cubs will have to determine which of the candidates that will be.

Many will say that Theo Epstein has only hired 2 managers, Terry Francona and Dale Sveum.  This is true, but it's important to note that the other finalist when he hired Francona was Joe Maddon, who as we mentioned, was a losing manager for the first 8 years of his career (6 minors, 2 majors).

They'll have to find the next Maddon who can grow with the team the way Maddon grew with Tampa -- but there was nothing in his record to indicate he could be that successful.  He was also passed over numerous times for other jobs.

A lot of teams missed the boat on Maddon -- but Theo's Red Sox recognized his talent years ago.  Let's see if they can find the next one and this time, hire him for the long haul.

Maddon, of course, is a combination of analytics, people skills, and a leadership ability that doesn't employ the stereotypical fiery, speech giving, alpha dog style we sometimes associate with leaders.  He was able to both develop players and grow with them as they became contenders.

Of the remaining known and/or speculated candidates, who do you think best fits that mold? (Managers listed in alphabetical order by last name). If you choose other, please specify in comments.

Filed under: Uncategorized



Leave a comment
  • Well, I was wrong! Surprised Joe didn't pursue getting interviewed with the Cubs. I thought the challenge of winning a world series would entice him to make the move. If I had to guess, without reading any news on his decision, his family really wanted to stay in NY. Great job staying on top of this, John!

  • In reply to David23:

    Thanks David. A lot of these national guys were right all along -- and it could well be that TV was his second choice if it was about staying in NY.

  • In reply to David23:

    Hope Joe can get along with an aging roster with no farm system, there hall of fame closer retired, there ace pitcher going downhill fast and losing both there starting 3b and starting CF, with no comparable replacements on the horizon. Best of luck to Mr Girardi watching the Stankees as a last place club next year, except maybe if Tanaka and Ellsbury both sign for mega millions with Boss Jr wanting to cut payroll.

  • In reply to mutant beast:

    Cutting payroll doesn't mean becoming a midmarket team. They still have money to spend, but will probably need to be creative in trade market. Don't forget if A-rod gets suspended his salary won't count against the cap. That is a huge amount to spend on the team. Not to mention Rivera/Pettite retiring. So it won't be easy, but they can still be decent, just not great. If Cashman makes some good moves, they will be set for his tenure.

  • Can't they just kidnap Joe Maddon and be done with it?

  • In reply to Juiceboxjerry:

    Need to find the next Maddon. As I mentioned in the last article, the man started with 8 straight losing seasons (6 in minors, 2 in majors).

    Theo knows a little bit about Maddon. He was the other finalist when they hired

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    "Who wants that Joe Madden guy anyways? He's an old retired football coach with an overrated video game who talks about eating turkeys, ducks, and chickens all the time."

  • In reply to StillMissKennyHubbs:

    well played.

  • In reply to Juiceboxjerry:

    I'd say that Dave Martinez is the next big thing. I believe in tapping into up and coming coaches that come out of a school of success. In football, it's the long trail of successful coaches that come out of the Bill Walsh school. In baseball, there is a trail of success that comes from the LaRussa camp. Yes, Maddon is a great manager, and I think Dave Martinez has learned a few things from being his bench coach. DM also fills the other requirements that the Cubs FO has put forth.

  • Kaplan (I think) tweeted that he spoke to Girardi, who said the Cubs gig was very tempting but that his family liked it in NY. For what it's worth.

  • In reply to Matt Mosconi:

    It seems that was going to be the choice all along. The rest was theater.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I would like to think not.

  • Cal Ripken publicly announced that he wants to manage at the MLB level...

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    I'll take Cal any day of the week and roll the dice...

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    He should do like Ryno and go manage in the minors for a while.

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    Ripken has zero chance.

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    Ripken is probably interested in the Washington job, I doubt that announcement has anything to do with the Cubs.

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    I'm not saying he has a chance with the Cubs or not. IDK and tend not to speculate about these sort of things. Much like my position with Girardi. I just found the timing awfully ironic.

    Jayson Werth has publicly lobbied for him in DC.

    Mike Matheny, Robin Ventura, Walt Weiss, etc have gone straight from retired player to MLB manager with no time logged as a skipper in the minors, so there is some precedent elsewhere.

  • Was pulling for Girardi but sounds like he doing whats best for his family. He better hope they make the playoffs next year or he'll hear about it. As far as the 7 dwarfs I would rather see Alomar or Pena than Hinch or Acta.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to kansascub:

    I'd like to see more names. Different names.

  • In reply to kansascub:

    I think people gravitate toward famiiarity.

    It's my theory that Joe Maddon would have never been the fan's choice here when he was available -- unknown, losing record in the minors, no experience in the majors.

    I'll take the most unknown "dwarf" if it ends up being someone like Maddon.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I agree with you John. My 7 dwarfs comment was tongue in cheek after reading that description in another thread. I know everyone is going to have their favorites. Lets hope whoever the FO hires becomes the next Maddon.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Who ever they pick they have to get it right. They don't get another mulligan. Front offices rarely get the chance to hire three managers/head coachs before succeding. The ones that do have the crictical eye turned entirely on them.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    True but most unknown dwarfs don't turn out be Maddon. You've have to hire them to get your answer. That's what makes it interesting.

  • In reply to GAHillbilly:

    This FO almost hired Maddon and I think if they were in a more rebuilding situation, they would have. I think they'll find another good one now that they're focused on what they want.

  • I'm a little more disappointed than I thought I would be if he re-signed! Oh well, hopefully the next guy turns it around!!

  • Now to see who the Cubs will sign as their next manager. I think John needs to put up a "Who will be the next Cubs manager" poll.

    As I stated previously (and agreed with John), wasn't for or against and wouldn't get all teary eye'd if he stayed in NY. But now it's on to business. Theo needs to right his wrong and get the right guy in here.

  • In reply to lokeey:


  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Can the Cubs hire all of them and employ the "College of Coaches" strategy? Give them all a 1 year deal & a shot at managing next year. When the year is up, extend the best one...

  • In reply to lets go cubs:

    Sure, why not? It worked so well the first time :)

  • fb_avatar

    I wish Joe well , but hoping that he sorely regrets it

  • Oh well, we still got rid of Dale Sveum‏. That alone is progess. Back to square one, which is better than square minus one. Acta sounds better than Hinch

  • Girardi gets 4yr/$16M. His family must really like NY because he would probably have received 5 yr/$25-30M from the Cubs. But Ricketts just saved $20-25M, so there's that. Please no Acta or Hinsch.

  • John..... I am bummed out. I was really hoping for Joe. How can we be assured that the Cubs will take the best manager that fits to the job? The track record isn't good. I assume they thought Dale was a good fit. We need a proven guy and we deserve that!!!

  • In reply to WaitTilNextYear:

    Good call on the proven guy! Here's a few names I'd nominate: Don Baylor, Dusty Baker, Lou Pinella. Thoughts?

  • In reply to hitlist2015:

    No No and No. Maybe Riggleman lol

  • In reply to hitlist2015:

    That's quite a list of, ahem, "veteran leaders".
    But you forgot Charlie Manuel, Jack McKeon, Jim Leyland, Davey Johnson, Bobby Cox, and the biggest darkhorse of all, Bud Selig.

  • In reply to StillMissKennyHubbs:

    Haha, there ya go! Having the commish running the team is one managerial choice that could definitely result in a few extra wins through his "influence." Selig for Manager!

  • In reply to hitlist2015:

    I'd like to combine this comment with the one above and suggest the "college of coaches" approach with baylor, sweet lou and dusty. But only if Dusty has responsibility for the starting pitchers

  • In reply to JamesInFLA:

    I'm on board! That's THREE proven managers, which has to be better than one, right? And I want Wendell Kim coaching 3rd... he's a proven division-winning 3rd base coach!

  • In reply to hitlist2015:

    Not sure ir Don Baylor was a proven guy. Dusty and Lou got us as close to a World series as we have ever been. Both were proven managers. Do i want them now? No, but thanks for the smart comment.

  • In reply to WaitTilNextYear:

    I'm just trying to point out the absurdity of wanting only a "proven winner." It doesn't always work out. It also precludes hiring an up and coming manager who may be even better in the long run. John wrote an excellent article the other day about how this philosophy wouldn't have hired Francona with the Red Sox or Maddon with the Rays. I'd say both of those worked out pretty well despite them not being "proven winners." There are countless other examples, so why limit yourself to only one way of looking at things?

  • In reply to hitlist2015:

    I don't know who you can say Dusty or Lou didn't get us close to being over the top. Front office has tried a couple of up and comers and it didn't work. So maybe it is time to go back and find a proven winner. If you looked at the roster that Red Sox and Rays had when those two were hired, I bet you it was better then what is on this roster. If you look at the teams in the playoffs, how many of them are risk guys? Cards and dodgers are newer guys the other six are proven winners. I have also said I would like to see Oquendo get a chance. The last guy was a mistake. I am not limiting myself just giving and wanting the best for the cubbies.

  • In reply to WaitTilNextYear:

    Joe Maddon's first two years with the Rays, 2005 and 2006, their records were 67-95 and 61-101, respectively. So I'm guessing their rosters weren't that great. I'm assuming if you were a Rays fan you would've wanted him fired after those first two years and replaced with a proven winner?

    The whole point is that at one point, even those managers in the playoffs this year were "unproven". Every manager is "unproven" until they get their first job! And even then it sometimes takes a few years, like in Maddon's case or numerous others.

    I want what's best for the Cubs too but neither hiring a "proven winner" nor an ex-Cub is any more of a guarantee of winning than any other route the FO may take.

  • In reply to hitlist2015:

    Joe's first years in Tampa were 06 and 07. And I would say that those rosters were a bit better then what we have. If joe was doing a good job and you could see him managing a game the right way and seeing improvements then no. Did we see that with the last unproven guy? Nope. If dale would have had kids playing the right way and the ship headed right way then I would have liked that. But since he didn't I think in this situation I is time to try a guy who has proven himself as a winner. Never said it had to be an ex cub but that would be cool with me. And for you to bring up former players and add them to the list just to be funny is low class. I am a coach myself, I get how that game is played. Some jobs the want experience and some they are willing to try a new guy. Of the names mentioned of a new guy, none jump out at me except Alomar and Oquendo. Otherwise we need to find someone with the background to back up what we need. FO office took a bad route last time. You can't tell me Lou and dusty weren't successful in chicago.

  • In reply to WaitTilNextYear:

    Low class? Holy cow, come down from your pedestal.

    I don't see how Dale's failure has anything to do with what type of manager the team should hire in the future. Dale did lead the Brewers into the playoffs during his interim stint, so you could argue he was a "proven winner" too.

    Guess I missed those World Series rings and decades with 8-10 playoff appearances during Dusty and Lou's tenures. I think we have very different ideas of "success"!

  • In reply to hitlist2015:

    Thank you for going away. I stated facts and you made some bold outrageous comments to get laughter out of people. It is very obvious you have no clue, but the weak at mind always has to attack other intelligent thoughts with simple smart remarks. I have given quality thoughts and ideas long before today. Your first day here and you want to stir the pot. And you don't say a word with anything to contribute to this site. There have been others before Dale. That was just one example didn't know I needed to draw you a picture and list them all. It isn't a week argument. I week way to question it is hector is available. Thankfully you won't post again shitlist2015.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to WaitTilNextYear:

    Actually agree that Oquendo deserves a chance, it would be weird to see in a Cubs uniform, but he should be a dark horse in this race.

  • In reply to Jason Sprague:

    I just figured with McKay here in chicago. I assume those two got along in St. Louis? He seems to have good relationships with players.

  • In reply to hitlist2015:

    I don't need to read John's article about the points he makes or you think. I thought about that the day Dale was fired. IMO the best way to go is a proven winner. Your Kim and hector comments show your mental ability. If dale or quade would have had the success that Lou or dusty had they might still be managing. So keep poking fun of people's ideas.

  • In reply to WaitTilNextYear:

    So why isn't Lou or Dusty still managing the team? I take it you wanted both retained at the time, since they had been so successful and were proven winners? Heck, Dusty's gone on to win with the Reds, shouldn't he be an even stronger candidate now?

  • In reply to hitlist2015:

    I never said I wanted dusty back or Lou. You mentioned them as tho they were not successful in Chicago and that is wrong of you. They both had great moments here. I lost a lot of respect for dusty for making inappropriate comments in the media, so it was time for him to go. As far as Lou goes, if you remember he stepped down on his own and was just tired of managing. My point is those guys were successful here in chicago. Nobody can take that away. There are other proven winners available. So I don't know why u had to bring them up.

  • In reply to WaitTilNextYear:

    My point was if they were so successful why aren't they still here? They were both "proven winners" but how many World Series did the Cubs win with them? How many pennants? A "proven winner" is no more likely to lead a team to the promised land than the best "unproven" candidate. A lot of previously-successful managers have failed in later jobs, and a lot of managers hired without previous experience have had a lot of success. That's all I'm trying to say -- it doesn't have to be one or the other.

    You're right on Lou walking away, but would you have wanted him retained if he hadn't retired? No, no one did. No one wanted Dusty retained either. I don't see how that can be described as "successful." I would describe a successful manager as one with years and years of sustained success with a team, not just a couple short bursts and then everyone in town ready to run them out a couple years later as the team falls apart around them.

    Who are some of the other proven winners who are available who you'd like to see as Cubs manager? Honestly curious, as I haven't seen you list any of them so far. May not agree but would be cool to hear some names.

  • In reply to hitlist2015:

    Yes low class. The approach you have taken is throwing out names to be funny and rude. If you want to be taken serious then stick to points without being low class. You said the rays should have gotten rid of joe based on his first two years according to my beliefs. What I was saying the rays front office must have seen growth, improvement and doing a good job giving the rays a best chance to win. So I was relating that to this situation. I was judging dale on the same criteria. But it didn't happen for that up and comer. You can't argue that he was a proven winner based on that and you know what I am talking about, stop trying to be funny. So based on you the cubs have never had a successful manager? Cause we don't have World Series rings to back it up? I think both of those guys are proven winners outside of chicago too. Lou did lead us to back to back post season births not a bad two years for a struggling organization.

  • In reply to WaitTilNextYear:

    Sorry but if you think "success" is getting to the playoffs TWO TIMES and getting swept in the first round both years, then retiring a couple years later under threat of eventual firing, that's just sad. Lou was certainly a success outside of the Cubs, but if all you want from your favorite team is to occasionally make the playoffs, go nowhere in the playoffs, and eventually end up right back where you started, sorry, I can't agree with that. In 2003 I spent WAY too much money on tickets for what turned out to be the Bartman game, desperately hoping to see my favorite team clinch a World Series berth. That's my dream, to see the Cubs in the World Series, and of course most of all to win it. You're happy with just making the playoffs from time to time? After the Cubs got swept in both of those postseasons with Lou, you were thinking, "those last two years were a success"? I just can't understand that as a fan. I want the Cubs to be a perennial contender, not just have a couple good years every now and then and deem that a "success."

    Theo and company are at least trying to build a sustained success here, which is what I want to see, not more of the same old, same old, "oh, we almost got kinda close that one time!" Only time will tell if they succeed, but I'm not going to rip whoever they hire because WaitTilNextYear thinks that because Sveum wasn't good the Cubs MUST hire a "proven winner" (even though he hasn't named one candidate yet, besides Oquendo who isn't a "proven winner"). I'll trust the guys getting paid the big bucks on this one. What will your stance be when the Cubs hire someone who isn't a proven success (because that'll almost certainly be the case), and if they start winning in a couple of years?

    Also, why does it offend you so deeply to have your opinions questioned or poked fun at? Other people on this board seem to handle it just fine when others do it, and it usually makes for a fun, lively debate (even with a chuckle or two at semi-obscure names from the past along the way... oh THE IMMORALITY!!!). This has been lively but I'm not sure about fun...

  • In reply to hitlist2015:

    Not all proven winners stick around. Joe torre stepped down and tony larussa stepped down. Some move on, some wear out there welcome and some retire. It happens and is the nature of the game. Charlie Manuel got let go this past year. It happens. It is hard to judge the cubs on a good coach in your eyes cause according to you we haven't had one in over 100 years. You can't see how dusty or Lou can be called proven winners? Wow. I just believe we have tried to give a new guy a try at it. Now it is time to go back and find a proven winner. Guys that I would like to see. Jim Leland, Charlie Manuel, and Bob Brenly..... Just a few.... Ozzie would be interesting to talk to. Some new guys I would listen to would be Oquendo, McKay, or maybe Pena . Who is on your list?

  • In reply to WaitTilNextYear:

    I covered the portion regarding your incredulity that someone could actually have the gall to suggest that not winning a World Series in over 100 years doesn't really qualify as "success" above. And I never said Dusty and Lou weren't proven winners, I just said they weren't successful here.

    I don't personally have a list. I honestly don't really have enough knowledge to form my own list. I leave that to the people who make the big bucks. It's really hard to quantify all of the things that make up a good manager and I certainly don't have enough information on guys around the league as a whole to have a strong opinion one way or another. Failing that I trust the opinions of knowledgeable, intelligent people like John and a number of the posters on this site. But mostly, since I trust the guys the team's put in charge, I trust that they'll make the right hire. They've obviously admitted Sveum was a mistake, but at least they didn't compound the mistake by keeping him around. I'm curious to see what they'll do, though I'm pretty sure you can take the current manager of the Tigers off your list of "available" guys. And the FO has already shown they have zero interest in Brenly, so I wouldn't get your hopes up there. Besides, at this point it seems like there must be some reason no one's ever given him another shot.

  • In reply to hitlist2015:

    You can twist words to mean what you want it too. Just don't twist mine. I love having a good debate when some one can keep up and follow along.

    I am waiting on you to tell me a cub manager that has had success then? And I am waiting on you to tell me who you think is a great fit then?

    What I am saying is the cubs tried a up and comer and it didn't work and they should go with a proven winner. It is time to try something different if that didn't work. I have given you several proven manager names. Go back and look. Terry Franconia is another good name.

    I never said or implied I am happy with playoffs every so often. You are clueless if you feel that. We were the best team for 162 games and then got swept and never understood why we didn't throw our best pitcher that year ( Lilly ). A true baseball person knows that brat an didn't cost us anything. Different topic.

    I don't care that if you want to be rude. This site is for discussing people's ideas and bouncing them off of each other. When you just make a rude comment to people it reveals your class that you can't stick to a debate and have to make a pointless comment. You are still wrong about Lou . Did he take easy way out? Yes. But he gave us a successful 2 years and didn't take advantage.

    Drop some names I'd like to see.

  • In reply to WaitTilNextYear:

    The funniest part is that you think "the last manager was this one type of managerial candidate, so because he failed, the Cubs have to get a different kind of candidate next time," is a legitimate point, like each individual managerial candidate isn't an individual case. And you still think you have some kind of intellectual high ground. It's absolutely priceless comedy.

  • In reply to hitlist2015:

    You are the one that wanted to see dusty's and Lou's World Series rings. And I mention that no manager has any for the last 100 years and you get defensive. You are the one who defined success as winning World Series as being successful. I disagreed with that and said that Lou had a successful run as any cub manager ever has. I am glad you except the FO office apologizing for a wrong hire. Theo has to get it right this time. And I am sure there are people like me out there that are worried that they might not get it right this time. I hope they find the magic person. Any manager is available.
    I can't believe someone who doesn't have a list would have the gall to blast other names people have thrown out.

  • In reply to WaitTilNextYear:

    I didn't give a list because I don't think I'm qualified to be a major league GM. I'm a fan who doesn't even follow other teams besides the Cubs very closely, so why would I claim to have knowledge I don't? If I followed the rest of the league more closely I'd have candidates in mind, but I don't. Is there anything you won't get comically outraged about?

    You made a broad, sweeping statement about having to hire a "proven winner" and I questioned it because I think broad, sweeping statements with no back up should be questioned. Then you got all offended. The point wasn't to suggest I had better criteria in mind, it was to question your (lack of) reasoning. I never claimed to have knowledge of who'd have the magical manager pixie dust you seek (I really don't think the manager matters all that much, the talent is primary), so that's totally irrelevant to bring up as a criticism.

    Just signed up today and was looking forward to participating on this board, but it's clearly not worth the trouble. Enjoy your fantasy world, WaitTilNextYear, you're a true unappreciated genius!

  • In reply to hitlist2015:

    The funny part is you can't come up with any names. I am saying that they need to learn from a mistake and not hire the same type of guy. All you can do,is back track and make up silly response to feel better about your self. It is obvious you don't know much about baseball or the game.

  • In reply to WaitTilNextYear:

    Wow, you are thick. Never claimed to have any special knowledge about baseball or the game. You did. I questioned that. I'd say my questioning has shown that your only argument is "Sveum was inexperienced, so the next guy has to be experienced," which is an incredibly weak argument. You'll never be capable of thinking you might not know everything, so it doesn't matter what I think or anyone else thinks in your book ("I don't need to read John's column...").

    Okay, that's all from me. Sorry for clogging up this usually awesome message board with all this drivel, guys! It won't happen again. Will always look forward to gaining more knowledge from reading John's articles and many of the posters on this board. Best site on the web by a mile!!!

  • fb_avatar

    I know I'll get laughed at for this but the should have signed Sandberg when they had the chance. He's been a winner at everything he does. Time will tell.
    At this point I call this another "Cubbie occurrence".
    They might as well see if they can trade someone to the Cardinals and try to get FredBird to manage the team.
    I'm 57 years old and real tired of rooting for a losing team.

  • In reply to cb56:

    I'm not laughing, I agree...

  • In reply to cb56:

    Sandberg would be a great choice. He's a winner and his competitive winning attitude would transfer to the young Cubs. Greg Maddux could join him as the pitching coach. A winning combination all the way.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Roe Skidmore:

    Sandberg is completely out of the equation. he just signed a three year deal to manager the Phillies a couple of weeks ago.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Partipilo:

    That's why I said "when they had the chance" in my original post

  • In reply to cb56:

    I agree that would be a nice combo. What ever happened to Jody Davis? He did a good job in the minor leagues. Is he coaching anywhere?

  • In reply to WaitTilNextYear:

    How about Hector Villanueva? He used to play for the Cubs, so that must mean he'd make a great manager!

  • In reply to hitlist2015:

    They'd be dancing in the streets of Mexico...

  • In reply to hitlist2015:

    Funny. Not Ryne.

  • In reply to hitlist2015:

    You are being a jerk!
    Jody did manage in the system and did well. I was wondering where he went or if still coaching?

  • fb_avatar

    Couldn't you see FredBird in a CUB uniform?

  • On more important Cub news Almora hits a HR today to lead off the game in AZ.

  • I hope they pick someone that can grow and mentor all the top
    prospects coming after mid-2014. Being able to develop young
    players is very important. Winning more games in 2014 is
    great, but putting a workable roster by Aug. 1 is more important

  • fb_avatar

    What a relief. No more Girardi talk after today.

  • In reply to Michael Canter:

    Agreed, I always thought he was staying in NY...time to move on

  • I hear Connie Mack is really well-rested and could be a candidate for the Cubs managerial gig.

  • In reply to notcarlosdanger:

    and his suit should be well pressed

  • Her's hoping they find someone better than we've been talking about here, Acta, Hinch, Sandy, Martinez, no thanks...

  • In reply to peoria cubfan:

    I'll bet you at least one of those guys wind up being a very successful manager.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I'll take you up on that bet.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    question is which one?

  • This team needs a knowledgeable AND inspirational leader. Someone that these young guys can look up to and play their hearts out for. That clearly was not Sveum. It could have been Girardi. It could have been Sandberg. I have my doubts about Acta, Hinch, and Renteria. I think Ripken might be worth an interview. MLB managerial experience only goes so far if you can't get a rise out of a player..

  • In reply to Tinker Evers Chance:

    Agree, this choice is very important at this time in the Cubs
    rebuilding process. This should not be learn-on-the-job

  • In reply to emartinezjr:

    I'm not sure how much more "learning-on-the-job" Ripken would do. He knows a heck of a lot about baseball. That ought to inspire both the rawest rookie or the veteran who wants to win a ring. He wouldn't take any crap from a player, that's for sure. And I can't imagine anyone being any more inspirational. there's nothing wrong with being a legend if you know how to relate to the utility player as well as the All-Star. The Cubs have such a long history of no-name managers that have amounted to nothing. Who are the ones that took them to the top or nearly so? Durocher was one. Piniella was another. Famous names. They weren't players' buddies. They were no-nonsense managers who motivated a guy, one way or another. Nothing wrong with kicking the tires on Ripken and seeing what he's got. I mean, how much worse than Sveum or Quade can he be?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Tinker Evers Chance:

    Actually Dusty Baker got them closer than either Durocher or Pinella.

  • In reply to cb56:

    Could be. But Durocher took them from dead last in a 10-team league to being a pennant contender the next year, the year after that, and the year after that. Then he flamed out as the team did. I hated the guy, and he didn't get along with all of this players, even some of the famous ones, but he got the team to win.

    I'm not sure that we want a manager who is a players' buddy and coddles them.

    It wouldn't hurt to interview Ripken as well as the retreads. After all, just exactly how much MLB managerial experience did Sveum have? It showed, badly...............

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to cb56:

    As did Jim Frey

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Partipilo:

    True! good call

  • Agree. We need a proven winner.

  • In reply to Roe Skidmore:

    Like Don Baylor, Dusty Baker, and Lou Pinella?

  • In reply to hitlist2015:

    Never mentioned those names.

  • In reply to Roe Skidmore:

    That's not the point. They were all "proven winners" when they were hired here. I don't understand the obsession with "proven winners." Why is that inherently better than giving someone new a shot? If you hire the right new guy, he will quickly become a proven winner. By your logic the Red Sox never should've hired Francona, the Rays never should've hired Joe Maddon, the Patriots never should have hired Bill Belichick, etc., etc., etc. See John's excellent column from the other day that takes on this line of thinking.

  • Good riddance - can we move on with life now?

    As much as some folks wanted to see Girardi in the fold, I am relieved that the new regime did not hire another "celebrity" manager.

    The focus can now turn to hiring someone who will take the team to the next phase without all the pomp and circumstance.

  • When Cortez reached the shores of what would become Mexico with his conquistadors, the first thing he did was burn all their ships, so that everyone would know there would be no turning back. With Girardi accepting the Yankees offer, I think Theo finds himself in the same position as Cortez. There is no turning back now, and if he doesn't get this next hire right, he may not find El Dorado with the Cubs.

  • In reply to Cleme:

    Cortez didn't win any fans in the original Mexican League.

  • In reply to StillMissKennyHubbs:

    Nor did he ever find El Dorado.

  • In reply to TheSinisterUrge:

    I'm sure Theo could find an El Dorado on craigslist if he looked hard enough :)

  • In reply to lets go cubs:

    Girardi found his El Dorado. He got a 40% raise and an additional year on his deal. I bet that makes his family really happy too.

  • fb_avatar

    Silver lining- more money for tanaka

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to SKMD:

    True. I never got why people view every transaction in a bubble. When Dejesus was traded and it saved us several million dollars, people complained that we were "acting like a small-market team." That money all comes from the same pot and those Dejesus dollars may be what allowed us to get Eloy JImenez AND Gleyber Torres, or will put us over the top when we bid for Tanaka. Likewise on losing out on Girardi. Unfortunate, but at least those funds go back in the war chest.

  • In reply to SKMD:

    That's the spirit!!!

  • I know the focus is on the manager... But Albert Almora smacked a hr on the very first pitch he saw... Then Kris Bryant added another shot later in the inning.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Caps:

    Nice. Thanks for the update.

  • In reply to Mike Partipilo:

    Almora now 2 for 2 with a double, a hr and 3 rbi's... Still in the 2nd inning.

  • In reply to Caps:

    maybe someone in the Cubs front office needs to show some video of Mssrs Almora, Bryant, Soler, Rivero, et al to prospective managerial candidates with the caveat "this is your future".

  • In reply to mutant beast:

    I know right!

    I think some prospect inclined candidates like Manny Acta wanna work with the prospects, knowing the farm is a top 5... I just don't know much about Acta's leadership and strategical skills.

  • fb_avatar

    Does Girardi believe he'll get another WS ring with the Yankees before the Cubs get theirs? IS HE INSANE? (In all seriousness, and making an effort to be as unbiased as I can, I'd go with the Cubs on that bet.)

    At any rate, Manny Acta was my favorite candidate anyway, so I'm actually glad.

  • Only thing that can make up for the disappointment of Joe turning down the Cubs is a Cardinal beat down tonight by the Pirates.

  • In reply to Rbirby:

    Amen to that!!!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Rbirby:


  • In reply to Rbirby:

    Amen brother!

  • In reply to Rbirby:

    I think we can all agree that would put a smile on our faces!

  • fb_avatar

    IMO this puts the focus right on Epstoyer,
    The clock is ticking on them now....

  • In reply to cb56:

    Yeah, bring back Hendry! How dare they not have finished a complete turnaround of an organization that was massively screwed up in under 2 years!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to hitlist2015:

    I said the clock was ticking NOT time's up. If we get to year 5 of rebuild and we're still fielding 2nd rate team and Bump Wills is our manager, THEN I'll say time's up.

  • In reply to cb56:

    Fair enough. "The clock is ticking now" just sounds a lot different than "hopefully it's still not like this in 3 years."

  • fb_avatar

    Guys, it's all a ruse. Yankees fans are stupid, so Joe said he accepted their offer, but in reality, he's going to use a stand in. Girardi look-alike Tony Danza will be managing the Yankees, while Girardi leads the Cubs while wearing a "Groucho Marx" fake nose and glasses.

  • In reply to Mike Partipilo:

    LOL Maybe we can hire the real Tony Danza to manage the Cubs lol.

  • In reply to Mike Partipilo:

    How will we know it's not Bobby Valentine?

  • In reply to Tinker Evers Chance:

    By whether or not hes singling out Starlin Castro.............

  • In reply to Tinker Evers Chance:

    "How will we know it's not Bobby Valentine?"
    --Because Tony Danza has more baseball savvy.

  • Just updated article (again)

    There is a poll and the Padres have announced all of their coaches are returning -- including Rick Renteria, so scratch him off the list.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I kind a thought he was a name just thrown out there anyway. Now we start seeing more names, I think the list is bigger than he names we already heard.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Well, I suppose he'd still take a managerial job if it came down to it

  • He'll just mold a super-manager: AJ Actomar Jr.

    That probably sounded funnier in my head.

    Thinking Alomar now. If he did learn anything about sabermetrics from Francona, he could be great.

  • In reply to TheMightyGin:

    LOL, if only we could create a Frankemanager like that.

  • Bummer on Joe. Wish him good luck in NY. I have no clue who will be a good fit to manage now. My heart was set on Girardi.

  • Lets look at the "A" list

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to emartinezjr:

    the A list just signed with the yankees....

  • Ok enough will all the speculation. Lets talk about the more important issues, Almora 2-2, HR and 2B, Bryant 1-1 HR and is up next inning!

  • In reply to Buzz:

    2-2 for Bryant now.

  • Whomever they hire as manager, they need a strong Latino presence at least on the coaching staff. That was a major flaw of the Sveum regime, and probably accounted for a significant share of his communication gap with Latino players.

  • In reply to clarkaddison:

    Totally agree, they need someone who speaks their language
    (Figure of speech)

  • Only Sandy Alomar Jr and Dave Martinez give me much to look forward to, and its mostly bec ause of there associations with others(I lived in Ohio when Sandy Jr caught for the Indians, and he was a respected team leader there) or Martinez because of his years under Madden. Before he became TBs manager, Madden learned under Mike Scoscia, and obviously learned quite well. Hopefully Martinez picked up a thing or two from Madden , and apply them to a young Cubs team.

  • Want to feel better? Check this out....

  • I have no preference now. I will support the FO choice.

  • John, poll not showing up for me...

  • In reply to Quedub:

    Whooops. I zapped it accidentally. It's reinstated now.

  • I really like the idea of Alomar managing the Cubs. Everything I have heard is what a leader he is and how people look up to him. If it wasn't the fact that is kind of old school thinking wise, he would be a huge favorite

  • I don't see the poll either.

    My hope is Toney Pena. I still have a good feeling about Ausmus.

  • In reply to Holy Cattle:

    Yup, me too. Pena or Ausmus.

  • I don't see the poll either.

    My hope is Tony Pena. I still have a good feeling about Ausmus.

  • Joe Sabermetrics says managers don't affect much. Then Joe demands a sabermetrics manager. I'm looking first for a canny psychologist. The numbers are easy compared to that.

  • In reply to wastrel:

    This is a fair point. I'm one that wants a manager to be well versed in analytics, but being able to communicate and handle players well psychologically, to get the best out of them, is probably far more important.

    Let's hope we can get both in one package.

    The trick for me is trying to figure how good a manager is/will be at developing young talent. That's a very hard thing to quantify.

  • In reply to MrBillySir:


  • I want Ausmus. Last I heard he was not under consideration, any chance that changes?

  • Single by Almora now, triple away from the cycle.

  • I accidentally zapped poll but I was able to recover it.

    You should be able to vote now.

  • Gotta love the future. Big 3 today, so far... 6-8, 9 RBI's, 2 HR's and Bryant's last AB seems they were scared to pitch to him, walk.

  • In reply to Buzz:

    Yeah! That makes you worry less about the choice of manager.

  • fb_avatar

    I'd vote for Dave McKay getting an interview.

  • In reply to Lou Sofianos:

    I wondered why his name was never mentioned.

  • Lou Piniella.

  • Ditto on McKay.

    But I have another idea...

    Sadaharu Oh.

    Most of what a manager does is sign language anyway, right?

  • I hope I don't come across meatball-ish in saying this, and I'm sure there's no chance of it happening (at least right now), but I've always thought Greg Maddux would be a good manager. He just seems to have the right temperament for the job. And he was always a very cerebral player, that liked to help young pitchers on the staff.

    At the very least I think he'd be an outstanding pitching coach. Not sure if he'd even be interested, but I wouldn't mind seeing it some day.

    As far as the "Plan B" candidates being mentioned for the job right now, I know so little about them that it would be silly for me to say one way or another.

    I did think the Cubs would have more of a slam dunk hire at the ready after firing Sveum. Maybe they do have other guys they like very much, but it's gonna be hard to get excited about them when they were seemingly so sold on Girardi.

  • The Cubs will be ready to win the World Series in just about 4 years. Gerardi knows what he's doing!

  • My goodness... Almora 4-4, HR, 8 TB, 3 RBI; Soler 1-3, 2B, 2 TB, 3 RBI; Bryant 2-2, HR, BB, 5 TB, 3 RBI. I think these guys like playing together...

  • In reply to Paulson:

    One of the hardest things (as John has commented before on) is the adjustment Soler has to make from a different culture, language etc. And another reason why the Cubs seems to look for the high character guys...Almora interprets for Soler, which definitely helps him to adjust to the every day grind.

  • In reply to Paulson:

    so far they are destroying that league.

  • I'd like to see them rehire Dale Sveum.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jim Hickman:

    I'd rather be dipped in honey and laid to rest on an ant hill.

  • In reply to Mike Partipilo:

    Made me laugh pretty good. Thanks

  • fb_avatar

    I was at school with the wife and son doing parent/teacher conferences when this broke, but I'm glad it's over. That's all I'm going to say. I wouldn't want to be accused of gloating. Oh, what the hell?


    JG leaving the Yankees for the Cubs never made any sense to me. Had the Cubs been further along in the rebuild, it might have, but him and his family seemed happy in NYC.

  • I voted Acta, for a few reasons. His sabr-savvy philosophy would gel with the FO as John mentioned before, but for those of you wanting a manager who can communicate with the young Latin players, Acta also spent some time managing in Dominican leagues (very successfully) and also has managed the Dominican WBC team before if I remember correctly. Also, he improved the Indians team significantly in record over the couple years he was there, before his last season in which the team tanked in the second half (but check out that frightful pitching staff he had, only Masterson and Ubaldo made 25 starts and were still in the rotation this year, both posting ERA's over 5). I like him. He's my gut guy for the job.

  • In reply to nmu’catsbball:

    Doesn't it worry you that the tank did occur under his watch and Masterson and Ubaldo were both able to turn it around and basically lead the Indians to the playoff game?

    The best he has done is 80 wins any of his clubs. And after he leaves the Indians and eventually the Nats both have done better. The Nats job reminds me of the current Cubs situation. And all he could do is manage 73, 59 and a terrible last year in '09. I say to thanks and would like Ausmus or someone else. Nty Acta

  • In reply to Buzz:

    He has only been significantly below his pythagorean once in six years, and was rightfully fired for it (even though he was given John Lannon as his "ace" that year). The teams he has managed have been marginal at best. Look at the god awful teams he managed in his two best seasons record-wise. Arguably just as bad as this year's cubs roster and got 75-80 wins out of it. No manager wins with the six rosters he was given, he was not given the opportunity to take a team to the playoffs. I like him because he will be a great communicator with the FO and our young dominican players. He also wasn't given many prospects to work with, but I sure like what I saw out of his work with Ryan Zimmerman, Asdrubal Cabrera, and Michael Brantley. Hell he got great numbers out of Lastings Milledge, Elijah Dukes, and a three year stretch of sub-4 ERA out of John Lannon. These were virtually all of the players under 25-26 that he was given to work with more than two years, and he got a lot out of them. The rest of his rosters were very sub-par and not young enough to be considered prospects. Do I trust his record with young players at the major league level? You bet I do.

  • In reply to nmu’catsbball:

    You make some excellent points. I was firmly in the NO camp regarding Acta until I took the time to look at the teams he managed. He was hardly given the players he needed to manage a winner. The players in Cleveland were a little better than Washington and you could see the progress from year 1 to year 2. They did regress a little in his final season but was that all on him? He had some good young players that elevated their games in every season with Manny. The fact that he is from the Dominican Republic is also a big plus. He can communicate with the Latin American players & they will be able to relate to him better IMO. I was in favor of Alomar after Girardi, but I think Acta will be a fine manager for the Cubs as well.

  • In reply to lets go cubs:

    Thanks, I don't know if he's THE answer, but after actually looking into it for a while, he seems like a good fit for the players that will be on our roster in the next 2-3 years. There's definitely more than meets the eye with him if people take the time to look beneath his record and dissect it a bit.

  • Not Acta.. Pleassssse no Acta. Alomar is our guy, I'm tellin ya

  • What about Brian Harper as a managerial candidate some day? Former Catcher. Growing up with our young guys as we speak? Perhaps a staff member at the very least?? I voted for Sandy but I'm neutralish. All of those guys are capable of success as long as their roster is equally capable.

  • Very small sample size, but if Almora wrecks the Fall League, I wonder if he'll be challenged and sent to AA like Castro and just skip Daytona... I think that's not likely... But interesting.

  • They fired Dale to hire Girardi. You don't fire Sveum with a year remaining on this contract to replace him with a Manny Acta, A.J. Hinch, or any of these longshot guys.

    If you want a guy like that, then you wait to fire Sveum after next season (when we'll still be brutal) and you can have your pick of those same types of guys and another dozen more like them.

    Most GM's don't get to hire more than 2 managers, that's why Theo needed Girardi. Because of Joe's stature, experience, and past success if he didn't win a WS, Theo might get a third chance.

    Now Theo finds himself in the position where if the manager he hires in the next month doesn't win the WS, it's over. You don't get to hire a third manager if your first two choices were Sveum, and Acta/Hinch/Whoever

    Time to move on, and I hope they get the right guy somehow, but this was an epic fail. And Theo is now on the clock...

  • If they fired Dale strictly to hire Girardi, then the Cubs got exactly what they deserved.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Based on how it turned, I agree with you John. That's basically my point. They didn't complete the second half of the equation which was hiring Girardi. It's absolutely stunning that somehow, in year 2 of this massive rebuild, YEAR 2!, Theo is staring down at what is probably his last chance to hire the guy who will manage the Cubs to a World Series. I imagine his head must be spinning, and now it's a game of Russian Roulette that he can somehow find the next Joe Maddon in the next month.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    unfortunately I think both you and YCBS are right. I do think they fired Sveum, not STRICTLY because they wanted Girardi, but because they thought they had a good shot at him and it was a consideration in that decision. And now that that's blown up, they do deserve to be in the situation they're in - finding some guy that's not a big name, but more of a sure thing than Sveum. Because if we're in this same situation in 2 years, scrambling for a manager, a lot of that golden shine is going to come off Theo Epstein's rep.

    personally I think they need to hire someone who is impeccably respected for his baseball smarts, his ability to lead by his own example and his previous success on the field, and I wouldn't get too caught up in managerial experience. Who that guy is, I don't know. I'm not paid to know. I've said previously a phone call to Andre Dawson wouldn't be a bad idea, or if Ripken is truly interested, at least have a chat with him and see where his head is at wrt development and sabermetrics. I see Ripken as a Sandberg without the minor league experience.

  • In reply to SKMD:

    I would like Ripken for the hitting coach but not the manager.

  • It's time to Mo Vaughan.

  • Why in the world are they considering Manny Acta? He has failed twice as a manager, had issues with players and was a disaster in managing a bullpen. They fire Dale to hire Acta?? Please tell me this was a courtesy interview.

    I'm non-plused by the names I've seen thus far. Why can't we act like a major market team and hire a proven manager with the attributes required? If that person isn't available then why did they fire Dale in the first place?

    I love the re-build, but the managerial situation is discouraging. As much as I admire the FO, this is a set back in my opinion.

  • In reply to ccia:

    Joe Girardi has issues with the bullpen and had issues with players and management in his first stint.

    As the article earlier today noted, the game is littered with great managers who ran into some bumps along the way in their first job or two.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I think this applies to Acta. Check out what he has done with the under 25 year old players he has been given. It's pretty darn impressive.

  • I don't see the harm in an interview for Ripken.

  • In reply to Yemi:

    No experience, not a strong knowledge of analytics, no position of leadership as a non-player, no history of developing young players. I'd be surprised if his name even came up in casual conversation.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    You don't think Cal would get at least a token interview from anyone he reached out to? If he called Theo personally and said he'd really like to interview???

    I don't think he would ever get hired by the Cubs this off season. I do think if a team would hire a guy with no leadership experience at any level, it would be a giant like Cal Ripken. Did Mike Matheny have any leadership experience at any level?

  • In reply to Ben20:

    Definitely not advocating a Ripken hire.

  • In reply to Ben20:

    I think they wouldn't waste his time. I think that's the polite thing to do. Francona was interested in the Cubs job and the Cubs told him that he wasn't the right fit for them given where they were in the rebuild.

    This FO is about getting the right guy and right fit for the team. They're not interested in getting a celebrity manager unless he happens to be a perfect fit. Ripken just isn't.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Franconia was interested in the cub job?

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    John, do you really think either Manny Acta or AJ Hinch is a "perfect fit"? Come on, there isn't a perfect fit out there. I don't see either one as being an inspirational leader, nor as a guy who makes the right move at the right time. They both have a certain "retread" or "good ol' boy" network quality that they bring to the table. Because someone was a celebrity as a ballplayer does not mean they absolutely can not be a good manager, and you know as well as anyone that there are examples. I think Ripken is as worthy of an interview as the others, and I think he is more cerebral than you are giving him credit for. Just a hunch. But I also think he won't get one just like Sandberg didn't. I fear that we'll end up with another Sveum, who went right back into the "good ol' boy" network that is pervasive in the MLB managing and coaching ranks.

  • In reply to Tinker Evers Chance:

    I don't think anyone is a perfect fit and that included Girardi, but Ripken is less of a fit than most.

  • Also, no one is going to mention Wes Darvill had a poke today too? 3 HRs out of Cubbie prospects.

  • In reply to nmu’catsbball:

    Nice PH for Bryant!

  • In reply to Buzz:

    Right! Love seeing the depth, not just having awesome front line guys.

  • In reply to nmu’catsbball:

    Exactly. All this developing depth can only bring on some good trades. I hope for Cargo this year and whoever next few years.

    You live in Marquette now?

  • In reply to Buzz:

    Yes sir. Love it.

  • In reply to nmu’catsbball:

    Sweet, I'm originally from up there too, down near Ann Arbor now.

  • In reply to Buzz:

    Awesome. Hopefully I'll be down there in two years (med-school).

  • In reply to nmu’catsbball:

    I'll be there, I work there so hit me up

  • Whomever is hired as the new manager, I hope he wears his uniform instead of those pajama top looking things that Sveum wore.

  • In reply to GAHillbilly:

    I'm with you there, pal. LOL It seems that he made Bosio wear them too. It looked bad on Sveum and worse on Bosio.

  • Sandy Alomar Jr. with Greg Maddux as Pitching Coach would be a great combo to develop our young players/prospects AND get the fans excited.

    Theo/Jed can still come out of this smelling like roses IF they get Sandy & Mad Dog

  • Dusty's available.....

  • I went Dave Martinez and I settled on it last night while I was watching the Rays/Red Sox game, loving the chess game bewteen Maddon and Farrell. They had the camera on Maddon and, as always, there was Martinez, the only one in earshot, discussing everything on Maddon's mind. I thought, "that's about the best tutoring you can get for the Cubs job." Assuming the FO likes him, he's my guy.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Denim Dan:

    I like Dave Martinez as well. A lot of Cubs fans don't because of an alleged affair with Ryne Sandberg's wife. I'd like to point out that Mrs. Sandberg is the far bigger douchebag in that scenario, we never really knew the extent of their marital issues because allegedly it was more than just Martinez that was sleeping with her, and possibly more than just a few, and who cares anyway? If that is the only +character+ issue, let me know when Martinez runs for President. I think he would be a great candidate, but other than on these boards I have not heard his name mentioned.

    Would Ryno refuse to manage the Phillies in Chicago if they were playing the Cubs and Martinez was managing? Probably not. So if he's qualified, hire him. This issue is not as biblically large as too many make it out to be.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Canter:

    I wonder how that exchange of lineup cards might go.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Partipilo:

    Guns at 15 paces lol.

  • In reply to Michael Canter:

    I stand corrected on this point. Let's just hire the best guy and deal with any issues as they arrive. Whomever, we hire now with have to prove himself and Cub fans will want that person succeed.


    Good read on Acta from Sept 2012 from baseball prospectus

  • In reply to Rbirby:

    That was a good read, thanks for posting it. I like Acta a lot, too. I'm not at all concerned about his bad win-loss either. Those were woeful teams. Did I see a tweet the other day that somebody on the Indians said the clubhouse was 100% better under Francona? Seems inconsistent with this article and just about everything else I've read on Acta.

  • In reply to Rbirby:

    The linked article in that one is good too

  • Here's a fresh idea: instead of hiring a past Cub as manager, how about a future Cub? Vogelbomb sounds like a smart kid. No position. I'd hire him. ..Unless Doug Dascenzo is available.

  • In reply to Dan Bradley:

    Best post of the day!

  • I keep hearing a lot about philosophy and experience, when the most important things to an on-field manager are the following:

    1. A cool head.
    2. Fast decision-making capability, logical choices on the fly.
    3. A leader, a guide, a mentor, and a boss, all at once.
    4. Can handle a bullpen.
    5. Knows when to take a pitcher off the mound.
    6. Can write a smart, balanced lineup, and put his best team on the field every day, and make the best choices with substitutions and in the field and at the plate at the right times. But also occasionally work some guys in, throw them a bone, keep them fresh, keep everyone involved throughout the season.
    7. Treats all players equally to an extent, with a delicate balance of authority and leeway. Understands his players, how to treat them and how to motivate them. In some ways, players DO require different treatment, and a smart, intuitive manager will know what each player needs. And NO calling people out in the media. Rarely call out a guy in public in special circumstances, otherwise, get behind a closed door.
    8. Control the clubhouse, don't let the lunatics run the asylum.
    9. Creativity - the best managers can occasionally pull an ace out of his sleeve, a squeeze play, a hit-and-run, a pick-off move, a well-timed argument, a visit to the mound, an understanding of momentum shifts in either direction and how to minimize or maximize the impact, etc. etc.

    Sabermetric understanding is important, obviously, so you don't have conflicts with what your GM is trying to do, but honestly... how much of this is the manager's job? The manager has to manage games, the manager has to manage players, and if you give him 25 players, he's usually not going to go all Art Howe on you if he wants to have a future career. A guy who geeks out on stats and defensive shifts to a fault is going to miss out on the most important aspects of the game - the subtleties and nuances that make a manager great.

    Francona had it for a while. Scioscia had it for a while. They both seemed to lose it in different ways. Maddon actually seems to be losing his guys a bit - they have gotten sloppy. Bochy has it, by God. I do love Bruce Bochy. Smart guy, gets so much out of so little...

    You want a Phil Jackson type.

    Oh, my God, I could go on and on. This Cubs Way stuff is being given WAY too much attention. Yes, very important, and I'm glad to see the new ways being instilled at every level on the farm. But this is the bigs - you have different rules here, you have different needs, you have mature players that require reining in, that require guidance and tweaking - NOT overhauls.

    Mike Maddux might have the personality for this - based on his words two years ago, I really liked his approached. But pitchers, I dunno, they don't usually have the whole picture. Maybe McKay...

    Nobody likes my Sadaharu Oh idea...

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to HackWilson09:

    Maddon has gotten sloppy? If you can get 92 wins out of a team with the limited offense he has you are far from sloppy. Francona? Nobody expected the Indians to do that well.

    Rays vs. Pythagorean +5
    Indians vs. Pythagorean +2
    Giants vs. Pythagorean +2
    Angels vs. Pythagorean -4
    Cubs vs. Pythagorean -5

    Is it good luck vs. bad luck, or good managing vs. poor managing? There is no way to really quantify that, but, the better managers do succeed in leveraging situations that create an unexpected positive result from an expected subset of negative situations and the poorer managers trend oppositely.

    As far as the Cubs Way, I think you are misunderstood. It's sole purpose is to prepare minor league players for the major leagues and to instill a foundation and structure of principles in development, preparation and approach.

    It is a system-wide depth chart that is founded on consistency in all aspects of the game at every level within the organization with the idea that players at the major league level are not initially finished products and must still be developed during their formative years at the big league level.

    It is at this step in the process, of the "Cubs Way" that Dale Sveum failed miserably, causing a disconnect with the front office that ultimately led to his dismissal.

  • fb_avatar

    What's LaRussa doing these days?

  • fb_avatar

    Sad to see that Andy Pafko died yesterday at 92. Even sadder to say that today, he can still hit better than Darwin Barney.

  • I voted Tony Pena. I know absolutely nothing about the man or what kind of manager he'd make, I just remember him being the most game-savvy catcher I've ever seen play the game.

  • Joe we hardly knew you. Welcome to Chicago Manny or whoever gets the job. It's time to move on to the GM's meetings with Theo having his new manager chomping at the bits, ready to work his magic I hope.

  • fb_avatar

    Lovie Smith

  • fb_avatar

    Kidding about Lovie. I think Alomar Jr. is okay IMO, I like him over Acta or Hinch. Although I think Acta is very capable as well. Honestly, I'd kind of like to see Martinez or Ausmus though. I would have liked Renteria, but he is out now. I think Alomar Jr. and Acta have more managing experience, but I like the potential from Martinez or Ausmus. They're baseball guys and could command some respect in the locker room from the players. Not sure how any of them are at player development though.

  • I really like the idea of Ausmus, everybody says he will be a great manager one day. I say bring him in for an interview, if he really is that impressive then hire him regardless of his lack of experience.

  • fb_avatar

    Apropos of nothing: I wish Moneyball the movie was never produced. It has given far too many people the wrong idea about its concepts based on factionalized portrayals by actors who know nothing about baseball. There are some real baseball people in that movie who cringed at the finished product. But, hey, Brad Pitt.

  • fb_avatar

    Apropos of Nothing redux: Corey Crawford is on fire tonight.

  • I want Ausmus!!!

  • LOL!! I'm more convinced than ever that the biggest obstacle to the Cubs ever getting to a series is the fans.

    So, if Girardi had been hired, Theo and company would have bought themselves time?

    But now that they will be hiring someone with less experience, the clock will be ticking?

    So, the fanbase would accept more losing from Girardi than from one of the other names? Seems to me that it should be the exact opposite.

    The team is not going to contend next year no matter who they hire. It will be better than this year, but that is a low bar.

  • fb_avatar

    The Choo/Ellsbury conundrum. One last bit, off topic. I spent a good part of last night perusing the archived articles and comments. Why on earth would so many of you rather have Choo? And further, most say it's a monetary issue but given their abilities and potential for future production vs. potential decline, Ellsbury would be a better fit for the Cubs, far better in fact, and probably worth the money. Additionally, Choo is nearly two years older.

    Their skill sets are completely different and Ellsbury's skills play up in Wrigley and in that lineup. I see diminishing returns on a long term Choo contract. If the Cubs can acquire Ellsbury, I think he is the "Jayson Werth" scenario that has been oft-mentioned on these boards. Goodnight.

  • In reply to Michael Canter:

    You sort of lose credibility when less than 14 months becomes almost two years.

    You speak of decline - Ellsbury is already in decline, and speed guys always lose their legs, especially the ones who cannot stay healthy. When his SBs go down, his above average OBP and below average slugging will make him "just another guy on the team" rather than a talented standout.

    Choo has top 5 OBP year in and year out, plus decent slugging and speed. He is very underrated, but if you look at the numbers, even at 14 months older, he is a far superior all-around hitter to Ellsbury. And besides, Almora takes over CF in a couple years anyhow.

    Choo: underrated
    Ellsbury: highly overrated injury risk

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to HackWilson09:

    Choo and Ellsbury have missed a similar number of games to injury through their careers. I also don't think I lose any credibility for the record. First I said "nearly" and second I think that 14 months makes a world of difference when you are talking about similar contracts in length and money, especially at the back end of those contracts. And if you want to sling stats, Choo strikes out twice as much as Ellsbury, is one year, I'm sorry, 14 months closer to "losing that step" and if you want to sling stats here are a few for you to peruse from this past season:

    Choo -- +22 Runs Against Average, 2.2 Wins Over Average, +43 Runs Against Replacement and 4.2 WAR

    Ellsbury -- +34 Runs Against Average, 3.8 Wins Above Average, +54 Runs Against Replacement and 5.8 WAR

    More telling: Choo had a UZR of -15.5 while Ellsbury was a +10

    Where is my credibility now? I'll take those extra 36 runs and the *14 months* in age if we are talking similar contracts.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Canter:

    My bad, Choo is the better fielder. Sorry, late night. You make valid points but I'd rather have Ellsbury.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Canter:

    Nope I was right, Choo was a -15.5, not a +15.5 A -15 or lower rates as "awful" while a +10 rates as above average.

  • I guess what concerns me is the Tribune's article yesterday that said Theo was looking for as much a "Mom-ager" as a Manager. It said he wanted a guy who'd get along well with the players instead of a fiery manager.

    It seems to me part of the problem with Dale was that, especially end of the year, guys didn't feel like they'd be held responsible for things.

    Aside from names, which type of personality do you think the next Cubs manager should have?

    Personally, I don't think the next guy hired should have the same, "Well, they're young and they're learning" attitude or how will we ever build a culture of accountability and winning?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Deacon:

    I think they should worry the least about his clubhouse personality and be concerned much more with his ability to manage.

  • I think losing out on Girardi slows everything down a bit. Including the signing of big name free agents and trades like Salty, CarGo, and Chew/Elsbury. The whole bring in the big name manager domino didn't fall. So the FO is left with its original meticulous rebuild. That actually might be better in the long run.

  • In reply to 44slug:

    Yes I think it might be good to take things as they come and not force the rebuild. Let the prospects grow and mature. The results they produce will tell us which ones are the keepers and which are the surplus.

  • Can I switch my vote to Davy ? After reading this I changed my mind plus his kid I read was a freshman at Northwestern at least a few years ago and his wife is from here. Plus I dig his mix of new style metrics and old school attitude, is bilingual, and knows what to expect on the North side.

    Far as the Cindy stuff I dont want to hear about it or care. That's a private matter decades ago with only hearsay and gossip. Get the right guy for the job. Anyone remember Harry always saying how good looking of a guy he was :)

  • In reply to Rbirby:

    I think Martinez would be a great choice as well. I'd like to see the Cubs give Acta, Hinch, Renteria, Martinez, and then maybe someone like Hale and/or Pena a long look and then pick out whomever they think is the best fit.

  • In reply to Rbirby:

    And we can do a another poll once we get a clearer view on the candidates :)

Leave a comment