PDA

View Full Version : McCoy remebers Piniella as a Red...



Wheelhouse
10-23-2006, 01:13 AM
http://www.daytondailynews.com/s/content/oh/story/sports/pro/reds/2006/10/22/ddn102206mccoy.html

Piniella a sure bet to be entertaining
By Hal McCoy
Staff Writer

The Chicago media are in for a treat — and a treatment — from Sweet Lou Piniella, who isn't always so sweet when his teams lose or when he perceives an injustice from the umpires.

He not only wears his emotions on his sleeve, he wears them all over his uniform, which now belongs to the Chicago Cubs.

Everybody knows where they stand with Piniella. If a player isn't in good standing, he sits. Piniella not only doesn't take losing, he abhors it. And poor play or lack of hustle is a sin against mankind.

At the same time, there is no more loyal person than Piniella.

For two years he managed the Cincinnati Reds, taking them to the 1990 World Series championship with four straight victories over the Oakland A's. In 34 years of covering the Reds, he remains my favorite manager.

They were fun and tumultuous times.

For some reason, a gum company once placed a large globe-sized plastic container of gum balls in Lou's office. It lasted less than a week. After a disturbing loss, when writers entered his office, the plastic globe was in jagged fragments and about 2,000 gum balls were scattered across the floor. With an impish grin, Piniella said, "Watch the gum, guys."

In San Diego, the clubhouse attendant put a bucket of ice in the manager's office, several bottles of beer buried within. After another shattering defeat, the floor was covered with enough ice to stage the Ice Capades. "Watch the ice, guys," Lou said.

Everybody knows about the Rob Dibble-Piniella clubhouse scuffle. Few know it was started by yours truly. Dibble was the closer in 1991, and when he didn't appear in a closing situation, I asked Piniella about it and he said, "Dibble told me before the game his shoulder hurt and he wasn't available."

When I asked about the shoulder and what Piniella said, Dibble said, "The manager is a liar." I dutifully relayed that message to Piniella, and he nearly flattened me against his office door on his sprint to the clubhouse to jump on Dibble.

Another memorable moment from '91 involved another reliever. Things weren't going well for Randy Myers, one of the Nasty Boys (Dibble, Myers, Norm Charlton), and he kept harping about a trade. His locker was right around the corner from Piniella's office, and after one game Lou was asked about Myers' trade talk. Piniella erupted, screaming loud enough so that Myers could hear:

"He is paid to wear the uniform he is wearing. He takes the checks, doesn't he? He should just shut up and pitch when he is asked to pitch. If not, just take off the damn uniform and go home. How's that?"

Piniella's contract expired after the 1991 season and he wanted to stay in Cincinnati, but he wanted his situation cleared before the season ended, via a contract extension. CEO Marge Schott wouldn't do it.

In late August, the Reds were in San Diego, hopelessly out of the race. Piniella and I went to Del Mar racetrack for some early-afternoon relaxation. After five races, I suggested to Lou that it was time to get to the park so he could make out his lineup card and be there for batting practice. "One more race," he said. One more became two more, and I nearly had to drag him out of the place.

On the way to the park, I mentioned that it wouldn't look good to be late, and he said, "Who cares? I'm not coming back next year." What a nice way to get a scoop. And we made it to the park on time.

Below the gruff exterior, though, is a caring man with a big heart. In addition, he knows the game, knows how to handle players, is always well-prepared. A warning, though: There shouldn't be plastic gum ball containers or ice buckets in the manager's office when the Cubs blow one.

Unassisted
10-23-2006, 10:08 AM
Does the Lou Piniella that Hal describes even exist anymore? I don't remember seeing any of his famous tirades on TV in the last few years or reading any quotes of the kind that Hal mentions in the media over the same span. That makes me think that the 2007 version of Piniella is closer in demeanor to milquetoast Jerry Narron than he is to fiery Earl Weaver.

Joseph
10-23-2006, 11:04 AM
Does it matter to anyone that Lou managed the Reds for 3 years instead of just 2?

Redsland
10-23-2006, 11:47 AM
Does it matter to anyone that Lou managed the Reds for 3 years instead of just 2?
Or that in Lou's last year here, the Reds weren't "hopelessly out of the race," as Hal asserts? Rather, they won 90 games and finished in second place.

Or that the Reds didn't visit San Diego in "late August" of 1991? They were there in early August (with a .500 record, not hopelessly out of it) and again for the last series of the year, in early October.

Or that contrary to Lou's 1991 assertion, he did return for 1992? (Unless, of course, Hal meant to type the later year, in which case...)

...Or that, when Lou visited San Diego in late 1992, neither trip occurred in "late August"? One trip was smack in the middle of the month, with the final visit occurring in September. And, rather than being "hopelessly out of the race," the Reds were as many as 16 games over .500?

Sloppy, sloppy work. But par for the course. (Still loving that Delino DeShields trade, Jim Beattie's GM appointment, and Steve Garvey's HoF plaque.) :mooner:

Chip R
10-23-2006, 11:50 AM
Sloppy, sloppy work. But par for the course. (Still loving that Delino DeShields trade, Jim Beattie's GM appointment, and Steve Garvey's HoF plaque.) :mooner:


And Eduardo Perez' missing big toe.

GAC
10-23-2006, 12:05 PM
Or that in Lou's last year here, the Reds weren't "hopelessly out of the race," as Hal asserts? Rather, they won 90 games and finished in second place.

Or that the Reds didn't visit San Diego in "late August" of 1991? They were there in early August (with a .500 record, not hopelessly out of it) and again for the last series of the year, in early October.

Or that contrary to Lou's 1991 assertion, he did return for 1992? (Unless, of course, Hal meant to type the later year, in which case...)

...Or that, when Lou visited San Diego in late 1992, neither trip occurred in "late August"? One trip was smack in the middle of the month, with the final visit occurring in September. And, rather than being "hopelessly out of the race," the Reds were as many as 16 games over .500?

Sloppy, sloppy work. But par for the course. (Still loving that Delino DeShields trade, Jim Beattie's GM appointment, and Steve Garvey's HoF plaque.) :mooner:

The mind is a terrible thing. ;)

But I agree with what Una said....


Does the Lou Piniella that Hal describes even exist anymore? I don't remember seeing any of his famous tirades on TV in the last few years or reading any quotes of the kind that Hal mentions in the media over the same span. That makes me think that the 2007 version of Piniella is closer in demeanor to milquetoast Jerry Narron than he is to fiery Earl Weaver.


Even Piniella has admitted that his disposition has tempered over the years. Personally, I liked that "fire in the gut" Piniella and that he didn't take any crap off the players who at times act like spoiled children. That is what I like/want to see out of a manager. It's why I have always liked Leyland.

IMHO, and in most cases, when I hear that a player(s) have a problem with a manager, it's usually because that manager has the gonads to stand up to that player and put the "child" in his place.

Of course in Lou's place - his "inner child" ain't gonna allow another child to get the best of him. Because Lou use to be just as guilty of throwing childish tantrums, just as some players did.

I think he did just such a thing to get out of Seattle. ;)

I just don't know if that Lou still exists anymore. And 3 mil multi-year guaranteed contract is an awful way to find out IMO.

I still contend that he wouldn't accept or make a go of it in Cincy because of philosophical differences and the fact they can't support the budget he'd want (demand) in order to build that winning team.

Spring~Fields
10-23-2006, 12:49 PM
I still contend that he wouldn't accept or make a go of it in Cincy because of philosophical differences and the fact they can't support the budget he'd want (demand) in order to build that winning team.

I think he just took a look at the talent, especially pitching, that the Reds had coming in for 2006, while at the same time listening to the plans and philosophy of current Reds owners and management, discerned that they weren’t going to win in 2006 or anytime soon and declined.

2006 is over and to date it looks like Lou and many Redszone posters might have been right, we’ll just have to tune into the 2007, 2008 seasons and see. If Lou was right and an indicator, then we might be disappointed, either way his signing with Chicago over Cincy and Mr. C’s invitation turns the pressure up a notch on Mr. C to produce in my opinion.

GAC
10-23-2006, 01:08 PM
I think he just took a look at the talent, especially pitching, that the Reds had coming in for 2006, while at the same time listening to the plans and philosophy of current Reds owners and management, discerned that they weren’t going to win in 2006 or anytime soon and declined.

2006 is over and to date it looks like Lou and many Redszone posters might have been right, we’ll just have to tune into the 2007, 2008 seasons and see. If Lou was right and an indicator, then we might be disappointed, either way his signing with Chicago over Cincy and Mr. C’s invitation turns the pressure up a notch on Mr. C to produce in my opinion.

I agree. And to a degree it proves my point about Lou Piniella IMO. He's not a builder, in the sense of what we as an organization need as a builder. He doesn't either have the patience, or doesn't want to mess with, developing the farm system and young players, and then exhibiting the patience required.

His advice to Mr. C was probably "increase payroll about 30 Mil/yr and go out and buy me Arod and a couple established arms." ;)

Jr's Boy
10-23-2006, 01:09 PM
in late August, the Reds were in San Diego, hopelessly out of the race. Piniella and I went to Del Mar racetrack for some early-afternoon relaxation. After five races, I suggested to Lou that it was time to get to the park so he could make out his lineup card and be there for batting practice. "One more race," he said. One more became two more, and I nearly had to drag him out of the place.


Heck I was at Delmar then,didn't see em though,of course there were 20,000 people or so.But I won a grand.:D

Spring~Fields
10-23-2006, 01:17 PM
His advice to Mr. C was probably "increase payroll about 30 Mil/yr and go out and buy me Arod and a couple established arms." ;)

Pretty good suggestion. ;)

Proves my point that Lou knows how to win and wants to win, just like Mr C said he wanted to, we shall see who wants to win more.

GAC
10-23-2006, 02:13 PM
Pretty good suggestion. ;)

Proves my point that Lou knows how to win and wants to win, just like Mr C said he wanted to, we shall see who wants to win more.

I don't deny that he doesn't know HOW. It's his HOW though that wouldn't make him a "fit" in Cincy and alot of organizations that can't be free spenders.

What happens if your organization doesn't have the 30 Mil to spend? It's easy to come up with the suggestion when it's not your money and you don't have to find the ways to raise it. And do so consistently year after year.

You show me any team, similar to the Red's situation, taking in all the variables of market-size, revenues generated, etc., who have done such in the last 6-7 years?

I am obviously no economist or business major; but I do not believe that the Reds can sustain a 90-100 payroll, in the current conditions. And I am talking about self-sustaining... generating that revenue within the organizational structure (or "empire).... without drastically instituting other measures (cost cutting in areas, raising ticket and other consumer-oriented items)... in order to maintain it.

They have to find other ways to achieve that goal.

I could see them being in the range of around 75 Mil. And even then they have very little room for error. They currently have a payroll of around 65 Mil? Not sure. And over 20+ Mil of it is tied up in poor decisions/contracts.

They aren't getting the most "bang" for their buck.

No one denies the spending aspect of building a winning team. But if one advocates that that is the ONLY "avenue" inwhich to achieve your goal, then I'd would wholeheartedly disagree with that individual.

RedFanAlways1966
10-23-2006, 03:34 PM
Did any fact-checkers get the REAL POINT of the story? It is okay to point mistakes out, but to take it to a higher level is ridiculous. I think the story's intent was to tell the readers about some of Lou's "moments". But I am positive that all of us remember finite details from 14-15 years ago. Especially when we are trying to make a point about something not related to the not-a-big-deal-to-the-real-story facts.


Or that in Lou's last year here, the Reds weren't "hopelessly out of the race," as Hal asserts? Rather, they won 90 games and finished in second place.

Hal probably meant September. The REDS were 9 games back of Atlanta when they entered Jack Murphy Stadium on Sept. 18, 1992. That usually means you have a big fork sticking in you at that point unless you are competing against the 1978 Red Sox. However, despite this I was able to get the point.


Or that contrary to Lou's 1991 assertion, he did return for 1992? (Unless, of course, Hal meant to type the later year, in which case...)

...Or that, when Lou visited San Diego in late 1992, neither trip occurred in "late August"? One trip was smack in the middle of the month, with the final visit occurring in September. And, rather than being "hopelessly out of the race," the Reds were as many as 16 games over .500?

Sloppy, sloppy work. But par for the course.

See above... he probably meant September. I still got the point of the story. September 18-20, 1992. 9 games back entering that 3-game series... oh, and no wild card at that time. Pretty hopeless is a good description.... but semantics are easy to argue. I am sure Hal McCoy wrote this off-the-cuff to get the REAL POINT (Lou's moments) across to readers. He could have Googled like some here, but I doubt that he is that anal.

I am sure there are perfect people who totally missed the REAL POINT of the story b/c of the mistakes. I feel sorry that these perfect people have to deal with lesser beings in their daily lives and let things like this make them miss the REAL POINT. Personally I enjoyed the Pinella stories. But I am not perfect!

Hubba
10-23-2006, 03:59 PM
Amen Bro.

I am sure there are perfect people who totally missed the REAL POINT of the story b/c of the mistakes. I feel sorry that these perfect people have to deal with lesser beings in their daily lives and let things like this make them miss the REAL POINT. Personally I enjoyed the Pinella stories. But I am not perfect!
__________________:thumbup:

Dom Heffner
10-23-2006, 04:09 PM
Personally I enjoyed the Pinella stories. But I am not perfect!


I logged on to make the same point and you beat me to it!

Redsland
10-23-2006, 04:12 PM
I still got the point of the story.
Despite the enumerated errors? Good for you, although it's a shame you had to wade through all of them while reading an article penned by someone whose job is essentially to report facts.

So what, pray tell, was the point of the story? That Lou would rather bet on horses than do his job? That Lou is a quitter? A compulsive gambler? That Hal played a crucial role in Reds history by dragging the manager to Jack Murphy stadium one day a couple of years ago during some month or other? That without Hal, the Rob Dibble fracas would never have happened, nor the Randy Myers trade? (Hey, I thought this article was supposed to be about Lou, not Hal.) That the new Cubs manager, late of the Devil Rays, hates to lose? That the woman who re-gifted funeral flowers was cheap?

You teased it out, so tell me...what was the point of the story?

RedFanAlways1966
10-23-2006, 05:05 PM
You teased it out, so tell me...what was the point of the story?

I think the title of the thread works pretty well for most non-perfect people. Even the title of the article works well for most non-perfect people. Why is it so hard for some to GET IT?

I think I made my point. Point out a mistake... fine. Drill it into the gorund... ridiculous. Therefore, I am done being critical of those who are way too critical for my taste.

Blimpie
10-23-2006, 05:24 PM
I wanna know why Marty calls Lou "pork-chop"...you know, the real important stuff.

gonelong
10-23-2006, 08:42 PM
Why is it so hard for some to GET IT?


I get what McCoy was saying, sure. But everytime he dumps a error laden article on the public you have to wonder what else is not quite all the way true about his piece.

GL

4256 Hits
10-23-2006, 10:52 PM
Or that in Lou's last year here, the Reds weren't "hopelessly out of the race," as Hal asserts? Rather, they won 90 games and finished in second place.

Or that the Reds didn't visit San Diego in "late August" of 1991? They were there in early August (with a .500 record, not hopelessly out of it) and again for the last series of the year, in early October.

Or that contrary to Lou's 1991 assertion, he did return for 1992? (Unless, of course, Hal meant to type the later year, in which case...)

...Or that, when Lou visited San Diego in late 1992, neither trip occurred in "late August"? One trip was smack in the middle of the month, with the final visit occurring in September. And, rather than being "hopelessly out of the race," the Reds were as many as 16 games over .500?

Sloppy, sloppy work. But par for the course. (Still loving that Delino DeShields trade, Jim Beattie's GM appointment, and Steve Garvey's HoF plaque.) :mooner:

Excactly! I used to say it isn't an acticle written by Hal unless it had one mistake now I say it isn't an article written by Hal unless there is multiply mistakes in it.

Team Clark
10-23-2006, 11:32 PM
You have to read Hal's stories like you listen to Grandpa's WWII tales.

WMR
10-23-2006, 11:47 PM
Who does a better job fact-checking their 'articles,' Hal or the National Enquirer?

KronoRed
10-23-2006, 11:53 PM
Who does a better job fact-checking their 'articles,' Hal or the National Enquirer?

I'll go with the NE, only because they get sued now and then.

Spring~Fields
10-24-2006, 01:59 PM
I don't deny that he doesn't know HOW. It's his HOW though that wouldn't make him a "fit" in Cincy and alot of organizations that can't be free spenders.

What happens if your organization doesn't have the 30 Mil to spend?

Then the organization goes out and hires the most qualified, best people that they can, that have a successful/winning track record in their various positions that contribute to a successful and winning organization. (GM, GM support staff, scouts, coaches, manager, fianancial and marketing people etc.) An organization "builds" or wins with quality people who have a proven track record. I guess I am thinking that the Reds last three managers were not ones that "fit" that mold.

vaticanplum
10-24-2006, 02:52 PM
Then the organization goes out and hires the most qualified, best people that they can, that have a successful/winning track record in their various positions that contribute to a successful and winning organization. (GM, GM support staff, scouts, coaches, manager, fianancial and marketing people etc.) An organization "builds" or wins with quality people who have a proven track record. I guess I am thinking that the Reds last three managers were not ones that "fit" that mold.

I agree with most of this, but regarding the "proven track record" thing, I would like to point out that sometimes you need to take a chance on a new guy. Extremely successful managers are few and far between and generally pretty comfortable in other jobs. Even the winningest managers had to have a first job somewhere down the line.

GAC
10-24-2006, 03:00 PM
I agree with most of this, but regarding the "proven track record" thing, I would like to point out that sometimes you need to take a chance on a new guy. Extremely successful managers are few and far between and generally pretty comfortable in other jobs.

Plus - Piniella didn't have a proven track record when he came to the Reds. Other then the fact he'd been fired by George. ;)



Even the winningest managers had to have a first job somewhere down the line.

George "Sparky" Anderson, to just mention one.

Spring~Fields
10-24-2006, 09:38 PM
Plus - Piniella didn't have a proven track record when he came to the Reds. Other then the fact he'd been fired by George. ;)


At least he "knew how to play the game right" and he was "scrappy" ;) and how many times have we all read that, that is the main criteria in this organization? and he is more than qualified now with a proven track record. :devil:

Spring~Fields
10-24-2006, 09:47 PM
I agree with most of this, but regarding the "proven track record" thing, I would like to point out that sometimes you need to take a chance on a new guy. Extremely successful managers are few and far between and generally pretty comfortable in other jobs. Even the winningest managers had to have a first job somewhere down the line.

I can't really disagree with your points, other than the lingering thought that cued and triggered my initial comments regarding Lou, that the Reds have had many such managers come and go since Lou last brought a championship to Cincy, 16 years ago.

GAC
10-25-2006, 08:54 AM
since Lou last brought a championship to Cincy, 16 years ago.

I don't know if it was as much Lou brought as Marge bought. What was our payroll then in comparision to the rest of MLB at that time?

Looking at what was happening to the economics of the game as the 90's progressed and payroll disparity exploded, Lou left at the optimum time. He probably would have been ran out of town had he stayed. ;)

RedFanAlways1966
10-25-2006, 09:03 AM
I don't know if it was as much Lou brought as Marge bought. What was our payroll then in comparision to the rest of MLB at that time?

The 1990 REDS were #20 in payroll in MLB. They were #9 in payroll in the NL that year.

#1 - KC Royals, $23.9 mill
#2 - NY Mets, $22.4 mill
#3 - Cal. Angels, $21.9 mill
#4 - LA Dodgers, $21.6 mill
#5 - NY Yankees, $21.0 mill
#6 - Boston Red Sox, $21.0 mill
#20 - REDS, $14.8 mill

Spring~Fields
10-25-2006, 01:16 PM
I don't know if it was as much Lou brought as Marge bought. What was our payroll then in comparision to the rest of MLB at that time?

Looking at what was happening to the economics of the game as the 90's progressed and payroll disparity exploded, Lou left at the optimum time. He probably would have been ran out of town had he stayed. ;)

Certainly the general managers, managers, and coaches have all been "ran out of town" since Lou, would it be reasonable to say, even those before Lou? We do know what all of them brought.
Perhaps Krivsky and especially .494 Jerry Narron will have a gentler fate. ;)

Spring~Fields
10-25-2006, 01:33 PM
The 1990 REDS were #20 in payroll in MLB. They were #9 in payroll in the NL that year.

#1 - KC Royals, $23.9 mill
#2 - NY Mets, $22.4 mill
#3 - Cal. Angels, $21.9 mill
#4 - LA Dodgers, $21.6 mill
#5 - NY Yankees, $21.0 mill
#6 - Boston Red Sox, $21.0 mill
#20 - REDS, $14.8 mill

ESPN list the Reds 22nd in all of baseball and 11th in their league now.

GAC
10-25-2006, 02:19 PM
My mistake then gentlemen. I was always under the impression that the Reds were in the top 5 in payroll in the early 90's.

Chip R
10-25-2006, 02:22 PM
My mistake then gentlemen. I was always under the impression that the Reds were in the top 5 in payroll in the early 90's.


You may have been thinking about 94-95 where they were right at the top in regards to payroll.

RedFanAlways1966
10-26-2006, 08:57 AM
Yep. In 1995 the REDS had the 6th highest payroll in MLB and 2nd highest in the NL. Highest in the NL that year was the Braves who swept our beloved REDS in the NLCS and won the WS.

I use this link to USA Today for this information. It is salaries at the start of each season.

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/default.aspx