PDA

View Full Version : Anyone else starting to think Mackanin is going to be around next year?



Blitz Dorsey
08-17-2007, 10:10 PM
I'll admit... when he was hired I said we can't keep hiring "interim" managers who have a lucky streak and suddenly we think they are the long-term answer. I even dropped the term "real manager" whatever that means (We need to hire a real manager.)

Well, I don't think this is just a lucky streak. Mackanin has the best record of any NL manager since he was hired and I like the way he handles the players (takes Griffey out, but kind of jokes about it, talks up Griffey in the same breath, everything's cool). He has a way of getting his point across without being a jerk and the players seem to respond to him.

I thought for sure Castellini was going to go out and hire someone from the outside. But who is out there that is realistic? Bob Brenly? He is an Ohio native with a WS title to his name. Impressive resume. He would take the job. But many in Arizona didn't like him and thought the Dbacks won in '01 despite Brenly. Who is to say he is better than Mackanin?

There aren't many others out there. And don't even say Tony LaRussa. I already had plenty of reasons to dislike him before he called out Aaron Harang for being a headhunter (LOL). The LaRussa list is long (buring his head in the sand while all his players used 'roids -- always more than the average MLB player while in Oakland and St. Louis IMO, not to mention the drunk driving arrests, etc.). Furthermore, I don't even think LaRussa would take the job. Not in the same division as the Cardinals. I think there is a lot of fire to the rumors that there is bad blood between LaRussa and the front office (which is funny since they just won that WS title -- lucky, but they won it) but no way LaRussa comes here. And that's good news for me because I dislike LaRussa almost as much as Marty ("Tony LaRussa thinks he invented the game of baseball. Now let's pause somewhat belatedly. There are 23,451 fans here for this... Titanic struggle. Two-three-four-five-one. Why is Dunn playing and "Franchise" Hopper sitting the pine?"

Matt700wlw
08-17-2007, 10:12 PM
I don't think he's here next season. I don't think the Reds can afford to go down that path again after 7 straight losing seasons.

It's not Pete, it's the situation.

KronoRed
08-17-2007, 10:19 PM
I'll be shocked if he's not given a 2 years deal in September

BuckeyeRedleg
08-17-2007, 10:22 PM
I hope so.

Blitz Dorsey
08-17-2007, 10:22 PM
I'll be shocked if he's not given a 2 years deal in September

That's what I'm talking about. Now let me ask you: What would be your opinion if that happens? (Assuming the Reds are still playing good baseball at that point.)

Blitz Dorsey
08-17-2007, 10:26 PM
I hope so.

Haha. I never would have guessed.

fearofpopvol1
08-17-2007, 10:29 PM
If he'd take it, I think I'd probably give him a year extension and see what he does next year.

Blitz Dorsey
08-17-2007, 10:34 PM
If he'd take it, I think I'd probably give him a year extension and see what he does next year.

I'm sure he would take it.

flyer85
08-17-2007, 10:36 PM
I have no idea what to think

KronoRed
08-17-2007, 10:38 PM
That's what I'm talking about. Now let me ask you: What would be your opinion if that happens? (Assuming the Reds are still playing good baseball at that point.)

It would be a bad move IMO, let Mack interview but make a real intensive search.

RedsManRick
08-17-2007, 10:44 PM
I don't know why you'd get rid of a manager who is having success. Managers simply don't have that much of an impact. If your players are performing to their ability, the clubhouse is running smoothly, and the manager isn't screwing up the on field decisions, he's doing his job well.

Tom Servo
08-17-2007, 10:49 PM
I don't know why you'd get rid of a manager who is having success. Managers simply don't have that much of an impact. If your players are performing to their ability, the clubhouse is running smoothly, and the manager isn't screwing up the on field decisions, he's doing his job well.
Because Miley and Narron had success when they took over too.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-17-2007, 10:52 PM
Because Miley and Narron had success when they took over too.

I just don't think that is a good enough reason to not re-sign him.

Matt700wlw
08-17-2007, 10:54 PM
I just don't think that is a good enough reason to not re-sign him.

After 7 straight losing seasons all done by "interim" managers it is.

Like I said, it's not Pete, it's the situation.

redsmetz
08-17-2007, 10:57 PM
Because Miley and Narron had success when they took over too.

In fact, Narron had a .500 interim season; Miley had a .386 record his interim year. Ironically that was his record the year he got fired.

I think they'll still do some interviewing and I don't think Mackanin is a foregone conclusion, but if he succeeds this season, he'll get a fair hearing.

BTW, we've had interim who have had some success, even if it didn't result in a championship of any kind: Fred Hutchinson, Pete Rose, Jack McKeon, Davey Johnson

RedFanAlways1966
08-17-2007, 11:00 PM
Because Miley and Narron had success when they took over too.

Narron about the same as Mackanin. Miley no success.

1st 39 games as REDS manager
Miley (July 29, 2003): 15-24 (.385)
Narron (June 21, 2005): 21-18 (.538)
Mackanin (July 3, 2007): 22-17 (.564)

BuckeyeRedleg
08-17-2007, 11:02 PM
I don't know why you'd get rid of a manager who is having success. Managers simply don't have that much of an impact. If your players are performing to their ability, the clubhouse is running smoothly, and the manager isn't screwing up the on field decisions, he's doing his job well.

And I agree with Rick. I liked Mackanin the day he was hired. I don't know, call it a gut feeling. I just liked the way he handled himself at his presser. He was a breath of fresh air to me. Maybe it was because he was sitting next to Krivsky.

Anyway, if we can all agree that the manager isn't necessarily going to make that huge of a difference and it's hard to "measure" one with objective data (other than wins or losses), why not hire someone that:

-handles himself well with the media.
-gets along with the players, but isn't afraid of them.
-calls games by the book, but also is willing to go against the odds at times and go with his gut.

Mackanin seems to have all these traits and sure they are all subjective, but the Reds are now 22-17 under him. If we can agree that this team wasn't very good when he took over, at least we can give him credit for having the best record in the division since his arrival and doing this in spite of some of his GM's moronic decisions.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-17-2007, 11:07 PM
After 7 straight losing seasons all done by "interim" managers it is.

Like I said, it's not Pete, it's the situation.

I disagree.

One has nothing to do with the other.

This team has had seven straight losing seasons because the pitching has been awful and the front office has been somewhat clueless.

While Boone, Miley, and Narron never inspired much confidence, they were far down the on the list of things wrong with the Reds.

Mackanin at least inspires confidence. At least, to me.

flyer85
08-17-2007, 11:08 PM
Pete is neither the problem or the solution.

Matt700wlw
08-17-2007, 11:09 PM
I disagree.

One has nothing to do with the other.

This team has had seven straight losing seasons because the pitching has been awful and the front office has been somewhat clueless.

While Boone, Miley, and Narron never inspired much confidence, they were far down the on the list of things wrong with the Reds.

Mackanin at least inspires confidence. At least, to me.

I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying what I think and why I think it. I think Pete, overall, has been fine.


I may be wrong. It happens sometimes :)

BuckeyeRedleg
08-17-2007, 11:13 PM
Pete is neither the problem or the solution.

I'm sure Sparky was neither the problem or the solution either. Getting good players was the solution, right?

So, if we can agree on that, there is no reason, IMO, why Mackanin shouldn't be at the helm when/if our GM brings in the good players.

VR
08-17-2007, 11:18 PM
After 7 straight losing seasons all done by "interim" managers it is.

Like I said, it's not Pete, it's the situation.

I would hope we'd have some leadership that would look objectively at the candidates....not necessarily their w/l record and CERTAINLY not based on their previous record with 'interim' managers.

It is apparent he knows how to manage, handle a roster, etc. I don't have them on TV this year....but is he interacting with the team during the game? To me...if you bring an acceptable level of competency...the difference in good vs. poor leadership is relationship management. An ability to connect with every player, and thus get the best out of each of them. It's a gift not often seen...but we all recognize it in our own workplace.

I think he's a shoe in today....based on his performance AND the fact that he's a very good acquaintance of Kriv. Consider what he's done with a roster that he's had no control over due to trades and injuries.

It's his to lose.

RedsManRick
08-17-2007, 11:24 PM
My question is, by what criteria do you hire a "proven" manager. There just isn't enough any manager can do to prove that his influence is so significant. If a guy is winning, keep him around until he isn't, or he isn't obviously doing things to hurt the team and the team wins in spite of him. You just don't give a manager a long term deal. Give him a 1 year contract and go from there.

flyer85
08-17-2007, 11:27 PM
I'm sure Sparky was neither the problem or the solution either. Getting good players was the solution, right?

So, if we can agree on that, there is no reason, IMO, why Mackanin shouldn't be at the helm when/if our GM brings in the good players.why should he? Reds played well under Narron when he first took over.

Is he the best man for the job is the question.

WVRedsFan
08-17-2007, 11:29 PM
God help us all if we continue to make the same mistakes over and over. If they do, it might set back the organization and it might make no difference. The Reds have been 21-17 under Pete (.553), and I think he has made a difference in how this team plays, but he hasn't won anything at the major league level and I'd feel more comfortable not buying a pig in a poke. And I liked Pete from the start if you'll read my comments the day he was brought in.

If history repeats itself (as many tell me always happens), we will be on track for another losing season. We need a winning manager who knows what it takes to win consisently over time. One who will demand better scouting and better minor league instruction (which most baseball people say is very poor in the Reds' minors) and has the clout to demand it. That isn't Pete. If rumors are correct, Wayne is telling who to play and who not to play. He has no clout and most likely never will.

jmcclain19
08-17-2007, 11:31 PM
The old Dead Cat bounce phenomenon.

The team was so god awful in the beginning of the season. They had to get better - at some point they would return to the mean. And they have. They just happened to do it after the season was already a wash.

Pete shouldn't be given credit or fault for the teams success. I think just about anyone they brought in would have the same results.

cincrazy
08-17-2007, 11:36 PM
What's happened here in the past should have nothing to do with Pete Mackanin. Everyone mentions the failures of interim manager's. Well what about Jack McKeon? What about Davey Johnson? The headline in a Cincinnati area newspaper read "Sparky Who?" when he got the job.

I don't think that it's fair to say Mackanin has never proven anything at the major league level when he's never had a chance. I understand all of your desires to find a proven winner, someone that's been there, done that. But will anyone like that be available? If so, that's an option, but I don't think that will happen.

And as far as it pertains to manager's with not much time, such as a Girardi, I'd rather have Mackanin, a guy the players are familiar with, and like. Girardi has rubbed more than a few people the wrong way in his brief time, and I'd think that'd be playing with fire bringing him here.

Mackanin has exceeded the expectations of everyone here, and if WK can bring in the talent, I think that this man is more than capable of managing it. Holding Dave Miley and Jerry Narron over this man's head just isn't fair, IMO.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-17-2007, 11:41 PM
why should he? Reds played well under Narron when he first took over.

Is he the best man for the job is the question.

I'm sure somewhere in this universe there is the perfect manager for the 2008 Cincinnati Reds. The question is, who is he? How do we know where to find him? Do we trust this current FO to find him? Should we spin our wheels as fans worrying who that guy is all off season, only for them to hire someone that is worse than we had anticipated. Then we can all start the process over again of wondering who the next guy will be.

Mackanin is a no-brainer for now. He may still be the bridge to the next guy that takes us to the promised land or he might just be the guy that takes us there. Either way, I don't think he's going to do any major damage that this organization can't recover from while he's here.

I think VR has summed up his thoughts on this matter very well.

flyer85
08-17-2007, 11:49 PM
Do we trust this current FO to find him. if not then they ought to fire the FO.


Mackanin is a no-brainer for now.Afterall he has turned them around, he must be the right guy.

To extend him without a real search is simply the easy way out. The FO needs to come up with a list of qualities they expect from the next manager and then do an exhaustive search to find the best candidate. If Pete is the found to be the right after the search, I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with taking the easy way out and not doing the work.

BCubb2003
08-17-2007, 11:52 PM
Maybe Mackanin has earned another half season. When he puts together two good half seasons, he can have another full season. After a good full season, he can have another full season. After two good seasons, he can have a two-year contract ...

AtomicDumpling
08-17-2007, 11:56 PM
Maybe we should just keep Mackanin as the "interim" manager indefinitely. I don't think there is a rule that says we have to give him a long term contract. Just keep him on an "interim" basis until we are ready to make a change and a better guy comes along.

Didn't Tommy Lasorda manage his entire career on one-year contracts?

The only risk is that somebody could hire him away from us at any time.

I think there is one good thing that comes along with being an interim manager -- the constant threat of losing one's job at any moment if things turn sour. It prevents any complacency or a casual "another day at the office" attitude. It would foster a culture of urgency and competitiveness not only for the coaching staff but also for the players. Mackanin would make sure the players were aware they would have to produce consistently or else sit the bench -- because he wouldn't be willing to patiently wait around while they struggle or slump.

Mackanin often says "every day is an audition". He is referring to players like Keppinger and Hopper, but it also applies to himself. I think that may be a good thing.

By the way, this is my first post on the ORG. Thanks to whomever nominated me and also to those that voted for me. I hope to meet the standards you guys have set. Who knows, maybe I will even "raise the bar."

paulrichjr
08-17-2007, 11:57 PM
I would be fine with Davey Johnson replacing him. Otherwise no thanks on the rumors. Brenly and Giardi don't appeal to me at all. Giardi especially hasn't "proven" that he is a winning manager.

IslandRed
08-18-2007, 12:12 AM
I like the job Mackanin's done so far, but I want us to do a genuine search. If the offseason elephant hunt (to borrow a term) doesn't pan out and we have to find our manager from the pool of less-provens, Mack's probably about as good as any.

Spitball
08-18-2007, 12:22 AM
This may have been pointed out already, but I remember being totally bummed out when the Reds hired a little known coach from the lowly San Diego Padres to be their manager. As it turned out, Sparky Anderson was pretty good.

fearofpopvol1
08-18-2007, 01:44 AM
The old Dead Cat bounce phenomenon.

The team was so god awful in the beginning of the season. They had to get better - at some point they would return to the mean. And they have. They just happened to do it after the season was already a wash.

Pete shouldn't be given credit or fault for the teams success. I think just about anyone they brought in would have the same results.

I don't agree. I believe if Narron had managed this team through the rest of the season, the results would be different and less favorable than they are now.

WVRedsFan
08-18-2007, 01:50 AM
What's happened here in the past should have nothing to do with Pete Mackanin. Everyone mentions the failures of interim manager's. Well what about Jack McKeon? What about Davey Johnson? The headline in a Cincinnati area newspaper read "Sparky Who?" when he got the job.

I don't think that it's fair to say Mackanin has never proven anything at the major league level when he's never had a chance. I understand all of your desires to find a proven winner, someone that's been there, done that. But will anyone like that be available? If so, that's an option, but I don't think that will happen.

And as far as it pertains to manager's with not much time, such as a Girardi, I'd rather have Mackanin, a guy the players are familiar with, and like. Girardi has rubbed more than a few people the wrong way in his brief time, and I'd think that'd be playing with fire bringing him here.

Mackanin has exceeded the expectations of everyone here, and if WK can bring in the talent, I think that this man is more than capable of managing it. Holding Dave Miley and Jerry Narron over this man's head just isn't fair, IMO.

Let me start out by saying that I like Pete Mackanin a lot. I liked him at the first news conference. He says the right things and has performed fairly well. If he continues winning at the 55% rate he has so far, the Reds will be 76-86, making Mackanin's record 45-35 for his tenure, which on the surface is fantastic. Heck, it may be fantastic for anyone with this pitching staff, but for the future, you have to look at what Pete said when he took the job.

Here's a man, who in his mid-fifties, is desperate for a job as a major league manager. His time is nearly up and he knows it. He said he would stay a week, a month, or however long the Reds would have him just so he could manage. Apparently that also meant being told exactly what to do. Published reports say that he is told who to play and when (I'll admit I haven't seen these reports, but people I have real confidence in say they are there). The fact that he would put up with this, which is consistent with his statements means he may not have a backbone. We've gone through enough managers without a backbone. He said when he took over that he wanted to play Ryan Freel somewhere every day and bat him leadoff. He apparently hadn't looked at Freel's OBP lately. That was a disaster we'd still be playing out if Ryan hadn't got hurt. I have to think that this was Krivsky speaking and giving orders. Mac seems to smart for that.

He's done some great things. He's batting Hamilton leadoff and not jacking Edwin around. Kudos for that. He doesn't let his pitchers lose a game often (though he's still in love with Stanton--another Krivsky move IMHO). He didn't make a federal issue about Junior's half-kiddingly assertation about replacing him in late innings. He seems like a guy who might win with the right players.

That said, and I repeat, if this club is to ever contend again, given the Central ever becomes a competitive division again, a manager who will make demands is essential. Better scouting, a better staff, and a better system of coaches in our minor leagues are a few of the demands the new manager must make. If Pete is beholden to Krivsky and his wierd ideas, that will never happen. He'll just be glad to be here and have his dream of being a major league manager. We've been through that.

If there is no one better out there (and I admit Girardi and the other names mentioned are not that much better and only LaRussa or Johnson even perks my interest), then give him a one-year contract and look some more. If things go like they have (with Coffey, Narron, Stanton, Freel, and Cromier among others), Krivsky will give him a multi-year contract and that's unacceptable. Like Jim McClain said, most anyone could have had the jump in performance Mac has had. It's really nothing to get excited about. the bullpen is still horrible. The makeup of this club is still disfunctional. And we've caught some teams on their way down in the standings. I don't want to annoit Pete as the savior as we have Narron (last year), Majewski, Bray, Homer, and others.

My best guess? The multitude of fans will demand Pete be given the job, and like fans do sometimes, they'll turn on him if this team, as I fear, tanks it next season. And then we're in the same situation we've been in for years. Hire a proven winner and see what happens. I know it's a novel idea, but what the heck. What we've been doing hasn't worked. Or do you dispute this too?

GAC
08-18-2007, 06:08 AM
It depends on who is out there and available doesn't it, as to whether Pete has a chance of being manager next year?

If they don't find someone then offer him a 1 yr deal w/ no guarantees. He will be evaluated on performance at season's end. I'm sure he'd jump at that chance. And if not, then what have you lost?

But just because he is an "unknown" doesn't mean he's basically useless and doesn't know what he is doing. Every manager that existed and proved his salt basically started out as an "unknown" until given the opportunity. You have to start somewhere.

I shook my head when they brought in this George "Sparky" Anderson. Where did they get this character from? :lol:

redsfan4445
08-18-2007, 10:52 AM
i say lets see how the rest of the season pans out.. i know this.. we shock the world and make the playoffs?? he is back... the other junk that was here, Boone, Miley Narron didnt get to the playoffs.. so lets see what happens.. the one thing i like about Pete. i have only counted on one hand a few things he has done Questionable.. Narron did that almost daily!! Boone and miley too!!

cincrazy
08-18-2007, 11:47 AM
Let me start out by saying that I like Pete Mackanin a lot. I liked him at the first news conference. He says the right things and has performed fairly well. If he continues winning at the 55% rate he has so far, the Reds will be 76-86, making Mackanin's record 45-35 for his tenure, which on the surface is fantastic. Heck, it may be fantastic for anyone with this pitching staff, but for the future, you have to look at what Pete said when he took the job.

Here's a man, who in his mid-fifties, is desperate for a job as a major league manager. His time is nearly up and he knows it. He said he would stay a week, a month, or however long the Reds would have him just so he could manage. Apparently that also meant being told exactly what to do. Published reports say that he is told who to play and when (I'll admit I haven't seen these reports, but people I have real confidence in say they are there). The fact that he would put up with this, which is consistent with his statements means he may not have a backbone. We've gone through enough managers without a backbone. He said when he took over that he wanted to play Ryan Freel somewhere every day and bat him leadoff. He apparently hadn't looked at Freel's OBP lately. That was a disaster we'd still be playing out if Ryan hadn't got hurt. I have to think that this was Krivsky speaking and giving orders. Mac seems to smart for that.

He's done some great things. He's batting Hamilton leadoff and not jacking Edwin around. Kudos for that. He doesn't let his pitchers lose a game often (though he's still in love with Stanton--another Krivsky move IMHO). He didn't make a federal issue about Junior's half-kiddingly assertation about replacing him in late innings. He seems like a guy who might win with the right players.

That said, and I repeat, if this club is to ever contend again, given the Central ever becomes a competitive division again, a manager who will make demands is essential. Better scouting, a better staff, and a better system of coaches in our minor leagues are a few of the demands the new manager must make. If Pete is beholden to Krivsky and his wierd ideas, that will never happen. He'll just be glad to be here and have his dream of being a major league manager. We've been through that.

If there is no one better out there (and I admit Girardi and the other names mentioned are not that much better and only LaRussa or Johnson even perks my interest), then give him a one-year contract and look some more. If things go like they have (with Coffey, Narron, Stanton, Freel, and Cromier among others), Krivsky will give him a multi-year contract and that's unacceptable. Like Jim McClain said, most anyone could have had the jump in performance Mac has had. It's really nothing to get excited about. the bullpen is still horrible. The makeup of this club is still disfunctional. And we've caught some teams on their way down in the standings. I don't want to annoit Pete as the savior as we have Narron (last year), Majewski, Bray, Homer, and others.

My best guess? The multitude of fans will demand Pete be given the job, and like fans do sometimes, they'll turn on him if this team, as I fear, tanks it next season. And then we're in the same situation we've been in for years. Hire a proven winner and see what happens. I know it's a novel idea, but what the heck. What we've been doing hasn't worked. Or do you dispute this too?

I don't dispute any of what you just said. But I don't have any proof that he is just Krivsky's puppet, so I won't assume so unless I hear other wise.

I unerstand your thirst for a proven winner, and I wouldn't object at all if that's the road we went down. But after the turnaround the Cardinals have gone through, I have a hard time believing they could sell to their fans letting LaRussa go, and I have an even harder time believing that LaRussa would accept a position within the division, with a team, that me and you would probably both agree, isn't going to contend next season, and maybe not even the year after.

And as far as Davey Johnson is concerned, yes, he's a proven winner. But we've also been there, done that. It didn't result in a world title the first time, and he's 12 years older now than he was at the time, and in regards to you saying that Mackanin is in his mid-50's, Johnson and LaRussa are no spring chickens either ;).

I understand your argument, and I respect it. But I feel that Mackanin can be more than just a puppet. I feel if given the chance to run this team, him and Krivsky can work together based on their past history, and I truly feel that Krivsky will respect and listen to what he has to say, because he IS Krivsky's guy.

The bottom line is, and I think you would agree with me, is that it comes down to talent acquisition. Ultimately, the job in turning this franchise around rests in the hands of Wayne Krivsky. I'd be very comfortable with Mackanin in charge of a team that can win. Unfortunately, I'm not confident that Wayne Krivsky can ever make that happen. Hopefully I'm wrong.

mth123
08-18-2007, 11:49 AM
I posted this before in a different thread on this subject, but I think it needs repeating.

Don't rule out the possibility that MacKanin is the result of an extensive search. Most well run businesses do their succession planning prior to the job actually coming open. Far be it from me to accuse the Reds of being a well run business, but its entirely possible that Krivsky did a search and chose MacKanin as Narron's successor and planted him in the scouts job as a way to keep him around until he was needed. DanO did the same with Narron. He brought him from Texas and planted him as the bench coach as the successor for Miley prior to him being given the green light to actually let Miley go. I susect that is what we are seeing with MacKanin/Krivsky. It could still change if the right name becomes available and Cast intervenes, but I think its MacKanin's job.

fearofpopvol1
08-18-2007, 01:14 PM
Here is a question for you...assuming La Russa is an option, would you rather have Tony or Pete? And for the sake of making it more interesting, let's not assume that Jockety and/or Duncan will be coming with him.

Reds1
08-18-2007, 01:19 PM
HE's over .500 with no 4 or 5 starter and the pen is pretty bad. I think he'll be signed, but only 1 year.

cincrazy
08-18-2007, 01:33 PM
Here is a question for you...assuming La Russa is an option, would you rather have Tony or Pete. And for the sake of making it more interesting, let's not assume that Jockety and/or Duncan will be coming with him.

It's hard to tell. On the face of it, I'd say LaRussa, but only if I knew he was going to give 100% to the job and wasn't burned out in any fashion.

And to be honest, I'm not sure that's possible after all he and his team have been through this year, on a personal and professional level. I honestly think I'd lean towards Pete Mackanin, but I wouldn't exactly be devastated if we brought in a guy like LaRussa's credentials.

JaxRed
08-18-2007, 01:36 PM
I've been impressed with him from the first time I saw him. I'll take him over Larussa.

1. mth123 point is a good one. We heard the story about how Krivsky and Mac had long sessions of discussing baseball. I think Mac has been Krivsky's man all along.

2. Spending dollars on managers that could be spent on players is idiotic. Name managers with bad ballclubs do poorly. See Pinella at TB, Leland at at Pitts/Fla/Col without good players.

3. How the guy was first selected is totally irrelevant to whether he is the right choice. Example: Last 3 full time managers for Pirates: Lamont, McClendon, and Tracy. All of them hired as non-interims. They have resulted in 11 straight sub-500 records. So should the Pirates implement a policy of ONLY extending interims? Of course not. That would be stupid. As is the thinking that you can't hire the interim because the last 2 interims didn't work out.

harangatang
08-18-2007, 02:38 PM
Anyone remember the thread wher it said that Krivsky was making all the starting lineup decisions, etc? If Krivsky had confidence in Pete than why not let him make his own decisions?

BCubb2003
08-18-2007, 03:49 PM
Anyone remember the thread wher it said that Krivsky was making all the starting lineup decisions, etc? If Krivsky had confidence in Pete than why not let him make his own decisions?

It's kind of a quandary. If we like the way the team is playing under Mackanin, but Krivsky is making all the decisions, maybe we should be liking Krivsky.

WVRedsFan
08-18-2007, 04:08 PM
I don't dispute any of what you just said. But I don't have any proof that he is just Krivsky's puppet, so I won't assume so unless I hear other wise.

I unerstand your thirst for a proven winner, and I wouldn't object at all if that's the road we went down. But after the turnaround the Cardinals have gone through, I have a hard time believing they could sell to their fans letting LaRussa go, and I have an even harder time believing that LaRussa would accept a position within the division, with a team, that me and you would probably both agree, isn't going to contend next season, and maybe not even the year after.

And as far as Davey Johnson is concerned, yes, he's a proven winner. But we've also been there, done that. It didn't result in a world title the first time, and he's 12 years older now than he was at the time, and in regards to you saying that Mackanin is in his mid-50's, Johnson and LaRussa are no spring chickens either ;).

I understand your argument, and I respect it. But I feel that Mackanin can be more than just a puppet. I feel if given the chance to run this team, him and Krivsky can work together based on their past history, and I truly feel that Krivsky will respect and listen to what he has to say, because he IS Krivsky's guy.

The bottom line is, and I think you would agree with me, is that it comes down to talent acquisition. Ultimately, the job in turning this franchise around rests in the hands of Wayne Krivsky. I'd be very comfortable with Mackanin in charge of a team that can win. Unfortunately, I'm not confident that Wayne Krivsky can ever make that happen. Hopefully I'm wrong.

We agree on most of what you said. And, like I said earlier, there are a lot of candidates they may be considering that I'd just as soon have Mackanin. BUT, if this organization is to become the contender and championship team the ownership and we all want, it's time to find that right person and the right personnel. I have little confidence we'll do that, but you never know.

SunDeck
08-18-2007, 09:22 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if they give him a deal. And I wouldn't be surprised if he too is gone in July unless they make a lot of moves to shore up the pitching situation. Jesus Christ couldn't have managed this club to a winning record with the BP they had this year.

Team Clark
08-19-2007, 12:34 AM
I think the guy deserves a shot with a BETTER ball club. I can't say he has done a bad job or given away games. To be honest, I like what I see so far. The sitch in Cincy is bad. He may be better served elsewhere.

Team Clark
08-19-2007, 12:35 AM
Jesus Christ couldn't have managed this club to a winning record with the BP they had this year.

"Are you saying Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball"?...:D

Yachtzee
08-19-2007, 12:47 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if they give him a deal. And I wouldn't be surprised if he too is gone in July unless they make a lot of moves to shore up the pitching situation. Jesus Christ couldn't have managed this club to a winning record with the BP they had this year.

But maybe he could have raised Mike Stanton's arm from the dead. :)

MartyFan
08-19-2007, 01:00 AM
I like Mack...no problem with him getting another year and then seeing what he does.

Then again, I like Special K and Mr. C too...problem with this team was never Jerry Narron and the solution to this team is not Mack...truth be told, it is simply the BP imploding and the starting rotation sucking wind...to solve the problem we need to get better players.

With the arms we are putting out there now we are lucky to have won the games we have this year.

Also, another problem is that I think this team has no clearcut leaders on it...that is a problem.

For whatever reason I also have thought that maybe there was some bad blood between Dunn and Junior and Brandon Phillips...I don't know why, I just get the impression that they are not "buds"...anybody else get a read on this at all?

redsmetz
08-22-2007, 07:18 PM
I thought I'd throw this in this thread, from CTR's Cincypost game blog tonight:


Funny pregame story. Apparently the other day, Billy Hatcher asked Pete Mackanin how he could send Griffey to pinch hit against the Brewers' Brian Shouse, who just kills lefties.
"Yeah, how could you do that?" Griffey said.
"Who's the best player on the team?" Mackanin asked Griffey.
"Me."
"Then shut up."

Always Red
08-22-2007, 07:25 PM
Funny pregame story. Apparently the other day, Billy Hatcher asked Pete Mackanin how he could send Griffey to pinch hit against the Brewers' Brian Shouse, who just kills lefties.
"Yeah, how could you do that?" Griffey said.
"Who's the best player on the team?" Mackanin asked Griffey.
"Me."
"Then shut up."

I like it...

redsmetz
08-22-2007, 07:36 PM
Funny pregame story. Apparently the other day, Billy Hatcher asked Pete Mackanin how he could send Griffey to pinch hit against the Brewers' Brian Shouse, who just kills lefties.
"Yeah, how could you do that?" Griffey said.
"Who's the best player on the team?" Mackanin asked Griffey.
"Me."
"Then shut up."
I like it...

I do too - I think he keeps these guys loose and I think he has a great "ra poor" <------ for the life of me, I can't spell that word!). That said, I'm not saying that's a reason to keep him, but I like his approach thus far.

Matt700wlw
08-22-2007, 07:37 PM
Funny pregame story. Apparently the other day, Billy Hatcher asked Pete Mackanin how he could send Griffey to pinch hit against the Brewers' Brian Shouse, who just kills lefties.
"Yeah, how could you do that?" Griffey said.
"Who's the best player on the team?" Mackanin asked Griffey.
"Me."
"Then shut up."

I like that!

Always Red
08-22-2007, 07:55 PM
I do too - I think he keeps these guys loose and I think he has a great "ra poor" <------ for the life of me, I can't spell that word!). That said, I'm not saying that's a reason to keep him, but I like his approach thus far.

I do too. And I'd rather have him over other "big names" I've heard thrown around, like Girardi, Brenly, Baker and LaRussa. I wouldn't mind LaRussa as long as Duncan comes with him. And it would be so special to see Tony and Marty square off every single day with a little managerial pre-game show! It would give the old show "The Main Spark" an entire new meaning. ;)

rapport? I'll look it up... well, it's French, no wonder we can't figure it out...:cool:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rapport

Spitball
08-22-2007, 11:21 PM
I do too - I think he keeps these guys loose and I think he has a great "ra poor" <------ for the life of me, I can't spell that word!). That said, I'm not saying that's a reason to keep him, but I like his approach thus far.

That story certainly sounds like the anti-Miley. :)

nate
08-23-2007, 09:37 AM
That story certainly sounds like the anti-Miley. :)

I never understood why Miley couldn't command more respect from the players. A lot of the guys had been coached by him in AAA so...what?

Strikes Out Looking
08-23-2007, 10:11 AM
problem with this team was never Jerry Narron

Maybe not 100% of the problem, but I respectfully disagree that he wasn't a major part of the problem.

Joseph
08-23-2007, 10:29 AM
Honestly the only reason I don't want Mac is because it continues the trend and I know thats the wrong way to operate. You do things because they are the right decision, not because you are worried about the last interim not working.

redsmetz
08-23-2007, 10:32 AM
Honestly the only reason I don't want Mac is because it continues the trend and I know thats the wrong way to operate. You do things because they are the right decision, not because you are worried about the last interim not working.

I certainly would like to see the club go through a bona fide interview process that is wide open. Part of that would be to allow Mackanin to interview on an equal footing with other candidates. If that happens and it is decided, following such an open process, that Mackanin is the best candidate - I'm fine with rehiring him.

paulrichjr
08-23-2007, 10:40 AM
Maybe not 100% of the problem, but I respectfully disagree that he wasn't a major part of the problem.

I do too. I really liked Narron the person. At RedsFest he really impressed me with his knowledge. He just couldn't manage a bullpen more than anything else. Pete has done a great job and it in my opinion isn't a bounce just due to a manager change. He knows how to keep people loose but at the same time make them respect him. A big name might have worked out in Florida (didn't by the way) or Arizonia but might not work out here. Pete has proven that he can run this team and do it very well. I am behind him 100%.

As a side note I was never for Miley and Narron was OK with me but I felt we should look around.

redsmetz
08-23-2007, 10:57 AM
I do too. I really liked Narron the person. At RedsFest he really impressed me with his knowledge. He just couldn't manage a bullpen more than anything else. Pete has done a great job and it in my opinion isn't a bounce just due to a manager change. He knows how to keep people loose but at the same time make them respect him. A big name might have worked out in Florida (didn't by the way) or Arizonia but might not work out here. Pete has proven that he can run this team and do it very well. I am behind him 100%.

As a side note I was never for Miley and Narron was OK with me but I felt we should look around.

Actually the "big names" you mention were in fact first time managers in both positions. And Girardi has one year of experience bringing a club to a sub .500 record. Brenley came right out of the chute with winners, but was fired in his fourth season when things went bad. I wouldn't mind looking at Brenley, but I think Girardi is more hype than anything. I'd like to see Mackanin given a fair shake in a search for a new manager.

Strikes Out Looking
08-23-2007, 11:03 AM
I certainly would like to see the club go through a bona fide interview process that is wide open. Part of that would be to allow Mackanin to interview on an equal footing with other candidates. If that happens and it is decided, following such an open process, that Mackanin is the best candidate - I'm fine with rehiring him.

I couldn't have said this better myself.

osuceltic
08-23-2007, 11:06 AM
No Mackanin! I appreciate what he has done, but this team needs an outside perspective. They need someone who isn't close to the players or front office. And I still believe they need someone with enough gravitas to bruise some egos.

We've had seven years with the same players and managers from within the organization and it hasn't worked. We need a new voice in the dugout, new players on the field, and a new chemistry in the clubhouse. Mackanin may be a fine major league manager, but he isn't what this team needs right now.

Roy Tucker
08-23-2007, 11:16 AM
I certainly would like to see the club go through a bona fide interview process that is wide open. Part of that would be to allow Mackanin to interview on an equal footing with other candidates. If that happens and it is decided, following such an open process, that Mackanin is the best candidate - I'm fine with rehiring him.

Those are my thoughts as well.

Mackanin has done a thoroughly professional job of managing the on-field team (setting the lineups, juggling starters, using and developing the bullpen, using his bench, etc.).

It's a little hard to tell how he is in the clubhouse (and I think this is just as important as game management). I do like how he handled some of the stars on the team who beefed about defensive replacements, etc. But if the team fears him, respects him, thinks he's a pushover, thinks he is a pud, whatever, I don't know.

I do think he has 0&#37; input to Krivsky on roster management whereas Narron seemed to have some say in the matter. But I think that's more a result of being an interim manager rather than WK thinking Pete is a dud.

nate
08-23-2007, 11:40 AM
No Mackanin! I appreciate what he has done, but this team needs an outside perspective. They need someone who isn't close to the players or front office. And I still believe they need someone with enough gravitas to bruise some egos.

We've had seven years with the same players and managers from within the organization and it hasn't worked. We need a new voice in the dugout, new players on the field, and a new chemistry in the clubhouse. Mackanin may be a fine major league manager, but he isn't what this team needs right now.

What if he is?

I understand what you're saying; its echoed by many here. However, its the kind of situation ("dudes from inside the organization haven't been good") that's coincidentally true until it's not.

I don't know if he's the guy or not. It _seems_ like he's getting good results but that's in a handful of games. More importantly though is that the players seem to have a good reaction to him. So...who knows?

Don't eliminate the guy just because he came from the inside. And don't hand it to him for the same reason.

redsmetz
08-23-2007, 12:14 PM
Can we really say that Mackanin's from the "inside"? Yes, he's the interim, so that carries the past baggage folks talk about, but while he managed in our minors many years ago, he's only just been back with the club this season, right?

Now, one thought I have had, is that while I wouldn't mind Mackanin continuing as manager, I very much would like him to stay with the organization in some capacity. I like his approach to the game and he seems like a development guy, IMO.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-24-2007, 09:16 AM
"The real good thing about Mackanin is that if you sit around and wait to get a guy into the perfect situation, his part of the game, he might sit for five, six or seven games," said Weathers. "By the time it's his time, he's rusty. Pete hasn't done that like it was done earlier in the year."

-David Weathers (Hal McCoy article - Dayton Daily News)

http://www.daytondailynews.com/s/content/oh/story/sports/pro/reds/2007/08/23/ddn082307redsweb.html

No doubt to me that Mack is the man for this job. This will end up being one of those Krivsky genius moves, planting Mack in the scouting department until Narron had worn out his welcome. Remember, the extension of Narron was not Krivsky's decision. Quotes like the one above from Weathers are very telling.

I received this email from a source close to the situation:

"Gaining the confidence of the players is the most important thing a manager can accomplish with a new team. Pete certainly has done that."

I think that goes without saying.

nate
08-24-2007, 09:37 AM
"The real good thing about Mackanin is that if you sit around and wait to get a guy into the perfect situation, his part of the game, he might sit for five, six or seven games," said Weathers. "By the time it's his time, he's rusty. Pete hasn't done that like it was done earlier in the year."

-David Weathers (Hal McCoy article - Dayton Daily News)

http://www.daytondailynews.com/s/content/oh/story/sports/pro/reds/2007/08/23/ddn082307redsweb.html


Interesting quote. Thanks!

paulrichjr
08-24-2007, 09:55 AM
Can we really say that Mackanin's from the "inside"? Yes, he's the interim, so that carries the past baggage folks talk about, but while he managed in our minors many years ago, he's only just been back with the club this season, right?

Now, one thought I have had, is that while I wouldn't mind Mackanin continuing as manager, I very much would like him to stay with the organization in some capacity. I like his approach to the game and he seems like a development guy, IMO.


Let's pretend that Mack was one of those who was interviewed for the job during the offseason and he didn't work for the Reds before. If he got the job most people on here would be saying, "Pete who? and then, "Give him a chance." Now because he worked for the Reds for what...one season...he is an insider. That is hogwash.

Then the talk comes around to no more interim managers. Personally I like putting him in the interim position so early in the season and seeing what would happen. We can't do that with Brenley or Giardi both of whom I don't want close to this team. Please don't say that Narron and Miley were examples why this situation won't work. Have you seen Miley's record as an interim? Only because Marty wanted him, was the guy hired. (Maybe not the only reason but a big part of it in my mind)

A one year contract to Pete is fine with me. I'm not interested in giving him a 3 year contract yet but he has more than proven himself.

dfs
08-24-2007, 10:40 AM
A one year contract to Pete is fine with me.

Isn't that how both Miley and Narron started? They went from Interim to a single year and multiyear....too quickly?

While I respect the job he has done, I don't want to see Pete in the dugout next year. I want Castellini's guy in the dugout. Somebody with some organizational punch. I don't want somebody taking marching orders from Wayne. I don't trust him enough.

Certainly Boone and Miley and at least to some degree Narron, seemed to be making out lineups based on what the front office told them to do. You can make a case that the same thing happened to McKeon. I'm really tired of that. While I recognize the manager and the GM can't be antagonistic to each other, I'm tired of doing things this way. It worked a lot better when Davey Johnson told Bowden...I want this type of player and that's what Bowden went out and got him.

BCubb2003
08-24-2007, 10:50 AM
I think Mackanin is a different sort of interim than Bucky Dent or Billy Hatcher would have been, moving up from the second spot. Mackanin may actually be the outsider we're looking for, just without the big name. After all, he's spent the previous months studying how other teams approach the game.

Ltlabner
08-24-2007, 10:56 AM
Not considering a guy because he's got the interim tag and previous interims have failed makes about as much sense as never driving a car again, because your last one broke down a lot.

He's not been a disaster and seems to have had some positive impact. How much impact is hard to measure since this could all be the team returning to the mean from the depths of suckatude and nothing to do with Pete's managerial wizardy.

IMO he's graduated from being the "no way in heck" interim to "let's at least consider him" interim. That said, he's still light years away from being the "this guy's a keeper" interim. Toss his name in the ring, but keep searching for the best manager you can find for the money you are willing to spend.

redsmetz
08-24-2007, 10:58 AM
Isn't that how both Miley and Narron started? They went from Interim to a single year and multiyear....too quickly?

While I respect the job he has done, I don't want to see Pete in the dugout next year. I want Castellini's guy in the dugout. Somebody with some organizational punch. I don't want somebody taking marching orders from Wayne. I don't trust him enough.

Certainly Boone and Miley and at least to some degree Narron, seemed to be making out lineups based on what the front office told them to do. You can make a case that the same thing happened to McKeon. I'm really tired of that. While I recognize the manager and the GM can't be antagonistic to each other, I'm tired of doing things this way. It worked a lot better when Davey Johnson told Bowden...I want this type of player and that's what Bowden went out and got him.

Not to be overly harsh, but your assertions are a little bit absurd. How would Mackanin not be Castellini's guy? Do you really believe there is some huge disconnect between WK's actions and Bob C.'s? Do you really believe that if the Reds hire someone else (Bob's guy), that Castellini is going to jump the organizational flowchart and tell the manager what to do?

Your assertion that various previous managers were told who to play rings a little hollow. I am in no way, shape or form privy to the inner workings of the Reds or any other ML team, but I suspect all of them have some elements of upper management indicating to some degree who plays particularly when they're wanting to showcase some player or another or want to give someone a good "look see", but I don't think there is that degree of micro-managing that takes place. Even Pete Mac's recent comment about playing some players over others didn't strike me as anything other than showcasing some guys around the trade deadline or the organization wanting to see the abilities of some players versus others.

But to suggest that IF the Reds rehire Mackanin that he's Wayne's guy versus Castellini's just doesn't make sense. You must believe this organization is in complete disarray.

dfs
08-24-2007, 11:13 AM
Not to be overly harsh, but your assertions are a little bit absurd.
snip
You must believe this organization is in complete disarray.

heh. Fair enough.

I have no idea what this front office is thinking. Many of the moves (and non-moves) Absolutely mystify me.

BCubb2003
08-24-2007, 11:28 AM
I think this was asked before, but how do you measure even the big name managers? By winning records, Pete Rose was a better manager than Joe Torre, before Torre went to the Yankees.

flyer85
08-24-2007, 11:29 AM
Seems to me the correct approach is to conduct a thorough manager search in the off-season. Pete should be a candidate and his W-L record over the final three months should be considered. Giving him a contract without having conducted a search would be extremely shortsighted.

redsmetz
08-24-2007, 11:57 AM
Seems to me the correct approach is to conduct a thorough manager search in the off-season. Pete should be a candidate and his W-L record over the final three months should be considered. Giving him a contract without having conducted a search would be extremely shortsighted.

I agree completely. I very much would like Mackanin to have a shot at it and not be dismissed because he was the interim and we've failed at that a number of times in the past. But I think we will be served by interviewing a number of good candidates - if nothing else, it would be good to see what other outside eyes see in our team (and I put Mackanin among the "outside eyes").

RANDY IN INDY
08-24-2007, 12:07 PM
Seems to me the correct approach is to conduct a thorough manager search in the off-season. Pete should be a candidate and his W-L record over the final three months should be considered. Giving him a contract without having conducted a search would be extremely shortsighted.

:beerme:

KronoRed
08-24-2007, 01:18 PM
Right on flyer

Patrick Bateman
08-24-2007, 01:41 PM
Agreed Flyer.

I hae zero problem with Mackanin. He has the team playing well. He uses the pitching staff very well by not overworking pitchers and using his matchups wisely. Plus he even seems to have a firm grasp on using the best guys in the right situations. If Narron was still managing, I bet Majewski would still be a primary set-up man and Bray would be burried in a LOOGY role with Eddie G in set-up.

If after going through all the candidates Mackanin is viewed as the best choice, I will have absolutely zero problem with that.

OldXOhio
08-24-2007, 01:50 PM
He won me over during the Reds trip to ATL back in July. I have no problem with him getting the nod, as long as a fair interview process is conducted first.

redsmetz
08-24-2007, 02:00 PM
He won me over during the Reds trip to ATL back in July. I have no problem with him getting the nod, as long as a fair interview process is conducted first.

I could say Mackanin was something entirely different this week when Arroyo was pitching, had reached 100 pitches on an extremely hot night and he came into the inning with a long drive that Dunn made a good catch on and then gave up a rocket of a home run to the next batter. The way I heard Marty call it, I doubt the batter had rounded the bases before Mackanin was at the mound pulling Arroyo. I said then that it was refreshing.

westofyou
08-24-2007, 02:02 PM
I like Pete, he seems to have a firm hand on both the rudder and the pulse of the players, haven't seen that sort of command on both fronts in awhile.

redsmetz
08-24-2007, 02:06 PM
I like his sense of humor. This from today's Reds Note in the Enquirer:


"I haven't heard one player complain about how hot it is," Mackanin said. "That's good. You don't want to hear whining."