PDA

View Full Version : AL and NL Manager's of the Year



Matt700wlw
09-28-2007, 08:49 PM
Who do you think?

I think Eric Wedge is a no brainer for the AL...

I could make a case for Clint Hurdle in the NL...

Patrick Bateman
09-28-2007, 08:53 PM
I think Melvin from Arizona has to be the front runner. I'm not sure how they outproduced their Pythag by so much, and I'm not sure if he was much of a reason, but he can't be doing much wrong over there.

fearofpopvol1
09-28-2007, 09:18 PM
If the Phillies make the playoffs, Charlie Manuel. If not, Melvin. I'd be fine with Melvin too though.

I wouldn't typically say this, but I think it should be Torre in the AL. To be as far out as the Yankees were and to come back, it's pretty incredible.

M2
09-28-2007, 09:35 PM
Melvin, Manuel, Hurdle and Black all have done notably well with their teams.

Wedge might get the nod in the AL, but I'm with fearofpop, what Joe Torre did this year was pretty incredible.

Matt700wlw
09-28-2007, 09:38 PM
The reason I don't give it to Torre is because they Yankees are supposed to do that.....he's done a hell of a job, but when you're the Yankees, with that payroll and how they buy players, you're supposed to win.

Cleveland has the best record in baseball and one of lowest payrolls...


Shapiro - Exec of the year.

fearofpopvol1
09-28-2007, 10:17 PM
The reason I don't give it to Torre is because they Yankees are supposed to do that.....he's done a hell of a job, but when you're the Yankees, with that payroll and how they buy players, you're supposed to win.

Cleveland has the best record in baseball and one of lowest payrolls...


Shapiro - Exec of the year.

I can see that, but the Yanks were WAY behind the BoSox (was it 17 back?) and managed to make the playoffs. Great players with great potential or not, to lead the team back to the playoffs is pretty remarkable.

Phhhl
09-28-2007, 11:28 PM
I can see that, but the Yanks were WAY behind the BoSox (was it 17 back?) and managed to make the playoffs. Great players with great potential or not, to lead the team back to the playoffs is pretty remarkable.

Eh, it's 162 games. If the quarter of a billion dollar team struggles early or late, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference. What does it matter when they get their inevitable wins? The problem in baseball remains that a handful of teams can afford to buy their way into the postseason every single year. Other teams may come and go in the post season tourney, and some of those win an occasional world series. But all star teams like the Sox and Yanks are basically guaranteed their spot, and there is something sickening about it. I don't see that much credit should be given to a manager who is provided the best players to work with hand over fist. Torre is a nice guy, but he has been the benefactor of the easiest job in sports for over a decade now. Like Muzak, he doesn't offend. He puts a good face on the evil empire, but teams like that manage themselves.

blumj
09-28-2007, 11:37 PM
Eh, it's 162 games. If the quarter of a billion dollar team struggles early or late, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference. What does it matter when they get their inevitable wins? The problem in baseball remains that a handful of teams can afford to buy their way into the postseason every single year. Other teams may come and go in the post season tourney, and some of those win an occasional world series. But all star teams like the Sox and Yanks are basically guaranteed their spot, and there is something sickening about it. I don't see that much credit should be given to a manager who is provided the best players to work with hand over fist. Torre is a nice guy, but he has been the benefactor of the easiest job in sports for over a decade now.
I'm sorry, and I agree generally about MLB payroll disparity, but there's no way that working for Steinbrenner, having to deal with the NY media, and having to handle all those star players, could ever be an easy job. I'd pick Wedge for MOY, too, but to say Torre's job is easy is ridiculous. The Mets have a nice revenue/payroll advantage, too, and look at what that's getting them.

TOBTTReds
09-28-2007, 11:51 PM
You guys are on it. Wedge and Melvin. If not Wedge, then Ozzie Guillen. If Guillen doesn't win it, then atleast give him a phat extension...

blumj
09-29-2007, 12:16 AM
You guys are on it. Wedge and Melvin. If not Wedge, then Ozzie Guillen. If Guillen doesn't win it, then atleast give him a phat extension...

Oh, yeah, there's another one. I'm pretty sure the White Sox have the highest payroll in that division.

vaticanplum
09-29-2007, 12:27 AM
Eh, it's 162 games. If the quarter of a billion dollar team struggles early or late, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference. What does it matter when they get their inevitable wins? The problem in baseball remains that a handful of teams can afford to buy their way into the postseason every single year. Other teams may come and go in the post season tourney, and some of those win an occasional world series. But all star teams like the Sox and Yanks are basically guaranteed their spot, and there is something sickening about it. I don't see that much credit should be given to a manager who is provided the best players to work with hand over fist. Torre is a nice guy, but he has been the benefactor of the easiest job in sports for over a decade now. Like Muzak, he doesn't offend. He puts a good face on the evil empire, but teams like that manage themselves.

When are people going to start to notice the fact that the Yankees have not "bought" their team this year? one can't entirely include Jeter, Pettitte, Rivera, Pettitte and Posada in the list of bought players just because they cost a lot of money: the Yankees developed them. Who has made the difference on their team the second half of this year? Wang. Chamberlain. Cano. Cabrera. Hughes. Mussina and Damon are truly bought players; how well did that work out for the Yankees this year?

At a certain point I think that people are going to have to acknowledge the fact that there are about a half-dozen teams significantly more "bought" than the Yankees at this point, even if the Yankees have the highest payroll (a heck of a lot of that payroll is just giving their homegrown players what they deserve, and I hasten to point out that a certain other team we all know and love could learn a lesson from that). A handful of those teams are in the playoffs. It's very, very lazy in my opinion to say that Torre has had nothing to manage. He meshes the egos with the kids -- and he DOES have kids to manage. How in the world do A-Rod and a handful of kids manage themselves? Homer Bailey was a higher-touted prospect than Phil Hughes; which one of them made wins "inevitable"? And Torre had a heck of a lot of injuries to deal with too, particularly at the beginning of the season. How quickly people seem to have forgotten that.

I also want to say that blumj is a classier AL East fan than I could ever be. I tip my hat.

blumj
09-29-2007, 01:16 AM
Thanks, but I thought what you said about the Sox in the other thread was pretty classy.

M2
09-29-2007, 01:36 AM
Torre is a nice guy, but he has been the benefactor of the easiest job in sports for over a decade now. Like Muzak, he doesn't offend. He puts a good face on the evil empire, but teams like that manage themselves.

Bull. Others have already covered how well he's handled kids over the years, having them perform in critical roles in the biggest pressure cooker in sports. That's deft management.

Aside from that, every year he's handed what could be a big market disaster and no matter what happens in terms of injuries and free agent flops he finds a working combination.

Just because you hand a guy resources doesn't mean he knows how to use them. Torre does and you've grossly underrated him.

mth123
09-29-2007, 07:19 AM
When are people going to start to notice the fact that the Yankees have not "bought" their team this year? one can't entirely include Jeter, Pettitte, Rivera, Pettitte and Posada in the list of bought players just because they cost a lot of money: the Yankees developed them. Who has made the difference on their team the second half of this year? Wang. Chamberlain. Cano. Cabrera. Hughes. Mussina and Damon are truly bought players; how well did that work out for the Yankees this year?

At a certain point I think that people are going to have to acknowledge the fact that there are about a half-dozen teams significantly more "bought" than the Yankees at this point, even if the Yankees have the highest payroll (a heck of a lot of that payroll is just giving their homegrown players what they deserve, and I hasten to point out that a certain other team we all know and love could learn a lesson from that). A handful of those teams are in the playoffs. It's very, very lazy in my opinion to say that Torre has had nothing to manage. He meshes the egos with the kids -- and he DOES have kids to manage. How in the world do A-Rod and a handful of kids manage themselves? Homer Bailey was a higher-touted prospect than Phil Hughes; which one of them made wins "inevitable"? And Torre had a heck of a lot of injuries to deal with too, particularly at the beginning of the season. How quickly people seem to have forgotten that.

I also want to say that blumj is a classier AL East fan than I could ever be. I tip my hat.

I see the point and they've done a good job with their influx of pitching this year, but Jeter, Posada, Rivera and Pettite (who actually was bought) are still Yankees because they can afford to keep the stars they develop. Not only that, but they can afford to take on the similar players developed by other organizations in addition to the stars they develop themselves (A-Rod, Clemens, Abreu, etc) while most organizations are simply replacing their own stars who may be leaving.

Also, the Yankees are one of only a few teams that can afford to make a big signing that doesn't work out (such as your Damon and Mussina examples) because the Yankees can always afford to go get some one else. For example, the Yankees sign Carl Pavano and the Red Sox sign Matt Clement. The both royally fail and they simply can afford to turn the page and bring in players like Clemens and Schilling to take up the slack. Meanwhile, in the same offseason, the Reds get an Eric Milton (who actually worked out better than either of the other two believe it or not) and they are simply stuck running him out there. They really can't afford a replacement without having to cut loose something somewhere else (which they should have done). I think teams like the Reds haven't always been smart and have pointed it out frequently, but when the Yanks or Sox make a similar error, they can afford to try something else. It is a huge difference.

KronoRed
09-29-2007, 01:28 PM
A "bought" team can be more then just free agents, a team like the yankees and red sox can also afford a MUCH bigger player development budget and more scouts, something a majority of other teams usually have to skimp on if they want to avoid 100 losses with their major league teams.

Same ole same ole.

vaticanplum
09-29-2007, 01:45 PM
I see the point and they've done a good job with their influx of pitching this year, but Jeter, Posada, Rivera and Pettite (who actually was bought) are still Yankees because they can afford to keep the stars they develop. Not only that, but they can afford to take on the similar players developed by other organizations in addition to the stars they develop themselves (A-Rod, Clemens, Abreu, etc) while most organizations are simply replacing their own stars who may be leaving.

Also, the Yankees are one of only a few teams that can afford to make a big signing that doesn't work out (such as your Damon and Mussina examples) because the Yankees can always afford to go get some one else. For example, the Yankees sign Carl Pavano and the Red Sox sign Matt Clement. The both royally fail and they simply can afford to turn the page and bring in players like Clemens and Schilling to take up the slack. Meanwhile, in the same offseason, the Reds get an Eric Milton (who actually worked out better than either of the other two believe it or not) and they are simply stuck running him out there. They really can't afford a replacement without having to cut loose something somewhere else (which they should have done). I think teams like the Reds haven't always been smart and have pointed it out frequently, but when the Yanks or Sox make a similar error, they can afford to try something else. It is a huge difference.

I totally agree with all of that. It just appears to me that the casual-fan perspective of the Yankees is that they've purchased (ie. not developed) every single player they have, and it simply isn't true, not even the way it was just a few years ago. They can afford to keep any player they want and they can afford to make mistakes, but their farm system and their manager have also been solely responsible for some really solid talent scouting and development over the last few years. One of these things doesn't negate the other, but I feel that in the popular perception of the Yankees (as partially stated in this thread) completely ignores one of them.

Matt700wlw
09-29-2007, 01:48 PM
I totally agree with all of that. It just appears to me that the casual-fan perspective of the Yankees is that they've purchased (ie. not developed) every single player they have, and it simply isn't true, not even the way it was just a few years ago. They can afford to keep any player they want and they can afford to make mistakes, but their farm system and their manager have also been solely responsible for some really solid talent scouting and development over the last few years. One of these things doesn't negate the other, but I feel that in the popular perception of the Yankees (as partially stated in this thread) completely ignores one of them.

Curious has me wondering where the Yankees would be without the purchase of some guy they call A-Rod...

vaticanplum
09-29-2007, 01:51 PM
Curious has me wondering where the Yankees would be without the purchase of some guy they call A-Rod...

Not in the playoffs, that's for sure.

And every team in the playoffs has spent relatively big bucks on somebody. That's major league baseball.

Matt700wlw
09-29-2007, 01:54 PM
True...

Our boys have Griffey.

That hasn't worked out so well....not that I'm putting this team's problems on him...

mth123
09-29-2007, 01:56 PM
I totally agree with all of that. It just appears to me that the casual-fan perspective of the Yankees is that they've purchased (ie. not developed) every single player they have, and it simply isn't true, not even the way it was just a few years ago. They can afford to keep any player they want and they can afford to make mistakes, but their farm system and their manager have also been solely responsible for some really solid talent scouting and development over the last few years. One of these things doesn't negate the other, but I feel that in the popular perception of the Yankees (as partially stated in this thread) completely ignores one of them.

Agree. Since I found Redszone, I sometimes lose sight of how less zealous and less "studied" fans think. I guess I need to go read reds.com more often.

vaticanplum
09-29-2007, 02:01 PM
Agree. Since I found Redszone, I sometimes lose sight of how less zealous and less "studied" fans think. I guess I need to go read reds.com more often.

You shouldn't put yourself through that. Just wear a Yankees hat for a week and walk amongst the general public. That'll do the trick :)