PDA

View Full Version : Reds tell Mackanin they are going to explore other options!



redsfan4445
10-02-2007, 02:11 PM
just posted on rotoworld.com

"The Reds informed interim manager Pete Mackanin that they will explore other options for the manager's role in 2008.

Mackanin remains a candidate for the job, but his chances don't seem quite as good as they did a month ago. The Reds would love to land Tony La Russa if he decides to leave St. Louis."

traderumor
10-02-2007, 02:23 PM
There never should have been any quotes of GM's and owners applauding Pete's job if they were going to yank the carpet out from under him because he couldn't win with the AAA team the last week of the season.

BRM
10-02-2007, 02:24 PM
Fay doesn't have it quite as bleak for Pete as Rotoworld interpreted.



I talked to Wayne Krivsky about the process of hiring a manager. Let's just say he wasn't very enlightening.

"I said all I'm going to say about," Krivsky said. "It's not something I want to take daily calls on."

Krivsky did tell Pete Mackanin they are going to look at outside candidates.

"I talked to Pete obviously," Krivsky said, "just like we communicate on every player move."

Krivsky has no timetable, but it sounds like he prefer sooner over later.

"I have no way of knowing how long it's going to take," he said. "You don't want to put people lives in limbo any longer than you have to."

Krivsky would not say whether there's committee to help with process.

"That's for us," he said. "We're trying to get the best person. It could very well be Pete Mackanin."

How Tony LaRussa delaying his decision about whether he'll return to St. Louis affects all this is hard to say. I'd be surprised if Bob Castellini filled the job before he knows if LaRussa is a available or not.

Another factor in this now that they've decided to go outside, the Reds are pretty much obligated to interview minority candidates. That's a mandate from MLB.

remdog
10-02-2007, 02:25 PM
Nothing surprising here. After all, Pete was hired as 'interim' manager. Personally, I think he did a good job but the plan always was to see what was out there at the end of the season. Pete will still get some thought. (famous shrug)

The Cubs did OK by bringing in an experienced manager (last to first) which is what many on this board wanted and still want. (another famous shrug).

Rem

pedro
10-02-2007, 02:25 PM
Here it comes. Now Krivsky'll be skewered for saying Mackanin did a good job. Which he did.

All this means is they're going to go through an interview process, which they should.

Chip R
10-02-2007, 02:26 PM
Meanwhile, Tony LaRussa is auditioning for the part of Godot.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3045878

BRM
10-02-2007, 02:27 PM
All this means is they're going to go through an interview process, which they should.

A process which Pete will be part of. He's still in the mix for the job. Rotoworld's report makes it seem as if Pete is out of the running.

Falls City Beer
10-02-2007, 02:28 PM
Here it comes. Now Krivsky'll be skewered for saying Mackanin did a good job. Which he did.

All this means is they're going to go through an interview process, which they should.

I don't take issue with Krivsky saying Mackanin did a good job; but his irascible cloak and dagger interview style is very irritating for a guy who's not earned the right to say, "Shut up; I know what I'm doing." The guy sounds like a tool.

Falls City Beer
10-02-2007, 02:29 PM
Meanwhile, Tony LaRussa is auditioning for the part of Godot.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3045878

Guffman.

Krivsky's the anti-Christopher Guest.

If the Reds really are making a hard charge for Larussa, I hope to hell Cast is in charge of that and not Krivsky; Wayne's got much bigger fish to fry than to court some aging drunk overrated manager.

registerthis
10-02-2007, 02:31 PM
I don't take issue with Krivsky saying Mackanin did a good job; but his irascible cloak and dagger interview style is very irritating for a guy who's not earned the right to say, "Shut up; I know what I'm doing." The guy sounds like a tool.

What did he say that was "cloak and dagger"?

He indicated that he had informed Pete that they would be interviewing other potential managerial candidates, but that mackanin was also in line for the job.

I'm failing to see what's unclear about that.

nate
10-02-2007, 02:32 PM
I don't take issue with Krivsky saying Mackanin did a good job; but his irascible cloak and dagger interview style is very irritating for a guy who's not earned the right to say, "Shut up; I know what I'm doing." The guy sounds like a tool.

Right, because its "cloak and dagger" and "shut up, I know what I'm doing" rather "I don't want to speak on things before they come to fruition" or "we're don't have any concrete information just yet."

I hear the tool-like sounds, too...just not from the same direction.

Falls City Beer
10-02-2007, 02:34 PM
What did he say that was "cloak and dagger"?

He indicated that he had informed Pete that they would be interviewing other potential managerial candidates, but that mackanin was also in line for the job.

I'm failing to see what's unclear about that.

Subtext--it's a wonderful thing.

"I don't want to take daily calls about it" = "Shut up; we know what we're doing and we'll do it on our time. Now run along."

traderumor
10-02-2007, 02:35 PM
Here it comes. Now Krivsky'll be skewered for saying Mackanin did a good job. Which he did.

All this means is they're going to go through an interview process, which they should.I already skewered him ;) I do think they'd be singing a different tune if they had played at the level they did before the injuries hit, which really doesn't make any sense. Maybe I'm wrong.

Heath
10-02-2007, 02:35 PM
Out of all the jobs available, and there aren't many, this might be the plumb job out there.

What is also interesting are the potential candidates that might actually want the job.

I wonder if Dave Duncan would come over if LaRussa wanted to have the year off.

traderumor
10-02-2007, 02:37 PM
Guffman.

Krivsky's the anti-Christopher Guest.

If the Reds really are making a hard charge for Larussa, I hope to hell Cast is in charge of that and not Krivsky; Wayne's got much bigger fish to fry than to court some aging drunk overrated manager.

You are especially lovely today ;)

redsmetz
10-02-2007, 02:37 PM
I don't take issue with Krivsky saying Mackanin did a good job; but his irascible cloak and dagger interview style is very irritating for a guy who's not earned the right to say, "Shut up; I know what I'm doing." The guy sounds like a tool.

Fay quotes WK as saying, "I said all I'm going to say about [it]; It's not something I want to take daily calls on." That sounds fairly direct to me. It's not quite the "shut up" you mention, but he seems to be telling him don't bug me about every day.

registerthis
10-02-2007, 02:38 PM
Subtext--it's a wonderful thing.

"I don't want to take daily calls about it" = "Shut up; we know what we're doing and we'll do it on our time. Now run along."

...or:

"This process is going to take months, we'll make everyone aware when something develops."

Subtext is in the ears of the receiver.

redsfan30
10-02-2007, 02:38 PM
Subtext--it's a wonderful thing.

"I don't want to take daily calls about it" = "Shut up; we know what we're doing and we'll do it on our time. Now run along."


Dude....come on...

Razor Shines
10-02-2007, 02:38 PM
Another factor in this now that they've decided to go outside, the Reds are pretty much obligated to interview minority candidates. That's a mandate from MLB.

So does this mean we shouldn't be worried if they interview Dusty Baker? I don't know whether it's bad or not but that's where my mind went as soon as I read that last sentence.

registerthis
10-02-2007, 02:40 PM
So does this mean we shouldn't be worried if they interview Dusty Baker? I don't know whether it's bad or not but that's where my mind went as soon as I read that last sentence.

The "interviewing of minority candidates" requirement seems a bit unnecessary, as far as the position with the Reds goes. By default, any individual in baseball willing to accept the Cincinnati job would have to be in the minority, wouldn't they? ;)

Falls City Beer
10-02-2007, 02:41 PM
...or:

"This process is going to take months, we'll make everyone aware when something develops."

Subtext is in the ears of the receiver.

Riiiight. They have no idea what's going to happen. Suuuuure.

They know pretty much exactly who they want--it's just a matter of money and him accepting. And they know whether or not that person will be Mackanin.

There's a much more civil way to say what Wayne said; for instance, your interpretation of his quote would have worked just fine.

Chip R
10-02-2007, 02:41 PM
Out of all the jobs available, and there aren't many, this might be the plumb job out there.

What is also interesting are the potential candidates that might actually want the job.

I wonder if Dave Duncan would come over if LaRussa wanted to have the year off.


Duncan has a contract through 08. Whether he could get out if it is up for speculation.

Roy Tucker
10-02-2007, 02:44 PM
I think "explore other options" has multiple meanings.

One meaning is codespeak for "you are not getting this job and this is a subtle way of telling you that without outright saying so".

Another is simply "we are going to consider all candidates".

I think in this case, it is the latter. Mackanin will get a fair shake.

traderumor
10-02-2007, 02:45 PM
The "interviewing of minority candidates" requirement seems a bit unnecessary, as far as the position with the Reds goes. By default, any individual in baseball willing to accept the Cincinnati job would have to be in the minority, wouldn't they? ;)I'm guessing Billy Hatcher might get an interview? He mentioned he would like to manage someday in an interview this year.

registerthis
10-02-2007, 02:46 PM
Riiiight. They have no idea what's going to happen. Suuuuure.

Either way, I'm not seeing the hidden agenda and patronizing a-hole behavior that you're reading into.

Falls City Beer
10-02-2007, 02:49 PM
Either way, I'm not seeing the hidden agenda and patronizing a-hole behavior that you're reading into.

If it were isolated to this event, I'd agree. But Wayne's made a habit of being short with the press on several occasions. In my opinion, you've got to earn that right.

In the end, though, it doesn't matter.

Heath
10-02-2007, 02:51 PM
Hey guys, watch the language.

RedsManRick
10-02-2007, 02:52 PM
"Exploring other options" can be taken literally in this case. Rotoworld is simply misinterpreting it, or misrepresenting it, if they conclude that Mac won't be among the candidates considered.

I just hope we don't get LaRussa. I can't stand the guy and don't understand what he specifically does as a manager that justifies his reputation. I don't give managers credit for being blessed with great teams.

traderumor
10-02-2007, 02:59 PM
"Exploring other options" can be taken literally in this case. Rotoworld is simply misinterpreting it, or misrepresenting it, if they conclude that Mac won't be among the candidates considered.

I just hope we don't get LaRussa. I can't stand the guy and don't understand what he specifically does as a manager that justifies his reputation. I don't give managers credit for being blessed with great teams.

If that is the criteria, then there is no such thing as a great manager. For example, Sparky Anderson would not be a great manager by that criteria, and maybe you do not think he is, but there sure was an awful lot of ego on that team that we may have not had direct knowledge of during the time. Consider having a team with Joe Morgan's and Pete Rose's ego, and throw in a little Johnny Bench cockiness, that requires a great leader to make that work.

RFS62
10-02-2007, 03:01 PM
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

Puffy
10-02-2007, 03:02 PM
Out of all the jobs available, and there aren't many, this might be the plumb job out there.

What is also interesting are the potential candidates that might actually want the job.

I wonder if Dave Duncan would come over if LaRussa wanted to have the year off.

Tha only way I would be even remotely happy if LaGenius got hired would be because Duncan came with him.

LaGenius + Duncan = gooder.

LaGenius - Duncan = uggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhh.

flyer85
10-02-2007, 03:06 PM
if only 6 of 10 veteran players endorsed Pete, that was not a good sign.

The right answer all along was to conduct an extensive search once the season ended, with Pete as a candidate.

Roy Tucker
10-02-2007, 03:07 PM
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

RedsManRick
10-02-2007, 03:14 PM
If that is the criteria, then there is no such thing as a great manager. For example, Sparky Anderson would not be a great manager by that criteria, and maybe you do not think he is, but there sure was an awful lot of ego on that team that we may have not had direct knowledge of during the time. Consider having a team with Joe Morgan's and Pete Rose's ego, and throw in a little Johnny Bench cockiness, that requires a great leader to make that work.

I agree with this and don't think it is anti-antithetical to my point. I'm open to any argument of that type and think that likely, this is where managers do indeed have the most impact. Perhaps, like Sparky, LaRussa has a talent for ego management.

However, any other candidate should be judged on the same criteria. And so I ask the question again, what specific talents does LaRussa have that should make him desirable. And if we assert that he or any other manager does have some discernible skill which should make him a desirable candidate, can we have some evidence of it? It can be qualitative or quantitative. I don't think it's an unfair question.

We wouldn't give millions of dollars to a player simply because he's played on winning teams, unless we had strong reason to believe that his contributions were in part responsible for that success. We shouldn't ask less of any managerial candidate.

traderumor
10-02-2007, 03:19 PM
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigarAnd you can't use Dominicans and get a Cuban ;)

BRM
10-02-2007, 03:21 PM
if only 6 of 10 veteran players endorsed Pete, that was not a good sign.


Actually, only 6 of 14 endorsed him. 4 said he shouldn't return, 3 declined to respond, and 1 was undecided.

Unassisted
10-02-2007, 03:23 PM
I trust that there are more reasons than W/L record that Pete didn't get the job handed to him. Chances are we will find those out in time if he doesn't get the job later.

LaRussa has an ego larger than Fountain Square and is known to be prickly, so I'm not a fan of his. Nonetheless, his record and rings tell me that he should be considered if he's interested in the job, as should anyone with good credentials. Let the interview process do the sorting.

RedLegSuperStar
10-02-2007, 03:29 PM
A new manager won't be named until the World Series is complete at the earliest. Do we really want another interm manager? Not knocking what Pete has done.. but this team needs that big name. If you are going out and bringing a big name manager.. that big name manager fills the staff with his best coaches.. and I feel that if you have that in place big name talent will soon come. Cincinnati is a baseball town.. but if this team doesn't start winning.. football might take over. The Reds are a historic foundation and should bring back that by putting together a champion. It souldn't be about money.. because if you are winning.. you are making money.

westofyou
10-02-2007, 03:40 PM
I'd rather have a intelligent, hungry manager then a "big name' any day of the week, I lived through LaRussa's entire arrogant tenure in Oakland, please avoid guys pondering retirement as much as they ponder moving on.

As for the assertion that WK is an assclown for not pandering to the fans needs to know all that goes on in his noggin... yeah sureeeeeeeeeeee

15fan
10-02-2007, 03:46 PM
LaRussa?

I'd rather have Marge Schott back making racially derrogatory comments and rubbing hair from dead dogs on players on a daily basis.

If he is hired, I hope the uniform guy gives him jersey number 666.

M2
10-02-2007, 05:00 PM
All this means is they're going to go through an interview process, which they should.

Exactly. It should be added that this is what Krivsky said would happen back when Narron got sacked. The Reds owe themselves a wide candidate search (and if Castellini's going to swing the axe at Krivsky's neck, do it now so the new GM has time to make a difference).

I like Mackanin and the reasons why have absolutely nothing to do with the team record while he managed. Had the Reds lost 100 games, I'd still like Mackanin. That said, this organization has to decide who should be leading this team for the next five years and incumbency shouldn't matter on that front. If Mackanin is THE guy the franchise wants, then hire. If not, then find that guy.

lollipopcurve
10-02-2007, 05:08 PM
I'd rather have a intelligent, hungry manager then a "big name' any day of the week,

You got it. I think it's great they're going to talk to candidates -- I hope they bring in a wide range of guys, old, young, experienced, would-be rookies.

I'm a little wary, though, that this is going to end up being a case of Castellini overruling Krivsky. A GM should get to pick his manager.

Ltlabner
10-02-2007, 05:12 PM
A new manager won't be named until the World Series is complete at the earliest. Do we really want another interm manager?

So if your car breaks down, do you start riding the bus? Because, you know, your last car broke down.

I understand the desire for a "big name" manager. It brings "respectability" and hope for the future.

I'd rather the millions that go in the pocket of a "big name" manager go in the pocket of a solid pitcher.

RedLegSuperStar
10-02-2007, 06:16 PM
So if your car breaks down, do you start riding the bus? Because, you know, your last car broke down.

I understand the desire for a "big name" manager. It brings "respectability" and hope for the future.

I'd rather the millions that go in the pocket of a "big name" manager go in the pocket of a solid pitcher.

I'm not saying to spend the money on a big name manager and avoid the gaps and needs of the team. Next year you think people are going to come to a team who havn't made it to the playoffs in the past 12 seasons and has a below .500 record the past 7 seasons with another interm made manager or a well known candidate? Money shouldn't be an issue in bringing winning baseball back to Cincinnati.

RANDY IN INDY
10-02-2007, 06:20 PM
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

Yes, yes it is.

reds44
10-02-2007, 07:02 PM
First of all, I am glad that Krivsky is having an open mind and going through the interview process. It's something that needs to be done.

I do not know whether I want Pete back or I don't. I am really indifferent. I like his personality, and the players seemed to like it as well. I think he did a better job then Jerry did, but that's not saying much. He managed a team with relatively little pressure on them that was playing loose. How would he respond in a pennant race?

The other thing you have to consider is the other canidates out there. If the three main guys out there are Baker, Brenly, and LaRussa then put me down as rather just giving McKanin a one year exentsion with an option for a 2nd year. I would probably say the same thing if you add Girardi in the list.

I am indifferent about Pete, but I am not sure what else is out there.

MrCinatit
10-02-2007, 07:30 PM
I can only hope this ball club does a thorough job of finding an appropriate leader for the team, and does not jump on the sexiest name out there for the sake of grabbing a big name. As I recall, Rogers Hornsby was a pretty big name.
Meanwhile, even though I am nowhere near sold on Pete, I hope he is not judged by the last couple of weeks of play - not easy winning with half your starting lineup ailing.

WVRedsFan
10-02-2007, 07:59 PM
Like many here, I'm torn a little. If I'm reading the papers correctly, the main candidates are:

1. Bob Brenly - 303-262 - 4 seasons - .536
2. Joe Girardi - 78-84 - 1 season - .481
3. Tony Larussa - 2375-2070 - 31 seasons - .534
4. Dusty Baker - 1162-1041 - 14 seasons - .527
5. Pete Mackanin - 53-53 - 2 seasons - .500

I have to eliminate Girardi immediately because of experience and the losing record (and I know why--youth). That leaves us Brenly, Larussa, Mackanin, and Baker. I have to eliminate Larussa because he's not coming here--I don't see any way for the money he'd want. That leaves us with Brenly, Mackanin and Baker. Dusty would demand too much and I don't think he would jive with Krivsky, so that leaves us with Brenly and Mackanin.

I know absolutely nothing about Brenley except the won 92, 98, and 84 games with Arizona as manager and was fired after a 29-50 start (some clubs have standards. Some were still arguing for Jerry when he was 31-51). I know a little about Mackanin, but most of it is personal and his moves at times baffled me, so I'm torn. Brenly or Mackanin? I have no idea what to do. Ya think anyone else will enter the frey?

Falls City Beer
10-02-2007, 08:03 PM
Like many here, I'm torn a little. If I'm reading the papers correctly, the main candidates are:

1. Bob Brenly - 303-262 - 4 seasons - .536
2. Joe Girardi - 78-84 - 1 season - .481
3. Tony Larussa - 2375-2070 - 31 seasons - .534
4. Dusty Baker - 1162-1041 - 14 seasons - .527
5. Pete Mackanin - 53-53 - 2 seasons - .500

I have to eliminate Girardi immediately because of experience and the losing record (and I know why--youth). That leaves us Brenly, Larussa, Mackanin, and Baker. I have to eliminate Larussa because he's not coming here--I don't see any way for the money he'd want. That leaves us with Brenly, Mackanin and Baker. Dusty would demand too much and I don't think he would jive with Krivsky, so that leaves us with Brenly and Mackanin.

I know absolutely nothing about Brenley except the won 92, 98, and 84 games with Arizona as manager and was fired after a 29-50 start (some clubs have standards. Some were still arguing for Jerry when he was 31-51). I know a little about Mackanin, but most of it is personal and his moves at times baffled me, so I'm torn. Brenly or Mackanin? I have no idea what to do. Ya think anyone else will enter the frey?

Manager is still the cheapest place to make a big splash in the press, which is where I'm guessing Cast wants to target.

Raisor
10-02-2007, 08:18 PM
I swear, if it's Dusty Baker I'll start taking hostages.

KronoRed
10-02-2007, 08:26 PM
I swear, if it's Dusty Baker I'll start taking hostages.

Make one of them Homer, to save his arm.

GAC
10-02-2007, 08:26 PM
I don't see where their approach has changed from what they stated initially. They are going to be open-mnded and go through the process, which is going to take time. They were pretty straightforward when they hired Pete and said he was interim. The fact that they've told him that he is one of the candidates (even if his chances are slim) is all he can ask for.

I can remember some on here saying Pete was Wayne's "guy", and that the job was going to be his all along. ;)

jmcclain19
10-02-2007, 08:32 PM
LaRussa in Cincy = Jim Leland in Colorado. Without the chain smoking in the dugout.

RedLegSuperStar
10-02-2007, 08:57 PM
I swear, if it's Dusty Baker I'll start taking hostages.

:thumbup: Classic

RedLegSuperStar
10-02-2007, 09:16 PM
Like many here, I'm torn a little. If I'm reading the papers correctly, the main candidates are:

1. Bob Brenly - 303-262 - 4 seasons - .536
2. Joe Girardi - 78-84 - 1 season - .481
3. Tony Larussa - 2375-2070 - 31 seasons - .534
4. Dusty Baker - 1162-1041 - 14 seasons - .527
5. Pete Mackanin - 53-53 - 2 seasons - .500

I have to eliminate Girardi immediately because of experience and the losing record (and I know why--youth). That leaves us Brenly, Larussa, Mackanin, and Baker. I have to eliminate Larussa because he's not coming here--I don't see any way for the money he'd want. That leaves us with Brenly, Mackanin and Baker. Dusty would demand too much and I don't think he would jive with Krivsky, so that leaves us with Brenly and Mackanin.

I know absolutely nothing about Brenley except the won 92, 98, and 84 games with Arizona as manager and was fired after a 29-50 start (some clubs have standards. Some were still arguing for Jerry when he was 31-51). I know a little about Mackanin, but most of it is personal and his moves at times baffled me, so I'm torn. Brenly or Mackanin? I have no idea what to do. Ya think anyone else will enter the frey?

I think more will enter the frey.. these are some of those who might be in the mix..

Joe Torre
Don Baylor
Larry Bowa
Chino Cadahia
Joey Cora
Rick Dempsey
Jim Fregosi
Phil Garner
Davey Johnson
Ken Macha
Jerry Manuel
Don Mattingly
Terry Pendleton
Sam Perlozzo
Bobby Valentine

*Bold are candidates I'd like to see interviewed

I think New York could part ways with Joe Torre if they don't make it past the Indians. Every year it seems he is battling to stay. Torre does have ties with Cincinnati as he met his wife here.

Kc61
10-02-2007, 09:21 PM
Based on everything I've read, I expect Bob Brenly to be named manager.

Just my take, but I think the swoon at the end cost Mack. It served as a dose of reality to Castellini that if he hires another unproven manager who fails, he (Cast) will look bad. From a public relations point of view, going with a "name" manager provides a layer of protection if things don't work out.

I don't think LaRussa is coming to Cincy at this point. If he doesn't go back to the Cards, I think he will broadcast until a big market job is opened.

Somehow I don't see Girardi as a Krivsky type of guy. Too brash and fiery. Krivsky seems too conservative to go for a guy like this, particularly with the way the Florida thing ended.

My guess is that Brenly, having won at Arizona, is the guy who fits the bill here. If it doesn't work out, I wouldn't be shocked at Dusty Baker as the second choice or possibly Ken Macha. But I expect Brenly to be the guy.

Strikes Out Looking
10-02-2007, 09:30 PM
I honestly don't know who I'd pick--however I'm actively rooting against LaRussa and Baker. LaRussa because I think he's arrogant and condones illegal drug use and Baker, well see Prior, Mark and Wood, Kerry and think Bailey, Homer. No way to that.

I guess I'm still upset that management couldn't see to fire Narron and hire Lou when he was available. I still think the Reds would be in the playoffs after seeing what Lou did with the scrubs this year. I know, I need to get over it.

redsmetz
10-02-2007, 10:09 PM
I wouldn't rule Torre out. His wife is from Cincinnati and he may want to get out from under the NY pressure cooker.

mth123
10-02-2007, 10:13 PM
So if your car breaks down, do you start riding the bus? Because, you know, your last car broke down.

I understand the desire for a "big name" manager. It brings "respectability" and hope for the future.

I'd rather the millions that go in the pocket of a "big name" manager go in the pocket of a solid pitcher.

:thumbup:

RedLegSuperStar
10-02-2007, 10:15 PM
I guess I'm still upset that management couldn't see to fire Narron and hire Lou when he was available. I still think the Reds would be in the playoffs after seeing what Lou did with the scrubs this year. I know, I need to get over it.

I agree with you on the Baker part. And am right their with you on the Piniella situation.. I wanted Castellini to fire Narron and hire Piniella so bad.. and I think that is why I want a manager who has a valid track record..

LoganBuck
10-02-2007, 10:29 PM
So is the marble under shell one or three?

None of those guys can pitch.

redsmetz
10-02-2007, 10:34 PM
So is the marble under shell one or three?

None of those guys can pitch.

I think we're actually look for shells #3, 4 and 5!

fearofpopvol1
10-02-2007, 11:32 PM
Baker would be the worst option of any. I would consider boycotting the team if he is brought in...and no, I'm not kidding.

WVRedsFan
10-03-2007, 02:01 AM
Baker would be the worst option of any. I would consider boycotting the team if he is brought in...and no, I'm not kidding.

I won't ever boycott this team no matter who the manager is. They'll still be my team. I might not like it, but...

But, no worries. For what Baker and Larussa would be asking, we're out of the game. Brenley is probably the man. I still don't know his negatives, but who cares. The manager doesn't matter, right? At least that's what I'm reading here.

Ron Madden
10-03-2007, 03:00 AM
I'd rather see Davey Johnson get the job over anyone else named in this thread.

Baker or Brenley would be just as bad as Narron or Mackanin. I'm not too crazy about Girardi eighther.

What would it take to bring Davey Johnson back?

pedro
10-03-2007, 03:28 AM
I'd rather see Davey Johnson get the job over anyone else named in this thread.



me too.

Jpup
10-03-2007, 05:33 AM
Terry Pendleton wouldn't be a bad guy to look at IMO. Don Mattingly would be worth a look if Torre stays in the Bronx. Anyone know if Cal Ripken would be interested? I would have to think he would eventually.

Heath
10-03-2007, 07:26 AM
What's Ron Oester doing these days?

GAC
10-03-2007, 08:19 AM
What's Ron Oester doing these days?

Still crying for getting passed over for the job years ago. :lol:

redsmetz
10-03-2007, 09:02 AM
What's Ron Oester doing these days?

Just finished his first season as the manager of the Cincinnati Steam in the Great Lakes Summer Collegiate League playing out of the West High ball field.

BuckeyeRedleg
10-03-2007, 09:23 AM
I understand that they didn't end to well, but I don't know many managers that could have ended it well losing Dunn, Hamilton, Griffey, etc.

I like Mack and feel he should get a full year to prove he belongs.

Please, no LaRussa. This team doesn't need a name.

RFS62
10-03-2007, 09:30 AM
Please, no LaRussa. This team doesn't need a name.



This is what Marty's hair would look like if we hire LaRussa.


http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/03/23/philspector_narrowweb__300x404,0.jpg

princeton
10-03-2007, 09:51 AM
What's Ron Oester doing these days?

Cornfield: "Ease his pain"

Chip R
10-03-2007, 11:11 AM
However, any other candidate should be judged on the same criteria. And so I ask the question again, what specific talents does LaRussa have that should make him desirable. And if we assert that he or any other manager does have some discernible skill which should make him a desirable candidate, can we have some evidence of it? It can be qualitative or quantitative. I don't think it's an unfair question.


You know of any other active managers who have won a World Series in each league? Yes, he has been successful when his teams have had talent but you can say that of any manager. Very few managers can win without talent. Look what Sparky did his first few years in DET. I think LaRussa is a guy who can get the most out of his talent. He may do some crazy things but we've gone through managers who have done stranger things before and the Reds lost. I don't care if he bats the pitcher leadoff, if the Reds win, that's all I care about.

The last couple of years Jim Leyland and Lou Piniella were looking for jobs. The Reds passed on them because they evidently thought Jerry Narron was the answer. That didn't turn out very well, did it? Now the Reds have an opportunity to hire Tony LaRussa. You may not like him because he wasn't gracious enough in 1990 or because he managed the Cards or because he's a prima donna and a drama queen or he overmanages but the results speak for themselves.

I don't think the Reds as a team are very well respected. I get the feeling that they are perceived as a laid-back bunch who will back down when confronted and/or attacked. The pitchers don't throw inside or retaliate. The team has no swagger. They let other teams push them around. I think if LaRussa is hired, that all will change. I'd like to see the other team's fans get as riled up when their team plays the Reds as we do when the Reds play the Cards. I'd like to see the other team's manager have to worry about going against our manager and wondering how to beat him instead of not having to worry about it since our manager is some schlub hired because he wanted the least money.

Time and again we have seen the Reds unable to execute the fundamentals of the game. Guys throw to the wrong base or fail to hit the cutoff man. Guys get picked off 1st base or can't lay down a bunt when need be. Runner on 3rd, less than 2 outs our guys can't get the bat on the ball. I want other teams to wonder if the Reds will squeeze a run home in that situation and be sure that they can do it too. I'm not saying that the Reds have to play small ball but in certain situations, it has to be done. Fear not, I don't believe LaRussa would make Dunn or Jr. lay down a bunt with a runner on first and less than 2 outs. I haven't seen him do that with Edmonds, Pujols or Rolen.

I've also seen him get the most out of his bench players. Guys who are not highly regarded seem to come through for them time and again. I don't know how they do it but how many times have we seen guys like Miles and Marlon Anderson and Taguchi come through for them when needed?

LaRussa has respect from everyone in the game. Let's say he wants to move Dunn to 1st. Dunn's been hesitant to move there in the past but who do you think has a better shot of getting him to move there, LaRussa or the schlub of the week? You're also not going to hear the media cook up stuff about how he's in danger of being fired if the Reds aren't playing well. A guy like him is going to have the full backing of management.

Some have asked why he would want to come here. It's a valid question. I don't know the answer. Maybe he and Bob are good buddies. Maybe LaRussa has heard the criticisms of him about how he can't win unless he has high priced talent and wants to show people what he can do. Maybe he wants a challenge. Maybe he'd like to stick it to the Cards. Maybe he thinks the grass is greener here.

The bottom line is that you hire the best qualified candidate for the job. Not the lowest bidder or some home town/state guy. LaRussa is head and shoulders the best managerial candidate out there. You do your best to persuade him to come here. As the age old saying goes, 3 strikes and you're out. Not hiring Jim Leyland was strike one. Not hiring Lou Piniella was strike two. Are the Reds going to let money stand in the way of hiring the best in the business? I sure hope not. If he doesn't want to come here, that's fine. But at least do the best you can to persuade him to come here.

M2
10-03-2007, 11:17 AM
Great post Chip. LaRussa's headed to the HOF and deservedly so.

I'd say the one real question is whether he's dealing with burn out at the moment. Otherwise you won't find a better manager than an eager and motivated Tony LaRussa.

lollipopcurve
10-03-2007, 11:23 AM
I'd say the one real question is whether he's dealing with burn out at the moment. Otherwise you won't find a better manager than an eager and motivated Tony LaRussa.

Agree 100%. If I were interviewing Larussa, burnout would be the issue, because quotes from him lately -- "I've never been so tired after a season" -- sure make it sound like he needs some real time off. And unless I was convinced beyond a doubt that he was "eager and motivated," I wouldn't hire him. You don't want a scenario like the one that unfolded in Colorado with Leyland. That would set the Reds back, way back. They have to make sure they get a guy who brings sustained energy.

IslandRed
10-03-2007, 11:24 AM
I'd say the one real question is whether he's dealing with burn out at the moment. Otherwise you won't find a better manager than an eager and motivated Tony LaRussa.

That IS the million-dollar question. Leyland went through a phase where he wasn't exactly an asset on anyone's bench. If we hire Larussa, I hope it's because he's fired up about a change of scenery. If he has to talk himself into continuing to manage, we may not get the Larussa we'll be paying for.

MartyFan
10-03-2007, 11:31 AM
Special K and Mr. C have the right to an interview process. The fact the Special K and Mr. C both gave kudos to Mack for managing the team the way he did in no way shape or form should have been perceived by anyone as a sign that the interview process was done...I wouldn't mind if they brought Mack back...I like him and I personally think he is Special K's guy.

RedsManRick
10-03-2007, 11:48 AM
Good post, Chip. That's the sort of argument I was looking for. I am a natural skeptic for things that can't be "proven", yet I understand that with managers there are so many variables involved so as to make a quantitative measurement nearly impossible, or specious at best.

Personally, LaRussa is a mixed bag with me. I like his willingness to defy convention, but am constantly frustrated with his unnecessary micromanagement (over reliance on tiny samples, etc.) at times. I appreciate the value of his experience and gravitas, but wonder if I want a guy with a DUI in the last 12 months being Josh Hamilton's coach. He seems to suck the fun of out of the teams he coaches -- they take on his "everything is life and death" mentality -- however, they do execute and they don't make lots of mental errors (though perhaps this would be a welcomed change of pace around here).

I'm not against bringing in a big name manager, I'd just want to make sure it's the right fit. Especially if were talking about spending millions of bucks that could go to talent. Jimmy Leyland didn't so hot when he didn't have Barry Bonds. LaRussa was mediocre in Chicago, didn't win much without the bash brothers in Oakland, and didn't win anything in St. Louis until Pujols arrived.

I don't doubt there are managers who have a positive net influence on a club. However, I wouldn't want anybody to think that a better manager is going to miraculously turn this same group of guys in to a 90 win ball club. Turn it in to a 76-78 win team? Ok, I can buy that. As part of a comprehensive plan, the right leader for an improving squad looking to move to the next level, it makes sense. But it makes sense in the same way as finding a #3 starter, 4 good bullpen arms, and OF who can hit and field makes sense. I hope it's not oversold as some panacea to "fixing" the Reds. I'm all about doing the little things right. But the Reds have been doing the big things wrong for so long, that if forced to choose, that's where I'd rather see our focus placed.

Chip R
10-03-2007, 12:29 PM
LaRussa was mediocre in Chicago, didn't win much without the bash brothers in Oakland, and didn't win anything in St. Louis until Pujols arrived.


LaRussa won a division title in Chicago and won a division title his first year in StL.

As the saying goes, you don't win without talent. I just think that LaRussa can bring out the most in the talent he has.

As for the personal stuff, yeah, he is what you said he is. I also don't like that he basically turned his head to steroid usage when he was in OAK and the culture of substance abuse that seemed to crop up the last couple of years in StL. That said, he's not a coach and this isn't high school or college. He's dealing with grown men - for the most part. Josh Hancock made an unfortunate decision to drink and drive. If anything LaRussa's DUI should have sent a message to him to not drink and drive. But grown men make their own decisions. If someone like Josh Hamilton will go back to drugs because his manager once had a DUI, then he would have gone back to drugs for some other reason.

Blitz Dorsey
10-03-2007, 12:44 PM
Why would LaRussa want to join a team with a bunch of headhunters like that punk Aaron Harang?

(Sorry, count me in the camp that hates LaRussa and thinks he has an HGH/steroid lab in his basement. Ha. Not to mention his affinity for drunk driving and the classless way he handles most everything in his life. OK, maybe I did mention it.)

traderumor
10-03-2007, 12:45 PM
LaRussa has respect from everyone in the game.Now wait a minute. Marty doesn't like him, at least I think that is what "thinks he invented the game" means. ;)

All this talk of LaRussa, isn't his availability still highly unprobable?

KronoRed
10-03-2007, 12:46 PM
Glad to see they are going to take a look at all the options, if Mack is the best after that then whoopie.

I have to agree with above though, no names just because they are names.

westofyou
10-03-2007, 01:20 PM
LaRussa was "mediocre' in Chicago? not from where I sit, he was undercut by owner and the worlds worst GM Ken Harrelson. As for no good without the Bash Brothers... kinda true, but then again who has gotten more out of the Mike Gallegos of the world in the last 20 years?

That has to count for a lot.

redsmetz
10-03-2007, 02:49 PM
Now wait a minute. Marty doesn't like him, at least I think that is what "thinks he invented the game" means. ;)

All this talk of LaRussa, isn't his availability still highly unprobable?

This might work. Now Marty would have some he reviles more than Adam Dunn. Can you imagine the pre-game show?

Matt700wlw
10-03-2007, 02:53 PM
There never should have been any quotes of GM's and owners applauding Pete's job if they were going to yank the carpet out from under him because he couldn't win with the AAA team the last week of the season.

I don't think he had much of a chance before the final week...

He was brought in to be the "interim" manager.....that is all.

He did a good job. They applauded it. Now they'll move on with their search.

With limited jobs available, and some good candidates out there, this looks to be a prime opportunity for the Reds to find their man.

Chip R
10-03-2007, 03:00 PM
Why would LaRussa want to join a team with a bunch of headhunters like that punk Aaron Harang?


You can bet that if LaRusa is the next manager of the Reds, he is going to be Harang's staunchest defender and his best publicist - although the latter is tantamount to being the best hockey player in Brazil.

Kc61
10-03-2007, 03:08 PM
I'd be surprised if LaRussa, at this stage, would want to manage in a medium market. He is a big name. I think, if he goes elsewhere, it will be a major market. He probably would join Fox or ESPN for a year, wait for a major opening, then take it.

redsmetz
10-03-2007, 03:29 PM
I don't think he had much of a chance before the final week...

He was brought in to be the "interim" manager.....that is all.

He did a good job. They applauded it. Now they'll move on with their search.

With limited jobs available, and some good candidates out there, this looks to be a prime opportunity for the Reds to find their man.

I'm not sure what you're basing your opinion that he didn't have much of a chance. Every statement has indicated that he would be one of the people interviewed. I've never heard any change from that, even with this little excitement that Rotoworld put out. I still can't say if Mackanin is "their man". There will be a plethora of good candidates, but if they pick Mackanin, they've gotten "their man".

Unless of course you've heard something else while working down at the stadium.

Matt700wlw
10-03-2007, 03:39 PM
I'm not sure what you're basing your opinion that he didn't have much of a chance. Every statement has indicated that he would be one of the people interviewed. I've never heard any change from that, even with this little excitement that Rotoworld put out. I still can't say if Mackanin is "their man". There will be a plethora of good candidates, but if they pick Mackanin, they've gotten "their man".

Unless of course you've heard something else while working down at the stadium.


He'll get his interview, because it's fair to give him that....he'll get his chance to change the Reds minds about going another direction.

I think from day one, their plan was to go another direction once the season was over, and the reason Pete was given the "interim" tag was to allow him to evaluate the team (seeing as he was the head scout) rather than another coach already on the staff....

Just my thoughts. Nothing more.

coachw513
10-03-2007, 04:30 PM
You know of any other active managers who have won a World Series in each league? Yes, he has been successful when his teams have had talent but you can say that of any manager. Very few managers can win without talent. Look what Sparky did his first few years in DET. I think LaRussa is a guy who can get the most out of his talent. He may do some crazy things but we've gone through managers who have done stranger things before and the Reds lost. I don't care if he bats the pitcher leadoff, if the Reds win, that's all I care about.

The last couple of years Jim Leyland and Lou Piniella were looking for jobs. The Reds passed on them because they evidently thought Jerry Narron was the answer. That didn't turn out very well, did it? Now the Reds have an opportunity to hire Tony LaRussa. You may not like him because he wasn't gracious enough in 1990 or because he managed the Cards or because he's a prima donna and a drama queen or he overmanages but the results speak for themselves.

I don't think the Reds as a team are very well respected. I get the feeling that they are perceived as a laid-back bunch who will back down when confronted and/or attacked. The pitchers don't throw inside or retaliate. The team has no swagger. They let other teams push them around. I think if LaRussa is hired, that all will change. I'd like to see the other team's fans get as riled up when their team plays the Reds as we do when the Reds play the Cards. I'd like to see the other team's manager have to worry about going against our manager and wondering how to beat him instead of not having to worry about it since our manager is some schlub hired because he wanted the least money.

Time and again we have seen the Reds unable to execute the fundamentals of the game. Guys throw to the wrong base or fail to hit the cutoff man. Guys get picked off 1st base or can't lay down a bunt when need be. Runner on 3rd, less than 2 outs our guys can't get the bat on the ball. I want other teams to wonder if the Reds will squeeze a run home in that situation and be sure that they can do it too. I'm not saying that the Reds have to play small ball but in certain situations, it has to be done. Fear not, I don't believe LaRussa would make Dunn or Jr. lay down a bunt with a runner on first and less than 2 outs. I haven't seen him do that with Edmonds, Pujols or Rolen.

I've also seen him get the most out of his bench players. Guys who are not highly regarded seem to come through for them time and again. I don't know how they do it but how many times have we seen guys like Miles and Marlon Anderson and Taguchi come through for them when needed?

LaRussa has respect from everyone in the game. Let's say he wants to move Dunn to 1st. Dunn's been hesitant to move there in the past but who do you think has a better shot of getting him to move there, LaRussa or the schlub of the week? You're also not going to hear the media cook up stuff about how he's in danger of being fired if the Reds aren't playing well. A guy like him is going to have the full backing of management.

Some have asked why he would want to come here. It's a valid question. I don't know the answer. Maybe he and Bob are good buddies. Maybe LaRussa has heard the criticisms of him about how he can't win unless he has high priced talent and wants to show people what he can do. Maybe he wants a challenge. Maybe he'd like to stick it to the Cards. Maybe he thinks the grass is greener here.

The bottom line is that you hire the best qualified candidate for the job. Not the lowest bidder or some home town/state guy. LaRussa is head and shoulders the best managerial candidate out there. You do your best to persuade him to come here. As the age old saying goes, 3 strikes and you're out. Not hiring Jim Leyland was strike one. Not hiring Lou Piniella was strike two. Are the Reds going to let money stand in the way of hiring the best in the business? I sure hope not. If he doesn't want to come here, that's fine. But at least do the best you can to persuade him to come here.

I absolutely dislike the man but you are also absolutely correct :thumbup:

Outstanding post!!

redsmetz
10-03-2007, 05:47 PM
He'll get his interview, because it's fair to give him that....he'll get his chance to change the Reds minds about going another direction.

I think from day one, their plan was to go another direction once the season was over, and the reason Pete was given the "interim" tag was to allow him to evaluate the team (seeing as he was the head scout) rather than another coach already on the staff....

Just my thoughts. Nothing more.

I will say this - if Mackanin's not hired as manager, I'd love to have him in the system somewhere.

RedsManRick
10-03-2007, 05:51 PM
LaRussa was "mediocre' in Chicago? not from where I sit, he was undercut by owner and the worlds worst GM Ken Harrelson. As for no good without the Bash Brothers... kinda true, but then again who has gotten more out of the Mike Gallegos of the world in the last 20 years?

That has to count for a lot.

LaRussa's record in CHI:



YEAR Record Win% Finish
1979 27-27 .500 5
1980 70-90 .438 5
1981 31-22 .585 3 First half of season
1981 23-30 .434 6 Second half of season
1982 87-75 .537 3
1983 99-63 .611 1
1984 74-88 .457 5
1985 85-77 .525 3
1986 26-38 .406 5
Total 522-510 .506

Forgive me for saying a .506 Win% is mediocre. If we're going to give him credit for getting the most out of his guys, who gets credit for Norris Hopper, Jeff Keppinger, EE's rebound, and Jorge Cantu? When he wins the division, he gets credit. When he doesn't, blame management.

Again, it's all about the talent. Sure, teams overperform and teams underperform, but unless you want to go back and look at how many of his teams overperformed expectations, or how often he "got the most out of his guys", I don't think you've really substantiated your claim.

In the absence of evidence, we have a tendency to shift credit around however it suits the point we're trying to make. As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to baseball, a good manager is a lot like a good ump. They know the "rule" book as good as it can be known, they apply it well and consistently, and they don't screw things up. But for some reason, we don't have the urge to give the umpires credit for LaMarr Hoyt's Cy Young season.

You could find case after case for nearly every manager in baseball about a guy who flourished under them, a bit player who came through in the clutch, or a dispute they nipped in the bud. However, unless you have an overwhelming set of anecdotal evidence, I'm going to remain skeptical. Show me where LaRussa carried an 86 win team to 94 win seasons multiple times and we might have something. However, I'm not willing to pay a guy millions of bucks because he's screwed things up less than a guy hasn't screwed things up in his short tenure. If Mack has done something to undermine the confidence of management in his ability to continue doing what's he done, then by all means hire the best guy for the job. Let's just be critical with how we really evaluate managers, beyond simple reputation.

Matt700wlw
10-03-2007, 05:52 PM
I will say this - if Mackanin's not hired as manager, I'd love to have him in the system somewhere.

Absolutely. I'd have no problem with that...

westofyou
10-03-2007, 06:03 PM
Forgive me for saying a .506 Win% is mediocre.

Considering he started on the heels of the Veeck ownership his success at first was expected to drag any career record down, add in the Harrelson tenure and it drags a bit more (canning Duncan and inserting his own pitching crony..er coach)

I agree that Larussa is insufferable, when I lived in the Bay Area he drove me nuts. But I did see him arrive when the franchise was in disarray and right it, so that probably colors my opinion more.

Do I want him as the Reds skipper?

Hell no.

RedsManRick
10-03-2007, 06:18 PM
Considering he started on the heels of the Veeck ownership his success at first was expected to drag any career record down, add in the Harrelson tenure and it drags a bit more (canning Duncan and inserting his own pitching crony..er coach)

I agree that Larussa is insufferable, when I lived in the Bay Area he drove me nuts. But I did see him arrive when the franchise was in disarray and right it, so that probably colors my opinion more.

Do I want him as the Reds skipper?

Hell no.

So can we forgive Boone for the discretions of Lindner and Bowden too? :evil:

Ltlabner
10-03-2007, 06:30 PM
I appreciate the value of his experience and gravitas, but wonder if I want a guy with a DUI in the last 12 months being Josh Hamilton's coach.

Wow...fantastic point. The Cards have a bit of a party atmosphere going on over there. It would be disastrous if Mr. Genious came to town and somehow interfered with Josh's continued sobriety.

Not saying LaRussa is the sole cause of the Cards "chemical issues" but if he's not one to lay down the law regarding "extracurriculars", and he might jeprodize Hamilton, that definatley has to be factored into the equation. Whether Josh relapses is 100% up to Josh, but why make it any harder on the kid?

I'm not sure I'd say that alone disquallifies him, but it's a big black mark.

Great point RMR.

Ltlabner
10-03-2007, 06:34 PM
It's likely already been said, but the Reds have to figure out what direction they want the team to go in. Do they want a disciplinarian, a hot-head, a "fundementals" guy, someone who can deal with egos, someone who will manage pitching well?

Get beyond "we want someone who knows how to play the game".

Then interview potential managers who fit that mould without regard to whether they have a name or not. Find someone who has a track record, even if not in MLB, of actually achieving whatever that goal is. You know, proven performance. Sorta like a AAA player with a solid OBP will likely do well in the big leagues.

If they happen to have a big name when it's all said and done, there's a little extra meat for the marketing department. If not, who cares. You've hired the best manager to take the team in the direction you would like to go.

Unassisted
10-03-2007, 07:33 PM
It's likely already been said, but the Reds have to figure out what direction they want the team to go in. Do they want a disciplinarian, a hot-head, a "fundementals" guy, someone who can deal with egos, someone who will manage pitching well?
If you asked and got a straight answer, it would probably be "yes, all of those." ;)

Chip R
10-03-2007, 07:34 PM
Wow...fantastic point. The Cards have a bit of a party atmosphere going on over there. It would be disastrous if Mr. Genious came to town and somehow interfered with Josh's continued sobriety.

Not saying LaRussa is the sole cause of the Cards "chemical issues" but if he's not one to lay down the law regarding "extracurriculars", and he might jeprodize Hamilton, that definatley has to be factored into the equation. Whether Josh relapses is 100% up to Josh, but why make it any harder on the kid?

I'm not sure I'd say that alone disquallifies him, but it's a big black mark.

Great point RMR.

Good Lord, you act like the guy is boozing it up in the clubhouse and slobbering all over his players. You think that there aren't any heavy drinkers on the Reds right now? Josh isn't some child that needs to be sheltered. If he goes back to smoking crack when he sees his manager have a glass of wine for dinner, he was going to relapse eventually.

reds44
10-03-2007, 07:43 PM
You can't choose yor manager off of Josh Hamilton. If he's that fragile, it's only a matter of time before he relapses.

Ltlabner
10-03-2007, 07:43 PM
Good Lord, you act like the guy is boozing it up in the clubhouse and slobbering all over his players. You think that there aren't any heavy drinkers on the Reds right now? Josh isn't some child that needs to be sheltered. If he goes back to smoking crack when he sees his manager have a glass of wine for dinner, he was going to relapse eventually.

Actually part of the reason for Josh's success has being sheltering. He's said so. The wife gets the paycheck. Johny Narron is his best friend. Etc.

If Josh relapses it's because he chooses to. No doubt about that. The responisbility for his recovery is entirely on his shoulders. But given a choice between a manager who is pretty disciplined in that regard, and one who's attitidue is *apparently* pretty loose regarding chemicals, which would you rather have influencing Josh? Which would you rather having making decisions that *might* play a role in making positive choices more difficult? Which manager would you rather have on the look out for trouble signs in Josh's recovery?

Certinally there's plenty of other people in the clubhouse, and the manager's influence is a tiny fraction of the overall puzzle. But LaRussas history has been suspect regarding chemicals of all kinds.

I'd say it would be prudent to at least consider this aspect in regards to hiring a manager. Certinally it is only one of a long list of things to consider, but I'd say it's be pretty dense of the orginization to ignore it totally.

RedsManRick
10-03-2007, 07:48 PM
Good Lord, you act like the guy is boozing it up in the clubhouse and slobbering all over his players. You think that there aren't any heavy drinkers on the Reds right now? Josh isn't some child that needs to be sheltered. If he goes back to smoking crack when he sees his manager have a glass of wine for dinner, he was going to relapse eventually.

"LaRussa has respect from everyone in the game." Really? I think the level of respect goes down for guys who drink and drive. I wouldn't go so far as to blame LaRussa for supposed steroid taking by the bash brothers, the andro pill popping of McGwire, or Josh Hamilton's DUI death. However, if we're going the level of respect and credibility of a given manager, as evidence by the actions taken by the players he's coached, it seems only fair to me to consider all their actions.

And actually, Josh does need to be sheleted. He knows it. It's why his wife gets his paycheck and Johnny Narron gets his meal money.

And LaRussa having a glass of wine at dinner doesn't set a bad example. LaRussa having a few glasses of wine, then getting in to his car, driving home, and passing out while idling at an intersection does.

Hamilton, like everybody else, is fully responsible for his actions. However, part of being responsible for ones actions is putting avoiding situations which make it more difficult to choose the correct ones. It might not sit right with the "man-up" culture of sports, but Josh Hamilton needs a baby sitter -- just ask him. If we intend for him to be part of this team, it absolutely should be part of the calculus. Maybe that tiny part of the whole equation is outweighed by a bunch of other factors which would go in LaRussa's favor, but it should be in there.

Chip R
10-03-2007, 08:02 PM
Actually part of the reason for Josh's success has being sheltering. He's said so. The wife gets the paycheck. Johny Narron is his best friend. Etc.

If Josh relapses it's because he chooses to. No doubt about that. The responisbility for his recovery is entirely on his shoulders. But given a choice between a manager who is pretty disciplined in that regard, and one who's attitidue is *apparently* pretty loose regarding chemicals, which would you rather have influencing Josh? Which would you rather having making decisions that *might* play a role in making positive choices more difficult? Which manager would you rather have on the look out for trouble signs in Josh's recovery?

Certinally there's plenty of other people in the clubhouse, and the manager's influence is a tiny fraction of the overall puzzle. But LaRussas history has been suspect regarding chemicals of all kinds.

I'd say it would be prudent to at least consider this aspect in regards to hiring a manager. Certinally it is only one of a long list of things to consider, but I'd say it's be pretty dense to ignore it totally.

Josh is sheltered in some respects but is someone pushing him out of the clubhouse every time someone cracks open a beer? I'm guessing that he is a big enough boy that seeing someone drinking a beer isn't going to make him smoke crack.

Is the next manager going to have a DUI in his past? Hey, let's look at Dusty Baker. Let's disqualify him because he was Bonds' manager when Bonds was juicing up. I don't want Dusty as a manager any more than I want Bob Boone back but that certainly isn't a reason I'd disqualify him. Hey, our next manager may be a smoker. Tobaccdo is addictive and if Josh sees that he might make the connection between smoking cigarettes and smoking crack. I don't hire a manager based on what one player may or may not do because of something that happened to that manager in the past.



"LaRussa has respect from everyone in the game." Really? I think the level of respect goes down for guys who drink and drive. I wouldn't go so far as to blame LaRussa for supposed steroid taking by the bash brothers, the andro pill popping of McGwire, or Josh Hamilton's DUI death. However, if we're going the level of respect and credibility of a given manager, as evidence by the actions taken by the players he's coached, it seems only fair to me to consider all their actions.

And actually, Josh does need to be sheleted. He knows it. It's why his wife gets his paycheck and Johnny Narron gets his meal money. It might not sit right with the "man-up" culture of sports, but Josh Hamilton needs a baby sitter -- just ask him.

Respect goes down for guys who drink and drive? Are you serious? What in the world does that have to do with his baseball acumen? Maybe he's not as respected as a person as much as he once was but I doubt that the respect that people have for him as a baseball man went down since I'm sure many other baseball people have done similar things.

Raisor
10-03-2007, 08:20 PM
Rich Aurillia for player/manager!!!

westofyou
10-03-2007, 08:48 PM
Reds Manager in 1919 was Pat Moran.

What was his nickname?

"Ole Whiskey Face"

In 1939 and 1940 it was Bill McKechnie he was called 'The Deacon "

Let's find something more concrete to wring our hands about.

Chip R
10-03-2007, 08:53 PM
Reds Manager in 1919 was Pat Moran.

What was his nickname?

"Ole Whiskey Face"

In 1939 and 1940 it was Bill McKechnie he was called 'The Deacon "

Let's find something more concrete to wring our hands about.


And didn't Joe McCarthy use to ride the White Horse?

pedro
10-03-2007, 08:58 PM
And what exactly put the "spark" in Sparky?

Ever wonder why he went prematurely gray?

I bet it was mind altering chemicals.

westofyou
10-03-2007, 08:59 PM
And didn't Joe McCarthy use to ride the White Horse?
He also used to let the starters know they were pitching (the night after riding the White Horse) by leaving a ball under their cap at their locker. This includes World Series games etc.... they would go home and sleep not knowing if the were the first game starter or what not.

westofyou
10-03-2007, 09:00 PM
And what exactly put the "spark" in Sparky?

Ever wonder why he went prematurely gray?

I bet it was mind altering chemicals.

Probably mescaline.. all that puking would turn anyones hair white.

Ltlabner
10-03-2007, 09:46 PM
I don't hire a manager based on what one player may or may not do

I agree, which is why I said....


Certinally it is only one of a long list of things to consider, but I'd say it's be pretty dense of the orginization to ignore it totally

I don't think anyone is suggesting that this is a huge consideration, or that we need a tea-totler as a manager. It's *one* aspect of consideration in a large and complex matrix...that is all I'm saying.

I guess I don't find it "mcarthy-esque" or unreasonable to factor in perhaps protecting one of the teams fairly important assets to the decision making process.

They find it important enough to hire (and pay) a babysitter for him. They find it important enough to arrange to keep him busy and have his monies sent elsewhere. What's so nutty about at least giving passing thought to how the managers actions *might* impact one of the promising players?

Chip R
10-03-2007, 09:59 PM
I agree, which is why I said....



I don't think anyone is suggesting that this is a huge consideration, or that we need a tea-totler as a manager. It's *one* aspect of consideration in a large and complex matrix...that is all I'm saying.

I guess I don't find it "mcarthy-esque" or unreasonable to factor in perhaps protecting one of the teams fairly important assets to the decision making process.

They find it important enough to hire (and pay) a babysitter for him. They find it important enough to arrange to keep him busy and have his monies sent elsewhere. What's so nutty about at least giving passing thought to how the managers actions *might* impact one of the promising players?


You don't like LaRussa, fine. But don't use the fact that he had a DUI to disqualify him from managing the Reds.

Ltlabner
10-03-2007, 10:14 PM
You don't like LaRussa, fine. But don't use the fact that he had a DUI to disqualify him from managing the Reds.

Well...I guess if you can read "don't hire LaRussa because of his DUI" from "maybe we should at least consider LaRussas track record with chemicals of all sorts and how that might impact an important team asset (if at all)" then you'll think I'm saying don't hire him.

Ron Madden
10-04-2007, 02:39 AM
Reds Manager in 1919 was Pat Moran.

What was his nickname?

"Ole Whiskey Face"

In 1939 and 1940 it was Bill McKechnie he was called 'The Deacon "

Let's find something more concrete to wring our hands about.


I second that motion while still in favor of Davey Johnson.

KronoRed
10-04-2007, 02:45 AM
Rich Aurillia for player/manager!!!

Joe Randa for bench coach?

Ron Madden
10-04-2007, 03:44 AM
Rich Aurillia for player/manager!!!

Reds.com and local sportstalk radio would love that idea. ;)

GAC
10-04-2007, 08:21 AM
As the saying goes, you don't win without talent. I just think that LaRussa can bring out the most in the talent he has.

I can't wait till he gets his hands on Juan Castro then. :D

My questions concerning LaRussa are the same ones I have always poised at Lou..... how are they at building a team from within, via the route of recognizing and developing young talent in the farm system, and then showing the patience to allow them to mature? What is his track record with young players?

Lou and Tony seem to be managers that are more suited for organizations that will go out and spend big money and acquire those players they need via free agency. Lou walked out of Seattle saying they weren't committed to winning because they weren't spending more (when they had a 96 Mil payroll). He then goes to Tampa Bay, at the other end of the payroll spectrum, and IMO, didn't do a very good job at all.

He's now where?

Is Tony in that same "mold" as a manager? Saying he can get the most out of his players is like all the other cliched phrases I've heard, like "he knows how to play the game the right way". What is he doing that gets the most out of his players? Don't you first have to possess the talent? Are some saying that Larussa would have gotten more wins out of this team then Mac? And that is not a defense of Mac.... I just want to know how?

KronoRed
10-04-2007, 01:21 PM
Reds.com and local sportstalk radio would love that idea. ;)

He manages the game the right way.

Ltlabner
10-04-2007, 07:34 PM
Well..for all those clamoring for a name manager. Sweet Lou pulled a Narron by batting Zambrano for himself to end an inning (with runners on to boot) and then sent out a different pictcher the next inning.

westofyou
10-04-2007, 07:35 PM
Well..for all those clamoring for a name manager. Sweet Lou pulled a Narron by batting Zambrano for himself to end an inning (with runners on to boot) and then sent out a different pictcher the next inning.

Zambrano is a pretty darn good hitter.

Ltlabner
10-04-2007, 07:57 PM
Zambrano is a pretty darn good hitter.

IIRC he's hitting .230 something. I would have thought the Cubs had someone on their bench that could do better.

But the point was that many on RZ went nutty when Narron would do these sorts of things. So just because a manager has a big name it will not render them immune from RZs ire or do some of the same odd things a no-name guy might do.

a n

reds44
10-04-2007, 08:00 PM
I'm pretty sure Zambrano hit for himself with the bases loaded in the top of the 6th, pitched the bottom of the 6th, and then was removed from the game in the 7th.

That's now what Narron did. Narron would have a pitcher hit for himself, and never see the mound again.

westofyou
10-04-2007, 08:03 PM
IIRC he's hitting .230 something. I would have thought the Cubs had someone on their bench that could do better.

But the point was that many on RZ went nutty when Narron would do these sorts of things. So just because a manager has a big name it will not render them immune from RZs ire or do some of the same odd things a no-name guy might do.

a n

Most of Redszone would complain that their Mom poured the milk too early when making dinner, thus assuring that it was warm when they sat down to eat.

pedro
10-04-2007, 08:05 PM
Most of Redszone would complain that their Mom poured the milk too early when making dinner, thus assuring that it was warm when they sat down to eat.

Or fired her when she was 4 months pregnant because they just knew she was going to have another girl.

GAC
10-04-2007, 09:25 PM
I think Lou made a questionable move. His logic in pulling his ace after only six innings and 85 pitches was because he plans to bring the right-hander back on three days' rest in Game 4? Shouldn't he be concerned about the game he was in first? Then Mark Reynolds promptly hits a tiebreaking homer off reliever Carlos Marmol.

I don't think it was very good strategy..... but I'm glad he did it, because I want to the Cubs to lose. :lol:

Ltlabner
10-04-2007, 09:47 PM
Or fired her when she was 4 months pregnant because they just knew she was going to have another girl.

I've said it before, sometimes I wonder what some folks here do when the Mrs. accidently burns the pot-roast. I'm sure she loves the lecture and complete freakout.

"But the carrots! The carrots are over-cooked woman. You obviously are displaying a complete dissregard for our marriage if you can't even keep an eye on the carrots!"

:D

Ron Madden
10-05-2007, 03:31 AM
If tonight, I were granted three whishes concerning Cincinnati Reds Baseball they would be....

1. A true commitment from ownership towards building and maintaining a winning organization.

2. Improvement in the evaluation and development of talent. From the lowest scout to the manager and coaching staff of the major league club.

3. For each and every Reds Fan to be so happy that we would no longer see some Fans complaining about other Fans complaining. ;)

RedsManRick
10-05-2007, 08:43 AM
I've said it before, sometimes I wonder what some folks here do when the Mrs. accidently burns the pot-roast. I'm sure she loves the lecture and complete freakout.

"But the carrots! The carrots are over-cooked woman. You obviously are displaying a complete dissregard for our marriage if you can't even keep an eye on the carrots!"

Some RedsZone members would start judging the carrots before the roast is out of the oven. They'd then dump their wife and marry a women who cooked a nice roast a few weeks back.

The wife would protest, "but my pot-roast is still cooking! And besides, she was cooking in a $3,000 oven with super fancy heat control and carrot burn protection, and she had super hearty carrots that cost $10 each."

The RedsZone crew would say "Who cares how nice her oven is or how good her carrots were? She went and bought them, didn't she? She cooked a good pot-roast and didn't cook her carrots to mush, right? That's what we need! Get out of my house, woman!

Roy Tucker
10-05-2007, 08:48 AM
Nah, you kiss her on the head, tell her you like carmelized carrots, and thank her for dinner.

gonelong
10-05-2007, 09:30 AM
If tonight, I were granted three whishes concerning Cincinnati Reds Baseball they would be....

1. A true commitment from ownership towards building and maintaining a winning organization.

2. Improvement in the evaluation and development of talent. From the lowest scout to the manager and coaching staff of the major league club.

3. For each and every Reds Fan to be so happy that we would no longer see some Fans complaining about other Fans complaining. ;)

My 3 wishes would be ....

1. A 7th game WS win in 2008
2. A 7th game WS win in 2009
3. A 7th game WS win in 2010.

GL

Hoosier Red
10-05-2007, 09:49 AM
My 3 wishes would be ....

1. A 7th game WS win in 2008
2. A 7th game WS win in 2009
3. A 7th game WS win in 2010.

GL

You want to wait 7 games to win the world series. Lets start holding our team accountable for something. No way, sweep or nothing for me.

KronoRed
10-05-2007, 12:59 PM
3. For each and every Reds Fan to be so happy that we would no longer see some Fans complaining about other Fans complaining. ;)

Well pigs will fly first :D

"I can't believe they only won 110 games, I bet they would have gotten to 117 if they hustled"

Matt700wlw
10-05-2007, 05:39 PM
Sorry, Pete, it's only me

When Pete Mackanin answered his cell phone, my voice was not the one he wanted to hear. Rather than getting the call telling him he was the Reds manager, he got the call from a reporter asking if he knew any more about his status.

He doesn't.

"I waiting for the phone to ring. Then it does, and it's you," he deadpanned.

Mackanin said he hasn't talked to anyone from the Reds since he left to go home. He remains under contract, so he can't look for another job, i.e., express his interest in the Pittsburgh opening.

Mackanin did say Wayne Krivsky told him the day the season ended that he wanted to get the job filled quickly. I've got to believe the Reds would like to know if Tony LaRussa is available before they fill the job. A lot of people expect LaRussa to end up back in St. Louis.

-Fay

Ltlabner
10-05-2007, 08:24 PM
Some RedsZone members would start judging the carrots before the roast is out of the oven. They'd then dump their wife and marry a women who cooked a nice roast a few weeks back.

:laugh:

Ron Madden
10-06-2007, 02:57 AM
Well pigs will fly first :D

"I can't believe they only won 110 games, I bet they would have gotten to 117 if they hustled"

Yep, Those lazy spoiled brats.

redsmetz
10-08-2007, 12:56 PM
This bit from today's Lonnie Wheeler column about a myriad of sports topics:


And as for a Reds manager ... I see only one legitimate reason to insist upon someone with name and cachet: Ken Griffey Jr. His very presence affects a manager profoundly. Not many have the brass to make hard decisions concerning the future Hall of Famer. Griffey is by no means a troublemaker in the clubhouse, but his stature alone makes him the figure from whom young players take their cue. And yet, the tone of a team is supposed to be set by the skipper. To his credit, Pete Mackanin did a stand-up job of that, which is why he ought to be strongly considered. It's also why La Russa, Bob Brenly and Joe Torre - if the Yankees lose to Cleveland and George Steinbrenner follows through on his threat - ought to, also.

westofyou
10-08-2007, 01:02 PM
This bit from today's Lonnie Wheeler column about a myriad of sports topics:

Great.... one more year of Griffey and the team should make sure he's happy for it.

Pluheeezzzz

redsmetz
10-08-2007, 01:17 PM
Great.... one more year of Griffey and the team should make sure he's happy for it.

Pluheeezzzz

WOY, I'm not sure I read it as find somebody who can make Griffey happy, althought I'm having a heckuva time articulating how I read it! What it made me think of was how Mackanin handle Griffey a couple of times this season, in particular at least one where some of the beat writers tried to make a tempest in a teapot. I thought Mackanin was deft in his handling Griffey with some humor and in a way that helped the club. But again, I'm not reading it as saying "make Griffey happy." Maybe I'm deluding myself, but I didn't see it that way.

Unassisted
10-08-2007, 08:36 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/rumors/post/Mackanin-quot-I-m-twisting-in-the-wind-?urn=mlb,48111



Mackanin: "I'm twisting in the wind''

Saturday, Oct 6, 2007 11:03 am EDT

Pete Mackanin knows no more today about his future with the Cincinnati Reds than he did the day the season ended.

"I haven't heard a thing," Mackanin said Friday from his home in Bradenton, Fla. "I'm twisting in the wind."

Mackanin is hoping to go from Reds interim manager to permanent manager. He met briefly with general manager Wayne Krivsky after the final game Sunday.