Red Mosquito

Oh, I thought Freddy got fired with Wren, and for some reason I thought they replaced him already. I thought Minnesota was the only opening left.

I don't know if Maddon's shtick would work somewhere that isn't like Tampa Bay.

It would be beautiful here with our players.

numbers wrote:He'd actually be a really good hire for Toronto. I don't know why they are so enamored with Gibbons.

Mostly because Gibbons is awesome.

Not really, at least in my eyes. All those times that Maddon's unconventional stuff doesn't work go completely unnoticed in Tampa, somewhere like Boston that's not the case. I'm not suggesting he isn't a good manager, but he wouldn't have the free reign and room to manuever that he enjoyed in a market that has no media or fans.

He would if he won games. And he can win games.

numbers wrote:Not really, at least in my eyes. All those times that Maddon's unconventional stuff doesn't work go completely unnoticed in Tampa, somewhere like Boston that's not the case. I'm not suggesting he isn't a good manager, but he wouldn't have the free reign and room to manuever that he enjoyed in a market that has no media or fans.

That's a Boston problem, not a Maddon problem.

If Maddon does something unconventional (say, something simple like a weird defensive alignment) and it works five times in a row and backfires the 6th time, then he still helped the team win. If fans/media react poorly to that, that's because they're dumb.

So can Farrell, though. He's won a World Series, unlike Joe Maddon. I'm well aware of Farrell's flaws, but I'm not anywhere near the point where I think they should get rid.

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:Not really, at least in my eyes. All those times that Maddon's unconventional stuff doesn't work go completely unnoticed in Tampa, somewhere like Boston that's not the case. I'm not suggesting he isn't a good manager, but he wouldn't have the free reign and room to manuever that he enjoyed in a market that has no media or fans.

That's a Boston problem, not a Maddon problem.

If Maddon does something unconventional (say, something simple like a weird defensive alignment) and it works five times in a row and backfires the 6th time, then he still helped the team win. If fans/media react poorly to that, that's because they're dumb.

If he does it 10 times in Tampa, and it only works once, that one is the only time it gets noticed.

My guess would be the Cubs, Theo always liked him, they claim they are going to start attempting contention this year, and I'm sure they aren't married to Renteria.

numbers wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:Not really, at least in my eyes. All those times that Maddon's unconventional stuff doesn't work go completely unnoticed in Tampa, somewhere like Boston that's not the case. I'm not suggesting he isn't a good manager, but he wouldn't have the free reign and room to manuever that he enjoyed in a market that has no media or fans.

That's a Boston problem, not a Maddon problem.

If Maddon does something unconventional (say, something simple like a weird defensive alignment) and it works five times in a row and backfires the 6th time, then he still helped the team win. If fans/media react poorly to that, that's because they're dumb.

If he does it 10 times in Tampa, and it only works once, that one is the only time it gets noticed.

I think that's unfair. One of the things that makes Maddon a good manager is that he does the things that put his team in the best position to win (and score runs, and prevent runs, etc.) If he does something 10 times and it only works once, you'll probably never see him do it again because it's not likely a good strategy.

numbers wrote:So can Farrell, though. He's won a World Series, unlike Joe Maddon. I'm well aware of Farrell's flaws, but I'm not anywhere near the point where I think they should get rid.

Cito Gaston won two World Series, and he was not a particularly good manager.

Right but he tried 10 different things that didn't work not just one. I don't want to be misunderstood, I think he's a good manager even though I don't like the way he goes about a lot of things. I just don't think he'd be automatic success anywhere, I think he has to be in the right environment.

numbers wrote:Right but he tried 10 different things that didn't work not just one. I don't want to be misunderstood, I think he's a good manager even though I don't like the way he goes about a lot of things. I just don't think he'd be automatic success anywhere, I think he has to be in the right environment.

That's fair. From my standpoint, if Maddon manages a team (any team, in any market) the way he manages the Rays, he will improve their chances of winning ball games. If you put players in the best position to succeed, you'll score/prevent more runs and end up winning more games. Maddon probably does that better than anyone, and there are plenty of managers who are remarkably bad at it.

numbers wrote:So can Farrell, though. He's won a World Series, unlike Joe Maddon. I'm well aware of Farrell's flaws, but I'm not anywhere near the point where I think they should get rid.

Yeah, in his only winning season.

Cubs makes sense too

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:Right but he tried 10 different things that didn't work not just one. I don't want to be misunderstood, I think he's a good manager even though I don't like the way he goes about a lot of things. I just don't think he'd be automatic success anywhere, I think he has to be in the right environment.

That's fair. From my standpoint, if Maddon manages a team (any team, in any market) the way he manages the Rays, he will improve their chances of winning ball games. If you put players in the best position to succeed, you'll score/prevent more runs and end up winning more games. Maddon probably does that better than anyone, and there are plenty of managers who are remarkably bad at it.

He's probably the best "more with less" manager in baseball right now, which is why he's perfect for small market low intensity market teams. If he's got, for example, the Dodgers lineup to work with, there isn't that much you can do with it.

numbers wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:Right but he tried 10 different things that didn't work not just one. I don't want to be misunderstood, I think he's a good manager even though I don't like the way he goes about a lot of things. I just don't think he'd be automatic success anywhere, I think he has to be in the right environment.

That's fair. From my standpoint, if Maddon manages a team (any team, in any market) the way he manages the Rays, he will improve their chances of winning ball games. If you put players in the best position to succeed, you'll score/prevent more runs and end up winning more games. Maddon probably does that better than anyone, and there are plenty of managers who are remarkably bad at it.

He's probably the best "more with less" manager in baseball right now, which is why he's perfect for small market low intensity market teams. If he's got, for example, the Dodgers lineup to work with, there isn't that much you can do with it.

Mariners

numbers wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:Right but he tried 10 different things that didn't work not just one. I don't want to be misunderstood, I think he's a good manager even though I don't like the way he goes about a lot of things. I just don't think he'd be automatic success anywhere, I think he has to be in the right environment.

That's fair. From my standpoint, if Maddon manages a team (any team, in any market) the way he manages the Rays, he will improve their chances of winning ball games. If you put players in the best position to succeed, you'll score/prevent more runs and end up winning more games. Maddon probably does that better than anyone, and there are plenty of managers who are remarkably bad at it.

He's probably the best "more with less" manager in baseball right now, which is why he's perfect for small market low intensity market teams. If he's got, for example, the Dodgers lineup to work with, there isn't that much you can do with it.

There is, though. You can still platoon players properly, play small ball in the appropriate situations, manage the bullpen well, shift the defense accordingly... just because your team has good players doesn't mean those things no longer have value. A run scored is a run scored, and a run prevented is a run prevented.

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:Right but he tried 10 different things that didn't work not just one. I don't want to be misunderstood, I think he's a good manager even though I don't like the way he goes about a lot of things. I just don't think he'd be automatic success anywhere, I think he has to be in the right environment.

That's fair. From my standpoint, if Maddon manages a team (any team, in any market) the way he manages the Rays, he will improve their chances of winning ball games. If you put players in the best position to succeed, you'll score/prevent more runs and end up winning more games. Maddon probably does that better than anyone, and there are plenty of managers who are remarkably bad at it.

He's probably the best "more with less" manager in baseball right now, which is why he's perfect for small market low intensity market teams. If he's got, for example, the Dodgers lineup to work with, there isn't that much you can do with it.

There is, though. You can still platoon players properly, play small ball in the appropriate situations, manage the bullpen well, shift the defense accordingly... just because your team has good players doesn't mean those things no longer have value. A run scored is a run scored, and a run prevented is a run prevented.

Those aren't the type of players that are conducive to that style of play. Big money lineups generally don't play small ball because they can't play small ball.