Loria Still Won't Endorse Girardi

[soccer10k]

Loria is angry that the team is doing better than he thought it would, preventing him from trying to move it.

 

 

My name is Rachel Phelps, not Jeff Loria!

 

http://www.fast-rewind.com/soms1.jpg

she was trying to get the team moved to miami though

 

 

further proof that girls should be kept out of baseball ;)

 

 

Marge disagrees.

 

Oh. My. Lord. I shuddered when I saw that picture. I'm going to have nightmares for a long time because of that face.

[soccer10k]

http://adweek.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/sicover.jpg

 

Just to undo some of the damage Vance just did.

 

I'm surprised nobody quoted this just to show the picture again. I guess I'll have to do it.

[NewUserName]

One the "Mike and Mike in the Morning" guys said he thinks it pretty obvious that Giradi is going to be the Cubs manager next season. Doesnt make it true but I thought I would mention that a national guy thinks its going to happen

[Soriano12]

One the "Mike and Mike in the Morning" guys said he thinks it pretty obvious that Giradi is going to be the Cubs manager next season. Doesnt make it true but I thought I would mention that a national guy thinks its going to happen

 

I have heard so many conflicting reports already.

I read one rumor where supposedly a Cubs official said the Cubs

are not even considering Joe.

 

 

 

Sorry..for the little hijack here:

 

This weekend I went to see Invincible. Anyways part of the movie details

how Dick Vermeil changed the culture of the Eagles.

 

The Cubs need a Dick Vermeil(minus the press conference crying....

our current manager provides plenty of that). We need a manager that will come in and ride every player on the roster, from rookie to veteran.

 

Lets compare the next manager of the Cubs to cancer treatment. There is alot of cancer on the Cubs right now. Poor fundementals, Poor attitudes.

We need a guy to come in and wipe that out. If it means taking ground balls for 4 hours every day so be it. If it means refusing to play players that don't take walks..so be it.

 

In short..I view Girardi as a guy that can come in and clear up alot of crap.

[goonys evil twin]

One the "Mike and Mike in the Morning" guys said he thinks it pretty obvious that Giradi is going to be the Cubs manager next season. Doesnt make it true but I thought I would mention that a national guy thinks its going to happen

 

I think it was Mike Greenberg who said something to the effect of "I would be shocked if Girardi isn't managing the Cubs next year, assuming he leaves Florida." I'm not sure how much stock I put into his predictions/analysis.

[Banedon]

One the "Mike and Mike in the Morning" guys said he thinks it pretty obvious that Giradi is going to be the Cubs manager next season. Doesnt make it true but I thought I would mention that a national guy thinks its going to happen

 

I think it was Mike Greenberg who said something to the effect of "I would be shocked if Girardi isn't managing the Cubs next year, assuming he leaves Florida." I'm not sure how much stock I put into his predictions/analysis.

 

Agreed. Hendry will go through his "interviews" to make it look like he's going through his whole process, the way he did with Melvin, and Showalter, and Garner, and whoever else he interviewed when he had Dusty in his sights the whole time. I imagine Jim already knows what he wants to do, and who he wants to replace Dusty. I just hope that it's not Piniella.

[BigSlick]

I am a big fan of Girardi and wanted the Cubs to bring him last off season and fire Baker. I would be happy if they could do it this off season, thats for sure. Either Girardi or Gonzalez sound good to me. Dierker sounds good. I wanted Leyland, too, but that boat has already sailed.

 

While Leyland wont kill your pitchers like Dusty will....he's not a good manager.

 

I mean for gawd's sake, he's been leading off Neifi Perez. (Also led off Brandon Inge in a game i attended...he had a sub-300 OBP!)

[BRASKYS SCOTCH]

One the "Mike and Mike in the Morning" guys said he thinks it pretty obvious that Giradi is going to be the Cubs manager next season. Doesnt make it true but I thought I would mention that a national guy thinks its going to happen

 

I think it was Mike Greenberg who said something to the effect of "I would be shocked if Girardi isn't managing the Cubs next year, assuming he leaves Florida." I'm not sure how much stock I put into his predictions/analysis.

 

Agreed. Hendry will go through his "interviews" to make it look like he's going through his whole process, the way he did with Melvin, and Showalter, and Garner, and whoever else he interviewed when he had Dusty in his sights the whole time. I imagine Jim already knows what he wants to do, and who he wants to replace Dusty. I just hope that it's not Piniella.

 

Hendry will distance himself from Girardi and any other managerial candidates until the end of the season to lessen the chances for a messy Dusty/Cubs divorce. It's pretty obvious Dusty's gone at this point. His statements about his unhappiness here and not being wanted, whether true or not, will only ease the decision-making process for Hendry.

 

Like many, I'd love to see Girardi in our dugout next year. I'm sure Fredi in Atlanta would be sufficient, but I really want to see 1) a big name that would renew/generate optimism 2) a serious and passionate manager who instills discipline and 3) tenure.

 

Granted, tenure isn't a part of the negotiating process, but I'm sick of the 3-4 yr managerial terms here on the North Side. Joe's connection to the Cubs could enable a longer stay here - of course, so could anyone who understands that Neifi should never bat 2nd or have more than a handful of plate appearances, reluctance to respect OBP... I'm not going to list more of Dusty's mind-boggling decisions. At this point it doesn't bear repeating unless he's brought back.

[C.C.]

One the "Mike and Mike in the Morning" guys said he thinks it pretty obvious that Giradi is going to be the Cubs manager next season. Doesnt make it true but I thought I would mention that a national guy thinks its going to happen

 

I think it was Mike Greenberg who said something to the effect of "I would be shocked if Girardi isn't managing the Cubs next year, assuming he leaves Florida." I'm not sure how much stock I put into his predictions/analysis.

 

Agreed. Hendry will go through his "interviews" to make it look like he's going through his whole process, the way he did with Melvin, and Showalter, and Garner, and whoever else he interviewed when he had Dusty in his sights the whole time. I imagine Jim already knows what he wants to do, and who he wants to replace Dusty. I just hope that it's not Piniella.

 

Hendry will distance himself from Girardi and any other managerial candidates until the end of the season to lessen the chances for a messy Dusty/Cubs divorce. It's pretty obvious Dusty's gone at this point. His statements about his unhappiness here and not being wanted, whether true or not, will only ease the decision-making process for Hendry.

 

Like many, I'd love to see Girardi in our dugout next year. I'm sure Fredi in Atlanta would be sufficient, but I really want to see 1) a big name that would renew/generate optimism 2) a serious and passionate manager who instills discipline and 3) tenure.

 

Granted, tenure isn't a part of the negotiating process, but I'm sick of the 3-4 yr managerial terms here on the North Side. Joe's connection to the Cubs could enable a longer stay here - of course, so could anyone who understands that Neifi should never bat 2nd or have more than a handful of plate appearances, reluctance to respect OBP... I'm not going to list more of Dusty's mind-boggling decisions. At this point it doesn'

t bear repeating unless he's brought back.

 

It's a no-brainer to go get Girardi, which means we'll end up with Jimmy Williams or Bochy.

[goonys evil twin]

I'm sure Fredi in Atlanta would be sufficient, but I really want to see 1) a big name that would renew/generate optimism 2) a serious and passionate manager who instills discipline and 3) tenure.

 

The last thing I'm interested in is how big of a name the manager has. I don't want the enthusiasm to be built on the name of the manager, that should be determined by the level of player acquisition Hendry embarks on this winter.

 

Granted, tenure isn't a part of the negotiating process, but I'm sick of the 3-4 yr managerial terms here on the North Side. Joe's connection to the Cubs could enable a longer stay here

 

I, for one, don't really care about tenure. Whether the next manager is here for 3 years or 10, all I care about is they win. Some managers come in and win one, then leave, as they either wear out their welcome or lose the desire. Joe Torre and Bobby Cox are the only real staples of the managerial business. Scioscia is close with his 6 years and level of success. I really have no interest in getting a guy like Bochy to be there every year and pretty much maintain a level of mediocrity that does little to inspire.

 

Stability is overrated in sports if it doesn't come with success. I'd much rather have a short and volatile era than a long steady, and ultimately unsuccessful period.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'm sure Fredi in Atlanta would be sufficient, but I really want to see 1) a big name that would renew/generate optimism 2) a serious and passionate manager who instills discipline and 3) tenure.

 

The last thing I'm interested in is how big of a name the manager has. I don't want the enthusiasm to be built on the name of the manager, that should be determined by the level of player acquisition Hendry embarks on this winter.

 

Granted, tenure isn't a part of the negotiating process, but I'm sick of the 3-4 yr managerial terms here on the North Side. Joe's connection to the Cubs could enable a longer stay here

 

I, for one, don't really care about tenure. Whether the next manager is here for 3 years or 10, all I care about is they win. Some managers come in and win one, then leave, as they either wear out their welcome or lose the desire. Joe Torre and Bobby Cox are the only real staples of the managerial business. Scioscia is close with his 6 years and level of success. I really have no interest in getting a guy like Bochy to be there every year and pretty much maintain a level of mediocrity that does little to inspire.

 

Stability is overrated in sports if it doesn't come with success. I'd much rather have a short and volatile era than a long steady, and ultimately unsuccessful period.

 

Agreed. Get me Davey Johnson who will piss everyone off in route to winning 2-3 penants.

 

I'm not opposed to Girardi; however, once again let me state my candidates on order of preference.

 

1. Dierker

2. Johnson

3. Gonzalez

 

I'd be happy with any of the three. After that, there's a number of names I might be ok with, but I'm not overly excited about. Girardi is in that group.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

One the "Mike and Mike in the Morning" guys said he thinks it pretty obvious that Giradi is going to be the Cubs manager next season. Doesnt make it true but I thought I would mention that a national guy thinks its going to happen

 

I think it was Mike Greenberg who said something to the effect of "I would be shocked if Girardi isn't managing the Cubs next year, assuming he leaves Florida." I'm not sure how much stock I put into his predictions/analysis.

 

I remember when Greenie penciled himself in as the next play-by-play announcer for the Cubs a week or so before Len was hired.

[C.C.]

I'm sure Fredi in Atlanta would be sufficient, but I really want to see 1) a big name that would renew/generate optimism 2) a serious and passionate manager who instills discipline and 3) tenure.

 

The last thing I'm interested in is how big of a name the manager has. I don't want the enthusiasm to be built on the name of the manager, that should be determined by the level of player acquisition Hendry embarks on this winter.

 

Granted, tenure isn't a part of the negotiating process, but I'm sick of the 3-4 yr managerial terms here on the North Side. Joe's connection to the Cubs could enable a longer stay here

 

I, for one, don't really care about tenure. Whether the next manager is here for 3 years or 10, all I care about is they win. Some managers come in and win one, then leave, as they either wear out their welcome or lose the desire. Joe Torre and Bobby Cox are the only real staples of the managerial business. Scioscia is close with his 6 years and level of success. I really have no interest in getting a guy like Bochy to be there every year and pretty much maintain a level of mediocrity that does little to inspire.

 

Stability is overrated in sports if it doesn't come with success. I'd much rather have a short and volatile era than a long steady, and ultimately unsuccessful period.

 

Agreed. Get me Davey Johnson who will piss everyone off in route to winning 2-3 penants.

 

I'm not opposed to Girardi; however, once again let me state my candidates on order of preference.

 

1. Dierker

2. Johnson

3. Gonzalez

 

I'd be happy with any of the three. After that, there's a number of names I might be ok with, but I'm not overly excited about. Girardi is in that group.

 

Why would you want Gonzalez over Girardi? Just curious?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'm sure Fredi in Atlanta would be sufficient, but I really want to see 1) a big name that would renew/generate optimism 2) a serious and passionate manager who instills discipline and 3) tenure.

 

The last thing I'm interested in is how big of a name the manager has. I don't want the enthusiasm to be built on the name of the manager, that should be determined by the level of player acquisition Hendry embarks on this winter.

 

Granted, tenure isn't a part of the negotiating process, but I'm sick of the 3-4 yr managerial terms here on the North Side. Joe's connection to the Cubs could enable a longer stay here

 

I, for one, don't really care about tenure. Whether the next manager is here for 3 years or 10, all I care about is they win. Some managers come in and win one, then leave, as they either wear out their welcome or lose the desire. Joe Torre and Bobby Cox are the only real staples of the managerial business. Scioscia is close with his 6 years and level of success. I really have no interest in getting a guy like Bochy to be there every year and pretty much maintain a level of mediocrity that does little to inspire.

 

Stability is overrated in sports if it doesn't come with success. I'd much rather have a short and volatile era than a long steady, and ultimately unsuccessful period.

 

Agreed. Get me Davey Johnson who will piss everyone off in route to winning 2-3 penants.

 

I'm not opposed to Girardi; however, once again let me state my candidates on order of preference.

 

1. Dierker

2. Johnson

3. Gonzalez

 

I'd be happy with any of the three. After that, there's a number of names I might be ok with, but I'm not overly excited about. Girardi is in that group.

 

Why would you want Gonzalez over Girardi? Just curious?

 

Gonzalez has had success managing in the minors as well as working with major league teams. I'd hope some of Cox's philosophies would rub off on him as well.

 

I've heard some of the things Girardi has said, and he's filled with a little too much CW for my liking. I'm not saying he'd be a bad choice, and he certainly has done much with little in Florida, but I'd prefer someone less inclined to use CW in their decisions.

[C.C.]

I'm sure Fredi in Atlanta would be sufficient, but I really want to see 1) a big name that would renew/generate optimism 2) a serious and passionate manager who instills discipline and 3) tenure.

 

The last thing I'm interested in is how big of a name the manager has. I don't want the enthusiasm to be built on the name of the manager, that should be determined by the level of player acquisition Hendry embarks on this winter.

 

Granted, tenure isn't a part of the negotiating process, but I'm sick of the 3-4 yr managerial terms here on the North Side. Joe's connection to the Cubs could enable a longer stay here

 

I, for one, don't really care about tenure. Whether the next manager is here for 3 years or 10, all I care about is they win. Some managers come in and win one, then leave, as they either wear out their welcome or lose the desire. Joe Torre and Bobby Cox are the only real staples of the managerial business. Scioscia is close with his 6 years and level of success. I really have no interest in getting a guy like Bochy to be there every year and pretty much maintain a level of mediocrity that does little to inspire.

 

Stability is overrated in sports if it doesn't come with success. I'd much rather have a short and volatile era than a long steady, and ultimately unsuccessful period.

 

Agreed. Get me Davey Johnson who will piss everyone off in route to winning 2-3 penants.

 

I'm not opposed to Girardi; however, once again let me state my candidates on order of preference.

 

1. Dierker

2. Johnson

3. Gonzalez

 

I'd be happy with any of the three. After that, there's a number of names I might be ok with, but I'm not overly excited about. Girardi is in that group.

 

Why would you want Gonzalez over Girardi? Just curious?

 

Gonzalez has had success managing in the minors as well as working with major league teams. I'd hope some of Cox's philosophies would rub off on him as well.

 

I've heard some of the things Girardi has said, and he's filled with a little too much CW for my liking. I'm not saying he'd be a bad choice, and he certainly has done much with little in Florida, but I'd prefer someone less inclined to use CW in their decisions.

 

But Gonzalez has never managed a ML team, so you don't know what you are getting. At least with Girardi you know the man can manage at the ML level, and he's finishing strong even with all the controversy surrounding him. What's CW?

[Soriano12]

I'm sure Fredi in Atlanta would be sufficient, but I really want to see 1) a big name that would renew/generate optimism 2) a serious and passionate manager who instills discipline and 3) tenure.

 

The last thing I'm interested in is how big of a name the manager has. I don't want the enthusiasm to be built on the name of the manager, that should be determined by the level of player acquisition Hendry embarks on this winter.

 

Granted, tenure isn't a part of the negotiating process, but I'm sick of the 3-4 yr managerial terms here on the North Side. Joe's connection to the Cubs could enable a longer stay here

 

I, for one, don't really care about tenure. Whether the next manager is here for 3 years or 10, all I care about is they win. Some managers come in and win one, then leave, as they either wear out their welcome or lose the desire. Joe Torre and Bobby Cox are the only real staples of the managerial business. Scioscia is close with his 6 years and level of success. I really have no interest in getting a guy like Bochy to be there every year and pretty much maintain a level of mediocrity that does little to inspire.

 

Stability is overrated in sports if it doesn't come with success. I'd much rather have a short and volatile era than a long steady, and ultimately unsuccessful period.

 

Agreed. Get me Davey Johnson who will piss everyone off in route to winning 2-3 penants.

 

I'm not opposed to Girardi; however, once again let me state my candidates on order of preference.

 

1. Dierker

2. Johnson

3. Gonzalez

 

I'd be happy with any of the three. After that, there's a number of names I might be ok with, but I'm not overly excited about. Girardi is in that group.

 

Why would you want Gonzalez over Girardi? Just curious?

 

Gonzalez has had success managing in the minors as well as working with major league teams. I'd hope some of Cox's philosophies would rub off on him as well.

 

I've heard some of the things Girardi has said, and he's filled with a little too much CW for my liking. I'm not saying he'd be a bad choice, and he certainly has done much with little in Florida, but I'd prefer someone less inclined to use CW in their decisions.

 

forgive my ignorance....cw?

[goonys evil twin]

But Gonzalez has never managed a ML team, so you don't know what you are getting. At least with Girardi you know the man can manage at the ML level, and he's finishing strong even with all the controversy surrounding him. What's CW?

 

I don't really understand what it means to know if a guy can manage at the ML level. It's not like it's a skill, like hitting a curve ball. I think far too much importance is given to tenure as a major league manager, that's why so many guys are recycled through the system.

[Fred Hornkohl]

 

forgive my ignorance....cw?

 

Conventional wisdom would suggest that Vance was refering to some kind of bias against statistical analysis.

[goonys evil twin]

I assume CW equals conventional wisdom, which is what causes managers to foolishly give away outs.

[Bruno7481]

But Gonzalez has never managed a ML team, so you don't know what you are getting. At least with Girardi you know the man can manage at the ML level, and he's finishing strong even with all the controversy surrounding him. What's CW?

 

I don't really understand what it means to know if a guy can manage at the ML level. It's not like it's a skill, like hitting a curve ball. I think far too much importance is given to tenure as a major league manager, that's why so many guys are recycled through the system.

 

I think you are severly oversimplifying things by saying managing is not a skill.

 

Decision making, strategy, knowledge, player relationships, etc all involve skill.

 

No manager search will be needed by your criteria, just pull somebody off of the streets.

Edited August 28, 2006 by Bruno7481

[C.C.]

But Gonzalez has never managed a ML team, so you don't know what you are getting. At least with Girardi you know the man can manage at the ML level, and he's finishing strong even with all the controversy surrounding him. What's CW?

 

I don't really understand what it means to know if a guy can manage at the ML level. It's not like it's a skill, like hitting a curve ball. I think far too much importance is given to tenure as a major league manager, that's why so many guys are recycled through the system.

 

It's a different kind of skill. Does he motivate his players, does he have control of the clubhouse etc... For me if it's between Fredi and Joe I'm going for Joe because you can see he has the skills to be a Manager and Fredi is still an unknown. You make it seem anyone can manage a ML team?

[goonys evil twin]

But Gonzalez has never managed a ML team, so you don't know what you are getting. At least with Girardi you know the man can manage at the ML level, and he's finishing strong even with all the controversy surrounding him. What's CW?

 

I don't really understand what it means to know if a guy can manage at the ML level. It's not like it's a skill, like hitting a curve ball. I think far too much importance is given to tenure as a major league manager, that's why so many guys are recycled through the system.

 

I think you are severly oversimplifying things by saying managing is not a skill.

 

Decision making, strategy, knowledge, play relationships, etc all involve skill.

 

No manager search will be needed by your criteria, just pull somebody off of the streets.

 

I said it's not like a skill such as hitting a curveball. I didn't say it took no skill. And I didn't come close to suggesting you could just pull somebody off the streets. I think managers are vastly overrated, and often times do more harm than good. The best managers keep their players in-line and motivated, then sit back and watch them play. It's not like football where designing and calling the right plays can determine the outcome of the season. Some managers are better for really young teams, some are better for extreme veteran teams. Most managers that have had any success, have also had extreme failure. The managers who hurt their team the most are the managers who try to put their signature on every move, looking to "make things happen" by constantly calling for pitchouts (as Dusty often does with pitchers who have control problems), stealing bases, bunting etc.

 

Just keep the egos in check, keep 'em motivated. Rest them and use them properly and it's a fairly simple job, the outcome of which should be determined by the skill of the players on the field.

[C.C.]

But Gonzalez has never managed a ML team, so you don't know what you are getting. At least with Girardi you know the man can manage at the ML level, and he's finishing strong even with all the controversy surrounding him. What's CW?

 

I don't really understand what it means to know if a guy can manage at the ML level. It's not like it's a skill, like hitting a curve ball. I think far too much importance is given to tenure as a major league manager, that's why so many guys are recycled through the system.

 

I think you are severly oversimplifying things by saying managing is not a skill.

 

Decision making, strategy, knowledge, play relationships, etc all involve skill.

 

No manager search will be needed by your criteria, just pull somebody off of the streets.

 

I said it's not like a skill such as hitting a curveball. I didn't say it took no skill. And I didn't come close to suggesting you could just pull somebody off the streets. I think managers are vastly overrated, and often times do more harm than good. The best managers keep their players in-line and motivated, then sit back and watch them play. It's not like football where designing and calling the right plays can determine the outcome of the season. Some managers are better for really young teams, some are better for extreme veteran teams. Most managers that have had any success, have also had extreme failure. The managers who hurt their team the most are the managers who try to put their signature on every move, looking to "make things happen" by constantly calling for pitchouts (as Dusty often does with pitchers who have control problems), stealing bases, bunting etc.

 

Just keep the egos in check, keep 'em motivated. Rest them and use them properly and it's a fairly simple job, the outcome of which should be determined by the skill of the players on the field.

 

I bet if you ask the top managers if it's that simple, they would laugh! It's not as simple as you think it is.

[goonys evil twin]

 

It's a different kind of skill. Does he motivate his players, does he have control of the clubhouse etc... For me if it's between Fredi and Joe I'm going for Joe because you can see he has the skills to be a Manager and Fredi is still an unknown. You make it seem anyone can manage a ML team?

 

You can see Joe can manage the Florida Marlins. What he's done there this year tells you nothing about how he'd handle the Cubs next year, in comparison with any other manager. The Marlins job, no media, no expectations, all young players, is completely different from the Cubs job. If Joe comes to Chicago and decides he wants a bunch of Joe Girardis, ie, experience veteran gamers, the Cubs could be in just as much trouble. We don't know what he'll do. Managing isn't hitting. You can't just up and move and be pretty certain your skills will carry over to the new team. Maybe Joe can't handle a team with lots of very expensive veterans with big egos and a passionate fan base that demands improvement. And maybe he won't be able to handle the media. Fredi at least knows more about what it takes to coach a mix of veterans and young players. The point is we don't know Joe is the right guy for the Cubs. And it's far from the no-brainer people are making it out to be.

[Bruno7481]

I'm sure Fredi in Atlanta would be sufficient, but I really want to see 1) a big name that would renew/generate optimism 2) a serious and passionate manager who instills discipline and 3) tenure.

 

The last thing I'm interested in is how big of a name the manager has. I don't want the enthusiasm to be built on the name of the manager, that should be determined by the level of player acquisition Hendry embarks on this winter.

 

Granted, tenure isn't a part of the negotiating process, but I'm sick of the 3-4 yr managerial terms here on the North Side. Joe's connection to the Cubs could enable a longer stay here

 

I, for one, don't really care about tenure. Whether the next manager is here for 3 years or 10, all I care about is they win. Some managers come in and win one, then leave, as they either wear out their welcome or lose the desire. Joe Torre and Bobby Cox are the only real staples of the managerial business. Scioscia is close with his 6 years and level of success. I really have no interest in getting a guy like Bochy to be there every year and pretty much maintain a level of mediocrity that does little to inspire.

 

Stability is overrated in sports if it doesn't come with success. I'd much rather have a short and volatile era than a long steady, and ultimately unsuccessful period.

 

Agreed. Get me Davey Johnson who will piss everyone off in route to winning 2-3 penants.

 

I'm not opposed to Girardi; however, once again let me state my candidates on order of preference.

 

1. Dierker

2. Johnson

3. Gonzalez

 

I'd be happy with any of the three. After that, there's a number of names I might be ok with, but I'm not overly excited about. Girardi is in that group.

 

Why would you want Gonzalez over Girardi? Just curious?

 

Gonzalez has had success managing in the minors as well as working with major league teams. I'd hope some of Cox's philosophies would rub off on him as well.

 

I've heard some of the things Girardi has said, and he's filled with a little too much CW for my liking. I'm not saying he'd be a bad choice, and he certainly has done much with little in Florida, but I'd prefer someone less inclined to use CW in their decisions.

 

Certainly Gonzalez time with Cox is a plus. But don't forget Girardi spent some time around a pretty good manager as well, Joe Torre.