What is people's fascination with Girardi about?

[CubinNY]

Why do some people want Girardi to manage the Cubs.

 

Here is what I've come up with in the order of importance

 

1. He use to play for the Cubs

2. He went to Northwestern

3. He was the Yankees bench coach

 

I don't get it.

[oldstyle81]

78-84 with a 15 million dollar payroll

 

66-96 with a 100 million for the cubs

[CuseCubFan69]

The lesser of many evils is why I wouldn't mind Girardi. There are many I like more but after the last time Hendry had to pick a manager I wanted Macha, Randolph, Piniella or Alou so don't listen to me!

[goonys evil twin]

People seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on being an ex-Cub, when talking about potential candidates for different leadership positions. A broadcaster, okay, I can see the point. But the Cubs have a history of losing, and every single ex-Cubs' ties to the Cubs revolve around losing. Not to mention, the vast majority of them have very little, or no, managerial/coaching/personel history, even though people think they should get those jobs.

 

If you want to introduce one of these guys to a role on the coaching staff, go right ahead. But there is absolutely no point in fielding a front office headed by Stone, with Giradi managing, Sandberg, Grace, Banks and Jenkins coaching.

 

The next manager doesn't need to know Chicago to get the job done. He doesn't need to know how to win with the Cubs, because nobody has won with the Cubs. He doesn't need to know how much the fans care. He just needs to be a good manager, regardless of past affiliation.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

People seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on being an ex-Cub, when talking about potential candidates for different leadership positions. A broadcaster, okay, I can see the point. But the Cubs have a history of losing, and every single ex-Cubs' ties to the Cubs revolve around losing. Not to mention, the vast majority of them have very little, or no, managerial/coaching/personel history, even though people think they should get those jobs.

 

If you want to introduce one of these guys to a role on the coaching staff, go right ahead. But there is absolutely no point in fielding a front office headed by Stone, with Giradi managing, Sandberg, Grace, Banks and Jenkins coaching.

 

The next manager doesn't need to know Chicago to get the job done. He doesn't need to know how to win with the Cubs, because nobody has won with the Cubs. He doesn't need to know how much the fans care. He just needs to be a good manager, regardless of past affiliation.

 

Excellent post.

[Handlebar McSkullet]

I think my fascination with Girardi is two fold

 

1)he took a team with a lot of players that "werent ready"

and made it work.

 

2)he managed the team with continued progress when there was alot of outside issues, like with him and loria. something that always happens here ala '94

[Fred Hornkohl]

People seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on being an ex-Cub, when talking about potential candidates for different leadership positions. A broadcaster, okay, I can see the point. But the Cubs have a history of losing, and every single ex-Cubs' ties to the Cubs revolve around losing. Not to mention, the vast majority of them have very little, or no, managerial/coaching/personel history, even though people think they should get those jobs.

 

If you want to introduce one of these guys to a role on the coaching staff, go right ahead. But there is absolutely no point in fielding a front office headed by Stone, with Giradi managing, Sandberg, Grace, Banks and Jenkins coaching.

 

The next manager doesn't need to know Chicago to get the job done. He doesn't need to know how to win with the Cubs, because nobody has won with the Cubs. He doesn't need to know how much the fans care. He just needs to be a good manager, regardless of past affiliation.

 

How 'bout if we exhume the body of Frank Chance and prop him up in the dugout ?? ...... ah..... nevermind.

[Laura]

Girardi may end up being my default selection, since I would prefer him over Piniella who seems to be getting the most buzz in media circles. I was most interested in Fredi Gonzalez, but he may be hired before Hendry makes a phone call to him.

 

I have friends who greatly prefer Girardi. I have heard your list, CubinNY, but I'll take it and expand it with the rationale I've heard.

 

1. He use to play for the Cubs

 

He "gets" the Cubs, Wrigley Field and Cubs fans in a way that previous managers have not. Bruce Miles wrote an excellent article a few days ago about how Dusty never seemed to warm to Chicago or to Cubs fans (one telling detail was how Dusty often wore his watch set to Pacific Time). Girardi knows that it can be really cold in April; that the park plays differently depending on the wind; that Cubs fans will usually show up, even if it is to boo; that day games aren't an excuse for losing even if they've been used that way too often.

 

Girardi was also a team captain with the Cubs (insert obligatory comment about how he deserved to be team captain) and the union rep, at least in '02, so he had a team leadership role while he played. Anyone who remembers watching Cubs games during Girardi's tenure will recall many comments about how he'd make a fine manager someday, so in a sense we've been programmed for years into accepting him as a manager.

 

2. He went to Northwestern

 

The first observation (which NW alums would love) seems to be that this means he is really smart. And he has an engineering degree, I believe, so that's further evidence! Just think of the intellect that could be on display during Cards-Cubs games.

 

Second is that he has strong local roots. He'd be committed to the Cubs managerial job because of that. The Cubs gig is and should be a coveted job ... but ... if you're seeking a 'name' manager, which Hendry may well be doing, then you have to anticipate that a Big Name may have Higher Aspirations than the job you're offering. One concern with Piniella is that he'd just be biding time until the Yankees job opened up. Because of his local history, people don't think that would be a concern with Girardi.

 

3. He was the Yankees bench coach

 

I heard this cited more when he was available before being hired by the Marlins (when some hoped the Cubs would swoop in and hire him then), and that was to compensate for his then-lack-of managerial experience. The followup observations are that the Yankees emphasize running a professional clubhouse and that one learns to interact with the media if one serves in any capacity with the NYY.

 

I've also heard:

 

He was a catcher and catchers tend to make good managers

 

He had to play young players / rooks in Florida and he won (comparatively speaking) with them

 

He continued to manage well in Florida despite the messy situation there and the rumors he was fired mid-season

 

He knows how to construct a lineup

Edited October 3, 2006 by Laura

[CuseCubFan69]

Nice post Serena. I think having the Yankee background by being around Torre and Zimmer would help Joe. Torre is accused often of having "his boys" just like Baker was. I have to assume that most managers have that problem though.

 

If I'm having a bad day all I can do is to think of how Baker would have handled the Marlins in 2006 and a big smile comes across my face.

[goonys evil twin]

1. He use to play for the Cubs

 

He "gets" the Cubs, Wrigley Field and Cubs fans in a way that previous managers have not. Bruce Miles wrote an excellent article a few days ago about how Dusty never seemed to warm to Chicago or to Cubs fans (one telling detail was how Dusty often wore his watch set to Pacific Time). Girardi knows that it can be really cold in April; that the park plays differently depending on the wind; that Cubs fans will usually show up, even if it is to boo; that day games aren't an excuse for losing even if they've been used that way too often.

 

Girardi was also a team captain with the Cubs (insert obligatory comment about how he deserved to be team captain) and the union rep, at least in '02, so he had a team leadership role while he played. Anyone who remembers watching Cubs games during Girardi's tenure will recall many comments about how he'd make a fine manager someday, so in a sense we've been programmed for years into accepting him as a manager.

 

None of this means a lick, and should not come into play when discussing the pros and cons. If anything, past ties to the Cubs should be considered a negative for any candidate.

[Fred Hornkohl]

 

None of this means a lick, and should not come into play when discussing the pros and cons. If anything, past ties to the Cubs should be considered a negative for any candidate.

 

OK, goony..... but are we discussing the pro's and con's of Joe Girardi..... or are we discussing "What is people's fascination with Girardi about?" ?

[goonys evil twin]

 

None of this means a lick, and should not come into play when discussing the pros and cons. If anything, past ties to the Cubs should be considered a negative for any candidate.

 

OK, goony..... but are we discussing the pro's and con's of Joe Girardi..... or are we discussing "What is people's fascination with Girardi about?" ?

 

Well, the thread is about what people's fascination is, and his ties to the Cubs is part of the answer to that question. I'm just reiterating that it should not play a role. Serena is absolutely right in her breakdown of what people are thinking about Girardi.

[C.C.]

1. He use to play for the Cubs

 

He "gets" the Cubs, Wrigley Field and Cubs fans in a way that previous managers have not. Bruce Miles wrote an excellent article a few days ago about how Dusty never seemed to warm to Chicago or to Cubs fans (one telling detail was how Dusty often wore his watch set to Pacific Time). Girardi knows that it can be really cold in April; that the park plays differently depending on the wind; that Cubs fans will usually show up, even if it is to boo; that day games aren't an excuse for losing even if they've been used that way too often.

 

Girardi was also a team captain with the Cubs (insert obligatory comment about how he deserved to be team captain) and the union rep, at least in '02, so he had a team leadership role while he played. Anyone who remembers watching Cubs games during Girardi's tenure will recall many comments about how he'd make a fine manager someday, so in a sense we've been programmed for years into accepting him as a manager.

 

None of this means a lick, and should not come into play when discussing the pros and cons. If anything, past ties to the Cubs should be considered a negative for any candidate.

 

It certainly wasn't a negative for the W.Sox. I know I may be being overly sentimental, but I perfer someone that knows the City and it's fans.

[goonys evil twin]

It certainly wasn't a negative for the W.Sox. I know I may be being overly sentimental, but I perfer someone that knows the City and it's fans.

 

What does knowing the city or the fans mean? How does it help anything? Guillen had very little to do with the White Sox success. It was about getting a bunch of decent pitchers to all have career years at once, and fielding a very powerful lineup. It wasn't Ozzie-ball. His ties to Chicago were superficial as far as how it affected the play of his team.

 

I'm not saying Joe can't get the job done, that he'd be a horrible pick or that I'd be pissed if he was the manager. All I'm saying is his ties to Chicago and the Cubs are completely meaningless when judging whether or not he'd get the job done. The most successful management group since I've followed the team was the Green/Frey/Zimmer grouping, and of that group, only Zim had any sort of ties to Chicago. Durocher is the most successful manager of the modern era, and he had no ties to Chicago.

 

Chicago people are notoriously provincial, which is what gives the town it's character. But it also causes much too much emphasis on putting one of "our guys" in charge of institutions.

[Handlebar McSkullet]

What does knowing the city or the fans mean? How does it help anything? Guillen had very little to do with the White Sox success. It was about getting a bunch of decent pitchers to all have career years at once, and fielding a very powerful lineup. It wasn't Ozzie-ball. His ties to Chicago were superficial as far as how it affected the play of his team.

 

Not to nitpick, but I dont think you have a basis for that statement. I could also say that, while the sox made some moves(lee for pod, garcia, no valentine), the overall makeup of the team was simular to jerry manuel's last year. Younger players like joe crede and jon garland had career years under ozzie(whether that was his doing or not).

 

now if you would have said, ozzie's knowledge of chicago had nothing to do with their success, i think that argument has merit.

 

personally, girardi being a former cub has nothing to do with his managing other than experience. the job he did this year is what is most important.

[ToupeeOnFire]

It certainly wasn't a negative for the W.Sox. I know I may be being overly sentimental, but I perfer someone that knows the City and it's fans.

 

What does knowing the city or the fans mean? How does it help anything? Guillen had very little to do with the White Sox success. It was about getting a bunch of decent pitchers to all have career years at once, and fielding a very powerful lineup. It wasn't Ozzie-ball. His ties to Chicago were superficial as far as how it affected the play of his team.

 

I'm not saying Joe can't get the job done, that he'd be a horrible pick or that I'd be pissed if he was the manager. All I'm saying is his ties to Chicago and the Cubs are completely meaningless when judging whether or not he'd get the job done. The most successful management group since I've followed the team was the Green/Frey/Zimmer grouping, and of that group, only Zim had any sort of ties to Chicago. Durocher is the most successful manager of the modern era, and he had no ties to Chicago.

I think the Cubs have gone out of their way to hire managers outside of the organization. Over the last 25 years or so, apart from Don Zimmer, every manager they've hired has been an outsider. Start with Dusty Baker and go on down the list: Baylor, Riggleman, Trebelhorn, Leferbvre, Michael, Frey. Over the years, whenever the job opened up, Billy William's name always came up, yet he was passed over repeatedly. I think it has been the Cub MO to hire managers who lack the Cub "taint" while giving token coaching jobs to former players (Fergie, Williams, Sarge, etc.).

 

It goes without saying, former Cub or not, they need to hire the best guy.

[A New Era]

 

None of this means a lick, and should not come into play when discussing the pros and cons. If anything, past ties to the Cubs should be considered a negative for any candidate.

 

OK, goony..... but are we discussing the pro's and con's of Joe Girardi..... or are we discussing "What is people's fascination with Girardi about?" ?

 

Well, the thread is about what people's fascination is, and his ties to the Cubs is part of the answer to that question. I'm just reiterating that it should not play a role. Serena is absolutely right in her breakdown of what people are thinking about Girardi.

 

What's your beef with Joe Girardi. You speak as if you honestly loathe the guy.

[goonys evil twin]

What's your beef with Joe Girardi. You speak as if you honestly loathe the guy.

 

I fear that he's an old school sac bunter. But I don't know that. And I don't loathe him.

 

My beef is with people who try to use his Chicagoness as a reason why he'd be a good manager.

[USSoccer]

Girardi should be judged on his skills as a manager, not on where he happened to play and go to college. That kind of stuff is a meaningless strawman used to appease an uninformed fanbase.

 

From what I can tell, he's an old school, move runners along, play your gut kind of manager, which I'd rather not see.

[soapy]

I agree with those that are saying that Girardi should not get special consideration or some sort of advantage in getting the job over another manager because he used to play for the Cubs. It really shouldn't have anything to do with it, IMO.

 

I really don't feel like I know enough about his managing style to say if he is one of my top choices or not, but I don't think his Cubs background should play a role. I don't see why it matters, other then making him a popular choice with the fans (which may factor into Hendry's mind). Certainly what he did with the Marlins this year should warrant him being a candidate.

[bring stone back]

Girardi should be judged on his skills as a manager, not on where he happened to play and go to college. That kind of stuff is a meaningless strawman used to appease an uninformed fanbase.

 

From what I can tell, he's an old school, move runners along, play your gut kind of manager, which I'd rather not see.

 

What/who do you want then? Just curious...

[goonys evil twin]

I agree with those that are saying that Girardi should not get special consideration or some sort of advantage in getting the job over another manager because he used to play for the Cubs. It really shouldn't have anything to do with it, IMO.

 

I really don't feel like I know enough about his managing style to say if he is one of my top choices or not, but I don't think his Cubs background should play a role. I don't see why it matters, other then making him a popular choice with the fans (which may factor into Hendry's mind). Certainly what he did with the Marlins this year should warrant him being a candidate.

 

I actually think it would factor into McDonough's mind more so than Hendry. It's a marketing bonanza, but based strictly on baseball terms, maybe something else.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Girardi should be judged on his skills as a manager, not on where he happened to play and go to college. That kind of stuff is a meaningless strawman used to appease an uninformed fanbase.

 

From what I can tell, he's an old school, move runners along, play your gut kind of manager, which I'd rather not see.

 

Judging his managing skills on just one year of managing with the Marlins isn't that great an idea either. You're probably not going to get a complete picture.

[USSoccer]

Girardi should be judged on his skills as a manager, not on where he happened to play and go to college. That kind of stuff is a meaningless strawman used to appease an uninformed fanbase.

 

From what I can tell, he's an old school, move runners along, play your gut kind of manager, which I'd rather not see.

 

What/who do you want then? Just curious...

 

My first choice would be Larry Dierker, if he wanted it. Next I'd look at Davey Johnson. Freidi Gonzalez would have been a very good choice by all accounts.

 

If I were told that Hendry was going to pick from Girardi or Piniella, I'd take Girardi, but only because he's the lesser of two evils. I don't think he's the Next Big Thing like the Chicago media is making him out to be.

[TruffleShuffle]

Girardi should be judged on his skills as a manager, not on where he happened to play and go to college. That kind of stuff is a meaningless strawman used to appease an uninformed fanbase.

 

From what I can tell, he's an old school, move runners along, play your gut kind of manager, which I'd rather not see.

 

Judging his managing skills on just one year of managing with the Marlins isn't that great an idea either. You're probably not going to get a complete picture.

 

That's unfortunate, but guys who are proven, successful managers aren't just floating around out there. Most of them have jobs. Dierker is my first choice, but I like Girardi because he seemed to do a very good job with the Marlins this year, and has always been considered a leader, going back to his playing days.