McLaren spurns Cubs, returns to Seattle

[Andy]

ryno can show up and hit groundballs in spring training, but beyond that he should probably not come near our players

 

Why?

He's made comments intimating that he's a huge fan of (in so many words anyway) Ozzieball. Bunting, hit-and-running, other completely useless things that managers do to make themselves look smart.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

ryno can show up and hit groundballs in spring training, but beyond that he should probably not come near our players

 

QFT

[KurtEvans]

ryno can show up and hit groundballs in spring training, but beyond that he should probably not come near our players

 

Why?

He's made comments intimating that he's a huge fan of (in so many words anyway) Ozzieball. Bunting, hit-and-running, other completely useless things that managers do to make themselves look smart.

 

Ah. And what exactly is the superior method of managing?

[Andy]

ryno can show up and hit groundballs in spring training, but beyond that he should probably not come near our players

 

Why?

He's made comments intimating that he's a huge fan of (in so many words anyway) Ozzieball. Bunting, hit-and-running, other completely useless things that managers do to make themselves look smart.

 

Ah. And what exactly is the superior method of managing?

Not telling your players to give away outs or run into outs?

[KurtEvans]

ryno can show up and hit groundballs in spring training, but beyond that he should probably not come near our players

 

Why?

He's made comments intimating that he's a huge fan of (in so many words anyway) Ozzieball. Bunting, hit-and-running, other completely useless things that managers do to make themselves look smart.

 

Ah. And what exactly is the superior method of managing?

Not telling your players to give away outs or run into outs?

 

So, no stolen bases, then? Just out of curiosity, what if a player hits a frozen rope into the outfield? Should he settle for standing on first, or "run into an out" by trying for second?

 

Does the superior managerial strategy call for hitters to try for drawing walks, try to get hits, and nothing more?

[Andy]

ryno can show up and hit groundballs in spring training, but beyond that he should probably not come near our players

 

Why?

He's made comments intimating that he's a huge fan of (in so many words anyway) Ozzieball. Bunting, hit-and-running, other completely useless things that managers do to make themselves look smart.

 

Ah. And what exactly is the superior method of managing?

Not telling your players to give away outs or run into outs?

 

So, no stolen bases, then? Just out of curiosity, what if a player hits a frozen rope into the outfield? Should he settle for standing on first, or "run into an out" by trying for second?

 

Does the superior managerial strategy call for hitters to try for drawing walks, try to get hits, and nothing more?

You exaggerate my opinion. Players should use their better judgment and follow the coaches' advice on where to run. As for the stolen base thing...all well and good, although a "permanent green light" for Juan Pierre may or may not have been a good plan.

[KurtEvans]

You exaggerate my opinion. Players should use their better judgment and follow the coaches' advice on where to run. As for the stolen base thing...all well and good, although a "permanent green light" for Juan Pierre may or may not have been a good plan.

 

I just think it's interesting that bunts and the hit-and-run are "useless."

 

Still, there seems to be an advocation for a manager who basically does nothing more than make sure his players take fielding practice, learn how to work the count, and then sits back and only works on the pitching and substitution aspects of the game - if even that.

 

Is an intentional walk also a no-no because it's guaranteeing that a guy is put on base?

 

Anyway, from what I understand of it, a bench coach's role is to know the splits. How well does player A hit off of pitcher B? Who is the best pinch hitter or reliever in any given situation? That kind of thing. The bench coach should not be relied on for strategic moves, although I'm sure he'd be asked his opinion from time to time.

 

Therefore, assuming that Sandberg can do his homework, I would have no problem with him serving as bench coach for a year or two. Ryno is also very knowledgable about base stealing and he seems to understand fielding fundamentals. So long as he's not making personel decisions or overly advocating the bunt, I'd have no problem with him breaking his teeth in with the Cubs.

 

On the other hand, I do suspect that he'd make a terrible manager. But there is a drastic difference between being a bench coach and being the skipper, and I see no reason as to why Ryno wouldn't be qualified for the former position.

[imb]

hit and runs and stolen bases aren't useless. They are very appropriate, in the right situations. Most managers are stupid and use them in the wrong ones, however.

 

Im a big fan of guys who are fast. Im also a big fan of guys who dont strike out and who make good contact.

 

Im not a fan of managers who use these players strengths in the wrong situations.

 

Being a good manager is all about correctly using each players strengths, while putting the other team in a situation where they can't abuse your players weaknesses.

[Outshined_One]

You exaggerate my opinion. Players should use their better judgment and follow the coaches' advice on where to run. As for the stolen base thing...all well and good, although a "permanent green light" for Juan Pierre may or may not have been a good plan.

 

I just think it's interesting that bunts and the hit-and-run are "useless."

 

In the vast majority of circumstances, they are pretty much useless.

 

Bunts can be good. Guys who bunt for hits can be really effective at getting on base, can draw in the infielders, and so on. I think very few guys in baseball should do that with any regularity, but in that context, it can be highly effective. The same goes for the suicide squeeze and sacrifice bunts in general. If you only need one run to tie or win, that's a good approach to take. Also, pitchers who are terrible hitters often do more by bunting than they would by swinging.

 

The problem the majority of people have with bunting is that it is counter-productive a lot of the time. Sacrifice bunts have a few problems with them. Basically speaking, you are taking the bat out of the hands of a hitter (even if he is Neifi-level bad), sacrificing an out to move a runner over one base, are only marginally increasing the likelihood that a runner will score, and reducing the scoring opportunities you could have in that inning by sacrificing that out. Plus, there is always the possibility of ending up with a runner on first and one out because a guy somehow screwed up the bunt. You want your offense to score as many runs as possible, which means giving your hitters the most opportunities to get on base.

 

I have a huge problem with the hit & run. It might seemingly make sense in certain circumstances (slow runner at first, likely double play candidate, etc), but it is really, really stupid. You are operating under the assumption that the hitter will make contact with a pitch in such a way that the lead runner will not be thrown out. However, as we have seen so many times over these past years, guys will almost inevitably swing at a really bad pitch on a hit and run. At best, the guy fouls off the pitch. At worst, it's a strike 'em out, throw 'em out and you just wasted two outs. It does not succeed often enough to justify implementing it on even a remotely regular basis.

 

Still, there seems to be an advocation for a manager who basically does nothing more than make sure his players take fielding practice, learn how to work the count, and then sits back and only works on the pitching and substitution aspects of the game - if even that.

 

Why is there even any problem with that approach? If a manager makes sure his players can effectively hit, field, and pitch while creating favorable matchups and keeping everyone healthy, isn't that a good thing?

 

Is an intentional walk also a no-no because it's guaranteeing that a guy is put on base?

 

In most cases, yes.

[sweetpeteman]

Here's a crazy idea...

 

Before Joe Girardi became a manager, he spent a year as Joe Torre's bench coach. The Cubs have a guy who wants to become a manager. He could get a job managing a minor league team in the system, but maybe he'd make an interesting pupil under Piniella instead.

 

Anyone for Sandberg getting a chance?

 

Quade comes to mind. There is a good chance he is in Chicago this year under Piniella's staff, so they could be grooming him to take over later.

[MembersOnlyJacket]

My guess is we'll get a really old guy.

 

that should be the cubs' slogan.

 

Jackie Moore was Piniella's bench coach in Cincinatti from 1990-92. He is 67 years old and is coaching minor league baseball. I think he's the next bench coach of the Cubs. The Cubs will probably try to defrost Ted as the next hitting coach.

[Andy]

You exaggerate my opinion. Players should use their better judgment and follow the coaches' advice on where to run. As for the stolen base thing...all well and good, although a "permanent green light" for Juan Pierre may or may not have been a good plan.

 

I just think it's interesting that bunts and the hit-and-run are "useless."

 

In the vast majority of circumstances, they are pretty much useless.

 

Bunts can be good. Guys who bunt for hits can be really effective at getting on base, can draw in the infielders, and so on. I think very few guys in baseball should do that with any regularity, but in that context, it can be highly effective. The same goes for the suicide squeeze and sacrifice bunts in general. If you only need one run to tie or win, that's a good approach to take. Also, pitchers who are terrible hitters often do more by bunting than they would by swinging.

 

The problem the majority of people have with bunting is that it is counter-productive a lot of the time. Sacrifice bunts have a few problems with them. Basically speaking, you are taking the bat out of the hands of a hitter (even if he is Neifi-level bad), sacrificing an out to move a runner over one base, are only marginally increasing the likelihood that a runner will score, and reducing the scoring opportunities you could have in that inning by sacrificing that out. Plus, there is always the possibility of ending up with a runner on first and one out because a guy somehow screwed up the bunt. You want your offense to score as many runs as possible, which means giving your hitters the most opportunities to get on base.

 

I have a huge problem with the hit & run. It might seemingly make sense in certain circumstances (slow runner at first, likely double play candidate, etc), but it is really, really stupid. You are operating under the assumption that the hitter will make contact with a pitch in such a way that the lead runner will not be thrown out. However, as we have seen so many times over these past years, guys will almost inevitably swing at a really bad pitch on a hit and run. At best, the guy fouls off the pitch. At worst, it's a strike 'em out, throw 'em out and you just wasted two outs. It does not succeed often enough to justify implementing it on even a remotely regular basis.

 

Still, there seems to be an advocation for a manager who basically does nothing more than make sure his players take fielding practice, learn how to work the count, and then sits back and only works on the pitching and substitution aspects of the game - if even that.

 

Why is there even any problem with that approach? If a manager makes sure his players can effectively hit, field, and pitch while creating favorable matchups and keeping everyone healthy, isn't that a good thing?

 

Is an intentional walk also a no-no because it's guaranteeing that a guy is put on base?

 

In most cases, yes.

See, I knew O_O was going to be on my side and explain it better, otherwise I probably wouldn't have started the discussion to begin with. :D

[Outshined_One]

See, I knew O_O was going to be on my side and explain it better, otherwise I probably wouldn't have started the discussion to begin with. :D

 

I'm helpful like that. 8)

[questionmarkgrace]

how about ron jackson, former red sox hitting coach, as out hitting coach?anyone know anything about him?

[Soul]

I doubt it will be the bench coach that sinks Piniella.

 

Look to Hendry's incompetence as a GM instead. I'm sure McLaren saw that, which is why he stayed away. Lord knows why Piniella couldn't see it, and why the Trib doesn't, either.

 

Hendry will be fired from this job when his contract runs out. I ask anyone who will listen: he's not going to succeed. Why are we going through this charade, when we could have just fired him now?

[Wheelimus]

I judge Hendry from here on out based on what he does here on out.

 

And obviously judge his past based on what he did in the past.

 

If he does his job well this offseason, signing Soriano, signing Schmidt or Zito or Daisuke, I'll praise him. If we wind up with Carlos Lee and some journyman on a four year fifty million dollar contract, I'll damn him.

 

Surprise us Jimbo, surprise us...

[CaliforniaRaisin]

how about ron jackson, former red sox hitting coach, as out hitting coach?anyone know anything about him?

 

I'd be so ecstatic if that happened.

[LeftCoastCubFan]

Look to Hendry's incompetence as a GM instead. I'm sure McLaren saw that, which is why he stayed away.

I think you're reading a bit too much into it. Did you read the last Tribune article? He didn't want to leave Seattle with Pieniella, but felt he had no choice. Him and his wife prefer Seattle. He wants to manage and wants to get from under Pieniella's shadow and Hargrove is likely out the door after another poor season. Nothing to do with Hendry, just a better opportunity.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Look to Hendry's incompetence as a GM instead. I'm sure McLaren saw that, which is why he stayed away.

I think you're reading a bit too much into it. Did you read the last Tribune article? He didn't want to leave Seattle with Pieniella, but felt he had no choice. Him and his wife prefer Seattle. He wants to manage and wants to get from under Pieniella's shadow and Hargrove is likely out the door after another poor season. Nothing to do with Hendry, just a better opportunity.

 

That's probably a pretty accurate assumption. He loves working with Piniella, but his family really enjoyed Seattle. He's also closer to a managerial position in Seattle. I'd hoped McLaren would have come here, but I don't think it had anything to do with how McLaren sees the Cubs' future. It's not as if the Mariners have a bright future either.

[the splendid splinter]

Mike Hargrove has a chance of getting banged in the near future vs Lou!!!

[UK1679666180]

McLaren was the buffer between Lou and the players, he was the one who the players went to. Ichiro has been stated in the press as being the one who wanted McLaren back as he's one of the few still left on the M's roster.

 

Bret Boone wanted him as a manager when Lou went to TB, Crawford in TB wanted McLaren after Lou again.

 

I think him breaking away from Lou as well as returning to Seattle, I assume Hargrove won't be back after this year had alot to do with it.

 

McLaren also played a big role in the strategic side for Piniella (I always believed that Piniella has been one of the better in-game managers in baseball and that McLaren played a key role).

[the splendid splinter]

Well said UK!!!

[Soul]

Look to Hendry's incompetence as a GM instead. I'm sure McLaren saw that, which is why he stayed away.

I think you're reading a bit too much into it. Did you read the last Tribune article? He didn't want to leave Seattle with Pieniella, but felt he had no choice. Him and his wife prefer Seattle. He wants to manage and wants to get from under Pieniella's shadow and Hargrove is likely out the door after another poor season. Nothing to do with Hendry, just a better opportunity.

 

That's probably a pretty accurate assumption. He loves working with Piniella, but his family really enjoyed Seattle. He's also closer to a managerial position in Seattle. I'd hoped McLaren would have come here, but I don't think it had anything to do with how McLaren sees the Cubs' future. It's not as if the Mariners have a bright future either.

 

I doubt coming to Chicago would preclude him from returning to Seattle if a managerial position opened up.

 

Think of it this way: if it was the Yankees, McLaren is so in NY it isn't even funny.

[LeftCoastCubFan]

Look to Hendry's incompetence as a GM instead. I'm sure McLaren saw that, which is why he stayed away.

I think you're reading a bit too much into it. Did you read the last Tribune article? He didn't want to leave Seattle with Pieniella, but felt he had no choice. Him and his wife prefer Seattle. He wants to manage and wants to get from under Pieniella's shadow and Hargrove is likely out the door after another poor season. Nothing to do with Hendry, just a better opportunity.

 

That's probably a pretty accurate assumption. He loves working with Piniella, but his family really enjoyed Seattle. He's also closer to a managerial position in Seattle. I'd hoped McLaren would have come here, but I don't think it had anything to do with how McLaren sees the Cubs' future. It's not as if the Mariners have a bright future either.

 

I doubt coming to Chicago would preclude him from returning to Seattle if a managerial position opened up.

 

Think of it this way: if it was the Yankees, McLaren is so in NY it isn't even funny.

OK. You want to be a manager. You get a call from the GM of a team that you know the manager is on the way out. You love the city. You realize that you have been labeled as part of Pieniella’s posse and know it would be a good career move to make. You are pretty much guaranteed to be a manager within 12 months. Why would you accept the same job without any possibility of managing somewhere else? Why would you take the chance of potentially burning a bridge?

 

Pieniella, Girardi, Sandberg, Brenly and more wanted the manager job, but this guy is turning down a coaching job because of the orginization. I don't think so.

 

But of course it’s Hendry’s fault; as are the Iraq war and global warming. :D

[Soul]

Look to Hendry's incompetence as a GM instead. I'm sure McLaren saw that, which is why he stayed away.

I think you're reading a bit too much into it. Did you read the last Tribune article? He didn't want to leave Seattle with Pieniella, but felt he had no choice. Him and his wife prefer Seattle. He wants to manage and wants to get from under Pieniella's shadow and Hargrove is likely out the door after another poor season. Nothing to do with Hendry, just a better opportunity.

 

That's probably a pretty accurate assumption. He loves working with Piniella, but his family really enjoyed Seattle. He's also closer to a managerial position in Seattle. I'd hoped McLaren would have come here, but I don't think it had anything to do with how McLaren sees the Cubs' future. It's not as if the Mariners have a bright future either.

 

I doubt coming to Chicago would preclude him from returning to Seattle if a managerial position opened up.

 

Think of it this way: if it was the Yankees, McLaren is so in NY it isn't even funny.

OK. You want to be a manager. You get a call from the GM of a team that you know the manager is on the way out. You love the city. You realize that you have been labeled as part of Pieniella’s posse and know it would be a good career move to make. You are pretty much guaranteed to be a manager within 12 months. Why would you accept the same job without any possibility of managing somewhere else? Why would you take the chance of potentially burning a bridge?

 

Pieniella, Girardi, Sandberg, Brenly and more wanted the manager job, but this guy is turning down a coaching job because of the orginization. I don't think so.

 

But of course it’s Hendry’s fault; as are the Iraq war and global warming. :D

 

He would still be a manager in 12 months regardless of whether he left Seattle to bench coach Piniella or not. It's silly to think he has to hang around the Mariners to get that job when Hargrove is fired.

 

And yes, a large part of our current woes are due to front-office incompetence. That's a man named, oh wait did I forget his name-----nope, try as I might I can't------HENDRY.

 

Like I said, if this is the Yankees? McLaren packed his bags and is in NY the day after Piniella signs. And I dare say you know it, sir.