Who will be the manager? Quade Fired (pg 15)

kente777 · October 28, 2011

I agree that a #2 hitter bunting in the first inning is utterly ridiculous. Do you honestly think, though, that Sandberg would manage a Major League team that way?

Every day? No. At all? Definitely. He will do stuff that some people choose to call the "right way" because almost every manager tries to do stuff to justify their job and the media eats that crap up. He will do it, and he will probably do it more than most.

I'm not sure I agree with you on predicting his Major League manager philosophy, but bunting in the first inning with a #2 hitter would infuriate me to no end.

On the one hand, I think if there's reason to speculate either way, it's more likely that Sandberg would be the overmanaging type than the opposite. If my ideal is a set-it-and-forget-it type manager who doesn't do much but knows how to handle pitchers, I don't think it's all that unreasonable to think that Sandberg wouldn't be the best candidate for that.

(Nor is it likely that he's the greatest people person, from what we've heard, but who really knows.)

Conversely, what reason DO we have to think that he'd make a good manager. What makes him a managerial candidate other than the fact that he really, really wants to be one?

Only one I can think of - his relatively successful, albeit short, Minor League manager's career. Not sure that necessarily translates To Major League success, though it doesn't rule it out either.

jersey cubs fan · October 28, 2011

Only one I can think of - his relatively successful, albeit short, Minor League manager's career. Not sure that necessarily translates To Major League success, though it doesn't rule it out either.

It absolutely does not "necessarily translate to major league success". Lots of minor league managers have enjoyed success that doesn't translate.

hardcorecubfan · October 28, 2011

I'm not advocating for the Cubs to hire Sandberg, however, I do think that for some reason that is a certain amount of irrational dislike/criticism toward the guy. Here are the things we know about Sandberg:

1. He was a damn good player and according to his managers (Zimmer, Frey etc.) worked his ass off all of the time. (Hard work being something that Epstein specifically mentioned several times during his press conference and interviews).

2. He didn't expect to be given anything. When he asked about a managerial position and was offered the Peoria position, he accepted it and rode the bus with the players and didn't complain about paying his dues.

3. His teams in the minors typically seemed to outperform the talent he was given. (Granted it is only the majors).

4. It is funny how things are put into context depending on the person hearing or reading certain things. During his press conference and post press conference interviews Theo made many statements about "playing the game the right way", "respecting the game", being a good teammate, stressing fundamentals, moving the runner over, grinding, outworking the competition, etc. etc. Most people applauded his statements.

Sure it is a little over the top, but some of the areas he touched are specific problems that the Cubs constantly struggle with, i.e. moving the runner over, watching for the 3b coach, etc., stressing fundamentals...

I haven't read his quotes on not caring about on base percentage or dismissing statistical data, so I can't comment on that, but I think it is fair to state that until recently many other baseball types did not recognize the importance of them.

1. Meaningless
2. He expected to be given the managerial job and thought a major league coaching position was beneath him.
3. Baseless, and meaningless.
4. Theo paid lip service for the mongoloids that think the Cubs lost because they don't move runners over enough or practice in spring training. Theo knows the Cubs lost because Jim Hendry and his underlings were incompetent fools running things like high school coaches.

moving runners over and stressing fundamentals aren't going to change things for the Cubs.

The fact that lots of idiotic baseball people thought like idiots for a long time doesn't defense Ryne Sandberg for thinking like an idiot.

A. He has won at every level he was asked to manage.

Why was three meaningless? It doesn't matter how much talent they have it they are not motivated and challenged they won't perform. Sandberg seems to understand what motivates ball-players to perform to their talent level or beyond.

dew1679666265 · October 28, 2011

A. He has won at every level he was asked to manage.

Why was three meaningless? It doesn't matter how much talent they have it they are not motivated and challenged they won't perform. Sandberg seems to understand what motivates ball-players to perform to their talent level or beyond.

Ryne Sandberg minor league winning percentage: .516

Mike Quade minor league winning percentage: .509

Ryno's been better in the minors than Quade, but it's not a particularly significant difference. And Quade had at least one winning season at every level he managed at as well. Both managers have overall losing records at the A-ball level as well.

Is a .007 better winning percentage in the minors the difference between a poor MLB manager and a good MLB manager?

October 28, 2011

What makes him a managerial candidate other than the fact that he really, really wants to be one?

He used his HOF speech to call out a non-white Cubs player.

I'm pretty sure that it had nothing to do with Sammy being Hispanic.

kente777 · October 29, 2011

What makes him a managerial candidate other than the fact that he really, really wants to be one?

He used his HOF speech to call out a non-white Cubs player.
I'm pretty sure that it had nothing to do with Sammy being Hispanic.

+1

J.R. · October 29, 2011

As posted here before, the Wayback Machine nicely retrieves Sandberg's body of work for Yahoo! Sports from 2005:

Ryne Sandberg Exclusive Analysis - Yahoo! Sports

The following is a nice primer on the collective NSBB opinion of Sandberg as of last year:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=58166

CUBZ99 · October 29, 2011

Magic Johnson was a great player. He was a tireless worker. Same with Michael Jordan. One was a terrible head coach and the other has been a terrible owner. Unfortunately, being a damn good player and hard worker does not equate to being a good manager.

Where did I say that being a great player equated to being a good manager? I said he was a good player and worked extremely hard as a player. Based upon his willingness to work his way through the minors and his supposed work ethic, I think overall that it is a positive. If you listened to Theo since he has been hired, he continually stresses work ethic and the hours that he expects those around him to put in. I can't remember his exact words but they were something to the effect that the Cubs will have one of the hardest working front offices in the league. One can only assume that he is going to want a manager that is willing to work as hard if not harder than he does.

And as far as the comments saying hard work does not equal success, I agree, but it is typically a factor in achieving success.

]2. It's great that he recognized that he needed experience before being handed a job. I have no idea how this qualifies him to be manager, though.

Later on you call him conceited and full of himself, and here you give him no credit for being humble enough to take a job that frankly was beneath him and work his way up through the system? And how does having minor league coaching experience disqualify him from the job? You may not value minor league experience, but it in no way detracts from his accomplishments.

I assume you mean minors. His teams had some decent runs, but I have no idea how you can say they outperformed their talent levels without anything to back that up. I could just as easily say that they underperformed without offering any proof.

Feel free to do so, but it still doesn't make your argument right.

Theo specifically stressed "grinding the at bats", defense and playing as one during this interviews. He absolutely does not advocate small ball, sacrificing, etc.

Which brings me to something I've wanted to talk about and may expand on in it's own thread at some point. When the White Sox (and others) talk about grinderball or a guy being a grinder, they mean that guy puts maximum effort into the game at all times. It denotes a guy who works really hard.

When Theo is talking about grinding at bats, he doesn't mean the same thing. What he's talking about is making the other team work harder. Be patient at the plate, make the opposing pitcher throw more, work harder and leave the game sooner.

The fact that he states that players need to learn how to bunt and hit to the left side with a runner on second, is pretty common sense. I'm pretty sure that even Theo stated that batters need to be smart and move the runners. And where does Sandberg say not to be patient at the plate? If the Cubs strategy under Hendry has been advocating swinging and not being patient, and drafting prospects accordingly, how is that Sandberg's fault?

You seem to believe Sandberg is a dope and incapable of adapting to new thinking. Once again, the fact that he was able to swallow his pride and ride the buses in the minors and put in the work, tells me that he is more capable of adapting to things than you give him credit for.

]Now look at Ryno's HOF speech:http://www.cubsnet.com/node/526

If this validates anything, it's that learning how to bunt and hit and run and turning two is more important than knowing where to find the little red light at the dug out camera.

Is knowing how to bunt more important than knowing where to find the camera? Sure. But is this really the first point you want the manager to make? And are you really saying this is a reason to have him be manager?

You missed the point entirely. This quote puts your overly exaggerated obsession with claiming he is a small ball proponent into context. As you point out, his statement is common sense, however, others interpret it as "oohh he mentioned bunting and hit and run, he must love small ball".

These guys sitting up here did not pave the way for the rest of us so that players could swing for the fences every time up and forget how to move a runner over to third, it's disrespectful to them, to you, and to the game of baseball that we all played growing up. Respect.

He's going to have real issues with Jaramillo, who teaches a very aggressive swing. Trying to hit home runs in those situations isn't disrespecting the players who came before. It's not disrespecting the game. It's potentially inefficient within the game, but also potentially beneficial. So is bunting and sacrificing. All the talk of "disrespect" does nothing to make me believe he's going to either be a good manager or connect to the players in the game.

Once again, you interpret his quote to make it look as bad as possible. If a guy strikes out going for the fences in a situation where he could get a runner to third it hurts the team. Once again, a simple fundamental that little leaguers are taught.

A lot of people say this honor validates my career, but I didn't work hard for validation. I didn't play the game right because I saw a reward at the end of the tunnel. I played it right because that's what you're supposed to do, play it right and with respect.
Seems a little high on himself, doesn't he? Is this the same guy you were portraying as humble because he was willing to coach in the minors?

But not so high on himself that he would go back to the minors and start at the ground level? This sounds like a guy that has a perfect attitude for a manager.

Sure it is a little over the top, but some of the areas he touched are specific problems that the Cubs constantly struggle with, i.e. moving the runner over, watching for the 3b coach, etc., stressing fundamentals...
Have the Cubs struggled with those things? Sure, at times they have. Does every team struggle with those things at times? yep.

To say the Cubs struggled with fundamentals "at times", is like saying Amy Winehouse struggled with addiction "at times".

dew1679666265 · October 29, 2011

As posted here before, the Wayback Machine nicely retrieves Sandberg's body of work for Yahoo! Sports from 2005:

Ryne Sandberg Exclusive Analysis - Yahoo! Sports

The following is a nice primer on the collective NSBB opinion of Sandberg as of last year:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=58166

Good job JR, I had forgotten about that thread.

For those questioning whether Ryno is a small ball advocate, here's a Bruce Miles interview that confirms it.

"I like movement on the bases. I like to hit-and-run. I like to go for the win and force the issue and try to win a game as opposed to sitting back.

"It's somewhat gut feeling. It's somewhat experience. It's all those things making a split-(second) decision. It's whatever the game calls for at that time, and whatever my instincts tell me to do."

Ryno on statistical analysis:

"There are facts there," Sandberg said. "There are stats there that mean something. What you can do with that is accumulate that type of information and relay that to the players, if necessary. You can have certain guys that you want to be aware of those type of things that that's their job in the lineup, primarily at the top of the order, making the opposition work a little bit and making the pitcher work.

"There are other guys you want to go up there, with a guy on base, you want them to be aggressive and swing the bat and make something happen. All that information you can use."

This doesn't sound like a Theo type of guy.

October 29, 2011

In retrospect, this summary from one of Ryno's columns is hilarious...

New Year's resolutions December 29, 2005
To have no steroid use? And another season of The Rocket? That'd help make for a perfect 2006 in baseball.

javy knows my name · October 29, 2011

The last 4 pages of this thread are hot garbage.

But at least we're being nice to each other, or something.

hardcorecubfan · October 29, 2011

A. He has won at every level he was asked to manage.

Why was three meaningless? It doesn't matter how much talent they have it they are not motivated and challenged they won't perform. Sandberg seems to understand what motivates ball-players to perform to their talent level or beyond.

Ryne Sandberg minor league winning percentage: .516
Mike Quade minor league winning percentage: .509

Ryno's been better in the minors than Quade, but it's not a particularly significant difference. And Quade had at least one winning season at every level he managed at as well. Both managers have overall losing records at the A-ball level as well.

Is a .007 better winning percentage in the minors the difference between a poor MLB manager and a good MLB manager?

then what are you looking for, he has done everything asked of him and probably has learned a lot. Girardi's knowledge came from the fact he had to manage from the field as a catcher, yet like Dusty at SF, he was surrounded by talent at FL and NY. So, we really don't know if he is and incredibly, talented coach or just lucky to end up in good positions

October 29, 2011

A. He has won at every level he was asked to manage.

Why was three meaningless? It doesn't matter how much talent they have it they are not motivated and challenged they won't perform. Sandberg seems to understand what motivates ball-players to perform to their talent level or beyond.

Ryne Sandberg minor league winning percentage: .516
Mike Quade minor league winning percentage: .509

Ryno's been better in the minors than Quade, but it's not a particularly significant difference. And Quade had at least one winning season at every level he managed at as well. Both managers have overall losing records at the A-ball level as well.

Is a .007 better winning percentage in the minors the difference between a poor MLB manager and a good MLB manager?

then what are you looking for, he has done everything asked of him and probably has learned a lot. Girardi's knowledge came from the fact he had to manage from the field as a catcher, yet like Dusty at SF, he was surrounded by talent at FL and NY. So, we really don't know if he is and incredibly, talented coach or just lucky to end up in good positions

Who said anything about Girardi?

SouthSideRyan · October 29, 2011

I think we should hire Darren Bush. He's done everything asked of him and probably learned a lot.

Better career record than Sandberg too.

dew1679666265 · October 29, 2011

then what are you looking for, he has done everything asked of him and probably has learned a lot. Girardi's knowledge came from the fact he had to manage from the field as a catcher, yet like Dusty at SF, he was surrounded by talent at FL and NY. So, we really don't know if he is and incredibly, talented coach or just lucky to end up in good positions

I'm looking for clear evidence from people who support him as manager as to why he would be one. I'm not saying he would or would not make a good manager, but the clear small ball leanings he has concern me and I'm not reassured by his in-game decisions nor his minimal minor league success.

The only reasons I've heard that he would make a good manager is that he was a really good player, he managed five years in the minors and had a barely above .500 record, and he believes in fundamentals. This is a resume I'm looking for in a minor league manager, not a major league one.

hardcorecubfan · October 29, 2011

A. He has won at every level he was asked to manage.

Why was three meaningless? It doesn't matter how much talent they have it they are not motivated and challenged they won't perform. Sandberg seems to understand what motivates ball-players to perform to their talent level or beyond.

Ryne Sandberg minor league winning percentage: .516
Mike Quade minor league winning percentage: .509

Ryno's been better in the minors than Quade, but it's not a particularly significant difference. And Quade had at least one winning season at every level he managed at as well. Both managers have overall losing records at the A-ball level as well.

Is a .007 better winning percentage in the minors the difference between a poor MLB manager and a good MLB manager?

then what are you looking for, he has done everything asked of him and probably has learned a lot. Girardi's knowledge came from the fact he had to manage from the field as a catcher, yet like Dusty at SF, he was surrounded by talent at FL and NY. So, we really don't know if he is and incredibly, talented coach or just lucky to end up in good positions

Who said anything about Girardi?

what I was trying to point out is that many point to very successful manager that became such because of the owners willingness to surround them with incredibly talented players, and then continue to pay those players very well to hang around for a long time, thus making a manager look even better. We can't judge Sandberg as a manager based solely on the minors, or solely on his major league career, but together we get a little indication of his potential and willingness to learn, listen and monitor and adjust to the different levels he has been called to manage.

The only way we can truly know if anybody can handle the majors is to make them a manager, like being President, previous experiences can give indications but you never no what they will do until they are in that position. I personally believe he has paid enough dues to warrant a shot.

SouthSideRyan · October 29, 2011

A. He has won at every level he was asked to manage.

Why was three meaningless? It doesn't matter how much talent they have it they are not motivated and challenged they won't perform. Sandberg seems to understand what motivates ball-players to perform to their talent level or beyond.

Ryne Sandberg minor league winning percentage: .516
Mike Quade minor league winning percentage: .509

Ryno's been better in the minors than Quade, but it's not a particularly significant difference. And Quade had at least one winning season at every level he managed at as well. Both managers have overall losing records at the A-ball level as well.

Is a .007 better winning percentage in the minors the difference between a poor MLB manager and a good MLB manager?

then what are you looking for, he has done everything asked of him and probably has learned a lot. Girardi's knowledge came from the fact he had to manage from the field as a catcher, yet like Dusty at SF, he was surrounded by talent at FL and NY. So, we really don't know if he is and incredibly, talented coach or just lucky to end up in good positions

Who said anything about Girardi?

what I was trying to point out is that many point to very successful manager that became such because of the owners willingness to surround them with incredibly talented players, and then continue to pay those players very well to hang around for a long time, thus making a manager look even better. We can't judge Sandberg as a manager based solely on the minors, or solely on his major league career, but together we get a little indication of his potential and willingness to learn, listen and monitor and adjust to the different levels he has been called to manage.
The only way we can truly know if anybody can handle the majors is to make them a manager, like being President, previous experiences can give indications but you never no what they will do until they are in that position. I personally believe he has paid enough dues to warrant a shot.

What's your opinion on Darren Bush?

ScrubMD · October 29, 2011

What makes him a managerial candidate other than the fact that he really, really wants to be one?

He used his HOF speech to call out a non-white Cubs player.

And to give a shout out to a non-white Cubs player.

dew1679666265 · October 29, 2011

I personally believe he has paid enough dues to warrant a shot.

I don't get the dues thing. He's managed 5 years in the minors and there are quite a few managers who have had more success and managed far more years. If paying dues is a factor, why does Ryno vault ahead of those managers?

javy knows my name · October 29, 2011

Can variations of "Ryno has paid his dues" be added to the word filter?

We can replace it with [meaningless drivel] or something.

17 Seconds · October 29, 2011

The bottom line is NONE of us know how he will manage at the MAJOR LEAGUE LEVEL.

Then why do you want him so much?

XZero771679666304 · October 29, 2011

The bottom line is NONE of us know how he will manage at the MAJOR LEAGUE LEVEL.

Then why do you want him so much?

Because it would be nostalgic.

gus_dog · October 29, 2011

Huh? So, when you hire people (if you ever have), do you try to find the most lazy sloth you can to fill the position?

Hardly meaningless.

Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of professional athletes work really hard at their job.

Doesn't make them management material.

And the meaningless comment was both about the fact that he was a damn good player (should not enter into discussion) and that his managers said he worked hard.

I never said that it made him management material, however a good work ethic is not meaningless, or is it to you? To state that it is "meaningless" in the scheme of things doesn't really display much business intelligence. I'm just sayin'.

Edited October 29, 2011 by gus_dog

October 29, 2011

Huh? So, when you hire people (if you ever have), do you try to find the most lazy sloth you can to fill the position?

Hardly meaningless.

Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of professional athletes work really hard at their job.

Doesn't make them management material.

And the meaningless comment was both about the fact that he was a damn good player (should not enter into discussion) and that his managers said he worked hard.

I never said that it made him management material, however a good work ethic is not meaningless, or is it to you? In fatc, to state that it is "meaningless" in the scheme of things doesn't really display a mjor amount of business intelleigence. I'm just sayin'/.

Pretty much any candidate seriously considered for the job is going to have a good work ethic.

gus_dog · October 29, 2011

Huh? So, when you hire people (if you ever have), do you try to find the most lazy sloth you can to fill the position?

Hardly meaningless.

Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of professional athletes work really hard at their job.

Doesn't make them management material.

And the meaningless comment was both about the fact that he was a damn good player (should not enter into discussion) and that his managers said he worked hard.

I never said that it made him management material, however a good work ethic is not meaningless, or is it to you? In fatc, to state that it is "meaningless" in the scheme of things doesn't really display a mjor amount of business intelleigence. I'm just sayin'/.
Pretty much any candidate seriously considered for the job is going to have a good work ethic.

Tim, I am am not going to argue that necessarily, but I would never go as far as to render it meaningless.

Who will be the manager? Quade Fired (pg 15)

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs