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

[DivineBovine]

How does a "get-to-know-you meeting" last 7 hours?

 

 

 

More importantly, how does a "you're fired" meeting last that long?

 

I would've bet anything he's gone, and probably still would. But 7 hours?

[Clem Fandango]

How does a "get-to-know-you meeting" last 7 hours?

 

Monopoly

[Scotti]

How does a "get-to-know-you meeting" last 7 hours?

 

 

From what was said in the press conference that is about how long the first Theo/Tom meeting was. I guess Theo is a talker... Though seven hours seems a little more reasonable for a meeting with a guy you want to give 20 million dollars to run your billion dollar business.

 

The first meeting was a debriefing meeting (Ok, Mike, tell me how the year went and tell me about player 1, player 2, player 3, etc.)... It also was a get-to-know-you meeting and a vision catching meeting (Ok, Mike, what is your vision for the team?)... As well as a get-to-be-known and vision casting meeting (Ok, Mike, this is what I'm looking to change, can you buy into that).

 

Theo spelled this out on day one.

[Scotti]

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.

 

Well, if he isn't a Theo type of guy, then why did Theo offer him his AAA job? Simple fact is that Theo was interested in him. There is something about Ryne Sandberg that Theo likes (and it has nothing to do with the Cub connection since he was at Boston at the time).

 

I don't consider myself a "Sandberg guy" when it comes to Cub manager (he would be an easy hire but a difficult fire) but there is a whole lot of "blowing comments out of proportion" in this thread. Every single player that plays professional baseball is instructed on cliches for the media. Every cliche Sandberg has ever uttered seems to be in this thread. Some of them, for him, are not cliches (playing hard, team first, etc.). But holding a Hendry-era comment against him when he worked for Hendry just doesn't make sense. How many Boston guys talk about their sluggers "grinding out" AB when they really want them to swing away and "make something happen?" These guys push the organizational line (as they should).

 

Simply put, if Theo/Hoyer feel that Sandberg buys into their version of the "Cub Way" then all of the "small ball" complaints here will disappear because Theo can do no wrong. Small ball will somehow become the new Moneyball...

 

What do I think that Theo/Hoyer will look for?

 

A) Someone who can get the best out of his players. Sometimes that is calling a guy out and sometimes that is letting a guy know that you believe in him. It is most always working one-on-one with the player--hands on. Sandberg's brief minor league record is positive in this regard but he obviously lacks major league management experience. Could Sandberg work with a MLB player the way Fry pulled him aside? If there is "more in there" in Soriano (as Theo says) can Sandberg draw it out?

 

B) Someone who works well with younger players--the team expects quite a few in the coming years. Sandberg has a very good record in this regard. Sandberg has already managed/coached many of the Cubs young talent.

 

C) Someone who can work well with/handle/understand the media and Cub strangeness. Sandberg is certainly expert at knowing Cub "history." The media could (by-and-large) give him a pass the first season or two. He'd certainly get longer than most other cats just based on his popularity. However, while he met with media every day as a player, it is a-whole-nother creature to meet with them as manager. Could he handle the pressure? Would he throw players under the bus or say "I don't know what to tell you" daily? Or can he have a presence that stays positive and on message through rough patches?

 

D) Someone who can help engender change. The organization is looking for change--25 men pulling in one direction. Sometimes that DOES mean laying down a sacrifice (even for Theo's teams). Often that DOES mean a well executed hit-and-run or straight steal when the game is on the line (even for Theo's teams). A player putting the team goals (wins, playoffs) before his own stats (RBI, Batting Average, Win or Save) is crucial to success and creating CHANGE. Girardi was that guy in FLA. It takes a real leader to engender change and he got that team working together. He continues to command respect in NY. Is Sandberg that guy? Like any other manager you will never know until someone gives him a shot. I wish the Cubs had given Girardi that shot.

[17 Seconds]

Wanting a guy to manage your AAA affiliate is very very different than wanting him to run your major league team. Minor league managers are about developing guys and all that stuff. If Ryne Sandberg wants to do stupid things like bunt in the first inning, he can do them in the minors because it doesn't matter if they win or lose.

[dew1679666265]

Well, if he isn't a Theo type of guy, then why did Theo offer him his AAA job? Simple fact is that Theo was interested in him. There is something about Ryne Sandberg that Theo likes (and it has nothing to do with the Cub connection since he was at Boston at the time).

 

Like dextermorgan said, you're looking for very different things in a major league and minor league manager. There are plenty of guys throughout the league who have been given minor league managerial opportunities but have never sniffed the majors. Why? Because that's how management views them to be at their best.

 

There's no doubt in my mind that Ryno preaches sound fundamental baseball and wants to teach that to the players. That seems to be his best asset as that's one of the biggest things he's talked about and it's one of the most popular explanations behind why people support Ryno as manager. The thing is, by the the time you reach the majors you're probably just about as fundamentally sound as you're going to get (with the exception of super young players like Castro). If you have a manager who's going to focus on teaching fundamentals, you need to put him where he'll have the most impact and his teaching will be most impactful - in the minors, where they're still learning this stuff.

 

It's been my position all along that Ryno is more of a minor league manager than he is a major league manager and Theo offering him the Red Sox AAA job does nothing to change my mind about that - and it also says nothing about Theo's interest in him as a major league manager.

[jersey cubs fan]

D) Someone who can help engender change. The organization is looking for change--25 men pulling in one direction. Sometimes that DOES mean laying down a sacrifice (even for Theo's teams). Often that DOES mean a well executed hit-and-run or straight steal when the game is on the line (even for Theo's teams). A player putting the team goals (wins, playoffs) before his own stats (RBI, Batting Average, Win or Save) is crucial to success and creating CHANGE. Girardi was that guy in FLA. It takes a real leader to engender change and he got that team working together. He continues to command respect in NY. Is Sandberg that guy? Like any other manager you will never know until someone gives him a shot. I wish the Cubs had given Girardi that shot.

 

Lovely

[Guest]

D) Someone who can help engender change. The organization is looking for change--25 men pulling in one direction. Sometimes that DOES mean laying down a sacrifice (even for Theo's teams). Often that DOES mean a well executed hit-and-run or straight steal when the game is on the line (even for Theo's teams). A player putting the team goals (wins, playoffs) before his own stats (RBI, Batting Average, Win or Save) is crucial to success and creating CHANGE. Girardi was that guy in FLA. It takes a real leader to engender change and he got that team working together. He continues to command respect in NY. Is Sandberg that guy? Like any other manager you will never know until someone gives him a shot. I wish the Cubs had given Girardi that shot.

 

Lovely

 

 

What a crock of [expletive].

 

All he has to do is look/talk cool enough to command some level of respect and know how to handle a pitching staff. With regard to everything else, less is more.

[samhainn77]

 

Simply put, if Theo/Hoyer feel that Sandberg buys into their version of the "Cub Way" then all of the "small ball" complaints here will disappear because Theo can do no wrong. Small ball will somehow become the new Moneyball...

 

 

I can't imagine giving up outs being exposed as a market inefficiency.

[cl smooth]

has sandberg given any dialogue of his thoughts on walks? someone quoted his hit-and-run ideas above and i haven't read through the yahoo! sports archives (nor do i want to). he walked a decent amount during his all-star years ('84 to '93) and averaged a .357 OBP and totaled over 100 runs scored 6 times during that period. it would be a head-scratcher to hear that he didn't value that part of the game when it seemed to be a rather large part of his.

[17 Seconds]

he took an average amount of walks i thought.

[jersey cubs fan]

he took an average amount of walks i thought.

 

All I remember is Harry and/or Steve saying that when Ryno questions an ump he must be right because he's got a good eye and never argues unless he's absolutely in the right.

[17 Seconds]

sounds reliable

[Hollandsworths mug]

. If Ryne Sandberg wants to do stupid things like bunt in the first inning, he can do them in the minors because it doesn't matter if they win or lose.

 

If it does not matter that he does them in the minors, then why the critisism? Can't have it both ways.

[17 Seconds]

. If Ryne Sandberg wants to do stupid things like bunt in the first inning, he can do them in the minors because it doesn't matter if they win or lose.

 

If it does not matter that he does them in the minors, then why the critisism? Can't have it both ways.

 

Because if a guy manages that way in the minors, he's probably going to do it in the majors? Was that a real question?

[hardcorecubfan]

How does a "get-to-know-you meeting" last 7 hours?

 

Monopoly

Or they are watching the Lord of the Rings Trilogy

[Hollandsworths mug]

Because if a guy manages that way in the minors, he's probably going to do it in the majors?

 

Well, that's false.

[Sammy Sofa]

WHERE THERE'S SMOKE THERE IS ALSO FIRE.

[RammyFanny]

How does a "get-to-know-you meeting" last 7 hours?

 

Monopoly

Or they are watching the Lord of the Rings Trilogy

Theo showed Quade Titanic to metaphorically show him how he brought down the Cubs.

[RammyFanny]

Because if a guy manages that way in the minors, he's probably going to do it in the majors?

 

Well, that's false.

So we have a person who has previously commented on how he views the game and how he wants to manage, what he believes in, etc. Then, that person follows through on said thoughts and by all accounts, indeed manages that exact way in the minors. Now, one would logically assume that he wouldn't completely change his beliefs, even in the majors, given the fact that said beliefs don't even have much to do with player development in the first place (i'm talking the hit and run, bunting comments, etc.), and in his view, deal with winning (which would be his major league goal as opposed to development). One could make an argument that he wants a job at any cost, and would agree to change his minor league style to simply get a job, despite it conflicting with how he said he views the game of baseball in the first place. But instead of realizing that's unlikely, though possible, you seem to state it's extremely likely with the "false" comment. See where there's a perceived problem?

Edited November 1, 2011 by RammyFanny

[hardcorecubfan]

How does a "get-to-know-you meeting" last 7 hours?

 

Monopoly

Or they are watching the Lord of the Rings Trilogy

[Sammy Sofa]

Wow; the half hour apart double post. I thought I had a stroke there for a second.

[Hollandsworths mug]

Because if a guy manages that way in the minors, he's probably going to do it in the majors?

 

Well, that's false.

So we have a person who has previously commented on how he views the game and how he wants to manage, what he believes in, etc. Then, that person follows through on said thoughts and by all accounts, indeed manages that exact way in the minors. Now, one would logically assume that he wouldn't completely change his beliefs, even in the majors, given the fact that said beliefs don't even have much to do with player development in the first place, and in his view, deal with winning (which would be his major league goal as opposed to development). One could make an argument that he wants a job at any cost, and would agree to change his minor league style to simply get a job, despite it conflicting with how he said he views the game of baseball in the first place. But instead of realizing that's unlikely, though possible, you seem to state it's extremely likely with the "false" comment. See where there's a perceived problem?

 

So if I drove a Nissan Maxima and then drive a Lamborghini, I am going to drive the Lambo the same because I drove the Maxima first? The players will be different, the situations will be different and most of all, it's not the minor leagues, where teaching the game is more prevelant than at the major league level.

 

And most of his "views" on the game are him wanting players to play hard and the right way, which I am not sure where the problem is in those comments.

[Guest]

SI_JonHeyman Jon Heyman

Decent chatter that sveum might have shot with #cubs as well as good chance with red sox

1 hour ago

 

 

lol decent chance to remain with Brewers, as well.

 

 

A little info on Sveum

 

Sveum spent two years as the oft-scrutinized third base coach of the Red Sox in 2004-05 before departing for Milwaukee, where he spent the last six seasons as a third-base coach, bench coach, interim manager and hitting coach. As much as he was second-guessed while a third-base coach with the Sox, the question is natural: Why is he on the short list as new Boston GM Ben Cherington conducts his managerial search?

 

Interestingly, the very traits that put him under a microscope at times while a third base coach might represent assets as he is considered for the job of Red Sox manager. Sveum has experienced the scrutiny of Boston, yet was unfailingly accountable when runners he waved home got thrown out at the plate.

 

He put in the necessary preparation to make snap decisions -- studying outfielders’ throwing arms, assessing their throwing positions and the speed of his runners as well as the game situation -- and if he was wrong, he nonetheless had the courage of his convictions while explaining the thought process. He knows what it is like to make mistakes in the public eye in Boston and to live with them. Fear did not guide his decisions.

 

-- During Sveum’s Red Sox tenure as third-base coach, he evolved into an unofficial second hitting coach, with many Sox players seeking him out (rather than Ron Jackson) to work on their swings. That was a reflection of both his respected voice as a hitting coach as well as a responsiveness by some of the players to his energy as a coach.

 

-- Sveum took a progressive, data-driven approach to his job. As the Red Sox’ infield coach, he studied spray chart data and took a more aggressive approach to defensive shifts than virtually any other team before Joe Maddon became the manager of the Rays.

 

-- In Milwaukee, he became the interim manager of a collapsing Brewers team with 12 games left in the regular season, after Ned Yost was fired. The Brewers, who had entered September with a comfortable 5½ game lead in the wild card, fell into a Sox-like swoon to start September. The team went 3-12 to open the month, falling into a tie for the wild card with two weeks left in the season.

 

http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2011/10/31/why-dale-sveum-candidate-manage-red-sox

 

EDIT -

 

uh, oh. liked everything I read until I got to this....

 

In many respects, it was an addition-by-subtraction move. Still, Sveum was thrust into a situation where the stakes of each game were enormous, as the Brewers were amidst a dogfight for the postseason. Sveum moved boldly, shaking up the lineup (inserting Mike Cameron as the leadoff man), removing a starter (Manny Parra) from the rotation and committing to increase the degree to which his team (which had fallen into a deep offensive funk) looked to manufacture runs.

Edited November 1, 2011 by David

[inari]

Because if a guy manages that way in the minors, he's probably going to do it in the majors?

 

Well, that's false.

So we have a person who has previously commented on how he views the game and how he wants to manage, what he believes in, etc. Then, that person follows through on said thoughts and by all accounts, indeed manages that exact way in the minors. Now, one would logically assume that he wouldn't completely change his beliefs, even in the majors, given the fact that said beliefs don't even have much to do with player development in the first place, and in his view, deal with winning (which would be his major league goal as opposed to development). One could make an argument that he wants a job at any cost, and would agree to change his minor league style to simply get a job, despite it conflicting with how he said he views the game of baseball in the first place. But instead of realizing that's unlikely, though possible, you seem to state it's extremely likely with the "false" comment. See where there's a perceived problem?

 

So if I drove a Nissan Maxima and then drive a Lamborghini, I am going to drive the Lambo the same because I drove the Maxima first? The players will be different, the situations will be different and most of all, it's not the minor leagues, where teaching the game is more prevelant than at the major league level.

 

And most of his "views" on the game are him wanting players to play hard and the right way, which I am not sure where the problem is in those comments.

 

So there's a decent chance that everything he's done to this point would change in the majors? Sure, I guess. I'd rather just get someone that has done things right to this point and assume they will continue doing that.