Rick Renteria Named New Cubs Manager

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Is there any reason I should be that excited about Girardi?

 

No. He's just a manager.

[Banedon]

Mully and Hanley are terrible at their job. I've quit listening to them in the mornings. Reactionary and dumb.

 

(Yes, all talk radio is that way to an extent. But Mully and Hanley have reached a threshold that makes me not want to listen.)

[UK1679666180]

Wittenmyer was on Mully and Hanley and basically said that when they were having their discussions as to how to cover this story, the question came up as to whether or not to do profiles on different candidates...and ultimately, they were like well, there's really only one candidate.

 

The local media seems to be really sure about this, FWIW. I don't know if that's based on information they have or just connecting dots. But there's really quite a bit of smoke at this point.

 

Ugh Mully and Hanley were throwing out some terrible names this morning, including Ozzie Guillen, Don Cooper and Bob Brenly.

 

I doubt you'll see any under the radar names coming from any radio host or columnist not named Bruce Miles.

[jersey cubs fan]

That was my point a few pages back. The Nats are also looking, they are ready to win now, have two of the best young players in the game, and he would be only a few hours drive from NY.

 

You think a selling point for Girardi on the Nats job is that DC is only a few hours drive from NY?

[Guest]

Is there any reason I should be that excited about Girardi?

 

No. He's just a manager.

 

I'll say I'm pleasantly surprised at how well the Yankees did in that division this year with that godawful roster. I didn't realize just how bad it was.

 

That's about all I've got.

[BeerHere]

Mully and Hanley are terrible at their job. I've quit listening to them in the mornings. Reactionary and dumb.

 

(Yes, all talk radio is that way to an extent. But Mully and Hanley have reached a threshold that makes me not want to listen.)

Agreed on all points BUT....they do (or did) interview Len Kasper every week and that alone was well worth listening to them in my opinion. Especially when you consider the alternatives if you don't have XM or Pandora in your car (like me).

 

The afternoon guys on The Score have grown on me a little (HATE Boeres or however he spells it) but they are the best of the terrible alternatives. I really need a new car.

[Guest]

Mully and Hanley are terrible at their job. I've quit listening to them in the mornings. Reactionary and dumb.

 

(Yes, all talk radio is that way to an extent. But Mully and Hanley have reached a threshold that makes me not want to listen.)

Agreed on all points BUT....they do (or did) interview Len Kasper every week and that alone was well worth listening to them in my opinion. Especially when you consider the alternatives if you don't have XM or Pandora in your car (like me).

 

The afternoon guys on The Score have grown on me a little (HATE Boeres or however he spells it) but they are the best of the terrible alternatives. I really need a new car.

 

Len is on with B&B on Mondays.

 

Well, was. Season's over now.

 

EDIT - Or maybe it was usually Thursdays but yesterday because of the end of the season/Sveum stuff.

Edited October 1, 2013 by David

[Banedon]

Mully and Hanley are terrible at their job. I've quit listening to them in the mornings. Reactionary and dumb.

 

(Yes, all talk radio is that way to an extent. But Mully and Hanley have reached a threshold that makes me not want to listen.)

Agreed on all points BUT....they do (or did) interview Len Kasper every week and that alone was well worth listening to them in my opinion. Especially when you consider the alternatives if you don't have XM or Pandora in your car (like me).

 

The afternoon guys on The Score have grown on me a little (HATE Boeres or however he spells it) but they are the best of the terrible alternatives. I really need a new car.

 

I enjoy Mac and Spiegs. Mac is reactionary, but I think Spiegel is very level-headed. Anyway, Len is on B&B in the afternoons now I believe.

[dfnowak]

Mully and Hanley are terrible at their job. I've quit listening to them in the mornings. Reactionary and dumb.

 

(Yes, all talk radio is that way to an extent. But Mully and Hanley have reached a threshold that makes me not want to listen.)

Agreed on all points BUT....they do (or did) interview Len Kasper every week and that alone was well worth listening to them in my opinion. Especially when you consider the alternatives if you don't have XM or Pandora in your car (like me).

 

The afternoon guys on The Score have grown on me a little (HATE Boeres or however he spells it) but they are the best of the terrible alternatives. I really need a new car.

You can get a portable SiriusXM device that plugs into your car outlet for around $30 not including the monthly subscription cost.

[Soul]

Is there any reason I should be that excited about Girardi?

 

No. He's just a manager.

 

I'll say I'm pleasantly surprised at how well the Yankees did in that division this year with that godawful roster. I didn't realize just how bad it was.

 

That's about all I've got.

 

Yes, but that's pretty much what the hope would be in 2014 with the Cubs, too. Get some "pleasant surprises" out of a mostly crap roster, rather than what happened this year with the unwelcome regression of several players.

 

I'm not going to argue that people should be excited about Girardi, but to me he does seem like a pretty good fit.

 

I'm just surprised he wants to go through this, at this point. It's still going to be a lot of losing for awhile.

[Guest]

 

Yes, but that's pretty much what the hope would be in 2014 with the Cubs, too. Get some "pleasant surprises" out of a mostly crap roster, rather than what happened this year with the unwelcome regression of several players.

 

I'm not going to argue that people should be excited about Girardi, but to me he does seem like a pretty good fit.

 

I'm just surprised he wants to go through this, at this point. It's still going to be a lot of losing for awhile.

 

Or, it's not.

 

And it's a much better situation than he's currently in, as has been illustrated in this thread.

[Guest]

Wittenmyer was on Mully and Hanley and basically said that when they were having their discussions as to how to cover this story, the question came up as to whether or not to do profiles on different candidates...and ultimately, they were like well, there's really only one candidate.

 

The local media seems to be really sure about this, FWIW. I don't know if that's based on information they have or just connecting dots. But there's really quite a bit of smoke at this point.

 

Did Wittenmeyer mention anything about Ricketts pushing Girardi? See the tweets below:

 

@CubsOutsider: @TomLoxas @sahadevsharma @cubsden Sounds like the story about Tom and Crane not having anything to do w Mgr = not true

 

@CubsOutsider: @CubsDen @TomLoxas @sahadevsharma Read Gordon W. he just went on 670 and said as much. Not vague either.

 

@sahadevsharma: @CubsDen @jcgreenx @CubsOutsider @TomLoxas but the insinuation is that Theo's being pushed to bring in a big name to help generate revenue

[Guest]

He did allude to that but also said Theo wouldn't do it if he weren't on board with it from a baseball standpoint.

[UK1679666180]

I hate the fact that ownership would meddle in the coaching search, regardless if the decisions comes down to Theo and Jed.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

He did allude to that but also said Theo wouldn't do it if he weren't on board with it from a baseball standpoint.

 

Wait until five years from now when one of Epstein's friends writes a book. Then it'll be that he did it at gunpoint.

[Guest]

I hate the fact that ownership would meddle in the coaching search, regardless if the decisions comes down to Theo and Jed.

 

It's weird. There's a synergy between the business and baseball sides that has to be there and more revenue = more winning. Decisions like this can go hand and hand that way.

 

 

Of course, that all assumes that you buy that Girardi alone would have an appreciable impact on revenue/attendance...which I don't. On the other hand, if it's part of a more concerted effort to bring in real major league talent, then yes.

[davell]

I think I want Bud Black over Girardi.

[jersey cubs fan]

I hate the fact that ownership would meddle in the coaching search, regardless if the decisions comes down to Theo and Jed.

 

It's weird. There's a synergy between the business and baseball sides that has to be there and more revenue = more winning. Decisions like this can go hand and hand that way.

 

No, not at all. A winning team drives interest in the team and revenues. A big name manager accomplishes nothing. The only people with input should be the baseball people.

[Guest]

I hate the fact that ownership would meddle in the coaching search, regardless if the decisions comes down to Theo and Jed.

 

It's weird. There's a synergy between the business and baseball sides that has to be there and more revenue = more winning. Decisions like this can go hand and hand that way.

 

No, not at all. A winning team drives interest in the team and revenues. A big name manager accomplishes nothing. The only people with input should be the baseball people.

 

Hey, thanks for including the rest of my post that acknowledges and agrees with that.

[Guest]

Also, if the only input came from the baseball people, then the best way to put together a juggernaut of a team probably is what they're doing...it's the business side that really hurts from this approach in the long run. Fans and the business people don't want to put up with the losing...but to have a long run of sustained success, amassing prospects while not caring what happens in the majors for a few years and THEN supplementing that wave of talent with money will probably yield a better product and for longer than trying to do both at the same time.

 

Plenty of people here, I'm pretty sure goony included, have argued that if they suck for too long it's going to hurt business in a way that is going to screw the baseball side up.

 

 

The point I'm trying to make in a fairly stream of consciousness sort of way is that business and baseball interests have to be balanced properly, and sometimes that means making baseball moves with business interests in mind.

 

Again, I don't think a manager does much in that direction...which is part of the reason I don't really buy the insinuation that ownership is pushing for this in response to falling attendance.

 

I think the crap seasons by two very important long term pieces have more to do with this than anything having to do with tickets sold.

[jersey cubs fan]

I hate the fact that ownership would meddle in the coaching search, regardless if the decisions comes down to Theo and Jed.

 

It's weird. There's a synergy between the business and baseball sides that has to be there and more revenue = more winning. Decisions like this can go hand and hand that way.

 

No, not at all. A winning team drives interest in the team and revenues. A big name manager accomplishes nothing. The only people with input should be the baseball people.

 

Hey, thanks for including the rest of my post that acknowledges and agrees with that.

 

You can't have it both ways. You insinuate there is nothing wrong with business people having input into the decision about who should manage the team, then state the complete opposite. I was specifically addressing your point that these decisions go hand in hand and there is some sort of synergy involved here. There is not.

[Guest]

I hate the fact that ownership would meddle in the coaching search, regardless if the decisions comes down to Theo and Jed.

 

It's weird. There's a synergy between the business and baseball sides that has to be there and more revenue = more winning. Decisions like this can go hand and hand that way.

 

No, not at all. A winning team drives interest in the team and revenues. A big name manager accomplishes nothing. The only people with input should be the baseball people.

 

Hey, thanks for including the rest of my post that acknowledges and agrees with that.

 

You can't have it both ways. You insinuate there is nothing wrong with business people having input into the decision about who should manage the team, then state the complete opposite. I was specifically addressing your point that these decisions go hand in hand and there is some sort of synergy involved here. There is not.

 

There is.

[Guest]

Personally, my own opinion is that there's almost no amount of losing that could happen that will castrate this team's following to the point that they won't be back immediately once there is a hint of success.

 

It probably will hurt the TV contract in a significant way to keep losing like this, though.

[jersey cubs fan]

What the hell does synergy have to do with anything? What is the decision that goes hand in hand? In what way shape or form is it helpful to have ownership influence the decision to hire a manager?

[jersey cubs fan]

Personally, my own opinion is that there's almost no amount of losing that could happen that will castrate this team's following to the point that they won't be back immediately once there is a hint of success.

 

It probably will hurt the TV contract in a significant way to keep losing like this, though.

 

So then ownership tells management to put more emphasis on winning at the major league level. They don't say, hey, go hire that guy to manage the team. They give them the resources to get better sooner, and the mandate to win games.