vance_the_cubs_fan

As it appears that it's just a matter of time before Sweet Lou's reign of terror begins, I thought it might be time to speculate on the coaching staff. I've done the best I can with limited time and limited resources to reconstruct some of his staffs from his previous three managerial stops in Cincinnati, Seattle, and Tampa. I then began to look for people who I think most fit with his coming to the Cubs are who were most prevalent on those stops. Three individuals jump off the lists: John McLaren, Lee Elia, and Sam Perlozzo. Perlozzo is now the manager of the Orioles, so we can remove him from the list. Elia is working with his long-time companion in Baltimore as well. While Elia could return, my guess is he stays with Perlozzo. There are some other names that re-occur more than others. Here are my speculations on who will make up the Cubs staff under Piniella. Bench Coach: John McLaren. In the fifteen years that Piniella has managed since 1990, McLaren has been on his his staff all but two. I think it is a given that McLaren will follow Piniella to Chicago and resume his role as bench coach. Pitching Coach: Larry Rothschild. Rothschild served as the bullpen coach with Piniella in Cincinnati. Given that Hendry seems to like Rothschild and that Piniella has a background with him, I think Rothschild will be back with the Cubs under Piniella's regime. Hitting Coach: Billy Hatcher Hatcher played for Piniella on his Reds teams in the early 90's and then returned to be his first base coach in Tampa. Currently, Hatcher is the Reds firstbase coach and there's a chance he wouldn't be released to come to Chicago. Hatcher could also be used as the Cubs first base coach, but I think it is possible he will be Piniella's choice as hitting coach. Elia is a possibility here, but my guess is that Elia will remain in Baltimore. First Base Coach and Third Base Coach. These are the two hardest to pin down. Piniella could look to some of the coaches he had in Tampa or this could be a spot for him to bring in a former Cub or even a retired player who is now coaching. No one jumps out at either of these positions. Bullpen Coach: Matt Sinatro. Sinatro was Piniella's bullpen coach from 95-02 in Seattle and then also for his entire stint in Tampa. My guess is he will fill the role for the Cubs if Piniella is hired.

Thanks. That's a start to trying to find some information I want.

I was actually looking for some other teams. Baseball Reference lists managers, but not coaches.

He's saving them.

It certainly looks like you were right. Could this be another piece of the Hendry M.O.? Hire a high-profile, well-known manager to take all the heat away from the poor personnel decisions. I think it's more a case of risk avoidance. Since Jim is on the hot seat he doesn't want his bosses to see him take a chance on anyone who's not a big name and "proven". If the team disappoints again Jim can say he got the most provenest manager on the market, so the choice of manager was not to blame. Also I just think Jim is a sucker for big names and big reputations. I think the last statement there sums everything up.

I'm looking for a site where I can find who was on the coaching staffs for various teams in the past. I know the MLB.com sites will tell me current coaching staffs, but I'm curious in knowing some past coaching staffs. Does anyone know where I can find this information?

I wouldn't be surprised to see Rothschild return as pitching coach under Piniella.

Get ready for Sweet Lou's Reign of Terror! By the way, anyone with excellent photoshopping abilities? I have a project.

Bruce seems to think Piniella is the choice as well. Link.

The Rangers have narrowed their list of candidates. Link.

The thought of getting Girardi doesn't make me happy. I'd prefer Joe to Lou, but I'd rather have Bochy and Brenly to Girardi. I'd probably rather have Washington as well. I'd certainly rather have Dierker or Davey Johnson. I'd also rather have Mills than Girardi.

Larry Dierker, plz.

Does anyone think Harvey might be the next Rob Deer.

Looks like they'll come to Mississippi for a five game series like the Jaxx did last year. I guess I can deal with that.

Are you saying NSBB is somehow inferior? No it's the opposite. NSBB is so superior to other sites that it assumes the posters here are smart enough to make sure the avatar is small enough before uploading it. apparently that's an assumption we can no longer make.

Holy Crap! Shrink the kentdamn avatar!

Yeah this couldn't possibly be why I'd want to see ND beat that overhyped conference. The SEC is no way nearly as over-hyped as ND is.

I'd love to see the SEC champ or SEC second place team or SEC third place team for that matter expose ND for the mediocre team they are.

seconded

If I'm offering Hill, Pie, and Eyre for Arod, I'd probably ask the Yankees for Pavano and cash back. Pavano would give the Cubs some pitching depth to make up for the loss of Hill. The offense would be fixed as a middle of the order of Lee, Arod, and Ramirez flanked by Murton, Barrett, and Jones would be pretty good. The Cubs would then need to focus on acquiring one starter either through trade or free agency.

The game itself has not been changed. It's ridiculous to suggest it has. They don't require 7 outs or 11 strikes. The game is the same, the start time changed. Big deal. Why does there have to be a benefit to fans to justify any change? It's not like it's harmful in any way. I agree. While the fans aren't beneifted, I don't see them harmed in anyway. Teams already have differing start times. The Cubs start afternoon games at 1:20. Some teams start them at 5 minutes after the hour, others 10, some fifteen. If someone wants to offer them money to make it 11 minutes after the hour, so be it. I don't see where this is a big deal at all. Sure we may not like sponsorships. We might think it affects the purity of the game. This doesn't bother me one bit. Yeah but teams don't name their starting time after a sponser. I guess to each his own. But I don't see the problem if they do. Start times aren't sacred. I'd rather start times be named for sponsors than stadium names. This is no worse, and actually better, than the Cubs renaming the bleachers, the Bud Light bleachers. I'd rather have the Cubs start night games at 7:11 than to have those dumbass chairs painted in the dugout to sell furniture. So, yea...to each his own. You don't see a problem with it, but you then you go on to say that those dumbass chairs painted in the dugout to sell furniture. So that bothers you and the 7:11 thing doesn't. I think we have to agree the Cubs gotta be the least team that takes advantage of advertisements. Whether the team starts at 7:11 or 7:05 or 7:15 doesn't matter at all. Painting ads on the dugout changes the asthetics of the park. It doesn't bother me, but if I had the choice, the 7:11 time seems to be less intrusive.

Vance - Why do you think Dierker is not under consideration by any of the teams with openings? I don't really know. Maybe he isn't interested. Maybe teams think he is so connected with the Houston franchise that he wouldn't work anywhere else. Maybe he's made some enemies in the industry. To be honest, I don't know. All I know is if I were GM, I'd make a call. See what his interest is. If he declined, sobeit.

The game itself has not been changed. It's ridiculous to suggest it has. They don't require 7 outs or 11 strikes. The game is the same, the start time changed. Big deal. Why does there have to be a benefit to fans to justify any change? It's not like it's harmful in any way. I agree. While the fans aren't beneifted, I don't see them harmed in anyway. Teams already have differing start times. The Cubs start afternoon games at 1:20. Some teams start them at 5 minutes after the hour, others 10, some fifteen. If someone wants to offer them money to make it 11 minutes after the hour, so be it. I don't see where this is a big deal at all. Sure we may not like sponsorships. We might think it affects the purity of the game. This doesn't bother me one bit. Yeah but teams don't name their starting time after a sponser. I guess to each his own. But I don't see the problem if they do. Start times aren't sacred. I'd rather start times be named for sponsors than stadium names. This is no worse, and actually better, than the Cubs renaming the bleachers, the Bud Light bleachers. I'd rather have the Cubs start night games at 7:11 than to have those dumbass chairs painted in the dugout to sell furniture. So, yea...to each his own.

The game itself has not been changed. It's ridiculous to suggest it has. They don't require 7 outs or 11 strikes. The game is the same, the start time changed. Big deal. Why does there have to be a benefit to fans to justify any change? It's not like it's harmful in any way. I agree. While the fans aren't beneifted, I don't see them harmed in anyway. Teams already have differing start times. The Cubs start afternoon games at 1:20. Some teams start them at 5 minutes after the hour, others 10, some fifteen. If someone wants to offer them money to make it 11 minutes after the hour, so be it. I don't see where this is a big deal at all. Sure we may not like sponsorships. We might think it affects the purity of the game. This doesn't bother me one bit.

I will NEVER root for the Cardinals. NEVER!