PDA

View Full Version : Worst manager job in baseball?


chaerulez
10-19-2006, 10:32 AM
I remembered from listening to B&B yesterday, Boers was saying how he felt aside from the obvious choice of Kansas City and Tampa, the worst managerial job in baseball was the Oakland A's. I think that's pretty right on. With Beane at GM, any manager there is just his puppet. Probably one of the reasons they can't truly win, it can't create a good organizational atmosphere. Thoughts?

samram
10-19-2006, 10:39 AM
I liked the one caller who said that Dusty would be perfect for the Oakland job because he wouldn't really have to manage.

I think it's kind of a moving target because managers can turn a bad job into a good job- after all, who wouldn't take the Tigers' job now if Leyland left? On the other hand, who would have wanted to manage the Tigers in 2003 or 2004? KC and Pittsburgh seem to be really bad and not changing.

FielderJones
10-19-2006, 10:39 AM
I would think the Cubs manager would be as bad, if not worse. You report to a committee of corporate empty suits, not to any real baseball men. Your job is to be a scapegoat when the "corporate synergy plan" fails to deliver a competitive team.

Frankly, I overrated Lou Piniella's intelligence. I guess 9 million can lessen the sting of losing one's self respect.

INSox56
10-19-2006, 10:47 AM
Pirates anyone? I certainly wouldn't like to manage a team where the GM gives away decent players (sean casey) for a AA player... They better win while they have a remote chance cuz he'll probably trade away sanchez and wilson before too long.

chaerulez
10-19-2006, 10:48 AM
I would think the Cubs manager would be as bad, if not worse. You report to a committee of corporate empty suits, not to any real baseball men. Your job is to be a scapegoat when the "corporate synergy plan" fails to deliver a competitive team.

Frankly, I overrated Lou Piniella's intelligence. I guess 9 million can lessen the sting of losing one's self respect.

*****. The payroll of the team will be 110 million or more. No one else in the NL except the Mets and Dodgers will compete with that figure.

Hangar18
10-19-2006, 10:56 AM
I Immediately think of the Cubs job. Everyone who has taken the job has suffered professionally afterwards. The stain and stigma of having actually worn that uniform affects you in more ways than you think. Theyre the laughingstock of pro sports in a nutshell.
However, its also a countryclub atmosphere which is bad/good depending on how you want to look at it. (Piniella is thinking countryclub/easy money)

The Pirates job has to be one that I would NEVER want to take either. A bad organization, making move after bad move, perenially giving their best players away to the Cubs and others ...... Sheesh. talk about gray hair.

Hangar18
10-19-2006, 11:03 AM
Frankly, I overrated Lou Piniella's intelligence. I guess 9 million can lessen the sting of losing one's self respect.

Kind of bums me out too, another seemingly bright baseball-lifer down the self-respect drain, because I also lost a lot of respect for him. Hes a QUITTER. He wanted to be close to his family ....then Quits on the DRays, says hes better suited to TV anyway, then desperately follows the MONEY
to a desperate franchise.

Hey Lou! What about the children ??

SABRSox
10-19-2006, 11:26 AM
Kind of bums me out too, another seemingly bright baseball-lifer down the self-respect drain, because I also lost a lot of respect for him. Hes a QUITTER. He wanted to be close to his family ....then Quits on the DRays, says hes better suited to TV anyway, then desperately follows the MONEY
to a desperate franchise.

Hey Lou! What about the children ??

It's more than just the money. It's all about ego. Think about it, the manager that finally gets the Cubs their WS victory is going to be looked upon by Cubdom, and the mediots, as some sort of baseball genius/god. If that guy had any personality whatsoever, he'd be bigger than Ditka, probably. A lot of managers get off on that sort of thing.

Palehose13
10-19-2006, 11:32 AM
I remembered from listening to B&B yesterday, Boers was saying how he felt aside from the obvious choice of Kansas City and Tampa, the worst managerial job in baseball was the Oakland A's. I think that's pretty right on. With Beane at GM, any manager there is just his puppet. Probably one of the reasons they can't truly win, it can't create a good organizational atmosphere. Thoughts?

I agree with the assessment of Oakland. At least with KC, Tampa, Pittsburgh, and NL Chicago you can actually do your job and manage. I think it is impossible with Beane as Oakland's GM. I think Beane should just hire himself as the manager. He probably thinks that he's the best man for the job anyway.

Hangar18
10-19-2006, 11:39 AM
I agree with the assessment of Oakland. At least with KC, Tampa, Pittsburgh, and NL Chicago you can actually do your job and manage. I think it is impossible with Beane as Oakland's GM. I think Beane should just hire himself as the manager. He probably thinks that he's the best man for the job anyway.


Oakland is going to get their new ballpark at some point, either there in Oakland or SanJose, and once they get their own identity, its going to help that team immensely

caulfield12
10-19-2006, 11:53 AM
The Royals job is not a bad one anymore. They have an energetic, forward-thinking GM now, and lots of young talent that the organization will be patient with, like the White Sox teams of the late 90's. The only negative is the owner, Glass, is a lot like Pohlad.

I wouldn't really want to manage in Colorado, it's too hard to get good pitchers there...more concerned with how their ERA's will inflate than winning, because that affects their salary down the line (see Hampton, Mike or Daryl Kile).

TB would be okay if they invested another $25 million into pitching.

But places like KC and Pittsburgh, at least you can manage and there's not pressure to win right away...they've been taking the "long term" approach for awhile.

The Red Sox and Yankees jobs would be pretty stressful, along the Phillies. But at least you would have resources to work with...

Nobody mentioned Florida, which is interesting.

Flight #24
10-19-2006, 12:10 PM
I agree with the assessment of Oakland. At least with KC, Tampa, Pittsburgh, and NL Chicago you can actually do your job and manage. I think it is impossible with Beane as Oakland's GM. I think Beane should just hire himself as the manager. He probably thinks that he's the best man for the job anyway.

What are you talking about? Beane has PROVEN that he's the best manager in the game!! He's already calculated that using an estimate of what managerial moves he'd make, his teams would have a higher Park-Adjusted xBIGMOFO than any other manager in baseball history. So it's a proven fact.

And he's already had the trophy made up and has it next to his 3 estimated world championships!

Jaffar
10-19-2006, 01:39 PM
I agree with the assessment of Oakland. At least with KC, Tampa, Pittsburgh, and NL Chicago you can actually do your job and manage. I think it is impossible with Beane as Oakland's GM. I think Beane should just hire himself as the manager. He probably thinks that he's the best man for the job anyway.

I think it is in the CBA that GM's cannot manage the team. It is well known that whoever agrees to "manage" the A's knows they are a puppet. Coming to the North Side as a great manager and leaving as a goat is another. I would think Tampa though, good luck ever winning in that division.

Iwritecode
10-19-2006, 01:59 PM
I Immediately think of the Cubs job. Everyone who has taken the job has suffered professionally afterwards. The stain and stigma of having actually worn that uniform affects you in more ways than you think.

Rogers Hornsby & Joe McCarthy managed some success after leaving. They are also the only ones that managed for more than 3 or 4 years after leaving.

TDog
10-19-2006, 02:07 PM
The Cubs job is not a bad one. You come in overpaid, and the media will treat you kindly through at least a couple of losing seasons. Your "wit and wisdom" will be lauded while the working media picks apart everything said by the other manager in town to label him a loose cannon.

You won't win, but it won't be held accountable. Really, it's a sweet gig as manager jobs go.

FielderJones
10-19-2006, 02:09 PM
*****. The payroll of the team will be 110 million or more. No one else in the NL except the Mets and Dodgers will compete with that figure.

:rolleyes:

Just as you are not your postcount, a ballclub is not its payroll. Spending 200 million or more doesn't guarantee a MLB championship. Cubs' payroll spending is meaningless.

FielderJones
10-19-2006, 02:11 PM
The Cubs job is not a bad one. You come in overpaid, and the media will treat you kindly through at least a couple of losing seasons. Your "wit and wisdom" will be lauded while the working media picks apart everything said by the other manager in town to label him a loose cannon.

You won't win, but it won't be held accountable. Really, it's a sweet gig as manager jobs go.

Yes, but how quickly they turn on you when the sheep become restless and they need a scapegoat.

Myrtle72
10-19-2006, 02:15 PM
Yes, but how quickly they turn on you when the sheep become restless and they need a scapegoat.

I think that's pretty standard with most managing jobs in the MLB. Especially because teams like the Cubs seem to be in the spotlight more often than not, for whatever reason. When thousands of fans and media people are looking for an explaination, you gotta give them something.

FielderJones
10-19-2006, 02:39 PM
I think that's pretty standard with most managing jobs in the MLB. Especially because teams like the Cubs seem to be in the spotlight more often than not, for whatever reason. When thousands of fans and media people are looking for an explaination, you gotta give them something.

It's not standard because there is no other MLB franchise (that I'm aware of) that is owned by a media conglomerate that is grandfathered into owning print, radio, OTA television, and cable in that franchise's home market. The barrage of negative publicity that such an empire can bring to bear is both formidable and terrible. I don't think any other media market can turn perception on a dime the way Chicago's can.

caulfield12
10-19-2006, 02:55 PM
It's not standard because there is no other MLB franchise (that I'm aware of) that is owned by a media conglomerate that is grandfathered into owning print, radio, OTA television, and cable in that franchise's home market. The barrage of negative publicity that such an empire can bring to bear is both formidable and terrible. I don't think any other media market can turn perception on a dime the way Chicago's can.


You might not have direct ownership, but the Pirates (McClatchy's newspaper group) and the Angels (when owned by Disney/ABC/ESPN) come close.

With the YES Network and NESN, the Yankees and Red Sox ownership groups have a ton of control with their local media as well.

Back in the day, Turner/TBS/TNT/Sports South and the Braves....before the whole Time-Warner/AOL disaster.

Not quite the same situations, but similarities.

DoItForDanPasqua
10-19-2006, 03:18 PM
http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/baseball/images/061017piniella.jpg

goofymsfan
10-19-2006, 03:27 PM
Kind of bums me out too, another seemingly bright baseball-lifer down the self-respect drain, because I also lost a lot of respect for him. Hes a QUITTER. He wanted to be close to his family ....then Quits on the DRays, says hes better suited to TV anyway, then desperately follows the MONEY
to a desperate franchise.

Hey Lou! What about the children ??

Lou did quit on the M's, but he didn't quit on the D-Rays, they dropped him to move in another direction with the new owners.

NardiWasHere
10-19-2006, 03:39 PM
:rolleyes:

Just as you are not your postcount, a ballclub is not its payroll. Spending 200 million or more doesn't guarantee a MLB championship. Cubs' payroll spending is meaningless.

How is a large payroll meaningless?

Would you say the White Sox were just as able to field a championship caliber team 30 million dollars ago?

The Cubs job has its pros/cons just like any other job. Along with the bad ownership and tradition of losing you also get a huge payroll and the chance to turn the biggest joke of a team around.

MDF3530
10-19-2006, 03:41 PM
I gotta say it is a three way tie between Texas, Pittsburgh and KC. Anytime one of those systems produces a good player, you know that the big league team is just a jumping off point.

Fenway
10-19-2006, 04:07 PM
I would say the Florida Marlins. Team was in contention for the Wild Card until the final week and they still fired the manager

TDog
10-19-2006, 04:07 PM
Yes, but how quickly they turn on you when the sheep become restless and they need a scapegoat.


The Cubs job is great if you want to coast into retirement. The Cubs hire experienced managers and get their fans excited about their past successes. It becomes an easy job to coast into retirement. The alternative is to hire people with a connection to the team who the fans already have a connection to. The Sox pretty much faced the same choice when replacing Manuel, but I think the results proved it came down to a baseball decision. I can't imagine Cito Gaston winning more than one World Series title in three years with the Sox.

The Cubs chased the success of the Giants when hiring Dusty Baker. the Giants came so close with Baker getting big wins out of big egos. Now they are chasing the success of the Tigers. Piniella is Leyland, who doesn't really need the job but took a bottom-of-the-divsion team to the World Series. Just ask Cubs fans -- 2007 will be their year. Break the preseason sales records set last year and management will consider the season will be a success.

All Lou Piniella has to do is coast into retirement.

Ol' No. 2
10-19-2006, 04:07 PM
How is a large payroll meaningless?

Would you say the White Sox were just as able to field a championship caliber team 30 million dollars ago?

The Cubs job has its pros/cons just like any other job. Along with the bad ownership and tradition of losing you also get a huge payroll and the chance to turn the biggest joke of a team around.They pretty much did, actually. The 2005 payroll was about $25M lower than the 2006 payroll. If the Cubs spent $100M to finish in last place in the worst division in baseball, how much can another $10M help? You can spend twice that, but if you piss it away you're going to finish behind a lot of teams spending a lot less.

Fenway
10-19-2006, 04:09 PM
With the YES Network and NESN, the Yankees and Red Sox ownership groups have a ton of control with their local media as well.

Back in the day, Turner/TBS/TNT/Sports South and the Braves....before the whole Time-Warner/AOL disaster.

Not quite the same situations, but similarities.

don't forget the Boston Globe ( NY Times ) owns 17% of the Red Sox and NESN .

Thank goodness the Herald keeps the team honest

johnr1note
10-19-2006, 04:21 PM
Rogers Hornsby & Joe McCarthy managed some success after leaving. They are also the only ones that managed for more than 3 or 4 years after leaving.

Admittedly, McCarthy went on to great fame and success with the Yankees, but Hornsby? After his tenure with the Cubs (he was fired while the team was in first place in August, over purportedly defrauding his teammates of cash he "borrowed" to bet on horses and invest in pyramid type schemes. The Commissioner never disciplined him, but the Cubs got back at him by refusing to vote him a series share when they won the 1932 pennant), he was player manager with the St. Louis Browns, and that's success?

Charlie Grimm had some success as manager of the Milwaukee Braves after leaving the Cubs (though he left the year before the Braves won the Series). But besides Joe McCarthy, I don't think there has been a Cubs manager who has gone on to win a World Series managing another team.

Fenway
10-19-2006, 04:30 PM
Hornsby was despised by his players....

from the Boston Public Library

St. Louis Browns pitcher Ned Garver presents a silver trophy on behalf of his teammates to Bill Veeck, center, Browns' president, in dressing room at Fenway Park, Boston, Ma., a few hours after Veeck fired Rogers Hornsby as manager of the club. The trophy bears the inscription, "To Bill Veeck for the greatest play since the Emancipation Proclamation. June 10, 1952. From the Players of the St. Louis Browns."

NardiWasHere
10-19-2006, 06:24 PM
They pretty much did, actually. The 2005 payroll was about $25M lower than the 2006 payroll. If the Cubs spent $100M to finish in last place in the worst division in baseball, how much can another $10M help? You can spend twice that, but if you piss it away you're going to finish behind a lot of teams spending a lot less.

We won with a lower payroll, but it is very tough to keep that number around 73 million and win year in and year out. When you are competing against NYY,NYM, BOS, LAA, LAD etc. they naturally have advantages due to their large budget.

I was replying to a post that said payroll doesn't mean anything. While it is possible to win with a moderate-sized payroll, it isn't easy. The Cubs always are able to add a guy like Zito in the offseason just because of the resources. That has to count for something. Even if you do piss some of it away, its easier to hide your mistakes when you have 100+ to play with.

The Dude
10-19-2006, 07:04 PM
Has to be Oakland. I'd rather shoot myself versus working with that assclown Beane.:o:

MUsoxfan
10-19-2006, 07:21 PM
I've gotta go with Baltimore. Angelos consistently pretends like he wants to put a winning ballclub on the field and in reality there's no way they can ever contend for the AL East crown because the other teams are just lightyears in front of them

StillMissOzzie
10-19-2006, 11:53 PM
I'll say either KC or Pittsburgh. Any manager taking those jobs there pretty much knows that they have NO chance going in, and that, barring a miracle, they can expect to be fired in 2-3 years for not winning with the stud horses their GM's give them. It's good MLB experience for their NEXT job.

SMO
:gulp:

ode to veeck
10-20-2006, 04:45 AM
I remembered from listening to B&B yesterday, Boers was saying how he felt aside from the obvious choice of Kansas City and Tampa, the worst managerial job in baseball was the Oakland A's. I think that's pretty right on. With Beane at GM, any manager there is just his puppet. Probably one of the reasons they can't truly win, it can't create a good organizational atmosphere. Thoughts?

What's wrong with getting puppetized into the 1st round of the playoffs every other year or so

WizardsofOzzie
10-20-2006, 10:28 AM
We won with a lower payroll, but it is very tough to keep that number around 73 million and win year in and year out. When you are competing against NYY,NYM, BOS, LAA, LAD etc. they naturally have advantages due to their large budget.

I was replying to a post that said payroll doesn't mean anything. While it is possible to win with a moderate-sized payroll, it isn't easy. The Cubs always are able to add a guy like Zito in the offseason just because of the resources. That has to count for something. Even if you do piss some of it away, its easier to hide your mistakes when you have 100+ to play with.
The cubs will never add someone like Zito because someone like the Yankees always pay and overpay more. When was the last big FA that the cubs Signed (not traded for). Maddux? Nomar? They got rid of them pretty damn quick, and now they are having more success elsewhere. The point is that yes, salary does mean something, but not much. If the Marlins can stay in the NL wildcard with a 20 something million payroll while other teams with double and triple that couldn't, then payroll cant mean much. And lets not forget about the Yankees 200 million plus payroll the last few years, and that hasn't gotten them ****.

viagracat
10-20-2006, 10:55 AM
Surprised I'm not seeing more Florida references. Loria has twice dismantled his team in recent years after winning championships, and it's up to the poor sap who happens to have the job to work with and try to develop a bunch of has-beens and never-wills. And when Girardi managed such a team--or so we thought, at least--into a contender this year and still gets canned because his boss is a certified asshat who can't keep his mouth shut; there you go.

Iwritecode
10-20-2006, 11:10 AM
Admittedly, McCarthy went on to great fame and success with the Yankees, but Hornsby? After his tenure with the Cubs (he was fired while the team was in first place in August, over purportedly defrauding his teammates of cash he "borrowed" to bet on horses and invest in pyramid type schemes. The Commissioner never disciplined him, but the Cubs got back at him by refusing to vote him a series share when they won the 1932 pennant), he was player manager with the St. Louis Browns, and that's success?

The simple fact that he had a managing job anywhere for more than 3 years makes him more successful than 90% of the guys that have manged the Cubs in the last century or so. For many of them, their managerial history ends with the Cubs.

I honestly didn't really take into account what they actually accomplished with their new teams.

Paulwny
10-20-2006, 11:38 AM
I'm sure I'll get ripped for this, the yankmees.
Expectations are not just the play-offs but the whole ball of wax. Not winning the WS, the season is a failure. Working for an owner who may be one step away from baseball insanity. Coddling a team of All Star Egos, possibly the most viscious press in the nation judging your every move. Fans who also feel anything less than a WS trophy makes the season a failure.
The pressure to win it all mentality is much different then managing a team that is not expected to compete.

viagracat
10-20-2006, 11:52 AM
I'm sure I'll get ripped for this, the yankmees.
Expectations are not just the play-offs but the whole ball of wax. Not winning the WS, the season is a failure. Working for an owner who may be one step away from baseball insanity. Coddling a team of All Star Egos, possibly the most viscious press in the nation judging your every move. Fans who also feel anything less than a WS trophy makes the season a failure.
The pressure to win it all mentality is much different then managing a team that is not expected to compete.

Actually, I almost said the same thing, but went with Florida because at least Steinbrenner plays to win. Joe Torre seems to be the only guy who can bear up to the NY media, the super-sized egos of the Yankee players and "Mr Steinbrenner on line three". Don't know how he does it. Many others have tried and failed.

Paulwny
10-20-2006, 12:42 PM
Actually, I almost said the same thing, but went with Florida because at least Steinbrenner plays to win. Joe Torre seems to be the only guy who can bear up to the NY media, the super-sized egos of the Yankee players and "Mr Steinbrenner on line three". Don't know how he does it. Many others have tried and failed.

From the Baseball Almanac:

Did you know that George Steinbrenner changed the manager of the New York Yankees (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/mgrtmny.shtml) twenty (20) times during his first twenty-three (23) seasons?
Most New York Yankees' (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/yank.shtml) fans know the fact above, but did you know that he also changed the General Manager of the Bronx Bombers eleven (11) times in thirty (30) years?