Bleacher Bums Forum
General Category => Archives => Topic started by: Dave23 on October 03, 2018, 08:35:13 am
-
IF the Cubs were to make a move, who would be your top 2-3 candidates for the manager job?
-
Joe G.
-
Paul Molitor would be worth looking at to replace Brandon Hyde as bench coach. He would not be afraid to say to the manager "We really should walk this guy".
-
Always liked Girardi and still do, though if for some reason Francona were interested in leaving Cleveland he’d by my first choice.
-
Can’t imagine Maddon going anywhere. His in game management isn’t the best but I think players love playing for him and free agents would like to play for him.
-
Grampa Rossy
-
I think there will be many here who are interested in Girardi, but I think that's a bad fit. I think he's too old school and would probably be somewhat set in his ways. I think his style would clash a lot with the front office and some of the players. He's a good manager on the right team, but I don't think the Cubs are that team. Really, unless Francona inexplicably becomes available, I think it's doubtful that the front office would have any interest in another celebrity manager.
I'd like to see them try to find the next AJ Hinch--someone who has managed before and appeared to be competent, but for whatever reason didn't work out long term with his team. But I'm not sure who that would be--rookie managers who do a good job on a two year tryout with a mediocre-to-bad team aren't memorable.
I have a feeling (and I think I've read this other places, so it's not my idea) that Brandon Hyde may be the intended successor to Maddon. If they fired Maddon, I think there's a pretty good chance they just promote Hyde.
-
Firing Maddon would be beyond ignorant but I'd think Joe Girardi or David Ross would be good hires.
-
Rosenthal has an article on The Athletic about a possible Maddon firing. Nothing concrete, but he's also not the type to write a completely baseless story for clicks like Nightengale or Heyman might do.
He suggests Dave Roberts, Girardi, or Hyde as options, but it sounds primarily like his own speculation.
-
Is this something that's a real possibility? You have to tip your hat to Maddon for the most successful stretch of baseball the Cubs have had since I've been alive, but I wonder if a change would do us some good.
The way Joe manages a pitching staff in the postseason drives me nuts by the way.
-
Rosenthal has an article on The Athletic about a possible Maddon firing. Nothing concrete, but he's also not the type to write a completely baseless story for clicks like Nightengale or Heyman might do.
He suggests Dave Roberts, Girardi, or Hyde as options, but it sounds primarily like his own speculation.
Just read the article, and to me, nearly everything in it seems like his personal speculation. And he alternates between arguing for why a change may happen with the reasons it likely won't.
-
Maddon has given the Cubs a distinct culture. Bringing in Girardi would destroy that.
I agree with BR that Hyde seems like the guy if the Cubs do make a change either this year or next. He's had a hand in bringing in a lot of the developmental coaches and he's been in the FO and the coaching staff.
Part of the reason the Cubs have been successful is the culture that Madden set up. Bringing in somebody like Giardi would destroy it.
If you can bring in Francona that would be amazing, but outside of him I don't think too many managers would be better than Madden. I took Rosenthal's piece as complete speculation from people outside the Cubs guessing at what Theo was thinking.
-
Outside of Stubby Clapp, I don't know who the best young candidates are right now...
-
Yeah, I think it's almost all speculation. But speculation means more from Rosenthal than from most of the other national writers--he doesn't just throw his ideas out there to get attention. I would bet that he has probably heard something vague about firing Maddon being a possibility, but it's not concrete enough for him to report it as a rumor.
-
I don't think David Ross would be a great choice either. There have been a lot of managers hired over the last few years who had no previous coaching or managing experience, and most of those haven't worked out. He'd probably be a good hire for the 2022 season if he spent the next 3 years managing in the minors...but guys with no experience shouldn't be on the Cubs' list IMO.
-
I think Ross as possibility after Lester retires, it would be nice if he got some time actually coaching. I think the in game managing has little effect on the good teams.
-
Jon Morosi @jonmorosi
Joe Maddon is due to earn $6 million next year, as @Ken_Rosenthal reported earlier today. He is the highest-paid manager in @MLB. There is no indication — yet — that #Angels will request permission to interview Maddon, who has long-standing ties there. @MLBNetwork
-
I've also read that one of the teams with an opening (Twins?) has Brandon Hyde high on their list of people to interview. So if the front office is really married to him being the Cubs' manager in the future, they may have to pull the trigger this offseason.
-
Rossy told Sutcliffe during the telecast the other day he was prepared to say No alot
-
Why are we speculating that they would fire Joe? I was actually thinking Joe may wish to leave. I think he was frustrated a lot this year, as well as getting some reported heat from on high on some things. The Angel job could appeal to him.
-
or sweet retirement...
-
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/24883024
Shortest thread ever?
-
Is this something that's a real possibility? You have to tip your hat to Maddon for the most successful stretch of baseball the Cubs have had since I've been alive, but I wonder if a change would do us some good.
The way Joe manages a pitching staff in the postseason drives me nuts by the way.
The way he manages it in the regular season doesn't??
-
Theo's press conference makes it clear this is a non-story. Unless something really unexpected happens, Maddon is the manager next year.
Also sounds like there won't be many (if any) coaching changes.
-
Maddon has given the Cubs a distinct culture. Bringing in Girardi would destroy that.....
Maddon isn't going, obviously. So this thread is probably dead. But I do wonder if some Cubs might not benefit from a different culture. This is the only one most of the younger ones have ever experienced.
I've mentioned this before, but sometimes change-for-change sake is good?
Sometimes having a new voice is good?
Is it possible that the Cubs players have a culture of "we're so cool; we're so good; we're so fun; we're too cool to stress about losing; we're too cool to work too hard; staying cool is better than practicing too much..."?
Then Theo talks about lacking urgency and intensity.
-
I get the sense some of the players (Rizzo, Heyward, Lester, Zobrist) create a pretty intense, work-hard, professional culture. And David Ross certainly did. I don't think that's the issue.
In the years I've been on this board (almost 20 now), we've never had a manager everyone was happy with. (Anyone want to trade Maddon for anyone else we've had in recent memory?) Joe absolutely drives me crazy sometimes, especially with his pitching changes and bullpen usage. But overall, I think he's one of the smartest guys out there (that alone pretty much negates the Dusty Baker comparison for me), his players seem to love playing for him, and he's achieved some pretty incredible results, this year included, IMHO. I'm glad to hear he'll (likely) be back.
-
Maddon isn't going, obviously. So this thread is probably dead. But I do wonder if some Cubs might not benefit from a different culture. This is the only one most of the younger ones have ever experienced.
I've mentioned this before, but sometimes change-for-change sake is good?
Sometimes having a new voice is good?
Is it possible that the Cubs players have a culture of "we're so cool; we're so good; we're so fun; we're too cool to stress about losing; we're too cool to work too hard; staying cool is better than practicing too much..."?
Then Theo talks about lacking urgency and intensity.
That's kind of where I disagree with some about Girardi not being a good culture change. It might be time for us to swap out of pajama parties on the plane and stuff like that and have someone who's not as carefree about things.
But we're obviously not making a change, so moot point. It's not like changing managers would make that much of a difference anyway.
-
I'm not blaming Maddon, but it's notable that the approach of giving players lots of time off early in the season didn't seem to help much when we ran into that long string of games late in the season. I like taking advantage of roster flexibility, but perhaps there needs to be a slight course correction towards playing your best eight throughout the season.
-
Shifting the culture is fine. But Girardi and Maddon seem to be polar opposites in their styles. It's hard to imagine such a drastic change going smoothly. Some guys would be fine--I'm sure Lester would love playing under Girardi, for example. But I bet Girardi's style would clash pretty hard with how guys like Baez, Contreras, and even Rizzo like doing things.
-
I like taking advantage of roster flexibility, but perhaps there needs to be a slight course correction towards playing your best eight throughout the season.
But that goes back to roster construction. When Bryant is healthy, the Cubs have three guys who are good enough to be everyday players--Rizzo, Bryant, and Baez. And Contreras is as much an everyday guy as a catcher can be. And those guys play pretty much every day.
But the other four spots rotate not just because Joe is keeping them fresh...but because the players just aren't good enough all around to start everyday. Zobrist is old and needs rest; Schwarber and Heyward can't hit lefties; Almora can't hit righties. Russell just isn't that good at hitting anyone over the last two seasons. Bote's bat is still a question mark; La Stella is bad at everything but hitting singles.
This team doesn't have a "best eight" to play throughout the season...they have a "best four" and a bunch of players who are good in the right situation. So Maddon has to use them the way he does.
-
The topic is perhaps dead only if you believe Joe wouldn’t leave under his own volition...
-
This team doesn't have a "best eight" to play throughout the season...they have a "best four" and a bunch of players who are good in the right situation. So Maddon has to use them the way he does.
This is true for the Red Sox, Dodgers, and Yankees as well...
-
The topic is perhaps dead only if you believe Joe wouldn’t leave under his own volition...
That's an interesting point. Given Maddon's history he'd certainly be tempted if the Angels came a'callin. And the chance to manage Trout and Otani would seem to hold a certain appeal.
-
My thinking as well...
-
Why are we speculating that they would fire Joe? I was actually thinking Joe may wish to leave. I think he was frustrated a lot this year, as well as getting some reported heat from on high on some things. The Angel job could appeal to him.
I thought somebody already said that so I went looking. Sheesh.
-
I thought somebody already said that so I went looking. Sheesh.
See, where you went wrong is assuming anyone reads your posts...
-
That's kind of where I disagree with some about Girardi not being a good culture change. It might be time for us to swap out of pajama parties on the plane and stuff like that and have someone who's not as carefree about things.
But we're obviously not making a change, so moot point. It's not like changing managers would make that much of a difference anyway.
I agree that a change is not likely. However, as far as changing the culture is concerned, Billy Martin made a career out of changing the culture of teams, with great (temporary) success. Quite often, a team that has become too comfortable with itself responds rapidly and positively to an authoritarian manager. The success only lasts about 3 or 4 years before it falls apart, but it can be good while it lasts.
-
I think there are some people who are good and will be no matter how long they stay. Always good communicators, always good decision-makers, and always with the gift of recognizing + hiring good people. The qualities that work first year continue to pay off forever. That may be Maddon.
But sometimes, there can be value in change-for-change sake. A new voice, I think you tend to wake up and pay attention? Even if the new voice is essentially saying the same thing but in a somewhat different way? Second, sometimes a new voice does have something different to say, some different insights. Maybe guys have learned everything the first guy has to teach; but a new guy might offer something new?
That said, *if* you do bring in a new voice, comparison is inevitable. If the new voice is dumber than the old voice, guys will notice. If the new voice is more boring, guys will notice.
I appreciate change-for-change sake, to keep things fresh, and to bring in different insights and perspective. But if you do make a change, it's pretty bad news to bring in somebody who's worse. Huge opportunity to have players and media compare unfavorably.
-
What reason is there to believe there is any need for "change-for-change sake" with the Cubs?
Given the injuries and struggles some players had on the Cubs, I don't look at 2018 as a failing by Maddon in any way.
It seems to have been a remarkably successful year for him.
-
One could argue that Maddon had major responsibility for the Strop injury (which likely cost the Cubs the Division). And one could question whether his loose approach to the clubhouse might have contributed to some of the disappointing performances. My own opinion is that Maddon is unorthodox but very effective, and I have no desire to see him replaced in 2019 (and I would be fine with him being extended for a few more years).
-
95 wins is VERY hard to achieve! We tied for the MOST wins in the NL, despite SO many things going wrong (e.g. nothing from Darvish, nothing from our closer in the 2nd half, relatively little from Bryant).
We've averaged about 97 wins per season and made the playoffs in EACH season during Joe's tenure...and there's that thing about leading the team to end the longest drought in the HISTORY of sports!!
With the benefit of hindsight, one can nitpick ANY manager for in-game moves, but in-game managerial decisions aren't the most important contribution for a MLB manager...over 162 games, the key question is: can the manager get a group of HUMAN BEINGS ready to play anywhere near their best on a consistent basis?
The team's record - the ultimate measuring stick - certainly suggests Joe has been terrific EACH year! That there's any debate about whether he should stay on seems rather absurd IMHO.
-
Next year is going to tell the tale, because there was a lot to suggest Joe lost the clubhouse this season, and clearly Theo is not wholly satisfied with the current state of the team. Letting a manager go into a lame duck season is not generally a huge sign of confidence.
-
Next year is going to tell the tale, because there was a lot to suggest Joe lost the clubhouse this season, and clearly Theo is not wholly satisfied with the current state of the team. Letting a manager go into a lame duck season is not generally a huge sign of confidence.
I obviously missed some things. Can you give specifics on how there was a lot to suggest Joe lost the clubhouse?
-
I think this board should be the new manager. We can vote as a group on every move. The lineup. Pitching changes. Pinch hitters. Infield alignment. From what I've read on here, we'd go 162-0. If there were any losses, we could blame Deeg. But, regardless, we'd have a lot less bitching if it was our decisions.
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
We've had two straight seasons where the intensity level dropped so much that even Theo felt the need to publicly comment about it. Ignore that if you want, but it doesn't change reality. The ice is thin and the lack of an extension speaks volumes.
-
Maybe we will win miss the playoffs next season, Joe will have difficulties leading the Team that he hasn't had to this point, and it will make sense to bring on another manager.
However, that's not the case yet, so Joe will be back as manager next year.
Clearly, Theo expects more in 2019, which is fine. If Joe and the Cubs deliver, Joe will likely get extended. If not, it won't surprise me to see Cubs go another direction...but we aren't there yet.
-
I suspect, fair or not, from the front office side they’d expect another trip to the World Series next year if they’re going to retain Maddon.
But you know, everyone assumes Joe will want to extend and talks about Theo’s desire to have a manager who’ll listen to him. But it seems entirely possible that Joe might be ready to work with a less tenured and credentialed F.O., where he can throw his weight around more. Joe’s not a young man and if he sees himself taking one more managing job, it has to be soon. It’s entirely possible that both sides may just decide it’s time for a change.
-
Anything is possible.
Some things are more likely than others though. None of us is in a position to be certain about which scenarios are more likely. In the wordss of Gust Avrakotos, "we'll see."
-
It's certainly possible that there will be a mutual decision to part ways, but I cannot imagine any scenario in which Theo has the chutzpah to dismiss Joe after the utterly abysmal 2017-2018 offseason that the front office had.
-
It's certainly possible that there will be a mutual decision to part ways, but I cannot imagine any scenario in which Theo has the chutzpah to dismiss Joe after the utterly abysmal 2017-2018 offseason that the front office had.
This is particularly well-stated.
-
The speculation about Maddon and "heat" on him, if any, is nothing compared to the open criticism Roberts is getting.
-
I think this board should be the new manager. We can vote as a group on every move.
That may not be a useful solution. If there were 50 people on this board, there would be fifty recommendations, each getting one vote.
-
The Cubs already tried that under Wrigley.