Phillies

Transactions & Such

Winter leagues

Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Terrified Baez can't run and hide in dismal loss | Main | Pregame: The world according to Leslie Gudel »

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Comments

I'm cool w/ Vic missing a bunch more games, just so long as he doesn't go on the DL. That would be totally unacceptable.

Ah, yes, the "hurt player still on the active roster" ploy.

A distant cousin to the "rehabbing player not yet ready to play, but thrown into MLB action" ploy.

Is there some sort of per diem expense of having a player on the DL that the Phils are looking to avoid paying?

Do the damn MRI and if he needs to sit for another week, put him on the DL. If he might play - as much as it pains me to say it - letting him take up a spot for a few more days without playing him is the better move because they need to get him back in the lineup as soon as they can. He's been their most consistent and productive player on offense and he's a mainstay of the defense.

Fats: No it's not wrong. Nobody is denying his faults. Not a single commenter has deemed him infallible. Criticize all you want. But others calling for his head in the midst of a 4 year run as division champs is a little much in my opinion.

Posted by: quincy.mcneal | Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 02:55 PM

Quincy, I agree. And like I said, I really thought he should have won Manager of the Year last year. I don't know how Bud Black won it, after his teamlost 10 in a row in early September, and choked away a fairly sizable lead to not make the playoffs. Charlie is a good manager, and good for this team, specifically. If he'd be a little more clear headed and sagacious with his pitching moves in-game, he'd be an overall terrific coach.

I've just resigned myself to the fact that this team will not stay healthy.

Michael Young would have looked really good in this lineup if they could've found a taker for Blanton.

Heather: You have severe issues with reading comprehension and even understanding what is said in opposition to something you said.

this is what you said:

"If say, Terry Francona, had 3 of the best position players in baseball in their prime in his infield, 3 above average outfielders and a good catcher, would he have lost 100 games due to not having Charlie's talent for "winningness"?

Obviously if only we had happened upon Charlie Manuel and his winning ways sooner, we could have avoided the disasters of the late 90s and early 00s."

So I said it was laughable to pretend like Tito had garbage he was trotting out there everyday. You're bleaching of that time is either just a way to get another dig in at Charlie or you weren't watching the team at that time.

To provide some light on this topic. In '99 (his best season as manager) he had 3 very good outfielders. Gant had an OPS+ of 96, but Glanville had a 106, and Abreu had a 146. In the infield he had Rolen with a 119 OPS+ and Lieberthal with a 123 OPS+.

Rolen was arguably the best third baseman in MLB at that time. The outfield was fine, and they had a great catcher. They also had Schilling in the rotation.

As for your last statement- it's completely laughable you would get that out of what I was saying. To come to that conclusion you really have to jump through a ton of hoops and make yourself look like a simpleton.

Questions to those who defend Charlie like he was their dad:

Other than being a swell old fella who gets along with his team, what qualities does he posses that you feel contributed to the Phillies success in recent years?

Second, what limitations does he have that you feel impede the Phillies from greater success?

Quincy: You asked a stupid question so I gave you a stupid answer.

If you were ever to ask an intelligent question, something I've never seen, you'd likely get an intelligent answer.

Will: I thought my post answered both questions. His personnel management is excellent. Players like him, play hard, but without pressure, and the clubhouse is a good place.

His limitations are that he's a below average field manager.

Will, why only question the defenders? Ask the people that think they'd manage the team to 105 wins instead of only 97.

Will, I'm not sure what you think a manager does. If you don't think the manager has anything to do with a team's success, then yes, Cholly has done nothing.

I don't defend Cholly like he's my Dad, I defend like he's a winning manager, which is exactly what he is. Perhaps there are some managers that could do better, many that might do a lot worse, but it's conjecture because we'll never know.

So, TTI, how is your point at all at odds with what I said? I never said Francona had all garbage players, but merely that he lost because, as a sum total, his team was not good. I notice you quote certain players but not others. If you feel comfortable, as an acadmic exercise, go look up the WAR of the team and compare it to other teams in 2000. FWIW, Fangraphs said the entire team accumulated 10.7 WAR in 2000. That's 5th to last.

Again, I repeat: the team lost in 2000 because, overall, it was a losing team. Not due to some overall quality of Francona's making them lose.

Managers can be good or bad irrespective of their team's records. So Francona can be a good manager with a crappy team. And Manuel can be a bad manager with a good team.

Rocket science, I know.

Will: Obviously I can only speak for myself here. On the latter point- I do find some things questionable that he does. I know people may not believe that but the gist of some of my posts are trying to understand the thought process, and not arguing it was a good move.

On the former part- I think that can't be brushed aside so easily.I do not think other managers could've done as well with this team. For example, I don't think Bowa would've been able to manage this team to 4 straight division titles. I know he is a hero in this town but as a manager he has a confrontational style and is not afraid to call guys out in public. Charlie calls guys out but doesn't do it in public really. There is a healthy amount of respect towards Charlie from the players and you often get the sense from their comments that when they struggle they feel they are letting Charlie down.

Ozzie Guillen is confrontational and calls his players out publicly, and a lot of his players love him.

I don't know that those qualities alone = bad/good manager. I would hesitate to say Bowa was a bad manager because he was aggressive and called people out publicly.

clout: I'd like to believe that Howard, Utley, Hamels, etc would play hard without regard to who's managing, and the pleasant clubhouse atmosphere can be attributed largely to Gillick/Amaro who seem to place a high value on character and clubhouse harmony.

In contrast, I think that just about anyone else wouldn't have allowed Lidge to gift wrap quite so many games to the opposition in '09 and would have shown a bit more tough love to the likes of Ibanez, Baez, etc as opposed to putting his head in the sand.

Also, for as much as the veterans like him, I have to believe that some individuals are a bit frustrated that they have virtually no chance of earning a job. Madson, for instance, should be entering his second full season as a closer, not accepting the role only because two guys ahead of him landed on the DL. The same can be said for Mayberry, who has done everything he possibly could have done to earn a starting job, but sits in favor of Ibanez and Mayberry for reasons only known to the voices in Charlie's head.

Mike: My opening was poorly worded. Anyone is free to answer.

"Managers can be good or bad irrespective of their team's records."

Exactly.

It depends on the players, but in the modern era, ego driven multi millionaire athletes, as a general rule, do not like managers who are aggressive and especially don't like being called out in public.

Joe Torre is the perfect example of a bad manager with a good team.

Charlie Manuel is another example.

I do think the manager does very little, unless he's actively terrible, i.e. making terrible tactical decisions and/or disrupting the clubhouse to such a degree that guys don't want to play there.

Even then, I think a terrible manager might affect a team's win/losses by about 5-10 games either way.

You're not going to take the 1927 Yankees and make them into a .500 team, even if you're the worst manager who ever lived. You're not taking the 1919 Philadelphia Athletics to the World Series even if you're the best manager who ever lived.

Charlie Manuel has a very good group of players. Any other manager in the major leagues would be able to manage this team to a winning record, and, in most cases, to the playoffs.

Do the damn MRI...if he's hurt, DL him and call up Dom Brown as he's been smoking hot in AAA. If Stutes is hurt, DL him and call up Schwimer. DFA Sardinha and call up Kratz and get Utley moving too. This is ridiculous playing with 22 and 23 man rosters because they're too afraid to lose a guy for 15 days.

Heather: You really can't be this stupid can you?

I never said Francona had all garbage players, but merely that he lost because, as a sum total, his team was not good. I notice you quote certain players but not others.

You specifically singled out certain players on the team. You were the one that mentioned certain positions.Go back and read your post if you don't believe me.

So what i did what took the framework you set for the discussion. I pointed to the numbers of the three outfielders. I pointed to one infielder and to the catcher. You know because you said if we had a good catcher. Well here's a dirty secret- offensively, we did have a very good catcher. We had one very good infielder out of the 3 you requested. And really Brogna wasn't that far off from being league average. Defensively he was one of the better first basemen in the league. Now because I know you need to have your hand held while discussing these things- that yes acknowledges that we were weak at the middle infield spots.

You singled out 7 spots on the diamond. My assumption is that at for a year like 1999 we had above league average players at 4 of them, with 2 guys a few points away from league average. Hell even Alex Arias posted a 92 OPS+ in 1999.

Now- hopefully you're still paying attention here- that is not me saying that the team of 1999 was good. At best we were a league average team. I can tell you though from watching pretty much every game of that season (which is normal for any season for me) that Francona was not a very good manager in his time here. Maybe it was his age, or maybe it was a bad mix between him and the players, but he wasn't very good. Again- I reject your blanching of Tito's managerial skills. To do that you are either just trying hard to knock Charlie again, or you weren't watching at that time. I've seen you enough on here that I'll assume its the former, but you're working real hard at making me think it's the latter.

Clout: What happened to the missing portions of the Zapruder film?

Take your time buddy.

"Even then, I think a terrible manager might affect a team's win/losses by about 5-10 games either way."

That means a good manager does the same. And 5-10 games is a huge difference.

I wish somebody could find a quote like, "Yeah, I love and respect (insert manager's name here). He really kicked my a88 and made me work hard to win."

This stuff never comes out until somebody is washed out or drugged out and looking back on things. You also don't see "He babies me and let's me slack off and just ride the wave of my talent."

There is no formula for managerial success. Tito was a pushover and he remains one up in Boston. Charlie seems like a good ol boy who just loves the status quo and not making big decisions. Just like Andy Reid, he tends to not rub too many players the wrong way most of the week but can't change direction once the game starts. He needs to surround himself with better opinions than Mack and Perlozzi, I suspect.

I wish somebody could find a quote like, "Yeah, I love and respect (insert manager's name here). He really kicked my a88 and made me work hard to win."

This stuff never comes out until somebody is washed out or drugged out and looking back on things. You also don't see "He babies me and let's me slack off and just ride the wave of my talent."

There is no formula for managerial success. Tito was a pushover and he remains one up in Boston. Charlie seems like a good ol boy who just loves the status quo and not making big decisions. Just like Andy Reid, he tends to not rub too many players the wrong way most of the week but can't change direction once the game starts. He needs to surround himself with better opinions than Mack and Perlozzi, I suspect.

Benny must be back deep in Cholly's doghouse again.

That deal last weekend in Atlanta probably put him there. Plus his play has been awful for many weeks.

Managers, who needs 'em?

Question: Are the players still playing hard for Charlie?

Players tend to get complacent after a while. Manuel himself has accused his players of that.

I know many will disagree with this but the simple fact is that when you hire a manager you need to try and find a guy who mixes well with your players. Manuel was the guy Gillick singled out for that spot and the team has responded by playing .562 ball for Charlie which includes 4 straight division titles, 2 straight NL Pennants and a World Series.

Is it possible Guillen, Torre, Bowa, or any other manager gets the same results? Yes. Is it possible they get better or worse results? Yes. That doesn't mean it should just be discounted though how Charlie's managerial style fit this club and it's mix of young players.

Bring up Brown, now. Power, speed, defense, and youth. Isn't that exactly what we need right now??

Also, is it possible to pry Lopes from the Dodgers? Dodgers suck, Davy hates 'em, and the Phils need him. He created more positive in-game impact than any other coach (including Charlie)

Vic looks like a penis with that haircut.

There is nothing that Cholly could do to please some people.

The next time Charlie Manual chooses Baez (.429 BAA or thereabouts) over a warmed up Ryan Madson, in a high leverage 9th inning situation -- home or away -- he should be questioned. Hopefully, by RAJ and Gillick. Maybe Manual gets pissed off. Maybe he should; it's starting to look as if Manual's been reading too many clippings about his magic powers.

Bet you Madson would have jumped at a 2 inning stint. Rivera's done it; and a successful outcome would have helped Dog's FA cause.

Here's something to ponder.

Last year less about a month or so, Heather was on here telling us that RAJ was a "moron" for not blowing up the team to bring in new talent. The team was so bad that we should have just given up on the season. The team's chances were hopeless, and the best we could wish for was a reconstructed team for following years.

From that point out, Charlie managed a pathetic team to an astoundingly good second-half record, despite losing some of their best players for significant chunks of time.

An undermanned pathetic team, that should be blown up goes, to the NLCS. But I'm sure that Charlie's managing had nothing to do with it.

Quincy: Still waiting....

Three moves the Phillies maybe should be looking at:

Cuddyer from the Twins- he's expensive but right now he has a low value so you might be able to get the Twins to eat some contract there. Send them Ben Fran back.

Hanrahan from the Pirates. If Capps for Wilson Ramos truly set the market then maybe forget it, but I think that one may be more of an outlier. Having Hanrahan, Bastardo, MAdson, and Contreras at the back end of the bullpen would be fierce.

Also, with Lackey and Dice K down it may be time to ask the Red Sox what they'd give up for Blanton. I don't really think it's best to trade him but sometimes you have to roll the dice a little more than you would like to.

Again I'll say it. It is a false dichotomy to contrast Charlie's in-game management to his managing of the player personalities. They are inextricably linked. Players like playing for Charlie because he shows confidence in them. He sometimes criticizes the team's play, and sometimes criticizes individual players (although rarely), and they don't respond negatively when he does so because he is overall understanding of the ups and downs of a long season of baseball.

Maybe it wasn't the case last night, but frequently the "in-game" decisions that people rail on and on about with Charlie are a direct outcome of his patient approach and belief that displaying confidence in his players pans out over the long-term.

The teams under Charlie have pretty consistently outperformed expectations. The team has consistently, under his management, been a greater whole than the sum of its parts (in particular I think that has been true of his bullpens, which have performed relatively well despite often being comprised largely of cast-offs). There have been a number of players who have left the team and not performed as well as they did while here. Probably some went the other direction as well, but I'd be willing to bet that the number would be smaller.

All managers make moves that BLers would, in their great wisdom and 20/20 hindsight, deem to be mistakes and solid proof that the managers are morons.

OK - Charlie bashers, tell me. Which manager would you rather have at the helm of this team?

Phlipper, don't you know managers only contribute to a team's failure? They have no part in the success. Especially idiots like Charlie.

"how Charlie's managerial style fit this club and it's mix of young players."

Mix of YOUNG players?

What team are you watching?

There is nothing that Cholly could do to please some people.

Not true. He could resign.

Madson has proven to be a great reliever and likely closer now, but with one caveat. The day they started limiting him to one inning, he became more effective. I don't think they want to start messing with multiple inning stints with him now. Four hitters? Maybe. But not two innings when there's a game the next day.

Charlie is a typical major league manager. He's good at handling people, but not so great at handling game situations. There are very few managers in history who have done both well. He's fine, although he does cause me to scratch my head more often than I'd like. Last night's pitching maneuvers in the ninth probably didn't truly lose the game. They'd have done that eventually because they were determined not to score.

And I'd like a special shout out to Clout. Even JW felt Minimart was the best Phillie player on the field last night. He was the only spark of life in a dismal night.

Mayberry may be slightly better than we thought.

Orr is filler who can run like the wind.

Valdez is filler who is playing every position but the one he plays best.

Benny Fran is still less than the sum of his parts.

Chooch and Schneider are brittle and Sardinha has no place on a major league roster.

Rollins looks cooked with no replacement in sight for next year.

Vic needs to be on the DL. Holy SH%T! What is the deal with Amaro carrying injured players on the active roster?

That is all.

Will- You're not familiar with past tense?

"Charlie bashers, tell me. Which manager would you rather have at the helm of this team?"

I'd be happy with any new blood who doesn't have a history of incompetent decision making.

Frankly, I'd just as soon roll the dice with Sandberg than to continue riding the "aw shucks, he's my closer" school of management.

"You're not familiar with past tense?"

I am. So you've argued in favor of Charlie's first few years with the team. What's your argument for his continued employment?

OK - Charlie bashers, tell me. Which manager would you rather have at the helm of this team?

Ryne Sandberg. Why do you think he was brought here? Mark Parent. That's two that were already mentioned in last thread. Would you like more?

The bottom line for me (for those who have no reading comprehension) is that Charlie's skill set is as a "players' manager." Once that skill set is irrelevant, meaning they are not producing on the field and need someone to either shake things up or win some games from the bench, he is also irrelevant.

The argument for Charlie (the only one, by the way) has always been that the players play hard, blah, blah, blah. Well, they don't seem to be doing that. Or they are and still not hitting/playing small ball/doing the little things, etc. That falls on the manager.

At some point, in-game managing and putting your players in a position to win games when they are not at their best or injured has to outweigh being liked by your players.

"I'd be happy with any new blood who doesn't have a history of incompetent decision making."

OK. So you think that the manager makes a difference, yet the Phillies have managed to have so much success despite being managed by a moron.

Clearly, the only explanation is that during Charlie's tenure, the team has been the equivalent of the '27 Yankees, and due to being so far superior to the rest of MLB, have earned division championships, league championships, and a WS victory.

4 straight division championships. Currently in first place. I wonder what it would be like if the team was run by some of the schizos on this board.

"An undermanned pathetic team, that should be blown up goes, to the NLCS. But I'm sure that Charlie's managing had nothing to do with it."

So am I.

What can Brown do for you?

Mike: By your definition, Joe Torre is one of the greatest managers in the history of the game.

Is he?

clout: I just figured since the Warren Commission couldn't get it figured out, I'd certainly get the answer from you. I mean, you can scour and regurgitate scouting reports with the best of them, so I thought that one would be a walk in the park.

This thread has really become unreadable.

"Now- hopefully you're still paying attention here- that is not me saying that the team of 1999 was good. At best we were a league average team. I can tell you though from watching pretty much every game of that season (which is normal for any season for me) that Francona was not a very good manager in his time here. Maybe it was his age, or maybe it was a bad mix between him and the players, but he wasn't very good. Again- I reject your blanching of Tito's managerial skills. To do that you are either just trying hard to knock Charlie again, or you weren't watching at that time. I've seen you enough on here that I'll assume its the former, but you're working real hard at making me think it's the latter."

So, Francona sucks because you watched the games and you say he did.

Brilliant. Well, I'm convinced.

Let's try another one: Charlie Manuel sucks because I watch the games and I say he does. And if you disagree, you just aren't paying attention.

" Once that skill set is irrelevant, meaning they are not producing on the field"

Ok. I get it now. You're joking, right? A team significantly hampered by injuries sits in first place, having had the best record in baseball for much of the season with its best hitter yet to swing a bat. But yeah, the team are "not producing on the field."

Gotcha. The only explanation is that they're underperforming, and that a starting lineup with Mini-Mart, Valdez, Sardhina, Mayberry, an "albatross," a short-stop who is in steep decline, a fragile third baseman, and a right fielder hitting just above Mendosa is really the equivalent of the '27 Yankees that has quit on the manager.

You're joking, right?

Will: They are still winning for him. 4 straight division titles, 2 straight NL pennants- and it really could've been three but they ran into a hot team last year. I know we're not supposed to give the other team credit but the Giants rode a wave right through those playoffs. They went 11-3.

"Last year less about a month or so, Heather was on here telling us that RAJ was a "moron" for not blowing up the team to bring in new talent. The team was so bad that we should have just given up on the season. The team's chances were hopeless, and the best we could wish for was a reconstructed team for following years"

A conclusion RAJ was toying with himself at the time, if you have read any of his quotes on the matter.

The man was actively shopping Werth until the Phillies went on a hot streak.

But please, go ahead. Anybody who didn't believe the Phillies were going to the playoffs last year was crazy. Crazy with a k. So, KRAZY.

"OK. So you think that the manager makes a difference, yet the Phillies have managed to have so much success despite being managed by a moron."

Yes.

Just as the Yankees found so much success despite being managed by a moron. It happens.

------------------------------

"The bottom line for me (for those who have no reading comprehension) is that Charlie's skill set is as a "players' manager." Once that skill set is irrelevant, meaning they are not producing on the field and need someone to either shake things up or win some games from the bench, he is also irrelevant."

EXACTLY.

------------------------------

"OK - Charlie bashers, tell me. Which manager would you rather have at the helm of this team?"

"4 straight division championships. Currently in first place. I wonder what it would be like if the team was run by some of the schizos on this board."

Well, Phlipper, according to Mike's logic, we ought to be doing everything we can to lure the brilliant tactical wizard that is Joe Torre to town.

Quincy--

Ask clout a question in a British accent. Everything sounds more intelligent when said with a British accent.

Matt Gelb (via Twitter): Michael Stutes going to throw in the outfield with head athletic trainer Scott Sheridan.

then

Stutes said he's better. Could be available tomorrow.

Good. Now DL Vic & recall Worley already.

"Ok. I get it now. You're joking, right? A team significantly hampered by injuries sits in first place, having had the best record in baseball for much of the season"

Let's just ignore that this team has a rotation that is in the discussion of the most pitching talent ever assembled.

Naah...they have nothing to do with it. Charlie would have done just as well with Myers/Wolf/Padilla/Silva

Exactly Will. The Yankees won so many pennants and WS under Torre because Torre was a brilliant manager.

It had nothing to do with the fact that the Yankees had some of the best players in MLB during that time period. Or that they outspent their opposition to lock up premium players.

If Joe Torre was managing this club, we would've won at least 2 World Series by now.

"Other than being a swell old fella who gets along with his team, what qualities does he posses that you feel contributed to the Phillies success in recent years?"

by WILL SHWEITZER
Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 03:01 PM

............................................

Well, Manuel does bowl overhand.

Yeah, Will, thanks for putting those words in my mouth. I typed out a response twice and it got lost in posting both times.

Long story short, I'm glad the team isn't run by people who think it's a good idea to cut a manager who has won four straight division titles and currently has his team in first place. The end.

Does anyone think that the Yankees team managed by a "moron" that had so much success did't have better personnel than the Phillies? By a long shot?

I kind of like Charlie. He's handled the team well over his years as manager. But I have to admit that when the Cards executed a hit and run to perfection last night, I jumped up and gasped "WHAT WAS THAT?"

You'd think that with Polanco hitting number two all those games, Charlie might actually try a hit and run. And especially with Polanco slumping in the three hole, maybe try a hit and run. And yet, he never does.

Just saying. Oh, and what's a sqeeze bunt?

Is Cholly a great tactician? Nope, and I don't know that ANYONE has said he is.

I do, however, put a lot of responsibility on RAJ. Yes, in last night's single anecdotal situation, Cholly had a better option (a warmed up Madson) and she should be taken to task for failing on that decision.

However, the fact that this team is absolutely littered with a 25 man roster of guys not close to 100% healthy is squarely on RAJ. Oswalt looked good last night, but I am going with Fat's logic that the results still don't make starting him a good decision.

Granted, none of us really know how injured some of these guys are, but the truth is that playing them injured isn't necessary as we actually DO have the luxury of having other available options in the system. And that speaks only to his poor roster management relating to injuries. Don't even get me started on why Dane Sardinha is still around and what other options there are (at this point, I'd take a canvas Speed Pitch backstop over Great Dane).

And I'd love to know the logic as to why Vic keeps a roster spot, and Polanco, Ruiz, Blanton, Roy O, et al all play injured while other injuries (Chase, Dom) do not.

"Long story short, I'm glad the team isn't run by people who think it's a good idea to cut a manager who has won four straight division titles and currently has his team in first place."

Yeah...I'd rather a team that waits until things get so horribly out of control that nothing can be done to salvage the season.

Look, I recognize that Charlie is not getting fired in 2011 under any circumstances. I don't think he's the right man for the job, and I believe he hurts our chances at a World Championship far more than he helps, but he's here and he's not leaving.

I'm not calling for him to be fired because it has zero chance of happening. I am saying that signing him to an extension was an absolute mistake.

Mike:

ps: Milt Thompson.

Phlipper: You have constantly been criticized for your reading comprehension skills, but I always thought it was a bit blown out of proportion. But, with the current Charlie argument, you have twisted words and taken things out of context to create a new argument. It's really quite annoying and disingenuous.

Let me use smaller words and shorter sentences, so perhaps you will understand what I am saying:

Players like playing for Charlie. That is good. Charlie is a poor in-game manager. That is bad. At what point does being an in-game manager become more good than being a likable guy?

That is what I am debating. Go back and look. I never said Charlie should be fired right now. I never said it. I stated that I didn't like the Charlie signing and that I think he was hired as a players' manager, hence Williams, Howe and Lopes were brought in to manage. I pointed to the fact that his moves became head-scratchers once Williams left. My opinion is that the team could do better. I said in '07, '08, '09, '10 and now '11. I bet I'll say it in 2012 too. Is that so outlandish to have that OPINION?

It's an opinion. I'm permitted to have one. You are permitted to have one too.

Gotcha. The only explanation is that they're underperforming. You don't think they are underperforming at the moment? You think a "contender" should score about 2 runs per game for over a week?

My point is this: With a team that struggles to score more than one or two runs a game, you must try some small ball. And that may be Charlie's biggest weakness.

Conclusion-Will and Heather don't like Cholly.

Next topic?

I read recently that Brian Cashman had to go around Torre's back to protect the relievers in the Yankee bullpen.

Of course, I think Brian Cashman is kinda crazy as well, but still.

"And that may be Charlie's biggest weakness."

There's one hell of a long list of weaknesses. In the other column is "his player's like him".

Just for sh*ts and giggles, let's hire Jon Stewart to manage. I'll bet most of the 40 man roster like him too.

So, you argument Heather, is that the Yankees had much better personnel than the highly successful Phillies' teams. Yet, Charlie is a "moron" for getting a far inferior team to division, league, and MLB championships?

I don't recall Heather comparing the Yankees personnel to the Phillies.

Or is this one of those times where we make sh*t up to support an argument?

R.billingsly, have you looked at the starting lineup during this 4-game losong streak?

Can we declare Heather and Will anti-Charlie trolls and move on?

I can't believe I wasted that much time on this.

Charlie is great. With this pitching staff, they should definitely only be .5 games head of the deadly Marlins and 1.5 ahead of the scary Braves, managed by the incomparable wizard Fredi Gonzalez.

Good night.

Go Phils!

For those of you wondering if you should head out to the ballpark this evening, I just received the following text from the Phillies:

"Phils game tonight on as scheduled. Rain expected to end soon with a slight chance of showers during the game."

"have you looked at the starting lineup during this 4-game losong streak?"

Have you looked at the starting rotation during this 4 game losing streak?

Have you looked at the pitcher's we've faced?

Baez getting the call over Madson in a tie game is an indication that you've conceded the game and you just want to get the hell out of there.

"So, you argument Heather, is that the Yankees had much better personnel than the highly successful Phillies' teams"

No, that's not my argument.

Phlipper: Yes I have. That's my point! When the team is in dire need of wins from the manager because the team isn't up to par, Charlie is horrible. That's the entire crux of my argument.

At what point does being a good in-game manager outweigh being a "player's manager"?

I really don't know how else to say it.

Ok. I'm done arguing about this...


...now!

See you all at another time.

"Baez getting the call over Madson in a tie game is an indication that you've conceded the game and you just want to get the hell out of there"

And before anyone jumps all over this, I'm kidding. Still, it's as reasonable of an explanation as anyone could come up with. I'd be happy to hear his real decision making process. I'm guessing it was that old bugaboo, his "gut decision."

Heather: You are the dumbest poster on this board. You make arguments and then when someone tries to debate with you you jump through all kinds of hoops to attribute wrong statements to them instead of rationally trying to understand their argument. I spent the time putting together a post trying to engage you twice today on points you made which were at best half accurate. Both times instead of reading and comprehending the posts you just extract one sentence- completely ignoring the rest of what I wrote to make some false conclusion.

Even in the whole paragraph you pulled it's clear what I was saying but you ignored all of that.

I even acquiesed that the team of the late 90's was not good. Even in saying Francona was a bad manager I tried to give some thoughts as too why maybe he was- be it his age (he was only 37 when he got the job) or just being the wrong guy for the team. Both of those reasons are sort of saying maybe their performance was out of his hands. And you ignore it.

All I ask is that you actually read posts before responding to them.

"Vic looks like a penis with that haircut."

So, donc has a thin strip of hair down the middle of the head of his penis?

Interesting.

I feel Charlie is the type of manager who lets his players play whatever type of game it is that they feel most comfortable w/ individually, which is to say, he doesn't so much "manage" as "observe". Therefore you're not going to see him asking J-Roll to bunt w/ Pujols playing 3B, or put on a hit & run, or any of the numerous things we fans argue over on a daily basis. Given a talented group of players this approach generally works well over the long haul Regular Season, & not so well in the Postseason. So far, so true to form. I consider the Phillies very lucky to have won a World Series, & don't really expect another as long as Manuel is at the Helm. Quite frankly, Charlie reminds me a lot of Bobby Cox, minus the obvious anger issues.

"You are the dumbest poster on this board. You make arguments and then when someone tries to debate with you you jump through all kinds of hoops to attribute wrong statements to them instead of rationally trying to understand their argument."

I don't know what thread you're reading, but it appears that the individuals who are arguing with heather are attributing wrong statements. As for the rationality of their arguments, it seems to boil down to the following:

1. His players like him and that's important.

2. They won 4 division titles.

Heather and Billingsly clearly illustrate why neither of these things make Charlie Manuel an asset.

Anyone reading this thread objectively will see exactly what Heather was trying to say about Francona, and how it was mischaracterized by others.

Maybe some day, some sabermetric geek will come up with a stat that can actually measure the degree to which a particular manager contributes to, or detracts from, his team's overall win-loss record. Until that day arrives, managers will be judged by how well their team does. It's an extremely crude way to measure a manager's effectiveness, but that's how it currently works. So, it's enough to say that, by that extremely crude measure, Cholly has done a good job.

On the other hand, once people start attributing all sorts of mystical and intangible qualities to him (i.e., he manages his personnel well, keeps players happy & playing hard, etc.), and then drawing conclusions about how those mystical, intangible qualities have helped bring about the Phillies' success, they are engaging in nothing more than bald speculation. We have absolutely no idea if players "play harder" for Cholly than they would for another manager (though I find the idea sort of preposterous on its face). We also have no idea if the team does better because of the warm, sunny feelings inside their clubhouse and, if so, whether Cholly is actually better than other managers at creating those warm, sunny feelings. It seems to me that being popular with his players is a trait that Cholly shares with the vast majority of other major league managers.

"I consider the Phillies very lucky to have won a World Series, & don't really expect another as long as Manuel is at the Helm. Quite frankly, Charlie reminds me a lot of Bobby Cox, minus the obvious anger issues."

I couldn't agree more.

And please- people that were watching this team in the late 90's when Terry was the manager- tell me if I'm missing something from Terry at that time. Was he really a master manager and tactician and I missed it or did he not do tons of questionable things in his time here.

And understand- I don't have a problem with Tito and I'm happy for him he's having success in Boston. It's just that when he was here he was clearly learning the job. It was widely reported at the time that one of the reasons he got the job was that Michael Jordan vouched for him because Terry was his coach when he played in the minors. And to be fair- Francona was manager of the year in the minors in the mid 90's at least once. He got swallowed up in Philly though.

One thing should be noted on Torre and you can determine how it affects the debate. The Yankees were a better team before they started trying to outspend everyone to win titles. When it was the core group of guys (Jeter, Posada, Williams, Martinez) they had considerably more success.

"Oswalt looked good last night, but I am going with Fat's logic that the results still don't make starting him a good decision."

He looked good but he also had to be lifted after just 5 innings & 76 pitches. You could make a case that much of what followed, in terms of bullpen usage, would never have happened if the starter had given us just 1 additional inning. Of course, if that alternate starter (namely, Worley) had allowed more than 1 run in those 6 innings, it would have led to the same outcome -- albeit without all the Wednesday morning quarterbacking on Beerleaguer.

[Oswalt] looked good but he also had to be lifted after just 5 innings & 76 pitches.

That sounds a lot like the average Joe Blanton start, only he also manages to give up 4-5 Runs in the process.

All I know is 4 runs in 3 games. That's 1.33 runs a game. I don't care who is pitching, games cannot be won with that kind of anemic offense. During Monday's telecast on ESPN, I think Breet Boone said he talked to Amaro and was told that RAJ was satisfied with the offense and they were in 1st place. Being is 1st is great. But satified with the offense??

Now, I ask all of you, based of what we've seen recently, is Amaro watching different games that we are? I know the team is hurt by injuries but they are part of the game.

It appears that he is either unable or not ready to aquire a RH hitter. Blanton now has zero trade value. Ben Fran is hitting .220.
Am I nuts or are we in trouble?

You've still got to hit to win and right now this team is difficult to watch. Thoughts?

Will: I see what people are doing, but I'm only speaking in my singular discussions with Heather. I do not, nor would I want to, speak to what others say.

I only got involved in this debate because she made some asinine comments about Francona in comparison to Manuel. I've never misrepresented what she said and have never one misquoted her. I don't engage people in that manner. If I wanted to do that I would just not talk to them. She specifically made a comment- and I'm paraphrasing here- that Francona would've been a better manager if he had the same team as Charlie. I find that statement similar to the bald speculation happening from the other side. I pointed out that the Phillies had some average to above average players on that team. They had some trash sure, but they were not completely devoid of talent like Heather was implying.

On the points about Charlie. I think the disconnect, as best I can tell, is how much weight to put on the fact that the team likes Charlie and the 4 straight division titles. I would argue that they aren't everything (and have said as much in a roundabout way) but I don't think they can be completely discounted either.

That's my side. I have no problem discussing this with you as you didn't try to mis-characterize when I was saying. it's the jumping in logic that bothers me. And yes it bothers me when someone like philpper does it too.

DPatrone: I wouldn't get hung up on what Boone said. Amaro has made it clear in interviews around here that guys need to start producing or they will need to "assess" what they have.

As I said the other night- I think come the middle of June (at the latest) we have a line-up with Utley and Brown in it with some of the back-ups on the bench where they belong.

It is so painful to watch this team right now - any hit seems like a miracle and a run is an act of God (oh wait, I guess that would be a miracle). Their hot start - when what they were doing would be hitting compared to this recent road trip - is why they are still in first place. Florida is breathing down their neck and will take over first place this weekend and the Braves are red hot. However, I think the Phils will be on top of this division in the end albeit only if the injuries heal and don't get worse - I guess the Marlins or Braves could make big deals for a bat/pitcher and take over but that remains to be seen.

Anybody think Rube has any deals in his back pocket or is this year's motto "It is what it is"?

BAP has the definitive post on the topic, re: his 4:33 post.

That's all that really should be said on the subject.

season = over

I think RAJ is working the phones overtime. I can only imagine.

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories

HardballTalk

Rotoworld News

SHOP CSN


Advertisements


Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel

CSG