- This topic has 35 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Cubbies almost qualified for the play-offs and had a pretty good season, so I’m a little surprised Ross is standing in the soup line. And I’m reasonably certain Counsell likes the idea of having to purchase a forklift to carry that payroll check to the bank. I’d also say that, for now anyway, he likes the idea of the bigger stage presented in the form of Wrigley Field. At any rate, it’s nice to see that some organizations continue to recognize the importance of retaining an experienced and successful Big League manager to make the decisions while trying to win ballgames on the field of play.
What is Craig Counsel doing?
And what are the Cubs doing?
This is hard for me to comprehend……..
The way I interpret it is Counsell is going to a team with a much bigger budget but still close to home.
The Cubs are hiring one of the top 5 managers in all of baseball.
None of this is good news for the Cardinals.
Correct me if I am wrong, but haven’t both Bellinger and Stroman filed to be free agents? What happens to the Cubs if they lose both?
To me it sounds like Counsel would have had a better chance of winning with Milwaukee than the Cubs.
Then again, money talks.
I just hope Front Row Amy doesn’t go to Wrigley with him.
How did the Padres do with Melvin? Guardians with Francona? Etc… The guy driving the stagecoach is less important than the horses pulling it.
Correct me if I am wrong, but haven’t both Bellinger and Stroman filed to be free agents? What happens to the Cubs if they lose both?
The Cubs could theoretically re-sign Bellinger and Stroman or they can use that money to go after someone else. They have the funds to do whatever they want.
How did the Padres do with Melvin? Guardians with Francona? Etc… The guy driving the stagecoach is less important than the horses pulling it.
Sometimes that is the way it works out but it depends on how you look at allocation of resources. If it were my money I would rather spend $8M per year on Craig Counsell than $12.5M per year on Steven Matz. Which is the better investment?
gscottar said:
Sometimes that is the way it works out but it depends on how you look at allocation of resources. If it were my money I would rather spend $8M per year on Craig Counsell than $12.5M per year on Steven Matz. Which is the better investment?
Of course, with 20-20 hindsight, you can say that. Whether you would have said that when Matz was signed is another question. Signing a good manager instead of a bad pitcher is an easy decision – just as signing a good pitcher instead of a bad manager would also apply.
But let’s put aside the theoretical and get real. Do you want them to sign one less pitcher this winter and spend that money instead on a name brand manager? If not, your example might be an interesting history “what if” but is not relevant to the current situation, in my view.
I am not among those who think the Cardinals should stop trying to get better players just because they made mistakes in the past.
(As an aside, I don’t think that Counsell would have gotten the 2023 Cardinals into the playoffs with that staff.)
What the cubs are doing is trying to win. Milwaukee is tighter on spending money than the Cardinals are for a few reasons but doesn’t change facts. Cubs can be tight but like cardinals they tend to have fair amounts of money. True you can argue to spend on better players over a better coach. Personally I’d rather have both. Counsell has proven to be a good manager in my opinion. It’s sad when the cards biggest rival and hated enemy is doing a better job of trying to be successful.
Do you want them to sign one less pitcher this winter and spend that money instead on a name brand manager?
Lets put some paint on that picture and see what it looks like. Over on the Rotation thread a post listed MLBTR’s FA predictions mentioning the Cardinals, so that is a handy for quick illustrative purposes. Overall, the prediction that comes closest to matching Counsel’s 5/40 is Robert Stephenson 4/36. A 7th inning guy who did well enough with the Rays to get some 8th inning set up work. In terms of AAV, Yuki Matsui at 2/16 is a match.
So now we can ask, which would you do, Counsel or Stephenson? Counsel or Matsui?
As to the question posed just above, it is necessary to consider what Stephenson or Matsui might do for us. In that regard, factor in that it would be Marmol making the decisions as to deployment.
I think investing in a top quality manager is always a worthwhile investment so I completely understand what the Cubs are doing.
In the Cardinals case it may not make sense to hire someone like Counsell or Bochy because the front office doesn’t want that kind of arrangement. They want someone with zero pushback. I don’t think Marmol is a terrible manager nor do I think he is great. I think he is a young guy learning on the job that probably could have used more time gaining experience before taking over a job with such high expectations. He could certainly use a higher quality bench coach (Yadi).
So yes I do think a high quality manager is a better investment than a back end starter or bullpen guy. The economics of baseball has that backwards.
I’m always curious about the assertion that the Cardinals want a manager who has zero pushback. Why do people believe that to be true? Shildt getting terminated may be an example, but there could be a lot more behind the scenes with that decision than we realize because organizations can’t talk about those things for fear of a defamation lawsuit. What other examples are there? Marmol doesn’t exactly strike me as a guy who would never push back when he feels he’s in the right. Heck, there’s several examples of that being the case.
The question is how much difference does a manager make. It is not Just strategy and pitadinha matchup (though that is big). It also keeping guys motivated and sharp. Can you quantify these things? If só It seems managers are underpaid in general. If one WAR is worth 9 million It would make sente a good manager is worth the investment. The question then becomes can you identify a good manager vs a medíocre one?
I’m always curious about the assertion that the Cardinals want a manager who has zero pushback. Why do people believe that to be true? Shildt getting terminated may be an example, but there could be a lot more behind the scenes with that decision than we realize because organizations can’t talk about those things for fear of a defamation lawsuit. What other examples are there? Marmol doesn’t exactly strike me as a guy who would never push back when he feels he’s in the right. Heck, there’s several examples of that being the case.
There are many reasons I believe they don’t want push back. When Jocketty was sent packing the Cardinals made it known that they were switching their operation to a more analytic based approach that would rely more on data and less on “old school” techniques. I don’t think they wanted to force LaRussa out since he is a HOF manager but when he retired they saw the opportunity to finally complete the conversion by bringing in a manager who would be more accepting to a top down approach.
Ironically I don’t think Matheney was well versed in analytics but the most important thing was that he was a first time manager, therefore, more likely to go along with the wishes of his superiors. Remember that we interviewed but did not hire Terry Francona at this time.
After Matheny left we replaced him with another rookie manager. I won’t rehash everything with Shildt but his dismissal is still shrouded in some mystery.
After he left we replaced him with another rookie manager. A trend is beginning to become clear here. It may not be that the Cardinal managers are in love with anaylitcs but since they are rookie managers they probably feel they would be foolish to turn down this job, especially if no one else is offering them the opportunity to manage.
I just don’t think it is a coincidence that we have had three rookie managers in a row. This orgainzation wants a top down approach. The manager does not develop the plan. The manager executes the plan.
GSCOTTAR, to me, all the rookie managers tell me they believe in “The Cardinal Way” and want in-house guys who are like-minded. I could see your point if they were external first-time hires. But because they are all internal, I’m sticking with my belief on this topic.
From what I’ve read, the Cardinals really want the best blend of analytics and old school analysis and that Mo is one of the biggest drivers behind that. I believe, like most of this group, that the balance is off and they have begun relying too much on analytics. But I don’t believe that was what they were striving for.
If “The Cardinal Way” means a committment to fundamental baseball, pitching, defense, moving runners over, excellent base running, timely hitting, etc… that can all be accomplished by either an old school or analytic approach.
To me this all boils down to who is calling the shots and it isn’t the manager.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.