Next Met Manager Candidates

[Benjamin Grimm]

Art Howe certainly didn't work out too well, but I can't see how he can be looked at as a hare-brained choice. He had a long track record as a manager, and was just coming off a successful run in Oakland.

Some of the suggestions above are realistic. (Like Oberkfell, for example.)

I think what would most likely happen is an interim guy would be named from within the organization. He might stay in place for just a week or two while an open search is conducted for a new permanent guy. Or he could be given the rest of the year, and a chance to be named permanent after the season ends.

Interim guys generally come from the coaching staff, so Jerry Manuel is the most likely candidate.

I can't see it being Bobby Valentine or Davey Johnson, although I'd welcome either of them. One possibility (though probably not a strong one) would be for Davey to return as a bench coach/mentor if one of his former players (like HoJo or Teufel) got the job.

[metirish]

I think how secure Minaya feels in his job will help determine Randolph's tenure , if the season continues as is then Minaya might well feel that his job security is on the line and he will push to fire will Willie becuase he will be in survival mode.


An interim manager will then be put in place until the end of the season , Minaya then will make a play for Acta .

[Guest AG/DC]

Isn't Davey Johnson just too big a gorilla to have hanging over the shoulder of a rookie manager?

It seems to me expeienced managers with a successful track record tend to be coaches for other experienced managers. Rookie managers (like Randolph) get either experienced coaches or failed managers.

Then again, Jerry Manuel has a winning record over six seasons, and he's only 54.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Guest

[Benjamin Grimm]

AG/DC wrote: Isn't Davey Johnson just too big a gorilla to have hanging over the shoulder of a rookie manager?

Maybe. But didn't Bill Virdon come out of retirement to mentor/bench coach a rookie manager with Pittsburgh? (I can't remember who, though. Lloyd McClendon maybe?) And to be honest, I can't remember how well it worked out. But I do remember thinking it was a good idea at the time.

[Frayed Knot]

Davey has publicly said he'll never manage again

If Willie's 'passive demeanor' is part of the problem, hiring Manual will replace him with maybe the only guy even more placid than Willie. I'm not sure how that placates the wolves.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Yes, but that doesn't rule out bench-coaching.

Good point about Manuel.

[G-Fafif]

I wouldn't want to prejudge Ken Oberkfell, not knowing much about him and having heard a few good things, but it wouldn't bother me if the Mets reached for an unorthodox choice not necessarily on anybody's radar. Joe Torre was a left field choice for the MFYs in 1996. Larry Dierker shocked people when the Astros tabbed him in 1997 and he won three straight division titles.

Maybe Oberkfell or Manuel is the right guy. I hope that if/when the Mets do make a move they cast a wide a net as can be cast midseason.

[Guest AG/DC]

Keith Hernandez: smart, out of left field (actually, the lot behind left field), and intense.

Dierker was hired out of the broadcast booth. Why not Keef?

I mean, he'll still need his days off, plus time for his Florida tax dodge.

[batmagadanleadoff]

G-Fafif wrote: Larry Dierker shocked people when the Astros tabbed him in 1997 and he won three straight division titles.

Larry Dierker on the bunt:

Last night, I was doing a show on KTRH with Tom Franklin and Alan Ashby and we got yet another call about bunting. It seems to me that many people who consider themselves to be knowledgeable fans, think their favorite teams should bunt more often.... [T]he Astros are second in the league in sacrifice bunts to the Rockies, with the Cubs running a close third. Last time I looked, none of those teams was having a very good year. And while I know there is more to it than bunting, I also know that bunting is a bad strategy most of the time....

When I was pitching, I was delighted when the hitter squared to bunt -- especially if he was a decent hitter. I'll take an man on second with one out any day. And many times it worked out even better for me because the hitter either made a bad bunt and we got the force play at second, or he went back to hitting with two strikes in the count.

As a manager, I was amazed when opposing managers bunted in the first inning to try to score first. Even if they scored a run, there were still eight innings left to play . One run is not a big deal in the first inning. But the big inning is a big deal. In 70 percent of all major league games, the winning team scores as many or more runs in one inning than the other team scores in the whole game. That suggests that it is better to play for the big inning until late in the game and that's the way I managed. Most managers do the same. That's why the Astros, who don't bunt often, still bunt more than most teams.

With a man on first base and nobody out, you have a chance for a big inning. That chance is greater if you hit away, while your chance of scoring one run is still the same. The only time it is a good idea to sacrifice bunt is when there is a weak hitter at the plate who is also a good bunter and there is a good hitter up next. In other words, with the eighth hitter up when you are going to pinch hit for the pitcher, or when the pitcher himself is up.

[Guest AG/DC]

Good call, Larry from Houston.

[seawolf17]

Let's hire Dierker. I hate sac bunts.

[Benjamin Grimm]

What's Earl Weaver doing these days?

[batmagadanleadoff]

AG/DC wrote: Good call, Larry from Houston.

Wee Willie Small Balls, on the other hand, bunts all the time. In the first inning, in the first inning with nobody out. In the first inning and nobody out with Reyes already on second base. Randolph even did the sac bunt thing with a man on second and nobody out in the first inning of a game in Colorado. Colofuckinrado. Could you believe that? When a guy does something as harebrained as sac bunting in the first inning in Denver, well that's all you need to know about the guy.

[Guest AG/DC]

That's two uses of "harebrained" this morning.

[metirish]

batmagadanleadoff , are you in favor of a manager that plays for the big inning , more of an American League style? Personally I would like the next manager to be a National League type.

[batmagadanleadoff]

metirish wrote: batmagadanleadoff , are you in favor of a manager that plays for the big inning , more of an American League style? Personally I would like the next manager to be a National League type.

I like the big inning. What's not to like about scoring three, four or five runs in one frame? Dierker was correct in noting that the winning team 's biggest inning alone, will usually suffice to outscore its' opponent's entire game. I am a big believer of Earl Weaver's "give me two walks and a three run homer any day of the week" mentality.

[batmagadanleadoff]

metirish wrote: batmagadanleadoff Personally I would like the next manager to be a National League type.

How come?

[metirish]

Nothing not to like about any of that batmagadanleadoff , although I would prefer a walk , a drag bunt for a hit and then a three run home run.

[batmagadanleadoff]

metirish wrote: Nothing not to like about any of that batmagadanleadoff , although I would prefer a walk , a drag bunt for a hit and then a three run home run.

Plus, that's better for the team batting average.

[metirish]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: metirish wrote: batmagadanleadoff Personally I would like the next manager to be a National League type. How come?

Maybe it's now an outdated idea on my part but I think a manager who has a National League pedigree is better suited for the Mets , I always liked how Valentine would try and make things happen during a game, stuff like that.

[batmagadanleadoff]

metirish wrote: [i think a manager who has a National League pedigree is better suited for the Mets , I always liked how Valentine would try and make things happen during a game, stuff like that.

You won't catch Valentine bunting early in Colorado, either.

[metirish]

I'm certainly not saying I love the bunt play , it has it uses and Bobby knew when to use it, I do not like bunting early in the game.

[batmagadanleadoff]

metirish wrote: I'm certainly not saying I love the bunt play , it has it uses and Bobby knew when to use it, I do not like bunting early in the game.

Sure. The sac bunt does have its' place. Dropping the H-Bomb has its' place, too. I'm opposed to dropping down the bunt, indiscriminately, Willy-Nilly style. Lately, my favorite Met inning is the one where the #2 hitter leads off. It's just about the only time I'm comfortable that Willie won't call for the bunt with the middle of the order due up. Even better when Church is the #2 guy.

[Frayed Knot]

... it wouldn't bother me if the Mets reached for an unorthodox choice not necessarily on anybody's radar. Maybe Oberkfell or Manuel is the right guy. I hope that if/when the Mets do make a move they cast a wide a net as can be cast midseason.

Of course there's only so far a mid-season net can be cast -- which is something to consider when contemplating a change, particularly if it's just for the sake of making a change.

[Benjamin Grimm]

You can cast a wide net during the mid-season if you're willing to have a three-manager season.

They could fire Willie, let HoJo (for example) hold down the fort for a couple of weeks, while they openly search for a replacement.

The reason it's hard to go outside the organization for a mid-season manager change is because the search has to be surreptitious.

I know some teams have done the in-season, short-term interim manager thing, but overall it's pretty rare.

[soupcan]

I vote Bobby V.

But I don't think Mazzilli was so bad in Baltimore was he? He had a lousy team.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I like Valentine too but I don't think he's at all realistic. I wpuld be shocked if the Mets went that route again and by doing so implied that the last six years were all a mistake.

I also think Valentine is best able to succeed where he has a chance to craft his team the way he likes it, not be handed it fully formed and ready to go.

For that reason I think a guy like Oberkfell would be the best choice. I am sure Manuel gos down with the ship, if that's how the ship goes down. I have no faith in Hojo who I think is just a jock. If an 86 Met were really to manage up here I'd go with Darling, though he seems pretty dedicated to his announcing gigs.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Cito Gaston never got another shot after winning two series, and I've never heard why.


I know Gary Carter and the team had a less than happy parting, but is he managing somewhere?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I don't remember the particulars, but when he was hired by the Orioles, I had the impression that he was being set up to fail.

Mazzilli might be adequate. I think Randolph is not much short of adequate. I'm looking for something more than that, though. I don't see Bobby or Davey returning, but I'd like to get the next Bobby, or the next Davey.

From the outside looking in, I have no idea who that might be. I can point and say "Oberkfell!" but I have no idea what we'd be getting. When they hired Davey Johnson, I was disappointed. They were just bringing up some guy from Tidewater when there were experienced guys out there. (There were rumors about Earl Weaver at the time.) But Davey turned out just fine. Obviously, Cashen saw something that I didn't, and that's what you'd expect.

[Benjamin Grimm]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Cito Gaston never got another shot after winning two series, and I've never heard why.

Interesting point. Where is Cito today?

metsguyinmichigan wrote: I know Gary Carter and the team had a less than happy parting, but is he managing somewhere?

I could probably make a list of 900 guys I'd rather see manage the Mets. And Willie Randolph might be one of them.