Negotiations With Manuel

[metirish]

David Lennon today saying that the Mets are " digging their heels in" with Manuel regarding a contract.

Mets offered a two year deal worth about $1.5 million and Lennon says they do no want to offer much more than that.....

Some points from the article.

As always, there are financial concerns as well. The Mets are paying Randolph $2.5 million not to manage next year, and that cycle has to be broken at some point. When Randolph was hired for the 2005 season, Art Howe still had two years and $4.7 million left on his contract.


Lennon speculates that Bobby V could be one candidate to come back if Manuel doesn't stay.

But if negotiations do fall through, one of the names that could surface again is Bobby Valentine. The club's chilly relationship with Valentine has thawed during the past year, and the Mets' job is one of the few that might prompt him to leave Japan. Having him return to open Citi Field next April would be like the franchise welcoming home a prodigal son.



Other names Lennon mentions....

] BOBBY VALENTINE, manager, Chiba Lotte Marines. Brilliant field manager with New York experience. Has good relationship with GM Omar Minaya and seems to have patched things up with the Wilpons after his firing in 2002. RUDY JARAMILLO, hitting coach, Rangers. Was interviewed for Mets' vacancy before Willie Randolph got the job in 2005. Considered one of the best hitting coaches in the game. That couldn't hurt, given the Mets' offensive woes down the stretch. LARRY BOWA, third-base coach, Dodgers. Fiery attitude might be wake-up call the Mets need if this core stays together. Worked alongside Joe Torre in the Bronx and now in L.A., but may want to come back east. DAVEY JOHNSON, manager, Team USA. Estranged former Mets manager wore a Mets hat during this past July's Futures Game, but he has kept his distance from organization. Seems reluctant to return to majors. MANNY ACTA, manager, Nationals. With the D.C. franchise in total disarray, maybe the Nats would let him out of his contract. His coaching staff already was fired on the final day of the regular season. Close ties with Minaya and assistant GM Tony Bernazard.

Of course one never knows what is going on in contract negotiations , I would not be surprised if it was announced that Manuel signed today or if it went of for a few weeks , although that will lead to more speculation and names being thrown about.

Edited October 3, 2008 by Guest

[Guest AG/DC]

1) Sounds like Manuel is undervalued relative to his predecessors.

2) It's not Manuel's fault that they're still paying other guys, and, if they want to break the cycle, why break it over his head?

3) I realize Lennon is throwing me red meat with Valentine speculation, but is there any doubt that Bobby Valentine would cost 3-4 times per annum more than what Manuel costs, over a minimum of three years?

Edited October 3, 2008 by Guest

[metirish]

Good points edgy , and last I read Bobby V was making $4 million per year over in Japan , plus he practically runs the whole show .

[soupcan]

metirish wrote: Lennon speculates that Bobby V could be one candidate to come back if Manuel doesn't stay.

Don't tease me.

[Gwreck]

I can't remember where I read it, but my recollection is similar to that of metirish, that Valentine is making boatloads in Japan, and that a paycut to return to the US wasn't in the cards.

[Guest old original jb]

How profoundly Fucked is it that the Mets will pay Willie Randolph more than twice as much NOT to manage badly as they are willing to pay Jerry Manuel to manage pretty well?

Come to think of it, I'd probably do an even worse job than Willie.
I'm think going to call up the Wilpons and tell them that if I don't get a couple million dollars by next Wednesday, I'M going to start managing the Mets.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

The great thing is, Jerry is representing himself in negotiationsm, and I'm all for him getting all he can get.

But, you know, he's just a manager.

Bobby Vee in the right spot iprolly deserves more $$ cuz he's kind of a promotional tool, figurehead, spokesman, attraction in a way few others are. I mean, the Mets with the new park may not need a gate attraction, but never say never.

[batmagadanleadoff]

old original jb wrote: How profoundly Fucked is it that the Mets will pay Willie Randolph more than twice as much NOT to manage badly as they are willing to pay Jerry Manuel to manage pretty well?

Paying Willie Randolph not to manage the Mets might be the best money the franchise ever spent in recent times. If I were Fred Wilpon, I'd pay the Phillies triple to have Willie manage the Philllies next season. Phillie Willie would just about ensure a 2009 division title for the Mets.

After they pay Willie not to manage, the next thing the Mets should do is to pay Castillo not to play. Castillo's guaranteed salary is a sunk cost.

I agree with AG's line about it not being Manuel's fault that Willie had guaranteed money coming to him. That's the first thing I thought of when I read the article up top. What if the Mets had foolishly guaranteed Willie $10M? Or $15M. Would Manuel have to manage for free? Or would Willie have remained --another sunk cost sinking the Mets-- and us Mets fans would have to endure more years of bottom of the batting order hitters batting second and asked to make intentional outs every single time Reyes leads off an inning by getting on base?

I thought we had gotten rid of this dreadful manager but he's still haunting, still undermining this team.

[Guest AG/DC]

The way to not continue paying managers after you fire them, it seems obvious, is to stop making poor choices in hiring.

[metirish]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: The great thing is, Jerry is representing himself in negotiationsm, and I'm all for him getting all he can get.

I didn't know he was representing himself , I don't know if that's the smartest thing .

[Guest AG/DC]

It's certainly going to drag things out, what with the pauses.

I think good managers make a difference, sometimes large --- it's just that I can't say how. I think they make differences in different ways, it's hard to measure, and so we don't want to believe it.

Kind of like, I don't know, a politician. Can you not have two senators in the same party, with the same voting record and the same lack of indictments, and one be far more effective?

[metsmarathon]

this isn't a direct criticism of manuel, but moreso a criticism of major league managers in general, but one thing that manuel did that had me utterly infuriated at times, is go to his bullpen for lefty righty matchups.

why does this bother me?

well, listen, i understand that some pitchers are far more effective against lefties than they are against righties, and that others are far more effective against righties than they are against lefties.

but i also know that some days, a pitcher just doesn't have it, and there's really no way of knowing this for certain until he faces real live batters. (if you could predict it in the bullpen, you would, and not bring in guys who would turn out to be ineffective, right!)

this is true of starters and relievers alike. and i believe that the more inconsistent, the more struggling your given pitcher is, the greater variability you'll get between appearances. i do not believe this variability to exist on such a great scale between batters as it does between appearances, and likely also between innings. while i don't have stats to back this notion up, i do have anecdotal recollections which seem to reinforce my notion.

so my complaint is, essentially, that when you bring in a lefty, and he does really well against the other team's left-handed batter(s), with good movement and control, you let him pitch to the righty on deck.

because while the righty you have in your pen has good numbers agasinst him in general, you just don't know what you're going to get this time around. so if you've already got a guy in the game who hasn't thrown too many pitches, and is throwing well and effectively, you leave him in the game instead of rolling the dice one more time.

all managers do it, and it frustrates me when you pull out an effective pitcher and gamble that the next guy will be just as effective.

also, if your lefties never face right handed batters, they'll never be able to get them out when your good righty is unavailable.

this is about the only thing that jerry does that bugs me, that i can recall. and all managers do it. and i'm not sure too many would do what i say, nowadays. so its fairly difficult to fault him for it. and certainly this is not a reason for why i think the mets would be better off without him.

i'd love to see bobby vee back, but i really doubt it'll ever happen.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Jerry did make a lot of pitching changes, especially in the last few weeks. I too would be more inclined to stick with a guy who's getting outs, regardless of handedness.

But Jerry was dancing through raindrops with his bullpen in September. I think he might have been better served by making fewer moves, but he opted to go the other way. It didn't work, but I do understand why he felt he had to keep his hands in there.

[batmagadanleadoff]

metsmarathon wrote: this isn't a direct criticism of manuel, but moreso a criticism of major league managers in general, but one thing that manuel did that had me utterly infuriated at times, is go to his bullpen for lefty righty matchups. why does this bother me?

I agree and also would've preferred longer outings (by better relievers) just like you. Here, I cut Manuel a lot of slack because the Mets were loaded with too many LOOGYS and ROOGYS. The Mets sorely lacked a Skip Lockwood or Bob Apodaca type -- a reliever that could reliably pitch to both left and right side hitters.

[metsmarathon]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Jerry did make a lot of pitching changes, especially in the last few weeks. I too would be more inclined to stick with a guy who's getting outs, regardless of handedness. But Jerry was dancing through raindrops with his bullpen in September. I think he might have been better served by making fewer moves, but he opted to go the other way. It didn't work, but I do understand why he felt he had to keep his hands in there.

absolutely. he played it by the book, and would've gotten killed if he didn't and still yielded the same results.

[metirish]

Manuel mentioned that Schoeniweiss was his best crossover guy , still in the last weeks he was like a mad man changing pitchers.

[Guest AG/DC]

the bulloen was failing left and right and he didn't have the time to improve them. Strictly playing matchups was the last card he played, not the first.

The unkindest blow came when he allowed Schoeneweis to hang in there against one righty too many.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Losing Wags was a crushing blow. His innings were naturally replaced by lesser pitchers, occasionally by whoever was the Mets worst reliever - a reliever that wouldn't of even been on the roster but for Billy's season (career?) ending injury.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I also like that Jerry tried an old trick: getting more innings from his starters.

Before Wagner got hurt, the Mets had only had one complete game, from Santana on July 27.

After Billy's final game on August 2, the Mets had four more: Two from Pelfrey (August 20 and 25) and two from Santana (August 17 and September 27.)

I like that he decided to stretch his starters where he could. I hope to see more of that from him.

[Fman99]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="metsmarathon"]this isn't a direct criticism of manuel, but moreso a criticism of major league managers in general, but one thing that manuel did that had me utterly infuriated at times, is go to his bullpen for lefty righty matchups. why does this bother me? I agree and also would've preferred longer outings (by better relievers) just like you. Here, I cut Manuel a lot of slack because the Mets were loaded with too many LOOGYS and ROOGYS. The Mets sorely lacked a Skip Lockwood or Bob Apodaca type -- a reliever that could reliably pitch to both left and right side hitters.

We had one, actually. Except we left him in 2006.

I'm looking at you, Aaron.

[seawolf17]

AG/DC wrote: The unkindest blow came when he allowed Schoeneweis to hang in there against one righty too many.

He put in Show on Sunday to face Jacobs, a lefty. They countered with Helms. The question was Schoeneweis/Helms or Heilman (Ayala?)/Jacobs; he wasn't going to get the matchup he wanted. There was no middle ground; in retrospect, he just picked the wrong one. Once they announced Helms, Show had to pitch to him, because he was fresh in the game.

[Guest AG/DC]

Show gotta go with the pitch-around then.

[Frayed Knot]

]Can you not have two senators in the same party, with the same voting record and the same lack of indictments, and one be far more effective?

Well sure, especially when you have Senator Jeter casting all his votes in the clutch.

[Frayed Knot]

Couple things about the pen:

- Met starters actually covered a learger pct of innings than the average team and I don't believe it changed that much between managers, although I don't have specific data on that. Lack of innings for the starters wasn't the real problem unless one wants to take them to task for not providing the super-duper # of IPs that would be needed in order to save us from the rotten pen.

- The Met pen had by far the largest gaps in their pitching splits for throwing to their opposites (LHPs vs R and RHP v L) meaning that it was almost necessary to do the 6 reliever conga line each night.
Then, tacked on to that, came the lack of Wagner combined with the ineffectiveness of Sanchez & Heilman which made the mgr depend even more on the guys with the built-in half-lives.
As someone mentioned, do that often enough and you'll eventually hit upon someone who simply sucked that night but, in this case, the horrid splits might make inaction even more likely to make the predictable occur.
In the final game I saw the Schoeneweis/Helms matchup and just asked him to get through just this one right-hander!! ... and he couldn't even do that.

[seawolf17]

DO IT, OMAR.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3623945

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I think the offense's habit of encountering difficulty scoring in the late innings -- compounded by what had to be the feeblest bench of any contender -- was little help.

I know its better than the alternative of not handing them a lead at all, but seemed like they almost always had a lead to protect and hardly ever had much margin for error.

[Guest AG/DC]

They gobbled up some wide margins there.

Edited October 3, 2008 by Guest

[Benjamin Grimm]

seawolf17 wrote: DO IT, OMAR. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3623945

]"I am working for a team that needs me and wants me as their man," Valentine replied. "I love it here, but I am an American and love great challenges. I was a in a Met uniform in the '70s, '80s, '90s, 2000, and would love to be there in the next decade."

[seawolf17]

Sign him to a ten-year contract and name a rotunda after him.

[Guest themetfairy]

I want Bobby back!