Frayed Knot

https://nypost.com/2021/12/13/mark-teixeira-on-buck-showalter-smartest-man-in-baseball/Add Mark Teixeira to the pro-Buck chorus. Teixeira played for him for four seasons in Texas “I think Buck Showalter is the smartest man in baseball, and that is not hyperbole,” Teixeira told The Post on Monday. “When you sit down and talk to Buck about the game, he is just so sharp looking at it from all different angles and his record speaks for itself and there is not a more prepared manager as well. You take his intelligence and his preparation and I think he's a great manager. Just look at what he's done with so many franchises, building them up from the bottom.” “Every manager says they have an open-door policy, but Buck truly does,” ... “Buck is not somebody who will walk through the clubhouse all day long kind of bothering guys, but that door is open and any time you need something you go in there and talk to Buck and he's going to do whatever it takes to make the team better.” Also some stuff in that link about Espada who was in the NYY org during Teixeira's final years there.

Besides, Buck was a Good Manger for the Yanx. Stengel was an old man hired mostly as a figurehead. Dallas Green appealed to those (particularly Steinbrenner) who thought his tough guy personna was what their club needed, a thought which usually had a short shelf life. iow, both were hired more for their image than their actual managing skills.

Sherman/Davidoff (NYP) say Joe Espada is a 2nd name still under consideration. Not clear who/if there will be a 3rd.

He also told Steinbrenner to fuck off when Georgie tried to re-hire him ... so there's that.

=Centerfield post_id=82777 time=1639152828 user_id=65] He's also a broadcaster ... Has anyone heard Buck on the air?

A https://nypost.com/2021/12/10/ex-mets-pitcher-brad-brach-is-a-fan-of-buck-showalter/Puma-gram in the NY Post talks about how Buck is considered the front-runner as the (reported) six candidates will get whittled down to "two or three" for the next round of interviews this coming week. He also gets the view from Brad Brach (and if you can't trust him, well then I don't think we're on the same page here) who, in addition to being an ex-Met, also played under Buck for 4-1/2 seasons in Baltimore, a view which pretty much coincides with my impression of Buck's assets, starting with his Valentine-ish strength of not going to get beat by being unprepared: -- “He's been the best manager I ever played for — he's so detail oriented,” [brach also has played for Bud Black, Brian Snitker and Joe Maddon among others] ... There is never a game situation that arises in my eyes that kind of takes him by surprise or that he's not ready for.” He went on to add: “I can kind of talk from only the bullpen perspective, but he was by far the best manager when it came to running a bullpen. He kept everybody healthy. If you look at the guys in that Baltimore bullpen it had nothing to do with our arms when guys got hurt … guys were extremely healthy when they pitched for him.” On how he can come across as not exactly warm and fuzzy until later on when, perhaps like a teenager realizing that his parents maybe aren't so out of touch after all, you realize what he was doing all along: -- “[he] knows how to test guys and I think he finds out what kind of player you are and what he can get out of you by doing certain tests that at the moment you might think is him being a jerk, ... [but] in reality it's just him trying to find out what kind of player he has. It can rub you the wrong way at that time, but I think if you looked back you would say that it was more so for the betterment of the team and yourself than anything else.” Brach on Buck's "old school" rep: -- “I think he was more than willing to listen to all that [analytics] stuff, he just wanted to know where it was coming from, I don't know if it was the front office was having a problem with him asking questions about where it was coming from or what the deal might be, but he got this reputation as this hard-nosed guy who didn't want to listen to anything, where I think honestly it was the complete opposite: He had questions that they didn't want to answer or they weren't sure where it was coming from or they just didn't want questions to be asked, so he just kind of rubbed them the wrong way.”

[FIMG=300]https://smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digital/nationalpost/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/0307_na_skipper.jpg[/FIMG]

Edgy MD wrote: Transactions, 12/8/2021 [td90]Direction[/td90][td90]COMING[/td90][td90]Transaction[/td90][td90]Signed Away from LAD, Projected for St. Lucie[/td90][th]Position Group[/th][th]=#FF0000]Starting Pitcher[/th][td90][/td90][td90][fimg=90]https://metsrostercentral.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/vargas-jesus-2022.jpg[/fimg][/td90][td90]Name[/td90][td90]Jesús Vargas [fimg=50]https://metsrostercentral.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/venezuelan-flag-small.jpg[/fimg][/td90][td90]DoB[/td90][td90]8/18/98[/td90][td90]B/T[/td90][td90]R/R[/td90][td90]High Level[/td90][td90]=#FF0000]A+ (2021)[/td90] Stop calling me "Jason." It's not my name and it's not funny. Jesús wept.

Either way, Lenny's endorsement of Backman is just one additional reason not to hire Backman.

=stevejrogers post_id=82699 time=1639010231 user_id=57] Interestingly, #6, at least in terms of players, was not assigned between when Garvey left and 2003. Since ‘03 it's been issued 12 times. Including Brent Mayne, Jerry Hairston, Curtis Granderson, Kenny Lofton, and last season's Trea Turner.

What would be funny would be if Puma's source, the "person with knowledge of the Showalter interview", turned out to be Showalter himself.

I hadn't realized until just looking it up this very second (well not THIS very second but the second that was occurring just prior to me writing this) that Steve Garvey had spent as much time with the Padres as he did -- five seasons, three full ones, slightly more than 1/4 of his ML PAs (I would have guessed more like 10-15%) But that still doesn't change the fact that the Padres retiring his number but not the Dodgers is one of the more ridiculous things in uniform retirement ever and it just emphasizes SDP's role as little brother even though they probably thought that jumping on #6 before LA did put them closer to equal footing because they were able to "steal" one away from big brother. News Flash Pads ... it didn't.

Good for Hodges's kids and family. (Is the widow still alive?) There's always the 'wish it could have happened while he was alive' saying, but in Gil's case that wasn't going to happen unless he was an overwhelming choice which he obviously wasn't. He lived only long enough to see four HoF ballots but never topped 50% in any of them. Aside from his first ballot (1969 coincidentally) when he got 24% in an era where voting 'Yes' on a first-timer was considered a capital crime by many in the BBWAA, he hovered between 40 and 60 pct over 14 ballots before topping out at 63% in his final year of eligibility. =nymr83 post_id=82591 time=1638792819 user_id=54] I understand taking another look at guys like O'Neill who played in the negro leagues but it is so dumb to spend 15 years on a ballot deciding that Kaat and Oliva are NOT hall of famers just so a a handful of their buddies can show them in now.

Frayed Knot wrote: What I'm talking about is the fan/media debate where, as it was for Rizzuto, the discussion proceeds directly to if this is the year the obvious wrong will be righted as that's an already agreed upon fact allowing us to skip over the part about whether or not he actually should be inducted. Similarly, MFY fans have been equally vocal (maybe even more so) in their support for Munson's election to the hall. Ron Bloomberg has been one of the leaders of the charge on his Facebook page, has written (he says) a book "Thurman and Me", and hawks "Thurman for the Hall" t-shirts. Yech. If someone wants to make a case for Munson then go ahead. I might disagree with them but they can talk him up all they want. A debate is what SHOULD be happening on this topic. My problem with the Rizzuto and now Hodges cases is with those acting as if there is no debate to be made because it's already a universally recognized fact. And those folks who relieve themselves of the burden of proof also get to sidestep the inconvenient question of how such an obviously deserving member was voted down so consistently by contemporaries who actually saw your guy play. Rizzuto not only never got 75% during his decade and a half on the ballot, in his best year he never got halfway to 75%. So while maybe all those voters for all those years were wrong, but you should at least need argue your point rather than act as if his career alone is prima facie evidence that requires no further discussion. All of this reminds me of the logic of (former?) newswoman Linda Ellerbee. In making a case (years ago) for passage of the (by then expired) Equal Rights Amendment. Her argument was; 'the fact that we don't have it is proof that we need it'. Oh, OK.

=kcmets post_id=82555 time=1638717816 user_id=53] How's Buck with stranding runners in scoring position?

Like Grandy as a player & person. Certainly has the personality to run a dugout -- that part of it is largely a people managing task which you figure he'd be good at. Would likely be lesser than Buck at planning for scenarios multiple innings in advance simply because he doesn't have Buck's decades-long apprenticeship at it (he's been at this since he was like 25 y/o). And then you worry whether choosing Grandy would signal that they (whoever They turn out to be) want someone more willing to take marching orders from the F.O.

Edgy MD wrote: I certainly think there has been a lot of questioning about it. As noted, he's been on 35 ballots. Sure, the voters have questioned his merits, on multiple occasions and via multiple formats. They've also rejected him each time, maybe rightly or maybe wrongly but it's at least a question so it would be nice if it were treated as such. What I'm talking about is the fan/media debate where, as it was for Rizzuto, the discussion proceeds directly to if this is the year the obvious wrong will be righted as [if] that's an already agreed upon fact allowing us to skip over the part about whether or not he actually should be inducted. I understand the fan perspective on this, at least to a degree; Phil lived a long time and spent generations as a lovable broadcaster; Gil tragically lived a short time and managed a lovable story (though he's not up for managing and probably 90% of fans alive today never saw him play a single game) so both are beneficiaries of the warm fuzzies. It's more disturbing to see the supposed tough NY media take a pass on the whole thing and instead act as cheerleaders. At least this has yet to reach the Rizzuto situation where the committee was nakedly and purposely stacked for the sole purpose of getting him elected and then pretending that the whole process wasn't tainted. Bill White (his active broadcast partner), Yogi Berra, and Pee Wee Reese (longtime friends) were off that vets committee as quickly as they appeared on it once the deed was complete. Yogi's congratulatory phone call was, "We got you in!" I didn't like the lack of public debate then and I don't like it any better now simply because it's one of "my" guys up for inclusion.

=G-Fafif post_id=82489 time=1638560871 user_id=55] Managed two teams on the cusp of winning the World Series (MFYs and D'Backs) but was removed (in favor of Torre, then Brenda) ...

I mentioned in a different thread (where the topic of first-timer vs old-hand was being discussed) that he'd be the first one I'd go to out of the old-hand names getting tossed around. He seems to wear on players and front office after a couple of years but I'll worry about that a couple of years from now.

I'm agnostic on the whole Gil-in-HoF question. It's become a rerun of the Rizzuto saga where each year the NY media and NY fans wonder if THIS is going to be the year he gets in. No questioning as to whether or not he deserves to is entertained because we act as if that debate was settled long ago but he is, for some unstated reason, being screwed each time and it's time to right the wrong. But while those inside the NYC area see it as settled, I doubt there's the same consensus outside and maybe the majority opinion just thinks he falls a bit short.

=bmfc1 post_id=82382 time=1638461392 user_id=73] MLB players are changing their Twitter avatar to a generic silhouette of a baseball player.

Mercury is in retrograde from mid-January through February 4th, so of course it can't happen during that time span. Shortly after 2/4 then is my guess.

Trading off players in their final year of a contract at the trade deadline of a lousy season isn't remotely the same as 'tanking' for draft picks. Those teams aren't in some sort of 'race to the bottom', they're re-positioning their roster with future years in mind and they have their eyes on the players they get in return as the surest and most immediate pieces for a winning club, players who are a lot more advanced and much more likely to succeed than some current schoolboy. Any improvement in draft position is almost certain to be marginal and will be multiple years from paying off if and when it actually does. The Cubs this season, for instance, were four games under .500 when they traded Baez, Rizzo, Bryant, and whoeverelsetheydealt at the deadline. They wound up 20 games under and looks like they'll get the 7th overall pick as opposed to being on track for somewhere in the 11th-14th range (assuming they stayed the course AND maintained their April-July pace ... another big IF). Jumping from 12th overall to 7th is not exactly a sure-fire 'Get Rich Quick' scheme for improving your ball club. If MLB wants to Lottery-ize the draft I'm not going to cry about it, but realize that it's essentially a gimmick that sort of* works in the NBA because draft picks there are capable of, and expected to, provide immediate help. It doesn't always work but finding that one true stud is generally seen as the only way to improve enough to contend in that league so it makes things worth the gamble. * 'Sort of' in that while being worst doesn't guarantee the 1st overall, every year there are cries about why some 25 win team gets a better pick than some squad who won half that; every year teams get top picks and whiff on them; and then there are more than occasional cries of 'Fix!' They've also tweaked the formula multiple times over the years and there are still complaints about them not getting it right. And, btw, teams still tank, so it hasn't exactly been a cure for the targeted the disease.

Here are a few items in the MLBPA's latest proposal, according to ESPN's Jesse Rogers: Free agency at age 29 1/2 or after five years of service time, whichever comes first. -- Something is going to change on how FAs are determined and it's going to involve age in some form. I'm not going to sweat the details on this one. Players become arbitration-eligible after two seasons rather than three. -- =#0000FF]Most already are after two-plus seasons and changes in recent CBAs have seen it creep closer to two-even. The advantage of how they work it now is that there's no specific cut-off where teams know in advance how they can manipulate an extra year. Calling it two years would put this back in but there are probably more details than we're seeing now Expanded 12-team postseason with leagues realigned to two divisions each. -- =#0000FF]I'm very against expanding playoffs but would have to see this realignment scheme Luxury-tax threshold raised from $210 million to $240 million. -- =#0000FF]Fine, whatever. Advertising patches on uniforms. -- =#0000FF]Is neither side Ever going to say 'enough is enough'? I mean, I know the answer to that but is there really no way to preserve tradition and make $30mil rather than look like a NASCAR driver so you can get $35?

=nymr83 post_id=82312 time=1638397999 user_id=54] With regard to revenue sharing, if I were the union I would want it gone. If the Pitates owner cant remain profitable without the dollars, he will hopefully sell to someone who can - or better still for the players, sell to a rich guy willing to spend on salaries for his own fun not profit.