More and more teams are adopting the formula of hiring an Ivy League-educated, analytics-based GM and/or a veteran player as manager despite little or no coaching experience, a trend FOX Sports’ Ken Rosenthal finds a bit troubling. A specific hiring model may make it harder for minorities to make inroads into front office or managerial positions. Teams that rely too much on analytics could run into as many problems as front offices that are too “old-school,” while Rosenthal notes that several long-time coaches or managers may now find themselves frozen out of the job market simply because they’re not fresh faces.
Here’s some more from around baseball as we head into World Series week…
- While the Dodgers have some weak spots on their roster, ESPN’s Buster Olney (Insider link) argues that there is no need for the club to step back for a mini-rebuilding year in 2016. Los Angeles has won three straight NL West titles despite those flaws and has an ownership willing to spend record amounts, so Olney feels there’s no reason to waste a year of Clayton Kershaw’s prime to retool.
- New Phillies GM Matt Klentak is profiled by Ryan Lawrence of the Philadelphia Daily News, who speaks to Klentak’s old Dartmouth coach (Bob Whalen) and his old Angels colleague, director of baseball operations Justin Hollander.
- The Blue Jays expended quite a bit of their prospect capital in making the trades that helped them win the AL East, though GM Alex Anthopoulos tells Baseball America’s Alexis Brudnicki that he feels the farm system has already been replenished by new talent that has emerged. International signing Vladimir Guerrero Jr. is one of the most-touted new prospects in the system, and Anthopoulos notes that Guerrero has been working out at third base, a bit of a surprise since most pundits felt Guerrero’s body type would eventually see him in a corner outfield/first base/DH role down the road.
- The Diamondbacks have interviewed at least eight candidates in their search for a new pitching coach, Nick Piecoro of the Arizona Republic reports. The list includes each of the pitching coaches from their full-season minor league affiliates, Yankees minor league pitching coordinator Gil Patterson and Athletics minor league pitching coordinator Garvin Alston. Piecoro isn’t sure if the D’Backs will look at any of the available veteran pitching coaches on the market, such as Mike Maddux or Rick Honeycutt.
Citing that the Dodgers should not waste a year of Clayton Kershaw and should go to contention in 2016 to me means you do not take a big risk on the new manager. Gabe Kapler is touted as the front runner and favorite son of the front office right now but he has very limited management experience and I see him as a risk – he could be good he could be great but he also could be a bust. Put him on the field in the minors for a few years and hire Bud Black, Ron Roenicke or Tim Wallach – managers who may not have the upside of Kapler and his analytics and conditioning chops but they would give the better chance the team does not backslide
I agree. My choice would be either Bud Black or Dave Martinez. Also like Tim Wallach but I think he’ll be seen as an extension of Torre/Mattingly. If they’re so high on Kapler, I’m worried they’ll fast track him afraid they’ll lose him to another organization.
Roenicke and Wallach are just terrible options. I’ve seen what Wallach has done everytime Mattingly was ejected. He made some very questionable bullpen and double-switch moves that ended up not working at all made too much of those switches to often. I wouldn’t hire a guy like Roenicke because of his poor tactical moves.
I think they should rebuild the roster. Not a complete tear down, but they need to get younger. I’d probably let Greinke walk if his contract demands go over 5 years, $150MM.
I don’t think a rebuild is needed. You just continue to improve it. Theyre only a piece or two away from being legit contenders. I agree you let Greinke walk at 5/150 too many innings I’m that arm and a deep freeze agent class
But they wouldn’t be one piece away if they lost Greinke, which is very possible.
Grienke is as good as gone. Situation is important to him, and he (and Kershaw) publicly supported Mattingly. All other things being close to equal he’s going somewhere else, to a more stable and consistent organization. Let’s just hope it isn’t the Giants.
If you let Greinke walk at 5/$150MM, who do you replace him with? David Price at 7/$200MM? Or replace him with depth and acquire two SP from the second tier free agent class?
Rather they trade for a young pitcher, possibility use Puig as a trade chip
Who on the Dodgers will you put on the trade block? Everybody except Kershaw, Grandal, Gonzalez, Seager, Jansen?
I agree with dbeattie, “Theyre only a piece or two away from being legit contenders.”
Strengthen the starting pitching, upgrade the left field position & ..
I would trade Gonzalez and Grandal for the right return; Pederson has too much talent to give up at this time. Trade Turner who is the best hitter on this team?
That “rebuilding” is even an option for the team with the runaway largest payroll is laughable. For better or worse, you just can’t go into a season not expecting to win when you’re spending what they are.
Payroll is projected to be ~$150MM, not including arbitration figures. A lot of money is coming off this off-season.
The Dodgers are “rebuilding” and have been since Kasten and Co. took over, only not in the usual way. Instead of trading current costly players for prospects, they are holding onto most of them while throwing huge dollars at the resuscitating the farm organization, mainly through international free agent signings. They are trying to “rebuild” and win simultaneously. It isn’t laughable, it’s just different.
Kapler not likely to accept a minor league manager position after being in charge of the farm system. One option, put him in as manager and provide him with a strong coaching staff, especially bench coach (Black or Roenicke?) for game tactics.
If Kapler can’t or won’t jump over the hurdles like everybody else, then let him walk. I don’t get what’s so special about him anyway.
I agree also. The new dogma in baseball is analytics. So if everybody is reading from the same statistical analysis, how does any one team gain an advantage from it? Leadership. Experience. Human judgement. All the “old school” qualities that analytics supposedly made obsolete.
Those long time coaches and managers that MLB is passing up on are products of the steroid era. The steroid era is over, and their experiences are now worthless. It is good for MLB to look past those guys and find new voices to lead younger players. The whole game is turning the page on that era, with the massive influx of both foreign players and extremely young hall of fame level talent. Those old steroid era guys not only draw all of their experience from a dead and buried era, but also come from a culture that is totally different than the emerging baseball culture you see today. The young players of this current era, both foreign and domestic, have a totally different view of the world, how to behave and what is acceptable. They have different wants and needs, they face different challenges.
Long story short, those old school guys no longer have value in the game, and everyone needs to move on.
What?
Coaches from PED era need to be replaced with players from PED era is what I read.
Just another millennial that thinks the 20th century took place in the Dark Ages. Excuse me while I finish my cave painting.
Right, and baby boomers are all environment destroying racists & misogynists entirely motivated by greed. See how using the opinions of extremists to cast an entire group of people in a negative light because you don’t like your own idea of what they represent is kind of an ugly thing to do?
By the way, “millennial” is a descriptor for people born as far back as the very early 1980s. Millennials are basically just Gen Y, rebranded, I have to assume, to make it easier for old people to complain about without feeling guilty about being the product of the generation *they* raised. And judging by the endless deluge of mostly lazy, cynical ’80s (plus a select few ’90s) rehashes that make up a large portion of our pop culture/entertainment landscape, I don’t think very many people are all that eager to let the 20th century fall by the wayside just yet.
So you think the players during the steroid era, 1958-2006, who played under a different set of rules, who were biologically enhanced by all manner of PEDs ranging from stimulants to steroids which decreased the amount of time it took to recover between games and artificially increased their strength and energy during games, who then changed their approach to playing the game to fit these artificial enhancements, should be the ones training and teaching the guys who never had access to those methods of cheating?
That makes no sense. If you want to get the most out of your players, you train them to follow the rules they are playing by, you don’t teach them to follow some other set of rules. The way the steroid era players think about the game doesn’t apply to the way the game is played today. How much “respect the game!” nonsense do we have to endure before the steroid era guys ride off into the sunset?
Anyways, it doesn’t matter either way, because the game is selecting against the steroid era guys in favor of other people. In 10-15 years, the managers and coaches will be all post steroid era players. With very few exceptions.
PED’s didn’t play the game for the players. The generation(s) before teaches the current generation of players. That’s how it works.
The entire steroid generation is tainted by illogical positions on how the game should be played, and games that abandon those ideas win games. There is no need for steroid era players any longer, they will be phased out.
One of the worst things the steroid era did to my sport was create the mentality that we can just discard an entire decade of the game as if it never happened, resulting in posts like the above.
First off, the steroid era began in the late 50s and early 1960s, you need to get your facts straight.
Secondly, the game post steroid era is totally different than during the steroid era. It will never be the same ever again. For instance, one thing the steroid era never had: twitter.
Another thing the steroid era didn’t have: massive influx of foreign players
The steroid ERA, which was from 1958-2006, is over. It is dead and gone. The game is different now. It will never be the same. Getting rid of people who played in that era is natural, and it will happen rapidly over time. The oldest guys first, then the youngest. Guys who played from 2006 on will start becoming managers before you know it, the game is turning the page on the entire steroid era.
Rosenthal actually has an interesting point that’s totally worth making, but it’s buried by a bunch of hand-wringing, alarmist nonsense. Between the numerous dodgy examples, repeated use of one of the absolute worst cutesy, condescending names for the object of one’s disdain I’ve ever seen, and a couple bad open-ended questions making him sound a bit like a political conspiracy wingnut, it’s very hard to take him seriously when what he’s writing is coming from such an obviously bad place.
I don’t understand where Olney is coming from. The majority of the roster remains the same in 2016 as 2015. Greinke leaving isn’t the end of the world and even that isn’t a sure thing. Also, I find it interesting how the sportswriters see the Giants as big players in FA this yr because of all the payroll coming off the books. No team has more $ coming off the books than the Dodgers with Greinke’s opt out. If you look at Greinke’s 3 yrs with LA it doesn’t really matter who they sign, it probably won’t measure up. I believe he was undefeated vs. the NL West, good luck matching that. The Dodgers got the best Greinke had to offer.
The problem is analysis that pretends to know how much a team is prepared to spend in the free agent market. Who guessed before it happened that the Dodgers were willing to spend $300M a year? Nobody that I recall, but it did not take a genius to see the potential was always there on the revenue and deep pockets side. Likewise the Giants are sufficiently resourced to spend more than they do now, if they choose to. So it never is entirely about salary coming off the books, it’s about the revenue side and ownership’s willingness to part with profits to build a better team.
Whoever said the Dodgers were going to be rebuilding? Olney is the only one I’ve seen. He seems to just be arguing against himself.
Dusty Baker would be great. He lives in N. Cal. He’s got the right mentality. We need someone strong enough to keep the slackers we have in the team. Perfect!!