I don't know....baseball in particular is such a mental game. How many times to we see "the switch" flip in baseball and teams all of a sudden turn into winning teams? It's happened for us numerous times, and the only substantive difference has been the a-hole manager flipping it up and down everyday until he gets a reaction. I just tend to get the feeling when we have easygoing managers, that the players carry through that same attitude to the game. I'm sure the stoic, non emotional, "no problems here" Fredi Gonzalez we see is not an act - it's probably the same Fredi that the players see when the cameras are off.

 

If the manager doesn't have a problem with the way things are going then I'm not sure we are going to see any change.

He's gonna get Boles'd by the team, probably next year.

 

I get the same impression...you know, for a team that has perennially fielded a young team, shouldn't we know that pushover managers just don't work with young teams? We have seen it time after time within our own franchise. Off the top of my head I can remember Torborg, Boles, Perez, and so far Gonzalez. They just seem to play uninspired baseball unless we have a manager that keeps them on edge.

The problem is, he doesn't jab his players. Whenever the media comes a callin' there aren't any problems, all's sunny, K's aren't an issue, pitchers walking guys isn't an issue, it'll all correct itself magically. And that's where the real problem is. Fredi can do whatever he wants in the clubhouse, it's his clubhouse, he can run it like megalomaniac or the cool-uncle. But if he comes to the player and says there's a problem and then comes to the media and says all's rosy, his credibility in the clubhouse is out the window. Player's cannot take him at his word, and that's a big f'ing problem.

 

I'm thinking a lot of people (in the business) don't like the idea of sending messages to players through the media. I think the players would rather him not drag their names through the mud in the media, and instead, take it up with them in private.

He's gonna get Boles'd by the team, probably next year.

 

I get the same impression...you know, for a team that has perennially fielded a young team, shouldn't we know that pushover managers just don't work with young teams? We have seen it time after time within our own franchise. Off the top of my head I can remember Torborg, Boles, Perez, and so far Gonzalez. They just seem to play uninspired baseball unless we have a manager that keeps them on edge.

The problem is, he doesn't jab his players. Whenever the media comes a callin' there aren't any problems, all's sunny, K's aren't an issue, pitchers walking guys isn't an issue, it'll all correct itself magically. And that's where the real problem is. Fredi can do whatever he wants in the clubhouse, it's his clubhouse, he can run it like megalomaniac or the cool-uncle. But if he comes to the player and says there's a problem and then comes to the media and says all's rosy, his credibility in the clubhouse is out the window. Player's cannot take him at his word, and that's a big f'ing problem.

 

I'm thinking a lot of people (in the business) don't like the idea of sending messages to players through the media. I think the players would rather him not drag their names through the mud in the media, and instead, take it up with them in private.

 

Right, I completely agree with that. Airing out problems in the papers is a bad thing. But if you go by the papers, there's nothing wrong with the players, ever. McKeon, Girardi, etc. would use the same basic "we've sat down and talked about it" or "yeah we think there's something wrong and we're working on it."

 

I'm all for talking to a player in private, hell, I think that's the most effective route. But if Fredi is telling two different people two different things (the players and the reporters) credibility is all out the window. You know that Capozzi and Frisario all talk to the players, too. Eventually someone is going to feel betrayed and that blows up.

He's gonna get Boles'd by the team, probably next year.

 

I get the same impression...you know, for a team that has perennially fielded a young team, shouldn't we know that pushover managers just don't work with young teams? We have seen it time after time within our own franchise. Off the top of my head I can remember Torborg, Boles, Perez, and so far Gonzalez. They just seem to play uninspired baseball unless we have a manager that keeps them on edge.

The problem is, he doesn't jab his players. Whenever the media comes a callin' there aren't any problems, all's sunny, K's aren't an issue, pitchers walking guys isn't an issue, it'll all correct itself magically. And that's where the real problem is. Fredi can do whatever he wants in the clubhouse, it's his clubhouse, he can run it like megalomaniac or the cool-uncle. But if he comes to the player and says there's a problem and then comes to the media and says all's rosy, his credibility in the clubhouse is out the window. Player's cannot take him at his word, and that's a big f'ing problem.

 

I'm thinking a lot of people (in the business) don't like the idea of sending messages to players through the media. I think the players would rather him not drag their names through the mud in the media, and instead, take it up with them in private.

 

Right, I completely agree with that. Airing out problems in the papers is a bad thing. But if you go by the papers, there's nothing wrong with the players, ever. McKeon, Girardi, etc. would use the same basic "we've sat down and talked about it" or "yeah we think there's something wrong and we're working on it."

 

I'm all for talking to a player in private, hell, I think that's the most effective route. But if Fredi is telling two different people two different things (the players and the reporters) credibility is all out the window. You know that Capozzi and Frisario all talk to the players, too. Eventually someone is going to feel betrayed and that blows up.

I see what you're saying, but why would the player feel betrayed by the manager down-playing the problem through the media?

i've officially had enough of fredi. i've given him the benefit of the doubt up to this point, but i've now seen enough to form my opinion. his 9th inning batting order last night is what did it for me? not that i think that many managers are very good. that guy in cincy was a moron this past series. and the d backs manager looked pretty retarded pinch hitting a pitcher in the 7th inning last night. for the most part mangers try to do too much and aren?t very good.

But if Fredi is telling two different people two different things (the players and the reporters) credibility is all out the window. You know that Capozzi and Frisario all talk to the players, too. Eventually someone is going to feel betrayed and that blows up.

 

How do you know that Fredi is saying something different to the players? My impression is that he is clueless and actually thinks everything will correct itself. I don't see how we can do anything more than take him at face value.

 

Like you said, he doesn't have to bash them publicly, but he can let us know that he is attempting to work at fixing problems. I'm not sure that he is doing anything...

He's gonna get Boles'd by the team, probably next year.

 

I get the same impression...you know, for a team that has perennially fielded a young team, shouldn't we know that pushover managers just don't work with young teams? We have seen it time after time within our own franchise. Off the top of my head I can remember Torborg, Boles, Perez, and so far Gonzalez. They just seem to play uninspired baseball unless we have a manager that keeps them on edge.

The problem is, he doesn't jab his players. Whenever the media comes a callin' there aren't any problems, all's sunny, K's aren't an issue, pitchers walking guys isn't an issue, it'll all correct itself magically. And that's where the real problem is. Fredi can do whatever he wants in the clubhouse, it's his clubhouse, he can run it like megalomaniac or the cool-uncle. But if he comes to the player and says there's a problem and then comes to the media and says all's rosy, his credibility in the clubhouse is out the window. Player's cannot take him at his word, and that's a big f'ing problem.

 

I'm thinking a lot of people (in the business) don't like the idea of sending messages to players through the media. I think the players would rather him not drag their names through the mud in the media, and instead, take it up with them in private.

 

Right, I completely agree with that. Airing out problems in the papers is a bad thing. But if you go by the papers, there's nothing wrong with the players, ever. McKeon, Girardi, etc. would use the same basic "we've sat down and talked about it" or "yeah we think there's something wrong and we're working on it."

 

I'm all for talking to a player in private, hell, I think that's the most effective route. But if Fredi is telling two different people two different things (the players and the reporters) credibility is all out the window. You know that Capozzi and Frisario all talk to the players, too. Eventually someone is going to feel betrayed and that blows up.

I see what you're saying, but why would the player feel betrayed by the manager down-playing the problem through the media?

 

There's any number of reasons.

 

The reporter could be sitting with Olsen and he could bring up how it's great that the team is supportive of Willis through his struggles and it must be great to play for a guy like Fredi who doesn't find fault with players, after Olsen just got a "talking to" from Fredi.

 

Or veteran players could take issue with Fredi calling them out in team meetings, but not be aware of younger players getting a talking to.

 

There are any number of reasons double talk among a close group (because let's be honest, the reporters do become part of the group) can undermine credibility and very really tear the whole thing apart at the seams.

But if Fredi is telling two different people two different things (the players and the reporters) credibility is all out the window. You know that Capozzi and Frisario all talk to the players, too. Eventually someone is going to feel betrayed and that blows up.

 

How do you know that Fredi is saying something different to the players? My impression is that he is clueless and actually thinks everything will correct itself. I don't see how we can do anything more than take him at face value.

 

Like you said, he doesn't have to bash them publicly, but he can let us know that he is attempting to work at fixing problems. I'm not sure that he is doing anything...

 

Just to play the devil's advocate, he doesn't owe US anything.

 

The problem is either he believes nothing is wrong, and that's a big problem. Or that he's telling different people different things in a super-secretive KGB manner, and that's a potentially divisive problem.

He's gonna get Boles'd by the team, probably next year.

 

I get the same impression...you know, for a team that has perennially fielded a young team, shouldn't we know that pushover managers just don't work with young teams? We have seen it time after time within our own franchise. Off the top of my head I can remember Torborg, Boles, Perez, and so far Gonzalez. They just seem to play uninspired baseball unless we have a manager that keeps them on edge.

The problem is, he doesn't jab his players. Whenever the media comes a callin' there aren't any problems, all's sunny, K's aren't an issue, pitchers walking guys isn't an issue, it'll all correct itself magically. And that's where the real problem is. Fredi can do whatever he wants in the clubhouse, it's his clubhouse, he can run it like megalomaniac or the cool-uncle. But if he comes to the player and says there's a problem and then comes to the media and says all's rosy, his credibility in the clubhouse is out the window. Player's cannot take him at his word, and that's a big f'ing problem.

 

I'm thinking a lot of people (in the business) don't like the idea of sending messages to players through the media. I think the players would rather him not drag their names through the mud in the media, and instead, take it up with them in private.

 

Right, I completely agree with that. Airing out problems in the papers is a bad thing. But if you go by the papers, there's nothing wrong with the players, ever. McKeon, Girardi, etc. would use the same basic "we've sat down and talked about it" or "yeah we think there's something wrong and we're working on it."

 

I'm all for talking to a player in private, hell, I think that's the most effective route. But if Fredi is telling two different people two different things (the players and the reporters) credibility is all out the window. You know that Capozzi and Frisario all talk to the players, too. Eventually someone is going to feel betrayed and that blows up.

I see what you're saying, but why would the player feel betrayed by the manager down-playing the problem through the media?

 

There's any number of reasons.

 

The reporter could be sitting with Olsen and he could bring up how it's great that the team is supportive of Willis through his struggles and it must be great to play for a guy like Fredi who doesn't find fault with players, after Olsen just got a "talking to" from Fredi.

 

Or veteran players could take issue with Fredi calling them out in team meetings, but not be aware of younger players getting a talking to.

 

There are any number of reasons double talk among a close group (because let's be honest, the reporters do become part of the group) can undermine credibility and very really tear the whole thing apart at the seams.

I gotcha now.

 

Bottom line: I REALLY want to see Fredi succeed and stay here long-term, if only because the Marlins have gone through managers like Lindsay Lohan goes through rehab stints; it seems like we've had a revolving door of managers/coaching staffs over the years, and I'd like to see a manager stick around for 5-10 years. I think that'd be best for the players, and I hope Fredi is the guy. And I guess I'm willing to give him a little more rope to hang himself with than most of the board.

He's gonna get Boles'd by the team, probably next year.

 

I get the same impression...you know, for a team that has perennially fielded a young team, shouldn't we know that pushover managers just don't work with young teams? We have seen it time after time within our own franchise. Off the top of my head I can remember Torborg, Boles, Perez, and so far Gonzalez. They just seem to play uninspired baseball unless we have a manager that keeps them on edge.

The problem is, he doesn't jab his players. Whenever the media comes a callin' there aren't any problems, all's sunny, K's aren't an issue, pitchers walking guys isn't an issue, it'll all correct itself magically. And that's where the real problem is. Fredi can do whatever he wants in the clubhouse, it's his clubhouse, he can run it like megalomaniac or the cool-uncle. But if he comes to the player and says there's a problem and then comes to the media and says all's rosy, his credibility in the clubhouse is out the window. Player's cannot take him at his word, and that's a big f'ing problem.

 

I'm thinking a lot of people (in the business) don't like the idea of sending messages to players through the media. I think the players would rather him not drag their names through the mud in the media, and instead, take it up with them in private.

 

Right, I completely agree with that. Airing out problems in the papers is a bad thing. But if you go by the papers, there's nothing wrong with the players, ever. McKeon, Girardi, etc. would use the same basic "we've sat down and talked about it" or "yeah we think there's something wrong and we're working on it."

 

I'm all for talking to a player in private, hell, I think that's the most effective route. But if Fredi is telling two different people two different things (the players and the reporters) credibility is all out the window. You know that Capozzi and Frisario all talk to the players, too. Eventually someone is going to feel betrayed and that blows up.

I see what you're saying, but why would the player feel betrayed by the manager down-playing the problem through the media?

 

There's any number of reasons.

 

The reporter could be sitting with Olsen and he could bring up how it's great that the team is supportive of Willis through his struggles and it must be great to play for a guy like Fredi who doesn't find fault with players, after Olsen just got a "talking to" from Fredi.

 

Or veteran players could take issue with Fredi calling them out in team meetings, but not be aware of younger players getting a talking to.

 

There are any number of reasons double talk among a close group (because let's be honest, the reporters do become part of the group) can undermine credibility and very really tear the whole thing apart at the seams.

I gotcha now.

 

Bottom line: I REALLY want to see Fredi succeed and stay here long-term, if only because the Marlins have gone through managers like Lindsay Lohan goes through rehab stints; it seems like we've had a revolving door of managers/coaching staffs over the years, and I'd like to see a manager stick around for 5-10 years. I think that'd be best for the players, and I hope Fredi is the guy. And I guess I'm willing to give him a little more rope to hang himself with than most of the board.

 

And I'd agree with that. Stability would be a wonderfully nice thing to have.

 

However, I must also say that I had no problem with Girardi or McKeon before him. I actually liked John Boles quite a bit, and on and on. Fredi's the first guy I truly believe we'd be 1000% better parting ways with tomorrow, and that probably clouds my judgment at times, too.

I'd bunt.

 

We're down, and you have Ross and Hermida to follow Olivo. You hopefully move two runners into scoring position, Ross has a good chance of hitting a sac fly to get one in, and who knows what Hermida can do with one out and a man on third...

I'd bunt.

 

We're down, and you have Ross and Hermida to follow Olivo. You hopefully move two runners into scoring position, Ross has a good chance of hitting a sac fly to get one in, and who knows what Hermida can do with one out and a man on third...

 

Sac fly and a bunt means two outs, chief.

 

You don't give up runs early in the game unless it's the pitcher, period. Bunts with position players (aside for the truly rare instance like a squeeze) should not even be considered until the 7th inning or later.

I'd bunt.

 

We're down, and you have Ross and Hermida to follow Olivo. You hopefully move two runners into scoring position, Ross has a good chance of hitting a sac fly to get one in, and who knows what Hermida can do with one out and a man on third...

 

Sac fly and a bunt means two outs, chief.

 

You don't give up runs early in the game unless it's the pitcher, period. Bunts with position players (aside for the truly rare instance like a squeeze) should not even be considered until the 7th inning or later.

 

*Two outs. Small error.

 

And yes, it's Mitre on the mound, our best pitcher, but he was obviously struggling. You need to notice things like that and try and take advantage of any opportunity in front of you when you can also see Livan Hernandez is on his game.

I'd bunt.

 

We're down, and you have Ross and Hermida to follow Olivo. You hopefully move two runners into scoring position, Ross has a good chance of hitting a sac fly to get one in, and who knows what Hermida can do with one out and a man on third...

 

Sac fly and a bunt means two outs, chief.

 

You don't give up runs early in the game unless it's the pitcher, period. Bunts with position players (aside for the truly rare instance like a squeeze) should not even be considered until the 7th inning or later.

 

*Two outs. Small error.

 

And yes, it's Mitre on the mound, our best pitcher, but he was obviously struggling. You need to notice things like that and try and take advantage of any opportunity in front of you when you can also see Livan Hernandez is on his game.

It was the 2nd inning.

I'd bunt.

 

We're down, and you have Ross and Hermida to follow Olivo. You hopefully move two runners into scoring position, Ross has a good chance of hitting a sac fly to get one in, and who knows what Hermida can do with one out and a man on third...

 

Sac fly and a bunt means two outs, chief.

 

You don't give up runs early in the game unless it's the pitcher, period. Bunts with position players (aside for the truly rare instance like a squeeze) should not even be considered until the 7th inning or later.

 

Olivo's percentages are barely higher then an average pitcher, though.

 

You don't look at the position the player fields. It doesn't matter if he's a pitcher, a catcher, or a firstbaseman. You aren't playing with the positions, you're playing with the percentages.

I'd bunt.

 

We're down, and you have Ross and Hermida to follow Olivo. You hopefully move two runners into scoring position, Ross has a good chance of hitting a sac fly to get one in, and who knows what Hermida can do with one out and a man on third...

 

Sac fly and a bunt means two outs, chief.

 

You don't give up runs early in the game unless it's the pitcher, period. Bunts with position players (aside for the truly rare instance like a squeeze) should not even be considered until the 7th inning or later.

 

1st and 2nd, no outs, bunt = more runs. There is years and years of data to back that up.

I'd bunt.

 

We're down, and you have Ross and Hermida to follow Olivo. You hopefully move two runners into scoring position, Ross has a good chance of hitting a sac fly to get one in, and who knows what Hermida can do with one out and a man on third...

 

Sac fly and a bunt means two outs, chief.

 

You don't give up runs early in the game unless it's the pitcher, period. Bunts with position players (aside for the truly rare instance like a squeeze) should not even be considered until the 7th inning or later.

 

1st and 2nd, no outs, bunt = more runs. There is years and years of data to back that up.

 

Not that I don't believe you, but can you post the table for reference? I saw it a long time ago and never saw it again.

He's gonna get Boles'd by the team, probably next year.

 

I get the same impression...you know, for a team that has perennially fielded a young team, shouldn't we know that pushover managers just don't work with young teams? We have seen it time after time within our own franchise. Off the top of my head I can remember Torborg, Boles, Perez, and so far Gonzalez. They just seem to play uninspired baseball unless we have a manager that keeps them on edge.

 

I don't know if I'd go to the extent that we necessarily need someone to keep the guys on edge, they are professionals and there are guys like Miggy and Dontrelle who have been around the block enough to just tell guys how it's meant to be done.

 

Where I think the problem lies is the motivational tactics. He doesn't stand up for his guys. Period. There has not been a tirade where Fredi went out guns a blazin'. It's always the same, timid, are you suuuuuuuuuure? look on his face. That's his way, and that's fine.

 

The problem is, he doesn't jab his players. Whenever the media comes a callin' there aren't any problems, all's sunny, K's aren't an issue, pitchers walking guys isn't an issue, it'll all correct itself magically. And that's where the real problem is. Fredi can do whatever he wants in the clubhouse, it's his clubhouse, he can run it like megalomaniac or the cool-uncle. But if he comes to the player and says there's a problem and then comes to the media and says all's rosy, his credibility in the clubhouse is out the window. Player's cannot take him at his word, and that's a big f'ing problem.

 

And, if the reverse is true, that he really believes there's nothing wrong, then that's a big f'ing problem too.

 

Yeah I'd love to see Fredi throw his hat and just go out there with the intention of getting thrown out (and if there ever was a night to do so, it was tonight), but not every manager does that, and plenty of teams respond negatively to that. It's the day to day preparation that's the real problem, and that's just going to boil over.

 

 

 

 

I use "megalomaniac" in a post and now its fashionable? :mischief

 

 

Yeah in all seriousness, good post Swift. You took the words right out of my mouth. I can sort of understand Fredi not wanting to go "Pinella" over every bad call for fear of making his young team feel like "victim's" of poor umpiring, but this whole "pretend like nothing is wrong" angle is detrimental to the team.

Worst move the Marlind EVER made....and they've made many!...was to let Joe Giardi go. Best young MGR in the game.

1st and 2nd, no outs, bunt = more runs. There is years and years of data to back that up.

 

Not that I don't believe you, but can you post the table for reference? I saw it a long time ago and never saw it again.

Here is the chart. 84-94 seasons. http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/brooks/publ...pectedruns.html

 

Runners 1st and 2nd No outs = 1.50 Runs. Probability scoring 1 run - 63%

 

Runners 2nd and 3rd 1 Out = 1.40 Runs. Probability scoring 1 run - 68%

 

This says to me, you'd only bunt late down by 1 or tied to increase your probability of tieing or taking the lead with a single run in a situation where it matters. Bunting in the 2nd to hurt your potential for the larger inning versus one run is just a bad idea. This doesn't take into account, that the bunt is actually successful either.

The only problem I have with Freddy right now is his line ups. I mean come one how can you bat Hermida 8th and Olivo 6th?

He's gonna get Boles'd by the team, probably next year.

 

I get the same impression...you know, for a team that has perennially fielded a young team, shouldn't we know that pushover managers just don't work with young teams? We have seen it time after time within our own franchise. Off the top of my head I can remember Torborg, Boles, Perez, and so far Gonzalez. They just seem to play uninspired baseball unless we have a manager that keeps them on edge.

The problem is, he doesn't jab his players. Whenever the media comes a callin' there aren't any problems, all's sunny, K's aren't an issue, pitchers walking guys isn't an issue, it'll all correct itself magically. And that's where the real problem is. Fredi can do whatever he wants in the clubhouse, it's his clubhouse, he can run it like megalomaniac or the cool-uncle. But if he comes to the player and says there's a problem and then comes to the media and says all's rosy, his credibility in the clubhouse is out the window. Player's cannot take him at his word, and that's a big f'ing problem.

 

I'm thinking a lot of people (in the business) don't like the idea of sending messages to players through the media. I think the players would rather him not drag their names through the mud in the media, and instead, take it up with them in private.

 

I'm inclined to agree with this. From what I read, Fredi takes guys aside in his office for chats. And occasionally has closed door meetings with the team. We have no idea what is being said at those times.

I've been critical at times on his lack of emotion when I thought it would be best to throw a tantrum. That home run/interference call last night wasn't one of those times. He handled it correctly. Had the umps huddle and discuss it. Nothing more he can do under the circumstances.

34 career GDP. 82 career doubles.

 

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

 

 

i am loving this comedy night thing

 

For someone who doesn't know anything about baseball, you sure are an arrogant prick.

He's gonna get Boles'd by the team, probably next year.

 

I get the same impression...you know, for a team that has perennially fielded a young team, shouldn't we know that pushover managers just don't work with young teams? We have seen it time after time within our own franchise. Off the top of my head I can remember Torborg, Boles, Perez, and so far Gonzalez. They just seem to play uninspired baseball unless we have a manager that keeps them on edge.

The problem is, he doesn't jab his players. Whenever the media comes a callin' there aren't any problems, all's sunny, K's aren't an issue, pitchers walking guys isn't an issue, it'll all correct itself magically. And that's where the real problem is. Fredi can do whatever he wants in the clubhouse, it's his clubhouse, he can run it like megalomaniac or the cool-uncle. But if he comes to the player and says there's a problem and then comes to the media and says all's rosy, his credibility in the clubhouse is out the window. Player's cannot take him at his word, and that's a big f'ing problem.

 

I'm thinking a lot of people (in the business) don't like the idea of sending messages to players through the media. I think the players would rather him not drag their names through the mud in the media, and instead, take it up with them in private.

 

Right, I completely agree with that. Airing out problems in the papers is a bad thing. But if you go by the papers, there's nothing wrong with the players, ever. McKeon, Girardi, etc. would use the same basic "we've sat down and talked about it" or "yeah we think there's something wrong and we're working on it."

 

I'm all for talking to a player in private, hell, I think that's the most effective route. But if Fredi is telling two different people two different things (the players and the reporters) credibility is all out the window. You know that Capozzi and Frisario all talk to the players, too. Eventually someone is going to feel betrayed and that blows up.

 

I disagree. Fredi just has his own way of dealing with the media. If he is saying one thing to the players and another "cover-up" story to the press then the only ones that are going to feel betrayed is going to be the media. And contrary to what they or some here may think, they don't have a God given right to know all the little specifics that happen behind the scenes. So what if he loses credibility with the reporters as long as his players know he isn't throwing them to the wolves.

He's gonna get Boles'd by the team, probably next year.

 

I get the same impression...you know, for a team that has perennially fielded a young team, shouldn't we know that pushover managers just don't work with young teams? We have seen it time after time within our own franchise. Off the top of my head I can remember Torborg, Boles, Perez, and so far Gonzalez. They just seem to play uninspired baseball unless we have a manager that keeps them on edge.

The problem is, he doesn't jab his players. Whenever the media comes a callin' there aren't any problems, all's sunny, K's aren't an issue, pitchers walking guys isn't an issue, it'll all correct itself magically. And that's where the real problem is. Fredi can do whatever he wants in the clubhouse, it's his clubhouse, he can run it like megalomaniac or the cool-uncle. But if he comes to the player and says there's a problem and then comes to the media and says all's rosy, his credibility in the clubhouse is out the window. Player's cannot take him at his word, and that's a big f'ing problem.

 

I'm thinking a lot of people (in the business) don't like the idea of sending messages to players through the media. I think the players would rather him not drag their names through the mud in the media, and instead, take it up with them in private.

 

Right, I completely agree with that. Airing out problems in the papers is a bad thing. But if you go by the papers, there's nothing wrong with the players, ever. McKeon, Girardi, etc. would use the same basic "we've sat down and talked about it" or "yeah we think there's something wrong and we're working on it."

 

I'm all for talking to a player in private, hell, I think that's the most effective route. But if Fredi is telling two different people two different things (the players and the reporters) credibility is all out the window. You know that Capozzi and Frisario all talk to the players, too. Eventually someone is going to feel betrayed and that blows up.

I see what you're saying, but why would the player feel betrayed by the manager down-playing the problem through the media?

 

There's any number of reasons.

 

The reporter could be sitting with Olsen and he could bring up how it's great that the team is supportive of Willis through his struggles and it must be great to play for a guy like Fredi who doesn't find fault with players, after Olsen just got a "talking to" from Fredi.

 

Or veteran players could take issue with Fredi calling them out in team meetings, but not be aware of younger players getting a talking to.

 

There are any number of reasons double talk among a close group (because let's be honest, the reporters do become part of the group) can undermine credibility and very really tear the whole thing apart at the seams.

 

Dosen't happen that way. You can't possibly think that the players don't know who gets called in for a talk. A clubhouse is a very close knit. The players know what is going on with each other; who gets the chew outs, who gets the pats on the backs, whatever. Seeing that we have not heard from "an unspecified source in the clubhouse" that there are some kind of anti-Fredi feelings going on or hurt feelings in the clubhouse, I would have to assume that the players like it this way and are also using the same phylosophy. Just because the media isn't in on all the juicy details and are passing those onto us means nothing. And just because we are fans dosen't mean we have the right to know what leg DTrain puts in his pants first.