August 30, 201114 yr Right because McKeon had absolutely nothing to do with turning 2003 around, managers can change the way players approach the game and can bring a spark if there isn't one. I don't think I need to delve anymore into the situation. Once again though it was sarcasm I wasn't actually considering Leyland as an option. McKeon replaced bad management and took good players to the WS.
August 30, 201114 yr I do not think the Bobby Cox or AJ Burnett things are relevant. Yeah, sure they're not important. But when you have three other incidents then it begins to look like a pattern, and the scope of relevance can then be expanded. But at the time with the AJ thing, it didn't come across as a Loria thing. Sounded more like a Jack and the FO decision. Heavy emphasis on Jack. And I really think Loria just agreed with what they wanted. Looking at it years later and putting it all on Loria is actually quite unfair. And Cox should have been heavily critisized by everyone for his comments. Much like Samson was every time he made disparaging remarks about how other FO's/owners were running their teams. Having never worked here or even being asked to work here his comments came across as pure hate filled and should have been taken as such. As in, "We get it, Bobby. You don't like the Marlins. Guess what. We don't like the Braves. What's your point?" And it probably was. But a future HOFer gets alot more leeway in his comments than the president of an org like ours. The plural of anecdote is not evidence, however evidence can be construed through a plurality of strikingly similar anecdotes. The AJ thing was not important. 100 percent. This is true. However, I posit the theory that speaking out in the Marlins organization under the ownership of Loria frequently results in firing. With more than one testimony to the fact, a pattern is established. Once the pattern is established - the scope of relevancy expands. Once expanded - we can consider the AJ incident and Bobby's informal testimony as evidence to the fact.. only then. Additionally, the AJ incident may not be a result of Loria's inflexibility in regards to criticism..but under the expanded scope of relevancy it becomes considered in the overall argument because he spoke out - and was released from the team. I'm not here to debate nuances - just the correlation of opening your mouth and being released. Sidebar: why should bobby be criticized? Should greater baseball culture mother the mouths of its stars/vets to assure polite competition? Such notions are Victorian, at home in the PC environs of the 90's and 20th century. Considering the pace of the game, and our competition in popular sports for interest, it's exciting to have someone get pissed off and start verbally igniting tension, particularly within a division. It breeds rivalries which result in healthy baseball ecosystems. Should we invalidate the opinion of someone in the game, a vet..a journeyman..a hero (by some standards, not mine.), simply because our president(d. sampson) isn't given the same respect in regards to coverage? Absolutely not. Bobby Cox is HOF material and while his opinion is not gospel - it's certainly worth listening to. Finally, he didn't say a single thing negative about our club either. Only Loria. The remark was confined to the nature of employment under Loria. As you can see.. "I know that guy (Loria) is unpredictable, but …. after everything (Gonzalez) has done for that guy, are you s——- me? They have gone down to the end (of the playoff race) every year, playing their asses off. That guy doesn't appreciate anything. He's one of those guys that thinks you change (for the sake of change). He's always wanting to fire the coaches, always. That's his history." You can clearly see that the ire of Bobby's eye is Loria and not the Marlins. He clearly does not direct any overt, unfounded animosity towards the team that has knocked him out of the quest for a ring.
August 30, 201114 yr Seeing Ozzie as the manager in the new stadium would be great. I like a manager who keeps it real and doesn't hide his emotions.
August 30, 201114 yr Well what really happens ? Seriously ? Does jack come back ? If he had a healthy JJ & Hanley and a full lineup would the team have done better ? Probably, so don't you have to give Jack the 1st choice of whether to come back or not ?
August 31, 201114 yr As started before, I don't much care who our next manager is. Hoever, if we trade for Ozzie Guillen, that's when I'll be pissed.
August 31, 201114 yr It's not that we have "bad" players, just players that aren't matured yet, players still making adjustments. I'm scared for the NL East next season.
August 31, 201114 yr And the fact that the organization doesn't have enough depth right now to find a suitable replacement for injured players.
August 31, 201114 yr And the fact that the organization doesn't have enough depth right now to find a suitable replacement for injured players. Yes, this as well.
August 31, 201114 yr Right because McKeon had absolutely nothing to do with turning 2003 around, managers can change the way players approach the game and can bring a spark if there isn't one. I don't think I need to delve anymore into the situation. Once again though it was sarcasm I wasn't actually considering Leyland as an option. McKeon replaced bad management and took good players to the WS. That wouldn't have made the World Series without Jack, correct.
August 31, 201114 yr Right because McKeon had absolutely nothing to do with turning 2003 around, managers can change the way players approach the game and can bring a spark if there isn't one. I don't think I need to delve anymore into the situation. Once again though it was sarcasm I wasn't actually considering Leyland as an option. McKeon replaced bad management and took good players to the WS. That wouldn't have made the World Series without Jack, correct. Those players were more matured though and not in just their 1st/2nd season, like most of the core of our line-up is. Plus we didn't have any injuries in 2003, save Lowell's broken hand in August, which didn't set us back any.
August 31, 201114 yr Right because McKeon had absolutely nothing to do with turning 2003 around, managers can change the way players approach the game and can bring a spark if there isn't one. I don't think I need to delve anymore into the situation. Once again though it was sarcasm I wasn't actually considering Leyland as an option. McKeon replaced bad management and took good players to the WS. That wouldn't have made the World Series without Jack, correct. Those players were more matured though and not in just their 1st/2nd season, like most of the core of our line-up is. Plus we didn't have any injuries in 2003, save Lowell's broken hand in August, which didn't set us back any. Well yea, I'm not saying I was expecting this Marlins team to be headed for the World Series with a managerial change or even the playoffs, just food for thought given that nobody really knows who's going to take over as manager. I don't really care who the manager is as long as we show progress next year, assuming we finish below .500. I think around a .500 mark would be a good goal to have in mind assuming we have a healthy (JJ and Hanley).
August 31, 201114 yr Right because McKeon had absolutely nothing to do with turning 2003 around, managers can change the way players approach the game and can bring a spark if there isn't one. I don't think I need to delve anymore into the situation. Once again though it was sarcasm I wasn't actually considering Leyland as an option. McKeon replaced bad management and took good players to the WS. That wouldn't have made the World Series without Jack, correct. What's your point? Bringing a spark to a non-playoff team wont do anything. They wont make the playoffs if they're not playoff quality players, and they most certainly wont win a World Series. Jack McKeon took an underperforming team and made them perform to their highest capability. Good management is important to get the best out of your players, but having a good team is first and foremost.
August 31, 201114 yr Right because McKeon had absolutely nothing to do with turning 2003 around, managers can change the way players approach the game and can bring a spark if there isn't one. I don't think I need to delve anymore into the situation. Once again though it was sarcasm I wasn't actually considering Leyland as an option. McKeon replaced bad management and took good players to the WS. That wouldn't have made the World Series without Jack, correct. What's your point? Bringing a spark to a non-playoff team wont do anything. They wont make the playoffs if they're not playoff quality players, and they most certainly wont win a World Series. Jack McKeon took an underperforming team and made them perform to their highest capability. Good management is important to get the best out of your players, but having a good team is first and foremost. ? My original post was to who I thought the manager moving forward would be, I posted out of sarcasm because no one knows who the future manager is. Squall said "Didnt work? You mean he wasnt able to turn sh*t into sandwiches? Managers cant turn bad players good." Assuming I take what Squall says as "truth" we wouldn't need a manager because "our team sucks". As for my point: I wasn't really trying to make a point other than managers have an impact on the game, if this were not true, why would teams bother having managers.
September 1, 201114 yr Well the point stands that this team (in its current state) really doesn't need a manager because it wouldn't make them a playoff team either way.
September 1, 201114 yr It's really hard to place a win value on a manger, but I suspect that a "good" manager could absolutely help one team edge out another in a tight playoff race. Of course that win share would be accumulated over the entire course of the season.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.