M's to interview John Gibbons

[TellItToTheDA]

If this is their choice for manager, then what the hell are we even talking about Joey Cora for?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/mariners/2013082023_mari06.html


The Mariners have asked for and received permission to interview Kansas City Royals bench coach John Gibbons for their managerial position, according to sources.

Gibbons, 48, has been the Royals' bench coach the past two seasons. He was the Toronto Blue Jays' manager from 2004 until he was fired in June 2008.

Gibbons was hired in midseason 2004 after the Blue Jays fired Carlos Tosca.

Gibbons was 305-305 with the Blue Jays, the best season in 2006, when Toronto finished 87-75, second in the American League East.

The Blue Jays finished third in the AL East in 2007 with an 83-79 mark, and Gibbons was fired in 2008 after a 35-39 start.

Personally, I liked Lookout Landing's take on how Gibbons would have responded to the Figgins episode:

http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2010/10/5/1733313/mariners-receive-permission-to-interview-john-gibbons-personality


Gibbons: SECOND BASE
Figgins: What
Gibbons: COME THE FUCK HERE AND SIT THE FUCK DOWN
Figgins: Okay
Gibbons: STAND UP
Figgins:
Gibbons: SIT DOWN
Figgins:
Gibbons: STAND UP
Figgins:
Gibbons: SIT DOWN
Figgins:
Gibbons: STAND UP
Figgins:
Gibbons: SIT DOWN
Figgins: Coach, I
Gibbons: FUCK YOU

[Igoe4Mariners]

Not sure what to think.

[JosephC]

Sounds fine to me. Last time we had someone with that attitude, we won 116 games.

[georgmi]

A new manager needs to be someone who:
1) the players will listen to--he has to possess *something* that they can respect, whether that's cred as a player or a "good" track record as a manager, and his interpersonal style has to be consistent and effective. (Note that that last doesn't necessarily mean the players need to like him; everybody hated Billy Martin, but when you needed a losing team turned around quickly, he was the guy you wanted to hire.
2) will manage the team the way the FO builds it--it does no good to manage the team as if they were the '27 Yankees (.307/.384/.488) if the skillset is actually the '67 Cardinals (.263/.320/.379).

That said, what the team needs to give the manager is:
1) a steadily-increasing talent base over his tenure. Smart drafting, effective player development, and good (but limited) free-agent acquisitions are what we're looking for here.
2) a commitment to a long tenure. Managerial consistency is probably more important to this team at this time than managerial competence over the long haul, given a certain minimal level of competence. (Frex, you wouldn't want to give *me* a five-year guaranteed contract to manage the M's--though I would damn sure take that job and give it my best!--but pretty much anybody who is actually on the M's list would be fine, given he has the qualities listed above. Both sabermetrics and conventional baseball wisdom agree that only a truly incompetent manager can really hurt the team through in-game strategic decisions.)

If the Ms' FO can't get and give those things, then your little animation is inaccurate, because the avatar's hair is neither grey enough nor sufficiently torn out.

Oh, and the last time we had "someone with that attitude", we actually only won 93 games. Though that would have won the division this year. : )

[clarknova]

A new manager needs to be someone who:
1) the players will listen to--he has to possess *something* that they can respect, whether that's cred as a player or a "good" track record as a manager, and his interpersonal style has to be consistent and effective. (Note that that last doesn't necessarily mean the players need to like him; everybody hated Billy Martin, but when you needed a losing team turned around quickly, he was the guy you wanted to hire.
2) will manage the team the way the FO builds it--it does no good to manage the team as if they were the '27 Yankees (.307/.384/.488) if the skillset is actually the '67 Cardinals (.263/.320/.379).

That said, what the team needs to give the manager is:
1) a steadily-increasing talent base over his tenure. Smart drafting, effective player development, and good (but limited) free-agent acquisitions are what we're looking for here.
2) a commitment to a long tenure. Managerial consistency is probably more important to this team at this time than managerial competence over the long haul, given a certain minimal level of competence. (Frex, you wouldn't want to give *me* a five-year guaranteed contract to manage the M's--though I would damn sure take that job and give it my best!--but pretty much anybody who is actually on the M's list would be fine, given he has the qualities listed above. Both sabermetrics and conventional baseball wisdom agree that only a truly incompetent manager can really hurt the team through in-game strategic decisions.)

If the Ms' FO can't get and give those things, then your little animation is inaccurate, because the avatar's hair is neither grey enough nor sufficiently torn out.

Oh, and the last time we had "someone with that attitude", we actually only won 93 games. Though that would have won the division this year. : )

I only sort of agree with that. I think the manager needs to be someone that can optimize talent (by staying out of the way of it, he can't create it). I don't think that unquantifiable force needs to be respect related, and I think Billy Martin is a perfect, albeit contradictory (to the "need" for "respect") example.
Consistency would be great, mostly due to the fact that I find managerial turn over so pointless (most of the time).
Unfortunately in baseball, long term commitments are non-existent, well, I guess fortunately if you have a crappy manager running your team.


That said, what the team needs to give the manager is:
Replace "manager" with "everyone" and I agree with point 1. The second point I'm not so sure about. I value competence over all other traits. Competence to me is again, letting the players play to their strengths, and not meddling with talent. A field manager having a major effect on winning is not something I totally buy, but I do think they can cause teams to lose. What I mean is, given any teams talent level, I don't believe a manager is going to raise that talent to any measurable effect. I do however believe that a manager can interfere via bunting (or any other pointless free outs), poor lineup construction, poor bullpen usage, etc. I want a minimum level of that kind of incompetence, not the other way around. I'd take a smart manager that stays out of the way on a handshake contract over a 5 year deal for anyone.

Which is why, in principal, I agree. I'd pretty much take any of the names being tossed around (with the exception of Cora). Until they're in this situation, with this lineup, we really wont know what kind of a commodity we have (no Cora).


If the Ms' FO can't get and give those things, then your little animation is inaccurate, because the avatar's hair is neither grey enough nor sufficiently torn out.

That avatar symbolically represents me, and how do you know I don't have a permanent head of luxurious blond hair? Just kidding. I rock a buzz cut, mostly because I'm balding, mostly because I'm a Mariners fan. :) -Not gray yet... Another 100+ loss season, and I just might be!

Lou Piniella was great at managing talent. That 2001 team overachieved like no other.

[Nateyb24]

No thanks. I don't mind strictness but he sounds like a nut job starting a fight with Ted Lilly and asking him to fight supposedly? I hope he isn't our next manager i don't mind strictness but this isn't the kind of guy you want around young players.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gibbons

Go look at the controversy things he did with his own players.

[JosephC]

I'll agree, I don't like the Bush story considering that he made the Brewers send him down to the minor leagues for his actions. That is a pretty hard punishment for showing displeasure on the mound after getting removed from a game

[clarknova]

Yeah, so what, the idea is to get a guy that'll hit back? That's what this team needs! More tantrums!

I do agree though that lifeless automatons are lame. Bob Melvin, Don Wakamatsu, John McLaren (except for that contrived fit he threw for the cameras that seemed so forced). Those guys were just emotionless. Especially the first two, it always looked like they were about to start crying. When they protested calls I felt embarrassed for them. I'd like a guy with some fire in his belly. Less team drama though.