I think chief spin man St. Peter is actually less likely to go than Terry Ryan.  They credit him with the stadium more than anyone else.  Talk about the goose that laid the golden egg.  If someone made me $300M dollars, I would have a hard time firing them.

 

I think his unofficial job title is to put lipstick on a pig and he actually does a decent job at it (given how hard that objective has become). 

So, would "the chief spin man" seek to identify scapegoats to protect the entire organization?

Then no manager should be fired ever because they are completely dependent on everyone else on the team to do their job.  Nothing they do is an independent, measurable action that results in wins or losses.  

 

Essentially, your position amounts to the title manager being a meaningless symbol of organization that is unassailably worthless.

 

I agree.  Personally I think the difference between a good manager and a bad one is at most 1-3 wins per year.  So it is mostly about talent, but it does matter.  In football and basketball I think the coach is much more important.  Now the difference between a 90 loss and 93 loss team is not much obviously.  But if the goal is to hopefully be good one day, then 3 wins can be the difference between the playoffs and not, home field versus not, etc.

 

Is Gardy a guy that is going to get close to the aditional 3 wins?  That is the question that should be answered.  I think people on these forums have identified specific thoughts as to why Gardy is not the guy.  Including, but not limited to:

 

-This team has tailed off each year.

 

-3rd catcher

 

-the lineup

 

-lack of platooning

 

-playing players out of position.  To me, if Santana or Pinto saw reps at their natural position in April-June, maybe they would have improved and been of value to this team in August, September, or next year? 

Essentially, your position amounts to the title manager being a meaningless symbol of organization that is unassailably worthless.

Where did that come from?  Fire someone for cause not as a symbolic gestures.

Slick Gardner seemed clueless at times. When they hired Ray Miller he was suposed to be the next genius from the  line of Earl Weaver. For  a lot of reasons that did not work. They promoted Kelly. In the late 90's was Kelly any worse of a manager than from 87-92? 2 managers fired for cause, one was kept as teams lost because he wasn't the problem.

Edited September 10, 201412 yr by old nurse

Where did that come from?  Fire someone for cause not as a symbolic gestures.

Slick Gardner seemed clueless at times. When they hired Ray Miller he was suposed to be the next genius from the  line of Earl Weaver. For  a lot of reasons that did not work. They promoted Kelly. In the late 90's was Kelly any worse of a manager than from 87-92? 2 managers fired for cause, one was kept as teams lost because he wasn't the problem.

"Looking clueless" sounds like the kind of token nonsense you use for a symbolic firing. It's certainly a pretty silly "cause" to line up behind.

Moderator note -- please be more respectful of each other in this thread.

Your examples of managers replaced were managers who proved they could not win. Gardenhire has won when he has had the players, lost when he hasn't

 

Sorry, the abysmal post-season record takes away from winning in the regular season. They not only failed to make it out of the LDS five years. They failed to even play in a deciding Game Five.  

Sorry, the abysmal post-season record takes away from winning in the regular season. They not only failed to make it out of the LDS five years. They failed to even play in a deciding Game Five.  

Whatever baseball was played by the Twins from 2002-2010 was totally meaningless then? When you look at playoff winning teams and the starting pitching staffs of the Twins I do not see anything that would match up. The teams appeared to be buiilt to win in the regular season, not short season. Perhaps one of the reasons there has been a trade Duensing theme is the 2 playoff starts, and losses.

So, if Gardy is only successful when they have great players, and awful when they have bad ones, why keep him? The argument seems to be that the success of the team is largely out of his hands. If so, why keep him around if he doesn't make the team better than they should be?

Whatever baseball was played by the Twins from 2002-2010 was totally meaningless then? When you look at playoff winning teams and the starting pitching staffs of the Twins I do not see anything that would match up.

In order to defend your desire that Gardenhire remain manager and Anderson remain pitching coach, you have just claimed that the Twins didn't have any good starting pitching from say, oh, 2004 to 2006.

So, if Gardy is only successful when they have great players, and awful when they have bad ones, why keep him? The argument seems to be that the success of the team is largely out of his hands. If so, why keep him around if he doesn't make the team better than they should be?

 

Exactly, if your best defense for keeping the guy is basically to conclude his position is irrelevant....why do you care if he's replaced?

In order to defend your desire that Gardenhire remain manager and Anderson remain pitching coach, you have just claimed that the Twins didn't have any good starting pitching from say, oh, 2004 to 2006.

1. Please find anywhere in this thread where I said Anderson needs to be retained.

2 They had 1 great pitcher, 1 good. Recent WS loser pitching staffs and 2006 Twins.  Which staff do you want in a playoff series?

 Wainright, Wacha, Lynn

 Verlander, Sanchez, Scherzer

Wilson, Holland, Harrison

or

Santana, Radke, Bonser

Santana had to be near perfect when the bats choked. He couldn't do it by himself. Radke was good, but not great.  When the Twins won in Oakland Radke was great. By 2006 there was nothing left.

My origional response probably should have been what do you expect to happen with a different manager with this group of players. Silly me thought the reason to change the manager was to improve the team. Improvements generally are reflected in the w/l column with a lot more under the w column than there was before.The position of manager is not an irrelevant one. It is reduced to such when you fire someone as a symbolic gesture. Again, to use the question, if the manager is irrelevant, what do you care if he is there or not. If the manager is relevant then it should show in w/l. Historically, bad teams are bad no matter who manages them. Bad players are bad players. There were teams that improved after firing a manager. They were high caliber teams.  Good players have played better with better managers.  Do you believe the Twins have a roster full of good players and what is holding them back is Gardenhire? Do you think the S outfield of Shaffer, Santana, and Somebody else is going to carry you to the chase for the playoffs, much less carry you through the playoffs?