The shoe has dropped, the ax has fallen, the firing squad
has carried out its mission. The Mickey
Callaway era is officially over.
While it really wasn’t that long ago that the Mets were
going through the process of seeking a replacement for Terry Collins who, by
mutual decree, was not returning to manage after the 2017 season.
The previous front office hemmed and hawed
during the interview process, missing out on some candidates but ultimately
settling on not the tried and true like Bob Melvin, but instead went in a totally different
direction with an energetic, enthusiastic and successful pitching coach from
the Indians.
There was a certain understandable
logic to it as the Mets were a team built on pitching and the better it became,
the more likely they could contend once again.
Then there was the Metsian logic that a rookie manager wouldn’t cost
nearly as much as someone with a proven track record.
Frankly, I could have gone either way on this one. I derisively dubbed Mickey “Terry II” for his
inane lineup decisions, bullpen mismanagement and apparently lack of
communication with the players.
There
has already been the anonymous sources confirming that his positivity and
openness with the players sounded great in the interview in the initial press
events, but it really never came to fruition.
Still, he rallied the team to play at a 105 win pace for the last 44% of
the season (thanks for doing the math, Tom!)
So letting him play out the string for his third year was how I thought
it would go since the Wilpons are loathe to pay someone for not doing a
day-to-day job on the ballclub (injuries notwithstanding).
Add in the fact that they previously not only welcomed back but renewed a losing manager, it came as something of a surprise that they would cut loose one with a winning record not only this year but overall. However, the handwriting was on the wall when Mickey was not invited to the managerial meetings this week.
Rather than get into specific names of candidates for the
position, let’s instead think a bit about what it is you expect from a
manager.
There are rumblings still now
that were certainly louder under Collins that it was the front office and not
the manager pulling the strings. If that’s
the case, forget about the highly regarded and intelligent winning managers
because they would not stand for such nonsense. (And they cost too much for the Wilpons!)
Then there’s the option of picking a marquee name who has not managed before,
perhaps even one with a Mets connection in his past. Callaway had no such connection. There are plenty of folks out there who
do.
The problem there is two-fold. The team saw what happened when a newcomer to
the manager’s seat had to learn on the job.
Yes, there’s a lot more to managing than filling out the lineup
card. There’s motivation, knowing when a
player needs a rest even when he denies it, knowing when a player is dogging
it, and the in-game strategies such as defensive shifts, hit and run, double
switching and the like.
The other reason you won’t likely see an inexperienced
former Mets player named to the role which has nothing to do with any of the above
list of criteria. If Tom Seaver was in
better health, for example, he treads on the team’s most hallowed ground. What he accomplished for the team makes him
likely the all-time fan favorite.
Now
imagine the day comes when he must be fired as all managers eventually do? What would that do to his legacy? The Mets obviously wouldn’t look at Seaver
but the parallel is valid with other names you could toss into the hat. It’s a major PR hit they wouldn’t want to
take in the future.
That leads us to the third (and I feel most likely category). There are a great many candidates who have
been successful minor league managers still in that role or who have moved into
a major league coaching position in the bullpen, on the bench or
elsewhere. These guys would not likely
make the newbie blunders of a pure rookie. They would know how to motivate and build
winning culture.
But if they’ve not yet
had the major league managerial job yet, they are likely going to be a bit more
timid about standing up to a meddling front office. Finally, they would not command big
money. That’s the four pillars of Mets’
decision-making.
Brodie Van Wagenen has been creative and brash in his
decision making thus far. He also is
prompt in coming to these decisions.
I fully expect the interview process to begin next week with an announcement made immediately following the conclusion of the World Series so as not to steal headlines per MLB’s unwritten policy on such things. The handshake agreement on the chosen candidate will probably happen between now and then.
I fully expect the interview process to begin next week with an announcement made immediately following the conclusion of the World Series so as not to steal headlines per MLB’s unwritten policy on such things. The handshake agreement on the chosen candidate will probably happen between now and then.
5 comments:
I fired a couple managers in my lifetime and took jobs after others were fired.
At no time did the timing correspond.
If you have a bad manager, you first fire them. Then you begin looking.
I loved a lot about Mickey - except his (to me, and I guess to management) excessive number of bad decisions - and his failure to make the pen perform better over two years, given his supposed expertise in all things pitching.
We need a manager who has demonstrated a far better ability to not make nearly as many bad "Walter Lockett" type calls (not trying to denigrate Lockett, but he is a prime example of being misused in a dire and key situation).
The Mets once had Joe Torre, who left to become a great Yankees manager - we perhaps should try the same route with Joe Girardi.
Let's say Joe managed the Mets this season and won 5 more games. Besides the wild card, how much higher would attendance have been? So if Joe made $ 5 million more, would the incremental net receipts have gone up $10 million?
You spend, you make. Just ask Brian Cashman.
One aspect not mentioned in virtually all comments here and elsewhere is the decisions by the FO in hiring bench coaches.
One of the most obvious parts of the hiring of Mickey was that he had ZERO knowledge of the NL or its players, yet Sandy chose a bench coach with the same glaring weakness.
When Brodie chose to replace him with Riggleman, presumably to mentor Mickey and help with the in-game decisions, it didn't click.
As I see it, either Riggleman gave bad advice which Mickey followed, or he gave good advice which Mickey chose to ignore.
Whichever is the case, the combo didn't work. There are plenty of ex-NL mgrs who could have had Mickey's confidence AND given good advice to help the in-game decisions. Apparently the FO agrees that they made a bad choice, because Riggleman is gone, too.
Of course, the mgr is held accountable for the decisions, but in virtually all professions I know of the rookies are mentored/supervised by a respected veteran until they are ready to "go it alone". Why wasn't that done from Day 1 of Mickey's tenure here?
Did Joe become a great mgr, or did he have great talent on the team? Did Casey suddenly become stupid after he left the great Yankee teams for the '62 Mets?
We have a good nucleus in place that just experienced some winning baseball in the second half........so, I would tend to lean towards a veteran type manager that has won before and will garner respect from the team. They aren't that far away from contending, IMO.
I would take Maddon (obviously), Girardi or even Dusty Baker before getting cute with the pick again.
Post a Comment