Saturday, October 30, 2004
A glimmer of hope?
So, somewhat in spite of themselves, the Mets may still have the opportunity to make a smart move in choosing their next manager. The talk of Bobby Valentine returning seems to have died down as far as I can tell, but another opportunity to hire a manger with a proven record of success could possibly present itself in the person of Jim Leyland. And based on the information at my disposal, I have to say that of the potential managers the Mets have interviewed or may soon interview, Leyland seems like the obvious choice.
I don't have anything against apparent front-runner Willie Randolph, necessarily. The main knock on him the last time around was apparently that he showed up unprepared and gave a terrible interview. Of course, the Mets also judged Art Howe to have given a terrific interview that led them to the conclusion that he could do this job, so perhaps we should take their qualitative assessments with a grain of salt. Regardless, Randolph seems to have really impressed the Mets' brass this time around.
I don't have any reason to believe that Randolph would be a bad manager, but nor do I have much evidence to suggest the opposite. The fact that he's strongly identified as a Yankee shouldn't be a disqualifying factor, but the fact that he's been around that successful franchise recently shouldn't be taken as some kind of guarantee that he knows what he's doing, either. After all, Howe was the manager of a successful team before he made it to the Mets, and it turned out he didn't know a whole hell of a lot about managing successfully. Randolph seems like a perfectly reasonable person to consider in the absence of a more obviously qualified alternative.
The same can be said of Rudy Jaramillo, about whom I know even less. He could be the next managing genius or the next Art Howe. There's really know way of knowing at this point, at least with the information I've got. Trying to draw conclusions about his managerial prowess based on the nature and success of the Rangers' offense during his time as hitting coach is probably foolish. It would take quite a lot of evidence before the results start saying more about the coach than they do about the players. I have no real reason to love or hate Jaramillo as a managerial candidate, and would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt were he hired.
But as long as the list of candidates still includes Leyland, he's got to be atop it. He's got a lengthy resume including multiple division championship, a World Series ring and success with more than one organization. From what I understand he has a reputation as a good tactical manager as well. The Mets have often been faulted, and rightly, for their infatuation with veterans in favor of more unknown quantities. But in this case, it might be best for the long-term health of the franchise if the manager not only knows how to do his job, but also has enough of a presence to be able to sway the front office from doing some of the myriad stupid things that will no doubt cross their minds. Art Howe might not have been capable of doing anything about it when the higher-ups starting contradict their own professed plan for the future and ruining the franchise, but someone like Leyland, who's more manager than hood ornament, could perhaps make a difference in this regard. Someone like Randolph or Jaramillo could perhaps be even more strong-willed and willing to offer their input on personnel decisions, but Leyland seems more likely to actually get through to Minaya and the Wilpons if he chose to question their wisdom.
Leyland might be a long shot, like Vladimir Guerrero before him, to wind up with the Mets. But one of these days, the Mets are going to have to actually get the best guy available instead of settling for what's left. Trying to spend your way to a championship doesn't work if you constantly settle for second best. I may not agree with the front office's plan for this team, but if they're going to do it, they had better do it right. The rise and fall of Art Howe may have been a lesson in how overrated the position of manager can be. The right or wrong manager clearly wasn't the different between the Oakland Athletics of 2000-2002 and the New York Mets of 2003-2004. But getting the right man for the job would still be a step in the right direction, even as nothing more than an encouraging sign that Omar Minaya might know what he's doing. Willie Randolph or Rudy Jaramillo could turn out to be a great manager and there's not necessarily a reason to panic if even of them is hired. But as long as Jim Leyland it available and interested, the Mets need to be doing whatever they can to get him. This offseason could be a turning point for the Mets or it could quickly turn into a disaster. Hopefully Minaya will at least get it started on the right foot. ¶ joe | 4:35 PM |
So, somewhat in spite of themselves, the Mets may still have the opportunity to make a smart move in choosing their next manager. The talk of Bobby Valentine returning seems to have died down as far as I can tell, but another opportunity to hire a manger with a proven record of success could possibly present itself in the person of Jim Leyland. And based on the information at my disposal, I have to say that of the potential managers the Mets have interviewed or may soon interview, Leyland seems like the obvious choice.
I don't have anything against apparent front-runner Willie Randolph, necessarily. The main knock on him the last time around was apparently that he showed up unprepared and gave a terrible interview. Of course, the Mets also judged Art Howe to have given a terrific interview that led them to the conclusion that he could do this job, so perhaps we should take their qualitative assessments with a grain of salt. Regardless, Randolph seems to have really impressed the Mets' brass this time around.
I don't have any reason to believe that Randolph would be a bad manager, but nor do I have much evidence to suggest the opposite. The fact that he's strongly identified as a Yankee shouldn't be a disqualifying factor, but the fact that he's been around that successful franchise recently shouldn't be taken as some kind of guarantee that he knows what he's doing, either. After all, Howe was the manager of a successful team before he made it to the Mets, and it turned out he didn't know a whole hell of a lot about managing successfully. Randolph seems like a perfectly reasonable person to consider in the absence of a more obviously qualified alternative.
The same can be said of Rudy Jaramillo, about whom I know even less. He could be the next managing genius or the next Art Howe. There's really know way of knowing at this point, at least with the information I've got. Trying to draw conclusions about his managerial prowess based on the nature and success of the Rangers' offense during his time as hitting coach is probably foolish. It would take quite a lot of evidence before the results start saying more about the coach than they do about the players. I have no real reason to love or hate Jaramillo as a managerial candidate, and would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt were he hired.
But as long as the list of candidates still includes Leyland, he's got to be atop it. He's got a lengthy resume including multiple division championship, a World Series ring and success with more than one organization. From what I understand he has a reputation as a good tactical manager as well. The Mets have often been faulted, and rightly, for their infatuation with veterans in favor of more unknown quantities. But in this case, it might be best for the long-term health of the franchise if the manager not only knows how to do his job, but also has enough of a presence to be able to sway the front office from doing some of the myriad stupid things that will no doubt cross their minds. Art Howe might not have been capable of doing anything about it when the higher-ups starting contradict their own professed plan for the future and ruining the franchise, but someone like Leyland, who's more manager than hood ornament, could perhaps make a difference in this regard. Someone like Randolph or Jaramillo could perhaps be even more strong-willed and willing to offer their input on personnel decisions, but Leyland seems more likely to actually get through to Minaya and the Wilpons if he chose to question their wisdom.
Leyland might be a long shot, like Vladimir Guerrero before him, to wind up with the Mets. But one of these days, the Mets are going to have to actually get the best guy available instead of settling for what's left. Trying to spend your way to a championship doesn't work if you constantly settle for second best. I may not agree with the front office's plan for this team, but if they're going to do it, they had better do it right. The rise and fall of Art Howe may have been a lesson in how overrated the position of manager can be. The right or wrong manager clearly wasn't the different between the Oakland Athletics of 2000-2002 and the New York Mets of 2003-2004. But getting the right man for the job would still be a step in the right direction, even as nothing more than an encouraging sign that Omar Minaya might know what he's doing. Willie Randolph or Rudy Jaramillo could turn out to be a great manager and there's not necessarily a reason to panic if even of them is hired. But as long as Jim Leyland it available and interested, the Mets need to be doing whatever they can to get him. This offseason could be a turning point for the Mets or it could quickly turn into a disaster. Hopefully Minaya will at least get it started on the right foot. ¶ joe | 4:35 PM |
