Clemens not the only Astro hammered...Jimy Williams to be fired

He's still a better manager than Bobby Cox.

Not by much, but .... better.

Bull shit. The Braves may choke year after year but Cox still gets his team to the playoffs and a few World Series winning one. Jimmy Williams is a joke. to be 10.5 games out with the hand he was dealt and no serious injuries is unexcusable.

So Chavez what's your take on Phil Garner? I know White Sox fans hate the guy. I know he liked to start alot of fights because of beanball wars.

Houston is still dead. Unless they get a closer and 2 bullpen arms it won't help.

What is the role of a manager? To simply fill out a lineup card and sit on your ass and watch what goes on out on the field? Or to actually do something.

The only test of MLB managerial skills these days comes in short series where managing a rotation and a lineup makes the most difference. And nine times out of 10, Cox fails in that regard.

(Plus, I still haven't forgiven him for 1985)

That's just crazy.

So were ignoring bullpen management entirely, eh?

There are so many moves that a manager has to make on a daily basis, that to reduce a managers role to their teams performance in a handfull of games is ludicrous.

My bad. My brain said "pitching staff" and my fingers typed "rotation."

Of course Cox has employed some of the worst statistical closers in recent memory.. Jeff Reardon, Alejandro Pena, Mark Wohlers...

Sorry for the double-dip, didn't see your edited post until I made my own post...

I know a short series isn't the best test of anything.. managerial expertise, true team strength, but what a manager does day in and day out to get a team through a 162-game schedule is nothing compared to what the general manager, scouting and developmental staffs do. Atlanta and the Yankees have won titles year in and year out primarily because of the amount of talented players they can put out on the field in any given year.

But the whole reason to play is to win the World Series, so like it or not, you have to have a manager who doesn't go catatonic when critical decisions have to be made. My favorite example to bring up (because it gives me that warm and fuzzy feeling inside) is the final game of the '92 series when Otis Nixon tried to bunt his way on for the final out. I even said out loud, "I can't believe he bunted!" But whose fault is that? Ultimately it's the manager's fault.

Cox is an exceptional evaluator of talent within his own team which might stem partly from his tour as GM before stepping into the managers job, has been adept at being able to work with young players and further develop them at the major league level, has assembled a great group of coaches, can cope with injuries, and has generally been excellent at managing the personalities of his clubs. Sure he's tactically challenged at times and has made some curious roster construction choices for the post-season, but you don't get to the post-season as many times in a row as he has without talent at the job.

No manager is perfect. Some are better at managing personalities. Some are better tactically. Cox is one of the former group. As is Torre. The fact that Cox has as many rings as LaRussa, or for that matter, anyone not named Torre is to his credit. Yeah he probably should have won more, but Brenly shouldn't have any.

At the very least, it has to be acknowledged that Cox doesn't screw up the talent he has. There are tons of managers where that isn't true. Heck, the Brewers got rid of two All Star second basemen because they had an idiot managing the team that thought Eric Young was more valuable.

So let me get this straight... when the Atlanta Braves win it's more attributable to John Schuerholz and the Atlant Braves scouting department, when they lose it's more attributable to Bobby Cox.

No, it's more like the Braves win in the regular season despite the presence of Bobby Cox.

You can't make roster moves in the postseason. Well, unless you take somebody out....

Ok, the main reputation Cox gets as a "developer of young talent" is from the big front four rotation of Maddux, Smoltz, Avery and Glavine that carried him through the 90s, right?

Who's the next best starting pitcher that's come through the Atlanta system since then? (and I won't even dwell on the fact that Maddux was a FA signee and Smoltz was really a Detroit minor league pickup.. we all know what Detroit does to young players.. *shudder*) Look at the front four now... ALL come from other organizations. Where's his "developing young talent" in the rotation now?

Exactly. Torre is the echelon of current managers. Why? He wins in the regular season and the playoffs. LaRussa has the reputation of getting the most out of the least talent consistently. Why? Mostly thanks to Dave Duncan and his Earl Weaver-esque offensive strategy. Yet even LaRussa got 'out-managed' in short series. I mean, he couldn't even get one game off of the Reds in '90.

I guess the point is, I'm really bitter at all of the credit Cox gets as one of the managing geniuses of his age, when all he was was lucky to be in the right place at the right time to get hooked up with the Braves organization when they finally wanted to make a committment to winning.

Ah, so any manager would have won their division thirteen times with the same talent, right? If that's the case, who cares who the manager is? How is a manager suddenly important during the postseason? Either they have an a effect on wins and losses, or they don't.



And when was that? 1985 when they made him GM?

[QUOTE=tcjsavannah]Ok, the main reputation Cox gets as a "developer of young talent" is from the big front four rotation of Maddux, Smoltz, Avery and Glavine that carried him through the 90s, right?

Who's the next best starting pitcher that's come through the Atlanta system since then? (and I won't even dwell on the fact that Maddux was a FA signee and Smoltz was really a Detroit minor league pickup.. we all know what Detroit does to young players.. *shudder*) Look at the front four now... ALL come from other organizations. Where's his "developing young talent" in the rotation now?



Exactly. Torre is the echelon of current managers. Why? He wins in the regular season and the playoffs. LaRussa has the reputation of getting the most out of the least talent consistently. Why? Mostly thanks to Dave Duncan and his Earl Weaver-esque offensive strategy. Yet even LaRussa got 'out-managed' in short series. I mean, he couldn't even get one game off of the Reds in '90.

QUOTE]


Don't Chipper Jones, Andruw Jones, Marcus Giles, Rafael Furcal, and Johnny Estrada count as talent that was young when it first was brought up under Cox? The roster has been turned over several times with the same results. One of the very strengths of the Braves organization has been how they've kept the team youngish and equally competitive. Certainly that's a credit to the front office, but it's also a credit to Cox. Yes, Cox and his staff haven't been as successful at developing young pitching, but only Schmidt has really turned into something elsewhere. Someone should list the Braves first round draft picks as well for the last 10 years, where most top line pitching is found, and you'll have a very good example of why Cox hasn't developed much on that front since he was GM.

LaRussa gets the most out of the "least" talent? What has he been managing the Brewers? LaRussa's teams have been loaded with talent since the late 1980s in Oakland.

Torre's a fine manager, but he's certainly no tactical genius. Last year's World Series is a pretty good example of his limitations tactically. Really, the best thing Torre does is bring in Rivera for more than an inning in the post-season which completely shuts the door on the opposition. The D'Backs series is the only series where that tactic didn't work, which I guess is proof that Rivera is indeed human.

I think a league-average manager given the same access to the starting pitching, farm system and weak divisional opponents the Braves had in the 90s and early 00s, yes, would have won 13 straight division titles.


1990. That's when Schuerholz and Cox were both hired. Lets look at the Braves, circa 1988 and what Cox had when he got there on a full-time basis in 1991.

1988
C - Ozzie Virgil
1B - Gerald Perry
2B - Ron Gant
3B - Ken Oberkfell
SS - Andres Thomas
OF - Dale Murphy, Dion James, Albert Hall
SP - Rick Mahler, Tom Glavine, Pete Smith, Zane Smith, Kevin Coffman/John Smoltz (split the 5-hole that year)
Team BA: .242 Team ERA: 4.09 Runs scored: 555

1991
C - Greg Olson
1B - Sid Bream
2B - Mark Lemke
3B - Terry Pendleton
SS - Rafael Belliard
OF - Ron Gant, Otis Nixon, David Justice
SP - Glavine, Smoltz, Avery, Liebrandt and Pete Smith
Team BA: .258 Team ERA: 3.59 Runs scored: 749

I submit that if any manager had that much of an upgrade in talent in three years, they'd acquit themselves very well in the eyes of most observers.

Learn your history man:

"Cox returned to the Braves as General Manager in October of 1985 and oversaw a farm system which produced some of the team's current standouts. He added the field managing responsibilities on June 22, 1990, then devoted all his time to those duties when the Braves named John Schuerholz Executive Vice President and General Manager in October of that year."

http://atlanta.braves.mlb.com/NASApp...id=87101162759

Garner's a good PR guy with the press - he managed to slip blame here and in Detroit for some awful teams - but I don't think he's much of a manager; his teams seemed to make stupid mistakes, quit early, and Garner is GODAWFUL when it comes to managing pitching.

I wave bye-bye to Houston in the rearview mirror.

Wow based off the post above i'm shocked Houston made this move. Looks like they should have gotten Baylor.

Get your thoughts away from my hitting coach. :P

Ok, you're right, I was so focused on his managerial career that I didn't pay attention to when he was a GM.

Maybe he should have stayed a GM.

He did the same thing in Toronto, inheriting a club that was just coming into its own with great talent (Moseby, Barfield, Bell, Upshaw, Dave Stieb, Clancy) and took them to the playoffs, only to choke away a 3-1 lead. In my mind, there's got to be something more to his career 6-12 postseason series record. There just has to be.

I was just going to the only guy WORSE out there they could get would be Baylor. Leadoff men gets on and Baylor always bunted him to 2nd for Sammy. It was a friggin joke. Baylor killed rallies with plays like that. He also killed John Lieber's career in that rain out game.

There hase to be better guys than Garner and Baylor. Nice to know Garner is as bad as I thought he was.

Any manager and pitching coach that can win pennants with starters like Mike Moore, Ron Darling, Storm Davis, Joe Slusarski and Scott Sanderson deserves to be called a miracle worker.

The one good thing about Garner is that he's not obsessed with the sacrifice bunt like Williams or Baylor.

Other than he has a history with the organization, I don't see what Garner really brings. He's a lousy manager of people, albeit almost certainly better than Williams. Garner's probably a decent enough tactical manager, at least he won't hurt you, and the only Brewer Garner really misjudged with Troy O'Leary, but I don't see what he's capable of doing to help the Astros right now. He's not the inspirational leader type to get the team fired up. And it's not like he can really have much input on the roster at this stage. He'll likely be a marginal upgrade over Williams, but the Astros need a lot more than a marginal upgrade.

The thing is, Garner got his first managing job in '92, and had a winning season. HE HASN'T WON SINCE. He's never seen the playoffs. He destroys pitchers. Why does he keep getting hired?

I'm convinced the #1 criteria for being a GM in any major sport is a complete lack of imagination.

Jesus, how exactly do you inherit your own team. You have to give the guy credit at some point.

it's great williams got canned. i think he was useless. he was way into not allowing his pitchers to have high pitch count's. just let the fucker's throw i say. well as long as it's not to the jeff torborg extent.

I guess Baylor wasn't that good a choice either. Houston needs new management perhaps they can get Paul Gleeson.

He doesn't need my credit. He gets enough from everyone else.

Seriously, I was trying to think of which non-employed managers are out there that would have been better choices than Phil Garner, and I couldn't really come up with any. Has the good-old-boy network known as ML managers gotten so thin that there are, effectively, only a handful managers people will consider hiring?

I guess the Astros could have chosen worse, though.. like Hal McRae or Buck Martinez.