Girardi = Showalter

by kwellborn on Nov 6, 2007 10:47 PM CST Comment 16 comments

http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/26432
Those who fail to know history are destined to repeat it.

I wonder if the Yankees realize they just rehired Buck Showalter. Maybe they have a four year plan. 3 years of Joe Girardi, fire him, hire a relatively unsuccessful veteran manager and then win 4 straight World Series.

0 recs | Comment 16 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I agree on one front

They have extremely similar-even identical managing styles.
However, some can succeed where others have failed. The dude managed for one year. Let's not declare him a player cancer yet.

sportsdeals.blogspot.com

by BudLight on Nov 6, 2007 10:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

Easygoing managers like Ron Washington lead the team to 5 games under .500. Buck could never do that.

Sometimes I wonder where some of you live, with your egos. News flash, the Rangers suck, and noboidy likes them. Mark Teixeira is not sad he's not on the Rangers anymore, I hate to break it to you guys.

We really are becoming the Pirates. Free agents are really, really not gonna come here. The talent has been mostly run off as LSB wanted. It's pretty bad.

Microsoft records huge profits on superb Vista sales

by Sharky on Nov 6, 2007 10:42 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Color me dumb

You can see I, as the rest of the world, really didn't care about the Rangers lately. 12 games under, I see.

I'm so glad Ron Washington was here, or who knows how bad it coulda been!! He's worth 20 wins himself, apparantly. Just as long as the team doesn't crack .500.

Microsoft records huge profits on superb Vista sales

by Sharky on Nov 6, 2007 10:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Buck

No, Buck could never lead the Rangers to a season 12 games under .500. Not like they finished 20 games under .500 his first season or anything like that.

"Then I met some friends for a beer, went to a BoDeans's concert, and son of a vondruke, if I didn't leave him at the concert hall."

by RCCook on Nov 6, 2007 11:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hey Sharky,

I don't think they wanted the talent run off. I think that many people have bought into this value-pricing crap the Rangers have been floating out for 5 or 6 years now. Of course, everybody knows what you get when you shop off of the value menu at Micky D's. The same scenario has been playing out in Ranger land and everyone seems to be ok with that. Ooooh, I like player A but he cost 7 mil/ season. I think if we sign player F he'll have a batting average that is only 25 points lower, his OPS will be only 100 points lower, and his defense well lets not talk about that. And then they cry in their beer wondering why their "95" win team only can eke out 75 wins and why the Rangers finish with only 1 winning record for the entire decade.

by gp on Nov 6, 2007 11:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

so

with the payroll flexibility that Hicks is throwing out we can afford a few albatross contracts? Obviously he doesn't want to add big contract on top of big contract or else we wouldn't have traded A-Rod to get more "payroll flexibility".

everyone would love it if we could go out and sign the big names in FA, but we also have seen how if this fails it sends the whole team into a tailspin because Hicks does thibngs half-ass with his teams. We've seen how bad FA's can ruin a franchise and everyone (including Hicks) is gun-shy of adding a few big contracts becausde of what has happened in the past.

Hell he tried for Zito and for Matsuzaka. I don't see how that's shopping off the value menu

Yeah, well at least I'm housebroken.

by HypoLuxa on Nov 7, 2007 9:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My stepfather used to tell me

that you either do or you don't. This is especially true when talking about professional sports. You either sign the guy or you don't. You either win or you lose. It is very simple. Do you really, really think that Hicks tried to get Zito, Matsuzaka, Delgado, etc., etc. etc. The guy is nothing but a tire kicker.

And it is shopping off the dollar menu when all you sign are guys that nobody else really wants and then you pay them top dollar to boot. One quality free agent costs less than 3 or 4 sorry ass players who still make 4 or 5 million each. And, you have somebody who actually impacts your team in a positive manner. How much did Richard Hidalgo cost? How much did Juan, Carl Everett, and that whole sorry lot cost? Dollar menu crap.

I don't think Hicks is gun-shy at all. I think he is playing you guys for suckers. He can lower payroll and put a shitty product on the field and the Rangers are going to draw the same. All he wants is for people like you to actually believe he wants to compete. He does it by playing games with big name free agents like Delgado and then at the last possible moment he puts a poison pill in the negotiations so that it is guaranteed the guy will sign elsewhere. Plus, he will actually sign a guy like Millwood every few years so that he actually has a few legitimate players on the team. If you really analyze what players were on this roster this last year and you don't realize just how disgraceful that roster was I don't know what to say to you.

by gp on Nov 7, 2007 2:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

oh great!

Someone else calling people sheep. I don't get enough of that on NMLR.

I will agree that he hasn't made enough of a move to make signings but that's why I said he's half-ass. Do i think it's malicious? Not entirely, but I do think it's a fear of commitment. If we're being "played" then that sucks, but until I know for sure one way or the other that Zito's offer was just a show or Matsuzaka's was just a show, then I won't think I'm being played. I don't know too much of the Delgado negotiations as I was in a different market and wasn't tuned into this messageboard or any other, so I can't comment on that. I will say that Hicks wants to compete on HIS terms which is non-committal and a horrible way to go. But to say that I've been snowed into believeing he's a win-at-all-costs owner is not correct.

And as for being satisfied with the Lee Stevens' and Hidalgo's of the world, I most certainly am not. But I understand that it's easier to make blanket statements to prove your point.

And as for the you either sign or you don't mentality, I'd agree to a point. there are contracts that are ill-advised no matter who offers them. But to commit the salary to Zito that would have been required given San Fran's outlay I'm glad he didn't. Not to be too cliche but sometimes the best moves are the ones not made.

Yeah, well at least I'm housebroken.

by HypoLuxa on Nov 7, 2007 3:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Never said he should have signed Zito

who is a guy that has always been hittable and not a true ace. But you have to realize that the cost of business today has always been less than the cost of doing business tomorrow. So if you don't sign a really great player at 15 mil/season now then in 3 years the equivalent of that same player may well be 20-25 mil/season. I can't ever remember salaries going down except right before the union sued and won their case of collusion against the owners. I don't think that salaries will ever change unless something catastrophic happens with the economy which may well happen.

Also, I can't see Hicks being gunshy. I think that is just silly talk. The man is a multi-billionaire who is a serious financial power broker. He made his fortune making risky investments. He does multi-billion dollar deals some of which make him a great deal and others that fall on their faces. Risk is what he does.

by gp on Nov 7, 2007 8:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well if you're going to pull out

the time value of money, I mean, for God's sake, we could extrapolate that metaphorically across the board till the cows come home ...

Sideshow ... onto 800. You can do it!

by Chase Irwin on Nov 7, 2007 8:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My point was this...

Whoever wrote the "Truth and Rumor" that I linked apparently thought it was a good thing that Girardi was like Showalter. The problem is, Showalter was a successful Yankee manager. Why would you be excited about that similarity. I said nothing of the Rangers. I personally thought Buck was a good manager for a young team. His discipline and structured ways maximize young talent. The problem with coaches like Buck is that teams tend to out grow them quickly.

Ephesians 1:3-10

by kwellborn on Nov 6, 2007 11:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Good points & I agree.....

oddly, Buck might be a good manager NOW for the Rangers, where they are & where they're heading.

by tklawless on Nov 7, 2007 10:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't see Buck as a good manager

for a young team. Towards the end of the season, he would give ABs to veterans who weren't part of the future rather than give younger players ABs. I haven't seen a lot at New York, Arizona, or Texas to make me think he is a good manager for young players.

"I promise, if elected, I will crush the state of Georgia" - Stephen Colbert www.colbert08.org

by DJCahill on Nov 7, 2007 11:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

buck

it seems as though his philosophies changed a little when he left NY. Plenty of yankee fans I talked to said he was very good at developing young players. There is evidence to the contrary in Arizona and obviously a lot of evidence to the contrary in Texas.

But, just a quick glance of NY, that team had some old guys on there. were they blocking young guys?

by ab03 on Nov 7, 2007 12:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I point to

Buck's second season with the Rangers. I don't believe you can judge a manager by their first season, unless it is a major success or a major disaster. I think he got managed to get the most out of a young team that first and second year. He should have backed off of his military type control once Tex, Blalock, and MY and others proved themselves.

Ephesians 1:3-10

by kwellborn on Nov 12, 2007 5:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs