Jump to content
YourWhatHurts

Tony La Russa named Manager

Recommended Posts

I think the part that bothers me about this so-called "search" is that they're not actually ya know, doing a "search." Just as in the recent past, it feels like they're just skipping over the "search" part, and the "interview" part, and just want to go directly to the "naming a guy manager" part.

 

I think back to Ventura: Was there actually an attempt to query the guy, so as to see what he was all about, or see if he was interested, or if he actually had any ideas? DId they consider any other candidates? [I honestly don't remember if they did.]

Or with Renteria: Was there any attempt to query him, or did they just offer him the job? Were they any other candidates?

 

And, I don't actually see them announcing any candidates, beyond the moronic leak of TLR. Do they plan to actually have a process and interview candidates, or will they do their usual stupid  process of just "naming a guy?"  See, a thoughtful interviewing process can help you nail down the right candidate, to identify potential coaches outside the org, to gain insight into how OTHER orgs operate, and to gain insight into how other orgs view the White Sox's operations.

IMO, it isn't enough that a candidate worked for a successful organization. He could have been just lucky, or a cheat, or have been carried across the finish line by superior talent. You have to find the fit, the mix of abilities, the proper philosophies, and the right acumen to get the job done. And I can't think of another way to do this, OTHER than a detailed, comparative process that involves more than one candidate. Especially when there isn't ONE prospective candidate that is head and shoulders above the rest; I think that all of the names have both virtues and flaws on their resumes.

 

The last time I recall the SOX actually doing a proper "search, then interviewS, then hire" process was all the way back when it was supposed to be Cito Gaston in late 2003. Just by interviewing more than one guy, they ended up hiring the correct person for the job. So, I could actually be somewhat more OK with TLR or cheater Hinch, IF they sought out more than one candidate, interviewed them, and then selected the right guy. But, ya know, that actually takes thought and effort, and who knows if JR/KW/RH will bother?

Edited by Two-Gun Pete
  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

I think the part that bothers me about this so-called "search" is that they're not actually ya know, doing a "search." Just as in the recent past, it feels like they're just skipping over the "search" part, and the "interview" part, and just want to go directly to the "naming a guy manager" part.

I think back to Ventura: Was there actually an attempt to query the guy, so as to see what he was all about, or see if he was interested, or if he actually had any ideas? DId they consider any other candidates? [I honestly don't remember if they did.]

Or with Renteria: Was there any attempt to query him, or did they just offer him the job? Were they any other candidates?

 

And, I don't actually see them announcing any candidates, beyond the moronic leak of TLR. Do they plan to actually have a process and interview candidates, or will they do their usual stupid  process of just "naming a guy?"  See, a thoughtful interviewing process can help you nail down the right candidate, to identify potential coaches outside the org, to gain insight into how OTHER orgs operate, and to gain insight into how other orgs view the White Sox's operations.

IMO, it isn't enough that a candidate worked for a successful organization. He could have been just lucky, or a cheat, or have been carried across the finish line by superior talent. You have to find the fit, the mix of abilities, the proper philosophies, and the right acumen to get the job done. And I can't think of another way to do this, OTHER than a detailed, comparative process that involves more than one candidate. Especially when there isn't ONE prospective candidate that is head and shoulders above the rest; I think that all of the names have both virtues and flaws on their resumes.

 

The last time I recall the SOX actually doing a proper "search, then interviewS, then hire" process was all the way back when it was supposed to be Cito Gaston in late 2003. Just by interviewing more than one guy, they ended up hiring the correct person for the job. So, I could actually be somewhat more OK with TLR or cheater Hinch, IF they sought out more than one candidate, interviewed them, and then selected the right guy. But, ya know, that actually takes thought and effort, and who knows if JR/KW/RH will bother?

I see no indication that any of this is true. The likelihood is multiple of their targets cannot be interviewed currently.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bmags said:

I see no indication that any of this is true. The likelihood is multiple of their targets cannot be interviewed currently.

You also see no indication that they have deviated whatsoever from the majority of the past 20 or so years, in terms of managerial/coaching searches.

 

RH/KW/JR could have stated that they will look at several candidates, but they didn't. Instead, the only step they are noted to take hereto fore is to leak the name TLR to Nightingale, and to ask LAAAAA for permission to talk to him.

 

That said, I think it would be front office malpractice [again] to not include candidates that can be interviewed NOW, as well as those who are unavailable until later. What if the guy you THOUGHT was the right candidate isn't available until later, and when you DO interview him, he comes off as an imbecile, or fvkcwad, or a Darryl Boston-style scumbag? Meanwhile OTHER, smarter orgs could hire your alternatives before you can circle back.

 

They could EASILY interview [off the top of my head]: TLR, Alomar, Washington, and Bochy NOW.

THEN, if they really had a hardon to hire a cheat, they can interview Hinch and Cora later; they could also interview coaches that are currently in the playoffs as well at a later period.

 

But the overarching question is: "Why aren't they talking to candidates, and why are they not talking to multiple candidates, NOW?" This honestly feels like the same old story we've seen over and over again, and I feel like we've seen this stupid movie over and over again with respect to managerial hires. Its honestly lazy and stupid, and has lead to inferior outcomes and inferior choices in their hires more often than not.

Edited by Two-Gun Pete
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Two-Gun Pete said:

You also see no indication that they have deviated whatsoever from the majority of the past 20 or so years, in terms of managerial/coaching searches.

 

RH/KW/JR could have stated that they will look at several candidates, but they didn't. Instead, the only step they are noted to take hereto fore is to leak the name TLR to Nightingale, and to ask LAAAAA for permission to talk to him.

 

That said, I think it would be front office malpractice [again] to not include candidates that can be interviewed NOW, as well as those who are unavailable until later. What if the guy you THOUGHT was the right candidate isn't available until later, and when you DO interview him, he comes off as an imbecile, or fvkcwad, or a Darryl Boston-style scumbag? Meanwhile OTHER, smarter orgs could hire your alternatives before you can circle back.

 

They could EASILY interview [off the top of my head]: TLR, Alomar, Washington, and Bochy NOW.

THEN, if they really had a hardon to hire a cheat, they can interview Hinch and Cora later; they could also interview coaches that are currently in the playoffs as well at a later period.

 

But the overarching question is: "Why aren't they talking to candidates, and why are they not talking to multiple candidates, NOW?" This honestly feels like the same old story we've seen over and over again, and I feel like we've seen this stupid movie over and over again with respect to managerial hires. 

It’s been 5 days. Get a grip.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bmags said:

It’s been 5 days. Get a grip.

Well, if they've been thinking about replacing RR for awhile, its actually been longer than that. And since there are other orgs looking for managers, it behooves them to start the process [if there actually is one] sooner rather than later. And one would anticipate that a competent front office would have maintained a list of potential candidates, IF a change ever had to be made, or if your extant manager quit on you, for whatever reason.

 

Yes, I get it: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. But up to this point, the [snicker] "work" they've put into this search has been haphazard, half-baked, and transparently stoopid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

You also see no indication that they have deviated whatsoever from the majority of the past 20 or so years, in terms of managerial/coaching searches.

 

RH/KW/JR could have stated that they will look at several candidates, but they didn't. Instead, the only step they are noted to take hereto fore is to leak the name TLR to Nightingale, and to ask LAAAAA for permission to talk to him.

 

That said, I think it would be front office malpractice [again] to not include candidates that can be interviewed NOW, as well as those who are unavailable until later. What if the guy you THOUGHT was the right candidate isn't available until later, and when you DO interview him, he comes off as an imbecile, or fvkcwad, or a Darryl Boston-style scumbag? Meanwhile OTHER, smarter orgs could hire your alternatives before you can circle back.

 

They could EASILY interview [off the top of my head]: TLR, Alomar, Washington, and Bochy NOW.

THEN, if they really had a hardon to hire a cheat, they can interview Hinch and Cora later; they could also interview coaches that are currently in the playoffs as well at a later period.

 

But the overarching question is: "Why aren't they talking to candidates, and why are they not talking to multiple candidates, NOW?" This honestly feels like the same old story we've seen over and over again, and I feel like we've seen this stupid movie over and over again with respect to managerial hires. Its honestly lazy and stupid, and has lead to inferior outcomes and inferior choices in their hires more often than not.

Because it is probably a two horse race, and one of the horse, if he were to manage, would only manage the White Sox, and the other horse is suspended for another week and a half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SouthSideGeorgia said:

Not sure if Dodgers HC Dave Roberts has been mentioned in the previous 29 pages but I needed a change from LaRussa and Hinch. 
 

Long shot, but would probably need the Braves to beat the Dodgers tonight and for frustrations to boil over in LA enough to fire Roberts. 
 

Dave Roberts article

No. As someone who follows the Dodgers religiously, Roberts is the absolute wrong guy to bring in. He's awful and I was pissed they gave him an extension when they did. He cost them the World Series against the Red Sox by sitting his best bats in favor of analytics. The man would've sat Trout if he hit righties at a .290 clip as opposed to a .291 clip against lefties. 

He's awful. He doesn't deserve to manage. Bench coach at best. And that's stretching it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dick Allen said:

Because it is probably a two horse race, and one of the horse, if he were to manage, would only manage the White Sox, and the other horse is suspended for another week and a half.

Oh, you're probably correct in terms of the number of candidates they've limited themselves to this time around.

To me, thats the other disappointing aspect of this "search." While both of the horses have their virtues, they also have their faults that can't be ignored. I think there are other candidates that also have their virtues, that this FO are ignoring. And this could be to the team's detriment/to the advantage of their competitors. 

 

Were they to interview Bochy, Alomar, Quatraro, TLR, and Hinch, then hire Hinch or TLR, at least we could be satiated in that they did their due diligence. By contrast, this seems less like a proper search, and more like a waiting game for the naming press conference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe Espada may not be available, but he’s the one candidate I have not seen mentioned but a few times here that I would like to see interviewed.

From what I’ve read during the Cubs process last year, he provided their FO with a lot of valuable insight, and was the unexpected final candidate opposite their first choice heading into the process.

Joe may already have an informal agreement as the next permanent manager after this season with Houston.

Have concerns regarding the inability of Hinch to stop what was going on in Houston despite the fact he allegedly was opposed to it by reports of his destroying the first video monitor. LaRussa is the one candidate I really don’t want.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Oh, you're probably correct in terms of the number of candidates they've limited themselves to this time around.

To me, thats the other disappointing aspect of this "search." While both of the horses have their virtues, they also have their faults that can't be ignored. I think there are other candidates that also have their virtues, that this FO are ignoring. And this could be to the team's detriment/to the advantage of their competitors. 

 

Were they to interview Bochy, Alomar, Quatraro, TLR, and Hinch, then hire Hinch or TLR, at least we could be satiated in that they did their due diligence. By contrast, this seems less like a proper search, and more like a waiting game for the naming press conference.

We know basically nothing about their search except that La Russa is a candidate.  You are drawing way too many conclusions right now and I’m not sure why.  I’d wager large sums of money they will interview more than just TLR & Hinch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

We know basically nothing about their search except that La Russa is a candidate.  You are drawing way too many conclusions right now and I’m not sure why.  I’d wager large sums of money they will interview more than just TLR & Hinch.

Well, when someone show you who they are through their actions, you should believe them.

There hasn't been anything of a comparative and competitive process since Ozzie was hired 17 years ago. The last time there was a need for a manager while the team was thought to be competitive, it was a one man, three question "search " that included ONLY Ventura.

I certainly hope youre correct that there will be more than a 2 man search. But so far, we've heard nothing to that effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

We know basically nothing about their search except that La Russa is a candidate.  You are drawing way too many conclusions right now and I’m not sure why.  I’d wager large sums of money they will interview more than just TLR & Hinch.

I don't want to wager large sums of money on it....but I hope you are right.  TLR & Hinch are way down my list of possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Well, when someone show you who they are through their actions, you should believe them.

There hasn't been anything of a comparative and competitive process since Ozzie was hired 17 years ago. The last time there was a need for a manager while the team was thought to be competitive, it was a one man, three question "search " that included ONLY Ventura.

I certainly hope youre correct that there will be more than a 2 man search. But so far, we've heard nothing to that effect.

Maybe there are talks going on but rumors seem limited. The Boston opening occurred earlier and they seem to be just as quiet.  It almost seems like everything is on hold till the World Series ends and then Boston will grab Cora and Hinch will go to Sox. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm bouncing between that the boss has an uncanny way with decisions that makes us and him look bad every single time and "Any publicity is good publicity."   He's needed a media consultant for almost 40 years and still does.  Did I just say 40 years?  Even smart guys are dumb in certain ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bochy is such an obvious potential choice I can't imagine how little his name is brought up.  He and John Farrell should be definitely interviewed if we are serious about a true interview process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Well, when someone show you who they are through their actions, you should believe them.

There hasn't been anything of a comparative and competitive process since Ozzie was hired 17 years ago. The last time there was a need for a manager while the team was thought to be competitive, it was a one man, three question "search " that included ONLY Ventura.

I certainly hope youre correct that there will be more than a 2 man search. But so far, we've heard nothing to that effect.

I get your frustration with our past hiring processes as I hated them too.  But so far, Hahn has said all the right things and has implied there will be candidates from some of the playoff teams.  I fully expect a couple more guys to be interviewed in addition to TLR & Hinch.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, poppysox said:

Bochy is such an obvious potential choice I can't imagine how little his name is brought up.  He and John Farrell should be definitely interviewed if we are serious about a true interview process.

Why John Farrell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

42 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Why John Farrell?

7 or 8 years of managerial experience including a World Series win in 2013.  That Boston team went from last to first in 2013 and of course, he won manager of the year.  An overall winning record and tough as nail reputation.  Good enough to be hired by Dave Dombrowski who gets good managers IMO.  Most importantly not a hint of scandal.  

 

 

Edited by poppysox
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, poppysox said:

7 or 8 years of managerial experience including a World Series win in 2013.  That Boston team went from last to first in 2013 and of course, he won manager of the year.  An overall winning record and tough as nail reputation.  Good enough to be hired by Dave Dombrowski who gets good managers IMO.  Most importantly not a hint of scandal.

Farrell's not necessarily a bad thought. I might actually prefer him to TLR or Hinch.

However, specific to this club, I'd rather have a former catcher as the next manager. Not so much because of the adage of "catchers make the best managers," but rather, that the SOX are about to lose a strong performer at the position.

Also, there have been some questions about Grandal's performances, from the game calling angle, as well as his ability to mesh with Giolito. Lastly, we're likely to see either Collins or Yermin as a backup, and I think it could be profitable to give them every chance to succeed.

I could see Bochy or Alomar as being beneficial to the SOX in this regard as manager.

Edited by Two-Gun Pete
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Farrell's not necessarily a bad thought. I might actually prefer him to TLR or Hinch.

However, specific to this club, I'd rather have a former catcher as the next manager. Not so much because of the adage of "catchers make the best managers," but rather, that the SOX are about to lose a strong performer at the position.

Also, there have been some questions about Grandal's performances, from the game calling angle, as well as his ability to mesh with Giolito. Lastly, we're likely to see either Collins or Yermin as a backup, and I think it could be profitable to give them every chance to succeed.

I could see Bochy or Alomar as being beneficial to the SOX in this regard as manager.

I'm big on catchers as well.  After all my fandom started with Lopez.  That is part of why Bochy has been my #1 choice.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, poppysox said:

After all my fandom started with Lopez.

Lopez?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Buehrle>Wood said:

Al, presumably 

Ah, not familiar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, nitetrain8601 said:

No. As someone who follows the Dodgers religiously, Roberts is the absolute wrong guy to bring in. He's awful and I was pissed they gave him an extension when they did. He cost them the World Series against the Red Sox by sitting his best bats in favor of analytics. The man would've sat Trout if he hit righties at a .290 clip as opposed to a .291 clip against lefties. 

He's awful. He doesn't deserve to manage. Bench coach at best. And that's stretching it.

Damned if you do regarding analytics; damned if you don't. Just.Win.Baby. Remember Ned Yost will always be remembered as a WS winning manager. People thought he was a veritable clown for a long long time. Just.Win.Baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×