Buck in 2010?
The latest rumor regarding a Nats' managerial candidate for 2010 revolves around Buck Showalter.
The former Yankees/Diamondbacks/Rangers skipper has been working in broadcasting the past couple of years on ESPN, and has seen his name pop up in similar rumors since his departure from Texas.
What you may not be aware of is Showalter's almost-local connection to the region. Buck's dad - also nicknamed Buck - was from the southwestern portion of Virginia, graduating from Radford High School in the late 1930's.
Buck Senior was a classmate of my mom's at RHS, and caught for the school's baseball team.
Some years back I discovered my mom had two copies of the RHS yearbook from her last year there, and, sure enough, there was Buck Sr's picture with the baseball team. The younger Showalter was still with the Yankees then, and I gave it to him one afternoon when the Bombers were in Baltimore. He'd never seen it before, and was quite appreciative.
That aside, it's difficult for me to endorse Showalter as the Nats' next manager. He developed a reputation as a somewhat poor communicator in his previous stops, though, to be fair, he may have fugured that out by now.
It's safe to expect that if a change is made, it will occur sometime between the last game of the season and the end of the World Series. Whoever ends up with the job will need some time to assemble a coaching staff and prepare for the winter meetings in Indianpolis December 7-10.
 |
Categories (click for archive)Phil Wood |
Two comments
First, here is quote from someone who is fast becoming your favorite player.
“I'm too young to remember George Brett.”
- RHP Aaron Crow, a first-round draft pick in June, who grew up in nearby Topeka, Kansas, as a Royals fan.
Second, since it is your thesis (and I think Dave Johnson's and Tom Davis') that managers make no absoulutely no difference in a team's success, can I take it that your negative comments regarding Buck is personal? You just don't like the guy?
RNF in Fairfax
===== I like him fine. We've had several short conversations over the years, mostly about Radford, VA, but I have no issue with him personally. It's the stuff I've heard from guys who played for him that makes me think he'd not be a good fit. And let's be honest: is it remotely possible that Crow has never heard of George Brett? The KC franchise has only been around 40 years; he's not exactly ancient history.
Showalter seems to wear out his welcome. If they are not going to retain Riggleman (I hope they do) why are they bargain basement shopping? If they want a bargain, no surpise with the Lerners, why not keep Riggs or name Foli or another unheralded candidate with a good AAA record? ===== Money really isn't the issue here; if it was, you wouldn't have heard Bobby Valentine's name in the mix and he's been mentioned in connection with the Nats by every national baseball writer in the country - he's looking for $4 million a year! Buck wouldn't be cheap, either. I'd be fine with Riggleman back in '10 - but I wouldn't bet my house that's what happens.
I had been mildly happy with Riggelman until he didn't have the guts to move Guzman to 2B & play Desmond every day. But benching Dukes for Orr & moving Desmond to RF was moronic. Rigs undercut Dukes & Lannan, lost the game, and put Desmond in a place where he couldn't succeed. The cherry on the cowpie of this wretched season. And I bought Diamond Club season tix to smell this mess. ABR in '10 (Anybody But Riggelman).=====Wayne, I don't think guts had anything to do with it. I think, given the point n the season when it occurred, coupled with Guzman's foot problem, it was the organization's decision not to put a veteran in a position he'd never played.
Buck would be great for this team.
Buck would be great for this team. I was huge Yankee fan and when they fired him after the 1995 Season I kinda stop following the Yankees. They tried to hire Buck back after they hired Torre, but Buck wasn't going to do that. The next year the Yankees wone the World Series with a team that Buck helped to build. Buck went on to build the Diamondbacks into one of the fastest teams to win a World Series.
Buck is a little intense and was a micromanager, but I think he has learned from that. He has a great baseball mind and wants to play the game right. He would be great for a young team.
I hope the Nats front office is able to "fugure" out what to do with their actual players next season. Changing managers every few months sure does make it look like you are doing something.......but they aren't catching and hitting the ball out there. ==== The Nats' defense has been atrocious. No way to sugarcoat it. That has to change in 2010. Morgan coming back to play everyday will help, since he can cover a lot of ground and make up for misjudgements on either side of him.
Phil: Any thoughts on Kirk Gibson or Alan Trammel to manage club in 2010. Not that I don't think Riggleman shouldn't be at least considered, but I would love to see either of these two here as head man. Both would instill fundamentals, hustle and leadership. Any thoughts? ===== I think Trammell is a fine candidate. He got hosed in Detroit. I'd rather Gibson get some managerial experience before I attempt to handicap his skills.
Comment to Dowell:
Phil's thesis (and I think Dave Johnson's and Tom Davis') is that managers have absoulutely no effect on a team's success. So Gibson or Trammell or Valentine would have the same record as as Riggleman or Manny Acta for that manner.
To me, if a manager has no affect on winning baseball games, it would seem that that the club's sole consideration in hiring a manager is to maximize the difference between the amount of additional revenues a manager would add to the club's coffers less, of course, the amount they have to pay him.
For example, they might consider Lou Pinella and pay him more but only because he would increase attendance and cable revenues to offset his higher salary. In comparison a guy like Riggelman who is no doubt among the lowest paid managers in the league but then he has no impact on adding revenues either at the gate or the cable.
Comment to Phil: Tom Boswell writes in his column that the Nats are 26-38 under Riggelman and 26-61 under Manny. Under your thesis, I assume you believe had Riggelman managed the first 87 games the club would have been about 26-61; and had Manny managed the last 64 games, the club have won about 26 games? Any comment. ==== While you're dealing in gross generalizations, I will comment in that every scout I've spoken with has said essentially this: If Acta had the same bullpen that Riggleman had, he likely would still be the manager. And, as long as we're dealing in gross generalizations, you don't seem to think that personnel has much to do with a manager's success or failure, so I would ask you to please name me a manager who's won with second rate talent, or a minor league bullpen, or with most of his regulars on the DL (2008). I'm sure you must have quite a list.
Seems that Gary Carter really wants to manage a ML team. Any thoughts of how he would be? ==== Interesting thought. He might be worth interviewing, and would represent the only real tangible connection to the Montreal years.