Jump to content

Buck


LAOSfan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Adam Jones, Dan Duquette, and Buck Showalter all leave after 2018. I doubt that Peter will be the person who chooses to replace any of them.

Agreed--although I misspoke earlier in saying that Duquette and Showalter were given new five-year contracts. Their contracts were extended four and five years, respectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypothetic question.

This is not something I want to happen or think will happen.

With that said, If you were DD and King Peter, and you were going to replace Buck at the end of the season.

Exactly who is available and willing to come in and manage this team, that would be an improvement?????

Managing is all about getting the players to buy into your plan. It's personality and psychology. Right now the players are on with Bucks direction. It would be foolish to mess with that. But Madden, Gardenhire, Bud Black or Bruce Bochy, could come here and get them on board with their plan pretty quick.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Managing is all about getting the players to buy into your plan. It's personality and psychology. Right now the players are on with Bucks direction. It would be foolish to mess with that. But Madden, Gardenhire, Bud Black or Bruce Bochy, could come here and get them on board with their plan pretty quick.

Of those four listed, who is actually available and not currently managing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you understand what the word hypothetical means? It's a good question.

Give me a moment to look it up in the dictionary. Oh, OK. Having only taught literature and writing since 1990 and published only six books and edited close to twenty of them, I'm not very confident about my lexical knowledge.

The implication of my post was that some conjectures are not worth my time considering, especially if the team has made an extremely rare, faithful, and generous commitment to both Duquette and Showalter. But you found the OP's question a good one and I'm fine with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your interpretation of my view is absurd. Buck does plenty of good things.

Starting flaherty in motion multiple times with Mclouth at the plate lead to some scores, that was a great managerial decision.

I also think he pulled gonzo at exactly the right time.

I give buck credit when credit is due, he had a very good game tonight. But I also criticize him when he deserves it. I thought bringing in Johnson for a third night was a really bad decision before he'd ever thrown a pitch.

I call it like I see it. I still like buck overall as a manager, I think his strong suit is motivating his players and getting the most out of his guys. I think he stands up for his team and they really respect him for it and I do too.

I just don't think he's fantastic at bullpen management and knowing when to get starters and when to leave them in. It's just my opinion. It doesn't mean I dislike him or want anyone else managing our team.

Fair enough?

I'm glad you clarified your position. I can live with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the thread and then went back to watch the pressers for the last week or so and what the hell are many of you talking about. Buck has just been Buck. You know well some good stuff happened some bad stuff happened we won some and we lost some some of our guys were good some need to do some things better. Sometimes we get mad at the umps. We are going to play again tomorrow.

It really always amazes me how even keeled Buck stays and I did not see anything out of the ordinary. I still think he thinks we have a pretty good club and we need to keep grinding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the thread and then went back to watch the pressers for the last week or so and what the hell are many of you talking about. Buck has just been Buck. You know well some good stuff happened some bad stuff happened we won some and we lost some some of our guys were good some need to do some things better. Sometimes we get mad at the umps. We are going to play again tomorrow.

It really always amazes me how even keeled Buck stays and I did not see anything out of the ordinary. I still think he thinks we have a pretty good club and we need to keep grinding.

Ditto, a good club, and lots of Baseball to play yet.

I went as far as said something along the lines about the anti-buck crowd and that didnt go over too well. But, from the tone of their posts, it sure appear that they were anything but buck supporters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of those four listed, who is actually available and not currently managing?
hy?po?thet?i?cal

/ˌhīpəˈTHetikəl/

Adjective

Of, based on, or serving as a hypothesis.

Noun

A hypothetical proposition or statement: "Flynn talked in hypotheticals, tossing what-if scenarios to Kernaghan".

Synonyms

hypothetic - conjectural - presumptive :rolleyestf:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hy?po?thet?i?cal

/ˌhīpəˈTHetikəl/

Adjective

Of, based on, or serving as a hypothesis.

Noun

A hypothetical proposition or statement: "Flynn talked in hypotheticals, tossing what-if scenarios to Kernaghan".

Synonyms

hypothetic - conjectural - presumptive :rolleyestf:

Hypothetically, wouldn't the effort of discussion be better based on something that has a bit of a chance to be in play?

a-chance.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give me a moment to look it up in the dictionary. Oh, OK. Having only taught literature and writing since 1990 and published only six books and edited close to twenty of them, I'm not very confident about my lexical knowledge.

The implication of my post was that some conjectures are not worth my time considering, especially if the team has made an extremely rare, faithful, and generous commitment to both Duquette and Showalter. But you found the OP's question a good one and I'm fine with that.

Sadly it has been my experience that not every one who teaches English or writes books is literate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypothetically, wouldn't the effort of discussion be better based on something that has a bit of a chance to be in play?

a-chance.gif

He asks a hypothetical question, which I took the mean was there a better option for manager out there than Buck were he to be replaced? An implication IMO, of that question, would be that there wasn't. I would agree with that in reality, but hypothetically I also think there are other managers who would do as well, if not better, with this team as Buck. I think Buck is a great manager, the best for the job right now, but I also think that a few years down the road his warts are going to loom large. I may have missed it, but is there a new rule change about asking and answering hypothetical questions?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...