If Trembley is gone after this year ...

[El Gordo]

I don't understand how anyone can argue that Trembley is getting the most out of his team when two of the hitters in the heart of the lineup are having career worst years in their primes, an OF that was touted as one of the best defensive OF in the league prior to the year has STUNK defensively, the face of the franchise needs to be talked to about focus and effort to the point where it had to be made public that it was addressed, we are the worst baserunning team in the league, and a lot of the players have no idea about situational hitting.

Sure, players have slumps, but aren't managers judged on whether or not their team is meeting expectations. Not particularly in the win column with this team, but shouldn't we be looking at individual performance as well? Is it just a coincidence that vets with any sort of high-paying contract are underperforming under Trembley?

I don't see how changing managers can have any effect on those things. The baserunning, he seems to have addressed, at least for now and and even Lou Pinella can't fix whatever is going on in BRobs head.

[Skeletor]

I don't see how changing managers can have any effect on those things. The baserunning, he seems to have addressed, at least for now and and even Lou Pinella can't fix whatever is going on in BRobs head.

It depends on your belief behind what's causing that. My guess is it's motivation and a manager can definitely affect that. The baserunning has improved with limiting the hit and runs and you may be right about Roberts. But, coupled with a few other tidbits posted around here, I'm starting to believe the knock that Trembley can't get through to some of the vets because "he never played the game" has some merit.

[RShack]

What part of the bolded part of what I wrote did you not understand? Yes, I agree Gardenhire, Scioscia and Francona are all good managers who are mild mannered. There are lots of others you didn't name. My point is sometimes a change of pace in personality style is required.

Is that really true? I can understand how you might be in the mood for it, but that's different than saying it's somehow required. Why do you say it is? I haven't really thought about it, but is that what BOS did? Is it what the MFY's did? Is it what the Braves did? Is that a part of what is required when teams are on their way to being good?

[Hank Scorpio]

Is that really true? I can understand how you might be in the mood for it, but that's different than saying it's somehow required. Why do you say it is? I haven't really thought about it, but is that what BOS did? Is it what the MFY's did? Is it what the Braves did? Is that a part of what is required when teams are on their way to being good?

Bobby Cox is probably the "Earl Weaver-est" manager in baseball.

This team desperately needs a player who will speak up when he sees stupidity or laziness from his teammates / players. It makes my stomach turn to see guys loaf all the time. They need a guy who will take someone aside after the game and say, "You're a better player than that, right? Please tell me you're better than that."

Last night, Bergesen showed a bit of it.

Without competitive players, this game will drive any team who's been losing into the malaise that we see every year. We don't have a Kirk Gibson on this team. We need someone who isn't afraid to say something to anyone just because they're a rookie or because they're new.

Millar was a little like that - he came here and said that guys were more interested in their suits or what kind of bag they were carrying / car they were driving, than playing baseball.

They need a leader very, very badly. They most certainly do NOT have one right now.

[Boy Howdy]

I have been thinking recently about Don Baylor. He's an Oriole Way guy, he's super-hard nosed, and he's a bit crabby. I think he may have the right kind of personality for what this team needs for a change of pace from the last 4 managers, all of who were kind of mild-mannered. Mild-mannered can be fine, but sometimes a team needs someone to stir the pot. I think it's time for that here if Trembley goes.

I could've written this post, but hats off to you for saving me some keystrokes.

[clapdiddy]

Bobby Cox is probably the "Earl Weaver-est" manager in baseball.

This team desperately needs a player who will speak up when he sees stupidity or laziness from his teammates / players. It makes my stomach turn to see guys loaf all the time. They need a guy who will take someone aside after the game and say, "You're a better player than that, right? Please tell me you're better than that."

Last night, Bergesen showed a bit of it.

Without competitive players, this game will drive any team who's been losing into the malaise that we see every year. We don't have a Kirk Gibson on this team. We need someone who isn't afraid to say something to anyone just because they're a rookie or because they're new.

Millar was a little like that - he came here and said that guys were more interested in their suits or what kind of bag they were carrying / car they were driving, than playing baseball.

They need a leader very, very badly. They most certainly do NOT have one right now.

Amen, brutha! I've been saying this for months.

Look at this team...there is not a proven winner anywhere to be found.

I would address this by going after Chone Figgins this offseason. He's a very good hitter, plays good D, and has been on winning teams for years.

We don't necessarily need a rah-rah type of guy...just someone to lead the way.

EDIT: I also like Frobby's suggestion of Baylor. I'd add both he and Figgins.

[Art Wing]

Just a question to entertain the Palmer-as-manager suggestions-- has anyone ever come in "dry" (without managerial experience) and been successful? He certainly knows the game as well as anyone and has been around the game forever and he's also highly intellectual and looks at numbers (which would be a change from Trembley and others).

Just asking because I really don't know.

[Boy Howdy]

Is that really true? I can understand how you might be in the mood for it, but that's different than saying it's somehow required. Why do you say it is? I haven't really thought about it, but is that what BOS did? Is it what the MFY's did? Is it what the Braves did? Is that a part of what is required when teams are on their way to being good?

I've heard a number of (succesful) managers and coaches talk generally about how players start tuning anybody out after awhile.

Basektball coach Pat Riley is the guy I most vividly recall taking about the phenomenon, but I remember seeing Tony LaRussa say much the same thing a few weeks back when asked about his future with the Cardinals.

They're just the first two guys that come to mind.

As I understand it, players can pretty much adapt to (i.e. get comfortable with) any type of leadership style once they've been around it long enough, but comfort is not necessarily what you want players to feel.

Specifically talking about the Orioles here, it's my opinion that comfortable is the last thing any of them need to be. I'm not talking about yelling, screaming and embarassing them.

[Art Wing]

I'm not a fan of the idea of hiring Palmer, but the idea isn't without a little bit of merit.

As for a good comp, I think the perfect comp might be Larry Dierker. Dierker was a longtime pitcher for the team who was revered by its fans. He then moved into the broadcast booth and from there became manager - with the same exact experience that Palmer currently has.

I'd say that a .556 winning % over five years is a pretty good record.

Hmmmm.... 100+ wins and Manager of the Year in 1998... Looks like it can be done.

Just curious why you would lean against the idea 1970?

[Frobby]

Is that really true? I can understand how you might be in the mood for it, but that's different than saying it's somehow required. Why do you say it is? I haven't really thought about it, but is that what BOS did? Is it what the MFY's did? Is it what the Braves did? Is that a part of what is required when teams are on their way to being good?

The short answer is, who really knows? But I recall that Boston was a losing team for many, many years up until 1967. They had a reputation as a "country club" team. Dick Williams came in and shook them up, and they have basically been a winning team ever since.

I could mention how Jim Leyland just called out his entire team when he felt they had mailed in a game early in the 2006 season, and how it galvanized the whole team. Or how Jack McKeon came in a shook up the Marlins in 2003 when they won the World Series.

Does it always work? No. Does it sometimes backfire? Yes. But this team has basically run a similar personality out there for 10 years, and I think if Trembley isn't the guy, then maybe this team just needs a cold slap in the face. One thing I am pretty sure of - it can't really hurt to try that approach.

[Boy Howdy]

The short answer is, who really knows? But I recall that Boston was a losing team for many, many years up until 1967. They had a reputation as a "country club" team. Dick Williams came in and shook them up, and they have basically been a winning team ever since.

I could mention how Jim Leyland just called out his entire team when he felt they had mailed in a game early in the 2006 season, and how it galvanized the whole team. Or how Jack McKeon came in a shook up the Marlins in 2003 when they won the World Series.

Does it always work? No. Does it sometimes backfire? Yes. But this team has basically run a similar personality out there for 10 years, and I think if Trembley isn't the guy, then maybe this team just needs a cold slap in the face. One thing I am pretty sure of - it can't really hurt to try that approach.

Billy Martin was so intense and fiery that he had to represent a real change no matter who he replaced, and I remember his contemporaries marveling at his ability to generate short-term results. His style wasn't built for the long haul, but if you had a group of underachievers, he was your man.

Baylor is much less extreme, but his toughness is legendary and I doubt he'd have any problem commanding repect from his players. If you agree with Bill James' take in his excellent book on managers, commanding respect is the only prerequisite for being a successful skipper.

[wickedwitch]

You'd have the same problem with Palmer as you'd have with Cal. Firing either one would be a PR disaster. Plus, I don't think his personality is well suited to managerial duties. I could see him as some sort of specialist that they brought in to help pitchers from time to time.

BTW, Torre has been criticized as being too calm.

[Malike]

Managers are defined by the talent on their team, not the other way around. Teams are not defined by the talent of the manager. Guys like Torre, Francona, etc, when running clubs with poor talent had poor records and were ultimately fired. The manager has very little effect on the outcome of the game.

I'd wager that back in the late 90's, you could have inserted pretty much any manager from the GCL to manage the Yankees, and they'd still have been a 95+ win team.

[Lucky Jim]

Managers are defined by the talent on their team, not the other way around. Teams are not defined by the talent of the manager. Guys like Torre, Francona, etc, when running clubs with poor talent had poor records and were ultimately fired. The manager has very little effect on the outcome of the game.

I'd wager that back in the late 90's, you could have inserted pretty much any manager from the GCL to manage the Yankees, and they'd still have been a 95+ win team.

I don't think that teams win because of managers, in any decontextualized way. I think that teams with enough talent to win often underachieve.

But just because a manager of a poor team can't make it win doesn't mean a good manager can't help a good team win. And it doesn't mean a good manager doesn't prevent a good team from losing.

[Skeletor]

Managers are defined by the talent on their team, not the other way around. Teams are not defined by the talent of the manager. Guys like Torre, Francona, etc, when running clubs with poor talent had poor records and were ultimately fired. The manager has very little effect on the outcome of the game.

I'd wager that back in the late 90's, you could have inserted pretty much any manager from the GCL to manage the Yankees, and they'd still have been a 95+ win team.

Some people give managers too much credit, but this is too far the other way. A baseball season is 162 games long. It's an unenviable task to motivate these guys for that long.