If Trembley is gone after this year ...

[Malike]

On the surface I think you are way more right in your opinion than you are wrong. Having said that...

Let's say a manager can make a 5 win difference either way. In other words, an 85 win team might win 80 games with me managing them and 90 games with Earl Weaver. If I'm the guy doing the hiring then I'd certainly go for the guy who I think can turn my 85 win team into a 90 win team with sensible in-game strategy and pitching staff management.

Since playoff spots are often determined by 5 games or less a manager certainly can make a difference.

And I agree with this completely. It seems to me, and perhaps my reading comprehension is way off, that a lot of people think that Dave Tremblay is the reason this team has the record it does, not because of the overall talent on the roster at this time.

If a team is contending, and coming up short, I think its perfectly fine to look to the manager and see how you can get over that hump.

[Lucky Jim]

And I agree with this completely. It seems to me, and perhaps my reading comprehension is way off, that a lot of people think that Dave Tremblay is the reason this team has the record it does, not because of the overall talent on the roster at this time.

If a team is contending, and coming up short, I think its perfectly fine to look to the manager and see how you can get over that hump.

From this thread?

[RShack]

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.

Well, that's an interesting theory. Not sure how we take that and get "required", but whatever. I assume you were just talking, and used "required" when perhaps another word might have been better. Not saying your theory is wrong, I just wonder about it, that's all. If you look at guys who have done well with multiple teams, I don't think a big factor was that they were the opposite personality of whoever they preceded. Personally, I think we're all grasping at straws here and none of us really knows much about it. I fully believe there are a small number of managers who, in one way or another, were very important to how their teams did. I think they're rare. I don't believe we know why some guys make a big difference, and I imagine the reasons aren't always the same. Good leadership in general isn't always the same.

In the case of Torre, I think one big reason he succeeded in NY in ways that he hadn't before had nothing to do with previous managers. I think it had everything to do with Torre being the anti-Steinbrenner. In his previous jobs, the rap against Torre was that he was under-intense, too laid back, and mainly cared where the good Italian restaurants were when they were on the road. But in NY, his very same temperament was exactly what was needed. The laid-back Torre was the perfect foil to George. Steinbrenner would go nuts and Torre would shrug. All-the-sudden, the fact that nothing seemed to bother Torre much, which had been a liability, was an instant asset. He's the one manager George couldn't get to, and I think it rattled George. I think Torre intimidated Steinbrenner, and the players loved it. His laid-back-ness let them stay cool in the middle of NY's intensity. In his previous jobs in other places, not so much.

[Lucky Jim]

A few chapters from Baseball Between the Numbers:

Link.

[Frobby]

So many responses. I guess I'll just end with my last thought on this. If some guy who these players have never met, can walk into the clubhouse and eek every ounce of talent out of them, fantastic. I don't see it happening. I also don't believe that professionals like to lose, or even accept it. It boils down to the talent on the team, not how motivating the manager can be. Why don't we just hire Tony Robbins to manage? We'd win the world series every year then, right?

What do you want? The premise of this thread assumes Trembley is gone at the end of the year. We're not even debating whether he should be gone here. So we're discussing if he's gone, who would we want? Nobody really disagrees that there is only so much a manager can do.

[Big Mac]

Dempsey.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Well, that's an interesting theory. Not sure how we take that and get "required", but whatever. I assume you were just talking, and used "required" when perhaps another word might have been better. Not saying your theory is wrong, I just wonder about it, that's all. If you look at guys who have done well with multiple teams, I don't think a big factor was that they were the opposite personality of whoever they preceded. Personally, I think we're all grasping at straws here and none of us really knows much about it. I fully believe there are a small number of managers who, in one way or another, were very important to how their teams did. I think they're rare. I don't believe we know why some guys make a big difference, and I imagine the reasons aren't always the same. Good leadership in general isn't always the same.

In the case of Torre, I think one big reason he succeeded in NY in ways that he hadn't before had nothing to do with previous managers. I think it had everything to do with Torre being the anti-Steinbrenner. In his previous jobs, the rap against Torre was that he was under-intense, too laid back, and mainly cared where the good Italian restaurants were when they were on the road. But in NY, his very same temperament was exactly what was needed. The laid-back Torre was the perfect foil to George. Steinbrenner would go nuts and Torre would shrug. All-the-sudden, the fact that nothing seemed to bother Torre much, which had been a liability, was an instant asset. He's the one manager George couldn't get to, and I think it rattled George. I think Torre intimidated Steinbrenner, and the players loved it. His laid-back-ness let them stay cool in the middle of NY's intensity. In his previous jobs in other places, not so much.

Well, you could say that this is the same idea as Frobby, just from the other side. The Yankees go from a series of overzealous managers (Martin, Pinella, Showalter) to the opposite in Torre, who though having a previously poor managerial record was perfect.

Hell, could happen with Trembley if he was released here. Could happen with someone else coming here.

[Roll Tide]

Here's my plug for Palmer as the next manager of the Orioles.

[Malike]

What do you want? The premise of this thread assumes Trembley is gone at the end of the year. We're not even debating whether he should be gone here. So we're discussing if he's gone, who would we want? Nobody really disagrees that there is only so much a manager can do.

What do I want? I want a talented baseball team to root for. I want a pitching staff with an ERA less than 5. I couldn't care less who the manager is, because I just dont believe they have that much impact on what goes on between the chalk lines.

I want talented players to watch up and down the roster. We just don't have that much talent right now. Its developing, but clearly, if you look at the results, the talent just isn't there yet.

Thats what I want.

[BaltimoreTerp]

What do I want? I want a talented baseball team to root for. I want a pitching staff with an ERA less than 5. I couldn't care less who the manager is, because I just dont believe they have that much impact on what goes on between the chalk lines.

I want talented players to watch up and down the roster. We just don't have that much talent right now. Its developing, but clearly, if you look at the results, the talent just isn't there yet.

Thats what I want.

Then why bother with this thread?

[Bibleman]

1. Clint Hurdle

2. Rich Dauer

3. Gary Allenson

[JTrea81]

Chris Hoiles or Manny Acta for outside candidates, and I'd fire Trembley now and give Jauss a chance and let him be a candidate as well if he does a good job.

[crowmst3k!]

Whomever comes in has to be given full reign to bring in their own coaches as well...it doesn't make sense to have a manager who can not trust his staff underneath him.

Even if this means the dismissal of Crowley and Kranitz...

[4TheO's]

Dave Martinez..bench coach of the Rays...former MLB player and is great with young talent (and isn't the Fatherly type as Trembley is) would demand the best from his players.

[Saintbird]

Chris Hoiles or Manny Acta for outside candidates, and I'd fire Trembley now and give Jauss a chance and let him be a candidate as well if he does a good job.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Even the canadates, Hoiles is already a head coach for an Independent league, and Acta should be given a chance with a team that is somewhat close to breaking out. (It feels good to say that :clap3:)

But, indeed I think we could give Jauss a chance for right now.