Angels Managerial Search Thread

[Swordsman78]

2 minutes ago, Blarg said:

First off, Nevin was a plan B then C when Moreno put the team up for sale then bailed out. He was never supposed to be more than an interim when they fired Joe Madman. But Moreno tied Minasian's hand both for roster and a new manager. 

You are still the kid with the dunce hat in the corner not understanding why you are there. 

Thats fine Blarg.  Which one of the top candidates has your vote? 

[BTH]

13 minutes ago, Swordsman78 said:

Oh OK..... thought you had some tangible reference to back up your post, for a change.  Guess not.

Still waiting for your tangible reference to back up your love affair with Nevin.

[Swordsman78]

3 minutes ago, BTH said:

Still waiting for your tangible reference to back up the players love affair with Nevin.

FIFY.

And there are multiple quotes from key players available for your perusal

[Swordsman78]

6 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

 Bad teams (under .500) also often have good managers.

 

Yes....Yes they often do.

[BTH]

5 minutes ago, Swordsman78 said:

FIFY.

And there are multiple quotes from key players available for your perusal

Mike Trout said he liked playing for Ausmus, Maddon, and Nevin.

What the players think is meaningless.

It’s a result-oriented business, and Nevin wasn’t getting good results.

[Swordsman78]

On 10/11/2023 at 12:28 PM, BTH said:

Now that we’ve gotten some info, I figured we could use a thread for all things related to the Angels managerial search…

 

Showalter never had a winning record in the first full year of any team he managed....except the 2022 Mets who he turned around from 101-61  into a dismal 75-87 in 2023.   Real quality choice there.  smh.

[Docwaukee]

apparently Roenicke is interviewing.  

[BTH]

35 minutes ago, Docwaukee said:

apparently Roenicke is interviewing.  

really?

I saw the LA Times float his name as a speculative candidate, but I didn’t think he’d be a legit candidate.

[Angels 1961]

Halos need Rodney Linares

[Blarg]

5 hours ago, Swordsman78 said:

Thats fine Blarg.  Which one of the top candidates has your vote? 

I would consider Doug Davis from the Rangers AAA system. Michael Johns from Tampa Bay. Matt Tuiasosopo from the Braves. Maybe even Buck Britton from the Orioles. These are all pretty much no name guys with some MLB experience. They are probably best suited for working with younger players and their organizations are using a balanced approach to offense and analytics for pitching and defense. 

To pick one of these guys Minasian has to know the owner can wait for the team to meld rather than pick up a free agent and expect instant success. If Moreno is hell bent on high priced free agents then any one of the recycled managers of the last decade will suffice, the team is going to be in veteran autopilot mode. 

[Dtwncbad]

I’m kind of surprised that Dino Ebel’s name isn’t circulating.

He’s clearly a legit candidate right here in Southern California with tons of experience.

 

[Robrock30]

I endorse Buck for the Manager job and I have been a fan of his from the beginning when he managed the Yankees then he created the D'backs, then he went to Texas then Baltimore and finally the Mets where I observed him closely.  The huge knock on him is he has never won a Championship yet but the Yankees Dbacks and Rangers did right after he departed.  He is a quality person well liked.  There are pros and cons with him which I am familiar with.

Don't hold the Championship against him though as it didn't go well for Joe Maddon which I still can't understand what went wrong with him.

[Robrock30]

I could elaborate if anyone is interested in Buck's pros & cons as I have observed him.

Whether he is right or wrong for the Angels manager position depends on the current direction of the team which I am confused about mostly.  Alot depends on Ohtani and I hope for the best with him but prepare for the worst.

[BTH]

6 minutes ago, Robrock30 said:

I could elaborate if anyone is interested in Buck's pros & cons as I have observed him.

Go for it.

6 minutes ago, Robrock30 said:

Whether he is right or wrong for the Angels manager position depends on the current direction of the team which I am confused about mostly.  Alot depends on Ohtani and I hope for the best with him but prepare for the worst.

They probably lose Ohtani, but still make moves to try and contend.

[Robrock30]

Buck understands the Game of Baseball and the rules and the Mets played over their heads in 2022 winning close games taking extra bases.  They were super prepared but folded in September.  The Teams he has managed always are prepared.  He works hard and has a good rapport with the veterans.  

Everything went wrong for Buck in 2023 but I attribute most of the problems to Billy Eppler who did a horrible job assembling the roster for $ 350 MM with alot of flaws and mismanagement.  He made many head scratching decisions especially poor with bullpen but they lost the closer in the WBC and Eppler loaded up on RP with options as opposed to reliable arms.  Forcing Mets to use Dan Vogelbach as LH DH apparently was Eppler not Buck.  Developing young talent was mishandled and Buck was reticent to play the young players.  

[BTH]

35 minutes ago, Robrock30 said:

Forcing Mets to use Dan Vogelbach as LH DH apparently was Eppler not Buck.  Developing young talent was mishandled and Buck was reticent to play the young players.  

I read about this, and I’m wondering if that means that Buck wanted to play the young players.

Because if Vogelbach wasn’t gonna be the DH, it seems like it would’ve been Vientos or Baty instead. So to me, it looks like Buck wanted to play the young players, but Eppler didn’t.

[Robrock30]

Both Eppler and Buck deserved to be fired for the disaster season of 2023 with MLB's highest payroll but I think Eppler was more deserving. 

Mets are and have mostly been poor at developing positional prospects but now they are also horrible at developing pitchers. Baty and Vientos are both defensively poor and not so great offensively either.  Mauricio looks to be the most athletic of the prospects.  

[NYC Angel Fan]

On 10/18/2023 at 10:59 PM, Dtwncbad said:

For 20 years owners, presidents of baseball operations and GMs thought he  was doing a good enough job to keep him in the job, and they are there seeing all the inside stuff first hand.

Yeah, you would have to prove he wasn’t a good manager against that.  Don’t complain that this is hard to do.

Seems like you really would like Washington to get another shot.  That’s fine.  But trying to convince everyone that Showalter was a bad manager for 20 years probably isn’t the way to prove Washington should get a shot.

It wasn't a complaint, it was a commentary on the logic that was being used. What I meant by saying how do you disprove that is that you are making a statement that sounds somewhat circular in its nature: a) any manager who manages for a long time has to be a good manager; b) you can't judge this manager by tangible results because there are things happening in the background you can't know about; c) it's up to the person who questions this conventional wisdom to disprove that fact-- but of course, you can't do that because there's stuff that happens in the background that you can't know about. Do you see how even if you took the worst manager to manage 20 years, it would be unprovable under these conditions?  

Showalter looks the part of a good manager, he talks like he's a good manager. But other than the Orioles, all of the teams that Showalter managed achieved more after he left than they did with him-- with pretty similar personnel. That's damning. 

Yep, I'd prefer Ron Washington. But I'd also prefer a manager with no experience to Buck Showalter. Sorry if that goes against the prevailing conventional wisdom here, but that's what message boards are for  and I believe in trying to prevent mistakes before they happen. 

 

But hey, it sounds like we aren't going to convince one another, so we can agree to disagree here too. 

 

[NYC Angel Fan]

On 10/18/2023 at 11:16 PM, Angel Oracle said:

Main concerns with Ron Washington are being age 72 in 2024 and hasn’t managed for almost a decade.

Showalter is 4 years younger.

I would find this to be a more convincing argument against Ron Washington if you didn't then go on to say that there's really that significant a difference between 72 and 68 years old. (Both are past conventional retirement age.)

 

If you're dinging Ron Washington for not having managed in the last 10 years, then I assume you're rejecting first-time managers, since they have't managed for...ever. Right? 

But joking aside-- since I'm not going to be able to post for a little while and I don't feel like getting into a back and forth about this-- I can respect a position that says we need a first-time manager. But not one that gives thin reasons to recycle Buck Showalter yet again.

[Dtwncbad]

35 minutes ago, NYC Angel Fan said:

It wasn't a complaint, it was a commentary on the logic that was being used. What I meant by saying how do you disprove that is that you are making a statement that sounds somewhat circular in its nature: a) any manager who manages for a long time has to be a good manager; b) you can't judge this manager by tangible results because there are things happening in the background you can't know about; c) it's up to the person who questions this conventional wisdom to disprove that fact-- but of course, you can't do that because there's stuff that happens in the background that you can't know about. Do you see how even if you took the worst manager to manage 20 years, it would be unprovable under these conditions?  

Showalter looks the part of a good manager, he talks like he's a good manager. But other than the Orioles, all of the teams that Showalter managed achieved more after he left than they did with him-- with pretty similar personnel. That's damning. 

Yep, I'd prefer Ron Washington. But I'd also prefer a manager with no experience to Buck Showalter. Sorry if that goes against the prevailing conventional wisdom here, but that's what message boards are for  and I believe in trying to prevent mistakes before they happen. 

 

But hey, it sounds like we aren't going to convince one another, so we can agree to disagree here too. 

 

For the record, I don’t care if they hire Showalter.  If they do, fine.  If they don’t I will be open to whomever they choose.

My only point is it is very, very difficult to make a case that a guy is a bad manager if he managed for 20 years.

I put no value at all in the record of a team before or after a manger’s tenure because every roster is different, injuries, whatever.

The manager’s job is to win as much as they can in that year with all those variables.

When organizations are comfortable with a manager for 20 years, they probably know how to do the job.

But don’t misunderstand me.  I am not specifically advocating for Showalter.  I probably couldn’t care less.

[NYC Angel Fan]

On 10/18/2023 at 8:47 PM, DMVol said:

Washington managed in one place and he had a lot of talent in Texas. Showalter took over some rough situations—-Arizona was an expansion team, they improved quicker under him than any expansion team, Texas had been bad when he took over and Baltimore was terrible…..he won in all those places…..

 1 out of 4 of Showalter's seasons with the Rangers was over .500 and he never made the playoffs with them with teams that included A-Rod, Soriano, Texeira. How was that winning?

Showalter had a lot of good talent brought in for him in Arizona and had pretty much the same team as the WS-winning D-backs and he didn't even make the playoffs the previous year and got bounced in the NLDS the previous year.

The Yankees spent a lot on his teams and had great talent... which was only able to put it together and win championships after he left.

Half his seasons in Baltimore were winning with little spending-- so that was his one success of sorts, but again, he never got past the ALCS.

And the Mets had the highest payroll and it was another failure for him.

 

Why hire somebody who we know is not going to really take us anywhere? 

 

(For the record, when Ron Washington took over the Rangers, they had never won a playoff series in franchise history-- even with all the talent that was already there... with Buck Showalter as their manager.)

[Angel Oracle]

27 minutes ago, NYC Angel Fan said:

 1 out of 4 of Showalter's seasons with the Rangers was over .500 and he never made the playoffs with them with teams that included A-Rod, Soriano, Texeira. How was that winning?

Showalter had a lot of good talent brought in for him in Arizona and had pretty much the same team as the WS-winning D-backs and he didn't even make the playoffs the previous year and got bounced in the NLDS the previous year.

The Yankees spent a lot on his teams and had great talent... which was only able to put it together and win championships after he left.

Half his seasons in Baltimore were winning with little spending-- so that was his one success of sorts, but again, he never got past the ALCS.

And the Mets had the highest payroll and it was another failure for him.

 

Why hire somebody who we know is not going to really take us anywhere? 

 

(For the record, when Ron Washington took over the Rangers, they had never won a playoff series in franchise history-- even with all the talent that was already there... with Buck Showalter as their manager.)

The Mets did win 101 games in 2022, his first season there and a 24 wins improvement.

Granted adding Bassitt and Scherzer for the 2022 season.

Edited October 20, 2023 by Angel Oracle

[Stradling]

7 hours ago, NYC Angel Fan said:

 1 out of 4 of Showalter's seasons with the Rangers was over .500 and he never made the playoffs with them with teams that included A-Rod, Soriano, Texeira. How was that winning?

Showalter had a lot of good talent brought in for him in Arizona and had pretty much the same team as the WS-winning D-backs and he didn't even make the playoffs the previous year and got bounced in the NLDS the previous year.

The Yankees spent a lot on his teams and had great talent... which was only able to put it together and win championships after he left.

Half his seasons in Baltimore were winning with little spending-- so that was his one success of sorts, but again, he never got past the ALCS.

And the Mets had the highest payroll and it was another failure for him.

 

Why hire somebody who we know is not going to really take us anywhere? 

 

(For the record, when Ron Washington took over the Rangers, they had never won a playoff series in franchise history-- even with all the talent that was already there... with Buck Showalter as their manager.)

1999 Showalter lead the DBacks to the playoffs while winning 100 games.  The 2000 team traded for Schilling and he only started 13 games for them. That team missed the playoffs but won 85 games. The 2001 team had Schilling the entire year and won 92 games and the World Series. 
 

The Yankee teams were before Jeter, before Posada, before Rivera was closing, and with a 23 year old Petite. 
 

The Rangers team never had pitching. The team needed 3 more years to be relevant after he left, so it wasn’t like he left and the team immediately blossomed. 

[DMVol]

You can pick apart any manager’s record.  Joe Torre had a similar record to Showalter when the Yankees hired him. Some success but he’d been fired multiple times. There just isn’t a guy out there who would fit the expectations for some of you. Yes, Ron Washington had success with the Rangers but he hasn’t managed in a decade. You would think somebody might have hired him?  Most of you would do better with a first time guy. Clean slate, nothing to pick apart. But I’m not sure that would be smart. 

 

[Angels 1961]

Will Angels have a manager before we have a speaker?