I like Wak and had high hopes for him. I think we made the same mistake on him that we did on Melvin. They nwere both hired with the idea that they would get experience and within a couple of years be an experienced manager in charge of a major rookie influx. Melvin's expected rookie influx never happened and time will tell whether or not Wak's influx will also arrive. But with the talent at AAA and AA, I think thios one is real.
The problem is that the two rookie managers could not get ahold of a veteran clubhouse and thus did not survive long enough. It is very apparent to me that Wak's days are numbered, but who will be next? I like Bobby Valentine, but do Howard and Chuckie? They don't seem to like strong managers. I do like the image of a strong manager coming in and 'cleaning house', so to speak. No entitled veteran preference.
But Zduriencik knows exactly what has been said on his non-support of the manager -- at least in public -- since the Figgins argument in the dugout. Travel from city to city, as we have this week to Chicago and now Minneapolis, and the people who work in baseball cannot understand how Wakamatsu is being allowed to twist in the wind like this.
They can't comprehend why Figgins was not made to apologize, if not to his manager, then at least to the fans for what happened in the dugout. Nor can they comprehend why Zduriencik has yet to come out in support of the manager on this.
All you need to say, if you're Zduriencik, is, "The manager's decision is final. All players have to respect and abide by it.''
This is crisis management 101 in baseball and any sport. Say it, and the speculation about Wakamatsu eases a bit. But it's too late now. Zduriencik didn't even give him that.
Do you think Mike Scioscia would have tolerated a dugout incident like that in Anaheim? Do you think Angels management would have allowed that to happen without stepping up to support Scioscia?
SSI reported, the night of Figgins' amazing mutiny in the dugout, that the very next morning we would know Wak's destiny in Seattle.
Zduriencik has laid the cards on the table: Wak's gone.
I'm a big Don Wakamatsu fan, but look at it from Capt Jack's point of view. He constructed a roster which he, and I, and Matty, and LL, and Taro, and everybody thought had a shot. Those 25 players wayyyyyyyyyyyy underperformed. The season is a joke, and from Capt Jack's point of view, Wak just didn't deliver him the wins.
It says here that Zduriencik -- a professional without a doubt -- has been doing a slow burn over Wakamatsu's results since mid-May at least.
.
And that's why I suggest that Monday's off-day, with this team likely to lose a seventh straight game tomorrow, would be about the time you'd expect a non-supportive front office to make a change.
Good news 1: Bill James has demonstrated, many times, that a managerial change is a great way to kick a team into gear. Go find yourself a Cinderella champion in sports history and you're 98% guaranteed to find a new manager.
Just last year, the Rockies did this:
- 18-28 = record under Clint Hurdle
- 74-42 = record under Jim Tracy
Managerial changes don't always work, of course, but you've got a team farrrrrrrrrrr underperforming, and a Bobby Valentine type move might very well cause an instant return of all of the M's hitters to their lifetime OPS+'s.
It's quite possible. Swap Wak for (say) Bobby V and starting that very game, you're just as liable to see Figgins creating 6 runs a game, Lopez 5, Gutierrez 5, etc etc.
...........
Good news 2: Zduriencik is putting it on the marquee, for all of us to see, that he thinks Chone Figgins will deliver on his contract.
Letting Figgins get away with his mutiny isn't the most principled thing this front office will ever do. But it shows you that they suspect that as soon as the new manager is here, the M's could revert to their 1-2 All-Star leadoff punch.
.
The team is 6-22 since July 1. They just fired their Felix Hernandez bullet, now must go three more games without him -- mercifully being spared a fourth by the off-day. Continue at their .214 winning rate since July 1 and the M's will finish with 111 losses.
Zduriencik does not want this team to get used to losing. He explained the Mike Sweeney decision in those terms. Ditto the Casey Kotchman move. He's trying to install a winning culture, to avoid the 1980's Mariners whipping-boy culture.
Logic would dictate that he's going to change long before the winter gets here. SSI predicts that Zduriencik will choke on the chicken-bone of 105 losses and start swingin'.
.
I like Wak, but he'll land on his feet. This ballclub is sunk without a bubble. At this point, the kickstart would be logical.
.
We'll see,
Dr D
Comments
Jeff,
Do you still use the same email as in the olden days? Got some info on what was said that set off Figgings... No way of confirming or denying since the info is coming from Figgy to Angels sources but, I can actually see why Fig reacted the way he did. Not saying he was right, just that it makes a little more sense cause I'll be honest, an outburst like that from a guy who had been an altar boy seems so out of character and out of line with what we saw from Fig for the better part of a decade.
I will say this much, it was very much a Terry Collins moment.
or the guys would be just as glad to have you post it front page.
But if you send me 400 words I'll be glad to turn them into about 3,000 :- )
yo pitch! i tried googling terry collins moment, but it didnt turn out to anything? what does that mean?
Would be okay with Bobby V, in principle - he's a positive guy, a reasonably photogenic guy, reportedly fairly easy to get along with, so he matches their post-Lou criteria on those counts. If your list includes managers with MLB capital, Bobby V is probably among the most owner-friendly.
Of course, we have no idea whether Bobby V and Chuck have rubbed each other the wrong way at get-togethers, etc. There is usually a lot of backchannel water under each bridge, for better or for worse.
Valentine's apparent "banishment" to Japan may suggest that he's persona non grata, I dunno. Maybe he told off his previous owners the wrong way.
I'd like to see Valentine considered. Especially the Japanese experience is a huge plus in my book.
If the words attributed to Figgins and Wak are essentially correct it helps us understand what motivated Figgins to go ballistic, but it does not excuse his dugout behavior. And there is a critical difference between saying "that was a lazy play" and "you are lazy." Both players and managers say things in frustration. In fact, these things happen in everybody's job. When it happens in front of coworkers, which Figgy is quoted as saying escalated his emotions, the stakes are higher and so are the consequences. What seems to be missing from his comments is the recognition that when it has even larger audience, the public, the stakes are raised again and the consequences as well. What he criticizes Wak for doing to him (demeaning him in front of his teammates) Figgy did to Wak (challenging his authority in public) in an even higher-stakes context.
I'll ask the same question here I asked at MC and have yet to get a response. Can anyone cite an example in MLB history where an incident like this did not result in a public discipline and/or apology of some kind?
Piniella/Dibble? I don't remember either guy getting suspended there. Though Lou did get fired later that year, IIRC (which is why he was available to us - thanks Rob!). And NOBODY should take Marge's example of how to run a team under any sort of advisement.
Did anybody get suspended in that famous Reggie Jackson/Billy Martin blowup? I doubt it. Nobody suspends Reggie.
But I'll grant you it isn't common, and it usually signals that the manager has worn out his welcome if the player gets off scot-free.
~G
If a manager actually assaults a player, that counts as the penalty and then the GM's job is to restore equilibrium. Heh.
George, Billy and Reggie were a special case as y'know, like Marge-In-Charge was.
George didn't back Billy and Billy didn't need backing...
But yeah. It's not unprecedented for there to be a rumble and the GM to choose to simply settle dust, if the manager has already made his point effectively enough.
Will firmly insist that this specific case is a clear example of hanging the mgr out, tho...
I agree - I think Wak is twisting and everyone knows it.
Marge and George hung their managers out to dry plenty too, so even if the manager was willing to be his own enforcer it didn't keep the hangman's noose from snaring him as well.
I don't think Wak punching Chone in the face would have made him any less likely to be canned shortly.
~G
Then he'd have been consulting and bench-coaching for the next 25 years :- )
But if he'd gone for a gutshot in the clubhouse on May 1, well ....
so even if the manager was willing to be his own enforcer it didn't keep the hangman's noose from snaring him as well.
You talk about yer 56-game hitting streaks and 511 career wins...
Billy's 5 times as manager of the Yankees, now THAT one will never be approached. :- )