Add new comment

Great write-up, as always, Doc.
And to expand on an excellent point (and quote) by OBF ... it ain't about what the manager SAYS that ultimately determines his (and the team's) fate.  It's about what he DOES.
To this instant, I don't believe I've heard anyone complain about anything Wak said - (except perhaps Figgins in response to Wak saying - "You're batting 9th.").  The Wak adjectives were:  smart, classy, stuidious, unflappable, etc., etc.   They described EXCLUSIVELY how he carried himself - how he presented himself to the public (and press).  Precious little was written - (one way or the other) - on what he actually DID, (batting Griffey 5th for 7 weeks - benching Sweeney out of ST while Byrnes got more PT - pinch-hitting for Figgins with Griffey when Junior was hitting 200 points worse - etc., etc., etc.).
In the end - the club may make their decisions based on what he says.  But, the final outcome of wins and losses will be determined by what he does.  SAYING "I don't care what your paycheck says" is indeed a money quote.  But actually benching (for instance), a healthy, slumping Bradley, to put a (say) in-the-zone Langerhans into the lineup is easier to allude to than to actually do. 
The "play-the-kids" crowd will want the spec-du-jour (Smoak? Tui?) in the lineup, not Langerhans.  The front office, who is paying Bradley 8 figures to ride the pine - is going to want some return on that investment.  The power starved masses are going to want someone with more pop (Saunders? Branyan?).
The fans often don't get the word on nagging injuries - (Saunders' hammy is a little tight - or Branyan felt a little twinge during BP).  So, when a manager DOES actually make a lineup choice based on ALL the info - that is designed to help the club win as much as possible today - (w/o being overly detrimental to tomorrow) - the manager can still be crucified in the press and on the blogs.
There are not 100% right answers in a *specific* game when balancing the concerns of winning, health and development.  You can only view the balance over time - in hindsight.  Was the prospect playing only 1 day in 6?  Was the slumping veteran playing 20 games before a day off, (and only getting that because he hurt something)?
Me?  I've liked what I've seen so far from Brown - even while many others are complaining because he isn't doing "enough" of X or Y.  ("Kotchman isn't in our future - so why is he STILL playing?")
Well, perhaps that's because Smoak is simply not ready - and Branyan simply cannot handle the day-to-day wear and tear of playing 1B - and perhaps the club sees zero upside in having Tui play 1B, when they're projecting him to be MAYBE a passable MI bat.  I know that typically, your bench Swiss Army knife typically doesn't play a lot of 1B, because that's where you're supposed to get BIIIG offense.  I mean, really ... how many games did McLemore play at 1B?  (answer:  none -- he played every position except catcher and 1B).
I think Wak was a perfect "face" for the team - and a lousy manager.  (But what do I know from 3000 miles away?).  I think Brown might well be an excellent manager - but I think the powers that be are more concerned about "face" than winning.  I think Piniella was the ultimate evidence in that regard.  Piniella was like Grunge -- a passing fad that the club deigned to ride for awhile - but not really what Seattle is about -- (Starbucks and Microsoft).