The Brewers' Next Manager; Latest -- Valentine may have inside track to the job; Cora, Melvin, Roenicke also finalists

[Roscoe Chill]

Does anyone else find it funny that Haudricort keeps mentioning whether or not the Brewers would be willing to pay Valentine enough to get him away from ESPN?

 

Something tells me these guys aren't pulling in that kind of money at ESPN. I mean, do you really think Tim Hasselbeck is making MORE money at ESPN than he did in the NFL? I'd say significantly less, and I would bet Tim Hasselbeck made $300K a year in the NFL. I know this is a football guy, but if I'm wrong, I hate ESPN even more.

[Patrick425]

RockCoCougars[/b]]Who cares if Valentine is in it partially for the money? Everything is about money, and most of us wouldn't be toiling at our jobs if we were making little or nothing. Right now he has a cushy, well paying job basically in his hometown. I'm sure that he makes great money to show up in the studio on a part-time basis. If you were looking for a job, would you act serious about it around your current employer until the 'ink was dry'? I wouldn't.

I question the partially part and I'm not saying that he do it for little or nothing. Why does he need to be the highest paid manager (which is what I understand $10 over 3 years would make him)? If he has any desire to manage at all, I would think he would be happy with being one of the 5-10 top paid managers.

 

My top questions to him would be why have you not managed in 8 years (I'm sure that there have been teams that are interested)?

 

Did the Brewers pursue Valentine or did Valentine ask the Brewers? Has Valentine asked any team about any managerial openings over the last 8 years? If not, why?

[kramnoj]

Wouldn't a discrepency like that break a bunch of free market assumptions? Are you suggesting collusion or something?

 

How is what I'm talking about breaking free market assumptions? I'm describing the free market. A market value that applies to players hasn't been assigned to coaches. That is the market that we now have. The market is what teams have paid for managers.

 

Teams may pay a different amount for wins each year. Not because the value of a win changes in any given year, but because the teams competing for wins will vary each year.

 

I don't think collusion is at play here. I would call it more a common belief. There isn't an active movement to depress coaches salaries, but there isn't momentum to quantify a manager's value and pay accordingly either.

 

Too often people look at the assigned value for players and think that is going to be meaningful when it comes to predicting the player's offers when it comes to FA. An actual attempt to understand the market in any given year is often lacking.

[rluzinski]

Kramnoj,

 

You took exception to my brief description of how a manager's value relates to his salary. That description was based on the assumption of a free market (teams are bidding for a service with an estimated value). You suggested it's possible that the managers might be making far less than they are worth. If your point is simply that MLB teams might be underestimating the value of managers, perhaps. There's no reason to believe that all teams are knowingly paying their managers less than they are worth, though (it's clear that you aren't suggesting that). Seems like you are saying that teams might not even be trying to properly value managers. I find that extremely unlikely.

 

To clarify my initial position regarding manager salary vs worth, it's all about wins above average and what a win is worth to a particular team. We have some idea what baseball teams are willing to spend for a win, so either teams have no idea how to estimate the value of a manager or they think it's small, relative to their peers.

[kramnoj]

Seems like you are saying that teams might not even be trying to properly value managers. I find that extremely unlikely.

 

I see no evidence of teams trying to quantify manager value and then pay accordingly. Of course, this could be happening and not be reported. What I see is that managers are paid according to their resume, and are paid relative to the market value.

 

We have some idea what baseball teams are willing to spend for a win, so either teams have no idea how to estimate the value of a manager or they think it's small, relative to their peers.

 

Again, this is where I disagree. Let me provide an example. The Rangers paid ARod a salary that was actually less than his value, but higher than what the market was offering. The Rangers would have been better off if they had reduced their offer closer to what the market was offering. They would have received even more value, and had extra resources to allow to spend on the team.

[thebruce44]

kramnoj[/b]]Seems like you are saying that teams might not even be trying to properly value managers. I find that extremely unlikely.

 

I see no evidence of teams trying to quantify manager value and then pay accordingly. Of course, this could be happening and not be reported. What I see is that managers are paid according to their resume, and are paid relative to the market value.

When looking at a manager's resume aren't you mentally trying to quantify his potential value to your team. Just because there isn't a manager WAR statistic does mean teams are not trying to figure out the value of a potential manager when negotiating terms.

[kramnoj]

I don't think guesstimate and quantify mean the same thing. I haven't read anything that indicates that a GM or an owner looks at a manager and tries to accurately measure what pros and cons a manager has and what impact that will have on the team's bottom line, or how many wins they will be responsible for tactically or how many wins they will be responsible for by managing their players.

 

What I see is that front offices find the manager they feel to be the best fit and pay what the resume and market suggests.

[thebruce44]

kramnoj[/b]]What I see is that front offices find the manager they feel to be the best fit and pay what the resume and market suggests.

How do you think the typical thought process of trying to decide what a manager's resume and market position suggests works? Personally, I would approach it with a quantifiable method as opposed to just guesstimating. I assume most MLB front offices are at least as capable as run of the mill companies that can pull that off when hiring employees.

 

[endaround]

The difference is that the pool of talent for managers compared to the openings available are much greater than for players. You want to sign an average major league player at 2B? Each year you might have 7 options. Ypu want ot hire a manger? There are hundreds out there for 5 or so jobs a year.

[GormanHarvey]

All quiet on manager front

By Tom Haudricourt of the Journal Sentinel

Oct. 28, 2010 3:22 p.m. |(13) Comments

San Francisco - After Wednesday's false alarm with Bobby Valentine, all seems quiet on the Brewers' managerial front today.

Of course, because the Brewers are keeping this buttoned down, you never know completely what's going on. But I made contact with Valentine and he said he has not talked to anyone with the Brewers today, so he's waiting like everyone else.

It's my understanding that the team's decision-makers have not made their final call on the four candidates who made it to the final cut -- Valentine, Bob Melvin, Joey Cora and Ron Roenicke.

I get the impression that Roenicke, the Angels' bench coach, is probably running fourth at this point. I think Valentine, Melvin and Cora have support from different folks within the organization.

Melvin's name now is surfacing as a candidate for the Mets' job. He is in their scouting department at present and a new GM has been named in Sandy Alderson, who likes managers with experience. So, Melvin should at the least be interviewed there unless the Brewers snatch him away first.

At this point, I would be surprised if anything happens before the World Series is over. For one thing, Commissioner Bud Selig does not want clubs making such announcements during the Series. But, just as important, I don't think the Brewers have made a final decision yet.

When the Brewers make their decision, it will be very interesting to hear what criteria they used because the candidates are quite different in many ways.

[craigharmann]

All quiet on manager front

By Tom Haudricourt of the Journal Sentinel

Oct. 28, 2010 3:22 p.m. |(13) Comments

San Francisco - After Wednesday's false alarm with Bobby Valentine, Made primarily by me, all seems quiet on the Brewers' managerial front today.

Of course, because the Brewers are keeping this buttoned down, you never know completely what's going on. But I made contact with Valentine and he said he has not talked to anyone with the Brewers today, so he's waiting like everyone else.

It's my understanding that the team's decision-makers have not made their final call on the four candidates who made it to the final cut -- Valentine, Bob Melvin, Joey Cora and Ron Roenicke.

I get the impression that Roenicke, the Angels' bench coach, is probably running fourth at this point. Although I am the one who thought that yesterday Valentine had the inside track on the position. I think Valentine, Melvin and Cora have support from different folks within the organization.

 

Melvin's name now is surfacing as a candidate for the Mets' job. He is in their scouting department at present and a new GM has been named in Sandy Alderson, who likes managers with experience. So, Melvin should at the least be interviewed there unless the Brewers snatch him away first.

At this point, I would be surprised if anything happens before the World Series is over. For one thing, Commissioner Bud Selig does not want clubs making such announcements during the Series. But, just as important, I don't think the Brewers have made a final decision yet.

When the Brewers make their decision, it will be very interesting to hear what criteria they used because the candidates are quite different in many ways.

I fixed it for accuracy

[derflotr]

I'm rooting for Cora, for the record.

[AJAY]

Not sure if this was posted already, but Bill Scott (the guy who originally broke the news) is standing by his story. You can hear the audio here . . .

 

http://learfieldnewsops.p...y-and-hes-sticking-to-it

[kramnoj]

How do you think the typical thought process of trying to decide what a manager's resume and market position suggests works? Personally, I would approach it with a quantifiable method as opposed to just guesstimating.

 

I said that I think teams look at resumes and pay market value based off that. Given that I said that, why are you asking me what I think the thought process is? What specifically are you asking that I haven't already said?

 

They use a quantifiable method based on resume and market value to offer a contract, but I don't believe that is necessarily tied to the value the manager will bring to the team.

 

I assume most MLB front offices are at least as capable as run of the mill companies that can pull that off when hiring employees

 

I am not under the impress that most run of the mill companies base their hiring on any sort of value specific based process. I don't really know how they could. I think most companies hire people based on resume and market value.

[jwill535]

All quiet on manager front

By Tom Haudricourt of the Journal Sentinel

Oct. 28, 2010 3:22 p.m. |(13) Comments

San Francisco - After Wednesday's false alarm with Bobby Valentine, Made primarily by me, all seems quiet on the Brewers' managerial front today.

Of course, because the Brewers are keeping this buttoned down, you never know completely what's going on. But I made contact with Valentine and he said he has not talked to anyone with the Brewers today, so he's waiting like everyone else.

It's my understanding that the team's decision-makers have not made their final call on the four candidates who made it to the final cut -- Valentine, Bob Melvin, Joey Cora and Ron Roenicke.

I get the impression that Roenicke, the Angels' bench coach, is probably running fourth at this point. Although I am the one who thought that yesterday Valentine had the inside track on the position. I think Valentine, Melvin and Cora have support from different folks within the organization.

 

Melvin's name now is surfacing as a candidate for the Mets' job. He is in their scouting department at present and a new GM has been named in Sandy Alderson, who likes managers with experience. So, Melvin should at the least be interviewed there unless the Brewers snatch him away first.

At this point, I would be surprised if anything happens before the World Series is over. For one thing, Commissioner Bud Selig does not want clubs making such announcements during the Series. But, just as important, I don't think the Brewers have made a final decision yet.

When the Brewers make their decision, it will be very interesting to hear what criteria they used because the candidates are quite different in many ways.

I fixed it for accuracy

Actually you made the article as far from the truth as possible. As mentioned above, Bill Scott was the one who started the rumor and TH was skeptical from the beginning.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Does anyone else find it funny that Haudricort keeps mentioning whether or not the Brewers would be willing to pay Valentine enough to get him away from ESPN?

 

Something tells me these guys aren't pulling in that kind of money at ESPN. I mean, do you really think Tim Hasselbeck is making MORE money at ESPN than he did in the NFL? I'd say significantly less, and I would bet Tim Hasselbeck made $300K a year in the NFL. I know this is a football guy, but if I'm wrong, I hate ESPN even more.

I don't think it's the money of ESPN that we would be luring Valentine away from. It's the stress free life. Being a manager is a lot more stressful than sitting in a studio giving your 2 cents so to draw Valentine back into the trenches it's going to take some serious money.

[LouisEly]

Not sure if this was posted already, but Bill Scott (the guy who originally broke the news) is standing by his story. You can hear the audio here . . .

 

http://learfieldnewsops.p...y-and-hes-sticking-to-it

Bill Scott can rake.

[LouisEly]

his ability to push a player's button at the right time

 

And therein lies the real value of the manager - motivating guys to do their best. X's and O's aren't really going to win or lose you a lot of games, not nearly as many as motivating guys in ways where they want to win for you. If they want to "go to war" with you... that's how you draw out the best in guys. That's how teams like Texas get past the Yankees to the World Series. That something special in the locker room is what wins them those extra 5-6 games a year to go from good to great.

 

Actually, that's a pretty good book to read - "Good to Great". Tells you the qualities of great leaders, which is what managers are - leaders, not strategists.

[sbrylski]

Actually, that's a pretty good book to read - "Good to Great". Tells you the qualities of great leaders, which is what managers are - leaders, not strategists.

 

I'll bet Napoleon wouldn't be looked at as a great leader if he sucked as a military strategist. There's cheerleaders, and there's calculators... I think a great baseball manager needs to be a little of both.

[Principessa21]

LouisEly wrote:

---

his ability to push a player's button at the right time

 

And therein lies the real value of the manager - motivating guys to do their best. X's and O's aren't really going to win or lose you a lot of games, not nearly as many as motivating guys in ways where they want to win for you. If they want to "go to war" with you... that's how you draw out the best in guys. That's how teams like Texas get past the Yankees to the World Series. That something special in the locker room is what wins them those extra 5-6 games a year to go from good to great.

 

Actually, that's a pretty good book to read - "Good to Great". Tells you the qualities of great leaders, which is what managers are - leaders, not strategists.

http://imgur.com/LDDJt.gif

Or maybe Texas won because only Cano, Granderson and Rivera showed up. Playoffs depend on chance, as does performance with RISP. Small Sample Size. A good example is that Sabathia's an ace, but wasn't dominant... but in ALCS Game 5 he stranded a lot of men on base. Lee has been very dominant, in 8 (?) post season starts, but stunk Game 1 of the World Series... so will he not be pursued as heavily in free agency?

[BrewCrewForever]

I will say this, if Valentine gets the job. I might actually stay tuned to Brewers Live post game. I'm sure the manager presser after each game will be much more entertaining.

[thumperden]

I trust Bill Scott's word. I've known him a long time and he is a man of integrity. He takes his job very seriously and has never looked for attention in his career. Trust him.

[Gobias Industries]

Maybe they're just waiting until after the series since Valentine is an analyst. Also, I'm pretty sure Doug hates making moves when baseball is still going on, as he doesn't want to take headlines away from it. I'm pretty sure he said something along those lines a year or two ago.

[rluzinski]

The difference is that the pool of talent for managers compared to the openings available are much greater than for players. You want to sign an average major league player at 2B? Each year you might have 7 options. Ypu want ot hire a manger? There are hundreds out there for 5 or so jobs a year.

The pool is huge and the difference between them is small, or at least very difficult to quantify. So you end up with a bunch of guys that you estimate have roughly the same value. Your "wins above average" estimate for each is basically zero. So teams do what Kram said; they pick guys based on personality.

Even when you look back, though, it's very hard to determine what a manager's performance was worth in terms of wins and losses. I mean, despite what some seem to suggest, it's not like Cox and LaRussa are/were constantly making teams with average talent into playoff teams. If they were, other teams would see that and pay them a hell of a lot more than $3 mil.

 

[Hate those Rodents]

Does anyone else find it funny that Haudricort keeps mentioning whether or not the Brewers would be willing to pay Valentine enough to get him away from ESPN?

I don't think it's the money of ESPN that we would be luring Valentine away from. It's the stress free life. Being a manager is a lot more stressful than sitting in a studio giving your 2 cents so to draw Valentine back into the trenches it's going to take some serious money.

I agree with this part. It's like for you or I, if you can make 75K sitting on your couch, would you take a job when you are in your fifties or sixties that pays you 150K where you have to sit in an office 45 hours a week and/or travel? Many would not.