Ron Roenicke gets noticed

[SoCalBrewfan]

There's a local newspaper down here in California that covers some things, and they had an article on Ron Roenicke, suggesting that he's a manager of the year candidate. It's a bit provincial, though...these small-town papers tend to focus on local kids and connections to the local teams:

As a result, Roenicke (pronounced REN-eh-kee) is a leading candidate for NL manager of the year along with two other former Dodgers.

(The other former Dodgers being Kirk Gibson in AZ and Charlie Manuel in Philly.)

http://articles.latimes.c...18-ron-roenicke-20110818

Interestingly, Roenicke was also written up in another coastal newspaper recently:

http://www.nytimes.com/20...e-la-russas-tactics.html

The reason I post this is that Roenicke is getting noticed, and in a positive way, by the national press; I wouldn't have noticed this attention by reading the JS Online. The team's success is of course attributed to the manager, fairly or not. But I was a bit taken aback to hear our guy touted as a potential manager of the year. (Though Gibson has to be a front runner for the NL award if the DBacks win the West, doesn't he?)

Both articles talk about his demeanor, which I think is a breath of fresh air after Macha's grumpy grandpa act. Whether that makes any difference in the standings is hard to know, but I like the tone Roenicke has set, even when the team was struggling. I was glad to see us take the professional road against the Cardinals, with memories of Yost v Larussa still haunting me. The LAT article lays out something else that has been exasperating at times, but I think is valued by the players: he's not going to yank a player he sees as established for a minor screwup...or a crappy first half for that matter. And that, so far, is a very consistent signal . . . you have to fail a lot before Roenicke loses faith in you. (See, for example, Loe and the 8th inning.)

While we're at it, it's a bit surprising to see how many successful managers had pretty much instant success, winning a division or even pennant in their first season. Or, perhaps, how many managers got a long leash because they started off on a winning foot and that success came to define how they were perceived. It will be interesting to see how Roenicke's reputation evolves; a lot of folks here are very critical, but I think baseball people think very highly of the guy.

[rluzinski]

While we're at it, it's a bit surprising to see how many successful managers had pretty much instant success, winning a division or even pennant in their first season.

 

I don't find that surprising at all, since success on the field is largely a result of having talented players. There's a reason why the average manager makes peanuts compared to the players.

[endaround]

While we're at it, it's a bit surprising to see how many successful managers had pretty much instant success, winning a division or even pennant in their first season.

 

I don't find that surprising at all, since success on the field is largely a result of having talented players. There's a reason why the average manager makes peanuts compared to the players.

Now explain why the average GM makes peanuts compared to the average manager...

[istanbultaye]

While we're at it, it's a bit surprising to see how many successful managers had pretty much instant success, winning a division or even pennant in their first season.

 

I don't find that surprising at all, since success on the field is largely a result of having talented players. There's a reason why the average manager makes peanuts compared to the players.

Now explain why the average GM makes peanuts compared to the average manager...

I've done some searching, and was not able to find any hard date on GM salaries, other than this article which states a GM salary range of 500k to 2M. Cot's baseball contracts has a list of 2007 managers, with a range of 500k to 7.5M, but that is thrown off a lot by Joe Torre when he was with the Yankees. Putting that aside, and the range is 500k to 3.5M, suggesting the average manager salary IS more than a GM's, but not by such a margin that I would say they make peanuts compared to the average manager.

[rluzinski]

Teams either think that managers and GMs aren't that important or that they are all roughly the same. Is there any other explanation?

[istanbultaye]

I agree that GMs are more important than Managers, since no manager is going to do well with a team full of scrubs. However, a great GM alone does not really make a great front office either, as there needs to be good scouting and statistical analysis going on to actually give that GM good information to work with. Doug Melvin without Gord Ash and Jack Z (in the early years) would probably not have the Brewers in the state they are in.

 

As far as managers, their importance is more that someone has to be in charge of the daily activities of the team. Other than that, I think the pitching, hitting and fielding coaches probably have more to do with the performance of players than the manager, and even that isn't necessarily a huge impact.

 

As to why the salaries between players and management is opposite of the regular world, it basically stems from the fact that baseball is an entertainment industry. People pay to watch the players, not the general manager, hence, even with a GM's importance in getting the players in the first place, it is the players who are what is in demand in the market, and they get the biggest cut (other than the owner).

[rluzinski]

However, a great GM alone does not really make a great front office either, as there needs to be good scouting and statistical analysis going on to actually give that GM good information to work with. Doug Melvin without Gord Ash and Jack Z (in the early years) would probably not have the Brewers in the state they are in.

 

That's a good point.

 

 

People pay to watch the players, not the general manager, hence, even with a GM's importance in getting the players in the first place, it is the players who are what is in demand in the market, and they get the biggest cut (other than the owner).

 

People pay to watch wins and the players are paid in proportion to how many wins they are worth, relative to their peers.

[Thurston Fluff]

Players only started making more when they got teams to compete for their services through free agency. There are also fewer good players in relation to the amount needed than there are capable management types so the supply and demand factors have some effect.

 

However, a great GM alone does not really make a great front office either, as there needs to be good scouting and statistical analysis going on to actually give that GM good information to work with.

 

I think the entire organization has to be able to work together so they all pull in the same direction. Everyone knowing their roles and what is expected of them is part of that. Probably starts with the ownership and expands from that. Whatever it is it's nice to have it all working at the moment. Honestly though if RRR doesn't get some run for manager of the year something is wrong. Even if a person thinks he's terrible it's hard to deny results and results have always been a major factor in that award.