Jump to content

ROMAD1

Why not hire Gardenhire?

Should Ron Gardenhire be the next Tigers manager?  

34 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Ron Gardenhire be the next Tigers manager?

    • Yes
      12
    • No
      12
    • Only if all better options are exhausted (explain)
      10


Recommended Posts

I'm going to make a dark horse prediction: Torey Lovullo.

Not sure I consider him a dark horse since he was highly regarded last offseason. I think he'll get a job somewhere this offseason unless he really feels compelled to stay with Farrell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You people don't think this current crop of Tigers isn't already defeated before they put their cleats on? That's leadership.

I think there might be some of that now because they will miss the playoffs. But I do not think they will miss the playoffs because of Ausmus. They will miss the playoffs because the pitching sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't mean to confuse the issue. Effective leadership is the most important factor in success.

So the only reason you are good at your job is because of the leadership that you receive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I don't know if this means anything, but yesterday I tweeted to the guy that was the first to write about Ausmus being fired. You know, from the site that cannot be mentioned.

I tweeted "Why is the front office frustrated about the timing of this since they were the ones who leaked it?"

He tweeted back immediately "Because they were not the ones who leaked it."

He then immediately deleted the response to me.

At first I was confused, then I thought maybe he accidentally narrowed down where the leak came from and decided to delete the tweet. I mean, if it didn't come from the front office, where did it come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, I don't know if this means anything, but yesterday I tweeted to the guy that was the first to write about Ausmus being fired. You know, from the site that cannot be mentioned.

I tweeted "Why is the front office frustrated about the timing of this since they were the ones who leaked it?"

He tweeted back immediately "Because they were not the ones who leaked it."

He then immediately deleted the response to me.

At first I was confused, then I thought maybe he accidentally narrowed down where the leak came from and decided to delete the tweet. I mean, if it didn't come from the front office, where did it come from?

The ilitches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe he really has no clue what he's talking about.

I think if there really was a "leak", at this point they'd have to be concerned that the same people would leak who it came from. I think if that were possible they wouldn't still be lying to Brad. Just a hunch but I'm not entirely convinced there was a leak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe there is no leak and its just probably obvious to everybody that Ausmus will likely be fired? I don't think it's that great of a leap of faith.

I mean, this can probably be done for McClendon as well. Underachieving team, new GM. The one obvious difference is that McClendon has had experience managing before. But that didn't help get Seattle to the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a dramatic difference between leadership and management. Most of the leadership traits people are cutting in this thread are actually management traits. Both are exceptionally important in any kind of business; sometimes the management traits are more important or prevalent, other times the leadership traits. They are vastly different and incredibly important, even in the world of professional sports.

I agree with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, I don't know if this means anything, but yesterday I tweeted to the guy that was the first to write about Ausmus being fired. You know, from the site that cannot be mentioned.

I tweeted "Why is the front office frustrated about the timing of this since they were the ones who leaked it?"

He tweeted back immediately "Because they were not the ones who leaked it."

He then immediately deleted the response to me.

At first I was confused, then I thought maybe he accidentally narrowed down where the leak came from and decided to delete the tweet. I mean, if it didn't come from the front office, where did it come from?

Ownership or it wasn't a leak or it was someone from Gardenhire's agent's office

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to continue making "just so" arguments in favor of leadership and management. I noted a couple of anecdotes that will either add to me doing that or will provide those who dispute leadership/management's importance in baseball at least a little to consider.

One important difference between most management and sports is that sports is nearly 100% an endeavor where unambiguous results occur on nearly every play and everyone can see when someone fails or succeeds...INSTANT FEEDBACK. That does cut back on the importance of some of the kind of leadership that is important in a business or government where the deal is everyone sits in cubicles and reads MTS while they should be working on that spreadsheet.

https://books.google.com/books?id=JT6ukvsAC-YC&pg=PA225&lpg=PA225&dq=importance+of+clubhouse+leadership+in+baseball&source=bl&ots=xzVuasZeax&sig=q8goRG8SIVGGe2cN1H21V-jRdq0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBWoVChMItoDw8szwxwIVw9OACh09rA0E#v=onepage&q=clubhouse%20leadership&f=false

Chemistry and the clubhouse guy | FOX Sports

Detroit Tigers players say Brad Ausmus situation will not be distraction: 'It's just noise' | MLive.com

Kinsler said the Tigers have not quit, either on Ausmus or themselves.

"This is also a highly competitive job," he said. "Guys are also competing for themselves and competing for money, honestly. They're competing to keep their job next year or to find a job next year. So there's a lot of other reasons to play hard other than to just play hard for your manager.

"But at the same time, if you have somebody that's at that top that demands nothing, things can run away from you really quickly."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think that stuff happens with todays athletes. They have agents and pr people and advisors and trainers to talk to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There weren't HUGE differences in player personnel between the `05 and `06 teams.

Not the argue your points but 05-06 isn't very good example because the changes in the team actually were pretty huge,

There was a lot of discussion at the time that JL had fallen into a really nice situation because the personnel (and health: guillen/maggs) was so much better

Edited by Gehringer_2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kinsler said the Tigers have not quit, either on Ausmus or themselves.

"This is also a highly competitive job," he said. "Guys are also competing for themselves and competing for money, honestly. They're competing to keep their job next year or to find a job next year. So there's a lot of other reasons to play hard other than to just play hard for your manager.

"But at the same time, if you have somebody that's at that top that demands nothing, things can run away from you really quickly."

Of course but every single manager is going to demand something. I think the first part of that quote is more telling. You don't want a manager that acts like he doesn't care, but that's a pretty extreme scenario, IMO.

Leyland said he never had to manage his players, that they worked all that out on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course but every single manager is going to demand something. I think the first part of that quote is more telling. You don't want a manager that acts like he doesn't care, but that's a pretty extreme scenario, IMO.

Leyland said he never had to manage his players, that they worked all that out on their own.

He said that. In actuality he demanded a certain level of performance and effort...see the April 2006 tirade on getaway day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He said that. In actuality he demanded a certain level of performance and effort...see the April 2006 tirade on getaway day.

Yeah, you have to take a lot of what JL said in public with a long ton of salt. Most of it was part of his way of deflecting public crap away from his players (dare I call it 'leadership'?), which was very big aspect of his MO.

Edited by Gehringer_2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course but every single manager is going to demand something. I think the first part of that quote is more telling. You don't want a manager that acts like he doesn't care, but that's a pretty extreme scenario, IMO.

Leyland said he never had to manage his players, that they worked all that out on their own.

I believe Leyland said he treated the players like men and expected them to be responsible and police themselves. But, if there was a time or a situation where he felt he needed to step in he would.

It's a very fine line and takes a bit of experience to know when to let people you are managing work things out on their own and when the situation might reach a point where one needs to step in and exert a measure of authority.

It's also a fine line between between giving people the feeling that you as the manager are not holding people accountable for their actions in the clubhouse/office or factory floor and giving the feeling that your people have enough rein on the ropes to lead themselves while still letting them know you are in charge and will hold them accountable for their actions if need be.

That type of management is surely not a quantifiable skill and is abstract enough that it is even difficult to define. I think that is where most of the debate is coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of the difference of opinion on this subject is not 'does leadership matter' and more 'does a player being led matter'

What I mean is, when Miguel Cabrera steps to the plate, I think whether he's happy, motivated, sad, angry, whatever, has little to no effect on what happens next. Obviously, others disagree. But I think if you look at most (consistent) players careers, it seems like management has no impact.

Miguel Cabrera is having one of the best seasons of his career despite having a clown like Ausmus managing him. Bad players stay bad.

Obviously, you have the middle of the road players that have their ups and downs every season, and we have no way of knowing if management plays a role in this, maybe it does, I just don't really believe so.

When we look at overall team results and try to assign management importance to it, to me that's almost completely meaningless. We're talking about motivating/getting performance out of individual players. Look at the performance of individual players.

Can we pinpoint Justin Verlander's bad starts and say 'oh, he was sad and had given up on the season in that one'? Nah, he probably just didn't have his good curveball, or obviously most likely of all he was tired out from having some adult activities with the beautiful Kate Upton all night. Hopefully they broke up so he can pitch well!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a lot of the difference of opinion on this subject is not 'does leadership matter' and more 'does a player being led matter'

What I mean is, when Miguel Cabrera steps to the plate, I think whether he's happy, motivated, sad, angry, whatever, has little to no effect on what happens next. Obviously, others disagree. But I think if you look at most (consistent) players careers, it seems like management has no impact.

Miguel Cabrera is having one of the best seasons of his career despite having a clown like Ausmus managing him. Bad players stay bad.

Obviously, you have the middle of the road players that have their ups and downs every season, and we have no way of knowing if management plays a role in this, maybe it does, I just don't really believe so.

When we look at overall team results and try to assign management importance to it, to me that's almost completely meaningless. We're talking about motivating/getting performance out of individual players. Look at the performance of individual players.

Can we pinpoint Justin Verlander's bad starts and say 'oh, he was sad and had given up on the season in that one'? Nah, he probably just didn't have his good curveball, or obviously most likely of all he was tired out from having some adult activities with the beautiful Kate Upton all night. Hopefully they broke up so he can pitch well!

Which bring us back to the one thing a manager is unambiguously responsible for - strategy on the field/in game moves. So back to same question we debated all through JL's career; "How do you know if a manager might still be bringing a net positive value once you see that his on field strategy management is probably negative?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What many think about leadership comes from observation of other players. In other sports it comes into play more when they have more non game days and thus practices... in hockey especially. Yzerman and Lidstrom were known for that. If those guys were seen hitting the bike or training room before or after practice then the marginal players realize just formal practice isnt enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not the argue your points but 05-06 isn't very good example because the changes in the team actually were pretty huge,

There was a lot of discussion at the time that JL had fallen into a really nice situation because the personnel (and health: guillen/maggs) was so much better

yes, they also added Zumaya and Rogers. It was a very different team. I don't think it's possible in baseball to make that kind of improvement just with a new manager. Dramatic improvement is always going to involve better players and healthier players. That's not say a manager can't help at all. It's just that a manager's impact is not as dramatic as some are making it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a lot of the difference of opinion on this subject is not 'does leadership matter' and more 'does a player being led matter'

What I mean is, when Miguel Cabrera steps to the plate, I think whether he's happy, motivated, sad, angry, whatever, has little to no effect on what happens next. Obviously, others disagree. But I think if you look at most (consistent) players careers, it seems like management has no impact.

Miguel Cabrera is having one of the best seasons of his career despite having a clown like Ausmus managing him. Bad players stay bad.

Obviously, you have the middle of the road players that have their ups and downs every season, and we have no way of knowing if management plays a role in this, maybe it does, I just don't really believe so.

When we look at overall team results and try to assign management importance to it, to me that's almost completely meaningless. We're talking about motivating/getting performance out of individual players. Look at the performance of individual players.

Can we pinpoint Justin Verlander's bad starts and say 'oh, he was sad and had given up on the season in that one'? Nah, he probably just didn't have his good curveball, or obviously most likely of all he was tired out from having some adult activities with the beautiful Kate Upton all night. Hopefully they broke up so he can pitch well!

My view comes primarily from business experience. I was once part of a group making a presentation to a huge prospect. Everybody on our team worked hard, had various strengths, was experienced, etc. Our competition had similar profiles. At some point in our preparation the CEO had a meeting with us. He ended it by saying our chances on paper were 50-50 and we were fighting for the hyphen. That was what we needed to get out of the mode of trying to make a difference between equals and turn our focus to creating a difference maker.

Through my time at that firm I saw that CEO and his team make these kinds of differences multiple times. They were expert at assessing strengths and weaknesses and setting up paths to victories. They couldn't have done it without a talented team but they tended to the team as well in the environment they created.

I just don't think a leader assembles a team and sends them out there hoping they all do their best. He should be managing the big picture as well as making sure each component is coming from the best place to perform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes, they also added Zumaya and Rogers. It was a very different team. I don't think it's possible in baseball to make that kind of improvement just with a new manager. Dramatic improvement is always going to involve better players and healthier players. That's not say a manager can't help at all. It's just that a manager's impact is not as dramatic as some are making it.

Yeah you can't even compare the 06 and 05 team. They added Rogers, Verlander, Todd Jones(yeah he was all BABIP but he did get the job done in 06), a more seasoned Bonderman and Robertson, a healthy Guillen and Ordonez, more innings out of Rodney and Walker and full years of Polanco and Granderson. Plus they got a red hot Shelton to start the year. Leyland may have added something to the team but I don't think it's even fair to compare that team to the 05 team. That 06 team was so much better even without the manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My view comes primarily from business experience. I was once part of a group making a presentation to a huge prospect. Everybody on our team worked hard, had various strengths, was experienced, etc. Our competition had similar profiles. At some point in our preparation the CEO had a meeting with us. He ended it by saying our chances on paper were 50-50 and we were fighting for the hyphen. That was what we needed to get out of the mode of trying to make a difference between equals and turn our focus to creating a difference maker.

Through my time at that firm I saw that CEO and his team make these kinds of differences multiple times. They were expert at assessing strengths and weaknesses and setting up paths to victories. They couldn't have done it without a talented team but they tended to the team as well in the environment they created.

I just don't think a leader assembles a team and sends them out there hoping they all do their best. He should be managing the big picture as well as making sure each component is coming from the best place to perform.

Excellently put. I own a small business, and there is no question that the success of my business is largely dependent upon me directing employees, working with them, motivating them to an extent and knowing when to say what to which employee. If I don't put them in the best position to successfully do what I've hired them to do, that's on me. And it will show in our productivity, or lackthereof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...