SaberMets.com

I find it sad that things are so bad for us Mets fans that we have been reduced to rooting against the Yankees. I recall back in 86 when Yankee fans were cheering against the Mets during the Series. It was pathetic then, and it's pathetic now. Rooting against someone (as opposed to rooting for someone) stems from jealousy, hatred, pettiness and a whole lot of attributes that are just not good. That being said, I believe that the Mets will never win a Championship until the Bosox win. There was a curse placed on the Mets back in 86 -- someone somewhere cut a deal with the Devil. It happened with two strikes and two outs in with the bases empty in the tenth inning of game 6

Willie Randolph??!!!??? Can anyone anywhere tell me one good thing about Willie Randolph? Anything...I challenge anyone to come up with something, anything that points to the fact he could be a manager. (Sitting next to Joe Torre does not count)

HAHAHAHA Yankees... You self-inflated pompous f*cks - you're done, it's over. You will NEVER live this down. Limp dick mutherf*ckers! At least the Mets aren't total f*cking assh*les! GO SOX!!!

Jonas,

Randolph has been a coach for 11 years now, and was a player for 18 years. Regardless of whether or not he's had managerial experience in the minors, he'd have to be a complete vegetable not to have picked things up along the way from the managers he's served under. And, as the Star Ledger points out today, he's been around some good ones in Billy Martin, Tony LaRussa, Tommy Lasorda (who is curiously not mentioned), Dick Howser and Lou Piniella (the omission of Clueless Joe wasn't an accident).

My question to you is, what makes you so sure he can't be a manager?

Vinny,

My objection to Willie Randolph becoming the next Met manager comes from a couple of reasons, not just the fact that he has no actual managing experience. And let me say this, Im not saying Willie cant/wont be a good manager, I just dont think he is right to be the next MET Manager.

One reason is that the bulk of his experience in the Major leagues as a coach has been in the AL. Now im sure his time with Lasorda and LaRussa was great and helpful to increasing his knowledge of the game, however it was a long long time ago. I think it would be best for the Mets to go after someone that is a NL guy. Now it doesnt have to be, as I would take Lou Pinella in a heart beat, but I think it would be best. So that is Strike one against willie in my book.

Another reason I dont think he would be a good fit is he seems to much like Art Howe. Maybe that is unfair, but his attitude just isnt what I think is needed for this team. From all the quotes i've read he just doesnt seem to have a fire in his belly. Granted fiery managers dont always win, as Joe "is he sleeping" Torre points out. But I think the Mets need a different personality to be the next manager. I point I like to use is the NY Giants. I think the Mets need a baseball version of Tom Coughlin.

And my last reason for this post, as I need to actually do some work here at my desk, is that I think there is a number of more qualified canidates for this position. THIS POSITION.

Ive been looking for something concrete about Willie for a number of days now....what are his positives besides working along side some of the games better managers? Im not being sarcastic...I really am interested.

Ill try and post some of my other negatives about Willie later today...(Not like anyone cares or anything)

I realize you omitted it intentionally Vinny, but it is important to point out that Randolph has spent the past many (nine?) seasons under Joe Torre with the Yankees. Joe handles the media very well, and deflects pressure from the media and Boss George very well. He is not a good tactical manager, though, and has largely benefited over the past nine seasons from:

a) having very good teams
b) having Mariano Rivera

(b) is a subset of (a) of course, but merits mentioning separately. Torre has a calming presence over a clubhouse, and one might imagine Randolph having the same effect.

I guess the question is whether the Mets need a good "on-field" manager or a good "off-field" manager. A manager who is good at both is ideal, of course, but if Randolph is groomed in the image of Joe Torre, I'm afraid "on-field" might not be in the cards.

Hello! The Mets will still be in a transition year. Who cares who manages? At least Willie Randolph would teach our prized youngsters (Wright, Reyes, et al.) a thing or two about professionalism.

Lowe still has excellent movement on all of his pitches, if we are to believe Peterson about Zambrano, then signing Lowe on the cheap wouldn't be a bad gamble.

Let's hope Soler and Humber are major league ready by June.

Yes I know what you're thinking, but, you can never have too much pitching.

To answer your questions in order:

1) I think it's definitely more likely but not assured. Rememeber if there's one thing this postseason has hit home, it's that the Yankees need pitching. We'll see -- I'm sure Boras is salivating at the prospect. The Mets better make a good run at him, though.

2) Yes to all three. The Red Sox have officially broken the Yankees spell over them. For years, Sox fans didn't have a comeback to all those monumental collapses. Now they have the granddaddy of them all (and boy is it ever sweet).

3) No. If you've ever read Bill Simmons' column on "The Derek Lowe" face, you know why. Honestly I really think the Mets shouldn't sign any pitcher other than Kris Benson in the offseason. I'd rather overpay for Beltran if I had a choice.

Mike in the Bronx,

You just answered your own question. Why does it matter who manages next year even if the Mets are going to suck? Well, because we've got some young talent that hopefully will still be around when the team contends. This team doesn't have the talent to win, that's for sure, but it also doesn't have the fundamentals -- of both play and attitude. We need a guy that can help instill both.

Francona did a wonderful job this series, and should be a model for the Mets' search. He showed smarts and guts, and that, more than personality, is what I want in a manager.

Too often the focus is on the psychology of the guy, and we have no way of knowing anything about that. Nor, I think, should we much care, beyond ensuring that he's not an ass who will piss everyone off.

What we should care about is experience. It seems bizarre to me to hire a guy who has never managed before (Randolph and Rudy), just as it seems bizarre to hire a guy with a poor track record (Tosca and Terry).

So my question is: 1) doesn't anyone know anything about the tactical skills of Oberkfell and Backman? and 2) why aren't the Mets talking to these two guys, who have apparently managed succesfully for several years in the minors?

I agree that it seems odd that the two candidates with seemingly the best chance to land the job (Willie and Rudy) have no managerial experience. However, this is where we are left to trust the judgment of Omar - the guy the Wilpons gave total autonomy. We have to believe his final choice is the best guy available. I don't want to believe that his choice is the best of the cheapest choices available because we're still paying $2.5 mill to Artie Howe.

Even though he doesn't show it, every thing I've read is that Willie Randolph doesnt put up with nonsense. Add to that his knowledge of what its like in NY, and I think he would be fine in NY.

Having said that, I still say that Wally Backman would be my first choice. He's not the "good egg" that wilpon may be looking for, but he's got fire, he's managed well in minors, and the fact that he has ties to the last time that the Mets were the number one story in NY, doesn't hurt.

Given the fact that this team is awful, I'd downplay the experience thing. I'd rather give a shot to someone new than hire an experienced re-tread, like Jim Fregosi.

Honestly, if the best you fellas can do re: Randolph is say that he "must" have learned something from all those good managers, especially joe torre (WAY overrated...) and that he will instill in the Mets the fundamentals of how to play baseball the "right" way (as if no one else can?), then why not hire the bullpen coach for the Yankees? Or for that matter the bullpen coach or any other coach from other successful franchises like the Braves, Cardinals, Red Sox, Angels, A's, etc. As you can see, my point is in line with Jonas': TELL US SPECIFICALLY AT LEAST THREE THINGS RANDOLPH HAS DONE TO DESERVE TO BE NAMED THE METS MANAGER?

I bet that even if you can drum up 3 things, I can match that and raise it on behalf of Bobby V. Baggage and all, he is a great "on-field" manager, and a great talent evaluator. Does he push the wrong buttons sometimes? Yes. Does he let his emotions get the best of him at times? Yes. Does the press go after his weak spots? Sure (especially Murray Chass). But did Valentine EVER run away from a tough question? NEVER. Unless Piniella is available, then Bobby V. HAS to be the frontrunner.

As for Randolph, gimme Backman, who has managed and won in the minors, or even Terry Collins (same), before Randolph. One last thing: I think it is disgusting that the press, once again, is putting unnecessary pressure on the Mets to do something with Randolph by annointing him as the "frontrunner." No one from the Mets has EVER said or HINTED at that, but the press keeps on putting that term in there to make the Mets look like bad guys in case Randolph sucks in his interview (which, from my understanding, has happened at least 10 times before). Let Willie go in with a clear board, and let him stand on his laurels. And ferchrissakes, let the Mets judge him accordingly without all that "frontrunner" nonsense.

PepperRey,

I've said all along (not here, but on my blog) that my strong preference is for Bobby Valentine to be brought back, but I think Randolph would be a nice Plan B. So, if your challenge is to come up with reasons why I think he'd be better than Bobby V, I can't do that. But the odds aren't in favor of a return by Valentine, so I'm looking at the best of the rest, and Randolph seems as good a choice as any of them.

While he may not have any experience as a minor league manager, he's been around major league baseball for 30 years (18 as a player, 1 as an assistant GM, and 11 as a coach), and was always considered a locker room leader and a calming influence on some volatile Yankee teams. That's sufficient experience for me.

Experience as a manager in the minors is great, but it's hardly the be-all, end-all for a major league candidate. Most minor league managers would be beside themselves with joy if they got the chance to come up to the majors and just be a coach; something Randolph has been doing for the last 11 years.

Yesterday on my blog I used Alan Trammell, who had only three years of experience as a coach with the Padres before being hired as the Tigers manager as a comparison with Randolph. They're both guys who paid their dues over the course of long, distinguished playing careers. Do you think anyone in Detroit, where Trammell is a beloved figure (much the same way Randolph is in New York), was complaining about the fact that he'd never managed in the minor leagues?

I guess it's the uncertainty about what kind of manager he'd be that scares people most about Randolph, because I've still yet to hear one good, valid argument against him.

Pepper Rey -

I couldn't agree with you more. I think you pegged alot of Mets fans feeleings with your post. Vinny, I see your point about manager experience although I don't know if I would use Trammell as an example. He couldn't have done worse then his first year if he tried. Also, Trammell is a Detroit Instituition and therefore earned the right to a free pass. Randolph is not a Met institution and therfore deserves nothing from us

As respected as Randolph might be as a player we have to be concerned that NO ONE wants to hire him. Eleven interviews and only one offer (that he turned down cause of money). Why do the Mets, and we as fans have to settle, again, for someone who is not wanted (see Howe as an example).

If it is not Bobby V and we are going with a newcomer let it be Jaramillio. If we are going new then go new

Otherwise, as Pepper Rey eloquently put it....why Randolph?

Peter, perhaps this wasn't your point, but just to clarify, I don't think experience necessarily means major league experience. For example, hiring Fregosi strikes me as akin to signing, say, Tom Glavine to a 4 year deal at age 37. It's worse, really, because Glavine was once good, and occasionally can be now, whereas Fregosi gets considered for jobs for no reason other than he's had one before, not because he did them well.

So I'm okay with giving a guy their first major league managing gig, but only if they've already gotten some training and experience elsewhere, and proven they can manage. We put players in the minors, and I tend to think managers should start there too.

I just looked at random at a list of 13 managers generally considered to be good either working now or recently retired. Of the 13 (Alou, Baker, Bochy, Cox, Francona, Davey Johnson, Bobby V., Tom Kelly, LaRussa, Ken Macha, Pinella, Showalter and Mike Scoscia), only two had no minor league experience. The rest all spent at least a few years learning in the minors.

The two exceptions, it turns out, were hitting coaches--Pinella and Baker. So perhaps one can make a case for the hitting coach moving up, though I can't think of any reason why that would be the case.

Oh christ, when did simply hanging around good managers qualitfy one to be a good manager himself? It didn't seem to work with Mazilli, did it? I'm with those who continue to scratch their heads wondering what the heck has Randolph done or even shown that would indicate he is management material. The fact he has always refused to get some experience in the minors indicates he's not willing to learn and pay his dues. Maybe he has a big head.

And another thing, simply being a coach under Joe Torre is no big deal. I can't even say Torre is a good manager. He's always had a huge advantage with resources that other managers never enjoyed. Put Torre with a middle market team and he's no better than an average manager. Perhaps worse.

It's a total mystery to me why Randolph is being considered.

A comment for Robert: Do you think it is merely Mets fans who were jumping for joy to see the Yankees choke so gloriously? I've got friends and relatives who are Cards, Orioles, Rangers, and Giants fans. They all hate the Yankees. The Yankees are commonly perceived around the country as having bought much of their glory and that is a big reason they are so widely disliked. Most of Baseball Nation, not just Red Sox Nation, was rooting against the Yankees.

In response to Robert's comment: There are plenty of good reasons to hate the 2004 Yankees that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Mets. For example - they bought possibly the best and definitely the most expensive shortstop ever and have him playing third base. They eviscerated their farm system and unloaded their home growns to buy the most expensive available talent. Their abject failure is like an old fashioned morality play.

Root against the Yanks with a clear conscience.

1) In order for the Yankees to sign Beltran they've got to first make a decision about Willams(can he play 1st?), Lofton(Can they deal him or will they keep his $4M on the bench), Giambi(Can he play again?) I do not think Beltran will get the mega deal that he wants from the Yankees. There 2004 lineup was potent enough(#2 in the AL) and that was without Giambi. In the past GS has NOT gone out and signed the top FA non-pitcher. I think the Yankees will focus almost entirely on pitching.

Now the above doesn't mean the Mets will sign him either, but just that he's not a Yankee lock.

IMHO it is not Rick Peterson that would fix Derek Lowe. Rather it would be the spacious and windy confines of Shea stadium along with what should be a stellar defensive team IF the Mets realize that it does NO GOOD to have outstanding players at 2b, 3b and SS, only to have them throw to a 1B who cannot make a pick in the dirt?