• Friday Is Hire Day At Yankeeland – Maybe

    Posted by on October 24th, 2007 · Comments (12)

    From the AP -

    The New York Yankees could hire a new manager by the end of this week.

    “It’s possible,” Hank Steinbrenner said Wednesday, adding that the process could extend longer. “We want to get it done as soon as possible.”

    Teams aren’t allowed to announce moves during the World Series, but the Yankees could ask commissioner Bud Selig for permission if they’d like to name a successor on off days Friday or Tuesday.

    Hank Steinbrenner said last week the team planned to consider five or six candidates but the Yankees may limit the field to the original trio.

    “It’s starting to look more and more that way,” he said,

    “It’s going to be a tough decision, but what we want is no different than what the fans want. We want to win,” Hank Steinbrenner said. “Be the best manager, be the best leader and win. We’re in a transition period. We’ve got a lot of great young pitchers, a lot of great young players coming.

    “I’m not saying we don’t have a chance next year. Obviously, the Marlins beat us a few years ago with the same kind of young pitching staff. And Detroit got to the World Series with the same kind of young pitching staff, so it can happen.”

    But he also cautioned that success might not be immediate.

    “I think the most important thing is whoever we hire, give ‘em a chance because he’s not getting the ’96 Yankees. He’s getting an even younger team or for the most part a team in transition. Give him a little while,” Hank Steinbrenner said, “We want to win the World Series every year. We’re not stupid enough to think we can do it. Of course, we’d love to win the World Series next year.”

    The Yankees rotation in 1996 was Andy Pettitte, Kenny Rogers, Dwight Gooden, Jimmy Key, and David Cone. From that group, only Pettitte and Cone were outstanding that season – and Cone was limited to 11 starts.

    I think the Yankees rotation in 2008 has a chance to match that group – or better it. And, the Yankees offense in 2008 will be better than it was in 1996, for sure.

    Hank is just setting the bar low here – so that his hire looks good next season.

    I am disappointed that the Yankees only interviewed three guys for the spot. It tells you that they pretty much had their mind made up on who they wanted for the job.

    Comments on Friday Is Hire Day At Yankeeland – Maybe

    1. MJ
      October 24th, 2007 | 3:56 pm

      “I am disappointed that the Yankees only interviewed three guys for the spot. It tells you that they pretty much had their mind made up on who they wanted for the job.”

      Agreed. And it’s a shame for Tony Pena that he got the “token minority” treatment because I doubt he had a legitimate shot at the job.

      As for setting the bar low and cautioning “that success might not be immediate,” what I want to know is what happened to the ridiculous Steinbrenner Doctrine? After all these years of telling us how the team was a bunch of failures, now we’re supposed to temper expectations when most of the same faces will be back? Or is this some hint that Mo/Jorge/Pettitte/A-Rod are out of the family?

      I hate Steinbrenner and his sons.

    2. baileywalk
      October 24th, 2007 | 4:29 pm

      Come on, MJ, you “hate” Stein and his sons? Isn’t that a little too harsh? Stein has given his GM and manager an open checkbook for years. Would you rather a billionaire owner who won’t spend a dime? For all of his bluster and supposed dictatorial mien, Stein wants to win and is willing to give the team whatever it needs.

      Hasn’t everyone been saying for years that this “Win the World Series or the season is a failure” doctrine should go away? Maybe Hank is simply sick of it and is trying to move away from the win-or-else attitude.

      People have complained that Hank talks too much, but he seems smart and reasonable to me.

      From how things have played out, it seems like this was Donnie’s job all along — they interviewed Giradi because they had to, but it was Donnie’s job if he wanted it.

    3. Pete
      October 24th, 2007 | 4:35 pm

      >> I am disappointed that the Yankees only interviewed three guys for the spot. It tells you that they pretty much had their mind made up on who they wanted for the job. >>

      I’m seriously going to be ill if it’s Mattingly.

    4. baileywalk
      October 24th, 2007 | 4:45 pm

      I’m seriously going to be ill if it’s Mattingly.
      —-

      Care to give a coherent reason why?

    5. MJ
      October 24th, 2007 | 4:57 pm

      Baileywalk, in your example, I have two options: Steinbrenner or Carl Pohlad of the Twins. Both are billionaires but only one invests in his team. In my ideal, I get an owner who invests in his team and keeps his stupid proclamations and his demeaning comments to himself. I don’t want a blowhard who treats employees like crap and creates a hostile workplace.

      Dare I say, John Henry’s been a pretty good model since taking over the Red Sox in 2003. Whatever happened in Florida aside, the guy is certainly not shy about spending, he seems to let his baseball people run that side of the business, and he doesn’t run his mouth.

      You don’t have to agree with me but there’s nothing you can tell me that will ever make me like the Steinbrenner family. Am I grateful that they’ve invested to give me 13 straight seasons of playoff baseball? Of course I am. I grew up with the 80′s Yanks so I know it wasn’t as fun then as it is now. But I also know that a lot of what went wrong in the 80′s was entirely Steinbrenner’s doing. And since I’ve been burned by their meddling before, I am not happy to see a young, vibrant, 50 year old Steinbrenner in the driver’s seat.

    6. baileywalk
      October 24th, 2007 | 5:01 pm

      Baileywalk, in your example, I have two options: Steinbrenner or Carl Pohlad of the Twins. Both are billionaires but only one invests in his team. In my ideal, I get an owner who invests in his team and keeps his stupid proclamations and his demeaning comments to himself. I don’t want a blowhard who treats employees like crap and creates a hostile workplace.
      —-

      Well, that’s my point, MJ. We don’t usually get our ideal. You have to take the good with the bad and in this case I’ll take Stein’s sometimes annoying blowhard-ness as long as it comes with the money he’s willing to spend.

      As as hard as it is to stomach, what you say about the Sox is quite true.

    7. MJ
      October 24th, 2007 | 5:03 pm

      Care to give a coherent reason why?
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      I know this wasn’t directed at me but I’ll take a stab at it anyway.

      I don’t like PR-type hirings. It’s what Guidry was and it’s what Mattingly will be. I’m not saying he can’t do a good job. For all I know, he’ll be the baseball’s second coming of Vince Lombardi, Dean Smith, John Wooden, and Red Auerbach all rolled up into one. Do we need to hire a guy just because he’s the safe and popular choice?

      As dozens of people have correctly stated, as long as the 2008 team looks a lot like the 2007 team, it won’t much matter who the manager is. So if that’s the case, why not think outside the box a bit? Why not find the next Bill Belichick? Because the fans don’t want to? Because the veterans who have been here want to have someone that won’t challenge them when they have to be challenged? Those aren’t good enough reasons.

    8. MJ
      October 24th, 2007 | 5:07 pm

      Well, that’s my point, MJ. We don’t usually get our ideal. You have to take the good with the bad and in this case I’ll take Stein’s sometimes annoying blowhard-ness as long as it comes with the money he’s willing to spend.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Agreed. In your example, Steinbrenner represents the better choice. But since you also agree that John Henry’s been a pretty good owner for the Red Sox, I’d say that he’s the happy medium I wish we had.

    9. Pete
      October 24th, 2007 | 5:11 pm

      >> Care to give a coherent reason why? >>

      Wrong team, wrong time, wrong attitude.

      This whole thing reeks of Bucky Dent, Part Deux. I foresee a lot of head-scratching, a lot of blank stares, and a lot of regret come June when they’re 10 games under .500 and the heat is on. I think Donnie can have a tendency to get very snippy and defensive with the media when things don’t go his way. He was this way as a player and now it’s probably going to get a lot worse as the manager if the team plays badly.

      I also just don’t buy that his heart is in it, and I feel like the only reason he sat on that bench for 3 years – and not on his horse farm – is because George promised him the manager’s job.

      You could hear it in his voice during the conference call – he sounds exactly like a guy who knows he’s walking into a sh!tstorm, but also knows he’ll never get a better opportunity to get the job with absolutely zero experience.

      Sorry, this just isn’t the job you hand to someone with so little on your resume. We all saw what happens (Guidry) when you just start hiring guys out of the Old Timer’s Day roster. Who’s next? Leyritz?

      If the KC job wasn’t already taken, *that* should have been the position Mattingly applied for.

      “Coherent” enough of an answer for you, bw?

      Gimme Little Joe…

    10. baileywalk
      October 24th, 2007 | 7:56 pm

      People get so defensive…

      The “coherent” comment was in response to so many people — everywhere on the ‘Net — proclaiming “Donnie will suck,” “he will be a disaster,” “this is the worst choice ever,” etc., without any reason why (other than “intuition”).

      I just don’t understand this definitive stance that Donnie “will” fail.

      MJ makes a good point that the team has the opportunity to go out and find someone new and inventive, but I just don’t see the fire and ruin others do in bringing in a Don Mattingly.

    11. Raf
      October 24th, 2007 | 9:13 pm

      Dent took the helm under completely different circumstances in ’89.

      The Yanks of the 1989-90 season were TERRIBLE. Stengel, McGraw, & Mack couldn’t do anything with them, lest Bucky Dent could…

      If Mattingly gets the job, depending on how the Yanks are constructed, they’ll win 90+ games.

    12. Pete
      October 24th, 2007 | 10:29 pm

      I made a comparison to Dent in terms of his supposed ability to handle the media – Bucky always had this look of exasperation on his face whenever he’d have to face the media after a tough loss, and I just get the feeling we’d see the same from Donnie.

      The fact that he’s inheriting a great team actually makes it *worse*, IMO. More pressure to go further into the playoffs and all.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.