when do you fire a manager?

[hoopsguy]

There has been some pretty intense debate in Chicago around Dusty Baker and how much of the blame he deserves for the debacle that is the 2006 Cubs. Which has gotten me to thinking about what are the criteria fans set for when to call for replacing the manager.

Here is a starting point for me:
1.) When the team on the field is not meeting expectations in terms of talent level. Note that this doesn't mean winnng divisions or consistenly beating a rival, just playing to your ability
2.) When the team is fundamentally unsound
3.) When the manager has been given a sufficient period of time to make an impact. Not sure what the absolute number is here, but normally at least two years.
4.) When there is a sustained negative trend in terms of results
5.) When the same excuses are used year after year for failure to meet goals
6.) A ridiculous scandal surrounding the manager or demonstrating a lack of control over a program (more of a college sports issue)
7.) When young talent isn't being developed for a team that is not a title contender

[Cringer]

I would fire a guy his first loss. No losers on my team!

I may go through 80 so managers a year, but they will get the point.

[Barkeep49]

Without getting too much into your stated topic, I think you must have a much higher standard for firing a manager during a season then during the off season. I keep wondering what the "Fire Dusty Now" group hopes to acomplish as I don't think we're just a good manager away from the playoffs. But perhaps Marlin fans thought the same thing before McKeon came in so I could be wrong there.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Without getting too much into your stated topic, I think you must have a much higher standard for firing a manager during a season then during the off season. I keep wondering what the "Fire Dusty Now" group hopes to acomplish as I don't think we're just a good manager away from the playoffs. But perhaps Marlin fans thought the same thing before McKeon came in so I could be wrong there.

I think it can accomplish one major thing in most cases. That would be to get the target of everyone's blame out of the picture so the rest of the team can relax a little. Maybe they win some more games, maybe they don't. But if all there is in te media are stories about firing the manager, and when, and why he sucks so bad, and blah blah blah, then just moving on and letting the fans and media know that you will be trying to move in a new direction atleast gets them (ownership/front office people) some time without a lot of pressure.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

There has been some pretty intense debate in Chicago around Dusty Baker and how much of the blame he deserves for the debacle that is the 2006 Cubs. Which has gotten me to thinking about what are the criteria fans set for when to call for replacing the manager.

Here is a starting point for me:
1.) When the team on the field is not meeting expectations in terms of talent level. Note that this doesn't mean winnng divisions or consistenly beating a rival, just playing to your ability
2.) When the team is fundamentally unsound
3.) When the manager has been given a sufficient period of time to make an impact. Not sure what the absolute number is here, but normally at least two years.
4.) When there is a sustained negative trend in terms of results
5.) When the same excuses are used year after year for failure to meet goals
6.) A ridiculous scandal surrounding the manager or demonstrating a lack of control over a program (more of a college sports issue)
7.) When young talent isn't being developed for a team that is not a title contender

Ok based on a conversation Hoops and I are having over IM, to actually address the issue I'll add the following three (with the first one being Hoops' phrasing)

8. When you feel that your guy is getting "outcoached" consistently. includes both errors in judgement and omission
9. The coach no longer has the respect/faith of his players
10. (Which hoops disagrees with for in season firings) There is a replacement candidate who could reasonably be expected to preform better

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by Cringer

I think it can accomplish one major thing in most cases. That would be to get the target of everyone's blame out of the picture so the rest of the team can relax a little. Maybe they win some more games, maybe they don't. But if all there is in te media are stories about firing the manager, and when, and why he sucks so bad, and blah blah blah, then just moving on and letting the fans and media know that you will be trying to move in a new direction atleast gets them (ownership/front office people) some time without a lot of pressure.

Isn't it better for the manager to act as a kind of heat shield from the players? Once the manager goes doesn't it make there MORE pressure on the players to win rather then having the manager to blame?

[General Mike]

2 weeks after the vote of confidence.

[MizzouRah]

As long as the Cubs keep losing, I hope he stays.

[bulletsponge]

ahh the Cubs, what a bunch of loosers. the owners need to be fired to ever right that ship.

[LloydLungs]

Dusty sucks, but like the above poster said, Dusty is more of a symptom than the actual problem.

Supposedly his contract extension is already done and management is just waiting for the Cubs to fumble into a two or three game winning streak to announce it. Hilarious.

[hoopsguy]

For what it is worth, I didn't intend for this to be a commentary solely on the Cubs and their current situation.

[ISiddiqui]

This may be more specific to Dusty, but in baseball, I think every manager should be canned if there seems to be evidence that he abuses his young pitchers. You can't win if your young aces are nursing injuries.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

Supposedly his contract extension is already done and management is just waiting for the Cubs to fumble into a two or three game winning streak to announce it. Hilarious.

Have a source for this?

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Have a source for this?

Steve Stone on last Monday's Boers & Bernstein radio show. At least it was heavily implied. I think they were hoping the Marlins series would be their opportunity.

[Easy Mac]

when he turns into a racist old white man instead of a racist old black man.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Isn't it better for the manager to act as a kind of heat shield from the players? Once the manager goes doesn't it make there MORE pressure on the players to win rather then having the manager to blame?

I guess it would depend on the situation. Most times though, if a team fires their coach mid-season just about everyone has accepted they suck and the season is lost. Not much pressure after the coach is fired and an interim guy is supposed to just guide you through the year.