There is a debate that is taking place among the fans of Major League Baseball teams.
So far, there were 8 teams that let their managers go (or saw retirement). This means that more than 1/4 the teams in MLB need managers. The searches are underway with teams conducting their interviews.
This brings up an interesting discussion. Some of the names tossed out include Joe Girardi, Joe Maddon, and Buck Showalter. Even Dusty Baker is being tossed around as a candidate for some teams.
We also see names like Mike Bell, Eduardo Perez, and Carlos Beltran being mentioned in the same manner.
The great debate these days is should a team go for an experienced manager or one who is new but can better collaborate with front offices and relate to the players?
It reminds me of the old argument a couple decades back. At that time, all managers came up through the ranks. It was rare for someone to have no managerial experience at any level. Thus, all had some kind of experience outside the likes of Tony LaRussa.
What the debate was about back then was the fiery guy versus the one who was laid back.
It was interesting, when a team let go of someone who was fiery, the claim was a laid back guy who "didn't upset the players and cause such a distraction" was needed. When it was the opposite, we heard "get a guy with some excitement to wake the players up". It really did not matter who it was as long as it took the opposite demeanor of what was there.
We see the success of Aaron Boone and Alex Core with the Yankees and Red Sox. Both manager had no experience. Yet one has a W.S. title with the other vying for one this year.
Hence, even though the topic of debate changed, we still see the same arguments.
Ultimately, managers are not the ones who usually win games. It is interesting that the Astros manager was a failure in Arizona yet is having success in Houston. Perhaps the rosters of each team has something to do with it.
