To All

To All the Tracy-Bashers I've Loved Before

Don't overextend.

Complaints about Dodger manager Jim Tracy are filling an 8 1/2 x 1,111 in. piece of paper. Wrong starters. Bad lineups. Irrational biases. Head-scratching in-game management. All exacerbated by Tracy's gymnastic justifications. I'm pretty much right there with you - whatever strengths Tracy might have, he has these flaws. Whatever roster wounds Tracy has been handed, he's scratched at the scab and made them worse.

Similarly, you've clarified what is longed for in a new manager. Pretty much the reverse of the above. Good enough.

Be careful of that next step.

If you don't have a good reason to suggest a specific name to replace Tracy, don't just throw out a name to fill the void. Continue making your case on what you want in your manager, but if you connect a face to the philosophy, make sure it's a worthy connection.

The "anyone but Tracy" plank weakens the whole platform. It's obviously wrong, since there are plenty of other people who actually would have played Hee Seop Choi and Antonio Perez less or wouldn't even have gotten the value from Milton Bradley that Tracy did get before last month's apparent denouement.

You can do worse than Tracy. If you argue otherwise, you make it impossible to be taken seriously. If you aren't taken seriously, even your worthy arguments are lost.

To say that Tracy is not the worst manager in the world does not surrender your battle. It's not saying that the Dodgers shouldn't still do better. Just like there are worse pitchers than Scott Erickson, pitchers who would have allowed 10 runs a game instead of seven, there are worse managers than Tracy. You can do better and worse.

Don't overstep your facts, or you become no better than those who overstep theirs in arguing on Tracy's behalf. Just endorse your philosophy if that's all you have. Believe me, it's plenty.

If in fact it is important for you to link a name to the search, then do the work. Find quotes from a major league coach that sound sensible. Go to the minor league boxscores and look at some lineup construction. Read some AAA game stories or play-by-play accounts and find out what certain managers down there with a leadoff runner on first.

Or, again, let the Dodger front office do the personnel work and stick with defining the platform.

Picking the perfect manager is hard to do. Don't make it sound simpler than it is, and don't settle for a slight improvement over a manager you have contempt for. Don't resort to the same knee-jerk flights of fraud that buggered you in the first place.

As they say in the biz, write what you know.

* * *

To All the Tracy-Defenders I've Loved Before

Including the man himself ...

At what point do the excuses stop?

Let's say, for argument's sake, that Dodger general manager Paul DePodesta did not present Tracy with a National League championship squad. (Even among those of us who like the bulk of DePodesta's moves realized that the Dodgers still might not be the class of the National League in 2005, that the Dodgers' true ascendancy awaits the maturation of the minor league talent.)

And by all means, let's acknowledge the widespread injuries that shackled Tracy's chances for winning a division in 2005.

So here we are in May, in June, in July, in August, in September. Reality has set in with the Dodgers - just as it has with several other National League teams. They are not going to win 100 games, or 95, or 90, or 85, or 80.

At what point does Tracy take any responsibility for the Dodger performance? The players have. The front office has. How is Tracy exempt? Doesn't that, at a minimum, defy logic?

When the Dodgers had a healthier roster in the spring, they kept losing to mediocre teams. When they had do-or-die games against teams below them in the standings in the late summer, they got hammered. With a division title within reach, the Dodgers have lost six in a row and nine of their past 11 to NL West rivals - teams that like them are carbonated with mediocrity. Forget about the NL pennant race, and look at it as games between Little League teams. The talent level was even, and the Dodgers kept losing.

Sure, anything can happen over a short stretch, and a season's worth of games, let alone a week's, isn't necessarily enough to judge a manager on. So go deeper.

If you value Hee Seop Choi or Antonio Perez as ballplayers, has Tracy used them efficiently?

If you don't value Choi or Perez, has Tracy used them efficiently?

No and no.

Is Tracy good with using statistics to construct a lineup? Not if the widespread dissent from every amateur and professional sabermetrician locally and nationally over Tracy's usage is any indication.

Is Tracy good with playing hunches? Outside of the bimonthly Mike Edwards home run, there's little evidence of it. For every Tracy hunch that works, there are plenty that don't. The group above would be happy to list them for you.

Oscar Robles, 0 for 8 in caught stealing? How does it take so long for Tracy to realize how much of a mudrunner Robles is? Shouldn't it only take as long as about one pregame sprint against a stopwatch? If Tracy is unhappy that DePodesta gave Tracy him a slow team, does running that slow team into a wall make it any better?

No.

I freely admit that there is more going on in the bowels of Dodger Stadium than I can write about. I can't say how tolerable or intolerable the tug-o'-war has been between DePodesta, who has stood behind his manager publicly, and Tracy, who has implied through his comments that the team woes are based entirely on the personnel. (Comparing the deference they show each other, you'd think DePodesta worked for Tracy.) As much as organizations benefit from hosting divergent beliefs, it's hard to believe that everyone's at peace.

So what does it take for people who believe DePodesta and McCourt have problems to also point out that Tracy has problems too? Interestingly, the two people who do this the best are Steve Haskins of Fire Jim Tracy and T.J. Simers of the Times. Despite coming from very different constructs about the game, they are willing to look everywhere to find grievances. However far over the top they go, that they don't rest on a single villain is often to their credit.

But those who feel that Tracy has somehow gotten a raw deal from the team, who feel he was undermined from up top - Tracy included - need to acknowledge that Tracy has made the situation worse.

Throughout the history of baseball, the manager has worked for the general manager (except - or even, I suppose - when they were the same man). In that respect, Tracy's irrational behavior and defiance are somewhat historic. Considering the media uproar in March that accompanied Milton Bradley's reluctance to play right field or Antonio Perez's to play third, isn't it amazing that Tracy is granted carte blanche to ignore the blueprint of his boss?

If a player played with the irrationality, if not outright disrespect, that Tracy manages with, he would be benched, if not suspended.

Instead, Tracy gets a Purple Heart.

When you're given lemons, you're supposed to make lemonade. Tracy's defenders are free to say that he's been given lemons, but they should at least admit that his lemonade has been particularly sour in 2005.

* * *

To All

Don't be extremist. The truth is in between.

Tracy has been part of the problem this year. He hasn't been the entire problem, and he hasn't been none of it.

The Dodgers seem well-positioned to bounce back in 2006, with a budget free of Darren Dreifort and Shawn Green's contracts, a general manager with another year of experience, an improving farm system, and karma that is overwhelmingly likely to be healthier.

The 2006 Dodger manager should be the person who makes it more likely for the 2006 roster to play at its best. That's all we know right now. What we don't know is who that person is.

Comments

[Eric Enders]

1.  Tremendous post, Jon. One of the best ever.

In past years I've always been one of the Tracy supporters, but this year I find myself somewhere in the middle. Tracy has done a bad job this year. That means that in his four years as manager, he's done four pretty good jobs and one bad one. Are there better managers? I don't know, probably. I don't know who they are, though, and despite what the FJT crowd will tell you, neither do they. The most dispiriting part of the Tracy situation for me -- and the worst thing ever to happen to Dodger Thoughts, IMO -- have been the constant hand-wringing, snide comments, and distortions by the FJT people this year. What the FJT folks need most is a serious dose of perspective. "Anyone but Tracy" is an ignorant and counterproductive argument. Whatever his flaws, it's apparent if you watch any other teams at all that Tracy is not only not the worst manager in baseball, he's not even close. I doubt he's the best, either, but advocating his firing without having another candidate in mind, and knowing that candidate's philosophy, strengths, and weaknesses, is just silly.

Now, I'm not saying I'm in love with Tracy. I'm not. Frankly, I can take him or leave him. I'm against firing him right now, mostly because it's pointless and a waste of resources. For one thing, the firing of Tracy would bring a media sh*tstorm to the GM's door. Plaschke would be calling for DePodesta's execution by guillotine at sundown. Plus, the guy hired to replace Tracy, if he comes from the traditional pool of managerial candidates, likely to be even worse. There will be extraordinary pressure brought by Plaschke, Simers, et al, for McCourt to hire a famous, high-priced, "proven" manager with a track record -- somebody like Dusty Baker. Not only are these types of managers even more set in their bizarre ways than Tracy is, but they're also very expensive. And Tracy is already under contract for next season, so we're paying him whether he manages or not. I'd rather spend the $2 million per year on player salaries than on some new manager who is unlikely to be much different from Tracy, and is a fair bet to be even worse.

Strengths and weaknesses of Jim Tracy, as I see them:

STRENGTHS
- Seems to have the respect of his players, and is very good at dealing with their individual quirks and problems. (see Bradley, Milton)
- In years prior to 2005, was able to get his roster to overachieve significantly.
- Possesses the even-keeled demeanor that is (IMO) essential for a manager.
- Is very good at platooning, and also deploying the right pinch hitter at the right time.
- Has a way of getting value from certain players that few other managers would get -- Paul Lo Duca and Eric Gagne owe their stardom to him.

WEAKNESSES
- Bunts too often; uses the hit-and-run play too often.
- Makes inefficient use of his best relievers.
- Develops inexplicable, permanent grudges against certain players. Frequently harps on what a player can't do (i.e., field) and ignores what he can do (i.e., hit).
- Values defense and "scrappiness" too highly.
- His quotes to the media make little sense. (While FJT people consider this a fatal weakness, I don't, necessarily. I want my manager to be crazy like a fox. With Tracy, though, sometimes it's hard to tell whether he's crazy like a fox, or just crazy.)

[Penarol1916]

2.  So we're still discounting all of the blather about DePodesta being on the hot seat? That's good to hear.

[Eric Enders]

3.  Uh, make that five years, not four...

[Jon Weisman]

4.  2 - I am, completely.

[Penarol1916]

5.  4- I'd like to be, but being out here in Chicago, and refusing to register for the LA Times, it's hard to know what to make of all the hullabaloo.

[Vishal]

6.  first of all, great post, jon. you take "passionate moderation" and raise to an art form.

the other thing i wanted to say was that i think there's a distinction between "anybody but jim tracy" and "jim tracy needs to go". the former isn't often said out of anything other than immediate frustration. but the latter, i think, can be asserted without having to name an alternative. i don't know who the best manager for the dodgers would be. i haven't interviewed anybody, and i don't have any major league personnel in my rolodex. i don't know any baseball men. figuring that out is the job of the front office. but what i think i can tell just from watching, is that it's pretty clear that jim tracy isn't the guy for this team. either he needs a different roster or this roster needs a different manager. they're incompatible. and considering we just did the whole roster-turnover thing this past season, changing managers seems like the easier and more sensible thing to do.

and speaking of the turnover and the ownership and philosophy change, maybe depodesta and mccourt did kind of pull the rug out from under trace. but JT sure hasn't been able to adjust to it. at least a new manager will know what the situation is going in.

[Jon Weisman]

7.  1 - Thanks, Eric. I would argue that this:

-Develops inexplicable, permanent grudges against certain players. Frequently harps on what a player can't do (i.e., field) and ignores what he can do (i.e., hit).
- Values defense and "scrappiness" too highly.

proves that this:

- Possesses the even-keeled demeanor that is (IMO) essential for a manager.
- Is very good at platooning, and also deploying the right pinch hitter at the right time.

is no longer true.

And again, I think it's fine to argue that you can do better at a position, be it manager, player or marketing director, without knowing who the replacement is by name. Just don't endorse other names irresponsibly - instead, endorse your philosophy and entrust someone to find the right person if possible.

But I agree that if you haven't seen a manager worse than Tracy, just wait five minutes.

[still bevens]

8.  5 You can use random accounts for newspapers etc if you plug in the url at www.bugmenot.com

[Eric Enders]

9.  7 - One of the reasons Tracy has not succeeded with platooning this season is because there's really been nobody to platoon. I see no reason why, given a capable major league roster in 2006, Tracy would not be an effective platooner again. (Aside from the occasional Choi whom he bears a grudge against.)

Also, I guess I'm not seeing how the even-keeled part is contradicted. I'm completely missing that.

[Sam DC]

10.  But, but, if extreme yet half-formed opinions based on cherry-picked facts and demonizing the other side can't find a comfy home on the internet, where exactly are they welcome?

(great post)

[Jon Weisman]

11.  9 - I don't think holding grudges meshes with being even-keeled.

[Vishal]

12.  7 as far as endorsements go, i don't think the endorsement of some random internet nerds like us really means anything in the scheme of things. we don't really know the real philosophies of most of these guys. obviously, i have no idea of what, say, orel hershiser(to toss out a name people, including myself, have been mentioning) would be like as a manager. but he's the kind of name that would be exciting to us for depodesta to be checking into. i mean, it's possible that orel could be the second coming of manager mike "smallball" scioscia, in which case he wouldn't work. but with a new manager, depodesta would have to ask this stuff before he gets hired, right?

anyway, regardless, it's exciting to speculate about possible new managerial flings, because the love affair with tracy is over. do we really have the kind of responsibility you're endowing us with? what's wrong with just throwing some names out there? :)

[Vishal]

13.  10 haha, exactly.

[Icaros]

14.  Jon,

Assuming that you have all the time and connections in the world (ha ha), it would be a fun offseason DT project for you to interview prospective managerial candidates, determining their particular philosophies and such.

I'm interested in Orel Hershiser, for example, but aside from the fact that he's always come off as fairly intelligent, and he kind of looks like DePodesta, I really have no idea what he'd be like leading a team and how he would coexist with the current GM. It'd be nice to get more insight.

As for Eric's comments, I definitely think hiring a "proven" manager would be the absolute wrong choice, despite the cries of the MSM. If the Dodgers front office starts making decisions to appease those folks, we might as well give up now.

[Jon Weisman]

15.  12 - Aspire for greatness.

When I started this site, I had one reader. If I had operated under the assumption that what I said didn't matter, I'd still probably only have one reader.

Now, people in the media and with the Dodgers not only read me, they read you. Do they obey my every wish? Not at all. But something registers.

I want you all to have fun, and certainly, there's no harm in suggesting a name and seeing what other people think - using this forum for research.

But gosh, don't write under the assumption that no one will care. Some people won't care, but some will.

But if you have no idea about something, don't write as if you do. Otherwise, when you do have an idea about something, no one will care.

[dzzrtRatt]

16.  Jon and Eric--both great reads.

The FJT crowd has made some very trenchant arguments on a game-by-game basis, which is where I think Tracy is most vulnerable to criticism. His lineups seem to suboptimize whatever ability this weak team has to score runs. But I do think the Tracy-haters have ignored his qualities as a team leader. In addition to Gagne and LoDuca, I'd add Milton Bradley to the list of players that Tracy got more out of than another manager would've. Somebody has to get the credit for the emergence of Duaner Sanchez as a legitimate pitcher. And someone has to get the credit for keeping the 2003 team in contention until the end of the season, and for winning the division in 2004. Those were not very good teams.

To me, Tracy sort of resembles Dusty Baker-- a good leader especially of veteran players, but lacking the intellectual firepower to make consistently good judgments. But even the smartest managers don't win unless they've got a lot more good players than the Dodgers have had in any one of the past 20 seasons.

The Dodger fans have been let down over the past two decades by weak ownership, and awful GM's -- Fred Claire and Kevin Malone especially. Tracy's failings are of little consequence compared with the damage done by the top brass. And he'll have much less to say about the Dodgers' future than Paul DePodesta and Frank McCourt will. Jury is still out on them.

[Jon Weisman]

17.  14 - I'm gonna need to start earning a DT salary to devote that kind of time. Otherwise, that's why I'm willing to leave the job hunt to DePodesta.

[Sam DC]

18.  17 Well, it's your site. Don't you think you're due for a raise?

[Icaros]

19.  17 I know. I was just saying it would be fun.

I'd like to earn a salary for posting here full time.

[Jon Weisman]

20.  19 - I know. And I'd love to deputize you all with pay.

[Eric Enders]

21.  Deputize us? I thought only The Sheriff could do that.

[Mark]

22.  Beg Tom Kelly to come out of retirement.

[Telemachos]

23.  14- For some reason, I'm very intrigued by the thought of Hershiser as well.

In terms of a rebuilding process (which may or may not include hiring a new manager), what I don't want to see is a tired retread of some generic pre-existing manager. (For the record, if Depo brings in a new manager, I don't expect him to follow that path). Jumping sports for a moment to football: when the Niners fired Mariucci, they were on the cusp of promoting their defensive coordinator Jim Mora Jr. to head coach. To me, this was an exciting move, and reason enough to follow the team closely. Unfortunately, they went with the generic choice -- Dennis Erickson -- and the result was two absolutely miserable years. Jim Mora Jr. is now coaching a playoff-calibre team in Atlanta.

Jon, you argue for moderation when it comes to Tracy. Point well taken, but every game accentuates the chasm between the two philosophies fighting over the Dodgers. Will Tracy adjust? Will Depo adjust (should he adjust)? I can't see a successful team unless one or the other happens... or unless Tracy moves on to another team and Depo puts in a Gene Macha-type.

[Jon Weisman]

24.  16 - "Somebody has to get the credit for the emergence of Duaner Sanchez as a legitimate pitcher."

Just taking this as an example. You imply that perhaps this person getting credit should be Tracy. I'm not sure why this would be true, but even if it were, should Tracy then not take the fall for the struggles that Brazoban, Lowe, Perez, Weaver, Carrara, Houlton, Erickson, etc., etc.?

This is the flip side of the "anyone's better than Tracy" myth, and the kind of line that rightfully propels the FJT angst. There is a tendency to credit Tracy with any good development under his watch. Given the amount of pitching flops that we saw in 2005, it seems more likely that Sanchez's improvement in 2005 came despite Tracy, or at least regardless of Tracy, or that Tracy works magic on some pitchers but evil on others.

At a minimum, I'd leave this kind of argument out - it's another kind of overstep.

[Vishal]

25.  15 - fair enough. i know the site has a lot of readers, and that's partly why we post here, to toss out our random ideas, crackpot theories, and flashes of insight, so we can get some feedback and perpetuate them to a larger audience, in addition to the broader purpose of having a sense of community and discussing a topic we care about (the dodgers). if someone with any power whatsoever sees what's being said and finds it useful, so much the better. i don't think any of us has an expectation that depodesta himself is hanging on our 500 comments a day, but i get what you're saying.

[Fearing Blue]

26.  #16: The argument that Jim Tracy "gets more out of his players" is frustrating to me because there is very little basis. For every Eric Gagne, Paul Lo Duca, Adrian Beltre, or Duaner Sanchez, there's a corresponding Juan Encarnacion (2004), Hee Seop Choi (2004 / 2005), Jeromy Burnitz (2003), or Mark Grudzielanek (2001 / 2002). It's easy to just claim the positive performances, but there are a number of players who have performed significantly below career averages under Tracy as well.

[Jon Weisman]

27.  25 - Right. And I get what you're saying, too. But if people here are going to criticize Tracy for his random ideas, crackpot theories, and flashes of insight, or Plaschke for his random ideas, crackpot theories, and flashes of insight, they should probably reduce their own. Otherwise, we're just going to be stuck with them all around.

[Icaros]

28.  Every joke I make on DT I make for my beloved Paul D.

[Fearing Blue]

29.  #24/26: Lesson learned: Refresh before posting in case Jon has already made my point more eloquently than I could.

[Vishal]

30.  hehe, random ideas and flashes of insight can be positives! i was hoping to suggest that there's some good mixed in there with the tripe. but yes, the less tripe the better. i'd like to think i'm not one of the primary offenders in this regard.

[Monterey Chris]

31.  Jon--

Thank you for the great post. One fundamantal of argumentation is that if you have 10 points to make, 3 of them solid and 7 of them so-so, it is best to stick with your three solid points and never mention the other 7. I think one problem with the comments in the past half-season is that the "7" are being mentioned so often (i.e. a good decision was made on using a relief pitcher and then the writer concludes that DePo must have ordered the change because Tracy could never think of that). I love this site but it is frustrating to read through so many irrational arguments of hatred against Jim Tracy and the Choi is God arguments so that I can get to the good stuff.

My natural inclination is to defend someone being unfairly attacked. I think Tracy has serious flaws but I find myself on his side often only because I think he is being unfairly attacked. That is partly what happens when you overextend.

I have enjoyed today's discussion...it is nice to see a solid discussion of Tracy's faults.

Thanks Jon

[Jon Weisman]

32.  30 - Believe me, I'm grateful every day for the overwhelming good in the comments and the relative paucity of tripe!

29 - Nah, you did it in fewer words. Always better.

[Vishal]

33.  31 good point. i think that part of the reason why some people are so eager to attack tracy is because they see him as being "unfairly defended" by the media. and then the arguments tend to spiral out of control, ad nauseum.

[Jon Weisman]

34.  33 - Yes.

[Steve]

35.  This would be revolutionary, but Duaner Sanchez could get the credit for becoming a legitimate pitcher.

[Steve]

36.  And "Tracy Instead of Anyone" is an ignorant and counterproductive argument.

[HomeDePo]

37.  depo should ask JD Drew who should manage the team. we need someone who can tap into his talent, which is capable of 40 or 50 homers and 20 steals.

[Sam DC]

38.  Man, looking at the sidebar, I had not realized how bad the Dodgers have done on the road. That's quite a split. (Our host, I've previously noted, reverses the trend and does significantly (infinitely?) better on the road, but he now seems to have fallen to two games under .500 for the season.) Not being able to actually attend Dodger games myself, I'm left to this . . .

[Sam DC]

39.  Bob Denver has passed away.

[Jon Weisman]

40.  35, 36 - agreed

38 - my home record this year is frustratingly against the trend of previous years.

[Steve]

41.  Reduce the number of possible Tracy replacements by one. Bob Denver just died.

[werthgagne31]

42.  i find things like a trickling down effect.
first its very hard if not impossible to put together a championship calliber team with a 90 something million dollar payroll without having a certain number of players from the farm that have no significant flaws, so you can go out and get better free agents than lets say odalis perez, jose valentin ect.
i believe if the dodgers payroll was about 130 million depodesta would have built a better team, but depodesta built a good enough team with the lack of payroll to get the dodgers into the playoffs and make some (and i emphasize some) noise in the playoffs, but a combination of tracy's decisions(i can explain what i mean by decision if you want but i've done it several times allready)and injuries have made this team below 500, i also believe that if we had a manager that didn't make so many blunders we would be at 500 ball or just barely above (basically tied with san diego right now), then if you add in the games we lost from injuries i believe we would be 10 or so games above 500.

conclusion: mccourt should have had a higher payroll (about 130 million) untill the players from the farm that are ready without significant flaws show up (assuming 2007)so depodesta could go out and get quality free agents not mediocre free agents which would trickle down to tracy not making as many blunders (i think, but we are talking about tracy).

conclusion 2: better players would have limited tracy's blunders (i don't blame depodesta for lack of better players, i blame mccourt and his lower payroll than it takes).

conclusion 3: depodesta did the best he could with the resources he was given, tracy hasn't.

conclusion 4: in a perfect world the dodgers would have an owner that could afford a 130 million dollar payroll and a sabermetrics manager that is on the same page as depodesta (who they are, i don't know, i don't pay attention to other teams managers or to possible owners).

[Bob Timmermann]

43.  39

In honor of Maynard G. Krebs, I will shriek today anyone says the word "work."

[kent]

44.  39- Will he be buried on the island?

[Bob Timmermann]

45.  I don't see how any manager could have gotten a marginally better record with this team as it is constituted than Tracy has. Just too many players who are either too old, too young, or too untalented. It's better than 1992, but this team seems a lot more like some of the Dodger squads in the 1930s. And those were some up and down years.

[kent]

46.  42- Signing Valentin for 3.5 instead of Randa for 2.1 is not doing the best you can with your budget.

[HomeDePo]

47.  i have a lot more insight into JD Drew now that I read 3 nights in August.

[kent]

48.  42- Oh, and it strikes me your very generous with mccourt's $

[Steve]

49.  Speaking of distortions, how can a manager be good at platooning when he's too dumb to even write "Saenz" in the lineup card against LHP and "Choi" in the lineup card against RHP?

[Bob Timmermann]

50.  47

I wouldn't say that Tony LaRussa is an unbiased source when it comes to JD Drew. He just didn't like him. But I don't think Bobby Cox had any problems with Drew.

But I don't think Bobby Cox has an ego that's as large as La Russa's.

[GoBears]

51.  Great post, Jon. I stopped reading the comments this weekend, for exactly the reason that you highlight. I just stopped back, looking for new posts, and you came through with a winner.

I think that most of the "extreme" posts (at least before this weekend) were all in fun, and I took them as such. Others were just as funny, but unintentionally so.

I find myself in agreement with Vishal 6. I think this season has shown (after last season's audition) that Tracy is not the guy to manage a DePodesta team, and is unwilling or unable to adapt (it doesn't matter which). So I think Vishal is right that "anyone is better than JT" is different than "Tracy must go." I also accepted Eric's point 1 that firing JT during the season would be pointless unless the perfect candidate had revealed himself to DePo. But now, the off-season gives DePodesta 4-5 months to find someone. And that someone needn't be perfect - but needs at minimum to be someone willing to implement the front office philosophy. The trick, as we've discussed before, is to find someone like that (either sabr-oriented himself or at least flexible and open-minded) who also will command the respect of the players. No easy task. I think the reason I suggested Hershiser a few months ago was that I guessed that he'd fit criterion A, was quite sure he'd fit criterion B, and as an added bonus, would enjoy a honeymoon from the MSM, as a former Dodger great. But I admit, I was only guessing on the philosophy-of-baseball part, hoping that his years with Showalter had helped in that regard. OTOH, he, like Scioscia, might have been scarred by his years as a Dodger player, when 1-0 was the only way to win.

[Sam DC]

52.  There's actually a very nice message at www.bobdenver.com. Apparently, he passed away a few days ago.

His wife's name was/is Dreama.

[werthgagne31]

53.  46-- remember valentin and perez were suppose to platoon at 3b from the get go (this was said right from depodesta's mouth)(manager/gm not on the same page) and this platoon would have been better than randa.

[Joon]

54.  47 And you might have a lot more insight into Choi if someone interviews Tracy for a book.

[Jon Weisman]

55.  I think it's a little brassy to suggest that anyone, even in Los Angeles, should have spent an extra $40 million just on principle.

We've got enough on our plate today that I don't want to reopen the argument of whether McCourt should have been the one to buy the Dodgers, so just acknolwedging that he is the owner like it or not, it's doubtful that a $130 million payroll was any kind of option. It's like saying that J.D. Drew should not have gotten hurt by that pitch or D.J. Houlton should have pitched like Roger Clemens.

[Jon Weisman]

56.  "So I think Vishal is right that "anyone is better than JT" is different than "Tracy must go."

---

I completely agree. But some are not realizing that - and I don't think it's all been in fun.

[HomeDePo]

57.  54 - La Russa played JD, and La Russa says many times that he is the best fastball hitter in the league, but La Russa always says that he could never tap into JDs potential. Jim Tracy (or so it seems) does not even try.

[Jon Weisman]

58.  I thought this statement would provoke more reaction from both sides:

If a player played with the irrationality, if not outright disrespect, that Tracy manages with, he would be benched, if not suspended.

Agree? Disagree?

Presumably, the counterargument is that DePodesta has given Tracy the freedom to manage however he likes - so no "benching." But, as I think Steve might say, is this an indication that DePodesta has shown too much deference, media firestorm be damned?

[Bob Timmermann]

59.  57

What exactly was Tracy supposed to do with Drew?
"Hey, J.D., go up there and be a good hitter."
"You gotta it, Skip!"
"Thanks."

[dzzrtRatt]

60.  24, 26 -- Well, I guess my point in raising Sanchez was: He didn't seem to have much going for him til he was given the closer role. Folks here referred to him as a "gascan"--quite rightly. Tracy deserves a portion of the credit for keeping the guy's confidence up enough to where he could step into this new role and succeed.

Likewise, he probably deserves some of the credit for getting Brazoban's career off to such a good start. Brazoban's in a slump; maybe the league has adjusted to this one-trick pony, but the Dodgers (Tracy, Colborn, whoever) were able to rely on him for quite a while.

Sure, some of the Dodgers have excelled or flopped purely on their own. Lowe's a good example of both. But about the only player I can point to who played poorly for Tracy and went on to play significantly better elsewhere is Grudzielanek. That's the best example before this year of how Tracy's grudges stand in the way. Mentioning Burnitz or Encarnacion is unpersuasive. They played for the Dodgers so briefly that their failures here could be a matter of sample size (and I would not want either of them back). So we're left with Choi, and I just don't think anyone knows whether he will be a better player next year for Tampa Bay than he was in LA this year. It's no contradiction to say Tracy has an unfair grudge against Choi, and Choi is a player of limited ability.

[Eric Enders]

61.  While 24 and 26 make an important point, I think a very good argument can be made that Eric Gagne and Paul Lo Duca would not be ERIC GAGNE and PAUL LO DUCA had Tracy not been their manager. Lo Duca would likely either be retired or an AAAA player, and Gagne would probably be a middling starter. In those two specific cases, there is reason to credit Tracy for their emergence.

[HomeDePo]

62.  59 - i guess you are right, but doesnt JD atleast LOOK like you could scream at him and threaten to bench him and he would perform incredibly?

PS I laughed at your post

[dzzrtRatt]

63.  24, 26 -- Well, I guess my point in raising Sanchez was: He didn't seem to have much going for him til he was given the closer role. Folks here referred to him as a "gascan"--quite rightly. Tracy deserves a portion of the credit for keeping the guy's confidence up enough to where he could step into this new role and succeed.

Likewise, he probably deserves some of the credit for getting Brazoban's career off to such a good start. Brazoban's in a slump; maybe the league has adjusted to this one-trick pony, but the Dodgers (Tracy, Colborn, whoever) were able to rely on him for quite a while.

Sure, some of the Dodgers have excelled or flopped purely on their own. Lowe's a good example of both. But about the only player I can point to who played poorly for Tracy and went on to play significantly better elsewhere is Grudzielanek. That's the best example before this year of how Tracy's grudges stand in the way. Mentioning Burnitz or Encarnacion is unpersuasive. They played for the Dodgers so briefly that their failures here could be a matter of sample size (and I would not want either of them back). So we're left with Choi, and I just don't think anyone knows whether he will be a better player next year for Tampa Bay than he was in LA this year. It's no contradiction to say Tracy has an unfair grudge against Choi, and Choi is a player of limited ability.

[Eric Enders]

64.  "If a player played with the irrationality, if not outright disrespect, that Tracy manages with, he would be benched, if not suspended."

If it is a bad player, agree.

If it is a good player, disagree.

[GoBears]

65.  I'm one who was very excited to hear that DePodesta was going to be the new Dodger GM. I then liked all of his moves, not blaming him that Lowe had to be over-paid, and knowing that Valentin (the one we THOUGHT we were getting) would be a stop-gap, in platoon with Perez. I was very optimistic, but I'm sure I posted back in March or April that despite all that, I was pretty sure the team was a couple years away, and that while that squad, if healthy, should win the West easily, they were not in StL's class. And who knew the Braves would find such talented rookies (they started with Mondesi and Jordan out there, recall), but since they did, clearly they're a better team than the best-case-scenario Dodgers.

All of which is to say that even optimistic DePodesta fans knew that this was a work-in-progress, and a team with some serious question marks (bullpen other than Gagne, 5th starter, 3rd base, catcher, LF). So no one is to blame for the 2005 Dodgers not winning the World Series - that was never in the cards. So then the question becomes, what changes would be best in pursuit of that goal in the near future? What has this season taught us? One change that now seems obvious is that the manager has to be someone whose philosophy matches the roster he's given, and that's not true right now. Ergo, they need a new manager (or a new roster). That's clearly not the ONLY thing that should be changed, but it's just as clearly ONE necessary change.

[dzzrtRatt]

66.  sorry for the two-fer.

[Steve]

67.  I think they referred to him as a gascan, but I don't think they did so "quite rightly." It was more that people tend to like horrible relief pitchers they have heard of and that cost more, like Paul Quantrill. Sanchez has been consistent, and had many more good outings then bad.

"Likewise, he probably deserves some of the credit for getting Brazoban's career off to such a good start. Brazoban's in a slump; maybe the league has adjusted to this one-trick pony..."

Isn't this really the problem right here? Brazoban's start is Tracy's credit. Brazoban's slump is his own.

[HomeDePo]

68.  one thing i love about duaner is his ability to keep runners on pretty well (from what I have seen) with only using the slide-step occasionally, if at all

[Steve]

69.  And Mike Edwards wouldn't be MIKE EDWARDS

[GoBears]

70.  "If a player played with the irrationality, if not outright disrespect, that Tracy manages with, he would be benched, if not suspended."

I agreed with this when I read it, but it's also possible that DePo has been very deferential to the career-baseball man in the uni. That he just told him "do your best," and stepped aside. In which case, Tracy is just being Tracy, for better or for worse (I'd say "worse" in this case), and not disrespectful, because he's not been given any specific orders to ignore.

In which case, the ball is now in the GM's court.

[HomeDePo]

71.  i got this pack of 1992 baseball cards and it shows what player led each major statistical category. what player in the dodgers system (including big league team) that now sucks is on the cover of one of those cards, and what team was he on then?

[elan cohen]

72.  Jim Tracy should have been fired yesterday. The worst thing to happen to the dodgers was actually winning the division last season as it secured Tracy's return for 1 more season.

How can anyone justify saying that Tracy is a good manager? I like to think back to the week after Choi hit the 5 homers versus Minnesota batting from the 2 slot. Choi is on fire so Tracy's in baseball wisdom only he would understand drops Choi to the 7th spot. Nice. Choi of coarse dosen't get a hit in 2 days which give Tracy reason to bury him for the season.

Then on to Chicago. The Dodgers are facing Beurhle(sp) the Dodger line up includes Mike Rose at catcher and Jason Phillips at 1st base. What Tracy is trying to sell us is that minor league journeyman Rose has a better chance of success against the southpaw then Choi because he basically replaced Rose with Choi. If memory serves me Rose dosen't hit the ball out of the infield vs Beurhle.

Tracy's argument for NOT playing Antonio Perez (when he is clearly our second best active hitter) centers around Perez inability to play defense at 3rd. Then the Dodgers lose a game last night because Tracy has gold glove winner Mike Edwards at 3rd. Are you really trying to tell me that Edwards is that much better defensively then Perez, enough to justify not playing the offensively superior Perez. Tracy's love for Robles boggles the mind. There is no way on any planet, even this bizzaro dodger planet jim has created the Robles should play over Perez.

Even if one were to buy Tracy's argument, even if one were to agree with his hatred for Choi, and agree that Robles is so good he has to play everyday at 3rd, the fact that he plays Jason Phillips when he gives Saenz a day off is enough to get Tracy fired. Jason Phillips is a piece of garbage. How bout Kent to 1st and Perez to 2nd on days when you rest Seanz. Jim that might be our best line up.

There are many more reasons as to why Tracy should be 86'd. When i have a little more time i would like to share an essay debunking this myth that Tracy has done a good job his 4 previous seasons.

as to who should replace Tracy. i really would like to see Kevin Kennedy get the job. he should have had the job twice, maybe the third time will be the charm. I think Kennedy is the perfect blend of the dodger way and some of depo's beliefs. i also think covering the dodgers for 5 years give him a great knowledge of the LA roster

[HomeDePo]

73.  71 - there were actually two

[Vishal]

74.  71. erickson?

[Steve]

75.  Be wary of Kennedy. I was flipping through his book (aware that his name had come up), and in the chapter about the ten greatest hitters he has seen, he rates Roberto Clemente and Rod Carew over Hank Aaron.

[Tommy Naccarato]

76.  Some great Dodger thoughts Jon, but I do have to ask, there are several things I'm not reading clearly here and since no one else has brought them up.....

"I freely admit that there is more going on in the bowels of Dodger Stadium than I can write about. I can't say how tolerable or intolerable the tug-o'-war has been between DePodesta, who has stood behind his manager publicly, and Tracy, who has implied through his comments that the team woes are based entirely on the personnel. (Comparing the deference they show each other, you'd think DePodesta worked for Tracy.)"

Does this mean that you have intimate knowledge of what is going on deep in the bowels of the stadium that your not fully sharing? That, your not allowed to write about it and that you can't describe how intolerable the tug of war really is, because your not allowed to?

All of this can be interpreted as you seeing these events first hand. Would this be correct?

[elan cohen]

77.  i would also like to add that the argument that the players repect Tracy is a complete myth. No one in that club house respects Tracy

[Eric L]

78.  Jason Phillips is a piece of garbage.

Jason Phillips may or may not be a lot of things, but I think calling him a piece of garbage is going a little too far.

Yes, he shouldn't be playing first base on a regular basis. He is a decent catcher (not great) and I would take him as option 2 (or 1a) over the Mayne's and Bako's of the world.

[HomeDePo]

79.  74 - what team did erickson play for and who was the other player who one some sort of an award that year

[Bob Timmermann]

80.  Hatred for Hee-Seop Choi? Hatred? As my father often told me, "hate" is a very strong word.

I sincerely doubt that Jim Tracy has any animus toward Hee-Seop Choi. He might not think he is a very good player. But if he actually, sincerely hated him, he would have told DePodesta to get rid of him.

Tracy starts Choi. He doesn't start him a lot. But he starts him at times.

Saying that Jim Tracy has hatred for Hee-Seop Choi is far more inflammatory than what the situation really is.

[Tommy Naccarato]

81.  I would also like to interject that the guy who should have been the Dodger manager is down in Anaheim....

[HomeDePo]

82.  75 - ouch. and i think he likes garrett anderson

[Vishal]

83.  77. i think this is what jon is talking about with regards to low-value comments that can't be backed up. it's nothing more than bloviation. gasoline meant to ignite.

now, how exactly do you know that "nobody in the club house respects tracy"?

[Telemachos]

84.  Phillips is worth it merely to have Ishii off the roster. He's a perfectly decent backup catcher... it's not his fault his manager has decided he should be the #1 or #2 option at first regardless of all other considerations.

77 That's easy to say, but I doubt it's true. In any case, seems like a statement like that needs some sort of proof.

[Jon Weisman]

85.  72 - an example of a post much stronger on the arguments against Tracy than for a specific replacement, Kevin Kennedy

"He should have had the job twice"

Why?

"I think Kennedy is the perfect blend of the dodger way and some of depo's beliefs."

Why?

"I also think covering the dodgers for 5 years give him a great knowledge of the LA roster."

Why? Bill Plaschke has covered the Dodgers for much longer.

[gvette]

86.  As this team rockets toward 90 losses, there's enough blame to go around (ownership to cheap? irrational exuberance by the GM? inflexible manager? injuries? team just plain not very good?).

But while Tracy has managed very poorly this year, my question is WHY HERSHISER?

While we all want to feel comfortable with a familiar name from the successful past;

1) What are Orel's qualifications to manage the Dodgers? The Texas pitching staff remains mediocre, and the team a non contender;

2)Has he ever managed before? To my knowledge, not even in Winter League.

3)Would he be comfortable with DePodesta's beliefs in putting together and managing a roster? (Assuming that DePo survives 90 losses with his GM powers intact.)

4)If the goal is to hire a familiar face from '88 why would Orel be better than Gibson, Hatcher, Shelby, or other members of that team who are MLB coaches?

[werthgagne31]

87.  with tracy as the manager, i find myself rooting against certain players on the team, the most recent is robles.
why? because i know if they do good in tracy's eyes they will always be in the lineup no matter what, instead of somebody who is better.
and i hate to have to root against any dodger player.
the reason i root against a player such as robles and izturis is because he or they are not a complete player ( no slg, which means no ops).
i want guys in the lineup with high obp and slg which equal high ops.

[Jon Weisman]

88.  76 -

"Does this mean that you have intimate knowledge of what is going on deep in the bowels of the stadium that your not fully sharing? That, your not allowed to write about it and that you can't describe how intolerable the tug of war really is, because your not allowed to?

All of this can be interpreted as you seeing these events first hand. Would this be correct?"

No, no and no.

[Tommy Naccarato]

89.  Thanks! :)

You do have to admit that it could have been read that way, no?

[HomeDePo]

90.  here are some people who want to manage (its not like i want them)

1. Jim Leyland, who has the most instinctive calls for who to bring in in what situation. he has tons of experience but might not dig the west coast

2. Grady Little... no idea what to say about him

3. I think Charlie Manuel signed a one year contract last season so he might be a free agent.

4. Francona's assistant

[Bob Timmermann]

91.  87

Such an attitude is not exactly beneficial to one's mental health. You root for failure so someone else will fail even though overall you want that same team to succeed?

It's just not logical.

[King of the Hobos]

92.  86 I believe the Texas pitching improved a good point in team ERA after Orel took over. Sure they still aren't very good, but they're better. This year's problems stem from all the early injuries to the pen

[Jon Weisman]

93.  89 - I suppose, but would it mean anything?

The point of the post is to have perspective, and the point of the paragraph you excerpted was to show that most of us talking about Tracy and DePodesta can't possibly claim to know everything there is to know.

Even if I saw something firsthand, it wouldn't matter in this context.

[HomeDePo]

94.  79 - since nobody seems to care it is erickson with the twins (led league in wins) and alvarez with the white sox (ROY)

[Telemachos]

95.  I think some of the Robles-hatred is like the Phillips-hatred. Robles is a great bench player and spot-starter. He can play three infield positions (decently well), knows how to take pitches and work an at-bat, gets walks, and hits reasonably well (but with no power).

[werthgagne31]

96.  91-- i don't think you understand what i'm saying,not so someone else would fail, its so someone better gets the chance to start over robles such as perez.
i've rooted against robles so perez would get the starting job instead of robles.
not so someone else would fail, where did you get that idea.

[Bob Timmermann]

97.  Wilson Alvarez was not Rookie of the Year in 1991 and received no votes for the award either.

Chuck Knoblauch was the AL ROY in 1991.

[HomeDePo]

98.  97 - 1992 not 1991... alvarez did not play in 1991

[Telemachos]

99.  96 But by rooting against Robles, aren't you rooting for his failure?

I don't think it's a one-to-one correlation: Robles could fail until the cows come home, that doesn't mean Perez will start at shortshop.

[King of the Hobos]

100.  I'll admit if we enter next season with a bench of Werth/Cruz, Phillips, Robles, Aybar, Saenz, and Ledee, I will have absolutely no probelms with it. If some starters go down and the bench become starters, I still won't complain. However, if other players are becnhed regularly for them to play, I won't be as happy (the latter 2 are good platoon players). I agree completely with Telemachos in 95