How valuable are managers....really?

   This isn't necessarily a rant or opinion, like most of our blogs are. I have always wondered how valuable a manager/coach is in the game of baseball. I will go back for 20 years or so and talk about some examples of each theory. There are a lot of examples of teams where it was obvious a manager had value, and others where you know damn well that they would have won a World Series regardless. I think that the late 90's Yankees teams could have had anyone with a remote baseball mind coach that team to multiple championships based on their lineup. That is not a personal shot at Torre, but he always won with a huge payroll and great talent, and when he failed to make the playoffs in the mid-late 2000's, he didn't make it long in the Bronx. The BoSox of 2007 were insanely talented, I think they would have had a shot regardless, and it sounds like some of the antics that went on in the Boston clubhouse show that maybe Tito Francona wasn't at the wheel for quite a while (let alone the historic collapse). The Yankees of 2009 won it big in Girardi's first season there, and his game-management qualities or lack there of are torched by the New York media daily.

   I do think that in case of the the three aforementioned managers that there is something to be said for maintaining a sane clubhouse with a team of high payroll, high talent, and large ego-ed mega-stars all on the same team. I don't want to turn this into a Cardinals/TLR love fest, even though I am a homer. I think the Cardinals of 2011 did what they did partly because Tony managed the best post season of his career. It was blatantly obvious in the World Series especially (barring the phone/bullpen fiasco) that the Cardinals were far and above a better managed team. The Whitey-ball era in the 80's, while inconsistent year-to-year, were very well-managed and disciplined clubs. I thought Bruce Bochy did a great job in 2010 with the Giants, who were offensively challenged (Lincecum, Cain, Bumgarner, and Wilson had a hand in it as well). The Phillies are a high payroll and hugely talented club, and no doubt that Charlie Manuel is a great game manager, but they have overall disappointed only winning one World Series with all of that talent. Bobby Cox to me is very overrated, because he should have won more than one World Series in his run with the amazing talent on each side of the field with the Braves all of those years.

   Then I look at a guy like Jim Leyland, who has won a couple of World Series' with some teams that were talented, but didn't have the highest payroll or 5 giant billboard seeking mega-stars on the same club. I pair him with Tony in that respect, although Tony had some of those monster teams in the late 80's with Oakland and in the early/mid 2000's with the Birds' (as did Leyland for a short time in Pittsburgh). I always had trouble believing that Dusty Baker was a great manager, considering how loaded the Cubs teams were (despite the curse B.S.). When a Dusty Baker team would choke in the playoffs, they always looked horrible doing it, which meant a lot of errors an general malaise in their play. I can go on for an hour citing examples of each argument, but I don't think it is conclusive, other than good managers are good regardless of payroll, talent, and even winning. What about a first year manager? It hits home with Matheny, but I think with his support and the fact that Carpenter and Molina can coach the pitching staff alone, he will suffice. Just ask D Backs' fans, Kirk Gibson was great out there last year. I would really like some feed back from you as readers and/or fans. Please e-mail me @ jstafford@moralebreaker .com or post a comment or status on our Facebook page. Thanks for reading-Joe.