Baseball Toaster was unplugged on February 4, 2009.
Joe Torre held a press conference at the Rye Town Hilton in Rye Brook, New York at 2pm today. At 4:30 he spoke by phone with Mike and the Mad-Dog on WFAN. From those two appearances as well as the Yankees' official conference call on Thursday, I've been able to piece together the following sequence of events leading to Joe Torre's departure from the team.
In both of his appearances, Torre stressed a need for trust and commitment from the organization and said on WFAN that he felt that trust and commitment begin to disappear following the Yankees' 2004 ALCS loss to the Red Sox, saying, "from that time on, it started going downhill."
Confirming the tone of his press conference after Game 4 of this year's ALDS and the reports of the mood in the clubhouse that night, Torre said that he did indeed assumed that night that he had managed his final game for the Yankees. However, the lack of news from the team in the week that followed led him to believe there was a chance he could keep his job.
General Manager Brian Cashman contacted Torre a few days before the actual offer was made and told him there would indeed be an offer forthcoming, but that it would involve a pay cut.
On Wednesday evening, Cashman told Torre by phone what the actual offer was: one year, $5 million, with million-dollar incentives for making the postseason, the ALCS, and the World Series for a maximum total of $8 million.
Torre traveled to Tampa with Cashman the next morning with the intention of negotiating with the team (though Cashman did tell him that, in Torre's words, "he felt that this offer was it, that there was no wiggle room in it"), or at the very least coming to a face-to-face understanding with the organization. Torre's main goal was to get the team to look beyond this year's playoff loss to his twelve-year record of success. Among the arguments he was determined to make were that none of the last five World Series Champions made the postseason the year after winning the title, something the Yankees did all four times they won the World Series under Torre, and that the Yankees were the only team to make the postseason in both 2006 and 2007.
In Tampa, where it is assumed he met with the same group who took part in the conference call (Cashman, team president Randy Levine, COO Lonn Trost, George Steinbrenner--who was not on the conference call--his sons Hank and Hal, and his son-in-law Felix Lopez), it was immediately made clear to him that the offer was indeed non-negotiable, at which point Torre officially declined it. Torre said that his arguments were "dismissed real quickly. At that point I realized that it was the offer or nothing, so at that point is when I said goodbye. . . . There really was no negotiation involved. I was hoping there would be, but there wasn't." The meeting lasted about 20 minutes, according to Torre.
Torre wanted a two-year deal that would have shown a commitment to keeping him as a manager rather than what he saw as a lame duck. "It's not totally money. It's commitment, and commitment is a two-way street. . . . I think players put undo pressure on themselves when they think they have to save the manager's job. That's the type of pressure I've tried to take out of the clubhouse. . . . Two years would have opened the door for further discussion, but it just never happened."
He also "took exception" to the incentive clauses, which he "took as an insult," and the suggestion that they were required as "motivation," said he "resented" that he would have to accomplish certain things to get back the money taken away from his base salary, saw it as "a punishment." "If someone is reducing your salary, it tells you they're not satisfied with the job you're doing. . . . I didn't need to be reminded that getting to the World Series is what this organization is all [about]. And that this may make you try harder . . . that insulted me, there's no question. . . . It was a generous offer, but it still wasn't the type of commitment of trying to do something together instead of, 'Let's see what you can do for me.'"
It was widely assumed on Thursday that the Yankees' offer was designed precisely so that Torre would reject it, allowing the organization to save face by framing Torre's departure as his own decision. Most saw through that immediately, as did Torre, who would have preferred that the team told him flatly and immediately that they didn't want him back. "I think that would have been a lot more honest," he said on WFAN. Torre said he began Thursday's meeting by asking if the team really wanted him back. They said yes, but he clearly didn't believe them. "If someone wanted me to be managing here, I'd be managing here."
Torre said he did believe that Brian Cashman wanted him back, but was unsure if anyone else did. He said he had a mutual respect with George Steinbrenner, but never had any direct dealings with Randy Levine.
One of the more telling moments in Torre's press conference was when he indicated that he believed that George Steinbrenner's statement during the ALDS and the fact that The Record's Ian O'Connor was able to reach him by phone was orchestrated by the organization. Francesa and Russo pointed their fingers squarely at team president Randy Levine as the man who orchestrated the Steinbrenner statement. Francesa, an unapologetic Yankee fan, was particularly virulent, painting Levine as an interloper from the business side of the organization who is attempting to thrust himself into the power vacuum in the Yankees' front office. It was Levine who announced the offer and Torre's decision in the conference call yesterday, and it is believed that it was Levine who led the movement to get rid of Torre. Francesa called for Levine to be fired, saying that Levine, who joined the team in 2000 after Torre had already won three World Series and was on his way to a fourth, is exploiting his role in the plans for the new stadium to insert himself into the baseball side of the organization despite a lack of knowledge about the game.
Finally, though Torre handled the himself with his usual class, dignity, honesty, emotional openness, and humor today, it's telling that he refused to say that he'd be willing to come back for any ceremonial purposes. Pressed on that point by Francesa and Russo he said, "all of a sudden you just have the feeling that they don't want you around, and the way it was done, it's going to take some time."
Evidently Steinbrenner's expressed that he wants to see Mattingly manage before he dies.
What does that mean? He wanted an open-ended commitment that he could walk away from when he felt like it?
Also, from the above it doesn't sound as if he presented an alternative - that is, there was no negotiation in part because he didn't negotiate.
1 I thought the NY press was being "even-handed".
I have an ugly feeling that we may see the bad old 1980s again.
I don't mind so much that Torre is gone, just the way it was handled.
It seems to me like all the "Fuck Torre!" people are confusing bringing him back with letting him go respectfully.
Pete Abe is reporting that Cash has reached out to Mattingly, Girardi, and Tony Pena - wanted to talk to Trey Hillman but it was too late.
I wondered last week if the holdup was that the Yanks did not want to announce Torre would not be coming back without having a replacement to name at the same time. But obviously it was/is a 2 step process.
You can't blame the Yankees for not wanting to give him that.
From his post it appears that Cash has plenty of power and is doing what he needs to, which is reassuring.
5 Agree fully - thanks for putting the last sentence out there.
Torre never once disgraced the organization. Even after feeling insulted, he acted with class. I guess it's too much to expect the same from everyone else.
If they wanted him back, why not negotiate for, I don't know, half a g-damn hour? If they didn't want him back, why not just say that?
This is straw.
"are confusing bringing him back with letting him go respectfully"
This is begging the question.
11 "Torre never once disgraced the organization"
"Disgraced" is a pretty sad standard. Even so I thought the A-Rod interview ('A-Rod twisted his wedding ring' as I recall) last year was disgraceful.
What, question, exactly, is being begged?
I haven't heard a single person say Torre should have been brought back today. I've only heard something like, "If they wanted him back, why not negotiate for, I don't know, half a g-damn hour? If they didn't want him back, why not just say that? "
And the Arod thing- yeah, that's a huge strike against him as a manager- which, as I explained above, is not the argument. You might think that's a offense worth firing him over. Not the issue at hand. Does it justify offering him a contract they knew he would reject, with no intention of negotiating with him? Not in my book. If that's what they wanted, they should have, as Torre said, just told him. Is it really that unreasonable?
This is not the same as "an open-ended commitment" (talk about straw) -- it is simply a request for a sincere gesture from management regarding their desire to have him manage the team.
What's to negotiate if he would only accept a contract like the one I detailed in 7 ? That is what logically follows from what he said today.
Damn shame, I like Bowa as the 3rd base/IF coach. If Pena doesn't get the job, I can see him leaving too.
Then saying that instead of something else emotional would have been helpful.
17 "Which is exactly why I think the Yankees didn't want him back."
They apparently didn't want him back on the only terms he would accept. Making an offer that was in his words "generous" that wasn't precisely what he wanted isn't disrepectful per se. Not offering him a lame-duck-free job isn't disrespectful period.
From what I heard from the press conference and his interview on the FAN I remember saying he would want more than a 1 year commitment. Nothing about recurring options, and nothing about salary.
I get it that you don't like how Torre handled this, there's no need for you to make up things to try to strengthen your argument.
He did not describe the counter offer he presented. However the impression was clearly given that it was not open ended as to length. It was clear that Mr. Torre did not care to serve as a one year 'lame duck'. It is also clear that he is acting with far more style and grace than many of his supporters and detractors; then again he always has.
I don't think the Yankees wanted him back at all. I think they made him an offer they knew he would turn down just so they could say, "Hey, we tried!" That's how I see it, and that's how Joe sees it. I guess you see it differently. That's the disrespect- not being up front about it, and expecting him not to see through their crap (again, how I imagine Joe felt. Also, "disrespect" is subjective, see the end of the last thread.)
(BTW, that's that for me.)
"If someone is reducing your salary, it tells you they're not satisfied with the job you're doing."
Torre made $7.5 million in 2007. Anything less would be not showing a commitment, apparently.
RECURRING OPTION bit: Torre laments the pernicious effects on players having to play under a "lame duck" manager. Even with a two year contract, Torre would have been a lame duck in the second year. Pity the poor suffering of the Yankee players in 2009 (when Torre is a lame duck). Maybe Torre's 2007 lame duck status is really why they started out 21-29 this year.
Re 2), I was relying on 0 , from which I didn't get that impression.
13 "Does it justify offering him a contract they knew he would reject"
They didn't know he would reject it. They were willing to pay him more than any other manager next year and he said no.
Umm, I totally don't care, I just mistakenly thought you were following the usual convention of by default discussing views expressed on the blog you're commenting at and thought your formulation wasn't helpful. If there's someone somewhere about whom 'It seems to me like all the "Fuck Torre!" people are confusing bringing him back with letting him go respectfully' applies it's not my concern.
English is your first language, yes?
Would you please tell me what part of that statement says something to that fact that he wanted an "open-ended commitment that he could walk away from when he felt like it"
They offered him one year. He asked for 2.
I am not an English major but I believe that would be considered as "an alternative" and possibly construed as opening a "negotiation"
I'm sorry if I sound cruel, it's been a bad few days. But quite honestly, I am staggered by the fact the someone is so skewed by their hatred of Torre, that an otherwise intelligent, well educated person can not accurately interpret a single, simply sentence.
If you're having a bad couple of days because Torre is no longer the manager, take two Valium and log on in the morning. You'd think Torre was the only manager who ever won a World Series.
I'm not a Torre hater, but I'm not sorry to see him go. I think the one thing that's become clear is that Joe is an incredible manager--of his own image.
Simply put, Joe Torre is just an absolute Mensch.
He admits that looking back, he should have argued for a delay during BugGate. He says (proudly) how brave and composed Joba was, that he forgot 'how young' he was, and he should have "PUT HIS ARM AROUND THE KID".
He explains his thinking and choices, never gets defensive, reflects and reconsiders his decisions. He never trashes anyone else, even someone who has trashed him, even if they deserve to be trashed. He is straight, honest, not aloof and above all human in the way he speaks. If only we could find a politician with these qualities.
GOD! I AM GOING TO MISS THIS MAN!
Could happen, could happen.
This is far less bad than what happened to the pitching staff in 2003-2004.
A-Rod.
The FO/ownership (whoever we think is behind this) probably HAS been frustrated since 2004. They seem unwilling to offer more than one year, instead taking a "show me first" stance.
Neither side budged from their initial positions. In this circumstance, the "decision" fell on Torre, and he chose to say no.
Was this all orchestrated from the beginning? If one tends to champion Torre and/or dislike the ownership, then the starting assumption is to be sympathetic to Torre's "side," and think this was all a sham. If one is less obliging to Torre's side of the story, then he or she will b more willing to see the offer as legitimate.
There will likely never be a solution to the debate, unless Cashman (or whover) writes a book and admits, "yeah, we really cornered the old guy." Until then, we'll all go around in circles on the issue.
====
On a related note, however, someone else posted here that coahing firings are rarely not messy--this is particularly true when long-time coaches are not brought back. There is alomost no way a Laundry or a Stengel can be fired/not renewed without one or both sides looking bad. I am not validated or justifying anyone's actions, but I am not convinced that this messy break up signals a return to the "bad old days" because I'm not sure it could have played out much differently.
And yes a $5 mil base salary + $3 mil incentives is a huge step up for every other manager -- but $5 mil was only 2/3 of Torre's current salary. You can't view as anything other than a slap at Torre. It's not like that $2.5 mil is going to make or break the organization.
Personally I think there was some other things going on behind the scenes. Joe did mention that he only dealt with Brian -- not Randy or Hank & Hal or anyone else.
If they didn't want Joe back, all they need to say was "Joe, we'll always think of you as a Yankee, you've been a credit to the organization, #6 is going to be retired and we want you back to hang your plaque in the new stadium. However, we've decided to go in a different direction."
http://tinyurl.com/2amryj
Yeah, because it's that easy.
But they should have just fired him if they were unhappy, and done it quickly. It is funny how many people defend the right of businesspeople to take their time in achieving consensus, presumably because this yields the best possible decision under difficult circumstances.
I've worked in corporate America for many years, and my read of this situation is that it illustrates where consensus can fail or yield a highly suboptimal result -- when the decision is compromised and transparent in its motives, when "corporatespeak" is used to gloss over sensitive situations, and when the human element isn't adequately taken into consideration.
In other words, it shouldn't have taken so long to come up with such a half-assed offer, and the words "sometimes people need to be motivated" should never have been uttered. You don't want the old guy around any longer, fine, but show some respect.
That man is an ass!
No, you sound like an 8th grader.
The point of "open-ended" above was simply that you're always a lame duck if you're not the person who decides whether you'll be working in year n+1. If you look up the definition, you'll see it's clear that a lame duck cannot continue beyond n regardless. And the offer was not for one year you're out. It wasn't even two years you're out upfront afaict.
52 Because the consensus is, that's the best they could have handled it. That's not the consensus today.
Supposed to read:
"You don't agree with yourself?"
It was a horrible attempt at humor anyway... I'll be leaving now...
/attempt to change the direction of this thread
Part of me is glad Mr. Torre is out of it.
From Pete Abe:
Randy Levine on selecting the next manager: "That will be (Brian) Cashman's duty. He will bring the best candidate to ownership and they will decide whether that is who they want. George has always selected the manager, that hasn't changed."
On Joe Torre being "insulted" by the contract offer: "There was no intent to insult Joe, we all have tremendous respect for him. He has had incentive clauses in previous contracts with the Yankees. We were all stunned and remain stunned that he turned the deal down."
Not sure what this tells us, but nevertheless...
Wow, what a clown. Someone should take him aside and say the same thing I wanted to say to pre-2007 A-Rod so many times -- STFU and stop putting your foot in your mouth.
People sentimentalize their baseball teams and forget that these teams are owned by people who do not have a tendency to follow the golden rule.
It just amazes me that people have higher standards for figures in baseball than they do for their politicians.
Before joining the Yankees, Mr. Levine served as New York City's Deputy Mayor for Economic Development, Planning and Administration. He also served as New York City's Labor Commissioner.
Prior to joining the mayor's office, he served as the chief labor negotiator for Major League Baseball, and in 1996 negotiated Baseball's landmark labor agreement that led to the sport's return to prominence.
Mr. Levine was born on February 22, 1955 in Brooklyn, NY. He received a Bachelor of Arts Degree from George Washington University in 1977 and his J.D. from Hofstra University School of Law in 1980. Mr. Levine and his wife Mindy, reside in Manhattan."
http://tinyurl.com/yusdx9
Randy Levine comes from the same man who brought us Bernard Kerik, our next president Rudy Giuliani.
http://tinyurl.com/28mr9d
Maybe this is evidence that your take is wrong.
Also from Goldman: "The manager's primary impact is in selecting that starter, putting together a lineup capable of having that big inning, and fostering an atmosphere of professionalism and commitment in which those things are more likely to take place. "
I feel like any clown could do the first two. I just hope Mattingly or Girardi can do the third.
73 Ugh. At least Hillary just pretends to be a Yankee fan - I wonder if Rudy helped Levine get this job.
I never really got it until now.
That's all I have for now.
'Night all. Be well.
I hadn't seen Goldman's take, but I'm flattered that his take mirrors mine (when I'm capable of reasoning lucidly, which is only once in a great while). Of course, it really is just common sense...if businesspeople want to make a clean decision stripped of emotion and principles of "respect", then fine...but don't act surprised if popular opinion is negative, and the transparency of it all invites further scorn.
Argue all you want but there is a bttom line here (or 2)
1) $2m, in context, means little to Joe, and virtually nothing to a team with a $%400,000 annual nut.
2) The Yankees are a rich and powerful organization. If they wanted Torre back, and were willing to compromise/negotiate a small distance, Torre would be back.
And as a few have already pointed out, this whole thing is NOT about the money.
"Unless the new guy gets a better offer than Torre did, such as a two-year guarantee (which would underscore the organization's true lack of interest in retaining Torre)..."
Not necessarily true.
"A change should be made when you have a better alternative, not for its own sake or because you're mad at someone."
That's just not true. If it is deemed that the current situation is so bad that ANY change holds out significant prospects for improvement, then change should be made. I'm not saying that this was the case with Torre ("he's such a bad manager that ANTONE would be an improvement..."), only that Goldman's articulation is flawed.
We have the press conference and Torre's WFAN interview. There are a number of media articles. We have plenty of facts that can be discussed. Why are people throwing things that have NOT been said out there, as if they were fact?
But, still, feelings aside, I don't think that anyone here would say that they've been completely satisfied with Torre's performance over the last three years. The debate is a matter of the degree.
The Yankees' offer was a milquetoast compromise and Joe was offended. Most see a plot behind the offer, but that may genuinely be the contract that they thought Joe deserved. Joe thought he deserved 2 years/$15 million. The sides didn't agree and parted ways
How is Goldman's past criticism of Torre's performance (much of it scathing and referenced frequently by Torre critics here, with some justification) inconsistent with what he said in the article:
"the crime is not in letting Torre go. If the Yankees felt it was time for a change, swell. That's their prerogative, and they may not be wrong to exercise it. You can make strong arguments either way. That said, have the guts to do it cleanly, and don't try to fool Torre's fans both on and off the field"
And I don't see Goldman's call for perspective in analyzing the impact of a manager's game decisions as somehow contradicting what he has done before -- tactical analysis and a bigger picture view of situations can certainly co-exist in a fertile mind. If anything, it is "intellectually dishonest" to pretend intelligent people don't occasionally contradict themselves.
But if this is just about Goldman being a bum because he's showing some sympathy for the way Joe was treated, hey, carry on with the "obvious counterarguments".
Blaming Levine to me is a cop out. Hes a lesser version of Larry L, true, but the Sox are doing just fine with that, now aren't they?
I just find it funny that the thing that Torre finally found insulting, after years of abuse from George and the press (money does help), was, well, less money and years. As I said, if they had just turned that incentive stuff to guaranteed, 100% he'd be back.
And don't get me started on the press. The same press that hammered Joe when he was hired, the same press that throughout THIS YEAR hammered him and questioned him, now suddenly is his best friend and deeply in love with him? Please, I'm not buying it.
If all most people are really upset about is that the Yankees took an extra week to decide what to do and then offered Torre a contract that was not ideal according to his standards and then didn't let him try and renegotiate, then come on. They didn't exactly bad mouth him or kick him to the curb or burn his effigy. Its hardly the greatest insult known to man. Yes, it wasn't begging him to return and letting him know ASAP that he wasn't coming back, but its just a freaking week guys.
Shouldn't you be just as mad at Andy Pettitte, whose player option was signed under the understanding that he would pick it up if healthy? Or Rivera, who may decide to follow more money rather than loyalty?
If
""I just felt that the terms of the contract were probably something I had the toughest time with," Torre said during a press conference at the Rye Town Hilton, near his home in suburban Westchester County. "The one year, for one thing; the incentives for another thing. I had been there for 12 years, and I didn't feel the motivation was needed...
...Five million dollars is a lot of money, and I'm not going to sneeze at that. I'm not going make that this year, so it's certainly not something I take for granted. But the fact that someone is reducing your salary, it's telling me that they're not satisfied with what you're doing. ... Two years certainly would have opened the door to have further discussion, but it never happened.""
He was not happy with salary, clearly. He was without a doubt not happy with the incentives and the length of the contract.
In any case, even if your point is conceded, my post at 42 is not affected at all. It boils down to: Torre wanted two years at least, and would not consider anything less (as indicated in the bold text above: two years was the sine qua non for Torre to negotiate); the Yankees would not offer more than one year. Ergo, both sides were intransigent on the key issue--the length of the contract.
It's clear to me that the business model (using a term they mentioned yesterday in justifying their moving on) is out-of-whack. What truly is the mission of the Yankees? To win the World Series? For whom, themselves so they can throw a tiny parade for themselves in Legends Field? I will not let these empty suits speak for me as a fan. Their souls are anchored firmly to the bottom line while claiming to know what the fans want and what the players need, and perhaps I speak for myself, but that is unacceptable to me.
It is unclear what can be done about it; I'm ready to guess that the Steinbrothers are thinking they might be in over their heads right now since the only people who have spoken on their side is Levinconpoop and Cash (who I suspect will be the next one on the hot seat), but time will make a difference one way or another.
As for Torre, as I said yesterday, I'm okay with Torre not being manager as he left pretty much on his own terms; he did not accept a contract that compromised his principles, whether you agree with that or not. I absolutely despise the way this was handled; like they hated him but did not have the balls to say so. I don't have respect for people who can't stand behind their words, who need a consensus to make up their own minds and who sacrifice others to gain solely for themselves. Torre may not have deserved to be manager any longer in some people's minds, but he deserved to be treated better if this was to be the last of it.
No one should expect less than to be treated with that kind of respect, no matter what you do. That people feel the need to lie, hide behind someone else or fumble around for a way to please people who don't make a difference to them except to pay their own bills is why I feel so cynical and sarcastic when thinking about them. It is not by law that we should be treated well, but by nature. No matter how much money the man made above anyone else, Torre has easily related to the average, well, Joe. We feel the things he feels because he relates to us in a way we respect, otherwise there would be no such outpouring in the media and even here. Torre was maybe a hero to many of you; I admired him for his decency and his blue collar ethics.
That he is human and capable of wrong things himself would in many a judgmental mind paint him as a hypocrite, but I defy anyone to tell me who among anyone in Yankee history has not made the types of errors in either management or judgment he has made and still not only succeed beyond anyone's expectations, but command more respect than anyone during his time as manager? Envy and greed are natural components of human nature, but Torre seemed to balance those elements well enough to not allow them to motivate his decisions in the dugout or out of it. Not so for the people who see themselves as the authority figures in this unnecessary drama. Cowards!
I've said enough. I would go on all night if I had the energy or the idea that anyone here would agree or take into consideration what I was saying. Not to mention that this is not meant to be a post; I know you'll see it here and you can choose the special ignore feature that Ken subliminally installed in your comment field. You don't have to agree, and I will not lambast you if you don't, but... aw the hell with it, what am I fighting for here? Can anyone at least help me get to a clear and concise point that even I can agree with?
I'm not so sure of that at all. Even if money is important, it definitely seems that years count far more.
Don't know if you've been reading the comments, but a LOT of people here (myself included) feel the same way. The Goldman article posted agrees as well.
So, I'm greatly looking forward to discussing our new manager, whoever that will be. I hope Eilland winds up as pitching coach. I'd be happy with any of the 3 names mentioned by Cash. I've gotta feel that Mattingly has the inside track.
Here's a short concise point for you, Chyll - when one tries to play the PR game to CTA (cover their ass), it never works. Man up to what you're doing instead of trying to hide it, and you'll at least be respected.
I can think of quite a few famous people who could stand to learn this lesson, in addition to the Tampa Trio.
101 Good luck changing the topic of discussion, seamus. I wish you well.
That's my take and my feeling on this as well. What ever else this day is to me it is a sad one. Watching Mr. Torre operate with his sense of calm and air of dignity made me wish he was still there for us. It's personal and it's peculiar to my own sense of things. He was never perfect as a manager of my team but he was better and more successful and did it longer than anyone I can remember and I go back a long time. I suspect many of us will only realize how good he was in the years to come.
As much as we say that the world shouldn't work like this and that we need perspective and its about respect, but Joe Torre is a very rich man who has been given all the respect in the world. To call this a lack of respect bugs me, because I have been disrespected in far worst ways and I actually think focusing on this takes away from the real injustices that are often done to people. Capitalism is shit (I am, after all, a grad student), and it often makes people lead horrible, pitiless existences nobody should ever have to even have nightmares of, let alone live through, and to say that Joe Torre was disrespected and deserves better than this just bugs me. Like I said, for better or for worse, and its hardly something ideal, but that we could all be so disrespected!
I hereby retract all arguments I have made that this situation was more complex than it has been presented. Rather, I hereby affirm that Steinbrenner, his worthless sons, and their money-grubbing minions are all evil; they hate humanit and have no respect for human dignity; they hold all employees but especially the fans in contempt. By contrast, Joe Torre is a man of absolute principle; he is not motivated by any selfish concerns; he was completely open to dialogue and compromise. This whole situation was completely mishandled by the Yankees, who wronged Joe Torre in every respect and in the process deepely offended humanity. And it wasn't about money.
There, can we move on now?
Interestingly enough though, Torre stated that he was concerned that the players would press themselves in an effort to save his job, which essentially they did. That these same players rallied behind him when this whole thing took place says a lot about the respect that he commanded in that clubhouse; perhaps without Steinbrenner's meddling, the club could have come back and beaten Cleveland. Did we not all shake our heads in disgust when Steinbrenner ran his mouth? In my mind, this was his mistake and as usual, he tried to scapegoat someone else. I'm not saying Torre didn't make mistakes, but that Steinbrenner and his cohorts compounded them.
Now they want to act like they had nothing to do with him turning them down. If it were about trying to find a way to agree on something, the meeting would have lasted longer and Torre would have been there from the get-go. This was Corporate Politics Alchemy 101 lab period, complete with plentiful samples of alloyed bullshyt and where mistakes are washed away and forgotten about by next Opening Day.
This is not the place to do a point-by-point refutation of Goldman's argument. Still, to summarize, what Goldman says is not inconsistent with the following interpretation of events:
1. The Yankees have had a wishy-washy attitude about Joe since after the 2005 season (this attitude was justified, in light of Goldman's past criticism, particularly his scathing criticism concerning Torre's treatment of A-Rod during the 2006 post-season).
2. The fact that Torre already had a contract played an important role in their decision to keep him after 2005 and 2006.
3. The wishy-washy attitude only had a chance to be expressed when it came time to offer him a new contract.
4. The new offer expressed that attitude and Torre was offended.
5. Torre's refusal of their offer was a tipping point and led them to decide to let him go.
Goldman's a smart guy, but he ignored this interpretation and he essentially wrote a Mike Lupica column.
Also, Torre's ability to insulate players meant something different in his era than it did in the previous years of the Steinbrenner regime. When the Yankees were winning in the post-season from 1996-2001, Steinbrenner's criticism was necessarily muted. After that, Steinbrenner started to mellow and then to fade. I simply don't believe that Torre's "ability" to insulate the players would have been at all effective in say, 1983.
That's definitely the kind of thing that happens in business every day, and most of us know that. This was either incompetent or deliberate or both.
I wish that this concern for "respect" expressed by baseball fans would be reflected in the political sphere, the world of everyday people. I really see the people who are personally offended by the great Torre "affront" as not that different from the people who were upset about the "injustice" perpetrated on Paris Hilton by our legal system.
I'm with ya Chyll.
You have a good heart.
A true southern Gentleman.
(HA!)
:)
You went from somewhat reasonable to condescending. Nice.
Some idiots tried to defend Paris Hilton after she went to jail for a damn DUI. And you're saying those people are the equivalent of people who think the Yankees should have just said "Joe, you've done wonderful things, but we're moving in a different direction. Thanks for everything you're a Yankee for life."
Yup. I'm going to take you seriously now.
Juan Pierre sucks!
A nice thought, but you really should read John Helyar's Lords of the Realm.
http://tinyurl.com/2yb4la
123
I was kidding about Paris Hilton, but I'm just temperamentally immune from feeling personal sympathy for the pain, not brought upon by tragedy, of millionaires whom I don't know.
or that I was saddened by the death of Sergio Vieira De Mello enough to write an elegy:
http://rosenschale.blogspot.com/2007/10/elegy-for-sergio-vieira-de-mello.html
- but then you might decide that's TMI.
I'll tell you something else: I read a column in the Daily Rues this morning essentially recapping Torre's tenure which included references to the things that happened to him and the players along the way; the cancer scares, three players losing their fathers the same year, the triumphs and disappointments. I did, I started crying.
I said I would never wish what happened to me on anyone, even anyone I hated. But I can't imagine what Torre had to go through in those years and what he had to be for so many others in need of something.
I tried to take something from that, and perhaps I'm not that crazy for emotionally tying a string to them. I can accept change, whether I like it or not, because I have to. But my only problem is I tend to anticipate sympathy where it shouldn't or doesn't need to be.
I'm sorry for lashing out. I regret that my emotion got the better of me in my last comments. I'll try better to temper myself and focus on adding something of substance and not just reverberating or taking away from it.
emotion: Good
respect: Good
Levine: Bad
nuance: bad
complexity: bad
There is a certain coldness that runs through this thread that is somewhat off putting; all this capitalism, perspective and nuance is making me sleepy.
139 ...zzzzz If you caption you're comments with snoozes, people will think you're nuts. But then, I never claimed I wasn't. Maybe I am, maybe not, but I know I was supposed to go to bed two hours ago, g'nite zzzzz...
"Today Brian Cashman reached out to Don Mattingly and expressed the New York Yankees interest in Don becoming a candidate for the current managerial position. Don confirmed his interest and will travel to Tampa early next week to meet with Yankee ownership. No other details are available tonight."
I'm guessing Mattingly the in over his head, but here's hoping for the best.
I'm just trying to make the various narratives fit together without contradiction.
OK, it's too late and I'm geetting snarkier than usual (??!!).
Why is everyone turning on Joe? Even if you think he was a bad manager, why do people all of a sudden think of him as a jackass?
But when so many people write "good for Joe for telling the Yankees to shove it," and further opine about how awful it is working for Steinbrenner/sons/Levine, how "dysfunctional" the organization is, how inhumane employees are treated, etc...it becomes harder not to implicitly damn Mattingly at the same time (if he should take the job). In this narrative he is either or fool or mercenary.
But, this is probably not how the Mattingly narrative will be written. So, there will (most likely) be a narrative dissonance--and this fascinates me from a historiographic perspective.
From a baseball perspective, I think Mattingly would do fine, but if he does screw up he'll be under heightened scrutiny because if his lack of managerial experience.
"Mattingly was fiercely loyal to Torre throughout this ordeal."
Yes, but doesn't that fierce loyalty dictate, on some level, that Mattingly should not take (or would not want to take) his old job, with or without the latter's blessing? In his fierce loyalty, might he even threaten to walk? So, if he takes the job, the conflicting narratives must be reconciled--it will be fascinating to watch how and how successfully the narratives are woven together.
Will we be OK in the future under a new manager? Absolutely. Was it time for Joe to go? Perhaps. What we cannot lose sight of is that the Yankees hierarchy has jettisoned a fundamentally decent man in a manner ill befitting his dedication to the team, the love of his players, and his record.
In my mind, baseball is at a point in which people can view it as a business or as a pastime. A lot of you may think that's an esoteric point, but it's not. Hmm. I've written the following sentence several times, but it hasn't come out quite right. Let me try this time, and maybe clarify when I'm less inebriated. If baseball is a business, then relative advantage means everything. If you achieve a WS win, do we forgive steroid abuse? Is it a means to our desired end or does it somehow breach the hard-to-define ethical lines of baseball? What happens if we -- pacified by our tickertape parade and trophy -- don't look? Do you really trust Randy Levine to respect those lines? I don't.
There is a tension between winning and playing, between ends and means. I was tremendously proud of the 2007 Yankees franchise, moreso than I have been since the late '90s. For the first time, they struggled, and I struggled with them. Despite the 1st round loss in the postseason, I felt that this team overcame more, worked more, pulled together more than most NYY teams. In the early summer they came to a point of no return and they fought it off to become the AL wildcard. I can't deny Torre's culpability in the early slump, but I also can't deny the joy I felt as he piloted this team to one of it's most meaningful posteeason appearances. Anyone who wants to bury Torre's contributions should peer downriver at Shea, where the empty seats and echoing postseason stillness bear solemn witness to true managerial failure.
Torre was an old man, a good man, a good manager. I will miss him.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gAJTzMq2VAA
(Also, WTF are we doing awake?)
Even though they will take a beating in the media (who essentially are more friends of Joe than objective observers), I think the business trio of Levine/SteinbrennerX2 were honest on their approach. They didn't love Torre...they were skeptical...they might have even preferred another manager...but ultimately, they were willing to make him an offer to comeback in 2008. Torre decided that if they didn't show him love, he would walk away. That's all well in good, but when it comes down to it, Joe walked away because of his own pride. And, as we all know, pride comes before the fall.
Best of luck to you Joe. Thanks for memories. But, no apologies whatsoever.
WW: "Bowa had said in the past that Torre was the reason why he was on the team."
Luhud:"This is bad news for the Yankees as Bowa is the best third-base coach in the business and an excellent infield instructor. He has made a major impact in the career of Robinson Cano and it was his work all spring that helped Alex Rodriguez improve his fielding so much."
And so it begins.
It is reported that Bowa is 'expected', but not signed yet.
Can you think of a reason Bowa has let it get this far, if he was planning on staying?
It didn't seem like he wasted much time to me.
But you are correct... it ain't a done deal yet.
What exactly was the "major impact" on Cano's career? That he started slow again and actually finished the season with slightly worse numbers?
As for A-Rod's fielding, let's see. In 2004 he committed 13 errors, 12 in 2005, 24 in 2006, and 13 in 2007. Bowa gets credit for A-Rod's fielding in 2007? But what about 2006, when Bowa was also on the clud? Or, what about A-Rod's very good defense in the years before Bowa? And isn't this the same Bowa who aliented the Phillies' players when he was manager?
Oh wait, I forgot, this all doesn't fit the narrative. Ignore what I just wrote, I'll try again...
Yes, another good man has left the fold, following in the large footsteps of Joe Torre. Once again, SteinCo's tasteless tactics have driven away a paragon of humanity and the finest at his position. Scratch another 5 wins off next year's season, and stay tuned as the exodus continues.
And as for Bowa...meh. He was a good 3rd base coach, but 3rd base coaches aren't that hard to find. Pete A., on the other hand, is just looking for ways to trash the Yankees FO at this point to prove his point, just as he did with Hughes, Phelps, Stink, Edwar etc. When he decides that something is as such, he puts all his efforts into spinning the news, however insignificant it is, towards that point while at the same time actually attacking the people.
As little as I like Randy Levine, I was actually really surprised at how much Pete A. attacked him as a person, quite unprofessional..
Anderson's column is pro-Torre but not anti-FO. Roberts doesn't get any page-views from me but from the headline is apparently anti-FO.
"I just called him because I wanted to be here early," Cano said. "I've got to start working hard. And he said, 'No problem.' "
Bowa, who said he was stunned by the call, was eager to take Cano up on his offer. Every other morning at spring training, before the team's main practice, Bowa has worked with Cano, Miguel Cairo and Felix Escaloña on a back field.
After Cano missed a ball to his backhand in a game, Bowa hit grounder after grounder to that spot the next morning. In that day's game, Cano made a flawless backhand on the first ball hit to him. Then he made eye contact with Bowa in the dugout.
"I like the kid," Bowa said. "He wants to be the best."
---http://tinyurl.com/hn36n
Sure, he's not irreplaceable, but he'll be tough to replace nonetheless.
And really, will he be hard to replace?
Yes, he will. Read the article, it seemed like many people on the team had close relationships with him. I'll bet he's gotten a dozen phone calls today from current Yankees alone.
And it's not like he gave Jeter/Arod bad advice. He was an excellent fielder and definitely knows his stuff. Fielding grounders is pretty static; it's not like you have to learn new methods. Jeter's regression was probably just to his naturally low mean or injury. Arod's shitty fielding in '06 (though, don't his advanced fielding stats look pretty good? That's what I thought) might be because he was a head case that year, or maybe he simply didn't click with Bowa. Not everyone can be coached by anyone.
Still, when it appears like a majority of the team got along well with him, and he didn't have any glaring negative qualities, yes, that's tough to replace.
Let me ask you this- do you honestly, truly think Luis Sojo was as good of an IF coach?
I just don't get you people, and I'm giving up now. There are a half dozen people on this board who have a "Leaving? Well, who needs you anyway!" attitude. No, the Yankees shouldn't make him the manager, and they shouldn't offer him 5 million a year. That does not mean that he will be easy to replace. Jeez.
Somehow the team managed to win basically the same number of games before Bowa's arrival as after. He seemed to be an aggressive 3B coach (in a good way). He did a goood job. I'm not convinced this loss means much of anything.
This is all just fabricated drama, but if it fits the narrative that the departure of the 3B coach is an insurmountable obstacle, more evidence of FO and ownership incompetence, and a sure sign of impending implosion--I can go with that too.
Of course life goes on and we are not losing sleep over the 3rd base coach, but that doesn't mean we can't appreciate any and all contributions that different people have made over the years.
I'm pretty sure I said the exact opposite of that, but thanks anyway. I guess putting words in my mouth (er, keyboard) fits your narrative, that there's absolutely nothing wrong, at all. All I tried to do was point out that this is yet another hole the Yankees have to plug, and there's a decent chance they don't plug it as well as they did last time.
To repeat what I just said, "I'm giving up now."
But does that mean we should bring back Luis Sojo or Harry Pelotas?
188 Apparently, you missed the memo that the suck the Yankee organization butt narrative is "everyone who leaves the Yankees is useless, have no value, and should be kicked in the ass no matter their contributions." This the mantra of the Randy Levine clones. I'm going to love watching how they react if Levine does play hard ball and Alex Rodriquez he opts out of his contract and leaves the Yankees.
Hear, hear.
I don't know, the Yankees never won any playoff series WITH Bowa, and sure, he may have helped Cano with his fielding, but the new 3B coach might help some other player. Every coach we have seems to have some story with some player, whether it is Soho, Willie, Pena, Mattingly, Zimmer, Tuck, Guidry. Its pretty much what those coaches do. I have no worries that Bowa leaving will somehow change anything.
Pena, on the other hand, I think is really valuable as the liaison to the Latino players, which HAS been documented, and I would actually really like to see him get serious consideration for the managerial job. I don't think it will happen, but I think he deserves the shot...
Bowa was the best third-base coach I've seen in quite a while, and I wish they had made him the bench coach rather than Mattingly. (I don't think any of us can speak to his value as an infield coach.) One thing I really appreciated was that, last year, he was the first Yankee I ever heard say that Jeter "doesn't get to all the balls that some other shortstops do." ("But he makes up for it in other ways," of course.)
And having said all that, it doesn't really matter. The difference between an average 3b coach and the best in the world is, what, 3 runs a year?
I imagine the pitching/BP coach will def. be decided by Cashman...
My plan for reversing global warming: harness the hysterical energy of people outraged over the 3B coach leaving.
I thought Bowa was a fine 3B caoch, I'm just not that upset he's leaving.
I hate to be that douche, but some people here are getting ridiculous. Nobody is, to quote the resident lady, losing sleep over this. To quote myself, the Yankees shouldn't make him the manager, and they shouldn't offer him 5 million a year.
But some people react to this by saying, "Whatever, he didn't do anything for us anyway." I just don't understand why. Me? It's thanks for the help, Bowa, and happy trails.
I've read over all the comments since the Bowa announcement and I don't see any hysteria. What in particular did you have in mind?
If Bowa stays.
"Bowa would like to stay with the Yankees. His year-round home is outside Philadelphia, and his daughter Tori is in law school on the East Coast. However, he also wants to have a job. Bowa said he probably needs to give the Mariners an answer within the next few days and doesn't expect the Yankees to have a manager that soon. "I had a great time here, great organization. It's the best organization," Bowa said of the Yankees. "But there's no guarantees if you pass something up that something else is going to come along.""
jk jk jk
I'm kind of wondering where Jeter is. Probably drowning his sorrows in expensive booze and strippers.
Didn't Girardi take playing time from Leyritz?
210 Yeah, Girardi did take pt from him. They were basically opposite players.
Though I do wonder if there is anything to be said that he once played with some of the guys and that could be awkward.
http://tinyurl.com/2cye3h
Who, I agree, don't exist. See the discussion of 5 . 181 says we should take a balanced view of the impending turnover, and I agree.
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.