Firday and Girardi

So I figured I'd paste what I wrote about Girardi in the comments - just in case you guys don't read those : 

I have a hard time characterizing Girardi. I guess he's like a Showalter but not as much a martinet. He is definitely a "I'm manager, my decision" guy not the type to be a player's manager type who lets things go if the performance is there, but he doesn't take that to the extremes guys like that usually do, like extra practices or dress codes. It's kind of strictly in between the lines. He also mixes analytics with gut feelings. He is not dismissive of the former, which is why talk of a "more analytic" manager is probably nonsense. You'd have to get a strict number cruncher to find a real difference.

He's good. He's flexible in his line-ups, doesn't mind benching players who aren't performing (stars or not). His biggest issues are learning to manage desperately (he's better but still not good) and, in my opinion, not being aggressive enough on the basepaths. He's a long term thinker - during a season and during a series and it tends to work out just as well as any other method but it can be frustrating if you are used to more "win every game" managing. 


If you think that, along with all those wins and a couple seasons where the Yankees did better than expected, sound good you might wonder why the Yankees let him go. A popular theory is that they wanted someone more invested in analytics, but I don't really buy that as a primary reason. Go back and read articles when Girardi was hired. He does buy into analytics, maybe not full-throated (which honestly I like) but enough so that the difference between him and most "modern" managers is slim. The other reason, which I think has more credence, is they don't think he relates to the players well. In kind of the Buck to Torre transition, the Yankees have a young team - now they need someone who will better connect with those players. Of course - one game from the World Series so I call nonsense on that as well as being a worthwhile reason to fire somebody, but I do think that's more of what's driving this.

Would Girardi be good for the Nats? Sure. He's good for anyone. Would he guarantee a NLDS victory? Eh - take away 2009 and he's a .500 type playoff manager. Like I said - I think his biggest issue is managing in urgent situations. I think he'll set up the team better going into each game, but during it isn't anything special. Of course basically anyone you hire is an unknown, so the question is will you take a guy who is as expected in the playoffs, vs a guy that will be a complete unknown? I guess you would given the time frame.The unknown could learn to be a good playoff manager - but he'd have to learn and the Nats really don't have that time right now. It's either he's good right off the bat or not.


Other notes - Trade for Ramos? You know... I do kind of like that idea. The Rays are forever rebuilding and the contract is short (1 yr) and reasonable (8.5 million). Rays also seem to like to deal with the Nats. I like this. This is fun. Let's do this.

Mike Maddux is gone. I have no idea how important coaches are in general. I have less that that concerning how this coach was important to this team. It's been said the Nats wanted to keep him so it's a shame in that regard but beyond that I don't know.


There's kind of a general feeling of... unsettledness with the Nats. No Dusty, who regardless of whether you think he should have gone or not, had undeniably become a fan-favorite face of this team in 2 years. No Werth, while Dusty was A important face, Werth was  THE important face for his time here. A chance Bryce, arguably the other important player to the fans, will be gone after next season. A chance Rizzo, the architect of a half-decade of successes, could be gone as well. This feels different than a window change. It feels like a paradigm shift. It feels like there's a chance that things will fall apart, as they inevitably always do to all teams, even the best. 

The question is - how much do we trust the Lerners? Sure they don't pay managers well but they've generally brought in good managers. You can do that with low pay when the supply of jobs is so low. We can talk about the deferred money contract hurting FA signings, but they have maintained a payroll that has been competitive, just not the most aggressive. We can say it was a good Stan Kasten who brought in the good Mike Rizzo, who did many good things, but the Lerners had to give the oks and were the ones to bring in Kasten in the first place, weren't they? 

Things could change rapidly in the next 18 months. But how it happens and how it effects the product on the field is still up in the air. The team is still set up for a 2018 division titles, and at least competitiveness in 2019, and as I've said many times, looking beyond 2 years is foolish.  Bring on the off-season!