Valentine's sit-down with the media.

Cleveland Indians manager candidate Bobby Valentine

3 months ago afh4 33 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Reposted:

These media interviews strike me as stupid. Shapiro and the whole FO has shown such a level of disinterest in cultivating anything resembling a compelling relationship with the media over the past 7 years that to ask candidates to do this now, directly after they interview, just seems ridiculous.

You’ve just gone through an extended interview process, probably hours long, and then you’re asked to answer questions asked by Paul Hoynes. In the miniscule media market of Cleveland. How seriously are you supposed to take that?

Valentine makes a couple of really solid jokes. Good deliveries, nice timing. I don’t care what he says about OPS, I’m fine with him as long as Shapiro makes the directives clear. If Valentine recognizes that he’s to manage personalities and player technique, not strategy (where he ought to play to the book), he’d be fine.

by afh4 on Oct 24, 2009 12:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Valentine makes a couple of really solid jokes. Good deliveries, nice timing. I don’t care what he says about OPS, I’m fine with him as long as Shapiro makes the directives clear.

Yeah, this.

Resident Take the Football References One Step Too Far Guy

by westbrook on Oct 24, 2009 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree. The Indians are, or at least should be, taking this as an opportunity. First, their is a difference between making baseball moves without regards to what the fans think and bad PR. Making the process and the candidates an open process can be appreciated by all the fans.

Also, being able to handle the media, even in the minuscule media market of Cleveland, is a big part of the job description

by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 24, 2009 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also, being able to handle the media, even in the minuscule media market of Cleveland, is a big part of the job description

I don’t think the performance in this type of event, where you answer questions like “Are you interested in this job?” directly after interviewing for said job, reflects much of anything with regards to media savvy.

Do we expect some candidate to eliminate himself by accidentally cursing a handful of times? Or by stuttering a lot?

by afh4 on Oct 24, 2009 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s not going to differentiate many candidates, but it is nice when the face of your organization can handle himself in a press conference.

The larger point is that this is (also) a PR exercise, and that doesn’t work without the media.

by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 24, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it’s an inane PR exercise. I appreciate it, as a hardcore fan, but I can see how the candidates would find it a little wonky and end up saying either very boring things (everyone but Valentine) or very odd things (a jet lagged Valentine).

by afh4 on Oct 24, 2009 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This complaint about doing interviews seems silly. Should we get off your lawn? It’s harmless. It’s a simple interview in front of some weak-to-average reporters. Big deal.

by tabler84 on Oct 25, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t mind them doing it, really. More what I’m doing is responding to the other threads where a lot of commenters want to believe that these little media talkbacks are indicative of much of anything.

To rephras, Valentine was taking a lot of heat for his answers. My response is simply, you get some stupid answers when you set up something this low-stakes and silly.

by afh4 on Oct 25, 2009 12:44 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

Much better stated. I agree completely.

by tabler84 on Oct 25, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was a little worried when Valentine admitted that he has no idea about the current state of the teams in the AL, let alone the AL Central, let alone the Indians. Is this really the guy the Indians want managing their assets? Will 15 scoreless spring training innings by Jensen Lewis get him priority as the 8th inning guy in April? Then I started to think that this may be exactly what the Indians need. Pull back the curtain and tell Valentine, "the talent to win 80 games is right here. Do it however you think you should do it. "

It’s not like he’s going to pull crazy roster stunts and realign talent in mystifying ways, like moving slow-footed , defensively-challenged infielders to the outfield or playing 35+ year old career utility infielders at corner positions in place of prospects. That was Eric Wedge’s forte, and it doesn’t get much worse than that. Could Valentine really do much worse? He went to Japan knowing (arguably) less about the state of that league and his roster, and he developed a winner there. Maybe he had a really great support system in place when he arrived in Japan. The Indians can find him a solid bench coach who knows the league. By no means am I condoning an experiment, but there’s no more outside voice than this guy.

by xrickx on Oct 24, 2009 12:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I largely agree though I think all of the naysayers, and I know there are many, are vastly overrating how much wiggle room Valentine’s going to have for roster deployment.

Shap’s going to hand him the 25-man and he ought to take a pen and mark the approximate ABs each guy should get. Make it clear that this is the company plan and it will be followed, period. If nothing else, I think that’s got to be the legacy of the Wedge era.

Beyond that, let Valentine make some players laugh, screw around with the batting order and tell guys they’re swing is not in one plane.

And, besides, the Indians are so upside down that outside of a handful of guys, do we really care who Valentine goes with for most slots? Like, Jensen can’t start out as the 8th inning guy after a strong spring? Because that’s totally nailed down by who? C. Perez and Sipp? Hardly.

by afh4 on Oct 24, 2009 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No one marks on Bobby Valetine’s scorecard! He’s pretty smart about player roles (maybe that’s just selective memory), but I don’t think he’d be the type to invest too much in spring training stats, for example. He’s the last Mets manager to leave the team on good terms with the fans, for what it’s worth.

by Sam Page on Oct 24, 2009 1:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’d rather have him than Jerry Manual, that’s for sure.

Resident Take the Football References One Step Too Far Guy

by westbrook on Oct 24, 2009 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jensen sucks.

by Roger Dorn on Oct 24, 2009 1:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The reason I was so excited to get rid of Wedge and the reason I don’t want Louvello is because of a player like Jensen Lewis. If Valentine watches tape of him, watches him in spring training, and thinks, “this guy doesn’t have the talent to go anywhere near a late and close situation”- then good. That’s the independent outside evaluation I want.

If the GM is going to dictate number of ABs, nobody, is going to want the job. You can’t expect that and I am pretty sure Shapiro doesn’t.

by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 24, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Louvello

Seriously?

by Jay on Oct 24, 2009 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ha, I guess that’s how I say it in my head.

by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 24, 2009 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If the GM is going to dictate number of ABs, nobody, is going to want the job. You can’t expect that and I am pretty sure Shapiro doesn’t.

I think this is already happening most places and I think most managers are fine with it. It doesn’t have to be reduced to too fine of a point but the GMs clearly identify “starters” and managers realize they have to play them. This is a total non-starter in most discussions because most teams never had to watch Eric Wedge’s lineup hijinks.

by afh4 on Oct 24, 2009 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So Wedge had more power than “most managers”. I just don’t buy this. Playing time is totally a manager’s call. I can see things like pitch counts coming from above, but I think the manager has the say of who plays when and where, almost all the time.

by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 24, 2009 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I assert the absolute opposite. The GM sets the roster and thus dictates player deployment in nearly every category. In any situation where it’s debatable, I don’t think there’s any question that the GM and manager have to come to some kind of consensus and that the GM is the final say. You think Lou Pinella wanted to play Milton Bradley at all? Even one game?

I refuse to believe that a GM is sitting in the luxury box thinking, “Huh. Wonder why that top prospect hasn’t gotten an AB in a month.” If that wasn’t an organizational choice and it’s not in line with organizational goals then the organization has screwed up.

That’s precisely what happened with Wedge and Shapiro. I don’t know if Wedge had “more power” or if Shapiro was just “more deferential” but playing Ryan Garko in the OF was not in line with any organizational goals and shouldn’t have been allowed, period. The GM should’ve said no, you either stop that or you’re being fired. There are a number of these examples over the last few years and they all indicate either:

1-Shapiro didn’t speak up.
2-Shapiro didn’t disagree.

If it’s 1, which I’m operating as if it is, then Shapiro absolutely has to speak up to the next manager. If it’s 2, Shapiro should’ve already been fired.

by afh4 on Oct 24, 2009 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The makeup of the 25 man seriously constricts the managers choices. Opening day 2009- The decision on who is playing CF for the Indians has been made by the roster construction- there is one clear choice. But a Carroll vs. Valbuena type decision- who gets >5 starts/week, who gets <2 starts/week is totally the manager’s.

Of course, the communication between the two is crucial. And that certainly was a breakdown last year.

by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 24, 2009 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And I’ll add, I think this is all a smoke-screen. The Indians will not pay any more for a manager than they absolutely have to and I think that’s a pretty decent policy.

by afh4 on Oct 24, 2009 12:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I like this guy more than Wedge already. Which is pretty easy to accomplish if I think about it. He seems “free” where Wedge seemed “constrained” and actually everyone from the Indians organization Mark and Chris on down seemed to be constrained in general (personal impression here, but someone who deals with people and drawing impressions about people are my job and training, so….take it as you will).

I thank Adam for posting the video, it brings a different perspective to what I had read in the other thread where Valentine’s transcript was posted.

by hans on Oct 24, 2009 2:47 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I thank Adam

Thanks, but Andrew actually posted the video

by APV on Oct 24, 2009 7:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

doh!, sorry about that, Andrew thank you.

by hans on Oct 25, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Connie Mack, Al Lopez and Johnny Sain could be the Indian’s braintrust next year. You think that alone would put us in the play-offs? I’m not so sure.

But say we get Sizemore back next spring – and Westbrook too. Maybe Hafner comes around and Choo goes completely bonkers And then Carmona morphs back into Fausto. Then Cabrera and Valbuena turn into this century’s Omar and Roberto. I wish I could figure out howta do that, cuz then we’d be in business.

Resident LGT results-oriented boob.

by mauichuck on Oct 24, 2009 3:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Having Sizemore and Westbrook back healthy should be a marked improvement (we know what we’ll be getting from both of those guys). I’d be content with just one of those other scenarios panning out.

by Chief WaDrew on Oct 24, 2009 3:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Give me the Sizemore scenario.

by Roger Dorn on Oct 24, 2009 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Come on now…

Resident Take the Football References One Step Too Far Guy

by westbrook on Oct 24, 2009 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

1 year left on your contract, Jake.

by Roger Dorn on Oct 24, 2009 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trade value. I know, we’re sick of it, but reality.

by Jay on Oct 24, 2009 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed. The best way for Westbrook to make up for missing out on Cleveland’s most painful season in many many years is to play well enough through mid-July to make sure he’s not around for the end of the 2010 season.

by APV on Oct 24, 2009 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs