Assuming Wang is effective, particularly with his sinker, I wonder if Girardi would consider playing Pena at SS during his starts.

From earlier thread (moving here as it looks as if we tend to slide to the top thread in the morning!). Rich wrote of Girardi and handling bullpens "Girardi showed signs of being able to do that last season. He has regressed this season."

I am honestly (not faking this) unsure how a manager 'regresses' ... does he get dumber, like 'Charley in the movie (anyone old enough to remember it? Or the short story, "Flowers For Algernon" that inspired it?).

Girardi is a bit too young to be senescent, I doubt he's lost his general baseball knowledge, or that a well-paid squad of advisors have all lost it collectively. We might claim some things are 'obvious' but ... and I say this a lot ... we aren't in the clubhouse, we aren't watching the warm up sessions, AND relievers are a complete firedrill of good-then-bad-then-good. Arredondo last year was lights-out, this year he's really shaky. Look at Cleveland's pen ... maybe best example. A major strength last year and utterly lost this year. At least ours was mediocre last year and mediocre this year!

Sometimes this 'we know so much better' sounds like call-in radio! I'll say it again: I am not a Girardi fan yet, but it mainly has to do with handling New York, not handling the bullpen. And I don't think he's at all set in stone with lineups and that includes the pen. As our new poster said, relievers can make you look awfully good, or get you fired.

BP had an interesting bit a few days ago on managers' willingness to bring in relievers mid-inning with tiring starters, and others who try to let the starters finish an inning. They suggest a trend here that shows up. Madden in Tampa is quick to let bullpens inherit a runner, Girardi apparently tilts towards trying to get his starters through an inning then start the pen clean. I find it intriguing, but surely a lot of this also has to do with personnel, not just a manager's style. (Dalring and Boomer yesterday were going on about making your starter finish, or get as close as he can.)

[2] I agree in that unless he got hit really hard in the head or developed some brain disorder or disease (not trying to be funny there), Girardi's not getting dumber as a manager per se. I will also go with what you allude to about his handling of New York in general, which plays a bigger part in a player or manager's ability to play for or run a team here than most people are willing to admit. I tend to think that the championship teams we've had for the most part have played well in spite of us more often than not. Those teams that rallied around each other were often bonded by bad experiences that they shared a commitment to overcome.

That said, perhaps Girardi is not as experienced as his predecessor in dealing with NY's BS (or to be frank, the BS of life in general), but the question then is, given what he's capable of doing as a manager, are you willing to invest the time for him to gain that experience? And if not, who among the available and willing would you replace him with at this point of the season, given that he has to also have a good handle on dealing with NY?

[1] In what year?

[2[] I think the regression (I'm not married to that word) is partly the result of three factors: a) Mo's sometimes slow recovery from offseason surgery; b) Joba's absence from the pen; and 3) Farnsworth no longer being in NY.

Taken together, they gave Girardi two and a half very solid options to handle most high leverage situations. In turn, that enabled him to feel like he had the freedom to trust less experienced relievers like Bruney; Ramirez, Ohlendorf, and Veras.

The point that I made on the other thread remains. It's easy to be a good manager, including the handling of the pen, when you have several studs available virtually every day. The test of a manager is when he has to think outside of the box and trust less experienced relievers whose major accomplishments have been success in the mLs and/or college.

Given the way that Girardi handled Melancon and Robertson, never giving them a chance to succeed while affording far less talented relievers like Veras, Ramirez, and Alby repeated opportunities to pitch despite their ineffectiveness, the inescapable conclusion is that Girardi has not passed that test to this point.

I do, as I said on the other thread, credit him for giving chances to Coke and Aceves, but Melancon and Robertson could really help this team if they are shown the patience and confidence they need to make the transition to the MLs. Enduring a little short term pain will likely yield significant mid to long term gain.

Man, Jennings is good, isn’t he?

yes, yes he is.

Alex, the link to his blog is still pointed at the old location, can you have someone update it?

i'm sure Chad would appreciate it!

;-)

[2] Good points.

[4] Agree about Veras. Alby has teased us a little bit more, while still failing. Not sure which games you've been watching re: Melancon and Robertson. Other that one or two flashes of competance they have both, frankly, sucked as well. Thus, to repeat my point from a previous thread, for a period of 2-3 weeks surrounding the 2 Boston series every single guy Girardi called on went out there and flopped. Every one, the guys you like and the ones you don't. Even Mo. I just don't get what you would have a manager do during a period like that. IMO it was a direct result of overload due to lousy starts. As that gets straightened out and the bullpen's load gets manageable we're seeing more consistancy.

You seem to suggest that a smarter manager would have figured out a way to win in spite of the fact that all his pitchers sucked, and no one could get a hit with runners on base. You're a tough grader. I call it a slump and teams will usually emerge from them in spite, not because, of managerial brilliance. Just my opinion.

[6] Other than one or two....
Sorry.

Did anyone see Maddon forget to put a DH in the lineup in yesterday’s game? Sonnanstine batted 3rd for the Rays… Could you imagine what would’ve happened if that happened here? Heads would’ve exploded?

[6] That's the point. It's far too short-sighted to assess young talented pitchers on a small handful of ML outings when they have these career mL stats:

Melancon:

WHIP: 0.95 K/9: 9.1 ERA: 2.03

Robertson:

WHIP: 0.94 K/9: 12.7 ERA: 1.27

What I think a manager should do, as I have already stated, is to demonstrate patience in these young, talented relievers because they have so much upside that even if they suck in the short-term, enduring that suckiness can be an investment that will almost certainly yield huge dividends in the relatively near future.

In contrast, enduring the suckiness of Veras, Ramirez, and Alby will almost certainly ensure that they will continue to suck forever, even if they tease you with occasional effective outings.

Melancon and Robertson have a track record of success in college and the mLs that give them the pedigree that makes it more likely that they will have successful ML careers.

Veras, Ramirez, and Alby are fungible relievers who have kicked around several organizations.

Also, look at their respective ages: Melancon and Robertson just turned 24, while Veras will be 29 in October, Ramirez is 28,.and Alby will be 27 in October.

I don't necessarily think it's being smart unless patience and foresight are an aspect of intelligence rather than personality.

Granted teams slump, but sometimes slumps offer opportunities for future success if that opportunity is exploited. Unfortunately, Girardi failed to take the road less traveled.

I'm very happy Wang was finally able to get the attention he obviously needed. I would argue this should have taken place during the winter prior to his reporting to ST, rather than after the season began. I have posted as much here before.

Also, Bruney's return will relieve the relievers too, but not until he's completely ready, please (see also Wang)...

: )

Rich, you have several good points here, but I think your main argument turns on the alleged excellence of two kids who haven't produced yet. Veras was perfectly okay last year over 60 inning, almost 10 K per 9 innings, era of 3.6 ... this isn't going to get you a whopping contract like, oh, some stud like Damaso Marte (ahem) but it makes for a solid 6th/7th inning guy. And your argument can be reversed: why bail on someone who was decent for you, because they are having spring struggles? Is your slack for THEM supposed to be so short? I think Marte and Bruney are huge elements of how this team will fare the rest of the way ... but it is also possible someone could emerge ... either a vet getting on a roll, or a kid arriving. I suspect your bright young things (Robertson, Melancon) WILL get their chances. YOU do know, for example, that Veras was significantly better than Robertson last year? Does that count for anything, in May, before we dump the guy?

To repeat: I am appalled at having to type semi-nice thinks about Veras. Be gentle with me!

I never thought I'd ever post to defend Jose Veras! Nor, as I keep saying, am I a Girardi booster. I think Will has my main argument in a nutshell: NY is a very hard place to handle the fans (us) and the media. I think his point about winnign in spite of us, not because of us is very valid. I think Girardi is following a guy who, for a variety of reasons, had the media pressure covered exceptionally well, and even he was undermined the last while by rabid fans who see anything short of a WS as hang-him-high failure. Girardi has a tough road to walk ... and Will's question: who might do it better? is a good one.

I have no obvious answer. I think he'd need to be a seriously senior citizen of the managing communty. Someone whose age and record earn him a lot of credit. Say, a LaRussa ... but there ARE problems for a personality like Tony's here.

Also agree with flycaster (welcome, btw) that bullpens can make anyone look imbecilic when they go south.

And speaking of bullpens, Eric Hacker was traded to the Pirates for Romulo Sanchez. A minor deal, Sanchez is built like Alby, with supposedly a bigger fastball. It appears he doesn't miss as many bats as he should.

Joe Sheehan on 'The Play Last Night':

To see a catcher run hard for 40 feet to make a diving tag play on a runner trying to score from second with one out on a ball that never got past the mound... I'd never seen that before. From section 232a down the left-field line, I had a great view of the developing play, and what Gardner did was terrific heads-up baserunning. At the point at which he decided to go, home plate was completely uncovered, he was accelerating, and the catcher was 40 feet from the plate, moving towards first base, with his back to the plate and cocking to throw the ball. If Mauer releases the ball—if he hesitates at all—Gardner scores and the Yankees win. There aren't many runners in the game for whom this play would make sense, and Gardner is one of them. This wasn't reckless, false hustle, a poor risk; this was a terrific read of the situation.

For his part, Mauer did the one thing he absolutely had to do: eat the ball. He also reacted immediately to what he saw, turning to break for the plate with no hesitation. This is where his youth and athleticism came into play, because there are a lot of catchers who would have been beaten home by Gardner, catchers who simply wouldn't have had the speed to get to the plate in time. Mauer not only got there, but he got there in time to take any doubt away from the issue, running through the plate to take away Gardner's angle. It would have a been a great play for anyone; for a catcher, it was amazing. Mauer will win Gold Gloves right up until he becomes a first baseman just for that play.

Sheehan is all about the Yankees today. He's down on Girardi for BOTH bunts last night, and - surprise! - for flying by the seat of his pants impulse bullpen management. His pet peeve (take a reliever number everyone!) is Albaladejo. And then he notes "if a team so very deep in right-handed relief has to resort to Brett Tomko with the bases loaded and one out in the eighth inning of a tied game, it reflects both some organizational confusion and a manager whose approach to managing a bullpen is reflexive and more about avoiding bad outcomes than creating good ones. If Girardi makes Tomko a high-leverage reliever rather than return to the better arms in his arsenal, it's a sign that perhaps the Yankees are being overly hampered by their manager."

[11] Veras's WPA, however, was among the lowest of Yankee relievers last season, which demonstrates that he is OK when the pressure is off, but in high leverage situations, he melts like an ice cube on a NYC sidewalk on a 90 degree day.