WestEddy

Then I'll reply in that thread. I've been told that dragging arguments from one thread to another is bad.

I don't know what you're talking about in that first sentence. Players' opinions matter when it comes to how a manager dealt with players, regardless of whether that team was bad, or not.

Games against the "2nd worst team" in the league still count. And the Tigers were still playing for their seed and momentum going into the playoffs. Kerry Carpenter went nuts and threw his helmet after his grand slam in the last game. They cared. As to your original post, yes, the opinions of players matter, even on a team that was historically bad. Weird how guys can leave the team, and if they dish, their opinions matter, but if they give positive feedback on any aspect of the clubhouse, they don't. You'll have to walk me through that logic.

No, I have no idea what you're talking about. That's a 45 page string covering 10 months of posts.

Oh, so if you take away all his victories, his record's even worse? Even players on the worst team in history have an opinion on whether they're confused about their roles or not.

You're saying the opinions of the players are worthless because they didn't have a winning record. Grady Sizemore had a better winning percentage than Pedro Grifol. I don't know/don't care if Getz/TLR/JR will take that into consideration. If they retain Sizemore as manager, maybe they did.

1) you didn't link to a comment I made, so I have no idea what you're referring to. 2) I don't think "hypocritical" means what you think it does.

In football and basketball, the coaches draw up plays. In baseball, it's more about team construction. These guys live with each other for most of 6 months, so it's about managing personalities, communicating roles, and putting players in position to succeed. Some people here opine about Romy Gonzalez and his .723 OPS. If he was on the White Sox, he would have a hot streak, then Grifol would start him at 2B. He would become exposed, and OPS the same .550 everybody else did. Alex Cora picked his spots, and put him in positions where his profile could thrive.

I'm strangely intrigued by Buck Showalter. I think he's an A to B type manager.

It's funnier, still, that guys on the internet think their opinions have more weight than actual players on the team. Tell us, Floyd Bannister 1983, how were the training exercises?

You don't know that. It's fun to pretend that GMs who didn't make a trade get to project what would have transpired. Nightengale is a hack until he isn't.

Managers, generally aren't worth more than a couple "wins" above average. The thing that struck me is that Grifol sucked talking to the press, and explaining his goals, even after a 3-22 start. Be straight, explain what's going on. Don't babble. I'm guessing that mealy mouthed communication happened in the clubhouse, and made it harder for everyone to follow. Rookies got into his dog house. I'm not sure what happened to Oscar Colas, but nobody was crowing about how Grifol took them under his wing, and brought their game to a new level. As far as lineups, and all, I'm sure Getz just told him to get certain guys more at-bats, even if it meant batting Miguel Vargas first. If Getz was making requests, and they weren't being followed through, that's a reason to launch him, too. This team played a full 7 games under their Pythagorean. So, maybe more than a couple could be on the manager? Not 20.

That's the sentiment I have read a few times, and agree with. I don't know if Getz was asking for the moon and the stars and ran out of time, or whatnot. I hope he gets better making trades.

How about Frazier/Kahnle/Robertson for the hope of Blake Rutherford, Ian Clarkin and Tito Polo. Tyler Clippard was the added insult to injury. Now that they're gone, we can all pretend Kopech is a Cy Young finalist, and Fedde is a perennial 5-WAR pitcher. Of course, people were screaming to trade Kopech for anything, and Fedde was as "peak value". There have been some pretty bad trades in KW's and Hahn's tenures. I'll wait for this one to be bad before declaring it so.

Then why don't you tell us about all this compelling "evidence" against the accuser that surfaced during the MLB investigation?

Also known as - replacing 2 starting pitchers.

Yes, if a victim shows pictures of bruises taken and submitted with a police report and describes an attack under oath as evidence of an assault complaint that would actually end up costing her money, that testimony would probably outweigh a text from Clevinger to his buddy saying, "Dude, that b**** is lying". I don't know what's so hard to understand; MLB did not set out to determine "guilt". They set out to determine if Clevinger crossed the threshold for discipline. If you own a business, and when you come into work one morning, the secretary has been stabbed to death, and your top salesman is holding a knife dripping with blood, you wouldn't conduct an investigation to determine if he's guilty of murder. That's what the police do. You might conduct some due diligence to figure out if he committed a fireable offense. That's what MLB did. It can be true that Mike Clevinger is prone to violent outbursts that target his children and their mothers AND that Clevinger didn't trigger an MLB suspension.

Good luck? What are you even talking about? Do you understand why they have a witness stand in court? Because testimony is evidence. I'm getting the feeling you're playing a bro-dude word game, here. It's not my job to make you acknowledge reality. Nobody said that MLB was "protecting" Clevinger. This all seems to be hitting you in a personal way, because you're not making sense.

Trevor Bauer choked a woman until she passed out, then he beat her up. He also admitted to all of that on a monitored phone call. However, MLB didn't find Bauer "guilty". MLB found that his behavior exceed their threshold for tolerance. People don't want to take their kids to a ball game and have their 7-year-old girl root for a guy who chokes a woman til she passes out, then beats her up. MLB made a business decision with Bauer, just as they did with Clevinger.

Testifying under oath is evidence. Just stop. Are you seriously comparing a guy who abused his child and baby mama with innocent people who were hung for no reason as acts of terrorism? I really don't get why some guys dig in on this. This isn't "bros before hoes". If you don't believe that testifying under oath is evidence, you just blew your weepy "due process" BS out of the water.

Dude, seriously, cut the BS. You also don't know that "by all evidence, he didn't do what he was accused of". By all the evidence, MLB decided they didn't want to pursue further discipline. Clevinger could still be an incredibly selfish and shitty human being, and still not clear the bar for banishment.

Their investigation wasn't about proving Clevinger "guilty". It was to see if his actions exceeded their threshold for discipline.

Too many guys are too comfortable pretending that a victim of abuse testifying under oath isn't evidence.

I agree with most of what you say about the White Sox, but Clevinger is truly a selfish POS. He doesn't deserve "due process". He's not in the criminal justice system. He's had the privilege of playing MLB baseball. He has put his teammates health and well being in danger, at the very minimum. He's also been accused of abusive behavior towards his children and their mothers. And MLB's investigation wasn't conducted to find out if he was "guilty" of what his baby mamas were accusing him of. It was conducted to see if they should suspend him for conduct.

There seems to be a general dissatisfaction across the industry. Lots of bodies for lots of slots.