Say it's so, Joe?
ESPN is reporting that should Joe Girardi not be hired as the next manager of the New York Yankees (big team back East, wears pinstripes, spends lots of money -- perhaps you know them?), he "could have a developing opportunity with the Los Angeles Dodgers." The Blue, not surprisingly, had no official comment on the issue. Although Grady Little is under contract for next year, as ESPN's Buster Olney pointed out on SportsCenter today (and here, I'm quoting from my DVR), "Ned Colletti has a longstanding relationship with Joe Girardi. They both were with the Cubs. Joe was drafted by them; Ned Colletti was the media relations director at that time. I left messages for Ned today -- have not heard back from him."
Asked if this would mean Little is getting sandbagged, Olney, rather than saying, "Yeah, but what can you do?" replied with a more political, "We don't know, quite frankly." He went on to say, "Officials familiar with Girardi's options, they believe he's going to have an opportunity to be the Dodgers' manager if the Yankees' job doesn't work out."
So there you have it. Not sure who the "officials" are -- I can assure you I'm not one and am willing to cross AK off the list, too -- but that's some interesting news. I happen to think he'll be hired in New York, making this a moot point, but if he's not, the next couple of weeks could be full of intrigue. If the Dodgers do go after him, though, they'd better make it work or they could undermine Grady's next season before it begins. Can't quite "Never mind!" that one away. Stay tuned.
-- BK
Subscribe to this Blog | What is RSS?
This is BS. Steve is elbow deep in negotiations and leaked some bogus info to Buster to get some leverage.
Posted by: hank | October 25, 2007 at 06:00 PM
Steve who?
Posted by: Steve M. | October 25, 2007 at 08:17 PM
If that is true I suddenly am really rooting for Mattingly. I also heard that Frank might be interested in Torre though I had earlier heard it would be unlikely for him to change coasts.
Posted by: uclart47 | October 25, 2007 at 08:58 PM
I like Joe..TORRE!!!!
Posted by: dodger bob | October 25, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Joe Girardi is a big upgrade over Grady, as is Joe Torre. The Dodgers would be well served to hire either Joe as their manager.
Posted by: Santa Rosa Dodger | October 25, 2007 at 11:18 PM
As for undermining Little - his managing the last couple years has done that for him, the Dodgers exploring a younger manager with the reputation Girardi has is just responsible.
Can't always blame W's and L's on the manager, but you can blame him for the huge public cat fight last season between the youngsters and the has beens. That's not supposed to spill over to the public so much, quotes maybe here and there but not the soap opera we witnessed last year - that's on the manager to control and Little couldn't.
His decisions don't really show any track record of success at the level we're trying to get back to - Girardi's don't either, but it might be nice to have a manager with a pulse again who'll go out and tear an umpire a new rearend when necessary. Tommy rode that and his Dodger blue rhetoric to the Hall of Fame - and legions of us wait for the next great Dodger manager to follow in his footsteps (the one we're supposed to have is coaching the bleepin - bleepin Angels).
You want more stability, fine - just win ~
Posted by: SocalSpider | October 26, 2007 at 02:03 AM
It smacks of a negotiating ploy (something we should get used to when Arod opts out), but if we were to get Girardi, that would be cool. Look what he did with the youth in FLA.
Vive la Young Dudes!
Alas... if we can't get Girardi... can we get Grady some Botox?
Posted by: benzo jones | October 26, 2007 at 08:07 AM
Here is the thing. Grady Little is at fault for the dodgers demise at the end. Ned colleti is at fault for bringing in down sloping vets. The Macorts are at fault for not being patient with Jim Tracy. So please lets stop with all the mistakes at the manager spot, and GO AFTER ALEX RODRIGUEZ his bat is huge. Winning will make all things better. We need to stop losing to the Padres and the Angles. Those loses make me sick. We need a huge bat behind Pierre and Furcal and Kemp. spend the money on a BIG BIG BIG bat.
Posted by: mike | October 26, 2007 at 09:33 AM
Yea, except A-ROD is NOT a winner!
Posted by: Steve M. | October 26, 2007 at 10:34 AM
So Grady might be on the way out??? Aryan is going to be REALLY bummed!!
http://www.pe.com/imagesdaily/2007/07-12/padres_dodgers_baseball_6_400.jpg
Posted by: DodgerBlueBalls | October 26, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Girardi would be manna from heaven so it probably won't happen. There's no doubt he would upgrade our coaching.
But if the Dodgers were interested why is this coming up just when the Yankees job is?
Is Ned just realizing if Joe is good enough to be considered by NY he could be good enough for LA too? We bloggers knew this a long time ago...
No way McCourt would eat a year of Grady's salary. But if he did, we'd know he wants to win.
Posted by: Andy B | October 26, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Please say we are thinking about Joe Torre, I hate the Yankess but that guy is a class act and knows how to manage a team.
Posted by: bmurph | October 26, 2007 at 04:18 PM
Andy,
Actually I can see this happening.
One. Girardi has always wanted to have the Yankees job. Now that Don Mattingly appears to be the favorite to get the job, Girardi needs to find another place to manage. Not unlike Scioscia taking the Angels job once it became clear that the Dodgers weren't going to hire him.
Two. Colletti has probably kept his lines of communication open with Girardi - apparently they knew each other when they were both with the Cubs. Colletti cannot be happy about Little's performance this year, especially the late season clubhouse meltdown. So, now that Girardi isn't going to be the next Yankee manager. Colletti may be discussing with Girardi about the Dodgers. Hey, we may be Girardi's second choice, but it's still our gain.
Three. I can see Colletti moving Little into another position, like roving minor league scout or something like that as a face-saving move. Besides, even if McCourt has to eat Little's salary, it's only about the same as a utility infielder's. Not that big a deal. Considering we paid Schmidt $15 million for 1 win and $9 million for Wolf's half-season, Little's salary is small potatoes.
Posted by: Dodgers '81 | October 26, 2007 at 04:24 PM
As long as his salary doesn't cut into what McCourt spends on players, doesn't make a difference to me. Any baseball fan who isn't a 60-year-old sportswriter already knows that managers mean as much to wins and losses as David Eckstein does.
Posted by: Pablo | October 26, 2007 at 09:52 PM
Girardi would be a huge upgrade over Little. I like Grady as a person, I just don't think he has what it takes to lead the young players. His strength is managing relationships, not games. And he even failed at that this year, with the public blowup between the AARP contingent and the diaper dandies. Girardi is a leader. I know there were some questions about his handling of the pitching staff in Florida, but I don't know the details. But he would still be an upgrade over Little.
Torre is a class act, but he is not the right manager for this team. He's more of a caretaker-type manager. In order for him to be successful, he needs to have a team with strong player leadership. That's why the Yankees were so successful in the late 90's - they had great veteran leaders like O'Neill, Tino, Brosius, Cone, etc. When those guys left, the team lacked the internal leadership necessary. Since then they've had loads of talent, which gets you to the playoffs, but no leadership, which gets you out of the playoffs.
This young Dodgers team needs a leader, not a caretaker. Girardi would be awesome.
Posted by: Matthew | October 26, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Dodgers '81
You are such a tease, lol!
"Say it is so Joe.."
Hiring Girardi to skipper the Dodgers would make this whole year worthwhile.
Posted by: Andy B | October 26, 2007 at 11:49 PM
It warms my heart to read how so many of you youngsters get a fixation on a 'name' and like a bulldog won't let go...whether it be Torre, Girardi, A Rod (who has led every team he has been on to multiple WS wins!), LaRoche, Andruw Jones, Tori Hunter, Santana, and on and on...God Bless your faith in the people YOU believe, regardless of any facts, will make the Dodgers a WS winner again.
Posted by: DODGER 1955 | October 27, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Since the World Series is hardly compelling, at least this makes this time of year interesting:
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7379870
You're right, Matthew. No caretaker (hmmm, wonder what this chocolate tastes like?). The Dodgers definitely need a leader.
Posted by: Chunkdog32 | October 27, 2007 at 10:21 AM
Matthew,
I completely agree with you that Torre does not seem like the right fit for this team. We need someone who is more into player development, not ego management. Just look across town to the Staples Center. They hired a coach whose number one skill was ego management. The only problem: they only had one ego and a bunch of no ones. Now they are in the gutter.
Girardi would be the better fit of the two, but can you really see Drill Seargent Joe in LA. The two seem about as opposite as Kent and Kemp.
I'm still holding out for Gibby.
Posted by: Nick | October 27, 2007 at 11:32 AM
First of all did anyone read the article that Stan Conte said his staffs shortcomings held him back. Well who was it that said I feel comfortable with his (Schmidts) history and medical records. He is a j.......ss! How self serving is that comment. Schmidt will go down with Dreifort as the worst free agents signings ever. I cannot stand this arrogant piece of .....
As for Girardi, no. Lets get a Dodger. Steve Yeager, Catcher, learned form Lasroda, knows the young players from the Minors and he would not lose control of the clubhouse. Sounds a little like Scioscia. Hire Dodgers not Giants Ned you M.....!
Posted by: shawn j | October 27, 2007 at 05:02 PM
Have the Dodgers learned the lesson of this Fall. Stay with the kids!!!!!
Cleveland, Colorado and Arizona come to mind first. But even the Red Sox are getting more than significant contributions from youngsters such as Dustin Pedroia and Jacoby Ellsbury.
I just finished reading an article about Pedroia in the latest Baseball America. Just a few tidbits from the article.
"Pedroia advanced steadily through the minors, earning a September callup last year, though he hit just .191 in 89 at-bats"
"He had a tough April, hitting just .182/.308/.236 and looking very much like a rookie".
Tell me, how long would he have remained in the Dodger lineup? How many bloggers would have been crying for the Dodgers to dump the unproductive, smallish infielder.
Didn't Kevin Kouzmanoff get off to a similar slow start with the Padres, only to pick it up in the second half?
If the Dodgers believe in the ability of their younger players, then they need to couple that belief with the resolve and patience required for long term success. Stick with the kids, and if it doesn't work, then go back to the drawing board. But stop trying to patch the leak with chewing gum (AKA, Gonzo, Nomar, Kent, etc.).
Posted by: Brooklyn Dodger | October 28, 2007 at 11:26 AM
It's not looking good for the Dodgers concerning Girardi, at least that's the word from ESPN.
http://myespn.go.com/s/conversations/show/story/3084244
Posted by: Brooklyn Dodger | October 28, 2007 at 03:53 PM
Brooklyn,
You bring up good points about both Pedroia and Kouzmanoff starting slowly but coming on very strong. Your question about the situation if either were Dodgers brings up another issue.
Bloggers aside, wasn't it Forrest who kept the playing time of Kemp and Ethier erratic? Start one day, have 4 hits, then get benched the next? And don't even start me on what was done with Loney's development.
Terrible judgment and terrible decisions.
Posted by: Chunkdog32 | October 28, 2007 at 04:17 PM
Chunkdog,
Agreed. And besides bloggers and Grady, I could add sportswriters as well (but not AK and BK).
The World Series news blackout is now officially over, so we should be begin hearing stuff pretty soon. Also, the GM meetings are scheduled for November 5-8 in Orlando, FL. Although a whole lot usually doesn't get done at those meetings, they do serve to lay the groundwork for future moves (e.g., at the Winter meetings in the first week of December).
Also, I read that the Dodgers will have the 15th pick in the June draft. I believe that teams who pick in the first half of the draft (picks 1-15) cannot lose their first round pick if they sign a type A free agent. That would mean that the Dodgers would only lose a second round pick for the first Type A free agent they signed, then the third round and so on for subsequent signings. So if the Dodgers do sign any free agents, they will not lose their first round pick.
Posted by: Brooklyn Dodger | October 28, 2007 at 09:53 PM
Little not an option
Red Sox decide it's time for a new skipper
By Gordon Edes, Globe Staff, 10/27/2003
Why can't we get a headline like that in the LA Times?
Check out this excerpt from that column:
"General manager Theo Epstein is known to rely more on statistical analyis in assessing players & matchups than Little, WHO OFTEN USED HIS INSTINCTS IN MAKING DECISIONS" Wow did'nt we see alot of that this year!
I guess Grady's instincts caused him to change the lineup(daily), no matter how good or bad a player was doing. It's obvious by the date of that column that Boston decided to end "The Curse"
Enter Francona: Four years and TWO WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS later.
Lets hope the Dodgers will make this off season enteresting for the fans and end our "LITTLE Curse".
There is only one option. He is on diamond vision before every home game, he is on the front of the Dodgers web page, he was the MVP in 1988, and in his first year wearing Dodger Blue hoisted the Championship trophy.
Re-sign Kirk Gibson!!!
Posted by: I Love LA | October 28, 2007 at 10:42 PM