dak
Well-known member
One theory on why the Braves extended manager Fredi Gonzalez through next season is that they wanted him to serve as a one-year bridge to the opening of their new ballpark in 2017. Once Gonzalez completed that task, the team could thank him for his services, then enter the new park with a more heralded manager.
Such an idea makes sense, considering that '16 probably is a lost cause for the Braves, anyway. But I've been hearing all season that players are frustrated with Gonzalez, that he essentially has lost the clubhouse. If that is the case, why should president of baseball operations John Hart wait to make a change? And why did he give Gonzalez an extension in the first place?
Obviously, Gonzalez is not to blame for the team's collapse -- Hart and assistant GM John Coppolella left him with precious few competent major leaguers after parting in July with Juan Uribe and Kelly Johnson, and then with Jim Johnson, Alex Wood and Luis Avilan, plus top prospect Jose Peraza.
On the other hand, the Braves had a minus-101 run differential during their 1-19 stretch entering Monday; the 1939 Athletics were the only other team since 1900 to be outscored by 100 or more runs over a 20-game span, according to research by Keith Costas of MLB Network.
If the youngsters are not improving and the veterans are disenchanted, shouldn't the Braves at least examine whether Gonzalez is part of the problem?
Coppolella, in an interview Saturday with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, said it was “unfair” to judge Gonzalez and pitching coach Roger McDowell, but declined to say definitively that both would be back.
The Braves talk about becoming the next Royals, the next Pirates, the next Astros, the next Cubs. All of that is fine, but with their trades they essentially purchased one tech stock after another. Some will hit, some will not, but lots of luck if the plan is to compete by '17. And if the manager is doing more harm than good.
http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/...s-fredi-gonzalez-yankees-ken-rosenthal-090815