Snitker hired...

Horsehide Harry said:
I think this is a pretty clear signal to the true behind the scenes thinking of the FO for the "competing in 2017" crowd. I think if the FO really believed that and intended to make that happen at the expense of a few high end prospects it either wouldn't be Snitker or he would have a long term deal.

This looks like a classic set up for an expected change in a year or two depending on when a sacrifice needs to be made.
Click to expand...

Which is why he only got 1 year with the option. Obviously, players wanted this and people in this forum are happy. It comes down to winning though. He's shown he can bring to from laughingstock to .500, but does not have a track record with managing a contending team. If he can't demonstrate ability to take them to next level
in 2017, Ron Washington is right there on staff to assume the duties. Simple shuffle of the deck.
 
Knucksie said:
Which is why he only got 1 year with the option. Obviously, players wanted this and people in this forum are happy. It comes down to winning though. He's shown he can bring to from laughingstock to .500, but does not have a track record with managing a contending team. If he can't demonstrate ability to take them to next level
in 2017, Ron Washington is right there on staff to assume the duties. Simple shuffle of the deck.
Click to expand...

Agree.

I think it shows that 2017 is about player development first, competing second, if at all.
 
I'm glad to see the front office made the right baseball move and didn't try to bring in one of their own guys. When you have players coming up to you saying Snitker is the best manager they've ever had, that has to tell you something.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Agree.

I think it shows that 2017 is about player development first, competing second, if at all.
Click to expand...

It certainly appears to be a lame duck situation. On a positive note, if he does really well, they will not have a choice but to keep him.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
I think this is a pretty clear signal to the true behind the scenes thinking of the FO for the "competing in 2017" crowd. I think if the FO really believed that and intended to make that happen at the expense of a few high end prospects it either wouldn't be Snitker or he would have a long term deal.

This looks like a classic set up for an expected change in a year or two depending on when a sacrifice needs to be made.
Click to expand...

I have to think this is spot on. When the Nats offered Black a 1 year deal it was considered insulting. They then gave Baker 2 years.

What other new managers have been given 1 year deals?
 
Why would anyone see this as a lame duck situation? He already has the support of a ton of players and fans, and he has this year as a successful one on his resume. If the winning progresses next year as it should, how would we let him go at that point?

The one-year deal doesn't seem that bizarre for a guy who has never been a full-time, permanent manager in the majors. It seems to me like the FO is clearly recognizing the positive impact he had while giving him sort of an extended audition where he gets the chance to enter the season in the role. I don't see him as a lame duck at all, why would we do that?
 
smootness said:
Why would anyone see this as a lame duck situation? He already has the support of a ton of players and fans, and he has this year as a successful one on his resume. If the winning progresses next year as it should, how would we let him go at that point?

The one-year deal doesn't seem that bizarre for a guy who has never been a full-time, permanent manager in the majors. It seems to me like the FO is clearly recognizing the positive impact he had while giving him sort of an extended audition where he gets the chance to enter the season in the role. I don't see him as a lame duck at all, why would we do that?
Click to expand...

also gives them an out if they want to move in a different direction and not have to fire him. he is an org man and it would be horrible to have to fire him if this years go to ****.
 
smootness said:
Why would anyone see this as a lame duck situation? He already has the support of a ton of players and fans, and he has this year as a successful one on his resume. If the winning progresses next year as it should, how would we let him go at that point?

The one-year deal doesn't seem that bizarre for a guy who has never been a full-time, permanent manager in the majors. It seems to me like the FO is clearly recognizing the positive impact he had while giving him sort of an extended audition where he gets the chance to enter the season in the role. I don't see him as a lame duck at all, why would we do that?
Click to expand...

But, the players and fans aren't who determines to keep him or not. How often does a new manger get a 1 year deal?
 
bravesfanMatt said:
also gives them an out if they want to move in a different direction and not have to fire him. he is an org man and it would be horrible to have to fire him if this years go to ****.
Click to expand...

What it comes down to is saving money. They aren't 100% convinced he is the man so they want to save money with a 1 year deal. There is no difference between firing and not renewing the option.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
also gives them an out if they want to move in a different direction and not have to fire him. he is an org man and it would be horrible to have to fire him if this years go to ****.
Click to expand...

that's kind of exactly why it's a lame duck situation, though: it gives them an out if things don't go how they want.

look, obviously Snit is OK with it and he's extremely committed to the Braves, which is great to see. the players also very obviously love the guy, which is probably the most important thing for a manager. But a one year deal is just kinda odd to me. He already auditioned and it went better than probably anyone would have thought, but it feels like they're making him audition again.
 
Bobby Cox had a series of 1 year deals with the Braves.

This was one of their contingent points with Roger McDowell not too long ago. He wanted a long term deal, and the Braves only give their assistants 1 year deals with options.
 
KB21 said:
Bobby Cox had a series of 1 year deals with the Braves.

This was one of their contingent points with Roger McDowell not too long ago. He wanted a long term deal, and the Braves only give their assistants 1 year deals with options.
Click to expand...

Having a veteran manager that has been with the club for a number of years on a 1 year deal is different than a rookie manager just agreeing to take the job.

Managers typically don't like it because if the team struggles players will just say, " **** it, we will have a new manager next year anyways." With Bobby, that clearly wasnt the case.
 
gilesfan said:
But, the players and fans aren't who determines to keep him or not. How often does a new manger get a 1 year deal?
Click to expand...

No, but my point is that if you're arguing this is a lame duck situation (which to me means you're essentially planning to let him go after one year), then I would assume you're arguing he only got the permanent gig because players and fans clearly wanted it. Well, if that's the case, it's not as though it's likely that they'll want him less after we improve this year. It would just be a dumb time to have somebody manage as a lame duck. Fredi last year, sure. But once you're planning to start winning more? That's not going to work out very well.

There obviously aren't a lot of times a manager gets a 1-year deal. But there also aren't a lot of times a guy without any major league HC/PC experience is brought in as a true 'lame duck' interim and then proceeds to do so well the organization decides to make him permanent.
 
smootness said:
No, but my point is that if you're arguing this is a lame duck situation (which to me means you're essentially planning to let him go after one year), then I would assume you're arguing he only got the permanent gig because players and fans clearly wanted it. Well, if that's the case, it's not as though it's likely that they'll want him less after we improve this year. It would just be a dumb time to have somebody manage as a lame duck. Fredi last year, sure. But once you're planning to start winning more? That's not going to work out very well.

There obviously aren't a lot of times a manager gets a 1-year deal. But there also aren't a lot of times a guy without any major league HC/PC experience is brought in as a true 'lame duck' interim and then proceeds to do so well the organization decides to make him permanent.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the org. definitely feels they'll move in another direction after this year. I'm just saying that giving him only a 1-year deal creates that discussion/possibility. Guys in the last years of their deals or on 1-year deals are frequently referred to as lame ducks; sometimes coaches get 1-year extensions if they're on the last year of their deal (even when organizations aren't sure of the coach long-term).
 
smootness said:
No, but my point is that if you're arguing this is a lame duck situation (which to me means you're essentially planning to let him go after one year), then I would assume you're arguing he only got the permanent gig because players and fans clearly wanted it. Well, if that's the case, it's not as though it's likely that they'll want him less after we improve this year. It would just be a dumb time to have somebody manage as a lame duck. Fredi last year, sure. But once you're planning to start winning more? That's not going to work out very well.

There obviously aren't a lot of times a manager gets a 1-year deal. But there also aren't a lot of times a guy without any major league HC/PC experience is brought in as a true 'lame duck' interim and then proceeds to do so well the organization decides to make him permanent.
Click to expand...

Yeezus explains pretty well, but the illusion that you only have the confidence to sign the manager for 1 year may come into play. It is just odd to me. Seems like ownership just cheaping out. What other explanation could there be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top