| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 08-10-2010 |
I had a piece in the works on Michael Pineda's workload that I thought would raise some eyebrows and perhaps draw some ire but between game time Monday and this morning I received four texts from talent evaluators asking me why I hadn't written about all the reasons Daren Brown would make a good manager for the Seattle Mariners and how he'd make a solid choice as the permanent fixture at the helm of the club.There are a few reasons why I hadn't written that yet, none more obvious than the fact that I had not thought about Brown's resume enough.
But think about what the 2011 Mariners may very well be about -- rebuilding -- and what Brown has been doing for the last 13 seasons, 10 with the M's organization. Brown, a former pitcher and pitching coach in an independent league, has spent his career developing young talent. He's won some along the way, too, but minor league managers can't be -- and aren't -- judged solely on wins and losses.
I responded to each of the four text messages asking why they were so confident in Brown and here are the highlights of the replies I received.
"The guy knows how to mesh personalities together, how to get young players to focus on what they need to be focused on. That is not an easy task," said one front office executive. "He's got that kind of reputation."
A pro scout who formerly served as a player development staffer, i.e., minor league coach, added the following: "I think it's very simple -- he is the boss, and the players know it. They respect him. I have never heard a negative word said about Brown. Not from an umpire, player, manager, coach or a member of the front office."
When I asked why Brown isn't touted as a potential managerial candidate, I got one interesting reply that summed up the rest of them.
"Because he's not a name," said an AL adviser and former assistant GM. "He's not Ryne Sandberg or a young hot shot. He's a professional baseball man. Bobby Cox was not highly touted, either; one club gave up on him (Toronto)and the Braves snatched him back and he's won every year.
"Do you think Joe Torre, Tony LaRussa and Terry Francona were big name managerial candidates before they were hired and they started winning so much? They weren't. Someone did their homework."
I went asking some of the players that have had Brown as their skipper in the past and some of the responses were quite candid. A couple of them wanted to remain anonymous, just in case.
"Ya know, I don't think he liked me too much to be honest," said an outfielder. "But I worked hard and I think he was very fair with me. One time he pulled me aside and asked 'if you want to play more, show me why you deserve it. I'm going to play those that deserve it. I don't care what your paycheck says.' After that, I felt like my career was in my hands. That's all a player can ask."
A catcher thought Brown's work with the pitcher-catcher relationship was key to his getting time in the big leagues. "Oh, man, dude... I'm telling you, something clicked for me that first year and it made me realize I needed to roll with my strengths. I never came to the ballpark without a plan, but I felt comfortable with my place on the team and in the organization. If I could remember what Brownie said to me I'd say it, but it was something like 'that guy out there on the mound needs you, you are his best friend. His success is yours.'"
As for whether the Mariners will consider Brown for their long-term answer as field manager is another story. But if they are truly looking at a rebuild in 2011 -- they will never, ever admit that, however, so don't read into the plan by using what is said by the suits or Zduriencik, use the moves made -- then Brown is as good a choice as anyone else.
Bobby Valentine, for example, is not going to be good for a developmental season. He's very much like Lou Piniella in that manner, and so would any other veteran.
How well would a first-time skipper handle that is probably something nobody, even the first-timer himself, would know until it's too late.
Eric Wedge might be a good fit, as he's used to dealing with young player, both in the minors and as a big-league manager, and lest we forget he won 97 games a few years back.
But I say if Brown is this well thought of, why not? What is the downside? There is none.
If I were the general manager, I'd call Brown into my office on this home stand and ask him how he felt about signing a 1-plus year contract through 2011 with a couple of club options.
daren-brown
Comments
The following 47 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: Ungnome on 08-10-2010 23:53:00 I have always wondered why a managerial openning is not filled by an internal candidate more often. I suppose the difference between ML players getting paid big money and kids looking for a chance is large. Good managers come from somewhere. Here's rooting for Brown, or anyone for that matter, to succeed in leading this team to the series. |
| 2. By: StandinPat on 08-10-2010 23:55:33 Curious, is this just trying to make the best out of a situation or are reviews of Brown's managerial skills generally this positive? Honestly I've often wondered why the same old tired names keep getting churned through the manager slum bucket, but why first time(major league) managers never seem to get a chance. Why is Mike Hargrove, literally the worst manager I've ever seen in my life, given chance after chance, yet someone who has had tremendous success managing or bench coaching at the lower levels not given chance number one? I'm all for someone new and different, cause honestly, most of the Managers with "proven" MLB experience haven't proven they are better than anyone else, but simply have "proven" that someone has given them the opportunity to fail. Give me someone different, give me someone new. That's what I hoped Wak would be, but when he lost the clubhouse, he lost his usefulness. Not that he can't be an excellent manager in the future, but like so many, the first time seems to always be a bonafide disaster. So I'm now super curious to see if Brown can command the clubhouse and get these guys to fall in line, cause there is some talent on that 25 man, and there is some more on the way...some folks just need to play like they are suppose to and not some genetic replica refuse of their would be selves. |
| 3. By: Blowgun7 on 08-11-2010 00:02:05 I'd be a bit worried about Brown managing this team. This group already got one rookie manager fired. I would lean towards getting somebody who is well established and good, so that the players know who the real boss is. I'd be afraid they'd rebel against Brown if/when things got rough and quit on the team just like they did with Wak. That being said, next year's team won't have the Griffey issue, and will probably cut ties with a good chunk of this roster. |
| 4. By: Jason A. Churchill on 08-11-2010 00:56:02 I'm not advocating or suggesting that Brown is the guy to lead the M's to win a series... and that point is pretty clear if you read the piece. But if he can develop players and keep clubhouses in order, knowing when to allow older players to run things and when to step in -- and Brown has successfully managed for 13 years now -- then how is he not a great candidate for the next 212 games? Bobby V is not coming to Seattle if the M's rebuild in 11, and if the club tries to reload and win in 2011, no manager will survive it, anyway. |
| 5. By: gwangung on 08-11-2010 00:56:52 Aren't most "proven" managers who are available are available for a reason--they lost too many games? If that's the case, being "proven" is hardly a reason to hire someone.... |
| 6. By: Juan Valdez on 08-11-2010 01:09:16 Excellent post Jason. This is one of the reasons I like coming to Prospect Insider. |
| 7. By: Uncle Al on 08-11-2010 01:37:58 Jason Beautiful piece as well as post #4. The last sentence in post #4 really hits the nail on the head. Are you hearing anything about Chuck and Howie putting pressure on Jack next year to win or he gets canned. We finally get a GM that has just about put the Farm system back together and then we risk losing him over Chuck and Howards stupidity. We have 5 more days to know who we got signed in this years draft. Another draft next year and all the time inbetween to see how they grow and what we get in trades. It would really be a shame to loose Zduriencik next year. |
| 8. By: maqman on 08-11-2010 05:03:40 Good input Jason. I don't know much about Brown but what I am learning I like. He was definitely a good choice in the circumstances. I get the interest in Valentine and would like to see Bryan Price get an interview too. The best outcome would be for Brown to do so well in the rest of this season so that they have no choice but to retain him. |
| 9. By: Edman on 08-11-2010 10:56:49 I agree, Jason. Ultimately, it may take two guys to get the M's to a world series. Certainly, one would hope not. But, there have been successes by organizations that promote from within. There has to be an advantage to Brown working with the kids. They have an appreciation for him from their days in the minors. If he wasn't a successful communicator, it would be obvious by now. The biggest hurdle for him is going to be dealing with the veteran personalities on the club. I think that Wak lost control and players, especially the veterans, saw him waffle on some issues, and ignore others. One thing I liked about Pineilla, is that he didn't care who you were, if you didn't perform, you had him in your face. He was hard on rookies, sometimes. But, he set a demand for excellence. They've gone outside the organization without much success, especially with new managers. Perhaps it's time to look from within. The grass isn't always greener on the other side. |
| 10. By: Marlin Man on 08-11-2010 11:22:45 Agree 100% with your #4 post jason. and also agree with Edman that it "might" taake two to get us there. M. M. |
| 11. By: Lamda on 08-11-2010 13:26:51 yeah - again the managerial job will show the teams direction this offseason/near future. I wrote that if they kept Wak for next year that meant they had no aspirations for winning next year. Same will be true for Brown. If they really have no desire to win but rebuild then he makes sense. However, you know Z is mildly starting to think about his job now, as anybody in his position would. He might go out and get a safer bet in a Valentine, etc and make a token effort this offseason while still rebuilding. Valentine isn't managing now so while he may not enjoy next year, he'd still take the job assuming he'd have it for a while. Point being, Z may not survive 2 years of rebuilding and then having to fire/hire another coach 2 years from now to take us to the playoffs. |
| 12. By: baseballman on 08-11-2010 13:39:51 Lamda, why would Z's job be in jeopardy? It wouldnt be. From day 1 Z has been building this thing up from the ground up while re-tolling the 25 man roster. Z is not and should not be worried about his job because he was brought in here to do exactly what he has been doing. If he is feeling any sort of heat after just 1 season and a half, then there is something seriously wrong with the mental states of howard and chuck (yes they suck, but theyre that dumb). This was a 3-4 year job and Im sure this was went over in the interviewing process. Now Z might feel for pressure to get more wins, but that in no way is the same as feeling heat over job security. |
| 13. By: Edman on 08-11-2010 13:54:40 Z said from the beginning, this would be a rebuilding job and not to expect quick changes. Honestly, Seattle got lucky more last year, than this year. |
| 14. By: Rudolf on 08-11-2010 14:13:57 And this year they've been really unlucky. Z did an admirable job with what he had available to him in assembling this (retrospective) joke of a roster. Despite the awful results, the future is brighter-- Justin Smoak, seriously? Howard/Chuck must be sensible enough to recognize this. |
| 15. By: Ungnome on 08-11-2010 14:51:37 Bavasi got 5 years of time so why would Jack not be given just as much? Changing out a GM is not the same as a Manager. It takes a little time and in that time Jack has turned the organization around. The future is brighter than it has ever been for this ball club. The amount of quality talent that Jack has aquired is remarkable. Howard and Chuck should be able to recognize the promise the organization has as well as any of us. I highly doubt that even with a losing year in 2011 the Jack's job will be in jeopardy. As far as managers goes I would think that whoever is the guy in 2011 is the guy Jack will sink or swim with. If the Mariners window for contention is 2013 one would think you would want a long term solution in place before then. Switching it up before then seems as if it would be a major strategical error for a potentially contending club. |
| 16. By: Tommy O on 08-11-2010 16:37:44 How many games can a manager "win" for a team anyway. The game is not about X's and O's like Football. The M's are winning 71-76 games in 2011 with Wedge, Valentine or Brown or without them. Not to mention a guy like Valentine is going to insist on winning with vets. To me it makes perfect sence to let Brown show what he can do with the kids. He already is aware of both the kids and vet's abilities and attitudes. The guy down here in Anaheim did pretty well as a first time manager. |
| 17. By: VikingArthur on 08-11-2010 16:46:51 Can someone PLEASE explain why Tui is in the lineup? I do not get this obsession with him, he is barely a AAA player. As for managers... I think Brown would be fine in 2011. The last thing we need is some veteran manager who will push Z into signing free agents to try to win 82 games. |
| 18. By: bunvt on 08-11-2010 19:12:22 RE Tui in the lineup: He is at the make or break stage. Since we got nothing to play for really, might as well make sure we give him enough looks before ultimately deciding if he has a future with this club. |
| 19. By: Lamda on 08-11-2010 20:02:04 Well as I said, his job in mild jeopardy only if you are a forward-thinking person like me, lol. Z has basically had 2 years now and is about to hire another manager. IF this guy tanks and gets fired in the same 2 year time frame that it took Wak - does Z then survive that?? So his managerial hire coming up is pretty critical to some degree which is why I believe he'll bring in a proven vet instead of going with another newbie. As one poster said - Bavasi got 5 years but we all know he was on the hotseat those last 2 years and 2 years for Z makes 4 and that is going to fly by and will atleast be the duration of our next managerial hire. My point is not that Z has to worry about his job today - obviously that is not the case. But he's 2 years in - first year was fine, second year was abysmal. He's basically at a critical juncture now. He has 2 or so years to make this work and his next manager is going to be key to that. Add in the fact that Linc/Arm are probably gone/retired in 2-3 years and whomever replaces them is going to want to put their own stamp on things and if in 2 years we aren't a whole lot better than we are today - you can be they'll can Z to bring in their own guy as well. |
| 20. By: Jason A. Churchill on 08-11-2010 20:36:58 There is a difference between a first-time manager and a first-year MLB manager. Scioscia managed in the minors. |
| 21. By: rotoenquire on 08-11-2010 21:57:56 That is it I have decided. The Mariners are the Raiders of MLB. Lincoln and the ownership group are Al Davis. Butting in and making any GM's job tuff and hard to do.. Be ready for nothing but crap baseball people. |
| 22. By: Missthosepilots on 08-11-2010 22:06:14 At least, for a time, Davis knew what it took to win. Great article Jason, thanks! Makes the rest of the season more interesting. Go Z, sign the draftees! |
| 23. By: safecochatter on 08-12-2010 09:08:36 does anyone know if any of the m's have cleared trade waivers?? what is it about Seattle managers and the"Captain Morgan" pose? |
| 24. By: Edman on 08-12-2010 11:07:22 chatter, wouldn't you drink if you were a Manager in Seattle?.....LOL. |
| 25. By: PositivePaul on 08-12-2010 14:16:49 Edman, I'm with you. I love how they kept phrasing it "Wakamatsu was relieved of his duties..." Darn right he was! I'd be relieved to be away from this mess of a franchise even if it WAS a good MLB paying gig. While they say the worst day in MLB is better than the best day doing something else, I'd probably be driven to drinking if I were the one faced with dealing with what Wakamatsu was given. A no-win situation for sure. Now where's my drink... My day job sucks! Hahaha |
| 26. By: mymrbig on 08-12-2010 14:34:08 Different topic, but does the upcoming signing deadline apply to Paxton since he played in Indy ball instead of college? Or does it apply since he was in college for a while since the last draft? |
| 27. By: baseballman on 08-12-2010 14:53:37 RE 26: The deadline does not apply to Paxton. But he needed to be signed a month ago |
| 28. By: Edman on 08-12-2010 15:04:26 Why Paxton and Boras are holding out is a big mystery to me. Unless his ego is so big that he thinks he's the next coming of Dwight Gooden, he'll never recover what he'll have lost by not signing. |
| 29. By: Edman on 08-12-2010 15:06:16 On a side note. If Boras is giving him a secure loan until he signs, then baseball needs to close that loop. A team can't tamper with players, and agents shouldn't be allowed to either. |
| 30. By: amm02008 on 08-12-2010 19:31:58 Any reports on how Tom Wilhemsen's velocity/breaking stuff has been looking? He's been racking up some K's with not too many walks or BBs so far, but he's obviously old for the level. How soon could he see the majors, and do you like his arm, or is he merely a good story? |
| 31. By: Missthosepilots on 08-12-2010 21:09:14 Good points about Paxton. Makes you appreciate a Jake Locker who is one of few who can look beyond the buck to the sport and realize he will make more than most could ever dream of. It would be interesting how many of these hot shot pitchers pad their pockets while they ruin their arms. |
| 32. By: brockfs1 on 08-12-2010 23:30:42 Jason, a little off topic, but considering chipper jones career is most likely over would the braves explore the option of trading for figgins? and would jack be willing to do it? |
| 33. By: Blowgun7 on 08-12-2010 23:43:36 It would be great to deal Figgins right now. However, I wouldn't expect it. It would require Jack telling ownership that he 1)messed up that FA signing 2)Ownership has to eat some money for a player that won't be contributing and 3)2011 is a likely rebuild. Something tells me Mr. Lincoln and Armstrong will have issues with these things even if it makes sense long term. |
| 34. By: Rudolf on 08-13-2010 11:12:08 Wasn't there an understanding between Jack and the FO when he joined the org that the M's were an obvious rebuild several years from contention? Jack has made mention of this numerous times. Wouldn't Howard/Chuck/Ownership be ridiculous to demand a winner in 2011, or even 2012? Jack didn't mess up with the Figgins signing as much as he filled a glaring hole with a good option at a fair price. When Lee fell into our laps, suddenly the perception of the direction of the team changed in the eyes of many fans and sportswriters. Did anything really change though? Aren't we still just trying to build a team for two-three years from now? How can something this obvious remain obscured for so many? Trading Figgins would re-create the same hole at 3B that appeared when Beltre left. Is that a bad thing? Is the $$ saved more valuable than Figgins? I don't know. How can we know? Will he get better? Worse? Personally, I'd like to see Figgins stick around for another year or so, hopefully re-establish his value and then trade him when Triunfel/Liddi/Mangini/Rendon/whomever can take over. |
| 35. By: Edman on 08-13-2010 11:34:10 #33, I doubt that Jack would have to give up any money to moves Figgins, but he wouldn't get much in return. Your comment doesn't make sense. If it's about money, why wouldn't ownership move him, even if it cost the Mariners some cash, they'd be saving more? There is nothing to suggest that (and here we go again with the Lincoln/Armstrong stuff, but....) are only concerned with the short-term process. Jack's moves have often been about long-term planning. Figgins was a good signing, he just got off to a miserable start. Kotchman wasn't intended to be a short-term fix. He's still a young player, by baseball standards. Seattle didn't pursue Lee, as much as Philly was willing to move him at a very reasonable price. The Lee trade may very well net three servicable major leaguers, and I'm sure that's exactly what Jack saw. That said, I'm sure that with last year's success, they saw an opportunity to compete while rebuilding. One does not have to be done without the other. Next year, you and many others may be cherishing the Figgins deal. What I find intersting is that some thing that you get better, by creating more holes. I've seen few instances of that in all my years of watching baseball. You trade a solid major league performer for prospects, and you still have a greater likelyhood of failure, than success. People need to stop making too much of what happened this year. Last year was about extreme good luck, this year has seen little luck at all. Are the Padres really as good as their record? Honestly, I don't think so. They started off with momentum and never looked back. A bad start next year, and you might see them become the average team that everyone expected. |
| 36. By: Blowgun7 on 08-13-2010 11:56:52 What do you mean "your comment doesn't make sense. If it's about money, why wouldn't ownership move him even if it does cost the M's some cash" Nobody is suggesting that you'd part with Figgins in order to save the organization money over the next 3 years. The money coming off the books would be reinvested in the team, but in a better way (ideally). I don't view trading Figgins as a method to cut payroll and save Howard and Chuck his 28 million owed. I'm suggesting moving him because it allows Jack some financial flexibility in building towards 2012 and beyond. I don't want to be paying Figgins 17 million over 2012 and 2013 when he's going to be 34 years old. My point however was that Chuck and Howard probably don't want to eat some of his salary (which you would have to do) or get an inferior salary dump back (ie. Kawakami idea) because I imagine these two guys want Jack to field a winning team in 2011. I don't think either of these two men have much patience as the losing continues and Safeco attendence continues to decline. If you think that they are firmly behind Jack and the long term picture than god bless you. I don't trust this ownership group, and I don't expect they are 100% behind Jack if he wants to use 2011 as a rebuild. |
| 37. By: Blowgun7 on 08-13-2010 12:01:18 Just to follow up, as a first time GM heading into my third year, and working for two men who don't appear to have high baseball IQs, I'm not sure going to them and saying "Yeah, the guy you gave 36 million, I want to get rid of him after one year, can you guys pay a portion of his deal for the other team?" I have a hard time imagining that ownership wouldn't count that as a negative against Jack even if it's a smart move right now. |
| 38. By: Rudolf on 08-13-2010 12:18:40 Blowgun, who can blame you for doubting ownership? Still, how can ANYONE tell Jack he should have done things differently? Which players could we have realistically acquired to make this team better? Jason Bay? John Lackey? Vlad Guerrero- he didn't want to come here, btw. I can't imagine Griffey was Jack's idea. Any criticisms of Jack's performance should begin with Morrow, and end with Fields. One can point to Branyan, Figgins, Bradley, Jack Wilson, Wakamatsu, etc., but each move made sense, and ultimately are of small consequence. Seriously, what else could the guy have done? Not traded for Lee? Not traded for Gutierrez? Resigned Washburn? ;) Jack was handed a bucket of stink! If ownership can imagine someone doing more than what Jack has done then I'm flabbergasted. Until then, I will remain hopeful that the Howie/Chuck blind squirrel can keep hold of the one nut they've found in quite some time. |
| 39. By: Edman on 08-13-2010 14:22:26 Of course they want to Jack to field a winning team. Show me ANY ownership group or owner without that expectation. But, it doesn't mean they have to trade away all assets to do it. And of course ANY organization would be a bit pissed to have made a $36 million investment, then be asked to eat the cost. You cost your company a $1 million loss, don't you think you'd be accountable? It doesn't mean that they don't understand that you've invested it and it will net returns later. But, you're still accountable. Nobody gets a free lunch. Seattle has a plan, one that Jack prepared for the front office and the owners. Figgins wasn't about this year, but the four years he'll be here. |
| 40. By: Blowgun7 on 08-13-2010 15:01:45 How is Figgins who is owed another 30 million an asset to the Mariners? Secondly, Figgins was pretty much about 2011 and 2012. I don't think Jack is too excited about having a 34-35 yr old Figgins on the books for 18 million come 2012 and 2013. |
| 41. By: bhenken08 on 08-13-2010 15:41:58 What do you guys think about Tony Larussa? and a guy named Dave Duncan??? |
| 42. By: mauricewilliamsiii on 08-13-2010 16:00:10 Blowgun if Z was worried about Figgins in 2012-13 he wouldn't have given him the vesting option for 2014. Is Figgins going to lose the ability to hit singles take walks and steal bases? Yes he will. Will Figgins lose those abilities by age 34-35? Highly unlikely. I would say that with Ichiro and Ackley already in the fold one of Figgins and Gutierrez should be traded to open up room for a power bat in LF or at 3B. I would prefer to trade Guti this offseason, move Saunders to CF and sign or trade for a consistent 25hr bat to play LF. |
| 43. By: Blowgun7 on 08-13-2010 16:40:59 'Worried" about Figgins in 2012-13? Probably not, but I bet if you asked Jack right now if he likes the value of Figgins at 9 million in 2012 and 2013, he'd probably say no. |
| 44. By: VikingArthur on 08-13-2010 16:47:35 Considering what 9 million gets you on the FA market, I don't have a huge problem with Figgins going forward. He had a bad couple of months at the wrong time, he'll end up with a higher OBP than Ichiro I would venture to guess by the end of the season and he makes half what Ichiro does. Combine that with an above average defensive value and you have a pretty solid player for 9 million dollars a year. |
| 45. By: Edman on 08-13-2010 17:49:04 $9 million isn't going to fix enough, especially when you create another hole to fill, if you lose Figgins. |
| 46. By: rocketdawg31 on 08-13-2010 18:11:53 $9 million isn't going to fix enough, especially when you create another hole to fill, if you lose Figgins. Fundamentally, I agree with this, Edman. There's virtually NOTHING at third base via free agency. Which would mean a classic 'overpay' trade to fill that hole through the draft. But, maybe we're in a better position internally to survive the subtraction of a Figgins than what we were before. For whatever we think of him in terms of long-range potential, Matt Mangini's been performing well enough in AAA-Tacoma to deserve a chance at third next year. Particularly if 2011 becomes a de facto rebuild year. I remain unconvinced of his being able to be a major-league regular, but would say that he's earned a shot to prove me and his detractors wrong. And if Ackley's ready to take the second-base job? Well, we'll just have an extremely youthful infield. I'm only in favor of Figgins being moved if the personnel coming back make complete and utter sense. |
| 47. By: rocketdawg31 on 08-13-2010 18:15:07 Amendment to post 46: There's virtually NOTHING at third base via free agency. Which would mean a classic 'overpay' trade to fill that hole |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
|
|
 |
|
|
| Copyright 2010 Prospect Insider | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome |