Comments on: When the coach gets fired, who is to blame?

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:30:10 +0000

I actually agree with you some, gavette – if a coach can’t connect with his players, can’t find a way to reach and motivate them, then he does have to share the blame for performance.

However, all it takes is one or two malcontents to turn a previously good team into an unmanagable one. I think Wille R. in Queens found that out the hard way – like when his closer was the only player left in the locker room to answer questions after yet another listless loss.

By: gavette

gavette — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:33:10 +0000

if the players are to blame, then ultimately the coach is still to blame as well. if the players are dogging it, that’s a failure of the coaching staff.

on the other hand, if the players just flat out aren’t good, then it’s the GMs fault.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:15:39 +0000

It’s not even a guess – plenty of blame should lay at the feet of players who are underachieving, lackadaisical, and out-right stealing money. If the players were busting it, hustling and giving their all each night on the field, then the manager has a lot more culpability in the team’s fortunes – does he make the right switches, the right calls, the right motivational moves to get his team’s performance maximized? If not, then sure – ditch him.

But, and this won’t go well with some folks, saying that a manager has “lost” his players because they’re old, don’t give a rip and have quit trying is a copout. The Mets GM knew that the team he assembled was garbage, and he fired the coach to save his own job and muddle up the facts that the players themselves are busts.

Of course, a $2 million buyout is a lot easier to stomach financially than about $54 million in buyouts.