Joe Lands on his Feet

In LA.

21 comments… add one
  • > Teams are generally directed to interview at least one minority candidate for open managerial jobs. The Dodgers were granted an exemption by commissioner Bud Selig, however, because of a strong track record on minority hirings.
    What? Because of who, Jackie Robinson? What crap.

    attackgerbil November 1, 2007, 8:30 pm
  • No, Gerb, because of Kim Ng, the highest ranking female in baseball, amongst others. There was an article in the Times a couple of days ago by Chass, I think, that detailed the exemption. Take a look.
    Better this than a sham interview process, frankly.

    SF November 1, 2007, 8:43 pm
  • And Kim Ng started out with the Yanks.

    Nick-YF November 1, 2007, 9:27 pm
  • Good for Joe. This is definitely a good situation for him and a team that could win right away. They have some very good arms in the majors and the minors, as well as some real solid young everyday players. Good luck Joe.

    John - YF November 1, 2007, 10:54 pm
  • i guess it wasn’t about the money…oh wait, yes it was…13 is more than 5+3…and it’s all guaranteed, win or lose

    dc November 2, 2007, 1:28 am
  • RIP Scott Proctor
    Heaven needed a solid middle relief dude

    doug YF November 2, 2007, 3:40 am
  • Good call Doug yf

    IronHorse (yf) November 2, 2007, 3:51 am
  • You gotta wonder what Scott Proctor is thinking. Just when he thought he had gotten as far away as possible from Torre and his bullpen overusage, he gets hired as manager of the Dodgers.
    Heeeeee’s back.

    yf2k November 2, 2007, 4:42 am
  • dc:
    Your math is deceptive. Surely you understand the idea of job security?
    The true math from your end should be (5+3) + 2009 salary + 2010 salary vs. 13m. It should be obvious that Torre took less money to be in LA in exchange for a longer (hypothetical) tenure/guarantee.

    SF November 2, 2007, 7:33 am
  • actually, my math is right on sf…i’m saying that the 13 was all guaranteed while only 5 with the yankees was guaranteed with +3 coming from incentives, regardless of the number of years…who knows, joe might’ve taken 10 from the yankees for 1 year, if they had been crazy enough to offer it…you’re right that the number of years factors into his decision, because that’s what makes the 13 real money, vs. the uncertainty from the yankees…all joe had from the yankees was a commitment of 5 guaranteed, with maybe 0 next year, and 0 for the “third” year…or, maybe they’d have kept bringing him back at 5+….given the uncertainty, i’d take the 13 too…even if the dodgers fire him after year 1, he still gets paid…not so with the yanks job…i wouldn’t say the dodgers are offering him job security as much as they are “paycheck security”…
    “…Surely you understand the idea of job security?…” nope, i’m a dope, thankfully i have guys like you to keep me straight…why do you always have to be so condescending?…and do you really think a guy like torre with his career, success, and yes at his age, is actually worried about job security?…i’m just surprised it had so much to do with the money…

    dc November 2, 2007, 8:42 am
  • Wasn’t trying to be condescending, dc, but the fact is that the dollar comparison isn’t what you are saying. The comparison is the dollars that Torre might have earned over each three year period, not this year with the Yankees vs. the the three from the Dodgers.
    If you are going to say it’s about the paycheck, then you at least have to keep the context equivalent, that’s all I am saying.

    SF November 2, 2007, 8:46 am
  • In other words, if Torre had come back to the Yankees next year and ONLY for next year, he’d have a job waiting for him somewhere in 2009 and 2010 without any question, and that money MUST to be factored into the comparison, if only hypothetically.

    SF November 2, 2007, 8:51 am
  • SF, if Torre gets fired by the Yankees after 2008, he would’ve gotten nothing. If he gets fired by the Dodgers after 2008, he gets ~9 million. He IS guaranteed more money with this particular contract.
    Suffice it to say, Torre was looking for guaranteed YEARS and that’s what the Yankees weren’t offering, while the Dodgers were.
    Me I love simple explanations, and despite all the noise (pay cut! insults!, incentives! oh my!) at the time of his “firing” it’s really that simple. Yankees offer two years, he stays. They didn’t. He didn’t. End of story.

    Pete November 2, 2007, 10:03 am
  • They’re already sick of the Scott Proctor jokes over at Dodger Thoughts. But they do make a couple good points. First, Grady Little somehow managed to use Proctor even more than Torre, which seems impossible. Second, they say that since LA has a terrific bullpen with a lot of good arms, there’s a good chance Torre might change his ways. Whether that happens, though, who knows.

    stuck working November 2, 2007, 10:59 am
  • Proctor is excited, for the record:
    Scott Proctor, traded from the Yankees to the Dodgers at midseason, said “three or four” of his L.A. teammates have called him to ask what Torre is like. “I told them, ‘Play hard, do your job and play to win,'” Proctor said. “Do that, you won’t have a problem with him.
    “He really knows how to handle veteran players and bring along young players and teach them how to play the game at the big-league level. That’s a perfect fit for our clubhouse. He knows how to handle players and puts you in situations where you’re going to succeed.”

    SF November 2, 2007, 11:02 am
  • Suffice it to say, Torre was looking for guaranteed YEARS and that’s what the Yankees weren’t offering, while the Dodgers were.
    Agreed. This should not be confused with Torre being greedy for sheer dollars, though. Torre wanted the security of knowing he wouldn’t be in another lame-duck year, this clearly was a large consideration on his part.
    Regardless of who he worked for this year and whether it was in a guaranteed contract or not, his earning power was in the teens of millions over the next three years.

    SF November 2, 2007, 11:11 am
  • I think you’re reading too much into it, SF, and we really can’t be sure of the motivations. More years does equal more dollars. I don’t think it’s greed, just like I didn’t think it was incentives or a pay cut. I do agree that it wasn’t just the money but I think it was a simple as he still wanted to manage and knew he needed a decent commitment in years from the hiring team.
    By the way, of all possible jobs besides the northeast, the Dodgers job is a very good and high paying one. I’m not sure he could get ten million over three years from more than 5 or 6 clubs, and he wouldn’t get that as a broadcaster. After that the choices for high income were probably limited to a book deal, but even then he’d fade from relevance after it’s release.
    All of that is a long winded way of saying, I think his earning potential is much more limited than you do, and he got one of the few jobs where he could guarantee to keep it at a high level for a few more years. It’s nice a bonus that he’ll also have a decent team too.

    Pete November 2, 2007, 11:22 am
  • Canw e foficially call Grady Little a failure as a manager? I remember the LA Times columnists going crazy when the Dodgers hired him, slamming the Red Sox for ditching a guy who had won 95 games in consecutive seasons. Wonder what they think of him now that he’s managed a preseason World Series favorite into near the basement?

    Paul SF November 2, 2007, 11:24 am
  • Or, for those of us who speak English: “Can we officially …”

    Paul SF November 2, 2007, 11:25 am
  • By the way, the Dodgers have the highest percentage of minorities employed throughout their organization–33%. THAT’S why they were given this exemption, not because of Jackie Robinson.
    Plus, I think it is better than they do this than conduct phony interviews with minorities where they do not intend on hiring them.

    Atheose November 2, 2007, 2:08 pm
  • Atheose, I was obviously being sarcastic. Whether or not the interviews are “phony”, it is a process that I think is a good idea, and just because a team has a good track record, it doesn’t mean they should be exempt from at least considering a minority for the most visible non-player position on a baseball team.

    attackgerbil November 2, 2007, 2:40 pm

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.