Counsell

[Jopal78]

On 5/5/2024 at 10:36 AM, edfunderburk said:

You’re forgetting … Counsell did this for the “other” managers - not for himself.

He’s a really swell guy … Always thinking of the “other” managers. He still wants to be the Brewers manager, but he couldn’t pass up the opportunity to sacrifice his preferences to better the salaries of his peers.

What a hero.& role mode … we were lucky to have him.

 

You mean David Ross? One of those other managers who Counsell ever so slyly slipped a knife into his back knowing that to get his big payday, Ross’s head would also roll as collateral damage. 

[MrTPlush]

1 hour ago, EddieTheCousin said:

Oakland A's valuation in 2015: 725 million
Oakland A's valuation in 2024: 1.1 billion

Milwaukee Brewers valuation in 2015: 875 million
Milwaukee Brewers valuation in 2024: 1.6 billion

So lets assume the Brewers ran their team as terribly as the A's and their valuation grew by the same as the A's. This assuming that literally the only difference in their growth rates is purely because of the Brewers success and spending. Which is probably incredibly broken logic, but I will run with it. 

That would mean the Brewers would be worth $1.33bil instead. 

Starting in 2015 I added up their total amount spent on payroll compared to the A's. It would probably vary based on the source you use and the site I used didn't have end of season payrolls for some older seasons (something that would probably raise the Brewers number).

The payroll difference through those years was about $280mil...so literally would be a total wash. This is totally ignoring the fact that $300mil all these years in your pocket is infinitely better than an extra $300mil in team valuation. Money you can't really access till you sell the team.  

[KeithStone53151]

21 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

You mean David Ross? One of those other managers who Counsell ever so slyly slipped a knife into his back knowing that to get his big payday, Ross’s head would also roll as collateral damage. 

I've seen this narrative alot in here. Blaming Counsell for Ross losing his job is probably the most silly part of the discussion. Blaming Counsell for a decision by Cubs management to offer him the job makes absolutely no sense. Imagine sitting here and giving every single MLB free agent grief because a team signed them, which led to a different player losing his job. There's really no other way to say it, this argument is ridiculous and should stop being pushed...

[SeaBass]

1 hour ago, KeithStone53151 said:

I've seen this narrative alot in here. Blaming Counsell for Ross losing his job is probably the most silly part of the discussion. Blaming Counsell for a decision by Cubs management to offer him the job makes absolutely no sense. Imagine sitting here and giving every single MLB free agent grief because a team signed them, which led to a different player losing his job. There's really no other way to say it, this argument is ridiculous and should stop being pushed...

They should have been co-managers! Problem solved!

[Thurston Fluff]

1 hour ago, KeithStone53151 said:

I've seen this narrative alot in here. Blaming Counsell for Ross losing his job is probably the most silly part of the discussion. Blaming Counsell for a decision by Cubs management to offer him the job makes absolutely no sense. Imagine sitting here and giving every single MLB free agent grief because a team signed them, which led to a different player losing his job. There's really no other way to say it, this argument is ridiculous and should stop being pushed...

Apples and oranges. You don't normally see teams with managers out looking for the best free agent manager when they have one. Players are supposed to compete against each other. They also don't fire one player to sign another. They either trade them or they both stay. On the few occasion were the player is cut it was pretty obvious he was no longer capable of playing and had zero trade value. Even then, if he's cut loose there are literally hundreds of jobs available if he's at all worthy of a major league job. The manager free agent season isn't months long like players have. When it comes to managers there is a small window where teams fire their manager then hire a new one. By taking the job when he did Counsell prevented Ross from applying for all the other openings that got filled before he was even available. There's no way to defend Counsell's action on this other than to say he didn't give a rats behind about what would happen to Ross. Which if fine except he tried portray his actions as helping his fellow managers.

[KeithStone53151]

1 hour ago, Thurston Fluff said:

Apples and oranges. You don't normally see teams with managers out looking for the best free agent manager when they have one. Players are supposed to compete against each other. They also don't fire one player to sign another. They either trade them or they both stay. On the few occasion were the player is cut it was pretty obvious he was no longer capable of playing and had zero trade value. Even then, if he's cut loose there are literally hundreds of jobs available if he's at all worthy of a major league job. The manager free agent season isn't months long like players have. When it comes to managers there is a small window where teams fire their manager then hire a new one. By taking the job when he did Counsell prevented Ross from applying for all the other openings that got filled before he was even available. There's no way to defend Counsell's action on this other than to say he didn't give a rats behind about what would happen to Ross. Which if fine except he tried portray his actions as helping his fellow managers.

I drafted up a longer response, but it's not worth it. This argument is just so soft and reeks of the participation trophy mentality. David Ross was a bottom 10 manager in mlb at best. There are only 30 jobs. Counsell taking more money will have a positive impact on manager salaries going forward. David Ross losing his job as collateral damage was not Counsell's fault, it was a decision by Cubs management. Any negativity towards Counsell regarding the impact to Ross is completely irrational. You may have the last word if you'd like.

[Jopal78]

4 hours ago, KeithStone53151 said:

I've seen this narrative alot in here. Blaming Counsell for Ross losing his job is probably the most silly part of the discussion. Blaming Counsell for a decision by Cubs management to offer him the job makes absolutely no sense. Imagine sitting here and giving every single MLB free agent grief because a team signed them, which led to a different player losing his job. There's really no other way to say it, this argument is ridiculous and should stop being pushed...

No it’s not silly. Ross wasn’t otherwise getting fired. It’s a small group, and MLB manager jobs are kind of hard to get. Who knows maybe Ross never gets another crack at it.
 

You would be being naive if you didn’t believe Counsell knew all those points. Yet, he could’ve stood up for his fellow manager’s career and still reset the market for manager salaries with another team. But ultimately the awkwardness of taking a position that wasn’t open, and getting a fellow manager fired as a result was outweighed by the 40 million dollar guarantee. 

[Thurston Fluff]

1 hour ago, KeithStone53151 said:

I drafted up a longer response, but it's not worth it. This argument is just so soft and reeks of the participation trophy mentality. David Ross was a bottom 10 manager in mlb at best. There are only 30 jobs. Counsell taking more money will have a positive impact on manager salaries going forward. David Ross losing his job as collateral damage was not Counsell's fault, it was a decision by Cubs management. Any negativity towards Counsell regarding the impact to Ross is completely irrational. You may have the last word if you'd like.

Yes because most bottom ten mangers are in the top five in voting for manager of the year.

[KeithStone53151]

7 hours ago, Thurston Fluff said:

Yes because most bottom ten mangers are in the top five in voting for manager of the year.

In 2023 he was 7th in the NL for manager of the year, getting a second place vote, probably from the cubs beat writer which means zero. Ross was brought in as a last ditch attempt to help the Bryant/Rizzo/Baez core make one last magical run. He had no other managerial experience at any stop and the cubs have been mediocre during his tenure. Ross was always a placeholder until an opportunity presented itself for them to overpay. 

[KeithStone53151]

8 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

No it’s not silly. Ross wasn’t otherwise getting fired. It’s a small group, and MLB manager jobs are kind of hard to get. Who knows maybe Ross never gets another crack at it.
 

You would be being naive if you didn’t believe Counsell knew all those points. Yet, he could’ve stood up for his fellow manager’s career and still reset the market for manager salaries with another team. But ultimately the awkwardness of taking a position that wasn’t open, and getting a fellow manager fired as a result was outweighed by the 40 million dollar guarantee. 

You don't know that he'd have kept his job otherwise, for all we know they had other options in mind if Counsell didn't pan out. And it doesn't matter regardless. It's not counsells responsibility to defend David Ross's career. The cubs were willing to move on for the right candidate, Ross losing his job is on the cubs...but really it's on Ross for not doing more during the seasons he had. I said it earlier, but this narrative is soft and reeks of participation trophy mentality. 

[Jopal78]

6 hours ago, KeithStone53151 said:

You don't know that he'd have kept his job otherwise, for all we know they had other options in mind if Counsell didn't pan out. And it doesn't matter regardless. It's not counsells responsibility to defend David Ross's career. The cubs were willing to move on for the right candidate, Ross losing his job is on the cubs...but really it's on Ross for not doing more during the seasons he had. I said it earlier, but this narrative is soft and reeks of participation trophy mentality. 

Ross didn’t get fired for a whole month after the Cubs season ended, whereas Nevin in LAA, Kapler in SF, Melvin in SD and Showalter in NYM were let go immediately after their team’s season ended. That’s pretty strong evidence the Cubs were planning on rolling with Ross in ‘24. In fact, on October 8 2024 the Cubs President of Baseball Ops stated Ross was returning. So we DO know Ross was keeping his job otherwise.

Like I said Counsell’s goal was to sell himself to the highest bidder, he would have known taking the Cubs offer was going to wind up getting Ross fired when he otherwise would’ve kept his job for ‘24, and potentially ending his career as an mlb manager, but that awkwardness didn’t matter in light of all that money. 
 

 

[MrTPlush]

If Ross being fired by the Cubs ended his managerial career, then he wasn’t a very good manager to begin with.

[Jopal78]

44 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

If Ross being fired by the Cubs ended his managerial career, then he wasn’t a very good manager to begin with.

There are a lot of retreads so  one never knows for sure which is why I use the word “potentially” Likewise, the annals of baseball are also littered with managers who got just one opportunity.

Therefore it’s a pretty subjective argument to say that a person who gets one opportunity isn’t good at what they do.

[Thurston Fluff]

10 hours ago, KeithStone53151 said:

In 2023 he was 7th in the NL for manager of the year, getting a second place vote, probably from the cubs beat writer which means zero. Ross was brought in as a last ditch attempt to help the Bryant/Rizzo/Baez core make one last magical run. He had no other managerial experience at any stop and the cubs have been mediocre during his tenure. Ross was always a placeholder until an opportunity presented itself for them to overpay. 

I thought you said you were going to let me have the last word on this. He was fifth not seventh. That it was probably a Cubs bet writer that voted for him is pure speculation on your part. Even assuming it was. which I'm not, do beat writers often give bottom ten managers of their team manager of the year votes? Seems to me most managers would have at least one vote if that was the case. The Cubs last season were not expected to be very good. By pretty much all accounts they beat expectations. Generally speaking managers get some amount of credit when teams play above expectations so it shouldn't come as a surprise that someone thought he was doing a good job.

Him being a bottom ten manager is also just your opinion. An opinion I doubt is shared by many people in baseball. Obviously they thought Counsell was better but equally obviously they didn't think any of the managers available to them at the end of the season were. They only got rid of Ross when they found out they could land Counsell.

I'm not sure if you really feel that way or if it just fit your argument but I doubt you'll find many that think he was fired because he was a bottom ten manager as much as the Cubs thought they could land what they think is a top five manager.

[KeithStone53151]

6 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

Ross didn’t get fired for a whole month after the Cubs season ended, whereas Nevin in LAA, Kapler in SF, Melvin in SD and Showalter in NYM were let go immediately after their team’s season ended. That’s pretty strong evidence the Cubs were planning on rolling with Ross in ‘24. In fact, on October 8 2024 the Cubs President of Baseball Ops stated Ross was returning. So we DO know Ross was keeping his job otherwise.

Like I said Counsell’s goal was to sell himself to the highest bidder, he would have known taking the Cubs offer was going to wind up getting Ross fired when he otherwise would’ve kept his job for ‘24, and potentially ending his career as an mlb manager, but that awkwardness didn’t matter in light of all that money. 
 

 

Nor should it. This is such a soft line of thinking, and the logic is so incredibly flawed. Poor David Ross...the guy has made $30 million over his career and is at best a below average manager at this level. The Cubs clearly didn't think highly enough of Ross to NOT reach out to Counsell when the opportunity presented itself. What is Counsell supposed to do when the Cubs reach out? "Nah, I can't, poor David Ross"...give me a break.

[KeithStone53151]

3 hours ago, Thurston Fluff said:

I thought you said you were going to let me have the last word on this. He was fifth not seventh. That it was probably a Cubs bet writer that voted for him is pure speculation on your part. Even assuming it was. which I'm not, do beat writers often give bottom ten managers of their team manager of the year votes? Seems to me most managers would have at least one vote if that was the case. The Cubs last season were not expected to be very good. By pretty much all accounts they beat expectations. Generally speaking managers get some amount of credit when teams play above expectations so it shouldn't come as a surprise that someone thought he was doing a good job.

Him being a bottom ten manager is also just your opinion. An opinion I doubt is shared by many people in baseball. Obviously they thought Counsell was better but equally obviously they didn't think any of the managers available to them at the end of the season were. They only got rid of Ross when they found out they could land Counsell.

I'm not sure if you really feel that way or if it just fit your argument but I doubt you'll find many that think he was fired because he was a bottom ten manager as much as the Cubs thought they could land what they think is a top five manager.

https://www.mlb.com/news/2023-mlb-manager-of-the-year-voting-totals

7th of 15 teams in the NL. But he only got 1 vote(probably from a Cubs beat writer...yes this is an assumption), so it's really not relevant at all while the other 6 getting at least 5 votes in the top 3 is actually relevant.

[edfunderburk]

11 hours ago, MrTPlush said:

If Ross being fired by the Cubs ended his managerial career, then he wasn’t a very good manager to begin with.

I’m confident Murphy would never get another MLB managerial offer if he wasn’t the Brewers skipper any longer

[MrTPlush]

13 hours ago, edfunderburk said:

I’m confident Murphy would never get another MLB managerial offer if he wasn’t the Brewers skipper any longer

That’s because 90% of managers are basically useless in the grand scheme.

[patrickgpe]

17 hours ago, edfunderburk said:

I’m confident Murphy would never get another MLB managerial offer if he wasn’t the Brewers skipper any longer

He's 65, not many teams are bringing in guys his age anyway. He is currently the 5th oldest manager in baseball, so this isn't a  controversial statement. 

[SeaBass]

On 5/9/2024 at 1:36 PM, KeithStone53151 said:

Nor should it. This is such a soft line of thinking, and the logic is so incredibly flawed. Poor David Ross...the guy has made $30 million over his career and is at best a below average manager at this level. The Cubs clearly didn't think highly enough of Ross to NOT reach out to Counsell when the opportunity presented itself. What is Counsell supposed to do when the Cubs reach out? "Nah, I can't, poor David Ross"...give me a break.

Nobody mentions how Ross is still getting paid to sit on his couch and do nothing. Poor guy.

There are 30 MLB manager positions. Damn right it's a cut throat business. Bring your big boy pants. Craig Counsell is supposed to say "no"? Absurd.

[Thurston Fluff]

16 hours ago, SeaBass said:

Nobody mentions how Ross is still getting paid to sit on his couch and do nothing. Poor guy.

There are 30 MLB manager positions. Damn right it's a cut throat business. Bring your big boy pants. Craig Counsell is supposed to say "no"? Absurd.

It's not about the money it's about the job and why he no longer has one. As far as it being a cut throat business yes it is but the guy who was cutting the throat said he was doing so to help people like the one who's throat he just cut. There's nothing wrong with being selfish and taking the job that best fits you. There is something wrong with saying you're doing it for others.

[Brian]

Speaking of Counsell, I wish someone would ask Craig what really happened to Devin Williams. He may not be as zipper lipped about it like the Brewers front office. 

May 9th. Devin Williams is still recovering from two stress fractures in his back. The initial timeline was shut down for six weeks; out for three months. But that was more than seven weeks ago, and we've heard nothing yet about him resuming baseball activity. 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10120119-breaking-down-latest-mlb-injury-report-for-every-team

[Guest]

On 5/7/2024 at 2:53 PM, MrTPlush said:

So lets assume the Brewers ran their team as terribly as the A's and their valuation grew by the same as the A's. This assuming that literally the only difference in their growth rates is purely because of the Brewers success and spending. Which is probably incredibly broken logic, but I will run with it. 

That would mean the Brewers would be worth $1.33bil instead. 

Starting in 2015 I added up their total amount spent on payroll compared to the A's. It would probably vary based on the source you use and the site I used didn't have end of season payrolls for some older seasons (something that would probably raise the Brewers number).

The payroll difference through those years was about $280mil...so literally would be a total wash. This is totally ignoring the fact that $300mil all these years in your pocket is infinitely better than an extra $300mil in team valuation. Money you can't really access till you sell the team.  

You are mixing valuation with operations... you previously tried to imply that Counsell has nothing to do with the fact that Mark A's investment in the Brewers doubled during CC's time as manager. Going so far as to say they could have been a terrible organization and be run as badly as the A's, and Mark A would have seen the same return.

The numbers I pulled were from Forbes and do not support that claim.

This really isn't a debate worth having, as it was a footnote in my argument that Mark A had deep enough pockets to pay CC fair market value. There is zero debate on this... even if you think CC had nothing to do with the ROI that Mark A saw, he clearly still has enough money to pay him.

Instead Mark A offered 3 years and $16.5 million while the open market (Cubs in this case) offered 5 years/$40+ million.

We'd never expect to land a free agent with a pathetic offer like that...

Oh and not that it really matters here but Mark A - a man with 30+ years of experience in finance - can do A LOT with $300+ million in equity.

[Guest]

Ross was done in Chicago - CC haters reallllllllllly reaching now.

[wiguy94]

2 minutes ago, EddieTheCousin said:

Ross was done in Chicago - CC haters reallllllllllly reaching now.

If he was done why was he given a vote of confidence by the FO after the season when all the other managers who got fired were being fired?