Hinch multi-year deal?

by jonny-yuma on May 18, 2009 6:10 PM EDT

now that the dust has settled, I don't get the multi-year deal for Hinch. Doesn't he have to prove that he can manage first? I get the caretaker manager part of it after the start we've had, but why more than that? Don't we want to motivate him to perform? Now he can extend his learning curve out a few more years. Not to mention the fact that if guys like Gibby or Brett Butler feel passed over, we're chancing losing those guys down the road at some point. (Price's recent comments re Melvin's firing etc. point in this direction).

Tweet Comment 7 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Mentioned this elsewhere

But just to do so here, since it’s relevant. I don’t know what Hinch’s contract was like as the player development guy [or if he even had one]. If that ran for several seasons, then giving him the same would make sense. Would you want to leave a multi-year deal for a spot as manager lasting only through the end of the season?

"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil

by Jim McLennan on May 18, 2009 6:35 PM EDT reply actions

figured

sorry, haven’t been able to keep up w/the fanposts lately and figured this might have already been covered…good point re why would he take a deal only through the end of the season, but why did we have to entice him and his zero managing experience? Seems to me if he really wanted to manage and prove that he could do so, a shot at running out the year would suffice. I hear ya, it’s just with the multi-year deal sweetening the pot, I think we could have done much better with Gibby or Butler for the money. At any rate, today’s manager is tomorrow’s unemployed, so it’s not that multi-year deals really mean anything over the long run :)

by jonny-yuma on May 18, 2009 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions

True that

Even if we have to pay out all the remaining years on Hinch’s contract, it’ll probably cost no more than minimum league salary for one rookie backup infielder. On that basis, as a public show of confidence, it’s a lot cheaper than many moves the team will make.

"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil

by Jim McLennan on May 19, 2009 2:15 AM EDT up reply actions

I like it

See it in football alot in these parts. Teams are happy to go through 3-4-5-6 managers in the space of 2/3 years when things don’t go right. Ironically enough its the ones who trust their managers that generally have success, a public show of faith goes a long way.

The Dbacks are like women...They do your head in sometimes but you soon realise life wouldnt be the same without 'em.

by Smoggie on May 21, 2009 8:08 AM EDT reply actions

Causality

But does the manager generally have success BECAUSE he’s kept around, or is he kept around BECAUSE he’s had success?

It may be a bit of the former, but my guess is that it’s much more of the latter.

Jim Zorn, 55. Sean Miller, 40. AJ Hinch, 34. Notice a pattern here?

by DbacksSkins on May 21, 2009 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Well

You could argue either side of the plate TBH. Probably the best manager in the history of football was reportedly 1 game from the sack, but they stuck with him long before the team became probably the most dominant in English footie history. On the other hand Middlesbroughs current manager took over when the club was on a massive high after a trophy and a european run, yet the team is going down this year BECAUSE of the chairman sticking with the manager too long.

I guess football is a bad comparison really since the margin for error is much less. Apples and oranges so to speak.

NB: My references to football here are soccer for you silly foreigners ;-)

GDB!

by Smoggie on May 21, 2009 2:33 PM EDT reply actions