Controversy Alert (non political variety)
What
follows is pure speculation, based more on a nagging feeling (and perhaps bias) than actual
evidence. But hey, this is America. As is abundantly clear on both the campaign trail and talk media, there is no requirement to actually know what
you’re talking about to voice an opinion.
Oh, and
this has no real social significance because it deals with my theory trying to
explain how the Cardinals lost out to the Cubs on both John Lackey and Jason
Heyward. If Saint Louis is really baseball heaven, why depart for Chicago? I am
suggesting here that perhaps it wasn’t JUST money and/or length of contract.
I’m not
a huge fan of Mike Matheny, especially in terms of Xs & Os, strategy stuff.
Hey, it’s baseball, and all fans second guess and feel like we could make
better strategic and personnel decisions. That may or may not be true. In any
case, he has clearly demonstrated that he IS a good manager of men, a strong
motivator. He is an embodiment of the “Cardinal Way,” a true believer who has
successfully conveyed those principles to his team. He is also authentic, true
to himself, a dedicated Christian, strong in his faith. Admirable. Nothing to criticize there.
But
therein may lie the problem. If you think of Matheny’s favorites, they seem to
be almost universally “super Christians.” I wonder, however, if that kind of
atmosphere, the relentless Christianity and moral superiority at least implied by both Matheny and the Cardinal Way, is a comfortable
fit for every player. I don’t pretend to know either John Lackey or Jason Heyward (or any other player) but
might the more secular (if, in fact, he is) Joe Maddon be a more attractive
leader, at least for some players, than the (seemingly) self-righteous, holier than thou Mike Matheny? If true, it’s not a criticism
that a player would be likely to share publicly, or even in the clubhouse, but one that might skew a player's decision in a direction other than what we fans might have preferred. It would for me.
Just a
thought or two…. & see Rule #31 in the header above.
There's probably a modicum of truth there. Having only one season to grow and connect with a close-knit, "super Christian" team (and I agree with that depiction) is potentially an issue. I suspect most of Heyward's teammates are also "old school," as many baseball players still are, which might push them away from someone whose true baseball value is tied to advanced statistics and impeccable defense, numbers that don't appear on a Topps card. As with any job, if a co-worker is getting paid the most money on your staff for what you believe is lackluster work, it's impossible not to have some sort of resentment towards them. I also read a few days ago that Heyward was critical of Matheny starting Grichuk in the outfield when he couldn't throw, which was an obvious mistake and was quickly remedied. There is certainly a lack of statistical "oomph" in Matheny's managing skills.
ReplyDeleteIn all likelihood, though, it boils down to the dollars. Heyward's contract is essentially a three-year deal, leading to a massive contract upgrade if he's good or an eight-year "oops!" for the Cubs. With a looming lucrative TV deal on the horizon, I suspect the Cubs are more equipped to handle the worst-case scenario.
And hey, if I was a free agent, I'd want to join the fledgling dynasty brewing in Chicago, if possible. They've built a hell of a club.