John Gibbons - Blue Jays Manager as per Bob Elliott

[Randle McMurphy]

Are you saying that anyone who doesn't love the hire is ignorant?

I don't want to put words into Randle's mouth (and correct me if I'm wrong).

But, I think a lot of the people that 'hate it', probably don't really hate it for the 'right' reasons. I think it's perfectly fine to hate a move if you are viewing it objectively and that is your unbiased decision, and thereis good reason. However, in sports there is always a scapegoat, and a lot of the time it is the coach. If a team isn't performing, well it must be the coaches fault because he's not doing "x", "y" or "z". I think it's especially true for the casual sports fan (who probably make up the majority of the poll takers here). They probably saw the team losing, and thought it must be the managers fault because the team was under-performing, and in an attempt to try and justify 'why', they blame the manager. Someone who reasons that way, probably isn't going to be super thrilled by this move.

Exactly. Fans (especially casual ones) often mistakenly look to the managers/coaches as a reason for a team's failure (when it almost always has to do with factors outside of their control like the overall talent of a team). This is why you see them scapegoated by GMs so often (as Gibbons so clearly was in 2008). It gives those GMs more time before the blame eventually falls on them and the player group that they've built.

So far, nothing I've seen, read, or heard from those who dislike the Gibbons hiring have made much in the way of a salient point about why they don't like it (beyond such nonsense as "he's a .500 manager" or "he's a hot head that can't keep control of a team"). Nor have they given a realistic option that would have been better (or even bothered to explain why they would have been better). I have no time for such emotion-based, illogical arguments.

I personally don't know enough about the move to have a great opinion. But, what I do know, is that I'm glad to have a GM that has the balls to make a move that he thinks is correct without worrying about PR backlash from fans that really have the 'wrong' reason to hate the move. What I want from a GM is to 1) properly evaluate talent, and 2)use that evaluation to put out what he thinks is the best team possible, without regard to PR/Marketing/blah blah blah. His moves show, without a doubt, he's great at #2.

Yes, this hiring further shows just how gutsy AA is. He doesn't give a damn about public perception on the way to this goal of building a winning team, nor should he.

[satyr9]

Ignorant about John Gibbons, yeah, for sure.

The fallacious arguments about this being a poor hiring from within the fanbase (such as him being a .500 manager or him being some kind of jerk that will fight/ruin team chemistry) seem to be coming from people who either don’t have a clue/don't remember about what kind of manager John Gibbons was or those who attached him to the JP Ricciardi era of baseball that they just don’t want to remember (or at least an era that they want to deny had any positive qualities).

The what??? Sorry I couldn't hear you. *Sticks fingers in ears* Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah

[Tyrone Slothrop]

My impressions of him were that although he was a nice guy, he was a rather dull,not particularly bright,unimaginative manager.
The team was a mess when he left.
No one that I recall was upset at his firing.
I just don't get it.

I don't agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to express it in Haiku form.

[JoeyBats]

Things I remembered from the Gibby era : batting mat stairs lead off for a few games, and the offense really sucking. Im pretty sure he was a believer in take as many pitches as possible, work a walk, and let the 3-4 hitters get home runs.

[ranger001]

Why is stating that he was .500 manager bad somehow? Its a fact.

He never overachieved when he ran the team. He's never been a guy who you think wow how did he get the team to do that. Bobby Valentine has a few of those on his resume, not John Gibbons. Gibbons is a mediocre manager.

Someone who loves this hire please tell me how Gibbons has overachieved.

[Raps12]

Why is stating that he was .500 manager bad somehow? Its a fact.

He never overachieved when he ran the team. He's never been a guy who you think wow how did he get the team to do that. Bobby Valentine has a few of those on his resume, not John Gibbons. Gibbons is a mediocre manager.

Someone who loves this hire please tell me how Gibbons has overachieved.

Are you serious? We shouldn't hire him because he hasn't overachieved? That's the dumbest thing I've read in a long time.

Gibby is solid, not great but solid. He knows the game and knows how/when to make changes. This team is loaded with talent now, we don't need a manager that has to overachieve to have success. The players can produce on their own.

What we need is a guy to keep them all in check and motivated in the right direction. Gibby's personality and skilss are exactly what this team needs.

[Hoopstarr]

I kinda love this. Hopefully he doesn't rest players needlessly like he used to and tweaks his hitting approach but I like Gibbers.

[TheseSicklyKeys]

A few quotes from Shea Hillenbrand on Gibbons:

“That’s awesome,” he said. “He’s a great guy.”

“All I know is that during my time with him he was a really good manager and I think he did a really good job with what he had.”

“I think he handled the situation that we had very professionally and I didn’t handle it professionally at all,”


http://www.thestar.com/sports/baseball/ ... er-reports

Why is stating that he was .500 manager bad somehow? Its a fact.

He never overachieved when he ran the team. He's never been a guy who you think wow how did he get the team to do that. Bobby Valentine has a few of those on his resume, not John Gibbons. Gibbons is a mediocre manager.

Someone who loves this hire please tell me how Gibbons has overachieved.

Managers don't have that kind of impact. If a team overachieves, it has little, if anything, to do with the manager.

[RapsFanInVA]

Why is stating that he was .500 manager bad somehow? Its a fact.

He never overachieved when he ran the team. He's never been a guy who you think wow how did he get the team to do that. Bobby Valentine has a few of those on his resume, not John Gibbons. Gibbons is a mediocre manager.

Someone who loves this hire please tell me how Gibbons has overachieved.

Have you seen the records of some other managerial candidates?

Tracy
Acta
Howe
Riggleman

All under .500

I don't think managers really make that much of a difference one way or another, unless they completely lose the club house and there is a mutiny (Bobby V). We have more talent now than the team he coached that went 87-75, so I see no reason why he can't lead this team to 90 wins just by not screwing up like Farrell did with our bullpen.

[jaymeister15]

Why is stating that he was .500 manager bad somehow? Its a fact.

Sure, you're right...it is a fact. But, it's not a fact that is relevant when analyzing whether or not he is a good hire.

[Harry Palmer]

Mostly meh.

Not the calibre of guy I was hoping for in the immediate wake of the trade, but better than the names I'd heard bouncing around in the last few days. I remember liking some aspects, disliking others, overall seemed like just a guy, but that's better than the people I feared we'd take based on the rumour mill recently. I hope we don't adopt the same tone his teams had here before, though. Seemed to me he had us playing a little too tight. On the other hand, I like the AA comfort level.

The fighting with players stuff is mostly a non-factor to me. I mean, if it starts happening again it becomes a concern, but 2 incidents isn't exactly a pattern.

Out of curiosity, anyone here remember the board's take when Farrell was first hired?

[Ado05]

This wasnt a bad baseball move. From what Ive read, it seems that Gibbons is a nice guy, but he will keep you in line. Pretty much what this team needs, especially with the big ego's on this team.

[Randle McMurphy]

Why is stating that he was .500 manager bad somehow? Its a fact.

It also means absolutely nothing. Good managers can be on bad teams, just as bad managers can be on good ones. Overall team record comes largely down to the talent on the field.

[DonYon]

Out of curiosity, anyone here remember the board's take when Farrell was first hired?

I remember most of the board being optimistic about Farrell and the coaching staff in general based on the information that was floating around, but there wasn't a whole lot to go on since he had no previous managerial experience.

[Randle McMurphy]

Out of curiosity, anyone here remember the board's take when Farrell was first hired?

I remember most of the board being optimistic about Farrell and the coaching staff in general based on the information that was floating around, but there wasn't a whole lot to go on since he had no previous managerial experience.

I wanted to believe in him. Did for the first few months of the first season too until I couldn't get past some of the terrible things.

[S.W.A.N]

Mostly meh.

Not the calibre of guy I was hoping for in the immediate wake of the trade, but better than the names I'd heard bouncing around in the last few days. I remember liking some aspects, disliking others, overall seemed like just a guy, but that's better than the people I feared we'd take based on the rumour mill recently. I hope we don't adopt the same tone his teams had here before, though. Seemed to me he had us playing a little too tight. On the other hand, I like the AA comfort level.

The fighting with players stuff is mostly a non-factor to me. I mean, if it starts happening again it becomes a concern, but 2 incidents isn't exactly a pattern.

This.

I would go above Meh, though... Considering the name the media had us looking at this was a step up.

As you mention the comfort AA has with him is very reassuring to me. He spent a good number of years working with Gibbons and the fact that he brought him back means that baring disaster we are going to be set at front office manager positions for a while.

Continuity and cohesiveness are important. Having a GM and Manager that are on the same page is important.

[tiger7]

Via @thescore :

Brian Butterfield was in talks with Blue Jays for managerial position until the very end. http://thesco.re/U2e3Ar

[BigLeagueChew]

Scott Ferguson Article : Why I'm finally sold on Gibbons

My initial reaction when the Blue Jays re-hired John Gibbons as manager this week was, why? Not that he was a good manager or a bad manager, just, why?

When we opened the phones throughout the day on TSN Radio 1050, the response was almost totally negative. Most listeners used the "been there, done that" logic.

After a couple of days of letting it all sink in, I've moved to the "Why Not?" camp. Gibbons has an infectious likable personality. He also managed a Blue Jays team that had decidely less talent to a .500 record, at 305-305 over the three full years and parts of two others that he guided the Jays from 2004 to 2008.

The one year the Jays did load up, 2006, when they brought in A.J. Burnett and B.J. Ryan, Gibbons got them to second place with 87 victories. Yes, he did have run-ins or dust-ups as he put it on a few occasions, but the two main ones which occurred that year, with Shea Hillenbrand and Ted Lilly actually seemed to spark the team. In both cases, though Gibbons may have gone slightly over the edge, he stood up for himself and the organization and made it clear in no uncertain terms who was running the team, and his way was the Blue Jays way.

Two things really sold me on Gibbons. One was the way that GM Alex Anthopoulos spoke so passionately about the hiring, saying he had more conviction about this move than any other he had made as general manager.

The second was hearing John McDonald on the Bryan Hayes show this week on TSN Radio 1050, saying how badly the players felt when "Gibby" was fired, how honest and straight forward he was and how he ran the clubhouse.

Anthopoulos also lauded Gibbons for his handling of the bullpen, which many would argue is a manager's most important task.

Clearly, if Bobby Cox had been willing to come out of retirement, he was the Blue Jays' first choice. Bobby guiding the Blue Jays to their first division title back in 1985 before heading back to Atlanta at the conclusion of that season to become the Braves GM and ultimately their manager for a second time. There are certainly things about Cox that you can see in Gibbons. Namely, his passion, his fire and his pure love of the game.

There are only a handful of players still in Toronto who actually played for "Gibby" the first time around. Casey Janssen debuted with the Jays in 2006. Adam Lind and Dustin McGowan are still under contract. Pete Walker, who pitched for the Jays in 2006, was the bullpen coach in 2012 and Gregg Zaun works in the television side of things now.

Knowing Toronto, being friends with Anthopoulos should allow Gibbons to hit the ground running with a team that is now expected to be an instant contender. After some initial trepidation, I've got a feeling this just might work.

I don't know if Evan Grant of the Dallas Morning News knows something we don't know or if it is just wishful thinking. He is still predicting Ricky Romero and J.P Arencibia will be in Texas by the time the season starts. He also believes the Rangers can land Zach Greinke and Nick Swisher.

Not too many managers get a second chance at running a club. The only ones I can remember over the last 40 or 50 years to have multiple stints with the same club are Billy Martin (five times with the Yankees), Danny Murtaugh (four times with Pittsburgh), Bobby Cox (two times with Atlanta), Cito Gaston (twice with the Blue Jays) and now John Gibbons. Of those other three, Cox and Murtaugh both won World Series at some point after their return to their old clubs.

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/scott_ferguson/?id=410114