Kevin Seitzer gone to Braves: Did he jump, or was he pushed?

dagger · Post #1 » by **dagger** » Mon Oct 27, 2014 12:52 pm

[tweet]https://twitter.com/mlbbowman/status/526711772648964097[/tweet]

Lateral Quicks · Post #2 » by **Lateral Quicks** » Mon Oct 27, 2014 12:56 pm

Whaaaa? Did he only have a one year contract?

The offense was one of the best in the league this year. I can't see him being fired for performance. Maybe he didn't like the clubhouse/management, and/or preferred it in Atlanta?

Four hitting coaches in four years. Just great.

dagger · Post #3 » by **dagger** » Mon Oct 27, 2014 1:44 pm

[tweet]https://twitter.com/LottOnBaseball/status/526728052244361217[/tweet]

Don;t tell me: The players wouldn't pass the hat?

Michael Bradley · Post #4 » by **Michael Bradley** » Mon Oct 27, 2014 2:12 pm

It's not a good sign when coaches who know they can get work elsewhere leave so quickly. First Farrell, and now Seitzer. I mean, this move is not going to be the difference between contending and not contending, but it just makes the organization look bad from a turnover standpoint.

I honestly think it's time to just can the entire coaching staff. If you're going to have turnover regardless, then bring in a manager that can assemble his own staff and don't worry about replacing the hitting coach and bullpen coach every year. This just reeks of shuffling deck chairs.

BigLeagueChew · Post #5 » by **BigLeagueChew** » Mon Oct 27, 2014 3:10 pm

new hitting coach every season, bring back mottola!

Embarrassing.

torontoaces04 · Post #6 » by **torontoaces04** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 12:49 am

I don't think this makes much difference for next year, but from an organizational standpoint, what a slap in the face!

C Court · Post #7 » by **C Court** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:06 am

Davidi said the Jays policy is to prefer one year deals on coaches. Seitzer was offered a longer contract from Atlanta and likely more money, so he took it. Toronto offered just one year.

Davidi said this constant hitting coach changing is not good for continuity. Players don't want to deal with a new coach with a new hitting philosophy every year - even though veteran hitters may simply ignore a coach they don't like.

He also said that the perception is starting that Toronto may not be a place with stability. So coaches are drawn to more stable situations. Just speculation on his part, but I think there's some truth to it.

The other problem facing the Jays is that only 3 or 4 teams are without hitting coaches for next season. So the best candidates are already taken, said Davidi.

whysoserious · Post #8 » by **whysoserious** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 11:30 am

How does it make sense to have a team policy of hiring coaches on a one year deal? If that's true it just adds to the stupid team policies they already have in place. This organization and it's policies are so ass backwards.

I get the the intent behind limiting yourself to no more than 5 year deals for players, but you're also cutting yourself out of every major free agent ever too.

Something's gotta change.

Michael Bradley · Post #9 » by **Michael Bradley** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:07 pm

The five year policy eliminates any chance at a quality FA and the one year policy for coaches eliminates any chance of a quality hitting/pitching coach coming on board.

If this team ever makes the playoffs again it will be by complete fluke. Ass backwards would be too nice of a term to describe their outdated practices.

Santoki · Post #10 » by **Santoki** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:14 pm

Since when have they had this one year policy in place? They built in a clause in Gibby's contract so that he'll never be on a one year deal, but now they're making every other staff member a lame duck? How does that build any trust between staff members?

This organization continues to baffle us in new ways every week.

dagger · Post #11 » by **dagger** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:50 pm

Centre Court wrote:Davidi said the Jays policy is to prefer one year deals on coaches. Seitzer was offered a longer contract from Atlanta and likely more money, so he took it. Toronto offered just one year.

Davidi said this constant hitting coach changing is not good for continuity. Players don't want to deal with a new coach with a new hitting philosophy every year - even though veteran hitters may simply ignore a coach they don't like.

He also said that the perception is starting that Toronto may not be a place with stability. So coaches are drawn to more stable situations. Just speculation on his part, but I think there's some truth to it.

The other problem facing the Jays is that only 3 or 4 teams are without hitting coaches for next season. So the best candidates are already taken, said Davidi.

I have been trying to cut Alex slack, but between him and Beeston, this organization seems to be poorly run. They have so many internal rules about contracts, the word is getting around that this is Team Mickey Mouse. Their PR skills are particularly abysmal.

C Court · Post #12 » by **C Court** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:57 pm

Yesterday on PTS, Davidi said the 'one year policy' on coaches is not a rule, but is definitely preferred by management.

He said that most coaches in the Blue Jays organization, (earning between $80,000 and up to the high $100k's) are on one year deals. Alex feels that every dollar saved at the coaching level, is another dollar he can spend on players - at least that's Shi's take.

Randle McMurphy · Post #13 » by **Randle McMurphy** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 5:36 pm

The one year policy actually makes sense (coaches are interchangeable and it is best to commit whatever money they have to the players). The five year one, if it actually exists (to me, that's just a built-in excuse used to say they can't sign big ticket FAs), obviously doesn't.

Mehar · Post #14 » by **Mehar** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:39 pm

Michael Bradley wrote:The five year policy eliminates any chance at a quality FA and the one year policy for coaches eliminates any chance of a quality hitting/pitching coach coming on board.

If this team ever makes the playoffs again it will be by complete fluke. Ass backwards would be too nice of a term to describe their outdated practices.

Absolutely. This one year policy is baffling to me. It does eliminate any chance of a good quality coach to commit to this team long-term. It seems that this organization is not serious about winning like they say they definitely are. If that is the case, i am wondering why in the heck i have been supporting this team like many other die-hard fans for the past two decades.

Wo1verine · Post #15 » by **Wo1verine** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:42 pm

Apparently the Jays have interest in former Yankees coach Kevin Long?

I doubt he would take a 1-year deal though considering 3 or4 others teams want him as well.

BramptonYute · Post #16 » by **BramptonYute** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:46 pm

Centre Court wrote:Yesterday on PTS, Davidi said the 'one year policy' on coaches is not a rule, but is definitely preferred by management.

He said that most coaches in the Blue Jays organization, (earning between $80,000 and up to the high $100k's) are on one year deals. Alex feels that every dollar saved at the coaching level, is another dollar he can spend on players - at least that's Shi's take.

lol, Rogers is so pathetic.

Randle McMurphy · Post #17 » by **Randle McMurphy** » Wed Oct 29, 2014 2:27 am

Wo1verine wrote:Apparently the Jays have interest in former Yankees coach Kevin Long?

I doubt he would take a 1-year deal though considering 3 or4 others teams want him as well.

The Mets hired Long last week.

Michael Bradley · Post #18 » by **Michael Bradley** » Wed Oct 29, 2014 4:41 pm

Randle McMurphy wrote:The one year policy actually makes sense (coaches are interchangeable and it is best to commit whatever money they have to the players). The five year one, if it actually exists (to me, that's just a built-in excuse used to say they can't sign big ticket FAs), obviously doesn't.

Managers are interchangeable, but coaches are important. A good hitting or pitching coach can have a direct impact on the development of a player (i.e. Arnsberg working with Romero in 2009, Cito/Murphy with Bautista, etc), both good and bad. If you put a policy in place where coaches pretty much know the organization views them as interchangeable, then the quality of coaches this organization will bring in won't be very good (unless they develop a good coach through the ranks).

I like the idea of hiring a manager and letting the manager decide who to put on the staff. That way you can scapegoat everyone at once, instead of picking and choosing a coach every year. The Jays seem to hire a manager and just surround him with anyone they have on the payroll. It may not make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things, but turnover like the Jays have had is not a good thing. It shows a lack of stability, especially since the team isn't exactly winning and/or attracting players.

Randle McMurphy · Post #19 » by **Randle McMurphy** » Wed Oct 29, 2014 9:33 pm

Michael Bradley wrote:Managers are interchangeable, but coaches are important.

The conduct of most MLB teams (this isn't just the Jays at all) would seem to suggest completely differently. Coaches are viewed as expendable, they're paid cheaply, and there is a lot of movement every year among them.

I grant that you could have good/bad coaches or coaches that affecting some guys more positively than others (like Mottola with Rasmus or Murphy with Bautista), but there's really no way for any of us to differentiate between them on the whole.

You could also make the argument that coaching "stability" might not be the best thing for an organization with a history of mediocrity/failure.

Post #20 » by **Schad** » Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:14 am

Randle McMurphy wrote:
Michael Bradley wrote:Managers are interchangeable, but coaches are important.

The conduct of most MLB teams (this isn't just the Jays at all) would seem to suggest completely differently. Coaches are viewed as expendable, they're paid cheaply, and there is a lot of movement every year among them.

I grant that you could have good/bad coaches or coaches that affecting some guys more positively than others (like Mottola with Rasmus or Murphy with Bautista), but there's really no way for any of us to differentiate between them on the whole.

You could also make the argument that coaching "stability" might not be the best thing for an organization with a history of mediocrity/failure.

Heh, but as we've had a history of mediocrity/failure with very little coaching stability, it's pretty hard to tell cause and effect there.