Jump to content

formermav43

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3518
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by formermav43

  1. There are threads dedicated not only to Shaka, but Barnes, Brown, Herman, Strong. Seems unlikely. And there is a Beard thread.
  2. Bregman has a .375 career OBP and he sees a ton of pitches. Id argue he’s actually more of a prototypical leadoff guy that Altuve, speed notwithstanding. I don’t buy Pena pressing just because of who is behind him. Lineup protection is seriously overestimated-the numbers don’t really validate it. (And even if it is a thing, McCormick so far has actually been a better hitter than Pena, so…)
  3. I think that’s reading too much into it. I voted I wouldn’t hire him unless he made the Final Four. I’m not going to pull for him to fail if he loses to Xavier and they hire him just to satisfy my vanity over an internet poll. I want to win. I think there are probably better options than Terry to accomplish that long-term. But if Terry is hired, I’m pulling for him. Because I want to win.
  4. Hadn’t seen that. Thanks for the heads up.
  5. It “solves” it by creating the much larger problem of a bad leadoff hitter.
  6. Yeah, that’s a silly thing to say. The only guy who won’t root for Terry if he’s hired is Loop1604, and he’s clearly off his rocker.
  7. I don’t think those are fair estimates-they seem overwhelmingly negative. There’s no reason to expect Alvarez to be limited to 100 games, for instance.
  8. I'd go with Bregman, unless and until there is an improved approach from Pena. A guy with a sub .300 OBP leading off is less than ideal.
  9. Like I said-they’re hard.
  10. So are jokes.
  11. I disagree-I see no reason. Either hire him or don’t. Half-measures aren’t good for anyone. Just fire him if it comes to that, paying a buyout is better than setting him up to fail.
  12. To be fair, showing up everyday isn’t really anything to brag about in living your life. The alternative is you’re dead.
  13. While true to a point, there’s a reason 3 year contracts aren’t standard. You’re immediately handicapping him in recruiting because it signals your coach may not even be there the entire time you are. There’s no reason not to give him 4-5 years if you hire him. If it’s clear he wouldn’t work out after 3, just pay the buyout.
  14. It can be. I don't think of that as "old" in general with people I know, I'm just thinking more in terms of what is ideally a long-term hire if he does well - so given when most coaches retire, you might be looking at 15-20 years of Donovan, but maybe only a decade of someone Dutcher's age. If you're thinking is right about it maybe being inevitable, are comfortable with a shorter-term solution, and want someone with an even better resume, why not kick the tires on John Beilein?
  15. I don't have anything against hiring an older coach in general. But 1) there's a big difference between a guy like Dutcher and Billy Donovan/Jay Wright; and 2) I'd say that 5 years could make a bigger difference than it seems like in a vacuum in that age bracket too.
  16. He turns 64 later this year. I'm sure we'd prefer to hire someone younger if possible.
  17. It balances the ones who want him hired for simply not completely screwing things up in 3 months.
  18. By those who know it’s “whom.”
  19. Should it carry that much weight? I remember Paul Boyette fighting back tears in defense of Charlie Strong.
  20. Agree. I’d go further-I don’t eat Tabasco at all. It’s not good.
  21. It seems like that should resolve itself pretty naturally with guys leaving.
  22. That's a different question.
×
×
  • Create New...