Skip to content

Cubs ready to out-bid the Yankees for Joe Girardi

Oct 7, 2013, 11:51 AM EDT

Joe Girardi, Brian Cashman Getty Images

How serious are the Cubs about luring manager Joe Girardi away from the Yankees? According to Mark Gonzales of the Chicago Tribune they’re “willing to top whatever offer” he gets to stay in New York.

Gonzales speculates that will mean at least $5 million per season and generally speaking teams rarely win bidding wars with the Yankees, so Girardi (and his agent) must be thrilled right now.

Girardi is technically under contract until November 1 and the Yankees haven’t granted him permission to speak to teams before then, so this whole thing could take a while to play out.

  1. djdvd - Oct 7, 2013 at 11:58 AM

    If they want to overpay for a manager let them. I’m sure there’s a more than comparable one that can be found for a lot less. Besides we’ve already seen that the Yankees are acting tight for money for some odd reason. As long as it’s not like a bobby V type of mistake it won’t be that bad, they won’t be good for the next few years anyway

    • xdj511 - Oct 7, 2013 at 12:22 PM

      The Yankees are trying to cut down their payroll to get under the luxury tax threshhold. The manager’s salary wouldn’t count towards that cap, so they can throw as much money as they’d like at him. Girardi is probably going to end up with the largest contract ever handed to a manager by the time this is over.

      • jm91rs - Oct 7, 2013 at 12:52 PM

        Can you imagine the pressure that will be on him if he becomes the highest paid manager ever? As if talking to the media there wasn’t hard enough already.

  2. rickdobrydney - Oct 7, 2013 at 11:59 AM

    I won’t read a story I have to PAY for —-

    • tferr85 - Oct 7, 2013 at 12:16 PM

      HAHA. So DigiPlus seems like it might be a pretty bad pay wall.

      Open the link and as soon as it loads hit control A. Then even with the thing blocking your view ctrl c and you can now paste the article anywhere.

      • happytwinsfan - Oct 7, 2013 at 2:15 PM

        it works!! thanks!!

        you might already know this, but anytime yiou run into one of those “you’ve used up your free articles for the month to continue reading…” things just copy the url from the address bar, open a different browser, e.g. instead of chrome go to IE, firefox, opera whichever and you’re back to the begining for your free articles quota. has worked everytime so far.

  3. giantboy99 - Oct 7, 2013 at 12:06 PM

    $$$$$$$$

  4. cabrera24 - Oct 7, 2013 at 12:09 PM

    I would love to see the cubs bring back Dusty Baker

    • jcmeyer10 - Oct 7, 2013 at 1:04 PM

      You know how I know you’re not a Cubs fan?

  5. NatsLady - Oct 7, 2013 at 12:10 PM

    Interesting to me that analysts say a manager can be worth +5 wins to a team, yet they don’t want to pay anything near what +5 WAR would be worth in a player ($20 MM). I’m really curious–how much IS a good manager worth to a team. Asking for the Nats…

    • Kevin S. - Oct 7, 2013 at 12:25 PM

      Tactically, probably only a couple of wins. And while Girardi’s good, he’s not perfect there. I’m sure there is an off-the-field impact, but there’s really no way to estimate it.

      • vinnythek - Oct 7, 2013 at 2:52 PM

        From the Cubs’ perspective, tactics (or 2014 wins) have little to do with the hiring of the next manager. Sveum was fired mainly because young players were regressing rather than progressing individually – particularly Castro and Rizzo. The next Cub manager will be judged on player development skills, first and foremost, not WAR.

      • Kevin S. - Oct 7, 2013 at 3:02 PM

        Other than managing playing time, how much of a role does a manager really have in PD? Seems to me that once they’re in the bigs, most development is handled by the hiting/pitching/position coaches, no?

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Oct 7, 2013 at 12:26 PM

      What analysts say that?

      • NatsLady - Oct 7, 2013 at 1:14 PM

        I’ve read it several times, usually in the context of AT MOST 5 wins, not a minimum. I’m thinking back to the Nats season with Davey Johnson, who is, IMO, a very good manager, though not perfect. I can list about 5 games where his line-up or in-game decisions clearly affected the result negatively. On the positive side, it’s less clear, because when things are going well, you don’t usually credit the manager.

        Yet Davey (once the team was healthy) came up with a reasonable and consistent lineup, rarely mismanaged pinch hitters/platoons, and managed the bullpen pretty well. His only weakness seemed to be leaving the starter in too long, especially in September, when every game for us was a Game 7.

        As far as intangibles, the squad was scandal-free and seemed to be close and supportive of each other. So if you discount the -5 of “obvious” mistakes that fans criticized, was he worth +10 on player and game management? I would say, probably yes, even though I’m not his biggest fan.

    • jcmeyer10 - Oct 7, 2013 at 1:05 PM

      I don’t know if it was Farrell or the new players (obviously a combination of both + beards) but it seems there is a 30 win difference between a guy like Farrell and a guy like Valentine.

      • NatsLady - Oct 7, 2013 at 1:17 PM

        Agree. Think about your own experience. When I have a good boss, I do tend to go that extra 1/2 mile. I’m already doing my job, getting paid for it, etc., but there is a little more incentive when I have a good boss.

      • paperlions - Oct 7, 2013 at 1:19 PM

        It was mostly player health and having better player….of course Valentine is about the last kind of person you want to have as a baseball manager…..the problem is that this is not hard to replace value. Almost all manager do almost all things the same (or similarly)….the mostly manage bullpens the same, they make most of the same tactical decisions, they would mostly construct the same lineups, etc….there are far more people that can effectively manage a baseball team than there are jobs.

        That is the primary problem with the mention of WAR above. There is no such thing as a replacement-level manager….and it is nearly impossible to establish value associated with managing to begin with….but mostly, the problem is that the amount of “value” a manager is capable of bringing to the table is tiny compared to the value represented by the talent on a roster….and teams that are doing smart things (e.g. Tampa, Pittsburgh) are not doing them because they are the manager’s idea, they are doing them because the FO is dictating them and if the manager (or coaches) doesn’t subscribe to the organizational philosophy, then he’s gone.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Oct 7, 2013 at 1:46 PM

        If y’all think the difference between a good manager and bad is 30 wins, I don’t know what to say. They’d be the most valuable commodity in all of baseball.

      • Kevin S. - Oct 7, 2013 at 1:51 PM

        Am I the only one who got jcmeyer’s sarcasm? Y’all are going on like he’s serious and not just mocking narratives.

    • paperlions - Oct 7, 2013 at 1:10 PM

      Yeah, I want to see a quantification that says a particular manger IS worth that….”could” a manager be worth that? I suppose. Is it likely that a manager’s decisions and such can predictably result in that kind of value annually? Not really.

      Teams with talented and healthy players win; teams without talent or health lose…pretty much regardless of managerial goodness.

  6. samaugster23 - Oct 7, 2013 at 12:15 PM

    What if there is another team Girardi could go to???? What if Leyland retires from the Detroit Tigers???? He is on a year to year contract. Would Girardi be a good fit in Detroit??? They are a World Series Contender.

  7. chip56 - Oct 7, 2013 at 12:19 PM

    I’ve always thought that mangers get too much credit when teams do well and too much blame when things go poorly.

    Joe Torre didn’t get any better as a manager when he came to the Yankees, he just got to manage better players than he had with the Cardinals.

    Girardi’s a guy who is going to be well prepared and have his team well prepared, but at the end of the day, unless the talent level improves I don’t think Girardi is going to have much more success than Sveum did with the Cubs.

    • okobojicat - Oct 7, 2013 at 1:00 PM

      I agree with you, that generally, a manager is a product of what players his GM puts around him. That said, Girardi did handle a very young team in Miami very well and get them almost to the Wild Card in 2006.

    • ctony1216 - Oct 7, 2013 at 1:19 PM

      A big part of the job in NY is dealing with the media and with the egos of players and team executives. Any Yankees manager has to do that part of the job extremely well, and Torre and Girardi both have been really good at it.

      A lot of managers can match Girardi as a baseball strategist, being organized, motivating players, etc. In fact, 3 guys in his own division may be as good or better at that stuff than he is. But it’s dealing with lunacy that surrounds the Yankees that takes a certain temperament, which Girardi has.

      • chip56 - Oct 7, 2013 at 1:34 PM

        Oh I completely agree that Girardi (and Torre before him) has done a great job handling the lunacy. I just don’t think that dealing with the media well helps the team win games.

        Look at Tom Coughlin – he has been awful handling the media for the Giants in the same market – but still has maintained a strong team.

      • ctony1216 - Oct 7, 2013 at 2:11 PM

        You may be right, but compare the job that John Farrell did in Boston to the nightmare of Bobby Valentine. Valentine added to the madness in Boston; Farrell cured it. And that made a huge difference in terms of wins and losses in Boston. One guy finished last; the other guy finished first.

    • bigharold - Oct 7, 2013 at 5:18 PM

      “Joe Torre didn’t get any better as a manager when he came to the Yankees, he just got to manage better players than he had with the Cardinals. ”

      To a point I agree. Torre wasn’t that good tactically and after Zimmer left it became more apparent. Granted in the AL, wit the DH that’s less important but Girardi is better and it is worth noting. Also, Torre was terrible at handling a pen. He burned down one pitcher after another going to the “hot hand”. Girardi has done a far better job and the results show.

      What Torre was best at was dealing with all the ancillary hoopla that goes along with being a Yankee manager; managing the media pressure, dealing with the high profile players and dealing with he owner, .. which back in the mid 90s was a significant task in itself.

      I like Giradi better than Torre but that’s not Torre wasn’t a good manager. He had better teams than his previous managerial positions and to his credit he made the most of it.

  8. hoopmatch - Oct 7, 2013 at 12:43 PM

    Fans would get excited about Girardi though, as opposed to, say, Jim Riggleman, which probably figures into Cub calculations.

    • chip56 - Oct 7, 2013 at 1:42 PM

      See I don’t understand that – I’ve been going to baseball games for 30 years and not once did I say “ooh, I’m super excited to watch (insert manager name here) manage.”

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Oct 7, 2013 at 1:48 PM

        What if Kate Upton was the new Yankee manager?

      • chip56 - Oct 7, 2013 at 1:50 PM

        Well then I would want to go to the game because of the manager.

  9. thesmedman - Oct 7, 2013 at 12:59 PM

    Lotta upside to the Cubs.

    Win now potential with the Nationals.

    Potential with the Reds.

    Lotta downside with the Yankees.

    It IS about players, which is precisely my point.

    If I was Girardi, I’d be heading home to Chicago.

  10. chiadam - Oct 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM

    The Cubs are losing their nerve and starting to do Cub things again. Last year they caved in to stupid “WHY AREN’T THE CUBS SPENDING MONEY??” fans and handed Edwin Jackson $52 million to suck. Now they are chasing the celebrity manager. Again.

  11. pastabelly - Oct 7, 2013 at 1:17 PM

    Girardi is more valuable to the Yankees than he would be to other teams because he knows the players in the organization and how to work with them. It’s the same reason that John Farrell was the right choice in Boston, despite there being other capable candidates out there. What is Girardi going to do for the Cubs that they would want to pay a premium on? Would they be better off or just as well off with Brad Ausmus, who was near the top of the Red Sox list when Farrell got the job? I would also think that Girardi would want more of a say in composition of the team. How well would that wash with Epstein and Hoyer?

  12. historiophiliac - Oct 7, 2013 at 1:33 PM

    Ozzie Guillen to New York!

    • chip56 - Oct 7, 2013 at 1:43 PM

      That’s not at all funny…you just made me throw up my lunch on my keyboard.

      • historiophiliac - Oct 7, 2013 at 2:27 PM

        It would be epic.

  13. thesmedman - Oct 7, 2013 at 1:50 PM

    Uncle Cholly Manuel to NYY after JG goes to the Cubs.

    I could even see Dusty Baker in NYY (boy, the press might have fun with that!)

    How about just make The Sandman, Jeter and Petitte a managerial triumvirate. Two already have experience with mkg a pitching change…

  14. hecklrkosh - Oct 8, 2013 at 5:14 PM

    If he leaves, call Lou Piniella or Dusty Baker. If that’s good enough, call Joe (Torre).

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Who are the favorites for Rookie of the Year?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. J. Soler (3245)
  2. R. Castillo (2758)
  3. Y. Molina (2585)
  4. A. Rizzo (2432)
  5. A. Dunn (2373)
  1. M. Cabrera (2321)
  2. B. Posey (2266)
  3. J. Ellsbury (2189)
  4. D. Pedroia (2104)
  5. M. Wacha (2020)