Screen Shot 2013-12-10 at 1.54.00 PM

Ranking MLB managers by . . . handsomeness

83 Comments

source:

LAKE BUENA VISTA, FL — The thing about the Winter Meetings is that, if you have some silly idea, there are a lot of people around you drinking cocktails, convincing you that the idea is not silly. That, to the contrary, it’s important and vital and if you don’t follow through with that idea, you’re making a huge mistake. And, since you are drinking cocktails as well, you are easily persuaded.

This is the product of that dynamic.

All week I’ve half-jokingly noted that Brad Ausmus is a handsome, handsome man. As a result of that, people have asked me which manager is next handsome. And next handsome. And next handsome after that. And who’s the least handsome manager too. So, inevitably, it has come to this: a list ranking the managerial beefcake.

First, a couple of notes:

  • This is only one open-minded man’s opinion of managerial handsomeness. If you’re not into the Ausmus/Matheny types, I totally appreciate that. Maybe you’re more of a Ron Gardenhire or Fredi Gonzalez admirer. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Understand that I and others will privately judge you for thinking Gardenhire and Gonzalez are handsome, but that reflects poorly on us, not you. Let no one besides you dictate your feelings.
  • I, in no way, shape or form believe that any baseball manager is ugly. All of them have inner beauty, I’m sure. And even if you don’t buy that, realize that we are in a golden age of manager handsomeness. There are no Don Zimmers or Joe Torres around anymore. The bottom of this list would represent dashing managerial beauty a mere 15 years ago. So, let no one say that even my 30th-ranked manager is not handsome. In his own way. If you squint just right.
  • Finally, because some of you will inevitably offer a neanderthal comment about all of this, let me head it off by assuring you that this is merely a list of aesthetic handsomeness, not one of love or longing. I hate that even in 2013 I feel as though I have to say it, but I will say that I am a totally straight man making these judgments. If you find something wrong or amiss with that, I feel sorry for you. There is far too much beauty among people in the world for us to fail to acknowledge 50% of it merely because we’re worried about appearing less than traditionally masculine or feminine. Free your mind, the rest will follow.

And now, on to the rankings, with some comments:

source:  1. Brad Ausmus: When my girlfriend was here in Orlando over the weekend we were sitting in the lobby and Brad Ausmus came in the front door of the hotel. She sprung up, followed him and said “I’ll text you later.” And I wasn’t even mad, man. I get it. He’s movie star handsome. And this isn’t new. There are factions of female baseball fans who have been beating the Ausmus drum for years in various places on the Internet. He is probably the best looking manager in the history of baseball.

2. Mike Matheny: Of course it isn’t a blowout. The 1-2 in manager handsomeness is a close race, with Matheny right on Ausmus’ heels. I just think he is missing a moodiness and depth to his gaze the way Ausmus has it going on. That said: when I tweeted about Ausmus over the weekend what I assume to be the entire female population of Cardinal Nation responded to me to tell me I’m wrong. Easily The Best Fans of Handsome Cardinals Managers in Baseball. They ogle managers The Right Way.

3. Robin Ventura: Just a couple of years ago he’d be number one. Now he inevitably slides to three. Just an unbelievably tough market. Bonus: he’s got a sensitive side, I’ve heard. A lover, not a fighter. Definitely not a fighter.

4. Ned Yost: I know. I’m as shocked as you! But he was here in Orlando yesterday gliding through the hallways with a confidence and swagger befitting a 1980s nighttime soap anti-hero. Ned Yost: he’ll marry you, have affairs with your sister and simultaneously destroy your father’s (rival) business while enriching himself and building his legend.

5. John Farrell: Reasonable people could swap out Yost and Farrell. Maybe he’s the more urbane version of Yost’s nighttime soap star. The “Dynasty” to Yost’s “Dallas.”

6. Bud BlackAging so well. No Just for Men here. Gray is the new Black.

source:

7: Bo Porter: Best mustache/goatee combination in all of baseball. Not just among managers. All baseball people. It’s usually an unfortunate look, but Porter makes it work, mostly because he understands that less is more. And he has fantastic eyes. Go on, tell me he doesn’t have fantastic eyes. Pfft, you’re just wrong, dude.

8. Ryne Sandberg: He’s always been good looking. I feel like Philly is going to age him, though.

9. Mike Redmond: Piercing eyes. Owned Tom Glavine during his career. What’s not to love?

10. Bob Melvin: His boss was played by Brad Pitt in a movie, yet Melvin is better looking than his boss. That’s just truth.

11. Don Mattingly: It’s like he was on a makeover reality show. He went from mullet and mustache, seemingly yesterday, to this formidable specimen. Nice glasses. Chin dimple. L.A. is treating him well.

12. Ron Roenicke: Another controversial choice. And I know he’s about the farthest thing from beefcake there could possibly be. But he looks like the guy who will marry you after you recover from that bad divorce and be a great role model to your kids. Just a super step-dad type, and that has abundant appeal.

13. Terry Francona: A textbook case of embracing baldness rather than fighting it. Does so much to take advantage of a bad set of genetic cards.

14: Joe Maddon: Maybe a niche taste. Certainly a silver fox — you can’t take that away from him — but he’s not in Bud Black’s league as far as that goes. And he doesn’t have the same apparent inner appeal that Roenicke has. He’s just as likely to be seen wearing socks with sandals in an RV as he is to be seen drinking wine and doing something suave. Plus: he’s the type who would probably tell you how smart he is, whereas true Adonises like Ausmus and Matheny are confident enough to let you talk more. That matters, I think.

source:  15. Joe Girardi: Definitely in better shape than any other manager. Maybe in better shape than any manager in the history of the game. But he’s got a bit too much drill instructor in him for me. He could use a bit of a softening around the edges. If you’re into the ruggedness he’s obviously way, way higher up your personal list.

16. Bryan Price: One of the best looking pitching coaches-turned-managers in baseball history, I figure. Bud Black probably is the top of that list. Farrell is up there too. But Price is likely third. Which, given that the competition beyond those three is Roger Craig and Jimy Williams, it’s not hard. But a fine looking man. I may have underrated him.

17. Matt Williams: Williams has maintained his playing days shape quite admirably, and like Tito he understands the realities of his hairline. I’d recommend powder for TV appearances. I know from experience.

18. John Gibbons: Sorta has a “Fall Guy”-era Lee Majors thing going on. I feel like he looks better in his second stint with the Jays than he did the first time around. Can’t put a finger on it, though.

19. Kirk Gibson: An unfortunate case. I feel like Gibson goes out of his way to look worse than he should given what he has to work with, which is not terrible. He scowls a lot. Seems to have a perpetual four-day growth. A tall, well-built guy who could use some time with a grooming expert. Smile, Gibby. It’ll improve everything.

20. Walt Weiss: Same as Gibson, really. Maybe there are personal reasons why they feel the need to hide behind stubble. But now we’re more in psychological territory than physical, and I’d like to keep this light.

source:  21: Fredi Gonzalez: He needs to have a long sit-down with Bo Porter about the in and outs of facial hair. It would also help if he didn’t look confused every single time the camera finds him, but that’s a baseball point, not a function of inherit handsomeness.

22. Lloyd McClendon: He has a winning smile, I’ll give him that. And if he flashes some of the fire he showed in his Pittsburgh days he could shoot up this list quickly. Maybe this should be a power ranking now that I think about it. We revisit it a few times a year with an added boost or deduction for in-season deportment. Hmm.

23. Buck Showalter: Rumor was that Showalter smiled once in 1992. No one was around with a camera, sadly, but we’re told it happened.

24. Terry Collins: He is a lot more relaxed as a Met than he was back in his Angels and Astros days, that’s for sure. And that goes a long way. There’s always something a bit unsettling behind those brown eyes, though. Maybe that appeals to the types who like the troubled ones, but I feel like life with Terry would be turbulent. Ron Roenicke would never be unpredictable like that. And maybe that’s boring, but he’s home for dinner every night and will always give you a reassuring hug. Terry has demons, I bet.

25. Rick Renteria: If jowls come into fashion he’s much higher than 25.

26. Mike Scioscia: If you met him for the first time today, sure, he’d not be bad. But we knew him back when. It’s like meeting the high school quarterback at the reunion and thinking only of what he was.

source:  27. Bruce Bochy: The opposite of Scioscia in that regard. Look at THAT unfortunate class picture. But even though he’s come a long way, let us not pretend he didn’t have a long way to go. But you know what they call a less-than-handsome man with two World Series rings? That’s right: a champion. Don’t let anyone tell you any differently, Bruce.

28. Ron Gardenhire: The jowls of Rick Renteria, the facial hair issues of Fredi Gonzalez and the troubling inner rumblings of Terry Collins. Just a bad combination.

29. Ron Washington: He’s a very funny man. He’s had much success as a manager. His players love him. Let us leave it at that.

30. Clint Hurdle: None of us are ever as bad as our worst days make us out to be. But some people’s worst days are worse than others.

I’d like to thank you all for your time and patience in this exercise. I feel like baseball history is better served by us having engaged in it.

MLB, MLBA officially announce the terms of the new Collective Bargaining Agreement

SAN FRANCISCO, CA - JUNE 04:  A job seeker shakes hands with a recruiter during a HireLive career fair on June 4, 2015 in San Francisco, California. According to a report by payroll processor ADP,  201,000 jobs were added by businesses in May.  (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Getty Images
Leave a comment

In the past, Major League Baseball and the MLBPA have not issued official statements announcing a new Collective Bargaining Agreement until after it had been ratified by the players and clubs. The thinking was simple: there is no agreement until it is officially ratified. Which makes some sense.

A few moments ago, however, the league and the union issued a joint press release with a full summary of the new CBA terms, quotes from Tony Clark and Rob Manfred and the whole nine yards. You can see all of the detailed terms here.

The most likely explanation for doing it now: there are different people running MLB than were running it five years ago and they’re just doing things differently. My fun conspiracy theory, however, is that due to the division and acrimony in the player ranks about which we’re just hearing, the league and union wanted to make this appear to be a far more done deal than it technically is and thus be able to paint objectors who may pop up during the ratification process as Monday morning quarterbacks. Hey, crazier things have happened!

In the meantime, go check out some of the fun terms. There are a load of them there. In the meantime before you do that, here are the official statements from baseball’s honchos.

Rob Manfred:

“I am pleased that we completed an agreement prior to the deadline that will keep the focus on the field during this exciting time for the game.  There are great opportunities ahead to continue our growth and build upon the popularity that resonated throughout the Postseason and one of the most memorable World Series ever.  This agreement aims to further improve the game’s healthy foundation and to promote competitive balance for all fans.

“I thank Tony Clark, his colleagues and many Major League Players for their work throughout the collective bargaining process.  We appreciate their shared goals for the betterment of the sport.  I am grateful for the efforts of our Labor Policy Committee, led by Ron Fowler, as well as Dan Halem and our entire Labor Relations Department.”

Tony Clark:

“Every negotiation has its own challenges. The complexities of this agreement differ greatly from those in the past if for no other reason than how the industry has grown.  With that said, a fair and equitable deal is always the result you are working toward, and, once again, I believe we achieved that goal. I would like to thank our Players for their involvement, input and leadership throughout. Their desire to protect our history and defend and advance the rights and interests of their peers is something I am truly grateful for.

“I would also like to recognize Commissioner Rob Manfred, Dan Halem, MLB and the Labor Policy Committee for their hard work over the last year plus, and for staying committed to the process.  In coming to an agreement, this deal allows both sides to focus on the future growth and development of the sport. There is a lot of work to be done and we look forward to doing it.”

Peace in our time.

Breaking down the Today’s Game Hall of Fame Ballot: John Schuerholz

ATLANTA - SEPTEMBER 27: Atlanta Braves President John Schuerholz is shown before the game against the Philadelphia Phillies at Turner Field on September 27, 2011 in Atlanta, Georgia. (Photo by Scott Cunningham/Getty Images)
Getty Images
Leave a comment

On Monday, December 5, the Today’s Game committee of the Baseball Hall of Fame — the replacement for the Veterans Committee which covers the years 1988-2016 — will vote on candidates for the 2017 induction class. This week we are looking at the ten candidates, one-by-one, to assess their Hall worthiness. Next up: John Schuerholz 

The case for his induction:

He’s one of the greatest GMs of all time, having broken into baseball in what was then the best organization in baseball, the Balitmore Orioles, and then worked his way up to the GM chair in another fantastic organization, the 1970s and 80s Kansas City Royals. After a World Series win there he moved on to Atlanta and, with the help of his predecessor GM and future manager, Bobby Cox, helped bring the Braves back from oblivion and turned them into perpetual division title winners. His influence, in terms of his disciples and the weight he still throws around Major League Baseball, is incalculable. If there are any arguments about his place in the executive hierarchy in the past 50 years, they’re about where in the top two or three he places, not whether he’s worthy of the Hall of Fame, at least by historical standards.

The case against his induction:

You could make a strong case that executives have no business being in there, but that ship sailed a long dang time ago. You could also nitpick Schuerholz’s record — David Cone for Ed Hearn? Kevin Millwood for Johnny Estrada? — but show me a GM who doesn’t have some clunkers on his resume. You can lay resposibility for the manager challenge system in replay at his feet, but I don’t think that outweighs his accomplishments.

Schuerholz was part of turning a fledging organization into one of the best in baseball and, in his next job, turned a totally cratered, losing and barren organization into a perpetual winner. It’s hard to beat that.

Would I vote for him?

Sure. There are 33 executives in the Hall of Fame. Schuerholz had more success than most of ’em. I wish there were more, say, third basemen in the Hall than there are — there are only 16 of them — but if you’re going to judge Schuerholz by his peers, he comes out pretty well.

Will the Committee vote for him?

Yep. The Veterans Committees of the recent past have been loathe to induct a lot of players who are worthy, but they’ve always been good to put in noted executives. It’s almost as if these guys make the Veterans Committee by, you know, being tight with noted executives. I feel like he’ll glide in.