Jump to content

formermav43

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3513
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by formermav43

  1. It “solves” it by creating the much larger problem of a bad leadoff hitter.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Like I said-they’re hard.
  6. So are jokes.
  7. 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.
  8. To be fair, showing up everyday isn’t really anything to brag about in living your life. The alternative is you’re dead.
  9. 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.
  10. 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?
  11. 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.
  12. He turns 64 later this year. I'm sure we'd prefer to hire someone younger if possible.
  13. It balances the ones who want him hired for simply not completely screwing things up in 3 months.
  14. By those who know it’s “whom.”
  15. Should it carry that much weight? I remember Paul Boyette fighting back tears in defense of Charlie Strong.
  16. Agree. I’d go further-I don’t eat Tabasco at all. It’s not good.
  17. It seems like that should resolve itself pretty naturally with guys leaving.
  18. That's a different question.
  19. I’d argue that these are actually 2 slightly different questions you’re asking-“earning the job” vs. CDC “offering him the job.” One relates to his actual merits, the other is more about when the pressure becomes such that you can’t avoid hiring him *even if you feel he hasn’t earned it*.
  20. He’s still gonna do football too.
  21. He announced it in the fall. He’s not retiring from broadcasting in general, just from the tournament.
  22. I think he went in looking for a fight. It’s pretty shocking that a federal judge handled himself so poorly (though, as the tweet in the op suggested, that was probably the point). Otoh, the dean seems to be reading from prepared remarks at times-it looks like she went in intending to say her piece too. Basically, no one comes out looking particularly good from the whole fiasco. It’s probably why Stanford already issued that apology.
  23. Yeah, I dont buy that there’s only two options here. I want the team to win every game, and I want CDC to make the best hire possible. If he thinks that’s Terry, then so be it. I think it’s probably not, and I don’t believe he’ll just cave to pressure because of a couple of tournament wins. We’ll see.
×
×
  • Create New...