The Strange Case of Mike Matheny

I don’t know if anyone noticed, but something’s been going on over in the sports section of STLtoday.  It began a week ago, with reports that former Cardinals catcher Mike Matheny would be interviewed as a possible replacement for Tony La Russa.

Perhaps this didn’t come as a huge surprise to a lot of people.  Matheny was a well-respected leader on the team many years ago. He was hard-nosed and competitive.   Even then, there was talk that he would make a good coach or manager some day.  But on closer examination, it was a little unusual.

Matheny hasn’t been a manager in the minors, like Ryne Sandberg, Chris Maloney, or even Joe McEwing.  He hasn’t been a coach with the current Cards club like Jose Oquendo or Joe Pettini.  And he certainly doesn’t have the big league pedigree of Terry Francona or Joe Maddon.

Matheny’s coaching experience, as far as I know, is limited to a few years as a spring training instructor and a series of videos for Protege Sports.  Does that mean he’d be a bad manager?  Of course not.  I’m actually an advocate of signing an inexperienced manager because someone without a history is going to cost less.  And I don’t think that the manager is terribly important.  As long as he gets along with his players and doesn’t make too many horrible mistakes, he probably has less effect on the success of the team than the backup catcher or mopup reliever.  There’s no reason to break the bank on a manager.

I’m in a pretty small minority with that viewpoint, however.  So it was a bit unusual to me that the Cardinals, fresh off a WS victory, would consider replacing a high profile manager like La Russa with a complete rookie.  I didn’t think too much about it, though.  I honestly thought that they were interviewing Matheny as a courtesy or a curiosity.  At that point, I assumed that Oquendo, Sandberg, and Francona were the real candidates.

Then STLtoday featured an article which detailed Matheny’s interview with the Cards.  This piece highlighted his positive attributes, addressed his lack of experience, and was quick to point out Matheny’s bonds with Dave Duncan, Yadier Molina, and of course Albert Pujols.

Once again, this was only slightly unusual at the time.  But now, almost a week later, there haven’t been any similar articles about the other candidates.  There have, however, been stories considering the merit of hiring an inexperienced manager as well as a Bernie Miklasz article contemplating Matheny as a potential choice.

If you’re as cynical as me, you realize that STLtoday might be floating a trial balloon.  They might be preparing Cardinals fans for what they already know or suspect: Mike Matheny is the frontrunner to replace Tony La Russa.  We’ve certainly seen it before.  Rasmus’s departure came on the heels of various stories about his difficulty with the Cardinals coaching staff.  McGwire was floated as a potential hitting coach in the news before he was hired.  Are we seeing that same thing now?  And why?

Why Matheny?  Why would the Cardinals–who have spent the last 16 years demonstrating that they value the position of manager far too much–hire a completely inexperienced skipper?

Two possibilities come to mind:

1. This may be an unfortunate response to a crisis of leadership.  The Cardinals have been Tony La Russa’s team for so long that they might not know how to live without him.  Perhaps they hope to keep his reign alive as long as possible by hiring a figurehead manager, and allowing Duncan and McGwire to make the real calls.  This isn’t a particularly flattering analysis for Matheny, but it is something that should be considered.  Matheny is a blank slate, and perhaps the Cardinals want to shape his future with the help of La Russa’s old coaches.

Of course, if this was the goal, why not hire Joe Pettini?  He’s filled in for La Russa numerous times.  He probably knows La Russa’s style better than anyone but Duncan.  He’d be the natural fit if you wanted to ensure maximum continuity.  Which leaves me with…

2. This is Mozeliak’s power play.  And it’s really goddamn interesting.  When Walt Jocketty was dismissed following the 2007 season and replaced with Jon Mozeliak, I assumed the new GM was nothing but a puppet for Tony La Russa.  Jocketty left over disputes with management.  Mozeliak was an org team player.  Throughout his time with the Cardinals, he’s been at La Russa’s beck and call.  He traded Brendan Ryan and Colby Rasmus.  He acquired Matt Holliday, Ryan Theriot and Lance Berkman.  The media made no attempts to conceal where these moves truly originated.  La Russa wanted these players (or he wanted them gone) and Mozeliak made it happen.

Now La Russa’s gone.  There’s a power vacuum.  And I think this is a surprising move from Mozeliak to come out of the shadows and establish that he’s no longer just an apparatus of a larger-than-life manager.

How do I figure this?  A little tidbit that has come out into the public  eye since this search began.  Mike Matheny has been working for Mozeliak, in the GM’s office, for the last year or so.  Think about this quote from the above-mentioned Miklasz article:

“He’s also served as an adviser to Mozeliak. An unofficial assistant GM, if you will.”

Interesting, right?  Pettini and Oquendo are acolytes of La Russa.  They worked on the field with him.  McEwing and Sandberg are managerial prospects from the White Sox and Phillies, respectively.  Terry Francona would bring his own people in.  But Mike Matheny?  He’s been working with Mozeliak.

There is still no predicting who will be the Cards’ manager in a few days.  But I think that Matheny’s sudden ascension to front-runner shows that Mozeliak is ready to make the Cardinals his team.  For better or worse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The End of the Tony La Russa Era

Tony La Russa retired today.  He decided to leave baseball on a high note, stepping down as the manager of the Cardinals after leading the team on a thrilling, improbable streak to a world championship.

This move leaves me with a lot of mixed feelings.  Sometimes I like La Russa.  Sometimes I hate him.  Even when he’s winning, he can be infuriating.  Even when he’s losing, he can be fascinating.  No other manager sticks Skip Schumaker at second base, then leaves him there even after he’s proven he can’t play the position.  But, then again, no other manager is willing to try batting the pitcher eighth.  I still think that’s a good idea.

No matter how I feel about La Russa at the moment, there is no denying that he shaped the face of the St. Louis Cardinals.  For better and for worse.

He took over as manager in 1996.  That was back when Bill Clinton was campaigning for a second term, the Macarena was a hit song, and Hailee Steinfeld–the actress who played Mattie in 2010’s “True Grit”–wasn’t even born.

La Russa took the team from the fading embers of the contact-and-speed Ozzie Smith era to the electrifying tape-measure Mark McGwire era.  It wasn’t a graceful transition, and ended up alienating Smith as well as a legion of Cardinals fans.  There are still those who, to this day, yearn for the slaps and steals of Whiteyball.

La Russa guided the team through the days of the MV3: Pujols, Edmonds, and Rolen.  But he also broke up the band.  His bizarre feud with Scott Rolen cast a dark shadow over what should have been a pleasant run at a title repeat in 2007.

The next few years were rough, but La Russa remained as the Cardinals built a new sort of team.  Pujols remained, but instead of being surrounded with elite hitters, he was paired with a couple of aces.  Chris Carpenter and Adam Wainwright were not always healthy at the same time.  But when they were, they made the Cardinals a team to be feared.

And now the Pujols years may be coming to an end.  It’s too soon to be sure, but there’s a fair chance that next season is an entirely new beginning.  If so, Tony La Russa took us all the way from the end of Whiteyball to the end of the Pujolsball.  That’s sixteen years.

It’s almost impossible to judge the skill of a manager.  There are too many factors.  If we want to be traditional–look to wins, postseason appearances, and titles–La Russa may be the best manager the Cardinals have ever had.  In his sixteen years, the Cardinals made the postseason nine times.  They went to three World Series.  They won two of them.  Only a Yankees fan could find those results unacceptable.

Of course, La Russa was gifted with incredibly talented players during his time with the Cardinals.  Lankford, McGwire, Drew, Edmonds, Pujols, Kile, Rolen, Carpenter, Wainwright, Holliday, Berkman…  Just to name the standouts.   La Russa also had the benefit of the best pitching coach in baseball.  I’m not sure Dave Duncan isn’t the one really responsible for La Russa’s success in St. Louis.  There is no one like him and I suspect he will be missed even more than Tony in 2012.

Considering the folks surrounding La Russa, it’s damn near impossible to give him full credit for everything he did for the Cardinals.  But he shouldn’t be overlooked.  Chances are, La Russa had a finger in acquiring many of the players I listed above.  He was more than just a manager.  He exerted control over the team far beyond the confines of the dugout.

That was part of the reason Walt Jocketty–another talented person who lent his skill to La Russa’s legacy–left in 2007.  The Cardinals weren’t his team.  They were Tony’s team.  And they were handed over to John Mozeliak.  Outside of the surprising Chris Duncan trade, Mozeliak has largely been seen as an apparatus of La Russa’s influence.

When La Russa wanted Matt Holliday, Mozeliak got Matt Holliday.  When La Russa wanted Brendan Ryan gone, Brendan Ryan was gone.  After Tony expressed a desire to improve the “character” of the clubhouse, Mozeliak brought in Ryan Theriot, Lance Berkman, and Nick Punto.  When Colby Rasmus wore out his welcome, he was shipped off for veteran pitching depth.

Things are going to change now.  Tony La Russa is no longer in charge.  What does that mean?  Is that good?  Is it bad?  I don’t have the answer for that.  When you look at the decisions La Russa made–and the fact that he was being paid millions to make them–it’s hard not to think the team is better off without him.  But when you look at his tenure in St. Louis–the years between 1996 and today– it was, overall, an amazing time to be a Cardinals fan.

I often disagreed with Tony La Russa.  I often hated his decisions. I often wanted him gone. But the Tony La Russa era was far more than the sum of its parts.  It’s very possible that I will never see a more prosperous stretch of Cardinal baseball.

So I want to thank Tony La Russa for the last sixteen years.  I don’t know if he’s responsible for any of it.  But I also don’t know if that matters anymore.