Should Kapler Be Fired?

[California_Dreamin]

Actually I view this as Middleton likely trying to decide on either A] making multiple moves or B] none. Seems to me if he had decided to simply fire Kapler he would have already done that. But if he is trying to decide whether to make a clean sweep...encourage McPhail to retire and fire Klentak and maybe re-assign Kapler, that would take some deep thought...especially given the enormity of bringing in so many new guys.

I will say this...the discussion of where to play Segura going forward, especially in making it public, speaks to me of an organization that sure seems to lack a cogent long term plan for the team. Honestly, this team seems to me to be terribly dysfunctional right now.

I hope I am wrong about that perception.

[zambonir]

What if....

they just made Gabe Kapler the GM?

[xogfog]

Dear God, NO!!!!!!

[zambonir]

I kid. But he'd probably be better at that. It's certainly 50-50 that he will still work for the Phillies next year if he's not the manager. If you're not dead and you used to manage the Phillies you still do! But he'd be qualified for more serious front office work than Mackanin or Charlie or Bowa.

In theory Klentak is an assistant, if the structure of this baseball office was intended to be like the Cubs, Dodgers, Red Sox, Giants, etc. A top "baseball man" as president and a GM in the trenches. But MacPhail is not that, seemingly by design, never mind whether he'd be good at it or not. tbh if Klentak was willing to stay on (unlike Cherington in Boston) the best possible move might be to just replace MacPhail. Get someone with more authority over Klentak (since his owner is already undercutting him anyway) who can also stand up to Middleton (ditto).

While I understand the argument to fire everyone I don't think it's truly called for - this year was just a bump in the road and many of the mistakes are related to accelerating the timeline instead of sticking to the plan. More than that, I'm afraid it would just set the organization back further. Now, if you think things can't get any worse already, that we're pretty much doomed to be the NL East also-ran who can only hope to a win a wild card, maybe that's not so bad. But even just in the short run, if we don't have a GM, how are we going to hire a manager?

[fish]

While I understand the argument to fire everyone I don't think it's truly called for - this year was just a bump in the road and many of the mistakes are related to accelerating the timeline instead of sticking to the plan

The problem was that "the plan" wasn't going well either.

[zambonir]

No, but that was due to more to miscalculating what was already in the system (especially if you think Alfaro and Crawford weren't answers either, though that's debatable) and a development staff that was only just turned over last year than huge blunders. The major league team still improved from 66 to 80 to 81 with an asterisk (IMO) and it's too soon to pronounce any of Klentak's drafts as failures.

When you look at how the Phillies don't seem able to replicate the innovative teams, you have to ask if that's because they aren't hiring the right people, or of it's because the organization itself ruins the right people. They got lucky last time when they fired Wade, but it didn't take very long for them to go back to The Phillies Way overall.

[Philsmania]

Interestingly, the "emerging" model of the manager being an extension of the general manager is really a return to baseball's organizational roots. I once attended a presentation about vintage baseball (teams that play using 19th century rules and wear vintage 19th century uniforms). One presenter explained why managers in baseball, unlike coaches in other sports, dress in uniform like the players. The reason for that is that league rules only allow uniformed personnel on the field. So, back in the formative days of professional baseball, the manager--who today we would consider to be the GM--had to hire what's called a "field manager" to go on to the field to execute the manager's strategies. "Field managers" were basically proxies for the "managers". Subsequently, things evolved and took on a life of their own. Classic "managers" became general managers who put the team together but became more detached from the day-to-day on-the-ground running of the team while "field managers" became managers who ran the team hands-on day-to-day in the trenches. Case in point, Connie Mack always wore a suit in the dugout until the last game he managed in 1950. He was a classic original manager who both put the team together and ran it on the field. Even back then, he was largely a relic. Today's GM's are becoming more of what he was with managers being proxies for them.

It makes you wonder what further evolution we will see. Will we someday see an enterprising GM make himself manager as well with underlings doing more of his work upstairs? Or, similarly, will we see some kind of merger of GM and manager which results in a model similar to what we see in the NFL and NBA where the head coach is the commander in chief with the general manager essentially working under him?

[jimglitto]

I don't know who's fault it is that the Phillies for the last two years, under Gabe's on field leadership, have basically collapsed after spending a significant part of the year in first place, but it happened. He certainly had some adversity to work through both years, but I believe he created a significant amount of that himself. First, by having the desire to have players that can be plugged into multiple positions. Concentrating on that type of player highlighted their defensive shortcomings at every position. I believe it also had an impact on their offensive performances (ie Kingery). He obviously shared those preferences with Klentak, who wanted to give his manager the types of player he preferred. For better or worse, he also had a distaste for playing for single runs in favor of 3 run home runs. That may be a facet of analytics, but I don't understand why you can't do both, especially since he didn't have the horses to hit so many home runs (as evidenced by the fact the Phillies were near the bottom in home runs in spite of the new ball and a small ballpark). Third, how motivational can he be when many of his players have collapsed down the stretch both years (with the exception of Harper)? His management of the pitching staff and bullpen were equally distressing. Granted, he didn't have the horses there either, but I don't believe he used what he had to its fullest potential.

So, is everything on him? No, of course not. But what evidence do we have that his style of managing will produce better results? To continue to do the same things while expecting different results is the definition of insanity, which I believe bringing Kap back would show. Nice guy, probably better suited for a different role, not loved by the typical Philly fan. Knowing Middleton's appreciation of fan sentiment, I predict his departure. Personally, I think they should get rid of all three. The defense of him not having the players he needed and injuries rings hollow to me. Every team deals with injuries. They got incredible results from injury replacements that should have mostly mitigated the problem. I think it's a philosophical issue that needs to be resolved. It might set us back a year or two with a new leadership team, but I don't want to waste another year with the current one. We have too much invested.

[schillingfan]

People keep forgetting that for most of April and May the lineup was basically the same every night: McCutcheon, Segura, Harper, Hoskins, Realmuto, Hernandez, Herrera, Franco. Kingery didn’t really start playing much until Franco and Herrera started tanking. Then when MCutcheon went down and Herrera was arrested, Kapler really had to try different combinations, none of which seemed to work. With regard to relievers, starting end of last year, his clear preference was Morgan for lefties, veteran reliever or Seranthony in 7th and 8th and Neris in 9th. I don’t think the statistical matchups or positional flexibility were considered important except at the margins, like who to pinch hit or which reliever, or when to give a bench player a start.

[BaseballCat]

I will agree that the swagger and mojo of the team seemed to change after McCutcheon went down. Things started to snowball after that. Not saying they would have bad the playoffs if he did get hurt, but perhaps we do more at the trade deadline if most of the need was pitching. Unfortunately the pitching tanked and the replacements from the minors did not come through.

[julio]

McCutchen. Lose the "o," folks.

[BaseballCat]

McCutchen. Lose the "o," folks.

LOL - I am going to pass the buck to SF. I spelled it right but wanted to double check so I looked at her spelling and changed. I apologize for both of us. I have many things on my plate tonight, spelling is the least of my concerns, but I will try to be better. Just lurking might keep me out of trouble - I do love reading all of my Phillies phans awesome analysis. BaseballOcat

[julio]

LOL - I am going to pass the buck to SF. I spelled it right but wanted to double check so I looked at her spelling and changed. I apologize for both of us.

No real need to apologize, BaseballCat. We have a couple of frequent posters here who, for whatever reason, have internalized the wrong spelling of Cutch's name, and who show no sign of awareness, even when it's constantly spelled correctly by others here, and in lots of other places.

You know, this is why I raised it. If a few of our regular users insist on misspelling a name, others start to think it "must" be right - even though it's always spelled correctly on TV chyrons, it's spelled correctly in the lineups that the 'bot picks up, it's spelled correctly on sites like baseball-reference.com, etc. People see it spelled wrong here, by users who generally are not incoherent, and the error metastasizes.

It's become clear that quietly spelling it correctly, quietly fixing it, etc., will have no effect. So I decided it was time to point it out. Whether this will be enough to actually register... well, we'll see.

[zambonir]

"McPhail" bothers me more. I always had trouble with "Madson" because for some reason I'd think of the former Lakers back-up center first (Madsen). Also I still want to call our back-up catch "Jason." I wouldn't say McCutchen is a common name either way so I'm assuming most people my age know the other spelling from the Rams RB.

Much as hate the diminutes you can't misspell "Cutch" or "Mac" or "Kap"!

Getting back on-topic I gotta say I think it's fairly remarkable there's been not a peep, and the beat writers know nothing. Lauber wrote that there would be news today and then Salisbury tweeted (correctly) that there wouldn't and now Breen has a non-story story (though it mentions that Kaplan - kidding! - has been at CBP, showing up for work).

[schillingfan]

Well let’s just throw me under the bus!

[zambonir]

Missed this.

Jayson Stark on Twitter

[andyb]

That always made sense with the delay. Could be evaluating both Klentak and Kapler. Not sure they will fire both, but I could easily see a morass of "senior advisers" thrown in the mix.

[BaseballCat]

Well let’s just throw me under the bus!

Not my intention- I often doubt my spelling, so in my doubt I checked the nearest post. I should have know better as I am a McCutchen fan since the Pirates use to be the minor league affiliate of my hometown team. Even now I am paranoid and had to double check Julio’s spelling! However I am happy that I have learned how to capture a quote from a previous poster. Ultimately I agreed with the content of your Cutch post and the sentiment of many of your posts.

[Jazzhead]

The delay suggests to me that they are considering whether Klentak will be jettisoned. There may well be a GM candidate on one of the teams currently in the playoffs, that could be lured away once his team is in its offseason.

[Lawman]

I'm seeing all this speculation about the possible firing of Kapler and Klentak. I find it odd that no speculation seems to touch on the possibility that MacPhail could also be let go. I have to assume he's part of the problem, not the solution moving forward.