I'd love to be a fly on the wall for these interviews because I can't imagine what someone could specifically say to sink their chances or to elevate their chances. These are all men experienced in major league baseball, so they are not going to disqualify their candidacies, one imagines, by revealing themselves to be categorically unqualified.

I would imagine that many managers grow into their jobs, and develop their predilictions while on the job. Would Gaston, for example, have been able to articulate the type of manager he thought he'd be? Or did much of that simply grow organically, as he saw some things work and some things fail.

Short of guaging interest, I don't know what a phone conversation could achieve. Or even a two-hour sitdown, for that matter. I imagine that AA is hoping to hear certain opinions that align with his own, but what else would make this candidate stronger than that one (absent a track record that could be evaluated with some degree of objectivity)?

I am quite sure I've got a blind spot or two related to this hiring process. I'd love to be enlightened.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall for these interviews because I can't imagine what someone could specifically say to sink their chances or to elevate their chances. These are all men experienced in major league baseball, so they are not going to disqualify their candidacies, one imagines, by revealing themselves to be categorically unqualified.

I would imagine that many managers grow into their jobs, and develop their predilictions while on the job. Would Gaston, for example, have been able to articulate the type of manager he thought he'd be? Or did much of that simply grow organically, as he saw some things work and some things fail.

I assume you aren't very familiar with an interview process in general then.  As you should know, a lot of organizations interview internal candidates who are being considered for promotion.  Interviews can determine the ability of a person to communicate - I'd say that 80% of the general population doesn't come across very well during a behavior based interview.  It measures preparation (which is an indicator of interest in itself).  You can also test on knowledge, situations, hypotheticals, etc.

Could Cito articulate the type of manager he thought he'd be?  Well, in order to get the job, he better damned well be able to communicate it.  If you can't communicate your message and philosophy effectively during an interview, how do you expect to do it when you're leading a group of people?

I assume you aren't very familiar with an interview process in general then.  As you should know, a lot of organizations interview internal candidates who are being considered for promotion. 

Gee thanks. I just fell off a turnip truck.

I think baseball manager interviews are a bit unusual. The message and philosophy is win. What you're looking for (as I understand it...) is a manager who can keep the players' respect and focus, while giving advice sometimes. I'm not sure how good a sense of that you can get from an interview. There might be guys who are outstanding at that who can't explain their methods.

In the interview you can get a sense of how they claim to operate tactically. Which is nice. Ideally, you'd find all the competent candidates and pick the one you think does the little things right.

Does anyone know what Joey Cora did back in 1993 that upset Toronto? I can't remember anything from then. Does anyone have specifics? Thanks for the help anyone.

I heard some of a AA interview with Wilner before tonights game.  It's probably on the Fan590 website by now.  AA said it is hard to ask about tactics because they are game dependant and answers given in an interview with lots of time to think might not be relevant.

I think he said that finding a manager whose philosophy is the same as the GM is most important.

Twitter is saying that Demarlo Hale is getting a second interview....there are also reports that Butterfield might get the nod.....I don't know if this is scary, confusing or interesting, as I really have no clear favorite

I assume you aren't very familiar with an interview process in general then.  As you should know, a lot of organizations interview internal candidates who are being considered for promotion. 

Gee thanks. I just fell off a turnip truck.

Chuck, I wouldn't sweat the turnip truck.  Not even that noted management expert CaramonLS (my guess is Peter Drucker-come-back-to-life) would be able to learn very much about how Alex Anthopoulos will interview just from understanding how most organizations conduct interviews. 

AA is someone who is very interested in learning from a wide variety of sources.  He is most unlikely to rely just on the interviews alone.  My guess is he will send out inquiries to all the people in his network of scouts, coaches, friends and contacts.  He won't just want to hear who is great, but why.  When he identifies a live candidate, he will want to know everything about them and what makes them tick. He will ask the candidates themselves to teach him about what factors they think make for a great manager.  He will ask them  to tell him what they think about the Jays, what needs to be done with them, and what their plans would be.  Second and further interviews will home in on specific differentiating factors - some of which he knew about when he started and others that he found about along the way.  Yes, he will want someone whose philosophy is compatible, but just as much, someone he can learn from, too.

By the end of the jouney, AA will have conducted the most intensive process of assessment and research of any of the managerial job-filling exercises this year.  He will have broken the mold for selecting a new MLB manager, and the management experts will come and do a case study to learn from him.

I don't think the steroid drama would come up endlessly and I don't think it has during his time in Tampa. However, we won't until he becomes a major league manager. As for the steroid use and judgment, I wouldn't use past steroid use as a major determinant at all in deciding whether to grant Martinez a second interview or the position itself. That might just be an issue of personal preference regarding conclusions to draw from the use of PEDs

 I'm somewhat skeptical about the whole Interview Process when it comes to selecting a manager. (All it ever did for the Blue Jays was give us Tim Johnson.

Interview or not, you would think that if a GM has the opportunity to consider the situation and potential candidates at his own pace, plan, research, interview, whatever... then there should be a better chance of success than a rushed selection from a limited pool.

But in the last 25 years, the Jays have made 8 managerial hires, and the only "non-emergency" (ie, quick post-firing hires) were Jimy Williams, Tim Johnson & Buck Martinez. Not a ringing endorsement for the process. (Admittedly, I think there's a sense that Buck may have been more a Godfrey than a Gord pick).

• By all accounts the players like and respect him.  According to Shi Davidi on Twitter yesterday, some players have been pushing for him to get the job.
• He never played in the majors, but he has coached at the major league level for parts of 14 seasons in three organizations.  That includes two seasons as a bench coach.
• He has some minor league managerial experience.  Baseball Reference's data appears to be incomplete, but he's managed for parts of five minor league seasons.
• Interacting with the media doesn't seem to be a problem.  He's well-spoken and appears to have a good relationship with them.
• This can probably be said about a lot of guys, but he apparently is very dedicated and works really hard at what he does.

I'm not necessarily saying that Butterfield is the best candidate (none of us knows), but he does have a HUGE advantage:  he knows the current Jays, they know him, and he has watched them closely for years.  That minimizes the risk of personality conflicts between the current players and a new manager, and it means that Butterfield won't have to go through the same learning curve that a new manager would require to understand the players and how to get the most out of them.  Almost any new manager would need a half-season to figure out what makes these guys tick.  (And yes, I understand the argument that MLB players are professionals who shouldn't need motivation, who should play hard every day, who don't need to be micro-managed, etc -- but the reality is that psychology and motivation are part of the game, to an extent that we probably don't fully realize.)

Another point:  AA has probably a much better understanding of Butterfield's strengths and weaknesses than he does of an outside candidate.  If Anthopolous decides that Butter is the right guy, after all the competition and multiple interviews with other candidates, I'd tend to trust him on it.

One last point:  the Jays in 2010 did much better than expected.  Despite losing their ace pitcher, they surpassed the average Bauxite prediction by 12 games, and they posted the 2nd-best improvement of any team in the league.  Some continuity in management might be a good way of keeping them on that same upward track.  Butterfield watched closely how Gaston helped the team to exceed expectations.  He saw the strengths and weaknesses of the Gaston approach, and he can learn from that.  It's another big argument in Butterfield's favor.

Having said all that, I'm not arguing that Butterfield is absolutely the best candidate, and I'd tend to trust AA if he chooses another guy instead.  But there are definitely some strong arguments on Butterfield's side.

.....The team did better than expected, but some players had lousy seasons.....

Only two hitters had lousy seasons.  All the rest were reasonably close to their recent-season norms, or were significantly above.

The situation is even better if you include the pitchers.  Only one full-year pitcher, Tallet, was certifiably lousy.  So, on the 25-man roster, only 3 of 25 had lousy seasons.

The problem with the Jays is not the "lousy" players.  The problem is elevating their players from "average" to "above-average."  The Jays managed to do that in 2010 with a bunch of their pitchers and about 3 of their hitters.  That's pretty substantial progress, and it speaks highly of the managers and coaches.  Now they need to elevate another 3 or 4 hitters to "above-average" and they can be contenders.