Jon Heyman tweets and then reports that the Cubs are talking to the former Rangers' hitting coach and that "he's likely to take the gig." His salary would be $750,000, which would be a $150,000 raise. Not a bad deal for a guy whose old employer didn't want him.From what I've heard from my friends in Chicago, Cubs fans would be quite pleased if this comes to pass. But they would be remiss if they didn't read Aaron's take on this yesterday.
Were Jaramillo's young charges in Texas good hitters because he coached them well, or is Jaramillo considered a good coach because his young charges were good hitters? Having watched the Mazzone-era unfold in Atlanta and then Baltimore, I'm skeptical that a coach makes a big difference once a player makes it to the big leagues.
just like the Cubs, good ol' Jim Hendry. Sign someone nobody else wants for more money than he's worth.
"Not a bad deal for a guy whose old employer didn't want him."
Beg to differ...the Rangers asked Jaramillo to return:
http://texas.rangers.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091008&content_id=7394864&vkey=news_tex&fext=.jsp&c_id=tex
He turned down a one year contract to stay, stating he wanted "to see what else the game has to offer":
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/baseball/rangers/stories/101509dnsporanglede.3df6b97.html
I think for a guy with his reputation and tenure a one-year contract might rightly be considered a low-ball offer. That indicates a less-than-enthusiastic desire to have the guy back. Especially since the reports of the offer included the detail that the Rangers wanted to see an improvement on the offense if Rudy was to come back beyond 2010.
That said, I agree with Craig. I doubt hitting coaches do too much. Which doesn't change the fact that I really want Terry Crowley gone in Baltimore. Ugh.
I don't know...Managers get multi year contracts; coaches generally do not. They're pretty much always year to year.