Submitted by Eric Schnipper, May 2, 2008 22:05

I'm not going to beat around the bush. Willie Randolph is an awful manager. I challenge anyone to point out a single managerial skill that he is above average in. His in-game strategy is deliberate, inconsistent, and belies a lack of self-confidence that is echoed repeatedly by an insecure stubbornness that tells us that the man simply has no idea what he is doing. In an era where the other 29 teams have long since figured out the importance of on-base percentage and preserving outs by not sacrificing them with 1970s strategies of bunting and high-risk basestealing, Randolph is decades behind the curve. He relies on gut and instinct, falls in love with players based on a limited body of work (Guillermo Mota, Miguel Cairo), and is very slow to notice when a player is nearing the end of his usefulness or in need of an elevation in the batting order based on merit.

What is maddening to the astute Met fan is the constant feeling that you are steps ahead of his thinking, and it's his profession, his job. How many times have you felt that a pitcher should be removed from a game several batters before Randolph even has a replacement warming up in the bullpen? How many times have you wondered why he sent up the wrong batter as a pinch-hitter? That a bunt with Reyes on first base and a catcher who only throws out 15% of runners is a waste of an out? That paint-by-numbers lineup selection by position that we saw in 2005 is beyond asinine? If we, as passive observers, have better raw instincts than the man in charge, with 35 years of professional baseball experience, can we not assume that he is at this point incorrigible?

When 12 teams pass on Randolph during managerial interviews, must we assume that all of them passed on him because of institutional racism? Or can we remember the commentary that he was unprepared, rudderless at interviews, and figure that maybe at least some of these potential suitors were fair-minded but saw red flags that the Mets did not.

Players are observant. They come to a team with varied managerial experiences that they have witnessed. When players are telling their agents that Randolph is clueless, should we not take stock in that?

Clearly, Randolph lost the team down the stretch. His passive method of managing, which includes a total aversion to discipline and inspirational motivation, is part and parcel of this collapse. Watching LoDuca argue with umpires to arouse the team because he knew Randolph would not leave the dugout was hard to digest. The complacency of the team, the immaturity and loss of focus of Reyes, Milledge, Gomez, and others are all at his feet. Randolph looks lost, overwhelmed, and completely over his head.

Willie Randolph, as best as I can tell, is a fine human being. Is it fair that he may be fired for the last 2 weeks in 2007, or a slow start in 2008? I actually think it is, but frankly, I don't care. I've waited 22 years for another World Championship, and I don't want to waste my time and invest my energy and money rooting for a team guided by a manager who is incapable of winning a pennant. The real question is: Will the Mets win with Willie as manager NOT Does Willie deserve another chance. Willie isn't important. It's the franchise that matters. We root for the team, not Willie Randolph.

If you think Willie should stay, ask yourself this: If he is fired, is there another team in the majors that will hire him as manager? I doubt it. And regardless of the relatively minimal consequences financially of carrying his contract, the possibility of stumbling into CitiField in 2009 with his indecisive leadership is too much of a risk for the Wilpons.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.