Buddy Bell is a bad manager without the most talent.  No..he's not to blame for the middle of our line-up not hitting.  Nor does he deserve credit for Dejesus or Buck's hot hitting.

However..his job is to put the best possible players in the best possible situations to win.  If he is only responsible for 4-5 games a year (which I believe is more) then damn it..I want to win those 4-5 games and not lose them.  It just seems that he throws up hands, shrugs his shoulders like Bud Selig at an All-Star game.

The best example of this..the tied, extra innings Baltimore game.  Nobody but Buddy Bell would have brought in Standridge.  Maybe we still would have lost, but I don't think anybody here would have been saying..why did we bring in such and such..we should have brought in Standridge cause he was rested.  Now..we might have argued for Soria over Peralta or such and such over such and such (but really..that's petty), but none of us..not a single one of us... would have argued for Standridge.  Only Buddy Bell.

This team also has no balls.  Freaking Bonderman knocks down 3 of our guys and we don't even brush anyone of their guys off the plate..WTF.  Teams are going to keep doing that until we stand up and jab them in the chin.  That attitude comes from the top down.  Buddy has said we aren't going to do that.  Well you know..you don't have to hit guys (although I'm all for it) but you have to knock guys down every know and then.

The Royals have had the longest losing streaks in team history ever under Buddy Bell..maybe that's not his fault (just unlucky)..but it doesn't help his cause.

Finally..Buddy Bell manages like he's trying not to lose instead of trying to win.  There's a fine line in there, but bringing the infield in in the first innning I think crosses the line.

As far as replacements..I argue for myself.  What kind of experience do I have?  Umm..none, but I am passionate and I want to win EVERY GAME.  Plus..I might just make one of you guys/gals my bench coach.  Maybe I'd make it a revolving post.  Also..a repeat of the McRae phone-a-thon might/would be in order.  

Honestly though..anybody but Bob Boone.  Anybody.  Certain guys wouldn't get me excited, but I'd see what they've got.

The most obvious example is the failure of the "bullpen by committee" model. I remember reading a lot of quotes from relief pitchers that said they prefer having a defined role. Whether their preference translates into better results, I don't know, but I would guess that it does.

That said, BB can't be gone soon enough for me.  The losing isn't what bothers me as much as the roll over and play dead attitude that he has displayed his entire stint here in KC.  Everything from hs line-up cards to his pitching selections to his demeanor in the dugout screams of a guy who has given up and is just there collecting a paycheck.  Look at the Detroit and Boston series as examples.  Both Detroit and Boston marched out the same line-ups every game, used the same relievers in big time situations, and played the games to win not to protect anyone's ego.  How many times did we see Joel Zumaya(sp?) in a big spot against the Tigers?  How often did we see Manny or Ortiz riding the pine?  When we have a chance to win some series what does BB do?  Throw out the let's just get out of here healthy line-up and bring Standridge out of the pen instead of using Soira or Gobble.  The worst thing that a competitive sports team can do is not try to win.  Winning and losing are both habits and, in my opinion, BB has bred a losing habit on this team that someone needs to come in and get the attitude reversed.  There is just to much talent on this team for them to be looking this bad and that's a direct reflection on the leadership.

As many point out, 90% of managers are exactly the same, they bunt at the same times, they make the same tired bullpen decisions, and a young player needs to hit .500 in Spring Training to supplant a known commodity.

Basically the only marginal differences are in the managing of the pitching staff.

I think Bell's a player's manager, so the Royals might see a short-term gain from bringing in a tough-guy. But thats it.

Buddy Bell isn't a good manager and he does not give the team any competitive advantage, and thats the way everyone likes it.

Pulling Perez in the sixth was correct.  He had begun to labor in the fifth, and after placing two people on base in the sixth, the right call was the bullpen.

It was not Bell's fault that a trio of Royals refused to catch a ball that should have been caught.  Although it was but one out, that out would have allowed an open base, so that when Peralta DID go 3-1 on Gomez, he could afford to walk him without penalty.

It sucks that Peralta threw a softie and I got to watch a bunch of Os fans flap their wings as Gomez rounded the bases, but I don't blame Bell.  And frankly, with the status of our bullpen, I don't blame him if he is slow to pull the trigger on starters in the future.

A better factor to blame:  Why are four Royals batting sub .150 ?  That's right, I saw back to back Royals (Gordon/Shealy) come to bat with UNDER .100 averages.  Although they have improved slightly, you cannot have such anemic production and expect to win games.

Just look at all of the valid arguments against Bell, and then consider the lack of any arguments for him.  

There are a TON of things that Bell does that aren't just questionable (bringing in a RP, bunting here, not stealing there...), but are absurdly ignorant and stupid.  Tie that with the fact that every time he opens his mouth, the most absurd comments spew forth.

He's an idiot that has done many things beyond poorly, and has done nothing well.  It does get better than that.

For me, the problem with Bell is more etherial than anything else. Yes, as far as Xs and Os, I may tend to agree he's a run of the mill mediocre manager at best and a poor one at worst.

However, my problem with him is he just emits an air of "loser." It's hard to articulate what I mean and I'm sure I'll be mocked with things like, "What he smells like a loser, he sweats loser." No, of course not, but nonetheless there's just something about him, the way he acts, the way he carries himself, the way he is around the team and others. It just reaks of someone who's just not a winner.

My best example, since I'm a USC alumni, would be the difference between Paul Hackett and Pete Carroll. Paul Hackett had all the tangibles you could want from a successful coach. He studied under the right people (Walsh, John Robinson, etc.), he was an offensive guru, and he had experience. But, when you saw him speak, or interact, or manage a practice, you could just tell. The guy was a loser. He would never manage a successful team at USC (or the Chiefs, Pittsburgh, NY Jets, etc.). He had all the talent he needed at USC but he was just a loser, for want of a better explanatory phrase or word.

Carroll, from the moment he came in was different. Yes, he struggled mightily at the NFL level but you got the sense after observing him with the players, the fans, and the media that he wasn't a loser like Hackett. There was just a difference to him. I have some friends inside the program and I would frequently talk to them about the team in the difficult first year Carroll coached them. They said, the most difficult thing the coaches would indicate about that year was turning around an established "culture of losing." They used that term often. They players and program had grown to accustomed to losing, the majority of which it was implied was due to the former coaching staff, namely Paul Hackett. You could see fits and starts in that first year of breaking out of the losing, but it was subtle. Like they were breaking out of the chains of the losing mentality and believing in their ability to win.

Back to Bell, under him it seems this team is stil shackled. The demoralizing late inning losses, the blowouts, the one run losses. It's a pattern that's gone on for awhle.

In Detroit, they had to get rid of a mediocre manager in Trammell to shake free of the losing ways. And while, I agree with some of your points about Bell being a decent manager when it comes to Xs and Os, etc., it's this other side of the coin which leads me to believe, he's not the one to lead the Royals out of the blanket of losing from which they reside. I believe the talent is there to be mediocre at the very least, but I don't think Bell is the guy to do it.

As for who would be better. I really don't know enough about the possible candidates to speak authoritatively about it. That doesn't, however, preclude me from being able to sense that the current guy isn't getting the job done. Which he clearly is not.