And so now we're reduced to this.  Ken Macha, having been trashed by what looks like an organized hit job by Billy Beane and his player-allies on the team, finally decided to tell some of his side of the story.  Beane responded by calling him a liar.

Macha said:

1. Beane wanted him to play Kielty against lefties, but Macha ignored him and - irony of ironies - played Kotsay instead.  This decision and others like it, Macha tells John Shea of the Chronicle, got him fired.
2. Macha wanted Dan Haren to pitch Game 3 (and a possible Game 7) but Beane wanted Harden and Macha went along.

Well, it's going to be a little difficult to square this circle.

The story begs the question of what part of Macha's account Beane thinks is inaccurate, or "a little different," or just a flat-out lie.  It's not clear what Beane was talking about, although the implication of the story is that it's the playoff lineup/rotation disputes.  Beane may only be saying that it's a total fabrication that he fired Macha primarily because of those disputes, which may be why he includes the comment about memories being "a little different."  But the language - "total fabrication" - strongly implies that Macha is lying about everything.

But why would Macha lie?  The evidence suggests that he is probably telling the truth, at least about the lineup/rotation issues.  We knew at the time that there was disagreement among A's brass about the rotation (i.e. the "5-5 split.")  Macha said at the time that he played Kotsay for his defense.  This isn't some ancient dispute, subject to faulty memories.  It was a week or so ago.

For what it's worth, I think Macha was wrong to play Kotsay in Game 1 against Robertson, but right to play him in Game 3 in Detroit's spacious center field.  I thought it unwise to bypass Haren in favor of Harden, although their performances were similar.

But that isn't really important.  

It is just plain stupid for Billy Beane to call his former manager a liar when the man is belatedly defending himself when he would have been happy enough to walk away and collect his $2 million.  Beane fired him, and from what I can gather, was probably right to do so.  But why add insult to injury?  Beane already gave at least tacit permission for players to go public with their gripes about Macha.  It all looked transparently orchestrated.  And who brought an apparently grumpy Macha back in the first place to piss off the players?  Beane.

Macha is clearly peeved at Kotsay, whom he regards as a back-stabbing and self-absorbed whiner.  

The trouble with Macha is that nobody wants to talk to their boss if they feel disrespected or insulted.  It works both ways.  Macha made too many caustic comments that struck me as insensitive to players who really were injured.  I don't think he did enough to back up many of his players, either on the field or in media comments.  (A big exception is Milton Bradley, whose apparent praise for Macha after the wrestling match during the Angels game is yet another reason to like the guy.)  Macha wasn't a good enough manager, with unassailable credentials and/or management backing, to overcome clubhouse dissension.

But the real issue here is Beane.  He already has a problem being perceived as Al Davis, who regards managers/coaches as easily replaceable parts.  But this perception makes it difficult to hire good managers, because who wants a job where you get no credit for winning, too much blame for losing, and players who can plot behind your back?

And even if you hire a good manager, they will be perceived as powerless, a disrespected tool of Billy Beane's.  He is only reinforcing that impression by getting into an unnecessary spitting match with a guy he canned.