Why Ron Washington?

But why give him the nod over Geren or Lachemann?  Is there anything that suggests he will necessarily be better?  

What I am driving at is if he has some kind of super motivational skills, like Leyland & Guillen apparently do.

... to replace Macha???

How many WS titles have those guys you listed won?  I'm pretty sure none, they've had some success taking their teams to the playoffs, just as Macha has with the A's.  What makes those guys "winners" and Macha just "jackshit" when they've acomplished the same thing?  I'm not a big Macha fan and I wanted Wash last year and I want him again this year.  He wants to and probably deserves to manage.  If we don't hire him, someone else will and I don't want him to leave the organization.

there's blowing up once in a while and then there's getting tossed out of ~2 games a week. As a Phillies fan, I can tell you that Bowa A) NEVER took the Phils to the playoffs, which is as much a product of the front office as him, and B) Ended up with a lot of angry, bitter players. The last is what I'm concerned about. Tactician like what -- a guy who would call the steal? Who on the A's can steal 80% of the time outside of maybe Bradley and Kotsay? Probably not even those two. Bullpen managing and player communication and basic training (particularly on D and breaking balls for batters) are what a manager can do and teach, and none of these things are major strengths for Bowa. If you want to be really unique, hire a guy like Maddon on TB, who will work with stat charts to shift the infield and outfield into places where the batter is more likely to hit the ball if the situation applies. That'll be good for maybe -10 runs (or 1 win or so) a year, although admittedly I don't actually know how many runs it would save.

But the point is that Bowa is a kneejerk pick, a solid winner who didn't have a great situation in Philly but wouldn't be any happier in Oakland. Oakland needs its own kind of guy -- the Maddon, use-everything-you-can-to-your-advantage guy.

Bowa will friggin' jacksh#tnn make our clubhouse a bunch of miserable guys, and I don't think this will lead them to win.  Bowa may motivate some guys, but there's others who get totally turned off (see Rolen, Scott.)  

I think it's fine to consider that maybe we need a guy who can the hardass sometimes, but Bowa's a ballistic jerk (or at least he was as player and at Philly as coach.)

I don't think baseball is quite like football or soccer or hoops, where a fireball coach squeezes the best out of his player by rawfire inspiration.  It's more of a mental game.  The winners, like Leyland, Torre (yeah, I know, lotsa money), Cox can be hard but they they don't create undo friction with the players.

Personally, one of the reasons that I've really liked the A's over the past 8-10 years is that they look like they have fun playing and have fun being a team.  That's the part that Moneyball doesn't really explain.  Sure, there's teams that don't get along that win, but they're usually sickly talented.  Our special ingredient, I think, is that guys enjoy playing in Oakland, despite the meager fan base, because there's just been a fun-loving vibe to the team.  How many players have left us and been much better than they were here?  Harang is the only one who comes readily to mind, and Dye doesn't count due to the injuries (and what a great guy!)  Part of this, I truly believe, is that your teammates matter.  Think of the funk in the Yankee clubhouse this year.  Wouldn't want to be there.  And I sure as hell don't want a tightass like Bowa around, either.

He couldn't even get to the playoffs with Philly.

I like Bobby Valentine a lot, and wouldn't mind him  managing the A's, but he has a tendency to grate on the media, the fans, his GM, and his players.

Bowa was a disaster in San Diego, and the best he could do in Philly was get 10 games over .500. He's overrated.

Valentine never won anything in Texas, but he did have 3 good years in N.Y. Of course, the Mets also bought a ton of talent that he wouldn't have in Oakland (and when those players left N.Y., so did Valentine's effectiveness as a manager).

Johnson had mostly good results with the Mets, Reds and Orioles, and is/was probably the best of the three managers listed here. But he only lasted 2 years in Baltimore, was mediocre with the Dodgers (again fired after 2 years), and his work since then with Team USA has been pretty poor (7th place in 2005). His best days seem to have passed.

I hope you're wrong about Geren being the choice -- he strikes me as the perfect bench coach, a guy who can be Billy's eyes and ears in the dugout, but not the one you want running the club.  

Regardless, a "top-flight in-game tactician" wasn't what cost the A's against Detroit. Zito tanked, Loaiza struggled (then recovered, then gave up a crucial 2-run bomb), the offense was terrible for most of the series, and we were playing with a AAA 2nd baseman. The manager can't control those things (and IMO removing Loaiza earlier in game 2 likely wouldn't have mattered).

As has been noted elsewhere, we need a manager that can get more out of the bench and the back-end of the bullpen. That means player motivation and development are far and away the most important skills the new A's manager will need. That and fewer injuries...

was Billy's best man at his wedding.

His record is very good and the A's exceeded their expected win total this year.

There are a lot worse managers with jobs right now.

I don't mind a change as I think that next year will be very tough considering the strength of the AL.  

I wish the A's made up their mind on Macha last year.  The extra $1 mill for Smoak could have really helped out the minor league system.