PDA

View Full Version : Mark Gonzales Interview


Lip Man 1
11-01-2009, 10:06 PM
Folks:

My latest interview is up on the main page...this time it's with Mark Gonzales, Sox beat writer for the Tribune.

Mark answered every question that I asked and didn't pull any punches in my conversation with him. He's a straight-shooter and I hope you'll enjoy the conversation. He talks about Greg Walker, if Ozzie's lost the team...if he's in any trouble, Buddy Bell's impact on the minor league system and where Kenny goes this off season to improve this team among numerous topics.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=11&id=3906

Lip

guillen4life13
11-01-2009, 10:31 PM
Excellent interview. It's cool to get his perspective. I really like Mark Gonzales' work covering the Sox.

Noneck
11-01-2009, 10:56 PM
I always read Gonzo and enjoy, cant say I enjoy reading the other rags beat reporter tho.

Another great interview Lip. Thanks again.

oeo
11-01-2009, 11:08 PM
The tidbit about the vets getting on Getz is interesting. Those are our leaders?

Ranger
11-01-2009, 11:16 PM
I will agree there is value to having a vocal guy or two in the clubhouse, but I think it really depends on the talent level of the team. The Yankees, for example, really don't need a guy like that. Of course, it doesn't hurt but it isn't really necessary.

On the other hand, when it's obvious you won't be able to field an All Star team every night, it's useful to have a vocal leader. It has to be somebody respected and it has to be somebody who is vocal AND a leader. It can't just be somebody that's vocal. Loudmouths don't help anything.

Noneck
11-01-2009, 11:35 PM
The Sox had a future HOFer, a WS MVP, the#2 guy in Sox history in homers, the only Sox pitcher to pitch a perfect game and a no hitter, all great guys I hear but not leaders.

Loud mouths are not needed but having good players that can not lead hasn't helped either.

I am hoping Peavy can be that guy, till a younger guy can take over.

oeo
11-02-2009, 12:06 AM
I will agree there is value to having a vocal guy or two in the clubhouse, but I think it really depends on the talent level of the team. The Yankees, for example, really don't need a guy like that. Of course, it doesn't hurt but it isn't really necessary.

I don't think it has to do with their talent level, but how much experience they all have. You don't necessarily need a vocal guy with a team full of professionals. However, I still think you need a guy that keeps egos in check and keeps everyone on the same page. The Yankees have incredible team chemistry to go with their talent. There has to be someone in there that makes that team mesh so well.

JermaineDye05
11-02-2009, 02:19 AM
The Sox had a future HOFer, a WS MVP, the#2 guy in Sox history in homers, the only Sox pitcher to pitch a perfect game and a no hitter, all great guys I hear but not leaders.

Loud mouths are not needed but having good players that can not lead hasn't helped either.

I am hoping Peavy can be that guy, till a younger guy can take over.

My gut is telling me that he will be one of those guys next year. You can just tell in his starts how pumped up he gets. He's out there to win and he expects the players around him to give as much effort as he does. Even Gordon mentioned that he loved playing behind Peavy because of how intense he is out there.

Waysouthsider
11-02-2009, 06:49 AM
thanks for the great interview.....I enjoy Gonzo too.

I have wondered about the leadership issue too....no one seems to be there to support Oz when things go awry...

white sox bill
11-02-2009, 06:57 AM
I suppose you could say AJ was our verbal leader. But we need someone w/a louder voice

white sox bill
11-02-2009, 06:58 AM
BTW great interview Lip. Move over Larry King!! Keep it up

Balfanman
11-02-2009, 07:25 AM
I suppose you could say AJ was our verbal leader. But we need someone w/a louder voice

I brought this up in another thread a while back and I didn't really get an answer. Lip kind of touched on it when he asked Mark Gonzales the question. I think that Ozzie doesn't necessarily like it when players are vocal leaders and attemps to be the vocal leader himself. For example when A. J. went after Ramirez. I think A. J. was trying to be a voice and Ozzie kind of hushed him up.
This method works well when trying to deflect pressure from the players, but sometimes I think it is better if a team mate gets in your face rather than a manager.

Balfanman
11-02-2009, 07:27 AM
Also, does anyone know who the scout was who recommended Wilson Betemit to play shortstop? Was anything ever done to him?

oeo
11-02-2009, 08:44 AM
I brought this up in another thread a while back and I didn't really get an answer. Lip kind of touched on it when he asked Mark Gonzales the question. I think that Ozzie doesn't necessarily like it when players are vocal leaders and attemps to be the vocal leader himself. For example when A. J. went after Ramirez. I think A. J. was trying to be a voice and Ozzie kind of hushed him up.
This method works well when trying to deflect pressure from the players, but sometimes I think it is better if a team mate gets in your face rather than a manager.

Ozzie didn't like that it happened in plain view.

I have yet to hear AJ being considered a leader. Just because he has a mouth and annoys the hell ou of the other team does not mean he has leadership skills.

voodoochile
11-02-2009, 09:06 AM
Nice interview as usual, Lip. Interesting read.

Yeah, I seem to recall an incident this summer when a player got in another player's face and Ozzie blew a gasket. I didn't think he wanted that either.

Balfanman
11-02-2009, 09:22 AM
Ozzie didn't like that it happened in plain view.

I have yet to hear AJ being considered a leader. Just because he has a mouth and annoys the hell ou of the other team does not mean he has leadership skills.

I fully agree it should of happened behind closed doors. I just remember that it seemed like A. J. was frustrated and that was my thought at the time. It's only my opinion and I have no idea what goes on in the clubhouse but I wonder if Ozzie isn't some kind of control freak in that area

Ranger
11-02-2009, 10:54 AM
I don't think it has to do with their talent level, but how much experience they all have. You don't necessarily need a vocal guy with a team full of professionals. However, I still think you need a guy that keeps egos in check and keeps everyone on the same page. The Yankees have incredible team chemistry to go with their talent. There has to be someone in there that makes that team mesh so well.

I think chemistry is overrated and it isn't the same as having a leader. I don't know that I would classify the Yankees chemistry as "incredible" but it appears to be good. I'm not sure that's the thing that's putting them over the top. A-Rod having a monster post-season is what's putting them over the top, chemistry or not. A lot of teams have great chemistry but go nowhere.

A vocal leader that will do the things you're talking about is really more useful on a team that doesn't have more talent than the other teams in the playoffs.

I suppose you could say AJ was our verbal leader. But we need someone w/a louder voice

Yes and no, I guess. AJ isn't really what you'd call a leader. He actually kind of keeps to himself for the most part. During the course of the game, he'll let a teammate know if he's irritated with them or something, but he isn't really a Carl Everett or Orlando Cabrera-type.

Balfanman
11-02-2009, 11:10 AM
Yes and no, I guess. AJ isn't really what you'd call a leader. He actually kind of keeps to himself for the most part. During the course of the game, he'll let a teammate know if he's irritated with them or something, but he isn't really a Carl Everett or Orlando Cabrera-type.
Thank you Ranger. Little bits of information like this, that most of us have know way of knowing, is helpful in getting to know some of the players. In the back of my mind I thought that A. J. was more of a team leader than that. It seems he's a little selfish too, judging from the story that he doesn't want to help Flowers.

salty99
11-02-2009, 11:12 AM
I remember it being stated here at WSI that Beckham was taking a leadership role in the clubhouse. Can you confirm this Ranger?

dickallen15
11-02-2009, 11:23 AM
Its a pretty hard thing to acquire a "leader". Very few guys are capable of jumping in and being a vocal leader of a pretty veteran team. It takes time to really become one with a new team, even if you have been one in the past. They also usually cost a lot of money.

Jim Shorts
11-02-2009, 11:40 AM
IMHO, this whole leader, or lack there of, is squarely on Paulie and has been since before they gave him the 'C'

It's ridiculously disappointing to hear his interview when he says that it's not necessary. It's my opinion, but I think Paulie is wrong. Way the **** wrong.

dickallen15
11-02-2009, 11:48 AM
IMHO, this whole leader, or lack there of, is squarely on Paulie and has been since before they gave him the 'C'

It's ridiculously disappointing to hear his interview when he says that it's not necessary. It's my opinion, but I think Paulie is wrong. Way the **** wrong.

Paulie is who he is. If he tried to be anything different, his teammates would see right through that and know he was a phony. You can't blame a guy for being himself.

russ99
11-02-2009, 12:19 PM
Also, does anyone know who the scout was who recommended Wilson Betemit to play shortstop? Was anything ever done to him?

Betemit was a top prospect in the Braves system and did a very good job with the Yankees as a pinch hitter.

With that track record, I can see how a scout would recommend the Sox taking a shot on him. With that in mind, I don't see why he'd be reprimanded. Some players just don't work out.

Balfanman
11-02-2009, 12:32 PM
Betemit was a top prospect in the Braves system and did a very good job with the Yankees as a pinch hitter.

With that track record, I can see how a scout would recommend the Sox taking a shot on him. With that in mind, I don't see why he'd be reprimanded. Some players just don't work out.
But didn't this article state that someone in the Sox scouting department said that Betemit could still play an acceptable shortstop? They saw him play in 2008 while he was with the Yankees and I think that he only played the corner infield positions and dh with them.

asindc
11-02-2009, 01:57 PM
I will agree there is value to having a vocal guy or two in the clubhouse, but I think it really depends on the talent level of the team. The Yankees, for example, really don't need a guy like that. Of course, it doesn't hurt but it isn't really necessary.

On the other hand, when it's obvious you won't be able to field an All Star team every night, it's useful to have a vocal leader. It has to be somebody respected and it has to be somebody who is vocal AND a leader. It can't just be somebody that's vocal. Loudmouths don't help anything.

What the Yankees have are guys like Jeter, Posada, and Rivera who can quietly (if need be) get a guy in line without the manager's approval or prodding. Guys like Paulie, JD, and Buehrle should be that for the Sox, but for some reason it seems they are not. A previous poster mentioned Peavy as someone who seems to have the right temperment and attitude. From what I have seen so far, I would agree. I also think Beckham and, to a lesser extent, Getz can be those kinds of guys. I applauded Getz's statement at the time and shame on any of the vets for taking exception to it.

Jim Shorts
11-02-2009, 02:00 PM
That was a good interview, Lip.

Gonzo is the best of the Sox beat reporters, IMO; Gregor being #2

southside rocks
11-02-2009, 02:08 PM
A good read. Thanks, Lip.

Ranger
11-02-2009, 03:19 PM
I remember it being stated here at WSI that Beckham was taking a leadership role in the clubhouse. Can you confirm this Ranger?

He has said before, and it has been discussed many times elsewhere, that he COULD someday be a leader and has the personality to do it. It will take some time for that to happen which leads us to:

Its a pretty hard thing to acquire a "leader". Very few guys are capable of jumping in and being a vocal leader of a pretty veteran team. It takes time to really become one with a new team, even if you have been one in the past. They also usually cost a lot of money.

You're right. It IS difficult to assume that role. And it's even tougher for a new aquisition to come in and be that person when there is a sort of "old guard" that exists in the clubhouse. When the Sox have Dye, Konerko, AJ, Buehrle, etc., it's really difficult for someone to come in and take over as voice of the team. Especially when that guy has the reputation of being a "leader." It can be a very tough sell on the veterans. That may be part a reason the whole Cabrera thing didn't work out here. He knew why he was acquired and acted that way, and I think some of the vets didn't buy into that. It was a good thought, but it jsut didn't work.

Though, Mark Kotsay really wasn't a vocal leader, he was still able to pull the young guys aside and "talk" with them when necessary. Very tough for a guy to come in midseason and do that, but he is a respected player by his peers.

Jim Shorts
11-02-2009, 03:35 PM
You're right. It IS difficult to assume that role. And it's even tougher for a new aquisition to come in and be that person when there is a sort of "old guard" that exists in the clubhouse. When the Sox have Dye, Konerko, AJ, Buehrle, etc.,


And as Gonzo said in his interview with Lip, those veterans should be ashamed of themselves.

That's disappointing to the core.

Ranger
11-02-2009, 03:42 PM
And as Gonzo said in his interview with Lip, those veterans should be ashamed of themselves.

That's disappointing to the core.

Well, I'm not sure there is anything for those guys to be ashamed of, really. Except maybe Dye, who was attrocious in the second half. Otherwise, those other guys did their jobs on the field this year and if you aren't going to lead, then you need to produce. They did.

Besides, production is vastly more important than leadership.

oeo
11-02-2009, 03:46 PM
I think chemistry is overrated and it isn't the same as having a leader. I don't know that I would classify the Yankees chemistry as "incredible" but it appears to be good. I'm not sure that's the thing that's putting them over the top. A-Rod having a monster post-season is what's putting them over the top, chemistry or not. A lot of teams have great chemistry but go nowhere.

I honestly think chemistry is underrated. Yes, you obviously need talent to win, and chemistry isn't going to get you there alone. However, a talented team with bad chemistry can be disastrous, if you ask me.

Each guy on the Yankees knows how to pick each other up. I love how their whole infield meets at the mound during a pitching change, and each guy usually has something to say to the pitcher. I think they mesh incredibly well, which is weird for a team full of very good players with a couple of very large egos in there.

BTW, I never implied that the Yankees chemistry is what has them one game away from a title.

Ranger
11-02-2009, 03:57 PM
I honestly think chemistry is underrated.

Each guy on the Yankees knows how to pick each other up. I love how their whole infield meets at the mound during a pitching change, and each guy usually has something to say to the pitcher. I think they mesh incredibly well, which is weird for a team full of very good players with a couple of very large egos in there.

BTW, I never implied that the Yankees chemistry is what has them one game away from a title.

I didn't say you did imply that. But the Yankees know how to pick each other up because they have a team full of offensive All Stars. It isn't about leadership. They're just good. They scored over 900 runs this year because the lineup is full of monsters.

Again, I think chemistry and leadership have some value, but I think fans overrate how important they are.

asindc
11-02-2009, 04:31 PM
I honestly think chemistry is underrated. Yes, you obviously need talent to win, and chemistry isn't going to get you there alone. However, a talented team with bad chemistry can be disastrous, if you ask me.

Each guy on the Yankees knows how to pick each other up. I love how their whole infield meets at the mound during a pitching change, and each guy usually has something to say to the pitcher. I think they mesh incredibly well, which is weird for a team full of very good players with a couple of very large egos in there.

BTW, I never implied that the Yankees chemistry is what has them one game away from a title.

I'm not disagreeing with you here, but your statement does remind me that the 1972-74 Oakland A's team that won 3 WS in a row was well-known to have chemistry issues. Those guys apparently hated each other.

Noneck
11-02-2009, 04:58 PM
Though, Mark Kotsay really wasn't a vocal leader, he was still able to pull the young guys aside and "talk" with them when necessary. Very tough for a guy to come in midseason and do that, but he is a respected player by his peers.

That makes me want the Sox to keep Kotsay for next year. But as Kotsay can pull the young guys aside, I hope someone (Peavy?) can pull the vets to the side when necessary also. It sounds like some of these vets need that "talking" to also.

I would like to add this. Having a guy like OC and Peavy are totally different. OC was a rent a player and everyone knew it. Peavy will be around on the Sox longer that just about all the current vets and they know that also. It is changing of the guard time.

Lip Man 1
11-02-2009, 05:06 PM
Asin:

Based on my talking to players who played against those Oakland teams the general perception was that they were united in their hatred of Charlie Finley more than they had issues with each other.

That hatred and by all accounts it was genuine, united the club to do everything they could to win to stick it to him because then they'd demand more money. When free agency became a reality in part because of the Catfish Hunter situation they couldn't wait to leave town.

Lip

Daver
11-02-2009, 05:55 PM
Asin:

Based on my talking to players who played against those Oakland teams the general perception was that they were united in their hated of Charlie Finley more than they had issues with each other.

That hated and by all accounts it was genuine, united the club to do everything they could to win to stick it to him because then they'd demand more money. When free agency became a reality in part because of the Catfish Hunter situation they couldn't wait to leave town.

Lip

And Charlie Finley saw the writing on the wall and promptly sold the A's.

Ranger
11-02-2009, 06:17 PM
That makes me want the Sox to keep Kotsay for next year. But as Kotsay can pull the young guys aside, I hope someone (Peavy?) can pull the vets to the side when necessary also. It sounds like some of these vets need that "talking" to also.

I would like to add this. Having a guy like OC and Peavy are totally different. OC was a rent a player and everyone knew it. Peavy will be around on the Sox longer that just about all the current vets and they know that also. It is changing of the guard time.

Actually, that's not true. It was not a pre-determined assumption that Cabrera was coming here to be a one-year player. In fact, there was discussion about extending him, but he apparently did not want to talk about it midseason. Then when things went sour by the end of the year, it was obvious he wasn't coming back.

Now, Peavy and OC are different. You are right about that. Cabrera has been known as a natural clubhouse leader for a while. There is a reason he has that reputation. However, it didn't work here...partly because he behaved as if he was brought in for that reason. It didn't sit well with the current veterans.

Peavy is different because A) it's tough for him to be a true team leader because he only plays once every 5 days, and B) he's not really coming in for that purpose and doesn't have the attitude as such. When he is on the mound, he'll be in charge. But other than that, I wouldn't expect him to be a true team leader. Guys will look to him as an example, but I don't think he will lead the team in the sense that we're talking in this forum.

Noneck
11-02-2009, 06:26 PM
Peavy is different because A) it's tough for him to be a true team leader because he only plays once every 5 days, and B) he's not really coming in for that purpose and doesn't have the attitude as such. When he is on the mound, he'll be in charge. But other than that, I wouldn't expect him to be a true team leader. Guys will look to him as an example, but I don't think he will lead the team in the sense that we're talking in this forum.

I assume you would know more about Peavys attitude than anyone here so I will take your word on that. I really don't know how long you have followed White Sox baseball but Jack McDowell was a team leader, he was also the ace and a Cy Young award winner. So a pitcher, even though he pitches every 5th or 4th day, can be that leader.

Bucky F. Dent
11-02-2009, 07:58 PM
Also, does anyone know who the scout was who recommended Wilson Betemit to play shortstop? Was anything ever done to him?


Great interview Lip, and yeah this was what struck me too. Who are the professional scouts that blew the Betemit analysis and the Swisher analysis.

Betemit, shortstop, really??????

Daver
11-02-2009, 08:01 PM
Great interview Lip, and yeah this was what struck me too. Who are the professional scouts that blew the Betemit analysis and the Swisher analysis.

Betemit, shortstop, really??????

It's Greg Walker's fault.

WhiteSox5187
11-02-2009, 08:33 PM
And Charlie Finley saw the writing on the wall and promptly sold the A's.

That's not true, he lost Catfish Hunter in 1976 and immediately began dismantling his team, but he didn't sell the team until 1981 and even that was only because his wife wouldn't accept part of the team in a divorce settlement.

Daver
11-02-2009, 08:43 PM
That's not true, he lost Catfish Hunter in 1976 and immediately began dismantling his team, but he didn't sell the team until 1981 and even that was only because his wife wouldn't accept part of the team in a divorce settlement.

It is true, Charlie Finley looked at the agreement signed by the owners and the players, mostly at the owners insistence on arbitration, and began looking for a buyer, it took him awhile to find one, but he had no intention of keeping the A's in the new age of baseball free agency.

palehozenychicty
11-02-2009, 10:35 PM
Very insightful stuff. Thanks again, Lip.

DaSox_05
11-03-2009, 08:31 AM
Great interview, you should also try to interview Joe Cowley to see if they share some of the same opinons.

Lip Man 1
11-03-2009, 08:41 AM
DaSox:

Go to the link that is directly under the 'baseball card of the week' feature that is on the left side of the main page. Look for 'WSI Interviews' and click on it. It will take you to four pages of names. Simply click on the name you wish to read...for example, this one:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=11&id=3744

Lip

Balfanman
11-03-2009, 08:43 AM
Great interview Lip, and yeah this was what struck me too. Who are the professional scouts that blew the Betemit analysis and the Swisher analysis.

Betemit, shortstop, really??????
Maybe they were just going off of a report of a few seasons ago, but I find it hard to believe that a professional baseball organization would do that. I thought that the main problem with Swisher was his attitude so that might be somewhat excuseable. I am no where near a professional scout and make no claims to be, but even I could see that Betemit was barely passable at the corner infield positions, shortstop......baaaaad!

mccoydp
11-03-2009, 10:24 AM
Thanks for another excellent interview, Lip.

Domeshot17
11-03-2009, 10:59 AM
Actually, that's not true. It was not a pre-determined assumption that Cabrera was coming here to be a one-year player. In fact, there was discussion about extending him, but he apparently did not want to talk about it midseason. Then when things went sour by the end of the year, it was obvious he wasn't coming back.

Now, Peavy and OC are different. You are right about that. Cabrera has been known as a natural clubhouse leader for a while. There is a reason he has that reputation. However, it didn't work here...partly because he behaved as if he was brought in for that reason. It didn't sit well with the current veterans.

Peavy is different because A) it's tough for him to be a true team leader because he only plays once every 5 days, and B) he's not really coming in for that purpose and doesn't have the attitude as such. When he is on the mound, he'll be in charge. But other than that, I wouldn't expect him to be a true team leader. Guys will look to him as an example, but I don't think he will lead the team in the sense that we're talking in this forum.

Ranger, from your personel opinion, have our Vets become (a) too sensitive and (b) are they living off 2005? I ask this because they don't like Orlando calling out the team because he was new. I have personally always felt the reason he failed was Cabrera's 2 best values are (1) his ability to be the best number 2 hitter in the game and (2) his intangibles. He was forced to lead off most the year here, which limits what he does best, and, well, intangibles mean nothing if the Sheppard can't get the sheep to follow.

It just strikes me as every time someone steps up, The Vets through a hissy fit. Cabrera comes in, calls out the desire to win (which was 100% right, even if he was the wrong guy saying it) and the Vets complain. Getz says he thinks the kids bring more energy to the team (again 100% right) and the Vets get all over him. The White Sox pick up a superstar C prospect to 1 day replace AJ, and AJ refuses to mentor him by accounts. Dye goes into a self pitty 3 month stretch and doesn't hit.

It sounds like the White Sox, not the Yankees, have the primadonna syndrome. I could be wrong, but It just feels like its the guys from the World Series resting on what they used to be able to do.

I do agree, I think Chemistry is vastly over rated. Give me a really talented team that hates each other over a semi talented team that loves each other anyday. I mean look at 2008. By all accounts, Even Ozzie's Admission, the 2008 team never got along well. Players were always mad at other Players. In turn, the Twins had great Chemistry. We still took them.

dickallen15
11-03-2009, 11:14 AM
Ranger, from your personel opinion, have our Vets become (a) too sensitive and (b) are they living off 2005? I ask this because they don't like Orlando calling out the team because he was new. I have personally always felt the reason he failed was Cabrera's 2 best values are (1) his ability to be the best number 2 hitter in the game and (2) his intangibles. He was forced to lead off most the year here, which limits what he does best, and, well, intangibles mean nothing if the Sheppard can't get the sheep to follow.

It just strikes me as every time someone steps up, The Vets through a hissy fit. Cabrera comes in, calls out the desire to win (which was 100% right, even if he was the wrong guy saying it) and the Vets complain. Getz says he thinks the kids bring more energy to the team (again 100% right) and the Vets get all over him. The White Sox pick up a superstar C prospect to 1 day replace AJ, and AJ refuses to mentor him by accounts. Dye goes into a self pitty 3 month stretch and doesn't hit.

It sounds like the White Sox, not the Yankees, have the primadonna syndrome. I could be wrong, but It just feels like its the guys from the World Series resting on what they used to be able to do.

I do agree, I think Chemistry is vastly over rated. Give me a really talented team that hates each other over a semi talented team that loves each other anyday. I mean look at 2008. By all accounts, Even Ozzie's Admission, the 2008 team never got along well. Players were always mad at other Players. In turn, the Twins had great Chemistry. We still took them.

Personally, I think the players have moved on from 2005, its the fans that haven't, not that I don't blame them. People expect perfection when as Walker said, its a game of failure. Any game thread, if the Sox aren't winning 15-0, someone needs to be traded or waived or fired. Last year when Carlos Quentin was in the mist of an MVP-type season, there was a thread wondering if the Sox made a mistake in trading for him. I think, if anything, the WS title has warped a lot fans' sense of reality, but that is probably natural. Chemistry is the word always used if your team wins. I agree, its overrated. There probably are a lot of bad teams that get along fine and good teams who hate each other.

Ranger
11-03-2009, 02:23 PM
Ranger, from your personel opinion, have our Vets become (a) too sensitive and (b) are they living off 2005? I ask this because they don't like Orlando calling out the team because he was new. I have personally always felt the reason he failed was Cabrera's 2 best values are (1) his ability to be the best number 2 hitter in the game and (2) his intangibles. He was forced to lead off most the year here, which limits what he does best, and, well, intangibles mean nothing if the Sheppard can't get the sheep to follow.

It just strikes me as every time someone steps up, The Vets through a hissy fit. Cabrera comes in, calls out the desire to win (which was 100% right, even if he was the wrong guy saying it) and the Vets complain. Getz says he thinks the kids bring more energy to the team (again 100% right) and the Vets get all over him. The White Sox pick up a superstar C prospect to 1 day replace AJ, and AJ refuses to mentor him by accounts. Dye goes into a self pitty 3 month stretch and doesn't hit.

It sounds like the White Sox, not the Yankees, have the primadonna syndrome. I could be wrong, but It just feels like its the guys from the World Series resting on what they used to be able to do.

I do agree, I think Chemistry is vastly over rated. Give me a really talented team that hates each other over a semi talented team that loves each other anyday. I mean look at 2008. By all accounts, Even Ozzie's Admission, the 2008 team never got along well. Players were always mad at other Players. In turn, the Twins had great Chemistry. We still took them.

To answer the second part of your first question (about 2005), just look at dickallen's answer below. He nailed it. Fans look for reasons why things aren't going as planned, so they reach for anything. One of the more popular theories is that "well, they must just be happy with one championship." That is absolutely untrue. If you talk to these guys, there is no way they think that. They are, for the most part, severely disappointed they haven't made a good run since then because they felt like they've had good enough talent to do so (especially in '06).

If you know anything about most athletes that do this for a living, once they get one championship, they get greedy for more.

Now, are the veterans sensitive? Maybe a couple of them are. But you have to understand that the core of Dye, Thome, Konerko had been together for 3 years, and some of those guys had been here longer. Those three are quieter, professional types. They just sort of show up, work hard, and quietly do their jobs. It's just hard for guys like that to take instruction from a newcomer that behaves as if he's supposed to be there to be the border collie. It doesn't sit well. I mean, Dye and Thome are in their late 30s...players in that area of their careers are in no mood to start taking instruction from their peers and they certainly don't want any rah-rah stuff from a guy like that.

Cabrera has leadership ability. But a leader has to find the right way to integrate himself into the group. You're dealing with personalities and you can't just come into a new situation and immediately begin throwing your weight around when there are 5 guys that have been in the big leagues as long as you have and maybe even longer.

But, it doesn't mean they absolutely wouldn't allow leadership from somebody who hasn't been around as long. Let's say in a hypothetical that Dye, Thome, PK were all around for teh next 3 years and were still able to play, I think they would be more than willing to allow Beckham to be that guy. But here's the difference: Beckham doesn't act like Cabrera does. He knows his place and they like him. It would take time, but they would be ok with it.

Here's another one: let's say Griffey had more of a similar attitude to what Cabrera has. If he were vocal, the Sox would've listened because, well, he's Ken Griffey Jr. He's going to the Hall and they respect him. That's a guy they would listen to right away. But he's a quieter guy. Orlando Cabrera is not Griffey.


Personally, I think the players have moved on from 2005, its the fans that haven't, not that I don't blame them. People expect perfection when as Walker said, its a game of failure. Any game thread, if the Sox aren't winning 15-0, someone needs to be traded or waived or fired. Last year when Carlos Quentin was in the mist of an MVP-type season, there was a thread wondering if the Sox made a mistake in trading for him. I think, if anything, the WS title has warped a lot fans' sense of reality, but that is probably natural. Chemistry is the word always used if your team wins. I agree, its overrated. There probably are a lot of bad teams that get along fine and good teams who hate each other.

BadBobbyJenks
11-03-2009, 05:03 PM
I don't think it has to do with their talent level, but how much experience they all have. You don't necessarily need a vocal guy with a team full of professionals. However, I still think you need a guy that keeps egos in check and keeps everyone on the same page. The Yankees have incredible team chemistry to go with their talent. There has to be someone in there that makes that team mesh so well.

http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Seattle+Mariners+v+New+York+Yankees+D8A40dB8xqql.j pg
Our Chemistry is totally extreme bro!

Domeshot17
11-03-2009, 08:20 PM
To answer the second part of your first question (about 2005), just look at dickallen's answer below. He nailed it. Fans look for reasons why things aren't going as planned, so they reach for anything. One of the more popular theories is that "well, they must just be happy with one championship." That is absolutely untrue. If you talk to these guys, there is no way they think that. They are, for the most part, severely disappointed they haven't made a good run since then because they felt like they've had good enough talent to do so (especially in '06).

If you know anything about most athletes that do this for a living, once they get one championship, they get greedy for more.

Now, are the veterans sensitive? Maybe a couple of them are. But you have to understand that the core of Dye, Thome, Konerko had been together for 3 years, and some of those guys had been here longer. Those three are quieter, professional types. They just sort of show up, work hard, and quietly do their jobs. It's just hard for guys like that to take instruction from a newcomer that behaves as if he's supposed to be there to be the border collie. It doesn't sit well. I mean, Dye and Thome are in their late 30s...players in that area of their careers are in no mood to start taking instruction from their peers and they certainly don't want any rah-rah stuff from a guy like that.

Cabrera has leadership ability. But a leader has to find the right way to integrate himself into the group. You're dealing with personalities and you can't just come into a new situation and immediately begin throwing your weight around when there are 5 guys that have been in the big leagues as long as you have and maybe even longer.

But, it doesn't mean they absolutely wouldn't allow leadership from somebody who hasn't been around as long. Let's say in a hypothetical that Dye, Thome, PK were all around for teh next 3 years and were still able to play, I think they would be more than willing to allow Beckham to be that guy. But here's the difference: Beckham doesn't act like Cabrera does. He knows his place and they like him. It would take time, but they would be ok with it.

Here's another one: let's say Griffey had more of a similar attitude to what Cabrera has. If he were vocal, the Sox would've listened because, well, he's Ken Griffey Jr. He's going to the Hall and they respect him. That's a guy they would listen to right away. But he's a quieter guy. Orlando Cabrera is not Griffey.

A lot of what I thought, although I still wonder about the sensitivity. I understand about knowing a place and time to lead. While no where near the pros, I played baseball in College. I was one of the freshmen who tried to learn to follow before they could lead. In college most of us were captains in High School, and some guys decided that meant they could be captain in college. It didn't sit well with the Juniors/Seniors.

Also, I asked about being complacent because I have seen it happen. Again, I know the competitive drive of doing it for a living is that much higher, but in college I was part of a team that won our conference for the first time ever to goto the national tournament. The next year, we had guys who wanted another, guys who just thought we would get another by showing up, and guys who were just happy to have been a part of it during their 4 years.