PDA

View Full Version : Is this a make or break year for Ozzie?


HarryChappas
01-28-2010, 10:02 PM
Should Ozzie be canned if we do not win the division this year? He dumped Thome, wanted Pierre (sat on bench in LA and cub reject), refuses to play Beckham at SS (claims TCM is the best in AL), hired Jeff Cox (sent Konerko home on a tag up from short right), and is saying he will DH OV.

rdwj
01-28-2010, 10:07 PM
Who is Ozzy? Ozzie manages - he's not the GM.

Who was he supposed to play at 3rd if Beckham played SS? Besides, he's not really a plus fielder anyway.

No - he shouldn't be fired. He's been a very successful manager here and probably will never be fired. He be here as long as he wants to be.

Brian26
01-28-2010, 10:10 PM
Should Ozzie be canned if we do not win the division this year?

He's got a job until he doesn't want it anymore.

He dumped ThomeKenny Williams dumped Thome last August 31.

wanted Pierre (sat on bench in LA and cub reject)Pierre only sat on the bench after LA picked up one of the best players in the game who happened to play the same position as Pierre.

refuses to play Beckham at SS (claims TCM is the best in AL)I'll trust Ozzie's judgement over you on this one. The rest of the organization, also, profiled Beckham as a 2b before SS.

hired Jeff Cox (sent Konerko home on a tag up from short right)Ridiculous comment.

and is saying he will DH OV.Ozzie won the World Series with Timo Perez doing some time at DH.

Rocky Soprano
01-28-2010, 10:14 PM
:threadsucks

You could of at least given better reasons as to why you think Ozzie may get fired.

Domeshot17
01-28-2010, 10:17 PM
While I don't like the wording of the goofy original post, Yes. Ozzie's job should entirely be on the line. Kenny gave him a top 5 rotation, a good bullpen, and the only reason the offense isn't any good is because he hand picked it. He is the one going this unconventional road never traveled before, and if it leads us no where, his time should be up. Also, to not win the AL Central means we likely finished under .500. 3 out of 4 years under .500 and out of the playoffs, definitely fire-able.

That said, others are right. Ozzie and Kenny can say or do anything they want. They unfortunately have a free pass because of 2005. I like Kenny just fine, and Ozzie does some stuff well, but having no consequences is asking for disaster.

rdwj
01-28-2010, 10:17 PM
:threadsucks

You could of at least given better reasons as to why you think Ozzie may get fired.

Is it possible to suck and blow at the same time?

rdwj
01-28-2010, 10:18 PM
...and the only reason the offense isn't any good is because he hand picked it.


Please wait until at least 2 weeks into season before passing judgment on the offense

JermaineDye05
01-28-2010, 10:20 PM
In all honesty, if anyone's job would be in jeopardy if this season falters I'd say it would be KW.

However, that would only be if Alex Rios is the Rios we saw when we acquired him.

Though I feel that Kenny has done enough good to outweigh the bad. But if Alex Rios is a bust, that is a lot of money to be swallowing and I'm not sure how Jerry will react.

thomas35forever
01-28-2010, 10:30 PM
It could very well be. Ozzie had plenty of chances to say yes to Thome's return and he didn't give in. If Thome has a decent year and we still have issues at DH, then I'd put Ozzie on thin ice.

JermaineDye05
01-28-2010, 10:42 PM
It could very well be. Ozzie had plenty of chances to say yes to Thome's return and he didn't give in. If Thome has a decent year and we still have issues at DH, then I'd put Ozzie on thin ice.

If Ozzie gets fired, it won't be because he said 'No' to Jim Thome.

HarryChappas
01-28-2010, 10:44 PM
If Ozzie gets fired, it won't be because he said 'No' to Jim Thome.

What if he bats TCM anywhere in top 5 spots?

voodoochile
01-28-2010, 10:45 PM
Is it possible to suck and blow at the same time?

If the air goes in somewhere, it has to come out somewhere else or things get messy.

The reasons listed are so sporadic and obviously a function of selective memory syndrome that I'm not going to touch the question itself.

JNS
01-28-2010, 10:46 PM
Please.

I've spent time being pissed off at both Ozzie and KW and have eaten my words. These guys are among the most successful management teams of the decade. Plus they are fun and interesting. Even thoughtful at times.

Joe Torre is considered - with good reason - to be one of the best managers in the game. When was the last time he took a team to the WS? There are so many variables involved in winning in baseball that unless the players stop playing for the manager (Jerry Manual) or the guy doesn't know if there is a RHP or a LHP warming up in the pen (Bevington), or he's so predictable, with zero adaptability you could replace him with a robot (Lamont) or just an unpopular sour-puss (Fragosi), it's not productive to call out a manager. Ozzie remains popular with the fans and the players, has a concept, is reasonably good at handling pitchers - a huge issue with many managers - and keeps the Sox in contention. That's good enough for me. After Lopez - a very different kind of manager - he's my all-time Sox favorite.

voodoochile
01-28-2010, 10:46 PM
What if he bats TCM anywhere in top 5 spots?
He did okay in the 2-hole his rookie season, check the splits...

In fact if it were Pierre, TCM, Beckham, Quentin in the top 4 slots it wouldn't be the worst lineup they could come up with...

HarryChappas
01-28-2010, 10:50 PM
He did okay in the 2-hole his rookie season, check the splits...

In fact if it were Pierre, TCM, Beckham, Quentin in the top 4 slots it wouldn't be the worst lineup they could come up with...

Cant bunt and K's too much. This is 80's NL ball this year. Remember??

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 10:55 PM
If this team misses the postseason because of a lackluster offense, then, yes, absolutely he should be gone.

DirtySox
01-28-2010, 10:56 PM
if this team misses the postseason because of a lackluster offense, then, yes, absolutely he should be gone.

+1

Ranger
01-28-2010, 11:09 PM
He's not going anywhere unless he quits. And he shouldn't.

Please.

I've spent time being pissed off at both Ozzie and KW and have eaten my words. These guys are among the most successful management teams of the decade. Plus they are fun and interesting. Even thoughtful at times.

Joe Torre is considered - with good reason - to be one of the best managers in the game. When was the last time he took a team to the WS? There are so many variables involved in winning in baseball that unless the players stop playing for the manager (Jerry Manual) or the guy doesn't know if there is a RHP or a LHP warming up in the pen (Bevington), or he's so predictable, with zero adaptability you could replace him with a robot (Lamont) or just an unpopular sour-puss (Fragosi), it's not productive to call out a manager. Ozzie remains popular with the fans and the players, has a concept, is reasonably good at handling pitchers - a huge issue with many managers - and keeps the Sox in contention. That's good enough for me. After Lopez - a very different kind of manager - he's my all-time Sox favorite.

Yes sir.

Like someone else said in this thread, it's fascinating that some people don't seem to recognize that this last several years is one of the best eras this organization has had in decades. Not sure how you can miss that.

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 11:11 PM
He's not going anywhere unless he quits. And he shouldn't.



Yes sir.

Like someone else said in this thread, it's fascinating that some people don't seem to recognize that this last several years is one of the best eras this organization has had in decades. Not sure how you can miss that.
If you want to make such a broad analysis, go right ahead. I'd give Kenny the credit for most of that (with the rest of the credit going to Herm). Ozzie's been right with moves in the bullpen and handling of the pitching staff, but I don't think his skills are really that unique.

Now if this team loses this year because they can't muster 775 runs, I don't see how anyone could call for him to stay.

asindc
01-28-2010, 11:13 PM
He's not going anywhere unless he quits. And he shouldn't.



Yes sir.

Like someone else said in this thread, it's fascinating that some people don't seem to recognize that this last several years is one of the best eras this organization has had in decades. Not sure how you can miss that.

There is the forest and there are trees within the forest. When assessing the forest, some only look at the trees.

Dub25
01-28-2010, 11:16 PM
Should Ozzie be canned if we do not win the division this year? He dumped Thome, wanted Pierre (sat on bench in LA and cub reject), refuses to play Beckham at SS (claims TCM is the best in AL), hired Jeff Cox (sent Konerko home on a tag up from short right), and is saying he will DH OV.

No, he should not. He finally gets a roster the way he likes it but should not be completely judged after 1 year with it. The only thing that bothers me is Kenny kind of throwing him under the bus during Soxfest about Jim Thome.

Dub25
01-28-2010, 11:18 PM
Please wait until at least 2 weeks into season before passing judgment on the offense

How about 2 months??? Besides the cold weather, it usually takes a little bit for the hitting to catch up to the pitching.

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 11:20 PM
No, he should not. He finally gets a roster the way he likes it but should not be completely judged after 1 year with it. The only thing that bothers me is Kenny kind of throwing him under the bus during Soxfest about Jim Thome.
I think Ozzie's made enough statements about the DH to place himself under the bus, should this fail. Kenny's just giving the man what he's been begging for.
How about 2 months??? Besides the cold weather, it usually takes a little bit for the hitting to catch up to the pitching.
Hell, 2 decades. **** it. 2 lifetimes.

Dub25
01-28-2010, 11:24 PM
I think Ozzie's made enough statements about the DH to place himself under the bus, should this fail. Kenny's just giving the man what he's been begging for.

Hell, 2 decades. **** it. 2 lifetimes.

Maybe Craig... but the thing that bothers me is since the world series team, KW has put together softball teams that went nowhere. Ozzie pleaded for more speed and contact. My point is, KW did it for 4 years so why should Oz only get 1?

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 11:26 PM
Maybe Craig... but the thing that bothers me is since the world series team, KW has put together softball teams that went nowhere. Ozzie pleaded for more speed and contact. My point is, KW did it for 4 years so why should Oz only get 1?
I'm not saying Kenny's been great, but Ozzie is taking a deliberate and arguably inept risk here by not using the DH for offensive purposes. It's a risky, flies-in-the-face of logic move, and should it turn out to be a mistake, he should face consequences. Perhaps a lighter consequence could be KW telling Ozzie to shut the hell up and just manage, rather than beg for horses all the time.

Thatguyoverthere
01-28-2010, 11:26 PM
Maybe Craig... but the thing that bothers me is since the world series team, KW has put together softball teams that went nowhere. Ozzie pleaded for more speed and contact. My point is, KW did it for 4 years so why should Oz only get 1?I'd take that "softball" lineup in an instant. That 2003 offense would be looking mighty fine right about now.

Dub25
01-28-2010, 11:31 PM
I'd take that "softball" lineup in an instant. That 2003 offense would be looking mighty fine right about now.

And that team did What??? :scratch:

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 11:32 PM
And that team did What??? :scratch:
The offenses from 2003, 2004, 2006, etc. were not to blame for poor showings, just like the offense from 2005 was not the primary reason we won it all. It wouldn't even be in my top three.

JohnTucker0814
01-28-2010, 11:35 PM
Cant bunt and K's too much. This is 80's NL ball this year. Remember??

K's too much???

Pierre - 27 K's last year 1/15.7 PA
Ramirez - 66 K's last year 1/9.89 PA
Beckham - 65 K's last year 1/6.6 PA
Quentin - 52 K's last year 1/7.6 PA

You're misquided if you think that top 4 strikes out too much! Pierre strikes out 1 time in every 3 games... Ramirez once every other game... Beckham & Quentin less than once per game!

I find that pretty remarkable, honestly! Plus, it was Beckhams rookie year, I'd bet he will cut down on his K's and Alexei actually cut down his K rate by 1 PA...

I kind of like that top 4... would like it better if Rios was batting 5th. He only struck out 1/5.9 PA. With the speed of those 5 at the top, they could produce a ton of runs!

1-Pierre
2-Ramirez
3-Beckham
4-Quentin
5-Rios
6-Konerko
7-Pierzynski
8-Jones
9-Teahen

Dub25
01-28-2010, 11:38 PM
The offenses from 2003, 2004, 2006, etc. were not to blame for poor showings, just like the offense from 2005 was not the primary reason we won it all. It wouldn't even be in my top three.

I don't know man... here's hoping to a hell of a year. :gulp:

JermaineDye05
01-28-2010, 11:48 PM
He's not going anywhere unless he quits. And he shouldn't.


I don't see him quitting but I could certainly see him threatening to quit or ask to get fired like he does every season.

JNS
01-29-2010, 01:03 AM
GET OVER THOME!

If Jones looks like he will tank, or Rios can't hit or whatever, there will be quite a few thumpers out there that will be available in one way or another.

Let's remember who the DH was for most of 2005 - with a huge boost mid-season from Frank Thomas. Yep, Dinosaur Carl!

I mean, look at the pitching. It's marvelous - most teams would kill to get a rotation like the Sox, with Jenks and a rejuvenated Putz, not to say Thornton with a 97 MPH fastball in the late innings.

So relax - Ozzie's choice of DH's won't win or lose anything for the Sox (well, maybe three or four games). It's about whether Rios can hit, Beckham can maintain his 2009 pace, if Teahen can turn those KC doubles into Cell HRs, etc.

And yeah, Ozzie and KW are responsible for the concept and the personnel to carry it out. If it fails, OK (I like it and think it's a crazy idea - so crazy it just might work). But it shouldn't be the cause of Ozzie or KW quitting or being sacked. And as Ranger said, JR ain't gonna be firing him anyhow. He's not going anywhere unless he wants to.

SephClone89
01-29-2010, 02:00 AM
GET OVER THOME!

If Jones looks like he will tank, or Rios can't hit or whatever, there will be quite a few thumpers out there that will be available in one way or another.

Let's remember who the DH was for most of 2005 - with a huge boost mid-season from Frank Thomas. Yep, Dinosaur Carl!

I mean, look at the pitching. It's marvelous - most teams would kill to get a rotation like the Sox, with Jenks and a rejuvenated Putz, not to say Thornton with a 97 MPH fastball in the late innings.

So relax - Ozzie's choice of DH's won't win or lose anything for the Sox (well, maybe three or four games). It's about whether Rios can hit, Beckham can maintain his 2009 pace, if Teahen can turn those KC doubles into Cell HRs, etc.

And yeah, Ozzie and KW are responsible for the concept and the personnel to carry it out. If it fails, OK (I like it and think it's a crazy idea - so crazy it just might work). But it shouldn't be the cause of Ozzie or KW quitting or being sacked. And as Ranger said, JR ain't gonna be firing him anyhow. He's not going anywhere unless he wants to.

:gulp:

oeo
01-29-2010, 03:48 AM
This is the most uptight I've seen this place before Spring Training has even begun. Usually you will have some nuts after we lose most of our first 10 Spring Training games, but this year it's nuttier than ever.

Would signing Thome seriously have most of this board feeling better? Thome would have been nice to add back onto the roster, but he wouldn't have been that big of a difference maker.

pistolesatdawn
01-29-2010, 06:43 AM
GET OVER THOME!

If Jones looks like he will tank, or Rios can't hit or whatever, there will be quite a few thumpers out there that will be available in one way or another.

Let's remember who the DH was for most of 2005 - with a huge boost mid-season from Frank Thomas. Yep, Dinosaur Carl!

I mean, look at the pitching. It's marvelous - most teams would kill to get a rotation like the Sox, with Jenks and a rejuvenated Putz, not to say Thornton with a 97 MPH fastball in the late innings.

So relax - Ozzie's choice of DH's won't win or lose anything for the Sox (well, maybe three or four games). It's about whether Rios can hit, Beckham can maintain his 2009 pace, if Teahen can turn those KC doubles into Cell HRs, etc.

And yeah, Ozzie and KW are responsible for the concept and the personnel to carry it out. If it fails, OK (I like it and think it's a crazy idea - so crazy it just might work). But it shouldn't be the cause of Ozzie or KW quitting or being sacked. And as Ranger said, JR ain't gonna be firing him anyhow. He's not going anywhere unless he wants to.


Exactly on the Crazy Carl statement and as a reminder, here was his line from 2005 -

G - 135, AB - 490, R - 58, H - 123, TB - 213, 2B - 17, 3B - 2, HR - 23, RBI - 87, BB - 42, IBB - 2, SO - 99, SB - 4, CS - 5, AVG - .251, OBP - .311, SLG - .435, OPS - .745

Not Exactly the most feared hitter in history. The man only ever hit over 30 HR's once in his career.

Besides, I like the make up of the team too and know that baseball's just quirky enough that you might just stumble upon a championship.

In addition to that, while yes, I would love to see the Sox win as many championships as possible, I've seen them do it, which for the longest time I very well thought I would never see that happen. Ozzie helped give that to us whether it was by accident or not (I'm leaning heavily towards not) and as far as I'm concerned he can be the manager as long as he wants to be. At the very least it's going to be entertaining.

russ99
01-29-2010, 07:56 AM
In addition to that, while yes, I would love to see the Sox win as many championships as possible, I've seen them do it, which for the longest time I very well thought I would never see that happen. Ozzie helped give that to us whether it was by accident or not (I'm leaning heavily towards not) and as far as I'm concerned he can be the manager as long as he wants to be. At the very least it's going to be entertaining.

Ozzie and Kenny (Jerry's too) have given us what the Sox have rarely had in their history - a chance to contend for a division title every year.

Other than the run of success in the late 50s and early 60's, what other time in the Sox' history were they competitive for most of a decade? Usually a team would win, then fade to obscurity and bad second-division baseball.

Since Ozzie took over in 2004 we have only one dud year, 2007. That's 5 competitive seasons, 2 division titles and a World Championship. Few managers can match that track record.

For that, I appreciate what they bring to the table and wouldn't even consider firing either to be a possibility at this point, especially for something as dumb as not re-signing Thome.

SI1020
01-29-2010, 08:09 AM
Since Ozzie took over in 2004 we have only one dud year, 2007. That's 5 competitive seasons, 2 division titles and a World Championship. Few managers can match that track record.

For that, I appreciate what they bring to the table and wouldn't even consider firing either to be a possibility at this point, especially for something as dumb as not re-signing Thome. You don't consider last year a dud?

Thatguyoverthere
01-29-2010, 08:17 AM
And that team did What??? :scratch:I said 2003 lineup, not team. The offense was hardly the problem that year.

GoSox2K3
01-29-2010, 08:33 AM
First of all, this is assuming the Sox don't acquire anyone else (like Damon). But if this is the roster we head into the season with, then yes there should be some accountability on Ozzie's part.

Ozzie manages - he's not the GM.



Kenny Williams dumped Thome last August 31.

Ozzie won the World Series with Timo Perez doing some time at DH.

Wow, it's been less than a week and people are already forgetting that it is Ozzie's call to go with Kotsay/Jones/Vizquel in the rotation DH spot.

Ozzie publically said so and KW publically said so....and now people are already using the "he's not the GM" line. Amazing. I wish I could be in a position to make such a risky decision and then have people totally forget it was my idea a few days later.

I'd say that if we do indeed go with Kotsay/Jones for our DH spot and they fail miserably, then absolutely Ozzie should be accountable. This is what he wanted!

I don't know it would be enough to get him fired, but he has to be there to take the blame if the bench players-as-DH experiment fails.

I think Ozzie's made enough statements about the DH to place himself under the bus, should this fail. Kenny's just giving the man what he's been begging for.


Agreed.

Exactly on the Crazy Carl statement and as a reminder, here was his line from 2005 -

G - 135, AB - 490, R - 58, H - 123, TB - 213, 2B - 17, 3B - 2, HR - 23, RBI - 87, BB - 42, IBB - 2, SO - 99, SB - 4, CS - 5, AVG - .251, OBP - .311, SLG - .435, OPS - .745

Not Exactly the most feared hitter in history. The man only ever hit over 30 HR's once in his career.



Okay, so the 2005 DH put up those numbers. What does that prove for 2010 when we're going with guys who are very unlikely able to match those numbers?:scratch: We'll be very lucky if we get even close to those kind of numbers from Jones and Kotsay.

guillensdisciple
01-29-2010, 09:18 AM
Without being biased (kind of hard when I have my WSI name after him), what you wrote makes no sense whatsoever. Hiring decisions are not his, he makes managing decisions. He has made some boneheaded managing decisions in his lifetime, but never enough to get him fired. Absolutely not, because not many players will play for their coach the way players do for Ozzie. He is incentive to come out on the field.

Madscout
01-29-2010, 09:26 AM
K's too much???

Pierre - 27 K's last year 1/15.7 PA
Ramirez - 66 K's last year 1/9.89 PA
Beckham - 65 K's last year 1/6.6 PA
Quentin - 52 K's last year 1/7.6 PA

You're misquided if you think that top 4 strikes out too much! Pierre strikes out 1 time in every 3 games... Ramirez once every other game... Beckham & Quentin less than once per game!

I find that pretty remarkable, honestly! Plus, it was Beckhams rookie year, I'd bet he will cut down on his K's and Alexei actually cut down his K rate by 1 PA...

I kind of like that top 4... would like it better if Rios was batting 5th. He only struck out 1/5.9 PA. With the speed of those 5 at the top, they could produce a ton of runs!

1-Pierre
2-Ramirez
3-Beckham
4-Quentin
5-Rios
6-Konerko
7-Pierzynski
8-Jones
9-Teahen
Thats a great lineup, except for one thing. I think people need to put AJ up further. He was an offensive monster last year, is one of the smartest hitters we have, and will be our go to guy if one of those top 4 should struggle. Furthermore, I like Rios at 7, because it seems that in the past that has been a spot where guys have been able to improve themselves. I don't know if it is less pressure, but it is something. Thus...
1-Pierre
2-Ramirez
3-Beckham
4-Quentin
5-Pierzynski
6-Konerko
7-Rios
8-Jones
9-Teahen

The only problem I can see is 7,8,9 all having a tough start, and that bottom being a quagmire. We'll see.

Craig Grebeck
01-29-2010, 09:28 AM
Ozzie and Kenny (Jerry's too) have given us what the Sox have rarely had in their history - a chance to contend for a division title every year.

Other than the run of success in the late 50s and early 60's, what other time in the Sox' history were they competitive for most of a decade? Usually a team would win, then fade to obscurity and bad second-division baseball.

Since Ozzie took over in 2004 we have only one dud year, 2007. That's 5 competitive seasons, 2 division titles and a World Championship. Few managers can match that track record.

For that, I appreciate what they bring to the table and wouldn't even consider firing either to be a possibility at this point, especially for something as dumb as not re-signing Thome.
Is it really an accomplishment to be "competitive"* every year in a three division format? I don't really get comparing this era to any other pre-strike.

And I use that term loosely, given that you are insinuating we "competed" last season.

voodoochile
01-29-2010, 09:28 AM
Thats a great lineup, except for one thing. I think people need to put AJ up further. He was an offensive monster last year, is one of the smartest hitters we have, and will be our go to guy if one of those top 4 should struggle. Furthermore, I like Rios at 7, because it seems that in the past that has been a spot where guys have been able to improve themselves. I don't know if it is less pressure, but it is something. Thus...
1-Pierre
2-Ramirez
3-Beckham
4-Quentin
5-Pierzynski
6-Konerko
7-Rios
8-Jones
9-Teahen

The only problem I can see is 7,8,9 all having a tough start, and that bottom being a quagmire. We'll see.

Yeah if you are going to do that, I'd rather move Rios to 9 and I think Ozzie would too for the speed factor. Jones should definitely be hitting 7th because he's got the potential to hit 30 HR this year and I'll be shocked if he doesn't hit 25 if he gets to 500 AB.

asindc
01-29-2010, 09:58 AM
Is it really an accomplishment to be "competitive"* every year in a three division format? I don't really get comparing this era to any other pre-strike.

And I use that term loosely, given that you are insinuating we "competed" last season.

Yes, it is. Ask fans of Baltimore, Tampa, Kansas City, Texas, Washington, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, and San Diego. I do want more success and want the team to keep striving for that, but given that the Sox have just completed the most successful decade in team history (modest as it may be), I do consider it an accomplishment. I tend to be optimistic, but until this past decade, I had begun to wonder if the Sox would win a World Series title in my lifetime.

So while you don't get why some of us would compare this past decade to any pre-strike eras, believe me when I say this past decade was much better than any other Sox decade that any of us has experienced and I am not about to apologize for feeling good about that. By the way, since they have so far spent $105 million on salaries for the upcoming season, I take it that Sox management wishes to build on that modest recent success.

asindc
01-29-2010, 10:00 AM
No.

Craig Grebeck
01-29-2010, 10:02 AM
Yes, it is. Ask fans of Baltimore, Tampa, Kansas City, Texas, Washington, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, and San Diego. I do want more success and want the team to keep striving for that, but given that the Sox have just completed the most successful decade in team history (modest as it may be), I do consider it an accomplishment. I tend to be optimistic, but until this past decade, I had begun to wonder if the Sox would win a World Series title in my lifetime.

So while you don't get why some of us would compare this past decade to any pre-strike eras, believe me when I say this past decade was much better than any other Sox decade that any of us has experienced and I am not about to apologize for feeling good about that. By the way, since they have so far spent $105 million on salaries for the upcoming season, I take it that Sox management wishes to build on that modest recent success.
I don't think comparing the Sox to the bottom eight franchises in baseball is an effective argument.

jabrch
01-29-2010, 10:08 AM
Unless someone points to a team of a GM and a Manager who is out there, that we would sign, who would be a lock to do a better job, I don't see any reason to get rid of this crew.

Want to fire KW? Fine - who's the next GM? I think the next GM is in house already, but I don't see KW being gone before someone outside comes calling. Want to fire OG? Fine - Have a manager in mind? I don't see anyone on staff ready. And nobody on staff would be much a change in direction.

Is the DIRECTION of this club going to change? Then change management. But I don't see reason to change staff if no differences in direction are being proposed.

Leave aside the fact that ownership is fully behind management and won't remove them unless they feels that there is a newly surfaced question of competence - and not one from WSI - but from Ownership...

It won't happen unless something very far outside expectations happens, or OG puts his foot so far down his throat that ownership/management have no other option.

asindc
01-29-2010, 10:10 AM
I don't think comparing the Sox to the bottom eight franchises in baseball is an effective argument.

Fine, then. Since the discussion is focused on how each of us feels about the past decade, include Detroit, Minnesota, Cleveland, Toronto, Seattle, Oakland, the other Chicago team, Atlanta, NYM, Colorado, LAD, and San Francisco. Would I have preferred the decade that fans of Boston, NYY, LAAAAAA, Philly, and St. Louis enjoyed? Absolutely. Even with that, though, I take it as a good sign that the Sox enjoyed more success in the 90s than the 80s, and more success in the 00s than the 90s.

I want more. I also will enjoy the recent successes. The two are not mutually exclusive.

asindc
01-29-2010, 10:14 AM
Unless someone points to a team of a GM and a Manager who is out there, that we would sign, who would be a lock to do a better job, I don't see any reason to get rid of this crew.

Want to fire KW? Fine - who's the next GM? I think the next GM is in house already, but I don't see KW being gone before someone outside comes calling. Want to fire OG? Fine - Have a manager in mind? I don't see anyone on staff ready. And nobody on staff would be much a change in direction.

Is the DIRECTION of this club going to change? Then change management. But I don't see reason to change staff if no differences in direction are being proposed.

Leave aside the fact that ownership is fully behind management and won't remove them unless they feels that there is a newly surfaced question of competence - and not one from WSI - but from Ownership...

It won't happen unless something very far outside expectations happens, or OG puts his foot so far down his throat that ownership/management have no other option.

Another factor to consider is whether a change in GM or Manager will bring about a change in ownership's financial policies. If not, then what short term and/or long term improvements are we expecting without such changes, even if we get a new GM and/or Manager?

pistolesatdawn
01-29-2010, 10:23 AM
Okay, so the 2005 DH put up those numbers. What does that prove for 2010 when we're going with guys who are very unlikely able to match those numbers?:scratch: We'll be very lucky if we get even close to those kind of numbers from Jones and Kotsay.

It doesn't prove anything for 2010. It only proves you don't have to get whatever monstrous power number (HR's, RBI's, slugging percentage, etc.) people have come to expect out of the DH spot. And you can only presume that whatever combination's Ozzie will use for the DH at this point won't produce equal to that, or better, or worse. But for the sake of argument that it is possible for it to happen and the fact that I have nothing better to do with my jobless time right now, compare Crazy Carl's lifetime stats (http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=113946) vs Kotsay's (http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=117276) & Jones' (http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=116662) stats averaged together for pretty much the same point in their careers to date as what Carl was at in 2005 and while I'm no math whiz, it does appear to be about the same or relatively close. Added to the fact that with the current plan, those two are not going to be the only DH's. So you're also going to have to figure in Pauly, TCQ, Pierre, Vizquel and whomever else gets thrown into the mix's career stats as well, and well, even though I don't have a job right now, I do have better things to do with my time than to start pulling those stats into the argument too.

Like other people have said, the season hasn't even begun yet and we can't even consider this until the season's at least started, if that.

JNS
01-29-2010, 10:33 AM
You don't consider last year a dud?

Very frustrating yes, a dud, no. The only team in the AL that has been able to win championships consistently over the past 1/2 century are the Yankees. There have been some great teams - the A's of the early 70s come to mind - but no dynasties. So keeping your team in contention and getting to the post-season a lot of the time and occasionally winning it all is the realistic goal/ Of course you go into every season with the goal being winning the WS, but you also understand that it ain't gonna happen a lot of the time.

Look at the Cubs. Or the Red Sox. Now the Red Sox are a rich, powerhouse team. But for the first 75 years of their existence they were badly run, didn't win squat, wasted the career of one of the best hitters in baseball history, and weren't even on anyone's radar. The Yankees - BoSox rivalry is a media construct created by ESPN ion the 90s. For all the years of the Yankee dynasty in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and early 60s the Red Sox were total chumps.

So unless you are the Yankees over the long haul you aren't gonna do much better than the White Sox in the 2000 - 2009 period.

JNS
01-29-2010, 10:37 AM
This is the most uptight I've seen this place before Spring Training has even begun. Usually you will have some nuts after we lose most of our first 10 Spring Training games, but this year it's nuttier than ever.

Would signing Thome seriously have most of this board feeling better? Thome would have been nice to add back onto the roster, but he wouldn't have been that big of a difference maker.

Thome would have been a problem. Put it this way: he can't play the field, can't run, bad back, 40 years old, on a definite hitting downswing but had and maybe still has left handed pop. Difficult to hold a roster spot for a part time DH and occasional PH with so many "ifs".

Then this situation may arise, What happens if he's hitting under the Mendoza line in June and has just a handful of homers. Will he ride off into the sunset? Or will the Sox have to release one of the nicest guys in baseball history (which is not something anyone would want to do and is not a good PR move.)

So he wasn't the answer in any sense.

But my question is: was this board less upset when KW got rid of C. Lee and let Mags go at this time in 2005? I remember a lot of gnashing of teeth and rending of garments.

thedudeabides
01-29-2010, 10:41 AM
No, he should not. He finally gets a roster the way he likes it but should not be completely judged after 1 year with it. The only thing that bothers me is Kenny kind of throwing him under the bus during Soxfest about Jim Thome.

It bothered me a bit too. I distinctly remember a couple of articles being written when Thome was traded last year, that the Sox had decided to move on from him for good, mostly stating his health. Kenny put it on Ozzie, but the fact is if Kenny wanted him back he would have signed him. He has gone over Ozzie's head repeatedly since they have worked together. Why would this be any different?

It's also on Kenny to sign another bat, not Ozzie. Why do people around here so often confuse the jobs of the two? If Kenny brings in a viable DH and Ozzie doesn't use him, I will be in line to call for his head. Kenny has tried to sign additional players and so far hasn't succeeded. Ozzie can only put on the field what is on the roster. Would people rather Ozzie ran around talking about how bad the DH options are and proclaim their season as screwed?

It just reminds me of all the CF debates that were blamed on Ozzie. Kenny gave him a bunch of crap, and we sat around debating whether or not Ozzie was mis-managing that crap. The real problem was there wasn't a viable option. That is Kenny's fault.

asindc
01-29-2010, 10:52 AM
It bothered me a bit too. I distinctly remember a couple of articles being written when Thome was traded last year, that the Sox had decided to move on from him for good, mostly stating his health. Kenny put it on Ozzie, but the fact is if Kenny wanted him back he would have signed him. He has gone over Ozzie's head repeatedly since they have worked together. Why would this be any different?

It's also on Kenny to sign another bat, not Ozzie. Why do people around here so often confuse the jobs of the two? If Kenny brings in a viable DH and Ozzie doesn't use him, I will be in line to call for his head. Kenny has tried to sign additional players and so far hasn't succeeded. Ozzie can only put on the field what is on the roster. Would people rather Ozzie ran around talking about how bad the DH options are and proclaim their season as screwed?

It just reminds me of all the CF debates that were blamed on Ozzie. Kenny gave him a bunch of crap, and we sat around debating whether or not Ozzie was mis-managing that crap. The real problem was there wasn't a viable option. That is Kenny's fault.

1) I actually believe that some Sox fans would prefer that, despite the obvious negative effect it would have in the clubhouse.



2) Almost all Sox fans did not want either Wise or BA in CF last year. They were, sadly, our best options at the beginning of the 2009 season. As soon as it became economically viable, KW replaced them with Rios.

Almost all Sox fans did not want Fields at 3B. He was, sadly, our best option at the beginning of the 2009 season. As soon as it became economically viable, KW replaced him with Teahan.

Almost all Sox fans wanted a better starting 2B than Getz or Nix. They were our best options at the beginning of the 2009 season. As soon as it became economically viable, KW acquired Teahan, allowing Ozzie to move Beckman over to 2B.

Based on these moves, I do not get the impression that either KW or Ozzie preferred to start Wise, BA, Fields, Getz, or Nix over better players.

dickallen15
01-29-2010, 10:54 AM
It bothered me a bit too. I distinctly remember a couple of articles being written when Thome was traded last year, that the Sox had decided to move on from him for good, mostly stating his health. Kenny put it on Ozzie, but the fact is if Kenny wanted him back he would have signed him. He has gone over Ozzie's head repeatedly since they have worked together. Why would this be any different?

It's also on Kenny to sign another bat, not Ozzie. Why do people around here so often confuse the jobs of the two? If Kenny brings in a viable DH and Ozzie doesn't use him, I will be in line to call for his head. Kenny has tried to sign additional players and so far hasn't succeeded. Ozzie can only put on the field what is on the roster. Would people rather Ozzie ran around talking about how bad the DH options are and proclaim their season as screwed?

It just reminds me of all the CF debates that were blamed on Ozzie. Kenny gave him a bunch of crap, and we sat around debating whether or not Ozzie was mis-managing that crap. The real problem was there wasn't a viable option. That is Kenny's fault.

I agree. If Ozzie's plan fails, there is absolutely no way Kenny can come back and say he figured it would but that's what Ozzie wanted so he went with it. He's Ozzie's boss. The roster is ultimately his decision and responsibilty. The roster, if it isn't good enough, isn't on Ozzie at all, even if he wants it like this. Its on KW and JR.

jabrch
01-29-2010, 10:59 AM
1)Based on these moves, I do not get the impression that either KW or Ozzie preferred to start Wise, BA, Fields, Getz, or Nix over better players.

Great point...I agree 100%. I dont think I have heard anyone say they WANTED Wise. Very few last year WANTED Fields. Nix was picked up off the scrap heap. Getz is the one I may disagree on - I for one wanted to see him get a chance. BA is a different story. There is a contingent that wanted (and maybe still does) BA to play CF every day for this club.

KW does the best he can with what he has. Sometimes that works out well. When it doesn't, he isn't afraid to try something different. I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until he starts showing collossal errors in judgement. Rios/Peavy will be the first big evaluation points in a while where you can clearly see he had options, and he made moves. There are others. The DH decision is another. I am curious as to how this plays out, but I am not willing to crucify them or the guys on the team before the first groin is stretched in Arizona.

PhillipsBubba
01-29-2010, 11:02 AM
Barring some public faux pas...Reinsdorf will never fire Ozzie

Chez
01-29-2010, 11:08 AM
The idea in January that a manager should be fired if his team fails to make the playoffs is a huge oversimplification. What if Jones and Kotsay combine to hit .310/45 HR/150 RBI, the team wins 95 games and misses the playoffs because Danks, Floyd and Jenks go down in May with season ending injuries? Should Ozzie be fired under that set of circumstances? We could all come up with a a scenario in which the Sox have a solid year yet miss the playoffs -- through no fault of Guillen's.

I agree with Ranger. It's Ozzie's job until he doesn't want it anymore or he says something so offensive that JR and KW have no choice but to fire him.

Hitmen77
01-29-2010, 11:17 AM
......compare Crazy Carl's lifetime stats (http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=113946) vs Kotsay's (http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=117276) & Jones' (http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=116662) stats averaged together for pretty much the same point in their careers to date as what Carl was at in 2005 and while I'm no math whiz, it does appear to be about the same or relatively close.

It's fairly misleading to use Jones's average lifetime stats as an estimate of what we expect from him in 2010.

Sure, I'm hopeful that he rebounds but let's not fool ourselves and forget that he's had a huge drop off from his career norms for 3 seasons in a row now.

Added to the fact that with the current plan, those two are not going to be the only DH's. So you're also going to have to figure in Pauly, TCQ, Pierre, Vizquel and whomever else gets thrown into the mix's career stats as well, :scratch:I don't follow the logic here. Yes, PK, TCQ, etc will rotate into the DH spot...but Jones/Kotsay will still have to be in the lineup to take their spots in the field.

Whatever your position is on the Sox apparently going with Jones/Kotsay/Vizquel somewhere in the lineup every day, you can't just mask the concern over their production numbers by saying that Paulie and Carlos will help keep the production numbers at DH high. You're just shifting the hole in the lineup to a defensive position.....it's still the same batting order.

Domeshot17
01-29-2010, 11:22 AM
Great point...I agree 100%. I dont think I have heard anyone say they WANTED Wise. Very few last year WANTED Fields. Nix was picked up off the scrap heap. Getz is the one I may disagree on - I for one wanted to see him get a chance. BA is a different story. There is a contingent that wanted (and maybe still does) BA to play CF every day for this club.

KW does the best he can with what he has. Sometimes that works out well. When it doesn't, he isn't afraid to try something different. I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until he starts showing collossal errors in judgement. Rios/Peavy will be the first big evaluation points in a while where you can clearly see he had options, and he made moves. There are others. The DH decision is another. I am curious as to how this plays out, but I am not willing to crucify them or the guys on the team before the first groin is stretched in Arizona.

Ehh, this is complete crap. Ozzie wanted Wise. He was talking about how much he loved Wise before spring training. Kenny was talking about how Great Josh Fields was going to be and throwing out massive statements about how good he would be. The club was overall very high on Getz until Getz said the youth brought energy and the veterans turn on him.

People can hem and haw all they want, Ozzie had the team he wanted last year. He had a ton of Speed (Sox top 10 in baseball in stolen bases), he had a team that never struck out, he had enough o the type of hitters to hit and run bunt etc. with. But he couldn't (A) teach them to do it right and (b) you can't win baseball in the AL doing only this.

And in terms of 2005, People are so selective on their facts. Yes Everett quietly had a 23 homer 86 rbi season, he did not set the world on fire. The Sox also don't make the playoffs if Frank Thomas doesn't carry them on his back early in the season. In the total games started by the DH position the Sox DH's combined for more than 30 homers and more than 100 RBI. On top of that The Sox had Konerko give him 40 homers and 100 RBI.

Again, I don't think any of us are freaked out the addition was not Jim Thome but more that the Sox are content playing this charade out. I mean not even the SOX are confident this is going to work at all. Kenny Williams is already trying to do damage control talking about getting a bat in May or June. That is about as close to screaming this is going to fail as anything can.

I also dislike the idea Guillen can have the job til he quits. We had a pretty okay run. We had a tremendous 2005 and 1 other playoff appearance. We had 2 pathetically bad years. It wasn't a GREAT decade, it was a good one. It just felt great because none of us know what its like to expect to win. Until 2005, we were basically Cub fans HOPING to see a title before we die. I am sorry, but Ozzie has not earned the Bobby Cox treatment.

TomBradley72
01-29-2010, 11:22 AM
I'm happy with Ozzie....until someone can point out a specific replacement that will do better, I hope we stick with him.

I think the kerfuffle over Thome will be a distant memory by Memorial Day...there's a reason his market value is $1.5MM...as spring training rolls along...if they want to find a stronger option for a LH/part time DH...those options will emerge as rosters solidify.

Overall we'll probably get more offense out of our 2B/SS/C than most clubs...that will offset, what I expect to be, less than standard offense from 3B and DH.

russ99
01-29-2010, 11:34 AM
I agree. If Ozzie's plan fails, there is absolutely no way Kenny can come back and say he figured it would but that's what Ozzie wanted so he went with it. He's Ozzie's boss. The roster is ultimately his decision and responsibilty. The roster, if it isn't good enough, isn't on Ozzie at all, even if he wants it like this. Its on KW and JR.

Which is the real reason the Sox aren't actively looking for another DH. The budget doesn't allow it.

Thome's a special case, since everybody likes him despite what he can or can't do on the field. I'm disappointed Kenny threw Ozzie under the bus a bit on this one. Had Kenny come out and said that Thome's not a fit or the Sox were going in a different direction, like he did initially then that would have been the end of it.

Hence, I'm believing some of the rumors that this whole thing was blown up just for SoxFest purposes and/or that Kenny didn't want to directly disappoint his boss who loves Jim and thus tried to make it look like a "crazy Ozzie" moment.

russ99
01-29-2010, 11:47 AM
Ehh, this is complete crap. Ozzie wanted Wise. He was talking about how much he loved Wise before spring training. Kenny was talking about how Great Josh Fields was going to be and throwing out massive statements about how good he would be. The club was overall very high on Getz until Getz said the youth brought energy and the veterans turn on him.

People can hem and haw all they want, Ozzie had the team he wanted last year. He had a ton of Speed (Sox top 10 in baseball in stolen bases), he had a team that never struck out, he had enough o the type of hitters to hit and run bunt etc. with. But he couldn't (A) teach them to do it right and (b) you can't win baseball in the AL doing only this.

And in terms of 2005, People are so selective on their facts. Yes Everett quietly had a 23 homer 86 rbi season, he did not set the world on fire. The Sox also don't make the playoffs if Frank Thomas doesn't carry them on his back early in the season. In the total games started by the DH position the Sox DH's combined for more than 30 homers and more than 100 RBI. On top of that The Sox had Konerko give him 40 homers and 100 RBI.

Again, I don't think any of us are freaked out the addition was not Jim Thome but more that the Sox are content playing this charade out. I mean not even the SOX are confident this is going to work at all. Kenny Williams is already trying to do damage control talking about getting a bat in May or June. That is about as close to screaming this is going to fail as anything can.

I also dislike the idea Guillen can have the job til he quits. We had a pretty okay run. We had a tremendous 2005 and 1 other playoff appearance. We had 2 pathetically bad years. It wasn't a GREAT decade, it was a good one. It just felt great because none of us know what its like to expect to win. Until 2005, we were basically Cub fans HOPING to see a title before we die. I am sorry, but Ozzie has not earned the Bobby Cox treatment.

If you're not happy with the last decade then obviously you weren't a Sox fan between 1984 and 1998.

And as I recall, neither Kenny or Ozzie were happy with the roster last spring, but economic conditions forced them to cut payroll and put on a brave face with Wise/BA and the kids.

Also, we did have a competitive team last year until the "road trip of doom" and the guys who we the main reason for the failure were the aging plodding sluggers, not Beckham or Getz. (Rios didn't help either)

The "can't win in the AL with a Ozzie-ball team" idea is ludicrous. But I guess we'll have proof this year. Well, more proof that just 2005.

Again, I reiterate we'll have more balance this year. The home run isn't going away, just the plodding homer-or-nothing guys.

voodoochile
01-29-2010, 11:50 AM
E
People can hem and haw all they want, Ozzie had the team he wanted last year. He had a ton of Speed (Sox top 10 in baseball in stolen bases), he had a team that never struck out, he had enough o the type of hitters to hit and run bunt etc. with. But he couldn't (A) teach them to do it right and (b) you can't win baseball in the AL doing only this.


That's a gross oversimplification. KW was talking up Fields and OG was talking up Wise? I can think of lots of reasons for those things to happen which have NOTHING to do with the talent of the player in question. I think you can too. You have to take these types of comments with a grain of salt or at least make an effort to read between the lines.

Also to say that because the team had speed and a good contact hitters OG had the team he wanted is a generalization of huge proportions. For starters they didn't get that speed going until Pods arrived and they didn't have a legitimate leadoff hitter to open the season. Obviously Betemit, the problem in CF, Fields were huge issues. Add in the injury that cost TCQ several months in the middle of the season and Dye simply falling off the planet in the second half and again, blaming Ozzie for what happened seems a bit extreme.

The big picture is much more complex than "Ozzie had speed and low strikeout guys and the team failed."

dickallen15
01-29-2010, 11:57 AM
Which is the real reason the Sox aren't actively looking for another DH. The budget doesn't allow it.

Thome's a special case, since everybody likes him despite what he can or can't do on the field. I'm disappointed Kenny threw Ozzie under the bus a bit on this one. Had Kenny come out and said that Thome's not a fit or the Sox were going in a different direction, like he did initially then that would have been the end of it.

Hence, I'm believing some of the rumors that this whole thing was blown up just for SoxFest purposes and/or that Kenny didn't want to directly disappoint his boss who loves Jim and thus tried to make it look like a "crazy Ozzie" moment.

The budget does allow it. JR was on televison the other day saying the money is there for another bat.

I do think the White Sox knew all along Thome wouldn't be back but stretched it out until Soxfest was over so the entire fest wouldn't be a whining about Thome going to Minnesota gathering.

Domeshot17
01-29-2010, 12:00 PM
If you're not happy with the last decade then obviously you weren't a Sox fan between 1984 and 1998.

And as I recall, neither Kenny or Ozzie were happy with the roster last spring, but economic conditions forced them to cut payroll and put on a brave face with Wise/BA and the kids.

Also, we did have a competitive team last year until the "road trip of doom" and the guys who we the main reason for the failure were the aging plodding sluggers, not Beckham or Getz. (Rios didn't help either)

The "can't win in the AL with a Ozzie-ball team" idea is ludicrous. But I guess we'll have proof this year. Well, more proof that just 2005.

Again, I reiterate we'll have more balance this year. The home run isn't going away, just the plodding homer-or-nothing guys.

Again, we slugged over 200 homers in 2005. 2005 was not Ozzieball, it was a great rotation with an untouchable bullpen, a slugging offense THEN ozzieball.

That's a gross oversimplification. KW was talking up Fields and OG was talking up Wise? I can think of lots of reasons for those things to happen which have NOTHING to do with the talent of the player in question. I think you can too. You have to take these types of comments with a grain of salt or at least make an effort to read between the lines.

Also to say that because the team had speed and a good contact hitters OG had the team he wanted is a generalization of huge proportions. For starters they didn't get that speed going until Pods arrived and they didn't have a legitimate leadoff hitter to open the season. Obviously Betemit, the problem in CF, Fields were huge issues. Add in the injury that cost TCQ several months in the middle of the season and Dye simply falling off the planet in the second half and again, blaming Ozzie for what happened seems a bit extreme.

The big picture is much more complex than "Ozzie had speed and low strikeout guys and the team failed."

I am not entirely disagreeing with this. A lot went wrong last year. I guess my point was, We won in the first half slugging and running. In the 2nd half, the slugging stopped, and the small ball didn't do jack ****.

My thought has always been and will continue to be just cause you used the wrong ingredients doesn't mean the recipe was bad. If the Sox win in 2010, outside of the tremendous pitching, it will be because someone like Quentin or Beckham (and I don't think he has this kind of power) just went ape**** and belted 35-45 homers and carried the team. Not because Mark Kotsay was a great DH.

thedudeabides
01-29-2010, 12:14 PM
The budget does allow it. JR was on televison the other day saying the money is there for another bat.

I do think the White Sox knew all along Thome wouldn't be back but stretched it out until Soxfest was over so the entire fest wouldn't be a whining about Thome going to Minnesota gathering.


Yep, we keep hearing the money is there for the right player. We'll find out if it's just lip service.

I agree wholeheartedly. Every indication from the time he was traded has pointed towrds Jim not coming back. They were just avoiding a PR hit last weekend.

voodoochile
01-29-2010, 12:15 PM
I am not entirely disagreeing with this. A lot went wrong last year. I guess my point was, We won in the first half slugging and running. In the 2nd half, the slugging stopped, and the small ball didn't do jack ****.

My thought has always been and will continue to be just cause you used the wrong ingredients doesn't mean the recipe was bad. If the Sox win in 2010, outside of the tremendous pitching, it will be because someone like Quentin or Beckham (and I don't think he has this kind of power) just went ape**** and belted 35-45 homers and carried the team. Not because Mark Kotsay was a great DH.

I agree. I do think there's a good chance that people are undervaluing the offensive talent the Sox have. Yes, it would require Rios bouncing back, Teahen staying at least consistent, Quentin staying healthy and Beckham showing improvement in his second season, but all of those things actually can happen and aren't some far fetched pipe dream concocted in an opium den. They are reasonable suppositions. Add in that TCM will probably have a better offensive year too and this team could be just fine with a rotating DH and any kind of production from Jones and Kotsay at all.

I also think that if not KW will find a way to acquire another bat. They might even find one in house if Viciedo (not expecting it so soon) or Flowers turns the corner at AAA.

bunty_doghunter
01-29-2010, 12:21 PM
Suppose it is ten years from now, and looking back we had ten years of 'competitive' baseball with no playoffs and an average of say 85 wins per year. Would you feel content with that, if that was what Ozzy gave us? Would you say, 'if only we had made a change'?

JNS
01-29-2010, 12:50 PM
Suppose it is ten years from now, and looking back we had ten years of 'competitive' baseball with no playoffs and an average of say 85 wins per year. Would you feel content with that, if that was what Ozzy gave us? Would you say, 'if only we had made a change'?

So changing managers solves everything? Please.

50% of managers have a negative effect on the team - they lose more games than they win. 10% win more than they lose. 40% are neutral.

This is a guess - not based on actual research.

My personal opinion is that OG is in the top 10% by a game or three. But the idea that making a change now, or after the 2010 season will boost the Sox into the playoffs is just silly.

TheOldRoman
01-29-2010, 12:59 PM
I said 2003 lineup, not team. The offense was hardly the problem that year.There were many problems that year, but the offense doing the "10 runs today, 1 run tomorrow" act was among the top.

mzh
01-29-2010, 01:01 PM
So changing managers solves everything? Please.

50% of managers have a negative effect on the team - they lose more games than they win. 10% win more than they lose. 40% are neutral.

This is a guess - not based on actual research.

My personal opinion is that OG is in the top 10% by a game or three. But the idea that making a change now, or after the 2010 season will boost the Sox into the playoffs is just silly.
Exactly.

Firing a manager is a move made by desperate teams that are just looking to shake things up and hope something good comes out of it. If teams that come off a disappointing season but still have loads of potential fire their managers after one season, then you have a situation like there is with the Oakland Raiders. Al Davis is so impatient with his coaches they don't have a chance to settle in with their guys.

Frater Perdurabo
01-29-2010, 01:10 PM
Ozzie has finished under .500 during two of the last three seasons.

This year, he has been handed a rotation that's head and shoulders above the rest of the division, and one of the top four in the AL.

If his DH experiment works, the Sox should win 85+ games and win the division. If so, he's "manager of the year."

If his DH experiment fails, and if it causes the Sox to finish under .500, he should be fired.

FielderJones
01-29-2010, 01:14 PM
If his DH experiment fails, and if it causes the Sox to finish under .500, he should be fired.

If the DH experiment fails, and Kenny corrects the problem in May or June, what should Ozzie's fate be then?

Also, who do you have in mind that will do a better job in 2011?

Frater Perdurabo
01-29-2010, 01:21 PM
Also, if Ozzie's DH experiment fails, expect the sports media to question him about it whenever Jones, Kotsay, etc. fails to come up with a big hit. (I'm not saying such criticism would - or would not - be justified.) Such repeated questioning almost certainly would result in both more stubbornness ("I make the ****ing lineups") and eventually some kind of tirade, because there's nothing Ozzie hates more than being questioned on lineup decisions.

Such stubbornness likely would lead to more pressure on the bench players Ozzie selects for the DH role, and a tirade probably would result in him calling out KW for "not giving me the horses" to win. And with his temper, I would not be surprised if goes too far in his criticism of KW, which might cause KW to go to JR to convince him that Ozzie needs to go after the season.

jabrch
01-29-2010, 01:23 PM
Ozzie has finished under .500 during two of the last three seasons.

This year, he has been handed a rotation that's head and shoulders above the rest of the division, and one of the top four in the AL.

If his DH experiment works, the Sox should win 85+ games and win the division. If so, he's "manager of the year."

If his DH experiment fails, and if it causes the Sox to finish under .500, he should be fired.


So it's that black and white?

Win >84 - Manager of the Year
Win 82-84, keep his job, and assumedly have the same picture next year
Win <81 - Fired

I can't see it that black and white. Then again, you had the same sort of rigidity with you PK watch - .850 OPS as a good/bad number with little flexibility or context so this shouldn't be a surprise I guess.

oeo
01-29-2010, 01:26 PM
Wow, it's been less than a week and people are already forgetting that it is Ozzie's call to go with Kotsay/Jones/Vizquel in the rotation DH spot.

Ozzie publically said so and KW publically said so....and now people are already using the "he's not the GM" line. Amazing. I wish I could be in a position to make such a risky decision and then have people totally forget it was my idea a few days later.

This is completely false. Ozzie didn't want Thome, that doesn't mean he wouldn't take someone else. He can't go around saying that crap. Not only does it put him in a tough spot as a manager of those three players, it puts Kenny in a tough spot as the GM going out to get someone.

And if/when Kenny does want another bat later this year, it's going to be viewed as Kenny showing up Ozzie, or some other crap.

jabrch
01-29-2010, 01:30 PM
This is completely false. Ozzie didn't want Thome, that doesn't mean he wouldn't take someone else. He can't go around saying that crap. Not only does it put him in a tough spot as a manager of those three players, it puts Kenny in a tough spot as the GM going out to get someone.

And if/when Kenny does want another bat later this year, it's going to be viewed as Kenny showing up Ozzie, or some other crap.


Not the first time I have said this - won't be the last.

Want to know what OG/KW are thinking? The worst way to do that is to listen to anything that comes out of their mouths.

Frater Perdurabo
01-29-2010, 01:31 PM
If the DH experiment fails, and Kenny corrects the problem in May or June, what should Ozzie's fate be then?

Also, who do you have in mind that will do a better job in 2011?

Hypothetically, if KW corrects the problem and the Sox recover and finish above .500 and/or win the division, I think Ozzie would be safe.

But if the Sox started 22-40, despite good pitching, and then acquired a slugger in early June, and went 57-43 the rest of the year to finish 79-83 and lose the division by 5-6 games, I think it would be fair to say the Sox lost the division early in the season when Ozzie had "his lineup." And in that case, Ozzie would deserve to be fired.

I have no idea who might do a better job in 2011. But if the Sox are looking for a manager for 2011, they might start by looking for someone who isn't a stubborn ass.

oeo
01-29-2010, 01:37 PM
Hypothetically, if KW corrects the problem and the Sox recover and finish above .500 and/or win the division, I think Ozzie would be safe.

And of course that would be Kenny's genius. Ozzie didn't want Thome, so that obviously means he loves Kotsay/Jones/Vizquel. Makes plenty of sense...

But if the Sox started 22-40, despite good pitching, and then acquired a slugger in early June, and went 57-43 the rest of the year to finish 79-83 and lose the division by 5-6 games, I think it would be fair to say the Sox lost the division early in the season when Ozzie had "his lineup." And in that case, Ozzie would deserve to be fired.

If the Sox pitching pitches to their potential, they're not going to be 22-40, I don't care who is in the lineup. Don't act like they're not going to score ANY runs, they're just not going to score MANY runs. Is this the type of improvement you thought we were going to get from Thome? Damn, was this 1996 Thome and I didn't hear about it?

asindc
01-29-2010, 01:37 PM
Ehh, this is complete crap. Ozzie wanted Wise. He was talking about how much he loved Wise before spring training. Kenny was talking about how Great Josh Fields was going to be and throwing out massive statements about how good he would be. The club was overall very high on Getz until Getz said the youth brought energy and the veterans turn on him.

People can hem and haw all they want, Ozzie had the team he wanted last year. He had a ton of Speed (Sox top 10 in baseball in stolen bases), he had a team that never struck out, he had enough o the type of hitters to hit and run bunt etc. with. But he couldn't (A) teach them to do it right and (b) you can't win baseball in the AL doing only this.

And in terms of 2005, People are so selective on their facts. Yes Everett quietly had a 23 homer 86 rbi season, he did not set the world on fire. The Sox also don't make the playoffs if Frank Thomas doesn't carry them on his back early in the season. In the total games started by the DH position the Sox DH's combined for more than 30 homers and more than 100 RBI. On top of that The Sox had Konerko give him 40 homers and 100 RBI.

Again, I don't think any of us are freaked out the addition was not Jim Thome but more that the Sox are content playing this charade out. I mean not even the SOX are confident this is going to work at all. Kenny Williams is already trying to do damage control talking about getting a bat in May or June. That is about as close to screaming this is going to fail as anything can.

I also dislike the idea Guillen can have the job til he quits. We had a pretty okay run. We had a tremendous 2005 and 1 other playoff appearance. We had 2 pathetically bad years. It wasn't a GREAT decade, it was a good one. It just felt great because none of us know what its like to expect to win. Until 2005, we were basically Cub fans HOPING to see a title before we die. I am sorry, but Ozzie has not earned the Bobby Cox treatment.

If they are so high on Wise and Fields, why did they just replace those players?

Would you have preferred a statement such as this from KW about Fields before the season started: "Josh Fields is a sub-par baseball player. He strikes out way too much and is a terrible fielder. I tried to find a replacement for him before the season started, but any available replacement either commanded a salary that was more than the owners wanted to pay or chose to play for another team. As soon as we can, we are going to replace him. Until then, we are stuck with him. Please bear with us until then."

voodoochile
01-29-2010, 01:37 PM
Suppose it is ten years from now, and looking back we had ten years of 'competitive' baseball with no playoffs and an average of say 85 wins per year. Would you feel content with that, if that was what Ozzy gave us? Would you say, 'if only we had made a change'?

I said after 2005 that Ozzie should get a decade. I felt if he didn't make the playoffs in the next 5 years, then perhaps they should reevaluate that decade. He made the playoffs in 2008. I'm willing to give him pretty much as long as he wants. KW too...

Frater Perdurabo
01-29-2010, 01:40 PM
So it's that black and white?

Win >84 - Manager of the Year
Win 82-84, keep his job, and assumedly have the same picture next year
Win <81 - Fired

I can't see it that black and white. Then again, you had the same sort of rigidity with you PK watch - .850 OPS as a good/bad number with little flexibility or context so this shouldn't be a surprise I guess.

Of course it's not that black and white. You are caricaturing my position.

If injury sidelines one of the Big Four, or Quentin or Paulie or Beckham, obviously that's out of Ozzie's control. If Rios or Teahen are busts, that's completely on KW.

If the DH rotation fails, but KW also fails to correct it by adding another hitter, then KW and OG share responsibility.

But if, at the end of the season, it's clear that lack of production at the DH spot cost the Sox enough games at the beginning of the year, presumably before KW has an opportunity to correct the problem via trade, then Ozzie deserves the blame and probably deserves to be fired.

oeo
01-29-2010, 01:46 PM
Of course it's not that black and white. You are caricaturing my position.

If injury sidelines one of the Big Four, or Quentin or Paulie or Beckham, obviously that's out of Ozzie's control. If Rios or Teahen are busts, that's completely on KW.

If the DH rotation fails, but KW also fails to correct it by adding another hitter, then KW and OG share responsibility.

But if, at the end of the season, it's clear that lack of production at the DH spot cost the Sox enough games at the beginning of the year, presumably before KW has an opportunity to correct the problem via trade, then Ozzie deserves the blame and probably deserves to be fired.

Is the DH suddenly some superhuman that bats in all 9 spots in the lineup?

It feels like I've changed sides on this issue, but I really haven't. The argument for a better DH has just gotten that far out there that it's just not even a respectable opinion.

The Sox are not going to win or lose based on their DH or lack thereof. It's going to be the entire lineup sucking ass as to why we could stoop to a .500 type team (not the worst team in baseball like you seem to think). Yes, we need another bat to bolster the lineup. No, it's not going to make or break our season. The offense is what it is, and it's pretty weak. One bat, and especially Thome, is not going to change it THAT much.

SI1020
01-29-2010, 01:57 PM
I said after 2005 that Ozzie should get a decade. I felt if he didn't make the playoffs in the next 5 years, then perhaps they should reevaluate that decade. He made the playoffs in 2008. I'm willing to give him pretty much as long as he wants. KW too... I most emphatically am not. I'll venture an opinion that your view has lots of company on this site. 2005 was great, I'll always treasure it, but why do we Sox fans set the bar so low?

voodoochile
01-29-2010, 02:00 PM
I most emphatically am not. I'll venture an opinion that your view has lots of company on this site. 2005 was great, I'll always treasure it, but why do we Sox fans set the bar so low?

It's not about nostalgia for me, it's about trust. I trust Ozzie to be a good manager. The same way I'd trust Torre for example. I don't think the Sox can improve that much on Ozzie. He proved to me he could be trusted long term when he made the playoffs in 2008.

asindc
01-29-2010, 02:04 PM
Is the DH suddenly some superhuman that bats in all 9 spots in the lineup?

It feels like I've changed sides on this issue, but I really haven't. The argument for a better DH has just gotten that far out there that it's just not even a respectable opinion.

The Sox are not going to win or lose based on their DH or lack thereof. It's going to be the entire lineup sucking ass as to why we could stoop to a .500 type team (not the worst team in baseball like you seem to think). Yes, we need another bat to bolster the lineup. No, it's not going to make or break our season. The offense is what it is, and it's pretty weak. One bat, and especially Thome, is not going to change it THAT much.

That is a reason some have given for why they are not upset about the Thome decision. While I personally think the DH position will be a factor, I don't believe deciding to not bring Thome back will have an impact on that. I want the Sox to sign either Damon, Branyan, or a healthy Delgado or Blalock, since I think either of those players would make the Sox a better team. However, other than Damon (and maybe a healthy Delgado), I don't think even any of those players have the potential to be such an upgrade over what we have now that any of them will be the difference between winning the AL Central or not. Others might disagree, but that is how I see it.

jabrch
01-29-2010, 02:05 PM
I most emphatically am not. I'll venture an opinion that your view has lots of company on this site. 2005 was great, I'll always treasure it, but why do we Sox fans set the bar so low?

I'm not sure how we do. In 5 years we have 2 post seasons and a WS win. That's not a low bar. But jumping to a conclusion because we don't have 3 post seasons or 2 WS is silly in my eyes.

Hitmen77
01-29-2010, 02:15 PM
I agree. I do think there's a good chance that people are undervaluing the offensive talent the Sox have. Yes, it would require Rios bouncing back, Teahen staying at least consistent, Quentin staying healthy and Beckham showing improvement in his second season, but all of those things actually can happen and aren't some far fetched pipe dream concocted in an opium den. They are reasonable suppositions. Add in that TCM will probably have a better offensive year too and this team could be just fine with a rotating DH and any kind of production from Jones and Kotsay at all.

I also think that if not KW will find a way to acquire another bat. They might even find one in house if Viciedo (not expecting it so soon) or Flowers turns the corner at AAA.

I think this may be part of the reason why this DH situation is upsetting so many people. Otherwise, our lineup is looking pretty decent and perhaps one bat short of being a contender.

With our great rotation and how far the Sox have come in reconstructing the rest of the lineup since the Fields/Wise/Anderson days of last April, it's a bit maddening for them to just stop one player short and say they won't get a full time DH because of fill in the blank (philosophical? financial?) reasons.

To me, the fact that the rest of the lineup could be pretty decent doesn't mean that the Sox can just get by with leaving a lineup spot to bench players. I see it more as missing a chance to solidify the lineup with one last bat and become a contender....and not just for the Central - I want the Sox to be able to beat the top AL teams in the playoffs too.

asindc
01-29-2010, 02:18 PM
I most emphatically am not. I'll venture an opinion that your view has lots of company on this site. 2005 was great, I'll always treasure it, but why do we Sox fans set the bar so low?

I don't think that trusting the Sox management to assemble and properly manage the best available roster, within budget constraints, is setting the bar low. My trust is not based on the nostalgia of 2005, it is based on the many examples that management constantly makes moves to improve the team, within budget constraints. I must say that while I rarely make such personal observations of people I haven't met, the attitude among some Sox fans that they desire a winner more than Sox management or is smarter than Sox management strikes me as arrogant.

spawn
01-29-2010, 02:24 PM
I must say that while I rarely make such personal observations of people I haven't met, the attitude among some Sox fans that they desire a winner more than Sox management or is smarter than Sox management strikes me as arrogant.
:welcome:

Craig Grebeck
01-29-2010, 02:44 PM
I endeavor to ask a simple question: how far does trust go? I can see with my own two eyes that Andruw Jones sucks; I can see with my own two eyes that Mark Kotsay is not capable of playing anywhere near full-time; I can see with my own two eyes that this offense is not going to be very good. I trust Kenny to build a winner, but I can still say, "hey, that's not a smart decision at all."

Do those who subscribe to this idea just have no opinion at all, or withhold it altogether? Why even watch the games?

voodoochile
01-29-2010, 02:46 PM
I endeavor to ask a simple question: how far does trust go? I can see with my own two eyes that Andruw Jones sucks; I can see with my own two eyes that Mark Kotsay is not capable of playing anywhere near full-time; I can see with my own two eyes that this offense is not going to be very good. I trust Kenny to build a winner, but I can still say, "hey, that's not a smart decision at all."

Do those who subscribe to this idea just have no opinion at all, or withhold it altogether? Why even watch the games?

Well as I've said before, I don't think it's that big of an issue and if it becomes one, I TRUST KW to fix it...

Craig Grebeck
01-29-2010, 02:48 PM
Well as I've said before, I don't think it's that big of an issue and if it becomes one, I TRUST KW to fix it...
Well, while I trust KW to see this team may be one hitter short, I don't trust that we have the bullets to acquire a good hitter. We're painting ourselves into a corner in that regard.

Also, should Dunn or Gonzalez be available, there will be any number of teams after them. Kenny doesn't have the market cornered; he's not omnipotent, especially with such a dearth of valuable prospects.

pistolesatdawn
01-29-2010, 02:55 PM
It's fairly misleading to use Jones's average lifetime stats as an estimate of what we expect from him in 2010.

Sure, I'm hopeful that he rebounds but let's not fool ourselves and forget that he's had a huge drop off from his career norms for 3 seasons in a row now.

:scratch:I don't follow the logic here. Yes, PK, TCQ, etc will rotate into the DH spot...but Jones/Kotsay will still have to be in the lineup to take their spots in the field.

Whatever your position is on the Sox apparently going with Jones/Kotsay/Vizquel somewhere in the lineup every day, you can't just mask the concern over their production numbers by saying that Paulie and Carlos will help keep the production numbers at DH high. You're just shifting the hole in the lineup to a defensive position.....it's still the same batting order.


I'm not trying to mislead anybody by pointing out those statistics and most certainly am aware of the drastic drop-off in Jones' production the last few years. In fact, I think there is a damn good chance that they end up designating him for assignment or placing him on waivers sometime between May and the end of the season. I'm just trying to point out that there is reason for optimism and it's not all a wash before the season starts. Furthermore, I'm only talking about the DH spot specifically since it appeared to me that is what most people were getting their undies in a twist over most when I submitted my original post for the thread. Yes, it very well could just be shifting the hole in the lineup. Take it for what it's worth and construe it however you want. Like I said in my original post, I know that baseball is quirky enough that things sometimes just fall into your lap and that's what I'm going with until Ozzie and/or the players prove otherwise which is why I always get excited every year just after New Years because baseball is coming and who knows what's going to happen.

SI1020
01-29-2010, 03:49 PM
I don't think that trusting the Sox management to assemble and properly manage the best available roster, within budget constraints, is setting the bar low. My trust is not based on the nostalgia of 2005, it is based on the many examples that management constantly makes moves to improve the team, within budget constraints. I must say that while I rarely make such personal observations of people I haven't met, the attitude among some Sox fans that they desire a winner more than Sox management or is smarter than Sox management strikes me as arrogant. Me arrogant? You obviously never met me. I think it's kind of condescending to belittle those that refuse to bow at the altar of Sox ownership and management. Are you condescending towards those who deign to disagree with you and them? I don't know, I never met you.

voodoochile
01-29-2010, 03:55 PM
Me arrogant? You obviously never met me. I think it's kind of condescending to belittle those that refuse to bow at the altar of Sox ownership and management. Are you condescending towards those who deign to disagree with you and them? I don't know, I never met you.
He didn't seem to be specifically singling you out in his statement.

downstairs
01-29-2010, 03:58 PM
6 years, 2 playoff appearances, 1 World Series championship. The answer is no. No other White Sox manager has ever gone to the playoffs twice.

asindc
01-29-2010, 04:36 PM
Me arrogant? You obviously never met me. I think it's kind of condescending to belittle those that refuse to bow at the altar of Sox ownership and management. Are you condescending towards those who deign to disagree with you and them? I don't know, I never met you.

"Some fans" does not mean "SI1020." If I meant to refer to you specifically, I would have substituted "some fans" with "SI1020" or "you," but since I mean "some fans," that is what I wrote.

asindc
01-29-2010, 04:36 PM
He didn't seem to be specifically singling you out in his statement.

I was not and did not.

Lip Man 1
01-29-2010, 08:03 PM
Asin:

Had expanded playoffs or split divisions been in play during the 50's and 60's Al Lopez would have gone in six times.

But to the question at hand, if the Sox were to have their 3rd losing season in four years than serious questions (even more than right now) would have to be pointed in the direction of Kenny and Ozzie.

That would be balanced by the fact that the owner is incredibly patient and loyal, sometime to a fault.

Lip

asindc
01-29-2010, 08:32 PM
Asin:

Had expanded playoffs or split divisions been in play during the 50's and 60's Al Lopez would have gone in six times.

But to the question at hand, if the Sox were to have their 3rd losing season in four years than serious questions (even more than right now) would have to be pointed in the direction of Kenny and Ozzie.

That would be balanced by the fact that the owner is incredibly patient and loyal, sometime to a fault.

Lip

I agree. The '72 and '90 Sox also finished with the 2nd best record in the league, so it has happened several times where the Sox would have made the playoffs in the past if this present format was in place then. So it is. Making the playoffs is still worthy of feeling good about because this much has not changed: You can't win the World Series unless you make it to the postseason.

JNS
01-29-2010, 08:51 PM
I really cannot believe all the lily-livered, hair tearing, breast beating and rending of garments in this thread.

I'll posit it again, in list form for those with short attention spans:

1. OG and KW have kept the team competitive every year except 2007. That's five out of six seasons since OG took over, Not bad.

2. Notwithstanding the fact that they have finished under .500 two out of the last three years, the one year they didn't (2008) OG took a very flawed roster to the playoffs.

3. OG has taken the Sox to the post-season 33% of the time he's been here. Not bad.

4. Does anyone seriously think that Thome could really help the Sox in 2010? He's a good guy in the clubhouse, but that didn't stop Swisher, BA, and other numb-nuts from making the chemistry bad over the last couple of years. They gone too.

5. Just because the Sox don't APPEAR to be looking for someone to replace Thome as a LH DH doesn't mean it isn't happening. Since when has KW announced his intentions beforehand?

6. Although the Sox don't have a 500 HR guy like Thome (I wonder if he'll make 600?), almost everyone in their lineup is capable of hitting 20. If you look at it that way, with the exception of Pierre whose job isn't to hit dingers, the Sox are loaded with moderate power up and down the lineup.

7. It's a buyers market for sluggers out there. I just heard today that Dye turned down the same offer from the Cubs that Nady accepted. I love Dye, but he needs to get real or he'll be unemployed come April. My point is, there are a lot of guys out there. If the Sox decide they need one, KW will get one. And NO! It isn't about the budget this year. Boyer has said that season tickets sales are up this year - apparently lots of folks out there respect the 80% of the game that the Sox are loaded with.

8. Which brings me to my final point. PITCHING PITCHING PITCHING. I won't go into the detail I did in an earlier post, but people - the age of juicing is over. Home run production is down. Pitching is more important than ever. With their supposedly great lineup last season the Sox were next to last in the AL in team BA (.258) and 104 of their 180-something home runs were solo shots. That's bad. We were somethinglike 20 games under .500 in games we scored three runs or less. That's bad too. Good pitching mitigates all that. We have good pitching.

9. All these so-called Sox fans have the memories (or if they are young the study habits) of small furry mammals. What is the great tradition of the Sox? When they were good for extended periods of time, like 1950 - 1967 they were famous for speed, good fundamentals, and PITCHING. It was great baseball - a lot of fun to watch, and just because they rarely got over the hump represented by the hated Yankees didn't mean they weren't a very good team, managed by a very good manager (Al Lopez). That's what Ozzie is trying to put together again, not because it's a Sox tradition, but because it's good baseball, entertaining baseball, winning baseball.

The whiners here sound like the folks on the other side of town a few years ago who felt that Dave Kingman was the answer. C'mon! Have some fun! 2010 is going to be a blast! The Sardines are now playing in an outdoor, natural surface ballpark. No more bingo-ball. The Tigers are rebuilding and dumping salary. KC is improved but they will have Pods in CF. Think about that - it's a BIG center field. And BA in the clubhouse. Cleveland? Not in the picture.

So the Sox have a great opportunity to win, playing fantastic, aggressive, high-quality baseball. Speed, aggression, improved defense, and great pitching both from the rotation and the pen.

The idea that Ozzie should be on the bubble because he's thinking out of the box a bit is beyond comprehension. If you want THAT kind of manager, root for Gene Lamont to get a gig somewhere - after the Sox canned him he went back to Leyland and is still his 3rd base coach. That was almost 15 years ago - think about that.

DON'T WORRY! BE HAPPY!

asindc
01-29-2010, 09:20 PM
I really cannot believe all the lily-livered, hair tearing, breast beating and rending of garments in this thread.

I'll posit it again, in list form for those with short attention spans:

1. OG and KW have kept the team competitive every year except 2007. That's five out of six seasons since OG took over, Not bad.

2. Notwithstanding the fact that they have finished under .500 two out of the last three years, the one year they didn't (2008) OG took a very flawed roster to the playoffs.

3. OG has taken the Sox to the post-season 33% of the time he's been here. Not bad.

4. Does anyone seriously think that Thome could really help the Sox in 2010? He's a good guy in the clubhouse, but that didn't stop Swisher, BA, and other numb-nuts from making the chemistry bad over the last couple of years. They gone too.

5. Just because the Sox don't APPEAR to be looking for someone to replace Thome as a LH DH doesn't mean it isn't happening. Since when has KW announced his intentions beforehand?

6. Although the Sox don't have a 500 HR guy like Thome (I wonder if he'll make 600?), almost everyone in their lineup is capable of hitting 20. If you look at it that way, with the exception of Pierre whose job isn't to hit dingers, the Sox are loaded with moderate power up and down the lineup.

7. It's a buyers market for sluggers out there. I just heard today that Dye turned down the same offer from the Cubs that Nady accepted. I love Dye, but he needs to get real or he'll be unemployed come April. My point is, there are a lot of guys out there. If the Sox decide they need one, KW will get one. And NO! It isn't about the budget this year. Boyer has said that season tickets sales are up this year - apparently lots of folks out there respect the 80% of the game that the Sox are loaded with.

8. Which brings me to my final point. PITCHING PITCHING PITCHING. I won't go into the detail I did in an earlier post, but people - the age of juicing is over. Home run production is down. Pitching is more important than ever. With their supposedly great lineup last season the Sox were next to last in the AL in team BA (.258) and 104 of their 180-something home runs were solo shots. That's bad. We were somethinglike 20 games under .500 in games we scored three runs or less. That's bad too. Good pitching mitigates all that. We have good pitching.

9. All these so-called Sox fans have the memories (or if they are young the study habits) of small furry mammals. What is the great tradition of the Sox? When they were good for extended periods of time, like 1950 - 1967 they were famous for speed, good fundamentals, and PITCHING. It was great baseball - a lot of fun to watch, and just because they rarely got over the hump represented by the hated Yankees didn't mean they weren't a very good team, managed by a very good manager (Al Lopez). That's what Ozzie is trying to put together again, not because it's a Sox tradition, but because it's good baseball, entertaining baseball, winning baseball.

The whiners here sound like the folks on the other side of town a few years ago who felt that Dave Kingman was the answer. C'mon! Have some fun! 2010 is going to be a blast! The Sardines are now playing in an outdoor, natural surface ballpark. No more bingo-ball. The Tigers are rebuilding and dumping salary. KC is improved but they will have Pods in CF. Think about that - it's a BIG center field. And BA in the clubhouse. Cleveland? Not in the picture.

So the Sox have a great opportunity to win, playing fantastic, aggressive, high-quality baseball. Speed, aggression, improved defense, and great pitching both from the rotation and the pen.

The idea that Ozzie should be on the bubble because he's thinking out of the box a bit is beyond comprehension. If you want THAT kind of manager, root for Gene Lamont to get a gig somewhere - after the Sox canned him he went back to Leyland and is still his 3rd base coach. That was almost 15 years ago - think about that.

DON'T WORRY! BE HAPPY!

With all due respect, you are very wrong about that. KW owes it to the fans to have someone from the front office sign on as a member here and update us on what they are doing at least once every 4 hours. Anything less and they are just simply being negligent.

JNS
01-29-2010, 10:07 PM
With all due respect, you are very wrong about that. KW owes it to the fans to have someone from the front office sign on as a member here and update us on what they are doing at least once every 4 hours. Anything less and they are just simply being negligent.

I've changed my mind and agree - in fact, not just any employee, but Williams himself. 24/7, every four hours.

And he needs to be frank - no BS about "flying under the radar." he needs to tell us who he's going after, what the maximum he's willing to pay, how many years, incentives, etc.

We deserve it.

soxinem1
01-29-2010, 10:17 PM
And that team did What??? :scratch:

The fifth starter(s) killed the 2003 White Sox. That team could have done some damage in the post season.

In regards to the thread topic, Ozzie getting canned probably depends on Ozzie. If he manages like he doesn't give a **** or have a clue, which has happened with managers, calls people names. loses his fire, and takes no accountability, sure, he can get axed.

If he makes the most with what he has, well, how do you fire him?:scratch:

HarryChappas
01-29-2010, 10:33 PM
I really cannot believe all the lily-livered, hair tearing, breast beating and rending of garments in this thread.

I'll posit it again, in list form for those with short attention spans:

1. OG and KW have kept the team competitive every year except 2007. That's five out of six seasons since OG took over, Not bad.

2. Notwithstanding the fact that they have finished under .500 two out of the last three years, the one year they didn't (2008) OG took a very flawed roster to the playoffs.

3. OG has taken the Sox to the post-season 33% of the time he's been here. Not bad.

4. Does anyone seriously think that Thome could really help the Sox in 2010? He's a good guy in the clubhouse, but that didn't stop Swisher, BA, and other numb-nuts from making the chemistry bad over the last couple of years. They gone too.

5. Just because the Sox don't APPEAR to be looking for someone to replace Thome as a LH DH doesn't mean it isn't happening. Since when has KW announced his intentions beforehand?

6. Although the Sox don't have a 500 HR guy like Thome (I wonder if he'll make 600?), almost everyone in their lineup is capable of hitting 20. If you look at it that way, with the exception of Pierre whose job isn't to hit dingers, the Sox are loaded with moderate power up and down the lineup.

7. It's a buyers market for sluggers out there. I just heard today that Dye turned down the same offer from the Cubs that Nady accepted. I love Dye, but he needs to get real or he'll be unemployed come April. My point is, there are a lot of guys out there. If the Sox decide they need one, KW will get one. And NO! It isn't about the budget this year. Boyer has said that season tickets sales are up this year - apparently lots of folks out there respect the 80% of the game that the Sox are loaded with.

8. Which brings me to my final point. PITCHING PITCHING PITCHING. I won't go into the detail I did in an earlier post, but people - the age of juicing is over. Home run production is down. Pitching is more important than ever. With their supposedly great lineup last season the Sox were next to last in the AL in team BA (.258) and 104 of their 180-something home runs were solo shots. That's bad. We were somethinglike 20 games under .500 in games we scored three runs or less. That's bad too. Good pitching mitigates all that. We have good pitching.

9. All these so-called Sox fans have the memories (or if they are young the study habits) of small furry mammals. What is the great tradition of the Sox? When they were good for extended periods of time, like 1950 - 1967 they were famous for speed, good fundamentals, and PITCHING. It was great baseball - a lot of fun to watch, and just because they rarely got over the hump represented by the hated Yankees didn't mean they weren't a very good team, managed by a very good manager (Al Lopez). That's what Ozzie is trying to put together again, not because it's a Sox tradition, but because it's good baseball, entertaining baseball, winning baseball.

The whiners here sound like the folks on the other side of town a few years ago who felt that Dave Kingman was the answer. C'mon! Have some fun! 2010 is going to be a blast! The Sardines are now playing in an outdoor, natural surface ballpark. No more bingo-ball. The Tigers are rebuilding and dumping salary. KC is improved but they will have Pods in CF. Think about that - it's a BIG center field. And BA in the clubhouse. Cleveland? Not in the picture.

So the Sox have a great opportunity to win, playing fantastic, aggressive, high-quality baseball. Speed, aggression, improved defense, and great pitching both from the rotation and the pen.

The idea that Ozzie should be on the bubble because he's thinking out of the box a bit is beyond comprehension. If you want THAT kind of manager, root for Gene Lamont to get a gig somewhere - after the Sox canned him he went back to Leyland and is still his 3rd base coach. That was almost 15 years ago - think about that.

DON'T WORRY! BE HAPPY!

Why should we be happy about being competitive? We only have 3 other real teams in our division. The Tigers had to dump salaries and the Indians are rebuilding. The (small market) Twins are the only real team to beat. We should have went for a power hitter, but our manager wants to play small ball in a homerun hitters park. We should be able to go on a Braves type run. We only have a 2-3 year window with this staff!! Go for it NOW. I hate the posts that say "What did those power lineups get us?". If we had the pitching we have now we would have went deep in the post season every year.

HarryChappas
01-29-2010, 10:35 PM
:threadsucks

You could of at least given better reasons as to why you think Ozzie may get fired.

106 post and counting my friend!!!!!! :D:

JNS
01-29-2010, 10:51 PM
Why should we be happy about being competitive? We only have 3 other real teams in our division. The Tigers had to dump salaries and the Indians are rebuilding. The (small market) Twins are the only real team to beat. We should have went for a power hitter, but our manager wants to play small ball in a homerun hitters park. We should be able to go on a Braves type run. We only have a 2-3 year window with this staff!! Go for it NOW. I hate the posts that say "What did those power lineups get us?". If we had the pitching we have now we would have went deep in the post season every year.

We are going for it now. Jeez, what the heck do you think the Sox are doing?

Small ball is fine in any ballpark with the kind of pitching the Sox have. If you want to watch softball go out to the park. The Sox will be playing baseball - home runs included but only as one element. If you think that a better #5 would have made that much of a difference, I want some of what you are smoking.

Take a deep breath, grab a drink and chill - it's gonna be fine.

voodoochile
01-29-2010, 10:54 PM
We are going for it now. Jeez, what the heck do you think the Sox are doing?

Small ball is fine in any ballpark with the kind of pitching the Sox have. If you want to watch softball go out to the park. The Sox will be playing baseball - home runs included but only as one element. If you think that a better #5 would have made that much of a difference, I want some of what you are smoking.

Take a deep breath, grab a drink and chill - it's gonna be fine.

I feel like you are channeling you're inner voodoo or something... Great posts and thanks... You make it much easier on my carpal tunnel syndrome...:gulp:

asindc
01-29-2010, 11:25 PM
Why should we be happy about being competitive? We only have 3 other real teams in our division. The Tigers had to dump salaries and the Indians are rebuilding. The (small market) Twins are the only real team to beat. We should have went for a power hitter, but our manager wants to play small ball in a homerun hitters park. We should be able to go on a Braves type run. We only have a 2-3 year window with this staff!! Go for it NOW. I hate the posts that say "What did those power lineups get us?". If we had the pitching we have now we would have went deep in the post season every year.

1) We should always be happy about being competitive. [If l infer that you mean to ask why should we be happy about merely being competitive, then I would say assembling a top flight starting rotation and replacing Wise, Anderson, Fields, Betemit, and Lillibridge with Pierre, Rios, Teahan, Kotsay, and Vizquel suggests that the Sox are doing more than trying to be merely competitive.]

2) "Should have went" suggests that the Sox are precluded from this point from going after a power hitter or are no longer looking to add one. I don't get that impression from this article: http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100128&content_id=7989492&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

JNS
01-29-2010, 11:41 PM
I feel like you are channeling you're inner voodoo or something... Great posts and thanks... You make it much easier on my carpal tunnel syndrome...:gulp:

Thanks and cheers!

After going ape-**** on KW after the 2007 season I really haven't had any issue with what KW and OG have tried to do. I also think that KW especially has gotten better at talking about why he does what he does. I should add that the even though the 2008 team was badly flawed, Ozzie did a great job getting them to the playoffs - the team had guts. And that taught me to be more patient and to understand that unless you are the Yankees, with a $225 million payroll it's not gonna be easy year to year.

So I've learned something and my trust in what they are doing has increased greatly. I still don't really agree with you about the ten-year term for Ozzie or any manager, but that isn't what this discussion is about.

All I ask for is a concept, and a Hegelian curve, both of which are happening. I really think it will be a better team in 2010, not in spite of but because of them adding pitching and making a more balanced and effective lineup. Pierre is a huge acquisition - I don't just believe that because OG says so - because he gives the team a real lead-off man without the fundamental deficiencies of Pods. Pods won games for the Sox but he also lost games for the Sox, on the bases and in LF. As long as he can bird-dog the fly balls and hit the cutoff man, Pierre will not lose games for us in the field. So it's a big upgrade.

Another point involves production generally. The number of solo shots in 08 and 09 was disturbing. And the LOB numbers, which are directly related to the number of solo shots and lack of situational hitting added to the problem. So I'm more than happy to give up a bunch of dingers - mainly one run homers - for RBI doubles or singles with guys in scoring position. I think that's what OG has in mind and I think it'll win more games for the Sox, especially with the pitching upgrades.

Dub25
01-30-2010, 12:27 AM
I said 2003 lineup, not team. The offense was hardly the problem that year.

Ok, fair enough.

Dub25
01-30-2010, 12:32 AM
The fifth starter(s) killed the 2003 White Sox. That team could have done some damage in the post season.

In regards to the thread topic, Ozzie getting canned probably depends on Ozzie. If he manages like he doesn't give a **** or have a clue, which has happened with managers, calls people names. loses his fire, and takes no accountability, sure, he can get axed.

If he makes the most with what he has, well, how do you fire him?:scratch:

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Estaban Loisa (yes, I know, spelling) the 5th starter???

Craig Grebeck
01-30-2010, 10:11 AM
People deriding the number of solo shots should check the OBP history of each player we've added in the last nine months. It's, uh, not encouraging. I'm guessing you'll be complaining a lot this summer.

voodoochile
01-30-2010, 10:40 AM
People deriding the number of solo shots should check the OBP history of each player we've added in the last nine months. It's, uh, not encouraging. I'm guessing you'll be complaining a lot this summer.

No, we'll be hitting less HR hence less solo shots, so sol good...:tongue:

mzh
01-30-2010, 10:44 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Estaban Loisa (yes, I know, spelling) the 5th starter???

No, Dan Wright was the 5th starter. He started about half the games, and IIRC it was a rotating door with Matt Ginter, Scott Shoenweis, et al. 2004 was far worse though with the 5th starter

asindc
01-30-2010, 10:47 AM
I've changed my mind and agree - in fact, not just any employee, but Williams himself. 24/7, every four hours.

And he needs to be frank - no BS about "flying under the radar." he needs to tell us who he's going after, what the maximum he's willing to pay, how many years, incentives, etc.

We deserve it.

Yes we do, and until he does that, fans have every right to proclaim with certainty that KW is not working to make the team better.

Lip Man 1
01-30-2010, 10:56 AM
Sox 5th starters in 2003, began 27 games and went 3-11. Those starters were Danny Wright (15 games, 0-7), Josh Stewart (5), Mike Porzio (3) and Neal Cotts (4).

Lip

JNS
01-30-2010, 11:54 AM
Yes we do, and until he does that, fans have every right to proclaim with certainty that KW is not working to make the team better.

Right. In fact, why wait? Fire KW now for a lack of communication with the folks who pay his salary. I don't care if he's looking for a DH, a #6 starter, has a deal going to get Tim Lincicum and Ichiro for future considerations. I'm tired of being insulted by the guy. Just can his butt.

And Ozzie too, just on general principles. And because with fewer home runs there will be fewer solo shots. That's Ozzie's fault. Put that in your mug and guzzle it!

JNS
01-30-2010, 11:57 AM
People deriding the number of solo shots should check the OBP history of each player we've added in the last nine months. It's, uh, not encouraging. I'm guessing you'll be complaining a lot this summer.

What about a single that (will wonders never cease) scores Pierre or Beckham for 2nd! And then another hit that gets the first guy to 3rd, Etc.

Home runs ain't the end all or be all unless you are a Cubs fan.

Or as Bart would say: "don't have a cow!" Sheesh.

SOXSINCE'70
01-30-2010, 12:24 PM
:threadsucks


Is it possible to suck and blow at the same time?

Yes, it is.

:threadblows:

Frater Perdurabo
01-30-2010, 12:27 PM
On one hand, some think they can predict with absolute certainty that Ozzie's rotating DH will be an EPIC FAIL.

On the other hand, some say Ozzie can do no wrong and deserves a lifetime contract.

I'm in the middle. I have no idea if the rotating DH among the current personnel will work or not, because neither eyeballs nor numbers can predict the future. I'll give Ozzie credit if it works. I want him held responsible if it fails.

asindc
01-30-2010, 12:35 PM
On one hand, some think they can predict with absolute certainty that Ozzie's rotating DH will be an EPIC FAIL.

On the other hand, some say Ozzie can do no wrong and deserves a lifetime contract.

I'm in the middle. I have no idea if the rotating DH among the current personnel will work or not, because neither eyeballs nor numbers can predict the future. I'll give Ozzie credit if it works. I want him held responsible if it fails.

Seems reasonable to me.

MARTINMVP
01-30-2010, 02:03 PM
I'd rather they keep Ozzie. I hate how Uncle Jerry likes to have influence in the head coach situation - don't need another Terry Bevington type of hire, nor do I want any similar Bulls fiasco situations like what happened with Doug Collins two summers ago, or the current blunder now.

russ99
01-30-2010, 02:15 PM
I'd rather they keep Ozzie. I hate how Uncle Jerry likes to have influence in the head coach situation - don't need another Terry Bevington type of hire, nor do I want any similar Bulls fiasco situations like what happened with Doug Collins two summers ago, or the current blunder now.

No kidding.

Love him or hate him, we're going to miss Ozzie when he's not the manager anymore. Let's hope that doesn't happen for a long time.

Frater Perdurabo
01-30-2010, 02:18 PM
No kidding.

Love him or hate him, we're going to miss Ozzie when he's not the manager anymore. Let's hope that doesn't happen for a long time.

I hope so too. But if so, I hope it's because he keeps winning division titles, not just because of "loyalty."

MARTINMVP
01-30-2010, 02:21 PM
I hope so too. But if so, I hope it's because he keeps winning division titles, not just because of "loyalty."

If the Sox landed any worse than 2nd place after 2010, then I'd definitely be asking if 2011 was the "make or break year" for Ozzie. Loyalty can only go so far, as we have seen with Thome and most likely Dye (though I wouldn't be shocked if we signed him back just before spring training).

I hope we don't have this discussion though. Even though this team is not perfect, I don't see any excuse as to why KW won't make any necessary modifications when necessary. They really should win the Central this year. I'm not saying they will, and I am a bit nervous, but it would be very sad if they still are not able to.

Frater Perdurabo
01-30-2010, 02:37 PM
If the Sox landed any worse than 2nd place after 2010, then I'd definitely be asking if 2011 was the "make or break year" for Ozzie. Loyalty can only go so far, as we have seen with Thome and most likely Dye (though I wouldn't be shocked if we signed him back just before spring training).

I hope we don't have this discussion though. Even though this team is not perfect, I don't see any excuse as to why KW won't make any necessary modifications when necessary. They really should win the Central this year. I'm not saying they will, and I am a bit nervous, but it would be very sad if they still are not able to.

Given the other markets/teams in the AL Central, the Sox should win the division at least every two (or at worst, three) years.

voodoochile
01-30-2010, 03:03 PM
Given the other markets/teams in the AL Central, the Sox should win the division at least every two (or at worst, three) years.

So since 2003 we are on pace. Heck, 3 times since 2000 is damned close once every 3.3 years and it actually was 1/3 at the end of 2008).

I also don't think it's as simple as outspending people. The Tigers proved that empirically these past few years, but the Sox aren't willing or able to go as nuts as the Tigers did. If/when that kind of huge financial bomb goes off, it affects those percentages, IMO.

Plus, as I said and has been proven time and time and time again, money isn't a cure all for losing baseball. It's nice to have and it will increase your chances, but it's simply silly to say it guarantees championships or even playoff appearances.

In addition, the Sox have been digging out of a financial hole with mediocre attendance in the decade leading up to 2005. Then the Tigers set off that bomb while the Twinkies were in the middle of a home grown window and the attendance hasn't stayed at elevated levels.

The Sox have been forced to trade prospects for proven talent and haven't been able to reap the fruits of developing players (if they actually could do so is debatable). Now some of those issues seem to be alleviated. The Minor League system is improving (though still not loaded with talent) and the Sox have managed to get younger while still staying competitive on the Major League club. So we may have started to reach a point of seeing some cyclic payoffs for the good management efforts of the past several years and should hopefully get that percentage up even higher, but time will tell...

JNS
01-30-2010, 03:32 PM
Can anyone provide us with a list of potential managers - who aren't presently managing another MLB team - who are qualified and might be better than Ozzie? If this is a make or break year it might be helpful to have a replacement in mind.

A month after the Bears fired Ron Turner, with all these guys rejecting the job it turns out that perhaps the most qualified available offensive coordinator is...Ron Turner!

In 1992 (I think, or 1991) after firing Jeff Torborg - which I thought was a big mistake; I liked Torborg - the Sox tried to hire Jim Leyland. He was happy ion Pittsburgh at the time but suggested his 3rd base coach Gene Lamont. Lamont wasn't a really, really bad manager like Bevington, but he was a nothing. Boring, no strategic of tactical vision, totally 100% by-the-book guy. I robot could have done the same job.

So for those of you who are looking for a change, be careful - if you get your wish you might be sorry.

Hell, Ozzie is great for the entertainment value alone! He's a scream - and that makes baseball more fun than it is anyhow.

jabrch
01-30-2010, 04:46 PM
On the other hand, some say Ozzie can do no wrong and deserves a lifetime contract.


Can you show me where people say this?

IMHO, there are very few "wrong" decisions any professional baseball manager can make. They are decisions that are within a point or two of being coin tosses and where the difference is the execution of the players, not the decision. I think baseball managers are overrated, both on their positive impact and on negative impact.

Guillen didn't win the WS. He didn't suck last year.

jabrch
01-30-2010, 04:48 PM
Loyalty can only go so far, as we have seen with Thome and most likely Dye (though I wouldn't be shocked if we signed him back just before spring training).


To me that has less to do with "loyalty" and more to do with what they are likely do in 2010.

And I agree with you - I wouldn't be surprised if Dye isn't done here.

Frater Perdurabo
01-30-2010, 07:29 PM
In addition, the Sox have been digging out of a financial hole

With all due respect, none of us know if this is true or not.

Frater Perdurabo
01-30-2010, 07:31 PM
Can you show me where people say this?

I'm using a bit of hyperbole. However, there are some who say he should have the job as long as he wants it.

voodoochile
01-30-2010, 07:54 PM
With all due respect, none of us know if this is true or not.

Relative financial hole. They need to have the higher season ticket base to have the higher payroll level. I think that's fairly obvious. Maybe it's self imposed, but for the sake of this discussion that's moot. They drew 1.3M in 1998 and not much more in 1999. Yes, 2000 things started to turn around, but the season ticket base didn't really jump until 2006 and it's declined since then, though apparently this year they are seeing a good renewal rate from what I have read on these forums.

The point is that unless the Sox can consistently draw 2.5M fans we aren't going to see high payroll figures which allow the system to become self regenerating to some extent. I think they are starting to put the pieces together that will allow that to happen and I think it's due to the work of KW and OG...

Frater Perdurabo
01-30-2010, 08:17 PM
Relative financial hole. They need to have the higher season ticket base to have the higher payroll level. I think that's fairly obvious. Maybe it's self imposed, but for the sake of this discussion that's moot. They drew 1.3M in 1998 and not much more in 1999. Yes, 2000 things started to turn around, but the season ticket base didn't really jump until 2006 and it's declined since then, though apparently this year they are seeing a good renewal rate from what I have read on these forums.

The point is that unless the Sox can consistently draw 2.5M fans we aren't going to see high payroll figures which allow the system to become self regenerating to some extent. I think they are starting to put the pieces together that will allow that to happen and I think it's due to the work of KW and OG...

All of this is fair. My point is that when averaged out over a decade, being in the #3 market in the U.S., the Sox should have more resources than any of their AL Central competitors. Any one team may outspend them for a year or two, but as the Tigers have found even a deep-pocketed owner can't sustain that kind of spending for more than a couple years in that market.

Given that they should have more resources than any other team in their division, and given that SOMEONE has to win the AL Central every year, the Sox should be winning more division titles than any other team in their division. All things being equal, KC and CLE ought to fluke into one title per decade each, with MIN and DET each winning two. The Sox should be winning four per decade, all things being equal.

What makes things unequal, though, is when other organizations (like the Twins) are simply smarter and more competent than the Sox are.

Still, given that they should have more resources, the Sox should be able to pay more money and thus draw better scouting and player development talent than the Twins can. But they haven't, and it manifests itself in the talent each organization produces. That tells me that the Sox and Twins are fundamentally different organizations that emphasize different things. And whatever the difference is, it explains why the Twins win more division titles than the Sox do.

asindc
01-30-2010, 08:39 PM
All of this is fair. My point is that when averaged out over a decade, being in the #3 market in the U.S., the Sox should have more resources than any of their AL Central competitors. Any one team may outspend them for a year or two, but as the Tigers have found even a deep-pocketed owner can't sustain that kind of spending for more than a couple years in that market.

Given that they should have more resources than any other team in their division, and given that SOMEONE has to win the AL Central every year, the Sox should be winning more division titles than any other team in their division. All things being equal, KC and CLE ought to fluke into one title per decade each, with MIN and DET each winning two. The Sox should be winning four per decade, all things being equal.

What makes things unequal, though, is when other organizations (like the Twins) are simply smarter and more competent than the Sox are.

Still, given that they should have more resources, the Sox should be able to pay more money and thus draw better scouting and player development talent than the Twins can. But they haven't, and it manifests itself in the talent each organization produces. That tells me that the Sox and Twins are fundamentally different organizations that emphasize different things. And whatever the difference is, it explains why the Twins win more division titles than the Sox do.

I don't disagree with most of what you say, including the part I bolded, but I do think Minny's approach is best suited to maintain consistent winning throughout one long season to the next. However, it is not designed to aggressively pursue championships, IMO. Now I am one of the first to say that you cannot win a championship unless you make the postseason, but when a team consistently maxes out at an early first round exit level, that demonstrates to me that the organization is either not willing or not able to command the will and/or resources to aggressively pursue a championship.

The Twinkee organization does some things better than our club, such as scouting and player development, but I prefer a bolder pursuit than they have shown. So while they might win more division titles than the Sox if neither club changes its philosophy and approach, I prefer the Sox' more aggressive nature. By the way, I think the recent improvements in our farm system indicates that the Sox management is not standing pat.

Daver
01-30-2010, 08:41 PM
I don't think there is a make or break scenario that exists for Ozzie, he's here till he quits, whether by persuasion or not, the same can somewhat be said for Kenny Williams.

Waysouthsider
01-30-2010, 09:10 PM
I don't think there is a make or break scenario that exists for Ozzie, he's here till he quits, whether by persuasion or not, the same can somewhat be said for Kenny Williams.

I wish this weren't true, but I suspect you are right on.....

Frater Perdurabo
01-30-2010, 09:21 PM
The Twinkee organization does some things better than our club, such as scouting and player development, but I prefer a bolder pursuit than they have shown. So while they might win more division title than the Sox if neither club changes its philosophy and approach, I prefer the Sox' more aggressive nature. By the way, I think the recent improvements in our farm system indicates that the Sox management is not standing pat.

With the Sox having superior resources, they should have a scouting and player development system that is at least as good as the Twins, and also have more resources to put into the major league club to be aggressive to make the move to put them over the top.

Daver
01-30-2010, 09:24 PM
With the Sox having superior resources, they should have a scouting and player development system that is at least as good as the Twins, and also have more resources to put into the major league club to be aggressive to make the move to put them over the top.

This will never happen.

The Twins employ more part time scouts than the White Sox do as scouts overall.

voodoochile
01-30-2010, 10:12 PM
All of this is fair. My point is that when averaged out over a decade, being in the #3 market in the U.S., the Sox should have more resources than any of their AL Central competitors. Any one team may outspend them for a year or two, but as the Tigers have found even a deep-pocketed owner can't sustain that kind of spending for more than a couple years in that market.

Given that they should have more resources than any other team in their division, and given that SOMEONE has to win the AL Central every year, the Sox should be winning more division titles than any other team in their division. All things being equal, KC and CLE ought to fluke into one title per decade each, with MIN and DET each winning two. The Sox should be winning four per decade, all things being equal.

What makes things unequal, though, is when other organizations (like the Twins) are simply smarter and more competent than the Sox are.

Still, given that they should have more resources, the Sox should be able to pay more money and thus draw better scouting and player development talent than the Twins can. But they haven't, and it manifests itself in the talent each organization produces. That tells me that the Sox and Twins are fundamentally different organizations that emphasize different things. And whatever the difference is, it explains why the Twins win more division titles than the Sox do.

It just doesn't work that way. You're trying to turn this into a science and it isn't. The Sox won 3 ALC championships in the "aughts" and a World Series too. If they can do that every decade, we should jump up and down in joy...

In addition there were several other years when they were in contention late in the season including one year they won 90 games only to finish 3rd.

Thems the breaks of the game...

Lip Man 1
01-30-2010, 10:39 PM
Voodoo:

I don't disagree with anything you wrote but I have wondered, perhaps you or someone else can suggest reasons, why it is some teams seem to have amazing runs.

I'm not only thinking of what the Braves did in the 90's and 00's or the Yankees making the postseason, what 12 years in a row (17 consecutive winnings seasons) but teams like the Red Sox and Angels who seem to get in the postseason almost every year.

There seems to be some clubs in the N.L. like that as well say St.Louis.

Is it simply they spend more (which to me is a huge game changer) or is there something more to it? St. Louis used to spend a ton, they don't anymore yet they still keep cranking out very good teams. Is it something else, the G.M., the scouting, the organizational structure.

What is it?

It's never easy to "win" but some organizations seem to have made a regular habit of doing it and I'm curious what is the 'magic potion'?

Lip

voodoochile
01-30-2010, 10:57 PM
Voodoo:

I don't disagree with anything you wrote but I have wondered, perhaps you or someone else can suggest reasons, why it is some teams seem to have amazing runs.

I'm not only thinking of what the Braves did in the 90's and 00's or the Yankees making the postseason, what 12 years in a row (17 consecutive winnings seasons) but teams like the Red Sox and Angels who seem to get in the postseason almost every year.

There seems to be some clubs in the N.L. like that as well say St.Louis.

Is it simply they spend more (which to me is a huge game changer) or is there something more to it? St. Louis used to spend a ton, they don't anymore yet they still keep cranking out very good teams. Is it something else, the G.M., the scouting, the organizational structure.

What is it?

It's never easy to "win" but some organizations seem to have made a regular habit of doing it and I'm curious what is the 'magic potion'?

Lip


I don't have an exact answer for you Lip. Yeah, some of it is tied to minor league development and some is tied to spending more and some is tied to the division they play in. The Sox dug themselves a big hole from a fan perspective from the late 80's through 1999. With the exception of 1993.

That's a good chunk of the time I've been a fan which includes all of the Reinsdorf years. In fact that's about the time I became a fan.

I think the Sox are in the early middle of a major shift in corporate culture and KW is driving it. We are seeing more effort in putting together a better minor league system, increased payroll and year in and year out efforts to keep the team in contention though not always successfully. Last year was obviously a bad year but their hands were tied by the already high payroll and the economic downturn so they did the best they could and if not for Dye falling off the map the second half and Rios having a major slump at the same time, they might have made a run at the playoffs from mid-August anyway.

I ask anyone eager to dump KW and OG to take a serious look at how the team has been run since KW took over and OG came aboard. You can't tell me you'd rather go back to the days of Scheuler and Manuel or Bevington.

It's not perfect, but even the Yankees aren't perfect and it's a damned sight better than it has been in a LONG time (again, from my perspective, better than it's ever been in my time as a Sox fan).

I'm not saying there aren't people who remember better times, but it does not suck to be us right now. Maybe it can be better. I hope it can be better, because then it would really rock and not merely make me smile. So long as the team keeps moving forward, I will be happy. KW seems to be making that happen. OG seems to be doing a decent job managing the game time decisions.

Keep improving the minors. Keep the payroll flexible. Keep the team in contention and win some division titles and hopefully another Pennant and even WS in the next decade and I'll be one happy camper...

Nellie_Fox
01-31-2010, 12:39 AM
I have no idea if the rotating DH among the current personnel will work or not, because neither eyeballs nor numbers can predict the future. I'll give Ozzie credit if it works. I want him held responsible if it fails.And I can live with this.

I hate how Uncle Jerry likes to have influence in the head coach situation.Head coach? :?: This isn't football.

MARTINMVP
01-31-2010, 12:44 AM
I don't have an exact answer for you Lip. Yeah, some of it is tied to minor league development and some is tied to spending more and some is tied to the division they play in. The Sox dug themselves a big hole from a fan perspective from the late 80's through 1999. With the exception of 1993.

That's a good chunk of the time I've been a fan which includes all of the Reinsdorf years. In fact that's about the time I became a fan.

I think the Sox are in the early middle of a major shift in corporate culture and KW is driving it. We are seeing more effort in putting together a better minor league system, increased payroll and year in and year out efforts to keep the team in contention though not always successfully. Last year was obviously a bad year but their hands were tied by the already high payroll and the economic downturn so they did the best they could and if not for Dye falling off the map the second half and Rios having a major slump at the same time, they might have made a run at the playoffs from mid-August anyway.

I ask anyone eager to dump KW and OG to take a serious look at how the team has been run since KW took over and OG came aboard. You can't tell me you'd rather go back to the days of Scheuler and Manuel or Bevington.

It's not perfect, but even the Yankees aren't perfect and it's a damned sight better than it has been in a LONG time (again, from my perspective, better than it's ever been in my time as a Sox fan).

I'm not saying there aren't people who remember better times, but it does not suck to be us right now. Maybe it can be better. I hope it can be better, because then it would really rock and not merely make me smile. So long as the team keeps moving forward, I will be happy. KW seems to be making that happen. OG seems to be doing a decent job managing the game time decisions.

Keep improving the minors. Keep the payroll flexible. Keep the team in contention and win some division titles and hopefully another Pennant and even WS in the next decade and I'll be one happy camper...

Your earlier assessment about money not being the end all when it comes to building a winner is absolutely right on. While Kenny certainly has balls, he is also a very thrifty general manager, which I absolutely love. If it was all about money, I don't think the 2005 result would had ever happened.

MARTINMVP
01-31-2010, 12:50 AM
And I can live with this.

Head coach? :?: This isn't football.

Yes, but I was also referencing Jerry's meddling with the Bulls coaching decisions as well. Kind of consider that post with the mention of "head coaching" as a general reference to Jerry's meddling with both of his teams.


Now in another development, at Denny's tonight, was talking to my buddy about one of the White Sox games we went to this year that went long into extra innings, and I referred to it as overtime. :redneck

fram40
02-01-2010, 02:45 PM
It's not perfect, but even the Yankees aren't perfect and it's a damned sight better than it has been in a LONG time (again, from my perspective, better than it's ever been in my time as a Sox fan).

I'm not saying there aren't people who remember better times, but it does not suck to be us right now. Maybe it can be better. I hope it can be better, because then it would really rock and not merely make me smile. So long as the team keeps moving forward, I will be happy. KW seems to be making that happen. OG seems to be doing a decent job managing the game time decisions.

Keep improving the minors. Keep the payroll flexible. Keep the team in contention and win some division titles and hopefully another Pennant and even WS in the next decade and I'll be one happy camper...

I agree. I can remember as far back as 1969. There have been three post season appearances in the '00s. Even if they had not won a WS championship, that is the best decade - by far - in my lifetime. And 40 years is a long time - most likely over half of my life.

So to the OP - No, Ozzie is not on the hot seat. He deserves a chance to try this crazy idea. I am looking forward to seeing Ozzie try to make it work. And if it doesn't work, I hope he gets a chance to try something else next year. No matter how crazy some of the experts think his idea might be.

For the long term, I am willing to give Ozzie/KW at least ten years - through the 2016 season - before I begin to consider that changes might be necessary. I intend to be an Ozzie plan holder at least that long as well.