PDA

View Full Version : Ozzie considering batting Kotsay 3rd vs righties


Sockinchisox
03-24-2010, 10:29 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/ct-spt-0325-white-sox-chicago-spring-trai20100324,0,4754935.story

:bundy

BadBobbyJenks
03-24-2010, 10:34 PM
If he really bats Kotsay third because of his spring performance I will lose all faith in his ability to manage.

JermaineDye05
03-24-2010, 10:40 PM
It might happen in ST, but I really don't see it materializing in the regular season. Especially if Alex Rios and TCQ keep hitting the way they've been.

Tragg
03-24-2010, 10:40 PM
When you have a DH projected to hit 8th that's bad enough...it shows that you lack talent. But to put the 8th place quality hitter 3rd, is lunacy.

This is the same clown-managing that Guillen's been doing the prior 3 seasons....he puts bad hitters in the lineup and jiggles the lineup to get them maximum at bats (see Erstad, 2007)...in 2007 Guillen's clowning killed the offense....hopefully it won't this year.

raven1
03-24-2010, 10:48 PM
It actually makes sense to do this under certain very temporary circumstances - he should juggle the lineup as needed to go with the "hot hand" of whoever is hitting best at that time, regardless of who they are and whether or not they are likely to keep it up. If Kotsay is hitting better that week than anyone else on the team, put him there until he stops hitting, then replace him with whoever is.

The only time when this approach becomes a problem is if most of the lineup isn't hitting well enough to score runs (like for most of 2007 & 2009) - then it doesn't matter who hits in what spot.

BRDSR
03-24-2010, 11:01 PM
Give me 1,000 spring training games, and I could hit .429 with seven RBI over a 10 game span. Does that mean I can hit third against righties for a Major League Baseball team. No.

This isn't going to happen.

soltrain21
03-24-2010, 11:03 PM
We are not winning a division with Mark Kotsay as our three hitter.

Edit - Oh, and I have a feeling Ozzie's tinkering this year will make even Jerry Manual blush.

Noneck
03-24-2010, 11:05 PM
How strange the manager of the Sox is basing his decision to bat Kotsay 3rd because of how he is doing in spring training. I have recently read a thread where someone thinks that spring training stats don't mean squat. Someone seems to be wrong here. I wonder who.

KMcMahon817
03-24-2010, 11:16 PM
Give me 1,000 spring training games, and I could hit .429 with seven RBI over a 10 game span. Does that mean I can hit third against righties for a Major League Baseball team. No.

This isn't going to happen.

I bet my life savings you couldn't.

:D:

BRDSR
03-24-2010, 11:25 PM
I bet my life savings you couldn't.

:D:

Haha...I knew I'd get this response.

Do I have to put up my life savings against yours? What're your life savings?

I honestly do think I could, but I'm not suggesting that I have anything approaching MLB (or even A-ball or Div I college) talent. Over that big of a sample size and given a certain minimal threshold of talent, anyone's going to make enough contact over a 10-game span to hit .429. Of course, there's absolutely no way to test that theory.

Anyway, my delusions are not the point. Mark Kotsay will not bat in the three-spot for the White Sox.

It's Dankerific
03-25-2010, 12:03 AM
I find it surprising that this surprises anyone. this is vintage ozzie.

Craig Grebeck
03-25-2010, 12:16 AM
Idiotic.

DirtySox
03-25-2010, 12:23 AM
:puking:

Dibbs
03-25-2010, 01:16 AM
Seriously, Ozzie's time is about up.

pudge
03-25-2010, 01:20 AM
Haha...I knew I'd get this response.

Do I have to put up my life savings against yours? What're your life savings?

I honestly do think I could, but I'm not suggesting that I have anything approaching MLB (or even A-ball or Div I college) talent. Over that big of a sample size and given a certain minimal threshold of talent, anyone's going to make enough contact over a 10-game span to hit .429. Of course, there's absolutely no way to test that theory.

Anyway, my delusions are not the point. Mark Kotsay will not bat in the three-spot for the White Sox.

I think by games 990-1000 you would have seen so much professional-level pitching that you would pull it off! That's like five straight years worth of experience. They mostly throw fastballs in the spring anyway. Didn't Billy Crystal get a base hit once for god sake?

Nellie_Fox
03-25-2010, 01:28 AM
Didn't Billy Crystal get a base hit once for god sake?He got one AB in a spring training game. He struck out.

southsideirish71
03-25-2010, 01:31 AM
This should put it into the correct context. Here are the splits against righties last year.

Podsednik 2009
.297 BA .352 OBP .429 SLG .780 OPS

Kotsay 2009

.290 BA .347 OBP .419 SLG .766 OPS

kittle42
03-25-2010, 01:42 AM
I think by games 990-1000 you would have seen so much professional-level pitching that you would pull it off! That's like five straight years worth of experience. They mostly throw fastballs in the spring anyway. Didn't Billy Crystal get a base hit once for god sake?

I hear it takes 1000 MLB ABs to evaluate a player.

JermaineDye05
03-25-2010, 01:43 AM
I don't know why people are condemning Ozzie for something he said. Just because he said he's thinking about doing this, doesn't mean it will happen.

Also if he does do this, then if Kotsay is bad there, which he most likely will be, it won't take long for Ozzie to scrap that idea.

Give Ozzie a little bit of credit. He was pretty quick to scrap the DeWayne Wise at lead-off idea last year. DeWayne was moved to the bottom of the order before the end of the first series.

jabrch
03-25-2010, 01:44 AM
Seriously, Ozzie's time is about up.


Because of spring training chatter? I wouldn't overreact to this stuff.

Ranger
03-25-2010, 01:55 AM
When you have a DH projected to hit 8th that's bad enough...it shows that you lack talent. But to put the 8th place quality hitter 3rd, is lunacy.

This is the same clown-managing that Guillen's been doing the prior 3 seasons....he puts bad hitters in the lineup and jiggles the lineup to get them maximum at bats (see Erstad, 2007)...in 2007 Guillen's clowning killed the offense....hopefully it won't this year.

Really? You really think a bunch of these guys struggled to hit because of Ozzie? I doubt, with just about every fiber of my being, that he has that sort of power.

He juggles the lineup when guys stink. And he juggles the lineup when players need a break. I'll post here something I posted in another forum on a similar topic:

For some reason, some people have this perception of Ozzie that he makes these extraordinarily ridiculous lineup and bullpen decisions. The problem with that thought is that it just isn't true. Ozzie is, actually, a fairly standard game manager. The managing of the lineups isn't as crazy as people like to think, either. LOTS of managers do the same lineup jumble that Ozzie does (just take a look at some of Leyland's lineups, for example) and he primarily does it when the lineup is struggling or when guys need rest.

And I know there are people here that simply cannot grasp the concept of professional ballplayers needing a day of rest here and there, but it's absolutely true. Part of the reason is that a lot of these guys have some health issues that none of you will ever hear about. I can tell you that there are at least two guys that are tremendously important to this team that have nagging shoulder problems. Naturally, they will get days off even when it seems to the fans like they shouldn't.


I don't know why people are condemning Ozzie for something he said. Just because he said he's thinking about doing this, doesn't mean it will happen.

Also if he does do this, then if Kotsay is bad there, which he most likely will be, it won't take long for Ozzie to scrap that idea.

Give Ozzie a little bit of credit. He was pretty quick to scrap the DeWayne Wise at lead-off idea last year. DeWayne was moved to the bottom of the order before the end of the first series.

Because of spring training chatter? I wouldn't overreact to this stuff.

Thoughts from perfectly reasonable people.

chisox117
03-25-2010, 01:59 AM
Didn't Billy Crystal get a base hit once for god sake?

Crystal didn't. Maybe you're thinking of Garth Brooks who connected for a single off Mike Sirotka. Unfortunately I was at that game.

Dibbs
03-25-2010, 02:09 AM
Give Ozzie a little bit of credit. He was pretty quick to scrap the DeWayne Wise at lead-off idea last year. DeWayne was moved to the bottom of the order before the end of the first series.

I am not giving him any credit for that. It was a terrible idea in the first place.

BadBobbyJenks
03-25-2010, 03:09 AM
Really? You really think a bunch of these guys struggled to hit because of Ozzie? I doubt, with just about every fiber of my being, that he has that sort of power.

He juggles the lineup when guys stink. And he juggles the lineup when players need a break. I'll post here something I posted in another forum on a similar topic:

For some reason, some people have this perception of Ozzie that he makes these extraordinarily ridiculous lineup and bullpen decisions. The problem with that thought is that it just isn't true. Ozzie is, actually, a fairly standard game manager. The managing of the lineups isn't as crazy as people like to think, either. LOTS of managers do the same lineup jumble that Ozzie does (just take a look at some of Leyland's lineups, for example) and he primarily does it when the lineup is struggling or when guys need rest.

And I know there are people here that simply cannot grasp the concept of professional ballplayers needing a day of rest here and there, but it's absolutely true. Part of the reason is that a lot of these guys have some health issues that none of you will ever hear about. I can tell you that there are at least two guys that are tremendously important to this team that have nagging shoulder problems. Naturally, they will get days off even when it seems to the fans like they shouldn't.






Thoughts from perfectly reasonable people.

Chris, please tell me that you think it would be crazy to bat Kotsay 3rd against righties on a regular basis.

doublem23
03-25-2010, 04:28 AM
Because of spring training chatter? I wouldn't overreact to this stuff.

Just like that "Spring Training chatter" last year when he said he would bat Dewayne Wise lead-off, right?

Frater Perdurabo
03-25-2010, 06:38 AM
I am more concerned about Ozzie's statement that he often would not have Pierre lead off against LHP.

Pierre's career average against LHP is .304.

Yet Ozzie wants Vizquel (who was signed for his defense and ability to tutor our young infielders) to lead off against LHP.

Can an Ozzpologist please explain this to me?

Craig Grebeck
03-25-2010, 06:41 AM
The fact that he's considering this is indicative of a lack of fundamental baseball understanding.

LITTLE NELL
03-25-2010, 06:55 AM
Kotsay is a real good player to have around as a solid 4th outfielder or part time DH but to bat him third in the lineup is just plain lunacy.
Ozzie, get real.

CLR01
03-25-2010, 07:34 AM
I am more concerned about Ozzie's statement that he often would not have Pierre lead off against LHP.

Pierre's career average against LHP is .304.

Yet Ozzie wants Vizquel (who was signed for his defense and ability to tutor our young infielders) to lead off against LHP.

Can an Ozzpologist please explain this to me?


Ozzie is ****ing awesome therefore everything he says or does is awesome!!!

jabrch
03-25-2010, 07:36 AM
Just like that "Spring Training chatter" last year when he said he would bat Dewayne Wise lead-off, right?

How many times did Wise lead off last year?

SI1020
03-25-2010, 07:46 AM
How many times did Wise lead off last year? Once was twice too many.

NLaloosh
03-25-2010, 08:24 AM
Haha...I knew I'd get this response.

Do I have to put up my life savings against yours? What're your life savings?

I honestly do think I could, but I'm not suggesting that I have anything approaching MLB (or even A-ball or Div I college) talent. Over that big of a sample size and given a certain minimal threshold of talent, anyone's going to make enough contact over a 10-game span to hit .429. Of course, there's absolutely no way to test that theory.

Anyway, my delusions are not the point. Mark Kotsay will not bat in the three-spot for the White Sox.

BRDSR should be batting third against righties! I'm in full support of this proposal!

asindc
03-25-2010, 08:27 AM
Did I miss something or was there no quote from Ozzie in that article that suggested this is an idea he is considering?

Carolina Kenny
03-25-2010, 08:29 AM
I saw in the boxscore yesterday that H.Baines was 0 for 1.

Does anyone know if he will DH this year for us?

Rdy2PlayBall
03-25-2010, 08:31 AM
I could not find the quote where Ozzie said this. Could someone help me out?

doublem23
03-25-2010, 08:39 AM
How many times did Wise lead off last year?

What does that have to do with anything? Last year, Ozzie went out and said that he was thinking of leading off Dewayne. Ozzie apologists, myself included, countered saying it was Ozzie just talking out his ass and he'd never try something that stupid. Low and behold, Dewayne Wise was the Opening Day lead-off hitter. So spare me your routine, Ozzie's not a pathological liar, he may run his mouth but he really does consider these hairbrained ideas. Having Wise lead-off once is ridiculous. Having Kotsay bat in the middle of the order once is ridiculous. Especially considering we don't really have the luxury to piss away games so he can tinker with his bull**** lineups.

doublem23
03-25-2010, 08:43 AM
Did I miss something or was there no quote from Ozzie in that article that suggested this is an idea he is considering?

I could not find the quote where Ozzie said this. Could someone help me out?

Just because there's no direct quote doesn't mean it wasn't said. Its basically alluded in the 2nd paragraph. Newspapers don't just print interviews verbatim, generally writers edit that stuff for readability. Gonzales attributes this idea to Ozzie in the 2nd sentence.

Rdy2PlayBall
03-25-2010, 08:51 AM
Just because there's no direct quote doesn't mean it wasn't said. Its basically alluded in the 2nd paragraph. Newspapers don't just print interviews verbatim, generally writers edit that stuff for readability. Gonzales attributes this idea to Ozzie in the 2nd sentence.I'm not saying it wasn't said... I just want to see the quote. Maybe it was something along the line of "If Kotsay keeps playing like this, I might put him in the 3 spot!" I'm sure managers have said that about rookies or Dawayne Wise's in the past when they have a good few ST games. It doesn't mean we have to take them seriously. I mean really, if he plays like this, who cares if he bats 3rd? If he doesn't, I doubt Ozzie is stupid enough to leave him there.

asindc
03-25-2010, 08:58 AM
Just because there's no direct quote doesn't mean it wasn't said. Its basically alluded in the 2nd paragraph. Newspapers don't just print interviews verbatim, generally writers edit that stuff for readability. Gonzales attributes this idea to Ozzie in the 2nd sentence.

No doubt that it was alluded to... by Gonzales. Nothing in that article suggests that Ozzie told him such. That second paragraph only mentions that Ozzie has Kotsay as "an option" since he "doesn't want to bat a left-handed hitter high in the order just for the sake of balance." The quotes are attributed to the author, not Ozzie himself. Do you really think Gonzales would fail to write a direct quote from Ozzie into the story if he had it?

By the way, later in the article Gonzales states that Ozzie "emphasized" that he will wait until the end of ST to decide his lineup and that it will be subject to change with potential slumps and injuries.

jabrch
03-25-2010, 09:17 AM
What does that have to do with anything? Last year, Ozzie went out and said that he was thinking of leading off Dewayne. Ozzie apologists, myself included, countered saying it was Ozzie just talking out his ass and he'd never try something that stupid. Low and behold, Dewayne Wise was the Opening Day lead-off hitter. So spare me your routine, Ozzie's not a pathological liar, he may run his mouth but he really does consider these hairbrained ideas. Having Wise lead-off once is ridiculous. Having Kotsay bat in the middle of the order once is ridiculous. Especially considering we don't really have the luxury to piss away games so he can tinker with his bull**** lineups.

Dubs, did you just ask me what does "how many games did Wise lead off" have to do with Ozzie talking about Wise leading off? Seriously?

Schtick...I don't believe you are a complete idiot, so I am concluding this is more of your schtick. You know full well the difference between lineup construction A and B is virtually irrelevant. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill about the Blabberings of Mushmouth the Manager or about a guy who doesn't always go by the book and will deal with sometimes a good call and sometimes a bad one.

jabrch
03-25-2010, 09:17 AM
By the way, later in the article Gonzales states that Ozzie "emphasized" that he will wait until the end of ST to decide his lineup and that it will be subject to to change with potential slumps and injuries.

A wait and see approach...seems prudent.

doublem23
03-25-2010, 09:43 AM
Dubs, did you just ask me what does "how many games did Wise lead off" have to do with Ozzie talking about Wise leading off? Seriously?

Schtick...I don't believe you are a complete idiot, so I am concluding this is more of your schtick. You know full well the difference between lineup construction A and B is virtually irrelevant. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill about the Blabberings of Mushmouth the Manager or about a guy who doesn't always go by the book and will deal with sometimes a good call and sometimes a bad one.

I am really growing tired of you pretending to play WSI Psychiatrist. This may be hard for you to believe, but I'm not actually here to win your approval.

jabrch
03-25-2010, 10:06 AM
I am really growing tired of you pretending to play WSI Psychiatrist. This may be hard for you to believe, but I'm not actually here to win your approval.

I have no idea how to respond to this tripe.

FielderJones
03-25-2010, 10:22 AM
A wait and see approach...seems prudent.

Good luck with that here. If you take a wait and see approach you are an Ozzpologist.

:welcome:

Nellie_Fox
03-25-2010, 10:35 AM
The fact that he's considering this is indicative of a lack of fundamental baseball understanding.Yeah, you know more about fundamental baseball than Ozzie. You're a complete baseball maven.

Craig Grebeck
03-25-2010, 10:43 AM
Yeah, you know more about fundamental baseball than Ozzie. You're a complete baseball maven.
Your use of sarcasm as a defense mechanism displays both a) immaturity and b) an inability to defend Ozzie's lack of baseball understanding.

I guess not putting one of the worst hitters on the team in the 3-hole makes me a maven. Earl Weaver must be God then.

Nellie_Fox
03-25-2010, 10:44 AM
Your use of sarcasm as a defense mechanism displays both a) immaturity and b) an inability to defend Ozzie's lack of baseball understanding.

I guess not putting one of the worst hitters on the team in the 3-hole makes me a maven. Earl Weaver must be God then.It was just arrogance of your statement, not the validity of your objection, that I was making reference to.

kittle42
03-25-2010, 11:42 AM
Crystal didn't. Maybe you're thinking of Garth Brooks who connected for a single off Mike Sirotka. Unfortunately I was at that game.

Chris Gaines would have hit a homer. Because he's emo.

GoGoCrede
03-25-2010, 11:43 AM
Chris Gaines would have hit a homer. Because he's emo.

:rolling: What a huge career misstep by Brooks.

kittle42
03-25-2010, 11:44 AM
Just like that "Spring Training chatter" last year when he said he would bat Dewayne Wise lead-off, right?

Come now, doubs - you don't know the rules?

1. Never trust anything Ozzie or Kenny say.

2. When the thing Ozzie or Kenny said happens, never criticize it until it completely proves to be a horrible idea.

3. Even then, there's probably some good reason you're wrong.

LoveYourSuit
03-25-2010, 11:48 AM
Chris, please tell me that you think it would be crazy to bat Kotsay 3rd against righties on a regular basis.


Chris has become the company mouthpiece for this team.

The next negative thing he says about the Sox will be his first.

But seeing how the Sox monitor public forums and the internet, I don't blame him.

spawn
03-25-2010, 11:49 AM
Chris has become the company mouthpiece for this team.

The next negative thing he says about the Sox will be his first.

But seeing how the Sox monitor public forums and the internet, I don't blame him.
:rolleyes:

I've heard Ranger stress his concerns for the team. Just because he isn't over-the-top with his criticism doesn't make him the company mouthpiece. I think that is a very assinine statement, especially the forum and internet monitoring.

Craig Grebeck
03-25-2010, 01:04 PM
If we're all crazy for thinking it's a terrible idea, someone at least counter with something that will make Ozzie seem remotely rational for his speculation regarding Viz and Kotsay.

JermaineDye05
03-25-2010, 02:05 PM
If we're all crazy for thinking it's a terrible idea, someone at least counter with something that will make Ozzie seem remotely rational for his speculation regarding Viz and Kotsay.

We don't think you're crazy for thinking it's a terrible idea.

We think you're crazy for overreacting to something that was "supposedly" said during ST. I put supposedly in quotes because Gonzales never uses a direct quote from Ozzie that states he would like Kotsay to bat 3rd in the lineup against righties.

Gonzales is a writer for the tribune, you can't take everything he writes at face value. Considering part of his job entails getting readers for the trib, one can assume that he will put his own creative twist to what players and managers do and don't say. For all we know, Ozzie could have listed a couple players he was thinking of putting in the 3 hole against righties and Kotsay was at the bottom of that list.

One thing of importance to note that Gonzales wrote was that Ozzie said he won't make his decision on the lineup until the end of March so nothing at all is set in stone.

I think it's silly to be condemning Ozzie for something he's not even directly quoted a saying during ST.

Tragg
03-25-2010, 02:18 PM
Really? You really think a bunch of these guys struggled to hit because of Ozzie? I doubt, with just about every fiber of my being, that he has that sort of power.

He juggles the lineup when guys stink. And he juggles the lineup when players need a break. I'll post here something I posted in another forum on a similar topic:
.They didn't hit poorly because of Ozzie; they hit poorly because they can't hit. I think they were in the lineup because of Ozzie.
Wise, Owens, Erstad and apparently Kotsay were not atop (or toward the top) of the lineup because of injuries and days off....they were there in Guillen's regular lineup.
I suspect that one reason we don't see the same nonsense with the pitching staff is either a)Guillen has a good eye for talent for pitchers that he lacks for hitters and b)The strength of pitching coach Cooper. Probably both.

TomBradley72
03-25-2010, 02:50 PM
I think Ozzie is probably taking the "tinkering" a little too far...but the stats say that Kotsay is a lifetime .282 hitter vs. RH pitching, so I don't think is complete lunacy. He also was one hit shy of hitting .300 for the White Sox last year after coming over from Boston across 127 ABs.

Also, I think Ozzie makes statements in the press to motivate his players...I think he's signaling to Kotsay that if he performs he could have a larger role with the team. Similar to the comments he's made about Andruw Jones getting ABs if he's hitting well.

That said, TCQ actually hits RH better than LH...so I don't see how this makes sense.

DirtySox
03-25-2010, 02:52 PM
That said, TCQ actually hits RH better than LH...so I don't see how this makes sense.


You are correct. It doesn't make any sense.

Over the last 2 seasons:


Carlos Quentin vs. RHP: .278/.367/.535
Mark Kotsay vs. RHP: .289/.346/.427

Rdy2PlayBall
03-25-2010, 03:07 PM
Lets look at it this way, the only way Kotsay is batting 3rd is if Quentin is out or playing poorly... if that's the case, we are screwed either way, whoever bats 3rd. All we can do is hope Quentin produces, and we wont have to worry about any of this. Ozzie may talk funny, but he isn't a complete idiot.

gobears1987
03-25-2010, 03:13 PM
Because of spring training chatter? I wouldn't overreact to this stuff.

Welcome to WSI. These people are just out for Ozzie's head because they don't like he he treated their pretty boy who sucked. It's both sad and funny to watch at the same time. These are the same people who ripped Ozzie for putting Alexei on the Sox big league roster without ever playing a game in the minors. How did that one work out?

soltrain21
03-25-2010, 03:19 PM
Welcome to WSI. These people are just out for Ozzie's head because they don't like he he treated their pretty boy who sucked. It's both sad and funny to watch at the same time. These are the same people who ripped Ozzie for putting Alexei on the Sox big league roster without ever playing a game in the minors. How did that one work out?

I don't think that is it at all, and it's sad and funny you think that. Wow, see how that works?

And as for your second point - he also put Rob M in CF. How did that one work out?

doublem23
03-25-2010, 03:21 PM
Welcome to WSI. These people are just out for Ozzie's head because they don't like he he treated their pretty boy who sucked. It's both sad and funny to watch at the same time. These are the same people who ripped Ozzie for putting Alexei on the Sox big league roster without ever playing a game in the minors. How did that one work out?

It could be that we have independent thoughts and think that Mark Kotsay batting 3rd is stupid.

spawn
03-25-2010, 03:23 PM
These people are just out for Ozzie's head because they don't like he he treated their pretty boy who sucked.
Yeah...I don't think that's the reason at all. There are people here who would rather have a manager other than Ozzie, but not everyone is upset with him for BA. There are only two posters here who bleed Brian Anderson IMO.

jabrch
03-25-2010, 03:29 PM
And as for your second point - he also put Rob M in CF. How did that one work out?


You get that nobody really thinks OG is perfect and doesn't make mistakes, right?

soltrain21
03-25-2010, 03:44 PM
You get that nobody really thinks OG is perfect and doesn't make mistakes, right?

Please, tell me where I said people believe that.

thedudeabides
03-25-2010, 03:46 PM
I think Ozzie is probably taking the "tinkering" a little too far...but the stats say that Kotsay is a lifetime .282 hitter vs. RH pitching, so I don't think is complete lunacy. He also was one hit shy of hitting .300 for the White Sox last year after coming over from Boston across 127 ABs.

Also, I think Ozzie makes statements in the press to motivate his players...I think he's signaling to Kotsay that if he performs he could have a larger role with the team. Similar to the comments he's made about Andruw Jones getting ABs if he's hitting well.

That said, TCQ actually hits RH better than LH...so I don't see how this makes sense.

Of course he does. There is a lot more to being a manager than making out linup cards and changing pitchers.

Ozzie also said Andruw Jones will be in the lineup against righties and lefties if he keeps hitting. He said Juan Pierre will be the everyday leadoff hitter. He has said Vizquel will leadoff against tough lefties when Pierre needs a break. He said Alexei will leadoff against tough lefties. He has said Quentin is the #3 hitter. He has said Kotsay may hit #3(although we haven't seen the quote or the context). He has said many guys will be in the #5 hole.

He's said a lot of things. All of these things can't possibly happen. He's just trying to keep people motivated and earning at bats. I really don't understand what the problem is? Yet, the Ozzie bashers will never pass up an opportunity to call him an idiot and freak out about things that haven't even happened, or were taken completely out of context.

jabrch
03-25-2010, 03:54 PM
Please, tell me where I said people believe that.

You did not - you pointed out a particular scenario as if there are people out there who think Mack is a good CF...That's why I asked you a question. I'll assume based on your response that the answer is no, even though you didn't answer the Q. So going on that assumption, what is the relevance of Mack in CF? Guillen had ****ty choices - he took the guy who he knew could hit, and hoped the defense didn't kill him. If he went the other way, he'd have taken a guy he knew could field, and hoped the hitting didn't kill him. Bottom line - there was no right or wrong there. He never passed up on a star player to play an inferior player. He chose what he felt was the lesser of two evils.

A manager makes lots of decisions. 95% of them are easy. Who's going to be in our rotation? Who's our starting 1B? Who's going to catch? etc. And he will have decisions that are not so easy, but that aren't factually good or bad when making them. Guillen/Williams tried to go and get Damon. That didn't work out. So he's going with what they think is the next best option. It's not 100% right or wrong at the time it is made...it's a choice that a team makes based on resource allocation.

goon
03-25-2010, 04:05 PM
Did Guillen actually say this or is it because Kotsay hit 3rd in a Spring Training game? I mean, he's done some strange and stupid things over the years, but this would make his like top 3 of dumbest decisions as a manager.

asindc
03-25-2010, 04:12 PM
Did Guillen actually say this or is it because Kotsay hit 3rd in a Spring Training game? I mean, he's done some strange and stupid things over the years, but this would make his like top 3 of dumbest decisions as a manager.

As far as the article indicates, Gonzales is the one saying it. In fact, within the body of the article, he is not even implying that Ozzie said it. My guess is that Gonzales visits Sox fan sites on occasions and writes certain articles so as to initiate more hits to it.

Dibbs
03-25-2010, 04:17 PM
Welcome to WSI. These people are just out for Ozzie's head because they don't like he he treated their pretty boy who sucked. It's both sad and funny to watch at the same time. These are the same people who ripped Ozzie for putting Alexei on the Sox big league roster without ever playing a game in the minors. How did that one work out?

Dude, you think this is about Brian Anderson? I literally laughed out loud when I read that. You couldn't be more off base.

I don't remember anybody upset about Alexei starting the year with Sox in 2007 either. I think most were excited to see what he could do. He started slow and drew some deserved criticism at the time.

kittle42
03-25-2010, 04:18 PM
I want to go on WSI record on my Ozzie feelings. This seems like a good thread for it.

I think Ozzie is a good manager of personalities and a pretty good motivator, despite his sometimes unorthodox methods. he has been great at being the "face" of the team so as to take media pressure off his players.

I think Ozzie is generally a poor pre-game and in-game manager. I think he relies on L/R matchups with little appreciation for actual statistics. I think he has a tendency to be Manuel-esque with his lineups, and that he thinks it is a great idea. I think his bullpen management is questionable.

That all being said, I still support him and like him as manager, but I do agree with his own assertion that if "the team he wants" fails this season, it's on his head, mostly.

BadBobbyJenks
03-25-2010, 04:26 PM
I dont know whats crazier, Kotsay batting third or the legend of Brian Anderson some how making it into this thread.

Edit: And I am pretty much in agreement with Kittle's last post about Ozzie.

Danielgosox38
03-25-2010, 05:59 PM
Welcome to WSI. These people are just out for Ozzie's head because they don't like he he treated their pretty boy who sucked. It's both sad and funny to watch at the same time. These are the same people who ripped Ozzie for putting Alexei on the Sox big league roster without ever playing a game in the minors. How did that one work out?


This couldn't be any further from the truth. This is just hysterical that you think that.

doublem23
03-25-2010, 06:16 PM
I want to go on WSI record on my Ozzie feelings. This seems like a good thread for it.

I think Ozzie is a good manager of personalities and a pretty good motivator, despite his sometimes unorthodox methods. he has been great at being the "face" of the team so as to take media pressure off his players.

I think Ozzie is generally a poor pre-game and in-game manager. I think he relies on L/R matchups with little appreciation for actual statistics. I think he has a tendency to be Manuel-esque with his lineups, and that he thinks it is a great idea. I think his bullpen management is questionable.

That all being said, I still support him and like him as manager, but I do agree with his own assertion that if "the team he wants" fails this season, it's on his head, mostly.

I agree mostly with that, but I'll add that I'm not so sure of Ozzie's ability to get the most out of his players right now. If he has a good team, I think he's able to juggle the pieces well enough, but it seems like if you don't give him everything he needs, his teams just fall apart.

That said, this is his team. If we don't win the division this year, I want him out.

Frater Perdurabo
03-25-2010, 07:00 PM
I want to go on WSI record on my Ozzie feelings. This seems like a good thread for it.

I think Ozzie is a good manager of personalities and a pretty good motivator, despite his sometimes unorthodox methods. he has been great at being the "face" of the team so as to take media pressure off his players.

I think Ozzie is generally a poor pre-game and in-game manager. I think he relies on L/R matchups with little appreciation for actual statistics. I think he has a tendency to be Manuel-esque with his lineups, and that he thinks it is a great idea. I think his bullpen management is questionable.

That all being said, I still support him and like him as manager, but I do agree with his own assertion that if "the team he wants" fails this season, it's on his head, mostly.

Spot on. I agree. I would only add that he is not a great judge of talent.

Brian26
03-25-2010, 07:37 PM
I don't agree with Kotsay batting third on a regular basis, but this needs to be noted. I was looking through some old scorecards from the 2005 season recently. In many games down the stretch, Ozzie had Aaron Rowand batting third. Carl Everett batted third, as did AJ, many times during the season too. It is what it is.

Frater Perdurabo
03-25-2010, 08:40 PM
I don't agree with Kotsay batting third on a regular basis, but this needs to be noted. I was looking through some old scorecards from the 2005 season recently. In many games down the stretch, Ozzie had Aaron Rowand batting third. Carl Everett batted third, as did AJ, many times during the season too. It is what it is.

And the 2005 Sox played .500 ball down the stretch while Cleveland came roaring back into the race. But your larger point is true; the 2005 Sox lacked a prototypical #3 hitter all year, other than midseason when a hobbled Frank Thomas hit third, and in the postseason when Dye hit well in that spot. But that's the ONLY thing the 2005 Sox lacked.

I think the 2010 Sox look a lot like the 2005 Sox looked on paper before that season began. One glaring difference is that Crede was a much better defender than Teahen. This bullpen has more experience, though.

jabrch
03-25-2010, 09:11 PM
And the 2005 Sox played .500 ball down the stretch while Cleveland came roaring back into the race. But your larger point is true; the 2005 Sox lacked a prototypical #3 hitter all year, other than midseason when a hobbled Frank Thomas hit third, and in the postseason when Dye hit well in that spot. But that's the ONLY thing the 2005 Sox lacked.

I think the 2010 Sox look a lot like the 2005 Sox looked on paper before that season began. One glaring difference is that Crede was a much better defender than Teahen. This bullpen has more experience, though.

I'd say the 2010 team has a better bench/more depth also. If the 2010 team gets the type of pitching from 1-4, with all getting 32 or 33 starts and ERAs under 4.00, and if we get a decent year from Freddy, we will be tough for the other flawed AL Central teams to beat. We could just as easily suck eggs if our starting pitching doesn't deliver, our pen sucks and nobody hits. I have no clue which will happen. Nor does anyone else.

canOcorn
03-25-2010, 10:21 PM
I don't agree with Kotsay batting third on a regular basis, but this needs to be noted. I was looking through some old scorecards from the 2005 season recently. In many games down the stretch, Ozzie had Aaron Rowand batting third. Carl Everett batted third, as did AJ, many times during the season too. It is what it is.

And it is on Ozzie. He's happy with the roster. Make it happen. Zimmer pulled **** out of his ass to get the Flubs to the playoffs and it imploded. Ozzie may have been a brainiac or was extremely lucky in 2005. I'll pass on having his kid tell him who to bat to bail us out again. Let him sink or swim. Win the division and don't get swept because we were the tallest midget in the division and maybe we'll forget the 'Owens over tCQ' fiasco and the asinine idea of batting Kotsay third.

SI1020
03-31-2010, 10:36 AM
I want to go on WSI record on my Ozzie feelings. This seems like a good thread for it.

I think Ozzie is a good manager of personalities and a pretty good motivator, despite his sometimes unorthodox methods. he has been great at being the "face" of the team so as to take media pressure off his players.

I think Ozzie is generally a poor pre-game and in-game manager. I think he relies on L/R matchups with little appreciation for actual statistics. I think he has a tendency to be Manuel-esque with his lineups, and that he thinks it is a great idea. I think his bullpen management is questionable.

That all being said, I still support him and like him as manager, but I do agree with his own assertion that if "the team he wants" fails this season, it's on his head, mostly. Excellent.

WhiteSoxFTW
03-31-2010, 10:57 AM
I want to go on WSI record on my Ozzie feelings. This seems like a good thread for it.

I think Ozzie is a good manager of personalities and a pretty good motivator, despite his sometimes unorthodox methods. he has been great at being the "face" of the team so as to take media pressure off his players.

I think Ozzie is generally a poor pre-game and in-game manager. I think he relies on L/R matchups with little appreciation for actual statistics. I think he has a tendency to be Manuel-esque with his lineups, and that he thinks it is a great idea. I think his bullpen management is questionable.

That all being said, I still support him and like him as manager, but I do agree with his own assertion that if "the team he wants" fails this season, it's on his head, mostly.
That is one of the biggest issues I have with him. A straight L/R point of view seems so asinine to me.

TomBradley72
03-31-2010, 12:00 PM
and maybe we'll forget the 'Owens over tCQ' fiasco and the asinine idea of batting Kotsay third.

In 2008, TCQ had 86 ABs in March/April, Owens was in AAA....what fiasco are you referring to?

soltrain21
03-31-2010, 01:44 PM
In 2008, TCQ had 86 ABs in March/April, Owens was in AAA....what fiasco are you referring to?

I think he is talking about the fact that Owens was going to make the team if he wouldn't have gotten hurt.

Harry Chappas
03-31-2010, 01:45 PM
Spot on. I agree. I would only add that he is not a great judge of talent.

Based on what, exactly? I wasn't aware that Ozzie also played the role of GM.

He plays the hand he is dealt. I don't get the impression that KW solicits Ozzie's opinion very often, so if KW gives him a Rob Mackowiak or Nick Swisher, what is Guillen supposed to do? It wasn't like there was a budding superstar riding the pine. This year is decidedly different since both Guillen and Williams have basically said that the 'DH-by-committee' is Guillen's baby. If it fails, it'll be on Ozzie, but I need to see evidence of Guillen benching superior players to agree with your assertion that he is a poor judge of talent.

As for Kotsay batting 3rd, it is absolutely ridiculous to get fired up over what is probably a writer's spin on the subject. Seriously, some of you guys need to switch to decaf. Ozzie's been called an idiot numerous times in this thread for a move that he hasn't even made based on someone's interpretation of something he may or may not have even said.

Jim Shorts
03-31-2010, 02:35 PM
Based on what, exactly? I wasn't aware that Ozzie also played the role of GM.

He plays the hand he is dealt. I don't get the impression that KW solicits Ozzie's opinion very often, so if KW gives him a Rob Mackowiak or Nick Swisher, what is Guillen supposed to do? It wasn't like there was a budding superstar riding the pine. This year is decidedly different since both Guillen and Williams have basically said that the 'DH-by-committee' is Guillen's baby. If it fails, it'll be on Ozzie, but I need to see evidence of Guillen benching superior players to agree with your assertion that he is a poor judge of talent.

As for Kotsay batting 3rd, it is absolutely ridiculous to get fired up over what is probably a writer's spin on the subject. Seriously, some of you guys need to switch to decaf. Ozzie's been called an idiot numerous times in this thread for a move that he hasn't even made based on someone's interpretation of something he may or may not have even said.


How dare you throw logic and reason around these parts

It's Dankerific
03-31-2010, 02:41 PM
Based on what, exactly? I wasn't aware that Ozzie also played the role of GM.

He plays the hand he is dealt. I don't get the impression that KW solicits Ozzie's opinion very often, so if KW gives him a Rob Mackowiak or Nick Swisher, what is Guillen supposed to do? It wasn't like there was a budding superstar riding the pine. This year is decidedly different since both Guillen and Williams have basically said that the 'DH-by-committee' is Guillen's baby. If it fails, it'll be on Ozzie, but I need to see evidence of Guillen benching superior players to agree with your assertion that he is a poor judge of talent.

As for Kotsay batting 3rd, it is absolutely ridiculous to get fired up over what is probably a writer's spin on the subject. Seriously, some of you guys need to switch to decaf. Ozzie's been called an idiot numerous times in this thread for a move that he hasn't even made based on someone's interpretation of something he may or may not have even said.

Yes there was.

Jim Shorts
03-31-2010, 02:45 PM
Yes there was.



....and here we go ...

SephClone89
03-31-2010, 02:58 PM
Yes there was.

:dumbpeople:

BadBobbyJenks
03-31-2010, 03:08 PM
Based on what, exactly? I wasn't aware that Ozzie also played the role of GM.

He plays the hand he is dealt. I don't get the impression that KW solicits Ozzie's opinion very often, so if KW gives him a Rob Mackowiak or Nick Swisher, what is Guillen supposed to do? It wasn't like there was a budding superstar riding the pine. This year is decidedly different since both Guillen and Williams have basically said that the 'DH-by-committee' is Guillen's baby. If it fails, it'll be on Ozzie, but I need to see evidence of Guillen benching superior players to agree with your assertion that he is a poor judge of talent.

As for Kotsay batting 3rd, it is absolutely ridiculous to get fired up over what is probably a writer's spin on the subject. Seriously, some of you guys need to switch to decaf. Ozzie's been called an idiot numerous times in this thread for a move that he hasn't even made based on someone's interpretation of something he may or may not have even said.

Owens was ahead of Quentin on Ozzie's depth chart.

It's Dankerific
03-31-2010, 03:19 PM
Owens was ahead of Quentin on Ozzie's depth chart.

But its not like he was a budding superstar... oh wait.

thedudeabides
03-31-2010, 03:23 PM
Owens was ahead of Quentin on Ozzie's depth chart.


No he wasn't. They wanted Owens to lead off and play CF. Quentin was still banged up(shoulder injury) and they didn't think he'd be healthy for the start of the season. The argument that Ozzie was going to pick Owens over Quentin is just false.

Nellie_Fox
03-31-2010, 03:42 PM
No he wasn't. They wanted Owens to lead off and play CF. Quentin was still banged up(shoulder injury) and they didn't think he'd be healthy for the start of the season. The argument that Ozzie was going to pick Owens over Quentin is just false.That's the way I remember it, too.

Harry Chappas
03-31-2010, 03:54 PM
Owens was ahead of Quentin on Ozzie's depth chart.

This proves that either you didn't pay close attention to the Spring training in 2008, or, you have an agenda. CQ was banged up (recovering from a partially torn labrum) and didn't set the world on fire in 2007 either with Arizona or with their AAA affiliate. No one knew what the Sox had, least of all any of us. Furthermore, you don't know what Ozzie's depth chart looked like. He could have been propping up Owens with the hopes that CQ would get healthy and play up to his ability. Owens injury could have opened the door for CQ, or, he may have been the odd man out anyway. We'll probably never know.

asindc
03-31-2010, 03:58 PM
That's the way I remember it, too.

You remember it that way because that is the way it was. For the Ozzie-picking-Owens-over-TCQ argument to have any merit, Ozzie would have had to put Owens in ahead of TCQ once he came back from injury.

BadBobbyJenks
03-31-2010, 04:05 PM
This proves that either you didn't pay close attention to the Spring training in 2008, or, you have an agenda. CQ was banged up (recovering from a partially torn labrum) and didn't set the world on fire in 2007 either with Arizona or with their AAA affiliate. No one knew what the Sox had, least of all any of us. Furthermore, you don't know what Ozzie's depth chart looked like. He could have been propping up Owens with the hopes that CQ would get healthy and play up to his ability. Owens injury could have opened the door for CQ, or, he may have been the odd man out anyway. We'll probably never know.

Lol please shut the **** up about having an agenda. I am sick an tired of hearing this **** any time someone says something negative about Ozzie Guillen.

DirtySox
03-31-2010, 04:10 PM
Lol please shut the **** up about having an agenda. I am sick an tired of hearing this **** any time someone says something negative about Ozzie Guillen.

Quiet you agenda-haver!

Harry Chappas
03-31-2010, 04:11 PM
Lol please shut the **** up about having an agenda. I am sick an tired of hearing this **** any time someone says something negative about Ozzie Guillen.

Great comeback. You don't have an agenda so I guess that leaves the other option: you had NO idea what was going on in Spring training of 2008.

Maybe you ought to sit a play or two out.

Nellie_Fox
03-31-2010, 04:13 PM
Everybody play nice. Argue with each other's points, but don't let it get personal.

BadBobbyJenks
03-31-2010, 04:27 PM
Great comeback. You don't have an agenda so I guess that leaves the other option: you had NO idea what was going on in Spring training of 2008.

Maybe you ought to sit a play or two out.

Comeback? Did I enter a yomomma contest? Owens could not play and who was trotted out into the outfield? A shortstop named Alexei Ramirez. Which by the way is a fact, not an agenda.

Tragg
03-31-2010, 05:11 PM
This proves that either you didn't pay close attention to the Spring training in 2008, or, you have an agenda. CQ was banged up (recovering from a partially torn labrum) and didn't set the world on fire in 2007 either with Arizona or with their AAA affiliate. No one knew what the Sox had, least of all any of us. Furthermore, you don't know what Ozzie's depth chart looked like. He could have been propping up Owens with the hopes that CQ would get healthy and play up to his ability. Owens injury could have opened the door for CQ, or, he may have been the odd man out anyway. We'll probably never know.
and the next year he had DeWayne Wise pencilled in as leadoff hitter and nothing was going to sway him from that notion. Guillen called his spring "tremendous" when he checked in with a .301 obp (to be fair, that's 40 points higher than Wise ever experienced).
So, based on Guillen's managing in 2009, I will take Guillen at his word and that he DID evaluate Owens as better than Missle and Quentin.
And we can go back to 07 when Guillen got all gushy over Erstad who was intended to be a backup.
Guillen's track record of evaluating outfielders speaks for itself.

TomBradley72
03-31-2010, 05:18 PM
No he wasn't. They wanted Owens to lead off and play CF. Quentin was still banged up(shoulder injury) and they didn't think he'd be healthy for the start of the season. The argument that Ozzie was going to pick Owens over Quentin is just false.

Thank you.

BadBobbyJenks
03-31-2010, 05:34 PM
http://blogs.suntimes.com/whitesox/2008/03/what_to_do_about_leadof.html

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/mar/31/sports/chi-31-white-sox-bits-chicago-mar31

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/05/jerry-owens-blo.html

TomBradley72
03-31-2010, 05:53 PM
Comeback? Did I enter a yomomma contest? Owens could not play and who was trotted out into the outfield? A shortstop named Alexei Ramirez. Which by the way is a fact, not an agenda.

Yep...and he made one of the best throws I've ever seen on a double off the wall...nailing a shocked/surprised runner at second base. Ramirez could be a legitimate CF if that's where we needed him.

TomBradley72
03-31-2010, 05:57 PM
and the next year he had DeWayne Wise pencilled in as leadoff hitter and nothing was going to sway him from that notion. Guillen called his spring "tremendous" when he checked in with a .301 obp (to be fair, that's 40 points higher than Wise ever experienced).
So, based on Guillen's managing in 2009, I will take Guillen at his word and that he DID evaluate Owens as better than Missle and Quentin.
And we can go back to 07 when Guillen got all gushy over Erstad who was intended to be a backup.
Guillen's track record of evaluating outfielders speaks for itself.

Ramirez was a few weeks removed from Cuba, and TCQ with a damaged shoulder coming off a mediocre year in Arizona. Guillen also pushed for Beckham to be called up, Jenks to go in the closer role in 2005, Ramirez to play 2nd in 2008, so he's made some good judgement calls as well....Mackowiak was his one complete disaster...but to blame him for trying to find SOMEONE who could play CF after Rowand was traded and BA **** the bed with his 2-3 chances at the role is unfair.

(Look..I made this a BA thread!)

asindc
03-31-2010, 06:00 PM
Ramirez as a few eeks removed from Cuba, and TCQ with a damaged shoulder coming off a mediocre year in Arizona. Guillen also pushed for Beckham to be called up, Jenks to go in the closer role in 2005, Ramirez to play 2nd in 2008, so he's made some good judgement calls as well....Mackowiak was his one complete disaster...but to blame him for trying to find SOMEONE who could play CF after Rowand was traded and BA **** the bed with his 2-3 chances at the role is unfair.

(Look..I made this a BA thread!)

Shame on you.

Rdy2PlayBall
03-31-2010, 06:02 PM
Jerry Owens was pretty damn good last year in AAA. Next year might be his year. I hope he does good for some NL team... I've always rooted for him.

It's Dankerific
03-31-2010, 06:05 PM
We should get back to the topic. If Kotsay ever bats 3rd for the CWS, I hope everyone can be 100% behind that being a godawful, stupid and ridiculous managerial decision.

thedudeabides
03-31-2010, 06:13 PM
http://blogs.suntimes.com/whitesox/2008/03/what_to_do_about_leadof.html

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/mar/31/sports/chi-31-white-sox-bits-chicago-mar31

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/05/jerry-owens-blo.html

Were you trying to use these as arguments that Ozzie "chose" Owens over Quentin? Because they don't say that at all. :scratch:

jabrch
03-31-2010, 06:39 PM
That's the way I remember it, too.


I don't think we will ever really know what OG is thinking before it happens. He usually doesn't give the media the entire story. I don't doubt he wanted JO to be good enough to lead off and play CF every day. I also don't doubt he wanted TCQ to be healthy and good enough to play a corner and be a middle of the order bat. Had both come to fruition, it would have been a good problem that OG would have dealt with. Same this year - if Jones, Kotsay, Rios, Pierre, etc all deserve ABs, it will be a good problem and OG will do the best he can.

There's no way to say for sure what is right or wrong - and I trust management's experience to make those calls as the year goes along. They have proven (in my eyes) that they deserve that benefit of the doubt. I know others disagree - and that's' fine - I have no problem with that. I guess the good thing (in my opinion) is that JR/KW/OG are in charge and they will do it their way - and not give much a damn about the critics.

BadBobbyJenks
03-31-2010, 06:42 PM
Were you trying to use these as arguments that Ozzie "chose" Owens over Quentin? Because they don't say that at all. :scratch:


They all point to Ozzie wanting Jerry to leadoff in center. And Jerry in center means no spot for Quentin. And no spot for Quentin means Quentin is not playing. And Quentin not playing means Ozzie chose Jerry over Quentin.

TomBradley72
03-31-2010, 07:06 PM
They all point to Ozzie wanting Jerry to leadoff in center. And Jerry in center means no spot for Quentin. And no spot for Quentin means Quentin is not playing. And Quentin not playing means Ozzie chose Jerry over Quentin.

Or it meant that Ozzie was doing contortions trying to find a legitimate lead off man coming off the impact Pods had on the overall line up in 2005...and the impact on that line up when we did not have a lead off hitter.

That being said, if Owens had been a true lead off man, then between Dye/Thome/Swisher/TCQ SOMEONE would have been sitting...I'm sure if ANYONE has seen TCQ's performance coming in the offseason, they never would have traded for Swisher....was there ANYONE on these boards passionately lobbying for TCQ in March 2008?

Rdy2PlayBall
03-31-2010, 08:13 PM
Or it meant that Ozzie was doing contortions trying to find a legitimate lead off man coming off the impact Pods had on the overall line up in 2005...and the impact on that line up when we did not have a lead off hitter.

That being said, if Owens had been a true lead off man, then between Dye/Thome/Swisher/TCQ SOMEONE would have been sitting...I'm sure if ANYONE has seen TCQ's performance coming in the offseason, they never would have traded for Swisher....was there ANYONE on these boards passionately lobbying for TCQ in March 2008?There is definitely someone who claims to have "called it"... I'm sure. :rolleyes:

bacon
03-31-2010, 08:57 PM
Really? You really think a bunch of these guys struggled to hit because of Ozzie? I doubt, with just about every fiber of my being, that he has that sort of power.

He juggles the lineup when guys stink. And he juggles the lineup when players need a break. I'll post here something I posted in another forum on a similar topic:

For some reason, some people have this perception of Ozzie that he makes these extraordinarily ridiculous lineup and bullpen decisions. The problem with that thought is that it just isn't true. Ozzie is, actually, a fairly standard game manager. The managing of the lineups isn't as crazy as people like to think, either. LOTS of managers do the same lineup jumble that Ozzie does (just take a look at some of Leyland's lineups, for example) and he primarily does it when the lineup is struggling or when guys need rest.

And I know there are people here that simply cannot grasp the concept of professional ballplayers needing a day of rest here and there, but it's absolutely true. Part of the reason is that a lot of these guys have some health issues that none of you will ever hear about. I can tell you that there are at least two guys that are tremendously important to this team that have nagging shoulder problems. Naturally, they will get days off even when it seems to the fans like they shouldn't.






Thoughts from perfectly reasonable people.

Who's shoulders?

sox1970
03-31-2010, 08:59 PM
Who's shoulders?

Rios and Beckham

bacon
03-31-2010, 09:01 PM
Rios and Beckham

Thanks...are they serious?

sox1970
03-31-2010, 09:06 PM
Thanks...are they serious?

Not serious enough I guess, but they may need a day off here and there.

bacon
03-31-2010, 09:11 PM
Not serious enough I guess, but they may need a day off here and there.

jones looks good this spring, so i think they should rest rios if needed so he doesn't struggle like last year. beckham hurting scares me more than rios. i guess we just hope for the best.

jabrch
03-31-2010, 09:43 PM
jones looks good this spring, so i think they should rest rios if needed so he doesn't struggle like last year. beckham hurting scares me more than rios. i guess we just hope for the best.


With the depth we have at every position except catcher, OG can give everyone enough rest that they should not be tired towards the end. I know people laugh about "tired" ball players, since "they only work a few hours a day for 6 months of the year" but that's just not a real truth. These guys get worn down. A good deep bench helps avoiding that. A little friendly competition for playing time is also not a bad thing. Konerko is the club's 1B. But if he slumps, Kotsay can step in and play. Rios is the CF. But there are multiple guys who can do that if he slumps for a prolonged period of time. We have multiple MI and 3B. We can roll DH/OF/1B between a half dozen or more guys. We can deal with injuries to some guys without having to play a AAAA guy for long periods of time. We won't see a guy like Andy Gonzalez forced into 200 ABs. We won't have to rush a guy to the bigs before he is ready if we have an injury.

Sure - we have guys who are ? to produce. But we also have options if they don't. Is this ideal? Nope - give me the Yanks any day - even with Brett Gardner is LF and Nick Swisher in RF. Even with Boone Logan and Nick Johnson... That squad is clearly better. There are others - no doubt.

But for ****s sake, give me the team KW and OG have put together to go to battle for the ALC crown. And look at the options as we move through the year to improve it. If Adrian Gonzalez is available...if Lance Berkman is available...if a star 3B is available...if if if... But as constituted, this team CAN win a division. And any team that CAN win a division, CAN win a WS. I can think of a million reasons why they can't - but I don't care to. I know they CAN.

canOcorn
03-31-2010, 10:04 PM
No he wasn't. They wanted Owens to lead off and play CF. Quentin was still banged up(shoulder injury) and they didn't think he'd be healthy for the start of the season. The argument that Ozzie was going to pick Owens over Quentin is just false.

No it's not. It's fact. I don't care how you make the lineup, but one that has Owens over Quentin is complete bull****. Owens was fast and Ozzie didn't have a clue who Quentin was or his background/potential.

Dibbs
04-01-2010, 01:33 AM
I almost puked when I just watched the White Sox MLB TV preview, and they said Kotsay is batting third. In a way, this is like Dewayne Wise all over again. We all know it is the wrong decision, but somehow Ozzie can't figure that out. Kotsay is not a starter. When he does start, he should be batting 8th or 9th.

BadBobbyJenks
04-01-2010, 04:06 AM
Or it meant that Ozzie was doing contortions trying to find a legitimate lead off man coming off the impact Pods had on the overall line up in 2005...and the impact on that line up when we did not have a lead off hitter.

That being said, if Owens had been a true lead off man, then between Dye/Thome/Swisher/TCQ SOMEONE would have been sitting...I'm sure if ANYONE has seen TCQ's performance coming in the offseason, they never would have traded for Swisher....was there ANYONE on these boards passionately lobbying for TCQ in March 2008?

I have no idea what you are arguing. If Owens had been good someone would have been sitting? The problem was Owens was terrible, but was supposed to start for this team.

asindc
04-01-2010, 08:04 AM
I have no idea what you are arguing. If Owens had been good someone would have been sitting? The problem was Owens was terrible, but was supposed to start for this team.

So why didn't he start when he came back from injury?

asindc
04-01-2010, 08:05 AM
No it's not. It's fact. I don't care how you make the lineup, but one that has Owens over Quentin is complete bull****. Owens was fast and Ozzie didn't have a clue who Quentin was or his background/potential.

I think you really believe that.:o:

thedudeabides
04-01-2010, 08:40 AM
No it's not. It's fact. I don't care how you make the lineup, but one that has Owens over Quentin is complete bull****. Owens was fast and Ozzie didn't have a clue who Quentin was or his background/potential.

Since there seems to be some confusion about the definition of what a fact is, I'll provide some.

Facts:

Carlos Quentin 2008. Chicago White Sox:

Games 130, Plate appearances 569

Jerry Owens 2008. Chicago White Sox:

Games 12, Plate appearances 17

Jerry Owens 2008. Charlotte Knights:

Games 89, Plate appearances 398

If it's fact, please show me the lineup where Jerry Owens was playing over Carlos Quentin.

I have no idea what you are arguing. If Owens had been good someone would have been sitting? The problem was Owens was terrible, but was supposed to start for this team.

Exactly. So, saying he was the choice over Carlos Quentin is not based in reality. The reality is Quentin became an everyday starter, even coming off of a shortened spring training while recovering from a shoulder injury, and went on to have an MVP caliber season. The reality is Alexei Ramirez became an everyday starter and finished second in the AL ROY(even overcoming a prolonged slump where Ozzie stuck with him). The reality is Jerry Owens spent 2008 in Charlotte, and was released in 2009. How any of this is a knock on Ozzie's talent evaluation is baffling. The reality is he saw through the early struggles and injuries and picked the right guys. But, if you want to keep perpetuating the myth that Ozzie chose Owens over Quentin, be my guest.

TomBradley72
04-01-2010, 09:12 AM
No it's not. It's fact. I don't care how you make the lineup, but one that has Owens over Quentin is complete bull****. Owens was fast and Ozzie didn't have a clue who Quentin was or his background/potential.

Are you seriously arguing that the manager of the White Sox never discussed with Kenny Quentin's potential/background, etc.? That he had zero knowledge? vs. he was coming off an injury and a poor season in AZ, so they were taking it slow with him...

Dibbs
04-01-2010, 09:27 AM
Since there seems to be some confusion about the definition of what a fact is, I'll provide some.

Facts:

Carlos Quentin 2008. Chicago White Sox:

Games 130, Plate appearances 569

Jerry Owens 2008. Chicago White Sox:

Games 12, Plate appearances 17

Jerry Owens 2008. Charlotte Knights:

Games 89, Plate appearances 398

If it's fact, please show me the lineup where Jerry Owens was playing over Carlos Quentin.



Exactly. So, saying he was the choice over Carlos Quentin is not based in reality. The reality is Quentin became an everyday starter, even coming off of a shortened spring training while recovering from a shoulder injury, and went on to have an MVP caliber season. The reality is Alexei Ramirez became an everyday starter and finished second in the AL ROY(even overcoming a prolonged slump where Ozzie stuck with him). The reality is Jerry Owens spent 2008 in Charlotte, and was released in 2009. How any of this is a knock on Ozzie's talent evaluation is baffling. The reality is he saw through the early struggles and injuries and picked the right guys. But, if you want to keep perpetuating the myth that Ozzie chose Owens over Quentin, be my guest.

Dude, it is a fact Ozzie was going with Owens all the way in 2008 if he did not get injured. Luckily he did, or Quentin most likely would not have had his big year.

Harry Chappas
04-01-2010, 09:35 AM
Since there seems to be some confusion about the definition of what a fact is, I'll provide some.

Facts:

Carlos Quentin 2008. Chicago White Sox:

Games 130, Plate appearances 569

Jerry Owens 2008. Chicago White Sox:

Games 12, Plate appearances 17

Jerry Owens 2008. Charlotte Knights:

Games 89, Plate appearances 398

If it's fact, please show me the lineup where Jerry Owens was playing over Carlos Quentin.



Exactly. So, saying he was the choice over Carlos Quentin is not based in reality. The reality is Quentin became an everyday starter, even coming off of a shortened spring training while recovering from a shoulder injury, and went on to have an MVP caliber season. The reality is Alexei Ramirez became an everyday starter and finished second in the AL ROY(even overcoming a prolonged slump where Ozzie stuck with him). The reality is Jerry Owens spent 2008 in Charlotte, and was released in 2009. How any of this is a knock on Ozzie's talent evaluation is baffling. The reality is he saw through the early struggles and injuries and picked the right guys. But, if you want to keep perpetuating the myth that Ozzie chose Owens over Quentin, be my guest.

Like I said, some people want to shoe-horn this myth in to support their argument that Guillen is an idiot. This thread is crazy. Someone even argued that they could hit .400 in Spring Training!

It doesn't make sense to freak out about something that hasn't happened. But for sake of argument, Kotsay is a career .281 hitter. Some of you are acting like Ozzie is proposing Nix for the 3 hole. Will I be happy if Kotsay bats 3rd? No, but I'll reserve judgement until this has happened and only after I've seen the results. If he's swinging a hot bat, I don't care what his name is, play him.

asindc
04-01-2010, 09:39 AM
Dude, it is a fact Ozzie was going with Owens all the way in 2008 if he did not get injured. Luckily he did, or Quentin most likely would not have had his big year.

So why didn't he start when he came back from injury?

.

jabrch
04-01-2010, 09:47 AM
Like I said, some people want to shoe-horn this myth in to support their argument that Guillen is an idiot. This thread is crazy. Someone even argued that they could hit .400 in Spring Training!

It doesn't make sense to freak out about something that hasn't happened. But for sake of argument, Kotsay is a career .281 hitter. Some of you are acting like Ozzie is proposing Nix for the 3 hole. Will I be happy if Kotsay bats 3rd? No, but I'll reserve judgement until this has happened and only after I've seen the results. If he's swinging a hot bat, I don't care what his name is, play him.

Yeah - what he said

TomBradley72
04-01-2010, 10:20 AM
Can we all agree that we're desperate for the season to start? Seriously, we're passionately debating the depth chart during spring training two years ago.

Can't wait for Opening Day! :cool:

BadBobbyJenks
04-01-2010, 10:21 AM
So why didn't he start when he came back from injury?

Because Carlos Quentin forced Ozzie's hand with his ridiculous start.

BadBobbyJenks
04-01-2010, 10:26 AM
Since there seems to be some confusion about the definition of what a fact is, I'll provide some.

Facts:

Carlos Quentin 2008. Chicago White Sox:

Games 130, Plate appearances 569

Jerry Owens 2008. Chicago White Sox:

Games 12, Plate appearances 17

Jerry Owens 2008. Charlotte Knights:

Games 89, Plate appearances 398

If it's fact, please show me the lineup where Jerry Owens was playing over Carlos Quentin.



Exactly. So, saying he was the choice over Carlos Quentin is not based in reality. The reality is Quentin became an everyday starter, even coming off of a shortened spring training while recovering from a shoulder injury, and went on to have an MVP caliber season. The reality is Alexei Ramirez became an everyday starter and finished second in the AL ROY(even overcoming a prolonged slump where Ozzie stuck with him). The reality is Jerry Owens spent 2008 in Charlotte, and was released in 2009. How any of this is a knock on Ozzie's talent evaluation is baffling. The reality is he saw through the early struggles and injuries and picked the right guys. But, if you want to keep perpetuating the myth that Ozzie chose Owens over Quentin, be my guest.

:gah:

Jerry Owens was not able to play, Carlos Quentin performed at a very high rate while Jerry was injured. There was no decision at that point, Quentin made the choice for him. But thanks for those stats that we were missing...

thedudeabides
04-01-2010, 10:38 AM
:gah:

Jerry Owens was not able to play, Carlos Quentin performed at a very high rate while Jerry was injured. There was no decision at that point, Quentin made the choice for him. But thanks for those stats that we were missing...

You can speculate on what would have happened all you want, and I'll just look at what did happen.

They wanted Owens to leadoff and play CF, but he was hurt and terrible, so it never happened.

Quentin was shut down early in the spring and then came on strong later and earned a spot, and never looked back. Those are the facts. I'm done with this silly argument.

Craig Grebeck
04-01-2010, 10:55 AM
Why didn't he start when he came back? Because Quentin looked like an MVP candidate by then -- something most rational people knew he was capable of. Jerry Owens shouldn't have even competed for a spot in that outfield.

jabrch
04-01-2010, 10:57 AM
You can speculate on what would have happened all you want, and I'll just look at what did happen.

They wanted Owens to leadoff and play CF, but he was hurt and terrible, so it never happened.

Quentin was shut down early in the spring and then came on strong later and earned a spot, and never looked back. Those are the facts. I'm done with this silly argument.


Damn Ozzie for keeping his options open, going with whomever was healthy and productive and leading this team to the post season in 08. Bastard.

102605
04-01-2010, 11:05 AM
This thread is about Jerry Owens?????

asindc
04-01-2010, 11:13 AM
Why didn't he start when he came back? Because Quentin looked like an MVP candidate by then -- something most rational people knew he was capable of. Jerry Owens shouldn't have even competed for a spot in that outfield.

I suppose that group of rational people did not include Arizona's management, as well as the management of all the other teams the did not offer more than what the Sox did for TCQ.

Craig Grebeck
04-01-2010, 11:17 AM
I suppose that group of rational people did not include Arizona's management, as well as the management of all the other teams the did not offer more than what the Sox did for TCQ.
This argument's been had a thousand times, asindc. We gave up a first baseman in A-ball who had an incredibly high ceiling at the time (and still does).

Furthermore, Byrnes' forced hand has been discussed a ton as well. He had to move Quentin.

Anyone who took a glance at his numbers or scouting reports would have told you he had it.

asindc
04-01-2010, 11:42 AM
This argument's been had a thousand times, asindc. We gave up a first baseman in A-ball who had an incredibly high ceiling at the time (and still does).

Furthermore, Byrnes' forced hand has been discussed a ton as well. He had to move Quentin.

Anyone who took a glance at his numbers or scouting reports would have told you he had it.

My point is that if Arizona knew TCQ would produce the way he did in 2008, I seriously doubt that-
1) They would have traded him; and
2) Even if they did decide to trade him, they would have held out for more than what they got for him. It is universally accepted that Arizona got hosed on the deal because of the production and potential Quentin has shown with the Sox.

I also think at least a couple more teams would have offered more than what the Sox gave up to get him if they had known Quentin would produce this way. Yes, I know he had been a highly-regarded prospect coming out of Stanford, but his market apparently had deflated because of those early injuries/poor production. Those same early injuries/poor production, coupled with his slow ST start because of his shoulder, led Sox management to believe he would have to be gradually worked into the lineup. The fact that he produced quite well right away proved they were wrong about that.

Their initial caution with him was due to his injury history, including 2008 ST. Their acquisition of him and subsequent move to put him in the lineup earlier than expected speaks to their assessment of his potential and ability at the time. To suggest that it was rational to expect that 2008 season out of Quentin is to suggest that the 29 other MLB teams were no more rational than Sox management at the beginning of the season. There is not one team that would not put Quentin in their starting lineup now, and apparently none of them would have put Quentin in their starting lineup at the beginning of 2008. So it is safe to say that none of them expected his 2008 season. To hold that exclusively against Ozzie ignores that.

canOcorn
04-01-2010, 03:05 PM
My point is that if Arizona knew TCQ would produce the way he did in 2008, I seriously doubt that-
1) They would have traded him; and
2) Even if they did decide to trade him, they would have held out for more than what they got for him. It is universally accepted that Arizona got hosed on the deal because of the production and potential Quentin has shown with the Sox.

I also think at least a couple more teams would have offered more than what the Sox gave up to get him if they had known Quentin would produce this way. Yes, I know he had been a highly-regarded prospect coming out of Stanford, but his market apparently had deflated because of those early injuries/poor production. Those same early injuries/poor production, coupled with his slow ST start because of his shoulder, led Sox management to believe he would have to be gradually worked into the lineup. The fact that he produced quite well right away proved they were wrong about that.

Their initial caution with him was due to his injury history, including 2008 ST. Their acquisition of him and subsequent move to put him in the lineup earlier than expected speaks to their assessment of his potential and ability at the time. To suggest that it was rational to expect that 2008 season out of Quentin is to suggest that the 29 other MLB teams were no more rational than Sox management at the beginning of the season. There is not one team that would not put Quentin in their starting lineup now, and apparently none of them would have put Quentin in their starting lineup at the beginning of 2008. So it is safe to say that none of them expected his 2008 season. To hold that exclusively against Ozzie ignores that.

Why do we have Pena?

BringHomeDaBacon
04-01-2010, 05:55 PM
It is universally accepted that Arizona got hosed on the deal because of the production and potential Quentin has shown with the Sox.


Regardless of whether or not Arizona got hosed, your statement regarding universal acceptance of that fact is not true.

asindc
04-01-2010, 07:21 PM
Regardless of whether or not Arizona got hosed, your statement regarding universal acceptance of that fact is not true.

If "universally accepted" is too strong a statement, then is there someone in baseball who holds a different view?

BadBobbyJenks
04-01-2010, 07:38 PM
You just cant say anything negative about Ozzie Guillen, why even bother trying to argue with people.

spawn
04-01-2010, 09:14 PM
You just cant say anything negative about Ozzie Guillen, why even bother trying to argue with people.
Really? People do it here all the time. Maybe you meant to say "you just can't say anything negative about Ozzie Guillen without someone defending him." That would be a little more accurate. And as has been pointed out many many many many many many many times here...everyone isn't expected to share the same opinion. People can actually disagree with the opinions of other posters here.

Harry Chappas
04-02-2010, 09:47 AM
You just cant say anything negative about Ozzie Guillen, why even bother trying to argue with people.

Nothing like straw men arguments and hyperbole to bolster one's argument.

OG is routinely criticized here and by some of the same people that are now defending him (including me). The issue is people freaking out about a HYPOTHETICAL scenario where Kotsay bats 3rd which is based on an article with no attributable quotes and a no context. Why not wait and see what happens before you break out the pitchforks and torches?

russ99
04-02-2010, 10:13 AM
Why do we have Pena?

We traded Brandon Allen for Pena. Different situation - the Sox needed an extra reliever who they thought could help down the stretch last year and thought Allen was close to his ceiling, which so far is a pretty good assessment.

The first baseman traded in the Quentin deal was Chris Carter, who's a very good prospect and may put up 30+ HRs in the big leagues one of these years. He's with Oakland now and was in the last round of cuts this spring.

Jim Shorts
04-02-2010, 11:16 AM
You just cant say anything negative about Ozzie Guillen, why even bother trying to argue with people.


Get over it. People disagree with you.

BadBobbyJenks
04-02-2010, 12:31 PM
Nothing like straw men arguments and hyperbole to bolster one's argument.

OG is routinely criticized here and by some of the same people that are now defending him (including me). The issue is people freaking out about a HYPOTHETICAL scenario where Kotsay bats 3rd which is based on an article with no attributable quotes and a no context. Why not wait and see what happens before you break out the pitchforks and torches?

Pretty similar to calling out a poster to having an agenda. Whatever, I dont care if people disagree with me, I just dont see what there was to debate on the Jerry Owens issue. You dont see it that way, more power to you.

And lol at talking about pitchforks and torches, who the **** was doing that? Nice hyperbole eh? I believe my first post in this thread was IF that happens...

oeo
04-02-2010, 12:43 PM
Why do we have Pena?

He's young, cheap, and has a great arm?

oeo
04-02-2010, 12:50 PM
Whatever, I dont care if people disagree with me

Then why do you resort to the whiny, 'No one can ever criticize Ozzie' statements?

TheOldRoman
04-02-2010, 01:18 PM
My point is that if Arizona knew TCQ would produce the way he did in 2008, I seriously doubt that-
1) They would have traded him; and
2) Even if they did decide to trade him, they would have held out for more than what they got for him. It is universally accepted that Arizona got hosed on the deal because of the production and potential Quentin has shown with the Sox.

I also think at least a couple more teams would have offered more than what the Sox gave up to get him if they had known Quentin would produce this way. Yes, I know he had been a highly-regarded prospect coming out of Stanford, but his market apparently had deflated because of those early injuries/poor production. Those same early injuries/poor production, coupled with his slow ST start because of his shoulder, led Sox management to believe he would have to be gradually worked into the lineup. The fact that he produced quite well right away proved they were wrong about that.

Their initial caution with him was due to his injury history, including 2008 ST. Their acquisition of him and subsequent move to put him in the lineup earlier than expected speaks to their assessment of his potential and ability at the time. To suggest that it was rational to expect that 2008 season out of Quentin is to suggest that the 29 other MLB teams were no more rational than Sox management at the beginning of the season. There is not one team that would not put Quentin in their starting lineup now, and apparently none of them would have put Quentin in their starting lineup at the beginning of 2008. So it is safe to say that none of them expected his 2008 season. To hold that exclusively against Ozzie ignores that.*slow clap*

If "universally accepted" is too strong a statement, then is there someone in baseball who holds a different view?No, I agree with him. There are many posters on this very board who have warned us that this trade will come back to haunt the Sox because Carter will be a HOFer and Quentin will be constantly injured. We should have traded Quentin when we had the chance because he will never play a full season, etc. Some of them are, in fact, very "rational".

As for the Quentin-Owens thing, we have been down this road before. Ozzie wanted Owens to WIN the job of CF and leadoff hitter. I remember someone at the time (oeo?) arguing that it wouldn't be bad for the Sox if Owens were to win the job and play well, while others said he wasn't good in any hypothetical scenario. I believe someone argued that Owens would still have been horrible even if he posted a .370 OBP! In the very links that attempt to prove Owens was locked in to lead off, Ozzie discusses how they had "penciled Owens in" for three years, but he dissapointed them with poor performance and injuries.

Slappy
04-02-2010, 01:24 PM
He's young, cheap, and has a great arm?

From the little I watched of Pena in ST, his command and confidence look a lot better. I think he will surprise some people this year.

Craig Grebeck
04-02-2010, 01:27 PM
My point is that if Arizona knew TCQ would produce the way he did in 2008, I seriously doubt that-
1) They would have traded him; and
2) Even if they did decide to trade him, they would have held out for more than what they got for him. It is universally accepted that Arizona got hosed on the deal because of the production and potential Quentin has shown with the Sox.

I also think at least a couple more teams would have offered more than what the Sox gave up to get him if they had known Quentin would produce this way. Yes, I know he had been a highly-regarded prospect coming out of Stanford, but his market apparently had deflated because of those early injuries/poor production. Those same early injuries/poor production, coupled with his slow ST start because of his shoulder, led Sox management to believe he would have to be gradually worked into the lineup. The fact that he produced quite well right away proved they were wrong about that.

Their initial caution with him was due to his injury history, including 2008 ST. Their acquisition of him and subsequent move to put him in the lineup earlier than expected speaks to their assessment of his potential and ability at the time. To suggest that it was rational to expect that 2008 season out of Quentin is to suggest that the 29 other MLB teams were no more rational than Sox management at the beginning of the season. There is not one team that would not put Quentin in their starting lineup now, and apparently none of them would have put Quentin in their starting lineup at the beginning of 2008. So it is safe to say that none of them expected his 2008 season. To hold that exclusively against Ozzie ignores that.
Quentin had a fantastic first season. People saw his ascent to stardom coming, and hoping that Owens would be a better player than Quentin is like hoping Lillibridge outpaces Beckham: stupid and unrealistic.

BadBobbyJenks
04-02-2010, 02:43 PM
Then why do you resort to the whiny, 'No one can ever criticize Ozzie' statements?

Because I felt what this what really was going on in here.

Nellie_Fox
04-02-2010, 02:49 PM
Because I felt what this what really was going on in here.Being disagreed with is not the same as not being allowed to say it. You were never stopped from saying it; you just got argued with. I'm seriously tired of the "oh, we're not allowed to say..." posts, when that's absolutely untrue. Has anybody been banned for criticizing Ozzie? That would be the only way you could legitimately say "we're not allowed to...."

Apparently what you want is for everyone to agree with you or else shut up.

asindc
04-02-2010, 03:33 PM
Quentin had a fantastic first season. People saw his ascent to stardom coming, and hoping that Owens would be a better player than Quentin is like hoping Lillibridge outpaces Beckham: stupid and unrealistic.

That wasn't the hope.

JohnTucker0814
04-02-2010, 03:41 PM
My point is that if Arizona knew TCQ would produce the way he did in 2008, I seriously doubt that-
1) They would have traded him; and
2) Even if they did decide to trade him, they would have held out for more than what they got for him. It is universally accepted that Arizona got hosed on the deal because of the production and potential Quentin has shown with the Sox.

I also think at least a couple more teams would have offered more than what the Sox gave up to get him if they had known Quentin would produce this way. Yes, I know he had been a highly-regarded prospect coming out of Stanford, but his market apparently had deflated because of those early injuries/poor production. Those same early injuries/poor production, coupled with his slow ST start because of his shoulder, led Sox management to believe he would have to be gradually worked into the lineup. The fact that he produced quite well right away proved they were wrong about that.

Their initial caution with him was due to his injury history, including 2008 ST. Their acquisition of him and subsequent move to put him in the lineup earlier than expected speaks to their assessment of his potential and ability at the time. To suggest that it was rational to expect that 2008 season out of Quentin is to suggest that the 29 other MLB teams were no more rational than Sox management at the beginning of the season. There is not one team that would not put Quentin in their starting lineup now, and apparently none of them would have put Quentin in their starting lineup at the beginning of 2008. So it is safe to say that none of them expected his 2008 season. To hold that exclusively against Ozzie ignores that.

It's not like MLB teams send out a memo of the guys they are willing to trade. Maybe the White Sox were the ONLY team to call about Quentin. I'm sure that if you call another team and say, "You interested in trading for Carlos Quentin?".. the other team is going to question why you're getting rid of a "top prospect". So to say that all the other teams are terrible because they didn't offer more than Brandon Allen, you're wrong! It's not like Fantasy Baseball where you put guys on the trading block, with the exception of the superstar that costs too much.

And Arizona didn't get hosed because at the time they traded Quentin they had 3 young OFers that were playing or coming off great years. Byrnes had close to 50 SB and 20 HR, Young did a 20/20 and Justin Upton. They had no room immediatly for Q because no DH. At the time they had Conor Jackson at 1B and Allen looked/looks to be a big power guy. I'm sure they wanted to strengthen a position they felt they needed help with.

JMO

And just because the Sox had Owens starting over Q at the beginning of '08 doesn't mean they think he was better, they just didn't think Q would be ready with the injuries.

Do you think the Nationals think John Lannon is better than Stephen Strasburg??? NO, they think it's best for Strasburg to have more conditioning in the minors or he isn't ready for the majors yet.

Craig Grebeck
04-02-2010, 04:24 PM
That wasn't the hope.
So the hope was that he would win the CF job, shifting Nick to LF and Quentin to the bench then? What a great scenario that would have been.

asindc
04-02-2010, 04:34 PM
It's not like MLB teams send out a memo of the guys they are willing to trade. Maybe the White Sox were the ONLY team to call about Quentin. I'm sure that if you call another team and say, "You interested in trading for Carlos Quentin?".. the other team is going to question why you're getting rid of a "top prospect". So to say that all the other teams are terrible because they didn't offer more than Brandon Allen, you're wrong! It's not like Fantasy Baseball where you put guys on the trading block, with the exception of the superstar that costs too much.

I don't disagree, but my take on it is that KW initiated the discussion, given that one of his strong suits is identifying and buying low-trading stocks, so to speak. Perhaps the other 28 teams did not realize TCQ could be had for so little. Perhaps they were scared off by his injury history. Or maybe they thought if Ariz. chose to start their other young OFs ahead him that maybe he was not panning out as well as most thought. In any case, TCQ was not a hot commodity that commanded a Garza/Bartlett return, for instance.

And Arizona didn't get hosed because at the time they traded Quentin they had 3 young OFers that were playing or coming off great years. Byrnes had close to 50 SB and 20 HR, Young did a 20/20 and Justin Upton. They had no room immediatly for Q because no DH. At the time they had Conor Jackson at 1B and Allen looked/looks to be a big power guy. I'm sure they wanted to strengthen a position they felt they needed help with.

JMO

Again, I don't disagree with what you say here, but the issue being debated is whether Ozzie should have known right away that TCQ would produce like he did in 2008. I still maintain that if Ariz. had known that he would, they would not have traded him, or at least would have held out for a lot more than they got. Which is a strong indication to me that Ariz. did not know he was going to breakout like he did in 2008. TCQ's 2008 production would have put him in the starting lineup of every MLB team. Had the other 28 teams known he would produce like that (and Ariz. would almost certainly not take the first offer made for him in that case), I seriously doubt that all of them would have passed on him because none of them wanted to give up more than a prospect of Chris Carter's caliber.

And just because the Sox had Owens starting over Q at the beginning of '08 doesn't mean they think he was better, they just didn't think Q would be ready with the injuries.

I totally agree.

asindc
04-02-2010, 04:42 PM
So the hope was that he would win the CF job, shifting Nick to LF and Quentin to the bench then? What a great scenario that would have been.

No, the hope was that Owens would play well enough to anchor CF. If so, then Quentin's play would force Swisher to the bench, given Swisher's production. Are you seriously suggesting that all of baseball (except for Ozzie) knew that Quentin would have the breakout year he did in 2008, yet Arizona traded him for Chris Carter anyway and no one appeared interested enough to offer Ariz. more than that?

Craig Grebeck
04-02-2010, 04:44 PM
No, the hope was that Owens would play well enough to anchor CF. If so, then Quentin's play would force Swisher to the bench, given Swisher's production. Are you seriously suggesting that all of baseball (except for Ozzie) knew that Quentin would have the breakout year he did in 2008, yet Arizona traded him for Chris Carter anyway and no one appeared interested enough to offer Ariz. more than that?
Saying that people knew he was "capable of" producing at such a high level is different from saying 29 other teams knew he was going to do it.

asindc
04-02-2010, 04:51 PM
Saying that people knew he was "capable of" producing at such a high level is different from saying 29 other teams knew he was going to do it.

Fair enough. I guess you think that his ST shoulder injury had nothing to do with the reason why Ozzie did not start TCQ from day one.

Craig Grebeck
04-02-2010, 05:59 PM
Fair enough. I guess you think that his ST shoulder injury had nothing to do with the reason why Ozzie did not start TCQ from day one.
Don't presume. Is it any secret that Ozzie would prefer speed to power?

It's Dankerific
04-02-2010, 06:27 PM
Don't presume. Is it any secret that Ozzie would prefer speed to power?

I know he prefers "run producing" SBs to HRs.

BadBobbyJenks
04-04-2010, 02:05 AM
Apparently what you want is for everyone to agree with you or else shut up.

No, actually not at all. Cute post though.

Boondock Saint
04-04-2010, 02:35 AM
I know he prefers "run producing" SBs to HRs.

Right, because the other MLB managers love to send the "Hit a HR" signal out to the guy at the plate. The fact of the matter is that HR's are a chance occurrence. Stealing and smart hitting are a far more reliable way to score than waiting on someone to hit a HR.

It's Dankerific
04-04-2010, 03:45 AM
Right, because the other MLB managers love to send the "Hit a HR" signal out to the guy at the plate. The fact of the matter is that HR's are a chance occurrence. Stealing and smart hitting are a far more reliable way to score than waiting on someone to hit a HR.

Ozzie said HIMSELF that he'd rather have a player STEAL 20 bases as opposed to HIT 20 HRs. Thats 20 chances at another player driving a single run in or AT LEAST 20 runs.

Its not a statement that you can pretend there is some nuance or strategy about. He didnt say "I'd rather have a speedy guy" or "I want a power guy". he SAID I want 20 SB, not 20 HRs.

Reliable? What are you even talking about. a HR is a 100% reliable way to get a Run. As opposed to : a hit or a walk, then a stolen base, than another player gets a hit.

It's Dankerific
04-04-2010, 04:39 AM
Sorry, 50 SB instead of 50 HRs. What a joke

actual words : "I'd rather have Rios steal 50 bases than hit 50 home runs. I want production."

Thats pretty ****ing stupid.

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/ozzie.guillen.soxfest.2.1443845.html

Ranger
04-04-2010, 02:36 PM
Ozzie said HIMSELF that he'd rather have a player STEAL 20 bases as opposed to HIT 20 HRs. Thats 20 chances at another player driving a single run in or AT LEAST 20 runs.

Its not a statement that you can pretend there is some nuance or strategy about. He didnt say "I'd rather have a speedy guy" or "I want a power guy". he SAID I want 20 SB, not 20 HRs.

Reliable? What are you even talking about. a HR is a 100% reliable way to get a Run. As opposed to : a hit or a walk, then a stolen base, than another player gets a hit.

Don't read too much into it. He's talking about a style and approach. He doesn't really mean that he would trade an actual home run for an actual stolen base.

It's Dankerific
04-04-2010, 04:15 PM
Don't read too much into it. He's talking about a style and approach. He doesn't really mean that he would trade an actual home run for an actual stolen base.

I wish I could believe that. But then there is his actions, too.