PDA

View Full Version : Guillen to manage White Sox in 2011


nccwsfan
09-27-2010, 04:48 PM
Chris Rongey Twitter

ChrisRongey: Ozzie says he will be back next season. No extension as of now.


Good- now put focus on how to retool this team to beat the Twins and win in 2011. Kenny needs to make the moves- it's on him this offseason.

ewokpelts
09-27-2010, 04:50 PM
Good thing I'm not renewing.

WhiteSox5187
09-27-2010, 04:50 PM
Chris Rongey Twitter

ChrisRongey: Ozzie says he will be back next season. No extension as of now.


Good- now put focus on how to retool this team to beat the Twins and win in 2011. Kenny needs to make the moves- it's on him this offseason.

It's on him EVERY off season.

hi im skot
09-27-2010, 04:51 PM
Good thing I'm not renewing.

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j146/sschaaf/tumblr_l7ormza3gY1qzf950.gif?t=1285624277

Viva Medias B's
09-27-2010, 04:52 PM
Kenny better not set Ozzie up to fail in 2011.

hi im skot
09-27-2010, 04:53 PM
Kenny better not set Ozzie up to fail in 2011.

Huh?

WhiteSox5187
09-27-2010, 04:55 PM
Kenny better not set Ozzie up to fail in 2011.

I dislike Kenny as much as anyone on this board, but I don't think he'd intentionally set Ozzie up to fail. Oh he might put together a lousy team and then have Ozzie take the fall for it, but it won't be done with malice of forethought.

guillensdisciple
09-27-2010, 04:55 PM
http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j146/sschaaf/tumblr_l7ormza3gY1qzf950.gif?t=1285624277


This is freaking great. :D:

nccwsfan
09-27-2010, 04:58 PM
It's on him EVERY off season.

Not looking to beat a dead horse but If that were the case why does Ozzie take the heat for Thome? If KW thought that was a move to make the team better he should have overriden Ozzie and done it. He didn't and Ozzie took the fall for the DH decision; just doesn't seem right.

2011 should be just as much make or break for Kenny as it is for Ozzie.

WhiteSox5187
09-27-2010, 05:00 PM
Not looking to beat a dead horse but If that were the case why does Ozzie take the heat for Thome? If KW thought that was a move to make the team better he should have overriden Ozzie and done it. He didn't and Ozzie took the fall for the DH decision; just doesn't seem right.

2011 should be just as much make or break for Kenny as it is for Ozzie.

I have no idea why Ozzie gets blamed for a lot of Kenny's choices.

soltrain21
09-27-2010, 05:06 PM
Alright, fine. We better build a team for the American League next year, though.

AlexRios51
09-27-2010, 05:14 PM
Alright, fine. We better build a team for the American League this year, though.

Won't happen with Guillen managing.

DirtySox
09-27-2010, 05:30 PM
I am disappoint.

JB98
09-27-2010, 05:32 PM
I dislike Kenny as much as anyone on this board, but I don't think he'd intentionally set Ozzie up to fail. Oh he might put together a lousy team and then have Ozzie take the fall for it, but it won't be done with malice of forethought.

Agree completely.

AZChiSoxFan
09-27-2010, 05:39 PM
Chris Rongey Twitter

ChrisRongey: Ozzie says he will be back next season. No extension as of now.


Good- now put focus on how to retool this team to beat the Twins and win in 2011. Kenny needs to make the moves- it's on him this offseason.


Got any more bad news for me?

PalehosePlanet
09-27-2010, 05:39 PM
Great, another year of screaming at the TV: What the **** are you doing Ozzie!! After he bunts a runner over in the 5th inning of 2-2 game, or leaves the starter in too long, or is afraid to pinch hit for AJ in the late innings when a lefty is brought in , or DH's Vizquel, or.....

I had been resigned to the fact that he would be here indefinitely --- after all JR just loooves him. But then I let myself get excited this past week, got my hopes up after another ****-talking fest by Guillen, thinking please go Ozzie...please go! The Cubs? Sure....just go. Of course, I got my hopes up for nothing.

khan
09-27-2010, 05:41 PM
Not looking to beat a dead horse but If that were the case why does Ozzie take the heat for Thome?
Here's why [in my view, and from my recollection, anyway]:

Back during last year's Sox Fest, Thome and KW spoke about Thome's desire to return here. Thome actually made an appearance @ Sox Fest, and an appeal via the media to be re-signed here as well. After which, KW publicly stated that he'd "leave it up to Ozzie."

Ozzie then met with Thome, and after which announced that "he wouldn't be able to find any AB for Thome." In effect, as KW left it up to Ozzie, Ozzie is/was at fault for CHOOSING Mark Kotsay over Jim Thome.

If KW thought that was a move to make the team better he should have overriden Ozzie and done it. He didn't and Ozzie took the fall for the DH decision; just doesn't seem right.
While I agree with you, the decision was also being formulated as the KW/OG relationship was deteriorating. I agree that KW should have overridden Ozzie on this [and other] decisions.

At the same time, Ozzie should have been able to compare what a Hall of Famer like Jim Thome could do vs. a barely-MLB quality player like Kotsay. Ozzie either didn't do his research, or simply came to the conclusion that Mark Kotsay would be better than Jim Thome. In either case, he was terribly wrong, and is [rightfully, IMO] criticized for this decision, which seemed pretty elementary to me.

2011 should be just as much make or break for Kenny as it is for Ozzie.
EVERY season should be make or break for these two. 2005 will then be 6 years ago. They need to get better at their jobs, shut their ego-soaked pie holes, and grow the **** up.

Dan H
09-27-2010, 06:03 PM
Chris Rongey Twitter

ChrisRongey: Ozzie says he will be back next season. No extension as of now.


Good- now put focus on how to retool this team to beat the Twins and win in 2011. Kenny needs to make the moves- it's on him this offseason.

It's also on Ozzie to manage the team he really has, not the one he thinks he has.

Frontman
09-27-2010, 06:08 PM
Not looking to beat a dead horse but If that were the case why does Ozzie take the heat for Thome? If KW thought that was a move to make the team better he should have overriden Ozzie and done it. He didn't and Ozzie took the fall for the DH decision; just doesn't seem right.

2011 should be just as much make or break for Kenny as it is for Ozzie.

Because people hate Ozzie, pure and simple. Doesn't matter if he would of won multiple titles; as there were those who were calling for his firing as early as 2006.

Now, if Kenny would do his job, ie IGNORE OZZIE's RANTS, and put together the team that BOTH of them can agree on; the Sox will be fine.

The 2010 experiment of giving Ozzie exactly what he wanted didn't work. Now find the middle ground and get it done.

soltrain21
09-27-2010, 06:10 PM
Because people hate Ozzie, pure and simple. Doesn't matter if he would of won multiple titles; as there were those who were calling for his firing as early as 2006.

Now, if Kenny would do his job, ie IGNORE OZZIE's RANTS, and put together the team that BOTH of them can agree on; the Sox will be fine.

The 2010 experiment of giving Ozzie exactly what he wanted didn't work. Now find the middle ground and get it done.

Kenny is Ozzie's boss. He shouldn't ignore his rants. He is in charge of him and his dumb rants.

khan
09-27-2010, 06:13 PM
Because people hate Ozzie, pure and simple. Doesn't matter if he would of won multiple titles; as there were those who were calling for his firing as early as 2006.

Now, if Kenny would do his job, ie IGNORE OZZIE's RANTS, and put together the team that BOTH of them can agree on; the Sox will be fine.

The 2010 experiment of giving Ozzie exactly what he wanted didn't work. Now find the middle ground and get it done.

These two comments seem to be in conflict with each other. That is, unless you believe Ozzie to be above criticism for some reason? [Also, use "would have," not "would of."]

You yourself stated that this team [with the bad idea at DH] was "giving Ozzie exactly what he wanted, and it didn't work."

Since Ozzie "WANTED" [your words, not mine] Mark Kotsay instead of Jim Thome, AND

It "DIDN'T WORK," [again, your words, not mine] therefore, Ozzie is rightfully criticized.


There's no "hate" of Ozzie that I can see. [It would be ridiculous for anyone to "hate" Ozzie Guillen.] Ozzie simply made a bad choice, and he's been criticized for it.

VMSNS
09-27-2010, 06:25 PM
This is unfortunate. If Ozzie is going to be this club's manager next season, then Kenny needs to be 100% in charge of ALL personnel issues, including players AND coaches. I don't care if Ozzie likes Greg Walker. Kenny needs to man up and say "enough is enough" and throw his ass out, as well as anyone else who Kenny doesn't think is pulling their weight. There still major changes that need to occur with this club before they really turn a corner.

southside rocks
09-27-2010, 06:56 PM
Good thing I'm not renewing.

And I am renewing, which I would not do if Ozzie left.

I love Ozzie as a manager and at the same time, I hope he and his sons both mature a bit and shut up about stuff that doesn't pertain to the games and the team. The relationship with Kenny: stop feeding the media when they bait you, Ozzie, you come out looking bad in that. Learn to say NOTHING even if it takes you a hundred words to do so.

And whichever Guillen son is tweeting about KW -- show some class and ****. Yes, you have the *right* to tweet your opinions, but it's childish and selfish of you to insist on exercising that right. Act like a man instead of a brat.

spawn
09-27-2010, 07:00 PM
All I can say is...

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Domeshot17
09-27-2010, 07:06 PM
No more middle ground. No more Mark Kotsay and Omar Vizquel getting tons of ABs. Kenny needs to go out and build a winning team. Ozzie Guillen needs to Shut the **** up and not have any god damn input until spring training, where he manages the team he is given. Kenny needs to quit believing Ozzie when he thinks small ball can work in the AL. It doesn't.

Kenny has to basically build a brand new 3-4-5. Ideally, Rios hits 2 and Konerko 5, but we will see. If we miss the playoffs in 2011, Ozzie and Kenny both need to be gone. I know some people still live in 2005 bliss, but being content is a loser's attitude. 1 playoff appearance in 6 years is firable by any other teams standards, and that should include the White Sox.

MARTINMVP
09-27-2010, 07:14 PM
http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j146/sschaaf/tumblr_l7ormza3gY1qzf950.gif?t=1285624277

I love Tina Fey.

DickAllen72
09-27-2010, 07:31 PM
Not looking to beat a dead horse but If that were the case why does Ozzie take the heat for Thome? If KW thought that was a move to make the team better he should have overriden Ozzie and done it. He didn't and Ozzie took the fall for the DH decision; just doesn't seem right.


Ozzie told KW that he couldn't get Thome enough at bats. Basically he said that he didn't want Thome. Period.

Although it is the GM's job to put the roster together and he could/should normally over-rule the manager when there is a disagreement he also has to give his manager the type of team he wants if the manager feels very strongly about not wanting a certain player on his team.

The problem with Ozzie is he never knew how to use Thome in the first place. During this offseason he said that if he wanted one guy to play DH every game he wouldn't want anyone other than Thome. But since he absolutely didn't want an everyday DH he said there was no way he could get Thome enough at bats.

Look at how the Twins used Thome. They used him as a role player, starting only a few times a week and normally batting down like 6th or 7th in the order. This is how the Sox should have been using Thome for the past couple of years and how they could have used him this season. Instead, Ozzie tried to build his entire offense around the aging Thome, batting him third in the order, starting him almost everyday when he wasn't hurting and never pinch hitting for him in a big situation when a tough LH reliever was put in to face him.

I think KW felt that he had to acquiesce to his manager on Thome because his manager flat out told him he couldn't use him. But now that Ozzie has been proven wrong, KW will probably not allow himself to make the same mistake again.

BTW, I like the idea of a rotating DH when you can put together a roster with nine good hitters to cover eight positions. For instance, if the Sox had say Adrian Gonzalez or Shin Soo Choo or Nick Markakis on the roster in place of Kotsay or Teahen you could rotate them in the field and at DH with Konerko, Quentin, etc. But you don't use a rotating DH comprised of bench quality players just because they are decent on defense.

thomas35forever
09-27-2010, 07:36 PM
Glad this issue is out of the way. As others have said, both Ozzie and KW will be fighting for their jobs next season.

DickAllen72
09-27-2010, 07:36 PM
No more middle ground. No more Mark Kotsay and Omar Vizquel getting tons of ABs. Kenny needs to go out and build a winning team. Ozzie Guillen needs to Shut the **** up and not have any god damn input until spring training, where he manages the team he is given. Kenny needs to quit believing Ozzie when he thinks small ball can work in the AL. It doesn't.

Kenny has to basically build a brand new 3-4-5. Ideally, Rios hits 2 and Konerko 5, but we will see. If we miss the playoffs in 2011, Ozzie and Kenny both need to be gone. I know some people still live in 2005 bliss, but being content is a loser's attitude. 1 playoff appearance in 6 years is firable by any other teams standards, and that should include the White Sox.
Problem is that a guy like Kotsay is a great guy to have on the team if you have a smart manager who knows how to use him.

Unfortunately KW is going to have to build an Ozzie-proof roster comprised only of a bench with starting quality players or a starting lineup of superstars whom Ozzie would have a hard time keeping out of the lineup more than once every ten games or so.

russ99
09-27-2010, 07:41 PM
Problem is that a guy like Kotsay is a great guy to have on the team if you have a smart manager who knows how to use him.

Unfortunately KW is going to have to build an Ozzie-proof roster comprised only of a bench with starting quality players or a starting lineup of superstars whom Ozzie would have a hard time keeping out of the lineup more than once every ten games or so.

Ahem... Kotsay is a great guy to have around, if he's kept in his role and not forced to take on a larger one due to failures by other players, including "Mr. Bobblehead" tomorrow. Need I go back and find those press clippings that have quotes that Kotsay was signed for the bench?

Kenny needs to give Ozzie nine guys capable of playing every day, not eight, and Jerry needs to give Kenny the payroll flexibility to do so.

Glad Ozzie's back, should be a fun year next year since both GM and manager are under the gun to produce.

asindc
09-27-2010, 07:41 PM
Ozzie told KW that he couldn't get Thome enough at bats. Basically he said that he didn't want Thome. Period.

Although it is the GM's job to put the roster together and he could/should normally over-rule the manager when there is a disagreement he also has to give his manager the type of team he wants if the manager feels very strongly about not wanting a certain player on his team.

The problem with Ozzie is he never knew how to use Thome in the first place. During this offseason he said that if he wanted one guy to play DH every game he wouldn't want anyone other than Thome. But since he absolutely didn't want an everyday DH he said there was no way he could get Thome enough at bats.

Look at how the Twins used Thome. They used him as a role player, starting only a few times a week and normally batting down like 6th or 7th in the order. This is how the Sox should have been using Thome for the past couple of years and how they could have used him this season. Instead, Ozzie tried to build his entire offense around the aging Thome, batting him third in the order, starting him almost everyday when he wasn't hurting and never pinch hitting for him in a big situation when a tough LH reliever was put in to face him.

I think KW felt that he had to acquiesce to his manager on Thome because his manager flat out told him he couldn't use him. But now that Ozzie has been proven wrong, KW will probably not allow himself to make the same mistake again.

BTW, I like the idea of a rotating DH when you can put together a roster with nine good hitters to cover eight positions. For instance, if the Sox had say Adrian Gonzalez or Shin Soo Choo or Nick Markakis on the roster in place of Kotsay or Teahen you could rotate them in the field and at DH with Konerko, Quentin, etc. But you don't use a rotating DH comprised of bench quality players just because they are decent on defense.

I think this is a fair assessment of what most likely happened. I definitely agree that KW will not defer to Ozzie like this again. He tried it and it failed. As others have noted, I don't think the mistake was not signing Thome, it was overestimating what the Kotsay/Jones/Quentin DH rotation overall would produce.

As for Ozzie coming back, I am pleased about that, but not as much as I have been in previous seasons. He really needs to figure out how to avoid the late-season fades. I think the rotating DH idea was part of an effort to do so, but obviously more needs to be done.

soltrain21
09-27-2010, 07:49 PM
Ahem... Kotsay is a great guy to have around, if he's kept in his role and not forced to take on a larger one due to failures by other players, including "Mr. Bobblehead" tomorrow. Need I go back and find those press clippings that have quotes that Kotsay was signed for the bench?

Kenny needs to give Ozzie nine guys capable of playing every day, not eight, and Jerry needs to give Kenny the payroll flexibility to do so.

Glad Ozzie's back, should be a fun year next year since both GM and manager are under the gun to produce.

Andruw Jones was supposed to be an integral part of this team?

TDog
09-27-2010, 07:54 PM
This isn't news.

It might feel like news to those with limited understanding of the dynamics of the White Sox and the 2010 season, fueled by what passes for sports journalism which thrives on conflict even when conflict does not exist.

Guillen isn't going anywhere, although there are jobs where he would get more respect from the media and the fans.

russ99
09-27-2010, 07:54 PM
Andruw Jones was supposed to be an integral part of this team?

More than Kotsay.

Singing Andruw was one of Kenny's low risk moves to add an impact bat cheap. He was supposed to get the brunt of the DH at-bats and then May happened. He had 54 at bats in April, Kotsay only had 37.

I love this revisionist history where Ozzie supposedly picked Kotsay directly over Thome, which never happened.

DickAllen72
09-27-2010, 07:54 PM
Ahem... Kotsay is a great guy to have around, if he's kept in his role and not forced to take on a larger one due to failures by other players, including "Mr. Bobblehead" tomorrow. Need I go back and find those press clippings that have quotes that Kotsay was signed for the bench?

Kenny needs to give Ozzie nine guys capable of playing every day, not eight, and Jerry needs to give Kenny the payroll flexibility to do so.

Glad Ozzie's back, should be a fun year next year since both GM and manager are under the gun to produce.
Ozzie went into the season saying he wants to rotate Kotsay, Jones and Vizquel at DH. Sure KW signed Kotsay for the bench but Ozzie misused him as his primary DH. He didn't play much OF at all this season and he DHed in a lot of games while Konerko was playing 1B and Quentin was in RF.

And Ozzie's original plan of DHing Vizquel was ridiculous. It took an injury to Teahen to save Ozzie from himself and utilize Vizquel in the field where his strength lies and in a role where he was able to help the team immensely.

russ99
09-27-2010, 07:57 PM
Ozzie went into the season saying he wants to rotate Kotsay, Jones and Vizquel at DH. Sure KW signed Kotsay for the bench but Ozzie misused him as his primary DH. He didn't play much OF at all this season and he DHed in a lot of games while Konerko was playing 1B and Quentin was in RF.

And Ozzie's original plan of DHing Vizquel was ridiculous. It took an injury to Teahen to save Ozzie from himself and utilize Vizquel in the field where his strength lies and in a role where he was able to help the team immensely.

You're right there. DH-ing Vizquel was an awful idea.

Also, don't forget rotating DH was also to include Konerko, Quentin and Pierre, but then Quentin and Pierre came out that they didn't like to DH and it messed them up as hitters.

soltrain21
09-27-2010, 08:04 PM
You're right there. DH-ing Vizquel was an awful idea.

Also, don't forget rotating DH was also to include Konerko, Quentin and Pierre, but then Quentin and Pierre came out that they didn't like to DH and it messed them up as hitters.

Sadly Quentin seems to have more problems than that.

Irishsox1
09-27-2010, 08:17 PM
Why isn't Kenny receiving more criticism for the bullpen and then not addressing it at the trade deadline? I know there were other offensive issues, but the bullpen was iffy all year, especially Jenks.

Daver
09-27-2010, 08:44 PM
Yay??

Meh, perhaps not.

Frater Perdurabo
09-27-2010, 08:44 PM
OK, this is fair. Now, invest resources to make the Sox an elite team on Opening Day. That means:

1. Re-sign Paulie and AJ
2. Sign Carl Crawford (RF)
3. Re-sign/tender Putz, Jenks, Vizquel

Lineup: Pierre, Alexei, Crawford, Rios, PK, DH TCQ, AJ, Beckham, Morel
Bench: Teahen, Vizquel, Castro, Jones
Rotation: Buehrle, Peavy, Danks, Floyd, Jackson
Bullpen: Jenks, Thornton, Putz, Sale, Santos, Pena, Linebrink

This team has the best speed, defense, pitching and bench in the majors.

Boondock Saint
09-27-2010, 09:12 PM
OK, this is fair. Now, invest resources to make the Sox an elite team on Opening Day. That means:

1. Re-sign Paulie and AJ
2. Sign Carl Crawford (RF)
3. Re-sign/tender Putz, Jenks, Vizquel

Lineup: Pierre, Alexei, Crawford, Rios, PK, DH TCQ, AJ, Beckham, Morel
Bench: Teahen, Vizquel, Castro, Jones
Rotation: Buehrle, Peavy, Danks, Floyd, Jackson
Bullpen: Jenks, Thornton, Putz, Sale, Santos, Pena, Linebrink

This team has the best speed, defense, pitching and bench in the majors.

Where is the money for all of this coming from?

Frontman
09-27-2010, 09:17 PM
These two comments seem to be in conflict with each other. That is, unless you believe Ozzie to be above criticism for some reason? [Also, use "would have," not "would of."]

You yourself stated that this team [with the bad idea at DH] was "giving Ozzie exactly what he wanted, and it didn't work."

Since Ozzie "WANTED" [your words, not mine] Mark Kotsay instead of Jim Thome, AND

It "DIDN'T WORK," [again, your words, not mine] therefore, Ozzie is rightfully criticized.


There's no "hate" of Ozzie that I can see. [It would be ridiculous for anyone to "hate" Ozzie Guillen.] Ozzie simply made a bad choice, and he's been criticized for it.

You look at the here and now. My point is that Ozzie has been hated since 2006 by many. Period.

And there isn't a contradiction between my two statements. My statement about the Ozzie hate is about the past 4 years. Those "Sox" fans who are now swearing they won't go see a single game going forward until he's fired?

Yeah, that's hatred. It's also a moronic statement; as they will certainly come back to the ballpark. They're frustrated, they're disappointed. Very few Sox fans AREN'T disappointed with this season.

But to say they won't come back until they get the manager they want? Go ahead, stay away. Don't complain when the team can't compete due to revenue.

LoveYourSuit
09-27-2010, 09:17 PM
Only positive spin to this is that at least we won't be looking for a manager next season. Rarely do you see first year hires take a team deep into the playoffs or a WS. Also means they are more than likely not blowing this thing up and going young.


But man, let's hope the band-aid holds up on the Titanic. This boat is sinking.

Frater Perdurabo
09-27-2010, 09:19 PM
Where is the money for all of this coming from?

I didn't say anything about it being affordable within the Sox self-imposed budget restraints.

I just think they need to unshackle themselves, invest in a great roster to start the year, and reap the rewards of a better record and better attendance.

DickAllen72
09-27-2010, 09:42 PM
I didn't say anything about it being affordable within the Sox self-imposed budget restraints.

I just think they need to unshackle themselves, invest in a great roster to start the year, and reap the rewards of a better record and better attendance.
I kind of agree with your way of thinking but just for the record, Carl Crawford is not a right fielder. He plays left field.

A. Cavatica
09-27-2010, 09:56 PM
**** you, Jerry Reinsdorf.

Cheap and stupid.

Frater Perdurabo
09-27-2010, 09:58 PM
I kind of agree with your way of thinking but just for the record, Carl Crawford is not a right fielder. He plays left field.

Only because of his arm.

It's a small concession considering the amount of ground he can cover. He has the range of a CF. It would give the Sox CF range all across the OF. If you want, you could put Rios in RF and Crawford in CF. In any case, that exceptional range and speed would really help the pitching.

hi im skot
09-27-2010, 11:23 PM
**** you, Jerry Reinsdorf.

Cheap and stupid.

Classic.

hi im skot
09-27-2010, 11:25 PM
OK, this is fair. Now, invest resources to make the Sox an elite team on Opening Day. That means:

1. Re-sign Paulie and AJ
2. Sign Carl Crawford (RF)
3. Re-sign/tender Putz, Jenks, Vizquel

Lineup: Pierre, Alexei, Crawford, Rios, PK, DH TCQ, AJ, Beckham, Morel
Bench: Teahen, Vizquel, Castro, Jones
Rotation: Buehrle, Peavy, Danks, Floyd, Jackson
Bullpen: Jenks, Thornton, Putz, Sale, Santos, Pena, Linebrink

This team has the best speed, defense, pitching and bench in the majors.

Carl Crawford isn't a right fielder. Jenks is toast.

That line-up you posted isn't dramatically better than what the Sox had this year. If that's the case, we're in trouble.

Frater Perdurabo
09-27-2010, 11:28 PM
Carl Crawford isn't a right fielder. Jenks is toast.

That line-up you posted isn't dramatically better than what the Sox had this year. If that's the case, we're in trouble.

Not dramatically better. But more consistent, versatile, faster and no glaring DH hole.

LoveYourSuit
09-27-2010, 11:29 PM
Carl Crawford isn't a right fielder. Jenks is toast.

That line-up you posted isn't dramatically better than what the Sox had this year. If that's the case, we're in trouble.


In addition, that roster is going to cost what, $120+ million?

Good luck with that.

soltrain21
09-27-2010, 11:36 PM
In addition, that roster is going to cost what, $120+ million?

Good luck with that.

We are going to have to trade a starter if you want to see this offense get better, that's for sure.

shingo10
09-27-2010, 11:38 PM
No more middle ground. No more Mark Kotsay and Omar Vizquel getting tons of ABs. Kenny needs to go out and build a winning team. Ozzie Guillen needs to Shut the **** up and not have any god damn input until spring training, where he manages the team he is given. Kenny needs to quit believing Ozzie when he thinks small ball can work in the AL. It doesn't.

Kenny has to basically build a brand new 3-4-5. Ideally, Rios hits 2 and Konerko 5, but we will see. If we miss the playoffs in 2011, Ozzie and Kenny both need to be gone. I know some people still live in 2005 bliss, but being content is a loser's attitude. 1 playoff appearance in 6 years is firable by any other teams standards, and that should include the White Sox.

Omar was actually very good for us this year, even at the plate. I think he was the least of the Sox problems.

Nellie_Fox
09-27-2010, 11:47 PM
The White Sox will not be signing Carl Crawford.

mcsoxfan
09-27-2010, 11:49 PM
This is freaking great. :D:

This is freaking awful.

palehozenychicty
09-28-2010, 01:08 AM
The White Sox will not be signing Carl Crawford.

Touche. The most they can seem to do is resign Konerko and trade a starter for a RF, slide Quentin to DH, and find a couple catchers. Let Morel start at 3B and have the broken Teahen cup behind him. Or just drop the Q altogether. They also need a closer. Dag, how will all this get done?

guillensdisciple
09-28-2010, 01:25 AM
This is freaking awful.

We will agree to disagree.

The White Sox are on the cusp of being an excellent franchise. We need one more move and this team becomes a threat for a long time. I don't know what it is, but from the ground up we have excellent pieces to win.

Holes at third, and DH seem to be our biggest gaps. Quentin might be a weakness as well. However, barring the bullpen implosion, that was extremely solid until August and then it seemd to collapse on itself.

Starters are also extremely solid. Kind of disturbing that we have a rotation of Peavy, Danks, Floyd, Burls, and Jackson.

We're ready- we just need one great move or a couple of good moves to take this thing by the throat and win it. Ozzie can be the leader to take us there. I do believe that Walk has to be let go. This team needs consistency when hitting.

CLR01
09-28-2010, 03:34 AM
We will agree to disagree.

The White Sox are on the cusp of being an excellent franchise. We need one more move and this team becomes a threat for a long time. I don't know what it is, but from the ground up we have excellent pieces to win.

Holes at third, and DH seem to be our biggest gaps. Quentin might be a weakness as well. However, barring the bullpen implosion, that was extremely solid until August and then it seemd to collapse on itself.

Starters are also extremely solid. Kind of disturbing that we have a rotation of Peavy, Danks, Floyd, Burls, and Jackson.

We're ready- we just need one great move or a couple of good moves to take this thing by the throat and win it. Ozzie can be the leader to take us there. I do believe that Walk has to be let go. This team needs consistency when hitting.


And that would be a move to the national league.

SI1020
09-28-2010, 08:20 AM
The White Sox will not be signing Carl Crawford. That's too bad, because unlike some of the other free agents in the past coveted here, Crawford is the kind of player I'd like to see the Sox go after.

SI1020
09-28-2010, 08:28 AM
Starters are also extremely solid. Kind of disturbing that we have a rotation of Peavy, Danks, Floyd, Burls, and Jackson.
I suggest you think that comment over.

Rdy2PlayBall
09-28-2010, 08:33 AM
Won't happen with Guillen managing.We've had an American league team arguably every year besides maybe 2005... and even then Frank was supposed to be DH.

Chez
09-28-2010, 08:36 AM
We will agree to disagree.

The White Sox are on the cusp of being an excellent franchise. We need one more move and this team becomes a threat for a long time. I don't know what it is, but from the ground up we have excellent pieces to win.

Holes at third, and DH seem to be our biggest gaps. Quentin might be a weakness as well. However, barring the bullpen implosion, that was extremely solid until August and then it seemd to collapse on itself.

Starters are also extremely solid. Kind of disturbing that we have a rotation of Peavy, Danks, Floyd, Burls, and Jackson.

We're ready- we just need one great move or a couple of good moves to take this thing by the throat and win it. Ozzie can be the leader to take us there. I do believe that Walk has to be let go. This team needs consistency when hitting.

I hope you're right. Of course assuming the Twins have Morneau and Nathan back next season, they will be much better next season.

russ99
09-28-2010, 08:39 AM
That's too bad, because unlike some of the other free agents in the past coveted here, Crawford is the kind of player I'd like to see the Sox go after.

I'd absolutely love to see Carl Crawford with the Sox.

The problem with that thought is the fact that the Yankees are going to offer him boatloads of cash, probably in the Teixeira range.

I don't see the Sox spending $14M on Paul and $17-20 on Crawford unless significant pieces are moved to free up salary, like Buehrle's contract.

asindc
09-28-2010, 08:42 AM
I hope you're right. Of course assuming the Twins have Morneau and Nathan back next season, they will be much better next season.

I would not bank on Nathan making them "much better" next year. His injuries are the direct result of being overused by Gardenhire the past few seasons. He will also be 36 next season.

soltrain21
09-28-2010, 08:51 AM
We will agree to disagree.

The White Sox are on the cusp of being an excellent franchise. We need one more move and this team becomes a threat for a long time. I don't know what it is, but from the ground up we have excellent pieces to win.

Holes at third, and DH seem to be our biggest gaps. Quentin might be a weakness as well. However, barring the bullpen implosion, that was extremely solid until August and then it seemd to collapse on itself.

Starters are also extremely solid. Kind of disturbing that we have a rotation of Peavy, Danks, Floyd, Burls, and Jackson.

We're ready- we just need one great move or a couple of good moves to take this thing by the throat and win it. Ozzie can be the leader to take us there. I do believe that Walk has to be let go. This team needs consistency when hitting.

Our starting pitching isn't as good as advertised. Not even close.

Hitmen77
09-28-2010, 09:38 AM
Here's why [in my view, and from my recollection, anyway]:

Back during last year's Sox Fest, Thome and KW spoke about Thome's desire to return here. Thome actually made an appearance @ Sox Fest, and an appeal via the media to be re-signed here as well. After which, KW publicly stated that he'd "leave it up to Ozzie."

Ozzie then met with Thome, and after which announced that "he wouldn't be able to find any AB for Thome." In effect, as KW left it up to Ozzie, Ozzie is/was at fault for CHOOSING Mark Kotsay over Jim Thome.


While I agree with you, the decision was also being formulated as the KW/OG relationship was deteriorating. I agree that KW should have overridden Ozzie on this [and other] decisions.

At the same time, Ozzie should have been able to compare what a Hall of Famer like Jim Thome could do vs. a barely-MLB quality player like Kotsay. Ozzie either didn't do his research, or simply came to the conclusion that Mark Kotsay would be better than Jim Thome. In either case, he was terribly wrong, and is [rightfully, IMO] criticized for this decision, which seemed pretty elementary to me.

Great post. That is an excellent summary.

Ozzie told KW that he couldn't get Thome enough at bats. Basically he said that he didn't want Thome. Period.

Although it is the GM's job to put the roster together and he could/should normally over-rule the manager when there is a disagreement he also has to give his manager the type of team he wants if the manager feels very strongly about not wanting a certain player on his team.

The problem with Ozzie is he never knew how to use Thome in the first place. During this offseason he said that if he wanted one guy to play DH every game he wouldn't want anyone other than Thome. But since he absolutely didn't want an everyday DH he said there was no way he could get Thome enough at bats.

Look at how the Twins used Thome. They used him as a role player, starting only a few times a week and normally batting down like 6th or 7th in the order. This is how the Sox should have been using Thome for the past couple of years and how they could have used him this season. Instead, Ozzie tried to build his entire offense around the aging Thome, batting him third in the order, starting him almost everyday when he wasn't hurting and never pinch hitting for him in a big situation when a tough LH reliever was put in to face him.

I think KW felt that he had to acquiesce to his manager on Thome because his manager flat out told him he couldn't use him. But now that Ozzie has been proven wrong, KW will probably not allow himself to make the same mistake again.

BTW, I like the idea of a rotating DH when you can put together a roster with nine good hitters to cover eight positions. For instance, if the Sox had say Adrian Gonzalez or Shin Soo Choo or Nick Markakis on the roster in place of Kotsay or Teahen you could rotate them in the field and at DH with Konerko, Quentin, etc. But you don't use a rotating DH comprised of bench quality players just because they are decent on defense.

Again, this is a great post. Good explanation of the issue.


I don't know how I feel about Ozzie coming back. I don't think he's "terrible" and some here believe, but other people here act like he's beyond reproach...and he's not. The problem is, he's not getting a lot out of the talent that's given to him. More often than not, his teams have under achieved in the last 5 seasons. This is the 2nd year in a row where his team stumbled badly in the 2nd half after reaching 1st place in July. The 2006 team also fell flat on their face in the 2nd half to fall out of the race.

Yes, Ozzie's teams have had holes beyond his control, but the only really bad team talent-wise of the last 5 was 2007. Based on how this team's results over the last 5 seasons vs. the amount of talent we've had in most of those seasons, I have a hard time seeing what makes Ozzie a good manager. It seems like the best people can say is that he's a good manager because "he's Ozzie".

Hitmen77
09-28-2010, 09:49 AM
Our starting pitching isn't as good as advertised. Not even close.

Agreed. I'd say we have a fairly balanced rotation next year if Peavy is healthy. All 5 are decent pitchers. But this rotation is not as excellent as we'd like to think. The heart of this rotation (Danks, Floyd, Buehrle) let us down during key games in August and Sept. that pretty much sunk this team.

Peavy: He has the history of being an ace, but he's had 2 straight seasons now where he's missed significant time due to injury. How he bounces back next year is really a question mark.
Danks: Can be great, but not exactly an ace. I wouldn't be surprised if he's our best pitcher next year.
Floyd: Great when he's on a roll, but he's not exactly consistent.
Buehrle: Not as good as he was 5 years ago. Yesterday's performance was sort of typical of late.
Jackson: He can be great at times, but has struggled more often than not.

Total price tag for these guys next year will be about $50 million.

khan
09-28-2010, 10:09 AM
You look at the here and now. My point is that Ozzie has been hated since 2006 by many. Period.
Actually, I look at the body of work. I also try to separate my fandom as Ozzie from my childhood to my fandom of the team now. I think it's fair to state that SOME "hate" Ozzie, and that there will always be those knuckleheads that can't separate real life from sport.

But your statements here seemed to "globalize" any criticism of Ozzie as "hate," with which I disagree. Like it or not, Ozzie made a POOR CHOICE with Kotsay instead of Thome. And it isn't "hate" so say that he made a poor choice, IMO. I think it's fair to state he'd made a mistake, inasmuch as it's fair to laud him for making a GOOD choice.


And there isn't a contradiction between my two statements. My statement about the Ozzie hate is about the past 4 years. Those "Sox" fans who are now swearing they won't go see a single game going forward until he's fired?
No offense, but your statement that Ozzie takes heat for the Thome decision because it's "hatred" of Ozzie is contradictory at BEST. In my view, it excuses Ozzie for having made a poor choice, like it or not. Again, me stating this is not "hatred" of Ozzie, because I don't "hate" him. I have no reason to "hate" Ozzie, and nor do anyone else who [fairly] criticize him for this choice.

For the record, I have been ambivalent about Ozzie's/KW's return. If they do, GREAT! Here's hoping these two can GROW THE **** UP, act like MEN, and do their best work. If they don't, GREAT! There are other people on the planet that have a good understanding of the game as well.

Yeah, that's hatred. It's also a moronic statement; as they will certainly come back to the ballpark. They're frustrated, they're disappointed.
But that's not a "global" view of fans that are critical of Ozzie. At least, not to the degree to which I read your post. Too many here seem to think that Ozzie's **** doesn't stink, and anyone who [fairly] criticizes the SOX/Ozzie are "haters" or aren't fans of the team.

Again, I disagree with that view.

Very few Sox fans AREN'T disappointed with this season.
There are those that use the "well-the-SOX-don't-suck-as-much-as-they-did-in-the-70s-so-it's-been-a-dandy-season" view. These same people seem to use the comparison of crappy teams/GMs/managers of yesteryear to the situation that SOX/KW/Ozzie are in today.

But to say they won't come back until they get the manager they want? Go ahead, stay away. Don't complain when the team can't compete due to revenue.
That sure isn't me, nor most of the posters that I've seen here.

khan
09-28-2010, 10:22 AM
Our starting pitching isn't as good as advertised. Not even close.

But this rotation is not as excellent as we'd like to think. The heart of this rotation (Danks, Floyd, Buehrle) let us down during key games in August and Sept. that pretty much sunk this team.

Total price tag for these guys next year will be about $50 million.

Agreed with both of these posts. Take the time to compare the actual PERFORMANCE of the pitching staff to that of other teams in the AL. Then, compare the price tags of the SOX pitching staff to those of others in the AL.

You will come to the conclusion that this pitching staff [both the rotation AND bullpen] is badly underperforming their share of the salary budget. This underperformance is glossed over by the media, by our affinity of "Coop fixin' em," our affinity of what some in the staff have done in the PAST, and other reasons.

In my view, the performance must improve in the pitching staff, AND the price tag of the pitching staff must decrease for this team to remain relevant in the ALC.

Nellie_Fox
09-28-2010, 10:29 AM
There are those that use the "well-the-SOX-don't-suck-as-much-as-they-did-in-the-70s-so-it's-been-a-dandy-season" view. These same people seem to use the comparison of crappy teams/GMs/managers of yesteryear to the situation that SOX/KW/Ozzie are in today.:geezer: This is not the position we take. Nobody said it's been "dandy." That's words you put in our mouths to make it easier to win the argument.

We said that people who want change just for the sake of change, and say "anything would be better" need to realize that it's more likely to get worse than to get better if you change things. The history of the team shows that; the Sox have often been MUCH worse, and you don't scrap the management team that has given us the best stretch since the fifties/early sixties without realizing the risk you're taking.

I know they have failed to win the coveted August Championship yet again. But it was, all in all, a fun season.

tstrike2000
09-28-2010, 10:36 AM
The White Sox will not be signing Carl Crawford.

True, next?

khan
09-28-2010, 10:45 AM
:geezer: This is not the position we take. Nobody said it's been "dandy." That's words you put in our mouths to make it easier to win the argument.

We said that people who want change just for the sake of change, and say "anything would be better" need to realize that it's more likely to get worse than to get better if you change things. The history of the team shows that; the Sox have often been MUCH worse, and you don't scrap the management team that has given us the best stretch since the fifties/early sixties without realizing the risk you're taking.
1. There's no "winning the argument" here. There HAVE been many posters who have been pleased with only 1 post-season appearance in 5 seasons. In fact, one in particular has been VEHEMENT of his defense of this middling performance.

2. Your second [bolded] point is exactly the type of view I post about. While this management team has outperformed the dim lights of Hawk Harrelson and Terry Bevington, so what? While this management team has outperformed the small market-behaving teams of the 70s, so what?

This management team has had more resources than any of their predeccessors(sp?) SINCE the '50s/'60s. Because of this, [in part] I think that the expectations SHOULD BE raised, not lowered.

The defenders of Ozzie/KW are telling us that they're great, so why shouldn't we EXPECT greatness from them? Why be happy with a mediocre team for 4 out of the past 5 years?

I also think that bringing up the teams of yesteryear is immaterial to what's happening now. The 2011 SOX don't and won't compete with the 1956 SOX or the 1956 Washington Senators. 2005, while a treasured memory, is dead and buried. I want to see another WS win before I take a dirt nap. I want my DAD to see another WS win before HE passes on.

I don't want to pat mediocrity and bad decisionmaking on the back year after year after year after year. [I know, call me crazy for expecting greatness out of guys that I'm told are great, right?]

I know they have failed to win the coveted August Championship yet again. But it was, all in all, a fun season.
I don't know what this means.

Tragg
09-28-2010, 11:02 AM
Problem is that a guy like Kotsay is a great guy to have on the team if you have a smart manager who knows how to use him.
What's so great about him? He's an utterly replaceable 4th/5th outfielder talent and 2-3 times the market value. The Sox need to worry a lot more about baseball players and talent and less about "Chemistry" and Ozzie's clubhouse.

Williams is going to have to get back on his game to fix this team. Shovelling young players at teams in return for big-contract veterans won't cut it this time. Better get all the scouting reports current, objective and fresh, go beyond the tems with which you are friendly, and negotiate.

And finally, Guillen needs to be OUT of personnel decisions and talent evaluation. He's bad at it...very bad.

Rocky Soprano
09-28-2010, 11:05 AM
1. There's no "winning the argument" here. There HAVE been many posters who have been pleased with only 1 post-season appearance in 5 seasons. In fact, one in particular has been VEHEMENT of his defense of this middling performance.

2. Your second [bolded] point is exactly the type of view I post about. While this management team has outperformed the dim lights of Hawk Harrelson and Terry Bevington, so what? While this management team has outperformed the small market-behaving teams of the 70s, so what?

This management team has had more resources than any of their predeccessors(sp?) SINCE the '50s/'60s. Because of this, [in part] I think that the expectations SHOULD BE raised, not lowered.

The defenders of Ozzie/KW are telling us that they're great, so why shouldn't we EXPECT greatness from them? Why be happy with a mediocre team for 4 out of the past 5 years?

I also think that bringing up the teams of yesteryear is immaterial to what's happening now. The 2011 SOX don't and won't compete with the 1956 SOX or the 1956 Washington Senators. 2005, while a treasured memory, is dead and buried. I want to see another WS win before I take a dirt nap. I want my DAD to see another WS win before HE passes on.

I don't want to pat mediocrity and bad decisionmaking on the back year after year after year after year. [I know, call me crazy for expecting greatness out of guys that I'm told are great, right?]


Excellent post! I agree with every word.
:gulp:

russ99
09-28-2010, 11:10 AM
1. There's no "winning the argument" here. There HAVE been many posters who have been pleased with only 1 post-season appearance in 5 seasons. In fact, one in particular has been VEHEMENT of his defense of this middling performance.

2. Your second [bolded] point is exactly the type of view I post about. While this management team has outperformed the dim lights of Hawk Harrelson and Terry Bevington, so what? While this management team has outperformed the small market-behaving teams of the 70s, so what?

This management team has had more resources than any of their predeccessors(sp?) SINCE the '50s/'60s. Because of this, [in part] I think that the expectations SHOULD BE raised, not lowered.

The defenders of Ozzie/KW are telling us that they're great, so why shouldn't we EXPECT greatness from them? Why be happy with a mediocre team for 4 out of the past 5 years?

I also think that bringing up the teams of yesteryear is immaterial to what's happening now. The 2011 SOX don't and won't compete with the 1956 SOX or the 1956 Washington Senators. 2005, while a treasured memory, is dead and buried. I want to see another WS win before I take a dirt nap. I want my DAD to see another WS win before HE passes on.

I don't want to pat mediocrity and bad decisionmaking on the back year after year after year after year. [I know, call me crazy for expecting greatness out of guys that I'm told are great, right?]

I don't know what this means.

Um, that's 2 division titles in 6 years, including a championship, along with 4 seasons with 85+ wins (which we should get to this year). Yeah, real mediocre.

But I do expect more out of the Sox next year, since both Ozzie and Kenny have their jobs on the line. But IMO nobody should expect a championship.

khan
09-28-2010, 11:35 AM
Um, that's 2 division titles in 6 years, including a championship, along with 4 seasons with 85+ wins (which we should get to this year). Yeah, real mediocre.
Considering the division, yes: That IS mediocre. The SOX aren't playing in the ALE. Letting the Twins OWN this division is unacceptable.

Hell, even the crappy scrubs, with their crappy division, stupid front office management, and stupid field managers, have won as many divisions as Saint Ozzie's teams have won since he's been here. Again, if Ozzie is a golden god, he should deliver the goods with more regularity.

But I do expect more out of the Sox next year, since both Ozzie and Kenny have their jobs on the line. But IMO nobody should expect a championship.
Bull****. If indeed Ozzie and Kenny are as great as you claim, they should deliver greatness.

It isn't 1978 any more.

russ99
09-28-2010, 11:56 AM
Considering the division, yes: That IS mediocre. The SOX aren't playing in the ALE. Letting the Twins OWN this division is unacceptable.

Hell, even the crappy scrubs, with their crappy division, stupid front office management, and stupid field managers, have won as many divisions as Saint Ozzie's teams have won since he's been here. Again, if Ozzie is a golden god, he should deliver the goods with more regularity.


Bull****. If indeed Ozzie and Kenny are as great as you claim, they should deliver greatness.

It isn't 1978 any more.

It isn't 1978, but the Sox aren't the Yankees either. Obviously we disagree. As well as with the overall assumption here that Ozzie and Kenny are idiots.

So, if the Sox don't win the division in 2011, what assurances do you have that Jerry will bring in a manager and GM up to the task of living up to those expectations?

Or is your viewpoint that Ozzie and Kenny are so incompetent that anyone can slide into their jobs and win a World Series?

soltrain21
09-28-2010, 11:59 AM
It isn't 1978, but the Sox aren't the Yankees either. Obviously we disagree. As well as with the overall assumption here that Ozzie and Kenny are idiots.

So, if the Sox don't win the division in 2011, what assurances do you have that Jerry will bring in a manager and GM up to the task of living up to those expectations?

Or is your viewpoint that Ozzie and Kenny are so incompetent that anyone can slide into their jobs and win a World Series?

But would that matter since KW and Ozzie aren't getting the job done either? You can't keep people around who aren't doing their job because the person you replace them with MIGHT be worse.

RedHeadPaleHoser
09-28-2010, 12:04 PM
I am not looking forward to "Ozzie Watch" all next year predicated on the end of this season's events. Every time they lose 4 games, this **** will surface. Every time KW raises his voice, this **** will surface. Winning, unfortunately, doesn't solve everything here.

Domeshot17
09-28-2010, 12:12 PM
Um, that's 2 division titles in 6 years, including a championship, along with 4 seasons with 85+ wins (which we should get to this year). Yeah, real mediocre.

But I do expect more out of the Sox next year, since both Ozzie and Kenny have their jobs on the line. But IMO nobody should expect a championship.

Making the playoffs 1 out of the last 5 years is terribly mediocre. No one is saying we have to win a title every year, we will never be the Yankees like that, but it doesn't mean we have to be so completely average that we make the playoffs 20% of the time.

2005 is so far away that its completely forgotten. If Bobby Jenks no longer gets a 2005 pass, then neither do Ozzie and Kenny. People who live on what they did 5 years ago are losers in anything in life.

And also, maybe people would stop expecting a winning, championship team, if our GM and Manager didn't pretend to be one every year. I don't count years like this successful. 85 wins without a playoff appearance is good enough for 3rd place in most division, and maybe 2nd in ours. That doesn't cut it. The difference between winning 85 games or 81 is meaningless, either way we watch 8 other teams play in October and listen to more excuses from our manager and GM.

I have no idea if Jerry will bring in a better manager. I am very confident Rick Hahn is ready to be a great GM. But if we miss the playoffs in 2011, that is 1 playoff trip in 6 years, which would get any manager fired anywhere. I am confident we can find someone who can get us to the playoffs 16% of the time.

khan
09-28-2010, 12:15 PM
So, if the Sox don't win the division in 2011, what assurances do you have that Jerry will bring in a manager and GM up to the task of living up to those expectations?
Yeah, let's embrace incumbency at the expense of pursuing improvement when the GM and manager fail to meet expectations!

After all, change is SCARY, right? Why can't we keep things the same FOREVER? I mean, Ozzie invented baseball, and is a golden god who is BEYOND any criticism! In fact, why not bring BACK Roland Hemond and Bob Lemon!


Or maybe, um, we could LOWER expectations! YEAH, that's it!

After all, the SOX SUCKED back in the '70s, when they behaved like a small-market team. So that's MY yardstick! Why expect greatness out of guys that I'M telling you are great? After all, Ozzie can manage CIRCLES around Terry Bevington! And Kenny can GM CIRCLES around Hawk!

khan
09-28-2010, 12:16 PM
making the playoffs 1 out of the last 5 years is terribly mediocre. No one is saying we have to win a title every year, we will never be the yankees like that, but it doesn't mean we have to be so completely average that we make the playoffs 20% of the time.

2005 is so far away that its completely forgotten. If bobby jenks no longer gets a 2005 pass, then neither do ozzie and kenny. People who live on what they did 5 years ago are losers in anything in life.

And also, maybe people would stop expecting a winning, championship team, if our gm and manager didn't pretend to be one every year. I don't count years like this successful. 85 wins without a playoff appearance is good enough for 3rd place in most division, and maybe 2nd in ours. That doesn't cut it. The difference between winning 85 games or 81 is meaningless, either way we watch 8 other teams play in october and listen to more excuses from our manager and gm.

I have no idea if jerry will bring in a better manager. I am very confident rick hahn is ready to be a great gm. But if we miss the playoffs in 2011, that is 1 playoff trip in 6 years, which would get any manager fired anywhere. I am confident we can find someone who can get us to the playoffs 16% of the time.


wooooooo!!!!!!!!!!

2005, baby!!!!!!

Wooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rocky Soprano
09-28-2010, 12:17 PM
Making the playoffs 1 out of the last 5 years is terribly mediocre. No one is saying we have to win a title every year, we will never be the Yankees like that, but it doesn't mean we have to be so completely average that we make the playoffs 20% of the time.

2005 is so far away that its completely forgotten. If Bobby Jenks no longer gets a 2005 pass, then neither do Ozzie and Kenny. People who live on what they did 5 years ago are losers in anything in life.

And also, maybe people would stop expecting a winning, championship team, if our GM and Manager didn't pretend to be one every year. I don't count years like this successful. 85 wins without a playoff appearance is good enough for 3rd place in most division, and maybe 2nd in ours. That doesn't cut it. The difference between winning 85 games or 81 is meaningless, either way we watch 8 other teams play in October and listen to more excuses from our manager and GM.

I have no idea if Jerry will bring in a better manager. I am very confident Rick Hahn is ready to be a great GM. But if we miss the playoffs in 2011, that is 1 playoff trip in 6 years, which would get any manager fired anywhere. I am confident we can find someone who can get us to the playoffs 16% of the time.


Excuse me, but it is 2 out of 6 years.
It is 33% which is acceptable.

85 wins is a winning season! We are not the Yankees.

Ozzie is the best!

TDog
09-28-2010, 12:23 PM
:geezer: This is not the position we take. Nobody said it's been "dandy." That's words you put in our mouths to make it easier to win the argument.

We said that people who want change just for the sake of change, and say "anything would be better" need to realize that it's more likely to get worse than to get better if you change things. The history of the team shows that; the Sox have often been MUCH worse, and you don't scrap the management team that has given us the best stretch since the fifties/early sixties without realizing the risk you're taking.

I know they have failed to win the coveted August Championship yet again. But it was, all in all, a fun season.

Well put.

It isn't that I am not disappointed in only winning one World Series under Guillen. But that is one more than the White Sox had won in my lifetime before Guillen. That was one more than the White Sox won in my father's lifetime before Guillen.

Some people here act like heads need to roll because the Sox haven't been to the postseason since 2008 (even then, finishing first apparently meant nothing, the thrill of the divisional race, the drama of Game 163, because the White Sox didn't win the World Series.

In the end, baseball isn't about winning. Following a baseball team is more about dealing with losing than with winning. One team every year will win. Some will lose miserably. Others will give their team hope for winning. That hope is what you want out of a baseball season. This White Sox team gave more of that to their fans than the revered 1977 team did. (Actually, 2010 has like 1983 up until late July and 1977 thereafter, so maybe it was a wash -- perhaps this team won't fall to third as the 1977 team did.)

A lot of us had season tickets for Sox games in seasons when the White Sox weren't close to contention. We have paid to see games when the White Sox were out of a race in seasons where they were never into a race. We're not White Sox fans because they win. We're White Sox fans because they're our team.

I don't think this was a dandy season. But I don't think I've wasted my time being a White Sox fan this year because they fell out of contention in September after picking up Many Ramirez, just as they fell out of contention last year in late August after picking up Alex Rios, who played more like Armando Rios before bouncing back this year.

What you have now is teams that generally contend. The golden seasons used to be the one where the Sox merely contended. Now it's a rare season that they don't, and they get to the postseason as often as they used to contend. If 1977 or 1983 happened today, they wouldn't hold cult status in fans' imaginations. They would be scorned as losers.

A winning baseball team is a fragile thing. If everything doesn't click, at least Plan B and Plan C has to come through At the end of the 1982 season, Jimmy Piersall ranted about how the White Sox would lose at least 90 games in 1983. Read the posts going into the 2005 season or the 2006 season. Baseball is a human game played by people who fail most of the time. Building a winner isn't just a matter of plugging stats into a lineup, a starting rotation and a bullpen.

You can say that because the Sox ended up falling out of contention in September, 2010 was a season where management conspired to give fans false hope. Tear it all down and start all over. Why bother to win at all when losing could bring a better first-round draft choice?

But this season has held some very satisfying moments for me. All in all, it was a fun season.

SI1020
09-28-2010, 12:55 PM
I would not bank on Nathan making them "much better" next year. His injuries are the direct result of being overused by Gardenhire the past few seasons. He will also be 36 next season. The definition of overused sure has changed radically in my lifetime. A stud closer appearing in 64-73 games and pitching a grand total of 67 2/3 to 72 1/3 innings a season over a 6 year period is overworked? How the hell did Mike Marshall and Kent Tekulve do it?

SI1020
09-28-2010, 01:01 PM
Well put.
It isn't that I am not disappointed in only winning one World Series under Guillen. But that is one more than the White Sox had won in my lifetime before Guillen. That was one more than the White Sox won in my father's lifetime before Guillen.
Again and again I see how so many Sox fans are eternally grateful to the ruling regime and have such lowered expectations because at last the team finally won a championship.

On another note it seems like whenever the Sox appear to be on the cusp of long term dominance they seem to fritter it all away.

pudge
09-28-2010, 01:58 PM
Yeah, let's embrace incumbency at the expense of pursuing improvement when the GM and manager fail to meet expectations!

After all, change is SCARY, right? Why can't we keep things the same FOREVER? I mean, Ozzie invented baseball, and is a golden god who is BEYOND any criticism! In fact, why not bring BACK Roland Hemond and Bob Lemon!


Or maybe, um, we could LOWER expectations! YEAH, that's it!

After all, the SOX SUCKED back in the '70s, when they behaved like a small-market team. So that's MY yardstick! Why expect greatness out of guys that I'M telling you are great? After all, Ozzie can manage CIRCLES around Terry Bevington! And Kenny can GM CIRCLES around Hawk!

Change is not scary, but sometimes it can be stupid. Still, I think looking at the Bears is a great example of what needs to be done - maybe Ozzie doesn't need to go, but *something* needs to shake up this club. This regime is stale. Admittedly, a hitting coach doesn't have the same impact an offensive coordinator in football has, and I don't want to start a "fire Walker" chant, but I am just saying that fans know when something needs to be shaken up. The Sox are really fading fast from my interest. I don't live in town, so it's easy to not be interested anymore. Some people found this season "fun", I found it annoying and completely uninteresting. The run against the NL in June was fun to watch, but otherwise it was not worth my time. There is no excuse for the market of Chicago to not be making more post-season trips in a division with KC, Detroit, Cleveland, Minnesota. I hope they can put something together next season, the luster of '05 is fading...

TDog
09-28-2010, 03:22 PM
Again and again I see how so many Sox fans are eternally grateful to the ruling regime and have such lowered expectations because at last the team finally won a championship.

On another note it seems like whenever the Sox appear to be on the cusp of long term dominance they seem to fritter it all away.

The current regime isn't that far away. If bringing in a manager that people believe to be great, if signing some players to some huge contracts were all that was needed to win a championship, the Cubs would have won several in this decade.

SI1020
09-28-2010, 04:21 PM
The current regime isn't that far away. If bringing in a manager that people believe to be great, if signing some players to some huge contracts were all that was needed to win a championship, the Cubs would have won several in this decade. I would never favor an approach that Hendry and the Cubs have taken and I hope you don't think that's what I was calling for.

slavko
09-28-2010, 04:31 PM
Agreed. I'd say we have a fairly balanced rotation next year if Peavy is healthy. All 5 are decent pitchers. But this rotation is not as excellent as we'd like to think. The heart of this rotation (Danks, Floyd, Buehrle) let us down during key games in August and Sept. that pretty much sunk this team.

Peavy: He has the history of being an ace, but he's had 2 straight seasons now where he's missed significant time due to injury. How he bounces back next year is really a question mark.
Danks: Can be great, but not exactly an ace. I wouldn't be surprised if he's our best pitcher next year.
Floyd: Great when he's on a roll, but he's not exactly consistent.
Buehrle: Not as good as he was 5 years ago. Yesterday's performance was sort of typical of late.
Jackson: He can be great at times, but has struggled more often than not.

Total price tag for these guys next year will be about $50 million.

Buehrle's had a halo at WSI for a long time. All these guys have, sort of. Right About Now, they're all about as good as Jon Garland, who's the subject of another current thread here, and had horns at WSI once upon a time. Solid inning eaters. Period. Peavy may never be the same again so I won't go there.

Dirty30
09-28-2010, 04:35 PM
Excuse me, but it is 2 out of 6 years.
It is 33% which is acceptable.

85 wins is a winning season! We are not the Yankees.

Ozzie is the best!
2006: No Playoffs
2007: No Playoffs
2008: Playoffs
2009: No Playoffs
2010: No Playoffs
2011: No Playoffs

Excuse me, but it is 1 out of 6 years.

Frontman
09-28-2010, 04:35 PM
I would never favor an approach that Hendry and the Cubs have taken and I hope you don't think that's what I was calling for.

No, but many are so quick to say "get rid of....." (either Ozzie, Kenny, a player, etc.) without any sort of answer.

Change for change's sake isn't going to get the Sox anywhere. Nor is allowing things to remain "status quo."

My whole point is that Ozzie has made mistakes; but so has Kenny. Kenny's job isn't to give Ozzie what Ozzie WANTS, but rather what Ozzie NEEDS.

The small ball experiment didn't work. Ozzie is staying. So now; Kenny needs to put together a team that Ozzie can win with.

If they both fail next year; they both should be shown the door.

kufram
09-28-2010, 04:48 PM
Change is not scary, but sometimes it can be stupid. Still, I think looking at the Bears is a great example of what needs to be done - maybe Ozzie doesn't need to go, but *something* needs to shake up this club. This regime is stale. Admittedly, a hitting coach doesn't have the same impact an offensive coordinator in football has, and I don't want to start a "fire Walker" chant, but I am just saying that fans know when something needs to be shaken up. The Sox are really fading fast from my interest. I don't live in town, so it's easy to not be interested anymore. Some people found this season "fun", I found it annoying and completely uninteresting. The run against the NL in June was fun to watch, but otherwise it was not worth my time. There is no excuse for the market of Chicago to not be making more post-season trips in a division with KC, Detroit, Cleveland, Minnesota. I hope they can put something together next season, the luster of '05 is fading...


I'm not sure fans "know" as much as they think they do. When did size of market determine trips to the post season? Haven't the Cardinals won a few WS? KC has won it. Detroit, Cleveland? Some of the best players ever have played for those teams. Some of the best players to ever play the game NEVER PLAYED in a World Series. Does that devalue them?

What I'm reading from some posters here is hyperbole. Overblown, self-indulgent noise making. It is bad anger management. It only takes place on the internet and that is fine. They have a right to say whatever they want. But it isn't necessarily important or insightful or even any kind of majority of anything. It is mostly just loud.

I'm not saying you are one of those but if the luster is already fading from 2005, only 5 years ago, you must be too young to appreciate it. One WS every decade would be wildly successful in my opinion. It takes so much luck to get to the WS even for the most talented, most expensive team. You won't hear the players ever saying how they should get to the post season at least 3 out of 4 seasons. They know it takes more than the most money, the best players, the best micro-management. Why do you think even the Yankee players are deliriously happy when they win it when they've done it so many times? Because it is bloody difficult.

This season was a real roller coaster ride. I enjoyed the good wins, I hated the bad losses and I'm very disappointed that the boys didn't have that one last run to get them in. But, I paid a lot of attention. I enjoyed the ride rather than studied the rails we were riding on. Heck, watching Paul Konerko alone was worth the price of admission.

Rocky Soprano
09-28-2010, 04:49 PM
No, but many are so quick to say "get rid of....." (either Ozzie, Kenny, a player, etc.) without any sort of answer.

Change for change's sake isn't going to get the Sox anywhere. Nor is allowing things to remain "status quo."

My whole point is that Ozzie has made mistakes; but so has Kenny. Kenny's job isn't to give Ozzie what Ozzie WANTS, but rather what Ozzie NEEDS.

The small ball experiment didn't work. Ozzie is staying. So now; Kenny needs to put together a team that Ozzie can win with.

If they both fail next year; they both should be shown the door.

In regards to the bolded part, so what should the Sox do?
I agree that you can't just make a change to say you made a change. The other side to the coin is that you can't just sit pat and hope to get a different result.

Not making the playoffs on a somewhat consistent basis, combined with Ozzie's act and him not being to shut up his son has pushed me over the edge. If the Sox were winning, it is easier to ignore Ozzie's mouth. I truly hope next year the Sox at least make the playoffs. If its a bad year I can only imagine all the drama we will have with Ozzie, his family, and KW.

A. Cavatica
09-28-2010, 08:05 PM
It isn't that I am not disappointed in only winning one World Series under Guillen. But that is one more than the White Sox had won in my lifetime before Guillen. That was one more than the White Sox won in my father's lifetime before Guillen.

What bugs me is not the two playoff appearances in six years, but the results considering the (overall) high quality of talent on the roster. The starting rotation has been sterling, year after year. I think they should've gone back to the Series in 2006, and the other teams should've been stronger.

I lay the blame on Guillen because I see him make the same mistakes over and over again, and he doesn't learn from them. I can't remember the last time he outmanaged the other guy and actually won a game for the team. He doesn't teach the fundamentals he preaches, he puts bad talent on the field, he doesn't have his pitchers protect his hitters, he can't get his team up for games in April or against the Twins or facing rookie starters, he constantly does stupid things that make him look like a buffoon and make the Sox a laughingstock, and he never holds anyone accountable.

Ozzie needed to be fired years ago. Bringing him back in 2011 is running up the white flag before 2010 is even over.

SI1020
09-28-2010, 08:53 PM
No, but many are so quick to say "get rid of....." (either Ozzie, Kenny, a player, etc.) without any sort of answer.

Change for change's sake isn't going to get the Sox anywhere. Nor is allowing things to remain "status quo."

My whole point is that Ozzie has made mistakes; but so has Kenny. Kenny's job isn't to give Ozzie what Ozzie WANTS, but rather what Ozzie NEEDS.

The small ball experiment didn't work. Ozzie is staying. So now; Kenny needs to put together a team that Ozzie can win with.

If they both fail next year; they both should be shown the door. I want them both shown the door five minutes ago. That being said hopefully they get their acts together, and while we're all celebrating next year I can be reminded that I wanted them both gone. The Sox winning will always be the most important thing to me. OK then, hopefully it will be done your way. Kenny and Ozzie get it back together next year or else it's adios and good luck where ever you end up.

Frontman
09-28-2010, 09:30 PM
In regards to the bolded part, so what should the Sox do?
I agree that you can't just make a change to say you made a change. The other side to the coin is that you can't just sit pat and hope to get a different result.

Not making the playoffs on a somewhat consistent basis, combined with Ozzie's act and him not being to shut up his son has pushed me over the edge. If the Sox were winning, it is easier to ignore Ozzie's mouth. I truly hope next year the Sox at least make the playoffs. If its a bad year I can only imagine all the drama we will have with Ozzie, his family, and KW.

One more year to get it done is exactly what the Sox should do. Don't eat Ozzie's contract. They told him he's staying; so focus on the team and its needs.

Kenny needs to get a left handed bat; some bullpen help; and possibly one or two starters. (Depending on Peavy returning; Garcia returning, etc.) He also needs to stop commenting on the fanbase and our attendance/lack thereof. Do your job; put a good team together; and we'll be back in the stands. Drop out of contention by June? We're not showing up in 100 degree heat in August.

As far as Ozzie; he better focus on doing his job that he loves; instead of worrying about his adult kids. They are all grown ups, Ozzie. If they want to shoot their mouths off; fine. Just not on the White Sox dime.

Again, no playoffs next year? I want both KW and OG gone.

spawn
09-28-2010, 09:39 PM
2006: No Playoffs
2007: No Playoffs
2008: Playoffs
2009: No Playoffs
2010: No Playoffs
2011: No Playoffs

Excuse me, but it is 1 out of 6 years.
Yeah, counting 2011 before the 2010 season is over. Brilliant! :rolleyes:

russ99
09-28-2010, 09:48 PM
Yeah, let's embrace incumbency at the expense of pursuing improvement when the GM and manager fail to meet expectations!

After all, change is SCARY, right? Why can't we keep things the same FOREVER? I mean, Ozzie invented baseball, and is a golden god who is BEYOND any criticism! In fact, why not bring BACK Roland Hemond and Bob Lemon!

Or maybe, um, we could LOWER expectations! YEAH, that's it!

After all, the SOX SUCKED back in the '70s, when they behaved like a small-market team. So that's MY yardstick! Why expect greatness out of guys that I'M telling you are great? After all, Ozzie can manage CIRCLES around Terry Bevington! And Kenny can GM CIRCLES around Hawk!

C'mon dude - did I say ANYTHING about Ozzie and Kenny being back after next year in that post? Anything??? Quit putting words in my mouth, I didn't say or even think the things you're spouting off here.

My point being, you can't assume anything. You can't assume because the Sox have $100M payroll that they should win the division every year or even every other year, because they have to play the games.

You can't assume the Sox would be better off or not with a new GM and manager in 2012. You can't assume Jerry's going to retire and sell the team to a Russian megabillionaire and turn us into the next Yankees.

Assume = expect.

And for the record, I expect the Sox to be a competitive team next year, and give us a fun summer at the ballpark with real shot at a postseason berth.

Domeshot17
09-28-2010, 09:58 PM
C'mon dude - did I say ANYTHING about Ozzie and Kenny being back after next year in that post? Anything??? Quit putting words in my mouth, I didn't say or even think the things you're spouting off here.

My point being, you can't assume anything. You can't assume because the Sox have $100M payroll that they should win the division every year or even every other year, because they have to play the games.

You can't assume the Sox would be better off or not with a new GM and manager in 2012. You can't assume Jerry's going to retire and sell the team to a Russian megabillionaire and turn us into the next Yankees.

Assume = expect.

And for the record, I expect the Sox to be a competitive team next year, and give us a fun summer at the ballpark with real shot at a postseason berth.

Better hope that real shot comes through, I get the feeling its surely playoffs or bust for Ozzie, maybe Kenny too (and rightfully so). Anything sort of a trip to the playoffs is the door.

khan
09-28-2010, 10:29 PM
C'mon dude - did I say ANYTHING about Ozzie and Kenny being back after next year in that post? Anything??? Quit putting words in my mouth, I didn't say or even think the things you're spouting off here.
Well, Dusty, you DID state the following in the post I was quoting:

..."So, if the Sox don't win the division in 2011, what assurances do you have that Jerry will bring in a manager and GM up to the task of living up to those expectations?... "


Sure sounds like [yet another] convoluted argument to defend the manager and GM, the fandom of whom you put AHEAD of your fandom of the SOX at times. In other words, YOUR argument was, "we don't know who can replace two guys that failed to get into the post season, so let's keep them."

My point being, you can't assume anything. You can't assume because the Sox have $100M payroll that they should win the division every year or even every other year, because they have to play the games.

You can't assume the Sox would be better off or not with a new GM and manager in 2012.
And if they [once again] FAIL to meet a reasonable expectation, you're OK with them returning? Because THAT was your straw man argument that has blown up in your face. No one is making the argument that the team would or would not be better off with a new GM/manager if they fail to meet expectations. I think most would agree that it is reasonable to replace someone that isn't up to expectations in their job, be it as a janitor in a school, a drive-thru cashier, or yes, the manager and GM of the SOX.

Honestly, who are you REALLY a fan of:

OZZIE, or the SOX?

It's OK to be a fan of the manager and GM, just a little weird, if you ask me. But if they [ONCE AGAIN] fail to make the post season [as in your original post], it's not OK with people who are fans of the club, not "Ozzie" fans.

And for the record, I expect the Sox to be a competitive team next year, and give us a fun summer at the ballpark with real shot at a postseason berth.
Not good enough. Get into the post season. With THIS payroll and THOSE ticket prices, "good enough" isn't "good enough."

No one remembers, or really gives a **** about an "85 win season," in all honesty.

Domeshot17
09-28-2010, 10:42 PM
Well, Dusty, you DID state the following in the post I was quoting:

..."So, if the Sox don't win the division in 2011, what assurances do you have that Jerry will bring in a manager and GM up to the task of living up to those expectations?... "


Sure sounds like [yet another] convoluted argument to defend the manager and GM, the fandom of whom you put AHEAD of your fandom of the SOX at times. In other words, YOUR argument was, "we don't know who can replace two guys that failed to get into the post season, so let's keep them."


And if they [once again] FAIL to meet a reasonable expectation, you're OK with them returning? Because THAT was your straw man argument that has blown up in your face. No one is making the argument that the team would or would not be better off with a new GM/manager if they fail to meet expectations. I think most would agree that it is reasonable to replace someone that isn't up to expectations in their job, be it as a janitor in a school, a drive-thru cashier, or yes, the manager and GM of the SOX.

Honestly, who are you REALLY a fan of:

OZZIE, or the SOX?

It's OK to be a fan of the manager and GM, just a little weird, if you ask me. But if they [ONCE AGAIN] fail to make the post season [as in your original post], it's not OK with people who are fans of the club, not "Ozzie" fans.


Not good enough. Get into the post season. With THIS payroll and THOSE ticket prices, "good enough" isn't "good enough."

No one remembers, or really gives a **** about an "85 win season," in all honesty.

Measuring success based off an 85 win season is like measuring grades and getting straight C's.

mcsoxfan
09-28-2010, 10:44 PM
Better hope that real shot comes through, I get the feeling its surely playoffs or bust for Ozzie, maybe Kenny too (and rightfully so). Anything sort of a trip to the playoffs is the door.

Sox sold to a Russian billionaire that turns them into the Yankees.
Oh, for the reality of that happening.

mcsoxfan
09-28-2010, 10:46 PM
I have no idea why Ozzie gets blamed for a lot of Kenny's choices.

I have no idea why Kenny got stuck with a manager he didn't want from jump.

mcsoxfan
09-28-2010, 10:48 PM
Won't happen with Guillen managing.

If anyone's been putting off taking an extended summer vacation with the family, looks to me like 2011 would be a great summer to do it.

mcsoxfan
09-28-2010, 10:50 PM
Ozzie went into the season saying he wants to rotate Kotsay, Jones and Vizquel at DH. Sure KW signed Kotsay for the bench but Ozzie misused him as his primary DH. He didn't play much OF at all this season and he DHed in a lot of games while Konerko was playing 1B and Quentin was in RF.

And Ozzie's original plan of DHing Vizquel was ridiculous. It took an injury to Teahen to save Ozzie from himself and utilize Vizquel in the field where his strength lies and in a role where he was able to help the team immensely.

If Teahen did not get hurt, Ozzie would be gone now.

mcsoxfan
09-28-2010, 10:51 PM
**** you, Jerry Reinsdorf.

Cheap and stupid.


2 weeks out of 28 years doesn't do it for me either.

mcsoxfan
09-28-2010, 10:52 PM
Only because of his arm.

It's a small concession considering the amount of ground he can cover. He has the range of a CF. It would give the Sox CF range all across the OF. If you want, you could put Rios in RF and Crawford in CF. In any case, that exceptional range and speed would really help the pitching.

Why would any free agent want to be bothered with the White Sox?

mcsoxfan
09-28-2010, 10:57 PM
Agreed. I'd say we have a fairly balanced rotation next year if Peavy is healthy. All 5 are decent pitchers. But this rotation is not as excellent as we'd like to think. The heart of this rotation (Danks, Floyd, Buehrle) let us down during key games in August and Sept. that pretty much sunk this team.

Peavy: He has the history of being an ace, but he's had 2 straight seasons now where he's missed significant time due to injury. How he bounces back next year is really a question mark.
Danks: Can be great, but not exactly an ace. I wouldn't be surprised if he's our best pitcher next year.
Floyd: Great when he's on a roll, but he's not exactly consistent.
Buehrle: Not as good as he was 5 years ago. Yesterday's performance was sort of typical of late.
Jackson: He can be great at times, but has struggled more often than not.

Total price tag for these guys next year will be about $50 million.

Time to let the overrated and overpaid Buehrle find his way home to St. Louis

mcsoxfan
09-28-2010, 11:02 PM
Excellent post! I agree with every word.
:gulp:

Nicely done!
It's a pleasure when sense and sensibility participates on this board.

mcsoxfan
09-28-2010, 11:04 PM
Excuse me, but it is 2 out of 6 years.
It is 33% which is acceptable.

85 wins is a winning season! We are not the Yankees.

Ozzie is the best!

The low expectations and demands of Sox fans is just mind-numbing.
No wonder we'll never get rid of Reinsdorf.

Nellie_Fox
09-29-2010, 12:01 AM
The low expectations and demands of Sox fans is just mind-numbing.
No wonder we'll never get rid of Reinsdorf.You honestly think the expectations and demands of fans can get rid of an OWNER? Seriously?

TheOldRoman
09-29-2010, 09:04 AM
Yeah, counting 2011 before the 2010 season is over. Brilliant! :rolleyes:Hell, why not? One of the Grebeck/Dirty/Khan disciples (don't remember which) declared 2010 to be another 90 loss season about three weeks in, then asked others to "prove" that it wouldn't be when questioned.

Rocky Soprano
09-29-2010, 09:17 AM
The low expectations and demands of Sox fans is just mind-numbing.
No wonder we'll never get rid of Reinsdorf.

I didn't think my post needed to be in teal when every other post is about how I wanted Ozzie gone.

mjmcend
09-29-2010, 11:03 AM
My point being, you can't assume anything. You can't assume because the Sox have $100M payroll that they should win the division every year or even every other year, because they have to play the games.

You can't assume the Sox would be better off or not with a new GM and manager in 2012. You can't assume Jerry's going to retire and sell the team to a Russian megabillionaire and turn us into the next Yankees.

Assume = expect.

And for the record, I expect the Sox to be a competitive team next year, and give us a fun summer at the ballpark with real shot at a postseason berth.

Do you even read your own posts? They are not even internally consistent.

spawn
09-29-2010, 11:35 AM
If Teahen did not get hurt, Ozzie would be gone now.

2 weeks out of 28 years doesn't do it for me either.

Why would any free agent want to be bothered with the White Sox?

Time to let the overrated and overpaid Buehrle find his way home to St. Louis

Nicely done!
It's a pleasure when sense and sensibility participates on this board.

The low expectations and demands of Sox fans is just mind-numbing.
No wonder we'll never get rid of Reinsdorf.

I've been looking at your other posts as well. All I can say is...:dtroll:
The funnier posts are the ones where you say the Sox need new ownership. Just curious as to how you expect THAT to happen. :rolling:

khan
09-29-2010, 11:53 AM
Hell, why not? One of the Grebeck/Dirty/Khan disciples (don't remember which) declared 2010 to be another 90 loss season about three weeks in, then asked others to "prove" that it wouldn't be when questioned.

Thank GOD for the national league.

SI1020
09-29-2010, 12:01 PM
The low expectations and demands of Sox fans is just mind-numbing.
I agree with that, except I would have said "many" Sox fans. I hope that Sox fans in 2093 won't be wondering if this will finally be their year.

TheOldRoman
09-29-2010, 12:12 PM
Thank GOD for the national league.Nope, fail. Their record against the AL is 69-70. That doesn't come close to equalling a 90 loss season. Keep in mind that includes the last three weeks, in which the team had pretty much given up. But I guess the Sox having a winning record in the AL 90% of the way through the season was a fluke but the last two weeks have been a better indication of their skill.

khan
09-29-2010, 12:47 PM
Nope, fail. Their record against the AL is 69-70. That doesn't come close to equalling a 90 loss season. Keep in mind that includes the last three weeks, in which the team had pretty much given up. But I guess the Sox having a winning record in the AL 90% of the way through the season was a fluke but the last two weeks have been a better indication of their skill.

1. I don't remember stating that the SOX would have a 90 loss season. I remember being pessimistic, but I don't recall stating anything like that. [Or ME counting the 2011 season before it happens, for that matter...]

2. [More importantly] A sub-.500 record v. the AL is HARDLY a reason to trumpet the 2010 SOX season as a triumph for Ozzie. The team sucked, and he had a big hand in it sucking, no matter HOW you slice it.

But hey, if you want to watch ****ty baseball, and a sub-.500 record is "good enough" for you, there's this other team that plays in Chicago that can give that to you in spades.

For my part, I expect excellence from guys that are being portrayed as being excellent. [Weird concept, right?]

TheOldRoman
09-29-2010, 01:04 PM
1. I don't remember stating that the SOX would have a 90 loss season. I remember being pessimistic, but I don't recall stating anything like that. [Or ME counting the 2011 season before it happens, for that matter...]

2. [More importantly] A sub-.500 record v. the AL is HARDLY a reason to trumpet the 2010 SOX season as a triumph for Ozzie. The team sucked, and he had a big hand in it sucking, no matter HOW you slice it.

But hey, if you want to watch ****ty baseball, and a sub-.500 record is "good enough" for you, there's this other team that plays in Chicago that can give that to you in spades.

For my part, I expect excellence from guys that are being portrayed as being excellent. [Weird concept, right?]Wow. You didn't copy and paste Roarman's post from the Twins thread verbatim, but I'm guessing you looked off of it and changed the words around as to not be accused of plagiarism. Good job. We love being mediocre, are all Cubs fans and are inferior to you intellectually. Great job.

As for the rest of your post, 1.) I didn't say you specifically predicted 90 wins, I said it was someone of your ilk; I don't remember who. However, you just mocked my previous post and implied the Sox would have lost 90 games if not for interleague play, so obviously it hit a little close to home with you. 2.) I am not trumpeting the Sox 69-70 record against the AL, I am saying that it is very far off from losing 90 games. I think saying a team which you claimed to be so extremely untalented (or any team really) winning 85 "sucks" is silly, but maybe that is just me.

khan
09-29-2010, 01:08 PM
Wow. You didn't copy and paste Roarman's post from the Twins thread verbatim, but I'm guessing you looked off of it and changed the words around as to not be accused of plagiarism. Good job. We love being mediocre, are all Cubs fans and are inferior to you intellectually. Great job.
[I don't even know what twins thread you're referring to here.]

But anyway, you're the one who's trying to pawn off a 69-70 record as being a good one, not me. Don't get annoyed that you think 69-70 [and 9 below .500 in the division] is a reason to be happy.

That's on YOU, not me. I suggest you raise your expectations a bit.

asindc
09-29-2010, 01:09 PM
Thank GOD for the national league.

Nope, fail. Their record against the AL is 69-70. That doesn't come close to equalling a 90 loss season. Keep in mind that includes the last three weeks, in which the team had pretty much given up. But I guess the Sox having a winning record in the AL 90% of the way through the season was a fluke but the last two weeks have been a better indication of their skill.

Actually, it is fail for a more basic reason. The summary of the season-long conversation went like this, even after the 2010 schedule was released to the public:

What are KW and Ozzie doing? If the Sox don't re-sign Thome/sign Damon/sign Branyon/sign 'fill in the blank, then they won't get anywhere close to 85 wins, let alone contend for the division.

It's too early to say that. There is plenty enough talent on the roster to at least compete for the division.

I'm plesantly surprised. I thought they would suck this year. Still a long way to go.

Yep, still a long way to go.

I knew they would be mediocre. They've only won as many games as they have because the went 12-3 against the NL.




Saying "I told you so" by bringing up the record against the NL ignores two facts:

1) We all knew what the schedule was before either pronouncing the Sox mediocre even before the season began or expressing cautious optimism. In other words, some pronounced the Sox mediocre knowing that they would be playing those NL teams.

2) The 12-3 record against the NL is a two-game improvement over the 10-5 against the NL last year. If you think those two additional wins against the NL this year made all the difference, well...

TheOldRoman
09-29-2010, 01:13 PM
[I don't even know what twins thread you're referring to here.]

But anyway, you're the one who's trying to pawn off a 69-70 record as being a good one, not me. Don't get annoyed that you think 69-70 [and 9 below .500 in the division] is a reason to be happy.

That's on YOU, not me. I suggest you raise your expectations a bit.See above. I didn't defend Ozzie, I didn't say I am pleased with the season, and I didn't claim going 1 under against the AL was great. I said that is VERY far off from the predicted 90 loss season.

khan
09-29-2010, 01:16 PM
I knew they would be mediocre. They've only won as many games as they have because the went 12-3 against the NL.

And again:

Is a 69-70 record v. the AL, and a 30-39 record in the division good enough for you?


Regardless of whatever minutia of whatever posts that you are referencing, the basic underlying reality is that the team wasn't good enough. The record in-league and in-division elucidates this to even the biggest polyanna.

The argument isn't whether or not there would be specifically 90 losses. The argument is whether or not the team is/was good enough. Clearly, history will record that the 2010 White Sox were not good enough. The overall record is clearly skewed by the record in interleague play.

Do you disagree?

khan
09-29-2010, 01:19 PM
See above. I didn't defend Ozzie, I didn't say I am pleased with the season, and I didn't claim going 1 under against the AL was great. I said that is VERY far off from the predicted 90 loss season.

So what are you arguing? Semantics? Minutia?

Regardless of how you spin it, the team is not good enough, the GM is not good enough, and the manager is not good enough. Do you disagree?


[Although, I will have to say that your earlier post flattered me when you said that I have "disciples." Who knew?]

TheOldRoman
09-29-2010, 01:20 PM
And again:

Is a 69-70 record v. the AL, and a 30-39 record in the division good enough for you?


Regardless of whatever minutia of whatever posts that you are referencing, the basic underlying reality is that the team wasn't good enough. The record in-league and in-division elucidates this to even the biggest polyanna.

The argument isn't whether or not there would be specifically 90 losses. The argument is whether or not the team is/was good enough. Clearly, history will record that the 2010 White Sox were not good enough. The overall record is clearly skewed by the record in interleague play.

Do you disagree?Is is also skewed by the Sox folding up the tents a few weeks ago? Playing like the walking dead for a few weeks and 7-13 over their last 20 games? I'm guessing you will tell me that was expected regression to the mean.

TheOldRoman
09-29-2010, 01:23 PM
So what are you arguing? Semantics? Minutia?

Regardless of how you spin it, the team is not good enough, the GM is not good enough, and the manager is not good enough. Do you disagree?


[Although, I will have to say that your earlier post flattered me when you said that I have "disciples." Who knew?]I am not arguing semantics at all. You started an arguement by defending the 90 loss prediction and implying it only didn't happen because, due to a scheduling quirk, we were allowed to play the National League this year.

And I don't know how many disciples you actually have. I am still convinced you and DirtySox are the same person.:smile:

khan
09-29-2010, 01:24 PM
Is is also skewed by the Sox folding up the tents a few weeks ago? Playing like the walking dead for a few weeks and 7-13 over their last 20 games? I'm guessing you will tell me that was expected regression to the mean.

I don't know. Perhaps the teams that have kicked the SOX in the teeth lately are more talented and/or better-coached than the SOX.

Again: Is a sub-.500 record in the AL, and a 30-39 record in the division good enough for you, yes or no?

khan
09-29-2010, 01:26 PM
I am not arguing semantics at all. You started an arguement by defending the 90 loss prediction and implying it only didn't happen because, due to a scheduling quirk, we were allowed to play the National League this year.
Actually, YOU brought my name into some other poster's rant on 2011, and I'm trying to illustrate how this team has sucked this year, with Ozzie [the subject of this thread] has a big hand in it.

And I don't know how many disciples you actually have. I am still convinced you and DirtySox are the same person.:smile:
No, I'm not dirtysox, and I've disagreed with dirtysox on a number of items. But ANY number of disciples would be a good thing.

BTW, how many emmissaries do I have?

asindc
09-29-2010, 01:31 PM
And again:

Is a 69-70 record v. the AL, and a 30-39 record in the division good enough for you?


Regardless of whatever minutia of whatever posts that you are referencing, the basic underlying reality is that the team wasn't good enough. The record in-league and in-division elucidates this to even the biggest polyanna.

The argument isn't whether or not there would be specifically 90 losses. The argument is whether or not the team is/was good enough. Clearly, history will record that the 2010 White Sox were not good enough. The overall record is clearly skewed by the record in interleague play.

Do you disagree?

One game under against the AL is not good enough for me or anyone else who posts here. My previous post was to only point out that running roughshod over the NL (once again) does not account for the better record this year.

I agree that the argument isn't about a specific 90-loss season prediction, whoever made it, and from reading OldRoman's posts, he would also agree. The argument was about whether they would be good enough to contend for the division.

If this year's record is skewed because of the 12-3 record against the NL, then last year's record was similarly skewed because of the 10-5 record against the NL. Had this year's team gone 3-12 against the NL and made up the difference versus the AL East, the argument would be that the Sox can't beat the "little boy NL" (not my quote, mind you). Unless you are talking about our AL Central rivals, it does not matter to me how the Sox win enough games to win the division, and even then it is just part practical/part pride. That's why I find it pointless to note that the Sox have improved over last season at least five games with five games to go "only" because of a two-game improvement over the NL from last season to this one.

TheOldRoman
09-29-2010, 01:32 PM
I don't know. Perhaps the teams that have kicked the SOX in the teeth lately are more talented and/or better-coached than the SOX.

Again: Is a sub-.500 record in the AL, and a 30-39 record in the division good enough for you, yes or no?The Sox gave up, and that was apparent to anyone who watched the games. The Tigers, who they were 8-4 against, didn't suddenly become more talented or better coached. Oakland didn't either. The fact that the tailspin coincided with Sox players complaining that it was "disheartening" to win 7 in a row and not gain any ground is not lost.

To your final point, once again, this was not the arguement. You twisted things into trying to make my say things I didn't, but I will answer anyway. A sub .500 record against the AL or in the division is not acceptable. I never said it was. And although you are trying to paint me as an Ozzie appologist, I made it clear that I would be happy to see him sail off to Florida.

TheOldRoman
09-29-2010, 01:34 PM
Actually, YOU brought my name into some other poster's rant on 2011, and I'm trying to illustrate how this team has sucked this year, with Ozzie [the subject of this thread] has a big hand in it.Fair enough. I did use your name, but I was trying to depict the disposition of the poster and not imply it was you specifically.

BTW, how many emmissaries do I have?None that I know of. You are out here on the front lines.

khan
09-29-2010, 01:38 PM
One game under against the AL is not good enough for me or anyone else who posts here.
Then we are in agreement. The team wasn't good enough this year. I was pessimistic about this team, and unfortunately, the SOX played poorly over the course of the season.

Although, I will correct you in that there is at least ONE poster who has the "keep ozzie" signature who will INSIST that this season was a success for some insane reason.

To your final point, once again, this was not the arguement.
Actually, somebody else made a statement about 2011 and the playoffs, and you brought me into the conversation for some reason.

A sub .500 record against the AL or in the division is not acceptable. I never said it was. And although you are trying to paint me as an Ozzie appologist, I made it clear that I would be happy to see him sail off to Florida.

Thank you for agreeing with me as well.

canOcorn
09-29-2010, 02:52 PM
Hell, why not? One of the Grebeck/Dirty/Khan disciples (don't remember which) declared 2010 to be another 90 loss season about three weeks in, then asked others to "prove" that it wouldn't be when questioned.

Thank GOD for the national league.

Nope, fail. Their record against the AL is 69-70. That doesn't come close to equalling a 90 loss season. Keep in mind that includes the last three weeks, in which the team had pretty much given up. But I guess the Sox having a winning record in the AL 90% of the way through the season was a fluke but the last two weeks have been a better indication of their skill.

Well, in all fairness if someone did suggest a 90 loss season, the Sox were 25-34 against the AL going into July. Spread out over 162 games that's a 93 loss season. Thank God for the bottom feeders of the NL, indeed.

asindc
09-29-2010, 03:21 PM
Well, in all fairness if someone did suggest a 90 loss season, the Sox were 25-34 against the AL going into July. Spread out over 162 games that's a 93 loss season. Thank God for the bottom feeders of the NL, indeed.

Well, in all accuracy, we are talking about those who suggested a 90-loss season before the season started, knowing that the NL teams were on the schedule. Thank God the Sox improvement this year includes that two-game improvement over the NL from last season.:rolleyes:

khan
09-29-2010, 04:30 PM
Measuring success based off an 85 win season is like measuring grades and getting straight C's.

Um, that's 2 division titles in 6 years, including a championship, along with 4 seasons with 85+ wins (which we should get to this year). Yeah, real mediocre.

I guess some posters actually DO shoot for straight C's.

doublem23
09-29-2010, 05:14 PM
I guess some posters actually DO shoot for straight C's.

That's getting a little personal. Why don't you tone it down to a 7?

Tragg
09-29-2010, 10:21 PM
How about shaking up the coaching staff then. Cora's been Ozzie's chief yes-man long enough. How about a replacement?

I know, I know, Cora's going to get interviews for manager jobs. Good luck getting one.

DickAllen72
09-29-2010, 11:02 PM
How about shaking up the coaching staff then. Cora's been Ozzie's chief yes-man long enough. How about a replacement?

I know, I know, Cora's going to get interviews for manager jobs. Good luck getting one.
What exactly does Harold Baines add to the coaching staff anyway?

Frater Perdurabo
09-30-2010, 06:02 AM
What exactly does Harold Baines add to the coaching staff anyway?

Stoic silence.


:)