PDA

View Full Version : Ozzie Expounds On Lack Of Clutch Hitting


Lip Man 1
09-08-2011, 07:47 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-guillen-lack-of-clutch-hitting-prevented-long-winning-streak-20110908,0,3404723.story

Lip

russ99
09-08-2011, 07:53 PM
Ozzie states the obvious.

Yet Walker still has his job...

Daver
09-08-2011, 08:06 PM
Ozzie states the obvious.

Yet Walker still has his job...

Ozzie still has his, and he's not doing anything better than Walker is.

Brian26
09-08-2011, 08:21 PM
"Iím not a stats guy," Guillen said behind his desk that featured no permanent computer or stacks of papers.

:thumbsup:

Stay prepared.

central44
09-08-2011, 08:21 PM
Wow. At least Ozzie is aware of what the problem is. Doesn't explain why he facilitated it for most of the year by consistently plugging two automatic outs/rally killers into the good part of the lineup.

Also--isn't a major part of his job to be up to date on stats and things of that nature? I thought that was what a big league manager did when he wrote out the lineups. I guess that explains why L/R matchups seem to be so important to him even when they often make zero sense.

Frater Perdurabo
09-08-2011, 08:47 PM
Wow. At least Ozzie is aware of what the problem is. Doesn't explain why he facilitated it for most of the year by consistently plugging two automatic outs/rally killers into the good part of the lineup.

Also--isn't a major part of his job to be up to date on stats and things of that nature? I thought that was what a big league manager did when he wrote out the lineups. I guess that explains why L/R matchups seem to be so important to him even when they often make zero sense.

It also explains why he continues to favor ineffective veterans over young players; reputation trumps recent performance.

slavko
09-08-2011, 08:54 PM
Wow. At least Ozzie is aware of what the problem is. Doesn't explain why he facilitated it for most of the year by consistently plugging two automatic outs/rally killers into the good part of the lineup.

Also--isn't a major part of his job to be up to date on stats and things of that nature? I thought that was what a big league manager did when he wrote out the lineups. I guess that explains why L/R matchups seem to be so important to him even when they often make zero sense.

One of those automatic outs says that he's a "feel" hitter. Maybe Ozzie is a "feel" manager. He's certainly computer literate, judging by his use of social media.

doublem23
09-08-2011, 08:57 PM
:thumbsup:

Stay prepared.

Those computers... Just a fad.

chisoxfanatic
09-08-2011, 09:24 PM
Thank you, Ozzie for stating what we here at WSI have known since April. Thank you also for constantly being stubborn and not making lineup changes when they were so needed eons ago!

PaleHoser
09-08-2011, 11:10 PM
I guess I was wrong. I thought Ozzie wasn't watching the same games I have all season.

russ99
09-09-2011, 06:31 AM
It also explains why he continues to favor ineffective veterans over young players; reputation trumps recent performance.

Recent performance is rarely a trigger for extended playing time. Players with a track record often get a shot to continue that track record, and not just with the Sox. Do you know who works this way? Rebuilding teams who want to know how their kids handle big league pressure. Are the Yankees and Phillies sitting veterans because a younger bench player has a good string of at-bats?

Besides, all the Sox bench players have gotten plenty of at-bats. It's not like these guys are sitting every day and Ozzie's trotting out the same 9 guys.

Maybe it was obvious to you guys in May that Rios and Dunn shouldn't play the rest of the year, but first of all baseball doesn't work that way and secondly, Ozzie's had plenty of success with letting players working their way out of slumps.

If not, they why are there so many signings of free agents every year? If the theory holds, then every team doesn't need to do that, just keep plugging in no-name guys who do well for a week and hope they can keep doing it.

While they're at it, let's get rid of scouting too, since it's all about what players do in the short term.

Rocky Soprano
09-09-2011, 09:38 AM
Recent performance is rarely a trigger for extended playing time. Players with a track record often get a shot to continue that track record, and not just with the Sox. Do you know who works this way? Rebuilding teams who want to know how their kids handle big league pressure. Are the Yankees and Phillies sitting veterans because a younger bench player has a good string of at-bats?

Besides, all the Sox bench players have gotten plenty of at-bats. It's not like these guys are sitting every day and Ozzie's trotting out the same 9 guys.

Maybe it was obvious to you guys in May that Rios and Dunn shouldn't play the rest of the year, but first of all baseball doesn't work that way and secondly, Ozzie's had plenty of success with letting players working their way out of slumps.

If not, they why are there so many signings of free agents every year? If the theory holds, then every team doesn't need to do that, just keep plugging in no-name guys who do well for a week and hope they can keep doing it.

While they're at it, let's get rid of scouting too, since it's all about what players do in the short term.

Wow, you completely missed the point.
:facepalm:

I'm not even going to debate you since there is no point. You are an Ozzie fan, period.

kittle42
09-09-2011, 11:03 AM
Recent performance is rarely a trigger for extended playing time. Players with a track record often get a shot to continue that track record, and not just with the Sox. Do you know who works this way? Rebuilding teams who want to know how their kids handle big league pressure. Are the Yankees and Phillies sitting veterans because a younger bench player has a good string of at-bats?

Besides, all the Sox bench players have gotten plenty of at-bats. It's not like these guys are sitting every day and Ozzie's trotting out the same 9 guys.

Maybe it was obvious to you guys in May that Rios and Dunn shouldn't play the rest of the year, but first of all baseball doesn't work that way and secondly, Ozzie's had plenty of success with letting players working their way out of slumps.

If not, they why are there so many signings of free agents every year? If the theory holds, then every team doesn't need to do that, just keep plugging in no-name guys who do well for a week and hope they can keep doing it.

While they're at it, let's get rid of scouting too, since it's all about what players do in the short term.

This entire post was like a "miss" in Battleship.

JB98
09-09-2011, 01:19 PM
Recent performance is rarely a trigger for extended playing time. Players with a track record often get a shot to continue that track record, and not just with the Sox. Do you know who works this way? Rebuilding teams who want to know how their kids handle big league pressure. Are the Yankees and Phillies sitting veterans because a younger bench player has a good string of at-bats?

Besides, all the Sox bench players have gotten plenty of at-bats. It's not like these guys are sitting every day and Ozzie's trotting out the same 9 guys.

Maybe it was obvious to you guys in May that Rios and Dunn shouldn't play the rest of the year, but first of all baseball doesn't work that way and secondly, Ozzie's had plenty of success with letting players working their way out of slumps.

If not, they why are there so many signings of free agents every year? If the theory holds, then every team doesn't need to do that, just keep plugging in no-name guys who do well for a week and hope they can keep doing it.

While they're at it, let's get rid of scouting too, since it's all about what players do in the short term.

I get so tired of hearing this argument. The Giants had no problems putting about $35 million worth of salary on their bench for their postseason run last year.

Big salary guys weren't getting the job done, so they took a seat in favor of those guys who were. The end result worked out pretty well for San Francisco.

Regardless, I don't know why the actions or non-actions of other teams should have any bearing on what steps the Sox take.

kittle42
09-09-2011, 01:56 PM
Regardless, I don't know why the actions or non-actions of other teams should have any bearing on what steps the Sox take.

Textbook!

blandman
09-09-2011, 02:21 PM
Wow, you completely missed the point.
:facepalm:

I'm not even going to debate you since there is no point. You are an Ozzie fan, period.

He didn't miss the point. Anyone who claims Ozzie should bench, demote, or move down Rios and Dunn all year are wrong. Dunn and Rios will be starting on opening day next year, in prime lineup spots, and they'll get the majority of at bats regardless of whether Ozzie is manager or not. They're making too much money and the organization is not going to give up on them, no matter how it affects the outcome of games.

blandman
09-09-2011, 02:27 PM
I get so tired of hearing this argument. The Giants had no problems putting about $35 million worth of salary on their bench for their postseason run last year.

Big salary guys weren't getting the job done, so they took a seat in favor of those guys who were. The end result worked out pretty well for San Francisco.

Regardless, I don't know why the actions or non-actions of other teams should have any bearing on what steps the Sox take.

Yeah, and maybe if we get to the postseason Dunn and Rios can be left off the roster. But as for that sitting $35 million, the Giants plugged them in all year, and plugged them back in on opening day this year. Additionally, this year when Aubrey Huff turned back into Aubrey Huff, with a young guy in the wings better than anyone we have, the Giants still kept him in the lineup all year. Because he's making a ton of money long term now.

dickallen15
09-09-2011, 02:35 PM
He didn't miss the point. Anyone who claims Ozzie should bench, demote, or move down Rios and Dunn all year are wrong. Dunn and Rios will be starting on opening day next year, in prime lineup spots, and they'll get the majority of at bats regardless of whether Ozzie is manager or not. They're making too much money and the organization is not going to give up on them, no matter how it affects the outcome of games.
Then why hasn't Dunn been in the line up every day the past 3 or 4 weeks? I agree, they will get the benefit of the doubt at the beginning of next season , but they won't be given nearly the leash Ozzie has given them.

blandman
09-09-2011, 02:37 PM
Then why hasn't Dunn been in the line up every day the past 3 or 4 weeks? I agree, they will get the benefit of the doubt at the beginning of next season , but they won't be given nearly the leash Ozzie has given them.

Even Gary Mathews Jr. got 1 and 1/2 years. I think they'll give Adam Dunn's track record more than a year and a month. Especially since we don't have the coffers LAA does.

central44
09-09-2011, 04:09 PM
Even Gary Mathews Jr. got 1 and 1/2 years. I think they'll give Adam Dunn's track record more than a year and a month. Especially since we don't have the coffers LAA does.

Well wait, I don't think people are saying we should never give Dunn and Rios another chance, ever again. If they're both on the roster on opening day next year, they SHOULD be the starters and they should be given the opportunity to show that this year was an abberration. They've earned that much in previous years and the Sox would be a much, much better team with both of those guys playing to their career norms.

But they should both be given a very short leash.

If Viciedo is better than Dunn, he should play.

If De Aza is better than Rios, he should play.

It's not their fault that the latter two were given asinine contracts. If they work hard and do their job, they deserve a chance. Yet it took Ozzie a very long time to figure that out.

blandman
09-09-2011, 04:26 PM
Well wait, I don't think people are saying we should never give Dunn and Rios another chance, ever again. If they're both on the roster on opening day next year, they SHOULD be the starters and they should be given the opportunity to show that this year was an abberration. They've earned that much in previous years and the Sox would be a much, much better team with both of those guys playing to their career norms.

But they should both be given a very short leash.

If Viciedo is better than Dunn, he should play.

If De Aza is better than Rios, he should play.

It's not their fault that the latter two were given asinine contracts. If they work hard and do their job, they deserve a chance. Yet it took Ozzie a very long time to figure that out.

If this were a vaccuum, yes.

De Aza is more likely to supplant Rios, but Rios is also more likely to rebound.

You can't not play Adam Dunn. He has no value on the bench, we'd be playing every game with 24 players. Yes, yes, you could say that with him in the lineup too. But he has to play until he hits. It's not like you can just release him. To release players, you have to pay all money owed to them up front. That's not going to happen anytime soon.

doublem23
09-09-2011, 04:29 PM
To release players, you have to pay all money owed to them up front.

No you don't

Daver
09-09-2011, 04:35 PM
To release players, you have to pay all money owed to them up front.


Statements like this is why people find it very difficult to take anything you post seriously Munch.

kittle42
09-09-2011, 04:39 PM
You can't not play Adam Dunn. He has no value on the bench, we'd be playing every game with 24 players.

OK, explain this: How is having Adam Dunn on the bench and playing, say, Player X only having 24 players on your roster, but having Player X on your bench while playing Adam Dunn playing every game with 25 players?

To release players, you have to pay all money owed to them up front. That's not going to happen anytime soon.

As others have pointed out in response to your post, it most certainly won't happen anytime soon!

Tragg
09-09-2011, 06:05 PM
Even Gary Mathews Jr. got 1 and 1/2 years.
How did that work out?
The Sox need to make a determination fairly soon into 2012 as to whether they can contribute. See how they handle themselves in the offseason (particularly Dunn). Fresh eyes, new coaches may help.
After all, there is a concept called sunk cost.

blandman
09-09-2011, 06:28 PM
OK, explain this: How is having Adam Dunn on the bench and playing, say, Player X only having 24 players on your roster, but having Player X on your bench while playing Adam Dunn playing every game with 25 players?


Because he isn't going to snap out of it if he's player X on the bench with no role.

Yeah, that's not a great situation. But it's all you can do if you've invested that much into a player, unless you have the ability to spend over it. Which we do not.

blandman
09-09-2011, 06:30 PM
How did that work out?
The Sox need to make a determination fairly soon into 2012 as to whether they can contribute. See how they handle themselves in the offseason (particularly Dunn). Fresh eyes, new coaches may help.
After all, there is a concept called sunk cost.

The results aren't the point. Mathews Jr. had one good season and signed for less money long term than Dunn. If 1.5 years is appropriate for him, how long do you think it will be for Dunn? I'd assume longer.

Rocky Soprano
09-09-2011, 07:09 PM
Statements like this is why people find it very difficult to take anything you post seriously Munch.

Blandman = Munchman?

Daver
09-09-2011, 07:11 PM
Blandman = Munchman?

Yes.

blandman
09-09-2011, 07:56 PM
Statements like this is why people find it very difficult to take anything you post seriously Munch.

No you don't

That was my impression. The contracts in MLB are guaranteed, are they not? If a player is released and not picked up on waivers, they have to be bought out.

Daver
09-09-2011, 08:03 PM
That was my impression. The contracts in MLB are guaranteed, are they not? If a player is released and not picked up on waivers, they have to be bought out.

They are paid according to the terms of the contract, nothing more and nothing less.

JB98
09-09-2011, 08:11 PM
Yeah, and maybe if we get to the postseason Dunn and Rios can be left off the roster. But as for that sitting $35 million, the Giants plugged them in all year, and plugged them back in on opening day this year. Additionally, this year when Aubrey Huff turned back into Aubrey Huff, with a young guy in the wings better than anyone we have, the Giants still kept him in the lineup all year. Because he's making a ton of money long term now.

And that's part of the reason they won't be returning to the playoffs.

russ99
09-09-2011, 08:12 PM
Regardless, I don't know why the actions or non-actions of other teams should have any bearing on what steps the Sox take.

Speaking about missing the point...

The entire implication of my post is there is a disconnect between what a big league manager does in the course of a year and how some fans think the Sox manager is a fool because he's doing the same things.

Too many of you are daily tearing down a man for doing his job the same way 29 other managers do.

How long of a break will you give our next manager before the idiotic ideas on how to run a big league club come back?

Daver
09-09-2011, 08:20 PM
Speaking about missing the point...



Too many of you are daily tearing down a man for doing his job the same way 29 other managers do.


Kind of like the way Greg walker does his job the same way as 29 other hitting coaches?

JB98
09-09-2011, 08:26 PM
Speaking about missing the point...

The entire implication of my post is there is a disconnect between what a big league manager does in the course of a year and how some fans think the Sox manager is a fool because he's doing the same things.

Too many of you are daily tearing down a man for doing his job the same way 29 other managers do.

How long of a break will you give our next manager before the idiotic ideas on how to run a big league club come back?

You just keep trying to insult those who disagree with you. I'm not sure why.

russ99
09-09-2011, 09:03 PM
You just keep trying to insult those who disagree with you. I'm not sure why.

Please. Where is the insult here?

Did we see this level of complaining ad nauseum against every decision against Manuel? Maybe Bevington, but he did make plenty of stupid moves.

russ99
09-09-2011, 09:04 PM
Kind of like the way Greg walker does his job the same way as 29 other hitting coaches?

Believe me, I want Walker gone ASAP.

JB98
09-09-2011, 09:11 PM
Please. Where is the insult here?

Did we see this level of complaining ad nauseum against every decision against Manuel? Maybe Bevington, but he did make plenty of stupid moves.

Yes, Manuel was criticized constantly, and rightfully so. He wasn't a good manager.

I know you want to believe there is a witch hunt against Ozzie Guillen. There isn't. Criticism of Guillen isn't a new thing at WSI either.

Daver
09-09-2011, 09:12 PM
Believe me, I want Walker gone ASAP.

How you can say this and still defend Ozzie Guillen is simply mind boggling.

doublem23
09-09-2011, 09:26 PM
That was my impression. The contracts in MLB are guaranteed, are they not? If a player is released and not picked up on waivers, they have to be bought out.

Yes, but if the Sox cut Adam Dunn right now, they don't cut him a single check for the entirety of the remainder of his deal, he gets paid the whole contract over its life.

doublem23
09-09-2011, 09:26 PM
Please. Where is the insult here?

Did we see this level of complaining ad nauseum against every decision against Manuel? Maybe Bevington, but he did make plenty of stupid moves.

Yes. People were sick of Jerry Manuel.

captain54
09-10-2011, 01:38 AM
Kind of like the way Greg walker does his job the same way as 29 other hitting coaches?

29 hitting coaches in MLB, and 1, who is employed for life with a personal endorsement from the head honcho..that's kinda how that shakes down

ZombieRob
09-10-2011, 02:22 AM
Nice to see he's about 3 months to late

SI1020
09-10-2011, 10:14 AM
Please. Where is the insult here?

Did we see this level of complaining ad nauseum against every decision against Manuel? Maybe Bevington, but he did make plenty of stupid moves. I think calling criticism of Ozzie idiotic qualifies.

Speaking about missing the point...

The entire implication of my post is there is a disconnect between what a big league manager does in the course of a year and how some fans think the Sox manager is a fool because he's doing the same things.

Too many of you are daily tearing down a man for doing his job the same way 29 other managers do.

How long of a break will you give our next manager before the idiotic ideas on how to run a big league club come back? I know there is a general lack of creativity in life these days but do you really think all 30 managers do their jobs the same way?

blandman
09-10-2011, 11:52 AM
I think calling criticism of Ozzie idiotic qualifies.

I know there is a general lack of creativity in life these days but do you really think all 30 managers do their jobs the same way?

Not that it's cool to use personal attacks, but I'd have a hard time coming up with another qualifier for the nature of criticism we're hearing about Ozzie. Ozzie's not without faults, but yes, all 30 managers (if managing THIS team) would have been required to go about the Dunn and Rios situations the same way. All of the arguments otherwise - how else can it be put? I suppose we should call them "baseball ignorant". There's really no other way to put it. I realize people are mad about the season, and they have a right to be. But the loss of perspective and the irrational blaming is worse on this site than it's ever been.

russ99
09-10-2011, 01:43 PM
How you can say this and still defend Ozzie Guillen is simply mind boggling.

How? This makes no sense. Ozzie and Walker are two different people with different philosophies.

Walker was hired before Ozzie, and Ozzie publicly pushed to get him removed as hitting coach twice. Ozzie is stuck with him.

Ozzie's not behind the bad preparation and approach by the hitters; as a NL-style manager who played for or coached with Cox, McKeon and Torborg he would know the value of hitting situationally (which also explains his often maddening constant use of L vs. R matchups) and going the other way to drive in a run.

Ozzie surely doesn't want a team of players pulling the ball and trying to hit home runs every at-bat...

GoSox2K3
09-10-2011, 02:01 PM
Please. Where is the insult here?

Did we see this level of complaining ad nauseum against every decision against Manuel? Maybe Bevington, but he did make plenty of stupid moves.

JB is correct. Your response all season long has been to constantly dismiss criticism of the Great Oz as "ridiculous" or "complaining ad nauseum".

Making over the top rhetoric in defense of Ozzie doesn't make you any more right.

blandman
09-10-2011, 02:25 PM
JB is correct. Your response all season long has been to constantly dismiss criticism of the Great Oz as "ridiculous" or "complaining ad nauseum".

Making over the top rhetoric in defense of Ozzie doesn't make you any more right.

False, he's pointing out how over the top the reactionary bull**** is.

doublem23
09-10-2011, 02:51 PM
False, he's pointing out how over the top the reactionary bull**** is.

Yeah, it's been, what? 6 seasons now since the Sox have been of any significance in the American League, so reactionary!!!

blandman
09-10-2011, 02:53 PM
Yeah, it's been, what? 6 seasons now since the Sox have been of any significance in the American League, so reactionary!!!

Exactly what I'm talking about. We've been plenty relevant, we won a division in that span, and competed for one all but one of those seasons. You might be unhappy, but to say we were insignificant is pure and utter bull****.

doublem23
09-10-2011, 03:04 PM
Exactly what I'm talking about. We've been plenty relevant, we won a division in that span, and competed for one all but one of those seasons. You might be unhappy, but to say we were insignificant is pure and utter bull****.

Yeah, right, the only time we've won a division was when the rest of the Central, thankfully took the year off, as well. The 89 wins needed to win the ALC in 2008 would have only won a division the AL in the post-strike, 3-division format two other times.... 3/45 is about 6% of the time, and it looks likely it will be 3/48 at the end of this month. And thankfully, had Ozzie had his way, we likely would not have even won anything that year, either, as he of course was set on starting the season with Jerry Owens in the OF and Carlos Quentin in AAA. THANK JESUS that Owens was made of glass and saved us from Ozzie. 2006 was the last time the Sox were a true force in the A.L.

Yes, we are irrelevant in the AL. We're winning games now at a worse clip than we did under Manuel. We have won 1 play-off game, which is less than 8 other AL teams in that span (Yankees, Red Sox, Rays, Tigers, Indians, A's, Rangers, and Angels)... The only teams we've bested either haven't made the postseason since 2005 (Orioles, Jays, Royals, and Mariners) or have been swept out of the play-offs every time they have made it (Twins).

You're entitled to your own opinion on Ozzie's effectiveness, but to say that people who are upset with how the team is run are being "reactionary" is just not true. People are allowed not to share you're rosy outlook over a 6-year stretch where the Sox have barely been above .500 and have nothing worth to show for it in October.

blandman
09-10-2011, 03:17 PM
Yeah, right, the only time we've won a division was when the rest of the Central, thankfully took the year off, as well. The 89 wins needed to win the ALC in 2008 would have only won a division the AL in the post-strike, 3-division format two other times.... 3/45 is about 6% of the time, and it looks likely it will be 3/48 at the end of this month. And thankfully, had Ozzie had his way, we likely would not have even won anything that year, either, as he of course was set on starting the season with Jerry Owens in the OF and Carlos Quentin in AAA. THANK JESUS that Owens was made of glass and saved us from Ozzie. 2006 was the last time the Sox were a true force in the A.L.

Yes, we are irrelevant in the AL. We're winning games now at a worse clip than we did under Manuel. We have won 1 play-off game, which is less than 8 other AL teams in that span (Yankees, Red Sox, Rays, Tigers, Indians, A's, Rangers, and Angels)... The only teams we've bested either haven't made the postseason since 2005 (Orioles, Jays, Royals, and Mariners) or have been swept out of the play-offs every time they have made it (Twins).

You're entitled to your own opinion on Ozzie's effectiveness, but to say that people who are upset with how the team is run are being "reactionary" is just not true. People are allowed not to share you're rosy outlook over a 6-year stretch where the Sox have barely been above .500 and have nothing worth to show for it in October.

You're blaming things on Ozzie that have nothing to do with him.

We haven't been elite since 2006 is what you're trying to say, not relevant.

That's true. But Ozzie doesn't make the roster. The reason we were elite then is because we built from a young core who went through many growing pains on their way to a title. Remember the kids can play? Remember putting Buehrle in the rotation? Remember the YEARS of ineffectiveness from Crede and Garland? Remember Paul Konkerko not hitting for an entire YEAR after the league adjusted to him? We went from a full on rebuild to reach that level. The only teams that don't have to do that have resources that are forever beyond our reach. Maybe you can argue it shouldn't be that way. But what you can't do is argue that it's OZZIE's fault, which is essentially what you are saying above. Ozzie took teams in that next teir and kept them relevant in a crappy division year in and year out.

Frater Perdurabo
09-10-2011, 03:36 PM
Blandman, you make a good point about building a core. But a lot of the 2000 core wasn't present in 2005, having been dealt (Lee) for other integral parts, allowed to leave (Maggs) to save money to sign other integral parts, or spent most of the year on the DL (Frank).

AJ, Iguchi, Dye, Pods, Uribe, Everett, Garcia, Contreras, Jenks, Hermanson, Politte and El Duque played just as big of a role in 2005 as Crede, Garland, Buehrle, PK, Rowand and Frank.

doublem23
09-10-2011, 03:42 PM
You're blaming things on Ozzie that have nothing to do with him.

We haven't been elite since 2006 is what you're trying to say, not relevant.

That's true. But Ozzie doesn't make the roster. The reason we were elite then is because we built from a young core who went through many growing pains on their way to a title. Remember the kids can play? Remember putting Buehrle in the rotation? Remember the YEARS of ineffectiveness from Crede and Garland? Remember Paul Konkerko not hitting for an entire YEAR after the league adjusted to him? We went from a full on rebuild to reach that level. The only teams that don't have to do that have resources that are forever beyond our reach. Maybe you can argue it shouldn't be that way. But what you can't do is argue that it's OZZIE's fault, which is essentially what you are saying above. Ozzie took teams in that next teir and kept them relevant in a crappy division year in and year out.

Well then Ozzie (and Walker) need to be shown the door because I have seen very little evidence of their ability to mentor young players to reach their potential. Only Coop has succeeded in that area.

central44
09-10-2011, 03:47 PM
That's true. But Ozzie doesn't make the roster.


I'm 95% sure that the Sox win the division in 2010 with Thome instead of Kotsay/Jones as the everyday DH.

And he DOES make the lineups that often have Dunn or Rios batting fourth, rather than...I don't know, eighth or ninth. In the perfect position to kill a rally!

Even if he does, for some reason that I don't buy at all, have to play them...he doesn't have to put them that high in the order.

SI1020
09-10-2011, 03:59 PM
Even if he does, for some reason that I don't buy at all, have to play them...he doesn't have to put them that high in the order. I never understood that idea at all. There is no universal law that states Ozzie has to put Dunn or anyone else for that matter in the lineup. At this point Dunn should have a permanent place on the bench. There is no reason for Viciedo or any other young player to have less of a chance so Adam Dunn can play.

blandman
09-10-2011, 04:00 PM
Blandman, you make a good point about building a core. But a lot of the 2000 core wasn't present in 2005, having been dealt (Lee) for other integral parts, allowed to leave (Maggs) to save money to sign other integral parts, or spent most of the year on the DL (Frank).

AJ, Iguchi, Dye, Pods, Uribe, Everett, Garcia, Contreras, Jenks, Hermanson, Politte and El Duque played just as big of a role in 2005 as Crede, Garland, Buehrle, PK, Rowand and Frank.

Part of rebuilding is figuring out which pieces are the right ones to build around. Kenny choose wisely and built around them with low end signings. Since then he's been trying to acquire core pieces other ways. It hasn't worked out as planned. But the on field product is still decent.

Well then Ozzie (and Walker) need to be shown the door because I have seen very little evidence of their ability to mentor young players to reach their potential. Only Coop has succeeded in that area.

Are you referring to Beckham or Morel? Really, Beckham is the only blemish on the "young hitters" front. If you have lemons, there's really only one drink you can make. And I'm not convinced Beckham wasn't a lemon to begin with.

I'm 95% sure that the Sox win the division in 2010 with Thome instead of Kotsay/Jones as the everyday DH.

And he DOES make the lineups that often have Dunn or Rios batting fourth, rather than...I don't know, eighth or ninth. In the perfect position to kill a rally!

Even if he does, for some reason that I don't buy at all, have to play them...he doesn't have to put them that high in the order.

Well, you can argue 5th or 6th maybe. But Beckham and Morel were just as automatic outs all year, and don't have the track record. And AJ spent the entire first half just as ineffective as well.

blandman
09-10-2011, 04:06 PM
I never understood that idea at all. There is no universal law that states Ozzie has to put Dunn or anyone else for that matter in the lineup. At this point Dunn should have a permanent place on the bench. There is no reason for Viciedo or any other young player to have less of a chance so Adam Dunn can play.

If your boss just purchased a brand new really expensive company that he asked you to oversee, but the company starts tanking immediately after you get it, do you just stop working with it and concentrate on other things?

Come on. That's asinine.

Mike Scioscia left Gary Mathews Jr. in his lineup for 1.5 years. He should be fired.

If you don't understand why it will IMMEDIATELY get you fired to simply toss away your company's two biggest investments, I can't explain it to you.

Viciedo shouldn't even be up now. He needs another year to learn how to field.

Johnny Mostil
09-10-2011, 04:08 PM
Part of rebuilding is figuring out which pieces are the right ones to build around. Kenny choose wisely and built around them with low end signings. Since then he's been trying to acquire core pieces other ways. It hasn't worked out as planned. But the on field product is still decent.



Are you referring to Beckham or Morel? Really, Beckham is the only blemish on the "young hitters" front. If you have lemons, there's really only one drink you can make. And I'm not convinced Beckham wasn't a lemon to begin with.



Well, you can argue 5th or 6th maybe. But Beckham and Morel were just as automatic outs all year, and don't have the track record. And AJ spent the entire first half just as ineffective as well.

As ineffective as who? (AJ's first-half splits here (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=pierza.01&year=2011&t=b#half::none).)

blandman
09-10-2011, 04:14 PM
As ineffective as who? (AJ's first-half splits here (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=pierza.01&year=2011&t=b#half::none).)

He slugged .390 and at the time was rated as one of the bottom ten starting catchers in baseball. Not to mention he was a BRUTAL rally killer. He grounded into 15 double plays in half a season!

I see your point about the as who, he was very slightly more effective then the rest of the bunch. Though not by much. That AJ wasn't moved ahead of Rios and Dunn early on isn't exactly the defining factor in our season.

russ99
09-11-2011, 04:27 AM
Three days in a row now that Ozzie has complained about the offense's lack of clutch hitting.

Hmmm... Could this be targeted at the unfireable Greg Walker?

doublem23
09-11-2011, 07:15 AM
Three days in a row now that Ozzie has complained about the offense's lack of clutch hitting.

Hmmm... Could this be targeted at the unfireable Greg Walker?

Haw haw haw haw haw... Ozzie has repeatedly gone to bat for Walk, defended him to the media and fans, and has said that if he's back in 2012, he wants Walk back. They're basically attached at the hip.

If you think the Sox could fire Walker and then try and bring back Ozzie next year, you're nuts, he'll probably just start a bunch of AA-caliber players because he's more interested in playing mind games with KW than he is in doing his ****ing job and winning games.

kittle42
09-11-2011, 07:26 AM
I would like to take this opportunity to invite russ and Munch to my home for my Goodbye, Ozzie party on September 29. There will be punch and pie, and a special liquor made from their tears.

Scottiehaswheels
09-11-2011, 07:45 AM
I would like to take this opportunity to invite russ and Munch to my home for my Goodby, Ozzie party on September 29. There will be punch and pie, and a special liquor made from their tears.Goodbye, and +1

kittle42
09-11-2011, 12:44 PM
Goodbye, and +1

Fixed!

Tragg
09-11-2011, 12:54 PM
Haw haw haw haw haw... Ozzie has repeatedly gone to bat for Walk, defended him to the media and fans, and has said that if he's back in 2012, he wants Walk back. They're basically attached at the hip.

If you think the Sox could fire Walker and then try and bring back Ozzie next year, you're nuts, he'll probably just start a bunch of AA-caliber players because he's more interested in playing mind games with KW than he is in doing his ****ing job and winning games.
Ozzie's in job protection mode...throwing assistants under the bus, trying to pile up meaningless wins, etc. I think he blew his chances at the Marlins (or other) job for next year with his public spats with his boss and others.

russ99
09-11-2011, 01:22 PM
I would like to take this opportunity to invite russ and Munch to my home for my Goodbye, Ozzie party on September 29. There will be punch and pie, and a special liquor made from their tears.

And I'll invite you to my goodbye Kenny party the next day. LOL...

russ99
09-11-2011, 01:25 PM
Ozzie's in job protection mode...throwing assistants under the bus, trying to pile up meaningless wins, etc. I think he blew his chances at the Marlins (or other) job for next year with his public spats with his boss and others.

Yeah, right. So It's not enough for you to fulfill your Ozzie ripping the last 3 years with him getting fired, but also that he can't get another job in a place where they want him too? Get over yourselves.

I wonder if all this name calling, singling out posters because they have an opinion different from the angry mob and the self-importance around here will change even if the Sox make changes next year...

doublem23
09-11-2011, 01:27 PM
Yeah, right. So It's not enough for you to fulfill your Ozzie ripping the last 3 years with him getting fired, but also that he can't get another job in a place where they want him too? Get over yourselves.

The only reason Ozzie would get a job in Miami is that they're owned by an insane psycho whose not been known to always make moves for the better of his team as much as his bank account.

russ99
09-11-2011, 01:30 PM
The only reason Ozzie would get a job in Miami is that they're owned by an insane psycho whose not been known to always make moves for the better of his team as much as his bank account.

Oh please. His career as a manager, his success with NL style managing and his World series ring has absolutely nothing to do with it...

Guess he's such an idiot, that no one will hire him? You're in for a rude awakening. But have fun with your scapegoat. Who will you blame if next year is more of the same? The problems if this organization are much more than the manager.

SI1020
09-11-2011, 01:41 PM
The problems if this organization are much more than the manager. On that point I couldn't agree with you more russ.