PDA

View Full Version : How Many Hope for Losses So Things Change?


captain54
07-23-2002, 02:04 AM
I'm not saying I want the Sox to lose everygame, but I find myself lately now almost hoping for losses so the powers that be have no choice but to make some seriouis changes here....

This organization is adept at spinning every little positive into something that unrealistically gives fans false hope....

It would seem that with the losses piling up, we leave Reiney & Co. no choice but to clean house...

and who knows, maybe Reiney will finally blow a gasket and get the hell out....

bc2k
07-23-2002, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by captain54
I'm not saying I want the Sox to lose everygame, but I find myself lately now almost hoping for losses so the powers that be have no choice but to make some seriouis changes here....

This organization is adept at spinning every little positive into something that unrealistically gives fans false hope....

It would seem that with the losses piling up, we leave Reiney & Co. no choice but to clean house...

and who knows, maybe Reiney will finally blow a gasket and get the hell out....

I found myself wanting losses for the Bulls the past several years to land the highest possible pick. For me, baseball is different; I can't root against my Sox. Whether it's because baseball is the sport I'm most passionate about, or because of the amount of games in a season. I'd drive myself crazy rooting for 61 more losses.

Also, I know Merry Maids will be making a visit to Comiskey come October. The maids said they also take out the trash. So Royce, Alomar, Durham, and Lofton will all be rolled out to the street. Merry Maids usually does good work but sometimes I catch them sweeping the dust bunnies under the carpet. I told them I want my dust nardies taken out with the trash. So win or lose, the trash is as good as gone (with exception to the dust nardies), so why not cheer for 61 more White Sox Winners.

Viva Magglio
07-23-2002, 06:32 AM
During the latter half of the Wannstedt years, I was delighted at the sight of Bears losses every week. Hmmm...Wannstedt...Manuel...I think I see similarities there.

:wanne
:jerry

34 Inch Stick
07-23-2002, 08:10 AM
I cannot root against the Sox. I don't think I have to hope for a loss for it to be so. If you look at the last 2 months schedule it is fairly difficult. They will lose 60% of their games the rest of this season.

duke of dorwood
07-23-2002, 08:18 AM
I root for most of the players because we could lose every game the rest of the way, and the owner will not get rid of Williams and Manual.

Fisk72
07-23-2002, 08:21 AM
In a way, part of me is hoping to see some losses by the Sox. It's eerily resemblant of how I was last year watching ND football and praying for Bob Davie to be fired. However, baseball season is way longer than 11 or 12 games and I can't fully hope to see us lose all the time. I want to see some changes done, but not to the extent where there will be a fire sale. So I guess I'm 50/50. I just want to see some life out of our guys, that's all.

Jerry_Manuel
07-23-2002, 08:43 AM
Losses will not force them to make changes.

soxtalker
07-23-2002, 09:11 AM
Unfortunately, I do find myself rooting for losses more and more lately, though I couldn't do that while attending a game. With the season a loss, I'm trying to figure out any things that can be done that will help the Sox in 2003 and 2004.

I think that there is a chance that more losses will induce changes -- if not now, at the end of the season. However, I'm also thinking of it in the same way as I'd approach basketball -- looking for better draft picks. Now, I know that hasn't been nearly as important in baseball as in basketball. [The typical baseball draft pick is much farther away from being on the major league team, though that seems to be less and less true for the top picks (e.g., Prior, Borchard).] But we keep hearing about how hard it is to make trades, and there has been the suggestion that compensation picks will be eliminated to eliminate union involvement in the draft. So, a better draft position may be one of the few ways we can improve.

jlh221fan
07-23-2002, 09:34 AM
Sorry, but that logic doesn't work - and has never worked - for me. They've played terribly enough for 2+ months now that you know big changes will be made. If they lose like this for 2 more months, it will mean Garland reverted to his early season form and/or situational hitting is still terrible and/or Frank still can't get going, etc. Besides, losing game after game is just painful to watch and listen to.

steff
07-23-2002, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by bc2k


Also, I know Merry Maids will be making a visit to Comiskey come October. The maids said they also take out the trash. So Royce, Alomar, Durham, and Lofton will all be rolled out to the street.


Ray.. garbage... Wish my garbage had these numbers.

Ray Durham
GP AB R H TB 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS SF
94 336 71 100 151 20 2 9 48 49 58 20 5 4

SH OBP SLG OPS AVG
8 .391 .449 .840 .298


Royce and Alomar don't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Ray.. and I'm sure you were lovin Kenny at the start of the season.
I'm so sick of people blaming this on Ray. Or Frank. Or any ONE individual. There are NONE guys out there folks. They ALL play a part in losing.

Iwritecode
07-23-2002, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
Losses will not force them to make changes.

Exactly. Although winning may give them a false sense of hope. They should have known at the AS break that this season is lost. Losing only makes the players trade value go down...

Dan H
07-23-2002, 09:51 AM
If the Sox management haven't figured out that their master plan has failed, they never will. The only thing they are good for is blaming the fans. Or the media. Or anyone else but themselves.

steff
07-23-2002, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Dan H
If the Sox management haven't figured out that their master plan has failed, they never will. The only thing they are good for is blaming the fans. Or the media. Or anyone else but themselves.

I've heard over and over again THIS year JM, KW, and many of the players flat out admitting that they are playing bad. How is that blaming the fans, media, etc..? The only thing "we've" been blamed for is the inability to sign high priced players because of our lack of attendance (load of crap). Even last Friday Maggs was quoted in the Sun Times saying that the way they're playing is THEIR fault.

guillen4life13
07-23-2002, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by steff3603



Ray.. garbage... Wish my garbage had these numbers.

Ray Durham
GP AB R H TB 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS SF
94 336 71 100 151 20 2 9 48 49 58 20 5 4

SH OBP SLG OPS AVG
8 .391 .449 .840 .298


Royce and Alomar don't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Ray.. and I'm sure you were lovin Kenny at the start of the season.
I'm so sick of people blaming this on Ray. Or Frank. Or any ONE individual. There are NONE guys out there folks. They ALL play a part in losing.


you said it mon! i cannot remember anyone at all, who in the beginning of the season was not praising god for the arrival of Kenny Lofton. we all were happy when april was here, and Kenny was lighting it up. make up your minds guys! he carried us for the whole of april, and the only real people who have been consistent throughout the season are konerko, maggs and buehrle. and even buehrle has had a bit of a losing streak lately, due to a lack of run support and a couple bad outings. i don't see any of you guys saying "TRADE BUEHRLE."

and i'm a lil outta touch but if ray is hitting .298... then hell!: maybe we shouldn't be blaming this whole season on him. he is not trash! this whole team has not come through for the most part, and it is useless to blame specific people. face it.

and who really thinks the sox have a chance here huh? any heart these guys are showing is probably so that they can get out of this town that seems like it only produces losers. maybe reinsdorf should just stick to the bulls, and sell the sox (sell! jerry sell!). this team needs an owner who is focused on winning, and rebuilding the reputation of this ballclub.

Keystone Combo
07-23-2002, 12:02 PM
If losses was all it would take, than the changes would have already been made.

Hard to root against your team and like some have already said even the players you might want to see out of here will have to play well enough to be able to get something back in return yet alone cause an interest in them.

Don't stop cheering for the White Sox, if we were to do that now than why didn't we do it long ago....... our biggest problem is hiding behind closed doors in his office still blaming the media and us the fans. Got to love his motivation for the team.... right!

Clarkdog
07-23-2002, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
Losses will not force them to make changes.

On this I agree. But what will force change is the perception that Reinsdorf is at the head of a circus of an organization, and that this incompetence is so visible to media and fans that there is nowhere to hide from the criticism and no possible way to justify how the organzation is run.

Examples:
- KW trading for the wrong Berry
- KW overpaying for Royce Clayton
- KW overtrading for Todd Ritchie
- KW over involvement with the clubhouse
- KW gives Manuel a "vote of confidence" which leads to a deeper slide of losing
- Success of Sox players (Wells, Fogg) once they leave the organization
- Farm system under KW goes from one of the best to one of the worst.
- Manuel's inability to establish roles for his players and stick to them
- Manuel's inability to establish a team strategy and stick with it.
- The team's lack of fire, desire, and hustle on the field.
- The team has stopped playing for Manuel. The players do not respect him, and he can't handle the egos.
- The team's lack of true leadership. Konerko is a fine roster guy, but leadership should come from the manager.
- The team's inability to play a team offensive game and execute it with any consistency. See Twins as an example of how the game should be played.
- The team's brutal defense. The Sox play a defensive game of over 30 outs instead of 27.
- The team's mental breakdowns on the basepaths. How many games have they run themselves out of?

Did I miss anything?

This reflects directly on JR. And eventually the screw-ups will be too much for him personally.

pudge
07-23-2002, 12:22 PM
I brought this up the *first* time we played Minnesota, I was thinking a sweep by the Twins might get JM canned. Basically, at this point I root for certain guys to do well, but overall I hope they keep losing. I think Ritchie getting shelled in a big game is beautiful. I think when Alomar or Clayton can't drive in a run from third and lose a game, it's poetic justice.

As for Ray, I think he's having a fine season, despite errors at second, and I really hope we can keep him. Lofton, on the other hand, I was very wary about, even after his hot April. I live in Seattle and I watched him in the play-offs last year, and he did NOTHING to spark the Indians. As a matter of fact, the Indians lost in five, but they may have very well won the series if they had a lead-off hitter who could reach base, and Lofton was not that man.

Jerry_Manuel
07-23-2002, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Clarkdog
Examples:
- KW overpaying for Royce Clayton
- Farm system under KW goes from one of the best to one of the worst.
- Manuel's inability to establish roles for his players and stick to them
- The team's inability to play a team offensive game and execute it with any consistency. See Twins as an example of how the game should be played.
This reflects directly on JR. And eventually the screw-ups will be too much for him personally.

The only mistake he made when it comes to Royce is trading for him. Kenny didn't sign him for 4.5 million per. The farm system ranking has slipped because guys have advanced. The guys who made it number one are in the big leagues. That's not Williams' fault.

Manuel can't establish roles because Williams is always in the clubhouse pulling strings. The Sox have been a swing for the fences team for quite awhile now.

I don't think so. If all the heat he took for 1994 and 1997 wasn't to much, neither will this.