PDA

View Full Version : Silver lining..


inta
08-28-2003, 04:14 PM
Aside from a major brain lapse by manuel before today's game, i'm so glad to see the sox continuing to fight today. that says alot about this team and their mentality.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-28-2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by inta
Aside from a major brain lapse by manuel before today's game, i'm so glad to see the sox continuing to fight today. that says alot about this team and their mentality.

The best advice we can give them:


Ignore this man -----------------> :jerry


:rooney
"The Yankees, indeed, salvage a game."

Even Rooney knows Manuel played this game to lose.

Frickin' incompetent idiot!

:angry:

inta
08-28-2003, 04:23 PM
yep.

if we win it all we'll be the first team to do it without a manager

PaleHoseGeorge
08-28-2003, 04:26 PM
And boy, won't the Tigers be pumped up to know Manuel was juggling his pitching matchups just to beat them. Rooney and Farmer are talking about it right now.

My God, this guy's incompetence knows no bounds.

thepaulbowski
08-28-2003, 04:27 PM
For Manual to even attempt to save face, they must sweep Detroit (I'm not saying I agree with him)

If they don't sweep Detroit, then any attempt for him to rationalize this is gone.

FJA
08-28-2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by inta
Aside from a major brain lapse by manuel before today's game, i'm so glad to see the sox continuing to fight today. that says alot about this team and their mentality.

Yes. This game had corpseball written all over it, but we didn't roll over, so kudos to the team on that.

And, because it can't be said enough:

Ignore this man--------------->:jerry

LuvSox
08-28-2003, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by inta
yep.

if we win it all we'll be the first team to do it without a manager

Didn't the Bad News Bears win without a manager in Houston or Japan? Sounds familiar.

Lip Man 1
08-28-2003, 04:30 PM
We all better hope the Sox don't lose the division by one game.

Lip

PaleHoseGeorge
08-28-2003, 04:33 PM
Now Wills is making excuses. He is the same guy who said last night that Cotts needs to "prove" something at Yankee Stadium. Give it a rest, Dave. Manuel gives you NOTHING to work with.

:wills
"Neal needs to make adjustments."

:ohno
"Oh, brother..."

FJA
08-28-2003, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Now Wills is making excuses. He is the same guy who said last night that Cotts needs to "prove" something at Yankee Stadium. Give it a rest, Dave. Manuel gives you NOTHING to work with.

:wills
"Neal needs to make adjustments."

:ohno
"Oh, brother..."

I like Wills, but I hate when he makes excuses after a game like this. He's always ready to blame the players when something happens, but when the manager pulls a dumb move, it's excuse after excuse. If he's taking calls, I can't wait to see how he responds.

HEY DAVE, if you're reading this ... if Sox fans are scratching their heads, it's in that condescending way with the middle finger extended near the ear. Lookin' right at this guy--->:jerry

anewman35
08-28-2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
We all better hope the Sox don't lose the division by one game.

Lip

We've blown lots of horrible games, sure. But you know what? Every team does. Every single one. That's just the way the game goes. And blame Jerry, fine, but what's the point of this what if game? What if we hadn't blown all those games early? What if we'd not lost those two 1-0 games to Detroit? What if Konerko wasn't dead weight half the season?

It's insane to say an entire season hinges on any one loss. If we hadn't lost so many winable games early, it wouldn't even be an issue.

hold2dibber
08-28-2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
We've blown lots of horrible games, sure. But you know what? Every team does. Every single one. That's just the way the game goes. And blame Jerry, fine, but what's the point of this what if game? What if we hadn't blown all those games early? What if we'd not lost those two 1-0 games to Detroit? What if Konerko wasn't dead weight half the season?

It's insane to say an entire season hinges on any one loss. If we hadn't lost so many winable games early, it wouldn't even be an issue.

I totally agree -- and, moreover, this attitude suggests that the Sox necessarily would have won if Buehrle had started. Don't get me wrong, I think JM should have started Buehrle, but it's not like it's a slam dunk win if he had done so. Who knows - it seems like the wrong decision to me, but we'll never know what Cotts would have done against the Tigers or what Buehrle would have done against the Yankees, so it's not worth getting all worked up over.

hold2dibber
08-28-2003, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by inta
Aside from a major brain lapse by manuel before today's game, i'm so glad to see the sox continuing to fight today. that says alot about this team and their mentality.

Wright's performance is another silver lining. Not only does it look like he has gotten his act together lately (which bodes well for the future), but he saved the bullpen for the weekend by his performance.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-28-2003, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I totally agree -- and, moreover, this attitude suggests that the Sox necessarily would have won if Buehrle had started. Don't get me wrong, I think JM should have started Buehrle, but it's not like it's a slam dunk win if he had done so. Who knows - it seems like the wrong decision to me, but we'll never know what Cotts would have done against the Tigers or what Buehrle would have done against the Yankees, so it's not worth getting all worked up over.

I think you're overlooking the point that has the rest of us so upset. It's not that Cotts lost, or that Buehrle might have won. It's that Manuel created this situation by holding back Buehrle for an EXTRA day of rest and further exacerbated the situation by flip-flopping on his decision throughout the week. Besides pissing off Buehrle, he also managed to completely deflate whatever confidence Cotts might have gained.

This is managerial incompetence of the first order. Not only did it backfire on us today, but I have real concerns that those miserable wretches from Detroit are now going to play this next series like it was their personal World Series. Manuel juggled his pitching match ups to beat the Tigers--and they know it!!!

:rooney :farmer
"This is precisely the point we were discussing after the game. You make a move like this and you could easily lose two games, not just one!"

mandmandm
08-28-2003, 05:04 PM
1-0 Angels

anewman35
08-28-2003, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I think you're overlooking the point that has the rest of us so upset. It's not that Cotts lost, or that Buehrle might have won. It's that Manuel created this situation by holding back Buehrle for an EXTRA day of rest and further exacerbated the situation by flip-flopping on his decision throughout the week.

I'm not overlooking it at all. Yes, in retrospect it was a bad decision. Yes, at best it was a big gamble that didn't work, so, fine, call Manuel an idiot, and blame him for blowing the game. I still can't see why that's so worse than so many of the other losses we've had. He's blown some games and won some games, like any manager. Maybe the ratio isn't what it should be (in fact, I'd say (as would everybody else here) that it isn't), but, it happens. A loss is a loss no matter how it happens, and I can't get more upset about it because it happened this way than I would have been if Buehrle had started and we'd lost a great 1-0 game. What's the difference? It's the same game in the standings.

idseer
08-28-2003, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
I'm not overlooking it at all. Yes, in retrospect it was a bad decision. Yes, at best it was a big gamble that didn't work, so, fine, call Manuel an idiot, and blame him for blowing the game. I still can't see why that's so worse than so many of the other losses we've had. He's blown some games and won some games, like any manager. Maybe the ratio isn't what it should be (in fact, I'd say (as would everybody else here) that it isn't), but, it happens. A loss is a loss no matter how it happens, and I can't get more upset about it because it happened this way than I would have been if Buehrle had started and we'd lost a great 1-0 game. What's the difference? It's the same game in the standings.

with this reasoning, why not let olivo try his hand pitching an important game? after all it'd just be another loss like any other.
and a loss is just a loss.
NEVER MIND TRYING TO USE YOUR TEAM TO IT'S BEST POTENTIAL!

PaleHoseGeorge
08-28-2003, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
I'm not overlooking it at all. Yes, in retrospect it was a bad decision. Yes, at best it was a big gamble that didn't work, so, fine, call Manuel an idiot, and blame him for blowing the game. I still can't see why that's so worse than so many of the other losses we've had. He's blown some games and won some games, like any manager. Maybe the ratio isn't what it should be (in fact, I'd say (as would everybody else here) that it isn't), but, it happens. A loss is a loss no matter how it happens, and I can't get more upset about it because it happened this way than I would have been if Buehrle had started and we'd lost a great 1-0 game. What's the difference? It's the same game in the standings.

It wasn't "a bad decision in retrospect." It was a bad decision, period. It was a bad decision before Cotts threw a single pitch. THAT'S what has everyone upset. The fact Cotts had no confidence, peed his pants, and got pulled after 0.1 innings only underscores what a bad decision it was "in retrospect."

Now do you see the difference?

The loss is only important if we lose the division by one game. As it stands, we're now one game back of Kansas City in the loss column. This loss could definitely loom big, especially if we miss the playoffs by one lousy game. After all, it wasn't a bad decision "in retrospect," it was a bad decision, period.

anewman35
08-28-2003, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
It wasn't "a bad decision in retrospect." It was a bad decision, period. It was a bad decision before Cotts threw a single pitch. THAT'S what has everyone upset. The fact Cotts had no confidence, peed his pants, and got pulled after 0.1 innings only underscores what a bad decision it was "in retrospect."

Now do you see the difference?

The loss is only important if we lose the division by one game. As it stands, we're now one game back of Kansas City in the loss column. This loss could definitely loom big, especially if we miss the playoffs by one lousy game. After all, it wasn't a bad decision "in retrospect," it was a bad decision, period.

No, I don't see the difference. If Cotts had went in there and thrown a 3 hit shutout, it would be hailed by many as a great decision that built his confidence up. If you think it was the worst decision of all time, fine. If you claim you wouldn't have liked it even if he had did well, fine, I can't dispute that. Personally, I wasn't really pleased by it, either, but I don't think it's the end of the world. I am allowed to have a different opinion, am I not?

If we lose the division by one game, this game will just be one of many possible games we blew. We've given away many many games this season, and this one wasn't even close to the worst.

Besides, we still have another month. I'm sure we'll have another "worst game ever" before then. We seem to have them every few weeks. Funny how they never seem to matter as much once we win a few games.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-28-2003, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
No, I don't see the difference. If Cotts had went in there and thrown a 3 hit shutout, it would be hailed by many as a great decision that built his confidence up. If you think it was the worst decision of all time, fine. If you claim you wouldn't have liked it even if he had did well, fine, I can't dispute that. Personally, I wasn't really pleased by it, either, but I don't think it's the end of the world. I am allowed to have a different opinion, am I not?

If we lose the division by one game, this game will just be one of many possible games we blew. We've given away many many games this season, and this one wasn't even close to the worst.

Besides, we still have another month. I'm sure we'll have another "worst game ever" before then. We seem to have them every few weeks. Funny how they never seem to matter as much once we win a few games.

Cotts didn't have to start. If you believe--as Manuel noted last night and was quoted in this morning's Cubune--that there is no difference between starting Cotts or starting Buehrle, I want you to explain to the rest of us why Rowand, Graffanino, Harris, and Daubach didn't get starts today. After all, we don't know they wouldn't win and it's only one loss, right? Hell, we should send the starters on to Detroit a day early. Then they'll REALLY be rested, won't they?

The logical leaps you're making in this thread are beyond the pale.

anewman35
08-29-2003, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Cotts didn't have to start.

Here's the thing, though - barring a major rotation shakeup, Cotts did had to start one of the two games, and so did Buehrle. Manuel had the choice between going with two matchups that would have been pretty much even, or going with a matchup that didn't favor us and one that did, plus at the same time giving Buehrle a bit of extra rest. I backed off agreeing with this yesterday, but upon giving it some thought, and reading Phil Rogers column, I still think he made the right decision.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-29-2003, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
Here's the thing, though - barring a major rotation shakeup, Cotts did had to start one of the two games, and so did Buehrle. Manuel had the choice between going with two matchups that would have been pretty much even, or going with a matchup that didn't favor us and one that did, plus at the same time giving Buehrle a bit of extra rest. I backed off agreeing with this yesterday, but upon giving it some thought, and reading Phil Rogers column, I still think he made the right decision.

Since when does a #5 starter ever *have* to get his spot in the rotation? The #5 spot is routinely skipped in the rotation following a day off. That is exactly what the Sox had on Monday. Thursday was Buehrle's turn to pitch. Furthermore, the Sox have next Monday off, too. By starting Cotts and taking *two* days off in the space of 8 days, Manuel has thrown his entire pitching rotation off their routine. Some of these guys are going to be pitching on 7 days rest rather than the usual 4.

Why does this whole situation remind me of the last week of the '00 season? Manuel was more concerned with giving everyone plenty of rest instead of keeping them sharp. The team fell flat on its face in October.

And for the record, Phil Rogers hasn't got a clue. The clubhouse is pissed at Manuel. Greenstein's reports make that painfully obvious.

ma-gaga
08-29-2003, 10:42 AM
hmm. it depends. If Cotts is the 5th starter, then it's semi-defensable. With days off though, you'd think that this could be avoided. So, the question is, what does the rotation look like?

Buerhle
Loiza
Garland
Colon
Cotts/Wright??

As long as he didn't push Buehrle out of the rotation order. I can understand the reasoning. "It's our 5th starter's turn to go".

But you would figure at this time of year in a tight division race, you might as well go with a 4 man rotation. Give Cotts a start at the end of the year if you clinch early. Or if there's 5 games in 5 nights.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-29-2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
hmm. it depends. If Cotts is the 5th starter, then it's semi-defensable. With days off though, you'd think that this could be avoided. So, the question is, what does the rotation look like?

Buerhle
Loiza
Garland
Colon
Cotts/Wright??

As long as he didn't push Buehrle out of the rotation order. I can understand the reasoning. "It's our 5th starter's turn to go".

But you would figure at this time of year in a tight division race, you might as well go with a 4 man rotation. Give Cotts a start at the end of the year if you clinch early. Or if there's 5 games in 5 nights.

He didn't push anybody out of the rotation. Buehrle had 4 days rest from his previous start, so Thursday was his day to pitch. Cotts follows Colon in the 5-man rotation, so it was his turn to pitch. A manager playing to win has no trouble making this decision, Tony Pena as an example. Manuel's decision was based solely on saving Buehrle for Detroit. DETROIT! The same team that will likely set a major league record for futility.

It was Rooney and Farmer immediately after the game who noted how Detroit is now up for this series. It's going to be their World Series. Manuel set his pitching rotation to beat them, LOL! Meanwhile he disrespected the Yankees--and we've already paid the price for that bit of foolishness.

anewman35
08-29-2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Manuel's decision was based solely on saving Buehrle for Detroit. DETROIT! The same team that will likely set a major league record for futility.


You keep saying this, and it's just not true. Manuel's decision was based on giving Buehrle an extra day of rest, so he'll be stronger for the rest of the season. If you'd prefer to take risks with our pitching staff, fine, that's your opinion. But I can't understand how you can't see that there is at least some thinking behind the decision. It wasn't made because JM didn't want to win, it wasn't made because JM hates Buehrle, it wasn't made because JM was "saving" Buehrle for the Tigers. Everybody has this team's best interests at heart, can't you see that?

Paulwny
08-29-2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


It was Rooney and Farmer immediately after the game who noted how Detroit is now up for this series. It's going to be their World Series. Manuel set his pitching rotation to beat them, LOL! Meanwhile he disrespected the Yankees--and we've already paid the price for that bit of foolishness.

As I posted before yesterday's game , the tigers will hear of this and be motivated.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-29-2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
You keep saying this, and it's just not true. Manuel's decision was based on giving Buehrle an extra day of rest, so he'll be stronger for the rest of the season. If you'd prefer to take risks with our pitching staff, fine, that's your opinion. But I can't understand how you can't see that there is at least some thinking behind the decision. It wasn't made because JM didn't want to win, it wasn't made because JM hates Buehrle, it wasn't made because JM was "saving" Buehrle for the Tigers. Everybody has this team's best interests at heart, can't you see that?

Obviously you haven't been following this situation at all. It was Manuel himself who puts the torch to the theory you're trying desperately to cling to. I suggest you pick from any of a dozen or so different threads around here that offer direct quotes and a complete timeline of what Manuel said and what Manuel actually did. Starting Cotts had NOTHING to do with Buehrle's health and it had NOTHING to do with showing confidence in his rookie pitcher, either.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to chaperone you around here so you can finally emerge from this ignorant point of view. And yes, that goes double for Phil Rogers who ought to know better than to write the ignorant nonsense he wrote today.

anewman35
08-29-2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to chaperone you around here so you can finally emerge from this ignorant point of view. And yes, that goes double for Phil Rogers who ought to know better than to write the ignorant nonsense he wrote today.

I know exactly what Manuel said, thanks. And, sure, maybe beating Detroit has something to do with it, which I can't fault (anything besides sweeping them is going to be a hell of a lot more embarassing than 2 out of 3 over the Yankees was). But if you're saying that you somehow know it wasn't at all because of extra rest, then you're also clearly not reading what he's saying.

Anyway, thank you. You've taught me a valuable lesson - I've learned it's not just Cubs fans who make silly statements and claim that anybody who doesn't agree is ignorant.

Oh, and since you're clearly so much more knowledgeable than knowledgeable than Phil Rodgers, when can I look forward to your column in a major newspaper and on ESPN.com?

PaleHoseGeorge
08-29-2003, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
I know exactly what Manuel said, thanks. And, sure, maybe beating Detroit has something to do with it, which I can't fault (anything besides sweeping them is going to be a hell of a lot more embarassing than 2 out of 3 over the Yankees was).

Anyway, thank you. You've taught me a valuable lesson - I've learned it's not just Cubs fans who make silly statements and claim that anybody who doesn't agree is ignorant.

Oh, and since you're clearly so much more knowledgeable than knowledgeable than Phil Rodgers, when can I look forward to your column in a major newspaper and on ESPN.com?

#1. Why don't you try explaining to me how Manuel *had* to start Cotts, either yesterday or today.

#2. Why don't you try explaining to me how Manuel *had* Buehrle's health in mind.

#3. Why don't you try explaining to me how Manuel determined a Friday night game in Detroit is more important to win than a Thursday afternoon game in New York.

When you've answered #1-#3 above, I will emerge from my ignorance and achieve the same perfect knowledge that you and Phil Rogers obviously possess.

Here's a piece of advice. Don't use Phil Rogers to make your points. You'll lose that fight.

A.T. Money
08-29-2003, 11:32 AM
Hey PaleHoseGeorge,

Remember, you can't make sense out of nonsense.

These people just don't get it man.

anewman35
08-29-2003, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
#1. Why don't you try explaining to me how Manuel *had* to start Cotts, either yesterday or today.

#2. Why don't you try explaining to me how Manuel *had* Buehrle's health in mind.

#3. Why don't you try explaining to me how Manuel determined a Friday night game in Detroit is more important to win than a Thursday afternoon game in New York.

When you've answered #1-#3 above, I will emerge from my ignorance and achieve the same perfect knowledge that you and Phil Rogers obviously possess.

Here's a piece of advice. Don't use Phil Rogers to make your points. You'll lose that fight.

#1. If Manuel had started Buehrle yesterday and Garland today, who does he start tomorrow? You might be willing to go with Loaiza with short rest, but that's a gamble, just like Manuel's decision was a gamble. It might have worked, or it have hurt us for the rest of the season. We'll never know.

#2. From the Tribune on Wednesday: "Manuel said that although Buehrle was pushed back a day, he'll make the same number of starts this season.

The manager added that giving him an extra day could only benefit the left-hander.

"The fresher arms seem to be the ones that can take you [to the postseason]," he said."

Again, you may not agree, but he clearly had a reason.

#3. It's not more important. It's not less important. Let's say we finish this road trip 5-1. It doesn't matter in the slightest where the loss is. If you're not playing a team you are competing against, all the games are equally important.


I'm not trying to say that I'm sure I'm right, or that I'm sure Phil Rogers is right, or that I'm sure that you're wrong. I'm just saying, what JM did had some valid thinking behind it. Wrong thinking, perhaps, but thinking. I don't appreciate being called ignorant because I don't happen to share your opinion.

voodoochile
08-29-2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
You keep saying this, and it's just not true. Manuel's decision was based on giving Buehrle an extra day of rest, so he'll be stronger for the rest of the season. If you'd prefer to take risks with our pitching staff, fine, that's your opinion. But I can't understand how you can't see that there is at least some thinking behind the decision. It wasn't made because JM didn't want to win, it wasn't made because JM hates Buehrle, it wasn't made because JM was "saving" Buehrle for the Tigers. Everybody has this team's best interests at heart, can't you see that?

Do you honestly believe that extra day of rest is going to make a huge difference in October?

That's funny. If Buehrle is injured, than he shouldn't pitch until he is healthy. If he isn't injured he should take the ball every 5th day. Heck, go back to the 100 pitch limit for a couple of starts and send him out there. If he only pitched the first inning and the rest of the game went the same, the Sox probably win. The Buehrle could have started today too. (Yes, I realize that wouldn't have happened, merely pointing it out)

:firejerry

Clarkdog
08-29-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
We all better hope the Sox don't lose the division by one game.

Lip

If the Sox lose this division by one game, I'll go back to being swept by the Royals at the beginning of the season, or pre All-Star 3-7 embarassment against the weak sisters of the league, or the 1-6 west coast road trip - not this game as why they lost the division.

Come on Lip.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-29-2003, 12:55 PM
Okay, now I can see where the trouble lies. Follow along with me.

Originally posted by anewman35
#1. If Manuel had started Buehrle yesterday and Garland today, who does he start tomorrow? You might be willing to go with Loaiza with short rest, but that's a gamble, just like Manuel's decision was a gamble. It might have worked, or it have hurt us for the rest of the season. We'll never know.

Manuel would not be the first manager to put a pitcher on the mound with 3 days rest--especially managing a team in a pennant race. If Manuel honestly thinks this series with Detroit was important enough to pull both Cotts' and Buehrle's chain for nearly a week over who would start Thursday, then obviously Loaiza is the man to pitch in Detroit on Saturday.

Your point about Manuel's gamble would be valid if only Manuel had flat-out stated he was pitching Cotts. He didn't. He wanted to see how the first two games in NY turned out first. It was only AFTER we won those games that Manuel chose Cotts.

You and Rogers need to answer this question: If it is so damned important to beat Detroit, what difference does it make how we play the first two games in New York?

Don't worry. Manuel can't answer it either.

Originally posted by anewman35
#2. From the Tribune on Wednesday: "Manuel said that although Buehrle was pushed back a day, he'll make the same number of starts this season.

The manager added that giving him an extra day could only benefit the left-hander.

"The fresher arms seem to be the ones that can take you [to the postseason]," he said."

Again, you may not agree, but he clearly had a reason.

Great. Did the Tribune predict how many games the Sox would win, too? (There are several off-days left, so adjusting the rotation is no big deal and certainly no revelation.) Here's my point: Nobody really gives a damned about who starts. We only care about playing the best guys who give us the best chance of winning. Starting Cotts on Thursday when Buehrle was available doesn't meet that standard.

What's really funny about Manuel's assertion (and Roger's foolish agreement) is his notion that lack of fresh arms cost us the '00 ALDS. LMAO! The pitching we got in the playoffs was great and it was easily the best part of the Sox effort. To the contrary, it was our league-leading offense that fell flat on its face. Our hitters were all fully-rested (and plenty rusty) after Manuel benched them for the week proceeding the playoffs.

Am I the only one who sees a trend here?

Originally posted by anewman35
#3. It's not more important. It's not less important. Let's say we finish this road trip 5-1. It doesn't matter in the slightest where the loss is. If you're not playing a team you are competing against, all the games are equally important.

If we could possibly know we were going to go 5-1 on this roadtrip, you're right it wouldn't make any difference which game it was we lost.

The point is, we don't know. In fact, there is no possible way for us to ever know such a thing. That's why playing our best available ballplayers that give us the best possible chance of winning must be adhered to every single game. How we did the first two games in NY ought to have no bearing on who starts the third one--especially if Manuel sincerely believes the 99-loss Tigers are the bigger threat. That is some demented logic.

Originally posted by anewman35
I'm not trying to say that I'm sure I'm right, or that I'm sure Phil Rogers is right, or that I'm sure that you're wrong. I'm just saying, what JM did had some valid thinking behind it. Wrong thinking, perhaps, but thinking. I don't appreciate being called ignorant because I don't happen to share your opinion.

Yes, Manuel has suggested something along the same lines when he outrageously asserted that all thinking was equal in such matters. Sorry, Jerry. Some people are in way over their heads. Their view of the world doesn't cut it, nor should it be given equal consideration. If he honestly believes choosing Cotts or Buehrle "is more a big deal to him than it is to us" he needs to be fired. If Manuel isn't accountable for what he says (and he did say that), than he is most certainly accountable for what he actually does. He's a loser by either yardstick.

Iwritecode
08-29-2003, 01:48 PM
Sorry, I have to add something here...

Originally posted by anewman35
#1. If Manuel had started Buehrle yesterday and Garland today, who does he start tomorrow? You might be willing to go with Loaiza with short rest, but that's a gamble, just like Manuel's decision was a gamble. It might have worked, or it have hurt us for the rest of the season. We'll never know.

If Burly had started yesterday Garland would've gone today and Cotts tomorrow. That would have been in line with what Manuel has been doing all season long. Trying to keep the 1 - 4 starters on 4 days rest as much as possible. Then Loazia would have gone on Sunday and Colon on his normal 4 days rest on Tuesday. Then gee, guess what?!? Burly would have gone on Wednesday on 5 days rest! There's that extra day of rest Manuel was so worried about!

Originally posted by anewman35
#2. From the Tribune on Wednesday: "Manuel said that although Buehrle was pushed back a day, he'll make the same number of starts this season.

The manager added that giving him an extra day could only benefit the left-hander.

"The fresher arms seem to be the ones that can take you [to the postseason]," he said."

Again, you may not agree, but he clearly had a reason.

Tell me one thing, if they had lost the second game in NY, who do you think would have pitched? It would have been Burly! The decision to pitch Cotts wasn't finalized until AFTER they won that second game. Obviously that shows how worried JM was about getting Burly some extra rest. Now today he comes out and talks about going to a 4-man rotation?

Your mistake is thinking that JM actually uses some sort of logic to come up with his decisions.