PDA

View Full Version : Don't EVER Defend Manuel!


MarkV
08-28-2003, 07:12 PM
Look, I haven't been posting on these boards as long as a lot of you have, and most of my posts have bashed Manuel. It's not my agenda to bash the guy, but I get so frustrated with everything he does to screw up this team. It is my opinion that JERRY MANUEL IS THE WORST MANAGER IN BASEBALL HISTORY. It makes me sick hearing people talk about what a good guy he is. HE'S A SNAKE! He lies to his players. He continues to screw over starting pitchers all the time. How many times have we seen Garland dominate through 5 or 6 innings, give up a walk or a hit (no matter the pitch count), and get pulled, only having the reliever come in to allow the inherited runners to score, thus raising Garland's ERA and sometimes giving him a loss? How many times has Buehrle been pulled when he was leading and dominating only to get a ND? How many times has he yanked Big Frank around? His career has gone downhill since Manuel has been here. He went from being one of the greatest hitters ever to a guy that's gonna have to struggle to make the HOF. Manuel always tinkers with the lineup, screws with players' heads, and can't manage his way out of a paper bag. To top it off, we have had more pitchers injured during Manuel's tenure than over the previous 20 years combined.

My point is simple: If you have any brains in your head, don't defend Manuel. With the caliber of players we have, we should have the best record in baseball, instead of being on these boards complaining all the time about how we could have won a game.

I had so much hope in this team, but I know in my heart of hearts that Manuel will cost us another championship, whether it's in the playoffs or trying to get there. :(:

Dadawg_77
08-28-2003, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by MarkV
Look, I haven't been posting on these boards as long as a lot of you have, and most of my posts have bashed Manuel. It's not my agenda to bash the guy, but I get so frustrated with everything he does to screw up this team. It is my opinion that JERRY MANUEL IS THE WORST MANAGER IN BASEBALL HISTORY. It makes me sick hearing people talk about what a good guy he is. HE'S A SNAKE! He lies to his players. He continues to screw over starting pitchers all the time. How many times have we seen Garland dominate through 5 or 6 innings, give up a walk or a hit (no matter the pitch count), and get pulled, only having the reliever come in to allow the inherited runners to score, thus raising Garland's ERA and sometimes giving him a loss? How many times has Buehrle been pulled when he was leading and dominating only to get a ND? How many times has he yanked Big Frank around? His career has gone downhill since Manuel has been here. He went from being one of the greatest hitters ever to a guy that's gonna have to struggle to make the HOF. Manuel always tinkers with the lineup, screws with players' heads, and can't manage his way out of a paper bag. To top it off, we have had more pitchers injured during Manuel's tenure than over the previous 20 years combined.

My point is simple: If you have any brains in your head, don't defend Manuel. With the caliber of players we have, we should have the best record in baseball, instead of being on these boards complaining all the time about how we could have won a game.

I had so much hope in this team, but I know in my heart of hearts that Manuel will cost us another championship, whether it's in the playoffs or trying to get there. :(:

Not to defend hem, but there have been worse managers for the Sox let alone in the history of baseball.

MRKARNO
08-28-2003, 07:21 PM
let me take something from Julie Sweica's book here:

Who's in first now? The White Sox

Who's their manager? jerry Manuel

And now for the rhetorical question:

Why is it Manuel's fault when we lose, but it isnt because of him when we win? You can't have it both ways.


Now many of his decisions werent great, and some were. Every manager makes his mistakes and people here are gonna dramatize this situation, but this is true. The next game against Detroit is technically just as valuable as this game.

Plus, we dont know who made the final push to have cotts start, it might have been Don Cooper or Kenny Williams. You cant just blame it on Manuel. Unless you know the whole story, blaming manuel is unfair

Dadawg_77
08-28-2003, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
let me take something from Julie Sweica's book here:

Who's in first now? The White Sox

Who's their manager? jerry Manuel

And now for the rhetorical question:

Why is it Manuel's fault when we lose, but it isnt because of him when we win? You can't have it both ways.


Now many of his decisions weren't great, and some were. Every manager makes his mistakes and people here are gonna dramatize this situation, but this is true. The next game against Detroit is technically just as valuable as this game.

Plus, we dont know who made the final push to have cotts start, it might have been Don Cooper or Kenny Williams. You cant just blame it on Manuel. Unless you know the whole story, blaming manuel is unfair

First off, this team's talent is head and shoulders above the rest of the AL Central. The Sox should't be in this dog fight but are due to mis management. JM has never handle a bullpen well in his tenure. He plays favorites by playing replacement level or worse players consistently, while messing with the teams best hitter. You know if the stories of Kenny telling Jerry what to do are true, lets hope Kenny gets back to this practice as JM can't do it himself.

CLR01
08-28-2003, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by MarkV
Look, I haven't been posting on these boards as long as a lot of you have, and most of my posts have bashed Manuel. It's not my agenda to bash the guy, but I get so frustrated with everything he does to screw up this team. It is my opinion that JERRY MANUEL IS THE WORST MANAGER IN BASEBALL HISTORY. It makes me sick hearing people talk about what a good guy he is. HE'S A SNAKE! He lies to his players. He continues to screw over starting pitchers all the time. How many times have we seen Garland dominate through 5 or 6 innings, give up a walk or a hit (no matter the pitch count), and get pulled, only having the reliever come in to allow the inherited runners to score, thus raising Garland's ERA and sometimes giving him a loss? How many times has Buehrle been pulled when he was leading and dominating only to get a ND? How many times has he yanked Big Frank around? His career has gone downhill since Manuel has been here. He went from being one of the greatest hitters ever to a guy that's gonna have to struggle to make the HOF. Manuel always tinkers with the lineup, screws with players' heads, and can't manage his way out of a paper bag. To top it off, we have had more pitchers injured during Manuel's tenure than over the previous 20 years combined.

My point is simple: If you have any brains in your head, don't defend Manuel. With the caliber of players we have, we should have the best record in baseball, instead of being on these boards complaining all the time about how we could have won a game.

I had so much hope in this team, but I know in my heart of hearts that Manuel will cost us another championship, whether it's in the playoffs or trying to get there. :(:


Another championship? I never realized he cost us a first one. Never mind that though, yes sir, I will fall in line and blame everything from iraq to may soda getting warm on JM.

Daver
08-28-2003, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by CLR01
Another championship? I never realized he cost us a first one. Never mind that though, yes sir, I will fall in line and blame everything from iraq to may soda getting warm on JM.

He kicked your dog too.


:redneck

MarkV
08-28-2003, 07:33 PM
When I said another championship, I meant it in the sense of him costing us a chance to win a championship. Sorry for the confusion.

HawkDJ
08-28-2003, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by MarkV
When I said another championship, I meant it in the sense of him costing us a chance to win a championship. Sorry for the confusion.

Maybe I'm misreading here still but I hardly think any manager could've won a championship with our 2001 or 2002 teams.

CLR01
08-28-2003, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by daver
He kicked your dog too.


:redneck


Yeah he did, twice. The guy didnít even have the courtesy to wait for the dog to wake.

MarkV
08-28-2003, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by HawkDJ
Maybe I'm misreading here still but I hardly think any manager could've won a championship with our 2001 or 2002 teams.

With the talent we've had the last few years, we wouldn't have been playing corpseball the last few years if we had a good manager. Don't forget, after the Buehrle vs. Yankees debacle last year, this team gave up on Manuel. We went from first place to finishing .500.

HawkDJ
08-28-2003, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by MarkV
With the talent we've had the last few years, we wouldn't have been playing corpseball the last few years if we had a good manager. Don't forget, after the Buehrle vs. Yankees debacle last year, this team gave up on Manuel. We went from first place to finishing .500.

To me, in 2001 considering how many injuries we had, we played pretty well at 83-79.

Last year, we only had one good starter in Buehrle. Everyone else was pretty pitiful until the end of the year. I'm not sure a different manager would've made up the 13 games we lost the division by with that rotation.

duke of dorwood
08-28-2003, 08:11 PM
Tinkering has cost us some games, games are reflected in the standings. I will not defend this manager.

MarkV
08-28-2003, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by HawkDJ
To me, in 2001 considering how many injuries we had, we played pretty well at 83-79.

Last year, we only had one good starter in Buehrle. Everyone else was pretty pitiful until the end of the year. I'm not sure a different manager would've made up the 13 games we lost the division by with that rotation.

The 2001 injuries stemmed from Manuel's misuse of the pitching staff in 2000.

Before the 2002 season, I didn't think we'd win the division, but we were in first place before that Yankees series. Look at the pitchers' numbers from last year-they weren't that bad. Heck, Dan Wright won 14 games. I think we could have at least made it a race, but the team gave up on Manuel. Only with the infusion of new, young blood from the minors later in the year, did the team start to play with some heart again. The biggest thing was that we lost that heart for most of the year.

HawkDJ
08-28-2003, 08:22 PM
I did look at their numbers.

Jon Garland- 4.58 ERA
Dan Wright- 5.18 ERA
Gary Glover- 5.20 ERA
Todd Ritchie- 6.06 ERA

Not too good.

RKMeibalane
08-28-2003, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by MarkV
My point is simple: If you have any brains in your head, don't defend Manuel.

At this point, I don't think there are many Manuel defenders left. The man has lost any and all respect he earned for the success of this team during the 2000 season. Since then, nearly every move he has made has resulted in disaster.

Jeff Brantley was pretty hard on Manuel during this afternoon's game. It looks like some people are beginning to see that JM really has no clue what he's doing, and that this team has performed well in spite of him, not because of him.

Oh, and just for good measure...

****ing idiot ----------------------------------------> :jerry

LASOXFAN
08-28-2003, 09:22 PM
One look at what rookie pitchers have done to the Yankees this year (ERA over 7.00, ten losses) should've been enough to sway most managers from throwing one out there against Mussina today. Why is it that ESPN, AP, and just about everyone else knows these facts but not the Sox? Or do they know them and simply ignore them?

I've defended JM plenty, but not this time. Not just because it was a bad move, but because of the effect it might have on this team. A sweep of the Yankees and they'd be rolling into Detroit higher than a kite and ready to pay back those lowly dolts for the earlier losses. Now?

soxtalker
08-28-2003, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by MarkV
Look, I haven't been posting on these boards as long as a lot of you have, and most of my posts have bashed Manuel. It's not my agenda to bash the guy, but I get so frustrated with everything he does to screw up this team. It is my opinion that JERRY MANUEL IS THE WORST MANAGER IN BASEBALL HISTORY. It makes me sick hearing people talk about what a good guy he is.


Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Not to defend hem, but there have been worse managers for the Sox let alone in the history of baseball.

MarkV, I hesitate to tell you to calm down -- I'm not terribly thrilled with many of Manuel's moves. However, Dadawg is right, we've seen much worse. In fact, you don't have to go back too far in time -- does the name Terry Bevington ring a bell?

Daver
08-28-2003, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by soxtalker
does the name Terry Bevington ring a bell?

The Sox still have his shoes.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/daver/Bev's%20Shoes.jpg

gosox41
08-28-2003, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
let me take something from Julie Sweica's book here:

Who's in first now? The White Sox

Who's their manager? jerry Manuel

And now for the rhetorical question:

Why is it Manuel's fault when we lose, but it isnt because of him when we win? You can't have it both ways.


Now many of his decisions werent great, and some were. Every manager makes his mistakes and people here are gonna dramatize this situation, but this is true. The next game against Detroit is technically just as valuable as this game.

Plus, we dont know who made the final push to have cotts start, it might have been Don Cooper or Kenny Williams. You cant just blame it on Manuel. Unless you know the whole story, blaming manuel is unfair

Believe it or not, I do not blame Manuel for not starting Buehrle.

Howver, I refuse to give Manuel credit when the team starts winning because he makes the same damn mistakes every year and doesn't learn. ALl this tinkering in the first half didn't help the hitters break out of slumps. The fact is the team started hitting when he went to 2 set line ups one for lefites and one for righties (forgetting about the catching platoon situation). He tinkered early in 2001 and 2002 and it didn't work. Late in the year he went with a more stable line up and the team had strong September's and August's. So in 2003 he does the same thing again.

Maybe someone should tell Jerry there's no law against playing good baseball for a full year and while we're at it we should mention that the games in April/May count the same as the one's in August/September.

If this team loses the division most of the blame needs to go on JM.

Bob

Kilroy
08-28-2003, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
First off, this team's talent is head and shoulders above the rest of the AL Central. The Sox should't be in this dog fight but are due to mis management.

I agree that this Sox team has a ****load of talent, and probably should have a much better record than they do now. But to say that the reason they are where they are is simply due to mismanagement is borderline assinine. Anyone who watched this team the first half knows that they were hitting for ****. Almost to a man. The pitching was pretty sound, but they put up no runs. Strangely enuf, when they started to hit, they started to win.

voodoochile
08-28-2003, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
I agree that this Sox team has a ****load of talent, and probably should have a much better record than they do now. But to say that the reason they are where they are is simply due to mismanagement is borderline assinine. Anyone who watched this team the first half knows that they were hitting for ****. Almost to a man. The pitching was pretty sound, but they put up no runs. Strangely enuf, when they started to hit, they started to win.

Okay, I'll grant your point. Jerry Manuel isn't the ONLY reason the Sox aren't walking away with the division. Now, will you grant my point that he is at least PART of the reason that is true?

Do you believe that the change to a set lineup is one reason the Sox are hitting better? If so, doesn't that put some of the blame for the crappy hitting in the first half and the subsequent losses squarely on Manuels shoulders?

RRios8191
08-28-2003, 10:57 PM
Sox better sweep the Tigers!!! :angry:

MRKARNO
08-28-2003, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Okay, I'll grant your point. Jerry Manuel isn't the ONLY reason the Sox aren't walking away with the division. Now, will you grant my point that he is at least PART of the reason that is true?

Do you believe that the change to a set lineup is one reason the Sox are hitting better? If so, doesn't that put some of the blame for the crappy hitting in the first half and the subsequent losses squarely on Manuels shoulders?

Well I believe the set lineup has helped, but Manuel had to go through a lot of lineups to get this one and along the way we kinda got Everett and Alomar. Since we got them, the lineup has always really been the same (except for catcher and the graf leading off bit).

What manager would want to have Borchard, Rowand or Harris in Center or Daubach/Konerko at first the way they were doing the first half? These positions being the most tinkered with, JM had no choice IMHO except to change it up a bit.

Our lineup is better now. Konerko is able to do damage. We have a CFer. DJ is out and alomar is in. This is why we're winning now and I already explained why we were losing before

LASOXFAN
08-28-2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by daver
The Sox still have his shoes.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/daver/Bev's%20Shoes.jpg

that is simply classic!

doublem23
08-29-2003, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
let me take something from Julie Sweica's book here:

Who's in first now? The White Sox

Who's their manager? jerry Manuel

And now for the rhetorical question:

Why is it Manuel's fault when we lose, but it isnt because of him when we win? You can't have it both ways.


Now many of his decisions werent great, and some were. Every manager makes his mistakes and people here are gonna dramatize this situation, but this is true. The next game against Detroit is technically just as valuable as this game.

Plus, we dont know who made the final push to have cotts start, it might have been Don Cooper or Kenny Williams. You cant just blame it on Manuel. Unless you know the whole story, blaming manuel is unfair

You seriously believe this team is maxing out its potential? Give the Sox a decent manager and they've already run away with the thing and would be in a dog fight with the Spanks and M's/A's for home field in the play-offs.

Jerry Manuel... Making things interesting for all the wrong reasons!

Lip Man 1
08-29-2003, 01:08 AM
Mr. Karno says: Who's in first now? The White Sox

Ummmm....no...the Sox are TIED for first.

You see they have this little problem...they can't shake a team that lost 100 friggin games last year and have more pitchers on the DL then any M*A*S*H unit EVER saw.

For a team with all this "talent", how do you account for this?


Hmmmm.....maybe it's the difference in managers? Perchance???

Manager Gandhi is a friggin idiot, and that's the best thing I can say about that stroke.

Lip

MisterB
08-29-2003, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
Well I believe the set lineup has helped, but Manuel had to go through a lot of lineups to get this one and along the way we kinda got Everett and Alomar. Since we got them, the lineup has always really been the same (except for catcher and the graf leading off bit).

What manager would want to have Borchard, Rowand or Harris in Center or Daubach/Konerko at first the way they were doing the first half? These positions being the most tinkered with, JM had no choice IMHO except to change it up a bit.

Our lineup is better now. Konerko is able to do damage. We have a CFer. DJ is out and alomar is in. This is why we're winning now and I already explained why we were losing before

The only hole in the 'just trying to find the best lineup' theory is that Manuel wouldn't even keep one lineup in place long enough to tell if it was working or not. He wasn't putting one lineup out there for several games in a row before trying something else: he was making changes on a daily basis, never allowing the players to get settled in. He'd change the lineup whether the previous one produced or not. There was no scientific method behind these changes, he just seemed to throw them at the wall and then didn't hang around to see if they stuck before flinging more.

IronFisk
08-29-2003, 01:49 AM
5 Reasons to Loathe Jerry-Boy:

5) "Resting" baseball players (What would Cal Ripken say about this?)

4) Righty-Lefty, Lefty-Lefty, Righty-righty, over-under, whatever...

3) 100 pitches - no matter what!

2) Daily lineup square dance

1) JULIO RAMIREZ!!!!


Jerry-Boy Hall-of-Shame:

3) Cotts vs. Cranky Yankees

2) Last week of 2000 season

1) JULIO RAMIREZ!!!

pudge
08-29-2003, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
let me take something from Julie Sweica's book here:

Who's in first now? The White Sox

Who's their manager? jerry Manuel

And now for the rhetorical question:

Why is it Manuel's fault when we lose, but it isnt because of him when we win? You can't have it both ways.



Julie friggin' Sweica? I went to school with that half-wit - if you're quoting her, you've got some issues.

captain54
08-29-2003, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by IronFisk
5 Reasons to Loathe Jerry-Boy:

5) "Resting" baseball players (What would Cal Ripken say about this?)

4) Righty-Lefty, Lefty-Lefty, Righty-righty, over-under, whatever...

3) 100 pitches - no matter what!

2) Daily lineup square dance

1) JULIO RAMIREZ!!!!


Jerry-Boy Hall-of-Shame:

3) Cotts vs. Cranky Yankees

2) Last week of 2000 season

1) JULIO RAMIREZ!!!

you might want to include some of these into your Hall-of-Shame:

-a Sunday crowd in August of 2000 of 35M+ and he puts out a lineup of mostly all reserves..

-his buddy Wavin' Wally Backman

-his buddy Nardi Contreras

-having to have had Reinsdorf wake the team up in August of 2002 and then the team goes on a tear

-recently against Texas , with first base open, pitching to Rafael Palmeiro, who then proceeds to drive in a couple and the Sox lose the game....

jeremyb1
08-29-2003, 05:34 AM
I don't care how bad Manuel is. No manager, let alone one that has won 95 games in a season, managed to stay with the same team for nearly six years, and will most likely make the playoffs again this season could possibly ever be as bad as Manuel is made out to be in this thread. We can win 90 games and Manuel will have had the worst season ever for a manager according to posters on this board. Was he supposed to hit for us in the first half? Is anthing less than 115 wins underacheiving?

Its fine to dislike the manager but some of you must lead really unhappy lives based simply on how much you allow Manuel to upset you.

steff
08-29-2003, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I don't care how bad Manuel is. No manager, let alone one that has won 95 games in a season, managed to stay with the same team for nearly six years, and will most likely make the playoffs again this season could possibly ever be as bad as Manuel is made out to be in this thread. We can win 90 games and Manuel will have had the worst season ever for a manager according to posters on this board. Was he supposed to hit for us in the first half? Is anthing less than 115 wins underacheiving?

Its fine to dislike the manager but some of you must lead really unhappy lives based simply on how much you allow Manuel to upset you.


High 5 there Jeremy... gotta go with this for sure.

It's a loss. Move on. Had Cotts won, it would have been a great decision.. had Mark tossed and lost, folks would have been screaming "why did Neal pitch". Can't win with some folks...

34 Inch Stick
08-29-2003, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by steff
High 5 there Jeremy... gotta go with this for sure.

It's a loss. Move on. Had Cotts won, it would have been a great decision.. had Mark tossed and lost, folks would have been screaming "why did Neal pitch". Can't win with some folks...

Absolutely untrue and I addressed this point on Thursday morning before any of this played out.

By the way Steff, it is less than 24 hours after the game and we haven't played again. I think it's preety common to analyze the previous day's game during that time period.

As for miserable...not me. I'm smiling from ear to ear looking at a long weekend and the beginning of Oktoberfest season as well as a playoff run. I am just frustrated with Manuel beyond belief (but obviously not beyond words).

Jerko
08-29-2003, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by MarkV
The 2001 injuries stemmed from Manuel's misuse of the pitching staff in 2000.

Before the 2002 season, I didn't think we'd win the division, but we were in first place before that Yankees series. Look at the pitchers' numbers from last year-they weren't that bad. Heck, Dan Wright won 14 games. I think we could have at least made it a race, but the team gave up on Manuel. Only with the infusion of new, young blood from the minors later in the year, did the team start to play with some heart again. The biggest thing was that we lost that heart for most of the year.

Mark V, thanks for bringing up that Yankee series. That was when JM should have been given a one way ticket to the bread lines. ESPECIALLY that Buehrle game. That was proof enough for me that the man does not belong in a major league dugout. Here's all I need to prove that JM is an incompetent fool. This year, we have a possible Cy Young winner, 2 guys being talked about for MVP, no less than EIGHT current or recent all stars, a 20 game winner from last year, a 19 game winner from last year, AND WE'RE TIED FOR FIRST IN THE WORST DIVISION IN BASEBALL?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! That is somebody's fault people.

ssang
08-29-2003, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by Jerko
Mark V, thanks for bringing up that Yankee series. That was when JM should have been given a one way ticket to the bread lines. ESPECIALLY that Buehrle game. That was proof enough for me that the man does not belong in a major league dugout. Here's all I need to prove that JM is an incompetent fool. This year, we have a possible Cy Young winner, 2 guys being talked about for MVP, no less than EIGHT current or recent all stars, a 20 game winner from last year, a 19 game winner from last year, AND WE'RE TIED FOR FIRST IN THE WORST DIVISION IN BASEBALL?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! That is somebody's fault people.

Jerko has nailed it on the head here. If you take the actual talent of this team into consideration then the only one left to blame is Jerry "I hate you" Manuel. How many times has he screwed up in his 6 LOOOOOOOONG years as this team's manager???? Enough is enough!

Bobby Thigpen
08-29-2003, 10:12 AM
I'd just like to ask, since when did the Sox become the 27 Yankees in terms of talent? All everyone around here has to say about the Sox is that with their talent they should be ten games up in the Central. Isn't this, except for Alomar and Everett, the same team that everyone was complaining about in June as talentless hacks that shouldn't have been put together in the first place? Aren't these the same players (Konerko, Lee, Garland, Valentin, Crede, and many others) that everyone wanted to trade away because they were a bunch of bums in June. Now all of a sudden everyone acts as if the Sox should go 162-0 this year.

Just an observation.

Jerko
08-29-2003, 10:35 AM
I don't remember comparing them to the 27 Yankees. I am comparing them to the Royals and Twins. Of those 3 teams, the White Sox DO have the most talent IMO. Why are they all tied/close to being tied? Maybe because the other 2 teams' managers take their jobs seriously EVERY DAY and realize that winning 3 games in a row counts more in the standings than winning 2 of 3.

Bobby Thigpen
08-29-2003, 10:47 AM
Fine, compare them to the Royals and Twins. I will agree with you that of those three they have the most talent. My point is, that people around here act as if this is the best team in the American League based on talent and be honest, they're not. Right now the Sox are on a great hot streak and hopefully it will continue through October, but they don't have the talent to win every single game through October. No one does. I don't care if you could resurrect every dead Hall of Famer from Cobb, to Williams, to Ruth, to Dimmagio and put them all on one team, they're going to lose once in a while.

I don't see anything wrong with setting a goal of winning 2 out of 3 in every series. If you can do that throughout the whole year you'll end up with about 90-100 wins. That's good enough to win any division. Tell me this, IF the Sox had started Buehrle, and IF they had won, what good does that do if they only win 1 against Detroit? NONE

Paulwny
08-29-2003, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Bobby Thigpen
[B] Right now the Sox are on a great hot streak and hopefully it will continue through October, but they don't have the talent to win every single game through October. No one does. /B]

Totally agree here, so why tamper with a hot streak? You never know when the hitting will go south, continue to play the hot hand, Buehrle, roll the dice tomorrow.

voodoochile
08-29-2003, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by steff
High 5 there Jeremy... gotta go with this for sure.

It's a loss. Move on. Had Cotts won, it would have been a great decision.. had Mark tossed and lost, folks would have been screaming "why did Neal pitch". Can't win with some folks...

No, no I wouldn't. If Buehrle came out and got shelled, I would at least know the team tried to win the game at all costs and failed. I would have actually praised Jerry for going out of his way to win a tough game to win.

The fact that Jerry has hung on for 6 years is more because of the way his schedule fell. Towards the end of his contract, the team went on a half-season tear and made the playoffs, so they gave him and extension.

But to put it bluntly, Manuel is a problem on this team. Anyone who thinks he isn't part of the problem with this team is looking to make excuses or is a relative of his, IMO.

:firejerry

Paulwny
08-29-2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
No, no I wouldn't. If Buehrle came out and got shelled, I would at least know the team tried to win the game at all costs and failed. I would have actually praised Jerry for going out of his way to win a tough game to win.



Buehrle would have faced the same yank line-up yesterday, no Giambi, no posada, I liked those odds.

voodoochile
08-29-2003, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Buehrle would have faced the same yank line-up yesterday, no Giambi, no posada, I liked those odds.

ME 2...

If the team shells Detroit tonight this is going to look even worse...

joecrede
08-29-2003, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by IronFisk
5 Reasons to Loathe Jerry-Boy:

3) 100 pitches - no matter what!

I think this year Manuel has gone too long with his starters, mostly Buehrle and Colon.

Letting Colon pitch the 7th the other night with a 10-2 lead was a terrible decision. He ended up throwing 119 pitches when he could have left after the 6th with a more reasonable count of 106.

WhiteSoxWinner
08-29-2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by joecrede
I think this year Manuel has gone too long with his starters, mostly Buehrle and Colon.

Letting Colon pitch the 7th the other night with a 10-2 lead was a terrible decision. He ended up throwing 119 pitches when he could have left after the 6th with a more reasonable count of 106.

Thirteen pitches in one night will not destroy him for a playoff run. Have to have more evidence than that for overuse.

joecrede
08-29-2003, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by WhiteSoxWinner
Thirteen pitches in one night will not destroy him for a playoff run. Have to have more evidence than that for overuse.

Those are 13 pitches he didn't have to throw though. Do you disagree that Colon has been worked hard this year?

Lip Man 1
08-29-2003, 12:51 PM
Jermey says: "managed to stay with the same team for nearly six years..."

I think everyone can agree that at least part (notice I said part, I have no idea how much...) of the reason Manager Gandhi has remained with the Sox is because:

1. the Sox have an owner who dislikes the idea of paying people to do nothing (i.e. firing Gandhi, he still has to pay him)

2. Reinsdorf is the chairman of the committee for the advancement of minorities in baseball.

3. Bud Selig, who is Reinsdorf's good friend, has made the issue of advancing minorities in baseball his main cause.

It all contriburtes. There is more here then just a won / lost record. (Unfortunately)

Lip

MarkV
08-29-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Bobby Thigpen
Tell me this, IF the Sox had started Buehrle, and IF they had won, what good does that do if they only win 1 against Detroit? NONE [/B]

Only one win against DET? Cotts would have had a much better chance to beat DET than NYY. Plus, we have Garland and Loaiza going the other two games. With the race this close at this time of year, you have to give yourself the best chance to win every single game, not just every series.