PDA

View Full Version : Rick Telander/Sun-Times rips Manuel Decision


Foulke You
08-29-2003, 03:01 PM
For those WSI people who don't live in the Chicago area or don't read the Sun-Times, Telander wrote a good article about Manuel's decision and yesterday's game.


Here were some choice bits from it:

And his meltdown happened with Buehrle, who is smokin' hot with a 9-2 record and 2.95 ERA in his last 14 starts, having stated he was ready and excited to pitch in Yankee Stadium.

On what should have been his day in the rotation.



and this one:

Still, the skipper sat in this little room deep in the bowels of The House That Ruth Built, in a sweaty T-shirt that read, "Better to burn out than fade away.''

"One more victory,'' Sox catcher Sandy Alomar had mused after the game. "You know how difficult it is to sweep these guys?''

Yes. Absolutely.

And that's why it would have been so sweet to have given it a try.


here is a link to the rest of the article:Telander Article (http://www.suntimes.com/output/telander/cst-spt-rick29.html)

The headlines and articles in the Sun-Times were deservedly harsh on Manuel. The Sports cover had a picture of Jerry in the process of taking the ball from Cotts in the 1st with the headline "OFF THE MARK: Manuel decision to start Cotts over Buehrle costs Sox sweep of Yanks". My personal favorite was the headline inside the Sports section over Doug Padilla's article, it was entitled "An Error On the Manager".

Lip Man 1
08-29-2003, 03:04 PM
Phil Arvia in the Daily Southtown also has an interesting column on this decision today.

Lip

LASOXFAN
08-29-2003, 03:28 PM
I'd like to hear KW's take on the whole thing.

voodoochile
08-29-2003, 03:32 PM
"I wouldn't say he was overwhelmed,'' Manuel said afterward. "There was really no reason to be overwhelmed.''

*****!!! OHMIGAWD! The man is CLUELESS when it comes to understanding the human psyche. I mean this is the absolute dumbest thing he has ever said. He just doesn't get it. Not even close...

MisterB
08-29-2003, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Phil Arvia in the Daily Southtown also has an interesting column on this decision today.

Lip

Here's the choicest bit:

Face it. Sox/Yankees in dare we say an ALCS preview? topped Cubs/Cards at every turn. Cy Young beating Cy Old in Game 1. Frank Thomas leading the assault on David Wells, the man who once accused him of being unwilling to play hurt, in Game 2.

Then came Manuel's botching of Game 3.

The original decision Sunday to pitch Neal Cotts over Mark Buehrle was fine, given it was made to give an extra day's rest to an allegedly tired Buehrle and wouldn't impact his total number of starts for the season. Yet, while changing his mind Tuesday and saying he was "99.9 percent" certain Buehrle would be given his wish to pitch Thursday against the Yankees, Manuel said of that day off, "It looks like (Buehrle) really doesn't need one, to be honest with you."

Great, Buehrle gets to pitch in Yankee Stadium. Cotts gets a much better chance to succeed in a lower-pressure situation at Detroit. Everybody's happy.

Except Manuel, who on Wednesday decided Buehrle would go only if the Sox lost that day and needed a win Thursday to take the series.

Sorry, I don't follow the logic and neither did White Sox broadcaster Hawk Harrelson nor those working the booth for the ESPN telecast.

Trying to win every series is a goal at the beginning of a season, not a strategy for the stretch run. With a one-game lead in your division, you don't concede a game just because a series has been won.

Pitching Cotts, who has now all but soiled himself in two of four big-league starts, was conceding.

Should Buehrle beat Detroit today, is that somehow more valuable than beating the Yankees on Thursday? No. Arguably, it's less so, considering the Sox and Yankees could meet again in the postseason and it would be nice for Buehrle to have some experience pitching in the Bronx from which to draw.

The only way Manuel made the right move is if Buehrle needs the rest. Which, of course, Manuel already told us he didn't.

Clearly, it should've been Buehrle in New York.

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/columns/Acurrent/arvia.htm

white sox bill
08-29-2003, 03:54 PM
Get your Laz-e-boys out, here come the Monday Morning armchair quarterbacks. Whos' to say Buehle wouldn'ta got shelled as bad, ruined his confidence and tanked the rest of the yr?

voodoochile
08-29-2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by white sox bill
Get your Laz-e-boys out, here come the Monday Morning armchair quarterbacks. Whos' to say Buehle wouldn'ta got shelled as bad, ruined his confidence and tanked the rest of the yr?

I think the burden of proof on that one lies in your hands. You can't honestly say you think this was a likelihood. Sure, a possibility like a 10% possibility.

Also, for all the people claiming this is Monday Morning QB'ing, I suggest you read back through some of the threads from Tuesday and Wednesday before this even happened. There were LOTS of people saying that it was a bad idea to start Cotts over Buehrle in NY.

white sox bill
08-29-2003, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I think the burden of proof on that one lies in your hands. You can't honestly say you think this was a likelihood. Sure, a possibility like a 10% possibility.

Also, for all the people claiming this is Monday Morning QB'ing, I suggest you read back through some of the threads from Tuesday and Wednesday before this even happened. There were LOTS of people saying that it was a bad idea to start Cotts over Buehrle in NY.

Voodoo,
Hypothetically, we can do this ALL day. What if the sun set in the east tonight? Sure, 10% sounds about right of my preconceived thoery, but then back in 1917 when the Sox last won the WS, I woulda given us more than a 10% of winning another WS within 86 years.
Bill

maurice
08-29-2003, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by white sox bill
Get your Laz-e-boys out, here come the Monday Morning armchair quarterbacks. Whos' to say Buehle wouldn'ta got shelled as bad, ruined his confidence and tanked the rest of the yr?

Both of your points have been debunked at length in numerous threads. Please read before posting. This one-sided "debate" is circular enough without folks reiterating the same, nonsensical arguments.

voodoochile
08-29-2003, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by white sox bill
Voodoo,
Hypothetically, we can do this ALL day. What if the sun set in the east tonight? Sure, 10% sounds about right of my preconceived thoery, but then back in 1917 when the Sox last won the WS, I woulda given us more than a 10% of winning another WS within 86 years.
Bill


I'd take that bet in a minute time and time again. I'll take that bet for every start until Buehrle is no longer playing the White Sox. I'll give you 3-1 odds and ask you to put down $10/start. Now how do your feel about the chance of Mark Buehrle getting shelled and losing confidence in yesterday's game.

I'll take that sun setting in the East bet too... :)

BTW, it isn't about Buehrle getting shelled yesterday or not. It's about him not getting the chance to try and the crappy reasons for them. A lot of people here and elsewhere were saying it was a bad decision and it turned out that all those people were right. You can spin it anyway you want to, those are the facts.

maurice
08-29-2003, 04:14 PM
But who's to say that Buehrle starting wouldn'ta caused an asteroid to strike the Earth, destroying all life as we know it and preventing the Sox from winning the World Series?

Iwritecode
08-29-2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by white sox bill
Voodoo,
Hypothetically, we can do this ALL day. What if the sun set in the east tonight? Sure, 10% sounds about right of my preconceived thoery, but then back in 1917 when the Sox last won the WS, I woulda given us more than a 10% of winning another WS within 86 years.
Bill

Wow, there's actually one left.

OK, give me ONE good reason Burly should NOT have started the game.

I'll give you a few why he should have:

It was his turn in the rotation... JM admitted he really didn't need the extra rest... A win would have kept the momentum going in the Sox favor going into Detroit... there would have been less pressure for Cotts to perform on a National stage against one of the best teams in the 90's...

Then also try to tell my why Cotts (1 - 0) in his only three ML starts gave us a better chance to win than Burly (9 - 2) in his previous 11 starts) would have...

PaleHoseGeorge
08-29-2003, 04:15 PM
I'll forget about what DID happen at the Bronx on Thursday if the Manuel Apologists will forget about what DIDN'T happen. Is that a deal?

I think there is more than enough material to rip apart Jerry Manuel based solely on what he said before and after the game than the results of the game itself. That quote of his claiming Cotts had nothing to fear is priceless. The man sets him up for failure and then questions his heart.

How many different ways is Jerry Manuel going to try and save his ass for his own incompetence?

Buehrle is selfish. Cotts is scared. Thursday's game isn't as important to us as it is to Buehrle. What difference does it really make anyway? And now, a 4-man rotation!

I'm tired about arguing the what-ifs. Manuel has left everybody clueless as to what he is thinking. That is reason enough to can him. It certainly was enough to can Bevington in '97.

white sox bill
08-29-2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I'd take that bet in a minute time and time again. I'll take that bet for every start until Buehrle is no longer playing the White Sox. I'll give you 3-1 odds and ask you to put down $10/start. Now how do your feel about the chance of Mark Buehrle getting shelled and losing confidence in yesterday's game.

I'll take that sun setting in the East bet too... :)

BTW, it isn't about Buehrle getting shelled yesterday or not. It's about him not getting the chance to try and the crappy reasons for them. A lot of people here and elsewhere were saying it was a bad decision and it turned out that all those people were right. You can spin it anyway you want to, those are the facts.

How 'bout trying to win a WS in 86 yrs? $10 and 3-1 odds? I'm not trying to Bill O'Reilly spin it. We will never know. The obit has been writeen, it's a moote point. Lets worry about the Tigers, we'll have our hands full
Bill

maurice
08-29-2003, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
A win would have kept the momentum going in the Sox favor going into Detroit.

This is an excellent point. JM seems completely unaware of (among many other important things) the significance of momentum in professional sports. You should never do anything that may threaten to end a positive streak, unless you have no other reasonable option.

SouthBendSox
08-29-2003, 06:20 PM
fire this man

I could start tonight against detroit

use buerhle against quality and cotts against cotts level teams

fire this clown