PDA

View Full Version : Managerial Candidates...


Randar68
09-17-2003, 12:12 PM
Despite whatever outcome of this season is, who would you like to see as the new manager of the White Sox in 2004. This team should have been 10 games at this point. They pissed away the early part of the schedule because they couldn't score runs and Jerry blew game after game.


My first choice... Larry Dierker. He can bring in whatever coaches he wants, even though I like Cooper, Nossek, and Walker. Coop and Walker definitely still have value if placed elsewhere in the organization at instructional levels.

Greg1983
09-17-2003, 12:27 PM
Randar, that is a heck of a good idea. Larry Dierker would be an excellent choice. Great baseball smarts, and a guy that players really seem to enjoy.

I've developed kind of a secondary interest in the Houston Astros because a) I have a good friend from Houston and b) I root for anyone in the NL Central who can put the beat-down on the Flubs. And I've got enormous respect for Dierker. I think his departure was one of those ill-advised, "he got us to point B, now so-and-so will get us to point C" moves that Sox fans know all too well.

And I would also agree that Dierker needs to bring in whoever he wants for a coaching staff. I think managers have to have that latitude. However, I believe Dierker has been a National Leage guy all his life, so Cooper and Walker might be useful for their AL experience. I'm not even completely sure how much that matters...just a random thought.

CubKiller
09-17-2003, 12:39 PM
Not sure how you guys recall it, but I remember Jerry Manuel being an obscure hire pretty much from out of nowhere.

Mainly, I just hope the next manager is a guy who not only has experience managing at the big league level AND has won something.

I guess I wouldn't complain if JR hired Dierker. Finishing 1st 4/5 years isn't too shabby.

I don't have any suggestions, but I don't much like the last rumored names I've heard here...Bobby Valentine and Wally Backman.

Just asking out of curiosity...does anyone know if Jim Leyland is for sure done managing...?

hold2dibber
09-17-2003, 12:44 PM
Dierker would be a fine choice. Other names I've thought of over the last year or so include Leyland and Davey Johnson. I've also heard that Cito Gaston would like to manage again - I know he won 2 titles with the Blue Jays, but I frankly don't remember much about his managerial abilities. Does anyone have an opinion on him?

Hondo
09-17-2003, 12:55 PM
If we were to go with a rookie manager I'd like to see someone like Willie Randolph.

Mike Hargrove and Grady Little may be available this offseason.

I would hate to see Bobby Valentine as the manager of the White Sox.

Jim Leyland would be a great choice if he ever wanted to manage again.

I heard someone mention Ozzie Guillen. He's the third base coach for Florida. What does everyone think of that?

Bobby Thigpen
09-17-2003, 01:01 PM
Dierker would be great, Leyland would be fabulous. I think the Sox would be best off with a guy who is focused on doing the little things in the game. Until they iron out baserunning, defense, situational hitting, and their general approach to the "little things", the Sox aren't going to win anything, despite all of their talent.

I really don't want to see Torre. Everyone talks about what a great manager he is, but remember he did jack crap as a manager before he went to the Yankees. With the talent Steinbrinner buys it isn't to hard to win a Series here or there. Torre is a manager of who to hit wher and when, he is not a teacher of the game. While I would agree he would be an upgrade over Manuel in game management, the Sox would still have fundamental issues with Torre as their manager. And Bobby V can stay as far away from the Sox as humanly possible for all I care. Same for Gaston.

Leyland would be the dream choice of mine and is the only one with a hint of possibility because of his prior time here, or did he leave ugly like everyone else seems to?

jabrch
09-17-2003, 01:01 PM
Wally Backman is the organization's internal choice. Randolph would be the most eyepopping name. Ozzie would be the fans choice. Cito is the best veteran and Bobby V would be strictly to placate the media. I'd be happy with either Randolph or Backman and would be content with Ozzie, Cito or some of the other names. I'd be disappointed with Bobby V.

Mostly, I will be mad as heck when we decide to keep JM.

Randar68
09-17-2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Wally Backman is the organization's internal choice. Randolph would be the most eyepopping name. Ozzie would be the fans choice. Cito is the best veteran and Bobby V would be strictly to placate the media. I'd be happy with either Randolph or Backman and would be content with Ozzie, Cito or some of the other names. I'd be disappointed with Bobby V.

Mostly, I will be mad as heck when we decide to keep JM.


Frankly, I think Backman is too abrasive, especially for a team comprised of any decent number of veterans. I have heard similar rumblings as well. Good with the young players, get's them playing hard and aggressive, though.

shane
09-17-2003, 01:06 PM
I guess I wouldn't complain if JR hired Dierker. Finishing 1st 4/5 years isn't too shabby.

He had an incredible team and couldn't get it done. Sure 4/5 division titles is nice, but the Astros weren't just moving from B to C. They had no choice. You give a man the best that's out there and he isn't able to win it for you, you replace the man. However, he would be an upgrade here, and who knows, maybe he could get it done in the AL. We've got a great team too, and perhaps a few managerial choices by a seasoned manager would have been the difference this year.

Randar68
09-17-2003, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by shane
He had an incredible team and couldn't get it done. Sure 4/5 division titles is nice, but the Astros weren't just moving from B to C. They had no choice. You give a man the best that's out there and he isn't able to win it for you, you replace the man. However, he would be an upgrade here, and who knows, maybe he could get it done in the AL. We've got a great team too, and perhaps a few managerial choices by a seasoned manager would have been the difference this year.

1) He doesn't lose you games with mismanagement like Manual does.
2) He knows how to handle a pitching staff and a bullpen.
3) His players would have run through a brick wall for the guy.

Hangar18
09-17-2003, 01:10 PM
I like this Thread. At least something positive can come of this
season however it ends........... :smile:

Hangar18
09-17-2003, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Hondo
If we were to go with a rookie manager I'd like to see someone like Willie Randolph.

Mike Hargrove and Grady Little may be available this offseason.

I would hate to see Bobby Valentine as the manager of the White Sox.

Jim Leyland would be a great choice if he ever wanted to manage again.

I heard someone mention Ozzie Guillen. He's the third base coach for Florida. What does everyone think of that?


Leyland and Ozzie are VERY INTRIGUEING. I wonder what skills Ozzie has picked since he's been coaching. The only way to tell would be to interview him. Yeah, we need a guy to HANDLE THE VETERANS, and pay attention to the little things. the little things have killed us this year... Leyland can be Had....IF the SOX SOLD THEMSELVES TO HIM. they think the interview process is candidates showing up and Presenting themselves. The SOX for the 1st time, SHOULD APPROACH IT LIKE THIS

shane
09-17-2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
1) He doesn't lose you games with mismanagement like Manual does.
2) He knows how to handle a pitching staff and a bullpen.
3) His players would have run through a brick wall for the guy.

I'm not saying he's a bad manager. I love the guy and picked the Astros to win the NL several times at the beginning of the seasons. I do, however, defend Houston's decision to let him go. All the better for us if he comes to Chicago. The small ball would help this team tremendously, and that's one thing he knows very well.

dickallen15
09-17-2003, 01:25 PM
A couple of things, Dierker was a subject in a player revolt in Houston. Bagwell and Biggio both didn't want to play for him anymore and issued him or me ultimatums to upper management. Leyland, who would be my first choice, is highly unlikely. He was very upset with how the Sox treated his good friend Gene LaMont, and even though that was mostly the now departed Ron Schueler, Reinsdorf gave his blessing. Manuel was also his bench coach in Florida, so he probably be uncomfortable replacing him. I think Backman deserves a shot, if not him , a big name with MLB managing experience.

Randar68
09-17-2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
a big name with MLB managing experience.


Well, I'm waiting. Who?

dickallen15
09-17-2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Well, I'm waiting. Who?


Well, Leyand would be my 1st choice, although I don't think he'd take it. Backman would be #2, he's earned a shot. There were a few rumblings that Piniella wanted out of Tampa already, if that's true I'd look at him. If he was managing this team, they'd be tweaking the rotation to have it set up for the playoffs right now. I hate LaRussa, so no to him. Maybe Tom Kelly, I think that would really make the White Sox/ Twins rivalry interesting.I also think the Sox should hire Whitey Herzog as a consultant

Randar68
09-17-2003, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
Well, Leyand would be my 1st choice, although I don't think he'd take it. Backman would be #2, he's earned a shot. There were a few rumblings that Piniella wanted out of Tampa already, if that's true I'd look at him. If he was managing this team, they'd be tweaking the rotation to have it set up for the playoffs right now. I hate LaRussa, so no to him. Maybe Tom Kelly, I think that would really make the White Sox/ Twins rivalry interesting.I also think the Sox should hire Whitey Herzog as a consultant

If you think players revolted against Dierker, you ain't seen nothin'. If Backman had a team with as many vets as currently are on the Sox... look out!

Bobby Thigpen
09-17-2003, 01:44 PM
Thinking about it more, if I were to make a wish list for managers for the Sox to hire I think the first name on it would be Mike Sciossia. I don't forsee the Angels ever letting him go, and I don't really see him wanting to come to Chicago, but he would be my number one choice. Leyland would probably be second, with Tom Kelly third, and Lou Pinella fourth.

Dadawg_77
09-17-2003, 01:52 PM
Hmmm..... Fisk. A lot of good managers were catchers as a player. He knows the game, and respects the game. He would have a good amount of respect just walking into clubhouse. Total and instant creditability with the media and fan base. Yeah he would be a rookie manager, but everyone has to be a rookie at one point.

shane
09-17-2003, 02:01 PM
Dierker was a subject in a player revolt in Houston. Bagwell and Biggio both didn't want to play for him anymore and issued him or me ultimatums to upper management.

Wow, I don't recall hearing anything about that, but it makes sense. Those two want a WS and I'm sure they realized that Dierker wasn't the man to take them there. However, if this is the case, then I think the statement that the players would run through a brick wall for him is a little off. Maybe they would run up a hill and knock themselves out on a pole for him, but I don't know about through a brick wall. And you are correct with LaRussa. That loser can keep screwing up St. Louis's seasons for all I care. I won't say he never had it, but he certainly doesn't have it now. I'm still not against Dierker. I think he would be a good fit for this team. Alou or Pena would have been nice outside selections, but I'm sure they're locked up for awhile.

Procol Harum
09-17-2003, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Hmmm..... Fisk. A lot of good managers were catchers as a player. He knows the game, and respects the game. He would have a good amount of respect just walking into clubhouse. Total and instant creditability with the media and fan base. Yeah he would be a rookie manager, but everyone has to be a rookie at one point.

Only problem being that the owner and the prospective manager detest each other. Doesn't appear to be a very likely scenario.

Hondo
09-17-2003, 02:07 PM
I don't think Fisk has the desire to be a manager.
He's kind of a prickly personality and I'm not quite sure how he could handle issues outside the lines.
Plus who knows what his relationship is with the team now?Things definitely didn't end well. It was a fiasco how the Sox handled his release/retirement

It's an interesting discussion though.
Do you go hometown favorite like Trammel in Detroit? Maybe if the Sox decide to start from scratch.

Do you go with a first timer/outisder? That's a crapshoot as with any choic.e

I just would like to see us avoid a retread.

I like Hargrove for someone who's has managed before. With Baltimore and Angelos I could see him getting canned.

Otherwise I'd like to see Willie Randoplh get it. He was in the running for a few jobs, namely the Milwaukee one, last offseason, he has served his time,been around a winner, and also has some front office experience.

longshot7
09-17-2003, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
3) His players would have run through a brick wall for the guy.

Didn't the Astros have a "Players Revolt" against Dierker during his final offseason? I remember hearing bad things. Also, Leyland is not coming out of retirement - he was goddawful at Colorado during his last year - no fire, no motivation. Does Fisk have any managing experience at all?

I'm not super-impressed with anyone - but I'd be intrigued about Randolph or Backman - Wally's record speaks for itself, I think. WS title, minor league championships, etc.

what about Terry Francona? Where is he at?

gosox41
09-17-2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by CubKiller
Not sure how you guys recall it, but I remember Jerry Manuel being an obscure hire pretty much from out of nowhere.

Mainly, I just hope the next manager is a guy who not only has experience managing at the big league level AND has won something.

I guess I wouldn't complain if JR hired Dierker. Finishing 1st 4/5 years isn't too shabby.

I don't have any suggestions, but I don't much like the last rumored names I've heard here...Bobby Valentine and Wally Backman.

Just asking out of curiosity...does anyone know if Jim Leyland is for sure done managing...?

I don't see the Sox paying money to hire a proven winner.

Last I heard Leyland is managing his sons little league team and is content in retirement.

Bob

gosox41
09-17-2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Hondo

I heard someone mention Ozzie Guillen. He's the third base coach for Florida. What does everyone think of that?


Not a good idea at all.

I have no problem if the Sox bring up Backman. A big name would be nice, but like I said earlier, highly unlikely.

Bob

LASOXFAN
09-17-2003, 02:59 PM
JOE TORRE


He's going to be available because Steinbrenner's going to blow a gasket when the Yankees get beat in the first round.

Not that JR would ever pay Manuel and a high-priced new manager at the same time, but I'd love to see what he could do on the South Side.

MarkEdward
09-17-2003, 03:34 PM
Sox make the playoffs this year: Keep Williams and Manuel.

Sox don't make the playoffs: Fire Williams and Manuel. Hire Paul Depodesta to GM and either Larry Dierker or Davey Johnson to manage.

Randar68
09-17-2003, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Sox make the playoffs this year: Keep Williams and Manuel.

Sox don't make the playoffs: Fire Williams and Manuel. Hire Paul Depodesta to GM and either Larry Dierker or Davey Johnson to manage.

Why fire Kenny now??? You're either pipe-dreaming in fantasy land or you fell asleep when Kenny acquired Colon and Loaiza and then traded for Alomar and Everett without having to pick up any salary!

CubKiller
09-17-2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I don't see the Sox paying money to hire a proven winner.

They could and should, but I don't really see it either...that's why I used the word 'hope'.

I don't get it though. If the payroll is $50M, then bring in a stud mgr and make it $55M, right?

We're not going anywhere with the current bozo at the helm, so why not just get a real mgr...?

Originally posted by gosox41
Last I heard Leyland is managing his sons little league team and is content in retirement.

Thanks...

voodoochile
09-17-2003, 03:50 PM
Reinsy will go cheap and stay inside the organization, either Backman or Nick Leyva (SP?).

I think that allows him to save money on coaches too by keeping all the rest of the staff.

Eventually, I expect to see them offer Walker the job, but that will be the NEXT manager, not immediately.

jeremyb1
09-17-2003, 03:53 PM
I completely disagree with whoever said we need greater focus on the "little things" but I guess that's an argument about baseball philosiphy moreso than just management. Personally, though, my biggest beef with Manuel has been that he seems to overmanage sometimes and calls for sac bunts too often although in some cases that may be the players bunting on their own.

I'm suprised people think Backman is too intense for our veteran team. Everyone is still upset about the first half and all anyone could complain about then was that we were too laid back and not playing hard enough. I don't have a problem with fire from a new manager as long as its reasonable. Backman seems to get his players to play hard and that's the key to a manager in my opinion, getting the best possible performance from your players. Minor strategical decisions aren't as important in the long run as everyone seems to think. As long as a manager is smart enough to pitch his best relievers when the game's on the line, its not worth overemphasizing strategy.

Leyland, I think is probably too old and probably wouldn't accept the job. Personally, as I hinted at before, I'm not a huge fan of a lot of the old school managers - especially ones that unlike Leyland haven't had major success in the past - because I'm not a big fan of the old school baseball philosiphy.

Lip Man 1
09-17-2003, 04:04 PM
For what it's worth and I don't know if this would be a factor with ownership or not but Ozzie DID NOT leave on good terms with the Sox.

He ripped the organization for the White Flag Trade, he ripped the organization for signing Jamie Navarro and he was one of the former players contacted by the Tribune after the Thomas / Wells incident and did not have very good things to say about Frank as a teammate and his leadership ability. The story also contacted Navarro, Hernandez and Ventura. Robin was the only guy to say respectful things towards Frank.

I can get you some exact quotes if you'd like.

Lip

Win1ForMe
09-17-2003, 04:09 PM
I don't understand a number of these posts which bring up suggestions of Ozzie Guilen, Willie Randolph, or even Backman. Kenny is going to have a hard time keeping this team together THIS off-season so who knows what kind of a team we'll have out there next year. If they still manage to keep the right players, then we would deffinately have to win next year or our window of opportunity might close. Why roll the dice with someone unproven if you have to win now?

I actually wouldn't mind Bobby V. Can someone explain to me why people have such a problem with him?

soxtalker
09-17-2003, 04:13 PM
First, I'm going to guess that Backman is the logical choice, as money will likely be a factor.

Second, everyone keeps assuming that the new manager will have a veteran team. That's the most likely situation, but let me throw out what might be a wild idea. What about the possibility that KW goes for youth? If the free agents don't want to re-sign for the price that the Sox are willing to pay, KW could decide to start the season with our young prospects (e.g., Borchard, Reed, + maybe one or two others acquired via trade). Now, this might sound like a "rebuilding scenario", which many of you hate. But here's where I'll throw out a different twist. KW has shown the ability to fill in holes during the season via trade. So, what if he puts together a young team to start, then fills in holes later? In this case, Backman might be a good choice.

Randar68
09-17-2003, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by soxtalker
First, I'm going to guess that Backman is the logical choice, as money will likely be a factor.

Second, everyone keeps assuming that the new manager will have a veteran team. That's the most likely situation, but let me throw out what might be a wild idea. What about the possibility that KW goes for youth? If the free agents don't want to re-sign for the price that the Sox are willing to pay, KW could decide to start the season with our young prospects (e.g., Borchard, Reed, + maybe one or two others acquired via trade). Now, this might sound like a "rebuilding scenario", which many of you hate. But here's where I'll throw out a different twist. KW has shown the ability to fill in holes during the season via trade. So, what if he puts together a young team to start, then fills in holes later? In this case, Backman might be a good choice.

Even with an outstanding spring, you won't see Borchard here to start 2004, no matter what moves they make.

You'll have a Harris/Reed/Rowand battle for opening day CF'er with Maggs and Lee in the corners.

Crede is a given at 3rd, who knows at 2B or SS. Unless they trade Konerko, he'll be at 1st and catcher will be Olivo and either Alomar/Burke/veteran FA.

Starters are Garland/Buehrle/Loaiza and 2 others, maybe Colon, the other being either Wright, Rauch, Diaz or Cotts and maybe Scheonweis (sp???).

That has a good share's worth of veterans. That is also still a speed-limited team that doesn't play the type of baseball Backman likes to play.

I just don't see that as being a happy marriage.

KingXerxes
09-17-2003, 04:49 PM
While I think Backman is the best candidate for the job - and The White Sox may very well tab him to manage - I don't think it will work out.

I can't prove any of the following, but it's my impression that the front office is very meddlesome in every single aspect of the major league club. Not Reinsdorf mind you, but his minions. If Wally Backman manages like he played, then he is very much his own man, and will blow up after about a month of dealing with the lackeys and spies that Mr. Reinsdorf keeps on his payroll.

:reinsy

"Hey you! Yes you. Go find out why Backman didn't pinch hit for Thomas in the third inning last night. And why is Paniagua not listed as Wednesday's starter. And you better do a better job yourself of covering for the six errors that Valentin has made over the last four games.............GOT IT!"

:hawk

"Yessir Mr. Reinsdorf sir."

soxtalker
09-17-2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Even with an outstanding spring, you won't see Borchard here to start 2004, no matter what moves they make.

You'll have a Harris/Reed/Rowand battle for opening day CF'er with Maggs and Lee in the corners.

Crede is a given at 3rd, who knows at 2B or SS. Unless they trade Konerko, he'll be at 1st and catcher will be Olivo and either Alomar/Burke/veteran FA.

Starters are Garland/Buehrle/Loaiza and 2 others, maybe Colon, the other being either Wright, Rauch, Diaz or Cotts and maybe Scheonweis (sp???).

That has a good share's worth of veterans. That is also still a speed-limited team that doesn't play the type of baseball Backman likes to play.

I just don't see that as being a happy marriage.

I was suggesting something quite a bit more radical -- maybe something involving trades of established players (e.g., Buehrle, Loaiza) that would result in a young, inexpensive team. I'm not advocating it, nor am I suggesting that it is even likely. But KW has demonstrated the ability to work aggressive, innovative trades (e.g., Colon, Alomar), and I'm sure that he won't stand still this winter. I was mainly trying to look at the issue from a different perspective. I think that the main topic of the thread is a good one, and it probably wasn't appropriate for me to raise something as unlikely as this in this thread.

Twins8791
09-17-2003, 04:59 PM
And now for something completely different: Joe Torre.

shane
09-17-2003, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I completely disagree with whoever said we need greater focus on the "little things" but I guess that's an argument about baseball philosiphy moreso than just management. Personally, though, my biggest beef with Manuel has been that he seems to overmanage sometimes and calls for sac bunts too often although in some cases that may be the players bunting on their own.

I like your honesty with this post. It's my opinion that the little things will give you a much better chance of making it to WS. However, the manager must know when to use those little things, and it's the manager's job to ensure that the players know when to use them as well. A key stolen base or bloop to the opposite field can win a game if executed correctly, several games. Last night, there were several posts about hitters not going to right field. Why? That's poor execution. If our hitters aren't capable of hitting an outside pitch to right field, then let's stop calling them good hitters, and that includes the big three. They are capable, it's the manager's job to step it up and tell them to do it. Swinging for the fences in every AB isn't the way to the WS, unless you've got unbelievable pitching.

Win1ForMe
09-17-2003, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1

I'm suprised people think Backman is too intense for our veteran team. Everyone is still upset about the first half and all anyone could complain about then was that we were too laid back and not playing hard enough. I don't have a problem with fire from a new manager as long as its reasonable. Backman seems to get his players to play hard and that's the key to a manager in my opinion, getting the best possible performance from your players. Minor strategical decisions aren't as important in the long run as everyone seems to think. As long as a manager is smart enough to pitch his best relievers when the game's on the line, its not worth overemphasizing strategy.

I agree with you that at certain times during the season, especially when trailing, the Sox have not played with the intensity necessary to win games. Too often, hitters simply seem disinterested and quickly swing for the fences when the game plan should call for getting men on base. It's hard to say if a fiery manager would change that, but I think it's certainly the current manager's fault for not telling his hitters to change the approach.

It's hard to figure out what type of a manager would work for this team. On one hand, Backman (somewhat of an anti-Manuel in terms of demeanor) would seem like a logical replacement. Then again, we've seen how our guys basically tuned out Gary Matthews earlier in the season. I just think we need someone to motivate the players to play hard each game.

As far as strategy, I don't believe the manager needs to be a strategic genius but he also can't give games away (like Manuel has sometimes this year). Manuel has "tinkered" and we probably lost some games because of it. But when the season ends, the most important losses will be those to the Tigers, Devil Rays and Indians where the White Sox just failed to show up.

LASOXFAN
09-17-2003, 06:07 PM
this thread blows. we still have a pulse for the season.

Stop talking about "next year" unless you wear a cuddly little bear on your uniform! :smile:

OurBitchinMinny
09-17-2003, 08:09 PM
Joe Torre

Viva Magglio
09-17-2003, 08:25 PM
If the Cardinals and Tony LaRussa part ways, I say that we go after him. Despite Ken Harrelson, LaRussa is friends with Jerry Reinsdorf. Also, we almost hired LaRussa in 1996 before Tony opted to sign with St. Louis. Say what you will about LaRussa, but none of us could deny that he would be a managerial upgrade from what we have now.

Is anyone aware of Cardinal message board forums? Perhaps we could check there to gague St. Louis fan opinion on LaRussa.

gosox41
09-17-2003, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Win1ForMe
I don't understand a number of these posts which bring up suggestions of Ozzie Guilen, Willie Randolph, or even Backman. Kenny is going to have a hard time keeping this team together THIS off-season so who knows what kind of a team we'll have out there next year. If they still manage to keep the right players, then we would deffinately have to win next year or our window of opportunity might close. Why roll the dice with someone unproven if you have to win now?



I've heard that before. Remember, this is Year 3 of underacheiving.

Bob

NewyorkSoxFan
09-17-2003, 08:58 PM
Please no Wally Backman, or for god's sake Ozzie G. Lets take emotions out and look at baseball experience. If we come back with a veteran team then I suggest a veteran manager. If by chance Joe Torre is available you would be a fool not to at least talk to him, ditto for Tony Larussa. You need someone who will grab the respect of the players from day one.

That being said if we come back with a younger team, then maybe you go with a slightly less experienced manager, but no more on the job training.

You get what you pay for, and hopefully JR realizes that if he had a seasoned manager he probably wouldnt' be in this position.


NYSF

gosox41
09-17-2003, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by NewyorkSoxFan
Please no Wally Backman, or for god's sake Ozzie G. Lets take emotions out and look at baseball experience. If we come back with a veteran team then I suggest a veteran manager. If by chance Joe Torre is available you would be a fool not to at least talk to him, ditto for Tony Larussa. You need someone who will grab the respect of the players from day one.

That being said if we come back with a younger team, then maybe you go with a slightly less experienced manager, but no more on the job training.

You get what you pay for, and hopefully JR realizes that if he had a seasoned manager he probably wouldnt' be in this position.


NYSF

I would love a proven winner as a manager. But JR won't spend the money. It's almost guaranteed it's going to be Backman, Guiillen, Randolph, Fisk, Leyva or some other smaller name.

Bob

MarkEdward
09-17-2003, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Why fire Kenny now??? You're either pipe-dreaming in fantasy land or you fell asleep when Kenny acquired Colon and Loaiza and then traded for Alomar and Everett without having to pick up any salary!

Why fire Williams? Well, he turned a 90 win team into an 83 win team which turned into an 81 team win. That doesn't sound like much progress to me.

And for every Colon trade, he's pulled a Ritchie. For every Everett trade, he's pulled a Koch. Alomar has not been a significant upgrade over Jimenez.

Here's for Depodesta in 2004.

Tragg
09-17-2003, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Despite whatever outcome of this season is, who would you like to see as the new manager of the White Sox in 2004. This team should have been 10 games at this point. They pissed away the early part of the schedule because they couldn't score runs and Jerry blew game after game.


My first choice... Larry Dierker. He can bring in whatever coaches he wants, even though I like Cooper, Nossek, and Walker. Coop and Walker definitely still have value if placed elsewhere in the organization at instructional levels.
No offense, but I follow the Astros, used to do a website on the Astros, and Dierker is an IDIOT.

And Please, NO OZZIE. We don't need a spark plug - say what you will, but Manuel's STRENGTH is keeping the team trying when we were ready to throw dirt on them the last 3 years.

We need a BASEBALL man. Someone who understands how to win. Ozzie played a career of swinging at everything and anything near the plate, which is the precise hitting approach we need to eliminate on this club.

MarkEdward
09-17-2003, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by Tragg
No offense, but I follow the Astros, used to do a website on the Astros, and Dierker is an IDIOT.


What's the problem with Dierker? I thought he handled the Astros pretty well.

Tragg
09-17-2003, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
What's the problem with Dierker? I thought he handled the Astros pretty well.

His teams were loaded with talent and he never won a playoff series.

Bagwell and Biggio in their primes.
Moises Alou in his prime
Carl Everett, right when he broke out
Luis Gonzales
Great seasons by Hampton and Kyle
Wagner
Big Unit for a playoff run

Now they suffered from similar woes as the Sox - C, SS, 3B creating offensive holes in their lineup.
He just wasn't much of a manager, imo.

bc2k
09-17-2003, 10:35 PM
In all seriousness, I nominate Ed Farmer to be the manager of the White Sox. The only downside to that would be that we miss out on the greatest broadcaster in Chicago.

guillen4life13
09-17-2003, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Why fire Williams? Well, he turned a 90 win team into an 83 win team which turned into an 81 team win. That doesn't sound like much progress to me.

And for every Colon trade, he's pulled a Ritchie. For every Everett trade, he's pulled a Koch. Alomar has not been a significant upgrade over Jimenez.

Here's for Depodesta in 2004.

It was a poorly managed 95 win team that had how many players go down for extended periods of time in 2001? Let me try and remember as many as I can:

Antonio Osuna
David Wells
Bob Howry (he was there, but not at full strength by any means)
James Baldwin (Only pitched 95 innings)
Cal Eldred
Lorenzo Barcelo
Jim Parque
*note: Parque missed almost the entire year, and was shelled in the only few appearances he made. Same with Eldred. Wells was DL'ed after 16 appearances. That takes 3/5 of the rotation away.

Then, on the offense side:
Thomas was gone for almost the whole year.
Jose had hamstring problems for the majority of the year.
Sandy was DL'ed in July or August, I think.


That's a good, important part of the team that didn't play, or played hurt.

What I'm saying, is that the decline was not KW's fault. It was JM's (if anyone's).

As for the bad moves... I'm not forgiving him, but I think he's improved drastically. In the last year, he has only made one move that is going to cost us big: the Koch deal. Any many of us on these boards were praising the deal, so at the time it seemed good. As for the Alomar<Jimenez... that's a whole other discussion right there. And in regards to the other moves he's made... most of them have seemed good at the time of the transaction. Something always ended up going wrong. He made mistakes... but luck also screwed him (and us, the fans) big time.

But now it's bedtime. I have school tomorrow.

MarkEdward
09-17-2003, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
The only downside to that would be that we miss out on the greatest broadcaster in Chicago.

Where's Pat Foley going?

humansushi
09-17-2003, 10:42 PM
How about we go outside of baseball and hire Tony Robbins. lol

Randar68
09-18-2003, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Why fire Williams? Well, he turned a 90 win team into an 83 win team which turned into an 81 team win. That doesn't sound like much progress to me.

And for every Colon trade, he's pulled a Ritchie. For every Everett trade, he's pulled a Koch. Alomar has not been a significant upgrade over Jimenez.

Here's for Depodesta in 2004.

You've got to be kidding me. He's basically learning on the job. He's had what, 2 or 3 trades you'd tab as flat-out "BAD", and a full handfull of trades in the past year that looked like absolute steals!!!! He gave up almost nothing to get Colon!!!! Worked around not having any $$$ and still traded to fill 2 of our biggest holes!

Most of his good trades have been in the past 18 months as well. In the end, Cotts "may" make the Foulke trade out to be a pretty good one for us. Signed Tom Gordon. Got Marte for nothing. Sullivan for not just Hummel....


Really. Get off the Depodesta Highway. Kenny has figured out what the fans want, is saying all the right things the fans want to hear, and has done nothing but try to continually upgrade this team. He's also lead several VERY good drafts, despite my disagreements about the treatment of Doug Laumann, who I think is an outstanding talent evaluator.

Any GM who makes many moves is going to have ones that occassionally come back to haunt them or have poor results. This is the first guy, and in particular, the first JR guy, in a long time who has figured it out and made aggressive moves under the crippling budget restraints of JR.

Just when he figures it out, you want to run him out of town. I think that is a bit unreasonable and foolish.

harwar
09-18-2003, 10:49 AM
I would love to see Fisk.He managed in the futures game and won and by all reports took it very seriously.It would sure bring some people into the ballpark,but i realize that i'm just dreaming because JR would never do it.I think that after this year we will get a procession of lackeys until JR sells the team or they move.

shane
09-18-2003, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I completely disagree with whoever said we need greater focus on the "little things" but I guess that's an argument about baseball philosiphy moreso than just management.

Aggressive base running by the Twins. That's a little thing that won the game for them last night. As you can see, when the bats aren't jacking them out, twins aren't doing any better than the Sox in the HR department, it's those little things that make all the difference. That's just one little thing, but it scored 2 runs for them.

davenicholson
09-18-2003, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Where's Pat Foley going?
Outstanding! :D: My pick for post of the week! :gulp:

MarkEdward
09-18-2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Tragg

His teams were loaded with talent and he never won a playoff series.


Well, I would chalk the lack of playoff success up as being just unlucky. Four division titles is damn impressive.


Originally posted by guillen4life13

It was a poorly managed 95 win team that had how many players go down for extended periods of time in 2001? Let me try and remember as many as I can:

I agree that injuries hindered our chances for success in 2001, and for that I can't blame Williams. However, Kenny should've realized the 2000 team was a bit of a fluke. Many players had career years, especially those of our pitching staff, like Parque, Sirotka, Eldred, Baldwin, and Howry. Williams should've expected some decline with most of these pitchers and acted accordingly; instead, all he did was trade for David Wells.

Our 2000 offense was young, and first in the AL in runs scored. None of these players were having "career years." Instead of keeping this group together, Williams traded for Royce Clayton and signed Sandy Alomar. Both of these players hurt our 2001 offense (along with the loss of Thomas).

My point is that Williams did little to improve the 2000 team.

And in regards to the other moves he's made... most of them have seemed good at the time of the transaction. Something always ended up going wrong.


Well, I'd argue that the Foulke, Ritchie, and Clayton deals all seemed bad at the times they were made.

Paulwny
09-18-2003, 11:48 AM
Let KW take on both jobs, manager/gm, it's been done before.
This way JR won't lose any of his precious money when he cans JM.

Otherwise hire Willie Randolph, who'll probably meet JR's budget for a manager. Randolph has seen how managers in NY , both good and bad, have handled the big egos of players and were able to get them to become team players instead of stats players.

Randar68
09-18-2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
all he did was trade for David Wells.


Are you kidding, he just won 20 games and was considered an ace. Because it didn't work out is just hindsight.

Losing Thomas and essentially David Wells took away your 2 best players from the previous year.

Take away the best hitter and the best pitcher from any team in baseball (outside of NY) and tell me they'd still make the playoffs with a straight face.

Now you're rewriting history in an attempt to justify your Depodesta love-affair.

Randar68
09-18-2003, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Well, I'd argue that the Foulke, Ritchie, and Clayton deals all seemed bad at the times they were made.

What are you smoking? The Clayton deal considered bad at the time? Aaron Myette? He wasn't considered to be a top 10 prospect anymore at that time, and most already had him pegged as a AAAA player. The only bad part of that move was moving Valentin to CF/3B and taking on Clayton's salary. That's it.

So, you're down to 2 bad trades.

MarkEdward
09-18-2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
You've got to be kidding me. He's basically learning on the job. He's had what, 2 or 3 trades you'd tab as flat-out "BAD", and a full handfull of trades in the past year that looked like absolute steals!!!! He gave up almost nothing to get Colon!!!! Worked around not having any $$$ and still traded to fill 2 of our biggest holes!

Strictly my opinion, but "good" Kenny Williams' moves: Colon, Everett, Marte, the trade that brought Jimenez here, picking up Gordon, picking up Loaiza, Sullivan.

"Bad" Kenny Williams' moves: Foulke, Clayton, Ritchie, Shoeneweiss, re-signing Konerko, trading Jimenez away, signing Sandy Alomar.

So, I think he's made two very good trades (Marte and Colon) and two very bad trades (Ritchie and Foulke; I'm being generous with Clayton). Robbie Alomar has neither helped us much nor hurt us much. Same with the Olivo deal.


Really. Get off the Depodesta Highway. Kenny has figured out what the fans want, is saying all the right things the fans want to hear, and has done nothing but try to continually upgrade this team.

As a fan, I'd like to see the Sox win a division title or two. Kenny has yet to do that.

He's also lead several VERY good drafts, despite my disagreements about the treatment of Doug Laumann, who I think is an outstanding talent evaluator.

I've never said anything bad about Williams' drafts.

Any GM who makes many moves is going to have ones that occassionally come back to haunt them or have poor results. This is the first guy, and in particular, the first JR guy, in a long time who has figured it out and made aggressive moves under the crippling budget restraints of JR.

This is why I would love to have Depodesta run this team. He's used to working (and winning) with a small budget.

Just when he figures it out, you want to run him out of town. I think that is a bit unreasonable and foolish.

I just don't think he's starting to figure it out. He acquires Alomar, then nonsensically trades Jimenez. He gets Scott Sullivan, then trades Glover for Shoeneweiss.

If we make it to the playoffs this year, he should stay. He deserves it.

Randar68
09-18-2003, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I just don't think he's starting to figure it out. He acquires Alomar, then nonsensically trades Jimenez. He gets Scott Sullivan, then trades Glover for Shoeneweiss.

If we make it to the playoffs this year, he should stay. He deserves it.


Hmmmmm, how do I say this???

Jimenez is a (VC Edit: Not like that) BUM! There, how is that. Lazy-ass bums like him have no business on any team I root for. They could have shipped him to Singapore for all I care. Long-term or not, Jimenez could hit, but that was absolutely it.

What was wrong about Glover for Shoeneweiss? Sheeesh. Glover was such the contributer, heh? Shoeneweiss is good against lefties and that is one more thing he does well than Glover did, which was not much.

Olivo trade? How is that bad???? You have your mind made up and are willing to twist any move any way you wish in order to try to justify yourself.

Williams made 2 trades to fill holes in a playoff push without taking on salary in financially responsible way.



The positives have FAR outweighed the negatives, and particularly so in the recent past. He is learning and is doing better and better as he goes along.

Replacing him now, would be, as you said, "nonsensical."

Dadawg_77
09-18-2003, 03:14 PM
The Foulke for Koch will never be a good trade unless Koch or Cotts lead the Sox to the promise land. The Sox would have won the Central with Foulk this year, with Koch, they lose to Tampa and with Cotts they lose to the Yankees. Plus Kenny compound hurt of the trade by signing Koch to a big contract.

While it seems like Kenny is getting better, he still has some tremendous baggage with him. Clayton was a bad just because the Sox added Clayton, even if the Sox gave Texas a bag of rusty nails, it would have been a bad trade. Wells trade was a wash, esp with Mike never pitching since then. Colon trade some credit needs to go King George's hatred of Boston and Cashman. Without the Yankee's help that deal wouldn't have gotten done.

Kenny record shows he is very good at finding good young talent for cheap, but has a problems in evaluating veteran talent, and errors on the wrong side more often then not, this year's trades has been the exception and that does point to a brighter future.

I think Depodesta may make better GM then Kenny, especially under the restrictions placed on the team by JR. But that is just my two cents on Kenny.

Randar68
09-18-2003, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
The Foulke for Koch will never be a good trade unless Koch or Cotts lead the Sox to the promise land. The Sox would have won the Central with Foulk this year, with Koch, they lose to Tampa and with Cotts they lose to the Yankees. Plus Kenny compound hurt of the trade by signing Koch to a big contract.

While it seems like Kenny is getting better, he still has some tremendous baggage with him. Clayton was a bad just because the Sox added Clayton, even if the Sox gave Texas a bag of rusty nails, it would have been a bad trade. Wells trade was a wash, esp with Mike never pitching since then. Colon trade some credit needs to go King George's hatred of Boston and Cashman. Without the Yankee's help that deal wouldn't have gotten done.


This is besides the point. The Wells trade, at the time of the trade, was universally PRAISED by Sox fans and media members. I agree with you about Foulke/Koch, but *** is "with Cotts they lose to the Yankees"???

Are you saying they could never lose to the Yankees with any other #5 starter or even Loaiza or Buehrle? How is that Kenny's fault???

The Sox didn't give up anything for Clayton. The Sox had poor defense in the ALDS, and in addition, Clayton, although everyone knew he'd be a slight offensive downgrade, was, at the time of the trade, considered to be a defensive upgrade.

In case you forgot, they also won at least one of Cotts' starts.



People are damn good at revisionist history.

MarkEdward
09-18-2003, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Randar68

Are you kidding, he just won 20 games and was considered an ace. Because it didn't work out is just hindsight.


At the end of the 2000 season, would you rather have had Mike Sirotka or David Wells on your team?

I would've taken Sirotka. He was younger and although he may not have had the better year (though he have a better ERA+, 136-121), I would've bet that he would've had the better 2001 season. Wells, since 1996, had been only average (average ERA+ from 96-00: 110), and at the age of 37, there was a good chance that he would break down (like he eventually did).

As to the hindsight comment, I didn't like the Wells-Sirotka trade at the time: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&th=e66c4d06b388ab33&rnum=51 (see post 5).

Originally posted by Randar68

What are you smoking? The Clayton deal considered bad at the time?

My point isn't about who we traded to get Clayton, I'm angry at Williams for getting Clayton in the first place. He totally overestimated the need for a glove man at short (Valentin wasn't that bad).

Originally posted by Randar68

Jimenez is a (VC Edit: Not like that) BUM! There, how is that. Lazy-ass bums like him have no business on any team I root for. They could have shipped him to Singapore for all I care. Long-term or not, Jimenez could hit, but that was absolutely it.

Well, I guess you and I will have to disagree on the merits of Jimenez. You seem to hate him with a passion, I think he's a very useful player. Oh well.

What was wrong about Glover for Shoeneweiss? Sheeesh. Glover was such the contributer, heh? Shoeneweiss is good against lefties and that is one more thing he does well than Glover did, which was not much.

Maybe "bad" was too strong of a word. How about pointless? We already had a LOOGY in the pen (Wunsch). I really didn't see the need for a second.

Olivo trade? How is that bad???? You have your mind made up and are willing to twist any move any way you wish in order to try to justify yourself.

I never said it was a bad trade. So far, it's a wash. Chad Bradford has been a very good reliever for three seasons. Hopefully, Olivo will be a very productive catcher for the next few years.

Williams made 2 trades to fill holes in a playoff push without taking on salary in financially responsible way.

I never said the Everett trade was bad. I never said the Alomar trade was bad either. I just though we had a perfectly capable second baseman pre-July first, 2003.

Dadawg_77
09-18-2003, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
This is besides the point. The Wells trade, at the time of the trade, was universally PRAISED by Sox fans and media members. I agree with you about Foulke/Koch, but *** is "with Cotts they lose to the Yankees"???

Are you saying they could never lose to the Yankees with any other #5 starter or even Loaiza or Buehrle? How is that Kenny's fault???

The Sox didn't give up anything for Clayton. The Sox had poor defense in the ALDS, and in addition, Clayton, although everyone knew he'd be a slight offensive downgrade, was, at the time of the trade, considered to be a defensive upgrade.

In case you forgot, they also won at least one of Cotts' starts.



People are damn good at revisionist history.

The Cotts comment was just comparing the results the Sox had form Koch and Cotts this year vs what could have been based on Foulke's production in Oakland.

The point about Clayton was it didn't matter what the Sox gave up for him. The mere fact that he was on the team and playing hurt the Sox. It was a classic mistake of subtraction by addition. Who would you have rather had Milkman Perry or Clayton and Slow Swing or Clayton? That is what the Sox in reality gave up to play Royce, not just Aaron Myette. You can't ignore fact of who Clayton bump off from playing when asking what did the Sox lose for him.

Randar68
09-18-2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I never said the Everett trade was bad. I never said the Alomar trade was bad either. I just though we had a perfectly capable second baseman pre-July first, 2003.

Yep, if only he had a brain or a heart. Jimenez was the Tin man and the Cowardly Lion all in one.

That's just the kind of guy I want on my team. Have you ever played organized sports at a high level or been close to a team???

Maybe you should think about all that disgust that came out of the locker-room when Jimenez was simply released... I can still hear the crickets chirping. But hey, I mean if you only look at the stats, I guess you really have no idea how a player is actually contributing, do you?

You're angry because Clayton didn't produce and was a clubhouse cancer, but you're defending Jimenez when he had equally glaring weaknesses and was also not appreciated by his teammates... Let's get the story straight here.

Valentine's defense wasn't all that bad? It was in 2000. 36 errors? He's been much more reliable the past 2 years and Alomar being to his left has helped. How many errors pre vs. post Alomar acquisition does Jose have. Must be a coincidence, huh?

Randar68
09-18-2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
The Cotts comment was just comparing the results the Sox had form Koch and Cotts this year vs what could have been based on Foulke's production in Oakland.

The point about Clayton was it didn't matter what the Sox gave up for him. The mere fact that he was on the team and playing hurt the Sox. It was a classic mistake of subtraction by addition. Who would you have rather had Milkman Perry or Clayton and Slow Swing or Clayton? That is what the Sox in reality gave up to play Royce, not just Aaron Myette. You can't ignore fact of who Clayton bump off from playing when asking what did the Sox lose for him.

All well and good. All those things were things KW (or any of these critical fans) obviously didn't anticipate as being problems. Jerry's management of the whole thing only magnified the disaster of it. Where is good old Herbert these days, anyways???

Dadawg_77
09-18-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
All well and good. All those things were things KW (or any of these critical fans) obviously didn't anticipate as being problems. Jerry's management of the whole thing only magnified the disaster of it. Where is good old Herbert these days, anyways???

Last I heard he was moved aside for Mex Tex and Blalock in Texas.

The difference between management and fans is management's main job is to anticipate how well a team will play. The fans are not paid to build a team but pay to watch the team management built so they have the right to bitch about stuff using hindsight 20/20 vision. But then again you could have seen cloud of locus called Royce Clayton coming a mile a way.

Randar68
09-18-2003, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Last I heard he was moved aside for Mex Tex and Blalock in Texas.

The difference between management and fans is management's main job is to anticipate how well a team will play. The fans are not paid to build a team but pay to watch the team management built so they have the right to bitch about stuff using hindsight 20/20 vision. But then again you could have seen cloud of locus called Royce Clayton coming a mile a way.

Defense was the problem, he was the only available upgrade at our worst defensive position. Didn't turn out well but the logic behind the original move was sound.

Kenny learned from the experience and has stated he learned that character accounts for more than he realized. "Learning". As long as he doesn't make the same mistakes over and over, how can you blame him?

Dadawg_77
09-18-2003, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Defense was the problem, he was the only available upgrade at our worst defensive position. Didn't turn out well but the logic behind the original move was sound.

Kenny learned from the experience and has stated he learned that character accounts for more than he realized. "Learning". As long as he doesn't make the same mistakes over and over, how can you blame him?

IMHO, the logic behind trading for Clayton was crap. Kenny should have seen the drop off at the plate was greater then increased leather at SS. The move probably hurt the Sox defensively overall in the end. Slow Swing was a better defender then Jose in CF and Jose wasn't use to third which caused him some difficulties there and negated any defensive advantage the Sox gain by having Clayton at SS instead of Jose.

guillen4life13
09-18-2003, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
IMHO, the logic behind trading for Clayton was crap. Kenny should have seen the drop off at the plate was greater then increased leather at SS. The move probably hurt the Sox defensively overall in the end. Slow Swing was a better defender then Jose in CF and Jose wasn't use to third which caused him some difficulties there and negated any defensive advantage the Sox gain by having Clayton at SS instead of Jose.

I think that KW knew that Jose had a career year (I'm not saying the Clayton trade was a good thing... but at the time, it probably didn't look too bad). Also, Clayton's career batting average at the time of the trade was hovering around .260. Jose's average? .248.

OPS(Valentin, at the end of 2000): .760 (around there... I'm approximating because I can't find such stats from the end of 2000, and i'm too lazy to do the calculations myself).
Royce's OPS: .682. There's a difference, but it was assumed that the fielding would make up for the difference.

So, what I'm saying, is that at the time, to some people, this would have been a logical move. No one expected there to be problems with Jose and 3B/CF. Royce almost won the GG, IIRC (and though his range wasn't as good as Valentin's, he still was a damn good defensive SS).

Just about every trade KW has made has looked good at the time of the transaction (there are some people who would disagree, and give proof that they didn't like the trade(s) at the time... but they would be exceptions).

Manuel needs to go.

Randar68
09-18-2003, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
IMHO, the logic behind trading for Clayton was crap. Kenny should have seen the drop off at the plate was greater then increased leather at SS. The move probably hurt the Sox defensively overall in the end. Slow Swing was a better defender then Jose in CF and Jose wasn't use to third which caused him some difficulties there and negated any defensive advantage the Sox gain by having Clayton at SS instead of Jose.

Jose played what, 5 games in CF? Probably not even that. Most of the time he was at 3rd, taking away AB's from the all-mighty Perry. The 2000 offense was a record breaking offense. Kenny (and many others) thought it'd be beneficial to shore up SS defensively and the drop in production at the plate wouldn't hurt too much.

2001 rolls around and Thomas is hurt early, Lee regresses, etc etc. The man does not have a Crystal Ball.

gosox41
09-18-2003, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
I think that KW knew that Jose had a career year (I'm not saying the Clayton trade was a good thing... but at the time, it probably didn't look too bad). Also, Clayton's career batting average at the time of the trade was hovering around .260. Jose's average? .248.

OPS(Valentin, at the end of 2000): .760 (around there... I'm approximating because I can't find such stats from the end of 2000, and i'm too lazy to do the calculations myself).
Royce's OPS: .682. There's a difference, but it was assumed that the fielding would make up for the difference.

So, what I'm saying, is that at the time, to some people, this would have been a logical move. No one expected there to be problems with Jose and 3B/CF. Royce almost won the GG, IIRC (and though his range wasn't as good as Valentin's, he still was a damn good defensive SS).

Just about every trade KW has made has looked good at the time of the transaction (there are some people who would disagree, and give proof that they didn't like the trade(s) at the time... but they would be exceptions).

Manuel needs to go.

There's been a lot of moves of KW that I disagreed with at the time and have been dead right on. Some I disagree with more then others, but KW does seem to be doing a better job.

Can you rationalize the Foulke trade?

:D:

Bob

bc2k
09-18-2003, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Where's Pat Foley going?

That fake piece of turd? I've heard a few Cubs radio broadcasts and he tries to make himself sound more intelligent than he is, and smugly insults Santo, letting everyone know that Santo isn't bright.

And I discovered during the Cubs game in LA, that Foley doesn't like using the telephone!

MarkEdward
09-18-2003, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
That fake piece of turd? I've heard a few Cubs radio broadcasts and he tries to make himself sound more intelligent than he is, and smugly insults Santo, letting everyone know that Santo isn't bright.

And I discovered during the Cubs game in LA, that Foley doesn't like using the telephone!

Um, Pat Foley is the Blackhawks' play-by-play guy. You may be thinking of Pat Hughes, the radio PBP guy for the Cubs.

MarkEdward
09-18-2003, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Yep, if only he had a brain or a heart. Jimenez was the Tin man and the Cowardly Lion all in one.

That's just the kind of guy I want on my team. Have you ever played organized sports at a high level or been close to a team???

I know some people value team chemistry highly, but I don't. It's not like Jimenez was creating a schism between the team or anything like that.

And I did volunteer for the Chicago Steel hockey club last year. Does that give my point more credibility or something? I don't see how it would...

You're angry because Clayton didn't produce and was a clubhouse cancer, but you're defending Jimenez when he had equally glaring weaknesses and was also not appreciated by his teammates... Let's get the story straight here.

I'm angry at Clayton because he didn't produce. Being an alleged clubhouse cancer didn't help things. Even if Clayton was a nice guy, I still wouldn't have liked him as a fan (because of his lack of hitting).

Jimenez, on the other hand, produced offensively and was at least average defensively. He did make some base running gaffes, but not enough to make him a "bad" player. In my opinion.

Valentine's defense wasn't all that bad? It was in 2000. 36 errors? He's been much more reliable the past 2 years and Alomar being to his left has helped. How many errors pre vs. post Alomar acquisition does Jose have. Must be a coincidence, huh?

Yes, Valentin did commit a few more errors than league average (Valentin's FP: .950; league's FP: .973), but he did have above average range (5.12 RF to the league's 4.71). So while he did commit many errors, he got to more balls than the average SS.

And I don't think we can compare Valentin's defense pre- and post-Alomar yet. He played like 980 games without Robbie. He's played about 50 games with Alomar. That's a bit of a sample size issue.

Dadawg_77
09-18-2003, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Jose played what, 5 games in CF? Probably not even that. Most of the time he was at 3rd, taking away AB's from the all-mighty Perry. The 2000 offense was a record breaking offense. Kenny (and many others) thought it'd be beneficial to shore up SS defensively and the drop in production at the plate wouldn't hurt too much.

2001 rolls around and Thomas is hurt early, Lee regresses, etc etc. The man does not have a Crystal Ball.

I honestly don't believe Kenny thought Jose had a career year. Well actually I am not sure on the timing here but Jose contract ended at the end of 2000 and he was resigned for about 5 million a year, rejecting a higher offer from the O's. I forgot if he was resigned before Kenny took over or not. If not, then the Clayton trade makes even less sense.

Randar68
09-19-2003, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I'm angry at Clayton because he didn't produce. Being an alleged clubhouse cancer didn't help things. Even if Clayton was a nice guy, I still wouldn't have liked him as a fan (because of his lack of hitting).

Jimenez, on the other hand, produced offensively and was at least average defensively. He did make some base running gaffes, but not enough to make him a "bad" player. In my opinion.



My point about playing organized sports is because, at a high level, the trust and confidence you have in the people around you is almost as important as any measureable production. Jimenez always made his blunders in high-pressure situations... Dropped fly ball in Oakland??? Baserunning gaffes taking us out of scoring situations????

The reason I disliked Jimenez is the same reason you(and I) loved Jose. He makes big plays with bat and glove and has better range than advertised.

Just take this year in terms of Valentine's Defense. At the end of the year, it will be almost 50/50 with and without Alomar. Look what happened to NY's young SS after Robbie was traded.

So far every team he has been traded from, save maybe NY, where he never really played at the MLB level, has tried to get rid of him like a hot potato, despite producing. That should tell you more than any stat sheet or made-up statistical measure ever will.

DumpJerry
09-20-2003, 01:36 AM
We need someone who will, with just a glare in the eyes, put the Fear of God in the hearts of Sox hitters who fail to get a clutch hit as they sulk back to the dugout. Billy Martin would have been perfect for this role, alas. Bobby Valentine, Jay Johnstone or Carlton Fisk can do this (so can Michael Jordan, my dream owner of the team......)

I hear there is a new promotion at Comiskey..."Drag Both Jerrys Behind a Truck Night." :angry:

HafDawg2003
09-22-2003, 12:31 AM
What this team needs is someone who is young, who can have as much fun as the guys on the field are having. Here's a quick thought for someone who may pan out as a manager:

Harold Reynolds

voodoochile
09-22-2003, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by HafDawg2003
What this team needs is someone who is young, who can have as much fun as the guys on the field are having. Here's a quick thought for someone who may pan out as a manager:

Harold Reynolds

Welcome aboard :D:

Mots09
09-22-2003, 01:44 PM
What about Carlton Fisk? I know he doesn't have much managing experience, but he did do the young guys at the All-Star Game.


What do you think?


GO SOX GO

KingXerxes
09-22-2003, 01:53 PM
Do Fisk and Reinsdorf even speak to eachother?

Nellie Comiskey
09-23-2003, 10:15 PM
I really like the Ozzie idea...however the Sox need someone with experience. The most common two names are Buddy Bell and Backman. They could have/should have hired Bell before he departed for Cleveland....instead they opted for Bevington and we all know the disaster that followed. Backman would be great....he's "old school," and a players manager. He would bring the type of baseball Sox fans would love....his emotion is like LaRussa's/Pinella's. I'm just not convinced KW would do it. I also hope they change the entire coaching staff as well:except Nossek. I'd like to see Kirk Champion get a shot at pitching coach....he's done wonders with all the minor league prospects over the years.

Daver
09-23-2003, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Nellie Comiskey
I'd like to see Kirk Champion get a shot at pitching coach....he's done wonders with all the minor league prospects over the years.

Kirk,similar to the guy that held the title of minor league pitching director before him,does not really want the job of being the MLB pitching coach.

Whitesox029
09-27-2003, 03:57 PM
Has anyone else heard of the possibility of LaRussa not going back to St. Louis? He is a great manager and as a rule, Italian managers really like to mess with other teams' collective minds.(As we saw in the 2000 division series with piniella) He's been here before, and correct me if I'm wrong but the fans still liked him when he left.

voodoochile
09-27-2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Whitesox029
Has anyone else heard of the possibility of LaRussa not going back to St. Louis? He is a great manager and as a rule, Italian managers really like to mess with other teams' collective minds.(As we saw in the 2000 division series with piniella) He's been here before, and correct me if I'm wrong but the fans still liked him when he left.

Just curious, but what does him being Italian have to do with it?

joecrede
09-27-2003, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Whitesox029
Has anyone else heard of the possibility of LaRussa not going back to St. Louis? He is a great manager and as a rule, Italian managers really like to mess with other teams' collective minds.(As we saw in the 2000 division series with piniella)

If what you say is true then man we need an Italian manager, I've been a long time proponent of messing with the other team's head.

Dadawg_77
09-27-2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
If what you say is true then man we need an Italian manager, I've been a long time proponent of messing with the other team's head.

Next year's coaching staff.

:sopranos

Paulwny
09-27-2003, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Whitesox029
Has anyone else heard of the possibility of LaRussa not going back to St. Louis? He is a great manager and as a rule, Italian managers really like to mess with other teams' collective minds.(As we saw in the 2000 division series with piniella) He's been here before, and correct me if I'm wrong but the fans still liked him when he left.


This is too much, anyway Lou Pinella is Spanish American.

Whitesox029
09-27-2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Just curious, but what does him being Italian have to do with it?

Nothing really...It's just a pattern I've observed. Valentine, LaRussa, Piniella--they're all tough guys that mess with your mind

Whitesox029
09-27-2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
This is too much, anyway Lou Pinella is Spanish American.

Look I wasn't etching anything in stone I was merely giving a true statement that may or man not be coincidental. I have nothing against Italians; I'm 25% Italian myself...And as to Piniella...that names sounds very Italian--I will do some research on his background.

Paulwny
09-27-2003, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Whitesox029
Look I wasn't etching anything in stone I was merely giving a true statement that may or man not be coincidental. I have nothing against Italians; I'm 25% Italian myself...And as to Piniella...that names sounds very Italian--I will do some research on his background.

I didn't say you were anti-Italian, just that the idea is kinda funny :smile:

Whitesox029
09-27-2003, 04:40 PM
I thought you were offended or something

Paulwny
09-27-2003, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Whitesox029
And as to Piniella...that names sounds very Italian--I will do some research on his background.


Look under the "Loyalty to Players" in the link and you'll see these sentences.

He is still fluent in Spanish and uses it with his Hispanic ballplayers. (His family is of Spanish descent, from the Asturias region, and he didn't learn English until he went to kindergarten).

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/mariners/2001-10-08-piniella.htm

voodoochile
09-27-2003, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Look under the "Loyalty to Players" in the link and you'll see these sentences.

He is still fluent in Spanish and uses it with his Hispanic ballplayers. (His family is of Spanish descent, from the Asturias region, and he didn't learn English until he went to kindergarten).

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/mariners/2001-10-08-piniella.htm

Okay, so what we really need is some ethnic type who's country at one time got discovered by an Italian or an Italian. They are all soooo tricky... :D:

Whitesox029
09-27-2003, 10:10 PM
According to the Baseball Encyclopedia he wsa born in Miami, not that people don't speak spanish there but....

Paulwny
09-28-2003, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Whitesox029
According to the Baseball Encyclopedia he wsa born in Miami, not that people don't speak spanish there but....

Did you read post 98 in this thread?

Whitesox029
09-28-2003, 10:30 PM
Yes I did read # 98, but I tend to believe the baseball encyclopedia, and I don't see how an american born child could not know any english until Kindergarten--You learn your first language from listening to others, and I'm sure when your parents don't speak English, but everyone else around you does, you're thouroughly confused as to what language you're supposed to be speaking.

voodoochile
09-28-2003, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by Whitesox029
Yes I did read # 98, but I tend to believe the baseball encyclopedia, and I don't see how an american born child could not know any english until Kindergarten--You learn your first language from listening to others, and I'm sure when your parents don't speak English, but everyone else around you does, you're thouroughly confused as to what language you're supposed to be speaking.

Happens all the time in households where the parents speak a different language. That is why they had to start getting tough on English only education in California. We grow up imitating our parents and our parents friends and our siblings. If our parents only speak Spanish then there is a very good chance their friends speak Spanish to them. The friends we have (such as they are before we go to school) are probably children of our parents friends. It is not only understandable how a child acquires no English before going to school, it is actually expected when you start to understand how the brain learns.

Maybe he did know some English, but knowing the word for water and bathroom (for example) don't mean you are in anyway proficient on the level you need to be to attend an English classroom.

FarWestChicago
09-28-2003, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by Whitesox029
Yes I did read # 98, but I tend to believe the baseball encyclopedia, and I don't see how an american born child could not know any english until Kindergarten--You learn your first language from listening to others, and I'm sure when your parents don't speak English, but everyone else around you does, you're thouroughly confused as to what language you're supposed to be speaking. I have a friend who didn't learn English until school, yet he was born here. His parents only spoke Lithuanian at home...

JRIG
09-29-2003, 11:05 AM
I haven't read every post in this thread, but I haven't seen the name of Davey Johnson pop up.

He's 60 (61 next Opening Day) but has a huge track record of success, and frankly, this is this first name I've seen that inspires me in the least. Any thoughts?