PDA

View Full Version : Sox have Already Talked to Gaston ?


Hangar18
10-02-2003, 12:48 PM
According to the Cubune ..http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-031001soxgaston,1,6548178.story?coll=cs-home-headlines..

fuzzy_patters
10-02-2003, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
According to the Cubune ..http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-031001soxgaston,1,6548178.story?coll=cs-home-headlines..

I heard this on AM 1000 this morning. Bruce Levine thinks Ozzie is the front-runner for the job, though. Apparantely, Ozzie became a hero to KW when KW was with the Sox in the late '80s, and Ozzie has agressive style that Manual was lacking.

I know some people are going to off the deep end if Ozzie is named manager so let me bring some reason to the board. Sure, Jerry Manual was a first year manager, and he failed. However, Mike Hargrove was an experienced winning manager when he went to Baltimore and he managed to fail, also. Dusty Baker, on the other hand, had never managed before the Giants hired him, but he had them in the playoffs just about every season, including the World Series last year. Just because someone is a first year manager does not preclude them from being a good manager. The two are not mutually exclusive, just as managerial experience and success are not mutually inclusive.

Irishsox1
10-02-2003, 01:02 PM
I'm not infavor of Ozzie, because a lack of experience. Why doesn't he become a manager at the minor leagues, then move up to the Sox? The Sox are a veteran team so my vote is for Cito, but personally I like some other choices, like Larry Dierker.

soxtalker
10-02-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
...
I know some people are going to off the deep end if Ozzie is named manager ...

My impression from reading the different threads over the past week or so is that this will be true for almost any of the candidates mentioned.

Hangar18
10-02-2003, 01:15 PM
what Hurt the SOX this year, is the lack of Manuels ability
to USE HIS BULLPEN, and his use of the LINEUP. We need a guy who can manage with his GUT INSTINCT. Gut instinct means
the guys been around a while. Unless Ozzie is much more of an Analytical Baseball Mind than we gave him credit for, this isnt a good move .......... Right now. He may be a guy that grows into the job, but has he been in a leadership role from the GetGo,
able to make critical decisions? Sure the Media would Love Him,
but does he even know our Team Yet ?? I wont write him off right away, but Is he this Good ?? Pena did a great job, and was under the Radar for a while I thought. If he wows Kenny
in the interview, than by all means HIRE OZ

thepaulbowski
10-02-2003, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
what Hurt the SOX this year, is the lack of Manuels ability
to USE HIS BULLPEN, and his use of the LINEUP. We need a guy who can manage with his GUT INSTINCT.

Remember who the bench coach is, Nossek. I thought there was a great aricle about this yesterday in the suntimes. The Sox may have one of the best bench coaches in baseball, and he could alway help guide Ozzy along.

I'm not saying I'm in favor of hiring Ozzy, I don't know who'd I hire right now.

fuzzy_patters
10-02-2003, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
Remember who the bench coach is, Nossek. I thought there was a great aricle about this yesterday in the suntimes. The Sox may have one of the best bench coaches in baseball, and he could alway help guide Ozzy along.

I'm not saying I'm in favor of hiring Ozzy, I don't know who'd I hire right now.

At least Ozzie is fiery and was known for being a leader as a player. A leader and fiery are to things Jerry Manual will never be described as.

34 Inch Stick
10-02-2003, 02:02 PM
He was also known as a bad baserunner, undisciplined hitter and unorthodox fielder. He won't need to pass those skills down to the team because they are already there.

NO OZZIE.

jeremyb1
10-02-2003, 02:14 PM
I think I'd rather have a proven winner like Gaston or Hargrove but managerial experience is incredibly overrated. Manuel was inexperienced and despite the criticisms against him his teams more than exceeded expectations his first three seasons with the club. Pena never managed in the majors before this season and did quite well. The same can be said for Melvin and Macha. I don't know why people often seemed to think that a proven loser is better than a guy without a track record as a major league manager.

MisterB
10-02-2003, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I think I'd rather have a proven winner like Gaston or Hargrove but managerial experience is incredibly overrated. Manuel was inexperienced and despite the criticisms against him his teams more than exceeded expectations his first three seasons with the club. Pena never managed in the majors before this season and did quite well. The same can be said for Melvin and Macha. I don't know why people often seemed to think that a proven loser is better than a guy without a track record as a major league manager.

No one is saying an inexperienced manager can't do a good job, but as I pointed out in another thread there have only been 4 rookie managers ever who have led a team to winning a World Series. If you're setting your sights to just finish over .500 or just make the playoffs, go right ahead but if you're intending to win it all, the odds say you go with experience - period.

valposoxfan
10-02-2003, 02:58 PM
These are all good arguments but I really agree with JeremyB for once when he says that managerial experience is very overrated. It's true that only four rookie managers have gone to the World Series, but I'm looking for a deep playoff appearance to spearhead a World Series right now. Even a playoff berth would be nice.
I just have a feeling that Ozzie would be a very very good fit for this team and bring some life to the SouthSide. I've been saying this ever since his name came up. Or, get your experienced manager but then try and get Ozzie from Florida to replace the fired Kimm at third base and at least have his influence on the team in some capacity, especially after Florida's base running display in Game 2, which is a direct result of Ozzie, and was mentioned many times on the broadcast. Don't automatically think Ozzie can't get the job done though.

dickallen15
10-02-2003, 05:21 PM
Keith Obermann at MSNBC said the Sox are down to 2 candidates, Terry Francona, and Buddy Bell. So if this is true, for all of us hoping the selection of a manager would tell us which direction the team is going in, it unfortunately doesn't. These guys I could see being handed either a veteran team, poised for a playoff push, or a rebuilding project. He did say Bell was the favorite. Before you rip Bell's managerial record, remember Joe Torre was 117 games under .500 when he came to the Yankees, and Detroit and Colorado didn't do any better when he was gone.

Chisoxfn
10-02-2003, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
I heard this on AM 1000 this morning. Bruce Levine thinks Ozzie is the front-runner for the job, though. Apparantely, Ozzie became a hero to KW when KW was with the Sox in the late '80s, and Ozzie has agressive style that Manual was lacking.

I know some people are going to off the deep end if Ozzie is named manager so let me bring some reason to the board. Sure, Jerry Manual was a first year manager, and he failed. However, Mike Hargrove was an experienced winning manager when he went to Baltimore and he managed to fail, also. Dusty Baker, on the other hand, had never managed before the Giants hired him, but he had them in the playoffs just about every season, including the World Series last year. Just because someone is a first year manager does not preclude them from being a good manager. The two are not mutually exclusive, just as managerial experience and success are not mutually inclusive.

Excellent point. People have to remember all the great managers were first time managers at one point in their career.

MRKARNO
10-02-2003, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
Keith Obermann at MSNBC said the Sox are down to 2 candidates, Terry Francona, and Buddy Bell. So if this is true, for all of us hoping the selection of a manager would tell us which direction the team is going in, it unfortunately doesn't. These guys I could see being handed either a veteran team, poised for a playoff push, or a rebuilding project. He did say Bell was the favorite. Before you rip Bell's managerial record, remember Joe Torre was 117 games under .500 when he came to the Yankees, and Detroit and Colorado didn't do any better when he was gone.

I'd much rather have Guillen or Gaston than these two

LASOXFAN
10-02-2003, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
I heard this on AM 1000 this morning. Bruce Levine thinks Ozzie is the front-runner for the job, though. Apparantely, Ozzie became a hero to KW when KW was with the Sox in the late '80s, and Ozzie has agressive style that Manual was lacking.

I know some people are going to off the deep end if Ozzie is named manager so let me bring some reason to the board. Sure, Jerry Manual was a first year manager, and he failed. However, Mike Hargrove was an experienced winning manager when he went to Baltimore and he managed to fail, also. Dusty Baker, on the other hand, had never managed before the Giants hired him, but he had them in the playoffs just about every season, including the World Series last year. Just because someone is a first year manager does not preclude them from being a good manager. The two are not mutually exclusive, just as managerial experience and success are not mutually inclusive.

Mark it down: Ozzie will be a disaster.

SoxxoS
10-02-2003, 06:10 PM
Mike Hargrove had no talent in Baltimore, in arguably the hardest division in baseball.

Dusty Baker is a good example. But once again, do we want to rely on our management to find that "Dusty Baker?"

I didn't think so, either.

guillen4life13
10-02-2003, 08:04 PM
Even with my username, I think Ozzie is an unwise choice. Gaston would be best, because he's been to the Series, he knows how to handle vets, and of what I've heard, he knows how to crack down on players the right way (in private). Two world series wins, IMO, is more than enough experience.

Gaston!

joecrede
10-02-2003, 08:45 PM
Aside from TLR, none of the names linked to the Sox job who have previous managerial experience has inspired me. The one thing they (Bell, Francona, Gaston and Hargrove) seem to have in common is handling a pitching staff was not their strong suite. I find this somewhat troubling and might make me lean toward Guillen.

Daver
10-02-2003, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Aside from TLR, none of the names linked to the Sox job who have previous managerial experience has inspired me. The one thing they (Bell, Francona, Gaston and Hargrove) seem to have in common is handling a pitching staff was not their strong suite.

And you seriously think that Tony Larussa handles a pitching staff well?


LMAO!

joecrede
10-02-2003, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by Daver
And you seriously think that Tony Larussa handles a pitching staff well?


LMAO!

I think he handles it better than Bell, Francona, Gaston or Hargrove which admittedly isn't saying much.

The reason I was hoping for LaRussa though had nothing to do with whether or not he is a good manager. It had to do with what PHG said, he is the manager who would get the most help so to speak from the chairman.

WinningUgly!
10-02-2003, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by Daver
And you seriously think that Tony Larussa handles a pitching staff well?


LMAO!

Dave Duncan does.

soxtalker
10-02-2003, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
The reason I was hoping for LaRussa though had nothing to do with whether or not he is a good manager. It had to do with what PHG said, he is the manager who would get the most help so to speak from the chairman.

Which is probably a reason for KW not to want him.

fuzzy_patters
10-03-2003, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
Even with my username, I think Ozzie is an unwise choice. Gaston would be best, because he's been to the Series, he knows how to handle vets, and of what I've heard, he knows how to crack down on players the right way (in private). Two world series wins, IMO, is more than enough experience.

Gaston!

I agree with that. I'm all for Gaston because of the reasons you mentioned. However, if we wind up with him, I don't think we should automatically wright off Ozzie Guillen because he has never managed before. Everyone has to start somewhere, and I believe Ozzie's resume is more impressive than Manual's was. Ozzie has been a MLB team leader as a player, played under Bobby Cox, and has been a third base coach for three season under Jeff Torborg and Jack McKeon (sp?). Compare that to Manual's lack of MLB experience with similar coaching experience. Ozzie's big league experience in a leadership role should count for something. Besides, it's not like Ozzie has proven he can't manage, unlike Bell and Francona.

SoxxoS
10-03-2003, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
I agree with that. I'm all for Gaston because of the reasons you mentioned. However, if we wind up with him, I don't think we should automatically wright off Ozzie Guillen because he has never managed before. Everyone has to start somewhere, and I believe Ozzie's resume is more impressive than Manual's was. Ozzie has been a MLB team leader as a player, played under Bobby Cox, and has been a third base coach for three season under Jeff Torborg and Jack McKeon (sp?). Compare that to Manual's lack of MLB experience with similar coaching experience. Ozzie's big league experience in a leadership role should count for something. Besides, it's not like Ozzie has proven he can't manage, unlike Bell and Francona.

Plus, he would have Joe Nossek. That is KEY.

Nellie Comiskey
10-03-2003, 01:05 AM
What's (unfortunately) amusing is that the Sox should have/could have hired either Francona or Bell to replace Lamont. Since Bell was the Sox Minor League head guy and Francona (his old teammate and friend) was a manager for the organization....Bell should have been manager and Francona 3rd base coach in 96. Instead someone was sold hook, line and sinker on Mr. Personality: Terry Bevington. Instead both ended up in Detroit in '96. Will the Sox get it right this time or settle for a retread like Gaston. If Gaston could still manage wouldn't another team have given him a shot...instead of him settling for a token Hitting Coach position. The next Sox manager better get the job on merit and his ability to bring us to the promise land. So many things that looked to be done deals never occured....Danny Evans being shafted, Bell/Francona being shafted, Hawk hired to be GM(which dismantled the Sox future for numerous years). KW has done a decent job putting together a good team, however he shares the blame for no post season....he should have pulled the trigger in June and replaced Manuel. Also, another area of failure in recent years is the Sox scouting Dept. Since Larry Himes/Al Goldis drafted/traded for young talent have the Sox had a stellar High draft choice....quickly here's some forgettable #1's: Scott Christman, Jason Dellearo, Bobby Seay (never signed), Jeff Leifer, Eddie Pearson, Royce Ring (good but traded for Alomar), Joe Borchard is heading into this list unless he learns how to hit a curve ball. Admittedly only Ring & Borchard (of the above) are the only KW draftees, my point is what has the farm system produced (homegrown) under his watch? Here's one more question...why isn't Backman really being considered? I really believe he's the best guy out there...do we want re-treads or the possibility of finding a diamond in the rough....his style and demeanor fits the Southside attitude like LaRussa in the early 80's.
SOXFEST 2004! :comiskey