PDA

View Full Version : Depressing Rumors


LASOXFAN
10-18-2003, 12:56 AM
Lets face some cold, hard facts. These are the turds which seem to be floating to the top:

BELL
GUILLEN
FRANCONA
GASTON

If this is the best Kenny Williams can come up with then we're in serious s***. Ozzie Guillen is a mascot at best, not a manager. A cheerleader. His parting shots for Frank Thomas still don't sit well with me. This is really, really disturbing.

Where's someone who can handle a pitching staff? If the Carmines/Yankee series teaches us nothing else, let it teach us the value of a manager who understands pitching. Why hasn't Bud Black from the Angels been mentioned? He's done a fantastic job with veterans and rooks alike.

2004 could be over before it even gets started. I would prefer Manuel to Guillen, hands down.

crector
10-18-2003, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by LASOXFAN


BELL
GUILLEN
FRANCONA
GASTON




2004 could be over before it even gets started. I would prefer Manuel to Guillen, hands down.


I prefer Manuel over any of that quartet. Given that the Sox are going to be paying him $1 mil. next year anyways, might as well have Jerry as the manager. Perhaps he will pull a repeat of 2000 combined with a better ALDS showing out of a hat.

soxnut
10-18-2003, 01:30 AM
Ozzie has a coaching staff around him....who he would use to assist him. That's why they're keeping around those coaches. Ozzie has said it himself in the papers that he would use their expertise......Like I think you're supposed to do when you are a manager. He's not just some clown cheerleader..I think the guy has some game smarts.....He's been quoted in the paper as saying how he manages the game in his mind as a coach right now...preparing himself for the day he gets to be a manager. He was a shortstop for crying out loud......I think shortstops and catchers are the people most in tune on the field anyway.....I have no problem with Ozzie managing our club.

WinningUgly!
10-18-2003, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by LASOXFAN
Ozzie Guillen is a mascot at best, not a manager. A cheerleader.

When I first heard Ozzie's name mentioned as a candidate for the job, I felt the same way. After thinking things over for a while I'm all for bringing him in.

For the most part, managing comes down to knowing what your players are capable of & baseball common sense...something Jerry Manuel was seriously lacking. Manuel always seemed to try the unconventional, like he wanted to prove he was some kind of baseball genius.

I see Guillen as the type of guy who can inject some life into this team & make things fun again. Ozzie isn't a robot like Manuel was, with no sense of urgency or emotion. Jerry Manuel would turn in a different lineup & batting order everyday, but other than that, never seemed to give a damn if the team won or lost. He'd just sit on his hands & wait for the team to turn things around.

Assuming Guillen would take advantage of the capable coaching staff in place, he'd be a great fit for this team. He has a personality that would rub off on the entire team.

FJA
10-18-2003, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by LASOXFAN
Lets face some cold, hard facts. These are the turds which seem to be floating to the top:

BELL
GUILLEN
FRANCONA
GASTON

If this is the best Kenny Williams can come up with then we're in serious s***. Ozzie Guillen is a mascot at best, not a manager. A cheerleader. His parting shots for Frank Thomas still don't sit well with me. This is really, really disturbing.

Where's someone who can handle a pitching staff? If the Carmines/Yankee series teaches us nothing else, let it teach us the value of a manager who understands pitching. Why hasn't Bud Black from the Angels been mentioned? He's done a fantastic job with veterans and rooks alike.

2004 could be over before it even gets started. I would prefer Manuel to Guillen, hands down.

I agree with you LA ... Manuel pulled some dumb moves in his time, but he was also victim to a lot of dumb luck ... he took calculated risks, and almost none turned out his way. I always felt sorry for him in that regard; Dusty Baker pulls more stupid moves than Manuel, and he gets away with it, first because he doesn't have Manuel's luck (at least not until lately), and second because most Cub fans are too stupid to notice.

Not a single candidate on your list makes me think this team will do anything but run in circles. If it ends up being one of them, I hope I'm proven wrong, but every one of them makes me nervous.

TheRockinMT
10-18-2003, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by FJA
I agree with you LA ... Manuel pulled some dumb moves in his time, but he was also victim to a lot of dumb luck ... he took calculated risks, and almost none turned out his way. I always felt sorry for him in that regard; Dusty Baker pulls more stupid moves than Manuel, and he gets away with it, first because he doesn't have Manuel's luck (at least not until lately), and second because most Cub fans are too stupid to notice.

Not a single candidate on your list makes me think this team will do anything but run in circles. If it ends up being one of them, I hope I'm proven wrong, but every one of them makes me nervous.

I have to agree with you both. The only thing we know is that Manuel is gone. Right or wrong he took the fall when the Sox failed again. But looking at these candidates is depressing. We have the inexpereinced and the retreads and really none of the bunch has done anything to warrant a move to the "show". Maybe Backman has some merit because he has done well in the minors, but even he doesn't have that much in the way of experience either.

soxtalker
10-18-2003, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!
When I first heard Ozzie's name mentioned as a candidate for the job, I felt the same way. After thinking things over for a while I'm all for bringing him in.

For the most part, managing comes down to knowing what your players are capable of & baseball common sense...something Jerry Manuel was seriously lacking. Manuel always seemed to try the unconventional, like he wanted to prove he was some kind of baseball genius.

I see Guillen as the type of guy who can inject some life into this team & make things fun again. Ozzie isn't a robot like Manuel was, with no sense of urgency or emotion. Jerry Manuel would turn in a different lineup & batting order everyday, but other than that, never seemed to give a damn if the team won or lost. He'd just sit on his hands & wait for the team to turn things around.

Assuming Guillen would take advantage of the capable coaching staff in place, he'd be a great fit for this team. He has a personality that would rub off on the entire team.

This is pretty much my feeling. I, too, wasn't terribly excited by the possibility of Ozzie returning as manager, but the idea is growing on me. That's certainly true if those four are indeed the choices. It's a risk, no question.

oheeoh...magglio
10-18-2003, 12:10 PM
Look, the fact is, whether you want to admit it if you are a Manuel supporter or not, we had 3 straight season under Manuel where we had division championship talent, and didn't win the division. I know we had a M*A*S*H unit in 2001 going, but good managers coach over injuries and find a way to keep his team in it, while our team in 2001 self-destructed. After the results of 2000 with a young team, we should have been on track to build a dynasty similar to that of the Indians in the '90's, but we didn't. And in this case, after 3 years of underachieving, the manager has to be held accountable, simple as that.

And I know some of you say "keep Manuel, we won the division in 2000, let's give him the last year of his contract and see if he can do it again." Well in 2000, we got off to a hot start, had that great week in June and built a nine game lead, and then played .500 ball the rest of the way. Manuel had little to do with that IMO because we were so hot through June, that the players, not Manuel, had the hand in playing so well. No manager can cause his team to play that well, and all I know about Manuel in 2000 is we played 3 great months, and then got our butts kicked in the playoffs in part because Manuel was vastly outmanaged. Manuel had to go.

And as for Ozzie Guillen, who I think is going to be the guy, he is young, energetic, and although lacking experience, will have the team playing hard and having fun everyday. I think we could do worse. Sure he hasn't managed before, but he seems like manager material, and although a risk, he could be a HUGE payout, and I think the odds are better he will be than he won't be. Guillen is a far better choice to manage our team next year than Manuel. Even if Manuel had bad luck, all the dumb stuff he did the last few years couldn't have all been caused by bad luck, and Guillen will be an instant improvement for the managing portion of our ballclub.

idseer
10-18-2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by FJA
I agree with you LA ... Manuel pulled some dumb moves in his time, but he was also victim to a lot of dumb luck ... he took calculated risks, and almost none turned out his way. I always felt sorry for him in that regard; Dusty Baker pulls more stupid moves than Manuel, and he gets away with it, first because he doesn't have Manuel's luck (at least not until lately), and second because most Cub fans are too stupid to notice.

Not a single candidate on your list makes me think this team will do anything but run in circles. If it ends up being one of them, I hope I'm proven wrong, but every one of them makes me nervous.


it's hard to believe there are still so many manuel apologists around. you feel sorry for him because almost all of his dumb moves backfired on him? he didn't take calculated risks ... he took STUPID risks .... and we paid for it dearly.
manuel never was a manager and never WILL be a manager!
and i'd take almost ANYone over him.

he stunk in 2000! for some mysterious reason more than half the players had career years that year and even then couldn't manage to play more than half a season of .500 ball! they were bounced immediately from the playoffs and most observers unanimously agree a big part of the reason was because he was outcoached so badly.

he stunk in 2001! fortunately for him his poor management was hidden by the fact there were also too many injuries. but what he did with clayton and ramirez etc. proved without a doubt he had no clue.

he stunk in 2002! he had a lot of talent and frittered it away.

he stunk in 2003! the year he had EVERYTHING going for him! but screwed with the lineup and pitchers so badly he barely finished 3rd in the worst division in baseball!

what does it take for you guys to see what happened in front of your very eyes?
manuel was the worst thing (outside of JR himself) to happen to this team in many many years. i just can't believe some of you still want him back. :?: :?: :?:

Paulwny
10-18-2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by LASOXFAN
Lets face some cold, hard facts. These are the turds which seem to be floating to the top:
BELL
GUILLEN
FRANCONA
GASTON


The old adage; "You get what you paid for'
Lets face it, JR isn't going to put up the bucks for a proven manager.

FarWestChicago
10-18-2003, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by idseer
he stunk in 2003! the year he had EVERYTHING going for him! but screwed with the lineup and pitchers so badly he barely finished 3rd in the worst division in baseball!I don't know. I think the NL Central may have been the worst division in baseball this year. :smile:

duke of dorwood
10-18-2003, 01:26 PM
The NL central was the worst, and any of those 4 names are better than Manual. Some of the things he said and didnt do are not forgotten by me.

AsInWreck
10-18-2003, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by LASOXFAN
Lets face some cold, hard facts. These are the turds which seem to be floating to the top:

BELL
GUILLEN
FRANCONA
GASTON

Ozzie Guillen is a mascot at best, not a manager.


I'm not exactly sold on Guillen for manager, either, but i would have to say I wouldn't go so far as to call him a " mascot at best".
As a player Guillen was more fundamentally sound, a smarter player, and played harder than just about anyone I've seen for the Sox in the last few years. His knowledge of the game is unquestionable. He also has a strong personality which would indicate he may have the ability to impart those traits on the team.

That said I would still prefer a veteran manager.

soxtalker
10-18-2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by idseer
it's hard to believe there are still so many manuel apologists around. you feel sorry for him because almost all of his dumb moves backfired on him? he didn't take calculated risks ... he took STUPID risks .... and we paid for it dearly.
...

I have to agree with this statement. I was not a Manuel basher (nor apologist), but this year really turned the tide in my mind. And for me it wasn't things like "tinkering" that upset so many on this board. It was the inexplicable decisions that he seemed to be making more and more. It was almost like he was making a decision on a hunch -- very much like someone who will offer a wager on almost anything with no rationale reason to pick the outcome he has chosen. The decision to pitch Cotts over Buerhle in the Yankees game (after vascillating on the decision) is one that comes immediately to mind, but there were many others.

AsInWreck
10-18-2003, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by oheeoh...magglio
Look, the fact is, whether you want to admit it if you are a Manuel supporter or not, we had 3 straight season under Manuel where we had division championship talent, and didn't win the division. I know we had a M*A*S*H unit in 2001 going, but good managers coach over injuries and find a way to keep his team in it, while our team in 2001 self-destructed.

Don't misconstrue this as a defence of Manuel, but you can't honestly look at the Sox pitching staffs of 2001-2002 and tell me they were a legitimate contender. 2003 on the other hand...

oheeoh...magglio
10-18-2003, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by AsInWreck
Don't misconstrue this as a defence of Manuel, but you can't honestly look at the Sox pitching staffs of 2001-2002 and tell me they were a legitimate contender. 2003 on the other hand...

Considering the level of competition in 2001-2002 and the talent in the batting order, I think they should have been contenders those years for the division. If they had went to the playoffs, they would have got killed, but they should have at least been in it in those weak division races IMO.

AsInWreck
10-18-2003, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by oheeoh...magglio
Considering the level of competition in 2001-2002 and the talent in the batting order, I think they should have been contenders those years for the division.

Well, either way you look at it, Manuel certainly didn't help any, there's no question in my mind.

oheeoh...magglio
10-18-2003, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by AsInWreck
Well, either way you look at it, Manuel certainly didn't help any, there's no question in my mind.

Agreed.

FJA
10-18-2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by idseer
it's hard to believe there are still so many manuel apologists around. you feel sorry for him because almost all of his dumb moves backfired on him? he didn't take calculated risks ... he took STUPID risks .... and we paid for it dearly.
manuel never was a manager and never WILL be a manager!
and i'd take almost ANYone over him.

he stunk in 2000! for some mysterious reason more than half the players had career years that year and even then couldn't manage to play more than half a season of .500 ball! they were bounced immediately from the playoffs and most observers unanimously agree a big part of the reason was because he was outcoached so badly.

he stunk in 2001! fortunately for him his poor management was hidden by the fact there were also too many injuries. but what he did with clayton and ramirez etc. proved without a doubt he had no clue.

he stunk in 2002! he had a lot of talent and frittered it away.

he stunk in 2003! the year he had EVERYTHING going for him! but screwed with the lineup and pitchers so badly he barely finished 3rd in the worst division in baseball!

what does it take for you guys to see what happened in front of your very eyes?
manuel was the worst thing (outside of JR himself) to happen to this team in many many years. i just can't believe some of you still want him back. :?: :?: :?:

If I gave the impression I want Manuel back, I'm sorry. Let me make it clear: Jerry Manuel was not a good manager. What I was trying to say is that he never once caught a stroke of luck. I understand that good managers create their own luck. Most managers aren't particularly good, though, and they make some stupid decisions; these same managers are usually able to catch some luck and stupid decisions are forgiven and forgotton (see, as I said, Dusty Baker). Nearly everything Manuel ever did backfired, and for that, I feel sorry for him. He's a nice guy and is well-intentioned. He was also struck by Murphy's Law an awful lot. That's not to excuse the bad decisions, it's just to say he wasn't nearly as bad (relatively speaking) as people thought. Some people have said things to the extent that Jerry Manuel is the worst manager to ever manage in the big leagues. That's just ludicrous. He's an average manager, and I think if we bring in another average manager the team's results will show that. The names on LA's list are not nearly the upgrades some of the people on this board think they are.

TornLabrum
10-18-2003, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by FJA
If I gave the impression I want Manuel back, I'm sorry. Let me make it clear: Jerry Manuel was not a good manager. What I was trying to say is that he never once caught a stroke of luck. I understand that good managers create their own luck. Most managers aren't particularly good, though, and they make some stupid decisions; these same managers are usually able to catch some luck and stupid decisions are forgiven and forgotton (see, as I said, Dusty Baker). Nearly everything Manuel ever did backfired, and for that, I feel sorry for him. He's a nice guy and is well-intentioned. He was also struck by Murphy's Law an awful lot. That's not to excuse the bad decisions, it's just to say he wasn't nearly as bad (relatively speaking) as people thought. Some people have said things to the extent that Jerry Manuel is the worst manager to ever manage in the big leagues. That's just ludicrous. He's an average manager, and I think if we bring in another average manager the team's results will show that. The names on LA's list are not nearly the upgrades some of the people on this board think they are.

Manuel caught enough luck to be named AL Manager of the Year in 2000 despite in ineptitude.

valposoxfan
10-18-2003, 05:01 PM
LA I think you're extremely wrong about Ozzie on this one. I really really think that he is capable of running a team and doing a damn good job. He has the smarts and the desire and he will get a team going. He's young and can still relate to the players and today's game. He is the best fit of any managerial candidate out there.
Who else would you bring in? There is not a lot left out there. They have jobs or don't want to manage anymore. That leaves this pool of managers. KW is doing the best that he has to work with. Keeping JM would not have worked. There was already too much controversy and stife around him.
Sit down, relax, and actually think about this for a little bit before you go off. Don't automatically write off Ozzie because he is excitable. I really feel that he is the best candidate.

Mammoo
10-18-2003, 10:49 PM
White Sox GM Kenny Williams has begun the interview process to determine Jerry Manuel’s successor. The names mentioned thus far include, Ozzie Guillen, Buddy Bell, Terry Francona, Wally Backman and Cito Gaston. All have Sox or Ken Williams ties, with Gaston having enjoyed post-season success with the Blue Jays.

Former Sox shortstop Guillen may be a fan favorite but is lean in experience.

"I know that's a big question mark, but I think a lot of people were questioning me when I started coaching third base,” said Guillen. “They said I had never coached in my life. But I've had success.”

Backman is the most attractive candidate in that he’s an intense leader who left it all on the field as a player, participating in the storied Mets/Cubs rivalry of the mid ‘80’s. He is currently being dogged by the ridiculous story where he allegedly encouraged buddy and Twins manager Ron Gardenhire to smoke the Pale Hose so he could get Jerry Manuel’s job. It says here that Ken Williams is too sharp to be sucked in by that load of horse hockey! Backman’s agent was livid when he heard of it.

''I can speak vehemently of that article that whatever source they had was inaccurate,'' said Alan Nero.. ''I can tell you Wally has never wished that the Sox not succeed. He is in the organization and has coached and managed players with the White Sox. That is insane.''

gosox41
10-19-2003, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by AsInWreck
Don't misconstrue this as a defence of Manuel, but you can't honestly look at the Sox pitching staffs of 2001-2002 and tell me they were a legitimate contender. 2003 on the other hand...

The 2002 team won 81 games. The Twins won 94 and the Sox finished 13 1/2 out. No way were the Sox that bad, even with their pitching (which ranked average in 2002.) They were an 88-90 win team that year on paper. Maybe they wouldn't have gone to the playoffs anyway, but they should have been a legit contender in '02.


Bob

34 Inch Stick
10-20-2003, 10:20 AM
Can we please stop the myth that Ozzie was a smart, fundamentally sound player.

Ozzie was an undisciplined hitter. He went up to the plate hacking wildly.

Ozzie was a horrible base runner.

Ozzie was a good fielder, however, he was unorthodox. I do not think his type of fielding would work for most players.

I do think he has some assets. He was always known for his high energy and appeared to be a favorite of his teamates. Energy is something that this team has been missing.

Unregistered
10-20-2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Mammoo
"I know that's a big question mark, but I think a lot of people were questioning me when I started coaching third base,” said Guillen. “They said I had never coached in my life. But I've had success.” IMO, having "success" coaching third base (whatever that means) is roughly the equivalent of being a good equipment manager, in terms of managerial relevance. Being a major league manager seems just a little bit different than doing the windmill when Juan Pierre rounds third, Oz.

jabrch
10-20-2003, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Paulwny
The old adage; "You get what you paid for'
Lets face it, JR isn't going to put up the bucks for a proven manager.


That's the sad part...

LASOXFAN
10-20-2003, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by idseer
it's hard to believe there are still so many manuel apologists around. i just can't believe some of you still want him back. :?: :?: :?:

who the hell's apologizing for manuel? you're high, get over yourself

Bucktown
10-21-2003, 12:37 AM
Bringing back your former short-stop to manage your club could not be a bad decision.

Just ask the Detroit Tigers.