PDA

View Full Version : Joe Cowley Says...


Mammoo
10-20-2003, 03:25 PM
...Buddy Bell is the front runner for the Sox job. One of the main reasons (as told to Murph and Fred this AM) is because he comes cheap and won't demand much from management.

I'm excited :?:

He also stated that Backman doesn't stand much of a chance because he's too self serving a guy; pushing too hard to get the job while Ghandi was still employed!

hold2dibber
10-20-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Mammoo
...Buddy Bell is the front runner for the Sox job. One of the main reasons (as told to Murph and Fred this AM) is because he comes cheap and won't demand much from management.

I'm excited :?:

He also stated that Backman doesn't stand much of a chance because he's too self serving a guy; pushing too hard to get the job while Ghandi was still employed!

I don't get it. If they're apparently willing to pony up big bucks for Colon, that would seem to suggest that management is trying to win now. If you're going to try to win now, why the hell would you want a manager whose primary qualifications are that he's cheap and not demanding?

Hokiesox
10-20-2003, 03:40 PM
Buddy Bell has never led a team above 4th place and has a .435 winning %. Granted it was Detroit and Colorado, but they couldn't be accused of "overacheiving" with those records. I understand they want someone cheap :angry: but, if we want to "win" why bring in a manager without a winning record...IF HE'S A RETREAD. I'd rather see someone with no managing experience but a good passion for the game (your table is ready ozzie guillen and Carlton Fisk) or someone who has proven he's can sometimes win already (you may wait in line Cito Gaston)


Bell :angry: :angry: :angry:

thepaulbowski
10-20-2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Hokiesox
Buddy Bell has never led a team above 4th place and has a .435 winning %. Granted it was Detroit and Colorado, but they couldn't be accused of "overacheiving" with those records. I understand they want someone cheap :angry: but, if we want to "win" why bring in a manager without a winning record...IF HE'S A RETREAD. I'd rather see someone with no managing experience but a good passion for the game (your table is ready ozzie guillen and Carlton Fisk) or someone who has proven he's can sometimes win already (you may wait in line Cito Gaston)


Bell :angry: :angry: :angry:

If he got Detroit to a .435 winning %, he should have be up for manager of the year honors!!

Mammoo
10-20-2003, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I don't get it. If they're apparently willing to pony up big bucks for Colon, that would seem to suggest that management is trying to win now. If you're going to try to win now, why the hell would you want a manager whose primary qualifications are that he's cheap and not demanding?

I agree; I think manager is one of the most important "positions" on the team. Why chintz??? :?:

cheeses_h_rice
10-20-2003, 04:05 PM
Isn't this about the 4th or 5th "X is the frontrunner" quote we've heard so far?

From what I have heard, there are still plenty of people to be interviewed. One of the candidates still has a team playing baseball down in Florida, too.

Mammoo
10-20-2003, 04:11 PM
Bell didnít stay out of baseball for long, however. After working in the minor league programs of the Indians and White Sox, Bell accepted a position as infield coach of the Indians in 1994. Even though heíd never before managed a game at the pro level, the Detroit Tigers hired him after the 1995 season to replace the legendary Sparky Anderson. However, the success that Bell had enjoyed as a player didnít follow him into the dugout during his first year at the helm, as the Tigers won only 53 games and lost 109, finishing 39 games behind the Yankees in the cellar of the AL East. In 1997 Bell was allowed to keep his job and the team improved to third place in the division with a 79-82 campaign.

However, the Tigers dropped some key players to reduce payroll in 1998 and Bell -- upset with GM Randy Smith and demanding a better situation from the Tigers -- fell victim from his team's mediocrity. Replaced on September 1 by Larry Parrish (Detroit's record stood at a disappointing 52-85) Bell caught on in the Reds front office, where it was widely assumed that he'd eventually replace Jack McKeon as manager. But in October 1999, he left to manage the Colorado Rockies after his old friend Dan O'Dowd (whom he'd worked with in Cleveland) was named GM. Replacing the retiring Jim Leyland, Bell was so confident he'd succeed in Denver that he decided to move West from his long-time Cincinnati home.

Bell suffered from seizures during his early years in the majors, and decided to seek medical help after he fell out of a golf cart and broke his nose in 1976. (Despite vision problems and exhaustion, he played the night and doubled in his first at-bat.) Doctors initally thought a brain tumor might have caused the collapse, but later diagnosed him as epileptic; thanks to medication, he has never had a seizure on the field. (ME/JGR

MRKARNO
10-20-2003, 05:05 PM
Arent we just looking for a manager that will manage this team to their ability level as opposed to way below their ability level like Manuel was managing the team. The team had 100 win talent last year and if we had a manager that wasnt great, but wasnt awful, I'd be fine. We dont need an amazing manager, just give us your run of the mill, wont make stupid mistakes, manager

RedPinStripes
10-20-2003, 06:01 PM
Ooooooooo ****! If they sign Buddy ****ing bell, I'll have one hell of a speech for KW at Soxfest. Buddy will wonder how much of a beating he'll get from the fans when he takes the field. :angry:

dickallen15
10-20-2003, 06:03 PM
Buddy is exactly the same amount of games under .500 managing as Joe Torre was when he took over the Yankees. I think he could be pretty good. He won't stand for uninspired play, and actually demands a little discipline.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-20-2003, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
If he got Detroit to a .435 winning %, he should have be up for manager of the year honors!!

He was brutal in Detroit. They lost 107 games his first year in 1996, and they lost another 85 games in 1998 before he was fired. I would give him the benefit of the doubt for knowing the ballplayers in the A.L. Central, but he spent the last 3 years in the N.L. I dunno... this sounds like a bad idea. No wonder the Sox are considering it. :smile:

SoxxoS
10-20-2003, 06:50 PM
Wasn't Bell manager of the year in Colorado...

Wait a second...



:jerry

"So was I! Can I have my job back?"

Nick@Nite
10-20-2003, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Mammoo
...Buddy Bell is the front runner for the Sox job. One of the main reasons (as told to Murph and Fred this AM) is because he comes cheap and won't demand much from management.

GREAT!

chisoxt
10-20-2003, 08:16 PM
This same kind of small-minded penny pinching thinking drove the decision to keep Manuel around for 2003, even though he should have been fired the very day in August 2002 when JR went into the locker room and ripped into the team for lackadasical play. Clearly this display of anger on the chairmen's part was as much an indictment of Manuel as it was a knock on the player's efforts. But no, we assembled a teffific team in 2003 that underachieved while being over managed.

flo-B-flo
10-20-2003, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by chisoxt
This same kind of small-minded penny pinching thinking drove the decision to keep Manuel around for 2003, even though he should have been fired the very day in August 2002 when JR went into the locker room and ripped into the team for lackadasical play. Clearly this display of anger on the chairmen's part was as much an indictment of Manuel as it was a knock on the player's efforts. But no, we assembled a teffific team in 2003 that underachieved while being over managed. Amen, Manuel let the players be "who you are" so they did, lazy, no baseball fundamental, underachievers. And I think the Sox should hire Fisk before the bosox do it first. Riensdorf should do the unthinkable and let his ego down. Good catchers are managers on the field and have been pretty good managers in the majors.

SoxOnTop
10-20-2003, 10:18 PM
Why are we even discussing what Murph and Fred were saying about the White Sox? I'm sure they know as much about what's going on in the White Sox organization as I do here in Tampa.

Mammoo
10-20-2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by SoxOnTop
Why are we even discussing what Murph and Fred were saying about the White Sox? I'm sure they know as much about what's going on in the White Sox organization as I do here in Tampa.

Read the post again....M & F didn't say it...Joe Cowley from the Southdown did. He covers the team for a living!

joecrede
10-21-2003, 11:37 AM
Just a hunch, but I think Cowley is off-base here.

I don't think they are going to go through a major park renovation and then hand the reigns of the team over to Bell who's a proven loser.

RKMeibalane
10-21-2003, 11:07 PM
It seems like there is a new "leading candidate" each day. I'm not doing to believe anything until the manager is actually hired. As far as I'm concerned, the new one can't possibly be any worse than the previous two managers.

Mammoo
10-21-2003, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
As far as I'm concerned, the new one can't possibly be any worse than the previous two managers.

I pray that you are correct!!! :?:

ode to veeck
10-22-2003, 12:01 AM
looking at this on the surface of Bell's track record as a manager, this would look like hiring Presten Gomez back in the 80s ... bound to continue to go nowhere ... 'cept to not take even one cent more than necessary out of JR's wallet

batmanZoSo
10-22-2003, 12:06 AM
If Torre would have came here in 96 instead of New York, he'd be a bench coach somewhere by now. It's like the song....it was the right place...and it musta been the right time.