PDA

View Full Version : Dismantling the arguments against Ozzie


jeremyb1
11-03-2003, 01:31 PM
Its entirely possible Ozzie Guillen will not be a good manager, but it is unreasonable to come to that conclusion at this point. So far, all the arguments against Ozzie are pretty ridiculous. The main arguments so far have been:

1) He has no experience.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes managers with experience are ussually well suited to manage while inexperienced managers do not have success. Clearly experience does not guarantee one will be a good manager. Look at most of the experienced managers included in our search (Bell, Francona, etc). These guys are all proven losers. Why is it that just because they've tried to manage and failed, these men are more qualified that someone who hasn't managed before? Even Gaston, the one candidate with a track record of success also has a track record of miserable failure. His teams failed to meet expecatations at the end of his tenure and he was canned accordingly.

For further support of this argument, just look at Manuel. He was certainly a rather experienced manager the last two seasons and look at the results? They weren't pretty. By comparison, he'd never managed before when he first took control of the team and he managed a young, scrappy team that exceeded expecations in '99 and a team that won 95 games in '00. This example seems to argue that perhaps more important than experience is whether the manager has the ear of the team and is a good fit for the club motivation wise.

Many will argue that because Ozzie lacks experience, he will lack in game strategy but I completely fail to see how one has to manage to have the knowledge of the game necessary to make the correct in game moves. So many of the posters on this board seem to feel qualified to second guess the managers in game strategy despite never being involved in professional baseball. I've yet to seen any convincing argument why managing is a necessary condition for understanding the strategy of baseball. Again, many failed managers with experience have had terrible in game strategy.

2) Ozzie is the equivalent of Terry Bevington.

I've yet to hear this argument elaborated in a coherant manner. As far as I can tell, the argument is that Ozzie will try to hard to fire up the club and will be unsuccessful.

As far as I can tell, Ozzie and Bevington have very few similarities. Ozzie will be brought in to energize the club but he's not an intense screamer like Bevington was, he should be much kinder and gentler. He might get on players some but not in an overly aggressive manner.

3) Ozzie's motivational tactics and his lack of experience will not go over well with veteran players.

First of all, looking at this team realistically, it is not that much of a veteran club. With the exception of Frank (35) and Loaiza (31), none of the players currently under contract are over 30 years old. The team has young regulars in Buehrle, Garland, Crede, Olivo and most likely Reed or Rowand with guys like Rauch, Wright, and Harris also possibilities to make the team and current holes at 2B and SS which could be filled by younger players. It is true that we may resign some veterans such as the Alomars and Gordon but that doesn't make us into the Yankees clubs of a few years back where practially every player was 33-35.

As for the perception that Ozzie's motivational tactics will prove ineffective with the veterans on the club, in light of the extent to which Manuel was crucified in these parts, I find it hard to see how Ozzie's approach could be that much worse. Manuel took a laid back approach and let the veterans do their own thing and it didn't work, so it seems to me the logical conclusion would be to try a manager with a different approach instead of implementing an idential approach with a different manager by bringing in Gaston.

When it comes down to it, if one operates under the assumption that Jerry Manuel was a large part of the problem with this club the past few seasons, the best argument in favor of Ozzie is simply that he will come in with a complete different approach from the one Manuel used. I know no one was all that thrilled with the list of candidates for the job myself included, but at the point the club was forced to choose between Gaston and Ozzie, I would rather go with a completely different approach than simply a slightly better version of what failed in the past.

hold2dibber
11-03-2003, 01:45 PM
The other "argument" I've heard is that the hiring of Ozzie instead of Gaston proves that the Sox aren't going to try to field a competitive team in '04 - that Ozzie would take the job regardless of the personnel, but Gaston would have insisted upon a truly competitive roster. The problem with this argument is that KW has already said that the payroll will be about the same as last year. So the choice of the manager appears to have been inconsequential in terms of the player roster.

Irishsox1
11-03-2003, 01:45 PM
My fears and questions with Ozzie are:


1. Handeling the pitching staff. I have no idea if he's going to run the staff into the ground or will he have the experience and knowledge of a former catcher or manager with experience to know when to pull a pitcher or keep them in.

2. Annoying personality. Ozzie has fire, but is it the type of fire to
actually motivate players for 162+ games or is it a personality like Lloyd McCledons? I'm guessing that Ozzie will be more like Lloyd, a hot head at the moment when you need a smart, reserved manager.

3. Fundamentials. This is an area the Sox need immediate help with. Ozzie should help with this. He was not the best hitter, but he was always in the game, never gave up and was tough when it matter most.

4. Overall philosophy. Will Ozzie's team be a slap hitting , stolen base national league team, or will they be the power hitting double play machine under Jerry Manual? I have a feeling they will fall somewhere between and suck at both.

All of these fears added up lead me to believe that the Sox will struggle next year. I'm hoping that Ozzie will work out, but I will be really suprised next year if the Sox win over 70 games.

CHISOXFAN13
11-03-2003, 01:56 PM
The Sox could win 85 games in this division without a manager. They did this season.

valposoxfan
11-03-2003, 01:57 PM
Sure, there a lot of questions with the hiring of Ozzie. He has no experience, this team is a bunch of unmotivated babies, etc., etc. I have my reservations as well and I really want a winner next year, and I think it can happen. After the Manuel era and three years of absolute death on the field, this will interesting to see how the guys react to a fiery manager. It is an absolute risk but part of the reason that I'm confident is that we really don't know what to expect, and I sort of welcome that. We knew every season what we were getting into with Manuel and maybe, just maybe, this team will run, and advance runners, and play with intensity. You just can't count him out yet. There is a possibility, albeit slight, that this could work. KW's player personnel moves will make or break the off-season, not this move.

hold2dibber
11-03-2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Irishsox1
My fears and questions with Ozzie are:


1. Handeling the pitching staff. I have no idea if he's going to run the staff into the ground or will he have the experience and knowledge of a former catcher or manager with experience to know when to pull a pitcher or keep them in.

2. Annoying personality. Ozzie has fire, but is it the type of fire to
actually motivate players for 162+ games or is it a personality like Lloyd McCledons? I'm guessing that Ozzie will be more like Lloyd, a hot head at the moment when you need a smart, reserved manager.

3. Fundamentials. This is an area the Sox need immediate help with. Ozzie should help with this. He was not the best hitter, but he was always in the game, never gave up and was tough when it matter most.

4. Overall philosophy. Will Ozzie's team be a slap hitting , stolen base national league team, or will they be the power hitting double play machine under Jerry Manual? I have a feeling they will fall somewhere between and suck at both.

All of these fears added up lead me to believe that the Sox will struggle next year. I'm hoping that Ozzie will work out, but I will be really suprised next year if the Sox win over 70 games.

You think the hiring of Guillen will somehow turn the Sox into the D-Rays? C'mon. No manager makes that big of a difference, positive or negative. You think Ozzie will somehow turn Konerko, Thomas, Ordonez and Lee into slap hitters? The most important factor in determining the Sox overall success next year is KW's job at re-vamping the roster this winter. The manager is important, but not as important as the players.

jeremyb1
11-03-2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Irishsox1
My fears and questions with Ozzie are:

1. Handeling the pitching staff. I have no idea if he's going to run the staff into the ground or will he have the experience and knowledge of a former catcher or manager with experience to know when to pull a pitcher or keep them in.

2. Annoying personality. Ozzie has fire, but is it the type of fire to
actually motivate players for 162+ games or is it a personality like Lloyd McCledons? I'm guessing that Ozzie will be more like Lloyd, a hot head at the moment when you need a smart, reserved manager.

3. Fundamentials. This is an area the Sox need immediate help with. Ozzie should help with this. He was not the best hitter, but he was always in the game, never gave up and was tough when it matter most.

4. Overall philosophy. Will Ozzie's team be a slap hitting , stolen base national league team, or will they be the power hitting double play machine under Jerry Manual? I have a feeling they will fall somewhere between and suck at both.

All of these fears added up lead me to believe that the Sox will struggle next year. I'm hoping that Ozzie will work out, but I will be really suprised next year if the Sox win over 70 games.

As far as handling the pitching staff I feel like the most important decisions there are when to make pitching changes which I feel falls under general baseball strategy which I discussed earlier. Issues such as when to warm up pitchers and when to have them throw on the side should be largely determined by the pitching coach in my opinion and I'm confident we have a good one who can help Ozzie a lot as long as he's willing to accept the input.

Personally, I feel like Ozzie's personality could be a great fit for this club. In my opinion the biggest problem with this club the last few seasons have been that they press far too much. If you look we've have the biggest trouble winning during big games which is likely because the players are trying too hard. We only seem to win once the team is practically out of it and therefore loosens up. I agree that if Ozzie is playful all the time it will be a problem but I get the impression he will know when to be playful and when to be serious.

With fundamentals, I'm always personally somewhat puzzled that they are such a huge issue for a club at the major league level. I feel that to the extent our players have problems with fundamentals, its not a problem that's easily fixed. I think we simply don't have a strong defensive team, we are a team that's built largely on hitting and starting pitching and not defense and fundamentals. Personally, I don't have a huge problem with that. You make sacrifices in some areas of the game to excel in others. I just wouldn't expect any manager to be able to come in and turn someone like Paul Konerko into a strong player fundamentally at this stage in his career.

General Philosophy is the one area I'll admit to being the most concerned about. Personally, I'm not in favor of small ball especially with a club similar to ours. I strongly hope Ozzie can recognize this team wasn't built for small ball and refrain from relying upon bunting, stolen bases, and hit and run just because that was the style with which he played in his playing days.

fquaye149
11-03-2003, 02:04 PM
my main question is whether the team will give ozzie the respect they'd give a cito gaston.

i mean, thomas played with ozzie, he's a peer. I know ozzie used to get on him...but i'm concerned they won't treat him with the respect a manager should be treated with.

I would think they would with a seasoned pro w/ two rings like gaston.

i just look at the sox under manuel and see that they seemed to give little effort. Whether that's a lack of fire inspired by him or a lack of respect by the players for JM....i think it needs to be addressed in our new managerial hire

PaleHoseGeorge
11-03-2003, 02:13 PM
Ozzie is fine. If we weren't serious about getting the best possible manager to make the Sox champions (i.e. LaRussa, Torre, et al), Ozzie is as good as anybody who still has question marks associated with their candidacy. My support for Cito was tepid at best.

Nobody *knows* if Ozzie will be a good manager. None of us can possibly know because he is a rookie manager. All of us are playing hunches, including Reinsdorf and Williams. They played hunches on rookie managers in 1991 (Lamont), 1995 (Bevington), and 1997 (Manuel). Ozzie makes four in a row for rookie managers the Sox have hired on a hunch.

None of those other hunches worked out. That's my biggest concern with hiring Ozzie. This is a hunch we simply didn't *need* to make.

If the reason Ozzie was hired was because of the rumors we're hearing about non-managerial concerns with Cito (demanding the Sox be competitive, wanting to hire his own staff, expecting too much money or too much autonomy, etc.), then I am very concerned about the hiring process Williams and Reinsdorf have conducted. We're not serious about winning if these sorts of issues entered the decisionmaking process. I don't expect Ozzie or anyone else can make the Sox champions if these rumors are true. Winning is my only concern, not who the Sox hire as manager.

The fish rots from the head.

:angry:

voodoochile
11-03-2003, 02:19 PM
Every single manager was one time hired as a manager for the first time and had no experience coming in. It is a moot point when it comes to figuring out whether the guy will be successful or not.

I am not sold on Ozzie because I think this is primarily a PR move and Ozzie has little experience as a coach to fall back on. I wonder about his ability to teach fundamentals or manage a bullpen, but agree he will be an excellent motivator if the players listen to him. He definitely won't be passive and let the game come to him.

I will take a wait and see approach on the matter, but I thought Cito would have made a better choice.

crector
11-03-2003, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Nobody *knows* if Ozzie will be a good manager. None of us can possibly know because he is a rookie manager. All of us are playing hunches, including Reinsdorf and Williams. They played hunches on rookie managers in 1991 (Lamont), 1995 (Bevington), and 1997 (Manuel). Ozzie makes four in a row for rookie managers the Sox have hired on a hunch.

None of those other hunches worked out. That's my biggest concern with hiring Ozzie. This is a hunch we simply didn't *need* to make.



Wrong. Lamont worked out quite well. We won 2 division titles with him and also gave Cito Gaston's Toronto ball club a run for their money in the 1993 ALCS. If it weren't for the strike in 1994, the Sox likely would have at least won the AL pennant. Had JR not fired him shortly after the 1995 season began, Lamont would almost certainly have taken the Sox to much better records than what they did under his successors.

jeremyb1
11-03-2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
my main question is whether the team will give ozzie the respect they'd give a cito gaston.

i mean, thomas played with ozzie, he's a peer. I know ozzie used to get on him...but i'm concerned they won't treat him with the respect a manager should be treated with.

I would think they would with a seasoned pro w/ two rings like gaston.

i just look at the sox under manuel and see that they seemed to give little effort. Whether that's a lack of fire inspired by him or a lack of respect by the players for JM....i think it needs to be addressed in our new managerial hire

to a certain extent i feel like if the players aren't respecting the manager that doesn't mean we have the wrong manager, it means we have the wrong players. obviously, you can't force a team to get behind a manager but the players should certainly try and if they don't, that's a really big problem unrelated to the manager in my opinion.

poorme
11-03-2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by crector
Wrong. Lamont worked out quite well. We won 2 division titles with him and also gave Cito Gaston's Toronto ball club a run for their money in the 1993 ALCS. If it weren't for the strike in 1994, the Sox likely would have at least won the AL pennant. Had JR not fired him shortly after the 1995 season began, Lamont would almost certainly have taken the Sox to much better records than what they did under his successors.

So Lamont worked out quite well, but Guillen can't?

crector
11-03-2003, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by poorme
So Lamont worked out quite well, but Guillen can't?


Lamont was a calm, cool, level headed guy who really knew how to handle a pitching staff. In other words, he was an intelligent version of JM, except that Lamont stayed wide awake during the games and didn't go for tinkering with success.

From what I know of Ozzie and saw of him in his playing days, he was both intemperate and stupid. I have not seen anything to make me think that he's changed.

Jess1210
11-03-2003, 02:43 PM
On the subject of respect from players, haven't there been several quotes from players saying that they are pulling for Ozzie to be hired? Sounds to me like certain players are already strongly behind him. I don't know either whether he'll do a good job as a manager or not, but he'll be starting out with several players who are fired up to play for him. Hopefully that sentiment would be contagious within the clubhouse, and they'll be ready to go.

poorme
11-03-2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by crector
From what I know of Ozzie and saw of him in his playing days, he was both intemperate and stupid. I have not seen anything to make me think that he's changed.

You've accused the man of being stupid several times without supporting that statement. It's starting to get irritating. Why don't you lay out the reasons you believe he is stupid.

oldcomiskey
11-03-2003, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by crector
Wrong. Lamont worked out quite well. We won 2 division titles with him and also gave Cito Gaston's Toronto ball club a run for their money in the 1993 ALCS. If it weren't for the strike in 1994, the Sox likely would have at least won the AL pennant. Had JR not fired him shortly after the 1995 season began, Lamont would almost certainly have taken the Sox to much better records than what they did under his successors.

No the Sox didnt and wouldnt have--albeit---Lamont was better than Bevington..

pudge
11-03-2003, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
The Sox could win 85 games in this division without a manager. They did this season.

POTW! Come on voodoo, I know you already picked one, but this has gotta be a close second!

pudge
11-03-2003, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by crector
Wrong. Lamont worked out quite well. We won 2 division titles with him and also gave Cito Gaston's Toronto ball club a run for their money in the 1993 ALCS. If it weren't for the strike in 1994, the Sox likely would have at least won the AL pennant. Had JR not fired him shortly after the 1995 season began, Lamont would almost certainly have taken the Sox to much better records than what they did under his successors.

Lamont underachieved horribly. His successors did not have nearly the talent he had.

BTW, the '94 Sox were ONE game ahead of the Indians when the strike hit. ONE GAME. They weren't even a lock for the division let alone the AL pennant!

duke of dorwood
11-03-2003, 07:37 PM
WE need this. Ozzie was with 2 winning organizations as a coach. Yet he is still an outsider to many of the players we have. Its better than a new gay out of the farm system . I am very happy with this move.

Bucktown
11-03-2003, 07:39 PM
I love Ozzie. He has balls and he is going to demand performance. However...

I can't understand half of what he is saying. The guy has been playing American baseball for 20 years. I would think his diction would be better.

Daver
11-03-2003, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by Bucktown


I can't understand half of what he is saying. The guy has been playing American baseball for 20 years. I would think his diction would be better.

They said the same thing about Terry Bevington.

batmanZoSo
11-03-2003, 07:40 PM
How did Lamont underachieve? I find that statement baffling. He won back to back divisions, then was fired because the 95 Sox were a broken up, mediocre shadow of what could've been. There was no way we were competing that year. But when he had the talent, he won. The strike stole a big chance from us and him. I don't think the Indians would've won the divison that year, they were living on the long ball and didn't have near the pitching we did. And we were a pretty solid hitting club too. Thomas of '94 is the best hitter I've ever seen, tied with Bonds of 2001. And he had Franco killing the ball behind him, Ventura, Rock, DJ in right hitting .300 and playing a gold glove right field. One Dog, Karko, and Ozzy. That team was awesome.

And my memory is hazy, but didn't some authority do a simulation and they came up with us winning it all that year? I think we were the best team in baseball, and that's why it hurt so much. Of course we'll never know, but we do have an idea of what they could've done. If we could somehow play out that season, I would bet a large sum we'd win it all.

doublem23
11-03-2003, 08:10 PM
My biggest problem with Ozzie is that in the press conference he came out and said that he wants to play Smallball (which I don't believe works with a smallball team in the first place) and do all this **** for a team that is built around defense, pitching, and speed. These White Sox are not. Perhaps Ozzie did not catch enough games on WGN, but he's got starters such as Magglio Ordonez, Carlos Lee, and Frank Thomas. Hell, his catcher may have the best set of legs on the squad (that's not good)... If Ozzie seriously thinks he can win in the American League with bunts and sacrifices, that's nice; but with this team... Ugh... Unless KW is planning a complete destruction/rebuilding of the roster before Opening Day, the Sox are going to have a hard time winning with a manager who refuses to set his gameplan to his team's strengths.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-03-2003, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
My biggest problem with Ozzie is that in the press conference he came out and said that he wants to play Smallball (which I don't believe works with a smallball team in the first place) and do all this **** for a team that is built around defense, pitching, and speed. These White Sox are not. Perhaps Ozzie did not catch enough games on WGN, but he's got starters such as Magglio Ordonez, Carlos Lee, and Frank Thomas. Hell, his catcher may have the best set of legs on the squad (that's not good)... If Ozzie seriously thinks he can win in the American League with bunts and sacrifices, that's nice; but with this team... Ugh... Unless KW is planning a complete destruction/rebuilding of the roster before Opening Day, the Sox are going to have a hard time winning with a manager who refuses to set his gameplan to his team's strengths.

My issue was the repeated use of the "pitching and defense wins ballgames" cliche. Ugh.

Pitching wins ballgames. Pitching and offensive production wins ballgames. "Pitching and defense" does not win ballgames.

Will somebody please explain to the Sox front office that the golden era of Go-Go Sox baseball won us exactly *ONE* pennant and a heaping pile of "see ya laters" from the New York Yankees. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me the Bronx Bombers won all those championships with "pitching and defense."

It has been forty years and we Sox Fans are still blinded by the glory of what *didn't* work.

:angry:

doublem23
11-03-2003, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
My issue was the repeated use of the "pitching and defense wins ballgames" cliche. Ugh.

To be fair, today is Cliche day, PHG. :D:

PaleHoseGeorge
11-03-2003, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
To be fair, today is Cliche day, PHG. :D:

You're right. I must still be living in the old paradigm of the Jerry Manuel era. Ozzie used more cliches in his first ten minutes on the job than Jerry managed in his first ten months. :smile:

:jerry
I would have used more cliches, but it was too much work trying to remember them."

captain54
11-03-2003, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
Its better than a new gay out of the farm system .

Someone's sexual preference has nothing to do with whether or not they can manage a MLB club....

MarkV
11-03-2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
How did Lamont underachieve? I find that statement baffling. He won back to back divisions, then was fired because the 95 Sox were a broken up, mediocre shadow of what could've been.

Um, you keep saying that Lamont won two division championships. Lamont won one, in '93. Because the '94 season didn't finish, there were no division champions that year. That's why the Braves have 12 straight division championships, even though they were six games behind the Expos in '94. :)

batmanZoSo
11-03-2003, 09:33 PM
Sexual preference has a lot to do with whether or not someone can manage a club. It would create very uncomfortable locker room relations I would imagine.

voodoochile
11-03-2003, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by captain54
Someone's sexual preference has nothing to do with whether or not they can manage a MLB club....

Umn, looked like a typo to me. Just replace the 'a' with a 'u' and read it again...

bc2k
11-03-2003, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Bucktown
I love Ozzie. He has balls and he is going to demand performance. However...

I can't understand half of what he is saying. The guy has been playing American baseball for 20 years. I would think his diction would be better.

It must be something with the name. Ozzie Guillen, Ozzy Osbourne...

batmanZoSo
11-03-2003, 09:55 PM
I don't keep saying it. I thought I only said it once? But all division leaders in 94 were credited with division titles. Check baseball-reference.com.

Tragg
11-03-2003, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Its entirely possible Ozzie Guillen will not be a good manager, but it is unreasonable to come to that conclusion at this point. So far, all the arguments against Ozzie are pretty ridiculous. The main arguments so far have been:

1) He has no experience.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes managers with experience are ussually well suited to manage while inexperienced managers do not have success. Clearly experience does not guarantee one will be a good manager. Look at most of the experienced managers included in our search (Bell, Francona, etc). These guys are all proven losers. Why is it that just because they've tried to manage and failed, these men are more qualified that someone who hasn't managed before? Even Gaston, the one candidate with a track record of success also has a track record of miserable failure. His teams failed to meet expecatations at the end of his tenure and he was canned accordingly.

For further support of this argument, just look at Manuel. He was certainly a rather experienced manager the last two seasons and look at the results? They weren't pretty. By comparison, he'd never managed before when he first took control of the team and he managed a young, scrappy team that exceeded expecations in '99 and a team that won 95 games in '00. This example seems to argue that perhaps more important than experience is whether the manager has the ear of the team and is a good fit for the club motivation wise.

Many will argue that because Ozzie lacks experience, he will lack in game strategy but I completely fail to see how one has to manage to have the knowledge of the game necessary to make the correct in game moves. So many of the posters on this board seem to feel qualified to second guess the managers in game strategy despite never being involved in professional baseball. I've yet to seen any convincing argument why managing is a necessary condition for understanding the strategy of baseball. Again, many failed managers with experience have had terrible in game strategy.

2) Ozzie is the equivalent of Terry Bevington.

I've yet to hear this argument elaborated in a coherant manner. As far as I can tell, the argument is that Ozzie will try to hard to fire up the club and will be unsuccessful.

As far as I can tell, Ozzie and Bevington have very few similarities. Ozzie will be brought in to energize the club but he's not an intense screamer like Bevington was, he should be much kinder and gentler. He might get on players some but not in an overly aggressive manner.

3) Ozzie's motivational tactics and his lack of experience will not go over well with veteran players.

First of all, looking at this team realistically, it is not that much of a veteran club. With the exception of Frank (35) and Loaiza (31), none of the players currently under contract are over 30 years old. The team has young regulars in Buehrle, Garland, Crede, Olivo and most likely Reed or Rowand with guys like Rauch, Wright, and Harris also possibilities to make the team and current holes at 2B and SS which could be filled by younger players. It is true that we may resign some veterans such as the Alomars and Gordon but that doesn't make us into the Yankees clubs of a few years back where practially every player was 33-35.

As for the perception that Ozzie's motivational tactics will prove ineffective with the veterans on the club, in light of the extent to which Manuel was crucified in these parts, I find it hard to see how Ozzie's approach could be that much worse. Manuel took a laid back approach and let the veterans do their own thing and it didn't work, so it seems to me the logical conclusion would be to try a manager with a different approach instead of implementing an idential approach with a different manager by bringing in Gaston.

When it comes down to it, if one operates under the assumption that Jerry Manuel was a large part of the problem with this club the past few seasons, the best argument in favor of Ozzie is simply that he will come in with a complete different approach from the one Manuel used. I know no one was all that thrilled with the list of candidates for the job myself included, but at the point the club was forced to choose between Gaston and Ozzie, I would rather go with a completely different approach than simply a slightly better version of what failed in the past.

You forgot the most important negative

He had ZERO hitting patience in his career - less than zero.

Lack of patience and complete inability to work the bat is a major weakness of the Sox

So how in the hell can he instill patience in hitting when HE had none as a player?

captain54
11-04-2003, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Umn, looked like a typo to me. Just replace the 'a' with a 'u' and read it again...

Umm, yeah....no ****.

my post was tongue in cheek, a pun, you know....a joke...