PDA

View Full Version : The Hiring


Viva Magglio
11-03-2003, 09:14 PM
Do you approve of disapprove of the Ozzie Guillen hiring?

I approve. I think the "Fire Ozzie Guillen" thread, however sarcastic, is stupid. I know I made the comment about the "FIRE OZZIE" tag, but that was in jest.

If nothing else, he is entitled to a honeymoon from us the fans.

Iguana775
11-03-2003, 09:17 PM
:supernana:

Dadawg_77
11-03-2003, 09:17 PM
Can we have a cautious view point. I right now I am not big time fan but I don't hate it, yet. What I hate is small run ball.

voodoochile
11-03-2003, 09:18 PM
I added the final choice because that is how I feel. I am not ready to condemn nor applaud this decision at the moment. I thought Cito was a better choice, but am willing to give Ozzie the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

I hope for the best and prepare for the worst...

crector
11-03-2003, 09:20 PM
I disapprove.

JR and KW failed to consider/interview really qualified folks who could have gotten this team to the World Series. Instead, they only picked from a group of mediocrities and came up with a jerk blathering nonsense at his inaugural press conference.

It appears that the dismantling of the present team is underway with only the 2000 division title to show for its efforts.

MarkV
11-03-2003, 09:24 PM
Based on the guys the Sox interviewed, Ozzie was the best choice. Fundamental baseball wins championships.

CHISOXFAN13
11-03-2003, 09:25 PM
Enlighten me Crector...

Since when are Jim Leyland, Cito Gaston and Tom Kelly not qualified folks???

KW interviewd Gaston and made calls to Leyland and Kelly to gauge interest.

doublem23
11-03-2003, 09:31 PM
I approve, but know that there were better options out there.

MRKARNO
11-03-2003, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
KW...made calls to Leyland and Kelly to gauge interest.

They obviously weren't interested

crector
11-03-2003, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
Enlighten me Crector...

Since when are Jim Leyland, Cito Gaston and Tom Kelly not qualified folks???

KW interviewd Gaston and made calls to Leyland and Kelly to gauge interest.


Haven't you noticed how every time JR makes a change in managers, he or his minions always make a call to Jim Leyland even though Leyland's made it clear that he's not interested in managing again? Likewise, there was little realistic chance that Kelly could have been persuaded to manage a team in the same division as his beloved Twinkies.

Gaston is nothing but a pleasant vegetable when he is not using the race card. There were qualified folks out there who could have been considered such as Grady Little, Larry Dierker and Jeff Torborg all of whom would have been much better choices than any of the mediocrities who were interviewed.

Daver
11-03-2003, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
They obviously weren't interested

Translation:

They wanted to be paid fair market value.

xil357
11-03-2003, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
Enlighten me Crector...

Since when are Jim Leyland, Cito Gaston and Tom Kelly not qualified folks???

KW interviewd Gaston and made calls to Leyland and Kelly to gauge interest.

Do we know that Tom Kelly was even interested? How do we know he didn't say "thanks but no thanks." Same with Jim Leyland. How do we know how hard they tried to get Joe Torre and/or Tony LaRussa? (And remember if they try too hard they invite tampering charges) How do we know what the process was unless those who were involved in it give us their accounts of it? We don't know and we probably never will.

Would I have preferred a news conference announcing Tom Kelly, Tony LaRussa or Joe Torre as the new manager? Sure. But that doesn't mean I'm disappointed with Ozzie. If you don't like the hiring, fine. I'm sure everyone has reasons for believing that Ozzie won't do a good job.

Wearing my rose-colored glasses, I believe that Ozzie will do a good job of relaxing the clubhouse and firing up the team to focus on the game. I think Greg Walker is a good hitting coach and Coop is a good pitching coach, and I think Nossek will make sure that Ozzie doesn't do anything that will cost the Sox too many games. I think Ozzie can motivate this veteran team and I think if the Sox decide to trade Maggs he will work well with a team full of kids.

I think Ozzie may be annoying at times but he said the right things at today's press conference.

I'm more concerned with the KW's ability to plug the holes in the middle of the field (CF, SS and 2B), in the bullpen and rotation than hyperventilating over what Ozzie might or might not do.

I liked Jerry Manuel (and still do) and although I am in the minority, I still think that while he cost the Sox a few games with his failure to play Frank at 1B and his sticking with Konerko waaaaay too long, it was the team's inability to produce any offense during the first two months of the season that cost them the division.

I believe that when Ozzie says he will make his guys bunt, he will make them learn how to bunt and advance runners rather than swing for the fences when its 40 degrees with the wind howling in. I think Ozzie is going to make the opposition think twice about constantly playing at double play depth, and if Sox hitters just learn how to produce runs through means other than just hitting homers, they will be a more dangerous team.

Think about it: Carlos Lee and Maggs aren't as slow as Paul Konerko. If Lee and Maggs just learn how to bunt and show bunt during a particular at bat, it may draw the opposing infield in. Then they can rope a line drive right over the head of the third baseman or shortstop. That keeps the opposing team always guessing. And if they are guessing they are going to be taken by surprise. As presently constructed the Sox hitters aren't going to change who they are under Ozzie. But it will make them more of a threat to generate runs even when they aren't clicking on all cylinders, and it will make the opposing teams think about more than just getting the Sox to hit into double plays.

idseer
11-03-2003, 10:11 PM
approve.

of course it's a gamble. but it's a good one, imo. i don't think ozzie likes to lose and i believe he is motivated. i believe that motivation will translate to the team. i believe he will weed out the losers and 'slowly' transform this team to the kind of team i grew up with. pitching, defense, and hitting ... in that order.

i think we have to remember who still runs this team. as long as jr is in the way the sox will have to do things on the cheap and hope for the best. ozzie gives me hope .... for now.

Nellie Comiskey
11-03-2003, 10:30 PM
I've said all along between Gaston and Guillen, I'd take Guillen anyday even though he has no managerial experience. Upon review this is the first Sox manager that has a personality since possibly LaRussa. Look at the guys before Ozzie....Manuel, Bevington, Lamont, Torborg, Fregosi. I just hope Ozzie is that "lighthining in the bottle" Tony Pena has been for KC. Remember 1990, what a great season (not just because it was Old Comiskey's last year)- won more regular season games than the world champ Reds. Ozzie was the team leader....yes that doesn't make him qualified, but being able to lead is half the battle. (And the only real thing we know about Ozzie as a player). He always had fun (in his animated way) and had respect from his fellow teamates. The other half is the ability with the x's and o's. None of us know if he can really manage, but I'm willing to give him a chance....As mentioned above...it's been a long time that a South Side mgr made going to the park fun. Yes the ultimate fun is winning....but Veeck made things fun on the Southside with limited success('59 & '77). And also none of us know the hand he'll be dealt(actual players in 2004)....resutlts from trading players, free agents, etc. The for a manager with no experience is to surround himself with good people. Guys who are loyal and have been in the business a long time. Good luck Ozzie! :luis&nell

MarqSox
11-03-2003, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by crector
Haven't you noticed how every time JR makes a change in managers, he or his minions always make a call to Jim Leyland even though Leyland's made it clear that he's not interested in managing again?
What the heck are you talking about?? The last time the Sox switched managers, Leyland was a week removed from winning the World Series with the Marlins. So, there has been exactly one managerial opening for which Leyland has been contacted while in retirement, and that was this one. :?:

crector
11-03-2003, 10:43 PM
Nope, Bevington was temporarily dropped before his final season in 1997, but after Leyland turned it down, Bevington was brought back on board. In any event, JR and KW really called up Leyland for window dressing to prettify whatever mediocrity that they were going to hire by implying that he was chosen from a greater talent pool than what he was really chosen from. Leyland had already made it clear that he was not interested in managing again, so the alleged interest by JR/KW was for PR purposes only.

Based on JR's track record, if Leyland really was interested in managing again, he never would have been considered for the position at all.

JRIG
11-03-2003, 11:08 PM
I voted disapprove. Not so much of Ozzie, though I don't think he's a great choice. I disapprove of the fact that Sox management hired another manager dead set on playing "small ball" and "bunting" when this team is completely not built for that kind of sysytem and plays in a park that is very hitter-friendly.

vegyrex
11-04-2003, 12:20 AM
I disapprove. :angry:

Banix12
11-04-2003, 12:21 AM
i don't think you can really argue whether it was a good hire until you see how the team plays for him. I approve of the hiring for now if only because he is a overwhelmingly refreshing change from the dull and methodical Jerry Manuel. Do we need a guy who is a firey manager? That's debateable. Though he does have a quality that we have really needed in that he is a guy who can handle the media with a sense of humor and he is a person that the fans can really get behind (especially if he wins).

hose
11-04-2003, 07:18 AM
I approve Ozzie.

TommyJohn
11-04-2003, 07:33 AM
Disapprove. I wanted Cito Gaston. You would think that after
six rookie managers bombed out (I know it was technically
only three, but Bevington's bomb out was so nuclear that I
count it three times) they would try something different. I
guess not. I am prepared, though, to give Guillen the bene-
fit of the doubt for now. After all, he hasn't managed yet. I
just hope he doesn't become Ozzie Bevinguillenton.

crector
11-04-2003, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by TommyJohn
Disapprove. I wanted Cito Gaston. You would think that after
six rookie managers bombed out (I know it was technically
only three, but Bevington's bomb out was so nuclear that I
count it three times) they would try something different. I
guess not. I am prepared, though, to give Guillen the bene-
fit of the doubt for now. After all, he hasn't managed yet. I
just hope he doesn't become Ozzie Bevinguillenton.


Since when did Gene Lamont bomb out? He took the Sox to 2 division titles in 1993-1994 and won more games in the AL Championship Series than LaRussa and Manuel combined. If it was not for the cupidity/stupidity of Reinsdorf and Schueler, Lamont would have taken the team to a much better showing than Terry Bevington did.

hsnterprize
11-04-2003, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by crector
I disapprove.

JR and KW failed to consider/interview really qualified folks who could have gotten this team to the World Series. Instead, they only picked from a group of mediocrities and came up with a jerk blathering nonsense at his inaugural press conference.

It appears that the dismantling of the present team is underway with only the 2000 division title to show for its efforts. The Score reported early this morning that KW interviewed "really qualified" folks like Jimmy Leland (1997 World Series winning manager) and Tom Kelly (1987 and 1991 World Series winning manager), and told him they weren't interested in the job. Personally, I think hiring Ozzie is a good PR move. People forget that Tony Pena didn't have managerial experience before this year...and look what happened. The Royals were in contention until the end of the year. Granted...the AL Central isn't that strong of a division, but who honestly expected the Kansas City Royals to be as competitive in the division as they were? I know I didn't.

Hey...I know Ozzie isn't experienced as we'd like for him to be, but let's give him a fair chance. No one will care how experienced/inexperiened he is if the Sox start playing well. Now to mention, to have guys like Maggs and Frank "bunt" with runners on base will be a MUCH WELCOMED change since they and other Sox hitters were so good at hitting into double plays last year. Think about that...

crector
11-04-2003, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by hsnterprize
The Score reported early this morning that KW interviewed "really qualified" folks like Jimmy Leland (1997 World Series winning manager) and Tom Kelly (1987 and 1991 World Series winning manager), and told him they weren't interested in the job. Personally, I think hiring Ozzie is a good PR move. People forget that Tony Pena didn't have managerial experience before this year...and look what happened. The Royals were in contention until the end of the year. Granted...the AL Central isn't that strong of a division, but who honestly expected the Kansas City Royals to be as competitive in the division as they were? I know I didn't.

Hey...I know Ozzie isn't experienced as we'd like for him to be, but let's give him a fair chance. No one will care how experienced/inexperiened he is if the Sox start playing well. Now to mention, to have guys like Maggs and Frank "bunt" with runners on base will be a MUCH WELCOMED change since they and other Sox hitters were so good at hitting into double plays last year. Think about that...

KC finished in 3rd place with a losing record since Aug. 1st. JM was a better manager than Pena. Frank didn't hit into too many DP's this year and you can bunt into DP's just as well as you can hit into them. Also, bunts almost always lead to the bunter getting thrown out at 1b. Unless Ozzie rethinks his committment to small ball in the long ball hitter's park on the South Side, its quite likely that next year's Sox will have a substantially worse record than they did this year.

Think about that........

steff
11-04-2003, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by Daver
Translation:

They wanted to be paid fair market value.


Ding, ding, ding, ding.. we have a winner.

Take it for what it's worth... Paraphrased because obviously I was not there... all of those interviewed were asked "what they needed".. Ozzie was the only one who didn't say a higher payroll. "These kids can play"... Ozzie appears to be a few years behind.

hsnterprize
11-04-2003, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by crector
KC finished in 3rd place with a losing record since Aug. 1st. JM was a better manager than Pena. Frank didn't hit into too many DP's this year and you can bunt into DP's just as well as you can hit into them. Also, bunts almost always lead to the bunter getting thrown out at 1b. Unless Ozzie rethinks his committment to small ball in the long ball hitter's park on the South Side, its quite likely that next year's Sox will have a substantially worse record than they did this year.

Think about that........ Even though KC finished in 3rd place with a losing August, they were in 1st or 2nd place throughout most of the season...a place many of us Sox fans, as well as baseball fans in general weren't expecting. And, I don't know about you, but even though the Cell is a hitter's park, why should that matter if your star sluggers are either hitting into double plays, popping out, striking out, or hitting warning track outs? When runners are on base, you're supposed to bring as many home as possible...that simple baseball sense.

And you can say that Frank didn't hit into "too many" double plays last year, but he hit into them when it hurt the most. He also popped out several times to end innings when runners were on. Not to mention, I saw Maggs and Konerko hit into several DP's this past year. Imagine what wouldn've happened if they moved the runners over to the next base instead of the dugout. It's a real shame when a new acquisition, Roberto Alomar, in less than a month, leads the team in SACRIFICE BUNTING than the regulars on this team. Not to mention, how many posts have we read where it seems like if the Sox don't homer, they don't score?

It's about time for a change...I like Ozzie's approach...think about that...

cornball
11-04-2003, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by steff
Ding, ding, ding, ding.. we have a winner.

Take it for what it's worth... Paraphrased because obviously I was not there... all of those interviewed were asked "what they needed".. Ozzie was the only one who didn't say a higher payroll. "These kids can play"... Ozzie appears to be a few years behind.

I agree with you, but what is refreshing is Ozzie actually wanted to come here.....a passion for the Sox. Not many people in baseball have that passion for our team, especially local media.

I think we owe it to him to give it a run.....baseball is that that difficult to manage. Hopefully KW will be able to get the players to have the chance to make a run.

steff
11-04-2003, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by cornball
I agree with you, but what is refreshing is Ozzie actually wanted to come here.....a passion for the Sox. Not many people in baseball have that passion for our team, especially local media.



Well thank God he did. It appears NO ONE else wanted the crappy job!!

MikeKreevich
11-04-2003, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by crector
Since when did Gene Lamont bomb out? He took the Sox to 2 division titles in 1993-1994 and won more games in the AL Championship Series than LaRussa and Manuel combined. If it was not for the cupidity/stupidity of Reinsdorf and Schueler, Lamont would have taken the team to a much better showing than Terry Bevington did.
The Sox won despite Lamont. He was horrid.

MarqSox
11-04-2003, 06:53 PM
80% approval with a sample size well over 100 is remarkable.

MarqSox
11-04-2003, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by MikeKreevich
The Sox won despite Lamont. He was horrid.
They give those Manager of the Year Awards to anyone, don't they?

Daver
11-04-2003, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
They give those Manager of the Year Awards to anyone, don't they?

They gave one to Manuel.

For going 0-3 in his only playoff appearance.

guillen4life13
11-04-2003, 07:19 PM
Ozzie was a good hiring, and I do support his bunting philosophy. It seems like the majority of the people who bash Guillen forget that he said something to the effect of (I don't remember the exact quote): If they don't perform with runners on, they will bunt.

That might not be exactly what he said, but you get the gist of it.

Face it. Maggs is not a slowpoke. He's fast enough to be able to bunt, and occasionally run it out for the basehit. That's only in a situation that truly calls for it. Last season, he grounded into 20 double plays. Konerko, who grounded into 28 double plays last year, unfortunately is also slow as hell, and can't run out anything. They gotta find a way to get rid of that salary and him as a player. Frank, only grounded into 11 double plays, but as someone said earlier, those were in crucial situations. By the same token, he had a couple of game winning bombs last year. If Frank is slumping, then I don't think it is wrong for Ozzie to have him bunt to get a runner over.

This is also a recurring theme we saw last year which needs to be addressed. Whenever the Sox went on power surges, they were unbeatable. But, once those surges ended, the team went on losing streaks. Face it. The Sox, and the way they play, is very prone to good, and bad streaks. Winning is about consistency. Better to win at a good, consistent clip that gets you on a linear path to 90-95 wins. The way the Sox have been the last 3 years, they have been more like a win-5 by a huge margin, lose 5 by a not so huge margin, but the pitching does a good job to keep the offense in the game. The team knows how to score runs, but it's only in spurts. A 10-1 game counts as just one W in the standings. A 5-3 game has the same worth.

If you look at the good teams, in both the NL and AL, there's a recurring trend. The Twins, for example, know how to play fundamental baseball. They can bunt, they can run, and while the meat of their order isn't so intimidating, it's more than made up for in their other players. It's not uncommon to see the meat of the Twins order drop bunts here and there. Maggs should be able to do that. There's no reason why he shouldn't.


Right now, I think it's only fair to give Ozzie a chance. Kenny has his work cut out for him now. He has quite a few glaring holes right now.

Banix12
11-05-2003, 12:36 AM
I've been thinking a bit. If you look at the available managers out there this year there weren't those exciting guys available like a Lou Pinella or a Dusty Baker. The best you can do with experienced managers were probably Gaston (experienced but not very exciting and there has to be a good reason why a two time world series winner hasn't gotten a job) Mike Hargrove (struggled with orioles, not exactly his fault but he didn't really help much) and Grady Little (don't want to touch that baggage right now). Did we need experience? possibly and we'll find that out soon enough. What we really needed though is some excitement and Ozzie is going to give us some of that. Good or Bad we're going to get some of it. Frankly with the crop of managers being so weak it was not the worst idea to go with a newbie. The risk is so small and if he fails we can get a better manager in the next offseason or the year after when the crop of manager has to be better.

Though i have to say i hope we don't have to look for a new manager anytime soon. That press conference was one of the best by anyone involved with the white sox in years. I hope he manages well so we can get more of them.

crector
11-05-2003, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by Banix12
I've been thinking a bit. If you look at the available managers out there this year there weren't those exciting guys available like a Lou Pinella or a Dusty Baker. The best you can do with experienced managers were probably Gaston (experienced but not very exciting and there has to be a good reason why a two time world series winner hasn't gotten a job) Mike Hargrove (struggled with orioles, not exactly his fault but he didn't really help much) and Grady Little (don't want to touch that baggage right now). Did we need experience? possibly and we'll find that out soon enough. What we really needed though is some excitement and Ozzie is going to give us some of that. Good or Bad we're going to get some of it. Frankly with the crop of managers being so weak it was not the worst idea to go with a newbie. The risk is so small and if he fails we can get a better manager in the next offseason or the year after when the crop of manager has to be better.

Though i have to say i hope we don't have to look for a new manager anytime soon. That press conference was one of the best by anyone involved with the white sox in years. I hope he manages well so we can get more of them.

Dusty Baker aka Mr. Choke is a poor manager.

Sheep like you are so easily satisfied by fluff. No wonder Terry Bevington lasted almost 3 full years as Sox manager.

guillen4life13
11-05-2003, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by crector
Dusty Baker aka Mr. Choke is a poor manager.

Sheep like you are so easily satisfied by fluff. No wonder Terry Bevington lasted almost 3 full years as Sox manager.

I hate the Cubs as much as just about all of you, but you have to admit that Baker and Hendry did very good jobs.

You don't turn a 65 win team into a team that gets as close as the Cubs did to the world series, without doing something right.

Hendry did a marvelous job, and Dusty did very well himself. He choked, but so did the cubs players (aka Mark Prior, who should have been able to rebound after the Steve Bartman fiasco, which only directly caused a WALK).

Banix12
11-06-2003, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by crector
Dusty Baker aka Mr. Choke is a poor manager.

Sheep like you are so easily satisfied by fluff. No wonder Terry Bevington lasted almost 3 full years as Sox manager.



Baker is a good motivator, not a great manager but he can get people to do the job better.

Keep the post civil. No need to call me a sheep and blame me for Terry Bevington. A guy i never thought should be a manager.

I just mean that there were no managers with good playoff experience available this year that really get me excited. I liked the press conference because it was really great to see a guy excited about the white sox who was involved with the white sox management.