PDA

View Full Version : Manuel


South Side
04-15-2004, 07:56 PM
Has JM made on comments since the season began? I'd be interested to hear what he has to say.

MRKARNO
04-15-2004, 07:59 PM
I dont think he's woken up yet from last season.

Geeterman1
04-15-2004, 08:01 PM
He was awake last year?

RKMeibalane
04-15-2004, 09:42 PM
To be honest, I really don't care what that idiot thinks. He was the main reason why the Sox didn't reach the post-season in 2003, and considering how badly he managed this team, I don't think he's the best person to ask when it comes to talking about what has made the team successful so far this season.

TornLabrum
04-15-2004, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
To be honest, I really don't care what that idiot thinks. He was the main reason why the Sox didn't reach the post-season in 2003, and considering how badly he managed this team, I don't think he's the best person to ask when it comes to talking about what has made the team successful so far this season.

He probably thinks Ozzie just got lucky so far.

:jerry

"Well...ah...what I did and...ah...what he hasn't...ah...done is...ah...experimented with...ah...trying out different...ah...lineups to...ah...find a...uh...winning...ah...combination. Let's...ah...see how he...ah...does in the second...ah...half. I...ah...had that down cold."

ASUSOXGRL
04-15-2004, 11:18 PM
i'm sure jerry the wizard will come up with something brilliant to say about this season.......

A. Cavatica
04-15-2004, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
He probably thinks Ozzie just got lucky so far.

Don't take this the wrong way -- I wanted Manuel fired ever since 2001 -- but who's to say that Ozzie hasn't gotten lucky? Almost every team will go 6-3 at some point in a season.

I'll give Ozzie (and Sox management) some credit. He was hired to bring some passion back to the team, and that's working out. Furthermore, Ozzie hasn't yet cost us a game with his decisions (though I am worried about the reckless baserunning, and the willingness to bat Valentin second against lefties). But judging the Ozzie Guillen experiment a success after nine games is foolish.

Fact is, just about any replacement manager could've gotten this team to play with enthusiasm for a month. They want to impress their new boss, and they also feel that a weight has been lifted from their shoulders. (Remember how the team played after the Navarro/Snyder/ Valentin/Eldred trade?)

Let's see where they are after 40 games. If they're 24-16, I'm climbing on the bandwagon. If they're 16-24, we'll all be calling for Ozzie's head on a platter.

(Note: the 1983 Sox started 16-24, then "caught lightning in a bottle" and ended up with 99 wins. Because I don't want to depend on catching lightning in a bottle again, I've made 24-16 my benchmark for "a good start to the season".)

stillz
04-16-2004, 12:05 AM
24-16 would be nice. I think the manager, starting pitching, offense and bullpen minus the frightening lapses will be able to do that. And it's true, some of the base-running decisions have been goofy. It 's going to be interesting with Ozzie.

Jerry will probably be back in the game next year. He made some deplorable moves the last few seasons, but has solid baseball credentials.

JohnBasedowYoda
04-16-2004, 12:16 AM
where is jerry anyway? is he out destroying some other poor teams hopes and desires?

TDog
04-16-2004, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by ASUSOXGRL
i'm sure jerry the wizard will come up with something brilliant to say about this season.......

Wednesday night I would have expected him to say he was happy for the Sox because they didn't even have to win Thursday.

Nard
04-16-2004, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by JohnBasedowYoda
where is jerry anyway? is he out destroying some other poor teams hopes and desires?

I'll betcha he's wearing those hotel doorman duds.

mweflen
04-16-2004, 01:03 AM
I don't see where all the virulent Jerry-hatred comes from.

I mean, he was a dud as a manager, to be sure. The Cotts fiasco cinched it for me, and the station-to-station stuff, lineup fiddling, etc. was the pits.

But Ghandi seemed like a classy guy.

So let him do his thing (for the Reds, if I remember correctly) and let's just enjoy the fact that we have a lively, entertaining, and so far very lucky new manager.

OurBitchinMinny
04-16-2004, 01:07 AM
He was a hell of a nice guy and had some good seasons. He just wasnt intense enough. I wish him well in whatever he does. I happy with ozzie so far. I wanted them to go after hargrove, but ozzie is looking good

Jurr
04-16-2004, 05:36 AM
I don't think the Ozzie thing is luck. Baseball is the most mental game there is because each at bat is a one-man mental game. Loss of focus (or thinking too much) can really screw a player's approach up. If a manager can keep his players' mentalities on an even keel, while also making sure he can keep them confident, you're going to succeed. Also, a point Hawk makes that is very valid, is the fact that he's Latino. He can relate to every one of his players. The American born players can relate to him because he was a 15 year veteran in the league and he holds a lot of respect around baseball as a hustler. The latin players have always had a little clique formed up within themselves due to primarily language barriers.
I read an article in SI a few years ago where Vladimir Guererro was featured. It said that Vlad doesn't talk to the media much because he doesn't feel that he can freely communicate with them. The article was done by a hispanic writer, and he said the whole world opened up. Vlad was very happy to talk to a latin writer, as were all of the other latin players.
Ozzie can relate to everybody on the field, can push all of their buttons, and that little mental edge can really help a ballclub out. All the time in the past few years I'd hear the Sox club house described as being "cliquish" and not unified. I think that by un-doing that, you see more of a combined resposibility by the players, where they are being accountable for one another and more willing to pick one another up. Ozzie will be great for that, and that kind of thing can win you a lot of games if you've got the talent we have.

inta
04-16-2004, 06:15 AM
I would say Ozzie is "lucky" in so much as he's actually put some fire to this teams a$$ and actually gotten them to play the way they should.
lets face it, this team is certainly not overachieving. they're doing what they should have been doin all along. and i'm completely happy with that.

as far as JM... i too blame him for our failures last year. it's been discussed to death on this forum but i can vividly remember 4-6 losses last yeardue to JM's stupidity (and that's just me).... and how many games out of first were we by years end?

whatever, he's a great guy and he definitely tried to speak to us sox fans. but just wasnt the right fit. i wasnt a huge ozzie fan when it was announced but so far he's hitting all the right buttons.

mweflen
04-16-2004, 12:28 PM
That's what I'm saying. He wasn't the right fit. But he wasn't exactly Terry Bevington or anything.

I'm over it, personally, and don't see the need to continue griping about him. I wish him well, even though I'm glad he's gone.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-16-2004, 12:38 PM
I liked Jerry Manuel and actually considered him a fine manager long after many others had written him off as a dope. I still have a tape of me gushing about Jerry on the radio and TV shortly after he won the 2000 A.L. manager of the year award. It's only with 20/20 hindsight that I now realize how truly mistakened I was.

Jerry Manuel was a decent and honest man, and perhaps an inspiration for his players and others who knew him in baseball. There aren't enough of these types in professional sports, the jerks like Barry Bonds being far closer to the norm we've come to know and loathe. However as a manager, Manuel was terrible. His judgment was clouded by silly things that should have worked themselves out over time, but instead got worse through his own stubborn temperament.

He actually *regressed* as a manager his last 3 years here. In fact he was a better rookie manager in 1998 than he was a 5-year veteran manager in 2003. At first he managed to fool his ballplayers, and me too. He lost them sometime mid-summer in 2001 and they left him for dead sometime in 2002. If Sox management weren't so cheap, timid, and stupid, he would never have lasted six full seasons.

Hey, where have I heard that "cheap, timid, and stupid" bit before?

:)

Baby Fisk
04-16-2004, 12:38 PM
:jerry

"Welcome to Wal-Mart! You'll notice that I moved the ladies section to the back near the auto shop and adult diapers are now in the first aisle. I moved the toys out back into the rear parking lot and mens' underwear has taken that spot for today. Tomorrow I think I'll try toiletries there and see how it works out. You can't see any cashiers? Don't worry, it's a long store, you'll find them somewhere."

:hawk

"Mercy! I'm just lookin for some lip balm!"

:jerry

"That's aisle 4... I put it between the pet food and glassware for today."

RKMeibalane
04-16-2004, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Baby Fisk
:jerry

"Welcome to Wal-Mart! You'll notice that I moved the ladies section to the back near the auto shop and adult diapers are now in the first aisle. I moved the toys out back into the rear parking lot and mens' underwear has taken that spot for today. Tomorrow I think I'll try toiletries there and see how it works out. You can't see any cashiers? Don't worry, it's a long store, you'll find them somewhere."

:hawk

"Mercy! I'm just lookin for some lip balm!"

:jerry

"That's aisle 4... I put it between the pet food and glassware for today."

LMAO!

wolcott10
04-16-2004, 01:07 PM
Is Manuel still getting paid by the Sox? I thought that when he was fired, he still had a one year left on his contract. I'm not quite sure.

RKMeibalane
04-16-2004, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by wolcott10
Is Manuel still getting paid by the Sox? I thought that when he was fired, he still had a one year left on his contract. I'm not quite sure.

That is correct.

TornLabrum
04-16-2004, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by ChisoxfaninMinny
He was a hell of a nice guy and had some good seasons.

Correction: He had ONE good season.

Mohoney
04-16-2004, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by A. Cavatica
Don't take this the wrong way -- I wanted Manuel fired ever since 2001 -- but who's to say that Ozzie hasn't gotten lucky? Almost every team will go 6-3 at some point in a season.

I'll give Ozzie (and Sox management) some credit. He was hired to bring some passion back to the team, and that's working out. Furthermore, Ozzie hasn't yet cost us a game with his decisions (though I am worried about the reckless baserunning, and the willingness to bat Valentin second against lefties). But judging the Ozzie Guillen experiment a success after nine games is foolish.

Fact is, just about any replacement manager could've gotten this team to play with enthusiasm for a month. They want to impress their new boss, and they also feel that a weight has been lifted from their shoulders. (Remember how the team played after the Navarro/Snyder/ Valentin/Eldred trade?)

Let's see where they are after 40 games. If they're 24-16, I'm climbing on the bandwagon. If they're 16-24, we'll all be calling for Ozzie's head on a platter.

(Note: the 1983 Sox started 16-24, then "caught lightning in a bottle" and ended up with 99 wins. Because I don't want to depend on catching lightning in a bottle again, I've made 24-16 my benchmark for "a good start to the season".)

My benchmark is the standings. 22-18 works for me if they're in 1st place by 2 or 3 games, and in this division, 22-18 through your first 40 games just might have you in 1st place.

Of course, 24 or 25 wins would also be nice, but not if somebody else has 28 wins, which is also possible.

I guess my point is, that we have to wait and see the caliber of ball that the rest of the Central plays.

crector
04-16-2004, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Correction: He had ONE good season.


Wrong. JM had FOUR good seasons as Sox manager, 2000-2003.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-16-2004, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by crector
Wrong. JM had FOUR good seasons as Sox manager, 2000-2003.

Okay, you're joking right?

TornLabrum
04-17-2004, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Okay, you're joking right?

2000: 95-67 = Good
2001: 83-79 = Mediocre
2002: 81-81 = Definitely NOT Good: .500 = definition of mediocrity
2003: 86-76 Fair, but 2 games worse than the Cubs for Crhissakes.

Some people's definition of "good" stretches credibility beyond all recognition.