PDA

View Full Version : We need an experienced manager


johnny bench
09-26-2004, 10:26 PM
In today's Southtown:



Prior to Saturday night's 5-1 victory over the Royals, the South Siders' rookie manager was asked what the most important thing he learned this season was.



"What I really learned about was running a team and running an organization," Guillen said. "You have to be careful with what you do, what you say and how you act on and off the field.

"You have to have a lot of discipline. People look at you in a different way. There are a lot of expectations."

What's Ozzie telling us?
1. I really don't know how to be a manager. Thanks for giving me the opportunity for OJT. Too bad the team didn't play well, but the players you gave me are no good.
2. I make my own rules, I'm not gonna change and I don't care if I get suspended again for running my mouth.

Dusty may not know how to handle a pitching staff, but he does get the best out of his players. How about Ozzie? Ozzie takes no responsibility for the team's performance. He gets what the players give him and nothing more.

Can anyone make a case that the management change from Manuel to Guillen improved the team's performance by even a single win?

The only upside is that OG will get KW fired at the end of next season.

SEALgep
09-26-2004, 10:28 PM
:threadblows:

DumpJerry
09-26-2004, 10:32 PM
:threadblows:Agreed. We should consolidate all the "blame game" threads into one thread where everyone can vent about their favored villian for the season the wasn't. We can yell about Kenny, Jerry, Ozzie, Joe, Joe, Jose, Willie, Paulie, Juan, the batboy, Roberto, Carl, etc.......as well as defend them.

JB98
09-26-2004, 11:06 PM
All I can tell you is, we went 86-76 last year with a healthy Frank, a healthy Maggs, Colon, a Cy Young-like Loaiza and Gordon in the bullpen. Not to mention the 2003 version of Damaso Marte was the best lefty reliever in the league.

This year, we're 79-76 and likely to finish three or four games worse than last season. BUT, Frank only played 74 games. Maggs played only 53. We lost Colon to FA and didn't acquire a suitable replacement until we got Freddy in June. Loaiza stunk and got traded. Shingo made up for the loss of Flash, but Marte was nowhere near the form he showed last year.

In short, we're not as good as we were last year, yet our record is almost identical. Ozzie has made some mistakes this year, no question, but I'd wager we'd be below .500 if JM were still at the helm. We didn't underachieve this year at all. Certain individuals underachieved, but the team did not, IMO.

dcb33
09-26-2004, 11:18 PM
All I can tell you is, we went 86-76 last year with a healthy Frank, a healthy Maggs, Colon, a Cy Young-like Loaiza and Gordon in the bullpen. Not to mention the 2003 version of Damaso Marte was the best lefty reliever in the league.

This year, we're 79-76 and likely to finish three or four games worse than last season. BUT, Frank only played 74 games. Maggs played only 53. We lost Colon to FA and didn't acquire a suitable replacement until we got Freddy in June. Loaiza stunk and got traded. Shingo made up for the loss of Flash, but Marte was nowhere near the form he showed last year.

In short, we're not as good as we were last year, yet our record is almost identical. Ozzie has made some mistakes this year, no question, but I'd wager we'd be below .500 if JM were still at the helm. We didn't underachieve this year at all. Certain individuals underachieved, but the team did not, IMO.I was gonna say, we now have an experienced manager going into next year so why bother looking for another one?:redneck

If I had started a poll the first week of April asking everyone if we would've finished above .500 without Maggs and without Frank for well over half the season, everyone here would've laughed at me and said "Not in a million years." Most predicted that we'd finish about where we are now without those two, and I can't believe people here are still ready to hang Ozzie and everyone else because we didn't do any better than we did...
If anything losing those two was a blessing becuase it exposed just how bad some of the other guys are on the team while batting... Jose, Crede, etc...

historian
09-26-2004, 11:41 PM
I was gonna say, we now have an experienced manager going into next year so why bother looking for another one?:redneck ...
True, and he's not going anywhere anyway. But I can't help thinking that as far as a majority of players are concerened: Ozzie's team quit on him.


Iif anything losing those two was a blessing becuase it exposed just how bad some of the other guys are on the team while batting... Jose, Crede, etc...
Blessing? :o:

soxnut
09-26-2004, 11:58 PM
I was gonna say, we now have an experienced manager going into next year so why bother looking for another one?:redneck

If I had started a poll the first week of April asking everyone if we would've finished above .500 without Maggs and without Frank for well over half the season, everyone here would've laughed at me and said "Not in a million years." Most predicted that we'd finish about where we are now without those two, and I can't believe people here are still ready to hang Ozzie and everyone else because we didn't do any better than we did...
If anything losing those two was a blessing becuase it exposed just how bad some of the other guys are on the team while batting... Jose, Crede, etc...
I'm with ya!:cool:

dcb33
09-27-2004, 12:12 AM
True, and he's not going anywhere anyway. But I can't help thinking that as far as a majority of players are concerened: Ozzie's team quit on him.I don't think they quit on him as much as we were never that good to begin with. The only reason we were in the hunt as long as we were was becuase of the obscene production we got out of guys like Willie Harris and Juan Uribe at the top of the lineup and out of our top four starters (remember when Buehrle, E-Blo, Garland, and Schoeny all had sub-4.00 ERA's?) the first couple months of the season. When "Peapod" Harris, Uribe, E-Blo, Garland, and Schoeny came back down to Earth, we still managed to keep pace, but things started to get ugly, which was compounded by the loss of Frank and Maggs. I wouldn't believe you if you told me you expected the team to win the division with the guys we have playing now, and I hope you wouldn't be so silly as to tell me that we could've. Let's face it, without Frank and Maggs we're at best a .500 ballclub, and that's where we're gonna finish up for the year. It's not that the team just decided to mail it in, it's just they were never good enough to be a playoff team to begin with.


Blessing? :o:Yes, I do think it's a blessing because it lets us know what our real weakness are since Frank and Maggs weren't around to cover for others by coming up with bombs and hits... Considering Maggs probably won't be back next year and given Frank's age and inability to stay healthy, it's good this happened becuase we now know who on our roster is up to the task of carrying the load without them (Rowand, C.Lee, PK) and who is not (Crede, Jose)

Iguana775
09-27-2004, 07:28 AM
Agreed. We should consolidate all the "blame game" threads into one thread where everyone can vent about their favored villian for the season the wasn't. We can yell about Kenny, Jerry, Ozzie, Joe, Joe, Jose, Willie, Paulie, Juan, the batboy, Roberto, Carl, etc.......as well as defend them.
i blame canada!

historian
09-27-2004, 09:15 AM
I wouldn't believe you if you told me you expected the team to win the division with the guys we have playing now, and I hope you wouldn't be so silly as to tell me that we could've. Let's face it, without Frank and Maggs we're at best a .500 ballclub Hindsight being what it is, you are correct. No I didn't think they could lose their 3 and 4 hitters and win the division. But, considering they were in first place at the time, I expected them to hang tough at least through August. Instead they had a good week after the Cubs swept them outta first, got back in, and then fell off a cliff.

And talk about weakness exposed. Lee and Paulie would be a great 5 and 6 combo for a chaimpionship team, but........

Etownsox13
09-27-2004, 10:19 AM
In today's Southtown:



Prior to Saturday night's 5-1 victory over the Royals, the South Siders' rookie manager was asked what the most important thing he learned this season was.



"What I really learned about was running a team and running an organization," Guillen said. "You have to be careful with what you do, what you say and how you act on and off the field.

"You have to have a lot of discipline. People look at you in a different way. There are a lot of expectations."

What's Ozzie telling us?
1. I really don't know how to be a manager. Thanks for giving me the opportunity for OJT. Too bad the team didn't play well, but the players you gave me are no good.
2. I make my own rules, I'm not gonna change and I don't care if I get suspended again for running my mouth.

Dusty may not know how to handle a pitching staff, but he does get the best out of his players. How about Ozzie? Ozzie takes no responsibility for the team's performance. He gets what the players give him and nothing more.

Can anyone make a case that the management change from Manuel to Guillen improved the team's performance by even a single win?

The only upside is that OG will get KW fired at the end of next season.


Yeah, Bring Back Jerry Manuel

infohawk
09-27-2004, 11:41 AM
I don't think they quit on him as much as we were never that good to begin with. Couldn't be stated more appropriately. I would qualify the statement by adding that the Sox have a "good" team in the sense that they don't flat out suck (i.e. Royals, Mariners or other teams that might not even finish above .500), but clearly nothing resembling a playoff-caliber team. Finishing up around .500 after playing much of the season without Frank or Magglio reflects somewhat well on the team, but is still unacceptable. This team, however, was limited from the start. Realistically, the 2004 Sox were built to be a slightly better than average team and in my opinion simply reached expectations. My critique against management is that it took four years to conclude that the composition of the team is flawed. I sincerely believe that the sum of this team is worth less than the individual parts.

I find some of Ozzie's comments interesting. In reference to the upcoming Sox organizational meetings, Ozzie has stated that this year he will do a lot of the talking and people will listen to him. Further comments made by Ozzie leave the distinct impression that he believes he was fed a great deal of hype during last year's organizational meetings about the quality of some of the players at both the major league and minor league levels. I read into the comments that Ozzie is particularly upset regarding the way some of the minor leaguer's abilities were hyped to him by the Sox minor league evaluators (think Borchard, Diaz, Garland and Rauch). Being the new guy, Ozzie had no other recourse but to believe them. He has now had the opportunity to witness first-hand what some of these players actually can and cannot do.

I think there is another interesting storyline that hasn't really been covered or discussed. I believe that Ozzie thinks that the Sox organization does a poor job of evaluating talent and will attempt to gain more influence over personnel decisions. Isn't it intriguing that Ozzie seems to be high on some of the players that the Sox organization considers back-up or role players (Burke, Gload, Valdez, Grilli and Uribe) but very critical of some players the Sox organization favors? Again, think about what Ozzie has said about Borchard and Crede. I think that the organization has always believed that Rowand would be a starting outfielder, but he was never hyped like Borchard. It now appears that Rowand will exceed expectations and Borchard may never meet expectations. I may be mistaken, but I also don't remember hearing much about Ordonez or Lee when they were in the minors. I'll conclude by saying that I think Ozzie will have a greater role in shaping the roster and I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing.

pudge
09-27-2004, 11:54 AM
I may be mistaken, but I also don't remember hearing much about Ordonez or Lee when they were in the minors. I'll conclude by saying that I think Ozzie will have a greater role in shaping the roster and I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing.
Infohawk, your entire post was outstanding, you should consider doing some columns for the homepage...

Although, I disagree about Maggs and Lee -- Carlos was pretty well hyped even when he was at Double-A IIRC. Maggs flew under the radar for a while until he won a minor league batting title. True, neither of them received the hype that Borchard got. But I also remember Rowand getting a lot of hype when he was traded for out of the Atlanta organization.

Lip Man 1
09-27-2004, 05:14 PM
There's a story making the rounds that after about a week of spring training Ozzie supposedly told some of his staff that the 2004 Sox were the 'worst' defensive team he had ever seen in all his years in baseball.

He meant not only in catching the ball but in doing things like hitting the cut off man, throwing to the correct base, executing run downs and so forth.

Lip

Wealz
09-27-2004, 05:31 PM
There's a story making the rounds that after about a week of spring training Ozzie supposedly told some of his staff that the 2004 Sox were the 'worst' defensive team he had ever seen in all his years in baseball.

He meant not only in catching the ball but in doing things like hitting the cut off man, throwing to the correct base, executing run downs and so forth.

Lip
The Sox defense is terrible at preventing home runs too.

dcb33
09-27-2004, 06:37 PM
Hindsight being what it is, you are correct. No I didn't think they could lose their 3 and 4 hitters and win the division. But, considering they were in first place at the time, I expected them to hang tough at least through August. Instead they had a good week after the Cubs swept them outta first, got back in, and then fell off a cliff.

And talk about weakness exposed. Lee and Paulie would be a great 5 and 6 combo for a chaimpionship team, but........
It's not exactly hindsight either. Everyone I know including myself had us pegged to finish around where we were last year, somewhere between 79-87 wins. It's unfortunate that our early season success didn't translate into a Division Crown, but to say that it was totally out of line and that management needs to be fired because the players seemed to have quit down the stretch because we weren't able to keep winning is a big stretch...

Daver
09-27-2004, 06:49 PM
I hated the hiring of Ozzie when he was hired, he has done absolutely nothing to change my opinion. Even if he was given the type of players he wants he wouldn't be able to manage them, the only reason he managed to win as much as he did, DESPITE his manging, is because his power hitting lineup pounded the ball all over the place for the first third of the season, without that lineup the Sox would be battling KC for last place.

balke
09-27-2004, 08:00 PM
I hated the hiring of Ozzie when he was hired, he has done absolutely nothing to change my opinion. Even if he was given the type of players he wants he wouldn't be able to manage them, the only reason he managed to win as much as he did, DESPITE his manging, is because his power hitting lineup pounded the ball all over the place for the first third of the season, without that lineup the Sox would be battling KC for last place.
True. With small ball comes managing a pitching staff. It's one thing to teach 9 guys to play the field like Ozzie Guillen would, it's another to handle a pitching staff. There's been countless times this season Ozzie has left guys in too long, failed to make a coaching visit, or made bad bullpen calls. 4-man being called as early as it was... though a near necessity, was a disaster.

He's staying I guess, but I have no faith in him. There's a # of managerial skills that good manager's have, that Ozzie lacks. A team of "his players" won't make up for that.

A. Cavatica
09-27-2004, 08:41 PM
But I also remember Rowand getting a lot of hype when he was traded for out of the Atlanta organization.
Um, we drafted Rowand. First round or sandwich round -- I think it may have been the same draft as Parque & Dellaero.

OurBitchinMinny
09-28-2004, 01:10 AM
ozzie = an ok third base coach


they should have gone after hargrove in the offseason. or anyone. ozzie better show a ton of improvement. Aside from injuries and an awful awful bullpen, ozzie was the chief reason this team sucked so bad. And his managing was part of the reason the pen sucked so bad

bartmanisgod
09-28-2004, 02:37 AM
sorry guys but you can't make Chicken Salad out of Chicken $**T.... No chance in hell is this season Ozzie's fault. Before the All Star Break people were talking Manager of the year!

balke
09-28-2004, 08:58 AM
I wouldn't go so far to blame the season on the guy, but manager of the year he NEVER was. Harold Reynolds said that once on BBTN, and they about laughed him off the set. There was an uncomfortable silence, and Gammons just staring at him like "are you a moron"?


But yeah. Ozzie is about as bad as Manuel, overall I think we upgraded, but that's not saying much. If ozzie's style is to change the lineup card everyday, talk smack to his pitchers in the media, and get himself suspended over stupid crap.... that's fine. Lot's of Managers are guilty of 2 out of 3 of those.

As a "rookie" this was a subpar season for him. Hopefully he at least calls out people EARLY in the season (not pre-season) and limits his mouth in the media. I'm also praying for a more consistant lineup card. We were about 2 weeks away from Thomas batting lead-off before his injury.

johnny bench
09-28-2004, 08:01 PM
If I had started a poll the first week of April asking everyone if we would've finished above .500 without Maggs and without Frank for well over half the season, everyone here would've laughed at me and said "Not in a million years." Most predicted that we'd finish about where we are now without those two, and I can't believe people here are still ready to hang Ozzie and everyone else because we didn't do any better than we did...
If anything losing those two was a blessing becuase it exposed just how bad some of the other guys are on the team while batting... Jose, Crede, etc...Excusing the loss of this season due to the injuries to Maggs and Frank doesn't make sense.

As of 9/28 the Sox have 6 more games to play this season. Did you know that with six games left in the season, in comparison to last year's full season, this years team has:
more runs, more home runs, better BA, better OBP, better OPS,
even without Frank and Maggs.

Sure i'd rather have Maggs and Frank than for them to be on IR. The point is that the 2004 White Sox hit well enough to make the playoffs.

Where this years team has failed is pitching. Why isn't Ozzie held accountable for:
Koch regressed.
Marte regressed.
Schoenweiss experiment was a failure.
Freddy Garcia regressed from Seattle performance
Contreras regressed from NY performance (wait a minute I thought you were going to fix that mechanical flaw?)
Not to mention Loiza and Mike Jackson.

Do you want me to believe that this was Cooper's problem? No way.

And now Ozzie wants to rebuild the team around the solid core of pitching? Make me laugh. If his buddies Contreras and Garcia continue their losing ways you can count on 2005 looking a lot like 2004. Ozzie has shown NO ability in getting his pitchers to perform to standard.

C'mon Ozzie fans. Who has Ozzie made a better player this year????

johnny bench
09-28-2004, 08:07 PM
Ozzieball is an attitudeNo. You are incorrect.

Ozzie ball is 18, no make that 19 more caught stealing this year than last for the same number of stolen bases.

On a team that hits 230 HOMERUNS! How difficult is it to figure this part out?

JB98
09-28-2004, 09:05 PM
Excusing the loss of this season due to the injuries to Maggs and Frank doesn't make sense.

As of 9/28 the Sox have 6 more games to play this season. Did you know that with six games left in the season, in comparison to last year's full season, this years team has:
more runs, more home runs, better BA, better OBP, better OPS,
even without Frank and Maggs.

Sure i'd rather have Maggs and Frank than for them to be on IR. The point is that the 2004 White Sox hit well enough to make the playoffs.

Where this years team has failed is pitching. Why isn't Ozzie held accountable for:
Koch regressed.
Marte regressed.
Schoenweiss experiment was a failure.
Freddy Garcia regressed from Seattle performance
Contreras regressed from NY performance (wait a minute I thought you were going to fix that mechanical flaw?)
Not to mention Loiza and Mike Jackson.

Do you want me to believe that this was Cooper's problem? No way.

And now Ozzie wants to rebuild the team around the solid core of pitching? Make me laugh. If his buddies Contreras and Garcia continue their losing ways you can count on 2005 looking a lot like 2004. Ozzie has shown NO ability in getting his pitchers to perform to standard.

C'mon Ozzie fans. Who has Ozzie made a better player this year????

I think Garcia's record in a Sox uniform is 8-4. Hopefully, he continues his "losing ways" for the remainder of his contract. If he has a .667 winning percentage for the next three years, he'll be worth every penny of that $27 million. Yeah, he has a higher ERA with the Sox than with Seattle. Simply put, Safeco Field is pitchers' paradise. USCF is hitters' paradise.

You're going to have to explain to me how Cooper is without blame for the woes of the pitching staff. Maybe it's not all his fault, but how can you absolve him of responsibility and place it all on Guillen's shoulders?

Also, Juan Uribe is a better player this year. I think Ozzie and Cora might have something to do with that.