PDA

View Full Version : Reinsdorf deferred to Manuel


SOX ADDICT '73
03-05-2005, 04:59 PM
This may have been discussed before (I don't know how old the sound clip was), but J Hood played part of a JR interview today on WSCR. The Chairman basically said that he never liked the power-based teams of the last few years, but that was the type of team Jerry Manuel wanted to manage, "and you have to give the manager what he wants."

J Hood ripped into Reinsdorf a bit, saying that JR was just trying to push some of the blame onto Manuel, and "if you own the team, why don't you put the players you want on the field."

I disagree with this, and not just because it sounds too much like the way Steinbrenner runs the Yankees. I firmly believe that, as much as the players dictate what happens on the field, the manager plays an even bigger role with the decisions he makes. When an owner in any sport hires a manager or head coach, he is placing his trust in that person to run a successful program. If JR had confidence that Manuel was the right man for the job, and a power-based team is what Manuel wanted, then JR was right to sign those players. If you're going to fault Reinsdorf on anything, it's that he trusted Manuel to know what he was doing.

Cubbiesuck13
03-05-2005, 05:24 PM
To me, managing a power hitting team is much safer than a situational hitting team. The blame can be put more squarly on the shoulders of the players. If this team has to produce runs by stealing, bunting and the like then some blame can be put on the Oz for not calling the right play. No one blames the manager because someone hit it to the warning track.

Wasn't Manuel a coach under Felipe Alou? Isn't Alou a situational manager? I would think Manuel would be a more of a situational manager; it kind of seemed like he was but didn't have the players... haha...

Ol' No. 2
03-05-2005, 05:43 PM
To me, managing a power hitting team is much safer than a situational hitting team. The blame can be put more squarly on the shoulders of the players. If this team has to produce runs by stealing, bunting and the like then some blame can be put on the Oz for not calling the right play. No one blames the manager because someone hit it to the warning track.

Wasn't Manuel a coach under Felipe Alou? Isn't Alou a situational manager? I would think Manuel would be a more of a situational manager; it kind of seemed like he was but didn't have the players... haha...If you recall when JM was first hired he said he was going to play small-ball. But I think you hit the nail on the head. Putting together a power hitting team is a safe bet. If they don't hit, just fire the hitting coach.

owensmouth
03-05-2005, 05:57 PM
If you recall when JM was first hired he said he was going to play small-ball. But I think you hit the nail on the head. Putting together a power hitting team is a safe bet. If they don't hit, just fire the hitting coach.

Also remember, the first year JM was the manager, the Sox won the division. As far as hitting goes, that team was the best that I remember for moving the runners around. It was a lot more than just a power hitting team.

They would, as Farmio would say "keep the line moving".

RKMeibalane
03-05-2005, 05:58 PM
If you recall when JM was first hired he said he was going to play small-ball. But I think you hit the nail on the head. Putting together a power hitting team is a safe bet. If they don't hit, just fire the hitting coach.

Agreed. I think Manuel wanted to play small-ball when he first took the job, but then he quickly realized that he was in over his head as a Major League manager, and so he decided to go another route in order to avoid having to actually do anything. Of course, we know that didn't happen, as he spent the last two seasons of his tenure tinkering with the lineup and yanking players' chains.

RKMeibalane
03-05-2005, 05:59 PM
Also remember, the first year JM was the manager, the Sox won the division. As far as hitting goes, that team was the best that I remember for moving the runners around. It was a lot more than just a power hitting team.

They would, as Farmio would say "keep the line moving".

Actually, the Sox finished 80-82 during JM's first year (1998). They were still two seasons away from winning the division.

Ol' No. 2
03-05-2005, 06:02 PM
Agreed. I think Manuel wanted to play small-ball when he first took the job, but then he quickly realized that he was in over his head as a Major League manager, and so he decided to go another route in order to avoid having to actually do anything. Of course, we know that didn't happen, as he spent the last two seasons of his tenure tinkering with the lineup and yanking players' chains.The thing that Manuel was missing was leadership. It's easy to let them play "whack the potato over the wall". That's what players like to do. Playing small ball involves sacrificing your own personal glory for the good of the team. It takes leadership to get the players to buy into the concept. It looks like Ozzie has it. JM didn't.

owensmouth
03-05-2005, 06:02 PM
Actually, the Sox finished 80-82 during JM's first year (1998). They were still two seasons away from winning the division.

You're right, I stand corrected.

RKMeibalane
03-05-2005, 06:05 PM
The thing that Manuel was missing was leadership. It's easy to let them play "whack the potato over the wall". That's what players like to do. Playing small ball involves sacrificing your own personal glory for the good of the team. It takes leadership to get the players to buy into the concept. It looks like Ozzie has it. JM didn't.

I agree. More than anything, I think Manuel lacked people skills. He was a nice guy, but he didn't understand how to deal with players. We saw evidence of this every time he talked about Frank Thomas. We also saw it when he allowed Cotts to pitch at Yankee Stadium in August, 2003. He just didn't understand that a manager has to communicate effectively with his players, so that each player on the team understands his role. During the final two seasons he was around, it seemed as though no one knew what his exact responsibility was. Everything was a guessing game with Manuel. Ozzie, on the other hand, seems to have defined roles clearly.

owensmouth
03-05-2005, 06:05 PM
The thing that Manuel was missing was leadership. It's easy to let them play "whack the potato over the wall". That's what players like to do. Playing small ball involves sacrificing your own personal glory for the good of the team. It takes leadership to get the players to buy into the concept. It looks like Ozzie has it. JM didn't.

Manuel drove me nuts with his 'we'll get them tomorrow, it's a long season junk, what he didn't have after 2001 was a pitching staff. He lost everyone in a period of a year.

RKMeibalane
03-05-2005, 06:09 PM
Manuel drove me nuts with his 'we'll get them tomorrow, it's a long season junk, what he didn't have after 2001 was a pitching staff. He lost everyone in a period of a year.

He also drove people crazy with the nonsense he kept spewing out during 2002-03. Every day, it was something new.

:jerry

"Aaron went to school near here, so he gets to play tonight."

:jerry

"I can't imagine any reason short of an emergency for playing Frank at first base."

:jerry

"I've benched Royce Clayton until further notice."

Two days later...

:jerry

"I wanted to get Royce back out there against NL pitching."

The overwhelming majority of what he said and did was complete, utter nonsense. It made no sense to anyone on this message board, and I imagine that things were ten times worse inside the Sox clubhouse. As fans, we only had to listen to what he said in front of the media. The players had to put up with his bull**** every second of every day he was around. I'm surprised some of them didn't lose their sanity after playing for him.

infohawk
03-05-2005, 06:20 PM
Agreed. I think Manuel wanted to play small-ball when he first took the job, but then he quickly realized that he was in over his head as a Major League manager, and so he decided to go another route in order to avoid having to actually do anything. Of course, we know that didn't happen, as he spent the last two seasons of his tenure tinkering with the lineup and yanking players' chains.

I think he probably wanted to play smallball originally, but developed qualms about whether it would work in the American League. Remember, he did come from a National League background.

Isn't it interesting that the Sox constructed a team built around power hitters when their chief division rival toward the beginning of the Manual era were the Indians -- a power-hitting team -- but now the Sox are building around pitching, defense and speed? In other words, the Twins style of play. Hmmmmmmm?

Fake Chet Lemon
03-05-2005, 11:44 PM
J Hood ripped into Reinsdorf a bit, saying that JR was just trying to push some of the blame onto Manuel, and "if you own the team, why don't you put the players you want on the field."

I disagree with this, .


I agree with you. Successful organizations hire good managers and let them do their job. The business owner who hires managers, then micromanages them is usually doomed. But you need to hire good managers. I really wish Kenny would level with us fans some day and tell us why he thought Manuel was one of the best 30 managers in the world. The rest of the baseball world won't even give him a 3rd base job, and I agree with them.

SOX ADDICT '73
03-05-2005, 11:54 PM
:hijacked:
Sorry guys, but I never intended this thread to turn into a forum for airing grievances against Jerry Manuel (deserved as they may be). My original question dealt with who should have the right to decide the makeup of a team. Do you want a George Steinbrenner-type owner, who acts like a rich kid taking the best toys out of other kids' toy boxes? Or do you believe/agree with the quote by JR, that the manager should be given the players he wants?

MUsoxfan
03-06-2005, 12:18 AM
:hijacked:
Sorry guys, but I never intended this thread to turn into a forum for airing grievances against Jerry Manuel (deserved as they may be). My original question dealt with who should have the right to decide the makeup of a team. Do you want a George Steinbrenner-type owner, who acts like a rich kid taking the best toys out of other kids' toy boxes? Or do you believe/agree with the quote by JR, that the manager should be given the players he wants?

The owner should have a healthy combination of those traits. IMO, Steinbrenner has the right idea. He wants to win and he'll do anything it takes to win. Anything being $$. We would ALL love it if King George was the owner of the Sox. But, owners can't always put together an all-star team and expect it to work out. Owners can't buy a player and expect him to have complete chemistry with the team and be a healthy fit into a team's concept. Most owners don't know anything about the x's and o's so to speak of baseball, they're just the finances. So I believe that JR was right to give Manuel the players he wanted, and Ozzie the players he wants this year. JR delivered and now it's time for Ozzie to deliver

FightingBillini
03-06-2005, 03:02 AM
The best example of this is Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys. He is the man who chased Tom Landry and Jimmy Johnson out of Dallas. He is working on driving Parcells out, whether he knows it or not. He has had some great coaches during his tenture. When he lets them make their own decision, the teams do good. When he takes things into his own hands, the team fails, and he pisses off the coach. The owner has the responsibility to get the manager the talent he wants, or at least the best possible talent he can work with. You have to leave well enough alone and get the manager players he wants in most cases. There are times when owners must say no, such as when they want a live wire, or they want to trade for someone in a horrible contract. The owner entrusts the manager with the team, he must also entrust him with the type of ball the team plays, and the players needed to play that ball. And if it doesn't work, you can always fire the coach.

Mohoney
03-06-2005, 03:28 AM
The Chairman basically said that he never liked the power-based teams of the last few years, but that was the type of team Jerry Manuel wanted to manage, "and you have to give the manager what he wants."

I was never a fan of Reinsdorf in the past, but this offseason has completely changed my mind. He gave Kenny the go-ahead to add Hermanson, A.J., El Duque, Dye, and Iguchi via free agency, and I feel that the fact that we were bona fide players in the free agent market and added significant talent in this venue will win us the division this year.

What exactly have the Twins done this offseason to make everybody think that they are untouchable? Name one significant free agent that they have brought in. They re-signed Radke and worked out an extension with Santana, and that's about it. They did nothing except keep the people that they already had, lose Guzman and Koskie, and everybody is ready to call them the next Atlanta Braves.

Cubbiesuck13
03-06-2005, 04:25 AM
I was never a fan of Reinsdorf in the past, but this offseason has completely changed my mind. He gave Kenny the go-ahead to add Hermanson, A.J., El Duque, Dye, and Iguchi via free agency, and I feel that the fact that we were bona fide players in the free agent market and added significant talent in this venue will win us the division this year.

How much did Reinsdorf factor in getting those guys? He salary dumped Lee to free up money to get those guys. It seems like JR said ok to a bit more money but not enough to aquire those guys without getting rid of PK or CL. The payroll is higher so I guess I can see giving him credit for that but not for getting all those guys. In my mind they were part of the Lee trade because we would have never talked to them if we had his contract.

Cubbiesuck13
03-06-2005, 07:25 AM
I have been reading this off-season that this is Frank's last year. It seems all the experts are saying the Sox will buy out his contract rather than using the option for around $10 mil. One has suggested that the Sox make a new deal before this one ends like they did in the past. I hope they do, I would hate to see Big Frank in any other uniform. It will go a long way if they keep Frank for whatever the cost is. Time will tell just how JR has changed over the last few years.

Tragg
03-06-2005, 09:59 AM
Personally, I think the GENERAL Manager should field the team HE wants, and find the players and the field manager to fit the mold.
Field managers are ridiculously expendable (with some exceptions like LaRussa, Pinella, and Torre now) and letting them decide the personnel and type of play is as ridiculous as the owner deciding that.

If Reinsdorf really likes small ball, then it's a long time coming - his 2 best runs had the same formula: power and starting pitching. (Luzinski, Kittle were assuredly not small ball players). And his 21st century teams had the power aspect.

Ol' No. 2
03-06-2005, 10:48 AM
The owner should have a healthy combination of those traits. IMO, Steinbrenner has the right idea. He wants to win and he'll do anything it takes to win. Anything being $$. We would ALL love it if King George was the owner of the Sox. But, owners can't always put together an all-star team and expect it to work out. Owners can't buy a player and expect him to have complete chemistry with the team and be a healthy fit into a team's concept. Most owners don't know anything about the x's and o's so to speak of baseball, they're just the finances. So I believe that JR was right to give Manuel the players he wanted, and Ozzie the players he wants this year. JR delivered and now it's time for Ozzie to deliverI, for one, would HATE it if the Sox had an owner like Steinbrenner. Don't kid yourself...Steinbrenner isn't spending his own money. He can spend because they have the revenues to do it. If he owned the Sox he wouldn't be spending any more than JR. And he'd probably screw things up more than anything else.

The first rule of management is to hire good people. The second is to stay out of their way.

SpammySosa
03-06-2005, 10:55 AM
How much did Reinsdorf factor in getting those guys? He salary dumped Lee to free up money to get those guys. It seems like JR said ok to a bit more money but not enough to aquire those guys without getting rid of PK or CL. The payroll is higher so I guess I can see giving him credit for that but not for getting all those guys. In my mind they were part of the Lee trade because we would have never talked to them if we had his contract.

Not to beat a dead horse,but imagine what kind of salary dumping he would have done if MoneyBag$ Magglio would have re-signed with the Sox.In retrospect,Magglio's greediness might have been the best thing to happen to this team in the offseason.

Ol' No. 2
03-06-2005, 11:03 AM
Not to beat a dead horse,but imagine what kind of salary dumping he would have done if MoneyBag$ Magglio would have re-signed with the Sox.In retrospect,Magglio's greediness might have been the best thing to happen to this team in the offseason.For all that's been said about the whole Magglio fiasco, I think KW was relieved when he didn't accept the Sox' offer. I think Kenny understood that he could do a lot better spreading the money over 2-3 players than spending a fifth of the payroll on one player. If they had re-signed Ordonez, I think the team overall would have been worse as a result.

Lip Man 1
03-06-2005, 12:46 PM
No. 2 says:

"I, for one, would HATE it if the Sox had an owner like Steinbrenner. Don't kid yourself...Steinbrenner isn't spending his own money. He can spend because they have the revenues to do it. If he owned the Sox he wouldn't be spending any more than JR. And he'd probably screw things up more than anything else."

:rolleyes:

And you know that for a fact how? Given the man's compiditive, winner take all, attitude. Personally I'd love for Sox fans to have a chance to see what might happen if they had an owner like George. We've had 25 years of knowing what has happened under current ownership haven't we? Basically nothing.

As far as 'screwing things up,' how could he do any worse then be an organizer (according to Fay Vincent) of collusion, threaten to move the team to Florida, extort a new stadium that for the first ten years was an eyesore, almost destroy the sport in 1994, and pull off a 'White Flag Trade', that made his franchise a laughingstock and object of ridicule? I mean that's pretty hard to top don't ya' think?

Lip

SABRSox
03-06-2005, 03:03 PM
Personally, I think the GENERAL Manager should field the team HE wants, and find the players and the field manager to fit the mold.
Field managers are ridiculously expendable (with some exceptions like LaRussa, Pinella, and Torre now) and letting them decide the personnel and type of play is as ridiculous as the owner deciding that.

Absolutely! If Ozzie is dictating the style of play, and the players on the roster, what exactly is Kenny Williams' job then? Kenny ought to be dictating the direction of this organization. The manager's job is the game to game running of the team. The general manager is the season(s) long running of the operation, and his direction is what everyone else should be following, manager included.

And this has been proven in the NFL. The coaches that do best (Bellichek, etc.) tend to have strong GM's behind them, as opposed to the countless stories you hear about Coach/GM's that fail miserably. I'd use an MLB example if I could think of one, but I've never heard of a MLB Manager/GM.

RKMeibalane
03-06-2005, 03:12 PM
Absolutely! If Ozzie is dictating the style of play, and the players on the roster, what exactly is Kenny Williams' job then? Kenny ought to be dictating the direction of this organization. The manager's job is the game to game running of the team. The general manager is the season(s) long running of the operation, and his direction is what everyone else should be following, manager included.

And this has been proven in the NFL. The coaches that do best (Bellichek, etc.) tend to have strong GM's behind them, as opposed to the countless stories you hear about Coach/GM's that fail miserably. I'd use an MLB example if I could think of one, but I've never heard of a MLB Manager/GM.

Whitey Herzog was a manager/GM for the Cardinals during the early-mid 1980's. He was actually successful at this position, leading the Cards to the postseason three different times ('82, '85, '87), including one WS title.

Fredsox
03-06-2005, 03:13 PM
I think what we're saying is that an owner can't micro-manage the team. He might have some preferences but he has to work through his GM to do it. I know if my boss says to me "do 123 and xyz" I want him to stay out of my way and let me do it. I don't want him telling me HOW to do it unless I ask him for help. JR, for all his faults, is a good business man and he understands how organizations work effectively.

The examples of Steinbrenner and Jerry Jones are really good ones. I would probably throw Mark Cuban (Dallas Mavs) into that bucket as well. It's fine if you have unlimited amounts of money any you don't care about over-stepping the chain of command, but most teams don't have that luxury.

SABRSox
03-06-2005, 03:32 PM
Whitey Herzog was a manager/GM for the Cardinals during the early-mid 1980's. He was actually successful at this position, leading the Cards to the postseason three different times ('82, '85, '87), including one WS title.

I remember that now. Didn't he end up trading away Garry Templeton, Ted Simmons, and Keith Hernandez?

Ol' No. 2
03-06-2005, 04:01 PM
No. 2 says:

"I, for one, would HATE it if the Sox had an owner like Steinbrenner. Don't kid yourself...Steinbrenner isn't spending his own money. He can spend because they have the revenues to do it. If he owned the Sox he wouldn't be spending any more than JR. And he'd probably screw things up more than anything else."

:rolleyes:

And you know that for a fact how? Given the man's compiditive, winner take all, attitude. Personally I'd love for Sox fans to have a chance to see what might happen if they had an owner like George. We've had 25 years of knowing what has happened under current ownership haven't we? Basically nothing.

As far as 'screwing things up,' how could he do any worse then be an organizer (according to Fay Vincent) of collusion, threaten to move the team to Florida, extort a new stadium that for the first ten years was an eyesore, almost destroy the sport in 1994, and pull off a 'White Flag Trade', that made his franchise a laughingstock and object of ridicule? I mean that's pretty hard to top don't ya' think?

LipJust look at the revenue estimates. They're available in many places. Forbes is probably the best. All are significantly more than his payroll.

Lip Man 1
03-06-2005, 05:37 PM
No. 2:

I expected you to say this.

Explain to me then how in the 70's when the Yanks were made up of rag-a-muffins like Horace Clarke, Gene Michaels, Hector Torres and Mike Kekich and were not worth a fraction of what they are today, how Steinbrenner went out and spent large amounts of money to sigh guys like 'Catfish' Hunter and Reggie Jackson? Where did the money come from No. 2???

Surprise... three years after buying the team, the Yanks win the A.L. pennant after not having won won from 1965 through 1975.

Just in the American League, Baltimore was probably worth more then the Yankees at that time, yet George somehow found the money to take advantage of free agency from the very beginning. Maybe he printed his own money? :?:

The Yanks weren't drawing two million fans, their radio and TV rights were a fraction of what they are worth today and they were coming off basically 11 years of garbage teams. The Mets were the more popular team in New York.

My point is that history showed that at the beginning George extended himself because he knew that without a winning, championship caliber team, he wasn't going to draw fans, he wasn't going to be able to increase his radio-TV revenue and he wasn't going to get the advertising sponsors that he needed, ESPECIALLY in New York city.

To make money...you spend money.

George did it, to start himself on the road to financial security and his franchise is now worth more then any other team in MLB.

Maybe that's a history lesson that Uncle Jerry should have learned. The Sox wouldn't be worth more then the Yankees but they'd be worth a hell of a lot more then they are today.

So again I ask how do you know George would be a worse owner for the Sox then Uncle Jerry. History shows otherwise doesn't it?

Lip

Ol' No. 2
03-06-2005, 05:46 PM
No. 2:

I expected you to say this.

Explain to me then how in the 70's when the Yanks were made up of rag-a-muffins like Horace Clarke, Gene Michaels, Hector Torres and Mike Kekich and were not worth a fraction of what they are today, how Steinbrenner went out and spent large amounts of money to sigh guys like 'Catfish' Hunter and Reggie Jackson? Where did the money come from No. 2???

Surprise... three years after buying the team, the Yanks win the A.L. pennant after not having won won from 1965 through 1975.

Just in the American League, Baltimore was probably worth more then the Yankees at that time, yet George somehow found the money to take advantage of free agency from the very beginning. Maybe he printed his own money? :?:

The Yanks weren't drawing two million fans, their radio and TV rights were a fraction of what they are worth today and they were coming off basically 11 years of garbage teams. The Mets were the more popular team in New York.

My point is that history showed that at the beginning George extended himself because he knew that without a winning, championship caliber team, he wasn't going to draw fans, he wasn't going to be able to increase his radio-TV revenue and he wasn't going to get the advertising sponsors that he needed, ESPECIALLY in New York city.

To make money...you spend money.

George did it, to start himself on the road to financial security and his franchise is now worth more then any other team in MLB.

Maybe that's a history lesson that Uncle Jerry should have learned. The Sox wouldn't be worth more then the Yankees but they'd be worth a hell of a lot more then they are today.

So again I ask how do you know George would be a worse owner for the Sox then Uncle Jerry. History shows otherwise doesn't it?

LipLip, I'm not taking the bait. You're impervious to facts by your own admission. When the facts don't agree with your "instincts" (read pre-conceived notions) you just ignore the facts.

Infallible
03-06-2005, 06:19 PM
The owner should have a healthy combination of those traits. IMO, Steinbrenner has the right idea. He wants to win and he'll do anything it takes to win. Anything being $$. We would ALL love it if King George was the owner of the Sox. But, owners can't always put together an all-star team and expect it to work out. Owners can't buy a player and expect him to have complete chemistry with the team and be a healthy fit into a team's concept. Most owners don't know anything about the x's and o's so to speak of baseball, they're just the finances. So I believe that JR was right to give Manuel the players he wanted, and Ozzie the players he wants this year. JR delivered and now it's time for Ozzie to deliver

+10000000........ As much as I hate the Yanks, they have an owner that pulls out all the stops to try and win EVERY year.

Lip Man 1
03-06-2005, 10:01 PM
No. 2:

And you ignore questions that apparently you can't answer. George took over a struggling, bad Yankee franchise and turned it completely around in three years because he spent money, probably his own, since the Yanks were not drawing well and their media contracts were not astronomical. They weren't even among the 'richest' franchises in the A.L. when he took over.

I'm simply wondering how you account for the money that signed guys like Hunter and Jackson (among others...) when the franchise value wasn't good.

You made the statement that it's because George is not spending his own money. I'm saying your statement doesn't account for the teams he built in 76, 77 and 78 does it?

Lip

Tragg
03-06-2005, 11:21 PM
To make money...you spend money.

George did it, to start himself on the road to financial security and his franchise is now worth more then any other team in MLB.

Maybe that's a history lesson that Uncle Jerry should have learned. The Sox wouldn't be worth more then the Yankees but they'd be worth a hell of a lot more then they are today.

So again I ask how do you know George would be a worse owner for the Sox then Uncle Jerry. History shows otherwise doesn't it?

Lip

Well, there are some major differences: he got the Yanks at a bargain price; they hadn't won in 10 years but still had the most tradition of any team in the history of pro sports (and still do); they are also in the largest and most maniacal city in the country. They have a national fan base and did then. And because of that national fan base, if the team would win, they media rights would skyrocket. They slipped for variouis reasons, one of which is they didn't go after the black ballplayer in the early 1960s. A good businessman looks at that shell and sees it's undervalued.

Now the Yanks have a lot of things we haven't got: winning tradition, a larger city, geography perhaps (Bronx is a neighborhood presumably like the southside - but the it's MUCH easier to get to Yankee Stadium from Manhattan than it is to Shea; don't know the differences between Cell and Wrigley to the population base in Chicago) and a national fan base. And not getting on the superstation was really JR's big mistake, as RL pointed out.

Because the Cubs have a national fan base - it sucks, it sucks bad - new orleans is flooded with them (of course, we've been getting WGN for 25 years down here).

Another thing that might be relevant is that JR, initially, DID spend money. Fisk was a HUGE signing, as was Bannister. But he was impatient (quite a change from today) didn't realize 1983 consisted of a lot of career years and that the pitching staff was thin, thin. Albert Belle while we're at it (although that signing was silly as we wern't good enough to do anything with him). We should have built on what we had and instead tossed it and didn't get things fixed until 1990. Oh, and he's hired some terrible, terrible managers - Lamont, Bevington, Manuel ----->terrible managers. And his GM's haven't been prizes either - Williams is easily the best of the sorry lot (arguably they guy who dispersed the remnants in the late 1980s did a good job for the time too; and his first GM, don't know who it was, was probably good).

But then he makes curious comments like "I like the way the Pirates do things - that's the right approach" - (not the Leyland version, but the Lamont version).
BTW, how did you like Monroe?

JKryl
03-07-2005, 12:33 AM
"J Hood ripped into Reinsdorf a bit, saying that JR was just trying to push some of the blame onto Manuel, and "if you own the team, why don't you put the players you want on the field."

I disagree with this, and not just because it sounds too much like the way Steinbrenner runs the Yankees. " from Sox Addict

I agree with the Addict. It's nice to see an owner defer to a professional for a change. After all, that's why the manager was hired in the first place.

StillMissOzzie
03-07-2005, 12:49 AM
Personally, I think the GENERAL Manager should field the team HE wants, and find the players and the field manager to fit the mold.


I'm with you, Tragg. I figure JR's input is limited to whom he hired for GM, figuring that he would hire the GM that most reflected his philosophy. That said, the field manager should then be the one best suited to deal with the set of players the GM assembles.

In that sense, it seems like the Sox did it bass-ackwards by getting Ozzie in as field manager and THEN doing a personnel makeover.

SMO
:gulp:

Lip Man 1
03-07-2005, 11:45 AM
Uncle Jerry does by and large stay out of the baseball decision making business but he's not completely devoid of input (I'm not saying that's good or bad...just the way it is...) He hires the G.M. and upper management people and he does have final approval of the field manager. He also has stepped in to negotiate or renegotiate player contracts if they are big enough...i.e. Frank Thomas over the objections of Kenny Williams.

Tragg:

I'm not saying you are wrong in your comments but there is a little more to it. As stated when George took over the Yanks were not even the best loved team in their own city. Their radio-TV contracts were not astronomical and they hadn't won anything in years. Tradition is nice but New York baseball fans in 1973 when George came in, couldn't give a damn that the Yankees won in 1927 or 1964. Especially in New York it's 'what have you done for me now...' The Yanks simply weren't drawing well for a team in New York.

I think it's pretty clear George extended himself, probably with his own money to turn that around. Jerry Reinsdorf spent money in 1981, 1982 and 1983. The team won on the field, attendence exploded...they he suddenly stopped spending. The big unanswered question is why?

As I stated in another post Reinsdorf perhaps gave a clue to the answer when he stated in the documentary 'The Trouble With Baseball,' which aired on PBS opening day 1993, that he didn't realize how much it cost to win and the ramifications that winning had in terms of player salaries, fan expectations and so forth.

If true, then my contention is if you can't afford to play the game to win, why are you an owner in the first place?

Lip

Hangar18
03-07-2005, 02:13 PM
......... The Chairman basically said that he never liked the power-based teams of the last few years, but that was the type of team Jerry Manuel wanted to manage, "and you have to give the manager what he wants."


What a load of BullJunk.

Power-Based Teams = $$$$$$$$$$$$$

SoxEd
03-07-2005, 02:28 PM
The first rule of management is to hire good people. The second is to stay out of their way.

...What he said. :D:

Owners should hire the manager(s), and then give them the players they want, as long as the franchise can realistically afford it, that is (see Leeds United under Peter Ridsdale's Chairmanship for the reasons why...).
They should leave the running of the team to the people they're paying to do it.

And if you don't think I'm right, ask anyone who's managed soccer teams under Doug Ellis at Aston Villa (to my continuing amusement...), or Ken Bates at Chelsea (before the Abramovich $$$ era).

Obviously, Baseball isn't soccer, but wealthy chairmen/owners are Businessmen (and hopefully fans of the franchise too), not sports professionals.

The chairman/owner's role is to leave the job to the guys who know what they're doing - or fire them when it becomes clear that they don't!

Cubbiesuck13
03-07-2005, 03:48 PM
If true, then my contention is if you can't afford to play the game to win, why are you an owner in the first place?

Lip

Someone should really ask him that.