PDA

View Full Version : Williams really asked Guillen to play in Oakland?


Sly
11-04-2005, 11:14 AM
In the Sun-Times commerative issue, Doug Padilla wrote a column about the series ender in Oakland back in April, the one where Crede played short and Widger played third. In it, Padilla writes that Williams called Guillen to see if he could play shortstop that day, but someone would have been placed on the DL for that to happen so they didn't do it .... I had never heard that before .... Is it true?

***

Oh, and in the Tribune today, Mark Gonzales wrote that Guillen made a "throat-slashing" gesture to the Indians in the final series ... It was just a choke sign, right? Big difference, Mark.

voodoochile
11-04-2005, 11:18 AM
Managers cannot take the field. Ozzie is not part of the 25 man roster. Player/Managers are expressly prohibited by the CBA (IIRC - maybe they only changed the rule in the NBA - I could be misremembering).

Doug Padilla is full of ****.

Tekijawa
11-04-2005, 11:25 AM
I'm pretty sure you can sign anyone to a contract and put him on your 25 man roster. I don't know where their 40 man roster situation stood at that time, but that would really be the only place that doing something like this would have "hurt the team"... My guess is that Ozzie might have lost a step or three and I doubt that he took any swings with a Bat in the past 5 years?!!??!

patbooyah
11-04-2005, 12:03 PM
ha. i read the "thread preview" and assumed that williams wanted to play short. that would have been awesome! :cool:

TheOldRoman
11-04-2005, 12:03 PM
I remember KW saying that they seriously considered it. Ozzie said "I know I could get to the balls, I just dont know if I could still make the throws to first." The situation was so bad at that point that KW actually wrote up a contract for Ozzie so he could be part of the active roster. I guess a manager can still play in games.
They decided against it, and it is for the best. Although it would have been fun to watch Guillen play SS with a gut. I mean, for him, hitting .250 was midseason form. What the hell would he hit now?:o:

TomBradley72
11-04-2005, 12:03 PM
Whatever Padilla is smoking....I hope he'll share. :smokin:


Ozzie hasn't played in a major league game since 2000....5 years ago...and he'll take the field in a regular season game? Any player on the roster would be a better option...

SOXintheBURGH
11-04-2005, 12:11 PM
Whatever Padilla is smoking....I hope he'll share. :smokin:


Ozzie hasn't played in a major league game since 2000....5 years ago...and he'll take the field in a regular season game? Any player on the roster would be a better option...

:LTP

"My range at short is awe inspiring."

Brian26
11-04-2005, 12:15 PM
Managers cannot take the field. Ozzie is not part of the 25 man roster. Player/Managers are expressly prohibited by the CBA (IIRC - maybe they only changed the rule in the NBA - I could be misremembering).


This was my first thought too. Whether or not Ozzie was physically able to play ss is moot. I'm almost certain that the player's association would not have allowed him to be activated. I just don't think it would have been technically possible for Guillen to even be added to the 40-man roster and then activated in time to play. Rules like this came about not too long after the Eddie Gaedel stunt back in the 40's.

Madvora
11-04-2005, 12:15 PM
Ozzie's going to be the next Minnie Minoso.

That would have been something great to see too.

skottyj242
11-04-2005, 12:21 PM
I'm pretty sure an over the hill Ozzie would still be able to play shortstop better than who ended up there after Crede got kicked out.

bobowhite
11-04-2005, 12:28 PM
I'm pretty sure an over the hill Ozzie would still be able to play shortstop better than who ended up there after Crede got kicked out.

Particularly at shortstop its your wits/ experience which help determine how solid of a fielder you are. As for Ozzie batting, I know he took a few turns in the playoff simulated games so I'd bet he wouldn't be entirely helpless.

getonbckthr
11-04-2005, 12:42 PM
didnt we lose those games in oakland? The bad calls and stuff. So who knows maybe we woulda won those games and finished with 100 wins.

voodoochile
11-04-2005, 12:52 PM
didnt we lose those games in oakland? The bad calls and stuff. So who knows maybe we woulda won those games and finished with 100 wins.

Actually they won 110, and I'm not sure 111 would have made that big of a difference in how I feel today...:D:

1951Campbell
11-04-2005, 12:59 PM
As for Ozzie batting, I know he took a few turns in the playoff simulated games so I'd bet he wouldn't be entirely helpless.

Did he face Wood or Prior?

bobowhite
11-04-2005, 01:15 PM
Did he face Wood or Prior?

Actually, I heard that McCarthy whiffed him twice. (OTOH, if I was manageing a a kid had just come up with better stuff and could use the confidence boost, I might swing and miss once or twice. Not saying he did that, but I could believe Ozzie doing it.)

RallyBowl
11-04-2005, 01:22 PM
Did he face Wood or Prior?

:rolling:

Excellent.

tebman
11-04-2005, 02:08 PM
This was my first thought too. Whether or not Ozzie was physically able to play ss is moot. I'm almost certain that the player's association would not have allowed him to be activated. I just don't think it would have been technically possible for Guillen to even be added to the 40-man roster and then activated in time to play. Rules like this came about not too long after the Eddie Gaedel stunt back in the 40's.
My recollection (from newspaper reports) is that KW was looking into it to see if it was possible to put Ozzie on the roster for that day. Williams didn't know what the rules were either, which is why he was asking. At that moment the Sox were in a real pinch -- that's why Widger played 3B and Crede ended up at short.

I don't think the current set of rules has anything to do with Gaedel, but more so with the players' collective bargaining agreement. Pete Rose was a player-manager in the 80s, so it's not out of the question.