PDA

View Full Version : Was Manuel that bad?


32nd&Wallace
12-27-2005, 10:19 AM
The Best/Worst manager thread inspired me to create this new thread about jerry manuel. namely, was he that bad? if so, what was his problem. a lot of people say larussa was their favorite manager, but manuel accomplished just as much. i am also a bit surprised that manuel has not found another job.

also, is there a hawk/manuel fued? it seems hawk has had no problem in the last two years sounding off on manuel - the latest was after the sox won the ws on north's show. how long does their rift go back because in 2000 he was praising the guy in an SI article.

Flight #24
12-27-2005, 10:20 AM
Yes.

lostletters
12-27-2005, 10:22 AM
Yes. There is a list of reasons why, namely how he treated his young pitchers.

I could go on, but his general baseball philosophy (bashball) did not help the sox.

He did have winning seasons, but he also got us nowhere. He had an unbalanced team and prefered ego's and HRs to good solid defence and pitching.

He did not inspire any confidence in his players, and was generally a bad manager.

bahn1225
12-27-2005, 10:28 AM
Manuel was acceptable by MLB standards.
The problem is "acceptable" does not win championships.

For a prime example of this type of manager,
check out the dude working eight miles North.

HotelWhiteSox
12-27-2005, 10:31 AM
I kind of liked him, I mean, I think that happens with every coach once you start losing. I guess he was more laid back and let things play out, rather than trying to make something happen, but his clubs were the DH at a majority of the positions, station to station type clubs. He played everything by the book, I guess it was the safe way to go, but that was the criticism towards the end of his run and I think every one agreed that he had to go at the time he was fired, if not earlier.

As far as Hawk, he's just the corporate kiss ass. I don't think everyone was sold on Ozzie and he went on a bash Manuel tour. I guess he didn't agree with some of his moves, but I don't know of any other feud. He lost all credibility with me after arguing on a sports radio show two or three years ago that Willie Harris was ready to start at 2B at the major league level and that the problem was that he was asked to bunt too much (shot at Manuel). No, he tried to bunt so often because he couldn't take ML pitching out of the infield. Also, he's always been mad about the way Manuel treated Garland, saying he'd always have to look over his shoulder, but Garland sucked 3-4 years ago, and he was too young to keep him in those situations when the games were on the line, it's not like the division wasn't out of reach and it wasn't garbage time.

kwolf68
12-27-2005, 10:46 AM
Jerry was a wonderful manager. :jauron

TornLabrum
12-27-2005, 10:48 AM
In a word: yes. Manuel was a terrible manager.

Who can forget Neal Cotts pitching in game 3 of that Yankees series instead of Buehrle, with predictable results. Turns out we could have used another win there.

Then there was his tinkering with lineups because for him, April through the All-Star Break was time to experiment to find out what your regular lineup should be.

Then there was his handling of Jon Garland in 2003. He never let the guy pitch out of a jam. Nice confidence builder that.

mike squires
12-27-2005, 10:53 AM
Manuel was WAY too laid back for my style. Even when he went out and argued it was usually fake and looked as if he was going through the motions making it look like he cared. He jumbled the lineup way too much and did not use his starting or bullpen pitching effectivly. I never liked him.

TornLabrum
12-27-2005, 10:58 AM
Manuel was WAY too laid back for my style. Even when he went out and argued it was usually fake and looked as if he was going through the motions making it look like he cared. He jumbled the lineup way too much and did not use his starting or bullpen pitching effectivly. I never liked him.

There's a reason I hung the nickname "Gen. Disarray" on him.

SOXSINCE'70
12-27-2005, 10:59 AM
In a word: yes. Manuel was a terrible manager.

Who can forget Neal Cotts pitching in game 3 of that Yankees series instead of Buehrle, with predictable results. Turns out we could have used another win there.

Then there was his tinkering with lineups because for him, April through the All-Star Break was time to experiment to find out what your regular lineup should be.

Then there was his handling of Jon Garland in 2003. He never let the guy pitch out of a jam. Nice confidence builder that.

Thanks for echoing my thoughts,TL.Might I also bring up
how he forgot to pich run for Konerko in the 9th inning of a
2003 loss (Carlos Lee practically had to wake him up to remind
him a pich runner wouldn't be a bad idea,IIRC).Of course,there
was his stubborn stand with sending Belly Crotch (er...uh....
Billy Koch) out for a save opportunity when it was apparent there
was nothing left in his tank.I could go on and on and on,
but i'll spare the posters and stop here.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

SOXSINCE'70
12-27-2005, 11:01 AM
There's a reason I hung the nickname "Gen. Disarray" on him.

So then KW was "Captain Chaos",correct??

jabrch
12-27-2005, 11:02 AM
Where's PHG when you need him?

Manuel did nothing right that you would want from a manager. He wasn't a guy people wanted to play for. He wasn't fundamentally sound. He didn't maximize play from rookies. He didn't keep vets healthy and happy.

Getting rid of Manuel was the right thing to do. I'd be surprised if he gets a job as a MLB manager anytime soon.

TornLabrum
12-27-2005, 11:04 AM
So then KW was "Captain Chaos",correct??

Close: Prof. Chaos. But I'll never call him that again.

SOXSINCE'70
12-27-2005, 11:07 AM
Close: Prof. Chaos. But I'll never call him that again.

Thanks.My mistake.Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you!

TornLabrum
12-27-2005, 11:08 AM
Thanks.My mistake.Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you!

Back atcha.

RedHeadPaleHoser
12-27-2005, 11:08 AM
Close: Prof. Chaos. But I'll never call him that again.

It's amazing...but I wonder how much of KW's previous moniker was him growing into his job...not to mention inheriting Shueler's mess, Manuel, etc....not to cast a dark cloud at all, but if the 2006 WS do not match the same success (i.e., repeat WS Champs), KW still will be one of the best GM's in baseball. IMO, he'll be the best this town has seen, or will ever see...

TornLabrum
12-27-2005, 11:12 AM
It's amazing...but I wonder how much of KW's previous moniker was him growing into his job...not to mention inheriting Shueler's mess, Manuel, etc....not to cast a dark cloud at all, but if the 2006 WS do not match the same success (i.e., repeat WS Champs), KW still will be one of the best GM's in baseball. IMO, he'll be the best this town has seen, or will ever see...

I don't know. There were some pretty strange moments near the beginning, starting with the Barry/Berry fiasco. What really earned him the name for me was the three arms for Todd Ritchie deal. Granted, the arms were not that good, but two of them were still pitching in the major leagues last year while Ritchie was milking cows or something.

1917
12-27-2005, 11:26 AM
Is he even employed? I know he got rejected for the Royals job even! Come on!

Chicken Dinner
12-27-2005, 11:27 AM
1st base coach for the Mets is a good job for Jerry. I guess when you look back at his numbers, they are better than most.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/managers/manueje01.shtml

PaulDrake
12-27-2005, 11:30 AM
Williams made many mistakes, but being the aggressive person he is, ultimately got the hang of things. Best Sox GM ever? It's too early to tell. Frank Lane got Nellie Fox, Billy Pierce, Sherm Lollar and Minnie Minoso for next to nothing. As far as Manuel goes, he was too enamored with a style of play that generally doesn't win championships in baseball. The 2000 team was made to order for a manager like Manuel. After 2003, it was clear that the Sox weren't going to club their way to the top and a change was in order. Ozzie Guillen is far more in harmony with what has historically been White Sox baseball. Viva Ozzie.

Lip Man 1
12-27-2005, 11:35 AM
Yes.

Being comotose in the dugout is no way to run a baseball team. The Sox had the talent, they couldn't win squat under him.

Lip

ChiWhiteSox1337
12-27-2005, 11:41 AM
Yeah, Manuel insisted on using Billy Koch for the first few months of the 2003 season, despite being AWFUL. Those blown saves definitely came back to bite the Sox in 2003, as I recall them being in first in September and finally finishing in second to the Twins. I thought that team was going places with a 1-2-3 of Loaiza, Buehrle, and Colon, along with a nice bullpen(other than Billy Koch...). I also recall Manuel unwilling to bring in Foulke in the 2nd half of the 2002 season in save situations, despite having a near 1 ERA for the entire second half. Oh well, KW eventually traded Foulke for one heck of a relief pitcher, and his name wasn't Billy Koch.... :)

SOX ADDICT '73
12-27-2005, 11:44 AM
He jumbled the lineup way too much...
:jerry "zzzzzzzz...*tinker tinker*...zzzzzzzzz..."

clarkent
12-27-2005, 11:44 AM
There has to be a reason why he hasn't managed anywhere else. He was awful. And his pitching coach (Nardi) was bad too.

IronFisk
12-27-2005, 11:58 AM
I have to agree too - nice guy, awful mlb manager. There are many brain-dead decisions which I could list (yeah, Cotts!), but the one that resonates was "resting" most of his starters in 2000 once they clinched the division. They ended up losing 5 of their 7 remaining games, and sleepwalked into the playoffs against a streaking Mariners team. Not the time of the year to have your batters lose their timing, eh?

TomBradley72
12-27-2005, 12:03 PM
Has any MLB team hired Manuel since he left the WSox? That's the best evidence for his ability as a manager.

He was way too laid back....and never seemed to really have a "feel" for the game, examples: Cotts pitching at Yankee Stadium, pulling Parque in the playoffs against Seattle (he was red hot), not pinch running for Herbert Perry (who had a pulled hamstring....couldn't score from 2nd on a single) against Seattle. Nice guy...was an improvement over Bevington (not saying much).

RedHeadPaleHoser
12-27-2005, 12:08 PM
I don't know. There were some pretty strange moments near the beginning, starting with the Barry/Berry fiasco. What really earned him the name for me was the three arms for Todd Ritchie deal. Granted, the arms were not that good, but two of them were still pitching in the major leagues last year while Ritchie was milking cows or something.

And while you are right, again, could it have been eagerness to do "something" that made him do the Ritchie, or for that matter, the Wells deal?? Let's be honest, some GM's out there don't even made "bold" moves like that, bas as they are now in retrospect.

mweflen
12-27-2005, 12:12 PM
Manuel was average. Most MLB managers nowadays are just caretakers who don't stress fundamentals. Manuel was no different. The aforementioned bonehead decisisons were dumb, yes. But they were balanced by plenty of decent ones, making for a mediocre run as manager.

So was he "that bad?" No.

It was our roster in 1999-2003 that was "that bad." (2000 being the fluke perfect storm, Valentin, Eldred, Herb "The Milkman" Perry, Parque, Sirotka, etc...) We had no pitching, ever, huge holes at C, 2B, 3B, CF and an overreliance on power with no tablesetters or speed in the lineup. Basically, we were the Texas Rangers. Jerry Manuel could have managed them to .500 records, too. Their current mediocre manager is doing that right now.

JUribe1989
12-27-2005, 12:19 PM
He was a great person and an extremely nice guy to talk to and hang around with. He wasn't the best manager, but I never wanted him fired. His huge mistake was pitching Cotts, but Ozzie also made that mistake in the Minnesota 4 game set in May '04 so can't really yell at him too much for that. Hey, he pinch hit Paulie when he was hitting .125 in that July 2, 2003 game.

The Racehorse
12-27-2005, 12:28 PM
Leo Durocher's quote, "nice guys finish last", fit Jerry Manuel to a tee... well, it was more like 'nice guys finish second'.

Stoky44
12-27-2005, 12:31 PM
He was not the worst manager. He had a lot of talent on his teams though, and did not do much with it. I thought Jerry was a nice guy. He lived in Orland Park, and once went to Circuit City were my friend worked, he was wearing a Sox tie, and Jerry gave him free tickets to that nights game. But he would not have brought the Sox to the promise land and I am so glad that Ozzie was hired..

SoxSpeed22
12-27-2005, 12:31 PM
Personally, I didn't hate him, but given the fact that the entire organization had no killer instinct in 2000, he didn't do enough with his team of bashers. Face the facts, the 2000 Sox really overachieved and the management and the manager did not try and cash in on it. I don't blame him for resting some of the starting pitchers because most of them were hurt, but the lineup went into the playoffs beat-up and confused and were shut down by 3 mediocre Seattle pitchers. It just got worse from there, 2001, everyone got hurt. 2002, his managing and tinkering took it's toll, 2003, handled the pitchers terribly and were beaten by Minnesota's better style of baseball. He can be a minor-league manager or a major-league coach, but not a great major-league manager.

DumpJerry
12-27-2005, 12:36 PM
See my WSI name. He was a nice guy, just in the wrong line of work.

34 Inch Stick
12-27-2005, 12:44 PM
I thought Manuel had a very odd reign as the Sox manager. He overachieved with bad/inexperienced talent and he underachieved with superior/experienced talent. I believe he won a manager of the year award in 2000 yet he was run out of here by 2003. When he needed a little extra talent to push the team over the edge, Schuler proclaimed the team ahead of schedule and gave him nothing. When he was given the talent he did absolutely nothing to push them to succeed.

In the end, the most I can say for him is he did not suck.

I_Liked_Manuel
12-27-2005, 12:46 PM
i'll let you guess what i thought about him

BainesHOF
12-27-2005, 12:58 PM
Manuel was worse than even Bevington, and I never thought I'd say that about anyone. Heck, Manuel even almost pulled a Bevington, going to take out a pitcher without anyone warming up...except Manuel realized what he was doing halfway out to the mound and suddenly started walking around like a drunk, not knowing how to get out of it, until he finally meandered his way to the home plate umpire. They had a long, awkward, embarrassing talk about probably absolutely nothing. I can still remember Mike Hargrove in the dugout looking confused and then coming out and arguing that it was indeed Manuel's second trip out and that he had to change the pitcher.

And Manuel was by far the worst arguer in baseball history. It was so embarrassingly contrived.

The only real problem I've ever had with Kenny Williams was bringing back Manuel for his last year. It didn't make any sense whatsoever then and it still doesn't.

32nd&Wallace
12-27-2005, 01:21 PM
Did he really sleep in the dugout or is that just an exaggeration?

batmanZoSo
12-27-2005, 01:22 PM
There are a lot of bad things to say about the job Manuel did. Just too many to list. The bottom line is he just didn't have it, period. Ozzie has it.

Fake Chet Lemon
12-27-2005, 01:29 PM
YES! He was brutal. He had no clue on chemistry or player talent potential. He used to always play a broken down Harold Baines over Paul Konerko:o: . He allowed players to make the SAME stupid mistakes over and over again. Jose Valentin would constantly make the first or last out at third base trying to stretch doubles in triples. I remember one April Valentin did it TWICE in ONE week. I was so aggravated I didn't watch for a week.

The clincher. Kenny Williams said at Sox Fest last year "My previous teams were built that way because that's the team my former manager wanted. Ozzie wanted more of a smart ball team, so that's what I have given him." Good call Ozzie. Good riddance Jerry.

Fake Chet Lemon
12-27-2005, 01:36 PM
He was a great person and an extremely nice guy to talk to and hang around with. .

Not trying to break your stones :D: , but that's all irrelevant to this conversation.

He hasn't even gotten a third-base coaching job, let alone a managerial post since his firing. That's embarrassing and tells you what the rest of baseball thought of his abilities. Bottom line.

Daver
12-27-2005, 01:41 PM
Did he really sleep in the dugout or is that just an exaggeration?

Well, they had to hire Harold Baines to replace him as the designated Napper.

mweflen
12-27-2005, 01:42 PM
The clincher. Kenny Williams said at Sox Fest last year "My previous teams were built that way because that's the team my former manager wanted. Ozzie wanted more of a smart ball team, so that's what I have given him." Good call Ozzie. Good riddance Jerry.

If KW said that, that indicates his problem, not Manuel's. What sort of GM builds anything but the team HE thinks is best?

Corlose 15
12-27-2005, 02:00 PM
He was a great person and an extremely nice guy to talk to and hang around with. He wasn't the best manager, but I never wanted him fired. His huge mistake was pitching Cotts, but Ozzie also made that mistake in the Minnesota 4 game set in May '04 so can't really yell at him too much for that. Hey, he pinch hit Paulie when he was hitting .125 in that July 2, 2003 game.

In 2003 Buehrle was on normal rest wanting to pitch in Yankee Stadium and he skipped him for Cotts to make his 2nd career start. Mostly because they had already won the series by pounding the Yankees two straight games. So naturally, Cotts gets pounded, Buehrle loses in Detroit and all the momentum from beating the Yankees goes right out the window.

The difference in 2004 was that Ozzie had no choice, Danny Wright got demoted or hurt and he only expected Cotts to go 4 innings or so, it didn't work out but it was hardly the bird brained idea that Manuel had.

Ugh, was 2003 a frustrating season.:angry: Thankfully its 2005!!!!:D:

StockdaleForVeep
12-27-2005, 02:08 PM
Jerry had no enthusiasm, he was content to sit in the dugout and watch the game. How coincidential i may point out, the reason this team won can be attributed to ozzies energy and motivation with the team. The 2000 sox won the central and got hot after that horrendous fight with the detroit tigers

Can anyone even remember Jerry talking once? Ozzie only been here 2 seasons and we can make soundboards of his antics

TornLabrum
12-27-2005, 02:11 PM
If KW said that, that indicates his problem, not Manuel's. What sort of GM builds anything but the team HE thinks is best?

The kind who either a) wants to be on the same page as his manager or b) wants to give the manager enough rope to hang himself.

scottjanssens
12-27-2005, 02:33 PM
was he that bad?

No, he was worse.

soxtalker
12-27-2005, 02:34 PM
I don't think that Manuel was as bad as many remember him to be. As has often been said about managers in sports, a winning manager gets more credit than he deserves, and a losing manager gets more blame. Looking at his records (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/mgrtmcw.shtml) over the years, he wasn't that bad.

Both Manuel and Ozzie reportedly wanted to install a team with National League style of play. Ozzie was able to get a team to do that, while Manuel couldn't. I don't think that was entirely Manuel's fault. KW was learning in his early years; there were a few bad trades that really hampered the team and manager. Ozzie certainly had the personality as well as connections to both KW and JR that enabled him to get changes made; Manuel probably couldn't get those done as easily.

I, like most fans, prefer a manager with an outgoing personality like Ozzie. Of course, Bevington was fairly outspoken, too, and it's hard to have good memories of his tenure as manager here.

1951Campbell
12-27-2005, 02:39 PM
Yes.

It seemed to be several years of doing not much with a more than decent amount of talent.

mweflen
12-27-2005, 03:40 PM
The kind who either a) wants to be on the same page as his manager or b) wants to give the manager enough rope to hang himself.

If KW disagreed with JM's philosophy for the team, it was up to him to fire JM and put someone in there who he saw eye to eye with. Giving a manager "rope" is BS - especially when you saddle the fans with yet another losing season (or three).

I have a very difficult time believing KW said the original quote (i.e. I gave Manuel the team he wanted).

Fake Chet Lemon
12-27-2005, 03:50 PM
If KW said that, that indicates his problem, not Manuel's. What sort of GM builds anything but the team HE thinks is best?

I see your point, and shame on Kenny for not matching the right manager with the right group of players. Kenny did not. But a GM does need to get buy-in from his manager on team-shaping moves. If a GM builds a team that conflicts with the managers style, it will fail.

So I disagree with you if you are saying the GM should just build what he thinks is the best collection of players possible regardless of the managers style. I think the managers input is critical.

Fake Chet Lemon
12-27-2005, 03:58 PM
I have a very difficult time believing KW said the original quote (i.e. I gave Manuel the team he wanted).


He absolutley said that at Sunday of Sox Fest last year. Kind of funny what happened afterwards though. A really big, loud old timer who was upset with all the moves last lear (ie: this fan wanted Mags, Lee, Valentin back) got up after Kenny said that and he said "The problem wasn't the players you shipped out of town, the problem was you were trying to win with those players and a BAD manager (Jerry)!" Kenny was actually speechless after that comment. Completely speechless. It was such an uncomfortable, yet funny moment.

mweflen
12-27-2005, 03:59 PM
I see your point, and shame on Kenny for not matching the right manager with the right group of players. Kenny did not. But a GM does need to get buy-in from his manager on team-shaping moves. If a GM builds a team that conflicts with the managers style, it will fail.

So I disagree with you if you are saying the GM should just build what he thinks is the best collection of players possible regardless of the managers style. I think the managers input is critical.

I sincerely doubt the original quote, because it basically portrays the GM as someone who does the Manager's bidding, not the other way around. Let us remember, Ozzie was hired by KW, not the reverse.

Of course the GM and Manager should be using the same playbook so to speak. But the GM builds the team, including the manager. The managerial staff has input, but the final say is the GM's. That's why I doubt KW said he"just built JM the team he wanted." In addition to not seeming like the way things really are, KW has always been a stand-up guy admitting his mistakes. I just can't see him "blaming" the composition of the team on Manuel.

mweflen
12-27-2005, 04:00 PM
He absolutley said that at Sunday of Sox Fest last year. Kind of funny what happened afterwards though. A really big, loud old timer who was upset with all the moves last lear (ie: this fan wanted Mags, Lee, Valentin back) got up after Kenny said that and he said "The problem wasn't the players you shipped out of town, the problem was you were trying to win with those players and a BAD manager (Jerry)!" Kenny was actually speechless after that comment. Completely speechless. It was such an uncomfortable, yet funny moment.
Hmm. I wasn't able to go to Soxfest last year. But if so, wow. I never would have expected something like that from KW. Very wussy, IMHO.

Anyway, back to the original question of the thread - I think JM was managing fundamentally flawed teams (huge lineup holes, lackluster starting rotation), and did a mediocre job of it (uninspired, non-fundamental, AL-style "caretaking"). So to saddle all of the blame for the Sox's piss-poor 2001-2003 on Manuel is way unfair. KW was a pretty crap GM until about the Freddy G. Trade. He lucked into a few finds (Marte) but royally screwed us in several other ways (The Choice, David "Fat Bastard" Wells, Billy Krotch-Rot, Todd "Gas-Can" Ritchie, Antonio "La Crap-cannon" Osuna, Mike "Gas-Can" Jackson, Jason "Throw Him On The Barbie" Grilli...)

So maybe all this talk of KW building the teams his Managers wanted is actually true? Perhaps Ozzie is the real pants-wearer in this tandem?

Fake Chet Lemon
12-27-2005, 04:03 PM
I sincerely doubt the original quote, because it basically portrays the GM as someone who does the Manager's bidding, not the other way around. Let us remember, Ozzie was hired by KW, not the reverse.

Of course the GM and Manager should be using the same playbook so to speak. But the GM builds the team, including the manager. The managerial staff has input, but the final say is the GM's. That's why I doubt KW said he"just built JM the team he wanted." In addition to not seeming like the way things really are, KW has always been a stand-up guy admitting his mistakes. I just can't see him "blaming" the composition of the team on Manuel.

Just because you don't agree with something please don't say it didn't happen. Kenny even went on to say "Jerry said to win in the AL you need to be able to hit plenty of HR's." So Kenny said it, I was next in line to ask a question so I was about 20 feet away from Kenny. To be honest, I'm a huge KW fan but that comment was kind of a cop-out to me. So I am agreeeing with some of what you are saying. The buck stops with the GM.

CubKilla
12-27-2005, 04:06 PM
He lost all credibility with me after arguing on a sports radio show two or three years ago that Willie Harris was ready to start at 2B at the major league level and that the problem was that he was asked to bunt too much (shot at Manuel). No, he tried to bunt so often because he couldn't take ML pitching out of the infield. Also, he's always been mad about the way Manuel treated Garland, saying he'd always have to look over his shoulder, but Garland sucked 3-4 years ago, and he was too young to keep him in those situations when the games were on the line, it's not like the division wasn't out of reach and it wasn't garbage time.

Hawk lost all credibility with me way before that w/me. Hawk's credibility has been nil w/me ever since he defended 97's "White Flag" Trade.

mweflen
12-27-2005, 04:11 PM
Just because you don't agree with something please don't say it didn't happen. Kenny even went on to say "Jerry said to win in the AL you need to be able to hit plenty of HR's." So Kenny said it, I was next in line to ask a question so I was about 20 feet away from Kenny. To be honest, I'm a huge KW fan but that comment was kind of a cop-out to me. So I am agreeeing with some of what you are saying. The buck stops with the GM.

See above. I doubted he said it, but if you vouch for it, I'll take your word. And it is a HUGE cop out and makes me lose a little respect for KW.

Fake Chet Lemon
12-27-2005, 04:13 PM
I called WSCR once when the Hawk was on. I told him JerryM was a terrible manager, and he completely disagreed and blamed everything 100% on the players. Then once Ozzie got hired Hawk started his brutal hatchet job on Jerry. If anybody listems to Hawk for objective analysis on the White Sox you are a stooge. I enjoy Hawk for what he is, a cheerleader. I LOVE his calls, Hawk-isms and all the old stories and his enthusiasm (when we are winning). But his opinions on the club are pure marketing and nothing else.

TornLabrum
12-27-2005, 04:50 PM
If KW disagreed with JM's philosophy for the team, it was up to him to fire JM and put someone in there who he saw eye to eye with. Giving a manager "rope" is BS - especially when you saddle the fans with yet another losing season (or three).

I have a very difficult time believing KW said the original quote (i.e. I gave Manuel the team he wanted).

Before you say that, you might want to go back and review Manuel's contract situation back then. Then get back to me with the reason he wasn't fired.

mweflen
12-27-2005, 05:07 PM
Before you say that, you might want to go back and review Manuel's contract situation back then. Then get back to me with the reason he wasn't fired.

I don't know the contractural stuff. I defer to your knowledge in that area. All i'm saying is, if the "reason" KW put out a crap team for three years in a row was to give Manuel "rope", that royally sucks for us, the fans.

TornLabrum
12-27-2005, 05:12 PM
I don't know the contractural stuff. I defer to your knowledge in that area. All i'm saying is, if the "reason" KW put out a crap team for three years in a row was to give Manuel "rope", that royally sucks for us, the fans.

Let's just start by saying that Manuel got an extension after winning the division in 2000.

mweflen
12-27-2005, 05:15 PM
Let's just start by saying that Manuel got an extension after winning the division in 2000.

ok... let's.

chaerulez
12-27-2005, 05:19 PM
The Best/Worst manager thread inspired me to create this new thread about jerry manuel. namely, was he that bad? if so, what was his problem. a lot of people say larussa was their favorite manager, but manuel accomplished just as much. i am also a bit surprised that manuel has not found another job.

also, is there a hawk/manuel fued? it seems hawk has had no problem in the last two years sounding off on manuel - the latest was after the sox won the ws on north's show. how long does their rift go back because in 2000 he was praising the guy in an SI article.

The defining moment of Manuel's career to me was, in 2003 the Sox were in the cruical part of the pennant race, in late August. They had just plummed the Yankees for the first two games in a three game series. With all the fifth starter problems that year, people suggested that Burhele pitch the game (I don't think it would've even been on short rest because they had an off day the day before game one of the series). Burhele even said to the media he wanted to pitch. Manuel wouldn't make the move and sent out Neil Cotts. Cotts got rocked (0.1 IP 5 ER) and the Sox lost. Now that loss didn't cause the team to fall out of the race or really have that great of an impact and it wasn't the reason the Sox didn't win the pennant. But it gave me the impression Manuel didn't want to make the moves that it took to win, he was too conservative. That line of thinking just summed up his baseball philiosphily.

TornLabrum
12-27-2005, 05:24 PM
ok... let's.

Okay, now let's point out that the final year of that extension was 2004. Had he been fired in 2003 as many were pleading for Williams to do, the Sox would have been on the hook for two years.

mweflen
12-27-2005, 05:25 PM
Okay, now let's point out that the final year of that extension was 2004. Had he been fired in 2003 as many were pleading for Williams to do, the Sox would have been on the hook for two years.

Okay. Granted.

I still don't see how this justifies putting a subpar squad together. I'm trying to comprehend the argument that KW's team compositions were specifically designed to get JM fired, as opposed to being designed to win ballgames.

gbergman
12-27-2005, 05:42 PM
Was Manuel that bad?

Do I poop from my butt, Yes
Did the White Sox win the World Series, Yes
Is Jeff Brantley that stupid, Yes
Is Richard Simmons gay, yes
Do the Bears have the best defense in the NFL, yes
Is Prince Charles wife Camilla that ugly, yes
Do pigs fly, yes when shot out a cannon( God i would love to see that)
Is everyone sick and tired of USC football, YES
Is the NFL stupid for putting sunday night football on NBC which is a terrible network, and Monday Night Football on ESPN, HELL YES. Why not make 2 primetime basic cable games.

to answer your question yes.

TornLabrum
12-27-2005, 05:45 PM
[quote=mweflen]Okay. Granted.

Kenny came in with a manager who had been handed an extension. That manager had been in place for 4(?) years by that time while he was a rookie. I can see him trying to put together a team that his manager felt he could win with. After all, that's precisely what he and Ozzie apparently have been trying to do for the past two seasons, and apparently that worked.

soxinem1
12-27-2005, 05:46 PM
If you look at the three teams JM had under Schueler and the three JM had under Kenny, did any of them look like NL-style teams? In fact, the Sox from 1996 to 2004 looked very similar. Plus, Lamont, Bevington, and manuel all had teams that did not practice fundamentals well at all. That's the manager's fault. And the GM for keeping them around.

Some hitting, some power, little depth in the rotation and an overworked bullpen. Little team speed. Very suspect defense. That is what JM's teams, even the 2000 Sox, were made of. So if Manuel wanted an NL-type team, he must have been ignored, or didn't ask very seriously. The same when KW came aboard. All six years JM was manager the teams were set up to be bashers.

And though Ozzie said he wanted running, speed, and defense, the 2004 team was very similar to the 2003 team (and more so once Alomar and Everett came back)

I think Ozzie went to KW after 04 and said something like 'Look, you've been doing the slugging hitter at every position thing for awhile now and it is not working. We need defense, pitchers not afraid to throw strikes, and the top two guys to be responsible for one of them being at second or third by the time the 3-4-5 hitters get up. It's not working with these guys.'

Hence, the birth of the 2005 World Series Champion Chicago White Sox!

TornLabrum
12-27-2005, 05:51 PM
I think Ozzie went to KW after 04 and said something like 'Look, you've been doing the slugging hitter at every position thing for awhile now and it is not working. We need defense, pitchers not afraid to throw strikes, and the top two guys to be responsible for one of them being at second or third by the time the 3-4-5 hitters get up. It's not working with these guys.'

The only thing I don't buy of this is the Ozzie quote. I can't imagine it without every 2-3 words being ****.

soxinem1
12-27-2005, 06:03 PM
The only thing I don't buy of this is the Ozzie quote. I can't imagine it without every 2-3 words being ****.

I don't think Kenny says **** as much as Ozzie says ****. Could you imagine both of them saying **** over and over in the same conversation? That would be ****ing hilarious!

Red Barchetta
12-27-2005, 06:17 PM
At first I liked Manuel because he was a welcome relief from "Everything Bevington". I thought his first season showed promise as the younger players seemed well-coached.

However, once the Frank-Manuel feud took center stage, I think he lost the respect of the clubhouse.

Prior to the Cotts experiment at Yankee Stadium, I completely lost respect for him as a manager earlier in that same season when Joe Crede hit a key home run during a road game that was called foul. Replays showed it was clearly fair and while Hawk's blood was boiling from the broadcast booth, Manuel simply walked out to the field, asked a couple of questions and then quietly returned to the dugout. I don't think he tooks his hands out of his pockets the entire time.

At that point I gave up on him. I think the players did to because he made it obvious he wasn't going to fight for them.

Teams reflect their manager. Our 2005 White Sox reflected Ozzie in spirit, guts and teamwork!

batmanZoSo
12-27-2005, 06:35 PM
At first I liked Manuel because he was a welcome relief from "Everything Bevington". I thought his first season showed promise as the younger players seemed well-coached.

However, once the Frank-Manuel feud took center stage, I think he lost the respect of the clubhouse.

Prior to the Cotts experiment at Yankee Stadium, I completely lost respect for him as a manager earlier in that same season when Joe Crede hit a key home run during a road game that was called foul. Replays showed it was clearly fair and while Hawk's blood was boiling from the broadcast booth, Manuel simply walked out to the field, asked a couple of questions and then quietly returned to the dugout. I don't think he tooks his hands out of his pockets the entire time.

At that point I gave up on him. I think the players did to because he made it obvious he wasn't going to fight for them.

Teams reflect their manager. Our 2005 White Sox reflected Ozzie in spirit, guts and teamwork!

Good points all around. The Crede incident (or lack thereof) really hurt his credibility in my eyes. I was pretty ticked at that point.

Like you said, after Bevington, Manuel was a nice change of pace. He actually didn't do that bad of a job when the team was really young. He's the type that doesn't say much and has seemingly infinite patience--which is often mistaken for narcolepsy--and that goes over well with a young team. The 99-00 Sox were about an aggregate 26 year old team and he just allowed them to relax and play their game. But of course when the playoffs came around, he was clearly out of his league, then in 2001, with a more veteran club and, specifically the Thomas incidents and the presence of big-mouth Wells, Manuel just fell apart at the seams and so did the club. From that year onward, it was just downhill.

Basically, he's only fit to manage a young club in my opinion. But then again, what happens when they grow up and it's time to compete for something? So, yeah. He was a nice guy, though, no one can argue that and I wish him the best of luck at getting some kind of employment in MLB. I'm sure he's capable of coaching a base at least. Then again, we've had some pretty incompetent ones there, too...:rolleyes:

eastchicagosoxfan
12-27-2005, 07:17 PM
I never cared for Manuel after his first year or so with the club. He came in promising a to have a team with speed, pitching and defense, and never delivered. As other posters have said, he lacked a feel for the game. He may be " book " smart, but he lacks baseball smarts. He seemed fixated on the expectation that the team had a great winning streak in it, and that the streak would act as the springboard to greatness. Outside of his first season, he never had the team focused.
A question to add. I thought Bevington was initially a good hire, because he had won consistently at the minor league level. He turned out to be atrocious, but why?

C-Dawg
12-27-2005, 08:24 PM
In 2003 Buehrle was on normal rest wanting to pitch in Yankee Stadium and he skipped him for Cotts to make his 2nd career start. Mostly because they had already won the series by pounding the Yankees two straight games. So naturally, Cotts gets pounded, Buehrle loses in Detroit and all the momentum from beating the Yankees goes right out the window.



I remember that week well. In fact, I was at the very next game in Detroit after Buehrle lost the opener (Garland pitched a good game and the Sox won 5-2). With the usual tiny Comerica crowd, I had sneaked down to within a few rows behind the Sox dugout. There were tons of Sox fans there, and many, or most, of them were taunting Manual from their seats behind the dugout. They were mad because of the Neal Cotts game! "Where's Neal?!? Hey put in that Neal Cotts guy!! Hey Jerry WAKE UP!!" Jerry, I'm sure, was half-asleep at his post there in the dugout and heard none of it.

I remarked to one fan, that its going to be an awkward September, once the Sox get back home. It sure was!

32nd&Wallace
12-27-2005, 09:55 PM
Two questions 1). who else was in the running for the job after the 1997 season? 2). what was it about manuel that schuler was so keen on?

soxinem1
12-27-2005, 10:26 PM
Two questions 1). who else was in the running for the job after the 1997 season? 2). what was it about manuel that schuler was so keen on?

I do not remember the whole story, but it ended like this:

I believe Schueler wanted someone else, but interviewed Manuel, who was highly recommended by Felipe Alou. He came away so impressed that he sent thim to Uncle Jerry after that, who was so impressed that he told Schueler: "This guy is great, how come we did not have him higher on the list?'

Maybe Reinsdolrf liked him cause they shared the same first name. Or because he'd be as cheap as Bevington was.

I honestly don't think Manuel was as bad as some are making him to be. He was a little predictable but he knew his stuff as well as anyone. He really didn't have the team Ozzie had this year.

I remember the Cotts thing well and I thought it was a bonehead thing to do also, but remember, Manager's live by their gut calls sometimes. It happened when LaRussa used Alan Benes to start a game in the NLDS a few years ago when the Cards were up 3-1, then lost three in a row because he wanted to rest his aces.

When Ozzie brought in El Duque to pitch out of Marte's mess in the ALDS, don't tell me anyone here, me included, could have seen that a struggling pitcher who could barely hit 80 MPH just a few weeks before could wiggle out the way he did. I was swearing up and down when Oz pulled that one, then grabbed Alka Seltzer when it was over.

Ozzie had a team of base cloggers last year and got 83 wins from them. Manuel got 86 from basically the same type team the year before.

I think Manuel is an excellent coach, and knew how to get the most of his players individually, but had his problems putting it all together, hence team play.

TornLabrum
12-27-2005, 10:40 PM
I do not remember the whole story, but it ended like this:

I believe Schueler wanted someone else, but interviewed Manuel, who was highly recommended by Felipe Alou. He came away so impressed that he sent thim to Uncle Jerry after that, who was so impressed that he told Schueler: "This guy is great, how come we did not have him higher on the list?'

Maybe Reinsdolrf liked him cause they shared the same first name. Or because he'd be as cheap as Bevington was.

I honestly don't think Manuel was as bad as some are making him to be. He was a little predictable but he knew his stuff as well as anyone. He really didn't have the team Ozzie had this year.

I remember the Cotts thing well and I thought it was a bonehead thing to do also, but remember, Manager's live by their gut calls sometimes. It happened when LaRussa used Alan Benes to start a game in the NLDS a few years ago when the Cards were up 3-1, then lost three in a row because he wanted to rest his aces.

When Ozzie brought in El Duque to pitch out of Marte's mess in the ALDS, don't tell me anyone here, me included, could have seen that a struggling pitcher who could barely hit 80 MPH just a few weeks before could wiggle out the way he did. I was swearing up and down when Oz pulled that one, then grabbed Alka Seltzer when it was over.

Ozzie had a team of base cloggers last year and got 83 wins from them. Manuel got 86 from basically the same type team the year before.

I think Manuel is an excellent coach, and knew how to get the most of his players individually, but had his problems putting it all together, hence team play.

One little thing you neglect to mention about Manuel's 86 wins. They were accomplished with Thomas and Ordonez playing the entire season. Ozzie's 83 wins came with both of them missing about half the season. Just a trivial little matter, right?

soxinem1
12-27-2005, 10:51 PM
One little thing you neglect to mention about Manuel's 86 wins. They were accomplished with Thomas and Ordonez playing the entire season. Ozzie's 83 wins came with both of them missing about half the season. Just a trivial little matter, right?

What's your point? The Sox also had sputtered into the All-Star break that year with Konerko hiting about .189, along with 3 1/2 starting pitchers, a crappy closer, and no defense whatsoever. How trivial was leaving that out on your end?

I also beleve of the three non-roster pitchers brought in to be the 5th starter, KW liked Gil Heredia, while Jerry liked Loaiza. Loaiza brings us Contreras, so hey, **** happens.

Hey, it's not like I'm going to start a Manuel Appreciation Thread, but versus Bevington and Lamont, Manuel was by far better.

TornLabrum
12-27-2005, 10:55 PM
What's your point? The Sox also had sputtered into the All-Star break that year with Konerko hiting about .189, along with 3 1/2 starting pitchers, a crappy closer, and no defense whatsoever. How trivial was leaving that out on your end?

Hey, it's not like I'm going to start a Manuel Appreciation Thread, but versus Bevington and Lamont, Manuel was by far better.

And last year the Sox had no #3 hitter, no #4 hitter, Thomas and Ordonez out, no fifth starter, and Timo Perez and Joe Borchard replacing Ordonez in right field. Now tell me who had the bigger disadvantage?

Daver
12-27-2005, 10:55 PM
Hey, it's not like I'm going to start a Manuel Appreciation Thread, but versus Bevington and Lamont, Manuel was by far better.

My dog could have managed the Sox better than Beavington, so I now fail to see your point.

TornLabrum
12-27-2005, 10:58 PM
My dog could have managed the Sox better than Beavington, so I now fail to see your point.

And he's not even a beagle!

santo=dorf
12-27-2005, 11:00 PM
My dog could have managed the Sox better than Beavington, so I now fail to see your point.
:chopper
"I meant to say 'roof' but I was saying 'bark,' and the umpire was saying 'roof' when he was trying to say 'bark.' It was like that Buggs Bunny cartoon."

soxinem1
12-27-2005, 11:01 PM
My dog could have managed the Sox better than Beavington, so I now fail to see your point.


?????


Did I miss something? I didn't praise Bevington at all.

ondafarm
12-27-2005, 11:05 PM
My dog could manage better than Bevington or Manuel (and he's stuffed.)

SoxSpeed22
12-27-2005, 11:07 PM
Yet, both of you have not mentioned these guys as an important difference between Manuel's 86 wins and Guillen's 83 wins.
:eloaiza::bcolon
Guillen had a LOT less to work with and had nearly the same results.

soxinem1
12-27-2005, 11:08 PM
And last year the Sox had no #3 hitter, no #4 hitter, Thomas and Ordonez out, no fifth starter, and Timo Perez and Joe Borchard replacing Ordonez in right field. Now tell me who had the bigger disadvantage?

Okay, stop right there, Chief. Don't make it sound like I'm some 'Jerry was better than Ozzie' guy, because it is not true. Both of them had to battle in my opinion from 2000-2004. I am just saying, in my view, Manuel was not that bad and was way better than Boomer or Lamont. What two worse managers could you have trying to come back from the strike?

Am I glad he's gone? Certainly, he wore out his time here. Did I want him to manage to begin with? No, I wanted Lou Piniella or Leyland at the time.

Manuel was no genious, but he wasn't the worst, either. Take that for what I say, not for what you want it to mean.

Beauty35thStreet
12-27-2005, 11:29 PM
To argue whether Jerry was better than Ozzie or not is ridiculous. You're comparing Frank, Mags, Loazia, Colon vs. no Frank and no Mags, with pitching and defense?

The teams were different in 03/04 not just by name but by development. 03 Buehrle was a lot different than 04 Buehrle. 03 Buehrle struggled with going 2-10 at first. Also, Colon was hurt with his back at times. 5th starter was a problem. Other than Buehrle, Ozzie had no pitching! Freddy was good but not like he was in 05.

I think Ozzie's better than Manuel no doubt, but that does not mean Manuel was a horrible manager. He was in favor of the long ball and messed with Garland. He also put in Cotts ahead of Buehrle in a decisive game against the Twins. It seems as though with his choice of personel and his game philosophy, we would not have won a World Series. In 2003, we had an amazing team personel-wise, but we barely got 2nd place!

TornLabrum
12-28-2005, 12:08 AM
Okay, stop right there, Chief. Don't make it sound like I'm some 'Jerry was better than Ozzie' guy, because it is not true. Both of them had to battle in my opinion from 2000-2004. I am just saying, in my view, Manuel was not that bad and was way better than Boomer or Lamont. What two worse managers could you have trying to come back from the strike?

Am I glad he's gone? Certainly, he wore out his time here. Did I want him to manage to begin with? No, I wanted Lou Piniella or Leyland at the time.

Manuel was no genious, but he wasn't the worst, either. Take that for what I say, not for what you want it to mean.

I didn't bring up the 83 wins vs. 86 wins.

Blueprint1
12-28-2005, 01:55 AM
I can't believe this. Manuel was a horrible manager. I blame him for us not winning the division in 2003. That year we had a team that could go deep into the playoffs. We didn't even make the playoffs.

IowaSox1971
12-28-2005, 02:31 AM
I can't believe this. Manuel was a horrible manager. I blame him for us not winning the division in 2003. That year we had a team that could go deep into the playoffs. We didn't even make the playoffs.


Manuel did a great job in 2000. That team could have won a playoff series or two, but Schueler did not acquire any pitching at the trading deadline. By the time we got to the playoffs, practically every guy on the pitching staff had a sore arm. Parque, Sirotka and Baldwin were our three starters in the playoffs that year. None of those guys had a healthy season as a starter again.

As for 2003, we did not have as good of a TEAM as the Twins did. Yes, we had more sluggers, but we lacked speed and defense, and Gordon and Marte were our only two decent relief pitchers. We lacked a quality leadoff hitter all season. After trying Harris and DeAngelo Jimenez at second base during our dreadful first half of the season, we did acquire Roberto Alomar for the final few months of the season, but he was already over the hill. We had Everett (Everett!!) playing center field in the second half of the season. We had Valentin at shortstop. We had Olivo's questionable game-calling behind the plate. And we had Danny Wrong as our fifth starter for most of that season. Amazingly, he won none of his 15 starts that year (his only win came in relief). I'm sure Manuel would have managed differently if he had guys like Iguchi, Uribe, Podsednik, Pierzynski and El Duque on his roster that season. The Cotts/Yankee Stadium thing would not have even been an issue if we had a competent fifth starter on the roster that year.

Ozzie is a good manager, but it's a lot easier for a manager to look good when he is able to manage a TEAM, not just a collection of sluggers.

ode to veeck
12-28-2005, 08:42 AM
Leo Durocher's quote, "nice guys finish last", fit Jerry Manuel to a tee... well, it was more like 'nice guys finish second'.

in a crappy division

ode to veeck
12-28-2005, 08:47 AM
Manuel did a great job in 2000.

<...>

Ozzie is a good manager, but it's a lot easier for a manager to look good when he is able to manage a TEAM, not just a collection of sluggers.

how did the SOX become a TEAM? Ozzie's leadership ... JM had no real leadership, look how Royce, Butter, and other whiners called the shots. JM was like a windsock on the bench, what did he use like 80 different lineups one year by August ... we could have done better with 25 monkeys on 25 typewriters for crissakes

TornLabrum
12-28-2005, 09:07 AM
I found this blast from the past in the archives. I'd completely forgotten about it. It's from 08-17-2003.

Manuel says that Frank's not helping the club because even though he's leading the club in home runs, his avearge isn't high enough to justify those home runs. Manuel thinks that Frank needs to hit fifty homers in order to jusitfy his batting average.

Yup, Frank's batting average wasn't up to snuff, even though he was pounding the ball. I love RK's next comment:

Based on that logic, I guess Paul Konerko should try to hit eighty or ninety home runs, because he spent most of the first half hitting around .185.

Jerry Manuel never ceases to amaze me... with his stupidity.

He needs to be fired.

And this was about 10-11 days before the Cotts/Yankees fiasco. Yeah, Manuel was an idiot and was that bad.

Oh, one thing we've forgotten to mention is the numberous fights he picked with Thomas: First over his slacking (bone spur the size of a walnut in his ankle), then over his return (wanted Thomas to run that drill that Thomas's own doctor told him not to, resulting in a shouting match with Thomas), and later letting David Wells take off on Thomas for not sucking it up and playing only days before Thomas was diagnosed with a torn triceps.

Yes, we really do need to remember Jerry's medical opinions and what they were worth.

ilsox7
12-28-2005, 09:12 AM
I found this blast from the past in the archives. I'd completely forgotten about it. It's from 08-17-2003.



Yup, Frank's batting average wasn't up to snuff, even though he was pounding the ball. I love RK's next comment:



And this was about 10-11 days before the Cotts/Yankees fiasco. Yeah, Manuel was an idiot and was that bad.

Oh, one thing we've forgotten to mention is the numberous fights he picked with Thomas: First over his slacking (bone spur the size of a walnut in his ankle), then over his return (wanted Thomas to run that drill that Thomas's own doctor told him not to, resulting in a shouting match with Thomas), and later letting David Wells take off on Thomas for not sucking it up and playing only days before Thomas was diagnosed with a torn triceps.

Yes, we really do need to remember Jerry's medical opinions and what they were worth.

But he was such a nice man and never swore!

Beauty35thStreet
12-28-2005, 09:19 AM
<DIV>I'm agreeing with Blueprint that 2003 we should have won the division.&nbsp; I think the 2003 Sox were a huge disappointment, but it wasn't just Manuel that was bad, there were a lot of players that were bad.&nbsp; In my opinion, we should have won the World Series.&nbsp; I think we had a lot of players that justd were underachievers: Konerko was the worst one of the bunch that year.&nbsp; Colon wasn't that hot.&nbsp; ARow was still recovering from his shoulder injury.&nbsp; Robbie Alomar did a good job.&nbsp; Olivo couldn't hit, Crede couldn't hit, Valentin was Valentin, good sometimes, often not.&nbsp; Everyone started slow that year hitting wise except for Mags.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Originally Posted by <STRONG>Blueprint1</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-STYLE: italic">I can't believe this. Manuel was a horrible manager. I blame him for us not winning the division in 2003. That year we had a team that could go deep into the playoffs. We didn't even make the playoffs.</DIV>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>Manuel did a great job in 2000. That team could have won a playoff series or two, but Schueler did not acquire any pitching at the trading deadline. By the time we got to the playoffs, practically every guy on the pitching staff had a sore arm. Parque, Sirotka and Baldwin were our three starters in the playoffs that year. None of those guys had a healthy season as a starter again.</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>As for 2003, we did not have as good of a TEAM as the Twins did. Yes, we had more sluggers, but we lacked speed and defense, and Gordon and Marte were our only two decent relief pitchers. We lacked a quality leadoff hitter all season. After trying Harris and DeAngelo Jimenez at second base during our dreadful first half of the season, we did acquire Roberto Alomar for the final few months of the season, but he was already over the hill. We had Everett (Everett!!) playing center field in the second half of the season. We had Valentin at shortstop. We had Olivo's questionable game-calling behind the plate. And we had Danny Wrong as our fifth starter for most of that season. Amazingly, he won none of his 15 starts that year (his only win came in relief). I'm sure Manuel would have managed differently if he had guys like Iguchi, Uribe, Podsednik, Pierzynski and El Duque on his roster that season. The Cotts/Yankee Stadium thing would not have even been an issue if we had a competent fifth starter on the roster that year.</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>Ozzie is a good manager, but it's a lot easier for a manager to look good when he is able to manage a TEAM, not just a collection of sluggers.</P>

Baby Fisk
12-28-2005, 09:37 AM
It's already been said, but to add to the pile-on: MANUEL SUCKED HUGE.

AZChiSoxFan
12-28-2005, 09:54 AM
Yes.

Being comotose in the dugout is no way to run a baseball team. The Sox had the talent, they couldn't win squat under him.

Lip

Well said Lip! that pretty much sums it up.

soxinem1
12-28-2005, 10:07 AM
To argue whether Jerry was better than Ozzie or not is ridiculous. You're comparing Frank, Mags, Loazia, Colon vs. no Frank and no Mags, with pitching and defense?

The teams were different in 03/04 not just by name but by development. 03 Buehrle was a lot different than 04 Buehrle. 03 Buehrle struggled with going 2-10 at first. Also, Colon was hurt with his back at times. 5th starter was a problem. Other than Buehrle, Ozzie had no pitching! Freddy was good but not like he was in 05.

I think Ozzie's better than Manuel no doubt, but that does not mean Manuel was a horrible manager. He was in favor of the long ball and messed with Garland. He also put in Cotts ahead of Buehrle in a decisive game against the Twins. It seems as though with his choice of personel and his game philosophy, we would not have won a World Series. In 2003, we had an amazing team personel-wise, but we barely got 2nd place!

Half a Frank and a third of a Maggs is more accurate. Still, the 2004 Sox hit 242 homers. By the end of the year Borchard was actually resembling a major leaguer. He almost hit in double figures too.

The biggest reasons the 2001-04 White Sox did not win their division.

Starting pitching: If the Sox had a fifth starter win just a handful of games in these years, they would have won the division at least twice.

Opponents: The 2003 Sox, by August, could play with anyone in the league. They could beat the Yanks, BoSox, Tribe, etc. But they struggled against teams like Tampa and Detroit. In 2005 they beat up on the inferior opponents.

Closers and relievers: The Sox had little depth in the pen, and did not have real closer from 2002-04. Coupled with the fact that they basically had a 3 1/2 man rotation during Manuel's tenure, I can hardly blame him entirely for his team's performance.

If you guys want to keep referring to some of Manuel's boneheaded moves, think of this:

It was Williams who gave him Wells, Ritchie, Clayton, and Julio 'They didn't treat me right just because I was hitting .080' Ramirez, among other flops.

Alan Embree came in and served up bombs, Cal Eldred with a glued together elbow expected to be a starter, he gave Antonio Osuna a three year extension based off Spring Training games that ticked off Keith Foulke because they wouldn't give him anything.

Billy Koch, who both Jerry and Ozzie gave numerous chances to blow games too, was brought in even though his stuff was flat since August 2002 with Oakland.

Sanday Alomar and his one knee as a starting catcher.

So if you want to blame someone for what resulted in numerous boneheaded moves after the fact, blame KW. But I take into consideration that he was new to the job, and was really trying to improve the team, not downgrade it. Sometimes you win, sometimes you do not.

Least you forget, it was Manuel who made Buerhle a starter, as he was slated for the pen in 2001.

While he was a very uninspiring manager, I think he did the best he could with what he had, and it's not fair to dump everything on him just because Ozzie put it together and won it all.

ode to veeck
12-28-2005, 10:19 AM
While he was a very uninspiring manager, I think he did the best he could with what he had, and it's not fair to dump everything on him just because Ozzie put it together and won it all.

Why do folks look at history with such rose colored glasses?

As the very small collection of quotes from ancient threads here already shows, folks were justifyably dumping on JM long before Ozzie returned, not afterwards. Nice guy, but he totally sucked as a manager, sorry. Why the hell did he bring Paniccia to pitch that day ... cost us a division win we had wrapped up ... certainly not doing the best with what he had.

:bong: wouldn't be nearly strong enough hallucinagens to get me thinking this way

Tragg
12-28-2005, 10:24 AM
Manuel was a terrible manager, although I do think he was a step up from luminaries like Bevington and Lamont.

soxinem1
12-28-2005, 10:30 AM
Why do folks look at history with such rose colored glasses?

As the very small collection of quotes from ancient threads here already shows, folks were justifyably dumping on JM long before Ozzie returned, not afterwards. Nice guy, but he totally sucked as a manager, sorry. Why the hell did he bring Paniccia to pitch that day ... cost us a division win we had wrapped up ... certainly not doing the best with what he had.

:bong: wouldn't be nearly strong enough hallucinagens to get me thinking this way


I'm not sure what your point is. You are going to find supporters/detractors regarding anything.

I will state again, I was all in favor of dumping JM before 2003, but I know Reinsdorf was not going to pay two managers for two years.

And I for one am not looking with rose colored glasses, I am merely stating facts. Manuel did make some notable contributions to this organization, but his time ran out.

As far as bringing in Paniagua against the Twins, well, they were up by 7-8 runs at the time, bringing in a scrub for garbage time always happens. They still won the game. This incident was very similar to Ozzie bringing in Bajanerau against the M's in 04 with a six run lead, in a game that resulted with the tying run being thrown out at third after the dust had settled.

Though the 2003 game with the Twins woke up the enemy, it was up to the players to perform, and they choked. It's over and done. Besides, it was Williams, who everyone has been drooling over here, who was so gung ho on getting Paniagua.

If you want to dislike Manuel for being a bonehead that's one thing. But to say he was the reason they did not reach the playoffs from 2001-03 is absurd.

Let some chump cub fan sit and argue about what could have been, if they would have, if we did, billy goats, blow up baseballs, Bartman, and all that stupid inuendo.

Sox fans have more class, knowledge, and devotion.

Just be glad Manuel's gone, Ozzie's here, and we are World Series Champs.

DenverSock
12-28-2005, 10:33 AM
Yes.
I was going to say that.

:redface::redface:


:tomatoaward

ma-gaga
12-28-2005, 10:38 AM
Being a big league Manager today is a multi-task job. You have to:
1. Deal with the players
2. Deal with the media
3. Deal with the GM/Owner
4. In game decision making

I think Manual was ok dealing with the media and with GM/Owner, but ((compared to Guillen)), he was terrible with his in game management, and terrible in dealing with the players (defending 'his guys').

He's an average manager, one that could win a couple of division titles, but fade in the playoffs. Ozzie is clearly a championship manager. One that maximized his pitching staff. One that kept his players fresh and hungry. Ozzie is clearly a better manager than Manual.

Manuel might have been a little more media friendly, but that shouldn't be his primary responsibility. So, compared to Ozzie, yes, Manuel was terrible. Compared to the rest of the league, I'd consider him an 'average' manager.

:cool:

MILTMAY5
12-28-2005, 11:58 AM
Manuel was worse than even Bevington, and I never thought I'd say that about anyone. Heck, Manuel even almost pulled a Bevington, going to take out a pitcher without anyone warming up...except Manuel realized what he was doing halfway out to the mound and suddenly started walking around like a drunk, not knowing how to get out of it, until he finally meandered his way to the home plate umpire. They had a long, awkward, embarrassing talk about probably absolutely nothing. I can still remember Mike Hargrove in the dugout looking confused and then coming out and arguing that it was indeed Manuel's second trip out and that he had to change the pitcher.

And Manuel was by far the worst arguer in baseball history. It was so embarrassingly contrived.

The only real problem I've ever had with Kenny Williams was bringing back Manuel for his last year. It didn't make any sense whatsoever then and it still doesn't.Bevington may have been brain dead but at least he wanted to win. Manuel's two biggest problems were he kept making the same mistakes over and over, and the losing never seemed to bother him. Gene Lamont was the same way. It drove me nuts to watch these two idiots lose games night after night.

DenverSock
12-28-2005, 12:09 PM
Manuel's two biggest problems were he kept making the same mistakes over and over.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." -- often attributed to Albert Einstein

:violin:

PaleHoseGeorge
12-28-2005, 01:05 PM
Manuel was a great improvement over his predecessor, Terry Bevington. Of course Bevo's managerial acumen was slightly below Dead Sea levels, so that's no big compliment to Manuel.

Manuel tricked everyone inside and outside the clubhouse for his first 3-1/2 seasons using the Gandhi bit and his "battling" attitude. But the wheels came off the cart midway through 2001 and he never really got the clubhouse behind him again. He probably did more to derail Frank Thomas's march into the Hall of Fame than anybody else in the Sox organization -- including Frank himself.

His goofball ideas on managing people cost the Sox the division title in 2003, a season the Twins were definitely beatable. It ended up costing Jerry his job, so nobody has any complaints about the outcome except that maybe Kenny should have pulled the plug 1-2 years earlier.

He was a lousy manager who successfully masqueraded as a good manager for nearly three years. By pre-2005 Sox standards, that's not bad. However by post-2005 championship Sox standards, Manuel absolutely sucked.

Fake Chet Lemon
12-28-2005, 01:42 PM
:jerry

You all are bringing "yo A-game"

Iwritecode
12-28-2005, 01:53 PM
I think it's important to remember that Ozzie is a big reason the team is what it is today.

He came in and within the first year looked around and said "this is not going to work". If we would've kept Manuel, we'd still have a slugging team with no pitching and average defense.

hawkjt
12-28-2005, 02:52 PM
Manuel took an average team to a division title in 2000 and was manager of the year. Oh yea he really sucked, right?

As as been pointed out by people with actual memories of what actually happened in 01-03 injuries were a much bigger factor than any managers moves.

When ozzie pitched B-Mac instead of Burls in Texas this year and B-Mac got blown out it was exactly the same scenario as with Cotts and Manuel and ozz got no flack cuz we were winning. Cotts turned out ok ,I guess didnt he.

And Hawks griping on Manuel is petty and baseless. Sure, he could have ran up high pitch count on the 21-25 year old Gar and Burls and it would have helped his personal situation but he protected their arms instead of what Dusty chose to do with Prior and Wood. Hence as much as Gar resented being babied it has made him even wealthier as a 26 year old with no history of arm problems. Same with Burls. Manuel took the long view to allow their arms to mature slower and thereby laid the foundation for a WS championship. The sox ,their fans and these pitchers owe a debt of gratitude to Jerry Manuel. Oh yea, he was a lot better than bevington- how many division titles did Terry bring home?

Blueprint1
12-28-2005, 04:43 PM
The only reason Everett was playing center field is Manuel wouldn't play rowand. Who are we going to blame for that? Rowand was getting hot and they pulled him to play everett . Every wrong move was made in 2003 along with Koch as the closer. Remember when manuel let Colon pitch to Bonds for the 4th time in a game? How did that turn out. You could create a huge list of things this guy did wrong.

SOXSINCE'70
12-28-2005, 04:58 PM
Yes, we really do need to remember Jerry's medical opinions and what they were worth.

Aw,come on,TL.It's not like this guy was Marcus Welby,
Ben Casey or Dr.Kildare.:D: Hell,Manuel wasn't even Dr.Joe
Gannon on the 70's hit show "Medical Center".:redneck

Lip Man 1
12-28-2005, 05:55 PM
There was also tremendous dissent in the Sox locker room from Clayton's spikes, to Williams coming in and tipping over the post game spread, to Frank Thomas and so forth.

This team wasn't THAT injured except in 2001, they had more talent then the Twins and the rebuilding Indians and they STILL couldn't win squat.

Manuel is a very nice man, a tremendous human being but he blew as a field manager because he didn't have the passion needed to keep 25 tremendous egos and incredible athletes working towards the same goal.

Lip

TornLabrum
12-28-2005, 06:38 PM
Aw,come on,TL.It's not like this guy was Marcus Welby,
Ben Casey or Dr.Kildare.:D: Hell,Manuel wasn't even Dr.Joe
Gannon on the 70's hit show "Medical Center".:redneck

Hell, he wasn't even Dr. Simon Locke from "Police Surgeon."

ondafarm
12-28-2005, 08:01 PM
Three things (among others) mark good big league managers.

1) Their teams stay focussed and beat up the weak teams.

2) Their players achieve greater things than if they are left to pursue only stats.

3) They view adversity as an opportunity not an excuse.

Jerry Manuel failed miserably at all three.

FarWestChicago
12-29-2005, 12:15 AM
Manuel took an average team to a division title in 2000 and was manager of the year. Oh yea he really sucked, right?

As as been pointed out by people with actual memories of what actually happened in 01-03 injuries were a much bigger factor than any managers moves.

When ozzie pitched B-Mac instead of Burls in Texas this year and B-Mac got blown out it was exactly the same scenario as with Cotts and Manuel and ozz got no flack cuz we were winning. Cotts turned out ok ,I guess didnt he.

And Hawks griping on Manuel is petty and baseless. Sure, he could have ran up high pitch count on the 21-25 year old Gar and Burls and it would have helped his personal situation but he protected their arms instead of what Dusty chose to do with Prior and Wood. Hence as much as Gar resented being babied it has made him even wealthier as a 26 year old with no history of arm problems. Same with Burls. Manuel took the long view to allow their arms to mature slower and thereby laid the foundation for a WS championship. The sox ,their fans and these pitchers owe a debt of gratitude to Jerry Manuel. Oh yea, he was a lot better than bevington- how many division titles did Terry bring home?The staff here sucks. How long have we let Ol' Jer post as hawkjt? He had me fooled until this post. Hey Jer, a little jealous of Ozz are you? :D:

TheKittle
12-29-2005, 04:00 AM
Hawk lost all credibility with me way before that w/me. Hawk's credibility has been nil w/me ever since he defended 97's "White Flag" Trade.

Geez some people either weren't around or don't remember his reign of error as GM, that's when he lost all credibility with me.

soxinem1
12-29-2005, 10:37 AM
There was also tremendous dissent in the Sox locker room from Clayton's spikes, to Williams coming in and tipping over the post game spread, to Frank Thomas and so forth.

This team wasn't THAT injured except in 2001, they had more talent then the Twins and the rebuilding Indians and they STILL couldn't win squat.

Manuel is a very nice man, a tremendous human being but he blew as a field manager because he didn't have the passion needed to keep 25 tremendous egos and incredible athletes working towards the same goal.

Lip

Not that injured? Hmmm. Frank was out almost all year, Eldred was out for the year within three weeks, Perry was on a bum leg all year, Baldwin was rushed back from injury because of the injuries and ineffectiveness of EVERYONE except Buerhle, Big Mouth Wells missed half the year, and Osuna missed all but a month after KW gave him his 2 year extension. Some pretty major stuff!

Remember, Mauel made Buerhle a starter too. If they would have left him in the pen that team might have lost 85-90 games. They had Glover, Wells, and Garland getting bombed in that rotation, and a thin bullpen most of the year.

It did bug me that Manuel had 80 different lineups by the 90th game every year, but KW hog tied him to when he brought in Clayton. That left Valentin, who Manuel defended all of 2000 by saying his errors rarely cost the team, to play a guy who barely hit until the Sox were all but out by August.

And regarding Everett in CF in 2003, well, that Rowand was geting hot stuff was a bit inaccurate. Rowand stunk so bad he got sent to AAA. He hit a little bit once he came back, but it was KW who pulled the trigger on Alomar and Everett. What were they going to do, bench C-Lee or Maggs? Everett was an All-Star and was hitting the ball hard when he came over, and continued once he put on the pinstripes. Besides, Everett didn't embarass himself in CF and hit quite well, better than he did this year. Plus, two wins out of your fifth starter will doom you with certainty.

I was all in favor of his firing after 2003 and he did do a lot of puzzling things, but there's a lot of stuff getting dumped on him infairly. Let's just agree that Ozzie was the guy who fianlly took the team to JR's 'Point C', a World Championship!!

Lip Man 1
12-29-2005, 12:11 PM
Soxinem 1:

Reading is an acquired skill...read the post again, "Except in 2001.'

Eldred was hurt in 2001,so was Wells and Osuna...so was Wunsch, Howry, Sirotka, Parque etc. They all were coming off surgeries caused by overuse in 2000. I'm not totally blaming Manuel for that by the way, Jumbotron Ron could have acquired pitching help and did nothing.

By the way what's your excuse for falling apart the last three weeks in September 2003 after the Sox had a two game lead on the Twins with 16 games to go?

Fact: Manager Gandhi is a very nice guy, a gentleman and a fine Christian. Manager Gandhi was also a lousy field manager. The way guys are recycled now-a-days isn't it odd that no one has hired him? Then again maybe it isn't so odd.

Lip

SOXSINCE'70
12-29-2005, 12:15 PM
Hell, he wasn't even Dr. Simon Locke from "Police Surgeon."

Wow!! I almost forgot about him.
Considering what a dud that show was in the ratings,
I shouldn't be surprised.IIRC, "Police Surgeon" was a
syndicated show airing sometime around 1972-73.
I actually saw one episode,believe it or not.
One of the show's sponsors was the Colgate Palmolive
company,who made Irish Spring soap
("Manly,yes,but I like it too").:D: :D:

hawkjt
12-29-2005, 12:16 PM
Thanks for the back up ,soxiem, Manuel was not perfect or maybe even above average but we all know that baseball is the ultimate second guessing sport so you can rip any manager (even ozzie) if you want to look at the million decisions they make over a season. Manuel was a good manager for a young (2000) team that needed patient nurturing. He probably was not a good manager for a more veteran team. Sure he had it out with Big Frank a couple of times but they talked it out and Frank went out and had some big years for him.

Don't knee jerk blame the manager for injuries,underacheivement or bad rosters - that is so cub-like.

Hitmen77
12-29-2005, 02:14 PM
When ozzie pitched B-Mac instead of Burls in Texas this year and B-Mac got blown out it was exactly the same scenario as with Cotts ...

Seeing as Ozzie wasn't bumping Buehrle for someone to make his major league debut at Yankee Stadium, how can you call it "exactly the same scenario"? Remember, Manual didn't bump Buehrle until we won the 1st two games of the series. He seemed to be implying that it was ok to concede the last game because we already had one the series against the Yanks. Nevermind that we were holding a razor thin lead over the Twinkies at the time.

...and ozz got no flack cuz we were winning. Cotts turned out ok ,I guess didnt he.

Yes, I agree that it's so unfair that Ozzie gets no flack based on the reason that we were WINNING.

soxinem1
12-29-2005, 03:26 PM
Soxinem 1:

Reading is an acquired skill...read the post again, "Except in 2001.'

Eldred was hurt in 2001,so was Wells and Osuna...so was Wunsch, Howry, Sirotka, Parque etc. They all were coming off surgeries caused by overuse in 2000. I'm not totally blaming Manuel for that by the way, Jumbotron Ron could have acquired pitching help and did nothing.

By the way what's your excuse for falling apart the last three weeks in September 2003 after the Sox had a two game lead on the Twins with 16 games to go?

Fact: Manager Gandhi is a very nice guy, a gentleman and a fine Christian. Manager Gandhi was also a lousy field manager. The way guys are recycled now-a-days isn't it odd that no one has hired him? Then again maybe it isn't so odd.

Lip

My flub, didn't notice the 2001. But 2002 was the worst team KW put out there during his term as GM (Ritchie, Lofton, Clayton [Round II], no starting catcher, a very light rotation both starting and ending the year),and he dumped Durham in July, paying all hs salary and getting only Adkins in return.

I think Manuel screwed up when he totally deposed Foulke as the closer, but this team was doomed from the start. He also put out a hundred different line ups, but he did it to try to spark the team. LaRussa has been doing this for years and no one jumps on him. In fact, it was the most unorthodox line up change that LaRussa is best known for (w/Fisk) that brought criticism by many, Fisk included, when it was first done.

Don't get me wrong, I am no Manuel disciple, but KW made some really questionable roster moves during the period of 2000-02. Even that I don't totally blame KW for because Scheuler left him a pretty thin cupboard on the depth chart.

In 2003, PK, Mo, Valentin, and Maggs shut it down in September. Plus the 3 1/2 guy rotation was burned out a little too. AJ made sure the Twins capitalized on that little situation with KW's little stretch-run present, Jose Paniagua. No to make excuses, but JM didn't have the horses to compete fully.

He does deserve criticism for his dealings with Thomas, and the Clayton and Wells issues, to name a few. Wells should have been suspended for his dumb remarks, and Clayton shouldn't have even been starting in 2002 at all, but I suspect JR and KW told him that they would not throw away $9 million.

But Manuel had to deal with what he had, and he really didn't do that bad overall. He just was not the right guy to bring us a WS winner.

TornLabrum
12-29-2005, 03:27 PM
Wow!! I almost forgot about him.
Considering what a dud that show was in the ratings,
I shouldn't be surprised.IIRC, "Police Surgeon" was a
syndicated show airing sometime around 1972-73.
I actually saw one episode,believe it or not.
One of the show's sponsors was the Colgate Palmolive
company,who made Irish Spring soap
("Manly,yes,but I like it too").:D: :D:

Police Surgeon was a follow-up to another syndicated dud, Simon Locke, M.D. Somehow the production company managed to talk Jack Albertson to come up to Canada to be the wise old doctor on that show, kind of like Dr. Zorba to Ben Casey. I think Sam Groom, who played Dr. Simon Locke, was pretty fresh from appearing in Another World, a soap opera my mother used to watch.

Both shows were produced to fill the vacuum created when the FCC took away the 6:30-7:00 p.m. time slot from the networks to promote locally produced programming. What we got instead were bad dramatic shows like that and a spate of game shows like the nighttime editions of The Price Is Right, Match Game, etc. and reincarnations of previous shows like Name That Tune.

mccoydp
12-29-2005, 04:02 PM
I got back from Iraq in the fall of 2003, and watched the Sox blow the two game lead over the Twins. God, that was painful.
I'm sure Jerry meant well, and wanted to do well, but he couldn't seal the deal. Good example? 2000 ALDS.
I think most of us on the site have given Ozzie crap for a lot of his decisions, esp. with the bullpen, but he is so superior compared to Manuel.

Beauty35thStreet
12-29-2005, 04:38 PM
Well said. I agree with you that the majority of all this was KW's fault. Those years I truly wondered how long he would remain the GM. 2001--you are correct that pitching was bad, Frank got hurt, etc. I can understand why we didn't make the playoffs. We still had a decent team however. In 2003, I don't think there's an excuse as to why we didn't win the World Series! I thought that team was awesome.

Unfortunately for Manuel, I think a lot of the problem was that his players started to "lose respect" for him (supposedly). If that's the case, that's probably what took him out. After 2003, I gave KW a lot of credit for what he was doing. I admit that Manuel didn't have great players in 01-02 and really in 2000 he managed a bunch of overachievers, but the Twins just killed us and I didn't think they were that much better than us.

By the way, this is a great thread! It's pretty fun to look back at these years.

Half a Frank and a third of a Maggs is more accurate. Still, the 2004 Sox hit 242 homers. By the end of the year Borchard was actually resembling a major leaguer. He almost hit in double figures too.

The biggest reasons the 2001-04 White Sox did not win their division.

Starting pitching: If the Sox had a fifth starter win just a handful of games in these years, they would have won the division at least twice.

Opponents: The 2003 Sox, by August, could play with anyone in the league. They could beat the Yanks, BoSox, Tribe, etc. But they struggled against teams like Tampa and Detroit. In 2005 they beat up on the inferior opponents.

Closers and relievers: The Sox had little depth in the pen, and did not have real closer from 2002-04. Coupled with the fact that they basically had a 3 1/2 man rotation during Manuel's tenure, I can hardly blame him entirely for his team's performance.

If you guys want to keep referring to some of Manuel's boneheaded moves, think of this:

It was Williams who gave him Wells, Ritchie, Clayton, and Julio 'They didn't treat me right just because I was hitting .080' Ramirez, among other flops.

Alan Embree came in and served up bombs, Cal Eldred with a glued together elbow expected to be a starter, he gave Antonio Osuna a three year extension based off Spring Training games that ticked off Keith Foulke because they wouldn't give him anything.

Billy Koch, who both Jerry and Ozzie gave numerous chances to blow games too, was brought in even though his stuff was flat since August 2002 with Oakland.

Sanday Alomar and his one knee as a starting catcher.

So if you want to blame someone for what resulted in numerous boneheaded moves after the fact, blame KW. But I take into consideration that he was new to the job, and was really trying to improve the team, not downgrade it. Sometimes you win, sometimes you do not.

Least you forget, it was Manuel who made Buerhle a starter, as he was slated for the pen in 2001.

While he was a very uninspiring manager, I think he did the best he could with what he had, and it's not fair to dump everything on him just because Ozzie put it together and won it all.

TornLabrum
12-29-2005, 04:50 PM
Well said. I agree with you that the majority of all this was KW's fault. Those years I truly wondered how long he would remain the GM. 2001--you are correct that pitching was bad, Frank got hurt, etc. I can understand why we didn't make the playoffs. We still had a decent team however. In 2003, I don't think there's an excuse as to why we didn't win the World Series! I thought that team was awesome.

Unfortunately for Manuel, I think a lot of the problem was that his players started to "lose respect" for him (supposedly). If that's the case, that's probably what took him out. After 2003, I gave KW a lot of credit for what he was doing. I admit that Manuel didn't have great players in 01-02 and really in 2000 he managed a bunch of overachievers, but the Twins just killed us and I didn't think they were that much better than us.

By the way, this is a great thread! It's pretty fun to look back at these years.

As for myself, it wasn't the Twinkies killing us that bothered me nearly as much as the DETROIT FREAKIN' TIGERS!

Beauty35thStreet
12-29-2005, 04:56 PM
That's a really good observation. I agree with that. In 99, a lot of people thought the Sox were going to be bad and they really weren't that bad. Man, I loved that team: Durham, Caruso, Thomas, Maggs, Paulie, H. Perry, C. Lee, CF-was it Singleton, Fordyce? They gave the team hope and in 2000, it seems as though all those young guys--Parque, Sirotka, who was the other guy, plus Baldwin and Eldren that we could go far. I agree that Manuel's a good manager at developing youth. Look at how our expectations really became high with Maggs, C. Lee, Konerko, Sirotka, Parque, Foulke, etc.

Good points all around. The Crede incident (or lack thereof) really hurt his credibility in my eyes. I was pretty ticked at that point.

Like you said, after Bevington, Manuel was a nice change of pace. He actually didn't do that bad of a job when the team was really young. He's the type that doesn't say much and has seemingly infinite patience--which is often mistaken for narcolepsy--and that goes over well with a young team. The 99-00 Sox were about an aggregate 26 year old team and he just allowed them to relax and play their game. But of course when the playoffs came around, he was clearly out of his league, then in 2001, with a more veteran club and, specifically the Thomas incidents and the presence of big-mouth Wells, Manuel just fell apart at the seams and so did the club. From that year onward, it was just downhill.

Basically, he's only fit to manage a young club in my opinion. But then again, what happens when they grow up and it's time to compete for something? So, yeah. He was a nice guy, though, no one can argue that and I wish him the best of luck at getting some kind of employment in MLB. I'm sure he's capable of coaching a base at least. Then again, we've had some pretty incompetent ones there, too...:rolleyes:

Beauty35thStreet
12-29-2005, 04:57 PM
That's right, I remember in 2003 Loazia losing two games by the score of 1-0.

As for myself, it wasn't the Twinkies killing us that bothered me nearly as much as the DETROIT FREAKIN' TIGERS!

Beauty35thStreet
12-29-2005, 05:05 PM
Doooode, I love KW and thought he was an amazing GM, but the Bears GM Jim Finks around the early 80s was pretty damn good too. He was the guy that assembled the 85 team. I think Jerry Krause was pretty good also.

KW didn't inherit a mess, he inherited a 2000 Division Champion and created a mess. Although I agreed with a lot of his bad moves at the time, I surely didn't agree with dumping Kip for Ritchie. However, he redeemed himself tremendously by seeking out in Japan for talent, having the guts to trade C. Lee, and managing a way to get decent free agents and work those mid-season deals.

To say he's up there with Finks and Krause I'll give you, but the best, that might be stretching it.

It's amazing...but I wonder how much of KW's previous moniker was him growing into his job...not to mention inheriting Shueler's mess, Manuel, etc....not to cast a dark cloud at all, but if the 2006 WS do not match the same success (i.e., repeat WS Champs), KW still will be one of the best GM's in baseball. IMO, he'll be the best this town has seen, or will ever see...

soxinem1
12-29-2005, 05:19 PM
As for myself, it wasn't the Twinkies killing us that bothered me nearly as much as the DETROIT FREAKIN' TIGERS!

Hang a star on that one. I mentioned that before, if we could have just won a few games against the scrubby teams and a fifth starter win a couple, we would have had four AL Central titles this decade.

Has anyone thought of the fact that if the Sox win the Central in 2003, Manuel may not get fired, Ozzie stays in Florida, possibly replaces Trader Jack at the helm with the Marlins, and does not come here at all?

Isn't the after thought a great thing????

PKalltheway
12-29-2005, 06:12 PM
Jerry was ok, but being ok isn't going to get you a World Series title. He just let things run its course too much. It was like he was watching a ship sink at times and he wouldn't do anything about it. When the Sox started stumbling towards the end of this season, Ozzie was not happy and he let everybody know it. When the Sox were stumbling under Manuel, he wouldn't even say anything. He just let the ship sink.:(: Then again with the players he had, I guess his hands were tied and there was nothing he could really do about it.

LongLiveFisk
12-29-2005, 07:01 PM
Manuel was just strange. I remember times when he should have gotten into the umpire's face about something but didn't, and then times when he got all mad and I wasn't sure why (you have to admit, the "bob and weave" was funny.) However, I will give him credit for coming out to meet the fans during Fuji Film Photo Day in 2003 after a previous couple of weeks of bad managing and pitching change decisions that continually backfired. At least he didn't sit in the dugout and hide. But ultimately, I was happy when he departed.

Lprof
12-29-2005, 07:02 PM
Thanks for echoing my thoughts,TL.Might I also bring up
how he forgot to pich run for Konerko in the 9th inning of a
2003 loss (Carlos Lee practically had to wake him up to remind
him a pich runner wouldn't be a bad idea,IIRC).Of course,there
was his stubborn stand with sending Belly Crotch (er...uh....
Billy Koch) out for a save opportunity when it was apparent there
was nothing left in his tank.I could go on and on and on,
but i'll spare the posters and stop here.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:When I think of Jerry, I think of the pitiful way he was outmanaged in the first game of the 2000 playoffs, though in fairness that team was just out of gas. But as for Koch, while I certainly have to give Ozzie his props, it was incredible how long he stuck with him as the closer in 2004. I still remember how Koch ruined my 4th of July celebration when he blew a lead to Tampa. How come I new Koch was going to blow it, and Ozzie didn't? Eventually he went to Shingo, but he should have done that much earlier. My point is not to bash Ozzie--all's well that ends well--but to note that if you watch any manager long enough, he screws up.

In any event, we always give managers too much credit and too much blame; somehow, Casey Stengel went from being very smart to being very stupid when he went from managing the Yankees to managing the Mets.

PKalltheway
12-29-2005, 07:38 PM
When I think of Jerry, I think of the pitiful way he was outmanaged in the first game of the 2000 playoffs, though in fairness that team was just out of gas. But as for Koch, while I certainly have to give Ozzie his props, it was incredible how long he stuck with him as the closer in 2004. I still remember how Koch ruined my 4th of July celebration when he blew a lead to Tampa. How come I new Koch was going to blow it, and Ozzie didn't? Eventually he went to Shingo, but he should have done that much earlier. My point is not to bash Ozzie--all's well that ends well--but to note that if you watch any manager long enough, he screws up.

Ozzie learned from his mistake of leaving Koch in too long as the closer. Remember when Shingo couldn't get it done at the beginning of the year and Ozzie was quick to pull the plug?

Lprof
12-29-2005, 07:46 PM
When I think of Jerry, I think of the pitiful way he was outmanaged in the first game of the 2000 playoffs, though in fairness that team was just out of gas. But as for Koch, while I certainly have to give Ozzie his props, it was incredible how long he stuck with him as the closer in 2004. I still remember how Koch ruined my 4th of July celebration when he blew a lead to Tampa. How come I new Koch was going to blow it, and Ozzie didn't? Eventually he went to Shingo, but he should have done that much earlier. My point is not to bash Ozzie--all's well that ends well--but to note that if you watch any manager long enough, he screws up.

In any event, we always give managers too much credit and too much blame; somehow, Casey Stengel went from being very smart to being very stupid when he went from managing the Yankees to managing the Mets. I screwed up the years about Tampa and the 4th of July; I think it was Marte walking in the winning Cub run that ruined my next 4th of July; the Tampa one was Manuel, I believe. The years have started to blend, I am afraid. But Ozzie definitely did go to Koch too much, when it was obvious you could put a fork in him. I particularly remember a Sunday night game where once I saw Koch starting the 9th (I think Shingo had pitched well in the 8th), I new the game was lost, and I was right.

Lprof
12-29-2005, 07:53 PM
Ozzie learned from his mistake of leaving Koch in too long as the closer. Remember when Shingo couldn't get it done at the beginning of the year and Ozzie was quick to pull the plug?Nice catch. I noticed that myself when he was so quick to switch from Shingo. In fairness to Ozzie, I should have pointed that out, but it sure didn't help make the Koch debacle of 2004 go down any easier.

Brian26
12-29-2005, 08:18 PM
Manuel was just strange. I remember times when he should have gotten into the umpire's face about something but didn't, and then times when he got all mad and I wasn't sure why

I lost a lot of respect for Manuel when he purposely got himself kicked out of a game in the first inning in early 2003 just because people were giving him a hard time about not defending his players. It may have been the first homestand after that Baltimore trip when Crede's homer was fair but the ump called it foul (and Manuel hardly even argued). The papers and the radio call-in shows were all over him for a few days in a row. The homestand opened with a Friday night home game against the Mariners. There was a close play at first in the bottom half of the first, and Manuel ran out and got himself tossed arguiing the play when it wasn't even that close. The Sox runner was out by a mile. The whole time I'm thinking, "this doesn't make up for you NOT arguiing the Crede call."

In all fairness, he did an ok job in the six years he was here. A lot of his players quit on him throughout his tenure. I'm torn on whether you blame Manuel for not keeping them motivated or just blaming the scumbag players. In retrospect, you wonder if Ozzie could have done any better with guys like Clayton, Lofton, and Wells.

thomas35forever
12-29-2005, 08:21 PM
I'll give him props for leading the Sox to a division title, but he was pretty bad after that. I actually used to cheer when he got thrown out of games.

Lip Man 1
12-29-2005, 09:26 PM
Jose Paniagua.....that's all that needs to be said about Manager Gandhi.

Lip

Beauty35thStreet
12-29-2005, 09:55 PM
That's not really fair. First off, KW made the trade to get Koch. Secondly, from what I understand Manuel was forced to use Koch. Lines like, "We got to get him confidence" etc. make me think higher ups were telling him to make Koch work. Ozzie got thrown with the same deal with Koch. He said the same thing that "he's my closer" although he was so bad the year before.
That just tells me that KW influenced how the managers used their relievers. Also, JM used Goron and Ozzie used Shingo. I'm not trying to say I was against JM getting fired or saying he managed perfectly, I'm just saying that KW and the players deserve some of the blame as well. I just don't think Manuel was all that bad and is getting a lot of heat. That being said, I'm happy he's gone because it was time to move on.

I was pretty surprised they put Shingo on such a short leash.

How can someone be outmanaged when "the team was out of gas?" #1-how can you be outmanaged if your team won't play to their best #2-I don't think the team was out of gas, I think they sat out too long

When I think of Jerry, I think of the pitiful way he was outmanaged in the first game of the 2000 playoffs, though in fairness that team was just out of gas. But as for Koch, while I certainly have to give Ozzie his props, it was incredible how long he stuck with him as the closer in 2004. I still remember how Koch ruined my 4th of July celebration when he blew a lead to Tampa. How come I new Koch was going to blow it, and Ozzie didn't? Eventually he went to Shingo, but he should have done that much earlier. My point is not to bash Ozzie--all's well that ends well--but to note that if you watch any manager long enough, he screws up.

In any event, we always give managers too much credit and too much blame; somehow, Casey Stengel went from being very smart to being very stupid when he went from managing the Yankees to managing the Mets.

Lprof
12-29-2005, 10:11 PM
That's not really fair. First off, KW made the trade to get Koch. Secondly, from what I understand Manuel was forced to use Koch. Lines like, "We got to get him confidence" etc. make me think higher ups were telling him to make Koch work. Ozzie got thrown with the same deal with Koch. He said the same thing that "he's my closer" although he was so bad the year before.
That just tells me that KW influenced how the managers used their relievers. Also, JM used Goron and Ozzie used Shingo. I'm not trying to say I was against JM getting fired or saying he managed perfectly, I'm just saying that KW and the players deserve some of the blame as well. I just don't think Manuel was all that bad and is getting a lot of heat. That being said, I'm happy he's gone because it was time to move on.

I was pretty surprised they put Shingo on such a short leash.

How can someone be outmanaged when "the team was out of gas?" #1-how can you be outmanaged if your team won't play to their best #2-I don't think the team was out of gas, I think they sat out too long Fair point, but in a sense, I think it is true. First of all, at the very least the pitching staff was out of gas; it was like the walking wounded. But even with that, Parque somehow nursed the first game along; as I recall, it was Manuel's bad strategic choices that ultimately came up to bite us. I don't understand the "sat out too long" point; at most, that should hurt them in the first game; it's not much of a justification for allowing a three-game sweep.

Lprof
12-29-2005, 10:14 PM
I lost a lot of respect for Manuel when he purposely got himself kicked out of a game in the first inning in early 2003 just because people were giving him a hard time about not defending his players. It may have been the first homestand after that Baltimore trip when Crede's homer was fair but the ump called it foul (and Manuel hardly even argued). The papers and the radio call-in shows were all over him for a few days in a row. The homestand opened with a Friday night home game against the Mariners. There was a close play at first in the bottom half of the first, and Manuel ran out and got himself tossed arguiing the play when it wasn't even that close. The Sox runner was out by a mile. The whole time I'm thinking, "this doesn't make up for you NOT arguiing the Crede call."

In all fairness, he did an ok job in the six years he was here. A lot of his players quit on him throughout his tenure. I'm torn on whether you blame Manuel for not keeping them motivated or just blaming the scumbag players. In retrospect, you wonder if Ozzie could have done any better with guys like Clayton, Lofton, and Wells. At first I thought this was a really interesting thread, but now, bringing up all these bad memories is starting to depress me. What's next: a detailed discussion of Tito Landrum's homer?

FarWestChicago
12-30-2005, 01:04 AM
In retrospect, you wonder if Ozzie could have done any better with guys like Clayton, Lofton, and Wells.Ozzie would have run them out of town if need be. And he certainly wouldn't have been taking The Choice out for ice cream after games.

:buddylee

Uncle Jer was my all time favorite manager. He got me sprinkles, too!

santo=dorf
12-30-2005, 01:13 AM
That's right, I remember in 2003 Loazia losing two games by the score of 1-0.

Loaiza 2003 vs. Tigers: 6 GS, 4-2, 1.21 ERA, .75 WHIP
@ Comerica Park: 3 GS, 2-1, .75 ERA, .54 WHIP

:o: :angry:

MVP
12-30-2005, 09:11 AM
Manuel had a good year in 2000. In 2003 however, it seemed like he had no clue about how to manage. He started Neal Cotts (then a rookie) against the Yankees in the middle of the pennant race when we had a chance to sweep the Yankees. Mark Buerhle was ready to start that day and what's worst, Manuel didn't make the decision to not start Buehrle until that day. Buerhle pitched the next game against the Tigers in Detroit and lost. Cotts got shelled by the Yankees and we missed a chance to sweep- which would've been huge. Instead, the Sox were never the same after that. Later in '03 Manuel started Loaiza against the Twins when Loaiza had the flu. Loaiza pitched okay, but not great and the Sox lost that game. That was the first game of a very important series. That game set the tone for the rest of the series. We went on to get swept by the Twins and did not see first place again that year. Manuel had a lot of talent when he was the manager here but he wasn't a good manager. I have nothing against Manuel as a person, he's probably a very good guy- but I hated having him as the Sox manager because he didn't a clue.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-30-2005, 10:53 AM
Hey, the team believed in Gandhi in '99 and '00. After having lived through the Bevo era, I'm sure Manuel looked like an absolute clubhouse genius. That doesn't make him competent to manage a major league team.

Let's not forget that the Sox were completely out of the race by the middle of May in 2001. Manuel had Josh Paul, Mark Johnson, Royce Clayton and Julio Ramirez batting 7-9 trying to out-defense and out-versatile the other team. Yet in spite of all the injuries and all the stupid managerial moves, the Sox still managed to pull within 1 game of first-place by the end of June -- but only after Manuel simply let the offense run itself. Then Foulke blows that game inside the Hump Dome and the Sox are mediocre the rest of the season -- never getting over the hump.

Sometime between July and September, 2001 was the first big hint that the players weren't pulling for Manuel anymore. The "Gandhi" bit wasn't believable anymore. Shame on KW for not pulling the plug sooner. Manuel got two extra years to prove to his team what a unlovable jerk their "Gandhi" truly was.

ondafarm
12-30-2005, 11:29 AM
All managers I know of play one of two cards.

They are the grumpy old man as in, "I'll do anything to keep him away from me and if he's chewing my tail then I better do things extra special." Also known as the Sarge.

The other card is everybody's big brother. We'll do anything for him just to win his praise and affection. That frequently includes winning.

The best managers play both cards and play both well. Ozzie may seem like evryone's big brother but he also plays the Sarge well when it is needed. He seems to do this with Garcia most often.

Manuel seemed quite and confident when compared to Bevington and a few players responded enough that the Sox produced a run in 2000. He did not know how to get in people's faces to motivate them and when not to. Frank needed a nudge of the Sarge and then all Big Brother. JM was clueless.

soxinem1
12-30-2005, 01:09 PM
Hey, the team believed in Gandhi in '99 and '00. After having lived through the Bevo era, I'm sure Manuel looked like an absolute clubhouse genius. That doesn't make him competent to manage a major league team.

Let's not forget that the Sox were completely out of the race by the middle of May in 2001. Manuel had Josh Paul, Mark Johnson, Royce Clayton and Julio Ramirez batting 7-9 trying to out-defense and out-versatile the other team. Yet in spite of all the injuries and all the stupid managerial moves, the Sox still managed to pull within 1 game of first-place by the end of June -- but only after Manuel simply let the offense run itself. Then Foulke blows that game inside the Hump Dome and the Sox are mediocre the rest of the season -- never getting over the hump.

Sometime between July and September, 2001 was the first big hint that the players weren't pulling for Manuel anymore. The "Gandhi" bit wasn't believable anymore. Shame on KW for not pulling the plug sooner. Manuel got two extra years to prove to his team what a unlovable jerk their "Gandhi" truly was.

I'm really beginning to feel contradictory in this thread. Me personally, I was glad Manuel was axed after 2003. But I find myself having to defend him more in this thread than I ever believed, but some of these dumpings on JM are completely unfair.

The players gave up on him? Sure, he ****** the situation the year before with Frank, and should have suspended Wells for his stupid remarks, but some of this stuff is a two way street.

KW and JR allowed some of these walking cancers in the clubhouse, they have a say in this too. Williams and Reinsdorf, being pretty hands on guys, could have stepped in, especially KW, and helped him handle the BS with these guys. Could it be that the players were perhaps a little disrespectful towards their rookie GM and the owner who has been badmouthed by players and fans alike for years?

Again, Williams brought these guys in and gave them to JM. Players who give up on winning and blame it on the manager are losers.

We should also let this stuff about Garland go too. Manuel did nothing to screw this guy up, and showed the confidence in him that he deserved at the time. When they brought him up, Garland had nothing left to prove in AAA, like Scott Ruffcorn, and had to make the adjustment, even though he was 20-21 years old. All the scouting reports on JG for years said he was not maturing properly, and that is something the player has responsibility for. He had good pitching coaches, plenty of chances, and was as inconsistent as Chicago weather. So what was Manuel supposed to do, leave him out there to get pounded even worse? How does that develop a pitcher?

We give too much credit and too much blame to managers and coaches.

Example: Wavin' Wally Johnson was an agressive 3rd Base coach who was given many accolades for a couple years, but then was criticized in the years after they won the division. Now we have Cora, who has been just as aggressive, but often sends runners with reckless abandon. This year he's an asset, but if we do not perform up to snuff next season, Cora will be getting a lot of blame himself if we lose a few games because of him sending someone home who gets thrown out. We won it all this year but I screamed at Cora a lot for sending guys who should have been held.

In my view Manuel did a lot of good things, he developed Konerko, Ordonez, C-Lee, Buerhle, and Foulke into All-Stars, and got more out of Jose Valentin, Mike Sirotka, Bill Simas, Sean Lowe, than anyone else. He was definitely not the guy to carry us across the Championship threshold, but we should appreciate what he did with what he had.

Brian26
12-30-2005, 01:13 PM
Then Foulke blows that game inside the Hump Dome and the Sox are mediocre the rest of the season -- never getting over the hump.

Geezuz you're bringing back bad memories. Who hit that? Was that Denny Hocking?

wolcott10
12-30-2005, 01:16 PM
I'm not sure, but didn't Manuel have the 1st base coach act as a "spy" in the clubhouse?

I'm thinking that this might have turned the players against Manuel.

Brian26
12-30-2005, 01:23 PM
I'm not sure, but didn't Manuel have the 1st base coach act as a "spy" in the clubhouse?

I'm thinking that this might have turned the players against Manuel.

Kenny had the spy in the clubhouse, rumored to be Gary Pettis.

soxinem1
12-30-2005, 01:50 PM
Kenny had the spy in the clubhouse, rumored to be Gary Pettis.

I agree with that one. I was told that once the players found out, they were sort of in pandemonium, they didn't know who they could say anything around or trust.

Supposedly the Big Hurt discovered everything he said around Pettis and was leaked out, so they planted a story in which Big Frank supposedly called KW 'a scrub from his playing days', while on a fake cell call. He knew Pettis was close by and less than two days later KW called him on it. Then Hurt told the rest of the team.

This came from a good source back in the day so it may well be true, but I wouldn't be suprised if a name was changed around here and there. It sure seemed like nobody wanted Pettis close to them towards the end of his last year with the team.