PDA

View Full Version : Why I'd fire Ozzie


Pages : [1] 2

ondafarm
05-30-2007, 09:48 PM
IMO, managers in the AL do two things on field for the team. First, they set the lineup. Second, they decide when to pull the SP.

Plenty of ink has been spilt about the first, but my opinion is that Ozzie is ineffective in the second.

As evidence, I offer the following stats (breakdown posted in subsequent posts as space permits.)

In their last inning pitched, White Sox starting pitchers have given up 53 runs this year. Opposing starting pitchers have given up just 44.

When they pitched whole numbers of innings Sox SPs have yielded just 21 runs, while opponents only 17. The Sox have done that 29 times while the opponents 32 times. Total, Cleveland and Minny have yanked a pitcher midway thru an inning only twice against us.

And when a Sox SP gives up any runs in his last inning pitched they are 8-9. Opponents have only three wins when they gave up any runs in their last inning pitched. (3-8)


But what does it mean?

Basicly, Minn and Clev both seem to have managers who know when a pitcher is out of gas and don't trot him out there to get one extra inning. A fresh relief pitcher may pitch the seventh (a very troublesome inning for the White Sox this year) than a tired starter. Ozzie Guillen doesn't seem to know this. And, although those two opponents may be particularly good at knowing when not to send a guy back out there, the rest of the league seems to be better at this than Ozzie.

53-44 was not as large a difference as I was expecting, but considering that the Sox are getting outscored, Ozzie penchant for trying to get guys thru the seventh seems self-destructive.

NSSoxFan
05-30-2007, 09:49 PM
onda, we know you want OG fired. I refer you to my sig.

ondafarm
05-30-2007, 09:49 PM
Date Opponent Sox SP IP RL Opp SP IP RL 2-Apr Clev JC 1 7 L Sabathia 6 0 W 4-Apr Clev JG 5.1 0 Westbrook 5 2
5-Apr Clev MB 1.1 1 Sowers 6 0
7-Apr Minn JV 6.2 0 w Silva 5 0 l 8-Apr Minn JD 6 0 l Santana 7 0 w 9-Apr Oak JC 6 0 w Harden 6 0 l 10-Apr Oak JG 7 0 Gaudin 5.2 1
11-Apr Oak MB 7 0 Kennedy 5 0
13-Apr Clev JV 5.1 1 w Carmona 4.1 4 l 14-Apr Clev JD 5.1 0 l Byrd 6 0 w 15-Apr Clev JC 5 0 l Sabathia 8 0 w 17-Apr Tex JG 7 3 l Tejada 7 0 w 18-Apr Tex MB 9 0 W Milwood 5 4 l 19-Apr Tex JV 6 2 w Padilla 6.1 0 l 20-Apr Det JD 4.2 3 Durbin 5 2
21-Apr Det JC 7 0 Robertson 6.1 0
22-Apr Det JG 8 0 Verlander 7 0
23-Apr KC MB 7 0 w Meche 7 1
24-Apr KC JV 6 1 Bannister 4.1 2
25-Apr Det JD 6 0 l Durbin 8 0 w 27-Apr LAA JC 6.1 3 w Santana 5.2 2 l 28-Apr LAA JG 7 0 l Weaver 5.2 0 W 29-Apr LAA MB 6 0 l Escobar 7.2 0 w 1-May Sea JV 7 1 l Washburn 7 1 w 2-May Sea JD 6.2 2 l Batista 7.1 0 w 4-May LAA JC 6 0 l Escobar 7 0 w 5-May LAA JG 7 0 w Lackey 8 0 l 6-May LAA MB 6 1 Colon 7 2
8-May Minn JV 7 0 Bonser 7 0
9-May Minn JD 6.2 1 w Ortiz 6 0 l 10-May Minn JC 9 0 w silva 6 0 l 11-May KC JG 8.1 1 w Perez 7 0 l 12-May KC MB 6 0 Elearton 5 1
13-May KC JV 6 0 l De La Rosa 7 0 w 16-May NYY JD 6.1 1 w Mussina 5.1 4 l 16-May NYY JC 6.2 2 l Wang 7 0 w 17-May NYY JG 7 1 w DeSalvo 3.1 3 l 18-May CHC MB 6.2 2 Lilly 7 1 w 19-May CHC JV 7 0 Marquis 6 2
20-May CHC Masset 5.2 1 w Zambrano 6.2 4 l 21-May Oak JC 6.1 0 w Blanton 5.1 1 l 22-May Oak JD 6 0 w Lewis 3.1 4 l 23-May Oak JG 6.1 2 l Gaudin 7.1 0 w 25-May TBD MB 7 3 Shields 7 0
27-May TBD JV 6.2 3 l Kazmir 4 0 w 28-May Minn JC 5.1 4 l Santana 8 0 w 29-May Minn JD 3.1 5 l Bonser 6.2 1 w 30-May Minn JG 6 2 Baker 3 2

cbotnyse
05-30-2007, 09:52 PM
:nuts:

chisoxmike
05-30-2007, 09:55 PM
It's not going to happen. Get over it.

ondafarm
05-30-2007, 09:56 PM
Sorry, stats aren't posting as I'd tried to space them.

In order they are: date, opponent, SoxSP, IP, RL= runs allowed in his last inning, and result if he figured in the decision.

The opponent's stats are the same: OpposingSP, IP, RL= runs allowed in his last inning and result, if he figured in the decision.

No decision leaves the last field empty for either pitcher.

delben91
05-30-2007, 09:58 PM
If you got HomeFish to display these stats in an Excel graph, I might be more willing to buy into your argument.

NSSoxFan
05-30-2007, 09:59 PM
Sorry, stats aren't posting as I'd tried to space them.

In order they are: date, opponent, SoxSP, IP, RL= runs allowed in his last inning, and result if he figured in the decision.

The opponent's stats are the same: OpposingSP, IP, RL= runs allowed in his last inning and result, if he figured in the decision.

No decision leaves the last field empty for either pitcher.

The only stat that I need is 2005. And, no, I'm not living in the past. Why should we start at square 1, when we already have a manager that has taken us to the promised land and has been well above .500 in the 3+ years he has been here. Stats are pointless because I can show you another bunch of stats which would show why Ozzie is a great manager.

Like chisoxmike said, it's not gonna happen, get over it.

ondafarm
05-30-2007, 10:00 PM
onda, we know you want OG fired. I refer you to my sig.


The problem I have with the longer quote is that Ozzie was the man in 2005, he was just what the Sox needed after the long disaster that was Jerry Manuel. But player's managers rarely last because the guys get out of the shape of doing all the little things which help a team win, but sink your stats.

Ozzie has stayed past the time when he should have and judging from today's Tribune article, his dismissal has come up in Sox team management discussions.

JB98
05-30-2007, 10:01 PM
Sometimes I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, and I don't know why you've been bringing me down....

chisoxmike
05-30-2007, 10:02 PM
I stat I don't ingnore, Ozzie has led this team to .winning seasons every season since he's been here, with one world championship. Hard to ignore that. The 2004 team wasn't even a very good one.

thomas35forever
05-30-2007, 10:03 PM
Onda, how many more of these threads are you gonna start this season? You know it's not gonna happen, and so do we.

whitesoxfan
05-30-2007, 10:03 PM
Is it Ozzie's fault that we don't have a true starting LF? Is it Ozzie's fault that everytime he goes to the bullpen, he has to worry about losing the game because of how bad every member of that pen is (not named Jenks and Thornton)?

I love Kenny Williams to death. He got us a World Series in 05 and made great moves before that. But not adding anyone at the trading deadline was a huge mistake last year. Would Soriano have helped last year? We don't really know. But our offense did slump after the All-Star break and it seemed like when our pitching got going at the end of last year, our hitting went to sleep. He constructed the team that Ozzie currently has. IMO, it's definitely more of Williams fault than it is Ozzie's for why we are a .500 team.

This team should NOT even be CLOSE to .500 with how bad our offense has been. It's amazing that we are at .500. We should easily be 10 under or *gulp* even worse than that. This season is going to hinge on whether Kenny can swing a deal for somone like Griffey on offense and someone like Chad Cordero to improve our bullpen.

Brian26
05-30-2007, 10:05 PM
:nuts:

LOL - Rarely does a post make me literally laugh out loud.

:thumbsup:

QCIASOXFAN
05-30-2007, 10:07 PM
We get it already.:thud: :thud:

kitekrazy
05-30-2007, 10:08 PM
I guess you haven't been paying attention to the bullpen lately.

Johnny Mostil
05-30-2007, 10:15 PM
Basicly, Minn and Clev both seem to have managers who know when a pitcher is out of gas and don't trot him out there to get one extra inning.

ondafarm, please let me preface this by saying that I enjoy your posts and, when I've been away, I look up what you've posted recently.

Nevertheless, going into today's games, as near as I can tell--I'm tired and my math may be wrong, so corrections would be most welcome--the Twins' bullpen had a lower ERA (3.35) than their starters (4.47). Same for the Indians' bullpen (4.07 vs. 4.60). The Sox starters, by contrast, had a lower ERA than their bullpen (4.14 vs. 5.21).

Wouldn't that help explain the quick hooks of Gardenhire and Wedge? (Yes, I know the Sox bullpen may have been better than that of its starters at one point, but, alas, overall to date it doesn't seem to have been--unless my math is completely ****ed up, which it may be . . .)

eastchicagosoxfan
05-30-2007, 10:22 PM
On May 30, of 2006, the Twins were 23-28.

NEWS FLASH....NEWS FLASH....FIRST TIME IN HISTORY A GOOD BASEBALL TEAM HAS A POOR MAY......NEWS FLASH....

Lip Man 1
05-30-2007, 10:26 PM
I have mixed feelings on Ozzie.

I still think he's the right guy in the right town however something has changed with him and it's all happened after his dust up with Mariotti.

To me he is not the same guy.

His pitching decisions are questionable and after three plus years on the job you'd think he'd be better. His off season comments about letting his guys pitch regardless of what side of the plate a guy hits from was a point of contention on Chicago Tribune Live! today and I agree with them.

Ozzie says one thing in the off season about his staff, then apparently does another. It seems he's so worried about 'match ups' and 'pitch counts' that he out manuvers himself many times and takes out a guy who is getting outs.

However it's a fact that Ozzie Guillen did not put together an outfield situation that is short handed, he did not put together a bullpen that is lacking in experience with one guy in it with over three years in MLB and he isn't to blame for the lack of overall big league success by the minor league players that are brought up.

It's a hard call to make right now.

Lip

ondafarm
05-30-2007, 10:26 PM
ondafarm, please let me preface this by saying that I enjoy your posts and, when I've been away, I look up what you've posted recently.

Nevertheless, going into today's games, as near as I can tell--I'm tired and my math may be wrong, so corrections would be most welcome--the Twins' bullpen had a lower ERA (3.35) than their starters (4.47). Same for the Indians' bullpen (4.07 vs. 4.60). The Sox starters, by contrast, had a lower ERA than their bullpen (4.14 vs. 5.21).

Wouldn't that help explain the quick hooks of Gardenhire and Wedge? (Yes, I know the Sox bullpen may have been better than that of its starters at one point, but, alas, overall to date it doesn't seem to have been--unless my math is completely ****ed up, which it may be . . .)

I'd call that more proof that Ozzie is miss managing this bullpen. Man for man, I'd take the Sox pen over the Indians pen. Not so with the Twins, but they aren't exactly a world class group either. I think the Sox pen has plenty of talent and if used less stressfully, as in preferably not coming in mid-jam, but starting out a new inning, they'd perform better.

I can see your point though.

JB98
05-30-2007, 10:26 PM
On May 30, of 2006, the Twins were 23-28.

NEWS FLASH....NEWS FLASH....FIRST TIME IN HISTORY A GOOD BASEBALL TEAM HAS A POOR MAY......NEWS FLASH....


Unfortunately, there's a very good counter to that argument. The Sox had a poor July of 2006, a mediocre August of 2006, a very poor September of 2006, a mediocre April of 2007, followed by a mediocre May of 2007.

We haven't done a ****ing thing in almost a year. The boys have June and probably half of July to try to get this right. The season is now officially on the clock, IMO.

Lip Man 1
05-30-2007, 10:27 PM
East Chicago:

The Twins bullpen was also lights out last year much as the Sox was in 2005. If you don't have the horses it's hard to turn things around.

Or as Ozzie himself once said 'you can't win the Kentucky Derby racing a mule.'

Lip

WhiteSox5187
05-30-2007, 10:28 PM
Is it Ozzie's fault that we don't have a true starting LF? Is it Ozzie's fault that everytime he goes to the bullpen, he has to worry about losing the game because of how bad every member of that pen is (not named Jenks and Thornton)?

I love Kenny Williams to death. He got us a World Series in 05 and made great moves before that. But not adding anyone at the trading deadline was a huge mistake last year. Would Soriano have helped last year? We don't really know. But our offense did slump after the All-Star break and it seemed like when our pitching got going at the end of last year, our hitting went to sleep. He constructed the team that Ozzie currently has. IMO, it's definitely more of Williams fault than it is Ozzie's for why we are a .500 team.

This team should NOT even be CLOSE to .500 with how bad our offense has been. It's amazing that we are at .500. We should easily be 10 under or *gulp* even worse than that. This season is going to hinge on whether Kenny can swing a deal for somone like Griffey on offense and someone like Chad Cordero to improve our bullpen.
I agree that Kenny deserves a lot of the blame here (more than Ozzie I think) but really, what were the glaring problems we had in the off season? THe bullpen, CF, and LF (to a lesser extent, SS). Kenny DID address the bullpen, he went out and he got Erstad, KW made a lot of moves in the off season most of which scared the beejesus out of me. Would we really be any better with Freddy in the rotation and Brandon in the bullpen? We've just been playing hurt and there is nobody to blame for that.

As for firing Ozzie, how do you fire a guy who has averaged ninety wins in the past three seasons? Also, the more stable a team is usually, the better they are. Look at the Twins, in the past twenty years they've had two managers, two WS titles, and...a lot of trips to the playoffs (I'm too lazy to figure out how many). Ozzie isn't going anywhere, nor should he. People were calling for La Russa's head in 1983 and he lead us to the playoffs for the first time since 1959. When he finally was fired, he went out and led the A's to what? Four straight pennants? How many times has he led St. Louis to the playoffs? If we fire Ozzie, people willl look back at that in twenty years and say "Man, that was stupid."

We're six and half out. Firing Ozzie isn't going to solve anything. Outside of the 1978 Yankees I can't think of many teams that have fired managers in mid-season and went on to make the playoffs (I'm sure somebody here is going to bury me with that statement). Kenny needs to go out and fix the bullpen, get a speedy everyday LF and we need to start winning games. Ozzie was a genius in 2005 and a genius for the first half of 2006. If we start winning now, he'll be a genius in 2007.

ZombieRob
05-30-2007, 10:30 PM
I have mixed feelings on Ozzie.

I still think he's the right guy in the right town however something has changed with him and it's all happened after his dust up with Mariotti.

To me he is not the same guy.

His pitching decisions are questionable and after three plus years on the job you'd think he'd be better. His off season comments about letting his guys pitch regardless of what side of the plate a guy hits from was a point of contention on Chicago Tribune Live! today and I agree with them.

Ozzie says one thing in the off season about his staff, then apparently does another. It seems he's so worried about 'match ups' and 'pitch counts' that he out manuvers himself many times and takes out a guy who is getting outs.

However it's a fact that Ozzie Guillen did not put together an outfield situation that is short handed, he did not put together a bullpen that is lacking in experience with one guy in it with over three years in MLB and he isn't to blame for the lack of overall big league success by the minor league players that are brought up.

It's a hard call to make right now.

Lip
I agree with you on your thinking about Ozzie.Do you think maybe a stronger bench coach is needed,that specializes in pitching situations?

kitekrazy
05-30-2007, 10:35 PM
I have mixed feelings on Ozzie.

I still think he's the right guy in the right town however something has changed with him and it's all happened after his dust up with Mariotti.

To me he is not the same guy.

His pitching decisions are questionable and after three plus years on the job you'd think he'd be better. His off season comments about letting his guys pitch regardless of what side of the plate a guy hits from was a point of contention on Chicago Tribune Live! today and I agree with them.

Ozzie says one thing in the off season about his staff, then apparently does another. It seems he's so worried about 'match ups' and 'pitch counts' that he out manuvers himself many times and takes out a guy who is getting outs.

However it's a fact that Ozzie Guillen did not put together an outfield situation that is short handed, he did not put together a bullpen that is lacking in experience with one guy in it with over three years in MLB and he isn't to blame for the lack of overall big league success by the minor league players that are brought up.

It's a hard call to make right now.

Lip

It was that sensitivity training. Is there a manager out there that could make all these problems go away? Often he is guilty of over managing.

JB98
05-30-2007, 10:35 PM
I agree with you on your thinking about Ozzie.Do you think maybe a stronger bench coach is needed,that specializes in pitching situations?

I think Harold Baines should return to his duties as bench coach. We certainly had our greatest successes with him in that position.

Not sure that he specializes in pitching situations, but I thought they tinkered unnecessarily with the coaching duties after 2005.

WhiteSox5187
05-30-2007, 10:36 PM
Unfortunately, there's a very good counter to that argument. The Sox had a poor July of 2006, a mediocre August of 2006, a very poor September of 2006, a mediocre April of 2007, followed by a mediocre May of 2007.

We haven't done a ****ing thing in almost a year. The boys have June and probably half of July to try to get this right. The season is now officially on the clock, IMO.
That's a good point, but I don't recall the Twins making any mad dash to the finish at the end of 2005. I'll have to double check their record, but I doubt that they put together a great second half of '05 so you might have seen the arguement "We didn't play good in the second half of last year and we're not playing well together now" argument there too. I don't buy this "Well we looked like **** last year." Last year is last year. Past performances are not neccessarily indicative of future results.

JB98
05-30-2007, 10:41 PM
That's a good point, but I don't recall the Twins making any mad dash to the finish at the end of 2005. I'll have to double check their record, but I doubt that they put together a great second half of '05 so you might have seen the arguement "We didn't play good in the second half of last year and we're not playing well together now" argument there too. I don't buy this "Well we looked like **** last year." Last year is last year. Past performances are not neccessarily indicative of future results.

The Twins had a ****load of injuries in 2005. They lost Hunter for about two and a half months, IIRC.

Frankly though, the Twins' activities have nothing to do with us either way. The bottom line is the Sox core has been together two years and 48 games. They won a World Series in 2005. They got off to a damn good start last year, and they've been pure **** ever since last July. What conclusion we can draw from that, I don't know. I guess we'll see where we are in six weeks. There's nothing else to say, really.

Tragg
05-30-2007, 10:42 PM
I think the problem with the team is the roster. Does it look like a championship roster to yall?
Is that Ozzie's fault? To some extent, it certainly is. But some is injuries, some is kenny and some is players just playing poorly.

As for strategy - When to pull a pitcher, who to bring in - that's gut, and feel and easy to second guess the manager. Ozzie seems as good as anyone else in that regard to me.

ondafarm
05-30-2007, 10:42 PM
However it's a fact that Ozzie Guillen did not put together an outfield situation that is short handed, he did not put together a bullpen that is lacking in experience with one guy in it with over three years in MLB and he isn't to blame for the lack of overall big league success by the minor league players that are brought up.

It's a hard call to make right now.

Lip

Lip,
always appreciate you chiming in. I'm not blaming Ozzie for the outfield situation, and how much better of a bullpen, experience-wsie did we have in 2005? Hermanson, Vizcaino and Politte were vets, the others?

As for the minor leaguers, I disagree. One important duty of a manager is to bring along rookie players. Not letting their confidence get shaken, setting them in places where they will succeed and cultivating their talents. For every great success of a rookie, there's a great coach, keeping him upbeat, refocusing his efforts and utilizing his skills. Ozzie doesn't seem to have that in him.

I am applying the Thucydides rule. When you can convince a majority of non-specialists, i.e. the general population, it's already an overdue decision.

NSSoxFan
05-30-2007, 10:42 PM
:ozzie
"**** all of you who think I should get ****ing fired. This is a garbage. I tell you what, this is my new bench coach."

:jerry
"Over-managing? You've seen nothing yet."

:)

DumpJerry
05-30-2007, 10:43 PM
I think Onda wants Ozzie's job and is using WSI to interview for the job in hopes that Uncle Jerry and KW lurk here.

kitekrazy
05-30-2007, 10:45 PM
:ozzie
"**** all of you who think I should get ****ing fired. This is a garbage. I tell you what, this is my new bench coach."

:jerry
"Over-managing? You've seen nothing yet."

:)

Friggin hilarious. I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything or it would be a major monitor clean up.

WhiteSox5187
05-30-2007, 10:46 PM
The Twins had a ****load of injuries in 2005. They lost Hunter for about two and a half months, IIRC.

Frankly though, the Twins' activities have nothing to do with us either way. The bottom line is the Sox core has been together two years and 48 games. They won a World Series in 2005. They got off to a damn good start last year, and they've been pure **** ever since last July. What conclusion we can draw from that, I don't know. I guess we'll see where we are in six weeks. There's nothing else to say, really.
This team just befuddles me. That's all there is to it. At times I thought we were ready to turn the corner, and at other times I thought we were about to lay over and die (like now and after the Cubs series)...this team can get hot though and they can do a LOT of damage. but they need to do that soon.

Scottiehaswheels
05-30-2007, 10:48 PM
Ondafarm,

We've bickered back and forth over this... But in regards to the bullpen, I don't know where to find the stat but what percentage of the Indians horrible bullpen is coming in throwing first pitch strikes. Compare that to what our guys have been doing. I'd be willing to bet we're looking at at least a 20% difference negatively from our standpoint as Sox fans.

CONSTANTLY falling behind early in the count is the reason our bullpen is having stressful innings. Again, how is OG supposed to get by using only the effective relievers? Look at our neighbors to the north to see what happens to formerly effective relievers that were overused because they are the only ones getting the job done. At some point you have to just say **** it, we gotta put someone that hasn't been doing a good job in there.

We can't be using exclusively Thornton and Jenks as our relievers. It's better IMHO to let the guys that are having problems work out the issues now when there is still PLENTY of time left in the season to mount a comeback compared to burning out the effective guys in June/July. Besides, the only way for the other guys to build back the confidence/stuff is for them to be used in somewhat stressful situations and proceed to get the job done. We can't use 2 guys for stressful innings and leave the mop-up work for the other 4 or 5. Doing so would send a hugely negative message that we can't trust any of them (which at this point we can't) but that would have a carryover effect for the rest of the season.

In regards to starting pitchers..... Well we know these guys have the mental makeup to get themselves out of jams and work deep into games.... Would we rather go back to the Manuel days such as when Jon would get in an ounce of trouble and he'd get yanked? Under OG's reign he has thrived wouldn't you agree? I'm sure the starters love being able to at least be given the opportunity to work out of the jams they create, and work deep into games instead of being Manueled as you seem to wish to happen. Look at some of the comments Freddie made earlier this year to the Philly papers about only lasting 5 innings in a game... He said thats just not him... he's a competitor just like our guys, they crave the ability to work later into the games and regret it if they are unable to do so...

DumpJerry
05-30-2007, 10:49 PM
I'm still shocked that Ondafarm started a thread calling for Ozzie's head.

whitesoxfan
05-30-2007, 10:49 PM
I agree that Kenny deserves a lot of the blame here (more than Ozzie I think) but really, what were the glaring problems we had in the off season? THe bullpen, CF, and LF (to a lesser extent, SS). Kenny DID address the bullpen, he went out and he got Erstad, KW made a lot of moves in the off season most of which scared the beejesus out of me. Would we really be any better with Freddy in the rotation and Brandon in the bullpen? We've just been playing hurt and there is nobody to blame for that.

I loved the Danks deal. I was a bit befuddled at the Garcia deal, but getting Gio back was a move that could look extremely good in the next few years. I was ok with the Erstad deal. He has exceeded my expectations far and beyond up to this point. But counting on Podsednik for a full season was a mistake, no matter how cheap he was. That's definitely come back to bite us in the ass.

Like I said, this season is going to revolve upon Kenny's willing to pull the trigger on a deal or two. I don't think Ozzie is to blame for the season this year...at least not yet.

JB98
05-30-2007, 10:50 PM
This team just befuddles me. That's all there is to it. At times I thought we were ready to turn the corner, and at other times I thought we were about to lay over and die (like now and after the Cubs series)...this team can get hot though and they can do a LOT of damage. but they need to do that soon.

Remember, eight days ago we waxed the A's 10-4. Thome was back, and this board was buzzing with optimism (at least by our standards). Now, here we are again on another pathetic losing streak. I can't put my finger on what's going on with the team.

Lip Man 1
05-30-2007, 11:01 PM
Onda:

Well three vets is two more then this pen has at the moment. That may be part of the problem, there's no one out there the kids can lean on, to learn from, as they find themselves in the bigs.

It's a learning experience and it's hard to win when basically everyone in the pen is trying to get their feet wet, survive and either succeed or flop.

Lip

oeo
05-30-2007, 11:02 PM
IMO, managers in the AL do two things on field for the team. First, they set the lineup. Second, they decide when to pull the SP.

Plenty of ink has been spilt about the first, but my opinion is that Ozzie is ineffective in the second.

As evidence, I offer the following stats (breakdown posted in subsequent posts as space permits.)

In their last inning pitched, White Sox starting pitchers have given up 53 runs this year. Opposing starting pitchers have given up just 44.

When they pitched whole numbers of innings Sox SPs have yielded just 21 runs, while opponents only 17. The Sox have done that 29 times while the opponents 32 times. Total, Cleveland and Minny have yanked a pitcher midway thru an inning only twice against us.

And when a Sox SP gives up any runs in his last inning pitched they are 8-9. Opponents have only three wins when they gave up any runs in their last inning pitched. (3-8)


But what does it mean?

Basicly, Minn and Clev both seem to have managers who know when a pitcher is out of gas and don't trot him out there to get one extra inning. A fresh relief pitcher may pitch the seventh (a very troublesome inning for the White Sox this year) than a tired starter. Ozzie Guillen doesn't seem to know this. And, although those two opponents may be particularly good at knowing when not to send a guy back out there, the rest of the league seems to be better at this than Ozzie.

53-44 was not as large a difference as I was expecting, but considering that the Sox are getting outscored, Ozzie penchant for trying to get guys thru the seventh seems self-destructive.

You're ignoring the fact that we have virtually no bullpen right now. It's lose-lose, since we don't have anyone to work the middle innings.

WhiteSox5187
05-30-2007, 11:04 PM
Remember, eight days ago we waxed the A's 10-4. Thome was back, and this board was buzzing with optimism (at least by our standards). Now, here we are again on another pathetic losing streak. I can't put my finger on what's going on with the team.
Like I said, I thought this team was about to get really hot and then look out AL Central. Now they look absolutely dead again. This team has no consistency and that is maddening. I don't think they're THAT bad of a team, but I'm starting to think "Well, they're certainly not that good either..."

Scottiehaswheels
05-30-2007, 11:04 PM
Also, in regards to OG calling into that jackass's morning show, I was disappointed it wasn't someone else. Konerko. From what I heard of the conversation it sounded like the jackass in the morning was trying to create problems in the clubhouse. Basically putting AJ and his wishes/desires ahead of the team and trying to instill that AJ isn't wrong for thinking so. PK should have been the one to call out that moron and put him in his place. He has that C on his jersey for a reason, he may not have wanted it, but it is also partly his responsiblity to look out for the good of the team. Going on the airwaves putting yourself ahead of the team is completely and utterly wrong.

WhiteSox5187
05-30-2007, 11:06 PM
Onda:

Well three vets is two more then this pen has at the moment. That may be part of the problem, there's no on out there the kids can lean on to learn from as they find themselves in the bigs.

It's a learning experience and it's hard to win when basically everyone in the pen is trying to get their feet wet, survive and either succeed or flop.

Lip
I know Bobby is still young, but he's been on baseball's biggest stage. Maybe he's not quite old enough to become a mentor, but I think guys could learn from him. Guys can learn from Cooper too. The 2003 Marlins were a pretty young team that didn't have anyone to lean on (well...maybe Pudge). Ditto with the 1969 Mets.

Lip Man 1
05-30-2007, 11:10 PM
White:

The 69 Mets had a few guys named Don Cardwell (1957), Tug McGraw (1965), Cal Koonce (1962) and Ron Taylor (1962).

Lip

kitekrazy
05-30-2007, 11:11 PM
Also, in regards to OG calling into that jackass's morning show, I was disappointed it wasn't someone else. Konerko. From what I heard of the conversation it sounded like the jackass in the morning was trying to create problems in the clubhouse. Basically putting AJ and his wishes/desires ahead of the team and trying to instill that AJ isn't wrong for thinking so. PK should have been the one to call out that moron and put him in his place. He has that C on his jersey for a reason, he may not have wanted it, but it is also partly his responsiblity to look out for the good of the team. Going on the airwaves putting yourself ahead of the team is completely and utterly wrong.

???? That was so last week. AJ wanted to play. Big deal. The last time PK called out a player (Frank Thomas), Konerko sucked the next year. Maybe he's superstitious.

WhiteSox5187
05-30-2007, 11:12 PM
White:

The 69 Mets had a few guys named Don Cardwell (1957), Tug McGraw (1965), Cal Koonce (1962) and Ron Taylor (1962).

Lip
Ah, I stand mistaken, I did not know the '69 roster that well...I didn't know that anyone on the orginal '62 team was still there in 1969.:redface: I'm pretty sure there probably a lot more vets on the '03 Marlins that I can't remember too.

WhiteSox5187
05-30-2007, 11:14 PM
???? That was so last week. AJ wanted to play. Big deal. The last time PK called out a player (Frank Thomas), Konerko sucked the next year. Maybe he's superstitious.
I don't think that anyone in that clubhouse LISTENS to that moron's show. I think that Buerhle only reacted because some reporter gave him what AJ said out of context.

MySoxAreClean
05-30-2007, 11:19 PM
Then Im thowing in my Hat for Manager Next season, Blame me if the players cant hit or close out games. I Know people want wins everytime, Am I bumed? yes , Love them when they Won it all, Love them when they lose.

102605
05-30-2007, 11:57 PM
The players have to perform the jobs they are asked to do. Thats it. Period.

FireMariotti
05-31-2007, 12:16 AM
Remember when this bullpen was hyped as one of best groups ever put together?:o: Ah the offseason, those were the good ole' days.

Ozzie can only use what he has. I like the fact that he doesn't coddle his pitchers, but rather he throws them into the fire and expects them to perform like major league pitchers should.

You can show me all the stats you want on late inning performance, etc. The fact is, those stats reflect more on the performance of the players than of the manager.

gobears1987
05-31-2007, 12:20 AM
Onda, I can see why you didn't become a manager after your career ended.

Face it, Ozzie has won more championships than any other Sox manager in 90 years.

gobears1987
05-31-2007, 12:22 AM
If Onda was managing, Bobby Jenks would be on the DL because he would be pitching in every game.

EMachine10
05-31-2007, 01:12 AM
I don't want this to rile anybody up....just want to get my opinion out there. Not here to argue.

I'm not the biggest fan of ozzie, particularly because I'm not a believer in the righty/lefty matchups like he is...I mean, they can work for ya sometimes, but he has overused this strategy, IMO. I just wish he wouldn't trot someone out there for one pitch, see him get the job done, and then send him to the showers. These guys are big leaguers. They can get people out, I'm sure of it, no matter if their opponent is a righty or lefty. Also, I realize that he was our manager for our first world series title in a long time, but does that mean he's gonna be here until he's dead?? That excuse kinda gets to me. Jack McKeon took a young squad, Florida, to the show and they won it...he's not their manager now. And I'm sure there are more managers who have been canned after they've won the world series. So Oz gets a free pass forever because he brought us a championship? Not sure about that one.

Let's put it this way, I wouldn't be sad to see him go. But at the same time, just as much responsibility goes on the players for not executing. So, as in a lot of managerial turnovers, this line is somewhat skewed...players performance vs. manager's execution of the gameplan. It's a fine line.

Either way, it's not up to us to decide, so how about we all just relax?

Nellie_Fox
05-31-2007, 01:35 AM
So Oz gets a free pass forever because he brought us a championship? Not sure about that one. Another straw-man argument. Nobody, but nobody, has said he gets a pass forever.

But jeez, not even a couple of years of "benefit of the doubt" for the only world championship any of us can remember? And the comparisons to McKeon don't fly. McKeon is 76 years old. Ozzie is 43.

kobo
05-31-2007, 02:29 AM
Another straw-man argument. Nobody, but nobody, has said he gets a pass forever.

But jeez, not even a couple of years of "benefit of the doubt" for the only world championship any of us can remember? And the comparisons to McKeon don't fly. McKeon is 76 years old. Ozzie is 43.
Nobody may have said that, but the way some people talk around here it sure is implied.

I can say that I am not willing to give Ozzie a couple of years of benefit the doubt. The Sox won in '05, and it was wonderful and it was everything I dreamed it would be. But I want them to win again. Now. I want the team to be competitive over the next 10 years and make the playoffs and become one of the elite teams in baseball.

The organization has said it is committed to winning, they have raised the bar and expectations. Last year the Sox missed the playoffs, and so far this year it doesn't look good. To me, this is unacceptable, especially with the talent that is on this team. And right now, with everything not clicking, it's Ozzie's job to right the ship and get this team back on track. If that means using the same lineup consistently or trying to not always play matchups then so be it. This is Ozzie's time to step up as a manager and show us what he's got.

Nellie_Fox
05-31-2007, 02:49 AM
I can say that I am not willing to give Ozzie a couple of years of benefit the doubt. The Sox won in '05, and it was wonderful and it was everything I dreamed it would be. But I want them to win again. Now. I want the team to be competitive over the next 10 years and make the playoffs and become one of the elite teams in baseball. Ask yourself how many teams (other than the Yankees and their bottomless checkbook) win consistently by changing managers every few years. The consistently successful organizations establish continuity.

whitesoxfan
05-31-2007, 03:28 AM
Nobody may have said that, but the way some people talk around here it sure is implied.

I can say that I am not willing to give Ozzie a couple of years of benefit the doubt. The Sox won in '05, and it was wonderful and it was everything I dreamed it would be. But I want them to win again. Now. I want the team to be competitive over the next 10 years and make the playoffs and become one of the elite teams in baseball.

The organization has said it is committed to winning, they have raised the bar and expectations. Last year the Sox missed the playoffs, and so far this year it doesn't look good. To me, this is unacceptable, especially with the talent that is on this team. And right now, with everything not clicking, it's Ozzie's job to right the ship and get this team back on track. If that means using the same lineup consistently or trying to not always play matchups then so be it. This is Ozzie's time to step up as a manager and show us what he's got.

Ozzie's first few years here have been very impressive, winning percentage wise. Not many managers have a higher winning percentage than Ozzie in the last three years. He's nowhere near as bad as some people are making him out to be. We can easily do worse than him.

Grzegorz
05-31-2007, 04:43 AM
I have mixed feelings on Ozzie.

His pitching decisions are questionable and after three plus years on the job you'd think he'd be better. His off season comments about letting his guys pitch regardless of what side of the plate a guy hits from was a point of contention on Chicago Tribune Live! today and I agree with them.

It's a hard call to make right now.

Lip

It is a hard call right now. One really has to look at the way the team is trending. It looks to be trending downward. I believe we have to wait until the end of the year to get a better picture.

But, I believe that bullpen is mismanaged. Please let your better performing pitchers pitch a little more; screw the righty-lefty matchups. Put your best out there while you sort out the rest of the pen.

The most damning of all is that Ozzie's philosophy of speed, pitching, and defense ("small ball") seems to have been discarded.

This team just befuddles me. That's all there is to it. At times I thought we were ready to turn the corner, and at other times I thought we were about to lay over and die (like now and after the Cubs series)...this team can get hot though and they can do a LOT of damage. but they need to do that soon.

I do not believe this team can get hot. The performance of the Chicago White Sox in the recent past shows that this team does not have the ability to rip off twelve out of fifteen or some similar wins to games played ratio.

To get to the playoffs this team has to play consistent fundamental baseball. If they do not play fundamental baseball they'll be home in autumn.

eastchicagosoxfan
05-31-2007, 06:59 AM
Unfortunately, there's a very good counter to that argument. The Sox had a poor July of 2006, a mediocre August of 2006, a very poor September of 2006, a mediocre April of 2007, followed by a mediocre May of 2007.

We haven't done a ****ing thing in almost a year. The boys have June and probably half of July to try to get this right. The season is now officially on the clock, IMO.

East Chicago:

The Twins bullpen was also lights out last year much as the Sox was in 2005. If you don't have the horses it's hard to turn things around.

Or as Ozzie himself once said 'you can't win the Kentucky Derby racing a mule.'

Lip
A few weeks ago, the bullpen was solid, the starting pitching was strong, but the team wasn't hitting. They have the horses, but lately the horses have benn throwing out bull****. Do the Sox need to start playing better? Absolutely. Is it time for something drastic? I don't think so, but I could see any of a number of players moved. Another comparison. In 1983, on May 31, the Sox were 20-25, 6 games out. The Sox need to get the ship righted, but it's hardly time to get the lifeboats ready.

ondafarm
05-31-2007, 08:07 AM
Ask yourself how many teams (other than the Yankees and their bottomless checkbook) win consistently by changing managers every few years. The consistently successful organizations establish continuity.


It's not changing the managers very seldom that does it, its having the right kind of manager to be consistent with.

Look at the Twins in that respect. I'll claim them as a team that wins fairly consistently. Two managers in 20 years IMO also meets your continuity criteria.

In the just finished series, what did you see from their manager? He was out on the field in game one arguing with all four umpires about AJ stepping on Morneau's foot at first base. That was a classic 'I wish my big brother would do that' moment. One guy on your team may be getting the slightest insult and your manager is out there causing a ruckus just short of getting thrown out of the game. Did it fire up the Twins? I don't know, but it didn't hurt.

On the other hand, the guy is also in complete control. Just from how the Twins hit the ball, I can tell you they do daily drills in opposite field hitting and slap hitting and bunting. DAILY DRILLS IN THE GARBAGE STUFF. No way Ozzie gets that. The Twins do it because their manager is a disciplinarian, you will do it right or you won't play in this organization, kind of guy.

Gardenhire knows how to switch back and forth between the two kinds of manager, big brother and drill instructor. Ozzie only has the former.

I am all for the White Sox keeping one manager for a decade or longer. Just Ozzie Guillen isn't the right guy and keeping him is counterproductive at this point. Razor Shines is currently in the on-deck circle, I don't think it will be long before he will be taking the reins.

ondafarm
05-31-2007, 08:08 AM
If Onda was managing, Bobby Jenks would be on the DL because he would be pitching in every game.

That's funny. Can't imagine where you got that idea.

ondafarm
05-31-2007, 08:15 AM
Onda:

Well three vets is two more then this pen has at the moment. That may be part of the problem, there's no one out there the kids can lean on, to learn from, as they find themselves in the bigs.

It's a learning experience and it's hard to win when basically everyone in the pen is trying to get their feet wet, survive and either succeed or flop.

Lip

Lip,
I agree with you although I think Thornton might count as something of a veteran, MacDougal definately does and both Jenks & Aardsma have a certain degree of it. Cooper should be just as smart as in 2005, as should AJ and Hall, and in my experience, young relief pitchers depend on their catchers as much as each other for veteran leadership.
What I wouldn't give for one five year veteran arm though?

ondafarm
05-31-2007, 08:17 AM
I think Onda wants Ozzie's job and is using WSI to interview for the job in hopes that Uncle Jerry and KW lurk here.

You forgot your teal.

I actually have been offered an assistant pitching coach spot in my old organization, but at a pay rate which will keep me working here.

Madvora
05-31-2007, 08:34 AM
An American League manager's decisions should affect only a very small percentage of games in a season.
The Sox current record of .500 is well below where they should be (based on the actual talent they have and have proven before.) The amount of wins we are missing out on are not due to the manager. It's the players.

I believe that you could realistically put a team out there with no manager at all, any batting order and any pitcher coming in at any time and still win a lot of games. Having a skilled manager would definitely help, but only by a small percentage (not equivalent to the amount of wins we should have). If the players were performing, then they'd be winning... period.
You should be able to have any pitcher come in at any time and get an out around 8 out of 10 times. If they can't get people out, they shouldn't be on the team.

PaulDrake
05-31-2007, 08:46 AM
I have mixed feelings on Ozzie.

I still think he's the right guy in the right town however something has changed with him and it's all happened after his dust up with Mariotti.

To me he is not the same guy.

His pitching decisions are questionable and after three plus years on the job you'd think he'd be better. His off season comments about letting his guys pitch regardless of what side of the plate a guy hits from was a point of contention on Chicago Tribune Live! today and I agree with them.

Ozzie says one thing in the off season about his staff, then apparently does another. It seems he's so worried about 'match ups' and 'pitch counts' that he out manuvers himself many times and takes out a guy who is getting outs.

However it's a fact that Ozzie Guillen did not put together an outfield situation that is short handed, he did not put together a bullpen that is lacking in experience with one guy in it with over three years in MLB and he isn't to blame for the lack of overall big league success by the minor league players that are brought up.

It's a hard call to make right now.

Lip I was trying to think of something to add to the conversation, but in all honesty can't come up with anything better than this. You've summed it up as well as can be done IMHO. Just let me reiterate what you said about Ozzie's handling of his pitchers. He is far from the best game day manager the Sox have had in my lifetime. Unfortunately for Ozzie, the situation in his first two years played to his strengths, but the current situation seems to be the opposite. Ozzie needs a team that can play his brand of ball. This one, as it stands now can't. Ozzie needs a bullpen like the one he had in 05, so his over managing and stubborn dependence on "matchups" is that much less likely to come back to haunt him. This bullpen would make Casey Stengel look bad.

cws05champ
05-31-2007, 09:10 AM
I was trying to think of something to add to the conversation, but in all honesty can't come up with anything better than this. You've summed it up as well as can be done IMHO. Just let me reiterate what you said about Ozzie's handling of his pitchers. He is far from the best game day manager the Sox have had in my lifetime. Unfortunately for Ozzie, the situation in his first two years played to his strengths, but the current situation seems to be the opposite. Ozzie needs a team that can play his brand of ball. This one, as it stands now can't. Ozzie needs a bullpen like the one he had in 05, so his over managing and stubborn dependence on "matchups" is that much less likely to come back to haunt him. This bullpen would make Casey Stengel look bad.

As pointed out before by Lip, something has seemed to change with ozzie since 2005. In 2005 he seemed just to go with his gut feeling vs the stat sheets and it seemed to work. Granted the bullpen in 2005 had a lot of pleasant surprises(Hermanson, Cotts, Politte) that seemed to work no matter who OG put in. So is it players not performing or is it bad managing? I think a little of both...ultimately pitchers have to come in and get an out, but managers have to put them in a position to do so. I think both have failed so far this year.

ondafarm
05-31-2007, 09:32 AM
Things I'm not sure are being understood here.

Ozzie can be a fine manager for the right kind of team.

A team of guys who are self-motivated with something to prove, who've been treated like Cub Scouts, with a veteran laden pen.


That would seem to be ideal for Ozzie. The Sox in 2005 individually had a lot to prove. Pods was considered by many as just a speed merchant, Iguchi was new, PK had had some really disappointing seasons, Crazy Carl was considered throw away by many, AJ had come from the Giants with baggage, Crede hadn't really lived up to his promise, ARow was considered a fourth OF at best, Uribe was trashed by the Rox and Dye was considered fragile. The rotation was so-so, MB decent but nothing special, JG a decent #5, Contreras was Yankee'$ former trash, Orlando too old and Freddy a classic underachiever. The bullpen was a bunch of has beens or never wasses. And Ozzie. . . ? Ozzie was Ozzie.

They all had things to prove and Ozzie was the right guy at the right time, in 2005.

But this is 2007, a different team with different needs and back to underachieving. Thome and Erstad are new enough and both really self-motivating guys. They seem to be performing, IMHO. The rest of the team is mailing it in, in general.

Changing managers is a fairly risky gamble and I don't like the thought of doing it. We could do a lot worse than Ozzie, but at this point a) what have we got to lose and b) we could do a lot better.

jabrch
05-31-2007, 09:34 AM
More of this crap...

I almost wish we won more games not to win, but to stop the incessant whinning and pointless bitching that goes on.

Guillen was neither the reason we won the WS in 2005, nor is he the reason we lost yesterday, the day before, or the day before that.

PaulDrake
05-31-2007, 09:40 AM
More of this crap...

I almost wish we won more games not to win, but to stop the incessant whinning and pointless bitching that goes on.

Guillen was neither the reason we won the WS in 2005, nor is he the reason we lost yesterday, the day before, or the day before that. Why have a manager at all then? I mean if they count for little or nothing.

jabrch
05-31-2007, 09:52 AM
Why have a manager at all then? I mean if they count for little or nothing.

Because he performs functions that are important. Nobody would say that we don't need a manager - but firing one, in mid season, won't do a damn bit of good. No other manager is going to make PK/JD/Crede hit significantly better. No other manager will make MacDougal pitch much better. What's a manager worth - over the course of a season? 5 wins TOPS?

Do you think that the manager actually desevers as much credit as he gets when the team wins, and as much blame as he gets when they lose? You take Connie Mack managing the 2006 Devil Rays. I'll take OG (or for that matter Bevington) managing the 27 Yanks and my boys will beat you in 99 of 100 7 game serieses.

spiffie
05-31-2007, 10:12 AM
Things I'm not sure are being understood here.

Ozzie can be a fine manager for the right kind of team.

A team of guys who are self-motivated with something to prove, who've been treated like Cub Scouts, with a veteran laden pen.


That would seem to be ideal for Ozzie. The Sox in 2005 individually had a lot to prove. Pods was considered by many as just a speed merchant, Iguchi was new, PK had had some really disappointing seasons, Crazy Carl was considered throw away by many, AJ had come from the Giants with baggage, Crede hadn't really lived up to his promise, ARow was considered a fourth OF at best, Uribe was trashed by the Rox and Dye was considered fragile. The rotation was so-so, MB decent but nothing special, JG a decent #5, Contreras was Yankee'$ former trash, Orlando too old and Freddy a classic underachiever. The bullpen was a bunch of has beens or never wasses. And Ozzie. . . ? Ozzie was Ozzie.

They all had things to prove and Ozzie was the right guy at the right time, in 2005.

But this is 2007, a different team with different needs and back to underachieving. Thome and Erstad are new enough and both really self-motivating guys. They seem to be performing, IMHO. The rest of the team is mailing it in, in general.

Changing managers is a fairly risky gamble and I don't like the thought of doing it. We could do a lot worse than Ozzie, but at this point a) what have we got to lose and b) we could do a lot better.
In this theory though many of the guys who should be motivated already and have a lot to prove are also ones underacheiving.

Vazquez has spent the last 4-5 years trying to live up to the promise he showed early in his career. Seems a lot like the guys in 2005, yet he hasn't come around.

There are vets who are getting a shot unlike anything else they've had a chance at, and they're failing. Mackowiak, Cintron, and Terrero all seem to fall into that category.

The pen, while full of younger guys, is all guys who should have something to prove. Aardsma, MacDougal, Thornton, Sisco (before he was sent down) and even Logan are all guys who have been cast aside at some point, and theoretically should be chomping at the bit waiting to stick it to everyone for doubting them.

Danks and Masset have gone from golden boys to being part of a 3-for-1 deal. They should be full of motivation to get it going and reclaim the status that was destined for them.

Really, the only guys who it would seem should be possibly relaxed are the starters from the 2005 team. Konerko, Crede, Dye, AJ, Iguchi, Uribe, Pods, Buehrle, Contreras, Garland, and Jenks. Of that group the starting pitching has until this last week or so been our strongest point. Iguchi and Pods have been dealing with injuries. Uribe carried the team for the first few weeks offensively, and is just inconsistent as ever.

So basically it comes down to "are Konerko, Crede, Dye, and AJ performing poorly because of Ozzie Guillen?" Personally I think these guys are too mature as players to be impacted much by any manager, whether it is Ozzie, Razor Shines, Lou Piniella or Jack McKeon.

I honestly don't think Ozzie is all that great a manager. His bullpen management baffles me. His lineup decisions sometimes puzzle me. But the job of a manager is to be in charge of a team that wins games. During his time as the White Sox manager, very few people have won more games than Ozzie Guillen. Until that changes, I don't see the benefit that would come from making it appear that we're hitting the panic button.

The only way I might be interested in Ozzie being dismissed would be if in July the Sox went into total rebuilding mode. You might want to bring in someone a little less flammable if the team were going to be packed with youngsters all of a sudden. But that's speculation for far off in the future.

Johnny Mostil
05-31-2007, 10:14 AM
I'd call that more proof that Ozzie is miss managing this bullpen. Man for man, I'd take the Sox pen over the Indians pen. Not so with the Twins, but they aren't exactly a world class group either. I think the Sox pen has plenty of talent and if used less stressfully, as in preferably not coming in mid-jam, but starting out a new inning, they'd perform better.

I can see your point though.

Fair enough. I wish I knew more about the evolution of relief pitchers and their roles than I do. How many still qualify as "firemen"? I suppose this gets to Lip's point about experience as well . . .

Johnny Mostil
05-31-2007, 10:16 AM
Unfortunately, there's a very good counter to that argument. The Sox had a poor July of 2006, a mediocre August of 2006, a very poor September of 2006, a mediocre April of 2007, followed by a mediocre May of 2007.

We haven't done a ****ing thing in almost a year. The boys have June and probably half of July to try to get this right. The season is now officially on the clock, IMO.


Sox record in their last 162 games: 83-79. Hey, that was good enough for the World Champs last year! But, um, no, I don't think that will win the ALC or AL wild card.

Oh, well, as you say, time to turn this around . . .

kevingrt
05-31-2007, 10:26 AM
I wouldn't fire Ozzie.

Chicken Dinner
05-31-2007, 10:31 AM
Ozzie needs to take that "Managers 101" book that he keeps using and burn it. The bottom line is that he doesn't know his pitchers. The bullpen will continue to fail if he keeps waiting until the guy that's out there digs a huge hole. Why does it take 3 consecutive walks before a mound visit? He needs to stop the madness before it starts. He also manages way too much for precious stats. I'll leave him out there so he can get a win or a save. That's BS. Manage to win the game.

ondafarm
05-31-2007, 10:36 AM
. . . What's a manager worth - over the course of a season? 5 wins TOPS?

Do you think that the manager actually desevers as much credit as he gets when the team wins, and as much blame as he gets when they lose? You take Connie Mack managing the 2006 Devil Rays. I'll take OG (or for that matter Bevington) managing the 27 Yanks and my boys will beat you in 99 of 100 7 game serieses.

Managers never get dredit with winning extra games, as in when Gibson hit one out to win a World Series game, everyone set great hit but in comparison, very few people said, great management decision. That's an extreme case, pinch hitting is one of management's most obvious moments. Players get the credit when you win, but the manager should share some of it. Likewise, you can always blame the players for failing, but the manager should share some of the blame for losses. Over the course of the season, I'd say a good manager gains you about 40 games.

Mack with the Devil Rays against Bevington and the 27 Yanks, I'd say Mack wins between 25 and 30 series.

Lip Man 1
05-31-2007, 11:02 AM
For what it's worth in a story in the Sun-Times today Joe Cowley quotes Ozzie as saying this team is "going through the motions."

Lip

PaulDrake
05-31-2007, 11:18 AM
Manage to win the game. That's right. Manage each and every game to win it, and don't worry if one of your moves goes against that precious "book".

ondafarm
05-31-2007, 12:23 PM
I don't get the support for Ozzie over his averaging 90 wins a season bit.

We've been to the playoffs once during his tenure.

WizardsofOzzie
05-31-2007, 12:32 PM
I don't get the support for Ozzie over his averaging 90 wins a season bit.

We've been to the playoffs once during his tenure.
So it's Ozzie's fault that we play in the toughest division in baseball?

russ99
05-31-2007, 12:48 PM
If Ozzie doesn't get fired or reprimanded for his comments yesterday (of frustration, obviously) questioning Kenny's record of not making deals or wanting say on the roster, he's gonna be here for a long time.

Which is good, IMO. I think Ozzie's great. Best Sox manager since Al Lopez, and he's so entertaining. :D:

PKalltheway
05-31-2007, 12:49 PM
I don't get the support for Ozzie over his averaging 90 wins a season bit.

We've been to the playoffs once during his tenure.
Since 1969, only 2 defending World Champions have finished a season with more wins than the 2006 Sox, only to miss the playoffs (1987 Mets, 1988 Twins).

I don't think firing Ozzie will do a bit of good. It isn't his fault that he has nobody to go to in the bullpen. He has to bring somebody out there, and he doesn't want to burn out his best relievers.

WizardsofOzzie
05-31-2007, 12:58 PM
Since 1969, only 2 defending World Champions have finished a season with more wins than the 2006 Sox, only to miss the playoffs (1987 Mets, 1988 Twins).

I don't think firing Ozzie will do a bit of good. It isn't his fault that he has nobody to go to in the bullpen. He has to bring somebody out there, and he doesn't want to burn out his best relievers.
Good stat. Thanks for helping me prove my point :thumbsup:

ondafarm
05-31-2007, 01:02 PM
If Ozzie doesn't get fired or reprimanded for his comments yesterday (of frustration, obviously) questioning Kenny's record of not making deals or wanting say on the roster, he's gonna be here for a long time.

Which is good, IMO. I think Ozzie's great. Best Sox manager since Al Lopez, and he's so entertaining. :D:

Ozzie certainly shows some of Lopez's strategies, never bring a relief pitcher in until everyone in the park knows the starter hasn't got it, 340 ft fly ball outs are almost as good as 350 ft homers and never steal a bag when hitting a homer will do. Sorry, no fan of Lopez.

Grzegorz
05-31-2007, 01:13 PM
If Ozzie doesn't get fired or reprimanded for his comments yesterday (of frustration, obviously) questioning Kenny's record of not making deals or wanting say on the roster, he's gonna be here for a long time.

Which is good, IMO. I think Ozzie's great. Best Sox manager since Al Lopez, and he's so entertaining. :D:

I missed Ozzie's comments but if he questioned Kenny Williams in the open then the communication between the two is poor to put it nicely.

Either the lines of communication clear or one of the two have to go.

If I wanted the manager of my favorite baseball team to entertain me I'd ask him join Steppenwolf.

I want the manager of my favorite baseball team to win ball games and motivate his personnel to overachieve.

Chez
05-31-2007, 01:20 PM
I
We've been to the playoffs once during his tenure.

Is there another White Sox manager who has taken the team to the playoffs more than once in any given 3 year period? No.

mark2olson
05-31-2007, 01:28 PM
If I wanted the manager of my favorite baseball team to entertain me I'd ask him join Steppenwolf.

Ozzie certainly is not John Kay, but he was "Born to be wild."

downstairs
05-31-2007, 01:29 PM
Over the course of the season, I'd say a good manager gains you about 40 games.

There is absolutely no way. Every possible method of "proving" such a things- statheads, traditional baseballthink, whatever- has never come to that conclusion, or anywhere near it.

Put it this way: what decisions does an AL manager actually make? Lineup (somewhat meaninless), platooning, pitching changes.

How many games are actually impacted by this? Its not 1/2 of games as you say. (you said 40, which means a swing of 80 games: 40 losses for the worst manager, 40 wins for the best).

Heck, even making the *wrong* decision on these fronts more often doesn't even affect a game (put in horrible pitchers, they give up 2 runs out of a 4 run lead, etc.)

Taking all this into consideration, Manager = 10 game swing (can win you 5, lose you 5). Management and players take the rest.

MRM
05-31-2007, 01:31 PM
Over the course of the season, I'd say a good manager gains you about 40 games.

ROFL. This was a joke, right?

Johnny Mostil
05-31-2007, 01:34 PM
Since 1969, only 2 defending World Champions have finished a season with more wins than the 2006 Sox, only to miss the playoffs (1987 Mets, 1988 Twins).



PK, I'm certainly not in a "Fire Ozzie" crowd, but I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Compared to other defending WS champs of recent decades, the '06 Sox were a little above average. Defending champs of recent decades that won more games than the '06 Sox include the '71 Orioles, the '72 Pirates, the '73 A's, the '75 A's, the '76 Reds, the '78 Yanks, the '87 Mets, the '88 Twins, the '93 Blue Jays, the '97 Yanks, the '01 Yanks, and the '05 Red Sox, no?

What am I missing?

MRM
05-31-2007, 01:35 PM
If Ozzie doesn't get fired or reprimanded for his comments yesterday (of frustration, obviously) questioning Kenny's record of not making deals or wanting say on the roster,

Source? I read a ton of articles concerning Ozzies comments both pre-game and post game yesterday and he most certainly did NOT question Kenny's record on anything. The only reference he made to Kenny was that he would make some roster changes if things didn't turn around fast.

Chez
05-31-2007, 01:38 PM
Over the course of the season, I'd say a good manager gains you about 40 games.



ondafarm, you just lost all credibility with that statement.

PaulDrake
05-31-2007, 01:46 PM
Ozzie certainly shows some of Lopez's strategies, never bring a relief pitcher in until everyone in the park knows the starter hasn't got it, 340 ft fly ball outs are almost as good as 350 ft homers and never steal a bag when hitting a homer will do. Sorry, no fan of Lopez. Are you sure you want to run with this? Especially the stolen base part?

jabrch
05-31-2007, 01:48 PM
I don't get the support for Ozzie over his averaging 90 wins a season bit.

We've been to the playoffs once during his tenure.

He has completely failed to put this team in the NL - where he'd have made the post season in back to back years.

ondafarm
05-31-2007, 01:50 PM
He has completely failed to put this team in the NL - where he'd have made the post season in back to back years.

Well, no arguing with that logic.

WizardsofOzzie
05-31-2007, 01:51 PM
ondafarm, you just lost all credibility with that statement.
You mean he had any to begin with?

jabrch
05-31-2007, 01:51 PM
Over the course of the season, I'd say a good manager gains you about 40 games.

You must be kidding...really...

The difference between KC (expected to win 60 games) and Boston (expected to win 100) is just their manager?

Dude - Onda - please explain...

WizardsofOzzie
05-31-2007, 02:00 PM
You must be kidding...really...

The difference between KC (expected to win 60 games) and Boston (expected to win 100) is just their manager?

Dude - Onda - please explain...
And considering ondafarm obviously thinks Ozzie is a poor manager, that means the 2006 team could have won around 130 games with a good manager right? :?:

oeo
05-31-2007, 02:08 PM
I don't get the support for Ozzie over his averaging 90 wins a season bit.

We've been to the playoffs once during his tenure.

In 2004, our two best players (Maggs and Frank) went down to season-ending injuries and we won 83 games. Remember when we were AAA Charlotte in September?

In 2005, we won 99 games and won our first championship in 88 years.

In 2006, we won 90 games, but were in the toughest division which had three 90-win teams.

I'd say he's had a pretty damn good run, thus far.

jabrch
05-31-2007, 02:10 PM
And considering ondafarm obviously thinks Ozzie is a poor manager, that means the 2006 team could have won around 130 games with a good manager right? :?:

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt - but I'm waiting to hear him say it.

champagne030
05-31-2007, 02:11 PM
Taking all this into consideration, Manager = 10 game swing (can win you 5, lose you 5). Management and players take the rest.

Ozzie lost more than 5 games with one move alone:

Playing Mackowiak in CF 63 times.

I've always known Ozzie is poor with the lineup and in-game decisions. I also knew that his managing of the clubhouse outweighed those other mistakes. I'm starting to question if that still holds true.

oeo
05-31-2007, 02:17 PM
Ozzie lost more than 5 games with one move alone:

Playing Mackowiak in CF 63 times.

I've always known Ozzie is poor with the lineup and in-game decisions. I also knew that his managing of the clubhouse outweighed those other mistakes. I'm starting to question if that still holds true.

And again...where was the capable backup? We didn't have a CF'er, period, last year. Mackowiak did give us offensive production last year; you can't ignore that because he made some bad plays in center.

Lip Man 1
05-31-2007, 02:20 PM
Onda:

Sorry but you are completely wrong in your comments about Al Lopez. I've interviewed enough of his players to tell you directly you're off base there.

Lip

WizardsofOzzie
05-31-2007, 02:27 PM
And again...where was the capable backup? We didn't have a CF'er, period, last year. Mackowiak did give us offensive production last year; you can't ignore that because he made some bad plays in center.
He was playing the outfield in Cincinnati

ZombieRob
05-31-2007, 02:31 PM
Is there another White Sox manager who has taken the team to the playoffs more than once in any given 3 year period? No.

If it wasn't for the strike possibly Gene Lamont would have.

IndianWhiteSox
05-31-2007, 02:32 PM
And again...where was the capable backup? We didn't have a CF'er, period, last year. Mackowiak did give us offensive production last year; you can't ignore that because he made some bad plays in center.

Personally I like Ozzie and I just think he needs the right pieces to "play with" as he had in 2005, so I think he shouldn't be the first one gone. I just think IF and only IF the Sox were to fire Ozzie Guillen, then KW would have to get the ax the same day, due to the fact that KW really hasn't been on the same page as Ozzie. He's done a good in getting steals in some of these deals, but I just think that he has to do a better job in getting the players that Ozzie wants on this team or can at least use properly. I just think that the BA situation was just a glaring example of how those guys aren't on the same page. If Kenny realizes that Ozzie doesn't like BA or thinks that BA isn't all that, then he should have sent him to AAA to start the season. Why was Ross Gload even on the 2006 roster? When that spot should have been used for any backup CF or maybe even a starter.

ondafarm
05-31-2007, 02:36 PM
There is absolutely no way. Every possible method of "proving" such a things- statheads, traditional baseballthink, whatever- has never come to that conclusion, or anywhere near it.

Put it this way: what decisions does an AL manager actually make? Lineup (somewhat meaninless), platooning, pitching changes.

How many games are actually impacted by this? Its not 1/2 of games as you say. (you said 40, which means a swing of 80 games: 40 losses for the worst manager, 40 wins for the best).

Heck, even making the *wrong* decision on these fronts more often doesn't even affect a game (put in horrible pitchers, they give up 2 runs out of a 4 run lead, etc.)

Taking all this into consideration, Manager = 10 game swing (can win you 5, lose you 5). Management and players take the rest.

Hold on there.

I said "gaines you about 40 games" meaning a 40 game swing, as in wins 20 more games a season. And that covers all aspects of management not just onfield stuff.

And I think you've underestimated the effect of several factors.

First, lineup. Clustering guys who will hit together. Conventional thinking is that you score about 1 run for every three hits. Two hits are required per run and one is wasted. The best managers know who hit well in what siutations and more importantly, who will generate those situations on your club. As in, the Sox in 2005 scored a lot of runs because Pods got on and generated a fastball situation which Iguchi, a fastball first hitter, took advantage of. Great managers know how to do this throughout the lineup. Poor managers are fairly clueless.

Platooning. I actually think of this more as keeping guys anticipating and also well rested. Think Oscar Gamble on this front. When with the Sox he part time hit and hit 31 HR in 408 at-bats mostly DH ing. He never hit more than 18 a year thereafter and mostly played outfield. The Sox probably employed him best in his career getting him more at bats but less fielding time and more pinch hitting assignments. This was smart management of this player. A good manager utilizes each of the 25 guys on his roster to his utmost. How many extra runs does 13 homers a year equate to? And if you optimize four or five guys? Say 80 HR more per year? How many more runs and wins does that look like?

Pitching changes: 12 pitchers, 13 fielders, so the best manager optimizes his pitching lineup nearly as well as he does his batting lineup. So 80 fewer homers given up equates to how many fewer runs scored against the team and how many more victories?

Try this:

Avg .500 season a team scores 750 runs and allows 750 runs.

Add a superior manager who optimizes all 25 guys on his team. This generates 100 more runs and prevents 100 runs from being scored. (This from my 80 HR difference on each end.)

RS=850 RA=650 Winning pct expected yields a .790 winning pct or 128 - 34.

That would be 46 games better than the .500 team. I don't think there is a manger alive who can optimize both 12 pitchers and 13 fielders for a season. But a guy who can optimize 4 or 5 guys while keeping the others from degrading should be a great manager.

ondafarm
05-31-2007, 02:40 PM
Onda:

Sorry but you are completely wrong in your comments about Al Lopez. I've interviewed enough of his players to tell you directly you're off base there.

Lip

Fair enough. I'm not old enough to have my own opinions about Al Lopez, apart from his keeping Nellie Fox out of the Hall of Fame. The opinions expressed were those of my parents who were rabid Sox fans while dating (married in 1960) and especially my mother, the founder of the Nellie Fox fan club.

Willing to say that those two factors may cloud my judgement.

ZombieRob
05-31-2007, 02:40 PM
What made K.W think the offensive make up of this team was going to be any better then that of the 2006 team? banking on Pods being healthy ?If thats the case, then this 07' team fall on him.I'll give him credit for trying to improve a weak bullpen .The bullpen faltering certianly isn't his fault.

And as far as Ozzie ,i'd really just like him to stick with one lineup for once instead of making sure all the back-ups get time.

IndianWhiteSox
05-31-2007, 02:43 PM
Hold on there.

I said "gaines you about 40 games" meaning a 40 game swing, as in wins 20 more games a season. And that covers all aspects of management not just onfield stuff.

And I think you've underestimated the effect of several factors.

First, lineup. Clustering guys who will hit together. Conventional thinking is that you score about 1 run for every three hits. Two hits are required per run and one is wasted. The best managers know who hit well in what siutations and more importantly, who will generate those situations on your club. As in, the Sox in 2005 scored a lot of runs because Pods got on and generated a fastball situation which Iguchi, a fastball first hitter, took advantage of. Great managers know how to do this throughout the lineup. Poor managers are fairly clueless.

Platooning. I actually think of this more as keeping guys anticipating and also well rested. Think Oscar Gamble on this front. When with the Sox he part time hit and hit 31 HR in 408 at-bats mostly DH ing. He never hit more than 18 a year thereafter and mostly played outfield. The Sox probably employed him best in his career getting him more at bats but less fielding time and more pinch hitting assignments. This was smart management of this player. A good manager utilizes each of the 25 guys on his roster to his utmost. How many extra runs does 13 homers a year equate to? And if you optimize four or five guys? Say 80 HR more per year? How many more runs and wins does that look like?

Pitching changes: 12 pitchers, 13 fielders, so the best manager optimizes his pitching lineup nearly as well as he does his batting lineup. So 80 fewer homers given up equates to how many fewer runs scored against the team and how many more victories?

Try this:

Avg .500 season a team scores 750 runs and allows 750 runs.

Add a superior manager who optimizes all 25 guys on his team. This generates 100 more runs and prevents 100 runs from being scored. (This from my 80 HR difference on each end.)

RS=850 RA=650 Winning pct expected yields a .790 winning pct or 128 - 34.

That would be 46 games better than the .500 team. I don't think there is a manger alive who can optimize both 12 pitchers and 13 fielders for a season. But a guy who can optimize 4 or 5 guys while keeping the others from degrading should be a great manager.

Who is that guy still out there that can do that better than OG? I mean it seems that he is the victim of KW not getting enough of his type of players and GW for not really being much of a help in improving the approach in which the lineup takes. Let OG have his players, then it would only be fair for you to say whether he's a schmuck or not. But until then, I will still give him(OG) the benefit of the doubt.

soxfan13
05-31-2007, 02:51 PM
Who is that guy still out there that can do that better than OG? I mean it seems that he is the victim of KW not getting enough of his type of players and GW for not really being much of a help in improving the approach in which the lineup takes. Let OG have his players, then it would only be fair for you to say whether he's a schmuck or not. But until then, I will still give him(OG) the benefit of the doubt.

Now I am in the keep Ozzie camp but you keep saying get Ozzie the players he wants and he will win. This team has been built around Ozzies wishes. 6 out of the 8 starters started on the World Series team a "Ozzie team" it would be 7 if Pods wasnt hurt. 4 out of the 5 starters are from the World Series team. The bullpen has been built around Ozzies wishes for a bunch of hard throwing arms. How much more does he need?

russ99
05-31-2007, 02:53 PM
Source? I read a ton of articles concerning Ozzies comments both pre-game and post game yesterday and he most certainly did NOT question Kenny's record on anything. The only reference he made to Kenny was that he would make some roster changes if things didn't turn around fast.

Sun Times (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/408223,CST-SPT-sox31.article)

''That's up to [general manager] Kenny Williams,'' Guillen said. ''I'm all through. I'm sitting here and watching since July of last year to right now, the same bull[bleep]. If this team's going to get better with me out of here, I'll be happy. But as long as I'm here, we've got to play this [bleep] better.''The 25 guys we've got down here, they better look themselves in the mirror and check his butt,'' Guillen said. ''Everyone. If we have to shake up this ballclub, we will -- at least Kenny will.

Sounds to me like he's not happy with Kenny.

IndianWhiteSox
05-31-2007, 02:55 PM
Now I am in the keep Ozzie camp but you keep saying get Ozzie the players he wants and he will win. This team has been built around Ozzies wishes. 6 out of the 8 starters started on the World Series team a "Ozzie team" it would be 7 if Pods wasnt hurt. 4 out of the 5 starters are from the World Series team. The bullpen has been built around Ozzies wishes for a bunch of hard throwing arms. How much more does he need?

How about some guys who can actually score from 1st on a double or go from 1st to 3rd on a single? Better yet, get some guys with at least 20/20 who can play the out field. I'll put it you like this, if the Sox sign Ichiro (the best lead-off man), Patterson(the 20/20 guy), and move Dye to 1B or DH, while trading PK or Thome to create the space for this to happen.

soxfan13
05-31-2007, 02:57 PM
How about some guys who can actually score from 1st on a double or go from 1st to 3rd on a single? Better yet, get some guys with at least 20/20 who can play the out field. I'll put it you like this, if the Sox sign Ichiro (the best lead-off man), Patterson(the 20/20 guy), and move Dye to 1B or DH, while trading PK or Thome to create the space for this to happen.

All I am saying is you keep saying get guys Ozzie wants. I am saying this is the team Ozzie has helped build. You should be saying get players that "I" want.

IndianWhiteSox
05-31-2007, 03:00 PM
All I am saying is you keep saying get guys Ozzie wants. I am saying this is the team Ozzie has helped build. You should be saying get players that "I" want.

You're right, Ozzie wants to have people who clog the bases like the teams of the JM days.

The point is, I'm sure he wants guys who can advance the bases rather quickly, you know having guys that can go from 1st to 3rd or score on a XBH from 1st. That's all I was saying, and this isn't the same team as it was in 2005 so maybe this wasn't the exact plan he had in mind.

PKalltheway
05-31-2007, 03:10 PM
Since 1969, only 2 defending World Champions have finished a season with more wins than the 2006 Sox, only to miss the playoffs.

The 1987 Mets, and the 1988 Twins were defending World Champions who won more games than the '06 Sox (who were defending World Champions), only to miss the playoffs.

I don't think firing Ozzie will do a bit of good. It isn't his fault that he has nobody to go to in the bullpen. He has to bring somebody out there, and he doesn't want to burn out his best relievers.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Compared to other defending WS champs of recent decades, the '06 Sox were a little above average. Defending champs of recent decades that won more games than the '06 Sox include the '71 Orioles, the '72 Pirates, the '73 A's, the '75 A's, the '76 Reds, the '78 Yanks, the '87 Mets, the '88 Twins, the '93 Blue Jays, the '97 Yanks, the '01 Yanks, and the '05 Red Sox, no?

What am I missing?
Read my post again. I modified a bit this time around. All of those teams you listed MADE IT BACK TO THE PLAYOFFS, EXCEPT FOR THE 1987 Mets and the 1988 Twins.

oeo
05-31-2007, 03:16 PM
Sun Times (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/408223,CST-SPT-sox31.article)



Sounds to me like he's not happy with Kenny.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I didn't get that feeling at all.

BarbG
05-31-2007, 03:20 PM
Maybe I'm crazy, but I didn't get that feeling at all.
Me neither. Sounds to me like he's not happy with the effort of the players.

Johnny Mostil
05-31-2007, 03:23 PM
Read my post again. I modified a bit this time around. All of those teams you listed MADE IT BACK TO THE PLAYOFFS, EXCEPT FOR THE 1987 Mets and the 1988 Twins.

OK, thanks. I thought the playoff comparison might be what you were getting at, but wasn't sure. I'm not sure why that's more relevant than the general record of such clubs, given the inclusion now of the wild card. That, arguably, could have meant the '87 Mets and '88 Twins would have made the playoffs after all, given that the Mets had the third-best record in the NL and the Twins had the second-best record in the AL. So the '06 Sox are the tallest midgets of defending champs not making the playoffs?

Nevertheless, I agree with what I assume is your broader point, that the falloff of the '06 Sox from the standard of the '05 champs wasn't unusual, or, indeed, was even less steep than these things usually are . . .

IndianWhiteSox
05-31-2007, 03:25 PM
OK, thanks. I thought the playoff comparison might be what you were getting at, but wasn't sure. I'm not sure why that's more relevant than the general record of such clubs, given the inclusion now of the wild card. That, arguably, could have meant the '87 Mets and '88 Twins would have made the playoffs after all, given that the Mets had the third-best record in the NL and the Twins had the second-best record in the AL.

But I agree with what I assume is your broader point, that the falloff of the '06 Sox from the standard of the '05 champs wasn't unusual, or, indeed, was even less steep than these things usually are . . .

The funny thing about that is the when they won in 1987, they had the fifth best record in the AL.

Johnny Mostil
05-31-2007, 03:32 PM
The funny thing about that is the when they won in 1987, they had the fifth best record in the AL.

Yep. And the '05 Cards had the fifth-best record in the NL. And the '73 Mets, who came very close to winning the Series, were only a half-game better than the Astros, who had the fifth-best record in the NL. As noted many times by others, anything can happen once the post-season starts . . .

PKalltheway
05-31-2007, 03:34 PM
Nevertheless, I agree with what I assume is your broader point, that the falloff of the '06 Sox from the standard of the '05 champs wasn't unusual, or, indeed, was even less steep than these things usually are . . .
Yeah, that was pretty much what I was getting at. Even though their pitching did underachieve (there's no arguing that), they had the unfortunate distinction of being in the toughest division.

I just threw out that statistic to counter what ondafarm was saying about Ozzie that he only made it to the playoffs once in his three year tenure here to this point. I just thought that it was unfair of him to make a judgement on Ozzie so quickly when he hasn't really been here long enough. So he couldn't make it to the playoffs last year in the toughest division in baseball, and now he's ready to have him fired? I'll have to respectfully disagree. I mean really, having a 272-214 record in your first three years with a team, to go along with a World Championship ain't bad! I'm giving Ozzie the benefit of the doubt for right now.

Johnny Mostil
05-31-2007, 03:36 PM
Yeah, that was pretty much what I was getting at. Even though their pitching did underachieve (there's no arguing that), they had the unfortunate distinction of being in the toughest division.

I just threw out that statistic to counter what ondafarm was saying about Ozzie that he only made it to the playoffs once in his three year tenure here to this point. I just thought that it was unfair of him to make a judgement on Ozzie so quickly when he hasn't really been here long enough. So he couldn't make it to the playoffs last year in the toughest division in baseball, and now he's ready to have him fired? I'll have to respectfully disagree. I mean really, having a 272-214 record in your first three years with a team, to go along with a World Championship ain't bad! I'm giving Ozzie the benefit of the doubt for right now.

I'm with you . . . at least for right now:wink: .

ondafarm
05-31-2007, 03:39 PM
And yet still no tomato!!?!!

IndianWhiteSox
05-31-2007, 03:39 PM
Yep. And the '06 Cards had the fifth-best record in the NL. And the '73 Mets, who came very close to winning the Series, were only a half-game better than the Astros, who had the fifth-best record in the NL. As noted many times by others, anything can happen once the post-season starts . . .

Fixed it for ya! It's kind of hard to have the 5th best record in the NL when you win a 100 game like the '05 Cardinals, but on the other hand, the '06 Cardinals had the 5th best record in the NL and still won the whole thing. Due to what you said earlier, Weaver and Suppan coming out of nowhere to pitch like Koufax and Drysdale.

Johnny Mostil
05-31-2007, 04:00 PM
And yet still no tomato!!?!!
:tomatoaward:

Johnny Mostil
05-31-2007, 04:13 PM
Fixed it for ya! It's kind of hard to have the 5th best record in the NL when you win a 100 game like the '05 Cardinals, but on the other hand, the '06 Cardinals had the 5th best record in the NL and still won the whole thing. Due to what you said earlier, Weaver and Suppan coming out of nowhere to pitch like Koufax and Drysdale.


In the words of famed sabermetrician Homer Simpson, "D'oh!"

Thanks.

RCWHITESOX
05-31-2007, 04:29 PM
Fixed it for ya! It's kind of hard to have the 5th best record in the NL when you win a 100 game like the '05 Cardinals, but on the other hand, the '06 Cardinals had the 5th best record in the NL and still won the whole thing. Due to what you said earlier, Weaver and Suppan coming out of nowhere to pitch like Koufax and Drysdale.

Let me get this right we fire the manager and everything is beautiful. This is the same team that has been to the World Series 2 times in the last 48 years. Something tells me it might be just a little more complex than that. Hell if that is all it is we might just get to see the Sox in more than 2 World series in a life time seeing that they average at least 40 plus years between events.

RowanDye
05-31-2007, 04:33 PM
4 out of the 5 starters are from the World Series team.

It's 3 out of 5 starters, Garcia and El Duque/McCarthy are gone, but I get your point that the team is largely intact.

If I remember correctly, however, Ozzie said at some point that the moves made before '05 were just a step in the right direction.

Trading Lee for Pods was the prime example of stressing speed and defense.

Unfortunately, the moves since then if anything have gone against this strategy.

KW seems to stress the importance of power hitters due to our ballpark concerns, trading for Thome and resigning PK.

It does seem that Ozzie's and KW's philosophies are at odds at times.

Having said all of this I don't think any of this crap really matters. The team, when healthy, is good enough to win.

We've seen them pitch and we know they can hit and play pretty good defense. At some point when these things don't start happening together on a consistent basis, people start looking for what's wrong and blaming the manager for not managing to get his team to play together.

Fair or not, if the White Sox don't stay in serious contention Ozzie will be on the hot seat.

A.T. Money
05-31-2007, 04:42 PM
I would fire Ozzie because he helped win the World Series.

We prefer to be miserable, where we can bitch bitch bitch all the time.

WizardsofOzzie
05-31-2007, 04:44 PM
I would fire Ozzie because he helped win the World Series.

We prefer to be miserable, where we can bitch bitch bitch all the time.
:rolling: Post of the week

The Immigrant
05-31-2007, 04:44 PM
I would fire Ozzie because he helped win the World Series.

We prefer to be miserable, where we can bitch bitch bitch all the time.

:rolling:

DumpJerry
05-31-2007, 04:48 PM
I would fire Ozzie because he helped win the World Series.

We prefer to be miserable, where we can bitch bitch bitch all the time.
Come on, out of three complete seasons as the Sox Manager, Ozzie has won only one World Series. In fact, he has had only one World Series appearance as Manager.

I'm sure there are managers who can do better.

kitekrazy
05-31-2007, 05:37 PM
In 2004, our two best players (Maggs and Frank) went down to season-ending injuries and we won 83 games. Remember when we were AAA Charlotte in September?


Everyone seems to over look that year.

A.T. Money
05-31-2007, 05:49 PM
Come on, out of three complete seasons as the Sox Manager, Ozzie has won only one World Series. In fact, he has had only one World Series appearance as Manager.

I'm sure there are managers who can do better.

Do better? No...we would rather do worse.

Gives us something to complain about.

voodoochile
05-31-2007, 05:52 PM
I would fire Ozzie because he helped win the World Series.

We prefer to be miserable, where we can bitch bitch bitch all the time.:rolling: Post of the week

I agree (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=13&id=3382)...

*****!!!

:)

DumpJerry
05-31-2007, 06:18 PM
Come on, out of three complete seasons as the Sox Manager, Ozzie has won only one World Series. In fact, he has had only one World Series appearance as Manager.

I'm sure there are managers who can do better.

Do better? No...we would rather do worse.

Gives us something to complain about.
Jeez. Isn't sarcasm sometimes so obvious that teal is not needed?:rolleyes:

gobears1987
05-31-2007, 06:21 PM
Jeez. Isn't sarcasm sometimes so obvious that teal is not needed?:rolleyes:
no! Never!

kevingrt
05-31-2007, 06:34 PM
Jeez. Isn't sarcasm sometimes so obvious that teal is not needed?:rolleyes:

Seriously. It gets very annoying when people can't tell when you are so overtly sarcastic. Not just on the message boards here but in everday life. Too many people need to start taking chill pills.

FarWestChicago
05-31-2007, 06:43 PM
I would fire Ozzie just so Farm would quit sounding like broken record.

soxfan13
05-31-2007, 07:27 PM
It's 3 out of 5 starters, Garcia and El Duque/McCarthy are gone, but I get your point that the team is largely intact.

KW seems to stress the importance of power hitters due to our ballpark concerns, trading for Thome and resigning PK.

Having said all of this I don't think any of this crap really matters. The team, when healthy, is good enough to win.

We've seen them pitch and we know they can hit and play pretty good defense. At some point when these things don't start happening together on a consistent basis, people start looking for what's wrong and blaming the manager for not managing to get his team to play together.

Fair or not, if the White Sox don't stay in serious contention Ozzie will be on the hot seat.

I deleted some of your stuff because I agree. Good catch on my brain fart with the starting pitching. The Thome signing was actually a Ozzie call all the way if I recall correctly. He wanted a big lefty power bat to go along with Konerko which is pretty much what pushed Thomas out the door. Also agree that we have seen this team pretty much the same team win and they can do it again they are just playing so inconsistently since last July. They just cant seem to get EVERYTHING going at once and yes unfortunately due to the nature of the business Ozzie will be on the hot seat.

soxfan13
05-31-2007, 07:32 PM
You're right, Ozzie wants to have people who clog the bases like the teams of the JM days.

The point is, I'm sure he wants guys who can advance the bases rather quickly, you know having guys that can go from 1st to 3rd or score on a XBH from 1st. That's all I was saying, and this isn't the same team as it was in 2005 so maybe this wasn't the exact plan he had in mind.


I actually pretty much agree with you on the need for a little more speed but its hard to have guys advance from 1st to 3rd and what not, when you just arent hitting. I have faith in KW if this starts to go south really bad, fast that he will try to make something happen. I do have to disagree with you saying this aint the same team from 2005. That team just had the knack for getting the big hit when needed and the pitching was lights out. Last year they prettty much led the league in hitting with runners in scoring position and where near the top in runs scored but their pitching failed them.

champagne030
05-31-2007, 07:34 PM
I deleted some of your stuff because I agree. Good catch on my brain fart with the starting pitching. The Thome signing was actually a Ozzie call all the way if I recall correctly. He wanted a big lefty power bat to go along with Konerko which is pretty much what pushed Thomas out the door. Also agree that we have seen this team pretty much the same team win and they can do it again they are just playing so inconsistently since last July. They just cant seem to get EVERYTHING going at once and yes unfortunately due to the nature of the business Ozzie will be on the hot seat.

IIRC, Thome was a KW move all the way. That's why PK stayed.

soxfan13
05-31-2007, 07:37 PM
IIRC, Thome was a KW move all the way. That's why PK stayed.

Well if thats so, Ozzie agreed with him because he wanted a LEFTY power bat to break up the righties of Konerko, Thomas and Dye

Frontman
05-31-2007, 07:49 PM
I would fire Ozzie because he helped win the World Series.

We prefer to be miserable, where we can bitch bitch bitch all the time.

I agree with Post of the Week award on this one.

:putitontheboard

Tragg
05-31-2007, 08:02 PM
Is there another White Sox manager who has taken the team to the playoffs more than once in any given 3 year period? No.

What are you saying?

MySoxAreClean
05-31-2007, 08:10 PM
No they will Fire Ozzie and Bring in Singleton as Manager and Jd will be hitting coach, Hawk and Farmer will join forces on Tv, and Steve Stone and Ozzie Osbourne will do radio. Sounds like a winning combination. For sure we will win a few WS series. And All those who want heads to roll will finally be happy. :violin:

PKalltheway
05-31-2007, 08:20 PM
Everyone seems to over look that year.
Selective memory, my man!:tongue:

wassagstdu
05-31-2007, 08:45 PM
Ozzie wants to add NL style small ball to the AL power game. Trouble is the Cell has a reputation as a launching pad, which makes it hard not to always go for power, in roster and in individual AB's. So we have a big, slow, HR or nothing team with no speed, no situational hitting, no basic skills. And we probably always will. 2005 was an outlier, a freak created by a couple of great performances by Pods and Iguchi. As long as the Sox play in the Cell, they will more than likely have teams like the current one. Just as playing in Comiskey meant they fielded good defensive teams with little power.

From the Sox point of view, they should never, never let Ozzie go, and should let him fight like hell to build some small ball and some speed. From Ozzie's point of view, maybe he would have a more productive time managing in a pitcher's park. I think Ozzie will have a long, distinguished, successful career as a manager, but I regret to say it is more likely to be somewhere else.

wassagstdu
05-31-2007, 08:46 PM
By the way, how valid is the description of the Cell as a launching pad? Does anyone have stats for visiting team HR in the Cell vs in other away parks?

Grzegorz
05-31-2007, 08:53 PM
Ozzie wants to add NL style small ball to the AL power game.

From the Sox point of view, they should never, never let Ozzie go and let him fight like hell to build some small ball and some speed. From Ozzie's point of view, maybe he would have a more productive time managing in a pitcher's park. I think Ozzie will have a long, distinguished, successful career as a manager, but I regret to say it is more likely to be somewhere else.

First off if the place is a launching pad you're better off mixing high OBP with some power. Going solely with power is a losing proposition because even if you bludgeon your opponents at home with regularity, you still have games on the road. (We are totally discounting pitching in this scenario.)

Secondly, if Ozzie wants a NL style team, why doesn't he fight for that type of team? Is it because his wishes are not respected? Is it because there are no bargaining chips to obtain these types of players? Or, are they not willing to spend for this type of player?

I cannot see Ozzie keeping quiet if the philosophy of upper management is diametrically opposed to his philosophy.

ondafarm
05-31-2007, 10:13 PM
I would fire Ozzie just so Farm would quit sounding like broken record.

And support is growing !!!!

DumpJerry
05-31-2007, 10:25 PM
Can we fire Ondafarm?:redneck

Daver
05-31-2007, 10:27 PM
Can we fire Ondafarm?:redneck

I can, I choose not to.

SoxandtheCityTee
06-01-2007, 12:15 AM
I've always been interested in your posts because I think the views of someone who has played the game professionally are worth having. (I do detect a change in tone since you've moved back to this area -- maybe it's just that you're seeing more games now that you're in-market, but really it's none of my business either way.) Can I ask you a non-rhetorical question?

Let's set aside everything on the Ozzie side of the issue: whether he "deserves" to be fired, the 2005 and 2006 seasons, his record as manager, all of it. Look only at the team side of it: how will changing managers right now, or soon, materially improve the White Sox' chances of going to the playoffs and beyond in 2007 if nothing else changes? By "nothing else changes" I mean we are stuck with the injuries; assume that any call-ups, trades, or other personnel moves could be made with or without keeping Ozzie.

Or if that is a faulty assumption, can you explain why? Every time I imagine waking up and hearing that Ozzie has been fired I can't see how/why it would lead to the team playing better. It's understood that there are no guarantees; what improvements would you reasonably hope for or expect solely arising from a change in manager right now?

Thanks (no teal).

ondafarm
06-01-2007, 09:14 AM
I've always been interested in your posts because I think the views of someone who has played the game professionally are worth having. (I do detect a change in tone since you've moved back to this area -- maybe it's just that you're seeing more games now that you're in-market, but really it's none of my business either way.) Can I ask you a non-rhetorical question?

Let's set aside everything on the Ozzie side of the issue: whether he "deserves" to be fired, the 2005 and 2006 seasons, his record as manager, all of it. Look only at the team side of it: how will changing managers right now, or soon, materially improve the White Sox' chances of going to the playoffs and beyond in 2007 if nothing else changes? By "nothing else changes" I mean we are stuck with the injuries; assume that any call-ups, trades, or other personnel moves could be made with or without keeping Ozzie.

Or if that is a faulty assumption, can you explain why? Every time I imagine waking up and hearing that Ozzie has been fired I can't see how/why it would lead to the team playing better. It's understood that there are no guarantees; what improvements would you reasonably hope for or expect solely arising from a change in manager right now?

Thanks (no teal).

Thank you for the kind words and that they are not in teal. I have gotten to see more games since my return to Chicagoland, although I'm not certain how that has affected my posting. But a solid observation on your part.

A change in manager affects a ball team in about the same way that a change in boss affects a work team. As in, it changes the way the team prepares for tasks, how much instruction, training and planning are conducted and the amount of involvement of the workers/ players. This typically alters who the peak contributers are.

In baseball, some guys are true professionals and no matter who is in charge, they perform pretty much the same. I'd put Thome, Erstad and Buehrle in this category. Any and all drills that a team is made to do they participate in, but they really work themselves harder than any manager does.

Some guys operate only because they love the manager. I suspect Uribe, Mack, Ozuna, Contreras, Garland and Dye in this category. Perhaps Dye in the former, I don't know.

Some guys need to be told what to do and really need instruction but won't ask for it. They need order and to be ordered. Guys I'd put in this category: Freddy Garcia, BA, PK, Iguchi, Crede, AJ, Hall, Sweeney, Danks, Javy, Cintron and nearly all rookies (for a year or two.)

All teams have a mix of all three guys and a manager needs to understand each type and motivate each type in order to get results. What works for one guy doesn't always work for another. So managers need to adapt.

Great managers like Lasorda, Tanner, Sparky Anderson, etc. can motivate each of these types of ballplayers.

IMO, Ozzie Guillen is a one-trick pony in that he's really so far over towards motivating one type of guy (the second) that he negelects the third type.

Professional ball playing is extremely hard. There are dozens of little skills to master and keep honed to razor sharp. This requires constant drills and nobody likes doing them all. Left to yourself, you'll fall into a couple of favorite drills and an occasional random one and you'll lose something. This is what coaches are for. To force you to do all your exercises, to identify which ones you are failing on and to inflict extra drills to get you back to a razor's edge in something you honestly hate doing.

The self-motivated player has great discipline and does the whole variety of drills and will seek help on his own. These guys are rare.

The manager lovers will do the drills because their manager asks them to and they really want to show the guy how they are obeying him and performing. They perform well and even do more than the manager asks to earn his praise/ friendship. Other people call them toadies.

The order seekers do the drills as assigned and do the remedial stuff to stay with the group. When they fall behind they are motivated to catch up. If the manager doesn't inflict extra drills or harsh evaluations then they won't do it. This is the group that I believe Ozzie has failed and a change in manager would re-motivate and reactivate.

Note: some guys are combinations of two things. Crede is a true pro defender but an order seeker with the bat. Dye seems to be a true pro with the bat but a manager lover on defense (his career type injuries have occurred or been complicated by defensive issues.)

wassagstdu
06-01-2007, 11:57 AM
First off if the place is a launching pad you're better off mixing high OBP with some power. Going solely with power is a losing proposition because even if you bludgeon your opponents at home with regularity, you still have games on the road. (We are totally discounting pitching in this scenario.)

I don't think I buy that argument. If the 3-run homer is your basic offense, you want to stack a team with Jim Thomes. OBP and power are not in conflict. To decide to add small ball, you have to intend to score a significant fraction of your runs that way. If you just want men on base for the boppers, other boppers are just as good and you also get more HR. So every time you have to choose you should choose a bopper.

To build small ball to score runs you need something different from OBP. Bunt? Take the extra base? Hit behind the runner? Forget it if you are just waiting for the 3RHR.

And you are crazy not to build a team to win in the park where you play half of your games.

So yes, everyone agrees that it is best to have both. All I am saying is that every specific decision on who to sign is strongly weighted one way or the other if you play in a HR park like US Cellular or a pitcher's park like Comiskey. And it is very difficult to build the alternative.

That is why the Sox giving up Carlos Lee and acquiring Scot Podsednik was so strange and so courageous. How often will you see that happen compared to giving up Rowand and acquiring Thome? And which was the right move? Historically, the former, obviously. Statistically, the latter, obviously. Interestingly, the Phillies also play in a "launching pad," and if they were in the AL I would say they made the wrong choice. But with Ryan Howard they simply could not use Thome.

TDog
06-01-2007, 01:06 PM
Why stop at firing Ozzie Guillen? Why not fire Piniella as well? (Not to be flub obsessed. I could discuss other teams who have managers that should be fired, but the Cubs are close to home.) Piniella has a .431 winning percentage with a team that has outscored its opposition by 11 runs at the end of May. His expectations were higher and his players haven't been underperforming. Piniella didn't do well with Tampa Bay either.t

It's easy to assume that someone with no major league experience could do better.

There have been some bad managers. Maury Wills, who radio personality Dave Wills was promoting for a job with the White Sox before the Mariners hired him, was a bad manager. Terry Bevington was a bad manager. Some people label Tony LaRussa and Dick Williams as bad managers, but like Piniella and Ozzie Guillen, they won championships.

If the Sox had hired Cito Gaston, people would probably be calling for his job today. And people wouldn't be defending him with the argument that he brought Chicago a championship.

ondafarm
06-01-2007, 01:41 PM
Why stop at firing Ozzie Guillen? Why not fire Piniella as well? (Not to be flub obsessed. I could discuss other teams who have managers that should be fired, but the Cubs are close to home.) Piniella has a .431 winning percentage with a team that has outscored its opposition by 11 runs at the end of May. His expectations were higher and his players haven't been underperforming. Piniella didn't do well with Tampa Bay either.t

It's easy to assume that someone with no major league experience could do better.

There have been some bad managers. Maury Wills, who radio personality Dave Wills was promoting for a job with the White Sox before the Mariners hired him, was a bad manager. Terry Bevington was a bad manager. Some people label Tony LaRussa and Dick Williams as bad managers, but like Piniella and Ozzie Guillen, they won championships.

If the Sox had hired Cito Gaston, people would probably be calling for his job today. And people wouldn't be defending him with the argument that he brought Chicago a championship.

Because of the ownership group, the White Sox prefer to hire from within or at least someone they trust. While a manager like Doug Raeder may have been a pretty fair manager, he was not a company man and would criticisze ownership when he felt appropriate. The White Sox ownership group will not hire a manager with any chance of criticizing them.

There are a few possible managers who might do well with the Sox, but I think most of them are not company men. Razor Shines is a company man and he has the respect of the rookies and minor leaguers and possibly that of the major leaguers he has been coaching from thrid base. He seems the most likely choice to me.

WizardsofOzzie
06-01-2007, 03:08 PM
Because of the ownership group, the White Sox prefer to hire from within or at least someone they trust. While a manager like Doug Raeder may have been a pretty fair manager, he was not a company man and would criticisze ownership when he felt appropriate. The White Sox ownership group will not hire a manager with any chance of criticizing them.

There are a few possible managers who might do well with the Sox, but I think most of them are not company men. Razor Shines is a company man and he has the respect of the rookies and minor leaguers and possibly that of the major leaguers he has been coaching from thrid base. He seems the most likely choice to me.
So if Shines doesn't have a playoff appearance and win a world series within his first 3 years, we can start a "Why I'd fire Razor Shines" thread right? It seems that no matter how much I try, I don't understand your logic

Nellie_Fox
06-01-2007, 03:18 PM
IMO, Ozzie Guillen is a one-trick pony in that he's really so far over towards motivating one type of guy (the second) that he negelects the third type. I'm curious, just how in the hell do you know this? Based on what? From watching games on TV? Or do spend a lot of time in the clubhouse, at practice times (which are not open to the public) and in the dugout during games?

I'm just amazed at how much people think they know at what is going on behind the scenes with the Sox. I don't have a single clue as to how Ozzie acts and what motivational methods he uses. Apparently you are intimately aware.

Daver
06-01-2007, 03:31 PM
There are a few possible managers who might do well with the Sox, but I think most of them are not company men. Razor Shines is a company man and he has the respect of the rookies and minor leaguers and possibly that of the major leaguers he has been coaching from thrid base. He seems the most likely choice to me.

Razor Shines threw away a season when his minor league team quit on him three weeks in, in low A ball, he is not the answer. The Sox blew it when they chose Razor as third base coach over Nick Leyva.

DumpJerry
06-01-2007, 03:43 PM
I'm curious, just how in the hell do you know this? Based on what? From watching games on TV? Or do spend a lot of time in the clubhouse, at practice times (which are not open to the public) and in the dugout during games?

I'm just amazed at how much people think they know at what is going on behind the scenes with the Sox. I don't have a single clue as to how Ozzie acts and what motivational methods he uses. Apparently you are intimately aware.
I was wondering the same thing. Onda, how do you know so much personal stuff about the players? Do you go drinking with them after games and monitor their drills? Or are you relying on anecdotal evidence in the media for determining the players' attitudes towards work?

ondafarm
06-01-2007, 04:01 PM
Razor Shines threw away a season when his minor league team quit on him three weeks in, in low A ball, he is not the answer. The Sox blew it when they chose Razor as third base coach over Nick Leyva.

Razor also earned his stripes as far as the White Sox are concerned with his outstanding work at AA and AAA ball. Nick may have been the better call, but I doubt the Sox would name him as their manager. I think Razor has a very real possibility.

Daver
06-01-2007, 04:12 PM
Razor also earned his stripes as far as the White Sox are concerned with his outstanding work at AA and AAA ball. Nick may have been the better call, but I doubt the Sox would name him as their manager. I think Razor has a very real possibility.

Ozzie had the final call on the coaching staff, I would guess he didn't want someone that could possibly replace him on staff.

TDog
06-01-2007, 04:14 PM
...
There are a few possible managers who might do well with the Sox, but I think most of them are not company men. Razor Shines is a company man and he has the respect of the rookies and minor leaguers and possibly that of the major leaguers he has been coaching from thrid base. He seems the most likely choice to me.

Razor Shines isn't the most likely choice. Greg Walker is a more likely choice as a company man. Art Kusnyer had more success (albeit brief) as a minor league manager than Shines, but Kusnyer played to win, and the minor leagues are more about player development. Kusnyer, though, wouldn't be a diplomat. Frankly, I think Ozzie Guillen would be more successful if he weren't required to be a diplomat.

Any time a coach is named manager, he will have to overcome the fact that coaches have more friendly relationships with players. Right now, Shines, Walker and Kusnyer are coaches the players can feel comfortable in going to and be good cops when the manager is being the bad cop. (Under Jerry Manuel some players were upset with a coach who was seen as being a spy for the manager.) Once when Bill Melton was asked about Don Gutteridge, instead of coming up with great Joe Schultz-like stories, he became thoughtful and said Gutteridge had problem going from being a coach to a manager.

Firing Tony LaRussa didn't help the Sox organization. Firing Gene Lamont didn't help the Sox organization. Firing Jerry Manuel did, and maybe Guillen will be fired because people think it would help. But I don't believe it would.

ondafarm
06-01-2007, 04:21 PM
I'm curious, just how in the hell do you know this? Based on what? From watching games on TV? Or do spend a lot of time in the clubhouse, at practice times (which are not open to the public) and in the dugout during games?

I'm just amazed at how much people think they know at what is going on behind the scenes with the Sox. I don't have a single clue as to how Ozzie acts and what motivational methods he uses. Apparently you are intimately aware.

If your asking how I know about types of players, thats a combination of two factors: I have more grad work in psychology than any single discipline, including the two I have masters in (go fig on that one), having played ball and observing the guys I played with and against, especially as a catcher up close and personal, that typing just kind of jumps out at you.

As for motivations and techniques, a great deal of that does appear in the media, although the sportswriters aren't aware they are passing that information. Spring training drills are very much open to the public, what guys say in interviews, and especially what Ozzie does say during his interviews. How guys perform on the field is a direct result of their current motivational state. What guys do during practice directly affects what they can do during a game. If a guy can't get a bunt down in several attempts in a row, it says to me he hasn't been getting enough bunting practice, or he's totally messed up emotionally. The latter will typically appear in the paper.

Let me turn this around Nellie. Do you think you understand how to motivate your students, have a sense of what will and won't work, be able to read their body language during a test or a lecture? If you answered yes to any of those, I wonder why you are questioning someone who did spend a few years in a dugout (granted a different dugout, but do you think you could read the students at a different college or in a different subject.)

If you doubt that my experience allows me to see a bit more at games I attend or watch on TV or when listening to interviews then I'd invite you to come along with me to a game. A couple people on here have done so and I've been able to point new things out to each of them.

I don't know exactly what motivational devices Ozzie uses, but the man is pretty open and direct about his intentions in the press, I hardly think he's an entirely different person in the dugout.

DumpJerry
06-01-2007, 04:32 PM
If your asking how I know about types of players, thats a combination of two factors: I have more grad work in psychology than any single discipline, including the two I have masters in (go fig on that one), having played ball and observing the guys I played with and against, especially as a catcher up close and personal, that typing just kind of jumps out at you.

As for motivations and techniques, a great deal of that does appear in the media, although the sportswriters aren't aware they are passing that information. Spring training drills are very much open to the public, what guys say in interviews, and especially what Ozzie does say during his interviews. How guys perform on the field is a direct result of their current motivational state. What guys do during practice directly affects what they can do during a game. If a guy can't get a bunt down in several attempts in a row, it says to me he hasn't been getting enough bunting practice, or he's totally messed up emotionally. The latter will typically appear in the paper.

Let me turn this around Nellie. Do you think you understand how to motivate your students, have a sense of what will and won't work, be able to read their body language during a test or a lecture? If you answered yes to any of those, I wonder why you are questioning someone who did spend a few years in a dugout (granted a different dugout, but do you think you could read the students at a different college or in a different subject.)

If you doubt that my experience allows me to see a bit more at games I attend or watch on TV or when listening to interviews then I'd invite you to come along with me to a game. A couple people on here have done so and I've been able to point new things out to each of them.

I don't know exactly what motivational devices Ozzie uses, but the man is pretty open and direct about his intentions in the press, I hardly think he's an entirely different person in the dugout.
I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced your descriptions of how the players react to drills is accurate. Unless you're with the team day-in and day-out, you do not have first hand knowledge of what is going on when the public is not present.

You cannot base your assumptions on what you see in the media. The media is choosing what you see and do not see. Therefore, you cannot state with any accuracy what is going on unless you are there day after day observing the team.

Daver
06-01-2007, 04:39 PM
I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced your descriptions of how the players react to drills is accurate. Unless you're with the team day-in and day-out, you do not have first hand knowledge of what is going on when the public is not present.

You cannot base your assumptions on what you see in the media. The media is choosing what you see and do not see. Therefore, you cannot state with any accuracy what is going on unless you are there day after day observing the team.

The hell you say.


It must be true, I saw it on TV.

Darin Erstad Fan
06-01-2007, 05:32 PM
i completely agree that Ozzie Guillen should be fired. Let's face it, the "smallball" that we all loved from 2005 is no longer there. He constantly shuffles around the lineup on a daily basis, which almost blew the '05 season, blew the '06 season, and is blowing the '07 season. He creates unwanted attention, controversies, and enemies to the Chicago White Sox as an organization. Going back to '06, didn't it seem like he brought in the wrong pitchers at the wrong times, such as the struggling Neal Cotts? Its time we have a manager who focuses on winning and keeps the controversy down. I'm not saying that our players haven't underachieved the past two years, but Ozzie sure doesn't help the situation

Sox Records:

'05 3-7
'06 6-4 (0-1 in Toronto)
'07 2-2 (plus a no hitter!!!!!!)

IlliniSox4Life
06-01-2007, 06:17 PM
Its time we have a manager who focuses on winning

By George, I think he has it! I can't believe I didn't see it before. All this time Ozzie's been focusing on losing!!! Quick, bring somebody in who will try to win!

ode to veeck
06-01-2007, 07:34 PM
Another straw-man argument. Nobody, but nobody, has said he gets a pass forever.

But jeez, not even a couple of years of "benefit of the doubt" for the only world championship any of us can remember? And the comparisons to McKeon don't fly. McKeon is 76 years old. Ozzie is 43.

I'm willing to give Ozzie substantially more rope at this point to round out his managing skills. I remember a really young manager with the Sox 25 years ago who (early on) really seemed to make some bone headed moves at times with a really solid talented stable of starters. The same guy matured into one of the best managers in baseball (& got himself another ring the year after Ozzie).

Frater Perdurabo
06-01-2007, 07:49 PM
Ondafarm,

First, thanks for sticking to your guns on firing Ozzie. You deflect negative attention from my incessant "Trade Paulie!" arguments.
:tongue:

I do not necessarily agree with your conclusion, but I think you make a strong argument, especially considering your background.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
- Aristotle :cool:

I already know what Daver thinks about Razor Shines, but I'd like to know what Daver thinks about firing Ozzie independently of considering the possible replacement.

I remember that when Ozzie was hired, Daver expressed concerns about Ozzie's ability to manage a pitching staff. His correctness in that regard has earned Daver my respect as a true baseball mind.

I still think that Ozzie would be a better manager with a better bench coach. He was a better manager in 2005 when Baines was his bench coach. I think Cora brings nothing to the table as a bench coach (or a windmill 3B coach). In fact, and I'm willing to entertain the possibility that I could be dead wrong, but I think the only reason Cora was hired in the first place is because he's close friends with Ozzie.

If I were KW, I would get JR drunk enough to do whatever it takes to make nice with Carlton Fisk, so that Fisk could be convinced to come aboard as the bench coach.

Daver
06-01-2007, 08:03 PM
If I were a baseball mind I wouldn't be working as a plumber.


Carlton Fisk has never expressed any interest in coaching, and has stated that at this time he has no interest in coaching, I doubt he would change his mind while he is collecting a check to basically do nothing for the Red Sox.

Frater Perdurabo
06-01-2007, 08:21 PM
If I were a baseball mind I wouldn't be working as a plumber.

I thought that you made a living polishing elephant guns and did plumbing as a hobby. :redneck

This isn't butt-kissing, but I have learned more about baseball from reading your posts (and those of a few others on WSI, including Ondafarm) than from any other source. It's amazing to go to a baseball game and see things in games that I never thought about before.

You may not think of yourself as a baseball mind, but I think between you and Ondafarm, you both know a heck of a lot more about the game than many people currently employed in the game as players, coaches and executives.

SoxandtheCityTee
06-01-2007, 09:07 PM
I don't necessarily agree on all points, Onda, but thanks for the POV.

DumpJerry
06-01-2007, 10:21 PM
I still think that Ozzie would be a better manager with a better bench coach. He was a better manager in 2005 when Baines was his bench coach. I think Cora brings nothing to the table as a bench coach (or a windmill 3B coach). In fact, and I'm willing to entertain the possibility that I could be dead wrong, but I think the only reason Cora was hired in the first place is because he's close friends with Ozzie.
When Steve Stone got fired for causing the Cubs to miss the playoffs from the broadcast booth, I was hoping that his old team, the White Sox, would pick him up as the Bench Coach.

It's a waste of his baseball intellect to have him on the radio speaking the truth about the Cubs.

Nellie_Fox
06-02-2007, 04:34 PM
If your asking how I know about types of players, thats a combination of two factors: I have more grad work in psychology than any single discipline, including the two I have masters in (go fig on that one), having played ball and observing the guys I played with and against, especially as a catcher up close and personal, that typing just kind of jumps out at you. You saw those guys "up close and personal." You do not see the Sox that way, you see them distantly and only a few minutes a day. If you took grad psych courses, you should know better than to try to analyze people from a distance.

Let me turn this around Nellie. Do you think you understand how to motivate your students, have a sense of what will and won't work, be able to read their body language during a test or a lecture? If you answered yes to any of those, I wonder why you are questioning someone who did spend a few years in a dugout (granted a different dugout, but do you think you could read the students at a different college or in a different subject.) You answered your own question, you just missed it when you did. I work directly with my students every day. I would not look into someone else's classroom for a few minutes and then think I could tell that professor about his/her students or how to handle them. That's what you're doing. You may have spent time in a dugout, but not this dugout. You are analyzing Ozzie and the individual players without spending any time with them, and that's irresponsible.

If you doubt that my experience allows me to see a bit more at games I attend or watch on TV or when listening to interviews then I'd invite you to come along with me to a game. A couple people on here have done so and I've been able to point new things out to each of them. I'm sure you see things about strategy that I wouldn't, but as far as psychoanalysis, I'm sure you could "point out" things, but neither of us would have any way of knowing if you're right.

ondafarm
06-02-2007, 05:33 PM
Did want to add that I thought Ozzie could have done better today.

How?

Well, here's how I read the scenario:

Sox are still scrambling for victories and 3 of 4 from the slumping Jays is just what the doctor ordered.

Sox have a 3-1 lead going into the last of the seventh.

JC, your starting pitcher, has had a good game giving up only one run so far. He did give up two hits to the lower half of the Jays lineup in the sixth, but got out with no damage thanks to a slick double play. His pitch total was nearly 100.

How do you play this?

Ozzie trotted JC out there, he gave up a hit, a pop up and then another hit then yanked him for MacDougal. Mac proceeded to lose the game.

How should he have avoided this?

Well, in my opinion, a starter having a rough, but scoreless, sixth against the lower part of the lineup, should set off a warning. If I send JC out there for the seventh, I've already talked to him and asked about each of his pitches and probably gone over the reports on each of the guys coming up. I also call the pen and have somebody warming up.

When the number nine hitter got on leading off, I call in my relief pitcher. Not to face the hottest guy on the team, Overbay, but well before he gets up.

Ozzie doesn't seem to think this way.

Would my way work any better? No proof at all. But I think Mac has demonstrated again and again that he doesn't perform well in jam situations. Runner at first and nobody out shouldn't be a jam situation but you never know.

I think being more cautious than Ozzie is being is warranted in that right now, the Sox really need all the victories they can get.

Did Ozzie squander this game? I don't know. I certainly can't prove it, but I think a more cautious approach than he is taking or has been taking for quite some time would be more appropriate. I can tell you this: when I saw Razor Shines manage, he got a relief pitcher in before a rally became a jam: typically when the first guy got on. He'd pull the guy before the winning run came to the plate. If you beat the relief pitcher, it was totally on the relief pitcher.

This is my core issue with Ozzie's management of pitchers.

Care to say hindsight is 20/20. Sure. But I've been trying to argue this same point for weeks now and I don't think this is the first time it's happened to the Sox. The Sox need wins and Ozzie does appear to be squandering them by his management of the relief corp.

JB98
06-02-2007, 05:36 PM
I think no matter what Ozzie decides, it blows up in his face. He leaves a starter in, the starter fails. He goes to a reliever, the reliever fails.

He's ****ed. Period.

OG4LIFE
06-02-2007, 05:51 PM
I think no matter what Ozzie decides, it blows up in his face. He leaves a starter in, the starter fails. He goes to a reliever, the reliever fails.

He's ****ed. Period.

Agree 100000%.

When your bullpen is terrible (and your alternative is staying with a tired starter), every move you make is the wrong one.

102605
06-02-2007, 05:53 PM
Did want to add that I thought Ozzie could have done better today.

How?

Well, here's how I read the scenario:

Sox are still scrambling for victories and 3 of 4 from the slumping Jays is just what the doctor ordered.

Sox have a 3-1 lead going into the last of the seventh.

JC, your starting pitcher, has had a good game giving up only one run so far. He did give up two hits to the lower half of the Jays lineup in the sixth, but got out with no damage thanks to a slick double play. His pitch total was nearly 100.

How do you play this?

Ozzie trotted JC out there, he gave up a hit, a pop up and then another hit then yanked him for MacDougal. Mac proceeded to lose the game.

How should he have avoided this?

Well, in my opinion, a starter having a rough, but scoreless, sixth against the lower part of the lineup, should set off a warning. If I send JC out there for the seventh, I've already talked to him and asked about each of his pitches and probably gone over the reports on each of the guys coming up. I also call the pen and have somebody warming up.

When the number nine hitter got on leading off, I call in my relief pitcher. Not to face the hottest guy on the team, Overbay, but well before he gets up.

Ozzie doesn't seem to think this way.

Would my way work any better? No proof at all. But I think Mac has demonstrated again and again that he doesn't perform well in jam situations. Runner at first and nobody out shouldn't be a jam situation but you never know.

I think being more cautious than Ozzie is being is warranted in that right now, the Sox really need all the victories they can get.

Did Ozzie squander this game? I don't know. I certainly can't prove it, but I think a more cautious approach than he is taking or has been taking for quite some time would be more appropriate. I can tell you this: when I saw Razor Shines manage, he got a relief pitcher in before a rally became a jam: typically when the first guy got on. He'd pull the guy before the winning run came to the plate. If you beat the relief pitcher, it was totally on the relief pitcher.

This is my core issue with Ozzie's management of pitchers.

Care to say hindsight is 20/20. Sure. But I've been trying to argue this same point for weeks now and I don't think this is the first time it's happened to the Sox. The Sox need wins and Ozzie does appear to be squandering them by his management of the relief corp.

How dead can a dead horse be?

102605
06-02-2007, 05:54 PM
Agree 100000%.

When your bullpen is terrible (and your alternative is staying with a tired starter), every move you make is the wrong one.

:thumbsup:

ondafarm
06-02-2007, 06:36 PM
I think no matter what Ozzie decides, it blows up in his face. He leaves a starter in, the starter fails. He goes to a reliever, the reliever fails.

He's ****ed. Period.

A very real possibility, but since you know the starter is tiring and eventually will need to be removed, one should try to get the best out of the chosen reliever and make his job as easy as possible. That means to me, not putting him in in a pressure situation, but one where he has a margin of error.

JB98
06-02-2007, 06:45 PM
A very real possibility, but since you know the starter is tiring and eventually will need to be removed, one should try to get the best out of the chosen reliever and make his job as easy as possible. That means to me, not putting him in in a pressure situation, but one where he has a margin of error.

He left Javy in while he was tiring with two men on in the eighth last night, and it worked. He tried to steal an extra out or two with Jose today, and it blew up.

I don't know. I've agreed with Guillen's handling of the pitching staff at times. I've disagreed with him at times. Whether I've agreed or disagreed with Ozzie's moves, it seems they're wrong either way.

Not putting guys in pressure situations? Giving them a margin of error? I don't like those phrases. These are professional pitchers. If they want to keep their jobs, get somebody out. If you want to win the division and go to the playoffs, you have to execute even when your back is to the wall.

I don't know what you do when you're choosing from a host of HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE options. On some level, I agree with you. I don't think Guillen is a master of handling the pitching staff by any means. But even if he were, I think this team would still be losing games in the late innings because these relief pitchers are just that poor.

Daver
06-02-2007, 06:47 PM
A very real possibility, but since you know the starter is tiring and eventually will need to be removed, one should try to get the best out of the chosen reliever and make his job as easy as possible. That means to me, not putting him in in a pressure situation, but one where he has a margin of error.

So fire Ozzie because he is not clairvoyant?

voodoochile
06-02-2007, 07:02 PM
So fire Ozzie because he is not clairvoyant?

Well, if you can replace him with a manager who is, why not? :D:

Think of the possibilities. You know your starter is going to get shelled and the lineup is going to suck? Rest people.

You know that one guy will get a hit as PH while the other will hit into a triple play, don't go with the guy who will hit into the triple play (that's gold and you feel free to use it as you want).

Thome is going to twist an ankle if he plays today? Rest him...

The possiblities are endless...

spiffie
06-02-2007, 07:47 PM
Meet the new White Sox manager...

:cleo

FarWestChicago
06-02-2007, 08:18 PM
So fire Ozzie because he is not clairvoyant?Well, to get technical, we are looking for a precognitive. I'm sure Farm is able to see into the future. After all, he's never wrong. :D:

oeo
06-02-2007, 08:21 PM
Agree 100000%.

When your bullpen is terrible (and your alternative is staying with a tired starter), every move you make is the wrong one.

JIm Leyland suddenly can't manage a bullpen either.

MySoxAreClean
06-02-2007, 08:23 PM
this is like poking a dead body with a stick.

jabrch
06-02-2007, 08:45 PM
Well, if you can replace him with a manager who is, why not? :D:

Think of the possibilities. You know your starter is going to get shelled and the lineup is going to suck? Rest people.

You know that one guy will get a hit as PH while the other will hit into a triple play, don't go with the guy who will hit into the triple play (that's gold and you feel free to use it as you want).

Thome is going to twist an ankle if he plays today? Rest him...

The possiblities are endless...

Very nice VC.

RadioheadRocks
06-02-2007, 09:43 PM
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51y-qaRPB6L._AA240_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0671795988/sr=8-2/qid=1180838523/ref=dp_image_0/002-6118338-6972024?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&qid=1180838523&sr=8-2)

ondafarm
06-02-2007, 09:53 PM
Well, to get technical, we are looking for a precognitive. I'm sure Farm is able to see into the future. After all, he's never wrong. :D:

I knew you were going to say that.

Daver
06-02-2007, 09:54 PM
Well, to get technical, we are looking for a precognitive. I'm sure Farm is able to see into the future. After all, he's never wrong. :D:

Actually I think the word we are looking for is prescient,the ability to see all paths of the future.

FarWestChicago
06-02-2007, 09:58 PM
Actually I think the word we are looking for is prescient,the ability to see all paths of the future.I'm making the future!

Fire ondafarm!!!!

102605
06-02-2007, 10:06 PM
JIm Leyland suddenly can't manage a bullpen either.

After he lost Zumaya and Rodney.

Kind of like how he would lose it if he had Macdooogle or Aardsma to choose from.

ThomesHomie
06-02-2007, 10:19 PM
These threads are big jokes. So lets see, we fired Ozzy already, we fired Walker, did we get rid of the trainer yet ? How about Cooper, lets just start all over.

JB98
06-02-2007, 10:23 PM
These threads are big jokes. So lets see, we fired Ozzy already, we fired Walker, did we get rid of the trainer yet ? How about Cooper, lets just start all over.

Why not fire Kusyner? He's the bullpen coach.

ThomesHomie
06-02-2007, 10:26 PM
Why not fire Kusyner? He's the bullpen coach.

Ok him to, can we fire the person in charge of refilling the onions at the game, there never really full and when they are they never work right.

ondafarm
06-02-2007, 10:49 PM
I'm making the future!

Fire ondafarm!!!!

Oh man, not again.

Daver
06-02-2007, 11:03 PM
I'm making the future!

Fire ondafarm!!!!

I can, I choose not to.

ondafarm
06-02-2007, 11:06 PM
I can, I choose not to.

I'm taking a few days off.

IndianWhiteSox
06-03-2007, 05:32 AM
OH MY GOD!

:o:

:tomatoaward :tomatoaward

Lprof
06-03-2007, 09:53 AM
Is it Ozzie's fault that we don't have a true starting LF? Is it Ozzie's fault that everytime he goes to the bullpen, he has to worry about losing the game because of how bad every member of that pen is (not named Jenks and Thornton)?

I love Kenny Williams to death. He got us a World Series in 05 and made great moves before that. But not adding anyone at the trading deadline was a huge mistake last year. Would Soriano have helped last year? We don't really know. But our offense did slump after the All-Star break and it seemed like when our pitching got going at the end of last year, our hitting went to sleep. He constructed the team that Ozzie currently has. IMO, it's definitely more of Williams fault than it is Ozzie's for why we are a .500 team.

This team should NOT even be CLOSE to .500 with how bad our offense has been. It's amazing that we are at .500. We should easily be 10 under or *gulp* even worse than that. This season is going to hinge on whether Kenny can swing a deal for somone like Griffey on offense and someone like Chad Cordero to improve our bullpen.

While I have never been the greatest Ozzie fan, I think it is very wrong to blame him for the problems. It is like the Cub fans last year blaming Dusty for everything--as if there is some magic bullet that will quickly transform the team's fortunes. We saw after the All Star break last year that this team had serious problems, whether it was age or lack of speed or just a bad mix in the lineup (I don't mean personality wise, but rather a lack of complementary players). Yet all Kenny did over the winter was to add a good but older and broken down outfielder. Don't get me wrong; that was a good move, but like trying to empty the Titanic with a dixie cup. He traded his biggest chit, Garcia, and GOT BACK ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT IS HELPING THE TEAM THIS YEAR--and to show I am not second guessing, I should note I regularly made this point in the off season on this site. And don't tell me that Garcia has done nothing this year; that isn't the point. He was a 17 game winner costing $10 million, and Kenny let him go for nothing. The fault isn't Ozzie's; it's Kenny's. And that has nothing to do with 2005; that was great, and KW deserves all the credit in the world for it. But what really ticks me off is that the team couldn't use it as a jumping off point to be a perennial contender, making the playoffs most years.
One final point: Can anybody tell me what is down in the minors that is going to help us significantly? Maybe Fields or Sweeney will develop, but frankly at some point they are no longer prospects (they haven't reached it yet, but the clock is ticking) and it is unclear either can hit major league pitching.

UserNameBlank
06-03-2007, 12:38 PM
While I have never been the greatest Ozzie fan, I think it is very wrong to blame him for the problems. It is like the Cub fans last year blaming Dusty for everything--as if there is some magic bullet that will quickly transform the team's fortunes. We saw after the All Star break last year that this team had serious problems, whether it was age or lack of speed or just a bad mix in the lineup (I don't mean personality wise, but rather a lack of complementary players). Yet all Kenny did over the winter was to add a good but older and broken down outfielder. Don't get me wrong; that was a good move, but like trying to empty the Titanic with a dixie cup. He traded his biggest chit, Garcia, and GOT BACK ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT IS HELPING THE TEAM THIS YEAR--and to show I am not second guessing, I should note I regularly made this point in the off season on this site. And don't tell me that Garcia has done nothing this year; that isn't the point. He was a 17 game winner costing $10 million, and Kenny let him go for nothing. The fault isn't Ozzie's; it's Kenny's. And that has nothing to do with 2005; that was great, and KW deserves all the credit in the world for it. But what really ticks me off is that the team couldn't use it as a jumping off point to be a perennial contender, making the playoffs most years.
One final point: Can anybody tell me what is down in the minors that is going to help us significantly? Maybe Fields or Sweeney will develop, but frankly at some point they are no longer prospects (they haven't reached it yet, but the clock is ticking) and it is unclear either can hit major league pitching.
Blah, blah, blah. So you thought after the Garcia trade that neither Floyd or Gio would help the team this year? Wow, you were really all alone in thinking that...

Kenny traded Garcia - who wouldn't be doing any better than Danks right now - and got a young lefty who has become our best pitching prospect plus a project that was a former 1st round pick. Yeah, KW really did horrible there.

So your point is KW didn't do much to improve the team this year? He dumped all those "lucky to be here" veterans and picked up some young arms with big upside out of the pen. So yeah, they are sucking right now. Maybe they should have spent about $13mil per year on Scott Schoenweis, David Riske, Jaime Walker, and Guillermo Mota instead because we'd obviously be so much better with them right now.

KW did use 2005 as a jumping off point towards becoming a perennial contender, as evidenced by picking the options on several players, signing Garland, Contreras, and AJ to extensions, trading for Thome, Vazquez, Thornton, Cintron, Mackowiak, and getting the biggest FA hitter on the market in Konerko. Oh how quick we forget.

After 2006 there wasn't much to do. That team disappointed and sucked overall, yet KW refused to totally give up on the '07 season despite the second half collapse. He knew that we could fall out just as easily as we could win the division, so instead of waiting for half of the team to leave via freee agency, he opted not to be left with a barren ballclub and made some moves towards the future. How does this make him a bad GM?

Are you actually saying that Fields and Sweeney are almost non-prospects? What the hell is wrong with you? The clock is ticking? Both are repeating a level for the first time in their pro careers, and it is Triple A. Fields is 24, Sweeney 22, and they have already each collected their first major league home run. Yeah sure, the clock is ticking...

IndianWhiteSox
06-03-2007, 01:45 PM
Blah, blah, blah. So you thought after the Garcia trade that neither Floyd or Gio would help the team this year? Wow, you were really all alone in thinking that...

Kenny traded Garcia - who wouldn't be doing any better than Danks right now - and got a young lefty who has become our best pitching prospect plus a project that was a former 1st round pick. Yeah, KW really did horrible there.

So your point is KW didn't do much to improve the team this year? He dumped all those "lucky to be here" veterans and picked up some young arms with big upside out of the pen. So yeah, they are sucking right now. Maybe they should have spent about $13mil per year on Scott Schoenweis, David Riske, Jaime Walker, and Guillermo Mota instead because we'd obviously be so much better with them right now.

KW did use 2005 as a jumping off point towards becoming a perennial contender, as evidenced by picking the options on several players, signing Garland, Contreras, and AJ to extensions, trading for Thome, Vazquez, Thornton, Cintron, Mackowiak, and getting the biggest FA hitter on the market in Konerko. Oh how quick we forget.

After 2006 there wasn't much to do. That team disappointed and sucked overall, yet KW refused to totally give up on the '07 season despite the second half collapse. He knew that we could fall out just as easily as we could win the division, so instead of waiting for half of the team to leave via freee agency, he opted not to be left with a barren ballclub and made some moves towards the future. How does this make him a bad GM?

Are you actually saying that Fields and Sweeney are almost non-prospects? What the hell is wrong with you? The clock is ticking? Both are repeating a level for the first time in their pro careers, and it is Triple A. Fields is 24, Sweeney 22, and they have already each collected their first major league home run. Yeah sure, the clock is ticking...

Their clock is ticking in the same case that an infants clock is ticking.
:redneck

Lprof
06-03-2007, 03:13 PM
Blah, blah, blah. So you thought after the Garcia trade that neither Floyd or Gio would help the team this year? Wow, you were really all alone in thinking that...

Kenny traded Garcia - who wouldn't be doing any better than Danks right now - and got a young lefty who has become our best pitching prospect plus a project that was a former 1st round pick. Yeah, KW really did horrible there.

So your point is KW didn't do much to improve the team this year? He dumped all those "lucky to be here" veterans and picked up some young arms with big upside out of the pen. So yeah, they are sucking right now. Maybe they should have spent about $13mil per year on Scott Schoenweis, David Riske, Jaime Walker, and Guillermo Mota instead because we'd obviously be so much better with them right now.

KW did use 2005 as a jumping off point towards becoming a perennial contender, as evidenced by picking the options on several players, signing Garland, Contreras, and AJ to extensions, trading for Thome, Vazquez, Thornton, Cintron, Mackowiak, and getting the biggest FA hitter on the market in Konerko. Oh how quick we forget.

After 2006 there wasn't much to do. That team disappointed and sucked overall, yet KW refused to totally give up on the '07 season despite the second half collapse. He knew that we could fall out just as easily as we could win the division, so instead of waiting for half of the team to leave via freee agency, he opted not to be left with a barren ballclub and made some moves towards the future. How does this make him a bad GM?

Are you actually saying that Fields and Sweeney are almost non-prospects? What the hell is wrong with you? The clock is ticking? Both are repeating a level for the first time in their pro careers, and it is Triple A. Fields is 24, Sweeney 22, and they have already each collected their first major league home run. Yeah sure, the clock is ticking...

Great; another White Sox employee heard from. So you LIKE what you're seeing now? You LIKE the idea that next year it is highly likely we won't have Buerhle, Dye, Crede, or Iguchi--and sadly, maybe that is a good thing??? I would think that by now you KW apologists would show a little humility, after all those wild claims about running away with the division I saw over the winter. Maybe it doesn't bother you that KW didn't make any serious efforts to improve our competitiveness for this year; that is your right. It sure bothers the hell out of me. As for Fields and Sweeney--no, I am not saying that. What I am saying is: I will believe it when I see it. Crede was the last position player to come out of our minor league system who made an impact in the majors. Sweeney surely didn't show me anything to change my mind during his brief appearance here. Of course that doesn't mean he won't make it. But this team is hurting right now-- both emotionally and physically. And there is very little in the minor league cubbard. Who do you blame for that? Surely not Kenny; he can do no wrong!

UserNameBlank
06-03-2007, 03:42 PM
Great; another White Sox employee heard from. So you LIKE what you're seeing now? You LIKE the idea that next year it is highly likely we won't have Buerhle, Dye, Crede, or Iguchi--and sadly, maybe that is a good thing??? I would think that by now you KW apologists would show a little humility, after all those wild claims about running away with the division I saw over the winter. Maybe it doesn't bother you that KW didn't make any serious efforts to improve our competitiveness for this year; that is your right. It sure bothers the hell out of me. As for Fields and Sweeney--no, I am not saying that. What I am saying is: I will believe it when I see it. Crede was the last position player to come out of our minor league system who made an impact in the majors. Sweeney surely didn't show me anything to change my mind during his brief appearance here. Of course that doesn't mean he won't make it. But this team is hurting right now-- both emotionally and physically. And there is very little in the minor league cubbard. Who do you blame for that? Surely not Kenny; he can do no wrong!

The real world does not run off the same engine that a PS2 does. If KW could have gone out and picked up an ***load of young productive players he would have. And that, really, is what KW would have had to do to improve this team. We need youth, speed, and balance on our offense. We need consistency in our bullpen. We need more youth in the rotation because Contreras isn't going to have it for much longer.

Since you are so full of KW hate, tell me, what would you have done? How would you have taken a veteran team on the downswing with a terrible bullpen, several stars approaching FA and turned it around in an poor, overpriced free agent market? I'd like to know, and if it's good, maybe I'll shoot an email over to Kenny since yes, I have connections with the Sox. I have a friend of a friend of a cousin of an ***hole who happens to have once had a one night stand with a girl who worked for three months at the Cell selling hotdogs before getting fired. I'll work the grapevine and make sure Kenny gets right on this thing.

Your last comment is so contradictory. You condemn the Sox for not improving the major league team yet you also condemn them for not being loaded at the minor league level. In case you missed the offseason, KW picked up Danks, Masset, and Gio. That improved our system just a tad, don't you think? And it also improved our major league team with Danks. In case you missed the last few years as well, Kenny has traded many of our minor leaguers to improve the team. Considering that only Chris Young has done anything, I'd say he's done pretty good with what he has. He's made a lot of moves to bring veterans to the major league club. Some have worked, some haven't, but the idea of improvement is there. KW is certainly not one to sit on his hands.

Lprof
06-03-2007, 06:16 PM
The real world does not run off the same engine that a PS2 does. If KW could have gone out and picked up an ***load of young productive players he would have. And that, really, is what KW would have had to do to improve this team. We need youth, speed, and balance on our offense. We need consistency in our bullpen. We need more youth in the rotation because Contreras isn't going to have it for much longer.

Since you are so full of KW hate, tell me, what would you have done? How would you have taken a veteran team on the downswing with a terrible bullpen, several stars approaching FA and turned it around in an poor, overpriced free agent market? I'd like to know, and if it's good, maybe I'll shoot an email over to Kenny since yes, I have connections with the Sox. I have a friend of a friend of a cousin of an ***hole who happens to have once had a one night stand with a girl who worked for three months at the Cell selling hotdogs before getting fired. I'll work the grapevine and make sure Kenny gets right on this thing.

Your last comment is so contradictory. You condemn the Sox for not improving the major league team yet you also condemn them for not being loaded at the minor league level. In case you missed the offseason, KW picked up Danks, Masset, and Gio. That improved our system just a tad, don't you think? And it also improved our major league team with Danks. In case you missed the last few years as well, Kenny has traded many of our minor leaguers to improve the team. Considering that only Chris Young has done anything, I'd say he's done pretty good with what he has. He's made a lot of moves to bring veterans to the major league club. Some have worked, some haven't, but the idea of improvement is there. KW is certainly not one to sit on his hands.

There is nothing at all contradictory in what I said. Indeed, all your statement shows is how little you expect from your general manager. The Twins do both; so do the Red Sox, the Cardinals and the Yankees--at least generally. How many of KW's first round draft choices have actually made it? It is too much to expect that your general manager picks people in the first round who actually become productive major leaguers?

You are wrong, however, in describing me as a KW hater. When he does something right, I applaud him. When he screws up, I recognize that, too. I don't think winning in 2005, as great as that was, is any reason to kiss his butt for the rest of his career.

UserNameBlank
06-03-2007, 06:37 PM
There is nothing at all contradictory in what I said. Indeed, all your statement shows is how little you expect from your general manager. The Twins do both; so do the Red Sox, the Cardinals and the Yankees--at least generally. How many of KW's first round draft choices have actually made it? It is too much to expect that your general manager picks people in the first round who actually become productive major leaguers?

You are wrong, however, in describing me as a KW hater. When he does something right, I applaud him. When he screws up, I recognize that, too. I don't think winning in 2005, as great as that was, is any reason to kiss his butt for the rest of his career.
The Twins do not do this!!! The Twins do not spend any money. Geez, you criticize our GM for failing to build a competitive 2007 team after what he did in '05 and '06, and then you talk about the freaking Twins?!?! The Twins have been 1-2 pieces from a Wold Championship several times over the last few years and what have they done? NOTHING! There is a reason the Puntos and Cuddyers and Bartletts of the world develop on the Twins, and it is because NO ONE ELSE WANTS THEM! You can not honestly tell me as a Sox fan that you wouldn't have been on the bandwagon with everyone else calling for the end of the Michael Cuddyer experiement had he played for the Sox. Imagine if the Sox stuck with Borchard from 2003 on. What a freaking mess. That is something the Twins would do, they'd just make sure he could bunt before they did it. Look at Kubel. Sox fans do not want this guy. Sox fans couldn't stand one season of Brian Anderson without calling him a bust and making ridiculous trade proposals like BA to Wendys for a chicken sandwich. How in the living hell could anyone possibly put up with Jason Kubel, or that dreaded 2004 Twins team as a whole? How long could Sox fans take Joe Mays and Kyle Lohse. The Twins have a piss-poor organizational philosophy. There, I said it. They only look to win their division, nothing more. When they need to trade a prospect for a veteran to help their postseason chances, they don't do it. When they need to sign a bigtime FA to make their lineup awesome, they don't do it. Their stupid fans eat it up during the regular season and then as soon as the offseason starts they start *****ing about their team not spending any money and being too cheap to field a championship team. And you rip Kenny Williams, the only GM in the AL Central to win a World Championship since the division was created and the playoffs were expanded. He's also the most aggressive, most no-bull type of GM in the division, and certainly one of the best in the game if not the best period.

On the Twins scouting and drafting, look at their drafts. Just look at them before trying to say they are better than us. They have drafted and developed star level players, just like we have, mainly in the later rounds, just like we have. But the Twins have a bunch of mediocre guys who benefit from the ballpark they play in and a terrific manager, and then all of the sudden they are better than us. KW trades the type of players that Minny will start. Aaron Miles would have started on the Twins. Instead we sent him off for Uribe.

Please, everyone, forget about those damn Twins. They aren't as great as they are made out to be around here and if Sox fans had to put up with the organizational attitude the Twins have we would have never won that WS.

champagne030
06-03-2007, 07:13 PM
Please, everyone, forget about those damn Twins. They aren't as great as they are made out to be around here and if Sox fans had to put up with the organizational attitude the Twins have we would have never won that WS.

You'll be thinking a lot more about the Twinks after they open their new stadium. They'll have revenues close to the Sox.

UserNameBlank
06-03-2007, 07:16 PM
You'll be thinking a lot more about the Twinks after they open their new stadium. They'll have revenues close to the Sox.
Good. I'll take a higher payroll Twins team over Gardyball any day of the week, that is what kills us. Dome baseball is not real baseball. We'll get to see what kind of team they really are when they have to play almost all of their games on a field.

Lprof
06-03-2007, 08:05 PM
The Twins do not do this!!! The Twins do not spend any money. Geez, you criticize our GM for failing to build a competitive 2007 team after what he did in '05 and '06, and then you talk about the freaking Twins?!?! The Twins have been 1-2 pieces from a Wold Championship several times over the last few years and what have they done? NOTHING! There is a reason the Puntos and Cuddyers and Bartletts of the world develop on the Twins, and it is because NO ONE ELSE WANTS THEM! You can not honestly tell me as a Sox fan that you wouldn't have been on the bandwagon with everyone else calling for the end of the Michael Cuddyer experiement had he played for the Sox. Imagine if the Sox stuck with Borchard from 2003 on. What a freaking mess. That is something the Twins would do, they'd just make sure he could bunt before they did it. Look at Kubel. Sox fans do not want this guy. Sox fans couldn't stand one season of Brian Anderson without calling him a bust and making ridiculous trade proposals like BA to Wendys for a chicken sandwich. How in the living hell could anyone possibly put up with Jason Kubel, or that dreaded 2004 Twins team as a whole? How long could Sox fans take Joe Mays and Kyle Lohse. The Twins have a piss-poor organizational philosophy. There, I said it. They only look to win their division, nothing more. When they need to trade a prospect for a veteran to help their postseason chances, they don't do it. When they need to sign a bigtime FA to make their lineup awesome, they don't do it. Their stupid fans eat it up during the regular season and then as soon as the offseason starts they start *****ing about their team not spending any money and being too cheap to field a championship team. And you rip Kenny Williams, the only GM in the AL Central to win a World Championship since the division was created and the playoffs were expanded. He's also the most aggressive, most no-bull type of GM in the division, and certainly one of the best in the game if not the best period.

On the Twins scouting and drafting, look at their drafts. Just look at them before trying to say they are better than us. They have drafted and developed star level players, just like we have, mainly in the later rounds, just like we have. But the Twins have a bunch of mediocre guys who benefit from the ballpark they play in and a terrific manager, and then all of the sudden they are better than us. KW trades the type of players that Minny will start. Aaron Miles would have started on the Twins. Instead we sent him off for Uribe.

Please, everyone, forget about those damn Twins. They aren't as great as they are made out to be around here and if Sox fans had to put up with the organizational attitude the Twins have we would have never won that WS.

I didn't say anything about spending money. I spoke about being perennial contenders; that could be because you spend money wisely, because you draft and develop well, or a combination of the two. The Twins have been far more competitive than we have, year to year, and have developed far more players. I wouldn't be so concerned about KW's inability to draft well at the top, if he actually had done what you said in the later rounds. The fact is, our system has produced very few players who have contributed significantly at the major league level. The bottom line is this: The Sox have largely pissed away any momentum they gained from winning the World Series, basically indicating that it was an aberration. It is nonsense to ask me what I would have done in KW's position. I don't have access to the information he had, nor do I claim to be qualified to be a general manager. He, however, does, and I judge him by the bottom line. He won a World Series, and that was truly wonderful, and he should always be remembered and honored for that. But what it seems that he hasn't done is build a solid organization that is going to contend regularly. At this point, for anyone who really cares about the Sox, the team is truly painful to watch. In fact, there are very few years where I can recall a more painful situation. The only thing that has been keeping us alive at all is amazing starting pitching. The hitting is awful and the bullpen is indescribable. I don't want to hear excuses. KW took the credit for 2005, deservedly. He also deserves responsibility for the collapse of 2006 and the monstrosity of 2007.

PaleHoseGeorge
06-03-2007, 10:29 PM
I didn't say anything about spending money. I spoke about being perennial contenders; that could be because you spend money wisely, because you draft and develop well, or a combination of the two. The Twins have been far more competitive than we have, year to year, and have developed far more players. I wouldn't be so concerned about KW's inability to draft well at the top, if he actually had done what you said in the later rounds. The fact is, our system has produced very few players who have contributed significantly at the major league level. The bottom line is this: The Sox have largely pissed away any momentum they gained from winning the World Series, basically indicating that it was an aberration. It is nonsense to ask me what I would have done in KW's position. I don't have access to the information he had, nor do I claim to be qualified to be a general manager. He, however, does, and I judge him by the bottom line. He won a World Series, and that was truly wonderful, and he should always be remembered and honored for that. But what it seems that he hasn't done is build a solid organization that is going to contend regularly. At this point, for anyone who really cares about the Sox, the team is truly painful to watch. In fact, there are very few years where I can recall a more painful situation. The only thing that has been keeping us alive at all is amazing starting pitching. The hitting is awful and the bullpen is indescribable. I don't want to hear excuses. KW took the credit for 2005, deservedly. He also deserves responsibility for the collapse of 2006 and the monstrosity of 2007.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This would be a great post in September. Too bad for you it's June.

Call sportsblab radio. You'll get right through. They love premature ejaculations.

:cool:

Parrothead
06-03-2007, 11:07 PM
On the Twins scouting and drafting, look at their drafts. Just look at them before trying to say they are better than us. They have drafted and developed star level players, just like we have, mainly in the later rounds, just like we have. But the Twins have a bunch of mediocre guys who benefit from the ballpark they play in and a terrific manager, and then all of the sudden they are better than us. KW trades the type of players that Minny will start. Aaron Miles would have started on the Twins. Instead we sent him off for Uribe.


That is part of GM's job...to build a team to their ballpark. You can't win the Series without getting to the playoffs. Therefore, winning the Division is a good thing.

Jason82807
06-03-2007, 11:23 PM
I apologize if this has already been said, but Ozzie shouldn't've argued the hit by pitch Sunday in Toronto. It was a borderline call, but there were much worse calls in the past couple weeks much worse than that, and he didn't argue those.

voodoochile
06-04-2007, 12:07 AM
I apologize if this has already been said, but Ozzie shouldn't've argued the hit by pitch Sunday in Toronto. It was a borderline call, but there were much worse calls in the past couple weeks much worse than that, and he didn't argue those.

It probably had more to do with frustration and wanting to fire up the team than it did with the actual play itself. I am sure he's starting to look for moments to say, "no more, we aren't giving one more ****ing inch." Whether it works or not is a different matter...

Nellie_Fox
06-04-2007, 12:28 AM
I apologize if this has already been said, but Ozzie shouldn't've argued the hit by pitch Sunday in Toronto. It was a borderline call, but there were much worse calls in the past couple weeks much worse than that, and he didn't argue those.More proof that absolutely everything Ozzie does is flat wrong. Is there no end to the things you guys can find to nit-pick?

oeo
06-04-2007, 12:32 AM
More proof that absolutely everything Ozzie does is flat wrong. Is there no end to the things you guys can find to nit-pick?


I guess you have to blame a struggling team on somebody, and that's usually the manager. Why people ignore the fact that we're batting .235 and our bullpen has been terrible, I'll never know...that's all Ozzie, I guess. :dunno:

UserNameBlank
06-04-2007, 12:43 AM
I didn't say anything about spending money. I spoke about being perennial contenders; that could be because you spend money wisely, because you draft and develop well, or a combination of the two. The Twins have been far more competitive than we have, year to year, and have developed far more players. I wouldn't be so concerned about KW's inability to draft well at the top, if he actually had done what you said in the later rounds. The fact is, our system has produced very few players who have contributed significantly at the major league level. The bottom line is this: The Sox have largely pissed away any momentum they gained from winning the World Series, basically indicating that it was an aberration. It is nonsense to ask me what I would have done in KW's position. I don't have access to the information he had, nor do I claim to be qualified to be a general manager. He, however, does, and I judge him by the bottom line. He won a World Series, and that was truly wonderful, and he should always be remembered and honored for that. But what it seems that he hasn't done is build a solid organization that is going to contend regularly. At this point, for anyone who really cares about the Sox, the team is truly painful to watch. In fact, there are very few years where I can recall a more painful situation. The only thing that has been keeping us alive at all is amazing starting pitching. The hitting is awful and the bullpen is indescribable. I don't want to hear excuses. KW took the credit for 2005, deservedly. He also deserves responsibility for the collapse of 2006 and the monstrosity of 2007.

An organization does not become a perennial contender without doing both. Teams have to use their minor league systems and spend money in order for that to happen because there comes a time when a veteran presence from outside the organization is necessary in order to put a team over the top. Now, some people would call Minny a perennial contender but I wouldn't. They've won their division a lot recently and do make the playoffs, but they never field a team good enough to advance in the playoffs, which is what seperates a perennial contender like the Yankees or Angels from perennial pretenders like the Twins and A's. Being 'competitive' in the division and being 'competitive' with the best of the best baseball has to offer are two totally different things. I'll take Kenny's higher risk, higher reward philosophy over the moderate risk, moderate reward style of the Twins every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Both the Twins and Sox have produced very few players who have contributed significantly in the majors over the last few years. The Twins have Mauer and Morneau that they drafted. Mauer they got because they were rebuilding and had a terrible record at a time when the Sox were stupidly trying to compete. In retrospect, the Sox should have intentionally lost more games than the Twins so they could have gotten Mauer. Morneau was a late round pick. Anyone could have had him because he was raw. Ditto with Chris Young for us. Well, the Twins ended up with a superstar type player and the Sox may have as well, although Young was traded to Arizona for Vazquez in a dumb move by KW meant to increase our chances of winning another WS.

Where do you get this Kenny took the credit for 2005 crap from? He lost the GM of the year award to Eric freaking Shapiro who did virtually nothing. Kenny gave all the credit to his player development and scouting staff, the players themselves, the ownership of the Sox, and the coaching staff. What a selfish turd that Kenny Williams is.

Kenny I'm sure will gladly take responsibility for the disappointing overall performance last season, even though at least 95% of the problems were due to the players themselves. I'm sure he'll gladly take responsibility for this failure of a team as well, but when he does, you had better be prepared to let him fix it. He's going to have to reload now, so don't be all contradictory and say in 2008 that KW is a ****ty GM for not putting out a WS caliber baseball team.

Lprof
06-04-2007, 07:39 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This would be a great post in September. Too bad for you it's June.

Call sportsblab radio. You'll get right through. They love premature ejaculations.

:cool:You are absolutely right, and if, without any major changes, the team turns it around and wins something, I will openly proclaim I am an idiot--and I will be more than happy to do so. But if you think we cannot comment on the performance of the team until the season is over, I think you're nuts. In any event, do you really think this team, as currently constructed, is going to win anything? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

Lprof
06-04-2007, 07:41 AM
An organization does not become a perennial contender without doing both. Teams have to use their minor league systems and spend money in order for that to happen because there comes a time when a veteran presence from outside the organization is necessary in order to put a team over the top. Now, some people would call Minny a perennial contender but I wouldn't. They've won their division a lot recently and do make the playoffs, but they never field a team good enough to advance in the playoffs, which is what seperates a perennial contender like the Yankees or Angels from perennial pretenders like the Twins and A's. Being 'competitive' in the division and being 'competitive' with the best of the best baseball has to offer are two totally different things. I'll take Kenny's higher risk, higher reward philosophy over the moderate risk, moderate reward style of the Twins every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Both the Twins and Sox have produced very few players who have contributed significantly in the majors over the last few years. The Twins have Mauer and Morneau that they drafted. Mauer they got because they were rebuilding and had a terrible record at a time when the Sox were stupidly trying to compete. In retrospect, the Sox should have intentionally lost more games than the Twins so they could have gotten Mauer. Morneau was a late round pick. Anyone could have had him because he was raw. Ditto with Chris Young for us. Well, the Twins ended up with a superstar type player and the Sox may have as well, although Young was traded to Arizona for Vazquez in a dumb move by KW meant to increase our chances of winning another WS.

Where do you get this Kenny took the credit for 2005 crap from? He lost the GM of the year award to Eric freaking Shapiro who did virtually nothing. Kenny gave all the credit to his player development and scouting staff, the players themselves, the ownership of the Sox, and the coaching staff. What a selfish turd that Kenny Williams is.

Kenny I'm sure will gladly take responsibility for the disappointing overall performance last season, even though at least 95% of the problems were due to the players themselves. I'm sure he'll gladly take responsibility for this failure of a team as well, but when he does, you had better be prepared to let him fix it. He's going to have to reload now, so don't be all contradictory and say in 2008 that KW is a ****ty GM for not putting out a WS caliber baseball team.

JUST Mauer and Morneau???? You must be kidding. In any event, you cannot possibly suggest that the Sox, in a much larger market, have competed regularly the way the Twins have.

ArkanSox
06-04-2007, 09:26 AM
I guess you have to blame a struggling team on somebody, and that's usually the manager. Why people ignore the fact that we're batting .235 and our bullpen has been terrible, I'll never know...that's all Ozzie, I guess. :dunno:

Couldn't have said it better, oeo. Ozzie isn't the problem. Nor KW.

I have to admit that I really thought that we were in excellent shape this year with strong arms in the bullpen, but now we have to roll the dice with AAA youngsters and hope that they can stay in their present grooves at the ML level.

With Pods and Thome out and proven sluggers like Dye and Kornerko slumping inconceivably, our offense gave the BP no margin for error.

With our starting pitching and Jenks, a return to normalcy on offense, and at least an average effort from the rest of the BP, this Sox team (with Ozzie as manager) can repeat as world champs.

Call me an optimist, but you gotta believe, don't ya?

UserNameBlank
06-04-2007, 10:17 AM
JUST Mauer and Morneau???? You must be kidding. In any event, you cannot possibly suggest that the Sox, in a much larger market, have competed regularly the way the Twins have.
Look, I'm not going to go through every single player each team has drafted and developed over the last few years. As of right now, on the Twins roster, the only players they have drafted and developed who have made significant contributions to the team are Mauer, Morneau, Hunter, Cuddyer, and hell, even though he hasn't done squat let's count Kubel as well. As you can see I'm really stretching here.

Hunter was drafted in 1993 (1st round, 20th overall), Cuddyer in 1997 (1st round, 9th overall), Kubel in 2000 (12th round & 342 overall), Mauer in 2001 (1st round & 1 overall), and Morneau in 1999 (3rd round, 89 overall).

So, they have 3 impact players on their team that they drafted and developed and 2 more who might amount to something decent. We have Buehlre (1998, 38th round, 1138 overall) and Crede (1996, 5th round, 137 overall) as impact players. Crede is debatable but so is Torii really.

Since 1993, the Twins have drafted and signed a whopping total of 3 impact players if you count Hunter, and one of those (Mauer) was the first overall pick in a freakishly strong 2001 draft that featured himself, Mark Prior, Mark Teixeira, Casey Kotchman, Jeremy Sowers, Bobby Crosby, Jeremy Bonderman, Josh Barfield, Ryan Howard, Chad Tracy, Rich Hill, Kevin Youkilis, Chris Young the CF, Johnny Gomes, and Zach Duke among others all in the first 20 rounds. Most of those guys were later round picks, but the Twins had a no brainer in front of them with Prior, Mauer, and Texiera. We picked 16th, they had 1, so all the obvious players were gone by the time we selected Kris Honel (yuck). And if you want to count our success in the international market, we got another impact player in undrafted FA Carlos Lee in 1994. They have not found anyone there.

So the way I see it, each team over the last 14 years has come up with 3 impact players all via their own scouting. There have been a number of role players taken on each sides, like Bartlett and Todd Walker for the Twins, Aaron Rowand and Chris Stewart for the Sox, and a ton of marginal pitching. There have been players drafted who haven't signed, like Jeff Weaver for the Sox and Jason Varitek for the Twins, and all kinds of first round busts.

Please, please, do not post anymore about how the freaking Twins are soooo much better than we are. So what if they have a higher ranked farm system? I don't work for BP, so I don't give a flying ****. The Sox 2000 farm system would wipe the floor with the 2007 Twins system, and what does that mean? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Most of these guys will be busts.

Look at the damn results of the drafts for the last ten plus years. Ryan Howard was the 140th overall pick in his draft. Albert Pujols the 402nd of his. David Ortiz - who by the way the Almighty Twins released - was signed by Seattle as an undrafted free agent in 1992 and didn't figure it out until 11 years later with the Red Sox. Just look. Most of the best players in baseball have been huge surprises. You can't say "oh blah blah, the Twins are great and the Sox suck" because the Twins may have over time developed more AAAA players who could never stick in the majors. **** the Twins.

Minnesota teaches their guys to bunt and all of the sudden they are the epitomy of fundamentally sound baseball. They play turfball with a bunch of AAAA players surrounding 4 good to great offensive players and all of the sudden they are an unstoppable force. They run all over our pitchers who couldn't care less and our 2nd baseman who doesn't try to hold anyone on at second, and they are this amazing team of piranahas. Guess what? The A's beat the Twins out of the playoffs last year. Is there anything more embarrasing for a playoff team? And if they make the playoffs again this year, good luck, because as I've said in every post I've made in this thread, they don't spend the money to advance. The only thing this team wants to do every year that the Twins have done is win more divisional titles. But the difference is we have a GM and an owner who aren't satisifed with just getting there, and if we did, I'd hate this team with a passion.

jabrch
06-04-2007, 10:45 AM
I wish we drafted Joe Mauer - but in order to do that, we'd have had to have been the absolute worst team in baseball in 2000. I'd have love to have drafted Morneu, but the team that took him finished 70-92 when they drafted him. The Twins from 1993-2000 had a .431 winning % and had only 1 season with over 71 wins.

From 1993 - 2006, the Sox only had ZERO full (exclude strike) seasons with 80 wins.

If you want to emulate the Minnesota Twins, you would have to suck tremendously for nearly a decade to build the farm system depth that they did. I want to see what happens to all the pantspissers if we go 7 years in a row under .500, with a .431 during that time, and finishing either 4th or 5th in the division EVERY YEAR.

Lprof
06-04-2007, 01:35 PM
I wish we drafted Joe Mauer - but in order to do that, we'd have had to have been the absolute worst team in baseball in 2000. I'd have love to have drafted Morneu, but the team that took him finished 70-92 when they drafted him. The Twins from 1993-2000 had a .431 winning % and had only 1 season with over 71 wins.

From 1993 - 2006, the Sox only had ZERO full (exclude strike) seasons with 80 wins.

If you want to emulate the Minnesota Twins, you would have to suck tremendously for nearly a decade to build the farm system depth that they did. I want to see what happens to all the pantspissers if we go 7 years in a row under .500, with a .431 during that time, and finishing either 4th or 5th in the division EVERY YEAR.The Twins have beem competitive for five of the last six years. The Red Sox, Yankees and Cardinals are virtually always competitive, and at least the first two have regularly brought up first class minor leaguers.

Lprof
06-04-2007, 01:39 PM
Look, I'm not going to go through every single player each team has drafted and developed over the last few years. As of right now, on the Twins roster, the only players they have drafted and developed who have made significant contributions to the team are Mauer, Morneau, Hunter, Cuddyer, and hell, even though he hasn't done squat let's count Kubel as well. As you can see I'm really stretching here.

Hunter was drafted in 1993 (1st round, 20th overall), Cuddyer in 1997 (1st round, 9th overall), Kubel in 2000 (12th round & 342 overall), Mauer in 2001 (1st round & 1 overall), and Morneau in 1999 (3rd round, 89 overall).

So, they have 3 impact players on their team that they drafted and developed and 2 more who might amount to something decent. We have Buehlre (1998, 38th round, 1138 overall) and Crede (1996, 5th round, 137 overall) as impact players. Crede is debatable but so is Torii really.

Since 1993, the Twins have drafted and signed a whopping total of 3 impact players if you count Hunter, and one of those (Mauer) was the first overall pick in a freakishly strong 2001 draft that featured himself, Mark Prior, Mark Teixeira, Casey Kotchman, Jeremy Sowers, Bobby Crosby, Jeremy Bonderman, Josh Barfield, Ryan Howard, Chad Tracy, Rich Hill, Kevin Youkilis, Chris Young the CF, Johnny Gomes, and Zach Duke among others all in the first 20 rounds. Most of those guys were later round picks, but the Twins had a no brainer in front of them with Prior, Mauer, and Texiera. We picked 16th, they had 1, so all the obvious players were gone by the time we selected Kris Honel (yuck). And if you want to count our success in the international market, we got another impact player in undrafted FA Carlos Lee in 1994. They have not found anyone there.

So the way I see it, each team over the last 14 years has come up with 3 impact players all via their own scouting. There have been a number of role players taken on each sides, like Bartlett and Todd Walker for the Twins, Aaron Rowand and Chris Stewart for the Sox, and a ton of marginal pitching. There have been players drafted who haven't signed, like Jeff Weaver for the Sox and Jason Varitek for the Twins, and all kinds of first round busts.

Please, please, do not post anymore about how the freaking Twins are soooo much better than we are. So what if they have a higher ranked farm system? I don't work for BP, so I don't give a flying ****. The Sox 2000 farm system would wipe the floor with the 2007 Twins system, and what does that mean? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Most of these guys will be busts.

Look at the damn results of the drafts for the last ten plus years. Ryan Howard was the 140th overall pick in his draft. Albert Pujols the 402nd of his. David Ortiz - who by the way the Almighty Twins released - was signed by Seattle as an undrafted free agent in 1992 and didn't figure it out until 11 years later with the Red Sox. Just look. Most of the best players in baseball have been huge surprises. You can't say "oh blah blah, the Twins are great and the Sox suck" because the Twins may have over time developed more AAAA players who could never stick in the majors. **** the Twins.

Minnesota teaches their guys to bunt and all of the sudden they are the epitomy of fundamentally sound baseball. They play turfball with a bunch of AAAA players surrounding 4 good to great offensive players and all of the sudden they are an unstoppable force. They run all over our pitchers who couldn't care less and our 2nd baseman who doesn't try to hold anyone on at second, and they are this amazing team of piranahas. Guess what? The A's beat the Twins out of the playoffs last year. Is there anything more embarrasing for a playoff team? And if they make the playoffs again this year, good luck, because as I've said in every post I've made in this thread, they don't spend the money to advance. The only thing this team wants to do every year that the Twins have done is win more divisional titles. But the difference is we have a GM and an owner who aren't satisifed with just getting there, and if we did, I'd hate this team with a passion.You're focusing far too much on comparisons with the Twins; that isn't the point. The point is that after winning the World Series, we don't make the playoffs the following year due to a complete second half collapse, do virtually nothing to improve the team we put on the field in the offseason, and have a crap team the next year. Moreover, we have, it seems, nothing in the minors to help out (we just brought up two major league bustouts--what does that tell us about the quality of our minor league system?). KW has to take responsibility for what at this point at least seems like a total mess.

FarWestChicago
06-04-2007, 06:10 PM
The point is that after winning the World Series, we don't make the playoffs the following year due to a complete second half collapse...And your Cards are doing better this year? :roflmao:

Johnny Mostil
06-04-2007, 09:19 PM
ondafarm, I don't suppose the bullpen's performance tonight is giving you any second thoughts about your original complaint in this thread, is it?:wink:

UserNameBlank
06-04-2007, 11:36 PM
You're focusing far too much on comparisons with the Twins; that isn't the point. The point is that after winning the World Series, we don't make the playoffs the following year due to a complete second half collapse, do virtually nothing to improve the team we put on the field in the offseason, and have a crap team the next year. Moreover, we have, it seems, nothing in the minors to help out (we just brought up two major league bustouts--what does that tell us about the quality of our minor league system?). KW has to take responsibility for what at this point at least seems like a total mess.
What does it take to get through to you? Seriously?

I just posted like 4 narratives on how a GM wins with his farm system and through trades and FA. KW made a lot of moves to bring a championship in '05 and bring another one back in '06. These moves cost money and talent; they weakened the farm system and raised the payroll. He did what he had to do to win, and now he's left with a bunch of aging veteran players heading into FA. Now he has to go back to square 1 to build another championship team.

Pay close attention to these next two points because I'm not going to make them again:
1. KW could have a stronger farm system if he played it like the Twins and decided not to improve the team. Sox fans would have ripped the team publicly, and JR would look like a cheap ***hole, but the Sox would have a better farm system if they didn't make any moves.
2. Josh Rupe, Royce Ring, Anthony Webster, Chris Young, Jeremy Reed, Tyler Lumsden, and the like would have added more depth to our farm. Notice that Chris Young is the only player on that list worth much of a damn. There are teams, like the Angels for instance, that have all kinds of depth. They have all kinds of prospects with all kinds of tools. And in five years from now, they'll have an ***load of busts. That is the way it works.

KW's philosophy is to go after major league veterans and prospects who are very close to being major leaue ready. This costs him, but it pays off a lot better as the idea is that a veteran or prospect playing well in Triple A is going to be much more likely to succeed in the majors than an A ball guy. Whereas some teams may prefer to stock their systems with Lew Fords and Erick Aybars, and then get praised for it, I'd rather go after players who make a difference on the major league roster.

On your last terrible point about KW not improving the team much for 2007, which I've already answered before BTW, intelligent GM's do not trade young players for more veterans going into a year where several pieces of the core are heading to FA, especially when the rest of the core is up for FA after '08. KW needed to protect himself so he didn't end up like the Giants of the last few years, which was lots of declining veterans, prospects far, far away, and no chance of contending unless some of these A-ballers develop.

You could argue I guess, at least if you're stupid, that Brandon and Freddy should have been shipped off for position players or bullpen help. Well, I don't know if either of those guys would have brought back a Crawford or Rios or Holliday, but I seriously doubt it. And I sure as hell don't want a mediocre OF for my SP when I can get some very good, very close LHSP for it. And maybe it's just me, but you never trade good SP or a good position player for a bullpen guy. Some teams do that, but that's a pretty stupid idea IMO when bullpens turn over all the time everywhere. Overall, I'd say we did pretty damn good with Danks, Masset, Rasner, Floyd, and Gio. Danks has already done a better job than Freddy would have, Masset could be a decnt starter down the line, Floyd is still a project but if he is a bust it won't hurt us, and Gio alone is already much more valuable than Freddy, and will continue to be unless he proves himself to be a bust in the majors.

Lip Man 1
06-05-2007, 12:05 PM
I will give Kenny credit for one thing. He is 'maning-up' and taking responsibility for what's happened this season.

I say that in all admiration, not trying to be glib. That tells me he is being honest with himself and is secure in his position.

"If anybody wants to point fingers, you point the finger at me as to my decisions putting the team together."

Lip

Lprof
06-07-2007, 07:53 PM
And your Cards are doing better this year? :roflmao: First of all, they are not "my" Cards; I was just making a comparison for reference purposes. And second: Yes, as a matter of fact, the Cards, after a rough start, are doing much better. But that isn't even the point. The point is, I want a team that is almost always competitive and more often than not in the playoffs. Whatever happens to the Cardinals this year, and they may well win the division in any event, it is certainly true that they are virtually always in the hunt and often in the playoffs. We, on the other hand, have pissed away a World Series victory, making it look ominously like a fluke.

Why are you guys such apologists? If management does something wrong, why is your natural instinct always to defend them? When they do something right, as they have done on a number of occasions (and I am NOT forgetting the tremendous World Series victory they gave us), we should say so. But unless you guys cash your checks at 35th and Shields, I don't understand why you always have to be so reflexively apologetic and defensive.

Lprof
06-07-2007, 07:55 PM
I will give Kenny credit for one thing. He is 'maning-up' and taking responsibility for what's happened this season.

I say that in all admiration, not trying to be glib. That tells me he is being honest with himself and is secure in his position.

"If anybody wants to point fingers, you point the finger at me as to my decisions putting the team together."

Lip Kenny is willing to recognize his responsibility for this mess, when many here are unwilling to do so.

Daver
06-07-2007, 08:00 PM
First of all, they are not "my" Cards; I was just making a comparison for reference purposes. And second: Yes, as a matter of fact, the Cards, after a rough start, are doing much better. But that isn't even the point. The point is, I want a team that is almost always competitive and more often than not in the playoffs. Whatever happens to the Cardinals this year, and they may well win the division in any event, it is certainly true that they are virtually always in the hunt and often in the playoffs. We, on the other hand, have pissed away a World Series victory, making it look ominously like a fluke.

Why are you guys such apologists? If management does something wrong, why is your natural instinct always to defend them? When they do something right, as they have done on a number of occasions (and I am NOT forgetting the tremendous World Series victory they gave us), we should say so. But unless you guys cash your checks at 35th and Shields, I don't understand why you always have to be so reflexively apologetic and defensive.

Most of us aren't, but we don't go over the top to piss and moan about it either, unlike some, like you.

Lprof
06-07-2007, 08:00 PM
What does it take to get through to you? Seriously?

I just posted like 4 narratives on how a GM wins with his farm system and through trades and FA. KW made a lot of moves to bring a championship in '05 and bring another one back in '06. These moves cost money and talent; they weakened the farm system and raised the payroll. He did what he had to do to win, and now he's left with a bunch of aging veteran players heading into FA. Now he has to go back to square 1 to build another championship team.

Pay close attention to these next two points because I'm not going to make them again:
1. KW could have a stronger farm system if he played it like the Twins and decided not to improve the team. Sox fans would have ripped the team publicly, and JR would look like a cheap ***hole, but the Sox would have a better farm system if they didn't make any moves.
2. Josh Rupe, Royce Ring, Anthony Webster, Chris Young, Jeremy Reed, Tyler Lumsden, and the like would have added more depth to our farm. Notice that Chris Young is the only player on that list worth much of a damn. There are teams, like the Angels for instance, that have all kinds of depth. They have all kinds of prospects with all kinds of tools. And in five years from now, they'll have an ***load of busts. That is the way it works.

KW's philosophy is to go after major league veterans and prospects who are very close to being major leaue ready. This costs him, but it pays off a lot better as the idea is that a veteran or prospect playing well in Triple A is going to be much more likely to succeed in the majors than an A ball guy. Whereas some teams may prefer to stock their systems with Lew Fords and Erick Aybars, and then get praised for it, I'd rather go after players who make a difference on the major league roster.

On your last terrible point about KW not improving the team much for 2007, which I've already answered before BTW, intelligent GM's do not trade young players for more veterans going into a year where several pieces of the core are heading to FA, especially when the rest of the core is up for FA after '08. KW needed to protect himself so he didn't end up like the Giants of the last few years, which was lots of declining veterans, prospects far, far away, and no chance of contending unless some of these A-ballers develop.

You could argue I guess, at least if you're stupid, that Brandon and Freddy should have been shipped off for position players or bullpen help. Well, I don't know if either of those guys would have brought back a Crawford or Rios or Holliday, but I seriously doubt it. And I sure as hell don't want a mediocre OF for my SP when I can get some very good, very close LHSP for it. And maybe it's just me, but you never trade good SP or a good position player for a bullpen guy. Some teams do that, but that's a pretty stupid idea IMO when bullpens turn over all the time everywhere. Overall, I'd say we did pretty damn good with Danks, Masset, Rasner, Floyd, and Gio. Danks has already done a better job than Freddy would have, Masset could be a decnt starter down the line, Floyd is still a project but if he is a bust it won't hurt us, and Gio alone is already much more valuable than Freddy, and will continue to be unless he proves himself to be a bust in the majors.

That's right; it would be stupid to suggest that maybe KW should have gotten something more than Floyd and Gonzales. How can you possibly say getting Floyd "didn't hurt us"??? It was the OPPORTUNITY COST!!! The team totally collapsed in the second half, Detroit got stronger and Cleveland and Minnesota were very strong, and KW's big move is to add Floyd and Gonzales? Yes, he got Danks and Massett (you know, the one with the ERA in the stratosphere). But it was quite clear to anybody willing to look that he had done virtually nothing to help a team that, as constituted at the end of last year, simply wasn't strong enough to compete. And he--and we--are paying the price now. I saw that during the winter, and everyone jumped on me for being defeatist; I guess that makes me stupid, huh?

Lprof
06-07-2007, 08:02 PM
Most of us aren't, but we don't go over the top to piss and moan about it either, unlike some, like you.
So pointing out serious defects in the strategy and planning of the team that I live and die with is just "pissing and moaning," huh? I guess I should be like the Cub fans, and just drink beer and look at the Ivy.

FarWestChicago
06-07-2007, 08:04 PM
Why are you guys such apologists? If management does something wrong, why is your natural instinct always to defend them? When they do something right, as they have done on a number of occasions (and I am NOT forgetting the tremendous World Series victory they gave us), we should say so. But unless you guys cash your checks at 35th and Shields, I don't understand why you always have to be so reflexively apologetic and defensive.Why are you so pompous and negative? You call all the rest of us apologists. I'm sorry we don't worship you as a genius. We have our own opinions. Basically, you seriously need to get over yourself. Well, either that or prove you are virtually omniscient. :D:

FarWestChicago
06-07-2007, 08:05 PM
So pointing out serious defects in the strategy and planning of the team that I live and die with is just "pissing and moaning," huh? I guess I should be like the Cub fans, and just drink beer and look at the Ivy.And you continue with the insults. If you were as brilliant as you claim, you wouldn't be resorting to playground taunts. :rolleyes:

Daver
06-07-2007, 08:06 PM
So pointing out serious defects in the strategy and planning of the team that I live and die with is just "pissing and moaning," huh? I guess I should be like the Cub fans, and just drink beer and look at the Ivy.

Ummm, how the **** do you know they are defects? Do you collect a paycheck from the White Sox personel department?

If you don't, than arguing decisions you have no knowledge of is nothing more than pissing and moaning, something you do quite well.


It's not something to be proud of.

Lprof
06-07-2007, 08:56 PM
And you continue with the insults. If you were as brilliant as you claim, you wouldn't be resorting to playground taunts. :rolleyes: I am not sure what you mean by "insults" (unless pointing out the accurate fact that many here reflexively defend the Sox, as if they had been retained as attorneys--if that is an insult, I am sorry, but it is the truth); nor did I ever claim to be brilliant. I simply said I was ticked off the Sox (meaning Kenny, basically) let it get to this point. If you guys actually like the product you are seeing on the field, then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. If you don't like the product on the field but don't like hearing criticism of the team, then I guess I just don't get the reasoning. I just assumed--incorrectly, obviously, at least as to this chat room--that I am not the only Sox fan that is really unhappy with what is going on.

Lprof
06-07-2007, 09:00 PM
Ummm, how the **** do you know they are defects? Do you collect a paycheck from the White Sox personel department?

If you don't, than arguing decisions you have no knowledge of is nothing more than pissing and moaning, something you do quite well.


It's not something to be proud of.
Ok, so there were no defects; everything was planned perfectly. That's why the team is doing so well. What the heck are you saying??

MetroPD
06-07-2007, 09:03 PM
This team is terrible and players are not reacting. Other than getting injured or sent down the minors, the only thing they are doing consistently is playing below their skill level as a team. If a company is doing poorly, the management goes.

Daver
06-07-2007, 09:05 PM
Ok, so there were no defects; everything was planned perfectly. That's why the team is doing so well. What the heck are you saying??

Umm, this team has 2 starters on the DL, one that just got back from the DL, and the pitching has kept them close to .500 in the toughest division in baseball, so what the hell are you saying? Or are you continuing to piss and moan because you do it so well?

Lprof
06-07-2007, 09:27 PM
Umm, this team has 2 starters on the DL, one that just got back from the DL, and the pitching has kept them close to .500 in the toughest division in baseball, so what the hell are you saying? Or are you continuing to piss and moan because you do it so well?
I don't buy the DL excuse, any more than I bought it for the Cubs the second time they lost Prior and Wood. With the exception of Ozuna, none of the Sox injuries came totally out of the blue. Podsednik, Erstadt, and Crede were all accidents waiting to happen--and a good GM knows to have insurance plans in place. We have a career backup and some minor leaguers who, at least at this point in their careers, can't even buy a hit. That's what I mean when I say he did nothing to improve the team. I guess I should be used to it by now, but I am still amazed how content most of you seem with what is going on. We are last in ALL OF BASEBALL in batting average, runs and on-base percentage (and that includes all the NL teams--they have the pitcher bat, for pete's sake). With the exception of Jenks, our bullpen has to be just about the worst in all of baseball. And to top it off, we bring up two major league bustouts to be our key set up men. Well, SOMEBODY did something wrong; maybe a little "pissing and moaning" is just what is called for at this point.

Frontman
06-07-2007, 10:32 PM
I don't buy the DL excuse, any more than I bought it for the Cubs the second time they lost Prior and Wood. With the exception of Ozuna, none of the Sox injuries came totally out of the blue. Podsednik, Erstadt, and Crede were all accidents waiting to happen--and a good GM knows to have insurance plans in place. We have a career backup and some minor leaguers who, at least at this point in their careers, can't even buy a hit. That's what I mean when I say he did nothing to improve the team. I guess I should be used to it by now, but I am still amazed how content most of you seem with what is going on. We are last in ALL OF BASEBALL in batting average, runs and on-base percentage (and that includes all the NL teams--they have the pitcher bat, for pete's sake). With the exception of Jenks, our bullpen has to be just about the worst in all of baseball. And to top it off, we bring up two major league bustouts to be our key set up men. Well, SOMEBODY did something wrong; maybe a little "pissing and moaning" is just what is called for at this point.

Ok, so your point is that the Sox players aren't the best in the league. Why again should Ozzie be canned over it?

And where does bad luck figure into your plans? Because we certainly have had it. Twice tonight go ahead runs were just feet shy of going out. Bad calls also didn't help this team tonight.

There's being critical, then there is just blasting away with as much as you can muster with sharp sounding talk with little substance. How exactly did KW know Ozuna would break his leg? That Thome's ribs would hurt? How exactly could KW see Jermaine get his cleats caught in the fence?

Look, this team is far from perfect when entirely healthy. But we had some major errors, some bad breaks, and some awful moments. But I'm not giving up on the team, its far too early and far too much fun to be had in the meantime.

Lprof
06-07-2007, 10:48 PM
Ok, so your point is that the Sox players aren't the best in the league. Why again should Ozzie be canned over it?

And where does bad luck figure into your plans? Because we certainly have had it. Twice tonight go ahead runs were just feet shy of going out. Bad calls also didn't help this team tonight.

There's being critical, then there is just blasting away with as much as you can muster with sharp sounding talk with little substance. How exactly did KW know Ozuna would break his leg? That Thome's ribs would hurt? How exactly could KW see Jermaine get his cleats caught in the fence?

Look, this team is far from perfect when entirely healthy. But we had some major errors, some bad breaks, and some awful moments. But I'm not giving up on the team, its far too early and far too much fun to be had in the meantime.

I never said Ozzie should be fired; just the opposite. My first contribution to this discussion was to say that while I have never been the greatest Ozzie fan, we can't pin this one on him. Rather, it is Kenny's problem, and Kenny's fault. That is what induced the fire storm of dagger-like responses to me. As for luck and bad calls, I could perhaps buy that for a couple of games. This team, however, has very, very serious problems. Maybe they will start to hit at some point (though I don't think I would bet on it at this point; they all seem to have gotten old at the same time). But never, ever will those guys in the bullpen be anything but the worst relievers in the league, and no team with a crap bullpen is ever going anywhere. I am glad for you that you are still able to have fun during a season like this. I, on the other hand, find it really, really depressing. I have seen far more like this one in my time as a Sox fan than like 2005, and that is a shame, for the city and for the fans.

Frater Perdurabo
06-07-2007, 10:57 PM
You know what would send an even more powerful message than firing the manager?

Firing the captain.

Firing the manager gets the Sox nothing in return.

Trading the captain to the Angels gets Kotchman, Shields and Figgins, plus salary relief to sign Buehrle and pursue Ichiro.

Tragg
06-07-2007, 11:03 PM
Trading the captain to the Angels gets Kotchman, Shields and Figgins, plus salary relief to sign Buehrle and pursue Ichiro.

I certainly hope Kenny is working on some well-conceived moves to help us in 08 and 09, if not 07. If they are available now or next month, no need to not do them.

roadrunner
06-07-2007, 11:15 PM
You know what would send an even more powerful message than firing the manager?

Firing the captain.

Firing the manager gets the Sox nothing in return.

Trading the captain to the Angels gets Kotchman, Shields and Figgins, plus salary relief to sign Buehrle and pursue Ichiro.

I hope you are the angels GM.

That's a lot to give up for a highly paid slow footed slugger past his prime having a bad year.