PDA

View Full Version : Interesting article on Jerry Manuel


doublem23
11-16-2007, 01:04 PM
Scoop Jackson over at ESPN just ran an interesting article on why Jerry Manuel has never been given another managerial job. I wasn't sad when the Sox finally fired him after 2002, but I have been surprised his name never seems to surface when someone is looking for a new manager.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=jackson/071116

I don't agree with everything, but it's a good read.

veeter
11-16-2007, 01:10 PM
Didn't they fire him after 2003? I mean, 2002 would have made more sense, but I think it was '03.

drewcifer
11-16-2007, 01:14 PM
Didn't they fire him after 2003? I mean, 2002 would have made more sense, but I think it was '03.

It was.

doublem23
11-16-2007, 01:17 PM
Whoops, that's right. Got the timeline in my head wrong.

WhiteSox5187
11-16-2007, 02:09 PM
I always thought that Manuel was a serviceable manager. He certainly wasn't great (and Ozzie is better) but he wasn't awful. And seeing as how he replaced Terry Bevington, it looked like we had Connie Mack and the helm following him.

chisox77
11-16-2007, 02:58 PM
Manuel deserves another chance to manage.

After he was fired, I felt that at some point, he would have been hired to manage another team. I'm a little surprised that this hasn't happened yet.

I realize that people were critical of his style, etc., and who doesn't make mistakes? His constant line-up changes, handling of Garland, and the 2000 ALDS vs Seattle were all moments where his shortcomings were exposed, but Manuel could have learned from these things as well.

The article was an interesting read - thanks for sharing it.

BainesHOF
11-16-2007, 03:00 PM
Manuel is most certainly a nice man, but to say being black is a reason why he hasn't received another managing job is ridiculous. The reason he hasn't received another managing job is he was horrible when he managed the Sox.

I know Bevington was a buffoon in many ways, but I believe Manuel was significantly worse than him. I've never seen a manager so out-managed than what Piniella did to Manuel in the 2000 playoffs. I was embarrassed for the guy. To this day I consider Williams inexplicably bringing Manuel back to manage in 2003 to be his worse move. The 2003 team was loaded and it pretty much tanked under Manuel. The executives in baseball certainly remember how badly that team underperformed. And he was the worst arguer in baseball history.

jdm2662
11-16-2007, 03:23 PM
Manuel is most certainly a nice man, but to say being black is a reason why he hasn't received another managing job is ridiculous.

As soon as I saw who wrote the article, I failed to take it seriously. I knew exactly what it is about. I will leave it at that. There are worse managers that have gotten second chances, however (see Garner, Phil).

soxinem1
11-16-2007, 03:28 PM
Manuel was not a horrible manager. He was given teams that looked like the 2004, 2006, and 2007 White Sox, and did what he could. He stated over and over again that his teams were not big on defense and speed, so they had to slug their way to victory. We have seen for most of Guillen's tenure the same type of teams, and look what happened.

Sure, they won in 2005, but a lot of things came together to make that happen. I'm not saying that Manuel would have led them to the World Series, but most of Ozzie's teams other than 2005 resembled Manuel's and the results have been similar.

So he didn't trust Garland past 5-6 innings. So what? I didn't either back then, as I've watched him melt down in minutes numerous times, as everyone else here has.

He also got ripped many times for pulling Sirotka early if his PC was too high. JM stated many times that if Sirotka went ovr 90-100 pitches, he stunk in his next start, and the numbers on this were true.

He was given a power-ladden line up, and other than a couple players like Ray Durham and Chris Singleton, almost no speed.

Sure, Piniella outclassed him in the ALDS in Y2K, but look what Scheuler gave him. At the ASB, he added hitters, not pitchers. The rotation was on fumes from early August until the playoffs. If Scheuler would have gotten him just a mid-level starter, that series might have at least went further.

I also remember Thomas, Ordonez, CLee, and every big hitter in the line up just shutting it down in that series. Is that his fault too?

I think he just wore out his time here, but definitely should be hired by a team looking for a good baseball man. He should get another shot.

Corlose 15
11-16-2007, 03:34 PM
I'm wondering why Scoop Jackson finds it so special that the Mets have a latin GM, and black manager and bench coach, but no one ever commends the Sox for giving minorities opportunities. The Sox have a black GM, latin manager, and latin bench coach.

soxinem1
11-16-2007, 03:39 PM
Seems Jerry might do better finding a new job if he went into the booth for a year or two.

Worked for Lou, Torre, Dusty, and a ton of other guys. He should do the same.

DumpJerry
11-16-2007, 03:59 PM
I wonder if my WSI name has anything to do with it?

Maybe he needs to get an agent who will get him name in the ears of teams who are dumping their managers, that might help. An agent can also get his name in the media to create a buzz.

palehozenychicty
11-16-2007, 04:51 PM
Manuel was not a horrible manager. He was given teams that looked like the 2004, 2006, and 2007 White Sox, and did what he could. He stated over and over again that his teams were not big on defense and speed, so they had to slug their way to victory. We have seen for most of Guillen's tenure the same type of teams, and look what happened.

Sure, they won in 2005, but a lot of things came together to make that happen. I'm not saying that Manuel would have led them to the World Series, but most of Ozzie's teams other than 2005 resembled Manuel's and the results have been similar.

So he didn't trust Garland past 5-6 innings. So what? I didn't either back then, as I've watched him melt down in minutes numerous times, as everyone else here has.

He also got ripped many times for pulling Sirotka early if his PC was too high. JM stated many times that if Sirotka went ovr 90-100 pitches, he stunk in his next start, and the numbers on this were true.

He was given a power-ladden line up, and other than a couple players like Ray Durham and Chris Singleton, almost no speed.

Sure, Piniella outclassed him in the ALDS in Y2K, but look what Scheuler gave him. At the ASB, he added hitters, not pitchers. The rotation was on fumes from early August until the playoffs. If Scheuler would have gotten him just a mid-level starter, that series might have at least went further.

I also remember Thomas, Ordonez, CLee, and every big hitter in the line up just shutting it down in that series. Is that his fault too?

I think he just wore out his time here, but definitely should be hired by a team looking for a good baseball man. He should get another shot.

This is the summation that I feel about Manuel's tenure. He definitely deserves another shot, as he can't be worse than the Grady Littles and Phil Garners of the world. The article actually didn't use race as a reason, but to say that race never factors into hiring decisions is foolhardy as well.

Lip Man 1
11-16-2007, 06:05 PM
Manager Ghandi was serviceable AT BEST. His lack of fire, his bizarre lineup combinations, his willingness to use his Triple A lineup on 'get away' days and of course the Neil Cotts / Yankee boner are his legacy.

That plus his strange comment that the 'first half of the season is for playing everybody, the second half is for winning' cemented it for me.

Granted Ozzie has some of these same faults but no one ever accused Ozzie of nodding off on the bench during a game or not caring and he was the skipper for a 'little' event that happened in 2005.

Jerry Manuel hasn't managed again because he's not very good at it...period, end of discussion.

Lip

PaleHoseGeorge
11-16-2007, 06:54 PM
It's no mystery why Jerry Manuel was (finally) fired by the Sox: he lost his clubhouse. No manager survives that.

It's more a mystery how Manuel managed to KEEP his job for at least 2 more seasons AFTER losing his clubhouse. The 2001 team came back from an atrocious start but basically played .500 ball the entire second-half of the season when the division title was there to be grabbed. The 2002 team never responded at all and it's a complete mystery how KW decided to give Jerry yet another season to prove his players wouldn't play for him in 2003.

Let's also not forget that the ballclub's undisputed franchise player had all six of his worst seasons ever playing for this spiteful man, don't ever believe all that "Gandhi" bull**** the mediots fed you. If you can't get anything out of Frank Thomas, you pretty much suck as a manager.

I agree with others posting here that Manuel deserves another shot at managing if 4-star clowns like Lou Piniella, Dusty Baker, and Phil Garner (not to mention 5-star clowns like Gene Mauch) get second, third and even fourth chances!
:o:

eastchicagosoxfan
11-16-2007, 07:49 PM
Jerry Manuel is baseball's version of Dave Wannstedt. Utterly clueless at times.

drewcifer
11-16-2007, 07:56 PM
Jerry Manuel is baseball's version of Dave Wannstedt. Utterly clueless at times.

:nod: And that's what someone described as "cerebral" really means.

If you have to think about what to do all the time, then you really never KNOW.

Somebody should clue in "Scoop".

Brian26
11-16-2007, 08:51 PM
Granted Ozzie has some of these same faults but no one ever accused Ozzie of nodding off on the bench during a game or not caring

I would have agreed with you until August of this year. I saw some not-giving-a-flying-crap out of Ozzie down the stretch this year.

soxinem1
11-16-2007, 09:18 PM
It's no mystery why Jerry Manuel was (finally) fired by the Sox: he lost his clubhouse. No manager survives that.

It's more a mystery how Manuel managed to KEEP his job for at least 2 more seasons AFTER losing his clubhouse. The 2001 team came back from an atrocious start but basically played .500 ball the entire second-half of the season when the division title was there to be grabbed. The 2002 team never responded at all and it's a complete mystery how KW decided to give Jerry yet another season to prove his players wouldn't play for him in 2003.

Let's also not forget that the ballclub's undisputed franchise player had all six of his worst seasons ever playing for this spiteful man, don't ever believe all that "Gandhi" bull**** the mediots fed you. If you can't get anything out of Frank Thomas, you pretty much suck as a manager.

I agree with others posting here that Manuel deserves another shot at managing if 4-star clowns like Lou Piniella, Dusty Baker, and Phil Garner (not to mention 5-star clowns like Gene Mauch) get second, third and even fourth chances!
:o:


I hate to turn this into a 'Defend Jerry Manuel Crusade', but:

Frank had some of his best seasons for Lamont and Bevington, so what does that mean? They were better Managers? Yeah, right!

Additionally, as one of the biggest Frank Thomas fans in this forum, I readily admit that Thomas sucked out of the gate in 1998, Manuel's first year here. That was not Manuel's fault.

Then he was hurt in 1999. Though Manuel was a clod for not listening and openly questioning Frank when he told him he was hurt, Manuel had nothing to do with the injury.

Then he had his last monster season in Y2K, and his last .300 year, and one of his best. Manuel was the Manager.

Was hurt in 2001. It wasn't Manuel's fault.

Took a long time to get his stroke back in 2002. Wasn't Manuel's fault, in fact he let him play when he was unproductive. Even though Frank hit better as a 1B, he wanted to DH full-time from then on.

By 2003, Frank's .300+ days were clearly over, but he was still very productive.

Thus, other than reading you as a Manuel-hater, I cannot find reason with your assault on him regarding Thomas.

lumpyspun
11-17-2007, 01:24 AM
Maybe I'm an ass...but, I stopped reading the article after I read the following part:

Q: "Have you interviewed?"
A: "Only three times -- two I would not call serious. Only one team, and I'm not going to tie in names because that's not who am, but I will say

that's not who am...???????

ESPN is a joke. I'm sure Manuel did not say that. ESPN is not journalism.

wassagstdu
11-17-2007, 07:46 AM
Looks to me like "cerebral" means passive and fatalistic. It will take a lot of faith to hire a manager who believes he is taking his orders from God. I greatly respected and respect that aspect of Jerry Manuel's character. But I totally understand why it gets in the way of his being considered for managerial positions.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-17-2007, 09:58 AM
I hate to turn this into a 'Defend Jerry Manuel Crusade', but:....
Thus, other than reading you as a Manuel-hater, I cannot find reason with your assault on him regarding Thomas.

Manuel-hater? Too funny... somewhere around here I still have the tape from 2001 when I was a guest on Tommy Williams' radio show where I breathlessly describe Manuel as the absolute key element in the Sox '00 division championship quest. I'm guessing next I'll be criticized for that opinion, too.
:gulp:

I'm glad you brought up the injuries because it helps me make my case all the more. In 1999 while Manuel was publicly questioning Frank's toughness after he left the club mid-season, it was discovered he really did have a severe foot injury that later required the removal of a golf ball sized piece of cartilage. The surgeon was surprised Frank could even walk. Very un Gandhi-like behavior by Manuel, don't you agree?

It was spring training 2000 when Frank was intimidated enough over his position in the clubhouse that he BROUGHT A NOTE FROM HIS DOCTOR so that Manuel wouldn't scold him over the shuttle run. Is reducing your team's 2-time MVP to the behavior of an 8 year-old your idea of effective managing?

And then there was the infamous season-ending torn labrum injury of 2001 after Frank went diving for a groundball at first base, a position he was playing because for three years that's all Manuel ever wanted him to do. How many effective managers can you name that seek out their best players' deficiencies and then focus their attention on how to MAGNIFY them?

Frank really was the A.L. MVP of 2000 and whatever differences he had with his manager didn't keep him from reestablishing himself as the pre-eminent hitter in the game -- numbers comparable to those of his 7-year hitting streak unprecedented in baseball except by the likes of Ted Williams -- a streak that came to a crashing halt in 1998, the very same year Gandhi arrived in town. Just a coincidence? How many MVP's have the Sox had since then?

Whatever injuries Frank suffered to haul his career down from its former brilliance, you can certainly add the unconscionable behavior of his pathetic and mean-spirited dunce of a manager to bring it about abruptly and (quite possibly) prematurely too.

Rather than call you a name back, I'll just summarize my stance by declaring you have no clue what you're talking about.
:cool:

Brian26
11-17-2007, 10:09 AM
And then there was the infamous season-ending torn labrum injury of 2001 after Frank went diving for a groundball at first base, a position he was playing because for three years that's all Manuel ever wanted him to do.

At least that gave White Sox fans the chance to experience this for three months in 2001 (And he actually didn't do that bad of a job as a DH):

:canseco

DoItForDanPasqua
11-17-2007, 10:31 AM
Manuel was terribly outmanaged by Lou Pinella in the 2000 Division Series. I think less of Manuel after watching how Pinella managed the Division series this year.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-17-2007, 10:40 AM
At least that gave White Sox fans the chance to experience this [Jose Canseco] for three months in 2001 (And he actually didn't do that bad of a job as a DH):


I agree. Until Thome arrived (at the price of trading Aaron Rowand), Canseco proved to be a more effective DH than anyone the Sox have employed in the time since Frank left. This of course isn't to excuse whatever negative element he helped foster inside the clubhouse... an influence Canseco is twisted enough to actually brag about.
:o:

It's funny that it took a season-ending injury BEFORE Manuel would finally give up on using Frank at 1B. Or perhaps the better verb would be pathetic?

Taliesinrk
11-17-2007, 11:12 AM
I just wasted 10 minutes of my life that I will never get back. That's what I get from reading "Scoop" Jackson. *****

veeter
11-17-2007, 11:18 AM
Manuel's tenure was easily the most frusterating and maddening time for me. All the reasons have been mentioned already. I will say, it seemed to me, however, that he always did want to beat the cubs. The 1999 six game set was great, and I'll always give him a lot of credit for that. But other than the cubs games, he was awful. I like the Wanny comparison someone made, because that is right on.

slavko
11-17-2007, 11:22 AM
Manuel was terribly outmanaged by Lou Pinella in the 2000 Division Series. I think less of Manuel after watching how Pinella managed the Division series this year.

At the risk of offending conventional wisdom, Jerry's mismanaging in the '00 ALDS consisted 90% of everyone in the lineup having their bat turn to linguini.

Lip Man 1
11-17-2007, 12:25 PM
Slavko:

"Hitting" woes (and they absolutely scored enough runs to win game #1,) don't explain bringing in a rookie, Bradford, with very little experience in a key point in I think, the 6th inning of the first game, only to have him immediately give up the tying run.

And then there is the 'little' matter of the series clinching suicide squeeze bunt in game three where TV clearly showed Guillen stepping out of the box to get it down.

Lip

32nd&Wallace
11-17-2007, 02:46 PM
Manuel-hater? Too funny... somewhere around here I still have the tape from 2001 when I was a guest on Tommy Williams' radio show where I breathlessly describe Manuel as the absolute key element in the Sox '00 division championship quest. I'm guessing next I'll be criticized for that opinion, too.
:gulp:

I'm glad you brought up the injuries because it helps me make my case all the more. In 1999 while Manuel was publicly questioning Frank's toughness after he left the club mid-season, it was discovered he really did have a severe foot injury that later required the removal of a golf ball sized piece of cartilage. The surgeon was surprised Frank could even walk. Very un Gandhi-like behavior by Manuel, don't you agree?

It was spring training 2000 when Frank was intimidated enough over his position in the clubhouse that he BROUGHT A NOTE FROM HIS DOCTOR so that Manuel wouldn't scold him over the shuttle run. Is reducing your team's 2-time MVP to the behavior of an 8 year-old your idea of effective managing?

And then there was the infamous season-ending torn labrum injury of 2001 after Frank went diving for a groundball at first base, a position he was playing because for three years that's all Manuel ever wanted him to do. How many effective managers can you name that seek out their best players' deficiencies and then focus their attention on how to MAGNIFY them?

Frank really was the A.L. MVP of 2000 and whatever differences he had with his manager didn't keep him from reestablishing himself as the pre-eminent hitter in the game -- numbers comparable to those of his 7-year hitting streak unprecedented in baseball except by the likes of Ted Williams -- a streak that came to a crashing halt in 1998, the very same year Gandhi arrived in town. Just a coincidence? How many MVP's have the Sox had since then?

Whatever injuries Frank suffered to haul his career down from its former brilliance, you can certainly add the unconscionable behavior of his pathetic and mean-spirited dunce of a manager to bring it about abruptly and (quite possibly) prematurely too.

Rather than call you a name back, I'll just summarize my stance by declaring you have no clue what you're talking about.
:cool:That early 2001 roster was really screwed up. Why was Frank playing first, when there was a healthy Konerko? Frank played A LOT of first based, with Baines DH-ing while Konerko sat idle.

Brian26
11-17-2007, 03:55 PM
That early 2001 roster was really screwed up. Why was Frank playing first, when there was a healthy Konerko? Frank played ALOT of first based, with Baines DH-ing while Konerko sat idle.

I always loved Baines, but he had absolutely no business being on the roster in 2001. His bat was so brutally slow, it was embarrassing at that point.

Brian26
11-17-2007, 03:57 PM
Jerry Manuel is baseball's version of Dave Wannstedt. Utterly clueless at times.

I think you're overestimating Wanny here.

Brian26
11-17-2007, 04:01 PM
The 2002 team never responded at all and it's a complete mystery how KW decided to give Jerry yet another season to prove his players wouldn't play for him in 2003.

Ah, 2002 was not Jerry's fault. He needed another chance to prove himself. Blame 2002 on...

:firenardi

:fireward (Although this didn't happen until early '03)

soxinem1
11-17-2007, 04:16 PM
Manuel-hater? Too funny... somewhere around here I still have the tape from 2001 when I was a guest on Tommy Williams' radio show where I breathlessly describe Manuel as the absolute key element in the Sox '00 division championship quest. I'm guessing next I'll be criticized for that opinion, too.
:gulp:

I'm glad you brought up the injuries because it helps me make my case all the more. In 1999 while Manuel was publicly questioning Frank's toughness after he left the club mid-season, it was discovered he really did have a severe foot injury that later required the removal of a golf ball sized piece of cartilage. The surgeon was surprised Frank could even walk. Very un Gandhi-like behavior by Manuel, don't you agree?

It was spring training 2000 when Frank was intimidated enough over his position in the clubhouse that he BROUGHT A NOTE FROM HIS DOCTOR so that Manuel wouldn't scold him over the shuttle run. Is reducing your team's 2-time MVP to the behavior of an 8 year-old your idea of effective managing?

And then there was the infamous season-ending torn labrum injury of 2001 after Frank went diving for a groundball at first base, a position he was playing because for three years that's all Manuel ever wanted him to do. How many effective managers can you name that seek out their best players' deficiencies and then focus their attention on how to MAGNIFY them?

Frank really was the A.L. MVP of 2000 and whatever differences he had with his manager didn't keep him from reestablishing himself as the pre-eminent hitter in the game -- numbers comparable to those of his 7-year hitting streak unprecedented in baseball except by the likes of Ted Williams -- a streak that came to a crashing halt in 1998, the very same year Gandhi arrived in town. Just a coincidence? How many MVP's have the Sox had since then?

Whatever injuries Frank suffered to haul his career down from its former brilliance, you can certainly add the unconscionable behavior of his pathetic and mean-spirited dunce of a manager to bring it about abruptly and (quite possibly) prematurely too.

Rather than call you a name back, I'll just summarize my stance by declaring you have no clue what you're talking about.
:cool:

There is no doubt that Thomas was a far better hitter while playing the field.

You are making it sound like Manuel was the reason Thomas' got hurt now. What about inter-league play? He could have gotten hurt then too.

Even if Frank was a DH permanently, he could have gotten hurt sliding, running the bases, etc.

While I agree about Manuel (and David Wells, for that matter) being an idiot for doubting his injuries, he was in no way responsible for them. Other than 1991, almost all of his playing time was at 1B until then.

Manuel had some issues, but Thomas getting hurt was not his fault.

And while I agree that Lou Piniella totally out-classed him in the ALDS, it wasn't like his players did much to distinguish themselves. Durham, Ordonez, and Frank were useless, not to mention that the pitching staff was in such bad shape, they actually entertained using Sean Lowe as a starter in the playoffs!

Plus, I didn't hear you mention once that the injury that cost him his place on the White Sox happened under Guillen's tenure, as a DH, batting!! Is that Manuel's fault too?

So if you want to dislike Manuel for goofy lineups, inconsistent teams, being half dead in the dugout, or banishing Keith Foulke to middle relief for most of 2002 fine, but blaming him for Thomas getting hurt or having unproductive years is ridiculous.

And contrary to your opinion, I do know what I am talking about. :cool:

fquaye149
11-17-2007, 04:24 PM
There is no doubt that Thomas was a far better hitter while playing the field.

There is plenty of doubt. Correlation doesn't indicate causality.

Does Thomas have better numbers while playing the field? Of course.

However, did Thomas's "playing the field" numbers come when he was in his prime while his DH numbers came after injuries and past the age of 30? Of course, part two

Be careful when jumping to conclusions, for you will often land in a big pile of dog****.


Even if Frank was a DH permanently, he could have gotten hurt sliding, running the bases, etc.

Wow. That's specious reasoning. So when Rex got hurt 3 years ago in the 2nd quarter of an early preseason game, you were cool with that, because despite the fact that it's asinine to leave a starting QB in that long in a preseason game, that even if he weren't playing he might have gotten hurt holding the clipboard, or gotten hit by a car on the way home from the stadium, or gotten punched by his girlfriend in a fight over him leaving the cap off the toothpaste?



Manuel had some issues, but Thomas getting hurt was not his fault.
You're right, it's not his FAULT. But he sure didn't take many precautions to prevent the health of the best hitter he'll ever manage in his not-short-enough career as a manager.


And while I agree that Lou Piniella totally out-classed him in the ALDS, it wasn't like his players did much to distinguish themselves. Durham, Ordonez, and Frank were useless, not to mention that the pitching staff was in such bad shape, they actually entertained using Sean Lowe as a starter in the playoffs!

Well, whether your players play or not, when you impact the game as seldom as an MLB manager does, I would hope you're not ACTUALLY HURTING YOUR TEAM when you do it. Just because the hitting shut down...that excuses incompetence even less since there's less margin for error. It would be like if a starting pitcher gave up 7 runs in 3 innings and you said "but the hitters weren't hitting, so how can he be to blame for the loss?". Sorry bub. That dog won't hunt monsignior


Plus, I didn't hear you mention once that the injury that cost him his place on the White Sox happened under Guillen's tenure, as a DH, batting!! Is that Manuel's fault too?

*cough* the first injury is the least likely to happen *cough*


So if you want to dislike Manuel for goofy lineups, inconsistent teams, being half dead in the dugout, or banishing Keith Foulke to middle relief for most of 2002 fine, but blaming him for Thomas getting hurt or having unproductive years is ridiculous.

can't we hate him for all of that, since he's guilty of it all for being a dingleberry butthead dillweed "gandhi" of a manager?

soxinem1
11-17-2007, 04:25 PM
I always loved Baines, but he had absolutely no business being on the roster in 2001. His bat was so brutally slow, it was embarrassing at that point.

Not totally true. Baines had a good spring in 2001, then sat most of the first few weeks of the season after getting steady AB's in ST. Once he was put in the lineup, it was a sad thing to see.......

They then threw Baines in when Konerko wasn't hitting for awhile. Manuel had no problem cutting Paulie's playing time in 2000 and 2001 after Baines came back. In fact, it probably cost Konerko a 100 RBI season in Y2K.

fquaye149
11-17-2007, 04:27 PM
Not totally true. Baines had a good spring in 2001, then sat most of the first few weeks of the season after getting steady AB's in ST. Once he was put in the lineup, it was a sad thing to see.......

They then threw Baines in when Konerko wasn't hitting for awhile. Manuel had no problem cutting Paulie's playing time in 2000 and 2001 after Baines came back. In fact, it probably cost Konerko a 100 RBI season in Y2K.

That's the one thing Manuel's done that I've been all about:D:

soxinem1
11-17-2007, 04:38 PM
There is plenty of doubt. Correlation doesn't indicate causality.

Does Thomas have better numbers while playing the field? Of course.

However, did Thomas's "playing the field" numbers come when he was in his prime while his DH numbers came after injuries and past the age of 30? Of course, part two

Be careful when jumping to conclusions, for you will often land in a big pile of dog****.



Wow. That's specious reasoning. So when Rex got hurt 3 years ago in the 2nd quarter of an early preseason game, you were cool with that, because despite the fact that it's asinine to leave a starting QB in that long in a preseason game, that even if he weren't playing he might have gotten hurt holding the clipboard, or gotten hit by a car on the way home from the stadium, or gotten punched by his girlfriend in a fight over him leaving the cap off the toothpaste?



You're right, it's not his FAULT. But he sure didn't take many precautions to prevent the health of the best hitter he'll ever manage in his not-short-enough career as a manager.



Well, whether your players play or not, when you impact the game as seldom as an MLB manager does, I would hope you're not ACTUALLY HURTING YOUR TEAM when you do it. Just because the hitting shut down...that excuses incompetence even less since there's less margin for error. It would be like if a starting pitcher gave up 7 runs in 3 innings and you said "but the hitters weren't hitting, so how can he be to blame for the loss?". Sorry bub. That dog won't hunt monsignior



*cough* the first injury is the least likely to happen *cough*


can't we hate him for all of that, since he's guilty of it all for being a dingleberry butthead dillweed "gandhi" of a manager?


I guess with your reasoning, Konerko better get his DH shoes on, right? In your words, God forbit he gets hurt diving or something.

You have a guy who was an everyday player and a decent 1B defensively, and just because he turns 30 you DH him? Yeah, whatever.......

And for what it is worth, the DH/1B number game was already played in the early/mid 90's. The drop-off in Thomas' numbers was striking.

The Rex Grossman analogy is way off base, as it was a practice game. It is neither a part of nor relevent to this discussion.

If your crystal ball is so accurate, maybe you ought to consider a different profession...........

fquaye149
11-17-2007, 04:47 PM
I guess with your reasoning, Konerko better get his DH shoes on, right? In your words, God forbit he gets hurt diving or something.

I don't like Konerko, and wouldn't mind if we were forced to replace him, but keep in mind that Konerko's about 100 pounds lighter than Frank.

However, you may be right--with Konerko's hip injury, it probably would be smart to protect him, if I thought he was any kind of stud player (I don't)


You have a guy who was an everyday player and a decent 1B defensively, and just because he turns 30 you DH him? Yeah, whatever.......

No. Because he's 250 pounds, not that limber, and the greatest hitter ever to play for the franchise.


And for what it is worth, the DH/1B number game was already played in the early/mid 90's. The drop-off in Thomas' numbers was striking.
SMALL SAMPLE SIZE ALERT! I bet you think Pujols is "unclutch" too.


The Rex Grossman analogy is way off base, as it was a practice game. It is neither a part of nor relevent to this discussion.
No, you're right. But it was to poke fun at how asinine it is to say that just because someone could get hurt in a fluke incident at any point in time, that it makes sense to expose them to much more likely injury 9 times as much per game. But yeah, you're right, let's just ignore your ridiculous statement.


If your crystal ball is so accurate, maybe you ought to consider a different profession...........

I have no crystal ball. I'm just a guy who, looking back at the tenure of tinkerbell, finds him to be a piece of **** as a manager and an ineffective one to boot

PaleHoseGeorge
11-17-2007, 04:52 PM
Manuel had some issues, but Thomas getting hurt was not his fault.

Glad you agree with me. I said Manuel deserves another shot at managing because he isn't as big a clown as others who have received multiple shots. However the way he handled Thomas was definitely clown-like, injuries or no injuries.



And while I agree that Lou Piniella totally out-classed him in the ALDS,

Have fun playing with yourself because I never said this. I said Manuel lost his clubhouse years before he was (finally) fired.


So if you want to dislike Manuel for goofy lineups, inconsistent teams, being half dead in the dugout, or banishing Keith Foulke to middle relief for most of 2002 fine, but blaming him for Thomas getting hurt or having unproductive years is ridiculous.

Do you have a reading problem because I never said this either. I blamed him for losing his clubhouse including contributing to bringing down the best ballplayer on his roster with his petty and spiteful behavior, injuries or not.


And contrary to your opinion, I do know what I am talking about.

I'm not sure you've convinced anyone but yourself.

soxinem1
11-17-2007, 05:13 PM
SMALL SAMPLE SIZE ALERT! I bet you think Pujols is "unclutch" too.



Thomas' DH appearances since 1991 thru 1998:

1991: 101
1992: 2
1993: 4
1994: 13
1995: 54
1997: 49
1998: 146

That is not a small sample, that is a lot of time. If it was ten games a year, sure, I would agree, because I remember on the rare occasions that Carlton Fisk DH'd he had crappy numbers too, but they were very small in comparison.

fquaye149
11-17-2007, 05:17 PM
Thomas' DH appearances since 1991 thru 1998:

1991: 101
1992: 2
1993: 4
1994: 13
1995: 54
1997: 49
1998: 146

That is not a small sample, that is a lot of time. If it was ten games a year, sure, I would agree, because I remember on the rare occasions that Carlton Fisk DH'd he had crappy numbers too, but they were very small in comparison.

are those games or plate appearances?

soxinem1
11-17-2007, 05:21 PM
are those games or plate appearances?

games.

slavko
11-18-2007, 11:55 AM
Slavko:

"Hitting" woes (and they absolutely scored enough runs to win game #1,) don't explain bringing in a rookie, Bradford, with very little experience in a key point in I think, the 6th inning of the first game, only to have him immediately give up the tying run.

And then there is the 'little' matter of the series clinching suicide squeeze bunt in game three where TV clearly showed Guillen stepping out of the box to get it down.

Lip

I didn't say he was totally without blame. Chad did spend most of the year in the minors. I was mildly surprised he was on the playoff roster. I guess they liked the different "look" of the sidearmer. The Guillen squeeze victimized poor Frank, didn't it?

Mohoney
11-18-2007, 12:51 PM
IMO, Manuel's biggest flaw was that he was bad at handling the bullpen. Maybe that was what was meant by that "too cerebral" comment, that he out-thought himself a bunch of times when it came to pitching changes.

There were several times that I could remember that Manuel would put in a bad reliever when there was an obviously better option, just because of the lefty-lefty matchup or because of a guy's previous numbers against another guy.

gobears1987
11-18-2007, 02:12 PM
The 2003 team was loaded and it pretty much tanked under Manuel. The executives in baseball certainly remember how badly that team underperformed. And he was the worst arguer in baseball history.
Starting Cotts in NY was possibly the worst managerial move I've seen from the Sox in my lifetime.

fquaye149
11-18-2007, 02:25 PM
Starting Cotts in NY was possibly the worst managerial move I've seen from the Sox in my lifetime.

Totally--usually mangers' negative impact is immeasurable, but when a manager does something that shockingly brazen and obviously stupid it's like holy ****! Even if it succeeded, it would have been a bad move because it would have been such a low percentage play (giving a pitcher his first career start on the road at yankee stadium during a playoff race) with such a low reward (saving the rotation a LITTLE) that it would have been stupid

RKMeibalane
11-18-2007, 04:30 PM
:jerry

*TINKER* *TINKER* *TINKER*

Link (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=jackson/071116&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab7pos2)

Edit: Sorry, didn't see the other thread. Feel free to move this.

ode to veeck
11-19-2007, 08:51 PM
Starting Cotts in NY was possibly the worst managerial move I've seen from the Sox in my lifetime.

Bringing in Paniccia when you coulda stuck a fork in the Twins comes to mind as one that compares ...

soxfanreggie
11-19-2007, 09:10 PM
It's not like he doesn't have a job in the game. He's been out of managing for what...4 years. Maybe it should tell him something about what others though how he did. Maybe he can get a shot with a TB or KC, but he's not the big "splash" hire that a team will make, and he won't be the 'veteran assistant' for anyone but the Mets, who won't hire him because they are the type of team who usually needs a "splash" hire.