White Sox Interactive Forums
Sox Clubhouse
 Soxogram: 
GO SOX! DSNB!

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Sox Clubhouse
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 11-15-2018, 09:44 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 18,640
Default

Harry Caray hated Tony LaRussa. At least he acted like it at the end of his White Sox tenure and early on when he was with the Cubs. I would even read quotes in print publications where he said LaRussa was an inferior manager and was only promoted (from the AAA-affiliate Iowa Oaks) to replace Don Kessinger because he was cheap. Player signings notwithstanding, the new ownership was cheap as evidenced by LaRussa's continued employment.

Oddly enough, while Harry Caray was hired by the Cubs on the condition that he not criticize anyone associated his new team, he continued to rip White Sox personnel whenever he had the chance.

Roland Hemond's first hire with the White Sox late in the disastrous 1970 season was a young AAA manager named Chuck Tanner (from the Angels system where Hemond had been a scout before taking the White Sox job). Tanner gained more respect later with the Pirates than he had with the White Sox, especially post-1972. But I never believed that LaRussa got the White Sox job because he would work cheap.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 11-16-2018, 09:31 AM
Tragg Tragg is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gonzales LA
Posts: 15,788
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post

Roland Hemond's first hire with the White Sox late in the disastrous 1970 season was a young AAA manager named Chuck Tanner (from the Angels system where Hemond had been a scout before taking the White Sox job). Tanner gained more respect later with the Pirates than he had with the White Sox, especially post-1972. But I never believed that LaRussa got the White Sox job because he would work cheap.
I didn't realize that Hemond came from the Angels. He made a lot of big trades with them, including the one that got things moving early: Ken Berry and stiffs for Tom Bradley and Jay Johnstone.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 11-16-2018, 11:09 AM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 34,134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tragg View Post
I didn't realize that Hemond came from the Angels. He made a lot of big trades with them, including the one that got things moving early: Ken Berry and stiffs for Tom Bradley and Jay Johnstone.
And Tom Egan.

Roland was their farm director and before that worked in the Braves organization...starting with (get this) when they were still in Boston!
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 11-16-2018, 12:45 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 18,640
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1 View Post
And Tom Egan.

Roland was their farm director and before that worked in the Braves organization...starting with (get this) when they were still in Boston!

Probably off-topic, but I always thought hiring Hemond was the smartest move the White Sox ever made. Given the chance, he knew how to build a competitive baseball team, the art of which seems to be lost. Really, only the Reggie Jackson/Catfish Hunter et al. A's kept the White Sox from going to the World Series in 1972. Of course, Hemond knew the Angels system well, just as Dallas Green knew the Phillies system well when he came to the Cubs and traded for Ryne Sandberg.

Chuck Tanner had been managing Angels PCL affiliate Hawaii, and finished 50 games above .500 before coming to the White Sox and going 3-13 with the worst team in major league baseball, ending up with just 56 wins. One of the most interesting twists to me was that Tanner took over for interim manager Billy Adair (Don Gutteridge saying he wan't going to stick around if he wasn't going to be brought back in 1971). In 1971 Adair was managing then Padres affiliate Hawaii in the PCL, and Tanner managed the White Sox to 79 wins.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 11-16-2018, 01:54 PM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 34,134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
Probably off-topic, but I always thought hiring Hemond was the smartest move the White Sox ever made. Given the chance, he knew how to build a competitive baseball team, the art of which seems to be lost. Really, only the Reggie Jackson/Catfish Hunter et al. A's kept the White Sox from going to the World Series in 1972. Of course, Hemond knew the Angels system well, just as Dallas Green knew the Phillies system well when he came to the Cubs and traded for Ryne Sandberg.

Chuck Tanner had been managing Angels PCL affiliate Hawaii, and finished 50 games above .500 before coming to the White Sox and going 3-13 with the worst team in major league baseball, ending up with just 56 wins. One of the most interesting twists to me was that Tanner took over for interim manager Billy Adair (Don Gutteridge saying he wan't going to stick around if he wasn't going to be brought back in 1971). In 1971 Adair was managing then Padres affiliate Hawaii in the PCL, and Tanner managed the White Sox to 79 wins.
What was even smarter in my opinion was ownership realizing that you couldn't do a "rebuild" (even though they didn't call it that back then) with the same people in the front office who drove the franchise into a ditch in the first place.

And it wasn't just the G.M. Ed Short that got fired, a LOT of folks in the front office, the scouting and player development departments and the minor league system got fired.

That's exactly what current ownership should have done with this baseball side of the front office.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 11-16-2018, 02:20 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 18,640
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1 View Post
What was even smarter in my opinion was ownership realizing that you couldn't do a "rebuild" (even though they didn't call it that back then) with the same people in the front office who drove the franchise into a ditch in the first place.

And it wasn't just the G.M. Ed Short that got fired, a LOT of folks in the front office, the scouting and player development departments and the minor league system got fired.

That's exactly what current ownership should have done with this baseball side of the front office.

There used to be a columnist of sorts in the Daily New, I think, who called himself Tiger Lyons. He was before my time, but I remember these little jokes he had that ran as sort of a graphic break-up to otherwise gray sports pages. What I remember him for was one quip: "Friday Gary Peters starts for the Red Sox and Ed Short starts for the border."

It wasn't just a matter of getting rid of everybody. Bill Melton, after Billy Adair's death, said the obituary that only really noted he had been a White Sox manager briefly didn't do him justice because Billy Adair was a great infield instructor. There are good people that get tossed out for the sake of change.

The key is hiring people who are going to do more than just be different people. If your idea of a rebuild, if your direction to your staff is simply to trade your quality veterans for high-ranking prospects, there isn't much point to change.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 11-16-2018, 03:11 PM
tstrike2000's Avatar
tstrike2000 tstrike2000 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Forest Moon of Endor
Posts: 7,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxNationPres View Post
I think hiring players with no managerial experience being a mistake has been completely debunked. See: Dave Roberts, Alex Cora, Aaron Boone.

Just because Robin didn't work out doesn't mean it won't for others.
Also managers of completely stacked teams.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 11-16-2018, 03:33 PM
Chez's Avatar
Chez Chez is online now
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Clarendon Hills
Posts: 7,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1 View Post
What was even smarter in my opinion was ownership realizing that you couldn't do a "rebuild" (even though they didn't call it that back then) with the same people in the front office who drove the franchise into a ditch in the first place.

And it wasn't just the G.M. Ed Short that got fired, a LOT of folks in the front office, the scouting and player development departments and the minor league system got fired.

That's exactly what current ownership should have done with this baseball side of the front office.

Chuck Tanner was a fine manager who never -- not once -- got the Sox to the post-season. Likewise, Roland Hemond was an excellent G.M. - who has one [!] Division Title to show for his excellence. Perhaps the guys on the baseball side of the current front office had a better track record which justified retaining them during this rebuild?
__________________

2019 Sox Attendance Tracker: 9-6
All time Sox Attendance Tracker:

286-247
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 11-16-2018, 05:47 PM
Tragg Tragg is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gonzales LA
Posts: 15,788
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1 View Post

And it wasn't just the G.M. Ed Short that got fired, a LOT of folks in the front office, the scouting and player development departments and the minor league system got fired.

That's exactly what current ownership should have done with this baseball side of the front office.
You don't say?
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 11-16-2018, 06:43 PM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 5,133
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxNationPres View Post
I think hiring players with no managerial experience being a mistake has been completely debunked. See: Dave Roberts, Alex Cora, Aaron Boone.

Just because Robin didn't work out doesn't mean it won't for others.
Completely debunked? You mean as an absolute? No way...

It must be weighted appropriately but to discount experience is a huge mistake.
__________________
“There were a few hard rules, but everybody was unique, and he understood that. George’s great strength was he didn’t overcoach. There’s no place for panic on the mound.” - Jim Palmer on George Bamberger “Arms and the man,” Sports Illustrated, April 19, 2004
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 11-16-2018, 07:04 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 18,640
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chez View Post
Chuck Tanner was a fine manager who never -- not once -- got the Sox to the post-season. Likewise, Roland Hemond was an excellent G.M. - who has one [!] Division Title to show for his excellence. Perhaps the guys on the baseball side of the current front office had a better track record which justified retaining them during this rebuild?

The White Sox had the second-best record in the AL in 1972. Five years later, the team that so many Sox fans revere, the 1977 White Sox had the sixth best record in the AL

Roland Hemond had to sell Ed Herrmann (trade him for minor leaguers and cash, technically) just so the team could break spring training. Holding Hemond and Tanner to a standard of making the postseason is simplistic.

And firing Hemond at the end of the 1985 season, taking 1986 into consideration, shows that a decision to get rid of a general manager because the team is failing isn't always a smart move.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 11-16-2018, 08:28 PM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 34,134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chez View Post
Chuck Tanner was a fine manager who never -- not once -- got the Sox to the post-season. Likewise, Roland Hemond was an excellent G.M. - who has one [!] Division Title to show for his excellence. Perhaps the guys on the baseball side of the current front office had a better track record which justified retaining them during this rebuild?
VASTLY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

In 1970 the Sox were the WORST franchise in baseball, even the expansion teams weren't that bad because they still had that "newness" to them.

The Sox in 1970 were awful on the field, had little money to work with, Comiskey Park was falling apart, fans were staying away in droves because of the bad team and the social unrest due to the location of the stadium...hell they even lost their AM radio deal. No AM station in Chicago would touch them.

In two years Hemond and Tanner turned that cluster**** into a legit contender and they may have won something moving forward if not for that idiot Stu Holcomb (who only had a job because John Allyn's soccer team went under and Holcomb was still under contract) and then because Allyn almost went bankrupt due to his outside business interest going bad and him having to sell.

Even with the serious issues the franchise has today, the state of the club is LIGHT YEARS ahead of what the state of the franchise was in 1970.

Given those advantages including market size I'd think even a group of incompetents could at least luck into winning something if you give them enough time..and that appears to be exactly what has happened.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 11-16-2018, 09:57 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 12,288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1
Given those advantages including market size I'd think even a group of incompetents could at least luck into winning something if you give them enough time..and that appears to be exactly what has happened.
This brings up an important question: what actually is the size of the White Sox market?

The split in the Chicagoland area/Northwest Indiana is markedly less than half, probably closer to one-third. In other areas of Illinois, and Iowa, and the rest of Indiana, the White Sox are practically non-existent.

So that leaves us at somewhere around 3-3.5 million people? The Tigers and Twins both have that number beat, and depending on how they do in other areas of their home states, the Indians and Royals are both close to that number as well.

All of a sudden, the market size looks more like the Indians and Royals than the Mets and Angels.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsemaster Fred
This is the major leagues so get it how you live and let’s fight tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 11-17-2018, 02:02 AM
Nellie_Fox's Avatar
Nellie_Fox Nellie_Fox is offline
Official Professor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North Mankato, MN
Posts: 17,071
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
This brings up an important question: what actually is the size of the White Sox market?

The split in the Chicagoland area/Northwest Indiana is markedly less than half, probably closer to one-third. In other areas of Illinois, and Iowa, and the rest of Indiana, the White Sox are practically non-existent.

So that leaves us at somewhere around 3-3.5 million people? The Tigers and Twins both have that number beat, and depending on how they do in other areas of their home states, the Indians and Royals are both close to that number as well.

All of a sudden, the market size looks more like the Indians and Royals than the Mets and Angels.
When you're right, you're right.
__________________

"Nellie Fox, that little son of a gun, was always on base and was a great hit-and-run man. He sprayed hits all over."
Yogi Berra in the New York Sunday News (July 12, 1970)
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 11-17-2018, 02:19 AM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 58,600
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
This brings up an important question: what actually is the size of the White Sox market?

The split in the Chicagoland area/Northwest Indiana is markedly less than half, probably closer to one-third. In other areas of Illinois, and Iowa, and the rest of Indiana, the White Sox are practically non-existent.

So that leaves us at somewhere around 3-3.5 million people? The Tigers and Twins both have that number beat, and depending on how they do in other areas of their home states, the Indians and Royals are both close to that number as well.

All of a sudden, the market size looks more like the Indians and Royals than the Mets and Angels.
I agree on the surface, but the simple fact is if they won consistently for an extended period of time they could grow that market. There are potentially 10M people to reach in the Metro area including Southern WI and NE Indiana an everything south of Chicago in Illinois until you get to Springfield.

The current market is 3M doesn't mean it couldn't be bigger if they won. I understand your point but I think it's too literal and misses a bigger truth. The Sox haven't earned more fans that doesn't mean there aren't more potential fans out there.
__________________

Riding shotgun on the Sox bandwagon since before there was an Internet...
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:26 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.