Ozzie Manuel

[WCSox]

No because that's pretty ridiculous. Even if KW is a big BA fan he's not going to leave him on the roster if he's not going to be used correctly. The use of Mack in CF last year hurt the team big time and lead to more than a handful of losses, KW knows this and has said it a few times on Chicago Sports Radio. He's not going to put his like/dislike of a player over what's best for the team this much is true. If Ozzie went to KW and requested a CF, KW would have gone right out and got him one and from what has been said in the media no such request was ever made.

 

So what you're saying is that whatever KW, Ozzie, and other members of the organization tell the media is indeed what happened. I'm not sure I buy that, especially when Ozzie was so down on a player that KW was so high on. For all we know, it very well may have been a point of contention between the two. It's possible that Ozzie indeed did talk to KW about acquiring another CF and that the players that were available after the deadline were either mediocre defensively or were a liability in the lineup.

[RockRaines]

I hate to get back to this Anderson/Mack stuff. But Anderson was just as good as Mack offensively in the 2nd half of the season. And we all know the huge difference that the two bring defensively. Yet, in the 2nd half of the season, Mack continued to play 3-4 times a week in center for absolutely no reason, costing us a bunch of games defensively.

He did hurt the team defensively in the 2nd half, and we agree on that. But I can also see how Ozzie was painted into a corner with no legit CF'er on his roster other than BA, and he was struggling. IN the 2nd half, we were looking for anything to give us a spark, it just didnt work out.

[Kalapse]

You know it's fun debating this and all but I've got a major case of deja vu going right now so I'm done. I think the situation was pretty f***ing obvious but whatever my 2000 posts on the subject can speak for themselves.

[Balta1701]

So what you're saying is that whatever KW, Ozzie, and other members of the organization tell the media is indeed what happened. I'm not sure I buy that, especially when Ozzie was so down on a player that KW was so high on. For all we know, it very well may have been a point of contention between the two. It's possible that Ozzie indeed did talk to KW about acquiring another CF and that the players that were available after the deadline were either mediocre defensively or were a liability in the lineup.

So in other words, the only people available would have been roughly the equivalent of Mackowiak and Anderson?

 

Seriously though...as long as we weren't putting Barry Bonds in CF, it'd be really, really tough for anyone we went out and got to be worse defensively than Mack and worse offensively than Anderson was through the beginning of June.

[shoota]

Yeah, but he really had no other option, that is an evil when you break in a struggling Rookie in CF with no other legit CF'ers on your team.

 

That "struggling rookie" was the team's best center field option in the second half, yet Guillen chose to bench him in favor of an inferior Mackowiak. The criticism is focused on Guillen's second-half use of the two.

 

Hmmm. So all pitchers should be emotionless, and Ozzie was the one who cause extreme regression in his pitchers because he handled them poorly. I bet Mark Buehrle, as he was treated the same in every other season he ptiched for the sox, would love to blame his terrible season on Ozzie. It would then take the blame off of him where it belongs.

 

No, that's not my interpretation.

[WCSox]

So in other words, the only people available would have been roughly the equivalent of Mackowiak and Anderson?

 

I have no idea who was available.

 

Seriously though...as long as we weren't putting Barry Bonds in CF, it'd be really, really tough for anyone we went out and got to be worse defensively than Mack and worse offensively than Anderson was through the beginning of June.

 

Well, that's the risk you take when you trade away a proven, every-day CF and go with a rookie.

 

I also disagree with Ozzie's decision to play Mack in CF so often, but unlike what some people here (not you or Kalapse) claim, I don't believe he did it because he's stubborn or stupid. Like I said, there's A LOT that goes on in a clubhouse that we're not privy to. There's myriad of possible reasons why BA "grabbed some bench" late last summer.

Edited January 11, 2007 by WCSox

[shoota]

I'm just going to go ahead and declare myself the winner of this discussion because I'm right.

[RibbieRubarb]

I'm just going to go ahead and declare myself the winner of this discussion because I'm right.

 

Go ahead...no one else will.

[RockRaines]

Go ahead...no one else will.

QOTM material.

 

Zing!

[KevHead0881]

First of all, I think we can all agree that bumping a thread to prove yourself right or someone else wrong is quite lame.

 

And I've always found it humorous when people point to Ozzie's playing of Mack over Anderson as some personal grudge he has towards Anderson. First of all, such a suggestion is merely speculation, as I'm pretty sure there aren't many around here who really know what Ozzie thinks. With that being said, Ozzie was as much an advocate of Anderson as anybody before the season began. Then Anderson couldn't hit his weight for a whole half. Therefore, right or wrong, he chose to give Mack more playing time (and for the record, I didn't agree with it). If we had a decent backup CF, this would seem a lot more logical, but regardless, Ozzie saw Mack as the better option.

 

How this all equates to some childish personal grudge is beyond me. And if were indeed the case, I highly doubt Anderson would have gotten as much playing time as he did. When you consider the overall season he had, I'd say the organization as a whole had a lot of patience for a guy who, at his best last year, was mediocre. The guy still played 134 games. Say Ozzie was wrong for playing Mack over Anderson, and I will basically agree with you. But to throw dumbass speculation out like this, at least to me, detracts from whatever point you are trying to make.

 

Well, part of the reason the 2006 staff performed so poorly is because of Guillen's decisions on how to use them. Thus, the blame for not making the playoffs circles right back to Guillen.

 

This has to be my favorite argument. Ozzie used them no differently in 2005. Yet they seemed to be fine then. Did he operate his staff perfectly? No manager does. But in the end, almost every ounce of the fault falls on the pitchers themselves.

 

I'm just going to go ahead and declare myself the winner of this discussion because I'm right.

 

Once again, announcing your rightness. A true sign of someone whose points lack significant evidence to back them up.

[shoota]

First of all, I think we can all agree that bumping a thread to prove yourself right or someone else wrong is quite lame.

 

And I've always found it humorous when people point to Ozzie's playing of Mack over Anderson as some personal grudge he has towards Anderson. First of all, such a suggestion is merely speculation, as I'm pretty sure there aren't many around here who really know what Ozzie thinks. With that being said, Ozzie was as much an advocate of Anderson as anybody before the season began. Then Anderson couldn't hit his weight for a whole half. Therefore, right or wrong, he chose to give Mack more playing time (and for the record, I didn't agree with it). If we had a decent backup CF, this would seem a lot more logical, but regardless, Ozzie saw Mack as the better option.

 

How this all equates to some childish personal grudge is beyond me. And if were indeed the case, I highly doubt Anderson would have gotten as much playing time as he did. When you consider the overall season he had, I'd say the organization as a whole had a lot of patience for a guy who, at his best last year, was mediocre. The guy still played 134 games. Say Ozzie was wrong for playing Mack over Anderson, and I will basically agree with you. But to throw dumbass speculation out like this, at least to me, detracts from whatever point you are trying to make.

This has to be my favorite argument. Ozzie used them no differently in 2005. Yet they seemed to be fine then. Did he operate his staff perfectly? No manager does. But in the end, almost every ounce of the fault falls on the pitchers themselves.

Once again, announcing your rightness. A true sign of someone whose points lack significant evidence to back them up.

 

Just because 4/5 of the starting pitching was the same in 2006 as it was in 2005, doesn't mean each pitcher would perform equally in both seasons. Guillen deserves fault for not adjusting his use of the 2006 staff.

[RockRaines]

Just because 4/5 of the starting pitching was the same in 2006 as it was in 2005, doesn't mean each pitcher would perform equally in both seasons. Guillen deserves fault for not adjusting his use of the 2006 staff.

And how would you have liked his treatment to be adjusted.

[SkokieSox]

And how would you have liked his treatment to be adjusted.

He should have demanded Buerhle to transform into Santana. It makes perfect sense, and it's realistic. How no one thought of it during the season is beyond me...

[Balta1701]

And how would you have liked his treatment to be adjusted.

It would have been really, really nice to see him have some willingness to pull a starter early. Vazquez in the 5th inning, or Buehrle in the earlier innings of games where he was getting shelled. Ditto Garland Early in the season.

 

Hell, just look at some of Buehrle's lines from last season:

5 IP, 11 Runs

6.1 IP, 5 runs.

3 IP, 8 runs (pulled early)

7 IP, 5 runs

5.1 IP, 7 runs.

6.2 IP, 6 runs.

 

(All from July and August, 2 of his bad months)

 

Here's another one for you: even throughout all of the months Buehrle struggled, Ozzie pulled him before he threw 90 pitches only 4 times all season (not including the rainout to start the year). And 1 of those was a game early where Mark went 8 innings and got the win. Only 2 times all season did Ozzie pull Buehrle from a game before he threw 80 pitches.

 

Our bullpen threw by far the fewest innings in baseball last year. It certainly wasn't the best bullpen in baseball by any stretch of the imagination, but it has to be able to give us more than that (Especially since there was plenty of room in some people's arms, particularly McCarthy, to give them more regular work).

[RockRaines]

So, basically all of sudden change the way a pitcher has been treated all of his career, just because. Eve if he goes into a slump, dont you think Mark BUehrle works himself out of it like the rest of the world thought? He had a horrible half of baseball, yet everyone expected him to turn it around every game he went out there, probably including our manager. He has also had a tendency to win games in his career where the other team scores runs early, and we match and win the game because he focused.

 

Dont you think that hindsight took a little too much of the driver seat when you were thinking that at the END of the season?

[shoota]

So, basically all of sudden change the way a pitcher has been treated all of his career, just because. Eve if he goes into a slump, dont you think Mark BUehrle works himself out of it like the rest of the world thought? He had a horrible half of baseball, yet everyone expected him to turn it around every game he went out there, probably including our manager. He has also had a tendency to win games in his career where the other team scores runs early, and we match and win the game because he focused.

 

Dont you think that hindsight took a little too much of the driver seat when you were thinking that at the END of the season?

 

My criticism of Guillen's use of the pitching staff didn't start at the end of the season.

 

You have a good point about Buehrle's struggles, I indeed was expecting him to break out of his slump with every second-half start he made. Though because it was theorized Buehrle was slumping in part because of overuse (260 IP in 2005, soreness in the Series, short offseason), his struggles might have been minimized with the occasional modest pitch count start. That strategy from Guillen could have freshened his arm, allowing Buehrle to rebound to the good pitcher he's always been.

 

Perhaps Buehrle's second-half slump had nothing to do with throwing the most IP in his career, but I think there's enough evidence for a manager to be proactive in attempting to end his pitcher's slump. I criticize Guillen for not trying.

 

I lobbied to put Vazquez in the bullpen and move McCarthy to the rotation. Since Vazquez was great pitching to batters the first two times he faced them, very bad the third time around, and there was a good chance McCarthy could pitch better, a swap of the two men made sense.

 

Yeah, it hurts Vazquez's trade value at the conclusion of the season, but it potentially raises McCarthy's, and likely improves the 2006 team, which should be a manager's main concern.

 

I could understand Guillen not making such a progressive swap, but he still failed in his decisions when to pull Vazquez. When it was well documented Vazquez gets hit hard in the 6th innings, Guillen still wouldn't have a man warming up in the bullpen to replace Vazquez before his 6th inning collapse. I understand a manager showing confidence in his players and giving them the chance to succeed, but I fault Guillen for not having a ready alternative for when Vazquez failed. In other words, I think Guillen gave Vazquez too much leash in the 6th innings.

 

I found it disgusting Guillen kept pitching Jose Contreras the last third of the season when he should have been put on the 15-day DL. He was hurt, altered his mechanics and pitching far from his peak ability. I also believed if the Sox were to make the playoffs, they would need a healthy, dominant Jose Contreras to win another World Series. Brandon McCarthy was capable of filling Contreras's rotation spot during the 15-day DL.

Edited January 12, 2007 by shoota

[witesoxfan]

Also because he couldn't hit the broadside of Blalock's ass, his control is so bad.

You understand that Tracey is nowhere near ready for the Majors, right? That his control is terrible? For that alone he deserves to be sent down, and he especially deserves it when he blatantly disregards his manager's order.

 

Nuremberg Trials

[Gregory Pratt]

Nuremberg Trials

 

What a stretch.

[witesoxfan]

What a stretch.

 

How so? German military officials were found guilty for following orders. Sean Tracey (along with Ozzie) gets suspended if he does indeed hit Blalock.

 

I'll never know, and I'd imagine the majority of the world will never know either, but I don't think Tracey missed Blalock because he has horrendous control. If that was the case, I think Kinsler would have been hit by Garland too, but Garland didn't hit him. I wonder why? Must be his erratic control.