cwsox

if you can - to keep it up for a whole month would even be a little, ah, hard for me and I'm Italian!

I couldn't take a 7 game series - imagine being down 3-2 or being up 3-2 and losing to force the 7th game - too much stress to even think about it 4 game sweep is the only way to go

he was JM was Manager of the Year in 2000

very good point

Would the Chicago media even notice? Or the national media for that matter? Magglio Ordonez..... MLB's most under-rated player! If Mags is hitting close to 400 by July the Maggs watch will be national - he is the perfect player to market - extraordinarily talented, very shy and unassuming (oh so cute!), his kids have great names (People articles galore) and it is such a fun name to say - every sports broadcaster will be all over it - all the stories will be on the unappreciated other right fielder in Chicago - I have no doubt it would be a great national story and it sure would piss off a certainly other player in another league in Chicago which be such a bonus for us

He damn well better hit more than 254 - anyone who bats below Clayton's 2002 average should be off the team. No debate. Can't hit as well as Clayton, off the team.

Whoa - since I said that whether he is the best manager for this team is a matter for debate, I am not telling anyone that nothing is non debatable or that the moves a manager makes can't be questioned. I think we won in 2000 in part because he was manager - if Bevington were still our manager, no division championship. I think he has the right demeanor for our team. I think he held us together in 2001 and 2002 when other things would have torn us apart. If I didn't say that in this thread I said it elsewhere lately - I won't disagree with you that Pinella suckered Manuel in game 1 of the playoffs, I was there - but I don't think Pinella is that hot of a manager either. Hell, I could have won in 2001 with the team he had, he had nothing to do with it! And there is a manager who couldn't get a team to the World Series -- he went one more round than Manuel in 2000, big deal he still ended up losing the last game of his season in 2000, 2001,, and missed the 2002 post season - no wonder he is out of Seattle. But that is something that people will all kinds of ideas on and that's what this forum is for, right? As far as questioning moves - who doesn't challenge a manager's moves? That is our right as fans! (And I would have left Parque in for one more inning in game 1 of the 200o play-offs and I was vocal about it in the stands at the time - the game got out of hand when the relief pitching came in.) See? Everyone questions moves!

Oh, but I hope he doesn't have his peak season in 2003. I hope he has his best season yet in 2003. And I hope he tops that in 2004. And tops that in 2005. And 2006... etc. etc. etc.

that makes sense, rios or harris - I am not sure Sandy is finished yet (one more season in him?), just no way he will not be on the DL at some point during the year and we need to have that 3rd catcher

That is very debatable whether they would have won without him, and a very moot point. The fact is they won with him. So it is wrong to say they "can't" win with JM as manager. The argument over whether there are better managers suited for this team is very open and debatable - but JM was a winner in 2000 and that is just simple historical fact. And if you managed the team in 2003 and they win a division championship, I am sure you would think you had something to do with it and expect the credit you should have as manager.

Not disputing you on daubach's vale at all - but I want your answer (because I value your opinion, not trying to put you on the spot) to my question a few posts back about the # of pitchers we carry and JP and Daubach... glad you are back, I was beginning to worry!

so a team with Jim Parque, and Cal Eldred breaking down half way through the season, the lawn jockey in LF, Jose's 35 errors, not getting Perry and Graf until the season was underway, etc. etc. etc.... then how did the Sox win a division championship without a team full of All Stars in 2000? who was that manager?

Zach, yeah that is true on IBM but I have no link. What was it they were doing then, key punch or something - that technology was rapidly developed as the Nazis needed to track down and keep track of the Jews - it was a great leap forward in technology and the death of 6,000,000 - IBM made a fortune off of it all.

Now I agree that this impending "war" with Iraq is b.s., but how can you slap the veterans of WWII in the face by saying they had little to do with the outcome of that war? Here are some casualty statistics . It looks to me as if there were a lot of American lives lost overseas in that war. As opposed to American soldiers, how many non-American soldiers were left lying dead on the beaches of Normandy, on the island of Iwo Jima, or in the Ardennes during the Battle of the Bulge? Here are some of the divisions that fought in the Ardennes, and here is a little bit about who had how many caualties. Please tell me which country supplied the bulk of the 67 allied divisions? How can you tell the men of the 101st Airborne division that bailed out the British airborne in Montgomery's failed "Market Garden" plan that they didn't have a major role in WWII? Please take a look at this bit about Omaha beach and tell me which soldiers were part of the invasion that was the bloodiest and cost the most lives? Like I said, I won't argue that this current invasion of Iraq is senseless, but I can't just watch as someone dishonors the brave men from this country that had a HUGE impact on the liberation of Europe in WWII. I will agree with you that the other allied countries of Europe had a much bigger role in WWI and that Korea and Vietnam were countries America should have stayed out of (like Iraq today). I am not trying to attack you personally, but you should check a little bit of history before you reduce America's involvement in WWII to simply "decisive victory over Japan upon development of Nuclear Bomb." Zach, riight on big time. Thank you so very much. By the way, the Joint Chief of Staffs commissioned a bombing survey after WW2 to see what the real effect of the nuclear bombs was, and it was found to be negligible, the droipping of atomin combs as totally not necessary for Jaoan's surrender - that is not the myth by the way but I'll go with the military's own study over the myth - Japan hadn't surrendered yet because in Japanese the term "uinconditional surfrender" meant the right to kill all the women and children - so once that had been worked out, they would have surrendered - that nation was a smoking wreck with no transportation, no communications, no industrial capabilities, no armaments, they were done, over, and finished - so much so that is why when the first bomb was dropped on August 6 there was no response - the news hadn't reached Toyko by August 9th - knowing my father was a troop ship from Italy to tyhe East at that time always gives me pause, but the atomic bombs were not necessary, nor was a massive invasion, once the translations were finished they would have surrendered - so says the Joint Chief of Staffs - which means that the war in the East as in the West was won by those who sacrificed all, exactly as you posted, and thank you again my brother

The high school crowd - I pay no taxes on my 1040, I live at home, and I support the war but damned if I'll enlist when I graduate crowd - the I support the ecomony because I buy cds and Play station 2 cartridges and that is all I need to do to support America crowd - who is paying for this war? Let's see - the current budget deifict is projected at $360 billion foir this fiscal year withoiut calculkating costs of tax cuts nor of any proposed war and its current buioldup - not my numbers, but the CBO's and the administarion's nuymbers - so no one is paying for the war now, it is all deficit spending and that means massive borrowing via the bond market and good times for big investors and foreign interests that buy those bombs - I guess I am that Mr. and Mrs. America by the way, I do all the payroll for this ofice which emans I do all the tax calculations and paying the 941s and the other taxes - and I do pay taxes write to me from boot camp - so I'll know the testacles have descended -

by the way the subject ofd this thread asks: Can he win? The answer he: he already has, in 2000. And I think he will do it again, baring injuries or other things beyond a manager's control.

HSC has seen his intangibles and her sizing up a player is very reliable - that is why we can be high on a player whose stats don't overwhelm

Same thing for me here. Why people trash on managers who have taken us to division championships I will never know. It is not as if we have so many of them in our history. Does anyone believe under Bevington we would have won in 2000? So not just any manager can take a team to the divisaion championship. I thiunk we won in 2000 in large part because of Manuel's calma nd steady managing. He did get outmanuevered in game 1 of the playoffs but that is part of the elarning experience. We lost that playoff series because Frank, Mags, and PK had 1 hit between the 3 of them the entire series, not because of Manuel. When our team could have rolled over and died in 2001 with all the injuries, the team regrouped and came back because of Manuel. And it is important to come back, no matter how far out, because that sets the tone for the year (and years) to come. Had Manuel not been able to regroup that 2001 injury decimated team, we would be no where this year, another KC or Detroit. Same for 2002 - in first at the end of May and we falter, but we came regrouped and came back again and stopped the free-fall. The players had a lot to do with the free-fall and changes were made and we recovered, due in large part to Manuel. Had Manuel not been the manager he was, the free fall would have continued and we would not be where we are right now, thinking we can win the division, if not more. Flashy showboats are all the rage and so is Sox fans attacking every manager who has led us to what success we have had - I'd rather have Manuel than some flashy "hey look at me" manager. Calm and steady is what we need with our team, some young - some over emotional dude could tear this team apart. When Manuel needs to turn on the emotion he can - witness preseason Frank and JM 2000. I love you Jerry! Now let the attacks begin from people who couldn't lead their little league team to a title!

a Daubach thread and no Baggio post? Who has done something to our baggio? The big question - JP is out of options. Do we keep Daubach and 11 pitchers and can we keep JP that way so as to have insurance should Alomar go on the injury list or will it come down to Daubach vs JP and then what??? because we need a third catcher somewhere because Sandy will spend at least a little time injured -

Yes, I tied him up and gave him a good talking to. He says he WILL be fine this year and produce like no other season. Did you wear one of this little leather outfits and have a little whip - and did CLee enjoy it? Enquiring minds want to know!

Fisk said the 83 Sox was the best team he ever played on, ever. 94 - still riles me up for the reason you cite -

I don't think the Sox have ever been Heredia - isn't he 7-0 against us - so we have him right where we want him- agreed to no on Morgan - we have Rauch, Stewart, Loaiza, and Heredia competing for one position as it is, and that seems enough to me

seemed to me that PK messed up his swing in that All Star home run contest - wish he would have stayed out of that

I do - I pray he keeps it down to the 20-25 level - because we were lucky in 2000 thatthe errors didn't cost us but that will not hold - he always makes the tough plays, it is the rountine plays that he boots or throws away, more likely to throw away, and I suspect in 2003 we won't be able to give away that many outs.

glad he found a home in the AL not in Chicago