southsideirish

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 05:53 PM) How about in the future if you intrepret something as "rude" or whatever you feel it is, you inquire about it.. that way I can set things straight before someone gets bent out of shape and the name calling begins.. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have done that and it has gotten me no where.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 05:52 PM) And he wants a literate team, so instead of telling them directly, he expects them to simply read his comments in the paper. I guess. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How do you know he didn't do both? Your assumption is that he didn't. My assumption is that he did. Possibly eveen before he spoke to the reporters.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 05:51 PM) And apparently advertising private employee/employer issues is part of his forte also.. Whatever works to win I guess. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If that is what you took from his comments then I guess so. I didn't see anything that was very private, JMO. His main job is to win and they are winning, so I guess your right.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 05:49 PM) It's unfortunate you choose to look at it negaitvely rather than take it for what it is. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Like I stated before, it is the way you post.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 05:45 PM) Is not part of being the boss being a bigger person..? Knowing when to keep a lid on clubhouse issues...?? I guess I do hold Ozzie in a different light. He should set the example. He's the manager.. he should be the leader. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, I don't believe part of being the boss is to be the bigger person. I think he is setting an example and taking a leadership role. He will not stand for a selfish type of attitude. He wants to play team baseball and could care less about individual statistics. That is a big stance to take and a big part of being a leader. It is his team. The team will play the way he wants. The attitude will be of team baseball. There is a lot of leadership in that.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 05:45 PM) All in the assumption I guess. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> However you want to look at it.

QUOTE(JimH @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 05:39 PM) No, was definitely not referring to you, or anyone specifically for that matter. I just get a kick out of how we (collectively) just "know" what Guillen's motives are, that Guillen is selfish, or that Guillen is brilliant for that matter. Further, how we (again, collectively) just "know" that Guillen and Thomas have not already discussed this, or that Frank will be really pissed off about this article. I fully realize this topic is a lightning rod and in addition, it is something to discuss. Perhaps a little caution is in order though. None of us are in the clubhouse and none of us are privy to the relationship between Guillen and Thomas. Further, none of us know why or why not Guillen says or does certain things. One thing for sure, he places a lot of emphasis on good chemistry and playing the game the "right" way (however he defines it). This is an opinion board and what everybody is stating is basically their opinion, that's fine, but I question all the conclusions that are drawn here. We are not in the clubhouse, we don't know the whole story. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree with you on all of that.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 05:39 PM) SSI.. as in the past.. if I want to call someone a name I just do it. No incinuating anything. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You do both. It is in the way you post.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 05:34 PM) Sounds like BS to me. It's a stupid f***ing question to begin with. Do you think that you'll be the full-time DH? Hmmm. I don't want a PC Frank. I don't want Frank sounding like a lawyer, politician, comparable scumbag, etc. If people ask you whether or not you think you'll start when you have a lifetime OPS of 1.000, it's not necessarily a bad thing to exhibit a little self-confidence. And their, there, and they're all sound the same. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Lifetime stats are nice, and I have never disagreed with Frank being a great player. He was and he would make our offense better. I never disputed that. However, that in itself does not put him above anyone else. It does not give him the right to make selfish statements. You don't want a PC Frank, but you want a PC Ozzie? Just a question because I am not sure where you stand on that issue.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 05:37 PM) Yea.. I am. Was that ever in question..? How is Frank in the "wrong" for the comments Ozzie chose to say about him from last year....? Did Frank make some comments about last year..? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Then your other post towards me really had no point. I guess it was just an argumentative statement just to be argumentative.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 05:35 PM) I am disagreeing with you.. I refrained from calling your names though. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You right. You don't call names. You just insinuate things. I really don't want to get into it because it is the way you post and have always posted. That will not change and you don't care how you come across. So, really what is the point in getting into it.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 05:34 PM) How does one have anything to do with the other...? Ozzie couldn't have just said "Frank doesn't make the line-up" and be done with it...? Rather he choose to talk s*** from last year.. which ironically.. is completely opposite to the things he said about Frank last year. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How often do I have to say that both people were wrong in this instance? BOTH WERE WRONG! I am not taking sides. You are.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 05:32 PM) I know it was sarcasm.. rather than just agreeing to disagree you become combative and sarcastic to others opinions.. it's your way. No big deal. Maybe if you had read the quote I would be more receptive to you responses. Now I'm "sad"... sigh.. typical. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Did you not read the whole thing? Not just sad, but arrogant as well. You could have agreed to disagree with me as well. It seemed as though both of us kept on going.

QUOTE(JimH @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 05:27 PM) I am amazed at how many clubhouse chemistry experts we have at SoxTalk. Not only do our clubhouse chemistry experts have the devine ability to decipher what Guillen's motives are, but they also understand that this will surely have a detrimental effect on the team's performance. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jim I never thought what Ozzie said would have a bad effect on the team's performance. I think he heard somethign that he perceived as a selfish statement. I think that if he lets selfish attitudes get out of control then it could lead to a detrimental outcome. I am not sure if you were talking about me or if I was included in this expert group or not. Just trying to clarify what I meant.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 05:24 PM) I don't know what you're apologizing to me for.. And I don't care what makes anything seem better to you. My comments are MY OPINION. Obviously you don't agree with it.. I suppose you could just agree to disagree.. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think my apology was sarcastic. I should have put that in green I suppose, but somethings are just blatantly obvious. Steff, you have a way about you. I don't know if it is arrogance or what exactly. I am not fighting with you or arguing with you, just making comments as to why I disagree with you. It is a message board and all I am doing is making comments on why I disagree with your opinion. If you think what Frank said is better than saying something team oriented then I think that is sad. JMO.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 05:21 PM) I'm no insider, but I've heard and read on other boards, that the people (shareholders, JR or whoever it is) who really make decisons for the Sox will make sure that Frank retires in a White Sox uniform. If that's true, any smear campaign by KW or Ozzie is a waste of time. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I really hope people are not looking at this as that drastic. You really think that this is a smear campaign against Frank? Please! Some people look way too much into things. I am not saying this directly to you LosMedias. I am saying this to anyone that thinks that way.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 05:15 PM) I suppose we could go round and round about this... :rolly IMO it wasn't selfish and an appropriate answer and one I would have given in response to "Frank.. do you think you can DH every day" - since it wasn't "should you DH everyday?". Maybe you should read the quotes from Frank...?? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh yeah. I am so sorry. That really makes it so much better. Where should Carl play? the outfield? I read both quotes and they sound selfish when put together. I think neither Ozzie or Frank are right in this instance. They both need to learn how to communicate in the media or shut up. You would think that a veteran player would know a better way to word things. You would also think a former MLB player and now manager would have better things to do than run to the media to discuss certain things. However, both don't know better and we end up with this ridiculous sideshow situation. Both of them, along with the media overblowing it, make the White Sox look ridiculous.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 04:31 PM) LMAO.. Reporter: "Hey Frank.. think you'll DH full time when you come back?" Frank: "Sure" Reporter: "What should Carl do?" Frank: "Play the outfield...." Guess he could have said "send his ass packing". Selfish, IMO, is the last thing it was. It was a matter of fact opinion.. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't believe that is what I said. I don't believe Frank should have said "sure" or "play the outfield....". Both can be seen as being selfish and not team oriented. Like he deserves to be in the lineup instead of or more than Carl or Pods. All he had to say, if he was smart, was "That is really not my decision to make. All I can do is get myself into playing condition and work as hard as I can to make Ozzie's decision an easy one and allow me to play as much as possible. I am willing to help this team in any way possible to keep winning. It is not my decision as to where to play Carl or where I should play and how often. I will let Ozzie make those decisions." Is that so hard to do? He made himself seem selfish by saying what he said. That in itself made Ozzie think of years past and why he brought up attitudes of past teams. That is what makes what Ozzie says a very relevant thing to state. I can see your point of view and see why you think what Frank says is very harmless. But I can also see why it would tick off a manager or teammates. No one player is more important than another, and that is the environment Ozzie is trying to create. This team seems to be doing just fine without Frank and even though I think they would be much better with him in the lineup, that does not give him the right to think he is better than either Carl or Pods. By stating that Carl can play the outfield and he should be the everyday DH is the wrong thing to say. It is not the attitude Ozzie wants. And do we really want Carl playing the outfield instead of either Dye or Pods? I sure hope not. We are playing great with the speed and defense game. Why would you want to go back to a team like years past that was all about home runs? This is a great team to watch and one of my favorite teams for a long time now.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 04:12 PM) The article states that he wasn't replying to any question, it was "unprompted". Ozzie is full of s***. He talks ENDLESSLY about how everyone's attitude sucks but his. He's like a girl in junior high who calls every other girl a b****. There's no reason, NONE, to call out Frank like this. If he wants to work him up, do it in private (one thing that Manuel deserved a lot of credit for). Ozzie talks all this bs about how he's accountable, but then he throws responsibility onto someone else. Why'd we lose last year? Bad attitude, Carlos Lee. Why didn't we respond to the Hunter-Burke collision? (In the postgame, Ozzie said HE would decide whether or not he wanted to respond.) Carlos Lee's fault, he didn't slide. Sanctimonious crap. "When stuff's not going good, guys start pointing fingers." When stuff is going good, it takes Ozzie to do that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Exactly. That is what the article says. Ozzie is just going to step up and say this without being asked anything? Do you really believe that? From the Tribune? You think what Frank said is just fine? He don't see it full of selfishness? I clearly see it. He seems like you have a lot of animosity towards Ozzie. I don't think this situation has pushed you in that direction. Do you not think he is a good manager? I am not defending either one of them. I am just stating that neither are more at fault than the other. The both of them either need to learn how to communicate with the press or shut their traps.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 04:06 PM) No.. I don't think last year has anything to do with this year.. and I don't think the public needs to know the details of things that go on in the clubhouse.. and I don't think we need to know who's an ass and who isn't. If this was just about Frank's comment/suggestion on where to play Carl when he returns I have no issue. My issue is not with Ozzie saying "I make the line-up" and thumping his chest.. I have a problem with him offering information about crap that was last year. JMO... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> WOW! OK. I see Frank's attitude with him saying that Carl can play leftfield as selfish and pontentially disruptive to the clubhouse and team chemistry. By saying that it reminds Ozzie of years past of a team attitude Frank was a part of. I think it is very relevant to bring up. He should not have said it to the public, but Frank shouldn't have either. Both were wrong and that is how we get this situation.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 03:52 PM) Then Ozzie should have just addressed that and not brought up year old crap. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Steff, I am sure Ozzie is not told exactly everything that happened. I am sure the reporter was trying to start s*** and he said something that ticked Ozzie off. Being selfish will always tick Ozzie off. If the reporter explained to Ozzie the way it was written and explained to us, then I can see why Ozzie would get upset. I also can't see why Frank can't just say it is not his decision to make. That he will play when and wherever he is asked to. I know you love Frank. I love Frank too. I jst think they are both wrong for what they said and I think both situations are being blown out of proportion bythe press. I understand your point of view, but I think both are at fault here. No one is more at fault than the other. Wouldn't you agree?

QUOTE(Al Lopez's Ghost @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 11:49 AM) THis is from Monday's Tribune: They may be ex-teammates, but Ozzie Guillen sent a reminder to Frank Thomas on Sunday that he's the boss. Guillen, unprompted, delivered a very public message to Thomas - who returned to Chicago on Saturday to rehab from a fractured ankle - that this Sox team was built for unity and on attitude. "It is good to have him here, because now he can see a winning attitude, because he was part of the bad attitude [of the past]" Guillen said. "Frank was a big part of the bad attitude." "Now he can see the guys, how we handle stuff, why we're not whining every day, why we're hitting today after a day game. Everybody is happy and I want Frank to be part of it." Guillen was asked to explain what "bad attitude" meant. "You heard me" Guillen said. "Because he was here for 20 years and he was part of the bad attitude. Why? Because he was their leader." But didn't Thomas change, become more humble and blend in more last year than he had in the past? "He got better last year" Guillen said. "His attitude [before that] was horrible here. Everybody's was. When you're part of the team, that means you too. Because when something goes wrong, it's 25 guys, not just one or two. When stuffs not going good, guys start pointing fingers. That's everybody's fault. When we're not going good, it's my fault. Blame it on Ozzie. I'm not blaming my players. But, yeah, Frank was part of the bad attitude here. He was here for 20 years." Guillen also said "[Others] were part of the bad atitude too. Konerko, Buehrle, Garland, Crede...who else was here? There's not too many guys left, and that's why because of the attitude. All those guys because when you see something wrong, say it. Talk, don't go hide it like a [child]. When you don't like something in the clubhouse, say something. If you want to get together and stay together, communication is the best thing in life... The attitude was horrible. Now that the attitude is good, we might finish in last place, but we'll finish in last place with a good team." Guillen also wanted everyone to know who now fills out the lineup card after Thomas said Saturday that DH Carl Everett could play the outfield when Thomas returns. "Frank doesn't make the lineup. When Frank gets of the DL, I will make the lineup and who is going t play the outfield and who is going to DH. Frank has to be 100% to come back. [i told him] I don't want to be a bad man, but we're trying to do something here. I'm not going to rehab you when we're trying to win. We got it clear: When Frank is back,we're going to shuffle the lineup and figure out how we're going to play everyday and the pitching matchups and give guys days off. That's my job. That's the thing. I'm going to make the decision." And what will the decision be? "Let me sleep on it for a couple of weeks, because that's going to be a tough decision, no doubt about it" Guillen said. This ran under a big bold headline "GUILLEN GETS FRANK" and halfway through the article I thought that the Tribune was blowing it up from Ozzie talking about everybode to Ozzie picking on Frank, but after reading it all, I think Ozzie just got pissed that Frank, probably answering a question directly, said, gee, Everett can play left while I DH. So my take is Ozzie is marking his territory. Any thoughts? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would have to completely agree with you on this. It is being blown way out of proportion. He not only mentioned Frank, but Garland, Beuhrle, Konerko, and etc. I don't see how the hell Everett can play left when Frank comes back because we need Pods at the top of this lineup. He is a big part of the revision of this team. If you take speed and defense out of the lineup and replace it with Carl's bad defense and power then we are right back to where we were last year. I think Frank was wrong to make lineup predictions, but I think that too was being taken out of context and blown up. By saying they can put Carl in LF and sit Pods while he DHs shows a selfish attitude to me and not a team attitude at all. A team player would have said that "I don't care where I bat, play, or how they fit me into the lineup as long as we are winning. These are decisions for the manager of this team to make and I just want to win." However, like I stated, I believe this too was taken out of context.

QUOTE(Wanne @ Apr 16, 2005 -> 05:49 PM) I saw this in the Trib and had never been aware of it: "But then rumors began circulating—and they recently were confirmed by Sox manager Ozzie Guillen—that Sox pitchers didn't like throwing to Olivo." Anybody ever really heard this before? Ya know...I've pitched all my life...in college and still in a men's hardball league out here....and I know there are some guys I hate throwing too...for various reasons. Wonder what the deal was with Olivo. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I beleive this is very old news. Wasn't this said right in the beginning as the reason why the Sox were down on him? This is not anything new that was said by Ozzie or the White Sox organization. This was said when we acquired Garcia.

QUOTE(False Alarm @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 04:07 PM) southsideirish, your concern for Standard Written English (or, if you prefer, Standard White English) is cute, but i promise it'll survive soxfan101's assault. yasny's advice is sound from the standpoint of forming good habits, but the bottom line's that this is a casual forum, so nitpicking peeps' usage is kinda silly. and yes, harping on homophones is nitpicking. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This whole post made absolutely no sense. I didn't know that this was a racial issue. I believe YASNY made a great point. In order to form good habits you must continue to use those habits everywhere. Another poster also made a very good point. If you want to post like a 5 year old and use their instead of there then that is going make the reader form an opinion on the statement you are trying to make. No one will take what you say as anything meaningful if you want to post like a 5 year old. Nor will others take whatever you have to post seriously. I don't consider telling someone they are using their and there wrongly as nitpicking. It is not a typo and it is not standard white english. I believe every race uses their and there the same way and no one uses it the way soxfan101 did or does.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 05:08 AM) I hear them both pronounced the same way 98.9% of the time. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is there anyone there? Where is their report? They sound the same when you hear it said and when you say it? I would have to disagree with your assessment. I can see if you mean they're and their, but not there and their. No way.