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 -> 05:37 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.

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.

 

 

SSI.. as in the past.. if I want to call someone a name I just do it. No incinuating anything.

Jim I never thought what Ozzie said would have a bad effect on the team's performance. 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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

Then your other post towards me really had no point. I guess it was just an argumentative statement just to be argumentative.

 

 

No.. I'm asking you a genuine question. I see your point, though I don't agree with it that Frank was being sarcastic in response to being the full time DH.. so let's remove that comment.. how is what Frank said about DH'ing THIS year justification for Ozzie running his mouth about last year...??

 

That's my beef with him. I don't even care about the "I make the line-up comment". I expect him to remind everyone every chance he gets that he's the "boss".

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 -> 05:39 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(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.

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.

 

 

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.

You do both. It is in the way you post.

 

 

All in the assumption I guess.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 05:45 PM)

All in the assumption I guess.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

However you want to look at it.

However you want to look at it.

 

 

It's unfortunate you choose to look at it negaitvely rather than take it for what it is.

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 -> 05:49 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.

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.

 

 

And apparently advertising private employee/employer issues is part of his forte also..

 

 

Whatever works to win I guess.

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.

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.

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.

Like I stated before, it is the way you post.

 

 

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..

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 -> 05:53 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.

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.

 

 

 

Calling an employee a "bad attitude" is something we would never know about... so yea.. I think it's personal and private. Like Jim said, and you agreed with, we don't know what goes on in the clubhouse.. "bad attitude" happens in the clubhouse.. we would never know about it unless someone blabed about it..

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.

My "assumption", my foot. If he wanted to tell his players, he could have done so without whining to reporters, regardless.

I have done that and it has gotten me no where.

 

 

Must have missed that post or PM...

 

In any event.. just let me know in the future and I'll make it right.

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.

I somewhat agree with this, but a lot of what Ozzie says in regards to Frank sounds like it's tainted from his past dealings with him.

It's almost a self-fulfilling prophecy - Ozzie's so worried about Frank being a distraction that he pops off about it, thereby guaranteeing a distraction in the process.

In my opinion, Frank said absolutely nothing wrong in those quotes - he should be the everyday DH and has every right to expect that. And something will need to be done to keep Carl in the lineup and the outfield is the only logical answer.

In NO WAY do I want a watered-down Ozzie, a watered-down Frank or anyone else watered down, for that matter. I NEVER want the stock bland athlete quotes - "one game at a time, stay within myself, blah blah blah...."

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

This is MUCH more interesting!

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 05:56 PM)

My "assumption", my foot.  If he wanted to tell his players, he could have done so without whining to reporters, regardless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So are you saying that you know for a fact that he didn't talk to his players about it before he went to the press? For that matter directly after? How about just to Frank? If you don't know for a fact then it is an assumption.