I am fine with keeping Ozzie, but under the clause that he has no say in making roster decisions about who we sign, release, trade for, draft. Without Ozzie calling shots, we would have Thome instead of Kotsay.

 

Let Kenny do Kenny's job. He's good at that. Let Ozzie do Ozzie's job, he is usually good at that.

You don't fire a guy for being in the pennant race.

 

 

My thoughts too

/deviladvocat'd

 

 

I hope those other advocates read my post before you deviled mine

Ozzie is the one who runs far too often, and causes this team to run into more outs than any other team by far. Ozzie is the one who didn't want Thome or a real DH, he wanted the rotating B.S. that we currently have, which has been far and away the biggest detriment to their success on offense. Ozzie is the one who ran JJ Putz out there three days in a row, if you want to get more specific and more recent. Ozzie deserves a significant portion of the blame for the Sox being 3 out.

 

Now, he does not deserve ALL the blame, by any stretch. Similarly, he deserves some credit for making sure his team didn't quit, and came roaring back into contention. But again, not all of it.

 

1st sentence makes no sense. Sox have poor plate discipline. Probably an organization thing.

Thome's a guy who doesn't know when his time is up. I wouldn't want Thome either. Only two are left of the Slowtastic Four. The Sox most likely planned on Dye signing as a DH.

Edited August 17, 201015 yr by kitekrazy

Funny that you should mention the Bears. Similar to that team, the White Sox and Ozzie will always be defended for a title they won years ago. Ditka is still considered great by idiots all over the city. I wonder how long Ozzie will get the free pass due to 2005?

 

Ditka should have won more with that group. With maybe the exception of the 2006 team, so far the Sox teams after 2005 were not good enough to win the World Series and this year's team definitely isn't. Managers and coaches often get blamed for a team's lack of talent. People get snake oiled that this is the exact team Ozzie wanted because he didn't want certain players. The manager isn't the one writing the checks or negotiating deals.

 

Ditka should have won more with that group. With maybe the exception of the 2006 team, so far the Sox teams after 2005 were not good enough to win the World Series and this year's team definitely isn't. Managers and coaches often get blamed for a team's lack of talent. People get snake oiled that this is the exact team Ozzie wanted because he didn't want certain players. The manager isn't the one writing the checks or negotiating deals.

The 2006 team was more talented than the 2005 team. We definitely should have won our division that year.

God we are starting to sound like Bears fans. There's always something clearly better out there.

 

No manager will ever be good enough. They should just run the team based on fan voting before every game, I think we'd be set then.

 

It's like that everywhere. In reality no matter how you add it up, coach/manager with bad players always = bad team. People are trying to use baseball logic in the NFL. Why aren't the Redskins winning like the Yankees? Cutler sucks when there is no blocking or anyone to throw to. Could Brady and Manning make that 2009 team win 13 games? No!

 

1st sentence makes no sense. Sox have poor plate discipline. Probably an organization thing.

Thome's a guy who doesn't know when his time is up. I wouldn't want Thome either. Only two are left of the Slowtastic Four. The Sox most likely planned on Dye signing as a DH.

 

His first sentence was about as straight forward as it gets, it made a ton of sense. Where do you get this poor plate discipline thing come from? He never mentioned a thing about it. That thome sure is a stubborn guy... the same guy having a terrific season with the arch rival of the white sox. The sox ''likely'' planned on bringing dye back as a designated hitter? When exactly? Was it right when last season ended? The beginning of the off-season? Right before thome signed? I know dye made it pretty well known, early on, that if it came down to taking a designated hitter role or not play at all, he simply would retire. Dye was never on the white sox radar in that aspect.

The 2006 team was more talented than the 2005 team. We definitely should have won our division that year.

 

Only on paper. It seems who ever has the hot hand at the right time wins it all more than anything else. Wasn't that the season everyone thought the Tigers had the division sewed up and the Twin came out of nowhere. I always felt the recent Detroit teams are the most under achieving teams.

His first sentence was about as straight forward as it gets, it made a ton of sense. Where do you get this poor plate discipline thing come from? He never mentioned a thing about it. That thome sure is a stubborn guy... the same guy having a terrific season with the arch rival of the white sox. The sox ''likely'' planned on bringing dye back as a designated hitter? When exactly? Was it right when last season ended? The beginning of the off-season? Right before thome signed? I know dye made it pretty well known, early on, that if it came down to taking a designated hitter role or not play at all, he simply would retire. Dye was never on the white sox radar in that aspect.

 

Still makes no sense. Poor plate discipline is not what I'm referring to about Thome. (who could never make teams regret using the Thome shift)

Thome's not on the Sox get over it. Yes, he's on the Twins. Success on the Twins does not = success on the White Sox.

It's not a hidden secret anywhere the Sox would prefer Dye over Thome as a DH. Players say things and do change their mind and they had their hopes on that.

Thome is not the difference for either team winning the division.

People forget April and May never existed when this team wasn't doing anything right. Those games count too.

 

 

It's not a hidden secret anywhere the Sox would prefer Dye over Thome as a DH. Players say things and do change their mind and they had their hopes on that.

Really? I hadn't heard that anywhere.

 

Thome is not the difference for either team winning the division.

 

If this thing comes down to 1-2 games in the end, then one could certainly say that it is a reason. It's silliness to say it's the only reason, but it's equally silly to downplay it as not a reason at all.

Are there even 5 managers better than Ozzie? I don't think so.

Really? I hadn't heard that anywhere.

Indeed. It actually seems like a very well hidden secret since this is the first I've heard of it.

Edited August 17, 201015 yr by BigSqwert

Still makes no sense. Poor plate discipline is not what I'm referring to about Thome. (who could never make teams regret using the Thome shift)

Thome's not on the Sox get over it. Yes, he's on the Twins. Success on the Twins does not = success on the White Sox.

It's not a hidden secret anywhere the Sox would prefer Dye over Thome as a DH. Players say things and do change their mind and they had their hopes on that.

Thome is not the difference for either team winning the division.

People forget April and May never existed when this team wasn't doing anything right. Those games count too.

I'm not even sure where to start here.

 

First, YOU brought up plate discipline! now you are saying that's not what you were referring to? I'm getting dizzy here.

 

Where are you getting this secret info that they preferred Dye, when it seems obvious to everyone else it was the opposite?

 

Thome's numbers are FAR better than Kotsay/Jones, its not even close, so how could you say that's not a difference in a tight race?

 

And what the heck do April and May have to do with this discussion? Where did that come from?

 

Are there even 5 managers better than Ozzie? I don't think so.

 

Just off the top of my head, I'd take Scioscia, Gardenhire, Francona, Maddon, and Charlie Manuel over him. There are a few others that are debatable as well. Ozzie Guillen has his perks, such as motivating his team and sticking with players through struggles, but he has flaws too. All managers do.

Just off the top of my head, I'd take Scioscia, Gardenhire, Francona, Maddon, and Charlie Manuel over him.

 

Add Bobby Cox to that list.. retiring or not.

Add Bobby Cox to that list.. retiring or not.

Joe Torre would lift his hand as well, except its weighed down by all those rings.

Joe Torre would lift his hand as well, except its weighed down by all those rings.

 

And boogers

"What did you guys say?"

 

So Ozzie at worst is a top 10 manager.

Keep Ozzie as long as he wants to manage. That's all I have to say about that.

 

 

God we are starting to sound like Bears fans. There's always something clearly better out there.

 

No manager will ever be good enough. They should just run the team based on fan voting before every game, I think we'd be set then.

 

My sentiments exactly. He should have pretty much a lifetime contract to manage the White Sox. He's as good or better than anybody else you'll bring in.

My sentiments exactly. He should have pretty much a lifetime contract to manage the White Sox. He's as good or better than anybody else you'll bring in.

Lifelong? Wow. If they came in last place the next 4 years you'd be perfectly fine with that?

I agreed with the poster who said keep Ozzie as long as he wants to manage, so yeah that's a lifetime contract.

 

I guess there could be a point I'd want him fired. If he started acting like a raving lunatic every night or something. He could freak out like Zambrano or something or say something so over the top they'd have to fire him, but if he behaves himself I see no problem with a lifetime contract.

Fact of the matter is that Ozzie shouldn't be playing GM for our team in the offseason and deciding between Mark Kotsay/Andruw Jones or Jim Thome. Part of that's KW's fault for letting him do it, but if Ozzie is going to continue to have that type of executive decision, I don't want him anywhere near this team.

Edited August 17, 201015 yr by Felix

I agreed with the poster who said keep Ozzie as long as he wants to manage, so yeah that's a lifetime contract.

 

I guess there could be a point I'd want him fired. If he started acting like a raving lunatic every night or something. He could freak out like Zambrano or something or say something so over the top they'd have to fire him, but if he behaves himself I see no problem with a lifetime contract.

So hypothetically you'd be fine with being a perennial cellar dweller, averaging 16K fans each game, and not having the income to sign top free agents as long as Ozzie gets to stick around?