Oester's track record seems to be that he was being an uncooperative twit. Not sure those are welcome in any organization.
Oester's track record seems to be that he was being an uncooperative twit. Not sure those are welcome in any organization.
He'll be on after the game with Furball....should be interesting to hear what he says
Many people have brought this point up, but if Oester was working to change some things maybe thats not such a bad thing. Companies need to be successful and clearly the Reds aren't. Personally, I think the Reds need to change their ways, as what they're doing isn't working right now.Originally Posted by Krusty
I wouldn't doubt if Oester's way was better than the way that isn't working currently, but unfortunately, the Reds aren't going to change their ways...they'll just bring in a "yes sir" person in to do the job, because they supposedly have a plan in place, and a way of going about doing that plan.
Will it work? From what I've seen so far, I doubt it, hell, the players don't even want to be part of it, but we'll see
It's business....like it or not
Last edited by Matt700wlw; 09-22-2004 at 03:33 PM.
Just a word of warning from the book of Proverbs:Originally Posted by Matt700wlw
18:17The first to state his case seems right
until another comes and cross-examines him.
Lopez has credited Whisler and Larkin with helping him. No mention of Oester.
Hey, some guys have an axe to grind, as is their right, whether it's Ronnie O or some posters on this board. Familiar bedfellows, I say.
"The puzzling thing to me is the same guys survive year after year and the organization doesn't get any better." Ronnie Oester
Could that be Ronnie firing a shot at Don Gullett??? If so, I totally agree with him on that one.
Whisler and Larkin helped him play a lot better in Louisville?Originally Posted by lollipopcurve
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Sounds to me the Reds have set a course for eveyone to be in one direction instead of everyone going off on their own tangent and Ron went off on his own direction. Ronnie sounds like a team player, but not a team supervisor/manager. Ron's statement is a classic comment from someone that doesn't understand the mission. "I didn't kiss eveyone's butt, so they fired me". No, you didn't truly understand the mission and wanted to go off differently than eveyone else and you're not meeting the teams goals and objectives. You're ideas may be worthwhile, in fact they may even be better than what we are doing now, but you have to sell those above you on the ideas, so the organization as a whole works towards the same thing, not just go off and do them by yourself, because perhaps what you think will work towards the mission may in fact work against it because you don't truly understand the mission. If you can't sell those above you on your ideas, those below you will never buy into them either. Especially when the upper management tells the employees we are going to do it this way, and your boss comes in from another avenue. Creates a whole bunch of confussion throughout the organization. When you have the supervisor/manager taking personnel in different directions throughout the organization, that's when your organization is in trouble.
I believe someone had asked mid-way through the year, what has Ron done/doing, when DanO was going throughout the organization for weeks at a time. Sounds like DanO was wondering the same thing.
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
Well, Chambliss has only been with the organization for one year, so he deserves more time. Gullett does need to go, with all the pitchers he's had come through, very few of them really improved under him.Originally Posted by Hoosier Red
It's not always what you do with talent, it's also how much you improve those that supposedly don't have much talent. I'd also send the third base coach on his way.
Not that he's cost them a lot of wins, but some of his decisions have been downright stupidfying. Some of them were, IIRC, at a moment when the Reds were hanging on for dear life.
Where will Ronnie end up next?
You could look at it this way. Bowden did diddly-squat for the organization over his tenure with the Reds. DanO had the opportunity to improve the club enough to make a "tiny run" at it late in the season, but he didn't. He sat around in his hotel room last off-season, when he COULD have been out and about talking to other GM's, letting them know that he was interested in not only building a competitive organization, but also in being a good representative for baseball.Originally Posted by Chip R
So, maybe both GM's do have their own styles. The one constant I see, however, is that neither seems to "get it", in terms of what it takes to build a club in a positive direction. Perhaps Oester knows this as fact? I'm just stating what I feel.
When Ronnie talks about people "surving year after year", I have no doubt he's talking about people like Don Gullett, who basically is nothing more than a "poor man's pitching coach who has a really nice smile".
Yes, he should adhere to company rules and policies. But, you can't take the "sense of direction" out of an employee.
First of all, DanO was hired in mid-November last year. Then he had to do a managerial search. As for making trades at the winter meetings, how many players were traded then? Not very many. Also, without the benefit of hindsight, what did we have to give up to get something?Originally Posted by ODERED
You don't give DanO much time, do you? With the budget he was given and the players he had and the time available, what did you expect, a division title?
Actually, I disagree with you about Oester meant Gullett in his remarks. I think he is talking about people in the front office. Naehring perhaps. Maybe gtuys like Al Goldis or Gene Bennett. I doubt seriously that Oester would think Gullett is one of those guys. He's a Big Red Machine guy so to guys like Oester he is a sacred cow.
No you can't take "sense of direction" out of an employee. But, as Coug said, if you think that is the way it should be you need to sell it to your superiors instead of grumbling and making a fuss about it. If he can't sell it to DanO and Naehring, how is he going to get his charges to believe in it? It's always someone else's fault when things happen to Oester. He never takes responsibility for his actions.
Did anyone here say that the Reds should have won the division title? What I did say is that the Reds could have made a "mini-run" late in the season, if DanO had it in him to pull some strings. Paul Wilson might have been "robbed" of some decisions, but he's been terrible as of late. If they'd traded him when they had the chance, the bullpen might not have been as bad as it has been lately. DanO balked on that one. Now Paul's back to being the type of pitcher he's been his entire career. About 7-9 wins and a 4.75 ERA or so.
Really? How were they going to make a "mini run" with Jr. out, the starting pitching turning to crap and the bullpen in a shambles? If they were going to get anyone for Wilson it would have been kids. I think trading Wilson would have been a good move but it sure wasn't going to be enough to keep them in the race. You can't have it both ways. You trade Wilson and you lose a decent starting pitcher. Your bullpen may get somewhat better but certainly not to the point where it can be trusted with a lead. You insinuate that if DanO did anything during the off season we'd be talking about magic numbers by now.Originally Posted by ODERED
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |