This needs to be said.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

What was the situation on the missed groundball? Had he made the play what would've happened?

[jacksonianmarch]

the game wouldve been tied instead of over

[a700hitter]

Wasn't he playing with an injury the entire series? Like the guy or think he's a dick but he didn't deserve to be the goat for that game. The media ran with it.

He had a bad ankle for his entire career. It was a degenerative condition. He'd been playing on one leg for the last three-quarters of his career.

 

Just as heroes are created by one play so are goats. Other than Red Sox fans, few remember that Bernie Carbo hit the 3 run HR to tie the game up allowing Fisk to hit the game winner. People remember Mazeroski's Series winning HR, but they don't remember Hal Smith's 3-run HR in the 8th inning that gave the Pirates the lead going into the 9th inning. Bobby Thompson is remembered for the Shot Heard Around the World, but no one remembers that 3 other giants got hits in that inning.

 

Buckner is remembered because his was the last in a series of miscues in the pivotal game of the World Series. If the Stanley wild pitch had been the final play, that would be what would be remembered. They are always going to show the final play. The goat grudge didn't last as long as people think. When he returned to the Sox at the beginning of 1990, he was warmly received with a standing ovation. The New England grudge was gone, but the play will live on in infamy, because it was last.

[VA Sox Fan]

What was the situation on the missed groundball? Had he made the play what would've happened?

 

The game was tied. Even if Buckner had made the play, Wilson still may have been safe at first. If he got him out, it would have gone into extra innings.

[a700hitter]

That was our fault as fans. And the media fueled and fed on that. Poor pitching and management lost us game 6 and the 86 WS. Not Bill Buckner.

He acted like a dick. If he had acted at all like he felt bad about it, people would have had empathy for him. He was not a likable guy. He even acted like a dick about having the ball. When some guy was selling the ball for big bucks, Buckner claimed that he had the ball. Check out the video footage. Buckner never goes back to pick up the ball. He just walked off the field.

[a700hitter]

What was the situation on the missed groundball? Had he made the play what would've happened?

If you want to know how fans with fully formed adult brains felt at the time it happened just pay attention to my posts. It was devastating.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

So they forced a game 7. Had they won that game then no one would give a s*** what Buckner did in game 6. I thought that play ended the WS for the Sox. Besides it would've went to extra innings. The Mets still could have won. Putting all the blame on Buckner seems pretty stupid.

[VA Sox Fan]

He acted like a dick. If he had acted at all like he felt bad about it' date=' people would have had empathy for him. He was not a likable guy. He even acted like a dick about having the ball. When some guy was selling the ball for big bucks, Buckner claimed that he had the ball. Check out the video footage. Buckner never goes back to pick up the ball. He just walked off the field.[/quote']

 

So what?

 

He was playing CF or LF when Hank Aaron hit #715. So what?

 

He didn't deserve the criticism and if I remember correctly, no one, including his teammates thought it was that big a deal at the time.

 

But you are never wrong about anything..ever and have deemed yourself "King of Talksox" so knock yourself out and have fun!

[a700hitter]

So they forced a game 7. Had they won that game then no one would give a s*** what Buckner did in game 6. I thought that play ended the WS for the Sox. Besides it would've went to extra innings. The Mets still could have won. Putting all the blame on Buckner seems pretty stupid.

It was inarguably the turning point of the Series, so they will always show it. I was drunk before game 7 started, because I had to dull the pain that was going to be inevitable. As far as blame, there was plenty to go around. Everyone was blamed from Gedman, Stanley, Clemens and McNamara. After 2004, no one discussed it anymore. That doesn't change the fact that the Buckner play will continue to be the play that defines that Series. There were plenty of goats discussed by the fans. It wasn't limited to Bill Bucks. To say that Bucks took all the blame is completely inaccurate.

 

Similarly, we have to be subjected to the Bucky Dent HR and it was the Reggie HR later on that proved to be the winning run. Dent's HR was the turning point, so that's what we'll see-- that plus Yaz's popup.

[a700hitter]

So what?

 

He was playing CF or LF when Hank Aaron hit #715. So what?

 

He didn't deserve the criticism and if I remember correctly, no one, including his teammates thought it was that big a deal at the time.

 

But you are never wrong about anything..ever and have deemed yourself "King of Talksox" so knock yourself out and have fun!

There were plenty of goats for the fans at the time. You are younger than me, but I can tell you that all of those guys-- Gedman, Stanley, Clemens and Johnny Mac were all getting blamed by Boston fans. The Buckner play will always be the enduring visual of that Series. He can't escape that.

 

As far as I am concerned you are the Queen of TalkSox.

[a700hitter]

People forget that till this day there is bad blood between Johnny mac and clemens. Years later Johnny Mac claimed that Clemens asked out of the game. Clemens has denied it. If Billy Bucks had been the only goat, that pitching change would not have been discussed for more than 10 years.

[VA Sox Fan]

People forget that till this day there is bad blood between Johnny mac and clemens. Years later Johnny Mac claimed that Clemens asked out of the game. Clemens has denied it. If Billy Bucks had been the only goat' date=' that pitching change would not have been discussed for more than 10 years.[/quote']

 

Clemens was gutless in the post season and it's pretty clear he has no trouble not being forthecoming with the truth.

[SoxSport]

What was the situation on the missed groundball? Had he made the play what would've happened?

 

Buckner didn't belong in the lineup late--his defensive replacement was Stephenson--in that situation. He had bad ankles, and had to wear special shoes.

But the manager, McNamara, did a few classic Grady Little brainfarts the last two games to hand the Series to the Mets. The other notable one was replacing Clemens with a lead in the 8th inning of the 6th game--with the rookie Schiraldi. Clemens was unhittable and the champagne was on ice in the clubhouse. Classic 'don't fix what ain't broke' overmanaging you see frequently these days.

 

McNamara was Grady Little times 3.

 

I had the good fortune to vent about McNamara later with a HOF pitcher who had him as a manager. He did not disagree.

[SoxSport]

Clemens was gutless in the post season and it's pretty clear he has no trouble not being forthecoming with the truth.

 

BS. Not in that game. Clemens was unhittable, and Mac brainfarted taking him out and lied about it afterward. Jean Yawkey was furious and fired him the next spring--in spring training.

[a700hitter]

Schiraldi took plenty of blame too. I think his promising career was derailed by his experience in that World Series. I was happy when they shipped him out of town, so I didn't have to be reminded of that Series.

[a700hitter]

BS. Not in that game. Clemens was unhittable' date=' and Mac brainfarted taking him out and lied about it afterward. Jean Yawkey was furious and fired him the next spring--in spring training.[/quote']Johnny Mac was adamant years later that Clemens asked out of the game. He had nothing to gain from making the claim years later. In fact, because Clemens was still popular, Johnny Mac was reviled for it.

[VA Sox Fan]

BS. Not in that game. Clemens was unhittable' date=' and Mac brainfarted taking him out and lied about it afterward. Jean Yawkey was furious and fired him the next spring--in spring training.[/quote']

 

 

He asked out of the game.

[3rdManOut]

I think the doc. Catching Hell confused me about Bill Buckner. They made it seem like we got this really great player from the Cubs when he came to Boston. But I guess from reading all the posts that Bill wasnt as great as he was supposed to be. I believe I was in 8th grade in 86' so I wasn't aware as to who was supposed to be good (well I knew the pitchers anyway). Like some people I dont think I even paid that much attention to game 7 because I was so upset about game 6. I just figured it was over anyway and there was no chance for us to win the next game. The whole experience was just pretty bad in general.

 

How and why did we get Buckner anyway. Who did we trade for him?

[La Munson]

I think the doc. Catching Hell confused me about Bill Buckner. They made it seem like we got this really great player from the Cubs when he came to Boston. But I guess from reading all the posts that Bill wasnt as great as he was supposed to be. I believe I was in 8th grade in 86' so I wasn't aware as to who was supposed to be good (well I knew the pitchers anyway). Like some people I dont think I even paid that much attention to game 7 because I was so upset about game 6. I just figured it was over anyway and there was no chance for us to win the next game. The whole experience was just pretty bad in general.

 

How and why did we get Buckner anyway. Who did we trade for him?

 

Eckersly (who wasn't doing so good the last few years) and Mike Brumley, a player in the minor leagues.

 

It's weird that nowadays people seem to forgot that Buckner wasn't a good player at all, he was at a negative WAR in all but one of his full seasons in Boston, including 1986, and overall had one of -2.5 with the Red Sox. He was basically a contact hitter, didn't walk much and didn't strike out, so I suppose some people could say those numbers are about right for someone like that.

 

And even with the Cubs he was only a little above average, people thought he was great (and gave him some MVP votes) because he hit for average, but he didn't walk or have much power, not to mention he wasn't good defensively at the time either. It's interesting how stats nowadays show how good a player really is.

[jung]

Another item that is probably stuck away in some people's memory banks was that Buckner had a really bad ankle at the time and had been really gimping around on it. In fact there where times when I would wonder if they were dragging him into the clubhouse on occasion to either freeze it, retape it, hit him with some local pain killer or all of the above because he would be out there in some innings clearly struggling to put weight on it and would come out in another inning moving around better.

 

I think Buckner came to the plate either the inning before or two innings before the error in the field and I remember thinking that he should be pulled for Stapleton not because I envisioned one going right between the wickets but because I thought Buckner would have trouble making the crossover step to get to a foul base to his left and there we would be giving the Mets an extra out and talking about how Buckner should not have been out there in that situation. I think I remember Shea Stadium having a fair amount of room for foul balls as well.

[SoxSport]

I think Buckner came to the plate either the inning before or two innings before the error in the field and I remember thinking that he should be pulled for Stapleton not because I envisioned one going right between the wickets but because I thought Buckner would have trouble making the crossover step to get to a foul base to his left and there we would be giving the Mets an extra out and talking about how Buckner should not have been out there in that situation. I think I remember Shea Stadium having a fair amount of room for foul balls as well.

 

Stapleton was his late inning defensive replacement. I think I said Stevenson? in another post.

 

It was Mac's fault for not replacing Buckner with Stapleton on the field.

 

I also don't believe Mac's story about removing Clemens because he had a blister. Clemens denied it.

 

Jean Yawkey had the final word. She fired Mac in spring training.

[a700hitter]

I also don't believe Mac's story about removing Clemens because he had a blister. Clemens denied it.

 

Jean Yawkey had the final word. She fired Mac in spring training.

She wasn't going to fire Clemens after his Cy Young/MVP season.

 

Edit: Johnny Mac did not sell out Clemens until much later. He had nothing to gain from it, which is why I believe him. If he had waited until Clemens lied to Congress, maybe Geddie would have backed up Johnny Mac and not Clemens. Geddie's defense of Clemens was always half-hearted and reluctant, but making an enemy of one of the greatest pitchers and a sure-fire HOFer would not have been a wise move by Geddie.

[SoxSport]

She wasn't going to fire Clemens after his Cy Young/MVP season.

 

Edit: Johnny Mac did not sell out Clemens until much later. He had nothing to gain from it, which is why I believe him. If he had waited until Clemens lied to Congress, maybe Geddie would have backed up Johnny Mac and not Clemens. Geddie's defense of Clemens was always half-hearted and reluctant, but making an enemy of one of the greatest pitchers and a sure-fire HOFer would not have been a wise move by Geddie.

 

Clemens was unhittable that season with the Sox. And he was also unhittable in that game.

He was cruising. I watched the game. They would have won the Series if he had stayed in the game. It was a shocker when he was taken out--in those days pitchers still threw CGs, especially in that situation. Bringing a rookie reliever in there was inexcusible. It ruined Schiraldi's career.

 

Clemens probably juiced up in Toronto to win those Cy Youngs--but not in Boston in the 80s.

He's not the only guy to lie about steroids in Congress. They all did--and got away with it, too.

He was just a kid in the 80s--a different era.

 

Mac was a dumb manager. I've talked to players he managed.

[a700hitter]

Clemens was unhittable that season with the Sox. And he was also unhittable in that game.

He was cruising. I watched the game. They would have won the Series if he had stayed in the game. It was a shocker when he was taken out--in those days pitchers still threw CGs, especially in that situation. Bringing a rookie reliever in there was inexcusible. It ruined Schiraldi's career.

 

Clemens probably juiced up in Toronto to win those Cy Youngs--but not in Boston in the 80s.

He's not the only guy to lie about steroids in Congress. They all did--and got away with it, too.

He was just a kid in the 80s--a different era.

 

Mac was a dumb manager. I've talked to players he managed.

Most managers are dummies, but Johnny Mac had nothing to gain if he was lying. Clemens ha proved himself to be a liar on a number of fronts, not just Congress and steroids. Remember the bat throwing incident with Piazza. He actually said he thought it was the ball. A major league pitcher would know immediately if he held a ball that was only slightly off from official size and weight. I am pretty sure that he knew he had the bat in his hand. Clemens has no credibility about anything in my book. I chose to believe Johnny mac who had nothing to gain from telling that story.

[SCM33]

Im not even sure what to say, right now as a fan....I am outraged. This is embarrassing. Why does the front office feel the need to leak information about a possible substance abuse problem with pain killers that Tito might have (especially considering hes been through 20 knee surgeries in his life)?? Why must they leak information that he is having marital problems and has been living in a hotel? Why do they have to smear everyone who walks out that door?

 

In retrospect, I have been butting heads with many of the members here over the last two years because I have been critical of this team and franchise (to which most of my bitching has turned out to be correct). This franchise at one time had loyal fans regardless of how much they won or lost and I was proud to root for this team, even if they finished second fiddle to the Yankees. Now, I dont give a s*** if they win because its hard to root for a group of guys like this and its even harder to be a fan of a club that is owned by this group of owners. Over the last two years, whether or not fans wanted to see it, there were problems with this franchise.

 

I have said "blow it up" and it looks like thats where we are heading, so hopefully I was right in suggesting that method of fixing things. Things couldnt get much worse in terms of bad press could they?

 

I mean, what the hell is going on here? The whole Manny situation, the fighting inside the clubhouse with Youkilis, Ellsbury "dogging" an injury, Beckett missing starts because of the "flu" aka bad hangover, the constant injuries, Sweet Caroline, reality TV shows on NESN, selling Fenway "bricks", the Liverpool soccrer team, Tim Wakefield deciding that a non factor career achievement is more important in the fans eyes than overall team success, Jason Varitek and the starting pitching clique, the babying of Josh Beckett and giving him his binkie (Varitek), letting Vmart and Beltre walk for nothing, drinking/playing xbox/eating KFC in the clubhouse DURING games, David Ortiz refusing to succumb to the fact that Gonzalez was the better player and forcing Gonzalez to play RF, the excuses, ignoring the conditioning program and gaining 15-20 pounds of fat throughout the season, John Lackey and his personal laundry being aired out, the smearing of Francona and now the latest.....David Ortiz saying he does not want to be a part of the team.

 

If you ask me, this s*** starts at the top. All this s*** started at the top with management. If this is the future of this franchise, how can we as fans continue to support them? The sellout streak is fraudulent anyway but as long as we continue to buy merchandise and they continue to sell tickets nothing is going to change. Instead management is sitting in their offices pointing their fingers at everyone but themselves.

 

I love the Redsox but right now my love for the organization as a whole has diminished when you factor in the ownership group. I support the team and will continue to but I cannot support this ownership group. They have turned this franchise into a reality TV show. The most important thing to them is making money....that is why Crawford was signed. If Ellsbury and Papelbon are not signed like many have suggested, lets take a look at this team after next year:

 

LF Crawford

CF ?

RF ?

3B ?

SS ?

2B Pedroia

1B Gonzalez

DH Youkilis?

C Saltalamacchia/Lavaraway

 

SP Beckett

SP Lester

SP Buccholz

SP Lackey

SP ?

 

BP?

BP?

BP?

BP Bard

CP ?

 

This team still managed to win 90 games despite all these problems that are coming out as of late. Ill tell you, blow it up sounded like a good idea, but looking at all those holes and throw in the fact that the starting rotation has drinking/weight/conditioning/injury problems and Youkilis is aging/breaking down as well as another possible clubhouse problem...well, I dont know. I just dont know what to think.

[example1]

 

LF Crawford

CF Ellsbury

RF Kalish

3B Middlebrooks

SS Iglesias

2B Pedroia

1B Gonzalez

DH Youkilis?

C Saltalamacchia/Lavaraway

 

SP Beckett

SP Lester

SP Buccholz

SP Lackey

SP ?

 

BP?

BP?

BP?

BP Bard

CP ?

 

 

My only advice is to not jump off a cliff yet. The ownership has deep pockets and I suspect this offseason will impact the fans and, ultimately, the bottom line.

 

After next year there should be 3 prospects ready to take full time spots: Middlebrooks, Iglesias, Kalish. I know people will freak out, but these guys will be ready. Iglesias may be all glove, but he will be very young and all glove at SS isn't horrible. Kalish would have been in RF last year, and Middlebrooks looks to be a very servicable 3B. Those three assume they don't sign someone better, which they very well might.

 

Also, Ellsbury will be in Arb3 in 2013. He has two years left. If they trade him they will get something great back, but he's not leaving.

 

Having an open spot in the rotation isn't a bad thing... as long as there's money. Matt Cain would be a reasonable sign (FA after 2012). There's plenty of options and it is still a desirable club, as long as they get the s*** out of there.

[jung]

To be honest I am sorta' getting tired of hearing that they won 90 games in spite of everything as some harbinger of 2012. Here we go again.....all they have to do is throw their gloves out on the field and they win 90. I swear to God we are as F***ed up as they are.

 

It is OK to consider 90 wins in 2011 some sort of achievement if that is what you want to do but using it as some sort of criteria for trying to gauge 2012 is senseless, not when the organization is in such transition.

[SCM33]

To be honest I am sorta' getting tired of hearing that they won 90 games in spite of everything as some harbinger of 2012. Here we go again.....all they have to do is throw their gloves out on the field and they win 90. I swear to God we are as F***ed up as they are.

 

It is OK to consider 90 wins in 2011 some sort of achievement if that is what you want to do but using it as some sort of criteria for trying to gauge 2012 is senseless, not when the organization is in such transition.

 

I dont make excuses for them. Do me a favor and re-read my post. I was saying its a miracle they won 90 games with all those problems and they have a lot of work to do by pointing out all the holes they potentially have. I criticized the entire franchise up and down and have done so for 2 years.

 

Does "blow it up" and my criticism of the players as well as management sound like I am defending anyone or using it to gauge next year? Not good enough, top to bottom....thats what they are. 180 million dollars and they are not good enough.

 

I know you started posting here like last week, but before you make assumptions about my intentions get to know me as a poster first, because clearly you dont grasp my intentions. Read the first post in this thread. Ive probably been top 3 in terms of most critical of this team in this forum.

[example1]

To be honest I am sorta' getting tired of hearing that they won 90 games in spite of everything as some harbinger of 2012. Here we go again.....all they have to do is throw their gloves out on the field and they win 90. I swear to God we are as F***ed up as they are.

 

It is OK to consider 90 wins in 2011 some sort of achievement if that is what you want to do but using it as some sort of criteria for trying to gauge 2012 is senseless, not when the organization is in such transition.

 

You're going to hear it a lot more. The team scored enough runs and prevented enough runs to win 93 games or so. It's not a bad team. It's an unlikeable team, it's a team with s***** chemistry, but they are more than talented enough to be the best team in the AL. This is obvious, whether you want to hear it or not.

 

The challenge will be whether they can move forward (sideways?) replacing significant players and retain the same caliber of team. I'm optimistic that they can.

[Palodios]

My only advice is to not jump off a cliff yet. The ownership has deep pockets and I suspect this offseason will impact the fans and, ultimately, the bottom line.

 

After next year there should be 3 prospects ready to take full time spots: Middlebrooks, Iglesias, Kalish. I know people will freak out, but these guys will be ready. Iglesias may be all glove, but he will be very young and all glove at SS isn't horrible. Kalish would have been in RF last year, and Middlebrooks looks to be a very servicable 3B. Those three assume they don't sign someone better, which they very well might.

 

I heard a few reports that the Red Sox are likely going to pick up Scutaro's option, and honestly, its a no-brainer. He was worth 10 million last year, and he'll cost 4.5 in 2012. As far as Middlebrooks, I think the organization will probably give him a little more time. Youkilis can handle 3B for the first half of the year--it is the second half when they'll need Middlebrooks.