Bobby Valentine agrees ro deal to become Red Sox Manager

[User Name]

and you think that was a good thing!!!!???

 

Did i say it was good thing?

 

I said i found it interesting in the interest of the discussion of whether or not BC had any pull in the organization. The optimal choice would have been to name a new manager right away, and to handle the Cherington situation better regarding the public perception about him, but even though they took their time, i'm okay with that as long as Valentine is the right guy.

[VA Sox Fan]

and you think that was a good thing!!!!???

 

Of course not. It's earth shattering. The end all to end all.

 

Who cares what people "think"? I don't.

 

Hey a700....when do Sping Training tickets go on sale? Haven't been since 2008 and I'm feeling it :thumbsup:

[SoxSport]

Praise the Lord. The soul search has ended.

[Elktonnick]

Did i say it was good thing?

 

I said i found it interesting in the interest of the discussion of whether or not BC had any pull in the organization. The optimal choice would have been to name a new manager right away, and to handle the Cherington situation better regarding the public perception about him, but even though they took their time, i'm okay with that as long as Valentine is the right guy.

 

Thank you Finally something we can agree upon.

[InfernoOrangeSS]

Just curious, and not calling anyone out...If LL has wanted Valentine forever, and BC is such a puppet, why wasn't BC told upfront that this is how you are going to conduct your manager search, etc. With Valentine one of them and ending up the manager. Isn't it possible that Sveum was the original choice after the interviews, and the Cubs just offered before the Sox were ready to offer? Once that happened, mgmt went back to square one, and MLB mgmt experience was added to the requirements? I just feel too many on here oversimplify what is going on behind the scenes. I don't know. Some of you may be right. Unlike some on this board, I am not privy to what goes on in the inner workings of the Red Sox management.

:dunno:

 

 

I am also curious, if that one statement doomed Valentine last time when Tito got the job...why would LL still want him this time?

 

 

In any case. I am glad it is over with and I can live with Bobby V at the helm. Seems to be a good tactician.

[SoxSport]

No he is the organ grinder's monkey.

 

I think user name is right. He isn't a puppet. He's a GM who reports to LL. His authority and responsibilities should have been spelled out in advance by his boss. It appears he was given too much rope. The manager should be hired 2 levels above--which is LL. Epstein hired Sveum--not Hoyer.

 

What wasn't done in advance before the search was to work out with Ben what they wanted in a manager. Maybe they didn't know. But they let Ben go his own way--and suffered the consequences. That's the way it appears, anyways.

 

But all's well that ends well.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Just what we needed, an old baseball goon who's obsessed with tradition and can't get his head out of the past.

[jung]

Unfortunately I think all of this recent stuff about "the decision being BC's" has been backpedaling to try to make up for the original error. There are times when the Sox would just do better to let it go as they often just dig a deeper hole for themselves. Saying that it is BC's decision at this point is kinda' transparent and it will be hard to maintain that position against the ever inquisitive press. As soon as there is any evidence to the contrary the media will be all over this story again and on and on it will go.

 

At this point they would be better served letting BC do some of the things that ARE clearly within his responsibility even if that means they risk some in giving him some rope with regard to player signings. However I think that makes more sense than trying to maintain this facade. Let him handle some things that should be a GM's job without having LL hang over him like a vulture waiting to feed. In my view that would do much more to accomplish what they are trying to accomplish by now maintaining that the manager decision is his.

[a700hitter]

Of course not. It's earth shattering. The end all to end all.

 

Who cares what people "think"? I don't.

 

Hey a700....when do Sping Training tickets go on sale? Haven't been since 2008 and I'm feeling it :thumbsup:

I don't think they haven't announced the date that Spring Training tickets go on sale. It should be very soon-- a couple of weeks. I'll be down in Ft. Myers March 17th to the 24th. I always look forward to it-- all winter long. I hope you make it down this spring-- new stadium and complex.

 

BTW: I like the Bobby V move.

[Elktonnick]

I think user name is right. He isn't a puppet. He's a GM who reports to LL. His authority and responsibilities should have been spelled out in advance by his boss. It appears he was given too much rope. The manager should be hired 2 levels above--which is LL. Epstein hired Sveum--not Hoyer.

 

What wasn't done in advance before the search was to work out with Ben what they wanted in a manager. Maybe they didn't know. But they let Ben go his own way--and suffered the consequences. That's the way it appears, anyways.

 

But all's well that ends well.

 

Why? Where is written that the manager should be hired two levels above. GM is not an entryu level position. Depends on the club and the GM. That being said I agree that they didn't spell it out in advance. They all screwed up. All four, Ben Larry, Tom and John. They strung it out to give Ben cover and win back some street creds with his peers and the public. But everyone who knew anything saw through what they were doing. That's the bottom line.

[jung]

Wonder how the Sox will handle the assistant coach signings. Could be the first place where we get a glimpse of how V, LL and BC work together. I could easily see V wanting complete autonomy and LL unwilling to give it to him.

 

Whatever happens, this year will not lack for interesting stuff to watch. Hopefully the baseball will be just as interesting.

[FredLynn]

But that's the point. The money will never be the same. With some notable exceptions that prove the rule (Cliff Lee) the agent and the player will turn to the place with the most money. In this regard' date=' only two-three teams have an advantage over the Red Sox, and they don't have the same needs.[/quote']

 

There are exceptions. Perhaps Papelbon would have given the Sox a chance to match the Philly offer if they had their house in order. Conjecture, of course. But I would refer back to the original question to make it more personal: if it were you and your career, would you prefer to work for a company in disarray, or with a company that treats its employees professionally? I like stability. That would be a factor for me.

[jung]

There are exceptions. Perhaps Papelbon would have given the Sox a chance to match the Philly offer if they had their house in order. Conjecture, of course. But I would refer back to the original question to make it more personal: if it were you and your career, would you prefer to work for a company in disarray, or with a company that treats its employees professionally? I like stability. That would be a factor for me.

 

I don't understand why you would refer to Paps situation in this particular case. What difference did it make. I think the Sox made it pretty clear that they were not going to offer 4 years. So Paps view of the Sox organization does not seem to be relevant here. The Sox were not going to offer 4 years/$50M much less 5 years/$60M and the Phils did. Under the circumstances, the Red Sox could have looked like Lufthansa Airlines to Paps and it would not have mattered one way or the other.

 

While not being a rule Occam's razor is a good guide and could well be applied here...."avoid stacking information to prove a theory if a simpler explanation proves the observations" or "wherever possible substitute constructions of known entities for inferences to unknown entities".

 

Hell use Ells if you want to use a player that will likely be gone because he has issues with the Sox organization because when the time comes I think you will have a very sound argument with regard to Ells.

[iortiz]

I don't understand why you would refer to Paps situation in this particular case. What difference did it make. I think the Sox made it pretty clear that they were not going to offer 4 years. So Paps view of the Sox organization does not seem to be relevant here. The Sox were not going to offer 4 years/$50M much less 5 years/$60M and the Phils did. Under the circumstances, the Red Sox could have looked like Lufthansa Airlines to Paps and it would not have mattered one way or the other.

 

While not being a rule Occam's razor is a good guide and could well be applied here...."avoid stacking information to prove a theory if a simpler explanation proves the observations" or "wherever possible substitute constructions of known entities for inferences to unknown entities".

 

Hell use Ells if you want to use a player that will likely be gone because he has issues with the Sox organization because when the time comes I think you will have a very sound argument with regard to Ells.

 

As we said in the other thread Jung, if they think go over the cap, why didn't they sign Pap? The reason seems to be the money, right?, but when they think go over it, it is not, I just don't get it... anyway.

 

I'm not sure if you agree that he will perform likely below 2.5 ERA the next 4 years. I strongly believe this. Reason why I would sign him, plus he already proved to succeed in your environment. If you take away his 2010 numbers, his numbers are spectacular. Still taking away his best numbers and his worst, he is a 2.3 ERA closer. I think that our rotatation taxed a lot more pressure than the usual to him in 2011, he looked exhausted, just like our offense. I think that he will succeed in an organization like Philly. 1.- he will face likely inferior offenses, 2.- he will perform in an organization which seems to run better and far from this drama 3.- he will be surrounded by great pitchers, etc.... but that is just me.

[jung]

I have a hard time with the "logic" of these rules that the Sox seem to have with regard to FA signings, length of term, age and type of player. In the first place, they don't seem to prevent anything. The Sox have had some pretty ugly FA deals of late, with regard to length of contract and injury...Lackey and dice-k come to mind. So I am not sure that having what seems to be hard and fast rules in some cases really saves the Sox anything. That said, like it or not, there are some things they simply will not consider and multi-year deals past even 2 years for closers seems to be one of them.

 

I cannot argue in favor of these rules that the Sox have but it is clear that they do have them. They are an almost constant topic for discussion in the media and here and the subject was certainly discussed with regard to Paps and the Sox unwillingness to even consider a long term deal for him. I am not saying that the Sox should definitely have tried to compete for him either. I am just saying that they should look at each player individually instead of applying this rule that does not seem to have a statistical basis.

[BornToRun]

Why do I get the feeling that we could've hired Connie f***ing Mack and people still wouldn't be satisfied?

[mvp 78]

Connie Mack would be a terrible hire. He's dead.

[iortiz]

I have a hard time with the "logic" of these rules that the Sox seem to have with regard to FA signings, length of term, age and type of player. In the first place, they don't seem to prevent anything. The Sox have had some pretty ugly FA deals of late, with regard to length of contract and injury...Lackey and dice-k come to mind. So I am not sure that having what seems to be hard and fast rules in some cases really saves the Sox anything. That said, like it or not, there are some things they simply will not consider and multi-year deals past even 2 years for closers seems to be one of them.

 

I cannot argue in favor of these rules that the Sox have but it is clear that they do have them. They are an almost constant topic for discussion in the media and here and the subject was certainly discussed with regard to Paps and the Sox unwillingness to even consider a long term deal for him. I am not saying that the Sox should definitely have tried to compete for him either. I am just saying that they should look at each player individually instead of applying this rule that does not seem to have a statistical basis.

 

Exactly.

 

The main risk when you put tons of money and long terms contracts in a player, even if this player is a star, is when this player comes from the outside and obviously has not proved s*** in your environment; that my friend, is the major risk when you sign these kind of players and give 'em long term contracts/tons of money. This is not Paps case. Reason why some of us were shocked when they let him go, just like that. With him, you had great part of the path (risk) walked, since he already proved that he could perform in your envioroment, and guess what? He is one of the best in the position; plus the shut down spot has turned a speciality in the league, they are not longer just another reliever, in the way I see the game (the DH on the other hand, has turned a commodity). IMO this position is marking and will mark more and more differences between W or L since the league year after year is turning more and more competitive. You would ask, can't we sign these type of players (from the outside), then? Yes you can, but you have calculate the risks and mostly assume the impact with predefined actions and/or plans B,C, etc if something goes wrong.

[YAZMAN]

Unfortunately I think all of this recent stuff about "the decision being BC's" has been backpedaling to try to make up for the original error. There are times when the Sox would just do better to let it go as they often just dig a deeper hole for themselves. Saying that it is BC's decision at this point is kinda' transparent and it will be hard to maintain that position against the ever inquisitive press. As soon as there is any evidence to the contrary the media will be all over this story again and on and on it will go.

 

At this point they would be better served letting BC do some of the things that ARE clearly within his responsibility even if that means they risk some in giving him some rope with regard to player signings. However I think that makes more sense than trying to maintain this facade. Let him handle some things that should be a GM's job without having LL hang over him like a vulture waiting to feed. In my view that would do much more to accomplish what they are trying to accomplish by now maintaining that the manager decision is his.

 

This was LL's gig, he just plays things in a "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" fashion. It will initially be a lovefest until LL and BV disagree, then the flying monkeys from the press will be all over both sides. And there will be no magic cap this time.

[User Name]

Exactly.

 

The main risk when you put tons of money and long terms contracts in a player, even if this player is a star, is when this player comes from the outside and obviously has not proved s*** in your environment; that my friend, is the major risk when you sign these kind of players and give 'em long term contracts/tons of money. This is not Paps case. Reason why some of us were shocked when they let him go, just like that. With him, you had great part of the path (risk) walked, since he already proved that he could perform in your envioroment, and guess what? He is one of the best in the position; plus the shut down spot has turned a speciality in the league, they are not longer just another reliever, in the way I see the game (the DH on the other hand, has turned a commodity). IMO this position is marking and will mark more and more differences between W or L since the league year after year is turning more and more competitive. You would ask, can't we sign these type of players (from the outside), then? Yes you can, but you have calculate the risks and mostly assume the impact with predefined actions and/or plans B,C, etc if something goes wrong.

 

Papelbon is a reliever. Statistical analysis shows that relievers, with the variability in their performance, and using past signings as basis, are not ideal long-term investments. You choose to cover your eyes to the data (the exact thing jung claims the FO does) because of some type of attachment to the player.

[Palodios]

Papelbon is a reliever. Statistical analysis shows that relievers' date=' with the variability in their performance, and using past signings as basis, are not ideal long-term investments. You choose to cover your eyes to the data (the exact thing jung claims the FO does) because of some type of attachment to the player.[/quote']

 

I feel like this argument really isn't going to get anywhere until the Papelbon contract falls apart. That's why I sigged myself, so I won't have to make the same points over and over again to deaf ears.

[YAZMAN]

I don't understand why you would refer to Paps situation in this particular case. What difference did it make. I think the Sox made it pretty clear that they were not going to offer 4 years. So Paps view of the Sox organization does not seem to be relevant here. The Sox were not going to offer 4 years/$50M much less 5 years/$60M and the Phils did. Under the circumstances, the Red Sox could have looked like Lufthansa Airlines to Paps and it would not have mattered one way or the other.

 

While not being a rule Occam's razor is a good guide and could well be applied here...."avoid stacking information to prove a theory if a simpler explanation proves the observations" or "wherever possible substitute constructions of known entities for inferences to unknown entities".

 

Hell use Ells if you want to use a player that will likely be gone because he has issues with the Sox organization because when the time comes I think you will have a very sound argument with regard to Ells.

 

Ellsbury is a lot quieter and less volatile than Papelbon. But the bottom line is that he's a CF and not a closer, his production curve should be longer and flatter. Plus, if your aging CF loses a half step you can move to RF or LF and still get decent value out of the remainder of the contract. Once your closer starts crapping the bed it's all over.

[VA Sox Fan]

I don't think they haven't announced the date that Spring Training tickets go on sale. It should be very soon-- a couple of weeks. I'll be down in Ft. Myers March 17th to the 24th. I always look forward to it-- all winter long. I hope you make it down this spring-- new stadium and complex.

 

BTW: I like the Bobby V move.

 

Yeah, I didn't think they annouced it yet. Do you get your tickets via phone, internet, inside connection, etc? In 2008 I was in the virtual waiting room forever. Don't want to get stuck w/ SRO or Lawn seats.

[a700hitter]

Yeah' date=' I didn't think they annouced it yet. Do you get your tickets via phone, internet, inside connection, etc? In 2008 I was in the virtual waiting room forever. Don't want to get stuck w/ SRO or Lawn seats.[/quote']The last couple of years they have improved the internet purchasing experience. I got tickets within half an hour after logging in. Of course with the new stadium opening this season, demand could be higher.

[SoxSport]

Looking through the papers this morning, you wonder why the GM has to pick the manager ONLY in Boston? Epstein (not Hoyer) picked the manager in Chicago, and who knows (or cares) picked the manager in St Louis. And those other managers picked recently--can you name one who was picked by the GM? Probably not, because these hirings are usually done in private, as opposed to the public charade now ended in Boston.

 

You get hired or fired two levels above you in most corporate organizations. That's how it works.

[VA Sox Fan]

The last couple of years they have improved the internet purchasing experience. I got tickets within half an hour after logging in. Of course with the new stadium opening this season' date=' demand could be higher.[/quote']

 

I am so psyched about the new stadium. The location is so much better.

[a700hitter]

I am so psyched about the new stadium. The location is so much better.

i was in Ft. Myers in October, but I had to rush back home for a family issue so I didn't get to check out the new site. Where is it located... closer to Hammond field-- the Twins complex?

[VA Sox Fan]

i was in Ft. Myers in October' date=' but I had to rush back home for a family issue so I didn't get to check out the new site. Where is it located... closer to Hammond field-- the Twins complex?[/quote']

 

Yes and closer to the airport. No longer in "hood" part of Ft. Myers:lol: If you go to redsox.com and click on the Spring Training info you can see a map of the location.

[a700hitter]

Yes and closer to the airport. No longer in "hood" part of Ft. Myers:lol: If you go to redsox.com and click on the Spring Training info you can see a map of the location.

The old stadium is in the run down part of town. It never bothered me. Compared to some of the slums in Brooklyn and the Bronx the Ft. Myers slum was slum-lite. It was mainly low income single family little homes.

[VA Sox Fan]

The old stadium is in the run down part of town. It never bothered me. Compared to some of the slums in Brooklyn and the Bronx the Ft. Myers slum was slum-lite. It was mainly low income single family little homes.

 

Oh I know. The area wasn't bad at all, just old. I didn't make it to Sanibel in Sept so didn't get an early preview either.