Valentine's Big Mouth

[Spudboy]

I agree with this post.

 

So do I.

[FredLynn]

John Henry saying that he wasn't in favor of the Crawford trade is unprofessional. That can't make Crawford feel too great.

 

Yup. That was a BS move by our owner. It was worse than unprofessional; it was unnecessarily demeaning and insulting to a guy you are paying big bucks to play ball for you for seven more years. Henry made a mistake and my guess is that he would like a do-over for it. But you can't put the feathers back in the pillow......

That said, Crawford is WRONG to behave like a self-centered punk. The two issues are unrelated. I know you don't like Valentine and that your opinions are biased by that opinion, which is fine-but that does not excuse Crawford's behavior either.

[Deebs]

I know you don't like Valentine and that your opinions are biased by that opinion' date=' which is fine-but that does not excuse Crawford's behavior either.[/quote']

 

The opinions of those that don't like Valentine are no more biased than the opinions of those that like him.

[MANNYHOF24]

Who cares what people think of him? He is the manager and everyone is just going to have to deal with that.

[a700hitter]

The opinions of those that don't like Valentine are no more biased than the opinions of those that like him.

There really aren't many people that like Bobby V. He's not a likeable guy. He is a good baseball guy, but not a likeable person. I don't think there is a lot of pro-Bobby V bias going on.

[mvp 78]

There really aren't many people that like Bobby V. He's not a likeable guy. He is a good baseball guy' date=' but not a likeable person. I don't think there is a lot of pro-Bobby V bias going on.[/quote']

 

Isn't that the whole stance of the "burn down the clubhouse" posters? The codgers seem to want a manager who will come in and throw any players they don't like into the fire. It's inherently a pro BV bias. There were also a ton of posters openly pleading for BV to be hired. Are you saying that they didn't like him while they were fawning all over him?

[a700hitter]

Isn't that the whole stance of the "burn down the clubhouse" posters? The codgers seem to want a manager who will come in and throw any players they don't like into the fire. It's inherently a pro BV bias. There were also a ton of posters openly pleading for BV to be hired. Are you saying that they didn't like him while they were fawning all over him?

I think he was the best managerial option for the Sox after Terry left. I think he is a good manager and an excellent tactician, but I am not a fan of his. I really don't know many people that like him. They may respect his ability, but his fan club probably consists of his mother. I don't see Bobby V being given the benefit of any pro- Bobby V bias.

[FredLynn]

The opinions of those that don't like Valentine are no more biased than the opinions of those that like him.

 

For my part, I don't care WHO the manager is. Crawford owes it to his BOSS to return the phone call. Satan himself could be managing the Red Sox and you STILL return calls from your boss. Whether Valentine acted correctly in calling him out on it is a separate issue.

[seabeachfred]

Hey guys, it's already been said by the lot of you. If Crawford doesn't get his head screwed on straight and do it fast he will be in deep do-do by the time the season starts. He seems to be an emotional basket case right now and that could portend another long and dreary season. The press and media is all over his ass right now and he should be smart enough to read the tea leaves and get this matter settled. We need Carl to make a strong comeback this coming season because a solid year from him would immeasurably help the team, but if this pissing contest continues and he stays in his shell he might just have an even worse season in 2012. If that happens he is through in Boston whether he stays with the team or not. He will become a human pinata.

[a700hitter]

Hey guys' date=' it's already been said by the lot of you. If Crawford doesn't get his head screwed on straight and do it fast he will be in deep do-do by the time the season starts. He seems to be an emotional basket case right now and that could portend another long and dreary season. The press and media is all over his ass right now and he should be smart enough to read the tea leaves and get this matter settled. We need Carl to make a strong comeback this coming season because a solid year from him would immeasurably help the team, but if this pissing contest continues and he stays in his shell he might just have an even worse season in 2012. If that happens he is through in Boston whether he stays with the team or not. He will become a human pinata.[/quote']You would think that his agent would have called him and advised him how to proceed with regard to this matter.

[Deebs]

There really aren't many people that like Bobby V. He's not a likeable guy. He is a good baseball guy' date=' but not a likeable person. I don't think there is a lot of pro-Bobby V bias going on.[/quote']

 

Well, maybe they don't like him, per se, but they were strongly in favor of him becoming the manager. IMO, they are the ones voicing a biased opinion.

 

That said, as impartial and unbiased as any of us would like to think we are, we are all biased to a certain degree, and those biases are going to show up in our opinions and our posts. Anyone who claims to be bias-free in his or her opinions is only fooling himself or herself.

[Deebs]

For my part' date=' I don't care WHO the manager is. Crawford owes it to his BOSS to return the phone call. Satan himself could be managing the Red Sox and you STILL return calls from your boss. Whether Valentine acted correctly in calling him out on it is a separate issue.[/quote']

 

That I agree with, and have stated so in other posts. Crawford should return Valentine's call.

 

My issue is with the way Valentine is handling it.

[Deebs]

Hey guys' date=' it's already been said by the lot of you. If Crawford doesn't get his head screwed on straight and do it fast he will be in deep do-do by the time the season starts. He seems to be an emotional basket case right now and that could portend another long and dreary season. The press and media is all over his ass right now and he should be smart enough to read the tea leaves and get this matter settled. We need Carl to make a strong comeback this coming season because a solid year from him would immeasurably help the team, but if this pissing contest continues and he stays in his shell he might just have an even worse season in 2012. If that happens he is through in Boston whether he stays with the team or not. He will become a human pinata.[/quote']

 

Most of the press is all over Crawford's ass right now, and do you think this is helpful to Crawford in any way? If he is indeed an emotional basket case, as you say, having the media rip him is not going to make his strong comeback next season any easier. As I stated before, distractions like this will more likely be a detriment to the team rather than help.

[a700hitter]

That I agree with, and have stated so in other posts. Crawford should return Valentine's call.

 

My issue is with the way Valentine is handling it.

Valentine really hasn't done anything. What can he do at this point-- completely manufacture a lie about some meeting that they didn't have? Carl created this particular problem all by himself, and now we are going to blame someone else, because Carl can't handle the heat?

[mvp 78]

It'd not about Carl, it's about BV needing to know what not to say to yhe media. Otherwise, there will be many other instances where he has foot in mouth syndrome. He just isn't as adept at dealing with the media as he thinks he is.

[a700hitter]

It'd not about Carl' date=' it's about BV needing to know what not to say to yhe media. Otherwise, there will be many other instances where he has foot in mouth syndrome. He just isn't as adept at dealing with the media as he thinks he is.[/quote']I think you are denying the obvious. In this case, it is entirely about Carl. Bobby V may have some issues when dealing with the press, but this is not one of those times. By the time Bobby V was asked the question, Carl had already flubbed the situation by not returning the call. Bobby V's interview did not cause this situation in any way. Crawford had already ignored his call prior to the interview.

[Elktonnick]

You would think that his agent would have called him and advised him how to proceed with regard to this matter.

 

My thoughts exactly! Just heard Nick Carfado on MLB XM radio. While he didn't deal with the CC issue directly he made a very valuable point that those BV detractors must realize. BV reaches out to the players they either accept his offer or they don't. If they don't BV won't coddle them the way Francona did. The players have to accept that. BV was selected by ownership exactly because he won't coddle. Carfado who is a lot closer to the FO said that there is no mood among either the fans or ownership to coddle anyone. Those days are over.

 

We now have Tom Caron, NESN employee, and Nick Carfado another NESN regular clearly sending a message to the players that the Francona style of covering up in public for theme is over.

[Elktonnick]

It'd not about Carl' date=' it's about BV needing to know what not to say to yhe media. Otherwise, there will be many other instances where he has foot in mouth syndrome. He just isn't as adept at dealing with the media as he thinks he is.[/quote']

 

It's all about Carl. If he got upset at what an ESPN analyst says that was fair criticism then he is not emotionally able to play in either Boston or New York. He should have stayed in Tampa. But he sought out the big bucks, now he has got to pay the piper.

Quite frankly JH was right. CC doesn't fit in Boston either from a baseball or emotional perspective.

[YAZMAN]

BV reaches out to the players they either accept his offer or they don't....

 

Yep, just like Castro with the Cubans.

[YAZMAN]

It'd not about Carl' date=' it's about BV needing to know what not to say to yhe media. Otherwise, there will be many other instances where he has foot in mouth syndrome. He just isn't as adept at dealing with the media as he thinks he is.[/quote']

 

This is the single most accurate post so far in this thread. Spot on, you nailed it.

[Elktonnick]

This is the single most accurate post so far in this thread. Spot on' date=' you nailed it.[/quote']

 

What you BV bashers are complaining about is that this is public. If it weren't public CC would have still dissed his manager. He still would be pouting. He hasn't called BV not because of what BV said after he was hired but for what he said before he was hired as manager. Crawford is one messed up dude. He obviously can't handle fair criticism. He has backed himself in a corner and is paying the price. His behavior really raises questions whether he can play in this market. That concern would still be there whether BV said anything or not, the only difference is we wouldn't know about it.

[YAZMAN]

What you BV bashers are complaining about is that this is public. If it weren't public CC would have still dissed his manager. He still would be pouting. He hasn't called BV not because of what BV said after he was hired but for what he said before he was hired as manager. Crawford is one messed up dude. He obviously can't handle fair criticism. He has backed himself in a corner and is paying the price. His behavior really raises questions whether he can play in this market. That concern would still be there whether BV said anything or not' date=' the only difference is we wouldn't know about it.[/quote']

 

You're operating on an awful lot of assumptions. As far as what BV says, doesn't say, or winds up saying, clearly he is not the epitome of discretion by a long shot.

 

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/11/2010/09/340x_bobby_valentine.jpg

 

Just wait until he goes off-script on the F.O.

[a700hitter]

What you BV bashers are complaining about is that this is public. If it weren't public CC would have still dissed his manager. He still would be pouting. He hasn't called BV not because of what BV said after he was hired but for what he said before he was hired as manager. Crawford is one messed up dude. He obviously can't handle fair criticism. He has backed himself in a corner and is paying the price. His behavior really raises questions whether he can play in this market. That concern would still be there whether BV said anything or not' date=' the only difference is we wouldn't know about it.[/quote']Somehow I am not getting why people think this would be a better situation if we didn't know about it. Would the snub have been any less a snub and any less damaging to the relationship if we didn't know about it? I don't think it works that way.

 

Is everyone going to blame Valentine for Crawford turning to s***? Who was to blame for last season... Francona who is the polar opposite of Valentine? Maybe we just should have continued with ballplayers growing extra chins during the season, disregarding the fundamentals of the game, leaving starters in for 7 runs a couple of times a week, never throwing out base runners, third base coaches not knowing the number of outs or clearly misunderstanding game situations etc. , but we'll feel better about it when Francona tells the camera that Wakefield competed for the first 4 innings giving up 6 runs and that it kind of got away from him in the 5 after the back to back to back doubles and threes steals of third base as the game sped up on him a little. I love Tito, but luckily had nothing heavier in my hands than a bag of chips or I would have needed several new TVs. I saw that show. It rated zero in the Nielson ratings. Time for a new approach. Carl Crawford acting like dick is his problem.

[Deebs]

Carl Crawford acting like dick is his problem.

 

And Bobby Valentine acting like a dick is not helping the situation. As the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

Obviously, the situation would exist whether we know about it or not. Making it into a media affair is not the correct way to handle things, IMO.

[Elktonnick]

You're operating on an awful lot of assumptions. As far as what BV says, doesn't say, or winds up saying, clearly he is not the epitome of discretion by a long shot.

 

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/11/2010/09/340x_bobby_valentine.jpg

 

Just wait until he goes off-script on the F.O.

 

No assumptions just facts based on the reporting. CC won't even talk to Gammons. This isn't about BV. It is about Crawford's immaturity and insecurity and the fact he sucked last year.

[Elktonnick]

And Bobby Valentine acting like a dick is not helping the situation. As the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

Obviously, the situation would exist whether we know about it or not. Making it into a media affair is not the correct way to handle things, IMO.

 

BV didn't make it a media event. He was asked one question based on what was already known. He could have either told the truth which he did or he could have lied which would have made the situation worse. Crawford''s stupidity is what is making this a media event.

[Deebs]

BV didn't make it a media event. He was asked one question based on what was already known. He could have either told the truth which he did or he could have lied which would have made the situation worse. Crawford''s stupidity is what is making this a media event.

 

There are many ways that Valentine could have deferred the question by saying "we've both been busy and have not had the chance to talk yet" or "we will be speaking after the holidays" or something along those lines.

[FredLynn]

BV didn't make it a media event. He was asked one question based on what was already known. He could have either told the truth which he did or he could have lied which would have made the situation worse. Crawford''s stupidity is what is making this a media event.

 

In fairness to those on the other side Elk, here is what Valentine COULD have said in response to being asked if he and Crawford have talked:

 

"I think that communication between players and their manager is of the utmost importance, especially if its a new manager just coming in. This is something we will be emphasizing as the season progresses. With good communication comes an exchange of ideas that should help us achieve better results on the field" And so forth.

 

He could have dodged the question or answered a different question than the one that was asked. There were many other ways to handle this. Frankly, I like the way he chose to handle it: hang the malcontented self-centered insubordinate schmucks on the team out to dry. This is on Crawford now. Its going to be very very tough on him unless he capitulates and explains himself with a full apology to his new boss.

[Deebs]

No assumptions just facts based on the reporting. CC won't even talk to Gammons. This isn't about BV. It is about Crawford's immaturity and insecurity and the fact he sucked last year.

 

I have to agree with Yazman that you are making a lot of assumptions.

 

Fact: Crawford has not returned Valentine's call.

 

Assumptions: Crawford is pouting. Crawford is one messed up dude. He obviously can't handle fair criticism.

 

And do you know for a fact that the reason Crawford hasn't called Valentine is because of what Valentine said about Crawford's stance? Did Crawford say that? Maybe I missed it, but if he did in fact say that, I would like to see the quote.

[Elktonnick]

There are many ways that Valentine could have deferred the question by saying "we've both been busy and have not had the chance to talk yet" or "we will be speaking after the holidays" or something along those lines.

 

He did that in the interview I saw. The follow up was so you haven't spoken to him personally etc.

 

At some point you have got to stop covering up for these guys' bad behavior. That was Carfado's point. The FO hired BV because he wouldn't coverup or excuse their bad behavior. Better to do it now then during the season. Let these spoiled underperforming malcontents know where they stand. Coddling them didn't work. That is a direct quote from Cafardo's MLB radio interview. Given his access to NESN and the FO I'd say that is pretty close to the FO's thinking on the matter.

 

Instead of focusing on whether BV handled this well or not, all you BV bashers should be focusing on Gammon's interview about Crawford. That is more worrisome. Regardless of how BV handled the situation, there is clearly something not right with CC.