Valentine's Big Mouth

[mvp 78]

And that determines whether someone is a good manager?

 

Point is, until BV wins here, people need to stop acting like his s*** doesn't stink.

[Elktonnick]

Point is' date=' until BV wins here, people need to stop acting like his s*** doesn't stink.[/quote']

 

What has that got to do with the price of tea in China?

[a700hitter]

First, It would have been an issue just you wouldn't have known about it.

 

Second and more importantly, That;'s not why they hired him. That's the point you are forgetting. They knew Bobby. To coin a phrase "It is all about Bobby being Bobby ":D

You are just going to get the, "but he didn't have to say anything about it" response as if that changes the fact that Bobby called Carl and Carl blew him off.

[mvp 78]

What has that got to do with the price of tea in China?

 

It would take too long to explain that.

[a700hitter]

Point is' date=' until BV wins here, people need to stop acting like his s*** doesn't stink.[/quote'] I really don't know what you are talking about. Check the game threads in 2012. Speaking for myself, I am going to be all over him if he makes bad moves. As of now, he hasn't done anything.

[Elktonnick]

Smart big-market managers avoid giving the media fodder as much as they can. Valentine is doing the opposite. It's really that simple. He can pull off the necessary no-nonsense rulings and call-outs without going to the media.

 

Smart big-market managers avoid giving the media fodder as much as they can.

 

Where is that written in the manager's handbook? Smart big market managers whether in baseball, football government or business use whatever tool works to get the results required.

 

He can pull off the necessary no-nonsense rulings and call-outs without going to the media.

 

Didn't work for Francona with this bunch. No reason it would work with BV.

 

This brings us to the definition of insanity:" doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result " Rita Mae Brown, Starting from Scratch: A Different Kind of Writer's Manual. New York: Bantam Books, 1988.

[iortiz]

I really don't know what you are talking about. Check the game threads in 2012. Speaking for myself' date=' [b']I am going to be all over him if he makes bad moves[/b]. As of now, he hasn't done anything.

 

I'm in that wagon too, and it goes for any player or coach that doesn't perform as they supposed to.

[User Name]

I thought it logical to assume that avoiding drama was a good idea in a big market. Wait, it is logical actually.

 

You don't see great managers pulling the ******** Valentine pulled. It certainly works for a guy like Manuel, who has a similar cast to the Red Sox.

 

@Elkton.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Like we didn't have enough ******** drama last season. What Crawford did wasn't cool but you guys do have a good point about him bitching to the media isn't a good idea since he's new. I personally don't have a problem with it but I would've handled it differently.

[seabeachfred]

I really don't know what point you are trying to make with this. There is so much hyperbole in this post that I am not sure what you mean. First, let's not minimize 2011. It was the worst September collapse in Red Sox history, possibly in all MLB history. Old guys like me and SBF never saw anything like it. 1978 and 1951 (if Fred remembers it) pale in comparison to 2011. Let's not forget that the Giants were cheating in 1951.

 

Who is this angry mob that you keep referencing? Did the Occupy Boston protest pass by Fenway at some point with placards? If there was an angry mob, it was the Red Sox owners and investors. They were surely very unhappy that the excellent franchise that they built up over 10 years took such a hit to its reputation in a period of 1 month. Heads had to roll and they did, and last that I looked there have been no angry gatherings on Yawkey Way except in the executive offices.

 

Anyone who even tries to minimize the 2011 collapse ought to have their head examined. In my opinion it was the worst collapse in Major League history with the possible eception of the Phillies 1964 collapse when they blew a 6.5 game lead with two weeks to go in the NL Pennant race. And you are right in comparison 700; the '51 collapse by Brooklyn doesn't measure up to what went down with our Red Sox this past season. The Dodgers than year were playing around 500 baseball from August 12th on that year while the Giants suddenly went ape.....with a little cheating along the way. Read the Echoing Green is there are any doubting Thomases out there, and, oh boy, do I remember 1951. I ate s*** for the next 11 months until the Dodgers rectified things in 1952. BUT THIS YEAR WAS WORSE THAN THAT. What the hell were we in September, 7-20???? That was historic as much as it was disgusting. What went down this season with the Red Sox changed the whole ball game. The players choked, quit, flopped, and defied their manager. They had better be willing to make amends because right now Valentine is fully backed by the press, the fans (most of them) and the media. If the recalcitrant players, whoever they are, want to keep a pissing contest going it will be their asses who will get reamed. They can change things if they want; all they have to do is go out there and win the AL East Division next season and all this crap will be forgotten. For that to happen they have to tuck in their horns and get with the program.

[Elktonnick]

I thought it logical to assume that avoiding drama was a good idea in a big market. Wait, it is logical actually.

 

You don't see great managers pulling the ******** Valentine pulled. It certainly works for a guy like Manuel, who has a similar cast to the Red Sox.

 

@Elkton.

 

Billy Martin, Leo Doroucher, Sparky Anderson Ozzie Guillen, Lou Pinella, Casey Stengal and yes even Joe Torre just to name a few have caled out players in the media during their days. Regarding Charlie Manuel do you live in the Philly market and get Philly local TV. Well I do.

 

"Charlie get's way too much credit for his manager skills. He might be a great hitting coach, but when it comes to managing he just doesn't have it. During the press confrence the other day he said, "It's a waste of time to talk to today's ballplayers, since they just turn you off" and spent most of his time stuttering to respond. Charlie has lost more games with his blundering decision than any one on the team. Do not expect to see the Phillies in the World Series, not with a crew of 250 hitters and no power. Luck if they win first round of playoffs. Great pitching, Lee, Halladay and Hamels, but nothing else. Smart move would be to promote Sandberg."

 

Do you think that Charlie Manuel is the Phillies' weakest link? Have his blundering decisions cost the Phils wins? Would Lehigh Valley Iron Pigs manager Ryne Sandberg be a good replacement?

 

Sept 11, 2011 Leigh Valley Post

[FredLynn]

Point is' date=' until BV wins here, people need to stop acting like his s*** doesn't stink.[/quote']

 

So let me get this clearly: you think that because some of us think Valentine handled the incident with Crawford appropriately we think "his s*** doesn't stink". Is that correct?

[seabeachfred]

I am far from PC or thin skinned. I don't have any posters out here on ignore. How many do you have?

 

Hey VA, you never through your threat to put my on ignore.....good for you. You'll like dueling with me from here on in. Who knows, we actually agree on some things along the way. As for the PC part, if you supported your great governor Bob McDonnell that I know you're ok, who BTW has sent me Christmas cards the past two holiday seasons. Quite a handsome family he has. I can see Vice President written all over him come next November.

 

As for the clamor over Beckett and Crawford, I'm sure it will all calm down. Everyone knows this season was a bummer and in a few hours it will be a new year with new hopes and goals. There are obviously two schools of thought on this, but I might add that the last three seasons were highly disappointing and I really think the rot was starting to erode the team long before this September collapse. In my opinion we needed a good field manager who will demand discipline and accountability. Liberalism might be good in some areas, so say some people, but it sure as hell doesn't work in the manager's dugout.

[seabeachfred]

I really don't care what his tactics are as long as he succeeds in making that a more professional team. Whatever else Bobby V is' date=' he is smart. I suspect he is in the warning shot stage, but would be willing to escalate if need be. I watched what happened last year, and I watched the last three years in which we failed to win a single playoff game. Now some of that is due to factors beyond anyone's control, but some of it is due to the MEFIRSTS on the team. Wakefield is a prime example. The nerve that selfish fool has to say that the fans "deserve to see me go for the record". We are back in the 25 players/25 cabs stage. I think Valentine is going to fix that before he wears out his welcome, which he is likely to do in a couple of years. I don't think you will ever see John Lackey staring down his new manager from the mound the way he disrespected Francona.[/quote']

 

And thank God for that Pumpsie if it comes to pass. Wakefield would never have gotten away with crap talk like that if Valentine had been in the dugout instead of comatose Francona. There will be no resumption of 25 players/25 cabs with Bobby in charge. Still, I don't see where the harm is in what Valentine told the press. He didn't denounce anybody, just relayed what went on. I think the press appreciated that he was open with them, and besides, after our last three miserable years of winning NOTHING we need a breath of fresh air and a new way of doing things.

 

I'm reminded from something I pasted in my 2007 scrapebook of the 2007 season, my favorite Red Sox team. Headline in the Globe said "PRESSURE COOKER--As Sox Open at Home Expectations Hit Boiling Point". Well there will be a pressure cooker over the team next season and most rabid fans are expecting and demanding a much better and more successful effort from the team. From what's coming from the media, the press, the front office and most of the fans, that seems to be the general consensus of opinion.

[seabeachfred]

When Dick Wiliams took the helm of the Sox in 1967, he said that there had been too many Chiefs on the team, and there could be only one Chief. The first thing he did was strip Yaz of his Captain status. Yaz was a 2 time batting champion and the only star on the team. He went to Williams and told him that he'd do anything that he wanted him to do. That's ow you greet your boss after you have stunk up the place of business the prior season.

 

I mention Williams, because he was Valentines first manager. All Bobby V did was make a phone call.

 

Mentioning Dick Williams brings a smile to my face. He is my all time favorite manager, bar none. When he saw someone screw up he corrected them immediately and didn't give a damn about any fallout. He also was a very successful manager, winning in Boston, Oakland, Montreal and San Diego. However, he was not BV's first ML manager. Unfortunately, it was LaPasta Lasorda, the bloviating loudmouth in LA.

[a700hitter]

Mentioning Dick Williams brings a smile to my face. He is my all time favorite manager' date=' bar none. When he saw someone screw up he corrected them immediately and didn't give a damn about any fallout. He also was a very successful manager, winning in Boston, Oakland, Montreal and San Diego. However, he was not BV's first ML manager. Unfortunately, it was LaPasta Lasorda, the bloviating loudmouth in LA.[/quote']I stand corrected. Bobby V went to the Angels after the Dodgers.

[User Name]

Billy Martin, Leo Doroucher, Sparky Anderson Ozzie Guillen, Lou Pinella, Casey Stengal and yes even Joe Torre just to name a few have caled out players in the media during their days. Regarding Charlie Manuel do you live in the Philly market and get Philly local TV. Well I do.

 

"Charlie get's way too much credit for his manager skills. He might be a great hitting coach, but when it comes to managing he just doesn't have it. During the press confrence the other day he said, "It's a waste of time to talk to today's ballplayers, since they just turn you off" and spent most of his time stuttering to respond. Charlie has lost more games with his blundering decision than any one on the team. Do not expect to see the Phillies in the World Series, not with a crew of 250 hitters and no power. Luck if they win first round of playoffs. Great pitching, Lee, Halladay and Hamels, but nothing else. Smart move would be to promote Sandberg."

 

Do you think that Charlie Manuel is the Phillies' weakest link? Have his blundering decisions cost the Phils wins? Would Lehigh Valley Iron Pigs manager Ryne Sandberg be a good replacement?

 

Sept 11, 2011 Leigh Valley Post

 

How about Tony LaRussa, Bud Black, Ron Washington and Mike Scioscia? All good managers who do not throw the players under the bus.

 

Also, lol @ the opinion article regarding a Phillies team that won 102 games.

[Elktonnick]

How about Tony LaRussa, Bud Black, Ron Washington and Mike Scioscia? All good managers who do not throw the players under the bus.

 

Also, lol @ the opinion article regarding a Phillies team that won 102 games.

 

Again I knew you would miss the point . You always do! First you said successful big market mgrs never used the press to call out players etc . You were factually wrong yet again. I pointed out more than a half dozen who did. Second you missed Charlie Manuel's quote about today's ballplayer etc And you missed the point about the article. BTW I like Manuel.

 

And speaking of strawmen, you are also factually wrong yet again about Tony Larussa not criticizing players in the press. Her are two examplesI found after two minutes GOOGLE search.

 

Jim Edmonds spent his first few weeks as a Cub asking the media to stop referring to him as a former Cardinal, hoping Cubs fans would accept him for who he is, not for the rival player he was. But when Tony La Russa shot back in an interview with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, saying Cardinals fans should "honor his request [and] ignore the fact that he was ever here," Edmonds ripped his former manager for comments he called "the most asinine I've ever heard." So what was their relationship really like? "It has been great," Edmonds said. "It always has been great. He gets a little excited when this series goes on, and I know the media takes its toll on him, so I'm sure he got misinformed over something he heard about me not wanting to be part of this organization. "In the history of baseball, I don't know if I ever heard that before, so I don't know how anybody would put that with my name. It's disappointing that someone would throw those accusations out there."

 

Chicago Tribune

 

LaRussa Can’t Keep Quiet

 

In recent days St. Louis manager Tony LaRussa really hurt his team by criticizing Rasmus. There was no doubt that Rasmus was going to be traded and because of LaRussa’s remarks the Cardinals got less than full value for their starting center fielder. Rasmus had been in a slump but has hit two home runs in his last three games. He is just 24 years old and could be a fixture in the Toronto outfield for the next decade or more. Last season Rasmus was considered one of the top centerfielders in the league and because LaRussa couldn’t keep quiet the Cardinals got very little for him.

 

I am sure that after a couple of minutes on GOOGLE or Lexus/Nexus I could find example for the others as well but you get the point. Then again maybe not!

[Bellhorn04]

How about Tony LaRussa' date=' Bud Black, Ron Washington and [b']Mike Scioscia[/b]? All good managers who do not throw the players under the bus.

 

Also, lol @ the opinion article regarding a Phillies team that won 102 games.

 

Not sure is Scioscia is a good example, because he's a manager who has the option of just shipping the player out of town if he doesn't like him. Napoli says that's what happened to him.

[Elktonnick]

Not sure is Scioscia is a good example' date=' because he's a manager who has the option of just shipping the player out of town if he doesn't like him. Napoli says that's what happened to him.[/quote']

 

Gee How that! The list keeps shrinking. And then they'll be none!

[mvp 78]

1. Edmonds was a former Cardinal. How does that apply?

 

2. Larussa hated Rasmus and wanted him off the team. Calling him out was a last straw, not part of an introduction.

 

And stop the whole "missed my point" glibness. We see your points, but don't agree with them.

[Elktonnick]

1. Edmonds was a former Cardinal. How does that apply?

 

2. Larussa hated Rasmus and wanted him off the team. Calling him out was a last straw, not part of an introduction.

 

And stop the whole "missed my point" glibness. We see your points, but don't agree with them.

 

Someone made absolute statements about big market managers not using the press to call out players and they were factually wrong. So using your "logic" if Valentine hated Crawford it would be okay to call him out. Those critical of Valentine make the general argument that using the press to call out players is somehow demoralizing to those not named.

 

I think the larger issue is from the record it is hard if not impossible to find to find a successful manager who doesn't use the press from time to time to call out a player.

 

I think I have proven my point whereeas you all have only unproven conjecture.

[mvp 78]

If he needs to call out in the media as a last resort, fine. Why do it as your first interaction with a player? It's just getting off on the wrong foot. "From time to time" is fine with me. It just seems unwarranted in this instance. If Tito had ripped his team on September 15th, it would have been within his right to do so.

 

How is my point of view "unproven conjecture?" it's an opinion. One that is no less factual than yours.

[Elktonnick]

If he needs to call out in the media as a last resort, fine. Why do it as your first interaction with a player? It's just getting off on the wrong foot. "From time to time" is fine with me. It just seems unwarranted in this instance. If Tito had ripped his team on September 15th, it would have been within his right to do so.

 

How is my point of view "unproven conjecture?" it's an opinion. One that is no less factual than yours.

 

You are changing the orignal premise of the discussion which was what I refuted. To state User's original premise " Smart big-market managers avoid giving the media fodder as much as they can. Valentine is doing the opposite. It's really that simple. He can pull off the necessary no-nonsense rulings and call-outs without going to the media. "

 

I cited numerous examples of smart big market managers using the press to call out players. I am now glad that you agree with my original point. As far as first introduction don't you think it was C who caused the stir in the first palce. None of this would have happened had CC acted both intelligently and respectfully, instead of the petulent immature child that he appears to be. He not BV was the one getting ripped in the press. I think that says it all.

[mvp 78]

No, BV needs to be more media savy in this market. This was an instance where he should have known better. He needs to learn how to prevent his players from becoming stories in the paper. I think he's just too full of himself to understand this.

[FredLynn]

Someone made absolute statements about big market managers not using the press to call out players and they were factually wrong. So using your "logic" if Valentine hated Crawford it would be okay to call him out. Those critical of Valentine make the general argument that using the press to call out players is somehow demoralizing to those not named.

 

I think the larger issue is from the record it is hard if not impossible to find to find a successful manager who doesn't use the press from time to time to call out a player.

 

I think I have proven my point whereeas you all have only unproven conjecture.

 

Well, there is Francona....

Oh wait-I guess that in the end, he really wasn't that successful at all. His teams tended to win games in spite of him rather than because of him.

I would much rather have a manager who covers for his recalcitrant self-absorbed spoiled players than any on the lists you have provided. Bring back Terry!

[Bellhorn04]

Well, there is Francona....

Oh wait-I guess that in the end, he really wasn't that successful at all. His teams tended to win games in spite of him rather than because of him.

I would much rather have a manager who covers for his recalcitrant self-absorbed spoiled players than any on the lists you have provided. Bring back Terry!

 

I think Francona was successful up until 2008. In retrospect, losing that series against the Rays was kind of the beginning of the end for him.

[ibot2much]

No' date=' BV needs to be more media savy in this market. This was an instance where he should have known better. He needs to learn how to prevent his players from becoming stories in the paper. I think he's just too full of himself to understand this.[/quote']

 

BV is what the FO wanted....a reaction to Francona and the ending of 2011. That fact that BV continues being Bobby tells us that the FO has no problem with his calling out the players who deserve it. I am pretty sure that BV has had enough interaction with media and Boston, as much as any city ,wants player stories---good, bad or indifferent,.

 

ALL this could have been averted if Beckett ( don't forget his role in all this) did not think it proper to call out BV for saying that he pitches too slow---like the entire baseball world, including the MLB people responsible for keeping track of the numbers, hasn't said it.

 

Beckett (of chicken and beer fame) never addressed that at all in Boston but had the nerve to confront BV about a criticism that has been made repeatedly about Beckett

 

Again all this could have been averted if CC returned the call. Players need to keep themselves from being in negative stories. Than again, maybe you just can't fix stupid

[Bellhorn04]

If he needs to call out in the media as a last resort, fine. Why do it as your first interaction with a player? It's just getting off on the wrong foot. "From time to time" is fine with me. It just seems unwarranted in this instance. If Tito had ripped his team on September 15th, it would have been within his right to do so.

 

How is my point of view "unproven conjecture?" it's an opinion. One that is no less factual than yours.

 

You have to admit Valentine has been brought into a situation that is both unusual and difficult. If they hired, say, Sveum, and he handled these same questions by saying 'it's being looked after' or something equally uninformative, a lot of people would be angry about that too. They'd be saying 'same old crap, meet the new boss, same as the old boss' and things like that.

[Elktonnick]

No' date=' BV needs to be more media savy in this market. This was an instance where he should have known better. He needs to learn how to prevent his players from becoming stories in the paper. I think he's just too full of himself to understand this.[/quote']

 

HaH I think BV is exactly as media savy aa he needs to be. From the tone of the majority of posts and media comments, the only folks who seem to have problem with BV and the media are a minority, you, user and very few others and certainly not the front office who hired him to do exactly what he did. And one thing he doesn't need to do is learn how to prevent his players from becoming stories in the press. That would be codddling them. As Nick Carfado said that not why he was hired. These guys are big boys in the big leagues they need to grow up and be responsible.