Valentine's Big Mouth

[User Name]

I understand. But we know you can do that with a little more diplomacy, can't you?

 

For the record, I am not a huge fan of what I call an "Actuarial" approach to building a winning roster. It's not that I do not understand Saber metrics. I just believe that some of these measures are flawed and based on subjective analysis. I figure if these metrics are valid, then the subjective assessment made while simply watching a player perform must be at the very least, equally valid.

 

In the end, I believe that a combination of all these ingredients are necessary.

 

Carry on.

 

He didn't question the validity of the metrics, he questioned the validity of the interpretation.

[witty_alias]

Not to prolong the metric issue...but I always think of it like a QB. It gets to much praise when things go good and to much blame when things go bad. It takes a combo of qaulitative and quantitative findings to get the right players.

[ibot2much]

Schilling jumps on BV .."things going bad very quick" according to his club house sources. Buckley then expects a call from Schilling because he calls him an alarmist. I guess Schilling can dish it out but can't take it....but then there is a lot of that.

[jung]

Beckett has been making this transition for at least a year I think and he might have gotten as far as he is going to get.....not quite the transition that Greg Maddux made but close enough for Josh and good enough as well I think.

[FredLynn]

Schilling jumps on BV .."things going bad very quick" according to his club house sources. Buckley then expects a call from Schilling because he calls him an alarmist. I guess Schilling can dish it out but can't take it....but then there is a lot of that.

 

My guess is that its Beckett who is feeding Schilling his material. The hard workers on the club (guys like Pedroia, Crawford, and Ellsbury) are no doubt enjoying the new workouts, but folks in Beckett's camp are most likely pretty unhappy right now that the Fenway Country Club has disappeared.

Schilling is supposed to be controversial; thats his job. It was Valentine's job to be controversial when HE worked for ESPN. Vanilla doesn't work in the media-just look at the nightly news for proof.

Finally, its not a bad thing that some players are irritated as change takes place, its a good thing. Change is difficult, always. After the irritation will follow acceptance (or departure for those who cannot make the transition). And this team will be much better for the impending transition.

[ibot2much]

You made some good points pg. I always wonder if Francona had the knack for working with the players , keeping a good clubhouse and protecting them from the media, why did it die last season? Only Pedroia spoke in defense of F. when it all went down last year and when F. showed up to do the RS game at Jet Blue, I did not see the players swarm over him like they really, really missed him.

 

I saw him go out to players and they shook hands and then the players seemed to go about their business. The stories did mention that he spent most of his time with Pedroia.

 

We never got the "story" about what happened with him and the players , but it apparently went south and all his protecting of the players didn't help him. They could have saved him and the season...but didn't.

[Elktonnick]

My guess is that its Beckett who is feeding Schilling his material. The hard workers on the club (guys like Pedroia, Crawford, and Ellsbury) are no doubt enjoying the new workouts, but folks in Beckett's camp are most likely pretty unhappy right now that the Fenway Country Club has disappeared.

Schilling is supposed to be controversial; thats his job. It was Valentine's job to be controversial when HE worked for ESPN. Vanilla doesn't work in the media-just look at the nightly news for proof.

Finally, its not a bad thing that some players are irritated as change takes place, its a good thing. Change is difficult, always. After the irritation will follow acceptance (or departure for those who cannot make the transition). And this team will be much better for the impending transition.

 

I believe it is a pitcher certainly feeding Schilling. What most people fail to take into account is that in any organization a "change agent" (and make no mistake about that's why BV was brought in to institute change) is going to ruffle feathers especially of those who have a vested interest in things remaing the same. The pitchers except for Lester have for the most part refused to accept responsibility for their actions last year. So of course they are going to be the most uncomfortable with the "anti- Francona". They have a vested interest in a return to the status quo ante. This is why I favored trading Beckett and Youklis. I don't believe the leopard ever changes its spots.

 

I just hope the fans and FO accept that this kerfuffle as simply the cost of doing business and changing the clubhouse culture. Besides Schilling is one Francona's best buddies, so naturally he doesn't want BV to do well despite his comments to the contrary.

[Bellhorn04]

I think it's a little unfair to jump to the conclusion that Beckett is one of the players complaining to Schilling.

[Elktonnick]

I think it's a little unfair to jump to the conclusion that Beckett is one of the players complaining to Schilling.

 

If it walks like a duck etc.

[ibot2much]

You know Beckett would not be a squealer. Look how angry he was about someone squealing on chickgate.....so in the spirit of do unto others, I cannot believe that he would do what he bitterly accuses someone else of doing. **sarcasm**

[User Name]

Interesting how someone can be guilty of something on the basis of speculation alone.

[ibot2much]

Interesting how someone can be guilty of something on the basis of speculation alone.

 

How can someone "be guilty"...that would require proof. What you have going on IS merely "speculation".

[User Name]

How can someone "be guilty"...that would require proof. What you have going on IS merely "speculation".

 

Re-read my post. What i'm saying is that several people (here and in other places i frequent) have already declared Beckett as "Schilling's snitch" based on the speculation you mention.

 

I'm in no way, shape or form saying Beckett is actually guilty.

[Elktonnick]

Re-read my post. What i'm saying is that several people (here and in other places i frequent) have already declared Beckett as "Schilling's snitch" based on the speculation you mention.

 

I'm in no way, shape or form saying Beckett is actually guilty.

 

Let me put it anotther way. We all know Beckett is guilty. That's not the quesation. The question is what is he guilty of, to be precise.

[User Name]

Let me put it anotther way. We all know Beckett is guilty. That's not the quesation. The question is what is he guilty of' date=' to be precise.[/quote']

 

No. You are assuming and speculating Beckett is guilty of something. You can't prove it, because it's not necessarily true.

 

I'm not saying he couldn't be. I am saying we can't prove it, and therefore, should not present it as though it was true.

[Elktonnick]

No. You are assuming and speculating Beckett is guilty of something. You can't prove it, because it's not necessarily true.

 

I'm not saying he couldn't be. I am saying we can't prove it, and therefore, should not present it as though it was true.

 

I am not assuming anything. Your problem is you have no sense of humor.

[User Name]

Oh i have a sense of humor. But you can't detect humor on the internet without a prompt, which is why we have the helpful invention of smileys on the right side of the post-box.

 

Example:

 

:ortiz:

[Elktonnick]

Oh i have a sense of humor. But you can't detect humor on the internet without a prompt, which is why we have the helpful invention of smileys on the right side of the post-box.

 

Example:

 

:ortiz:

 

You should have used the first person not the second person.

[ibot2much]

No. You are assuming and speculating Beckett is guilty of something. You can't prove it, because it's not necessarily true.

 

I'm not saying he couldn't be. I am saying we can't prove it, and therefore, should not present it as though it was true.

 

There can't be any kind of doubt that whatever is being discussed on an internet message baord frequented by ordinary people is just speculation. Nobody here actually KNOWS anything.

[User Name]

There can't be any kind of doubt that whatever is being discussed on an internet message baord frequented by ordinary people is just speculation. Nobody here actually KNOWS anything.

 

I know Lackey drank beer in the clubhouse last year.

 

Also, it wouldn't hurt to tone down your attitude just a bit bro. You've been on "fightin' words" mode all day long.

[ibot2much]

I know Lackey drank beer in the clubhouse last year.

 

Also, it wouldn't hurt to tone down your attitude just a bit bro. You've been on "fightin' words" mode all day long.

 

 

Is that what you call it when you are disagreed with? Thanks....but worry about your own posts.

[User Name]

Don't say i didn't warn ya brah.

[jung]

Anybody hear Schilling yesterday? Boy I am not the greatest V fan in the world by a long shot but I thought Schilling was just ridiculous. OK so Schill wants to play up his Red Sox contacts as an inside line to what is happening but that is not what Schill did. He took impressions given him by somebody or a group of somebodies on the Sox and drew a conclusion.

 

I guess he qualifies as a journalist as he is certainly no reporter. So I guess it was fair game. However we have that Danny Boy thread going here that sort of complains a bit about Dan. We would have drawn and quartered Danny Boy if he had made the Schill remarks from yesterday.

 

Schills comments were on WEEI and I am sure you can replay them there. I don't even want to repeat them here because I think you have to listen to the thing.

[ibot2much]

I went to the WEEI board to get listen of Curt's comments and found a great column by Kirk Minihane on the waste of money by Epstein. " So the Sox--with no real competition for his ( CC) services--spent $140 mil over 7 years for a player that had 1 top 10 MVP finish in 9 seasons." Sort of what TE did with J.D. Drew.

 

Going back to Curt---a man who match BV on the blow-hardness scale---I am trying to figure out what he thought he would accomplish with that .

[BigPapiEnFuego]

If it was coming from someone other than Schilling, Tito's boy toy, I would take it more seriously.

[Elktonnick]

I went to the WEEI board to get listen of Curt's comments and found a great column by Kirk Minihane on the waste of money by Epstein. " So the Sox--with no real competition for his ( CC) services--spent $140 mil over 7 years for a player that had 1 top 10 MVP finish in 9 seasons." Sort of what TE did with J.D. Drew.

 

Going back to Curt---a man who match BV on the blow-hardness scale---I am trying to figure out what he thought he would accomplish with that .

 

I heard and then read Schilling's comments and found them disturbing not because of what he said but for what I beleive are his reasons for saying them. I beleive he wants to undercut the current Red Sox manager not because he has anything against BV per se but because he trying to vindicate his friend Terry Francona who he beleives perhaps correctly was badly mistreated by ownership in the way he was let go and the aftermath not because he was let go. I don't think Schilling's comments about certain players being upset with the new manager are particularly insightful or unexpected. It was Schilling's breathless excitement in his need to express them that I found particualrly unhelpful.

[ibot2much]

It was Schilling's breathless excitement in his need to express them that I found particualrly unhelpful.

 

Exactly. I said I was trying to figure out where he was going with this.....and you hit it perfectly. It was the way he was dropping his "info"...like a mean girl who wanted to share some really dirty gossip. He didn't come across as manly or professional.

[Bellhorn04]

Anybody hear Schilling yesterday? Boy I am not the greatest V fan in the world by a long shot but I thought Schilling was just ridiculous. OK so Schill wants to play up his Red Sox contacts as an inside line to what is happening but that is not what Schill did. He took impressions given him by somebody or a group of somebodies on the Sox and drew a conclusion.

 

I guess he qualifies as a journalist as he is certainly no reporter. So I guess it was fair game. However we have that Danny Boy thread going here that sort of complains a bit about Dan. We would have drawn and quartered Danny Boy if he had made the Schill remarks from yesterday.

 

Schills comments were on WEEI and I am sure you can replay them there. I don't even want to repeat them here because I think you have to listen to the thing.

 

Yeah, I'm disappointed with Schilling about this. It's the exact same type of s*** that was used to smear Francona on the way out, featuring the ever-popular unnamed inside sources. In addition to the undercutting of Valentine, it creates a lot of talk about who the snitches are.

[jung]

We have plenty of ex-athletes that ply their trade based on their contacts within a team or the league generally. Most of them do a decent job of retaining some level of credibility while they try to establish themselves in what is a new profession for them.

 

Schill is really getting close to trading away his credibility in a way that will make it hard for me at least to care what he has to say.

 

At this rate that video game gig of his better be going gang busters. He says it is but I would not believe it just because he is saying so. I guess I am already starting to doubt him.

[BornToRun]

Why are we even listening to what Curt Schilling says? The guy serves no other purpose but getting his loud mouth heard. He spouts off about everything whether he is qualified to do so or not, just ignore him.