Valentine's Big Mouth

[Elktonnick]

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

 

Well said! CC Beckett et al are their own worst enemies.

[example1]

This conversation really took off!

 

I'm willing to wait to see how this plays out. I don't agree that his tactic was a good one before having met the players in question, and I think a number of you are pulling the trigger too quickly on Crawfords character when all he did was have a bad season. I think Bobby Vs approach could cause trouble this season but clearly others disagree. Others seem happy to have a manager who will not defend what goes on behind the scenes because that didn't work for Francona. Again, that's fine... We will see how it goes.

[User Name]

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']

 

But he never called out Napoli in the media. Or any other player. In Napoli's case, he was asked about starting Mathis over him, and he said that he valued defense over offense in a catcher, and Napoli needed to improve his defense, which is true, and not bitching.

 

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.

 

This.

[ibot2much]

I always enjoyed watching CC play in TB and I have never questioned his character, but maybe his intellect.

 

If he made this decision on his own, then he needs to look toward his manager/agent for some guidance on the guidelines of interacting with people.

[Spudboy]

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

 

Excellent f***ing post. "Specially" (lol) the bolded portion.

[Bellhorn04]

I think Crawford needs a little latitude here too. Maybe he was really messed up about what happened last year and not ready to talk yet. He deserves a chance to make things right.

[Deebs]

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Saying that the media doesn't have a problem with Valentine's handling of the situation really doesn't serve as a good defense of his actions. The folks in the media aren't going to have a problem with Valentine. This is exactly the kind of manager they want - someone to feed them the dirt and create controversy for them to write about.

[Deebs]

Out of curiousity, I'm wondering how those you who don't see anything wrong with how Valentine handled Crawford's situation feel about the way he handled Beckett's situation.

 

Do you think it was okay for him to state that Beckett wanted the conversation to remain private, then go on to discuss parts of that conversation?

[Palodios]

Out of curiousity, I'm wondering how those you who don't see anything wrong with how Valentine handled Crawford's situation feel about the way he handled Beckett's situation.

 

Do you think it was okay for him to state that Beckett wanted the conversation to remain private, then go on to discuss parts of that conversation?

 

I actually thought that was kind of weird too, but my second impression was that maybe there were some more indepth personal things that he was referring to.

[Deebs]

I actually thought that was kind of weird too' date=' but my second impression was that maybe there were some more indepth personal things that he was referring to.[/quote']

 

That could be. If that's the case, I think he could have stated it a little a little more clearly.

[Bellhorn04]

Out of curiousity, I'm wondering how those you who don't see anything wrong with how Valentine handled Crawford's situation feel about the way he handled Beckett's situation.

 

Do you think it was okay for him to state that Beckett wanted the conversation to remain private, then go on to discuss parts of that conversation?

 

A little strange, but the only thing he disclosed was about Beckett being PO'd about BV's comments about taking too long on the mound. He gave the impression they had a long talk after that.

[example1]

Saying that the media doesn't have a problem with Valentine's handling of the situation really doesn't serve as a good defense of his actions. The folks in the media aren't going to have a problem with Valentine. This is exactly the kind of manager they want - someone to feed them the dirt and create controversy for them to write about.

 

Right. The media will love having Bobby V the way they hate having Bill Belichick.

 

A little strange' date=' but the only thing he disclosed was about Beckett being PO'd about BV's comments about taking too long on the mound. He gave the impression they had a long talk after that.[/quote']

 

I suspect that Beckett being pissed off was the substance of the conversation. What more is there to know? Do you think they agreed that Beckett would be throwing a splitter this year, or that he would be doing some secret innovative training program? I doubt it. The part that was supposed to be secret was probably the reasoning behind Beckett being upset.

 

 

Again, this may be part of some masterful plan by Bobby V or the FO to get these guys in shape but it seems much more impulsive than that.

 

Also just because the FO hired Valentine does NOT mean that they condone every move he makes. The knew he would be a wild card, and clearly are willing to tolerate that a bit, but that doesn't mean they give him a blank check to be a dumbass.

 

If this is the worst it gets then all will be fine.

[seabeachfred]

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!

 

Maybe you missed the one where he ripped J.D. Drew for his apparent unwillingness to suck it up and play with assorted bruises and sprains. Seems that has been a recurrent theme in Drew's career. At any rate, all I do know is that LaRussa survived whatever barbs were thrown at him, went out a big winner and can now start the countdown to his certain election to the Hall of Fame. Meanwhile coddler FrancoMa lost his and most likely will spend the next few years in the TV booth.

[Elktonnick]

Maybe you missed the one where he ripped J.D. Drew for his apparent unwillingness to suck it up and play with assorted bruises and sprains. Seems that has been a recurrent theme in Drew's career. At any rate' date=' all I do know is that LaRussa survived whatever barbs were thrown at him, went out a big winner and can now start the countdown to his certain election to the Hall of Fame. Meanwhile coddler FrancoMa lost his and most likely will spend the next few years in the TV booth.[/quote']

 

Thanks Fred I forgot about the JD Drew story. But I think that re-enforces the central point that a number of successful bid market managers use the press to call out players. I think the problem that BV critics have is they are used to Francona's way of doing things. and assume that was the right way. In fact it is rare to find one who hasn't.

[seabeachfred]

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']

 

MVP, correct me if I'm wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time, but I think I know where you're coming from. I think you are saying that calling out a player in the press in the highoy charged BOSTON MARKET is not the same as doing so down in Miami, or Colorado or Seattle. Am I on the right track there? If so, I think your point is well taken even though I agree with Elk that Crawford brought it on with his infantile behavior in not even responding to his manager's request for a talk.

 

Perhaps knowing what the Boston market was like maybe Valentine could have held his ammunition for at least a little while longer to see where this pissing contest was heading before he reported it to the press. I still think Elk's point of BV's right to talk to the papers was within is rights, but because it automatically made Crawford a man with a bright red target on his back it put our left fielder in a very unsavory position with all the Boston populace, press, media, fans, etc.

[Elktonnick]

Right. The media will love having Bobby V the way they hate having Bill Belichick.

 

 

 

I suspect that Beckett being pissed off was the substance of the conversation. What more is there to know? Do you think they agreed that Beckett would be throwing a splitter this year, or that he would be doing some secret innovative training program? I doubt it. The part that was supposed to be secret was probably the reasoning behind Beckett being upset.

 

 

Again, this may be part of some masterful plan by Bobby V or the FO to get these guys in shape but it seems much more impulsive than that.

 

Also just because the FO hired Valentine does NOT mean that they condone every move he makes. The knew he would be a wild card, and clearly are willing to tolerate that a bit, but that doesn't mean they give him a blank check to be a dumbass.

 

If this is the worst it gets then all will be fine.

 

You are really stretching it to make your point. The facts seem too support the alternative point of view.

 

The bottom line is however this is the hot stove so we have nothing better to talk about. None of us will know if BV's' approach will work until the season begins. If we win hoorah he was right. If the team blows up like the 2001 team and he gets fired we'll know it didn't. I think it will be the former.

[User Name]

I love how during all of his career managing, two or three isolated cases of TLR criticizing players in the media as a last resort, or Sciocia's honest answer about a catcher's defense equate to bitching to the press about a player who hasn't played for you.

 

Strong straws to grasp at.

 

How about Ron Gardenhire (futility against the Yanks nonwithstanding), Joe Torre and no one has said anything about back-to-back WS appearing Ron Washington.

[a700hitter]

Maybe you missed the one where he ripped J.D. Drew for his apparent unwillingness to suck it up and play with assorted bruises and sprains. Seems that has been a recurrent theme in Drew's career. At any rate' date=' all I do know is that LaRussa survived whatever barbs were thrown at him, went out a big winner and can now start the countdown to his certain election to the Hall of Fame. Meanwhile coddler FrancoMa lost his and most likely will spend the next few years in the TV booth.[/quote']Those who think that Francona's coddling style worked well until 2011 are mistaken. 2004 had a euphoric end for Sox fan, but the 2004 Sox were clearly the more talented and better team than the 2004 Yankees. However, until August, the Sox were flat and underperformed. The Sox went on a tremendous run after the trading deadline, because of the fact that the pitching rotation stayed solid throughout the season and in August every other teams rotation was in tatters. They had a tremendous run of quality starts that helped cover up some deficiencies in the bullpen and kept the good bullpen guys rested and healthy. They went on a big streak to lock up the Wild Card. They got hot at the right time is one argument, but the reality is that the 2004 team underperformed for most of the regular season. They were much better than the 2004 skanks and should have won the division. The 2008 team also underperformed under Francona. They should have won the division that year too.

[mvp 78]

MVP, correct me if I'm wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time, but I think I know where you're coming from. I think you are saying that calling out a player in the press in the highoy charged BOSTON MARKET is not the same as doing so down in Miami, or Colorado or Seattle. Am I on the right track there? If so, I think your point is well taken even though I agree with Elk that Crawford brought it on with his infantile behavior in not even responding to his manager's request for a talk.

 

Perhaps knowing what the Boston market was like maybe Valentine could have held his ammunition for at least a little while longer to see where this pissing contest was heading before he reported it to the press. I still think Elk's point of BV's right to talk to the papers was within is rights, but because it automatically made Crawford a man with a bright red target on his back it put our left fielder in a very unsavory position with all the Boston populace, press, media, fans, etc.

 

Fred, thanks for reading. That's basically how I feel. CC is at fault. BV is at fault. BV seems to just speak off the cuff sometimes. I feel this could cause huge problems down the road. For now, it's not a major issue, he just needs to have a bit more tact. He should save this tactic as a last resort, imo.

 

Part of being a manager is dealing with the players for 8 months out of the year. It's as important as on field decisions. Just worried his schtick will wear out the players over 162 games.

[User Name]

Fred, thanks for reading. That's basically how I feel. CC is at fault. BV is at fault. BV seems to just speak off the cuff sometimes. I feel this could cause huge problems down the road. For now, it's not a major issue, he just needs to have a bit more tact. He should save this tactic as a last resort, imo.

 

Part of being a manager is dealing with the players for 8 months out of the year. It's as important as on field decisions. Just worried his schtick will wear out the players over 162 games.

 

^This.

[seabeachfred]

I think Francona was successful up until 2008. In retrospect' date=' losing that series against the Rays was kind of the beginning of the end for him.[/quote']

 

Bellhorn, I think you said it all there and I'm convinced you are right. I saw FrancoMa start to unravel in the middle of that season when we got in all those close games during the summer and in over a dozen contests it seemed badly slumping Jason Varitek seemed to always be in that batter's box at those critical times and he failed miserably. When the writers asked Terry why he didn't pinch hit for Tek since he was mired in a miserable slump (the first of four straight seasons he would unravel after June), he stubbornly said he would never pinch hit for him. Such stubborness and stupidity were reasons we lost the division title to the Rays, not to mention his refusal to play even a more moderately open game. Then came his canned pre-planned pre-game strategy which he didn't alter even one iota.

 

I don't think you could have fired the guy after that since we were only one season removed from being WS Champions, but when he followed it up with an even more miserable job of managing in 2009 he should have been cashiered promptly. We was kept on two more years than necessary in my opinion. Good insight Bellhorn.

[User Name]

Fred, i really appreciate your posts and the discussion with you, but the FrancoMa and Boy Blunder crap is really annoying and undermines your otherwise good ideas and posts. Would it be too much to ask for you to drop that? E1 already asked in another thread, and i agree with him.

[seabeachfred]

Those who think that Francona's coddling style worked well until 2011 are mistaken. 2004 had a euphoric end for Sox fan' date=' but the 2004 Sox were clearly the more talented and better team than the 2004 Yankees. However, until August, the Sox were flat and underperformed. The Sox went on a tremendous run after the trading deadline, because of the fact that the pitching rotation stayed solid throughout the season and in August every other teams rotation was in tatters. They had a tremendous run of quality starts that helped cover up some deficiencies in the bullpen and kept the good bullpen guys rested and healthy. They went on a big streak to lock up the Wild Card. They got hot at the right time is one argument, but the reality is that the 2004 team underperformed for most of the regular season. They were much better than the 2004 skanks and should have won the division. The 2008 team also underperformed under Francona. They should have won the division that year too.[/quote']

 

I can understand 700 how many Red Sox fans can gloss over some of the low lights of the 2004 season after witnessing what took place in the end. I mean, coming back from 0-3 and taking the Yankees four straight in the ALCS, sweeping the Cardinals in the WS and ending 86 years of torment for the team, well, who would want to dwell on the negative aspects of how that season turned out. The fact is after a 16-8 start the team barely played 500 ball for three months until about ten days after the Cabrera trade the team went on a tear. Steven King and Stewart O'Nan chronicled it all in their book on the season called "FAITHFUL". The book is crammed with insinuations and blanket attacks on Francona's less than astute handling of the team during the season. You kind of forget those kind of things when it all turns out well in the end.

 

Yes, we should have won the division too in '04, but I never harp on that season because we won the WS, but we should have won the division in 2005, 2008 and 2009, and we didn't and a large part was due to FrancoMa's miserable managing in the dugout. Routinely he would cost us between 8-12 games every year. I won't even talk about last year. Last year, now that has a nicer ring to it.

[example1]

You are really stretching it to make your point. The facts seem too support the alternative point of view.

 

The bottom line is however this is the hot stove so we have nothing better to talk about. None of us will know if BV's' approach will work until the season begins. If we win hoorah he was right. If the team blows up like the 2001 team and he gets fired we'll know it didn't. I think it will be the former.

 

So the facts support that the FO DOES support each and every move he has made and will make? I don't think there are any facts to back that up but I think it is reasonable to think that Bobby V has limits too.

[seabeachfred]

Fred' date=' i really appreciate your posts and the discussion with you, but the FrancoMa and Boy Blunder crap is really annoying and undermines your otherwise good ideas and posts. Would it be too much to ask for you to drop that? E1 already asked in another thread, and i agree with him.[/quote']

 

User, I used it is a couple of other missives I've already posted, but from here on in I will do my best not to use those two terms again on this board. If it really pisses you and Ex1 that much it's the least I can do. Besides, down the road we may wind up disagreeing on some strategy being used, or what Valentine did on such and such a play or who should be playing and who should be benched. Those are areas where we can have disagreements and not get pissed off at each other since there is no way to know who is right and who is wrong. This other stuff about those names is different. Consider it done my friend.

[User Name]

Thank you, kind sir.

[BigPapiEnFuego]

Those who think that Francona's coddling style worked well until 2011 are mistaken. 2004 had a euphoric end for Sox fan' date=' but the 2004 Sox were clearly the more talented and better team than the 2004 Yankees. However, until August, the Sox were flat and underperformed. The Sox went on a tremendous run after the trading deadline, because of the fact that the pitching rotation stayed solid throughout the season and in August every other teams rotation was in tatters. They had a tremendous run of quality starts that helped cover up some deficiencies in the bullpen and kept the good bullpen guys rested and healthy. They went on a big streak to lock up the Wild Card. They got hot at the right time is one argument, but the reality is that the 2004 team underperformed for most of the regular season. They were much better than the 2004 skanks and should have won the division. The 2008 team also underperformed under Francona. They should have won the division that year too.[/quote']

 

Wow, yes. This post is very true.

 

For most of 2004 I can remember watching this team and being highly disappointed. It was a really talented team that underperformed until around early-mid August. I did not expect much from the team and I absolutely was unsatisfied with Francona then. They seemed like a talented team, more so than many others, but couldn't really put it together until late in the year when they all clicked.

 

In short I want to say with all certainty that under Francona's tenure this team actually underperformed for it's talent level. That's right. Even with the 2 world championships I feel that with the talent level that has been here since 2004 that this team should of even been better.

[BigPapiEnFuego]

Oh and also, people have been making way to big of a deal about this CC Valentine thing. Valentine asked if he talked to CC, he said he called him, he was asked if he CC got back to him, he said no. Big freakin deal

[Elktonnick]

I love how during all of his career managing, two or three isolated cases of TLR criticizing players in the media as a last resort, or Sciocia's honest answer about a catcher's defense equate to bitching to the press about a player who hasn't played for you.

 

Strong straws to grasp at.

 

How about Ron Gardenhire (futility against the Yanks nonwithstanding), Joe Torre and no one has said anything about back-to-back WS appearing Ron Washington.

 

I and others give examples which refute your absolute statements and you call call it a strawman. I cite more than a half dozen other managers who have used the media to call out players and you come other managers who may or may not have which demonstrate nothing to back up your original erroneous contention. The point is that many highly successful mangers not just BV use the press that was my original point.

[Elktonnick]

So the facts support that the FO DOES support each and every move he has made and will make? I don't think there are any facts to back that up but I think it is reasonable to think that Bobby V has limits too.

 

On that I can agree.