Valentine's Big Mouth

[User Name]

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.

 

SSS.

[celticnation]

I'm not really impressed with Valentine, I think the Sox could have done better. There's something about him that just doesn't feel right, and I don't get the sense that he'll be a good fit for this team. Just be wrong, my two cents.

[seabeachfred]

I'm not really impressed with Valentine' date=' I think the Sox could have done better. There's something about him that just doesn't feel right, and I don't get the sense that he'll be a good fit for this team. Just be wrong, my two cents.[/quote']

[seabeachfred]

I'm not really impressed with Valentine' date=' I think the Sox could have done better. There's something about him that just doesn't feel right, and I don't get the sense that he'll be a good fit for this team. Just be wrong, my two cents.[/quote']

 

Welcome aboard CelticNation, and don't worry about maybe being wrong or giving your two cents worth. We all give our two and three cents worth around here and we're wrong some of the time ourselves. At least we're told we were. I happen to disagree with you; I think Valentine is exactly what we needed after the soft sell of Terry Francona, but you will know why we might disagree. You're a Celtics fan; guess who I root for in basketball? Hint!!!!! We took you in seven in 2010.

[example1]

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 is exactly where I'm at too. I think that going to the media (or failing to defend your players to the media) is a valid tactic, but it represents pulling out the big guns. The big guns shouldn't be necessary yet. There should be lots of smaller guns first.

 

If the truth is that Beckett was a huge douchebag to Valentine on the phone, called him names or insulted him, then valentines approach makes more sense, and could even reflect some restraint on BVs part. But if the conversation was venting by JB and then amicable agreement to move forward then it was a poor move. Only Beckett and BV know, and if it was amicable I wouldn't blame JB if he was slow to establish trust with his new manager.

 

Of course, these guys will spend the rest of the year together so it's not like things are irreparable or anything.

[Bellhorn04]

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.[/quote']

 

I agree that the 2004 team was flat and underperformed until August. But the way things unfolded after the trade deadline, it appears that the Nomar situation was seriously hurting the team on the field and in the clubhouse. Plus that team had an inordinate amount of pressure on it from the media and the fans, capsulized by Shaughnessy calling them 'frauds'. I'm not saying that Francona's style wasn't part of it, but there were other factors that contributed to that stretch of mediocre baseball.

[Bellhorn04]

Yes' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Fred, I think 2005 was not Francona's fault at all. He went from a front three of Schilling, Pedro and D-Lowe to Clement, Wells and Wakefield. That's kind of a downgrade no? Plus Foulke's arm was shot. Renteria was not so good.

 

We tied the Yanks for the division. Games 2 and 3 of the LDS were winnable, but Graffanino made the big error in Game 2, promptly followed by Wells giving up the big homer. In Game 3 we were in a good position until El Duque came in and shut us down. I remember Damon whiffing in a key at-bat.

 

Can't see why 2005 was on Francona.

[Elktonnick]

Fred, I think 2005 was not Francona's fault at all. He went from a front three of Schilling, Pedro and D-Lowe to Clement, Wells and Wakefield. That's kind of a downgrade no? Plus Foulke's arm was shot. Renteria was not so good.

 

We tied the Yanks for the division. Games 2 and 3 of the LDS were winnable, but Graffanino made the big error in Game 2, promptly followed by Wells giving up the big homer. In Game 3 we were in a good position until El Duque came in and shut us down. I remember Damon whiffing in a key at-bat.

 

Can't see why 2005 was on Francona.

 

I happen to agree. In retropect I think Tito began to loose it after the 2008 season. I think the whole Manny affair took its toll. It probably caused the gradual erosion of respect that the players had not only in Tito's style but also in FO backing for him. If I recall correctly we began to hearthe first grumbling about Tito's status around that time.

[seabeachfred]

Fred, I think 2005 was not Francona's fault at all. He went from a front three of Schilling, Pedro and D-Lowe to Clement, Wells and Wakefield. That's kind of a downgrade no? Plus Foulke's arm was shot. Renteria was not so good.

 

We tied the Yanks for the division. Games 2 and 3 of the LDS were winnable, but Graffanino made the big error in Game 2, promptly followed by Wells giving up the big homer. In Game 3 we were in a good position until El Duque came in and shut us down. I remember Damon whiffing in a key at-bat.

 

Can't see why 2005 was on Francona.

 

All true Bellhorn and since my pal Elk joined you against me on this you could be right. Here's where I believed Francona was culpable. Notice we were in first place all the way into September and after the last Yankee series we were three games out in front around September 10th of that year. Francona had cost us about five games earlier with his stubborn use of Embree who had clearly lost it and was eventually put on waivers after blowing leads and games to the Yankees, Jays, Angels and Orioles. We were leading in those games going into the last two innings and then lost them. This was after Embree kept getting hit and hit hard weeks before that. He should not have been used in those situations. We had Timlin, Halama and Montei among others who were pitching a little bit better out of the pen. Then there was the Millar saga. Kevin was having a terrible second half while Jon Olerud was hitting well and getting some big hits for us when it counted. Three times Francona said he would go with Olerud only to have Millar bitch publicly and Terry then back down and put him back in the lineup with disastrous results. Just one more damn game in the win column and we would have been division champions. That is why I put that loss on him.

[Elktonnick]

All true Bellhorn and since my pal Elk joined you against me on this you could be right. Here's where I believed Francona was culpable. Notice we were in first place all the way into September and after the last Yankee series we were three games out in front around September 10th of that year. Francona had cost us about five games earlier with his stubborn use of Embree who had clearly lost it and was eventually put on waivers after blowing leads and games to the Yankees' date=' Jays, Angels and Orioles. We were leading in those games going into the last two innings and then lost them. This was after Embree kept getting hit and hit hard weeks before that. He should not have been used in those situations. We had Timlin, Halama and Montei among others who were pitching a little bit better out of the pen. Then there was the Millar saga. Kevin was having a terrible second half while Jon Olerud was hitting well and getting some big hits for us when it counted. Three times Francona said he would go with Olerud only to have Millar bitch publicly and Terry then back down and put him back in the lineup with disastrous results. Just one more damn game in the win column and we would have been division champions. That is why I put that loss on him.[/quote']

 

Actually you and I aren't that far apart on Tito. I think Tito gradually lost the clubhouse beginning after the 2008 season. In hindsight you were right about Tito's maagerially acumen. I now believe and the evidence supports this that Francona was primarily kept on because he managed the way the FO wanted him to. They saw that he was getting the most out of some pretty difficult clubhouse characters, especially Manny. As he gradually lost the clubhouse over the years his FO support became weaker. It has been said by many insiders Boston analysts that unless he made it to the World Series in 2011 he ws going to be out anyway. We'll never know.

[SoxSport]

I'm not really impressed with Valentine' date=' I think the Sox could have done better. There's something about him that just doesn't feel right, and I don't get the sense that he'll be a good fit for this team. Just be wrong, my two cents.[/quote']

 

I think Bobby V. was brought in here by LL/Henry to put some distance between the manager and the FO. Tito, who formerly was bench manager for Beane's A's, was a FO guy. "Controllable", so to speak. It follows that much of what Tito did was a reflection of Epstein, and they shared the blame in the Red Sox collapse.

 

Bobby V., I suspect, is more autonomous from the FO. Keep in mind, though, that he hired only one of his coaches, Royster. Bogar, the bench coach, is a holdover. That could have been intentional--to create some connect with the FO in the coaching.

 

I believe there is tension between the FO and LL. Bobby is an LL guy, and it will be interesting to see if any power struggle develops between him and the FO.

[FredLynn]

I think Bobby V. was brought in here by LL/Henry to put some distance between the manager and the FO. Tito, who formerly was bench manager for Beane's A's, was a FO guy. "Controllable", so to speak. It follows that much of what Tito did was a reflection of Epstein, and they shared the blame in the Red Sox collapse.

 

Bobby V., I suspect, is more autonomous from the FO. Keep in mind, though, that he hired only one of his coaches, Royster. Bogar, the bench coach, is a holdover. That could have been intentional--to create some connect with the FO in the coaching.

 

I believe there is tension between the FO and LL. Bobby is an LL guy, and it will be interesting to see if any power struggle develops between him and the FO.

 

I think a power struggle will happen. The question is whether Valentine has enough time to complete his appointed task before that happens. I think he can do it.

[Elktonnick]

I think Bobby V. was brought in here by LL/Henry to put some distance between the manager and the FO. Tito, who formerly was bench manager for Beane's A's, was a FO guy. "Controllable", so to speak. It follows that much of what Tito did was a reflection of Epstein, and they shared the blame in the Red Sox collapse.

 

Bobby V., I suspect, is more autonomous from the FO. Keep in mind, though, that he hired only one of his coaches, Royster. Bogar, the bench coach, is a holdover. That could have been intentional--to create some connect with the FO in the coaching.

 

I believe there is tension between the FO and LL. Bobby is an LL guy, and it will be interesting to see if any power struggle develops between him and the FO.

 

Excellent observation!

[YAZMAN]

Actually you and I aren't that far apart on Tito. I think Tito gradually lost the clubhouse beginning after the 2008 season. In hindsight you were right about Tito's maagerially acumen. I now believe and the evidence supports this that Francona was primarily kept on because he managed the way the FO wanted him to. They saw that he was getting the most out of some pretty difficult clubhouse characters' date=' especially Manny. As he gradually lost the clubhouse over the years his FO support became weaker. It has been said by many insiders Boston analysts that unless he made it to the World Series in 2011 he ws going to be out anyway. We'll never know.[/quote']

 

What killed Tito was losing Farrell. He wasn't just a fabulous pitching coach, he's an all around baseball guy.

[Elktonnick]

What killed Tito was losing Farrell. He wasn't just a fabulous pitching coach' date=' he's an all around baseball guy.[/quote']

 

Just a slight disagreement, Farrell's loss was the straw that broke the camel's back. Farrell's intimidating presence would have probably prevented the Beckett/Lackey axis from having the baleful effect that it ultimately had.

[Spudboy]

What killed Tito was losing Farrell. He wasn't just a fabulous pitching coach' date=' he's an all around baseball guy.[/quote']

 

Farrell was a hitting coach?

[YAZMAN]

Just a slight disagreement' date=' Farrell's loss was the straw that broke the camel's back. Farrell's intimidating presence would have probably prevented the Beckett/Lackey axis from having the baleful effect that it ultimately had.[/quote']

 

I think he had more input with and more of an effect on Tito than most people think. I also believe he has better instincts for the game than Tito. He may still wind up coaching the Sox. I think his contract with Toronto still has two years left, and there's no way BV is going to be in Boston much longer than that.

[Palodios]

What killed Tito was losing Farrell. He wasn't just a fabulous pitching coach' date=' he's an all around baseball guy.[/quote']

 

The Beer and Chicken Club started under Farrell's watch in 2010. The Red Sox poured so much money into their pitching staff under JF, but the results had been pretty mediocre during his tenure.

[VA Sox Fan]

What killed Tito was losing Farrell. He wasn't just a fabulous pitching coach' date=' he's an all around baseball guy.[/quote']

 

Farrell was a hitting coach?

 

LOL Spud!

[VA Sox Fan]

I think he had more input with and more of an effect on Tito than most people think. I also believe he has better instincts for the game than Tito. He may still wind up coaching the Sox. I think his contract with Toronto still has two years left' date=' and there's no way BV is going to be in Boston much longer than that.[/quote']

 

Good points YAZ.

[Muggah]

The Beer and Chicken Club started under Farrell's watch in 2010. The Red Sox poured so much money into their pitching staff under JF' date=' but the results had been pretty mediocre during his tenure.[/quote']

 

 

Great point. Has Farrell addressed the beer and chicken parties publicly? Did I miss it? What has he said?

[Elktonnick]

I think he had more input with and more of an effect on Tito than most people think. I also believe he has better instincts for the game than Tito. He may still wind up coaching the Sox. I think his contract with Toronto still has two years left' date=' and there's no way BV is going to be in Boston much longer than that.[/quote']

 

I have always maintained that BV was a two year solution. Makes sense that Sox would seek him out in two years but Toronto may turn it around. Given the Blue Jays are now Canada's national team with a national TV contract, they may have the dollars (caandian) to keep him if things work out.

[Spudboy]

I think he had more input with and more of an effect on Tito than most people think. I also believe he has better instincts for the game than Tito. He may still wind up coaching the Sox. I think his contract with Toronto still has two years left' date=' and there's no way BV is going to be in Boston much longer than that.[/quote']

 

Good points YAZ.

 

Yup. I think he will end up back here as the manager. And I'd really like to see Eric Wedge considered too.

[FredLynn]

Great point. Has Farrell addressed the beer and chicken parties publicly? Did I miss it? What has he said?

 

He commented on how tasty the chicken was, but that he would prefer never to drink Bud Light again.

[SoxSport]

Farrell was a good organization man, so they liked him. So was Tito. Neither did anything of note running a very expensive, talented team. Farrell didn't have his pitchers hold runners, which created more SBs than the catchers did. I expect that to change under Valentine. The team needs to go back to fundamentals.

[Palodios]

Farrell was a good organization man' date=' so they liked him. [b']So was Tito. Neither did anything of note[/b] running a very expensive, talented team. Farrell didn't have his pitchers hold runners, which created more SBs than the catchers did. I expect that to change under Valentine. The team needs to go back to fundamentals.

 

Tito did nothing of note? You really are just a troll.

[VA Sox Fan]

Tito did nothing of note? You really are just a troll.

 

Ridculous.:dunno:

[a700hitter]

Tito did nothing of note? You really are just a troll.

Farrell is interchangeable with about 10 to 15 other pitching coaches. It's not like he got such great performance out of the very expensive staffs he was given. He never taught his pitchers how to hold runners. They never used a slide step. The fielding of our pitching has also been atrocious. I don't know if the pitching coach is responsible for that, but the pitchers have been awful at fielding their position.

[seabeachfred]

700, those comments just go over the heads of some of the people here, but the real knowledgeable fans understand that. Except for 2007, Farrell's pitchers didn't distinguish themselves in any way I know of. You are also right on with the slide step. It was his and Tito's philopshy that stolen bases weren't a big thing to worry about which I always thought was bogus. You get to second and you are in scoring position and late in a game a base hit and you're back in the clubhouse as losers. We saw that a lot under his tutelege. Holding runners on was never a big deal with him and it cost us some games otherwise winnable if attention had been given to that.

[example1]

Just because they didn't hold runners well does that mean that it wasn't a priority of Farrell or Tito? Not that I don't believe you guys, but is there documentation somewhere that says it was actually their philosophy? Please elaborate.

 

Results don't always reveal an underlying philosophy. One could look at September and say "The 2012 Red Sox just didn't think it was important to win in September. They figured they could skate by on May, June, July and August." But we all know that wouldn't be true. Likewise, just because they got run all over doesn't mean they condoned it or approved of it or didn't think it mattered, does it?

 

I remember Clay Buchholz being criticized for being TOO concerned about runners. I remember him throwing over when guys were a foot off the bag, or ON the bag. Why did he seem to care so much about them?

 

I'm asking genuinely, not to disprove anything you are saying. I just don't get it.

 

Perhaps it was actually NOT POSSIBLE for their catchers (or catcher-pitchers) to hold runners very well. :dunno: Their catchers were never known for having good arms regardless of the slide step or pitchout or anything else.