Valentine's Big Mouth

[iortiz]

You don't call a person a "strawman". You call their argument a "strawman". They don't like it because it invalidates their argument, so it proceeds to defend it.

 

I didn't see you jumping to my defense when someone called my argument a strawman.

 

Sorry user, I haven't seen posters call you strawman. But you know that I have agreed several times with you when I think you are correct.

[User Name]

What a bunch of s***.

 

I don't understand what a strawman is and I certainly do not care either.

 

But I tend to agree with most if not all of what user has said ON TOPIC.

 

Funny. iortiz used to say i didn't let others "express themselves" when i disagreed with his ideas.

 

Yet he's against letting me "express myself" by attacking me, saying i'm insulting people by using an expression that is not an insult.

[User Name]

Sorry user' date=' I haven't seen posters call you strawman. But you know that I have agreed several times with you when I think you are correct.[/quote']

 

iortiz, they are not calling "me" a strawman. They are calling "the argument" a strawman. It is not an insult.

 

This is the definition of a strawman:

 

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

[iortiz]

Funny. iortiz used to say i didn't let others "express themselves" when i disagreed with his ideas.

 

Yet he's against letting me "express myself" by attacking me, saying i'm insulting people by using an expression that is not an insult.

 

I'm not attacking you User?. I just think that some posters do not like that you use that word and sometimes fights begin when you use it, that's all.

 

Peace!

[FredLynn]

There is an article in the SF Chronicle today that supports Valentine vis a vis Youk. Its written by John Shea and is titled:

"Valentine shouldn't have apologized", in bold.

I am going to use some selected areas to get the gist of the article across. Shea compared this situation with one that occurred with Aubrey Huff last year. The Giants manager called out Huff saying Huff "owned up to what happened this year, and he knows his struggles helped cause our struggles". The Giants GM backed up his manager. Shea says that if Huff had been pushed to do better earlier in the year (this was said towards the end of the year) maybe he would have pushed himself to do better.

Shea goes on to mention that Pedroia "piled on" Valentine when he said "thats not the way we do things around here, he will figure that out" and says that "Truth is, its the players who need to figure it out. Valentine is the manager because the players treated their clubhouse like as country club last year, prompting management to replace Terry Francona, who always protected his guys, with Valentine, who's obviously as straight shooter".

Shea concludes by saying that "Valentine apologized, which really wasn't necessary", "Valentine should have stood his ground", and "players should have respected his words", and finally "Thats the way its supposed to work".

Can't say as I disagree with much of that any more. Very persuasive arguement, isn't it.

[Laser Show]

http://transitionculture.org/wp-content/uploads/strawman1.jpg

[Dirt Schilling]

There is an article in the SF Chronicle today that supports Valentine vis a vis Youk. Its written by John Shea and is titled:

"Valentine shouldn't have apologized", in bold.

I am going to use some selected areas to get the gist of the article across. Shea compared this situation with one that occurred with Aubrey Huff last year. The Giants manager called out Huff saying Huff "owned up to what happened this year, and he knows his struggles helped cause our struggles". The Giants GM backed up his manager. Shea says that if Huff had been pushed to do better earlier in the year (this was said towards the end of the year) maybe he would have pushed himself to do better.

Shea goes on to mention that Pedroia "piled on" Valentine when he said "thats not the way we do things around here, he will figure that out" and says that "Truth is, its the players who need to figure it out. Valentine is the manager because the players treated their clubhouse like as country club last year, prompting management to replace Terry Francona, who always protected his guys, with Valentine, who's obviously as straight shooter".

Shea concludes by saying that "Valentine apologized, which really wasn't necessary", "Valentine should have stood his ground", and "players should have respected his words", and finally "Thats the way its supposed to work".

Can't say as I disagree with much of that any more. Very persuasive arguement, isn't it.

 

That's exactly how I felt when I saw Valentine saying he apologized. I couldn't believe my ears. The only criticism I had with Francona was that he never really seemed to get angry at players. Sometimes a player needs a good kick in the butt or a reality check. I thought Valentine could bring this to the team. How wrong I was.

[Elktonnick]

That's exactly how I felt when I saw Valentine saying he apologized. I couldn't believe my ears. The only criticism I had with Francona was that he never really seemed to get angry at players. Sometimes a player needs a good kick in the butt or a reality check. I thought Valentine could bring this to the team. How wrong I was.

 

"Never apologize it is a sign of weakness" Captt. Nathan Biddles (John Wayne) She Wore a Yellow Ribbon.

[SoxSport]

There is an article in the SF Chronicle today that supports Valentine vis a vis Youk. Its written by John Shea and is titled:

"Valentine shouldn't have apologized", in bold.

I am going to use some selected areas to get the gist of the article across. Shea compared this situation with one that occurred with Aubrey Huff last year. The Giants manager called out Huff saying Huff "owned up to what happened this year, and he knows his struggles helped cause our struggles". The Giants GM backed up his manager. Shea says that if Huff had been pushed to do better earlier in the year (this was said towards the end of the year) maybe he would have pushed himself to do better.

Shea goes on to mention that Pedroia "piled on" Valentine when he said "thats not the way we do things around here, he will figure that out" and says that "Truth is, its the players who need to figure it out. Valentine is the manager because the players treated their clubhouse like as country club last year, prompting management to replace Terry Francona, who always protected his guys, with Valentine, who's obviously as straight shooter".

Shea concludes by saying that "Valentine apologized, which really wasn't necessary", "Valentine should have stood his ground", and "players should have respected his words", and finally "Thats the way its supposed to work".

Can't say as I disagree with much of that any more. Very persuasive arguement, isn't it.

 

Interesting take. It just shows you how much the Boston Globe media influences the management. Which the management equates to the fans--inaccurately.

 

I think LL is playing a balancing game between V and Ben--and it could blow up in his face.

I'm not sure V has the team he wants out there, and he might not be around for long.

[SoxSport]

"Never apologize it is a sign of weakness" Captt. Nathan Biddles (John Wayne) She Wore a Yellow Ribbon.

 

This is true--in the media.

[FredLynn]

Interesting take. It just shows you how much the Boston Globe media influences the management. Which the management equates to the fans--inaccurately.

 

I think LL is playing a balancing game between V and Ben--and it could blow up in his face.

I'm not sure V has the team he wants out there, and he might not be around for long.

 

Cherington never wanted Bobby Valentine to be hired. He will do what he can to get his own man in there instead. Note that in the article the Giants GM backed the manager. Did anyone hear Cherington backing Valentine here? No..instead, he hung him out to dry.

Cherington is a vestigial remnant from the Epstein era, the era that got us to where we are today. Its going to be nearly impossible to win another ring until Cherington is sent packing.

[mvp 78]

But LL is not?

[FredLynn]

But LL is not?

 

I would like to see him gone too. You are right: he is part of the problem. He set up the Cherington vs Valentine battle. Thats just plain stupid.

[Elktonnick]

I would like to see him gone too. You are right: he is part of the problem. He set up the Cherington vs Valentine battle. Thats just plain stupid.

 

Take Valentine out of the equation, the Cherrington- Lucchino Hnery axis is not working. Henry is the owner he isn't going any where unless he sells the team. Henry isn't going to get rid of Lucchino because Henry won't have anyone to run the club, besides he just extended Lucchino's contract. (And Lucchino is too smart a lawyer he'd make Hnery's life a living hell if ever did.) Henry is too over extended with Liverpool to run the club himself. That leaves Cherrington. Even though everyone believes Cherington's job is safe for now, I suspect that Larry (Il Duce) Lucchino is plotting his demise.

[example1]

There is an article in the SF Chronicle today that supports Valentine vis a vis Youk. Its written by John Shea and is titled:

"Valentine shouldn't have apologized", in bold.

...

"Truth is, its the players who need to figure it out. Valentine is the manager because the players treated their clubhouse like as country club last year, prompting management to replace Terry Francona, who always protected his guys, with Valentine, who's obviously as straight shooter".

 

This is exactly my point from the other thread. If the Sox had hired a guy solely based on his ability to manage a baseball team, rather than an interpersonal situation, this problem could have gone away on its own. As long as Valentine is seen as a hire specifically "because the players treated their clubhouse like a country club", he will carry the 2011 season around with him around his neck. Another manager would have had a fresher start, little-to-no resentment from the players, and possibly better performance.

 

I think the fact that the narrative is that the Red Sox got Valentine because of 2011--as if he is punishment for 2011--means they won't be able to move on from 2011 very easily.

[Bellhorn04]

Valentine came into a tenuous and difficult situation, no doubt. I think he could have gotten the players behind him though. But after we won the first 3 games of the home stand he decides to make the remark about Youkilis, leading to Pedroia giving him a verbal beatdown. Then he makes a questionable decision leaving Bard in the game. Since then the team has looked like total crap again and you get the fans chanting that they want Tito back.

[onlybereaved]

Regardless of anyone's opinion on BV, the Red Sox players don't seem to give a f*** about baseball right now. I would assume that at least part of the reason is because they don't like BV.

 

BV should either figure out how (I don't think he can at all) to have the team play like a team (like Gordon Bombay), or should bounce the f*** out of Boston.

[User Name]

Regardless of anyone's opinion on BV' date=' the Red Sox players don't seem to give a f*** about baseball right now.[/quote']

 

Really? Based on what?

 

They may be pressing, and they may be dissatisfied with Valentine, but who's to say they don't care about the team or winning? Seems like a big reach to me.

[randywatson]

i dont know if you lads have any interest in the Sox other sporting team Liverpool.

 

but the appointment of the media darling Valentine is the exact same thing that Liverpool did 18 months ago. They basically sacked an excellent coach that had a band run (like Theo), and replaced him with a media favourite, (Valentine)

 

needless to say it all went pear shaped.

 

As the old saying goes, "The chicken has come home to roost"

[onlybereaved]

Really? Based on what?

 

They may be pressing, and they may be dissatisfied with Valentine, but who's to say they don't care about the team or winning? Seems like a big reach to me.

 

Based on my frustrations and exaggeration mostly lol.

 

Seriously, though...It's one thing to watch a team of guys who play their hearts out win or lose, and another to watch a team who don't. You can argue and say there is no measurable way to assess how much heart they play with, and that's valid.

 

I don't see them playing their hearts out and losing, I just see them frustrated and losing and that's my opinion. You can disagree, and that's fine with me. Ultimately my thoughts/opinions are strictly based on what I see, as someone who watches every game for the last who knows how long.

[iortiz]

This is not about heart or effort IMO. This is about lack/ability to perform in some of them, specially in our pitching.

[SCM33]

Really? Based on what?

 

They may be pressing, and they may be dissatisfied with Valentine, but who's to say they don't care about the team or winning? Seems like a big reach to me.

 

You continue to defend them blindly.

 

Open your eyes, they are making you look foolish.

[onlybereaved]

This is not about heart or effort IMO. This is about lack/ability to perform in some of them' date=' specially in our pitching.[/quote']

 

Good point.

 

Rough Start, hopefully we can turn things around and get 85/90 wins. That may be expecting too much with our current roster and the year we seem to be having

[iortiz]

Good point.

 

Rough Start, hopefully we can turn things around and get 85/90 wins. That may be expecting too much with our current roster and the year we seem to be having

 

This is an unbalanced team.

 

In order to turn around, you need the pieces. We do not have a true closer. We do not have a strong BP. Bard as a starter is a mystery. Repko and McD are not the answer. Salty can't hit and his defense is poor. Youk is lost in the plate. Can CC bounce back?, IDK. I'm worried about Buch. IDK when Ells is going to comeback and must important, how, etc.

 

 

When you look these signs , the panorama is not encouraging. Do not be surprised if we end up in the 4th place, hope no. We'll see.

[KCBRUIN]

As soon as Lackey comes back he'll right this ship! :wetodd:

 

I hope Bobby uses his big mouth to let the front office know they've put a s***** team on the field.

[RedSoxNC84]

the Red Sox players don't seem to give a f*** about baseball right now.

 

If I put in the work to score nine runs, then watched the bullpen give up 15.. I'd probably say f*** it too.

[greenmachine]

The Sox do not believe in Bobby V. The players have quit on him in the 1st month

[example1]

I wouldn't call the bullpen not being able to hold down wins the same thing as the team giving up on V. Different things. The club has actually had a few decent rallies and showed more than last year, they just have a rotating cadre of bullpen arms willing to blow the game on any given night.

[YAZMAN]

I wouldn't call the bullpen not being able to hold down wins the same thing as the team giving up on V. Different things.

 

It is different. This year, a blown save is the bullpen's fault.

 

Last year, it was Tito's.

[YAZMAN]

As soon as Lackey comes back he'll right this ship! :wetodd:

 

I hope Bobby uses his big mouth to let the front office know they've put a s***** team on the field.

 

It will be interesting to see who's fault BV determines it is. We know it won't be his.

 

I need a sandwich wrap, stat. The legacy continues.