example1

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.

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

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.

I wouldn't say I'm a BV opponent. Not at all. I'm open to his way. I just find it frustrating that before the season has even started he has led the media to question Crawford's character and spilled some details about his conversation with Beckett. When a conversation is supposed to be private it is poor form to note that Beckett was pissed off at him. Perhaps that wouldn't have lost trust with you guys (if you were Beckett) but it would have with me. If I agree to keep a conversation private the whole thing will be private. I'm not going to discuss the tenor of the discussion or the subjects or anything. As for being hired to be fired, I hope that's not the case. Being fired assumes failure and I hope they didn't plan to have failure in the next two years. That should be acceptable to no one. If this is ownership just making a point, they should find a better way.

If what the fans are talking about is something related to something Bobby V said--and it is-- then it is linked to Bobby V. It is very simple. Whether or not the fans were predisposed to erupt all over again, if he stokes the fire or does things that don't put it out, he isn't helping the situation and he could be. As far as I remember, crawford was in hot water for his performance, not his character. Thanks to Valentine his character is being questioned, and they haven't even talked yet. I don't think it's a big deal. It will all be sorted out soon.

Every sane person knows that publically starting s*** around your players, leading the media to question their personalities, etc., is NOT a way to promote "guys getting along and being professional". I agree that is very important to success, but find for me the book about management or leadership that says: "Before you have met with your employees it is good to lead the media to believe that they are nonresponsive jerks. It is best if this is done in some way that otherwise intelligent people will start calling them "entitled" and saying they need to "come into line"." You mention the Patriots. Can you imagine Bill Belichick starting s*** like this? He might not tolerate insubordination (I don't think anyone should) but he won't even answer basic questions about his team in press conferences. That's defending his team. What happens in private stays in private but he handles it. Valentine can't control his impulses enough to say things that don't start firestorms. First it was "Josh didn't want me to talk about it, so I won't. I will just say that most of the beginning of the conversation was him being really pissed off at me and us discussing that. Then we moved on to other things" (paraphrasing) and now just casually putting out there that Crawford hasn't called him back and not saying "but we will work it out" or "this is pretty typical" or "it's no big deal, I'm sure we'll talk" or "this is nothing for the media and reactive fans to get upset about"... it's poorly managed and he hasn't even MET the guy yet. I didn't take your opinion away from you.

What does "make an impact" mean?

Jon Lester? Or are we differentiating between 1a and 2? If so, it's undoubtedly better to have a 1a than a 2 in the 2 spot.

I call ********. The previous administration was the second most successful team during their tenure. Their approach proved, overall, to be successful. You are making too much out of 2011 and ignoring the rest of the data. Your blind faith in Valentines method is concerning and reassuring at the same time. It is concerning because it means we are going to have to hear about the gospel of Bobby V and transparency all season, but reassuring because it means the hiring did what it was supposed to by placating the angry mob who were focused on bringing accountability and retribution for the 2011 season--even if player misconduct wasn't the main factor in the September death spiral. I guess from now on I will just nod and say "yes, yes, Bobby V will whip all of the entitled losers into shape or sit them, even if they make 20m a year. And when those players are back on the field we can all revel in their reformed ways and new personalities, masterfully crafted by the inventor of the wrap sandwich. I'm sure Beckett is done being Beckett and Crawford has lost the stubborn and private sides of himself that made him successful in the first place.

Don't a lot of pitchers choose to have surgery proactively because the arm supposedly comes back stronger than it was before? If they see some wear then they can choose to get it early, before it is a huge deal, sit out a year, and come back as strong as before if not stronger. I'm sure Jacko can inform us of this. Changing a surgery from one that was risky for the longterm health of a pitcher to something that actually helps would be one reason more people opt for it than before and why, by extension, it seems more people than ever are rehabing from it. Just a thought...

Hey, Hill was pretty damn good when he pitched last year. This isn't a bad move by any measure.

I looked at this, but it looks like Lin's offensive production is simply too low. A guy who can't get much more than 700 OPS in AAA will be eaten alive by MLB pitching. I like the thinking out of the box, and definitely appreciate that his defense can make up for some of his offensive weakness, but unless he comes to camp with the ability to rake, it probably won't be Lin.

If we expect the team to have depth you expect a good pitcher to sit around not starting. If we want to have depth beyond Doubront, Tazawa, etc., you probably have to explore guys like these. Otherwise they are good enough to not be released by their teams, or extremely unproven. The best situation is that none of your pitchers get hurt, but there is always the risk of injury. Find the guys who cost little, maybe guys with higher upside based on past MLB performance, and plop them in the minors. What would you propose?

I'm sure they would sign Harden or Webb if either were willing to sign a minor league deal. Unfortunately, the dozens of other teams who might need pitching could limit that. Harden seems like a cheaper, riskier version of Oswalt. Given the availability of guys like that, I can see why Ben is holding out until the particles (pitchers) have settled at the bottom and he can pick the best of the remains.

If he didn't whip himself into shape for the Yankees I suspect he won't for Boston. As for Cespedes, yes, he's a risk. However, he may cost less than comparable free agents would. Ultimately it comes down to the Sox scouting and front office to make that call. I'm intrigued by his tools. Also, I would love to be excited by another acquisition.

I must be the only one who is totally bored by the idea of Andruw Jones. He used to be exciting but not anymore. Not that it matters AT ALL if I'm bored... Jones would be alright. Cespedes makes more sense. He's a bit expensive but they will have a guy with power and speed in his prime, a RH OF who has to be able to beat a .700 OPS. Plus, that would ultimately make Kalish the 4th OF, he can play all three OF positions, and can take Ellsburys spot when he inevitably leaves as a FA. The Sox haven't spent much this year and I would be happy for them to pursue the Cuban for a position of obvious need.