example1

I think it is quite possible that the laughingstock are the people declaring laughingstock while hyperextending their arms for self-back-patting. Shaughnessy is the worst of all the Boston sports writers. That he agrees with you--or you with him--is not at all shocking. Sox writers like to take a kernel of truth and turn it into a swaying corn-field of scandal; Shaughnessy takes that same kernal and turns it into Nebraska. It is in the media's best interest to have the Sox be a "PR disaster" because they specialize in PR disasters. That's what they do. There is much less to write about when things are going glowingly or when there is no change necessary.

You do know that Valentine has managed before, right? He's not a sure-thing in terms of winning. Different teams have different needs. Francona won 2 World Series, but 2011 wasn't his best year. Valentine might be right here, but he will have struggles too. The benefits of the Francona approach is that he buffered a lot of s*** from his highly-paid and often self-centered players. Valentine will not do that as well. That may be good for this group, but in 5-10 years when this group has turned over Valentine might find himself less useful. Such is the way with managers it seems.

I also heard stuff about wanting an experienced manager to balance out an inexperienced GM. Not sure what I think about it, but JH and LL might feel like they need a bit of a more experienced person at the helm, particularly if they don't know how much they trust Ben yet. Remember, for the first few years Theo wasn't officially in charge of the baseall ops with the Sox.

You probably heard it from Ozzy, who mentioned his love for Big-Z a few times via twitter and other places. People in Chicago will just need to get used to the fact that Theo will not undermine his players the way that they are used to. The Boston media got used to it, but even then, if he didn't com eout and publically shame someone people assumed it was because he was too blind to see their shortcomings.

Who is stupid enough to think that a media as blowhardish as Chicago's would ever wholeheartedly embrace anyone with open arms? You could undoubtedly find anti-Jordan and ant-Ditka articles if you searched for them. The fact that a sizeable portion of writers were excited about the move is a huge accomplishment. The Cubs are in a much better position than they were two months ago; I have no doubt about that.

Meh... Less interested at that price.

If this Cespedes guy from Cuba only wants 30m for 5 years (similar to the Chapman deal) then it could be a pretty good offensive combination to sign him for RF and Ortiz for DH again.

Okajima was an all-star his rookie year and had 3 very good seasons for the Sox. I would include him in th elist of players who found some success. Kazuhiro Sasaki had a 1.084 WHIP in 223 IP over 4 seasons for the Mariners, racking up 129 SVs and a 3.14 ERA. I would call that pretty good too. I think that assuming a good Japanese pitcher is not possible is basically eliminating a bit portion of the baseball-playing world from the radar. Seems like a bad strategy.

So you think the media and fans consistently show just the right amount of focus and attention? I think they push players away with questions and attention to mundane and useless s***. Other orgs can pay their players too in case you haven't noticed.

Any chance Valentine could have a positive impact on Matsuzaka or influence a decision (one way or the other) on Yu Darvish? A good portion of his experience was in Japan--I wonder what aspects of that game are part of his approach.

It seems like I'm always the one setting the record straight with this stuff... The irony of you calling Bowden and Anderson prize prospects is really classic. Prized prospects? Have you looked at the drafts those guys came out of? Bowden was drafted in 2005 after Ellsbury, Hansen, Buchholz and Lowrie. First of all I hope you see how stupid it is to pretend that somehow Bowden was more highly prized. Secondly, do you know the success rate for drafted players becoming effective MLB regulars? Let alone all stars or MVP candidates? Two in one draft and you are mocking the guy who merely has promise as a middle reliever? This has nothing to do with my usual defense of Theo. This is a defense of reasonableness. And as for Anderson the same kind of delicious irony prevails. How many future championships and prized free agents did theo give up to move up in the draft for Anderson? Obviously none, he was an &th round pick. He was selected after Daniel bard (the guy you are saying needs more support despite his great skillset), Justin masterson (one of the better young pitchers in the game) Ryan Kalish (a prospect with 5 legitimate tools) and Josh reddick, who many are floating as either trade bait or a plus OF with pop. Given that so few draftees find success I find it absurd that you would criticize players from either of those drafts or call those guys prizes. They may have been the best remaining draftees after Ellsbury, Lowrie, Buchholz, Masterson, Bard, Reddick, and Kalish, but prized ad just silly. They were icing on the icing on the cake. As for A700s comment I actually find it balanced and true (shockingly) it would have been better to sell them when their stock was decent. Might be a bit late for that now. Bowden looked okay at AAA last year and in spurts in Boston. It would be great if he cod play the Wheeler or Albers or Miller role next tear. Cost savings galore.

Twitter blowing up with reports of Sveum being offered Cubs job, likely to take it. Interesting. Wonder what the Sox play is here. They knew others were looking. Could have offered it to him by now if they were overwhelemed by him.

You could say "his physical conditioning is quite impressive" (which I would take to mean his workout routine) or You could say "his physical condition is quite impressive" (which I would take to mean that he is a very conditioned person) There's probably other ways to say it too.

I posted that a few days ago. It's hilarious. I hope they take a serious look at the guy. He could be an interesting option in RF, especially if he's "only" $30m over 5 or 6 years. That's a good salary for someone who hasn't been an American professional before. Lots of teams are intersted. The video is really, really silly. People should note the difference between the "sailing away" (or whatever it was called) silly '80s song, and the rap song about banging ladies in the behind. The writer at Baseball Prospectus noted how absurd it was for Cespedes' agents to think that a baseball owner wouldn't be at least a little thrown off by the Busta Rhymes (I think that's who it was.. could be wrong) and the lewd imagery. Anyway, I hope they look at him seriously.

You've made your point. You think leadership is essentially insignificant in baseball and you don't think that a good player is better (i.e., more valuable) if they are a good leader. I disagree. I think baseball is a team sport and I think there are plenty of examples of players whose leadership was a significant aspect of what they brought to the table. Leadership can look very different for different players, as you pointed out, but the trait of being able to get others to follow you into battle--whether as a pitcher, a catcher, a manager, etc.,--is something that I suspect most teams would say is valuble. Again, we can agree to disagree since this is an entirely subjective subject... assuming that is okay with you.

I guess we can just disagree then? I think that all things being equal, leadership is an important trait to have in sports--whether baseball or football or hockey. It isn't more important than talent, but it bumps a talented player to another level IMO and is something to be coveted.

What about a quarterback who is both a great field general and great in the clubhouse? Would that person be a better leader than someone who has deficiencies in one area or the other? I would say so. If you agree that there are traits that make people better leaders than others (such as being a good leader across multiple domains) then you agree with me that there are levels of leadership. I guess so man. I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. You name someone you consider to be a consistently good leader. Joe Montana? Jason Varitek? Some player from back in your heyday? I'm sure you can come up with someone who you think is better than others, and you can undoubtedly articulate why you (and others) bought into that person's leadership style. Have at it. What I'm saying isn't particularly controversial.