Elktonnick

Doesn't change my mind. I don't see the need to name a 5th starter now. But what is done is done. In any case, I don't think that 4 and 5 will be secure in those roles until after they have had several successful starts under their belts during the regual season.

There is no need to name a 5 th starter until after the season begins. I for one wouldn't do so until it was absolutely necessary to do so. After all, stuffs happens that could affect the decision.

I concur 100%

Bard's role as a starter is also dependent on how his competition fares and the Red Sox needs in the bull pen. Even if he is designated the 4th or 5 th starter I don't think he'd be ever secure in that role until he has had 2 or 3 successful starts under his belt during the regular season. Even then there are others waiting in the wings to get their chance. In short, I suspect the rotation other than the big three won't be finalized fora long time, if ever this year.

Since you always resort to uncalled for personal attacks when you have no idea what you are talking about, to keep peace in the forum and so as not to bore the others, I'll put you back on ignore since I find very little merit in anything you post.

I don't wish to agrue with you on this but the effects noted by Hawthorne diminish over time until productivity returns to normal. We are nationally accreditated in our field by two different accreditation bodies. I deal with Baldridge performance standards, TQM, CQI etc and results based data driven management on a daily basis . And it falls on me if things don't go well here since I run this place. I won't respond further but believe me I know what I am talking about.

Actually they don't improve in the long run. In order to achieve long run productivity gains they must be maintained by the adoption of other strategies hence TQM or CQI approaches. In any case, I think the point is being lost. Pro and anti BV folks are trying to make this about Bobby, it isn't. Quite frankly Schilling comments could have been said regardless who was chosen to manage the Red Sox. They would be equally true of the Cardinals or Cubs who have also made significant leadership changes.

When I said Schilling's comments were not unexpected, I meant that any time an organization brings in a change agent there will be grumblings in the ranks from those who want a return to the status quo ante. Regardless of whomever the Red Sox hired as their manager, unless it were someone who managed exactly the same way as Tito did, there would be those saying it is not working. Even if they had brought in a Francona clone there would be those who would complain. We can criticize BV or the the FO but none of that changes the fact that anytime an organization makes dramatic changes in its leadership the predictable result will be that some won't like it. I think Lucchino et al as smart businessmen were well aware of that when they decided that change was needed. Another predictable result that is well known is the "Hawthorne Effect" which simply put is the opposite, things improve in the short -run. So in summary I wouldn't make too much of any of this. What matters are the results. We will all see those for ourselves everyday from April until hopefully the end of October.

Lackey's penchant for self-pity, showing up his manager and team mates and his general lack of character.

I knew you would like it. BTW the you to which I refer is second person plural. So of course you are included as well.

You are flat out wrong about Williams being a blowhard. Williams while opinionated was opinionated about something he was an expert at, hitting. I don't recall him making gratutious remarks about other players. He had battles with the sport writers and didn't liked being booed. He was known for his loyality. Williams could be difficult and he had a prickly personality. ( I've worked with people who knew him and that's they way they described him) But when he spoke it was usually about something he knew a lot about, hitting and fishing. He hardly fit the definition of a blowhard. If Schilling talked about pitching then he would hardly be considered a blowhard.

I wasn't referring to the team being distracted but fans. In any case I maintain that Lackey's presence in the clubhouse during the season is not helpful. I'd hope his vistits would be kept to a minimum. I don't care for Lackey. His self pity and lack of character, especially while he is "rehabing" will not be a positve. IMO

I think the Schilling comments are distracting us from a potential development that is far more disconcerting to me at least. That is the continued presence of John Lackey in the clubhouse. Apparently Lackey wants to spend a great of time with the team this year. Somehow I don't see how that is a good thing, if true.

I wanted to keep it to the level of my intended audience.

I heard and then read Schilling's comments and found them disturbing not because of what he said but for what I beleive are his reasons for saying them. I beleive he wants to undercut the current Red Sox manager not because he has anything against BV per se but because he trying to vindicate his friend Terry Francona who he beleives perhaps correctly was badly mistreated by ownership in the way he was let go and the aftermath not because he was let go. I don't think Schilling's comments about certain players being upset with the new manager are particularly insightful or unexpected. It was Schilling's breathless excitement in his need to express them that I found particualrly unhelpful.

You should have used the first person not the second person.

I am not assuming anything. Your problem is you have no sense of humor.

Let me put it anotther way. We all know Beckett is guilty. That's not the quesation. The question is what is he guilty of, to be precise.

If it walks like a duck etc.

I believe it is a pitcher certainly feeding Schilling. What most people fail to take into account is that in any organization a "change agent" (and make no mistake about that's why BV was brought in to institute change) is going to ruffle feathers especially of those who have a vested interest in things remaing the same. The pitchers except for Lester have for the most part refused to accept responsibility for their actions last year. So of course they are going to be the most uncomfortable with the "anti- Francona". They have a vested interest in a return to the status quo ante. This is why I favored trading Beckett and Youklis. I don't believe the leopard ever changes its spots. I just hope the fans and FO accept that this kerfuffle as simply the cost of doing business and changing the clubhouse culture. Besides Schilling is one Francona's best buddies, so naturally he doesn't want BV to do well despite his comments to the contrary.

There is no way the Red Sox could maintain the same kind of policy as the Patriots. Why ? because in baseball they play everyday. Plus the Red Sox market the team quite differently. They have to because of the economics of the two different sports. Also it is actually in the players interest in certain cases to be media friendly which isn't the same in the NFL.