A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from soxnewmex. Show soxnewmex's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Surprised about Lester, sad to see.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from sml1210. Show sml1210's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : I understand much of what you are saying in the aftermath of the collapse feeling very different than losing a 7th game in the ALCS that was dismissed by all of RS Nation a the work of the manager. But what I don't agree with is the statement that "I just can't convince myself that a bit better luck with pitching injuries would have made the difference in 2011." I believe if their starting rotation hadn't taken such big hits they would have made the playoffs. From there as the two "best teams" in MLB in 2011 showed us in the NLDS and ALDS, the playoffs are a matter of luck. What the media have fed IMHO is a whirlpool of negativity. The team won 90 games while get under 110 starts for their opening day starting 5 and 28 of those made up Lackey's historically bad 2011. Some "stuff" needs to be cleaned up because the RS should have been able to win 4 or maybe 5 more games in September than they did. But honestly when Beckett missed two starts and Bedard three that team was in trouble. RS Nation went from having debating whether the glass was half empty or half full to "smash the glass" in the blink of an eye. Some of this has been fed by stories of various merit and or weight. The stories about Youk IMHO were white noise by example, the fact that the starting pitchers had so completely isolated themselves from the rest of the team a real concern and while I think the world of Francona, he owns a lot of that. If people can get past having been given a glimpse into "how the sausage" was made they'd see that the team has a lot of talent. Beckett, Lester and Buch make a formidable top of the rotation. The offense is a scoring machine and could get better with a better solution in RF and career norms from the LFer. Bard had an uneven year but for much of the year he was unbelievably good with inherited runners. Aceves was a revelation. Time for the RS to stabilize their FO, find a new manager that will leverage what the RS have built while bringing a culture shift and go about the business of tweaking a talented team. The blood letting needs to stop. It did not work in 18th Century and it won't work now. But there will be more because it is Boston no matter how skillfully the RS FO tries to manage through this. Lackey probably needs to go and that is equal parts of who he is and the market (I can't see this guy making in Boston where cat calls will abound and the media will ravage him after any bad outing). Papelbon staying is 50-50 and my guess is the odds are lower on David Ortiz who is an aging DH who appears to have a chip on his shoulder. Each event will be seen as not simply aftershocks but new epic earthquakes. That is what the media does and the atmosphere in Boston may be a bigger issue moving forward than any one element of the toxic stories that now abound. And nothing IMO was more toxic than whoever the unnamed FO worm who floated the sewage about Terry's health and marriage, after Tito gracefully moved on. That Globe piece was terrible no matter how much it has entertained the blood thirsty Boston public that has begun to feel that the city is entitled to win every year in every sport.
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]


    Wow, talk about denial.

    Maybe they missed starts because they were out of shape and got hurt.

    And maybe RSN turned on the club so quickly because maybe the team COLLAPSED SO QUICKLY in the last month of the season.

    And the "if only" statements are a joke; one can't discount what actually happened. For a lot of people, reality is a real bummer.

    And as far as the article goes, "where there is smoke, there's fire." But I guess, it's okay to stick one's head in the sand and ignore what they just saw with their own eyes.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I'm sad to see the ownership take such a big hit on this. They have done everything they can to bring  winner to Boston, and maintain it. I can't fault a single thing they have done. 

    I think Tito defended himself well and Pedroia probably said it best when he said that Tito has had the back of every player on that team since day one. Tito is going to come out of this unscathed. Tito was the right man for the job for a long time. He will go down in history as probably the best Redsox manager ever. He was ideal for this team and market and I think most of us absolutely appreciate the job he has done.

    The team will work through this but sometimes some bloodletting is necessary in order to move on. It is unfortunate but it is part of the process. No one likes it. If those issues were not a factor in Tito's case, then it is sad that they were brought up, but the reality is that they may have been a factor. He may have withdrawn to himself some, staying in his office more and losing some motivation. It would be a natural consequence of a break up with the mother of his children after 30 years. While being on lots of pain medication...etc. It may well have been time for Terry to move on. 

    It takes a tremendous effort to win every year, make the playoffs every year. He may not have been all in with the full focus needed, the drive and will to strive for excellence that was there in the past. It's ok. The guy is human. And none of it may even have been a factor at all. Even if it was, he will be honored by this team forever.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Investigative reporters used to be called "muckrackers". It is part of their job. They have lots of arrows sticking out of their backs but it is a necessary role in any major newspaper. Notice that none of the beat reporters wrote this piece. The Globe recognized that it was going to be controversial and may well affect the reporters relationships with the FO and players. The fact that he was the guy chosen to write this piece is significant.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : But Harness, Madras, Or is only 533 miles from San Francisco so Jacoby would anxious to forego FA for a chance to be as close to home as kid from Richmond, VA would be to Boston.
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    If that kid could charter a jet as easily as most people hail a cab, you're right.  After his extension, he could buy one.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Wow, talk about denial. Maybe they missed starts because they were out of shape and got hurt. And maybe RSN turned on the club so quickly because maybe the team COLLAPSED SO QUICKLY in the last month of the season. And the "if only" statements are a joke; one can't discount what actually happened. For a lot of people, reality is a real bummer. And as far as the article goes, "where there is smoke, there's fire." But I guess, it's okay to stick one's head in the sand and ignore what they just saw with their own eyes.
    Posted by sml1210[/QUOTE]He turned his ankle in a rut on the mound in his landing spot. But I know, he had KFC grease on his shoe.

    Forget the "if only" for a minute. You think I am in denail, I think the vast majority of RS Nation is over reacting to the media who is only to willing to feed the sharks in the water.

    Yeah there were issues. The reaction is not proportional that's all.

    And I don't care what anybody else here thinks, the comments about Francona's meds and marriage AFTER he was gone are in poor taste and serve no positive purpose.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I agree, katz. I really did expect a witch hunt after the year ended, but all of this has surprised me a little bit.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : And three of the healthy pitchers, Beckett, Lester and Lackey didn't care about the team to the point where they were not supporting their teammates, the organization and their fans. Lester and Beckett were completely ineffective in September for a reason. They weren't in shape, period.  Pitchers get their strength from their legs and their abs/hips. If they aren't working out and are drinking beer and eating fried chicken, where does it show the most? In their legs and stomach. They were completely disrespectful and should be showed the door, at least Beckett and Lackey.
    Posted by ADG[/QUOTE]

    CC Sabathia doesn't look in the best of shape. Valverde of the Tigers isn't a member of WeightWatchers.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Harness: (1) You're saying some of these problems are being overblown.  I disagree because if just one of these areas (defense, attitude, committment, baserunning, etc. had been a team focus over the last two weeks, we may  have won that one more game.  And then maybe you're right, we wouldn't be talking about this stuff now.  But they didn't win that one game.  (2)  You use the argument that when we were 80-41 no one was worried about this stuff.  True.  But the way they ended the year, negates all that in my opinion.  They definitely should have made the playoffs, even with their pitching problems.  It would be like a kid making the Dean's list for three years flunking out as a senior.  Most wouldn't say "He did a great job for three years; this other stuff is overblown."  (3) Harness, I get your disillusionment with the article's Tito remarks.  You see them as a low blow.  I see them as a possible contributing factor.  I think that's what he was saying.  For me the fact that Tito's own kid was worried about his health lends credence to the idea that maybe health issues were distracting Tito.  Let's put aside for a moment our view of this.  Isn't the main issue here that Tito said he couldn't reach these guys anymore and they needed to hear a new voice?  The writer isn't blowing that out of perspective.  (4)  You're right.  He should have talked more about the pitching as the major factor.  And yes, you are also right that Wake wasn't the major problem in Sept. though some of us did feel maybe Aceves should have been given a shot.  But you are not right that this is all the press's fault that Wake was given all those starts to spur their feeding frenzy.  Right or wrong, Wake started because Tito/FO wanted him starting.  The press does make a big deal of a lot of things in Boston, and in my view, Thank God!  We are so lucky.  That only reflects that everyone cares here.  Watch people in other parks start walking out when their team is behind. When they win, you can't always find it in the paper.  (5)  Tito responded and said his committment was not in question.  I believe him.  But player committment did not match his.  That's still part of his job.  

    I want the RS to fix the pitching, first priority.  I want the new manager to tighten up these other areas as well. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Yes Boom, great comments about Tito, and I agree completely.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Katz, I appreciated your views until you lumped me in with the "blood thirsty" ones.  Reading that article and identifying with some of its points doesn't make one blood thirsty.  You seem to be surprised by the reaction of the RS FO.  Look, its seems like Tito pretty much let himself go.  Theo may have wanted to go anyway.  Do we really know that the FO wanted to get rid of both?  Let's look at the other side.  What if they did?  If that was your 170 million dollar investment, would you have any problems with the conditioning, fundamentals, and pitching over the end of the season? I will forever be thankful for Theo and Tito and two World Series.  I would be fine if neither of them had gone.  But this is what happens when a team plays like that.  This isn't a 40 million dollar team.
    And I'm a little puzzled at some views of the press.  This is Boston, man!  You think this same thing wouldn't happen in NY?  Philly?  Hey, where do people care most about baseball? 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

     The no problem when they were winning crowd misses the significance of the team meeting after the big blow-out win in Toronto. Tito knew the ship was taking on water, and he tried to right it. The clubhouse was the catalyst that started the pitching, defensive, and fundamentals  brush fire.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    ....And yes, you are also right that Wake wasn't the major problem in Sept. though some of us did feel maybe Aceves should have been given a shot.  But you are not right that this is all the press's fault that Wake was given all those starts to spur their feeding frenzy.  Right or wrong, Wake started because Tito/FO wanted him starting. ...(Crit)

    While I did not agree that Aceves should have been converted to a starter, if he was, it shouldn't have been for Wake. It should have been for Weiland, Miller and Lackey... in that order.

    "Wake started because Tito/FO wanted him starting" does not mean it was for the record. It could actually have been for the right reason: he was the best option we had on the team at the time. There was never a time all year from May 22nd to the end of the year that we had a better option on the roster than Wake. In Wake's first 15 starts, the team was 11-4. Hard to choose Weiland or Miller at that time. By the time September rolled around, we were using our #5 Lackey (5 starts), #6 Bedard (3 starts), #7 Wake (4 starts), #8 Miller (2 starts), and #9 Weiland (3 starts).


     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Katz, I appreciated your views until you lumped me in with the "blood thirsty" ones.  Reading that article and identifying with some of its points doesn't make one blood thirsty.  You seem to be surprised by the reaction of the RS FO.  Look, its seems like Tito pretty much let himself go.  Theo may have wanted to go anyway.  Do we really know that the FO wanted to get rid of both?  Let's look at the other side.  What if they did?  If that was your 170 million dollar investment, would you have any problems with the conditioning, fundamentals, and pitching over the end of the season? I will forever be thankful for Theo and Tito and two World Series.  I would be fine if neither of them had gone.  But this is what happens when a team plays like that.  This isn't a 40 million dollar team. And I'm a little puzzled at some views of the press.  This is Boston, man!  You think this same thing wouldn't happen in NY?  Philly?  Hey, where do people care most about baseball? 
    Posted by Critter23[/QUOTE]Crit, I did not mean to lump you in so my apologies that it read that way. While I posted your post I was addressing a lot of different posts and probably a lot of the many OPS on BDC the last two weeks.

    But I must say I have never thought of either NY or Philly to measuring sticks for class or reason when it comes to sports.

    The desires for answers to the collapse has started to fly out of control though. When Mikey Adams on WEEI thinks it is getting out of hand, it is way out of hand.

    The team had issues, IMO every team does. This team reacted very badly to adversity and those issues splashed over and set into place a death spiral that was no fun to watch.

    A lot of reflection needs to take place bit this is getting out of hand and that article was a rash of the same ole crap with some really out of bounds stuff about Francona. I can get past that and find any probative value to that article.  

    Best I can tell this is becoming an enormous version of the flap about Ellsbury's injury last summer and his decision to train in AZ. In hindsight how silly does that look now? Some large percentage of this is noise, most of it will sort itself out and some changes will be named.

    But so many guys are getting thrown under the bus there is little room left for nay more under it. And much of it is white noise whether it is the fact that co-workers found Youk to be annoying (duh), Ortiz was snippy about his not getting an extension, old rumors about Tek and a reporter etc.

    And again, the fact that anyone would print allegations that suggest that Francona had a drug problem and was separated from his wife is the worst kind of trash. When put into the additional perspective that the guy was gone from the RS already and left with such class is perhaps the lowest thing I have ever seen in sports. And for that one, you can use NY and Philly as yardstick.

     
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    For all the talk of blowing the thing up by the way, just how hard is it to get the RS to perform as they did from May-August versus April and September?

    I don't think 90% of the folks calling for blowing up the RS have really considered that the RS will spend the next few years chasing Baltimore and not the NYY.

    The one guy the RS are probably going to have open their throats wide and eat his contract is John Lackey. I don't think his temperament, this market and mood in the aftermath of the collapse he can survive, though I think he can be a productive middle of the rotation starter again, just not here.

    The new GM is going to need to sit down with John and ask him if he is ready to eat some crow, own his bad performance, ask for forgiveness from the fan base and have a rhino skin if he has a few bad starts. If the answer is no, IMO they should eat 3/4's of the contract and move him for prospects like they did with RAW. Swapping bad contracts is just kicking the can down the road.

    But at some point if the toothpaste doesn't stop leaking out of the metaphorical tube it is going to get hard to put any of it back in the tube IMHO. 
     
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Swapping bad contracts is just kicking the can down the road. 

    While this is true, there are a few reasons why it might not be a bad idea:

    1) Lackey may do better in an another environment, and another GM might realize and expect this and value him more than his value would be staying here.

    2) The money swapped could save money this year, but cost a little more in years to come, which might be what the FO is willing to do (or vice versa).

    3) The player we get in return may have a resurgence of sorts or provide a valuable if limited role on the Sox. For example, let's say we trade Lackey ($46M/3) and Jenks ($6M/1)  for Soriano (54M/3). We save $3M in 2012, but pay about $2.5M more in 2013 and 2014. We dump two guys with close to zero expectation here next year and that may thrive in Chicago, and we get out RH'd OF'er (.812 and .944 vs LHPs the last 2 years). Yes, he's way overpaid and is a "can to kick", but he could rebound.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I :  I read Hohler and see a completely different handling of the issues. "Team Sources" are used and not disclosed, and then in FAIRNESS , he gets and prints Tito's response, the reader then can make up his own mind if it is plausible. The sources are not likely to be identified, as they do not have the financial security to take a hit of being fired. Tito can always pick up a few coins in the booth, and re-sign with another team in the neighborhood of $3-4M. Because Tito denies something, doesn't mean it's not a cause, it just means Tito doesn't see it that way.
    Posted by YOUKILLUS20[/QUOTE]


    If that were true, Youk, then Tito would now be signed. Don't you think the issues with his marriage and pain killers illuminated by the press have a bearing on his future employment as a manager? GM's will now think twice, as they have to answer for their decisions.

    You play a game of hoops many, many years ago with Hohler and feel his article was fair. I don't. Schilling called it "character assassination of the worst kind" (against Tito). Hohler clearly stated how much the subject matter bothered and hurt Tito, yet the SOB took it one step further.

    The piece brought attention to everything that had already been written, with the possible exception of Tito's marital issues. Hohler's intention was to link everything he could dig up with the collapse.

    Then Hohler gave the impression of fairness by quoting Tito. He put it in the minds of the reader and then tied to justify his actions. He never made a single quote from his sources. You call that fair?
    If any of his sources come back to him and say,"Hey man. I never even alluded to..."
    Hohler can respond with: "I know. I never quoted you, did I?".

    This hack took scraps from different "sources" and used it to feed the fan frenzy.
    Here's an example of how a writer can sway his readers:

    Let's say the Sox lost a really tough game in the 9th, 4-3.
    A writer can say "gallant effort! team just fell short as..." Or
    "RedSox choked again in the 9th when...".

    Hohler's piece exemplifies the garbage that the Globe allows to be printed.
    When they hired Mazz and Abraham and Hohler, the tide turned...for the worst.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I used to actually read the Globe.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Investigative reporters used to be called "muckrackers". It is part of their job. They have lots of arrows sticking out of their backs but it is a necessary role in any major newspaper. Notice that none of the beat reporters wrote this piece. The Globe recognized that it was going to be controversial and may well affect the reporters relationships with the FO and players. The fact that he was the guy chosen to write this piece is significant.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]


    That's an excellent point. Hohler was assigned it and it fits his MO. So, the Globe gives the players/Tito, FO, etc. a sacrificial lamb. This is not to excuse Hohler, as any writer can draw the line as to where and how much he is willing to be compromised. Once a hack is known to be just that, it's like a stoolie in that it's not about the dirt anymore. It's about paychecks and dealing with the consequences.

    Reminds me of an old episode of Hawaii 5-0, where the mob recruits this really bright college kid by paying his way through school. The jobs they give him seem innocent at first, but as he climbs his way up the political landscape, the dirt starts to mount. He isn't in a position to get out as he finds himself locked in.

    A man has to be accountable for his actions. But his piece also might expose the situation he's really in.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : And three of the healthy pitchers, Beckett, Lester and Lackey didn't care about the team to the point where they were not supporting their teammates, the organization and their fans.

    Really? Did these pitchers discuss this with you?
    How do you know whether or not...or how much they cared about the team?

    Lester and Beckett were completely ineffective in September for a reason. They weren't in shape, period. 

    Soooooooo, they were in shape during the summer, but then they suddenly weren't in shape in Sept. Gotcha.

    Pitchers get their strength from their legs and their abs/hips. If they aren't working out and are drinking beer and eating fried chicken, where does it show the most? In their legs and stomach.

    Please prove to me they were not working out.



    They were completely disrespectful and should be showed the door, at least Beckett and Lackey.
    Posted by ADG

    If every team showed the door to every disrespectful act, it would be a revolving door. Remember, respect is a two-way street. At one time, owners treated their players like sh*t. Now they know how the players felt.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from UticaClub. Show UticaClub's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    The mice that take every word uttered by CHB of the Globe are out in full force these days. CHB is the Pied Piper of the ignorant.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Shadow721. Show Shadow721's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    you think you'll be saying the 2012 Sox will be better than the 1927 yankees......the best team in mlb history.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]The mice that take every word uttered by CHB of the Globe are out in full force these days. CHB is the Pied Piper of the ignorant.
    Posted by UticaClub[/QUOTE]

    They want a simple excuse for what happened. Any reason would do if it satisfies their need to assign blame.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    The media is playing a strange hand at this point IMO. It is a quick sell but I am not sure the end game is there for them.

    Heidi Whatney was on Planet Mikey tonight. She mentioned that there was even before the "collapse" a lot friction between a lot of players and the media because the players distrusted the media and many told them to their faces they felt that the media would try and hurt them.

    So where is this going? The team is not likely to dump every guy targeted and replace them with better players. So what is the end game?

    If the media makes the fans hate this team enough nobody is going to follow the team or read what writers write unless the RS are winning. And if the RS are winning who the heck is going to talk them if the feeding frenzy doesn't end soon?

    My guess it would be easier to get Pats players to tell you what they really think about Ryan and the Jets than it will be to get anything but cliche quotes out of RS players or a new manager. Buckle up for a whole lot of "manager's decisions" and "we deal with that in-house" from next skipper IMHO.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE] The no problem when they were winning crowd misses the significance of the team meeting after the big blow-out win in Toronto. Tito knew the ship was taking on water, and he tried to right it. The clubhouse was the catalyst that started the pitching, defensive, and fundamentals  brush fire.
    Posted by YOUKILLUS20[/QUOTE]

    That is conjecture at best. Defensive/fundamental brushfire was present long before Sept. That's a reflection of skillset and coaching. Tito perceived issues after the team went 1-4 in Sept. and called a meeting after the 14-0 win. My guess is he wanted to get thru to the players off a high note, instead of rubbing it in after a demoralizing loss. Maybe not such a good idea in hindsight. One tends to learn more from losing than winning, IMO.

    The team had no margin for error giving up 6-7 runs in the majority of games.
    The pitching didn't fall apart because of dissention. They are professionals and their track records speak for themselves.

    You are buying into a smokescreen, my friend.
     

Share