Bobby V is management's puppet

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Bobby V is management's puppet

    That's my opinion, here's why:

    -People talk about him being his own man, and not acquiescing to management. Well, that was over ten years ago, he hasn't showed any of that since his days with the Mets.

    -He's Lucchino's long-time friend.

    -His name was floated in the original manager's list before Ben C narrowed it down to 2 finalists, and management stepped in and chose a 3rd person. The thought of Valentine was roundly laughed at initially, and his name being thrown out there was often viewed as just the name of one of the more reckognizable people out there, not an actual candidate.

    -He backed off his Beckett remarks (about time used for pitches). Most agreed with him when he said it, but he's here now, and won't say anything about management's golden boy (Theo quit when they wanted him back, and Henry commented that the players were all in shape, an opinion shared ONLY between Henry and Beckett).

    -One of Valentine's jobs in Japan was a pitch-man. He would get spoon fed questions about the company, and he would answer so absurdly it's a joke it was ever taken seriously. Expect more of this. Those in game interviews are going to turn into Brick and Coffee Table Book infomercials.

    -The banning of beer. If he felt that way, why wouldn't he do it on day one? Why wait until all eyes and ears are tuned into you? I agrtee that it was a 100% PR move that management initiated, not a move I disagree with, but I think it's more evidence of the strings.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but why bring in a manager who's up there in age, and will certainly NOT be a long term solution? This isn't a young team that needed a certain type of leader to come in a kick them in their a s s e s. Why go with a man you KNOW you'll be replacing in a few short years?

    I think he's a likeable guy that management could run out there, and he'd say anything they want him to say. He'll take any bad PR hits for the team (organization and players), and he'll happily sell anything they ask him too. That's my take, I guess we'll all see. I would be happy to be wrong.

    In fact, if I'm wrong about Crawford AND Valentine, that'd just be awesome.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Bobby V is management's puppet

    Oh, add to that his comments about the Yankees and Jeter.

    Why is he saying that other than to endear himself to Sox fans? There is no apparent need for it, and it seems a pretty bizarre question for someone to just ask about plays from years ago when he was in Japan. Management deifnitely has some reporters on their side, as evidenced by the numerous 'leaks' that just happened to trash anything that made them look slightly bad: FIRING Francona, signing Crawford, buying a soccer 'club'.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Bobby V is management's puppet

    The great ones always get another life...

       "Take my wife, ...please"

      "Ah yes, thrid grade.  The best three years of my life."

      "Who's on first?"
      

      "Tito, management's puppet..."
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from OnDeckCircle. Show OnDeckCircle's posts

    Re: Bobby V is management's puppet

    Valentine a puppet of Lucchino's ?    It's part of the condition that he got a managerial job to begin with.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Bobby V is management's puppet

    In Response to Re: Bobby V is management's puppet:
    [QUOTE]Valentine a puppet of Lucchino's ?    It's part of the condition that he got a managerial job to begin with.
    Posted by OnDeckCircle[/QUOTE]

    I totally agree.

    I just get flummoxed when I hear people talk about how he does what he wants, be damned what management thinks! I think that's total propaganda put out there BY the team.

    I just think this move is lateral, at best. I honestly think that the best case scenario is that Valentine gets about what Francona got out of these guys, so what's the point?

    I would have far preferred taking a chance on a younger, more unproven commodity. Kind of like, you know, when they hired Francona!

    I just don't understand how they come to the decisions they do at times.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: Bobby V is management's puppet

    Same statement made about Francona. I guess with some it is all the same just cut and paste the name.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: Bobby V is management's puppet

    No, Ben Cherington is the puppet, Valetine was brought in to keep the pimple-faced kid in line.
    As far as BVs remark's about the Yankees and Jeter. You seem to forget that Valentine last managed with the Mets, who happen to also despise the Yankees.

    I happen to believe that Valetine has integrity and won't compromise his principles for something he doesn't believe in. You are grabbing at straws.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Bobby V is management's puppet

    You may be right about me being wrong. Or maybe you're wrong about me being wrong...I think.

    I've grown very distrustful of the ownership group and feel anything they do has alterior motives.

    The decision to hire Valentine still baffles me. The fans initially laughed at his mention as a candidate. BC obviously didn't want him. Very odd situation you must admit. Valentine, I think, was already going to be the next manager as soon as they fired Francona, and the whole 'process' was a complete sham designed to get the fans to like Valentine. It didn't work. Valentine, to his credit, is very engaging, and people ahve only started ot like him once he started to talk. Based on credentials, very underwhelming move.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThefourBs. Show ThefourBs's posts

    Re: Bobby V is management's puppet

    Riveting "puppet" talk.

    Where's the Bruins forum....?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: Bobby V is management's puppet

    In Response to Bobby V is management's puppet:
    [QUOTE]That's my opinion, here's why: -People talk about him being his own man, and not acquiescing to management. Well, that was over ten years ago, he hasn't showed any of that since his days with the Mets. -He's Lucchino's long-time friend. -His name was floated in the original manager's list before Ben C narrowed it down to 2 finalists, and management stepped in and chose a 3rd person. The thought of Valentine was roundly laughed at initially, and his name being thrown out there was often viewed as just the name of one of the more reckognizable people out there, not an actual candidate. -He backed off his Beckett remarks (about time used for pitches). Most agreed with him when he said it, but he's here now, and won't say anything about management's golden boy (Theo quit when they wanted him back, and Henry commented that the players were all in shape, an opinion shared ONLY between Henry and Beckett). -One of Valentine's jobs in Japan was a pitch-man. He would get spoon fed questions about the company, and he would answer so absurdly it's a joke it was ever taken seriously. Expect more of this. Those in game interviews are going to turn into Brick and Coffee Table Book infomercials. -The banning of beer. If he felt that way, why wouldn't he do it on day one? Why wait until all eyes and ears are tuned into you? I agrtee that it was a 100% PR move that management initiated, not a move I disagree with, but I think it's more evidence of the strings. Maybe I'm wrong, but why bring in a manager who's up there in age, and will certainly NOT be a long term solution? This isn't a young team that needed a certain type of leader to come in a kick them in their a s s e s. Why go with a man you KNOW you'll be replacing in a few short years? I think he's a likeable guy that management could run out there, and he'd say anything they want him to say. He'll take any bad PR hits for the team (organization and players), and he'll happily sell anything they ask him too. That's my take, I guess we'll all see. I would be happy to be wrong. In fact, if I'm wrong about Crawford AND Valentine, that'd just be awesome.
    Posted by ma6dragon9[/QUOTE] AT FIRST I WAS DEAD-SET AGAINST IT.....  HOWEVER, I QUICKLY EMBRACED THE IDEA THAT BOBBY V IS THE MAN TO SHAKEUP THE "FAT-CATS" AND IT WON'T STOP TILL HE HAS "TRANSFORMED" THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION, TILL THE OWNERS SHOW HIM THE FRONT DOOR, AND SAY THANK YOU ON THE WAY OUT !!!!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Bobby V is management's puppet

    In Response to Bobby V is management's puppet:
    [QUOTE]That's my opinion, here's why: -People talk about him being his own man, and not acquiescing to management. Well, that was over ten years ago, he hasn't showed any of that since his days with the Mets. -He's Lucchino's long-time friend. -His name was floated in the original manager's list before Ben C narrowed it down to 2 finalists, and management stepped in and chose a 3rd person. The thought of Valentine was roundly laughed at initially, and his name being thrown out there was often viewed as just the name of one of the more reckognizable people out there, not an actual candidate. -He backed off his Beckett remarks (about time used for pitches). Most agreed with him when he said it, but he's here now, and won't say anything about management's golden boy (Theo quit when they wanted him back, and Henry commented that the players were all in shape, an opinion shared ONLY between Henry and Beckett). -One of Valentine's jobs in Japan was a pitch-man. He would get spoon fed questions about the company, and he would answer so absurdly it's a joke it was ever taken seriously. Expect more of this. Those in game interviews are going to turn into Brick and Coffee Table Book infomercials. -The banning of beer. If he felt that way, why wouldn't he do it on day one? Why wait until all eyes and ears are tuned into you? I agrtee that it was a 100% PR move that management initiated, not a move I disagree with, but I think it's more evidence of the strings. Maybe I'm wrong, but why bring in a manager who's up there in age, and will certainly NOT be a long term solution? This isn't a young team that needed a certain type of leader to come in a kick them in their a s s e s. Why go with a man you KNOW you'll be replacing in a few short years? I think he's a likeable guy that management could run out there, and he'd say anything they want him to say. He'll take any bad PR hits for the team (organization and players), and he'll happily sell anything they ask him too. That's my take, I guess we'll all see. I would be happy to be wrong. In fact, if I'm wrong about Crawford AND Valentine, that'd just be awesome.
    Posted by ma6dragon9[/QUOTE]

    Dragon, I would not disagree with your assessment of Valentine as management's puppet.  But, I do wonder why this would make him different than any other manager in the game.  That is part and parcel to the job.  The days of the omnipotent manager are long gone.  Even Everyone's Favorite Rogue Manager Ozzie Guilllen:  he might spout off the cuff in the media and be a spitfire, but, at the end of the day, he his totally beholden to his bosses, their plan, their structure, etc.  I just don't see how it is the negative that you imply.  All managers are "puppets" of the FO.  Thats how I see it.

    However, as far as the Beckett remarks, I do not agree that this is part of him towing any company line.  Of course, as an ESPN analyst, he is expected to criticize josh's abnormally slow pace.  however, even then, if he was in the dugout as manager, I am certain Josh would have had his full and complete blessing to work at that snails pace, just as long as it was effective.  He would have totally understood Josh's psychological weapon against the mighty yankee line-up.  And, you know what, it did work.  At the end of the day, Bobby the manager is paid to win.  So, if Beckett gets wins by messing with the hitters' timing, I am sure he is all for it.

    The beer ban could not and should not have come on day 1.  No question in my mind, even though OF COURSE there is a giant PR element of the decision, that the edict had to come direct from bobby's mouth to his players with all assembled.  Sure to engender negative feelings amongst the players if it isn't a direct communication.  

    And, FWIW, what is the problem with bobby taking the PR hits?  To me, that is nothing but a positive.  This group of players in particular, after the disaster of 2011, needs some of that pressure taken off their shoulders.  Bobby is more than willing and able to do that.  I see that as nothing but a good thing.

    As for being a shill for products and a pitch man, hey, I am a pinko commie moonbat at heart and don't particularly dig corporate shills.  But, that is just personal taste, which you seem to share.  Beyond our own aesthetic value in this matter, what difference does it make?

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Bobby V is management's puppet

    Another thread fueled by those who are never happy unless they are miserable. They always need something to bi-tch about. By some miracle perhaps someone will start a thread listing the good things that are happening in spring training now for the Red Sox.
     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Bobby V is management's puppet

    Dumb thread. Not surprising considering the source.  Why does everything need to be a conspiracy or some sort of a victim mentality reaction when anything happens with the Sox?

    How about this? Coma should have been fired after 2010, wasn't, got Adrian Gonzalez in here, and then proceeded to come into April like he and the team were half drunk giving me April 1996 douchnozzle Kennedy chills.

    How about that?

    So, really, who was the better choice? A younger, newer manager, or an older manager, where you could maybe see where the older manager goes with managing a new team?

    Clint Hurdle would have been an interesting choice. The KC guy (forgetting his name at the moment) would have been interesting, but the difference with those guys and Valentine is, neither and really NONE of the options had managed in a market like Boston before.

    You just don't walk in here and expect to be a good manager.   Even Jim Leyland turned this job down due to the media, the pressure, etc. 

    It's a hard job to fill. Coma used his experience in Philly, a notroiously hard place to manage due to irrational fans and expectations, and did a nice job with his approach for years here, until it predictably backfired.

    Nothing more, nothing less. Valentine is a fine choice and a wait and see hire.  Enough with this anti-ownership and anti-Lucchino Shaughnessy media baiting junk that some fans fall for so easily. 

    It's baseball.  All the drama needs to be left for the little girls, teenagers and male adults who are more attracted to American Idol than the game itself.  Sheesh.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: Bobby V is management's puppet

    We all are puppets since if we don't do what the FO says we are fired or laid off...
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share