Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

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

    Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    Did Terry really say this on the record when he said he could no longer get through to them? If so, it's very provocative. Invariably, it raises the question: which players?  A guessing game in the press or amongst fans could be unfair to players. Just like questions about booze in the clubhouse, save that, IMO, this issue is more serious. Though Terry "admits" that he couldn't get through to these selfish players, he implies that he shouldn't have had to. That takes at least a little of the onus off him. "See what I had to deal with." And until we know who or what he is talking about, the inference is possible that NO ONE could have dealt with the players who made Terry's last season in Boston so trying. ( Does he say or imply that someone else might have done better than he getting through, or does he leave hanging the possible interpretation that these players were simply impossible and probably would have been impossible no matter who was in charge? ) Should we have to wait for Terry's book for him to name names?  Right now, since no names have been named, all names are theoretically suspect. That leaves the field open for speculation, some of which is bound to be unfair, as these things go.
    The ex-manager had made to what amounts to one of the most serious accusations that can be leveled in team sports. 
    Who were these players, and what form did their selfishness take? 

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

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    EX,

    There was no inference on his part that nobody could have dealt with the issues with players this year IMO. I think Francona has probably said about one hundred times that it was time for a "new voice".

    The environment for speculation is ripe for certain. But in Boston it does not matter what somebody says. The absence of a statement on a topic the absence is spun into a statement on the topic however. It isn't fair it is just how things work and particularly so in Boston. So it does not matter much how much or how little the manager, the GM or the ownership group says.

    You ask what form the selfishness took on, my guess would be indifference rather than blatant action. That for a team with so many holes in starting rotation that was always playing from behind and burning its bullpen was enough of a rock around its ankle to not get those 2-4 wins that would have got the team into the post season.

    But that is all getting blown up. The RS need to stay healthier last year, need a better year from Lackey and one more starter because a rotation of Lester, Beckett, Buch, Lackey and Wake, Miller or Weiland is a long shot. Like every year they need to work on the bullpen, improve weaknesses where they can and deal with two productive guess that may not return. The "chemistry issues" that cost them a few games in September will take care of itself if they are successful with the above, they are a .500 club if none of the above happens no matter how much everyone is on the same page.

    Just my take
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    Hey Expitch..
    Looks like your trolling for irrational responses with this thread. Can't wait to see some of the responses in the morning...

    In the end not sure that it really matter who the culprits were. the most obviuos would be Papi becasue he was playing for a new deal and fell just short of the 30-100 club...If I read between the lines I also think there might have been some tension with Francona and Crawford's...

    As you know losing creates a pretty selfish enviorment especially when you're talking about guys that are playing for a new deal vs those with deals. We had two new guys in the lockerroom that signed big deals and I am sure that both were challenged in the lockeroom and I am also sure that some of the vet's took exception to them being lavish with accolades they didn't earn while in a Sox uniform...Clearly Youk is a vocal guy, not sure that he has the support of the entre lockeroom...

    Personally I don't care what transpired only that it is addressed with the new sherif in town and whatever created the problems in the locker room last year aren't allowed to manifest this year...Winning sure all ill's
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    Are you aware that the title of this thread had nothing to do with the OP?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    Are you aware that the title of this thread had nothing to do with the OP?
    Posted by S5
    The title of the thread has everything to so with the OP -- if in fact the title is an accurtate reflection of what Terry said.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    EX, There was no inference on his part that nobody could have dealt with the issues with players this year IMO. I think Francona has probably said about one hundred times that it was time for a "new voice". The environment for speculation is ripe for certain. But in Boston it does not matter what somebody says. The absence of a statement on a topic the absence is spun into a statement on the topic however. It isn't fair it is just how things work and particularly so in Boston. So it does not matter much how much or how little the manager, the GM or the ownership group says. You ask what form the selfishness took on, my guess would be indifference rather than blatant action. That for a team with so many holes in starting rotation that was always playing from behind and burning its bullpen was enough of a rock around its ankle to not get those 2-4 wins that would have got the team into the post season. But that is all getting blown up. The RS need to stay healthier last year, need a better year from Lackey and one more starter because a rotation of Lester, Beckett, Buch, Lackey and Wake, Miller or Weiland is a long shot. Like every year they need to work on the bullpen, improve weaknesses where they can and deal with two productive guess that may not return. The "chemistry issues" that cost them a few games in September will take care of itself if they are successful with the above, they are a .500 club if none of the above happens no matter how much everyone is on the same page. Just my take
    Posted by fivekatz
    That's the point. Until Terry clarifies what he meant, we are left to speculate about what form the selfishness took, as you just did. Some forms in sports are more damaging than others. Worse, we are left to speculate about who the players were. Is that fair to the players whom Terry would presumably have omitted had he named names?  As of now, as far as his statement goes, all of the players are in the dock. 
    The inference would not have been on his part, but on the listener's part. To say "time for a new voice" does not necessarily imply that another voice but mine would have done any better with the guilty players.  

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    Hey Expitch.. Looks like your trolling for irrational responses with this thread. Can't wait to see some of the responses in the morning... In the end not sure that it really matter who the culprits were. the most obviuos would be Papi becasue he was playing for a new deal and fell just short of the 30-100 club...If I read between the lines I also think there might have been some tension with Francona and Crawford's... As you know losing creates a pretty selfish enviorment especially when you're talking about guys that are playing for a new deal vs those with deals. We had two new guys in the lockerroom that signed big deals and I am sure that both were challenged in the lockeroom and I am also sure that some of the vet's took exception to them being lavish with accolades they didn't earn while in a Sox uniform...Clearly Youk is a vocal guy, not sure that he has the support of the entre lockeroom... Personally I don't care what transpired only that it is addressed with the new sherif in town and whatever created the problems in the locker room last year aren't allowed to manifest this year...Winning sure all ill's
    Posted by Beantowne
    I raised the subject because I think it's important. I think it's important to know what Terry meant exactly. He made a very serious charge against professional athletes.  
    A speaker is not responsible for irrational responses to his remarks. 
    How can you be sure of all the things you are sure of? The vets, new contracts, , challenges to newbies, etc. See, you're doing what perhaps you wouldn't do if you had more of the information you say you don't care about. Terry didn't specify that his remarks referred solely, or  at all, to the clubhouse. Perhaps he was thinking about events -- or non-events, something someone should have done but didn't -- on the field of play itself. That possibility cannot be eliminated  in our current state of information, which remains sketchy, at best. Terry introduced a provocative topic and left it in even less than sketchy shape.
    IMO, if anyone is responsible for stimulating speculation, it's Terry himself. Anyone who thinks that there would not sooner than later be questions like "who and what did Terry mean" is naive. Whether or not I brought it up. 
    Hootin' and hollerin' and speculatin' about a collapse of this magnitude figures to go for some time, especially in Boston.


     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    More drivel.  Why would Terry name names and create a massive media storm that would rumble on for a long time?  He has played it perfectly.  He has taken the blame for creating an environment where certain players were able to shamefully be more selfish than the norm.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    Terry played it poorly. He should have shut up about selfishness unless he was prepared to clear the names of players who had not been selfish. As it is, the entire roster remains under the suspicion of selfishness, a deadly reputation for a pro athlete. If he had chosen to give the names of only a few unselfish players to make sure that people didn't think he had them in mind, the rest of the roster would remain under suspicions. 
    In short, he should not have raised such a hot topic if he had not been prepared to treat it more with more consideration for people who have now fallen under suspicion.  
    The best way to avoid a media storm is to shut up.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    To head off yet another witch-hunt, let's look at it in a more recognizable analogy.

    A long-tenured company manager is let go. He's in a high pressure job and spouts off before leaving. I'm sure some folks here can relate. The accusations are coming from an embittered voice. I'd say that in most scenarios, there's some truth to it. Some. Some can be attributed to finger-pointing to hide personal flaws this CO. manager can't or won't come to terms with.

    So, he has his say and leaves a lot of inquisitive faces behind. Some of these faces will feel much of what was said was a reflection of the person leaving - or the circumstance surrounding the departure.
    Others will be glad it was aired out.

    My point is, we really don't know how much of what was said was accurate.
    I do think Tito has some coaches that did not cut it, and Tito might not be so quick as to take responsibility for this. His lax manor worked in some ways, but not in others. Will he own up to this?

    As Bean alluded: Winning cures all ills. And even in a winning clubhouse, there will be selfish players. So, maybe Tito didn't have the chemistry he had with other teams. It was good enough to allow the team to be the A. L.'s best for 67% of the season...until the pitching could no longer hold up under the injuries.

    Tito might change his tune some over time. I don't think it's wise to start more rumblings based on one man's opinion. Yes, he was in a position to know. But nobody can really be completely objective about his/her own short-comings.

    And sometimes you can be too close to the truck in front of you...and not see the road ahead.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    There are many ways that a baseball player might behave selfishly. Even if they are done on the open field of play, they are not always detectable from the stands or by the TV camera. If they are done away from the field of play, only the manager, the coaches, and teammates have a chance to detect them, whether they are blatant or subtle.  
    At the very least, let's have some examples from the manager whose life they blighted, and might have cost him his job. After a loss, for instance, how did Terry know that a man was more upset by his 0 for 4 than by the loss? I mean really know. That's a very serious accusation. "Why are you dragging your tail?"
    "I went 0 for 4. That could affect my personal goals." "Did you notice that we lost the game?" "Oh, yeah, that too." Did someone who was sat say or indicate by demeanor that Terry should have played him or not hit for him or not run for him even though Terry was trying to win the game? "Why didn't you try to move the runner up a base?" "What, give myself up when I'm trying to post an average of X. Are you nuts?'  I mean, what did Terry have in mind but not say? If you're not prepared to say what you have in mind about THIS TOPIC, then don't say anything. 
    The party line since the collapse, especially as articulated by Theo, is that the team ( and the front office ) won and lost as a team. Let's not point fingers. In this instance and for purposes of a post-mortem, the implication is that all players are equal. To paraphrase Orwell's great line from Animal Farm, it looks as though Terry has chosen to say, "All players are equal, but some players are more equal than others."  Who? Let's take the others off the hook. 
    The boy seems to think that there will not be plenty of digging into Terry's remarks. I think there will be even more digging,  because the remarks are just hanging out there begging for speculation -- which has already begun in this forum; digging can hit innocent by-standers with flying. 
    "Drivel." "Media storm."  This boy has quite the refined vocabulary. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    Did Terry really say this on the record when he said he could no longer get through to them? If so, it's very provocative. Invariably, it raises the question: which players?  A guessing game in the press or amongst fans could be unfair to players. Just like questions about booze in the clubhouse, save that, IMO, this issue is more serious. Though Terry "admits" that he couldn't get through to these selfish players, he implies that he shouldn't have had to. That takes at least a little of the onus off him. "See what I had to deal with." And until we know who or what he is talking about, the inference is possible that NO ONE could have dealt with the players who made Terry's last season in Boston so trying. ( Does he say or imply that someone else might have done better than he getting through, or does he leave hanging the possible interpretation that these players were simply impossible and probably would have been impossible no matter who was in charge? ) Should we have to wait for Terry's book for him to name names?  Right now, since no names have been named, all names are theoretically suspect. That leaves the field open for speculation, some of which is bound to be unfair, as these things go. The ex-manager had made to what amounts to one of the most serious accusations that can be leveled in team sports.  Who were these players, and what form did their selfishness take? 
    Posted by expitch

    When you're not getting the results that you've strived for as a team, it's easy to say that you couldn't get through to your players. BB said the same thing to TB on the side lines during a loss last year. Sometimes chemistry plays a bigger role if you look at the '01-'04 Pats teams.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from VtRedSoxFan802. Show VtRedSoxFan802's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    EX, There was no inference on his part that nobody could have dealt with the issues with players this year IMO. I think Francona has probably said about one hundred times that it was time for a "new voice". The environment for speculation is ripe for certain. But in Boston it does not matter what somebody says. The absence of a statement on a topic the absence is spun into a statement on the topic however. It isn't fair it is just how things work and particularly so in Boston. So it does not matter much how much or how little the manager, the GM or the ownership group says. You ask what form the selfishness took on, my guess would be indifference rather than blatant action. That for a team with so many holes in starting rotation that was always playing from behind and burning its bullpen was enough of a rock around its ankle to not get those 2-4 wins that would have got the team into the post season. But that is all getting blown up. The RS need to stay healthier last year, need a better year from Lackey and one more starter because a rotation of Lester, Beckett, Buch, Lackey and Wake, Miller or Weiland is a long shot. Like every year they need to work on the bullpen, improve weaknesses where they can and deal with two productive guess that may not return. The "chemistry issues" that cost them a few games in September will take care of itself if they are successful with the above, they are a .500 club if none of the above happens no matter how much everyone is on the same page. Just my take
    Posted by fivekatz

    Francona could not deal with the players effectively period! He was too easy going and let too much go on until it got way out of hand simple as that. Quit glorifying him. His time was up and he was fired from the Phillies. Have you thought that maybe he did not want to be fired again and as a result, he quit?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    harness said no "witch-hunts" he thinks we should root for the player who cost his team and the fans a trip to the post-season, harness thinks fans have NO RIGHTS to hold a player ACCOUNTABLE.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    your right harness "winning cures all ills" and that is why this SUMMER you and most ignored the OBVIOUS WARNIG SIGNS that the pitchers sucked and the hitters were scoring 10 runs one game and 2 the next.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from UticaClub. Show UticaClub's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    One of the things that you should not do in an interview for a new job is to compain about the staff or climate on your previous job. Nobody wants to listen to a whiner. Terry may be right in thinking that several players had bad attitudes and lacked motivation but it is best to keep it under his hat and let it go and move on.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from chuchos. Show chuchos's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    Francona will never name names, he's too classy for that.
    And why should he anyway?

    If you watch the games you know who's in it to win it, and who's not.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    One of the things that you should not do in an interview for a new job is to compain about the staff or climate on your previous job. Nobody wants to listen to a whiner. Terry may be right in thinking that several players had bad attitudes and lacked motivation but it is best to keep it under his hat and let it go and move on.
    Posted by UticaClub
    There you go. I think he should have kept it under his hat. But once he lifted the cap partially and gave a quick peek, he should have removed it. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    Terry Francona is a player's manager. I have never heard one of his players talk bad about him, because he does not point fingers after a loss.
    As chuchos says,he is too classy for that. And it would serve no purpose other than to ruin his chance of ever gaining player respect in the future. Who would want to play for a manager that named players in the media?

    Today's athletes are more selfish and sensitive than ever. He will run across those types in any clubhouse, these types will not accept him and he will have residual effects from his past if he starts saying "this guy is a drunk" and "that guy is a slob" and "so and so is no team player."

    The only way Francona ever names these players is if he has a vendetta against them and has no intention of managing again.

    I don't believe this is the case, he just wanted to make it plain that these players are as much to blame as he is and the front office too. He did not want to go out as the problem child , when he knows it was an organization wide problem. He did not want to be blameless, but he wanted it known that others need to step up and share blame....either by stepping up their game, or 'fessin' up.'
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    I don't agree with Zilla. If you name players' faults -- in this case serious ones -- and even connect them to your demise indirectly, you name names. Once you put the subject in the public air, the really "classy" thing would have been to see that none of the good guys was under suspicion. Either name them, and leave the rest to their fate, or forthrightly name the offenders.
    Riight, Tito protected himself by not risking being a labeled a name-naming blurter, but he did not protect the reputations of players he left behind, or was forced to leave behind. 
    There is this too. Maybe some of these guys would shape up if they feared that a manager at his wit's end -- Tito's self-description -- might call them out in public.
    Tito opened this can of worms. Better he had left it on the back shelf until he was ready to spill the worms in a book.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    Players "madder" about going 0 for 4 have always been part of both winning and losing teams. From what I've read, Yaz was always miserable when he had a bad day at the plate regardless of the outcome of the game.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from UticaClub. Show UticaClub's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    Players "madder" about going 0 for 4 have always been part of both winning and losing teams. From what I've read, Yaz was always miserable when he had a bad day at the plate regardless of the outcome of the game.
    Posted by devildavid


    The thread title does appear to be a too specific while the thread OP is general and an overview.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare : The thread title does appear to be a too specific while the thread OP is general and an overview.
    Posted by UticaClub
    The thread title comes directly from what Terry said. My comments raised questions about what Terry said.

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

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    harness said no "witch-hunts" he thinks we should root for the player who cost his team and the fans a trip to the post-season, harness thinks fans have NO RIGHTS to hold a player ACCOUNTABLE.
    Posted by BurritoT


    Please don't tell the board how Harness thinks. Only I know that one. You are again sounding like Pike: That's something he would say.

    Everybody needs to be held accountable for their actions. That includes the players, the FO, the coaches, Tito...right down to you and I and what we say on a public forum.

    You are the one who alludes to the fact the alleged dissention cost the team a trip to the PO's. I said it was primarily the injury-riddled pitching staff.

    The same personal you feel caused a PO birth also took the field in 4 months of .667 ball. Where was UR witch-hunt then? Personal changed when Beckett/Bedard went down and a healthy Youk's absence could no longer be hid.
    Then the team had to rely on Weiland and a buch of compromised arms.
    That's why we watched the Rays in the PO's.

    Now, go ahead and mis-represent that.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    Posts: 5353
    First: 9/29/2009
    Last: 10/8/2011




     
    your right harness "winning cures all ills" and that is why this SUMMER you and most ignored the OBVIOUS WARNIG SIGNS that the pitchers sucked and the hitters were scoring 10 runs one game and 2 the next.














    Again you are off. There were warning signs back in May (erratic pitching mechanics and reduced velocity with Buch & Lester). I addressed it then.

    The summer showed nothing different, and certainly nothing
    pointing to a devastating Sept. collapse. The team tanked directly corresponded to the loss of Beckett and Bedard.  That's the truth, and no with-hunt will ever change that.







     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share