Re: Sell the Team
posted at 10/15/2011 1:54 PM EDT
I disagree with your posts on this thread. First, and I'm not sure if it was you or someone else on this thread who phrased it this way, but he didn't "indict" Crawford. He just said he wasn't in favor of the deal because he wasn't a good fit. It's hardly an indictment that's blaming Crawford for the bad finish and hardly a fracture in the relationship that can't be mended.
Also, an owner can trust the baseball people. It's like any company -- any good company. The owner isn't necessarily going to know every thing about every part of the company. At some point, you have to trust the people you hire. Now if it's a situation that spending the money is going to ruin the company financially and put it out of business, that's one thing. But that wasn't the case with Crawford.
Henry has been the ideal owner. He stays involved as the top person, but let's people do the job they were hired for. And he's really not much different that Cuban in that respect. Cuban isn't making trades or signing free agents. He's simply giving his GM the money to do whatever he thinks is needed to be successful. And talk about coddling the players. People rip Henry for the headsets and sprucing up Fenway to make it more comfortable. Go ahead and read what Cuban has done for the players there. The only difference between Henry and Cuban is that Cuban hungers for the spotlight and has to be the face of the team. Henry prefers to stay in the background and there's absolutely nothig wrong with that.
Yes, Henry and Co. could have handled the past month or so better. But that shouldn't erase the past 10 years. They took over for a regime that seemed to go out of its way to backstap players, not support its managers, and most importantly not care about the fans or what the fans wanted.
Henry and Co. came in and did a complete 180. They spent money to improve the product at all levels. I can believe Henry with much of what he says because of the history. Remember, when he came in, he said he was committed to spending the money necessary to make the Sox a winning team. Many critics called him a liar and predicted he was going to run the team like a small-market team.
Now who was right -- Henry who put millions into Fenway and has always had a big payroll and won two titles or the critics?
I'm not saying that there's not reasonable criticism that should be directed Henry's way and ownership in general. But I think that overall they certainly deserves some benefit of the doubt and certainly the chance to righten the ship.