Re: Tito give us the NAMES, we want the NAMES of those Bastards!
posted at 9/30/2011 11:45 AM EDT
In Response to Re: Tito give us the NAMES, we want the NAMES of those Bastards!
[QUOTE]Actually Francona was pretty adamant during the media session yesterday to say that John Lackey was not a problem in the clubhouse or on the field. As a matter of fact, for all of his antics on the field, he would apologize after the fact and was in good standing with the other players. Considering that Tito probably knew what he was going to do today, he could have easily thrown Lackey under the bus and confirmed he was a clubhouse problem...fact is he did not do that, so I think we need to look elsewhere. If I had to speculate on contributors to the problem, my first guess would be that Josh Beckett led the way maybe followed by Wakefield and Papelbon. Is there any possibility that the close relationship between Pedroia and Francona soured this year with Pedey crossing the respect line?? Once again I am totally speculating on this.
Posted by Soxdog67[/QUOTE]
That's an interesting take, but if chemistry is a new problem, it seems like the new faces would be the first place to look. Lackey would be my first choice, but when Francona is asked point-blank he is very clear that Lackey is considered a great club-house guy. That's not Francona's style - if that's not the case, he is more inclined to give a diplomatic non-answer than a flat-out lie.
I don't think Crawford was the problem - the only area Crawford has really been impressive this year is in his character off the field. And if there had been personality issues prior to his signing, you would think we would have had a sense of them while he was with the Rays.
My impression of Gonzalez is that he is more quiet than anything. I don't think he would stir any trouble, but is probably not a leader in the club-house.
We know Papi loved Manny, and probably felt more comfortable on the old teams with more Dominicans and native Spanish speakers. If Aceves was a problem, I could see the two bonding, and like any office politics, griping together, and before long both are an issue with regards to chemistry.
I'm going to guess Ellsbury, too, was an issue. Fantastic performance aside, there were a ton of chemistry issues in 2010 that turned out to be irrelevant because he was never with the team. Unlike the statements in support of Lackey, you never heard Francona say anything about Ellsbury being a terrific club-house guy.