Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bigpapa1977. Show Bigpapa1977's posts

    Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."

    The Red Sox were 38-34 when they traded Kevin Youkilis (the White Sox were also 38-34 at that time).

    The Red Sox are 11-16 since trading Youk.

    BTW, Youk has an .852 OPS since the trade and the Red Sox are paying 70+ % of his salary.

    The White Sox are 15-11 since they traded for Youk.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."

    In response to "Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."": [QUOTE]The Red Sox were 38-34 when they traded Kevin Youkilis (the White Sox were also 38-34 at that time). The Red Sox are 11-16 since trading Youk. BTW, Youk has an .852 OPS with the White Sox and the Sox are paying 70+ % of his salary. The White Sox are 15-11 since they traded for Youk. Posted by Bigpapa1977[/QUOTE] Shouldn't you be preparing to play the Yankees tonight? Was your locker next to Youks? You don't like what Middlebrooks is doing? Could Youk have pitched at the top of the rotation?
     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bigpapa1977. Show Bigpapa1977's posts

    Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."

    In Response to Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO.":
    [QUOTE]In response to "Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."": Shouldn't you be preparing to play the Yankees tonight? Was your locker next to Youks? You don't like what Middlebrooks is doing? Could Youk have pitched at the top of the rotation?
    Posted by jasko2248[/QUOTE]


    Just pointing out the facts.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bigpapa1977. Show Bigpapa1977's posts

    Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."

    In Response to Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO.":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO." : But aren't you the dude who wanted to trade both Youk and Reddick for Michael Morse?
    Posted by Calzone65[/QUOTE]


    Who is Michael Morse?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."

    Actually , I think is the answer is : maybe.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."

    beckett is a cancer, youk was a big headed, whiny baby....does that clarify things for you papa?

    oh i should add, when they were 38-34, how much was youk a part of that?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."

    In Response to Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO.":
    [QUOTE]beckett is a cancer, youk was a big headed, whiny baby....does that clarify things for you papa? oh i should add, when they were 38-34, how much was youk a part of that?
    Posted by georom4[/QUOTE]

    I think Beckett is more like a bad case of food poisoning that never goes away. Youkilis was like a sore throat. Ellsbury is like sore ribs or a painful shoulder. Matsuzaka is like a heart attack. Lester is becoming a pain in the neck.

    They should stop looking for a "cancer" in the clubhouse and start looking for a bunch of other illness. The mistake is to think it's all the fault of one individual, when it's obviously a more widespread problem.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."

    Of course, can't say for sure.  But, I don't think Youk was a "clubhouse cancer".  The situation was "untenable" because the club had two third basemen; one who was a great past, possible present, and no future, and one who was a definite present and almost definite future.  The club went with the clearer option it had at that pivotal juncture.

    As for the records, the Sox winning records at that point, and subsequent losing record, seems to have very little to do with Youk, as he wasn't on the field for most of the winning time, and was scuffling whilst recouping from injury and platooning when he was on the field.  So, wither he was such a great clubhouse presence (flying in the face of the clubhouse cancer notion) that, merely by being there he made the club better, or he was a non-factor.

    As for his success with the Pale Hose, it is natural.  When Youk is healthy and playing regularly, he is an offensive force with singular abilities.  And, with the White Sox, he has been healthy and playing regularly.  

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."

    In Response to Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO.":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO." : I think Beckett is more like a bad case of food poisoning that never goes away. Youkilis was like a sore throat. Ellsbury is like sore ribs or a painful shoulder. Matsuzaka is like a heart attack. Lester is becoming a pain in the neck. They should stop looking for a "cancer" in the clubhouse and start looking for a bunch of other illness. The mistake is to think it's all the fault of one individual, when it's obviously a more widespread problem.
    Posted by ZILLAGOD[/QUOTE]

    I totally agree with your last sentence, for whatever reason it just isn't a good clubhouse.  The need to put it on 1 guy doesn't make sense.

    As far as Youk goes, he wasn't helping the team much when he was here and Middlebrooks is the future.  Seems like they should've gotten more in return though.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."

    In Response to Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO.":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO." : I totally agree with your last sentence, for whatever reason it just isn't a good clubhouse.  The need to put it on 1 guy doesn't make sense. As far as Youk goes, he wasn't helping the team much when he was here and Middlebrooks is the future.  Seems like they should've gotten more in return though.
    Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]

    As I've said before , these 'witch hunts' very rarely turn up a singular culprit.

    The notion that Manny Ramirez was somehow a "cancer" is totally proven wrong by the fact that they won two championships with him, and exactly none without. In fact , the team has gotten progressively worse since losing it's most reliable hitter, it's biggest star, and arguably one of their best clutch players  (along with Ortiz).
     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from rightymclefty. Show rightymclefty's posts

    Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."

    Sure, let's go back in a time machine and let Middlebrooks stay in Pawtucket, and go with broken down, snitch, Youk. After all, he was the future of this team.
    WAKE UP!
    Middlebgrooks is terrific and will only get better.
    End of story!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."

    In Response to Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO.":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO." : As I've said before , these 'witch hunts' very rarely turn up a singular culprit. The notion that Manny Ramirez was somehow a "cancer" is totally proven wrong by the fact that they won two championships with him, and exactly none without. In fact , the team has gotten progressively worse since losing it's most reliable hitter, it's biggest star, and arguably one of their best clutch players  (along with Ortiz).
    Posted by ZILLAGOD[/QUOTE]

    The only thing Manny was Cancerous towards was losing.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."

    In Response to Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO.":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO." : I totally agree with your last sentence, for whatever reason it just isn't a good clubhouse.  The need to put it on 1 guy doesn't make sense. As far as Youk goes, he wasn't helping the team much when he was here and Middlebrooks is the future.  Seems like they should've gotten more in return though.
    Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]

    What makes it a bad clubhouse?  The fact that they are not winning?  I think any club with high expectations that is not living up to those expectations can be perceived as having a poor/dysfunctional clubhouse.  I am not even necessarily dissagreeing with you.  I just think that, as a rule, the perception will be 'poor clubhouse' when a team is not playing well.  But, what are the indicators?  Beckett?  A distance between valentine and the players?  These and the other likely indicators seem somewhat hard to guage, as an outsider.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Tomhab. Show Tomhab's posts

    Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."

    Everyone knew the Youk had to go I just don't get why they couldn't hold on for a few more weeks so he could get health and we'd get a better return on investment for him.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from GoUconn13. Show GoUconn13's posts

    Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."

    In Response to Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO.":
    [QUOTE]Everyone knew the Youk had to go I just don't get why they couldn't hold on for a few more weeks so he could get health and we'd get a better return on investment for him.
    Posted by Tomhab[/QUOTE]

    Youkilis have been mouthing off during the trade rumors at the same time when he was benched like three games in a row in favor of Middlebrook who was a hot hitter during that time, and Youkilis complained about it.  Yes Boston should have hold on him where he would be a perfect DH hitter platooning with Will or Agonz while Papi was out.  But Boston never saw it is coming.  
     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."

    In Response to Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO.":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO." : the real problem is that the ailments and diseases mentioned are curable; unfortunately, the players mentioned aren't.
    Posted by mryazz[/QUOTE]

    GOOD POINT!
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Tomhab. Show Tomhab's posts

    Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."

    In Response to Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO.":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO." : Youkilis have been mouthing off during the trade rumors at the same time when he was benched like three games in a row in favor of Middlebrook who was a hot hitter during that time, and Youkilis complained about it.  Yes Boston should have hold on him where he would be a perfect DH hitter platooning with Will or Agonz while Papi was out.  But Boston never saw it is coming.  
    Posted by GoUconn13[/QUOTE]

    Did he mouth off to the press?  I didn't see that or was that the rumor at the time on Sports radio (The Real Cancer IMHO)?  Ortiz was mouthing off to the press about his pay during the all star break but no one called him a cancer!

    Players are going to grip when the team is losing it happens, unless he went to the FO and asked to be traded they should ahve kept him until the trade deadline.  They sure could use his bat this weekend!
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."

    In Response to Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO.":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO." : What makes it a bad clubhouse?  The fact that they are not winning?  I think any club with high expectations that is not living up to those expectations can be perceived as having a poor/dysfunctional clubhouse.  I am not even necessarily dissagreeing with you.  I just think that, as a rule, the perception will be 'poor clubhouse' when a team is not playing well.  But, what are the indicators?  Beckett?  A distance between valentine and the players?  These and the other likely indicators seem somewhat hard to guage, as an outsider.
    Posted by SpacemanEephus[/QUOTE]

    I guess you are right, there is no concrete evidence the clubhouse is bad.  We know it was bad last year, we know Bobby V has had issues with Pedey and Youk.  And of course there is the endless stream of "unnamed sources" that talk to Olney, Edes, etc....  But as far as hard evidence, there isn't much.  Smoke - Fire?


     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."

    In Response to Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO.":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO." : I guess you are right, there is no concrete evidence the clubhouse is bad.  We know it was bad last year, we know Bobby V has had issues with Pedey and Youk.  And of course there is the endless stream of "unnamed sources" that talk to Olney, Edes, etc....  But as far as hard evidence, there isn't much.  Smoke - Fire?
    Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]

    Perhaps TMAC.  Perhaps.  I just think the upheaval and disaster of 2011 was just as likely to have united the clubhouse in circle-the-wagons harmony as it was to have divided it.  I just want some evidence that tells me there is disharmony.  I don't count Youk/Pedey vs. Valentine.  If there wasn't some friction between Tito's golden boys and the new manager, especially bobby Valentine, I would think there was something seriously wrong.  And i don't count Olney's nonsense.  I generally dig his takes.  Logical, well-hypothesized, loaded with interesting facts.  But his Sox Are Dysfunctional mission is 100% "unnamed sources' and absolutely nothing else.  Pretty weak.  I want facts.  And i don't have any ... unless playing .500 ball = clubhouse dysfunction.  
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."

    this team looks like the most miserable bunch of athletes i have ever seen in all my years of watching pro sports...

    of course rumours about their dysfunction would surface...

    smoke =  fire....

    none of the basic issues that drove us into the trash heap in 2011 have been addressed...i told everyone that it would continue and it has...rearranging the chairs on the Titanic's deck (scutaro/morteson, lillibridge,) wont solve the sox woes...they need to move out beckett and lackey because they are selfish prigs, they need to trade CC and Papi to save serious money, and they need to infuse this team with some youth and energy (Lava, Iggy, + Middlebrooks/Pedro)

    and the core of agon, pedroia, ells need to produce at top level...and they need to let their manager pick his best players, start them as he sees fit (Morales/Pedro) and back him up....Ben hasnt done any of these with the exception of middlebrooks....and that was a no brainer...
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO."

    In Response to Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO.":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Was Youk a 'cancer' and caused an untenable clubhouse situation? The answer is "NO." : Perhaps TMAC.  Perhaps.  I just think the upheaval and disaster of 2011 was just as likely to have united the clubhouse in circle-the-wagons harmony as it was to have divided it.  I just want some evidence that tells me there is disharmony.  I don't count Youk/Pedey vs. Valentine.  If there wasn't some friction between Tito's golden boys and the new manager, especially bobby Valentine, I would think there was something seriously wrong.  And i don't count Olney's nonsense.  I generally dig his takes.  Logical, well-hypothesized, loaded with interesting facts.  But his Sox Are Dysfunctional mission is 100% "unnamed sources' and absolutely nothing else.  Pretty weak.  I want facts.  And i don't have any ... unless playing .500 ball = clubhouse dysfunction.  
    Posted by SpacemanEephus[/QUOTE]

    Mission is a good word to describe Olney vs. the red sox clubhouse.  Everytime the Red Sox have a losing streak or Olney gets bored he hears from an unnamed source.
     

Share