1275 replies to this topic

[trekfan55]

If the games don't count, then make the most of the practice. Agressiveness and fundamentals are good things. I'm getting the sense that this might be one of the most disciplined (or at least interesting) spring trainings for a new manager since Dick Williams ran things in 1967. Is there any other spring training that compares since then?

I was thinking along those lines myself.

When Tito took over he was replacing Gump, so there was no way he could do wrong.

[Corsi]

FORT MYERS, Fla. -- Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen was ejected from Monday's Grapefruit League game against the Red Sox, evidently for telling the first base umpire that a fair/foul call was not yet in his jurisdiction because the ball remained in front of the bag.

"It was lesson time," said Sox manager Bobby Valentine. "Ozzie was telling the first base umpire it wasn't his call, because the ball was in front of the bag, and he didn't want to hear that."

As Guillen exited the field through the tunnel next to the Red Sox dugout, Valentine waved. Asked if he said anything to his Miami counterpart, Valentine recalled saying, "See ya."

Guillen did not see or hear Valentine's remarks, but asked how he would have reacted, Guillen made his feelings clear.

"I don't see it. I would have told him to go and [expletive] himself, too," said Guillen. "That's the way Ozzie Guillen is."

http://www.weei.com/..._medium=twitter

[Doctor G]

Bobby V and Williams and Zimmer who was also mentioned all came up in the Dodger organization. not at the same time obviously but the heritage of aggressive baseball was a hallmark of the Dodger style of play both in Brooklyn and LA.

[rembrat]

If the games don't count, then make the most of the practice. Agressiveness and fundamentals are good things.

Don’t get me wrong, I think ST is the perfect time to try out new things, like a SP getting into a fastball count and working on throwing his changeup. Double steals and hit and runs, with the right guys, are awesome too.

But applauding bonehead base running plays because they seem aggressive doesn’t make sense to me. The baserunners should be focusing on getting into good habits that will hopefully, finally, carry over into the season. Running into outs for 4 weeks then telling everyone to tone it down seems like it isn’t going to yield much results.

[Pearl Wilson]

I dunno, seems to me you can learn by failure as well. If you're not getting caught, you might not be running enough. These games don't count. As long as people get their work in, the outs may not be as wasteful as some believe.

Just my opinion. I am not nor have I ever been a baseball player.

[lexrageorge]

Another quote from that piece:


I don't think I've ever heard that before. It better be some kind of wind. I mean it would still be Fenway park not 1910.

Fenway plays very differently when the wind is blowing in from left than it does when it's blowing right to left. And the wind can get pretty strong, especially in the spring and fall. Makes a lot of sense.

[lexrageorge]

A couple of years ago I went to Fenway to see the Rangers. Texas executed a double steal, and it was obvious to me (sitting multiple rows up in the stands) that the double steal was the play. But the Sox fielders acted as if they've never seen one before, and by the end of the play the Rangers had one run in and a guy on 3rd with nobody out.

A different approach to fundamentals now is something that should be applauded.

[BucketOBalls]

I am enjoying the aggressiveness on the basepaths this spring. If nothing else it creates a mindset to run hard and look for opportunities to take an extra base. Maybe fundamental baserunning will improve, too.

Unless fundamental baserunning improves, more aggressiveness is counterproductive(for most of the Sox, fundamental baserunning means: do not run)

Edited by BucketOBalls, 12 March 2012 - 11:05 PM.

[Toe Nash]

I'm getting the sense that this might be one of the most disciplined (or at least interesting) spring trainings for a new manager since Dick Williams ran things in 1967. Is there any other spring training that compares since then?

It could be, but we're also getting beaten over the head by the media and Valentine himself about how smart and active and disciplined he is. There's really no way to objectively compare to previous STs because of the reputation V has.

[Alcohol&Overcalls]

It could be, but we're also getting beaten over the head by the media and Valentine himself about how smart and active and disciplined he is. There's really no way to objectively compare to previous STs because of the reputation V has.

I don't think there's any way to compare, period.

[Rough Carrigan]

Don’t get me wrong, I think ST is the perfect time to try out new things, like a SP getting into a fastball count and working on throwing his changeup. Double steals and hit and runs, with the right guys, are awesome too.

But applauding bonehead base running plays because they seem aggressive doesn’t make sense to me. The baserunners should be focusing on getting into good habits that will hopefully, finally, carry over into the season. Running into outs for 4 weeks then telling everyone to tone it down seems like it isn’t going to yield much results.

I understand what you're saying but there's also an element of Valentine needing to see for himself who can do what. I recently read someone's article about minor leaguers and the author said that teams are often a bit over the top with their aggressiveness on the bases in the minors because they want to see what player X can get away with. If that's what this is then I'm fine with it.

Edited by Rough Carrigan, 13 March 2012 - 11:18 AM.

[rembrat]

If that's what it is then that's cool. I'm alright with that.

I did like what I read this morning though:

Valentine has been having his infielders go way out to take relays because his outfielders do not have strong arms. Ellsbury’s cutoff man was positioned near second base. First base coach Alex Ochoa, who had a great arm, told Valentine the only plus arm in the outfield belongs to Che-Hsuan Lin, who likely will start the season at Pawtucket. Valentine probably will have the same cutoff situation with Carl Crawford, whose arm is considered weaker than Ellsbury’s

http://www.boston.co...g_to_less_rest/

[reggiecleveland]

What's not to like? It is not news those guys don't throw well.

The big difference is the amount of info available. Even since Tito took over the info available for a hard core fan has multiplied. I can get more info on my phone now than on my PC in 2003.

[JMDurron]

That article makes me wonder - how is Aviles' arm at SS? I'm interested in the implications for deep cutoff balls on the road in particular, between Crawford and Ellsbury. I would have to imagine that he'll be an upgrade over Scutaro's balky shoulder, but it sounds like it will be open season for running on Sox OFers again.

[redsoxfan1776]

That article makes me wonder - how is Aviles' arm at SS? I'm interested in the implications for deep cutoff balls on the road in particular, between Crawford and Ellsbury. I would have to imagine that he'll be an upgrade over Scutaro's balky shoulder, but it sounds like it will be open season for running on Sox OFers again.

Alex Speier's article about "The Fielding Bible" says this about Aviles:

SHORTSTOP: MIKE AVILES

In 2008, Aviles graded as an excellent infielder, having saved 12 runs above the average defender while shifting between shortstop (his primary position), second and third. After that, however, Aviles graded poorly, costing his team eight defensive runs in 2010 and two in 2011.

Per the book: “His footwork isn’t very good regardless of position, but his range is adequate, and he does have the arm strength necessary to make all the throws from third base or shortstop. However, Aviles is a tentative defender even on routine plays, and he made a lot of defensive miscues, both of the mental and physical variety. He did not appear to take well to the role of a utility man. Overall, his net -11 Good Fielding Play minus Defensive Misplays and Errors was worse than all but eight infielders in the league, regardless of position. If Aviles ever hopes to be looked upon as more than a backup infielder, his glove work needs to improve.”

It is worth noting that Dewan’s assessment of Aviles’ defense was based on his work at third base. Assuming he is the everyday shortstop, Aviles would either need an even more drastic improvement from last year or, if he continues to measure significantly below average, he would need to hit like crazy to offset his shortcomings.

A caveat: One Red Sox team source suggests that the club’s internal metrics (developed by are somewhat more bullish on Aviles than Dewan’s projection system, particularly given his steadily improving arm strength in the post-Tommy John stage of his career.

[Al Zarilla]

Ellsbury seems to often get a bit of a running start on his throws, which result in his arm looking not so weak. Of course, on catches over his head or to the side, he can't do this. He's not in Damon's noodle (overcooked, not even al dente) arm class out there though.

[trekfan55]

That article makes me wonder - how is Aviles' arm at SS? I'm interested in the implications for deep cutoff balls on the road in particular, between Crawford and Ellsbury. I would have to imagine that he'll be an upgrade over Scutaro's balky shoulder, but it sounds like it will be open season for running on Sox OFers again.

Well, Ellsbury and Crwaford (once he´s back) are known quantities. So it's good to see how they'll deal with that.

[Plympton91]

Really? With the injury to Crawford making him unlikely to break camp with the ML squad, who stands in a better position to get his spot than Iglesias? Lavarnway?

Darnell McDonald or Mike Aviles.

If Iglesias really is ready for the majors, it makes the Nick Punto signing an even bigger waste of money than it already is. If SS is manned by the best defensive player in the history of major league baseball (which he'd have to be to have positive value while hitting like Josh Beckett), then they don't need a defensively-oriented backup.

[JimBoSox9]

If Iglesias really is ready for the majors, it makes the Nick Punto signing an even bigger waste of money than it already is. If SS is manned by the best defensive player in the history of major league baseball (which he'd have to be to have positive value while hitting like Josh Beckett), then they don't need a defensively-oriented backup.

Ridiculous.

Scenario A: Aviles is the best available starting SS, and The Sox pay Punto $3 million to be the backup so Iglesias can get regular PAs in Pawtucket.
Scenario B: Iglesias is the best available starting SS, and the Sox pay Punto $3 million to play elsewhere.

The Sox would leap at choice B. Punto is a sunk cost, or a $3 million bet that Iglesias isn't ready. Losing that bet would be awesome. To borrow from the pitching quandary thread, it's not a waste of money so much as it is a nice problem to have.

[pjheff]

Darnell McDonald or Mike Aviles.

I already project both McDonald and Aviles to make the roster when we break camp.

If Iglesias really is ready for the majors, it makes the Nick Punto signing an even bigger waste of money than it already is. If SS is manned by the best defensive player in the history of major league baseball (which he'd have to be to have positive value while hitting like Josh Beckett), then they don't need a defensively-oriented backup.

Iglesias wouldn't make Punto any more wasteful, as he'd continue in the primary utility IFer role; rather, Iglesias would create competition between McDonald and Aviles for the last roster spot when Crawford returns, if he's doing well enough, or return to Pawtucket, if he isn't.

[Plympton91]

Ridiculous.
Scenario B: Iglesias is the best available starting SS, and the Sox pay Punto $3 million to play elsewhere.
The Sox would leap at choice B. Punto is a sunk cost, or a $3 million bet that Iglesias isn't ready. Losing that bet would be awesome. To borrow from the pitching quandary thread, it's not a waste of money so much as it is a nice problem to have.

I would say ridiculous in a normal pre-2012 year. In 2012, and given the de-facto salary cap implemented in the new abominable CBA , the Red Sox are extremely budget constrained, and acting like it. They can't afford to pay players to play elsewhere -- for two seasons -- anymore. Every dollar they spent on Punto is a dollar they will not use to pay someone more useful.

I already project both McDonald and Aviles to make the roster when we break camp.

Iglesias wouldn't make Punto any more wasteful, as he'd continue in the primary utility IFer role; rather, Iglesias would create competition between McDonald and Aviles for the last roster spot when Crawford returns, if he's doing well enough, or return to Pawtucket, if he isn't.

Holy crap! Is that ghost? PJHeff? The PJHeff! From Dickie Thon Fan Club/AOL days? Long-time no see man, hope you are planning to be a regular again!

If Iglesias is good enough to be the starting shortstop, Aviles and McDonald are both lightyears more appropriate as backups for this Red Sox team than Nick Punto. I can't see any team with gold gloves at 2b and SS, but no real backup thirdbaseman (other than Aviles/Punto) and an all lefthanded starting outfield, choosing Punto over Aviles or McDonald. Punto provides assurance that the SS position in 2012 won't degenerate into a below replacement pit of suck. That is his only role. If Iglesias is ready, then this team needs the righthanded bats of McDonald and Aviles way, way more than Punto's ability to adequately field the shortstop position.

[Robert Plant]

FORT MYERS, Fla. -- Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen was ejected from Monday's Grapefruit League game against the Red Sox, evidently for telling the first base umpire that a fair/foul call was not yet in his jurisdiction because the ball remained in front of the bag.

"It was lesson time," said Sox manager Bobby Valentine. "Ozzie was telling the first base umpire it wasn't his call, because the ball was in front of the bag, and he didn't want to hear that."

As Guillen exited the field through the tunnel next to the Red Sox dugout, Valentine waved. Asked if he said anything to his Miami counterpart, Valentine recalled saying, "See ya."

Guillen did not see or hear Valentine's remarks, but asked how he would have reacted, Guillen made his feelings clear.

"I don't see it. I would have told him to go and [expletive] himself, too," said Guillen. "That's the way Ozzie Guillen is."

Thanks for this Corsi. I really haven't made up my mind yet about Bobby Valentine in terms of his ability to manage a major league baseball club for an entire season. At this point I am leaning towards thinking he is an excellent manager. Having said that, from day one I was stoked about the level of entertainment he would provide. I believe the first sentence that came out of my mouth when he was hired were, "a clown is going to be the manager". So far he has not disappointed in this department and it is only spring training. Assuming the shenanigans continue, this is gonna be a very engaging season.

Edited by Robert Plant, 13 March 2012 - 10:26 PM.

[Clears Cleaver]

Was watching the game last night on YES and Kay was ripping Bobby V for having the infielders back and then charging with runners on 2nd/3rd. Pinella agreed. "you might run that play in the 8th or 9th inning, but not in spring training and not in the first inning."

Oh boy, Sox almost never ran that play. Spring training is when you practice plays/running/cutoffs, etc. Why is it so hard for people to understand that?

[lexrageorge]

Was watching the game last night on YES and Kay was ripping Bobby V for having the infielders back and then charging with runners on 2nd/3rd. Pinella agreed. "you might run that play in the 8th or 9th inning, but not in spring training and not in the first inning."

Oh boy, Sox almost never ran that play. Spring training is when you practice plays/running/cutoffs, etc. Why is it so hard for people to understand that?

Especially given the fact that most teams have their minor league fodder playing in the 8th and 9th innings of most spring training games. Keep in mind that you're not exactly referring to two of the brighest bulbs out there with Kay and Pinella.

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

Count me among those with growing admiration for Bobby. Is he a clown? Almost definitely. He loves attention and clearly has an instinct to entertain. But I want to be entertained, and if the Sox are going to be largely filled with pretty boring personalities, I don't mind getting a little entertainment out of the manager. Sure, winning is the most entertaining thing, but a little ridiculousness and drama here and there won't hurt things too badly.

All that aside, though, the above post points out the best thing so far about this Spring Training: Bobby V is actually training his players this spring. As a result of having a lot of veteran-laden teams, I'm sure, Tito largely seemed to just try to get ST over with as quickly as possible. Sure, they worked on things every spring training. Of course they did. And I'm not even saying they were just going through the motions. It's just that Tito basically knew what he had after the first five years or so.

With a new manager, and maybe this would happen with any new manager, there's a feeling-out period that's really interesting to watch as a fan. I don't think Bobby is "testing" the team necessarily, but saying, hey, this is something I might want to try sometime, let's make sure everyone's comfortable with it. The fact that Kay and Pinella would call that game like it meant something, and like normal rules apply, is so dense it's mind-boggling (and, echoing back to Belichick comparisons, doesn't sound exactly like the way commentators during Pats spring training games are always wondering why it seems like Coach Bill just doesn't care about the outcome or whether the play is successful or not?).

I don't think Valentine is doing anything extraordinary, but he's doing what I would hope he would do and he's making things a lot more interesting as a fan. I'm actually way more excited for the season to start than I thought I would be. This could be really fun - and there might be some wins in there, too.

Edited by MyDaughterLovesTomGordon, 14 March 2012 - 11:46 AM.

[Pumpsie]

Especially given the fact that most teams have their minor league fodder playing in the 8th and 9th innings of most spring training games. Keep in mind that you're not exactly referring to two of the brighest bulbs out there with Kay and Pinella.

Aint' THAT the truth. Lou was never that bright but now, in his dotage, he seems to not only have lost something off his fastball but also off his curve, slider, change-up, forkball, AND his screwball. I've never liked him very much but it was kinda sad to see and hear how much he's slipped in his later years. He reminds me now a bit of Ralph Kiner...AFTER his stroke.

[Plympton91]

Aint' THAT the truth. Lou was never that bright but now, in his dotage, he seems to not only have lost something off his fastball but also off his curve, slider, change-up, forkball, AND his screwball. I've never liked him very much but it was kinda sad to see and hear how much he's slipped in his later years. He reminds me now a bit of Ralph Kiner...AFTER his stroke.

Yeah, it's amazing. I was watching the game and trying to figure out who the really, really old guy was in the booth. Then I realized it was Lou Pinella, and promptly decided that he didn't really sound that old. Because, well, that has implications ....

[joyofsox]

Someone told me that Pinella asked, in all seriousness, during the YES broadcast: "Baseball's been played, what, 100 years?"

Yeah, Lou, since about 1912. Amazing stupid, but even more so from a former Cubs manager. Maybe he was half in the bag.

***

I did like Valentine's further comment re Ozzie: "Isn’t that his standard comment about everything? Has he ever not said that about something?"

Edited by joyofsox, 15 March 2012 - 10:16 AM.

[ToeKneeArmAss]

Count me among those with growing admiration for Bobby. Is he a clown? Almost definitely. He loves attention and clearly has an instinct to entertain. But I want to be entertained, and if the Sox are going to be largely filled with pretty boring personalities, I don't mind getting a little entertainment out of the manager. Sure, winning is the most entertaining thing, but a little ridiculousness and drama here and there won't hurt things too badly.

My concern is if being an attention whore leads him to over-manage. In the vast majority of game situations, the manager's best move is to do nothing.

I'm not sure that Bobby's ego will allow him to do nothing often enough.

[SoxScout]

Thought this was an interesting read.

WEEI: Don't call it criticism

Valentine’s candor has been described in some quarters as a form of criticism of his players. But the new Red Sox manager bristles at such a characterization of his communicative style.

“In the 3,000 games I’ve had pre- or post-game meetings in, in two languages, I’ve never criticized a player. And I don’t intend to,” Valentine said on Wednesday, prior to his team’s exhibition game against the Pirates. “I’m very sensitive to the players’ feelings. I’m very sensitive and understanding of how tough a job they have.”

“It means the highest level. This is the highest level of baseball, and I like to see players play at their highest level individually and collectively,” said Valentine. “I don’t seek perfection, because it’s impossible to reach that. But that level below perfection is where we are at. It’s what we strive for.”

The purpose of setting lofty ambitions is twofold. First, doing so identifies something for which players can strive. Secondly, the process of defining an ambitious agenda also sets a baseline expectation of acceptable performance and effort.
“An analogy that makes it simple for me is that my friend is in the Navy and flies airplanes. His commander understands that some days his scores are excellent and sometimes they’re kind of mediocre,” said Valentine. “If there was no excellence, then [the commander] could never get them to perform at the standard that he needs them to perform at to be at least at their level. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be in the cockpit.”

Yet such statements are not criticisms, Valentine insists, but rather part of the desire he has to see his players excel. When players fall short of performing at an excellent or acceptable level, Valentine believes that it is reasonable to identify the shortcoming. A willingness to speak the truth, suggests the manager, is not akin to throwing a player under a bus, but rather a reinforcement of standards.

“That’s a statement of fact. What the scribes have to understand is sometimes a statement of fact is a statement of fact and sometimes a comment that may be in jest needs to be understood that way,” said Valentine. “When I saw [Melancon] in the dugout [after his outing on Monday], he said, ‘I got all my running in backing up the bases.’ So when I said he got his work in backing up the bases, that’s not a critical analysis. It’s trying to make light of the situation as I did with him.

“A statement of fact should never be misconstrued as criticism. I don’t think it is, or should be. I don’t have time to deal with intelligence or morality. I can’t deal with those. If ignorant people misinterpret simple statements, it’s not my fault. If factual statements are misconstrued as criticism, that’s somebody else’s problem.

“If Daniel Bard or anybody else has three walks in an inning, and you say, ‘Three walks in an inning are too many,’ I can’t say that he only walked two, and I can’t say I didn’t recognize the three walks. The next time that anybody else walks three guys, he’s going to expect me to say the same thing.”

[Rasputin]

Bobby Valentine is an ass.

it's not criticism, it's just a statement of fact.

Here's the thing. In one on one situations between coaches and players you should be absolutely brutal and make sure the player knows you're on his side and you're only pointing out what he does poorly in an attempt to help him do it better.

When talking to the media, it's best not to talk.

[Sprowl]

It's quite a personality switch from an occasionally close-mouthed diplomat like Tito to a motormouth like Bobby V, the reverse of going from voluble Theo to taciturn Ben.

Valentine makes for tons of copy, which makes our lives a little more entertaining. The notion that the commentariat should actually recognize when he's making a joke has lots of potential for comedy.

[lexrageorge]

Bobby Valentine has been one of the best things that has happened to the Sox this past season. That's a statement of fact.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Bobby Valentine has been one of the best things that has happened to the Sox this past season. That's a statement of fact.

Can you go ahead and explain why? I'm honestly very curious as to why you think this way, since I don't think it at all.

[TheoShmeo]

Bobby Valentine is an ass.

it's not criticism, it's just a statement of fact.

Here's the thing. In one on one situations between coaches and players you should be absolutely brutal and make sure the player knows you're on his side and you're only pointing out what he does poorly in an attempt to help him do it better.

When talking to the media, it's best not to talk.

I have trouble imagining a post I would disagree with more.

Francona's style was to say nice things or nothing at all.

Valentine says what he thinks and his candor sometimes is aimed inward. See his comments about his management of the pen.

It's simply not the case that every candid comment that is not wine and roses is something that will or should cause adults to wet their pants. I'd be surprised if players on the Sox get as agitated over Bobby's unTito-like comments as much as a good chunk of the fanbase. Who knows, maybe Sox players will go to pieces each time Bobby says something that isn't flattering, but if so, they're going to need to grow up and take Bobby's talk for what it is: A reflection of his views, period.

It's also not the case that since Bobby is different than Tito's and many other managers, that Bobby is an ass or has a style that doesn't work.

[cahlton]

It's hard to see how this thinking-out-loud thing he does could fail to be felt, by the players, as criticism. Tito wouldn't tell you what he was thinking or what he was going to do; he would just maintain that everything was hunky-dory until he finally made his move--at which point he'd play it down, whatever it was. Tito diminished or deflected scrutiny of his players, or tried to. Valentine is intensifying it. He may prove to be a great in-game manager, but out-of-game he needs to rein in that overactive mind of his.

Just to be clear, I'm not a staunch defender of Tito. In the area we're discussing, though, he was far cleverer than the Talented Mr. Valentine.

[luckysox]

I was on the Bobby V bus for awhile because I thought his change in attitude from Tito's and his energy level might be a good thing for this group of guys. But it seems like during ST most of his "statements of fact" have been critical of his players' performance...with the exception of Iglesias. Whether this is actual criticism, well, I guess we all have to determine that in our own way. But I have not read or heard too many statements of fact about the guys who are performing well. It has colored my impression of him as overly negative. I now don't want to read or hear him anymore. We have a really negative media in Boston; seems like Valentine is adding to this critical atmosphere and I don't think it's going to help them play better.

[lexrageorge]

Can you go ahead and explain why? I'm honestly very curious as to why you think this way, since I don't think it at all.

The short answer: because he realizes that 33 of 35 base stealers being successful against Josh Beckett is not something that can continue in 2012.

Longer answer: I'd like to separate out the firing of Tito from the naming of Valentine. Tito was an underrated (on this board) in-game manager; he was also great at the so-called "intangibles" and "managing for the long haul" (I quote those as they are much more subjective, qualitative statements; but if we try hard we can probably name several examples of these qualities). However, for various reasons that have been rehashed over and over again, Tito is no longer here.

I think Valentine so far has done a superb job of getting the team to think about 2012. The media is focused on him, not on the players who ordered Popeyes. He's working hard to see what kind of team he has, and also getting the players to focus on a few fundamentals in an at least an attempt to correct a few flaws that in some cases truly did get out of hand (see my short answer above). And when he opens his mouth, the Yankees get their panties all twisted in a bunch, which is a good thing.

Straight talking to the media about a player's performance is fine, as long as it's kept factual. Saying "Bard walked too many batters today" is fine; I don't think Bard would disagree. I would call it constructive criticism, and most players should be able to handle it.

Tito wouldn't tell you what he was thinking or what he was going to do

This is correct, but what I find funny about this comment is that Valentine is being criticized for refusing to disclose his decision on whether he thinks Bard will be starting.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

The short answer: because he realizes that 33 of 35 base stealers being successful against Josh Beckett is not something that can continue in 2012.

Really? Josh Beckett is 84-47 with a 113 ERA+ in his Boston time, a time that's coincided with not worrying about the stolen base all that much. Suddenly this is something that's a problem?

I don't mean to jump ugly. I'm asking honestly. You really think worrying about details like this is what's going to change this team for the better? If SB totals go down in 2012, it's because Varitek was eased out into retirement and a strong defensive catcher in Shoppach was brought in to soak up his innings. Bobby V has zero to do with that.

[redsox2020]

As long as Valentine is being honest, I'm sure most players could care less what he says to the media. If they do, they really have no business playing in Boston.

[rembrat]

As long as Valentine is being honest, I'm sure most players could care less what he says to the media. If they do, they really have no business playing in Boston.

Another statement of fact: The players are going to be fed up with getting trashed in the media every week. It's fine now because the games and the performances dont matter but come August the constant commentary is going to lose its appeal.

[TheoShmeo]

Another statement of fact: The players are going to be fed up with getting trashed in the media every week. It's fine now because the games and the performances dont matter but come August the constant commentary is going to lose its appeal.

Have the players on all of Bobby's teams gotten fed up with him by August? If not, perhaps things aren't quite as dire as you're suggesting.

Make no mistake, I think there's a risk that Bobby could lose some of the guys on this squad if he's not careful, particularly after years of an entirely different approach. But there's more than one way to skin a cat.

[redsox2020]

Another statement of fact: The players are going to be fed up with getting trashed in the media every week. It's fine now because the games and the performances dont matter but come August the constant commentary is going to lose its appeal.

I expect plenty of overreaction from the fans & media, but little to none from the players. They're not exactly fragile creatures.

[cahlton]

This is correct, but what I find funny about this comment is that Valentine is being criticized for refusing to disclose his decision on whether he thinks Bard will be starting

It's precisely Valentine's public uncertainty that increases scrutiny of the player. It would be better for him to say that the rotation, in toto, will be finalized on such-and-such a date, and to postpone until then answering any and all questions about Bard, Doubront, Aceves, et al. Instead Valentine is stirring the pot on the question of Bard-to-the-rotation.

It's as if Valentine likes the attention--likes being asked, on a daily basis, where he stands on such matters. Because, as I said, he's inviting the questions by thinking out loud. These are conversations he should be having with his coaches, privately, not with the Boston media. It's not hard to see why Valentine has clashed with players in the past: no doubt Bard appreciates knowing that his manager's ambivalent about him.

[rembrat]

Have the players on all of Bobby's teams gotten fed up with him by August? If not, perhaps things aren't quite as dire as you're suggesting.

None of those players have ever been in Boston with this media and this fanbase.

I expect plenty of overreaction from the fans & media, but little to none from the players. They're not exactly fragile creatures.

How long have you been watching professional athletes compete? Fragile creatures are exactly what they are. They lose their shit over the smallest of things and now you have this baffoon who is going to openly shine a light on their errors and lapse of judgement. This isn't football. It's a 162 game schedule. That's a loooooong season to have to put up with.

[Harry Hooper]

For those who think the free-flowing public thoughts of BlabbyV are no big deal, check out Lou Merloni's comments on WEEI yesterday. Go about 9:20 and 20:00 into the clip.

[JimBoSox9]

It's when one of his players disagrees with one of his "statements of fact" that it becomes "criticism. Bobby doesn't understand that, because the fact that he could be wrong doesn't occur to him.

Disagree with Bobby V, and you disagree with reality.

[Clears Cleaver]

This thread makes it seem like Bobby V never says anything positive about his players. or does the media only print the "criticisms?"

[lexrageorge]

Really? Josh Beckett is 84-47 with a 113 ERA+ in his Boston time, a time that's coincided with not worrying about the stolen base all that much. Suddenly this is something that's a problem?

I don't mean to jump ugly. I'm asking honestly. You really think worrying about details like this is what's going to change this team for the better? If SB totals go down in 2012, it's because Varitek was eased out into retirement and a strong defensive catcher in Shoppach was brought in to soak up his innings. Bobby V has zero to do with that.

This is the same Josh Beckett who seems to tantalize us with his potential to be a #1, but then always seems to slide back to "not quite a #1". Go back through all the threads about Beckett if you must, but I just don't think the idea of giving him something to improve on is so ludicrous.

Valentine will have his own style, and I predict most players will adapt. So far, noone has complained, not even the anonymous sources. Perhaps some won't adapt; there were players that didn't adapt to Francona either (was it Jay Payton a few years back?). That's just the way it is.

I recall some folks here were up in arms when Francona used Bard after his first bad relief outings in September. My argument was (and is) that one or two bad relief outings is not predictive; Francona apparently agreed. Meanwhile, Valentine says that Bard walked too many batters, and everyone is up in arms. Perhaps Bard needs to hear that right now.

[Van Everyman]

G38 was on BBTN tonight and absolutely KILLED Valentine. He thinks that Valentine is already setting himself up to make the players have to talk about shit he said in interviews instead of what's happening on the field. Cited the latest thing w Beckett taking a limo despite Bobby's dictum that everybody rides the bus as the kind of thing the media is just going to feast on.

Said as a loudmouth himself, he knows of what he speaks.