Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

And so it begins....


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
12 replies to this topic

#1 MakMan44


  • stole corsi's dream


  • 13,634 posts

Posted 22 March 2012 - 11:28 PM

http://mlb.mlb.com/n...rtnerId=rss_bos

What's the precedent on this? I always thought that Girardi and Valentine had to agree together that the game wouldn't go to extra innings. Is Valentine rightfully annoyed here or am I off base?

#2 alwyn96

  • 802 posts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 06:52 PM

I'd guess this happens sometimes. Not really a big deal, and I'm sure everyone forgets about it once the season gets going.

#3 MakMan44


  • stole corsi's dream


  • 13,634 posts

Posted 24 March 2012 - 03:48 PM

Ok, I thought that they usually agree together that's why I came here to ask. Thanks.

#4 Eck'sSneakyCheese


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,684 posts

Posted 24 March 2012 - 03:50 PM

It's just Bobby being Bobby :)

#5 Sampo Gida

  • 3,136 posts

Posted 24 March 2012 - 08:37 PM

The decision to play extra innings must be mutual. Not to play extra innings can be a unilateral decison by either manager.

The road manager usually does not want to go extra innings in a night game with a 2 1/2 hr bus ride ahead of them with 2 games the next day.

Usually this is something thats discussed before the game with the umps.

It's ST, nobody really cares except the fans who go to the games or are watching on TV. Bobby V's given reason for being bothered is BS IMHO . Mortenson had no chance of making the team no matter how he pitched in the 10th (he was optioned out hours later), and he would have started his warm ups in the 9th when the Red Sox had runners in scoring position. The earliest Girardi could have told Bobby V he was not going to proceed was betwen innings, and Mortenson was already warmed up by that time (only threw a few more from the mound).

Girardi probably should have came over to Bobby V after the 9th, My theory as to why he did not is Girardi was a bit ticked at the squeeze, which was unusual I thought given a single wins the game for the Red Sox. Giving up an out and playing for the tie at home to take advantage of the roster advantage might have not gone over well.
Also, Bobby V had made a few comments during ST about Yankee players that may not have sat very well with him.

Bobby V does not seem to get along with other managers, waving to Ozzie as he got thrown out another example.

Heck, seems he does not even get along with his own GM

http://www.boston.co...red_sox/?page=2

#6 MakMan44


  • stole corsi's dream


  • 13,634 posts

Posted 25 March 2012 - 12:12 PM

The decision to play extra innings must be mutual. Not to play extra innings can be a unilateral decison by either manager.

The road manager usually does not want to go extra innings in a night game with a 2 1/2 hr bus ride ahead of them with 2 games the next day.

Usually this is something thats discussed before the game with the umps.

It's ST, nobody really cares except the fans who go to the games or are watching on TV. Bobby V's given reason for being bothered is BS IMHO . Mortenson had no chance of making the team no matter how he pitched in the 10th (he was optioned out hours later), and he would have started his warm ups in the 9th when the Red Sox had runners in scoring position. The earliest Girardi could have told Bobby V he was not going to proceed was betwen innings, and Mortenson was already warmed up by that time (only threw a few more from the mound).

Girardi probably should have came over to Bobby V after the 9th, My theory as to why he did not is Girardi was a bit ticked at the squeeze, which was unusual I thought given a single wins the game for the Red Sox. Giving up an out and playing for the tie at home to take advantage of the roster advantage might have not gone over well.
Also, Bobby V had made a few comments during ST about Yankee players that may not have sat very well with him.

Bobby V does not seem to get along with other managers, waving to Ozzie as he got thrown out another example.

Heck, seems he does not even get along with his own GM

http://www.boston.co...red_sox/?page=2



Great comments. Thanks man, appreciate the insight.

#7 alwyn96

  • 802 posts

Posted 28 March 2012 - 08:29 PM

Great comments. Thanks man, appreciate the insight.


Amazing how Gasper can weave a story of discord with no actual quotes or information. The problems seem to be drawn entirely from Gasper's imagination.

#8 touchstone033

  • 199 posts

Posted 28 March 2012 - 09:15 PM

I'm hijacking this thread by interpreting "...and so it begins..." not as another chapter in the New York - Boston rivalry, but the beginning of the drama surrounding Bobby Valentine. (It is all his fault, after all.)

Today, Curt Schilling:


"I thought that the manager that managed the Mets that I was not a big fan of was now going to be a different manager, and I don't think there's anything different at all," Schilling said. "And I don't think that that is going to be conducive to doing well here. There's a lot of things I think that are happening not just from his perspective, but when you talk to these guys -- and I'm still talking to some of these guys -- I don't think this is going well. And I think it's going bad quicker than I expected it to."


Schilling said that for all of Valentine's wisdom, he isn't very good at managing people, which was one of Terry Francona's strengths.


"One of (Francona's) strengths I think was understanding that to be a great big league manager, you don't have to know when to hit and run, bunt and change pitchers as much as you need to manage people," Schilling said. "I think the major league manager has so little to do with wins and losses, more so in baseball than just about in any sport."


He also said that the players don't like how much attention Valentine has brought to the clubhouse.


"The point I made the other night was that he's doing a lot of things right now that are forcing his players to extend their media involvement to answer questions about him and the situation when it's already a challenge enough to do it, to play in this market and to win," he said.

"Any time you introduce the wild card -- the guy who's going to flip over the spread or throw something against the wall or act and react in an unpredictable way -- it's not a positive thing."



It's kind of fitting, if you think about it, that Curt Schilling is calling out Bobby V for drama.


[Edited to add link.]


Edited by touchstone033, 28 March 2012 - 09:16 PM.


#9 MikeM

  • 841 posts

Posted 28 March 2012 - 10:07 PM

I'm hijacking this thread by interpreting "...and so it begins..." not as another chapter in the New York - Boston rivalry, but the beginning of the drama surrounding Bobby Valentine. (It is all his fault, after all.)

Today, Curt Schilling:



It's kind of fitting, if you think about it, that Curt Schilling is calling out Bobby V for drama.


Well, Curt *was* Tito's champion to begin with, leaving his take on the matter heavily biased at best imo.


He also said that the players don't like how much attention Valentine has brought to the clubhouse.


If i recall correctly, Bobby V wasn't even here last September when the players did a fantastic job all on their own in laying down the groundwork there.

#10 damons beard

  • 141 posts

Posted 28 March 2012 - 10:45 PM

Its sad when a former player is trying to make a name for himself as a broadcaster by trying to mess with his former team before the season starts. Schilling should remember who was manager last year when everybody got lazy and snoozed thru april and sept. Also maybe they needed someone who is going to get under the players skin after last year.

#11 Sampo Gida

  • 3,136 posts

Posted 28 March 2012 - 11:10 PM

What happened last August/September? Injuries in the starting rotation (3/5 of the opening day rotation was on the DL or pitching through an injury that needed surgery, and that does not include Becketts sprained ankle in September) and lack of SP depth (that Theo acknowledged in ST before anyone got hurt), not to mention the loss of our cleanup hitter (Youk), and Crawford and Reddick (w/JD on the DL) playing through wrist injuries that needed surgery (as a result our 34 million dollar corner OF was barely replacement level), and Bard/Albers late season collapse.

Frankly, Tito probably would have got manager of the year if it was known the extent of Lackeys injury and Crawford/Reddicks injury and if not for the chicken.beer story which covered up the real story of 2011, which was the reluctance of the GM/owners to make a significant move at the trading deadline for the 2nd year in a row to fill obvious holes, in part because the team was already over the luxury tax threshold.

#12 MikeM

  • 841 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 12:31 AM

What happened last August/September? Injuries in the starting rotation (3/5 of the opening day rotation was on the DL or pitching through an injury that needed surgery, and that does not include Becketts sprained ankle in September) and lack of SP depth (that Theo acknowledged in ST before anyone got hurt), not to mention the loss of our cleanup hitter (Youk), and Crawford and Reddick (w/JD on the DL) playing through wrist injuries that needed surgery (as a result our 34 million dollar corner OF was barely replacement level), and Bard/Albers late season collapse.


I was all for giving the team a "bad luck" pass after 2010, but it's important to keep certain aspects of last year in it's reality perspective imo.

Under the surface claim of that "injuries to 3/5 of our starting rotation"excuse/explanation, you have a substantial reliance on 2 guys (Beckett/Buchholz) who at this point are hardly deserving of being penciled in as "durable assets" to begin with. Then you have a guy who was already on a run-away train wreck waiting to happen before going down (Dice-K), and a guy that surgery or no surgery many felt was playing out to be a bust reguardless. All of that happening isn't, nor should be, exclussively classified as bad lack imo. That's more a matter of chosing to roll with the punches as they come, and unfortunately getting hit with those possibilities that simply come with the combination one decides to put out there.

Completely writing off Crawford's horrid season based on this emerging injury factor/claim that came months after-the-fact? I'll buy more into that stock when i actually see the significant improvement happen in 2012. As far as Reddick goes, really? Are we going to play the injury card there as being the main culprit behind his inability to maintain that cinderella month's worth of production? As far as Youk going down goes, see the above on our starting pitching.


Frankly, Tito probably would have got manager of the year if it was known the extent of Lackeys injury and Crawford/Reddicks injury and if not for the chicken.beer story which covered up the real story of 2011, which was the reluctance of the GM/owners to make a significant move at the trading deadline for the 2nd year in a row to fill obvious holes, in part because the team was already over the luxury tax threshold.


Don't get me wrong, as there certainly is a ring of truth in that. But that's also like basically stating "it's not anybody's fault but the owners that they only decided to field a $170m baseball team last year", which is pretty silly in the grander scheme of things imo. This team has a lot of money and future hopes invested in a few of those guys, with Beckett leading that pack. If he/they are not embracing the responsibility level that does/should come with that seriously, which by all current accounts they didn't, that most certainly is part of the "real story" of last season imo.

Edited by MikeM, 29 March 2012 - 12:32 AM.


#13 Sampo Gida

  • 3,136 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 05:20 AM

I was really focused on Tito here, not necessarily if it was bad luck or whatever. I agree some of these problems should have been foreseen. The fact you had durability questions in the rotation and lack of depth is on Theo, not Tito.. I mean, he had to roll out Weiland and Bedard and Wake in September. He could have used Aceves, but Albers and Bard imploded, so who was left for hi-lev innings before Paps if Aceves started (Atchison?)

Crawford really did have surgery on his wrist, and unless someone is lying, had cortisone injections during the season. Reddicks awful 2nd half has also due to the same injury. I don't expect Crawford to rebound all that much this year since TFCC injuries can linger, and his set back in ST is not a good sign. Youk was the RHB cleanup hitter in an overweight LHB lineup (no fault of Titos), and MIA in critical games. I mean, Tito had Lavarnway batting cleanup at the end (not one of his better decisions).