250 replies to this topic

[Rovin Romine]

Tito's Love v. Like v. Live baseball rings a bit hollow to me after the 2011 collapse. I think it's pretty clear that for whatever their faults Henry and Co. raised revenue, raised payroll, and got us competitive enough to win two WS. I'll take that over Yawkey's love any day.

[curly2]

Yawkey's "love" might have worked if it hadn't been accompanied by horrible racism. Passing on Jackie Robinson, while certainly wrong, is somewhat understandable. It took guts to be the first to break the color line. Passing on Willie Mays a couple of years later is inexcusable.

Edited by curly2, 15 January 2013 - 04:14 PM.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I think the Theo quote, which might need more context, is a bit damning in light of the one of his primary motivations for his sabbatical after the '05 season. He fought for more control because he was butting heads with Lucchino about the direction of the team. Theo didn't want to build an über team designed to sell tickets and raise ratings, because it's an unsustainable model for on-field success. He seemingly got his way...for a time. He had to have weathered the '06 "failure" because of that new-found power, but apparently lost his edge by 2009-2010 and the über-team marketing machine worked its way back into the picture.

I seem to remember Shaughnessy being on the "the Henry-Werner group are a bunch of carpetbaggers" bandwagon at the time of the sale of the team, backing the "local" bidders O'Donnell and Karp. No surprise that the comments, even if they are Tito's words, are being spun to make Henry/Werner/Lucchino into the carpetbagging bad guys again.

[TheoShmeo]

I wish Tito would put a sock on this stuff.

Comparing owners who never played the game to baseball lifers seems ridiculous to me. And is it even true that Henry and Lucchino have been in and out of baseball? Perhaps Henry had an ownership gap but it seems like both of them have been in baseball for many years. So even if we need to get in a measuring contest between a player/manager and FO/Owner types, I'm not sure his fundamental premise about this being kind of a hobby is accurate.

I get it, knocking this ownership group will bring inevitable applause from many but you don't have to compare the current owners to the worst aspects of the Yawkey regime to feel appreciation for what they've accomplished in Boston.

Separately, because of the SmearGate backlash and the beer and chicken focus, Tito never really got taken to task for his role in September, 2011. Not that I'm putting all the blame on him. Far from it. But I doubt he had no role in that horrible meltdown and I hope that bringing this stuff up again now will remind people of that. I know, speech is free and he can say what he wants. And saying this will make him and the CHB some bucks. But I don't know, I think doing this now is sort of besides the point. Everyone has moved on, including him.

None of that is to say that the Sox owners didn't get overly focused on the bottom line. Maybe they in fact did. Hopefully they'll focus more on making the Sox winners and hopefully they're doing just that right now. And I don't know if they are trying to get richer or simply enable the Red Sox to compete financially with the MFYs and the other big spenders. Most likely, it's a little bit of both. But as I think everyone acknowledges, they're entitled to do what they want and I don't think what they are doing reflects nearly as poorly on them as the authors would like. In short, Tito and the owners SHOULD share the same equity and good will that those two Titles brought to all involved, and I wish all sides would realize that a little bit more.

In sum, yech.

Edited by TheoShmeo, 15 January 2013 - 04:34 PM.

[Gash Prex]

This seems like a terrible idea by Tito considering he is still in the big leagues. I am sure at the time it felt like vindication with the leaks when he was fired, but I think (and I could be wrong) that he will (or already does) regret it.

[JimBoSox9]

* “(Chairman Tom) Werner talked about slumping television ratings and whined, ‘We need to start winning in more exciting fashion.' ”

* From Epstein: “They told us we didn’t have any marketable players, that we needed some sizzle. We need some sexy guys. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. This is like an absurdist comedy. We’d become too big. It was the farthest thing from what we set out to be.”

* Back to Francona: "One thing the players were always asking for was getaway day games. The owners would never go for it. They couldn’t have more day games because the ratings were already suffering, and that would have hurt worse.”

* More Francona: “Our owners in Boston, they’ve been owners for 10 years. They come in with all these ideas about baseball, but I don’t think they love baseball. I think they like baseball. It’s revenue, and I know that’s their right and their interest because they’re owners — and they’re good owners. But they don’t love the game. It’s still more of a toy or a hobby for them. It’s not their blood. They’re going to come in and out of baseball. It’s different for me. Baseball is my life.”

Read between the lines of the quotes a bit 'this is a hobby for them', 'we needed sizzle and marketable players', etc. I think he is hinting that they arent really great owners. Basically, he is saying they were meddling and only concerned about revenue and profit, and dont really care about winning nearly as much as they claim they do. If this was a team that struggled to make a profit that would be one thing, but this team is a cash cow.

I really, really hope I don't need to read too much crap like this. You draw no less than 4 conclusions that are not supported by any of the quotes released so far.

1. A snip of a quote that has a negative slant =/= saying they were not great owners
2. The Red Sox are a corporation that has department and organizational strategic meetings. Tom Werner is the marketing and media head of the Red Sox. IT'S HIS JOB to point out if the product is lacking in that area.
3. All owners are concerned only with revenue and profit. The good owners realize that, in a big market, winning is the surest path there.
4. Since things went sour fifteen months ago, the team has gone through a complete overhaul. Big companies just don't do that when they're OK with the status quo.

We're about to get a deeper look into the sausage-making than we've had before, but let's remember that it will still be far from a complete look, and it's going to be slanted against the owners.

OF COURSE the lifetime baseball guy thinks it's silly when he's listening to a suit talk about the marketing aspects of the roster. I always enjoy it when people get riled up about sports teams acting like, you know, regular companies. Grow up.

Wake me up when they get to the quotes about non-baseball factors being the driving reason behind personnel decisions, and even then I'll be chewing grains of salt. Hell, we don't even know when that Theo quote is referencing. It could be a memory from his first year on the job for all we know.

I feel terrible (in general, not in this instance, because that was a particularly shitty post) that lately every third post of mine has been bitching about posting etiquette, but hot damn if we haven't been in full-on WEEI mode here for a bit.

I'm going to move this over to the main board.

Bless you.

Edited by JimBoSox9, 15 January 2013 - 04:48 PM.

[Average Reds]

I don't get the surprise at what is in the book.

I mean, I know that most/all of us want to move on. But Tito had to live through the collapse followed by reading/hearing the smears speculating about how his marital (in)stability and prescription drug use may have been the reason the he lost the clubhouse. He went through all of it and never lost his composure. So when I heard he was going to be writing a book, I absolutely expected it to be payback time.

It may not be the way we want it to go, but it's incredibly naive to think he wasn't going to settle some scores here.

[NortheasternPJ]

This seems like a terrible idea by Tito considering he is still in the big leagues. I am sure at the time it felt like vindication with the leaks when he was fired, but I think (and I could be wrong) that he will (or already does) regret it.

Succeed in his new job and a CHB written book is a non-issue. He's only confirming what many have speculated. If he fails in Cleveland, a book a few years before that isn't going to make much difference, it'll be on his on-field success.

[TheoShmeo]

I don't get the surprise at what is in the book.

I mean, I know that most/all of us want to move on. But Tito had to live through the collapse followed by reading/hearing the smears speculating about how his marital (in)stability and prescription drug use may have been the reason the he lost the clubhouse. He went through all of it and never lost his composure. So when I heard he was going to be writing a book, I absolutely expected it to be payback time.

It may not be the way we want it to go, but it's incredibly naive to think he wasn't going to settle some scores here.

You know, I read that sentence and I want to nod my head. I mean, of course, if Tito is writing a book with the CHB of all people, you know it's going to settle scores. Why should we be surprised? Hell, why should we even care?

On the other hand, isn't one of Tito's calling cards that he is a classy guy? That he is above it all? This all seems very pedestrian to me and beneath what we're supposed to believe about who Tito is.

I don't know. This just really rubs me the wrong way. Admittedly, I feel tremendous gratitude to this ownership group for their role in 2004/7, as I do to Tito. So kicking them in the groin in public is going to always piss me off.

Then again, if you've read Joe Torre's book (The Yankee Years), and some of the really uncool, out of bounds things about some of his players (especially Kevin Brown) he said in there, it becomes apparent that baseball men who are generally respected can say a lot without their reputations wearing off. I guess Tito is banking on the same and probably rightfully so.

Edited by TheoShmeo, 15 January 2013 - 05:56 PM.

[cannonball 1729]

The thing I don't understand is, if the owners wanted marketable players and stars, why did they let guys like Damon, Papelbon, Manny, Pedro, etc go?

I don't know about Papelbon, but of the other guys, only Manny was let go, and that was because they were sick of him. Damon and Petey both got large offers from the Sox, but the Yankees and Mets offered more (unexpectedly, in Damon's case; Boras was playing the "mystery team is offering 7 years, 84 million" game and the owners thought that they were still the highest offer.)

Besides, too much money spent on one likable player means less money for other likable players.

I don't get the surprise at what is in the book.

I mean, I know that most/all of us want to move on. But Tito had to live through the collapse followed by reading/hearing the smears speculating about how his marital (in)stability and prescription drug use may have been the reason the he lost the clubhouse. He went through all of it and never lost his composure. So when I heard he was going to be writing a book, I absolutely expected it to be payback time.

It may not be the way we want it to go, but it's incredibly naive to think he wasn't going to settle some scores here.

This is my exact reaction. If I were publicly excoriated in the press by my ex-bosses, you'd better believe that I would take an opportunity to tell my side. It may not be what we want, but it's exactly how most of us would act if we were in that situation.

On the other hand, isn't one of Tito's calling cards that he is a classy guy?

Sure. But he's not a pushover. I think if the ownership had simply parted ways with him and said, "We've moved in a new direction and we thank Tito for his service," you probably wouldn't have heard a word out of Francona, but it's certainly understandable that he's not willing to sit around and act as a public punching bag.

Edit: I can't believe that everyone here missed the funniest quote from the article:

The books stated the marketing report said: "[W]omen are definitely more drawn to the 'soap opera' and 'reality-TV' aspects of the game ... They are interested in good-looking stars and sex symbols" -- a reference to All-Star second baseman Dustin Pedroia.

Edited by cannonball 1729, 15 January 2013 - 05:38 PM.

[SoxLegacy]

I wish Tito would put a sock on this stuff.

In sum, yech.

+1. While this ownership group has made mistakes, they are the same ones who helped bring about the best decade of Red Sox baseball in my lifetime, and I have confidence that they will continue to seek ways to improve the team and continue the success. I think Tito is an excellent manager, but this seems to be out of character for him.

[scotian1]

To me it comes across as a bit of sour grapes. His bosses had the right to fire him. By the end of 2011, it seemed like many players had stopped listening to him. I was upset enough with him when he kept running Wakefield out there trying to get him win 200 and losing those starts for far too long. I don't blame him for being angry or upset with how this all played out in the press but to say that guys who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the ballpark and the players don't love the sport doesn't ring true to me.

[HillysLastWalk]

Are the released excerpts really huge news (there was an inkling ownership might be involved in some of the splash signings), or really a huge rip on ownership?

[Harry Hooper]

Are the released excerpts really huge news (there was an inkling ownership might be involved in some of the splash signings), or really a huge rip on ownership?

It was to Mike Lynch who breathlessly teased a segment on Channel 5 about 30 minutes ago. Sox spent money on marketing studies, oh the horror!

[Sprowl]

I'd rather the Red Sox win dull than lose. Winning is always exciting, and it puts a shine on the dullest of players.

Sure. But he's not a pushover. I think if the ownership had simply parted ways with him and said, "We've moved in a new direction and we thank Tito for his service," you probably wouldn't have heard a word out of Francona, but it's certainly understandable that he's not willing to sit around and act as a public punching bag.

Edit: I can't believe that everyone here missed the funniest quote from the article:

The books stated the marketing report said: "[W]omen are definitely more drawn to the 'soap opera' and 'reality-TV' aspects of the game ... They are interested in good-looking stars and sex symbols" -- a reference to All-Star second baseman Dustin Pedroia.

In the Land of the Dwarves, Dustin Pedroia is considered a teen idol. Just imagine what he'll look like when he is 150 years old in late middle age.

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

Remember, too, that the excerpts being released are those the publisher feels will sell the most books - they're likely to be among the most incendiary and, potentially, out of context. It's quite possible they're couched much more rationally than they seem (or not - just putting that out there).

Tito always had a flair for nuance in the past. That would be unlikely to shine through in bits and pieces released to the press designed to get the masses drooling for more.

[ItOnceWasMyLife]

Dustin's more goblin than dwarf (not enough hair) and as such, a very handsome goblin as things go.

Winning cures everything and losing always claims collateral damage. Everything from the last day of 2011 has pretty much followed the script. This book as well, though I would have thought more of Tito if it were done in 2023 then now. Still miss the Tito Days though. He was sexy enough for me.

[Jordu]

The Epstein quote about how ownership told baseball ops the team "didn’t have any marketable players, that we needed some sizzle, we need some sexy guys" reeks of Epstein ego to me. The implication in the AP story is that it was the "we need some sizzle" that led Epstein to sign Crawford and Gonzalez.

C'mon, Epstein had made no secret for years of how much he wanted Gonzalez. We'll have to see the book for context, as people above have said, but really now Theo.

No marketable players? Is there a more popular and marketable player in baseball than David Ortiz? You're telling me David Ortiz has no sizzle? He's David Ortizzle.

No sexy guys? Is that you, Jacoby Ellsbury?

Edited by Jordu, 15 January 2013 - 06:52 PM.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

No marketable players? Is there a more popular and marketable player in baseball than David Ortiz? You're telling me David Ortiz has no sizzle? He's David Ortizzle.

No sexy guys? Is that you, Jacoby Ellsbury?

Well, this was the '09/'10 versions of Ortiz and Ellsbury, after all. Ortiz in 2009 and 2010 got off to excruciatingly slow starts each year, and there was talk of his potential release if he didn't turn things around. There was plenty of reason to be skeptical of his star power going forward. And of course, Ellsbury had his sex appeal, but he also missed much of 2010 after Beltre steamrolled him, so his role was certainly in question as well. If he stays healthy in 2010 and built on what he did in 2009, they might not have gone after Crawford so aggressively.

Edited by Red(s)HawksFan, 15 January 2013 - 07:14 PM.

[TheoShmeo]

Well, this was the '09/'10 versions of Ortiz and Ellsbury, after all. Ortiz in 2009 and 2010 got off to excruciatingly slow starts each year, and there was talk of his potential release if he didn't turn things around. There was plenty of reason to be skeptical of his star power going forward. And of course, Ellsbury had his sex appeal, but he also missed much of 2010 after Beltre steamrolled him, so his role was certainly in question as well. If he stays healthy in 2010 and built on what he did in 2009, they might not have gone after Crawford so aggressively.

All that may be true but Theo's quote seems like a transparent attempt to point the finger at ownership for many of the questionable moves in the latter stages of his reign. One wonders which ones he would disavow. As noted by Jordu, Theo was hot after AGonz for years. And while Crawford made no sense to many Sox fans at the time, Theo seemed pretty pumped and jacked about it.

In fairness, perhaps Lackey was one he was forced into. If memory serves, that happened soon after Theo's "bridge year" comment and Werner's correction. Then again, does anyone anywhere consider John Lackey to be sexy or have sizzle?

Edited by TheoShmeo, 15 January 2013 - 07:31 PM.

[Nick Kaufman]

For a score settling sensational book, the quotes posted above seem extremely milquetoast to me.

[gammoseditor]

The one quote that concerns me is Werner saying, "We need to start winning in more exciting fashion." It's a stupid thing to say. Winning baseball games is hard. Once you start looking for style points it's going to decrease your chances of winning.

[Savin Hillbilly]

3. All owners are concerned only with revenue and profit.

I seriously doubt this, since there are almost certainly lots of ways they could invest their money other than owning a baseball team that would be surer and easier paths to revenue and profit. I suspect that they are also significantly concerned with running a popular and successful baseball franchise, because they like the game and enjoy being involved in it.

But yes, your larger point is well taken--if they're not idiots, they're primarily concerned with revenue and profit, or at least, they have a concern with revenue and profit that will, when those things are seriously threatened, trump all other concerns. If this isn't true, then they will fail, and we'll soon have other owners of whom it is true, or if not,....[repeat algorithm].

Really, it's amazing to me how people have pounced on the most negative possible interpretations of what Tito said, ignoring the nuances. You'd expect that at WEEI or the Herald comment threads, but not so much here.

Note some of the things he actually did say:

"I think they like baseball."

"It’s revenue, and I know that’s their right and their interest because they’re owners"

"and they’re good owners."

"It’s not their blood. They’re going to come in and out of baseball. It’s different for me. Baseball is my life.”

This is all pretty ho-hum and obvious, and comes across more as an attempt to elucidate the difference between Tito's POV and theirs than an attempt to paint them as shitty, grasping greedheads who hate the game.

[valentinscycle]

The one quote that concerns me is Werner saying, "We need to start winning in more exciting fashion." It's a stupid thing to say. Winning baseball games is hard. Once you start looking for style points it's going to decrease your chances of winning.

This I agree with. Most of the rest of it, to me, sounds very bland, to the point of tautology. "They're going to come in and out of baseball. It's different for me. Baseball is my life": which is as much as saying "owners are owners." In this day and age it scarcely says anything specific to the Henry group. If anything it seems to be a general reflection on what it would feel like to work for people who have other interests/perspectives than yours. Which, frankly, is most of us.

But if dips in NESN ratings are (or were) actually influencing major personnel decisions, then that's different. Although I'm not sure how to treat that isolated quote. Something uttered out of frustration that was particularly stupid, if isolated, or really reflective of management policy?

[PedroKsBambino]

I think the Theo quote, which might need more context, is a bit damning in light of the one of his primary motivations for his sabbatical after the '05 season. He fought for more control because he was butting heads with Lucchino about the direction of the team. Theo didn't want to build an über team designed to sell tickets and raise ratings, because it's an unsustainable model for on-field success. He seemingly got his way...for a time. He had to have weathered the '06 "failure" because of that new-found power, but apparently lost his edge by 2009-2010 and the über-team marketing machine worked its way back into the picture.

I seem to remember Shaughnessy being on the "the Henry-Werner group are a bunch of carpetbaggers" bandwagon at the time of the sale of the team, backing the "local" bidders O'Donnell and Karp. No surprise that the comments, even if they are Tito's words, are being spun to make Henry/Werner/Lucchino into the carpetbagging bad guys again.

Possible, but you are also filtering a lot of info in a very particular way. Most obviously, there's zero basis for concluding that the Gonzo/Crawford era wasn't as much Theo's creation as any preceding period---you're trying to fit the facts to the theory, not the other way around.

In other words, if all we're going to do is cherry pick and make assumptions and leaps of logic to support pre-existing conclusions then it REALLY isn't worth buying the book, or even having the thread! We've all shared our various views on these things before at this point.

[maufman]

To me it comes across as a bit of sour grapes. His bosses had the right to fire him. By the end of 2011, it seemed like many players had stopped listening to him. I was upset enough with him when he kept running Wakefield out there trying to get him win 200 and losing those starts for far too long. I don't blame him for being angry or upset with how this all played out in the press but to say that guys who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the ballpark and the players don't love the sport doesn't ring true to me.

I deserved to see Wakefield get that win.

This seems like a terrible idea by Tito considering he is still in the big leagues. I am sure at the time it felt like vindication with the leaks when he was fired, but I think (and I could be wrong) that he will (or already does) regret it.

Maybe he'll have regrets on a personal level (he's probably less bitter now that he's managing again than he was while he was collaborating with CHB), but I don't think he'll suffer professionally.

Tito's legacy in Boston will always be 2004 and 2007. His new job in Cleveland is likely to be his last in baseball -- if he does well, he'll manage there until he's ready to retire; if he does poorly, he won't work as a manager again. And as TheoShmeo's note about Torre illustrates, any damage to Tito's public image is likely to be short-lived.

[SoxinSeattle]

The thing I don't understand is, if the owners wanted marketable players and stars, why did they let guys like Damon, Papelbon, Manny, Pedro, etc go? They thought Crawford and Lackey were exciting, and would sell tickets and increase ratings? But didn't Theo say the team had been targeting Crawford for well over a year- which suggests it wasn't a sudden, rash move? I don't know, there seems like a lot of contradictions. I guess I could read the book to find out more, but ownership complaining about an 89 win team after '10 seems valid since they had won 95 or more games the prior three years, that year was a disappointment. The way the roster "evolved" after that obviously didn't work, and there's certainly reasons for Theo and Tito to perceive why what happened did for different reasons, everyone is trying to cover their own ass and blame someone else. TIto blames ownership for being less engaged- the same accusations they lobbed at him.

Brilliant post. We all must remember that Tito knows a whole lot about the Sox but this book is not necessarily all facts. Most everything will be like his opinion, man.

[Doctor G]

The one quote that concerns me is Werner saying, "We need to start winning in more exciting fashion." It's a stupid thing to say. Winning baseball games is hard. Once you start looking for style points it's going to decrease your chances of winning.

I really doubt that Werner who is an intelligent man with substantial baseball experience was suggesting that the team actually could control the way they were winning. The way you win is controlled as much by the way the opposition performs as it is by what you do.

TW is simply offering a possible explanation for the drop in ratings, not a strategic suggestion. I am sure Francona never felt pressure to win in a more exciting fashion.

[sfip]

What I've long said about not posting about or reading his articles, it applies to this book too. As for mentioning it in this post I'll quote the last line of the blog article.

If giving him a little publicity this way costs him more publicity in the long run, I'd say it's well worth it.

[Alternate34]

Those snippets are supposed to be sexy, but they make Tito look like a moron {OMG, the owners wanted to make money} which we know he isn't. The one from Epstein needs context, but like TGE above, I'm not paying to get it.

I love going to weekday day games, but they are a logistical nightmare for the team in terms of available parking and ballpark workforce, in addition to the reduced tv viewership. The Sunday night ESPN games are terrible at the end of a homestand, but that's not the team's fault. Players need some smelling salts on that request.

It could be that Tito believes that there could be owners who both want to make money and love the sport.

[MiracleOfO2704]

It could be that Tito believes that there could be owners who both want to make money and love the sport.

If Terry Francona, a man that's been involved with baseball in some fashion since conception, really believes that even the majority of owners should bring both deep pockets and a deep-seeded love of the sport, then that's an issue with him rather than the Henry/Werner/Lucchino ownership. As has been said in this thread, instances of rich men buying a sports franchise because they just love the sport are few and far between, and the fact that this group has had experience in baseball besides the Red Sox speaks to their desire to simply find a great investment opportunity rather than any great love of baseball.

[Toe Nash]

1. I won't be reading this article or buying the book. I may check it out from a library. But I'm very tired of people (CHB) profiting from the 2011 collapse and others being complicit in dragging it out. Until now I didn't think Tito was in the second category, and this makes me think less of him, justified as he may be. Good franchises learn what they can from failure and move on. Bad franchises allow failure to become a circus that affects the team long into the future. I know there are differences in the nature of the sports but the best example I can think of is the Patriots and the Jets. The Red Sox are unfortunately the latter. Perhaps they can fix things, but even in their "good times" there was plenty of drama -- it was just covered up by frequent playoff appearances.

2. Those who make the point about context are correct. I find it hard to believe that the ownership group who hired Theo and Tito in the first place forgot everything they knew about successful baseball teams and let false ideas of what makes people come to the park dictate their decisions. We're also only getting one side of the story from two guys who have a bone to pick with ownership and a writer who is known for being an unfair asshole.

SI is going to print the juiciest bits to sell magazines and get clicks. There's probably a lot of cool stuff in here and it's sad that people aren't going to buy it for Tito's anecdotes about Pedroia or whatever.

[Clears Cleaver]

well, if its 250 pages long, my guess is 40 pages are going to be about 2010-11 and his firing and the rest will be about 2004-2008 and should be pretty awesome for most Sox fans

[TheoShmeo]

well, if its 250 pages long, my guess is 40 pages are going to be about 2010-11 and his firing and the rest will be about 2004-2008 and should be pretty awesome for most Sox fans

It really depends on what tone the authors took. "The Yankee Years" by Saint Joe Torre should have been awesome for Yankees fans and yet a large percentage of that book was negative about the players and the organization (and thereby somewhat delicious for many Red Sox fans). I hope Tito and his caddy indeed took some time on the good times and discussed things in a positive way but that there is plenty of available material is not a guaranty.

[reggiecleveland]

If Tito wanted an even handed balance between nostalgia and ax grinding he would not have chosen a hatchet man as his partner.

[Lose Remerswaal]

If Tito wanted an even handed balance between nostalgia and ax grinding he would not have chosen a hatchet man as his partner.

It's very possible that the dance with Dan was part of the contract Tito signed that got the Sox those two World Series titles.

[Rovin Romine]

It's very possible that the dance with Dan was part of the contract Tito signed that got the Sox those two World Series titles.

How so? (Honestly asking - I'm not parsing this.)

[terrynever]

It really depends on what tone the authors took. "The Yankee Years" by Saint Joe Torre should have been awesome for Yankees fans and yet a large percentage of that book was negative about the players and the organization (and thereby somewhat delicious for many Red Sox fans). I hope Tito and his caddy indeed took some time on the good times and discussed things in a positive way but that there is plenty of available material is not a guaranty.

It was awesome for most Yankee fans because we got a glimpse of what goes on behind closed doors. I think any time a baseball man like Torre or Tito takes us behind the scenes, it's a good thing. You have to, as a reader, separate their own bias from the overall truth, but the chance to see how the owners operate their franchise is an extraordinary point of access for fans. For instance, after reading Torre's book, I was able to better understand the decision Cashman made to stop supporting his manager/mentor in 2007.

I can't understand Red Sox fans who wouldn't want to read this book and then make their own judgments on the content.

Edited by terrynever, 16 January 2013 - 09:39 AM.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

How so? (Honestly asking - I'm not parsing this.)

I think he's just making a deal-with-the-devil wisecrack, nothing more.

[Lefty on the Mound]

Apparently, Tito was reluctant to write the book and CHB approached him. From Joe McDonald's column on the ESPN Boston Red Sox blog: http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox

“When Dan first approached me, I was like, ‘No. And not with you.’ He kind of came back to me and got me to agree to lunch, I don’t know how the hell he did that.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Old Hoss Radbourn ‏@OldHossRadbourn
Excited to see D. Shaughnessy release "The Curse of the Franbino." Grandchildren can't pay for college all by themselves.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Apparently, Tito was reluctant to write the book and CHB approached him. From Joe McDonald's column on the ESPN Boston Red Sox blog: http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox

Well doesn't that explain quite a bit.

[JimBoSox9]

Apparently, Tito was reluctant to write the book and CHB approached him. From Joe McDonald's column on the ESPN Boston Red Sox blog: http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox

Pretty much everything in that post is either fantastic or really needs to be read by some folks:

Francona said the excerpts make the characterization sound worse than it really is, saying when people read the book they'll understand the portrayal of ownership is not as harsh as it may seem.

“The last chapter is hard because it was a hard ending,” Francona said. “I’m sure there will be a thing or two that will piss somebody off that I didn’t think would, but I’ve read it seven times and me and Dan made change after change because I wanted it to be good, I wanted it to be interesting and I also wanted it to preserve the clubhouse because I do believe in that so much.”

There is is, in bold, from the horse's mouth. Believe it, don't believe it, feel silly for going off about hatchet jobs and character based on about three hundred words of excerpts, do whatever you want with it.

Francona, who is scheduled to receive an award for long and meritorious service to baseball at the Boston baseball writers dinner on Jan. 24, said there are no major surprises in the book.

"But mostly everything, anything that was at all critical, or like one part that me and David [Ortiz] got into it, I made sure Dan talked to those guys. David one time didn’t run a ball out and we got into it at Yankee Stadium, and I don’t think anybody ever knew about it. ... Dan went to David so we could use it. It doesn’t come out bad, it just kind of shows how you kind of fight through some stuff.”

And the full quote that Lefty posted:

“When Dan first approached me, I was like, ‘No. And not with you.’ He kind of came back to me and got me to agree to lunch, I don’t know how the hell he did that. Then one thing led to another and we planned a practice session, maybe one chapter. Next thing you know, we’re in New York selling it and I’m running by his house picking him up in my car and driving to New York.

“I first thing I told him was, ‘Look, we’re making a pit stop because I’m getting my windows tinted.’”

Edited by JimBoSox9, 16 January 2013 - 10:01 AM.

[JimBoSox9]

Well doesn't that explain quite a bit.

Such as?

[TomRicardo]

Slow down, people think Theo and Tito are lying about a ownership group, who centered their whole sports ownership around a marketing company, being more concerned about the marketability of a team than actually winning? You all must be smoking some awesome crack.

Fenway Sports Group is first and foremost a sports marketing front. That is why LeBron James is a part owner. Yes they did things to win, winning is a great way to boost ratings but I assume that would only take them so far. In the end they are concerned with return in profits.

They aren't baseball welfare queens like Loria or Glass but that would kill their even more lucrative marketing business. They have spent a great deal on this team as well as their other ventures however they have more than doubled their investment on FSG and built a multi-billion dollar sports marketing goliath. It is funny because you can look at other owners of multiple franchises Paul Allen, Philip Anschutz, and Stan Kroenke but none of them have come close to maximizing the value of their assets like Fenway Sports Group.

Honestly the only owner I can think of off the top of my head who had done a better job maximizing the value of his team's assets than FSG is Robert Kraft. Of course he knows enough to stay completely away from on field decisions...

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Such as?

Perhaps that Tito wasn't all that interested in carrying out a settling of scores and Dan talked him into it.

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

The "windows tinted" line is hilarious. I'm absolutely reading this book, if only because there might be some more great stuff like that. I've always really enjoyed Tito's sense of humor and thoughtfulness and if even some of that shines through it's worth my time.

[TheoShmeo]

It was awesome for most Yankee fans because we got a glimpse of what goes on behind closed doors. I think any time a baseball man like Torre or Tito takes us behind the scenes, it's a good thing. You have to, as a reader, separate their own bias from the overall truth, but the chance to see how the owners operate their franchise is an extraordinary point of access for fans. For instance, after reading Torre's book, I was able to better understand the decision Cashman made to stop supporting his manager/mentor in 2007.

I can't understand Red Sox fans who wouldn't want to read this book and then make their own judgments on the content.

Fair point re the Torre book. But given the cloud that Terry left under, all the psycho drama around this front office and the team in general, and the identity of the co-author, I don't think that the two situations are entirely analogous.

[lexrageorge]

Things I can believe:

a.) The owners (plus Lucchino) are very interested in their investments both inside and outside the Boston Red Sox.

b.) The owners (plus Lucchino) are very interested in the marketing image of the team. After all, a team deemed to be "exciting" draws fans, increases NESN ratings, etc.

c.) Tom Werner lamenting about the fact that there's insufficient buzz or excitement around this team given their on field success (this is prior to September 1, 2011).

None of the above are a problem for me; after all, I'd much rather have the owners and team president focused on things they are good at, such as marketing, sales, P&L, etc.


Things that I'm not sure whether to believe or not:

d.) Theo may have been under pressure to "do something big" during the offseasons prior to 2010 and 2011. Hence John Lackey, Carl Crawford. I could also believe this is Theo in CYA mode as well.


Things that I refuse to believe based on the limited (and likely misleading) excerpts from Francona's book:

f.) Team ownership decided that winning games wasn't important, and therefore all the big decisions (who to retain, who to let go, who to acquire) were made solely for marketing reasons.

g.) Werner telling Francona to change his management style to make the team win games in more exciting fashion such as increasing the number of stolen bases and bunts at the expense of extra outs.

h.) Adrian Gonzalez was a "bust" (to quote the ever lazy Pete Abraham from this AM's Globe).

[BoSoxLady]

I thought Tito was a smart guy. He didn't want to write the book with DS for the obvious reasons but was manipulated to do so. Oh to have been a fly on the wall when they had lunch.

I'm shocked (not) that fans and media (local and national) took the bait and are running with the inflamatory quotes. My god, the story is front page, above the fold in today's Globe. I know, I know, they're promoting a book written by one of their employees but c'mon. Front page news?

I still have no interest in helping the CHB pay the cost of educating his kids. Whatever I need to know, I'll read here.