Boston Globe rips errrybody

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • NAHSTE
    Probably owns the site
    • Feb 2009
    • 22233

    Boston Globe rips errrybody

    Wow.




    With their team in peril and their manager losing his authority, three Red Sox pitchers last month were uniquely positioned to prevent the greatest September collapse in major league history. All the Sox needed was Josh Beckett, Jon Lester, and John Lackey to apply the skills and commitment that previously made them World Series champions.

    Instead, Boston’s three elite starters went soft, their pitching as anemic as their work ethic. The indifference of Beckett, Lester, and Lackey in a time of crisis can be seen in what team sources say became their habit of drinking beer, eating fast-food fried chicken, and playing video games in the clubhouse during games while their teammates tried to salvage a once-promising season.

    The story of Boston’s lost September unfolds in part as an indictment of the three prized starters. But the epic flop of 2011 had many faces: a lame-duck manager, coping with personal issues, whose team partly tuned him out; stars who failed to lead; players who turned lackluster and self-interested; a general manager responsible for fruitless roster decisions; owners who approved unrewarding free agent spending and missed some warning signs that their $161 million club was deteriorating.

    How a team that was on pace in late August to win 100 games and contend for its third World Series title in seven years self-destructed is a story of disunity, disloyalty, and dysfunction like few others in franchise history.

    This article is based on a series of interviews the Globe conducted with individuals familiar with the Sox operation at all levels. Most requested anonymity out of concern for their jobs or potential damage to their relationships in the organization. Others refused to comment or did not respond to interview requests.

    Second baseman Dustin Pedroia, portrayed on a Sports Illustrated cover in August as “the heart of the Red Sox,’’ declined to hold any individual culpable.

    “I just know that playing in Boston, you’re required to play your tail off every day to try to win ballgames for this city,’’ Pedroia said. “That’s what hurt so much as a player, that we not only let each other down in the clubhouse but we let the city down.’’

    By numerous accounts, manager Terry Francona lost his ability to prevent some of the lax behavior that characterized the collapse. Team sources said Francona, who has acknowledged losing influence with some former team leaders, appeared distracted during the season by issues related to his troubled marriage and to his health.

    Francona spent the season living in a hotel after he moved out of the Brookline home he shared with Jacque, his wife of nearly 30 years. But he adamantly denied his marital problems affected his job performance.

    “It makes me angry that people say these things because I’ve busted my [butt] to be the best manager I can be,’’ Francona said. “I wasn’t terribly successful this year, but I worked harder and spent more time at the ballpark this year than I ever did.’’

    Team sources also expressed concern that Francona’s performance may have been affected by his use of pain medication, which he also vehemently denied. Francona said he has taken pain medicine for many years, particularly after multiple knee surgeries. He said he used painkillers after knee surgery last October and used them during the season to relieve the discomfort of doctors draining blood from his knee at least five times.

    Francona acknowledged that he consulted the team’s internist, Dr. Larry Ronan, during spring training after one of his children expressed concern about a pill bottle in his hotel room. Francona said the doctor told him he did not have a drug abuse problem. Ronan could not be reached.

    “I went and saw the proper people and it was not an issue,’’ Francona said. “It never became an issue, and anybody who knew what was going on knows that.’’

    Commitment lacking By all accounts, the 2011 Sox perished from a rash of relatively small indignities. For every player committed to the team’s conditioning program, there was a slacker. For every Sox regular who rose early on the road to take optional batting practice, there were others who never bothered. For every player who dedicated himself to the quest for a championship, there were too many distracted by petty personal issues.

    The closer the Sox inched toward September, the more their ill temperaments surfaced.

    As Hurricane Irene barreled toward Boston in late August, management proposed moving up the Sunday finale of a weekend series against Oakland so the teams could play a day-night doubleheader either Friday, Aug. 26, or Saturday, Aug. 27. The reasoning seemed sound: the teams would avoid a Sunday rainout and the dilemma of finding a mutual makeup date for teams separated by 2,700 miles.

    But numerous Sox players angrily protested. They returned early that Friday from Texas after a demanding stretch in which they had played 14 of 17 games on the road, with additional stops in Minneapolis, Seattle, and Kansas City. The players accused management of caring more about making money than winning, which marked the first time the team’s top executives sensed serious trouble brewing in the clubhouse.

    As it turned out, the Sox swept the Saturday doubleheader, but that stormy day marked the beginning of the end for the 2011 team. It was the last time the team would win two games in a row. After getting two days off, the Sox spent the rest of the season playing uninspired, subpar baseball, losing 21 of their final 29 games.

    Sox owners soon suspected the team’s poor play was related to lingering resentment over the scheduling dispute, sources said. The owners responded by giving all the players $300 headphones and inviting them to enjoy a players-only night on principal owner John W. Henry’s yacht after they returned from a road trip Sept. 11.

    But the gestures made no difference. The hapless Sox became the laughingstocks of baseball as they went from holding a two-game divisional lead over the Yankees after the Aug. 27 doubleheader - and a nine-game advantage in the wild-card race over the Rays - to finishing a humiliating third in the AL East.

    While the seeds of failure were sown long before the shame of September, other foreboding signs emerged earlier. In springtime, there proved to be regrettable irony in the entire starting rotation - Beckett, Lackey, Lester, Tim Wakefield, and Clay Buchholz - donning Sox uniforms and hamming it up in front of the Green Monster for a video of a country music ditty, “Hell Yeah, I Like Beer.’’

    Drinking beer in the Sox clubhouse is permissible. So is ordering take-out chicken and biscuits. Playing video games on one of the clubhouse’s flat-screen televisions is OK, too. But for the Sox pitching trio to do all three during games, rather than show solidarity with their teammates in the dugout, violated an unwritten rule that players support each other, especially in times of crisis.

    Sources said Beckett, Lester, and Lackey, who were joined at times by Buchholz, began the practice late in 2010. The pitchers not only continued the routine this year, sources said, but they joined a number of teammates in cutting back on their exercise regimens despite appeals from the team’s strength and conditioning coach Dave Page.

    "It’s hard for a guy making $80,000 to tell a $15 million pitcher he needs to get off his butt and do some work,’’ one source said.

    For Beckett, Lester, and Lackey, the consequences were apparent as their body fat appeared to increase and pitching skills eroded. When the team needed them in September, they posted a combined 2-7 record with a 6.45 earned run average, the Sox losing 11 of their 15 starts.

    Wakefield also was part of the problem. Amid a seemingly interminable quest for his 200th career victory, he went 1-2 with a 5.25 ERA in September, taxing the bullpen as the Sox lost four of his five starts. The 45-year-old knuckleballer then appeared more interested in himself than the team when he asserted in the final days of the season that the Sox should bring him back in 2012 to pursue the franchise’s all-time record for wins (shared by Roger Clemens and Cy Young at 192).

    “I think the fans deserve an opportunity to watch me chase that record,’’ Wakefield told Fox Sports, raising eyebrows on Yawkey Way.

    Growing ineffectiveness Francona, who mutually parted with the Sox after the season, has been careful not to criticize individual players. He generally downplayed the pitchers’ drinking in the clubhouse, but he left little doubt that their absence from the dugout reflected a lack of dedication to the team.

    Beckett, Lackey, and Lester did not reply to messages left on their phones and with their agents.

    “The guys that weren’t down on the bench, I wanted them down on the bench,’’ Francona said last week in a contractual appearance on WEEI. “I wanted them to support their teammates.’’

    But Francona’s troubles ran deeper than the three starters. As he completed his eighth year as manager - a historic run in which he guided the Sox to two World Series titles - Francona by his own admission grew less capable of motivating the team. His losing influence with some former leaders came into sharper relief after he convened a closed-door meeting Sept. 7 after a 14-0 victory the previous night to address the clubhouse malaise. His players responded by failing to adjust their attitudes or improve their slipshod performances.

    In the face of his team’s corroded spirit, Francona became increasingly ineffectual, according to team sources. Francona was burdened not only by the frustration of coping with the least dedicated group of players of his Boston tenure, but by the likelihood that Sox owners would not exercise his contractual option for 2012.

    Francona took strong exception to the suggestion that his problems motivating the players had anything to do with his commitment to the team.

    “You never heard any of these complaints when we were going 80-41 [from April 15 to Aug. 27] because there was nothing there,’’ Francona said. “But we absolutely stunk in the last month, so now we have to deal with a lot of this stuff because expectations were so high.’’

    While Francona coped with his marital and health issues, he also worried privately about the safety of his son, Nick, and son-in-law, Michael Rice, both of whom are Marine officers serving in Afghanistan.

    In the end, only Pedroia and a few other players appeared to remain fully committed to winning, according to team sources. They said the veterans who no longer actively exerted their leadership included the captain, Jason Varitek, who was saddled with injuries and ineffective on the field (he batted .077 in September).

    The 39-year-old catcher, in a brief conversation, chastised a reporter for calling him at home and otherwise declined to comment.

    Other than Varitek and Wakefield, the only holdovers from Francona’s 2004 championship run were David Ortiz and Kevin Youkilis. Although Ortiz once gathered his teammates in September to try to rally them, his most memorable act off the field in 2011 was bursting into a Francona news conference to profanely complain about a scorer’s decision that could have cost him credit for batting in a run.

    Weeks later, Ortiz committed another disrespectful act by suggesting Francona was hurting the team by failing to insert reliever Alfredo Aceves in the starting rotation. Reached for this story, Ortiz said of his role in the collapse, “I don’t feel like talking about it anymore.’’

    Nor was Youkilis willing to talk after a second straight injury-marred year in which his production suffered. Youkilis, by nearly all accounts, grew more detached and short-tempered as he tried to play through his ailments. He also factored in a divisive clubhouse issue as the only player last year who publicly criticized Jacoby Ellsbury - several others privately chided the outfielder - when Ellsbury missed all but 18 games with rib injuries.

    The episode chilled Ellsbury’s relationship with the team. As joyful as Ellsbury’s MVP-caliber season was to many fans, his interaction in the Sox clubhouse was limited mostly to his friend Jed Lowrie. Ellsbury produced one of the most sensational seasons for a leadoff hitter in franchise history - he also ranked with Pedroia, Aceves, and Jonathan Papelbon among the team’s hardest workers - but he contributed little to the clubhouse culture.

    Leadership errors The gift of leadership also eluded Adrian Gonzalez. On the field, Gonzalez’s overall production was superb, but he provided none of the energy or passion off the field that the Sox sorely needed. His most unfortunate act in September was grousing about the Sox schedule, which required the team to play five getaway games on Sunday nights.

    “We play too many night games on getaway days and get into places at 4 in the morning,’’ Gonzalez complained. “This has been my toughest season physically because of that.’’

    Blaming five stressful nights over a six-month season for a tough year smacked of the self-interest that is uncommon among leaders of championship-caliber teams.

    To general manager Theo Epstein, acquiring Gonzalez by trade last winter from San Diego was crucial to solidifying the middle of the Sox lineup. But Epstein struck out in trying to beef up the bullpen, most notably by investing $12 million over two years in Bobby Jenks, so far a bust.

    The Sox also suffered from the exorbitant signing of Lackey ($82.5 million over five years), as the righthander logged the worst ERA (6.41) among regular starters in team history.

    While Epstein has accepted blame for signing subpar performers such as Lackey and Jenks, the owners share the responsibility of unanimously approving their signings. But Carl Crawford was a different story.

    Ownership was divided over Epstein’s push to acquire Crawford as a free agent, sources said. At least one top executive believed Crawford’s skills as a speedy lefthanded-hitting outfielder seemed to duplicate Ellsbury’s. But the owners ultimately agreed to gamble $142 million over seven years on Crawford - a lost wager to date.

    The owners also indicated in postseason remarks they were generally unaware of how deeply damaged the Sox had become until after the season. They denied being distracted by their expanding sports conglomerate - from the Sox and NESN to Roush Fenway Racing and the Liverpool Football Club - but they professed to have no knowledge about players drinking during games, among other issues.

    In the ugly aftermath, the Sox owners privately vowed to correct any lingering problems. And at least some players were expected to look in the mirror.

    “We have to hold ourselves more accountable,’’ Pedroia said. “That has nothing to do with the manager or coaches. On the great major league teams, players police each other, so we’ll get back to doing that.’’

  • Blade
    Walking SAM site
    • Feb 2009
    • 3739

    #2
    Hahah.....they called out the pitchers....essentially calling them fat lards.... Hilarious. Atleast the Phils don't have these problems, we just hit at a Single A level thats all...lol.

    Comment

    • kyhadley
      Carefree
      • Oct 2008
      • 6796

      #3
      The bit about the $300 headphones and yacht party was amusing.

      Comment

      • ThomasTomasz
        • Nov 2024

        #4
        That is a great article, and there might be a house cleaning in Boston. Inexcusible for ownership to be absent from that much as well. If I'm owning the team and I hear that my top two pitchers are getting fat from fried chicken and video games DURING the game, I'm getting down into the clubhouse and ripping them a new one.

        Comment

        • Blade
          Walking SAM site
          • Feb 2009
          • 3739

          #5
          Apparently Tito's been popping pills.

          Comment

          • Swarley
            A Special Kind of Cat
            • Jul 2010
            • 11213

            #6
            he (Ellsbury) also ranked with Pedroia, Aceves, and Jonathan Papelbon among the team’s hardest workers
            It became very clear during the last month that these 4 were the only ones who still gave a damn.

            Comment

            • Warner2BruceTD
              2011 Poster Of The Year
              • Mar 2009
              • 26142

              #7
              Interesting read, but if the Red Sox had made the playoffs, all this type of stuff is characterized as 'keeping loose', and 'they have a fun, tight knit clubhouse'. Instead of being accused of losing control, Francona is praised for being 'a player's manager'.

              It's a little dance the media plays. They need to write stories. If you have a team that's all business, and they win, of course it's because "this is a no-nonsense, hard working group of professionals'. If the same exact team comes up short, it's because they 'are too tightly wound, they need to loosen up and have some fun'.

              The Red Sox collapsed, so it has to be because Josh Beckett likes KFC and Adrian Gonzales is a diva who hates red eye fights. Meh.

              Comment

              • NAHSTE
                Probably owns the site
                • Feb 2009
                • 22233

                #8
                Originally posted by Warner2BruceTD
                Interesting read, but if the Red Sox had made the playoffs, all this type of stuff is characterized as 'keeping loose', and 'they have a fun, tight knit clubhouse'. Instead of being accused of losing control, Francona is praised for being 'a player's manager'.

                It's a little dance the media plays. They need to write stories. If you have a team that's all business, and they win, of course it's because "this is a no-nonsense, hard working group of professionals'. If the same exact team comes up short, it's because they 'are too tightly wound, they need to loosen up and have some fun'.

                The Red Sox collapsed, so it has to be because Josh Beckett likes KFC and Adrian Gonzales is a diva who hates red eye fights. Meh.
                I think the fact that the owners are naming names like this makes this an even deeper issue than the typical "winning cures everything" situations we've seen in the past.

                The best example of "winning cures everything" was the NY Giants and the whole issue with Tom Coughlin's training camp being supposedly too hard on players. Then they won the Super Bowl and he was praised for his discipline and attention to detail.

                In most cases though it's the media guiding the narrative, but this seems like a direct leak from the front office.

                Comment

                • celtsxpatsxsox
                  Redsox
                  • Oct 2008
                  • 3310

                  #9
                  So apparently Carl Crawford called out some of the players and if that's true then he just became my favorite player even if he is overpaid. Adrian Gonzalez was also said to be "culture shocked" at the way the Red Sox clubhouse was. I would expect quite a few changes next year. Would not surprise me to see them try to deal guys like Youkilis and Beckett.

                  Also from the entitled fans to the ownerships smear campaign of Tito it seems as if the Boston Red Sox transformation into the Boston Yankees is complete.

                  That being said, I'd be lying though if I haven't found all of this mildly entertaining. It makes all of Manny Ramirez's incidents seem like nothing.

                  Comment

                  • kyhadley
                    Carefree
                    • Oct 2008
                    • 6796

                    #10
                    Thought this was a good take on that article/the collapse:



                    Jonah Keri

                    Mr. Jones,

                    So it seems we have something shiny and new to debate in the world of sports and sports journalism. Specifically this Globe article by investigative reporter Bob Hohler on the collapse of the 2011 Red Sox. A couple of choice snippets:

                    "Instead, Boston’s three elite starters went soft, their pitching as anemic as their work ethic. The indifference of Beckett, Lester, and Lackey in a time of crisis can be seen in what team sources say became their habit of drinking beer, eating fast-food fried chicken, and playing video games in the clubhouse during games while their teammates tried to salvage a once-promising season."

                    And …

                    “Team sources also expressed concern that Francona's performance may have been affected by his use of pain medication, which he also vehemently denied. Francona said he has taken pain medicine for many years, particularly after multiple knee surgeries. He said he used painkillers after knee surgery last October and used them during the season to relieve the discomfort of doctors draining blood from his knee at least five times.”

                    You’ll note the mention of "team sources" in that second passage. We’ll get to the post hoc explanation for the Red Sox downfall in a minute. But it’s the sourcing of this story above all else that’s punching me in the face.


                    Here’s where I stand on anonymous sources: I’d love to see journalists use them only in extreme cases, or when the subject is trivial ("You didn’t hear it from me, but rutabaga sucks.") Watergate or nonsense, basically.

                    This story is hardly alone in using anonymous sources to gather key material. You see it all the time, especially in political reporting, but sometimes in sports journalism, too. By offering a shield of anonymity, the reporter gives his source a chance to say anything he wants about anyone he wants without any accountability or concern for consequences. We can’t verify the motivation of the sources, because we don’t know who the sources are. And when we’re groping in the dark that way, it calls the veracity of the anonymously sourced article into question.

                    It might be that every single fact reported in the Globe story is 100 percent true. But the burden is on the reporter to prove it. Going to the accused (in this case, Terry Francona and the various named players) is a decent start. But it’s not nearly enough. If it were up to me, I’d want to see hard evidence that the accusations made are in fact true, and all sources being named, before running a story, especially one this inflammatory and potentially damaging to reputations.

                    In the story, Hohler writes:

                    “This article is based on a series of interviews the Globe conducted with individuals familiar with the Sox operation at all levels. Most requested anonymity out of concern for their jobs or potential damage to their relationships in the organization. Others refused to comment or did not respond to interview requests.”

                    1. Does this story qualify as important enough to the public interest that granting anonymity is justified, the way it would be if, say, corruption in the CIA were uncovered? One could argue that few matters are of greater public interest than baseball in Boston. I don’t share that view.

                    2. Generally speaking, anonymity should be reserved for the weak, not the strong. If this article was sourced entirely from clubbies and assistant trainers and wasn’t, say, Red Sox upper management kicking Francona in the ass on his way out the door, then that becomes somewhat more understandable. But that’s the thing about anonymity. We can’t possibly know who provided this information, so we don’t know what positions of power these people held.

                    I have no doubt that Hohler and his colleagues worked their asses off to report on and write this story, and I don’t believe they intended any harm per se in their methods. I appreciate their efforts to contact all of the accused. I guess I’m just a zealot when it comes to using anonymous sources. I’d sooner not run the story at all than run it this way. That would cost my publication a zillion page views and the attention of the entire sports world today, making my decision (likely) economically dubious.

                    Oh, well. I'm lame that way.

                    Chris Jones

                    Mr. Lame,

                    First off, I have to step back a little bit from this story and try to sit in my Chair of Objectivity for a few minutes. It’s not that I’m happy to see the Red Sox in such a doomed offseason lather. (Well, offseason for them, anyway.) IT’S THAT I COULDN’T BE HAPPIER. My winter will be made warmer by the further cannibalism to come.

                    That aside, I’m probably a little softer on the anonymous source debate than you are, because I sometimes write about subjects — politics, for instance — where they’re a necessary evil. Important stories might not get written without them. And whether you like it or not, in Boston this is an important story. In fact, I imagine this will be one of the Globe’s most-read stories this year. Eyes win.

                    I will say, however, that I can’t imagine any writer enjoys using anonymous sources. There’s something about their use that automatically makes a story look shady, and that’s partly because they’re almost exclusively used in negative stories; anonymous sources are bad omens in that way, journalism’s equivalent of a dude wearing a mask in an alley. Nobody’s going to look at him and give him the benefit of the doubt.

                    Interestingly, Joe Sullivan, the sports editor at the Globe, did an online chat about the story today, and he was asked about the use of anonymous sources. Here was his response:


                    “Our goal is to never use unnamed sources. Unfortunately it is sometimes the only way to make important information public. We stated in the story that people spoke out of concern for their jobs or potential damage to their relationships to the organization. It was the only way to get to the root of the problem. Our sources are always people who have knowledge of or are directly involved in the story.”

                    I would say that the first, second, fourth, and fifth sentences are accurate. Our little debate really centers on Sentence No. 3.

                    The overwhelming sense, reading the Red Sox blogroll — right about now Sons of Sam Horn is making noises like a witch who’s been doused with water — is that ownership is the principal source for this story. It certainly reads that way to me: Let’s try to bust up Theo and Francona — despite this season’s collapse, the principal architects of Boston’s apparently already forgotten World Series titles — on their way out of town. If that’s the case, the concerns raised by Joe Sullivan in Sentence No. 3 don’t apply. Their relationship to the organization? Give me a break. They are the organization.

                    Which is what makes this story such a bad one for Red Sox fans and such a good one for the blackhearts like me. The entire baseball world is reading this story today and thinking: Gee, the Red Sox seem like such a classy, top-flight ball club. I sure hope I can play/coach/manage/get my soul destroyed for them someday!

                    Seriously, I’d rather play in Houston.

                    For me, the only guy who comes out of this thing looking sympathetic is Francona. He gets broadsided by some seriously dirty pool, but he goes on the record, defends himself, and doesn’t take any parting shots of his own. I feel like Boston’s last honorable man has left town with Tito.

                    Keri

                    Dear Port Hope Schadenfreude,

                    Right, “they are the organization” is my main issue here. It’s not the first time something like this has happened in baseball, or even with this team. There’s the famous smear job foisted on Manny on his way out of town. Maybe he really was a selfish ballplayer or whatever insult you want to throw at the guy. But these farewell ass-kickings are unsavory at best, irresponsible to print at worst. Ditto for anonymous digs at Sammy Sosa on his way out of Chicago, etc.

                    (By the way, I'm a doofus with a BA who drops Simpsons references and F-bombs in game recaps. My frustration from all this really comes as a reader, not some judge and jury empowered to speak for the industry. I can barely speak for a ham sandwich.)

                    We need to cover the after-the-fact analysis in play, too. One could certainly argue that positive clubhouse chemistry and leadership could help a team win (difficult to prove, but doesn’t mean such things don’t exist). But the writer is relying on the testimony of others in saying that [Jason] Varitek and [David] Ortiz and others didn’t properly lead this team. What constitutes appropriate leadership anyway? A fire-and-brimstone speech during a losing streak? Or could keeping one’s mouth shut and hitting game-winning homers count as leadership, too? Because Jacoby Ellsbury certainly hit the crap out of the ball all year (including down the stretch). Yet he gets mentioned as someone who “contributed little to the clubhouse culture,” whatever that means.

                    Many people have noted that this kind of finger pointing probably doesn’t come up if the team won. The 2004 Red Sox were branded as a bunch of lovable “idiots” for their quirky personalities; this group gets raked over the coals for theirs. If Dan Johnson played for the Red Sox and not the Rays, this probably isn’t a story at all. As Over The Monster blogger Patrick Sullivan noted on Twitter, it would have been interesting to read this story a month ago, rather than today.

                    Perhaps some good could come of this story. If players have indeed let their conditioning lapse, maybe they rededicate themselves this offseason to prove the haters wrong. If players’ overall attitudes were negative above and beyond what you’d expect from a team in a terrible losing streak, maybe that will get fixed in time for 2012.

                    But as far as this particular blown September lead goes, blaming it on players eating fried chicken or Francona having marital issues is incredibly facile and incomplete. The pitching staff got ravaged by injuries, as did Kevin Youkilis. Even if you ignore the depleted roster, the schedule got tougher, with lots of games against the Yankees, Rays and Rangers and fewer against, say, the AL Central (though yes, the Orioles did kick their butts, too). The Rays happened to dominate the head-to-head matchups, taking a big bite out of Boston's lead. They also caught a broader hot streak of their own at just the right time. Everything that could have gone wrong for the Red Sox went terribly, horribly wrong.

                    Replay the season 100 times under the exact same conditions, and even with jerks (allegedly) running the asylum and a tough schedule and injuries and The Curse Of KFC and everything else, the Sox probably hang on 99 times. Hell, Nate Silver thinks what happened can only happenonce in 278 million tries.

                    I touched on this a bit when we debated the downfall of Barry Zito: Human beings are suckers for explanations. We can’t just accept that the Red Sox completed the biggest September collapse in baseball history. There has to be one simple, obvious reason why. If we just chalked it up to randomness and said it wouldn't happen again if the season played out 277,999,999 times, that would be wholly unsatisfying to our human instincts. Bad things happen to bad people, good things happen to good people, right? If so much of life is beyond our control, that would be a terrifying thought.

                    Very understandably, we don't like being terrified.

                    Jones

                    Well, putting aside the anonymous sources, the intra-organizational bloodletting, and the incredibly sad specter of Francona sitting on his bed in his lonely hotel room, I’ll agree with you that today’s story really doesn’t explain Boston’s collapse.

                    I mean, you and I differ here: I believe in answers. I don’t believe in simple answers to complex questions — and the collapse of a baseball team playing alongside many other baseball teams makes for a pretty enormous equation — but I do believe that there are reasons behind actions, even if those reasons aren’t always something we can understand.

                    Lost in all the stories of the collapse has been how badly the Red Sox started. They play .500 ball in April, and they’re in a totally different spot in every imaginable way. And you’re absolutely right: Winning changes the view. If the Red Sox were still playing this week, beer and fried chicken become the pirate-flag symbols of a loose band of brothers. But that same sort of behavior on a losing team — coupled with some massive, crippling contracts — makes you look like a pack of assholes. You can’t sit on the lousy bench for a manager who would die for you? You’re going to bitch about a doubleheader until daddy gives you a free pair of headphones and a boat ride, you man-ape? You infant?

                    I really don’t want to get into an argument about the statistical significance of a wing versus a breast on a man’s pitching arm, but when you’re being paid millions of dollars to play baseball for a living, you have to understand that appearances matter. They just do. The dockworkers and bartenders who love you and your team can’t abide the feeling that they care more than you do. Watching the Red Sox this September, for a fan — and I’m talking about real fans, the adults who were once those babies with tiny baseball mitts in their cribs — must have been like watching a man cheating on the woman who you’ve always wished were your wife.

                    That’s all that matters here. The truth is, I don’t think Red Sox fans will worry whether any of the so-called transgressions outlined in this story had much impact on the Red Sox finishing third in their division. I don’t think all that many of them would really be mad that the team lost in such historically spectacular fashion. Except: What hurts the most is that this particular collection of players doesn’t seem to love them back. Boston, the city, can abide a lot of sins. But the cardinal sin in that town — as much shit as I like to give it — is carelessness. Not as in clumsy, but as in an absence of care.

                    Why is Boston ultimately doomed? Who knows? We’ve been down this road before, Jonah, you and me. I recognize that I probably put too much stock in chemistry and not enough in biology and physics. But John Lackey has more friends in that clubhouse than Jacoby Ellsbury does. I don’t care which of the sciences you believe in: That’s a bad sign

                    Comment

                    • Rayman
                      Spic 'n Spanish
                      • Feb 2009
                      • 4626

                      #11
                      I think Olberman hit the nail on the head with this one. Don't say that often




                      Comment

                      • kyhadley
                        Carefree
                        • Oct 2008
                        • 6796

                        #12
                        Haha now Henry is saying he was "personally opposed" the Crawford signing.



                        The Red Sox are dysfunctional again and I'm loving it!

                        Comment

                        • EmpireWF
                          Giants in the Super Bowl
                          • Mar 2009
                          • 24082

                          #13
                          Why would they treat Ellsbury like an outcast when he was having an MVP season?


                          Comment

                          • kyhadley
                            Carefree
                            • Oct 2008
                            • 6796

                            #14
                            Originally posted by heelswxman
                            If any of you fucks badmouth Henry I'll punch you in the fucking balls.

                            I swear to god I'll punch you in the fucking balls.
                            Henry is looking pretty scummy right about now.

                            Comment

                            • celtsxpatsxsox
                              Redsox
                              • Oct 2008
                              • 3310

                              #15
                              Originally posted by EmpireWF
                              Why would they treat Ellsbury like an outcast when he was having an MVP season?
                              I think it was more Ellsbury out casting himself from the team (not that I blame) after last year when guys like Youkilis questioned his toughness and why he wasn't with the team when he was hurt. Which is kind of ironic coming from Youkilis since he has never been Mr Durability.

                              Also I have to give John Henry some credit for today. He supposedly went to the radio station and demanded an interview with Michael Felger and Tony Maz. And everyone from around here knows how ruthless (and annoying) Felger can be. Not saying Henry hasn't been "scummy" but I still think he deserves some props for doing the interview and doing it without Larry Lucchino.

                              Comment

                              Working...