Red Sox owner John Henry and general manager Ben Cherington met the team in Seattle yesterday, but they don't appear to be there to implement further changes. Henry told reporters that he doesn't plan to fire manager Bobby Valentine despite Boston's recent struggles and 62-74 record. Here are some more Red Sox-related notes…
- The Red Sox should dismiss Valentine and hire Terry Francona again, Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports writes. Rosenthal makes it clear that Valentine won’t return to Boston in 2013, but reports that Francona won’t be invited back either, according to people familiar with the situation. The team’s owners will try to “lower the volume” with their next hire, Rosenthal writes. Plus, Francona could draw interest from other teams.
- Red Sox players don’t trust owner John Henry, chairman Tom Werner and president Larry Lucchino, Yahoo's Jeff Passan reports. The players see the owners as the source of leaks and lies and they have an equally frustrated relationship with Valentine, Passan writes. The Red Sox need to dismiss Valentine before the 2013 season, Passan writes.
Hiring Francona back would be pathetic. The core of their team is already getting old and not as good, why bring back a coach just to appeal to those guys? They’ve already started their rebuilding efforts by getting rid of some big guys during the season, why not just continue to build your team around the younger talent and move in a new direction?
John Henry will not rehire Terry Francona. To do so would admit firing him was a mistake and it wasn’t. Time and circumstances march on. What Henry has to do is finish cleaning out the deadwood to start fresh with new leadership and new players. As for distrust, by the players, they are just going to have to ride this out to its logical conclusion…. it is understandable their sense of security is shaken right now but that will abate as the season winds down.
“The core of their team is getting old…”
Pedroia – 29
Lester – 28
Ellsbury – 28
Buchholz – 28
Saltalamacchia – 27
Doubront – 24
Middlebrooks – 23
(Morales – 26, and Iglesias – 22, could be considered core players depending on their roles next year)
The average age of the Red Sox’s roster is 28.3, good for 15th (right smack in the middle) and actually about a year closer to the team at the bottom (Houston – 26.2) than the team at the top (Yankees – 31). They’re actually a full year younger than the Rays and Jays, who are always seen as young teams who build from within. The only “old” core player is Ortiz, who is 36, but he’s still among the best hitters in the game (3rd best hitter in the game this year according to wOBA, 4th best by wRC+).
I know that wasn’t the crux of your argument, but it’s something that gets repeated all the time and really isn’t true.
More to your point though, that is exactly what they have said they plan to do (build around the young guys and move in a ‘new’ direction – a new direction which is actually exactly the old [2004-2007] direction).
What he means is the Rays and Orioles core are younger and more talented thus making your core irrelevant. Salty, Iglesias, Morales? C’mon Mainy those players don’t make up a core. Top 4 do but they will all be 30 and exspensive soon
” it’s something that gets repeated all the time and is really not true.” It’s like saying the rays only win because they draft high, definitly frustrating.
– Yours truly favorite RS troll
As I pointed out, the Red Sox are actually younger than the Rays. Plus, 30 is right in the middle of their peak, so the fact that they will be 30 (in a year or two) does not mean that they are getting old, and they certainly aren’t getting expensive (the most expensive any of those guys gets is Buchholz at $13.5M in 2017). And Middlebrooks and Doubront are as much a part of the core as anyone at this point.
The Rays only win because they draft well.
People want to blame Bobby but forget Boston has missed the playoff the last few seasons. And you cant blame Bobby for the September collapse or the horrible April Boston has last year when they got of who like an 0-6 start. This team has fundamental flaws that were here long before Bobby came aboard. He just makes an easy scapegoat.
Yes, managers make easy scapegoats. And that’s just life in the big leagues.
But I think that too many people focus on his on-field performance and overlook his off-field performance, which may be the primary cause for player unhappiness. Today, managing a baseball team is increasingly more about managing the players’ personalities, managing the clubhouse, and less about managing the team on the field. And I get the feeling that BV is a poor clubhouse manager.
These are professional players. If they allow their feelings towards a manger to effect their level of play then THEY are the problem and not the manager.
They’re human beings, not robots.
They are human being being paid tens of millions of dollars. Whether you like or dislike the manager that should NOT have a darn thing to do with your offense, defense or pitching.
Here’s a news flash. Bobby V isn’t the first manager that was hated by his players. Others have managed to succeed despite that.
Bottom line is..the good teams with Billy Martin won DESPITE hating him. The bad teams with Billy Martin lost NOT because they hated him but because they sucked. This is a decent enough Sox team that IF healthy, they should be professional enough to win anyway.
You can grump and groan and stomp your feet all you want. That won’t change the fact that if the players really dislike a certain manager, it will disrupt things and affect performance.
A “rebuilding” situation would be good for a new manager. I’m thinking Sandy Alomar, Jr. I hoped they’d hire him this past offseason, and I knew they liked him a lot.
Plus as I’ve read elsewhere on this site, Valentine is more of a “win now” type of manager; that’s why they hired him. He might not work as well with a rebuilding situation.
Dwight Evans manager?!
Sandberg.
Jim Rice? Freddie Lynn?
Isn’t it true that Bobby V doesn’t have any of his own coaches on his staff? Aren’t most of them leftovers from 2011? I really think that firing him would show further dysfunction from above. They knew exactly what kind of personality he was from the beginning. He speaks his mind and has a tendency to rub players the wrong way and give fodder to the press. The players shouldn’t be the ones running this show. Give him another year and let the W/L dictate if he needs to be replaced.
I don’t disagree with you that the players shouldn’t be running the show, but one also must not underestimate the power of psychology. If the players are unhappy, distrustful, angry, if they are resentful that Bobby Valentine is their manager for another year then it is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. They WILL struggle and underperform and chances are they will care less and less that they are doing so as time goes by. They have a built-in excuse: Not just Bobby Valentine himself, but the indifference to their opinions and their feelings that bringing him back would show. People can argue against it or claim the players should man up and deal with it or whatever else and maybe they’re right, but that’s human nature, and every day the feelings persist cements those feelings even more strongly.
I don’t blame Bobby Valentine for any of that necessarily, nor am I saying it is right — but I do think it is reality. So if you are the Red Sox owners and management, do you bring him back for another year just to thumb your nose at the complainers and teach them how you’re going to do whatever you want and they had better fall in line? You certainly can. I wouldn’t recommend it if you want the team to do better.
Bobby Valentine might not deserve to be fired, but he should be.
But you have to ask yourself, what the heck can Bobby V possibly be doing to warrant professionals getting paid millions to under perform? What legit excuse does a player have not to play up to their potential? So what he doesn’t coddle you. So what he calls you out in front of other players. It’s your job to play. Too much coddling. Fire a manager if he makes boneheaded plays or something that directly effects W/L’s and in 2012 he had less to do with those outcomes than most want to admit. He’s an easy scapegoat.
Or, fire a manager if he intentionally overuses a pitcher to the point of potentially putting the rest of his career at risk. Or if he doesn’t take his job seriously, doesn’t show up until several hours after he’s supposed to, refuses to speak to people he doesn’t like or doesn’t get along with.
Which pitcher did he overuse? What makes you think he doesn’t take his job serious? And just who does he HAVE to speak to if he really doesn’t? I personally am against this idea that a manager has to be a nice guy. Who cares? You make it sound as if the Red Sox players all have daddy issues and all need a collective hug.
In the four days following Aceves’ return from his suspension Valentine made him throw 143 pitches (143 pitches in 4 days), and 63 of those pitches were on the fourth day. It was reported two days later that players’ representatives had complained to the front office about Valentines usage of them (maybe you don’t, but I have to assume that it was Aceves’ representative given the circumstances and proximity to that happening).
Then he shows up to the park several hours after he’s supposed to be there and when he’s asked about batting Podsednik third in the order he acts like he didn’t even know where he was batting (and maybe he didn’t), his response was “Is that what it says on the lineup? … Who knows, maybe it will look good. I haven’t seen it.”
And I don’t understand how you can seriously act like the manager not talking to anyone isn’t an issue. Why is he even there? He’s obviously not doing anything if he wont talk to anyone, doesn’t even know what’s going on, and doesn’t actually manage the team. It isn’t about the players feelings, it’s about Bobby being intentionally out of the loop; it would be like if your manager at work never actually showed up in the office, never talked to anyone there, had no idea what was going on, and just called occasionally to move people from department to department – do you think he would ever be able to actually accomplish anything, and do you think you would actually consider him a good manager?
Let me make it clear. I’m not DEFENDING whether or not he is a good manager. What I am defending is the fact that he is being run out because the players don’t like his personality. As far as some of the things you mentioned, I question whether that reality or perception? Is he being purposely aloof to the press because of some of the things they’ve written (like saying he should be fired) or is he that out of touch? Either way…
Well, that’s different then; it seemed at first like you were defending him as a good manager. I personally don’t care what the players think of his personality, I only care when his personality affects how well he does his job, which it seemingly is (and not because of players having hurt feelings, but because there are certain things that a manager has to, or is supposed to do, that he simply can’t, or won’t, because of his attitude), and I care about the fact that his in-game management has been pretty bad too IMO (and seems to have been a lot worse lately, almost like he’s doing it intentionally now for one reason or another, but that’s pure speculation on my part).
As far as whether it’s just to media or legitimate aloofness, I don’t know (with his answer about Podsednik), but his fairly extreme overuse of Aceves (which appeared to be punishment, but again, pure speculation on my part) isn’t perception, it happened (whether it was intentional, or terrible management doesn’t really make a difference in the end).
Ya know.. For punishment, they used to take a player and stick them way down at the end of the bench, or option them down to the minors and am fairly sure (without looking to double check) that Aceves has 1 option left.
Both would have been far better ways after his suspension, rather than sending him up there. That was hiw worst act of management this season IMO. Also? continually optioning Mortenson on the see-saw trips while keeping people like Gomez on the roster the last time and he and Cherrington are guilty of that, but you know Valentine had input.
Also, I can’t post a link, but go to over the monster and read the article “Bobby Valentine Has Snapped” (or just google it). Snippet: “Asked how difficult the six-game losing streak has been on Sunday evening, a despondent Valentine just muttered, ‘What difference does it make?'”
Although, I do have to give him a little credit for telling the reporter he wants to punch him in the mouth, I feel that way about them a lot of the time too.
Many moons ago, back in a high school American history class, we were discussing the beginnings of the Spanish-American war: Specifically, the mysterious sinking of the USS Maine that proved a catalyst to the conflict. My history teacher made a comment that has stuck with me until this day: It’s not the truth that matters, it’s the perception of the truth.
I’m not scapegoating Valentine, nor am I necessarily defending the players. I’m simply dealing with the situation that exists, not what the situation should be. The players are unhappy with him–it doesn’t really matter if they have a good reason to be or not, because they are–and I fully believe that unhappiness will continue to affect their performance and their motivation going forward. If you disagree with that, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
If you DON’T disagree with that then the only question is whether one acknowledges that reality and does something about it or clucks his tongue and bemoans spoiled players (or both). I’m always going to err on the side of trying to make things better and the simplest way to do so is to remove Bobby Valentine. That doesn’t mean he was wrong or that he deserves it, it means a bad situation exists and this helps to make it better. Nothing more.
(I think a case can also be made that managing overinflated player egos is part of a manager’s job and that if a manager does something that literally gets his team to revolt and talk to the owners about him that he probably is a poor manager regardless of if their claims are valid, but honestly that’s not important because it’s not the argument I’m making.)
About half the coaches are his selections — Ochoa, Niemann, etc., some were carryovers from 2011 (Tuck being the most prominent), and some were new hires that were made before Valentine’s hiring (McClure).
Neither of those things are accurate (re: the coaching staff). Bob McClure wasn’t his selection (and isn’t with the team anymore), and Tuck was a holdover from 2011 who Bobby didn’t have a choice on (he’s considered among the best at what he does, so he wasn’t going anywhere), but everyone else was selected by Bobby (Magadan has been with Boston since 2007, and Bogar since 2008, but both were actually Bobby’s choices to bring back and could have been replaced by someone else had he chosen to).
I am a Yankees fan, but I disagree with the whole blame it on Bobby V. I do not think he is the right guy for the Red Sox, and I never thought he was from the start, but he is NOT the reason they are losing. Do people forget that Theo Epstein was the GM when all of these signings were made? He signed Crawford just so that the Yankees wouldn’t get him (see his contract to prove that), even though there was no need for Crawford in an outfield that is only 300 feet. All of this stuff was left over from 2011, and before, and now Bobby V gets all of the blame. I think it is unfair, but then again, that is Boston for you, they need someone to blame and it sure isn’t the players fault.
Matt start making a “Blame List”—let’s see if it starts with Girardi? Cashman? or Injuries? the coaching staff? it won’t be the players…who will be to blame for the collapse IF they don’t make the playoffs…
here are two true facts:
1) bobby valentine is not the reason boston is losing this year
2) bobby valentine is not a good manager
you fire him for the second one. you fire him because hiring him was always a mistake. the fact that he isn’t to blame for the record this year is not a reason to keep him
Bobby’s a bad manager? He did pretty well wih some mediocre Met teams in the late 1990’s. Those weren’t very good teams on paper and yet they even went to the World Series one year.
the 90’s teams weren’t mediocre on paper at all; they were just widely underrated. the ’99 mets were 3rd in the league in WAR and had four players with 5+ win seasons (three had more than 6!). do you know how unusual that is?
was the success of the next year’s 2000 mets because of bobby? or because of three 4.5+ WAR starters on top of 6+ WAR mike piazza, 6+ WAR edgar alfonso, and lights out armando benitez in the bullpen?
for reference, gio gonzalez and stephen strasburg have 4.5 and 4.6 WAR this year. in 2010, matt cain and tim lincecum had 3.7 and 4.9. and there are only 6 players in baseball this year with higher wRC+’s than alfonso and piazza had in 2000
in short, the mets had fantastic starting pitching, solid defense around the diamond, and two superstar offensive talents in the middle of the lineup. and what you take from that is that the team wasn’t very good on paper, but bobby got them to the world series on good management. does not compute
when you stack that up against the dozens of boneheaded things valentine has done and said over the years, i can’t help but find myself unconvinced of your good manager theory
I disagree. The 98 and 99 Mets had a lot of weaknesses. True they had a good lineup – mostly from a handful of players having career years offnensively that they were never to duplicate. But the starting pitching was mediocre at best except for the top 2 in 2000 (Leiter, Hampton), and the top 1 in 1999 (Leiter). It’s rare IMO for teams to get into the playoffs based on offense alone. The bullpen was good but not great. I’m not saying Bobby got them into the World Series-not by a long shot, but neither team was star studded yet somehow found a way to put up good (offensive) numbers and win.
unless bobby valentine was the reason they had career years, it doesn’t matter whether the seasons they had were one-and-dones or one-of-many. they happened. they were the reason the team won. it’s up to you to connect those performances to valentine in a way that distinguishes valentine from anyone else who might have managed
you’re offering plenty of interesting conclusions, but we are all capable of listing our opinions. it’s only the evidence that’s worth talking about
The problem is you have very little so-called “evidence” and failed to address most if not all of my counterpoints, i.e. that the teams had mediocre (on paper and statistically) starting pitching. If you want to have a meaningful discussion I’m all for it but if all you want to do is ramble and posture behind a computer screen then we should both stop posting replies.
you have very little so-called “evidence” and failed to address most if not all of my counterpoints, i.e. that the teams had mediocre (on paper and statistically) starting pitching
quoting myself: “for reference, gio gonzalez and stephen strasburg have 4.5 and 4.6 WAR this year. in 2010, matt cain and tim lincecum had 3.7 and 4.9 … the mets had three starters with at least 4.5 WAR” (hint: that’s better)
there is your address; there is your evidence
what was your response to that evidence? “WAR is overused. the starting pitching was mediocre” (just a repeat of your original claim)
no explanation, no alternative data, nothing. now that’s persuasive
You can’t use WAR if you don’t know how to calculate it (unlike slugging %). The Red Sox in 2011 had high WAR players (ad did the Mets in 2007) yet they missed the playoffs. According to you WAR is all that matters
PS it’s nonsense that the Mets in 1999 or 1998 had three 4.5+ WAR starters. Who was the third? Glendon Rusch? How was that third pitchers WAR calculated? Not buying it. People who over rely on stats most of the time use them as a crutch
It was Glendon Rusch. This was his line, and remember, the steroid era and inflated offenses were alive and well in 2000:
4.01 ERA, 3.50 FIP, 7.41 K/9, 2.08 BB/9, 0.85 HR/9, 3.57 K/BB
Significantly better than the NL average in all categories. He was a top 20 pitcher in the NL regardless of whether you sorted by ERA, FIP, or WAR, as were Leiter and Hampton.
Having three NL-top 20 pitchers in your rotation is already an incredible amount of talent, Rick Reed, the Mets’ #4, was also an above average pitcher by both ERA and FIP. And most teams get very little out of their 5th starting spot.
I still disagree for the reasons cited.
m_rex out of retirement ! ?
They brought in Valentine in an attempt to have a manager who would no tolerate what went on last year (it involves chicken if you must ask). However, Bobby V. hasn’t done that. Instead, he’s alienated his crew (starting with Youkilis) and it’s gone downhill from there. Next up? Arnie Beyeler? Alan Trammell? They need someone a little more low-key.
Gonna be Sandberg…he’s paid his dues and now it’s his turn
Sandberg would be an interview possibility, sure. Cecil Cooper? Ken Macha? Oh, we could do this all day.
It sounds like there are a lot more players they need to get rid of.
Bobby V was a bad choice to manage a team of unhappy, unmotivated veterans. However, now they boston is a much younger, more dynamic team i think Bobby makes a much better fit. Time to fire him #sawxfanlogic
i feel like the red sox jump into the whole situation of trying to find a manager, they only looked into bout 5 to 6 guys for the manager’s position, opposed to in 2004 off season they looked every where. they rushed into something and it came and bite them on their bumms
Red Sox, say hello to Dave Martinez.
Nope, Ryne Sandberg
I would agree there. If the prospect of Ferrell doesn’t pan out Sandberg would be the on top of MY list.
Dear Red Sox,
Please take Farrell.
Sincerely,
Jays Fan
bring back cito!!!
… just kidding
Sal Fasano please
The Cito (Lido) Shuffle! The guy went from couldn’t do anything wrong when he started, to couldn’t “shuffle” him outta’ town fast enough at the end 😉
He was popular with his players, gotta’ give him credit.
that’s because he never did anything once the game started…
Bobby V has obviously given up too. His comments after games ares just sad now.
Even if the Red Sox DID decide to offer the job to Francona, is there really any way he would accept?
exactly, why would he after the hatchet job he had to endure on his exit
I’d love to see the Jays let Farrell go and hire Francona.
I’m finding myself defending someone I don’t particularly like (Bobby V). I think I’m just fed up with players (all professional athletes) being the ones dictating the conversation now a days. The idea that seasoned vets being paid millions or young rookies not playing up to their potential because a manger rubbed them the wrong way is just something irrationally and inexplicably bemusing to me.
If Farrell goes, Butterfield is the best option to replace him.
Bobby valentine has an ego larger than the state of Nevada. He cannot coexist with anyone that might overshadow his need for attention. There is no route to success for the Red Sox with Valentine in charge.