Rick Porcello is product of Red Sox Front Office arrogance

The Red Sox acquired Rick Porcello and then extended his contract because the 26-year old fit into the new philosophy recently developed by the Front Office. Instead of paying extra for pitchers over 30, and taking the risk of their performance falling off at the end of a contract, the Sox would target younger pitchers. These players wouldn't be as proven as the older pitchers, but that would actually make them a better investment, because that would make them less expensive. Furthermore, the potential upside for younger pitchers made them an opportunity, not a risk.

Compare this pitching philosophy with stock investments. Would you rather buy part of Facebook when it opened publicly, or when Mark Zuckerberg was still living in a Harvard dorm? Getting in early is less expensive, you get more for your money, and the sky is the limit for increased value.

John Henry and Larry Lucchino aren't "baseball people." They know their baseball intelligence isn't sufficient to beat the baseball people who run the 29 other teams. So they try to think outside of the diamond and gain an advantage using ideas like this investing strategy. Sometimes it works. These guys have built 3 World Series winners, after all. But with Rick Porcello, it hasn't worked.

Henry and Lucchino were drawn to Rick Porcello because of one number. Not his ERA or WHIP, not his WAR or K/9. It was his age. He was 26. He had 6 years of MLB experience. And he'd shown some signs that he could be a very good pitcher. So before he ever toed the rubber in a meaningful game with the Red Sox, his contract was extended for 4 years, paying him just a tick over $20M per year.

The deal would keep Porcello in Boston until he was 30. His prime years would be in a Red Sox uniform, but the Sox wouldn't have to worry about his performance falling off due to age.

The Sox dismissed doubts instead of considering them. Porcello had a career 4.30 ERA in a pitcher-friendly ballpark and in a division that didn't have many potent offenses. He only had one truly good season, and had shown inconsistency in his 6 Major League years. He had more seasons with an ERA over 4.50 (3) than with an ERA below 4.00 (2). His stuff wasn't amazing. And he pitched to contact, inducing groundballs, instead of amassing strikeouts.

These concerns probably didn't worry the Sox. If they had, they would have waited a few weeks before extending his contract. The issue of pitching to contact was likely dismissed as something that only outmoded and archaic "baseball people" would worry about, an antiquated notion of how the game should be played. And the statistical inconsistency was because Porcello was still a young man. He'd shown his potential in 2014 with 15 wins and a 3.43 ERA. The other seasons were part of his growth and development.

The Sox were so confident in Porcello's inevitable success, that they signed him as early as possible to avoid having to pay him more as his value increased. Henry and Lucchino probably imagined him having a 4-1 April, and then refusing to sign an extension. So they locked him up for 4 more years.

Unfortunately, the deal also made him untradeable. The Front Office didn't give themselves options if Porcello disappointed, or if he was good but the team disappointed, allowing him to be traded at the deadline. Investors should always give themselves options.

The assessment of Porcello wasn't the only mistake the Front Office made. The philosophy itself is flawed. Older pitchers cost more because their performance is proven. The risk with them is that their performance might fall off. You don't know how many good years you'll get. Younger pitchers also carry significant risk. There's a risk you might not get any good years at all.

The Sox paid a premium for Porcello's youth. Which is like paying someone extra for a product that hasn't been tested. They ignored obvious reasons to have second thoughts about extending his contract. They didn't try to find any reasons not to extend him. They built a philosophy based on their relative ignorance of baseball, then arrogantly assumed they were smarter than traditional baseball thinking.

It's okay to pay extra for something proven, especially something as rare and important as pitching. It's not okay to give someone who is killing your team a raise to $20M/year. But John Henry and Larry Lucchino thought they knew better than everyone else. Sometimes smart people do the dumbest things.

Red Sox assemble a rotation of mediocrity and question marks

Thursday morning the Red Sox didn't really have a rotation. By sundown, they had one. Unfortunately it's a mix between mediocre innings eaters and unpredictable question marks who might win 17 games or fail to make 17 starts.

Wade Miley and Rick Porcello are painfully uninteresting and average. Miley is a gray Nissan Maxima and Porcello is a beige Toyota Corolla. They just blend in. There's nothing thrilling about them, but they're not bad either. You don't covet them, but you're happy to have them.

I actually like each of these acquisitions. Each of these guys is decent, or has the potential to be good. The individual moves are fine. It's the mediocrity of the rotation as a whole that enrages me. The Boston Red Sox, one of the premier teams in baseball, with tons of money to spend, don't even have a legit #2 in their rotation? Really?!?

Embarrassing.

Wade Miley is a 28-year old lefty. That means in 2 years he'll be too old for the Red Sox to consider good. He went 8-12 last year with a 4.34 ERA in the National League. The most impressive part of his resume is that he's pitched 190+ innings the past 3 seasons. To be fair, he did play in a hitter friendly ballpark in Arizona and that seems to have had an impact on his numbers. He had a 5.61 ERA at home and a 3.17 ERA on the road. Eighteen of the 23 homers he allowed were at home.

But Fenway is hardly pitcher-friendly. He's a middle of the rotation guy whose fastball peaks at 91. I'm not impressed, I'm not disappointed.

Rick Porcello was acquired by trading Yoenis Cespedes to Detroit. So he's essentially the parting gift the Sox got for losing Lester. Porcello had the best year of his career in 2014, with a 3.43 ERA and 15 wins. He has post-season experience, but it isn't good. His good 2014 numbers might be the start of a new trend in his career. If so, he could turn out to be a good #2 starter. Or his 2014 performance might be an aberration and he will revert to the 3/4 guy he has been for most of his career.

That small question mark is nothing compared to Justin Masterson, whose unpredictability rivals Clay Buchholz. Materson's career has been a roller-coaster ride. A 3.21 ERA in 2011, 4.93 in 2012, an All-Star in 2013, a 5.88 ERA in 2014. In 2015, who knows? He could be good, he could be awful, he could find his way to the bullpen.

So as of Thursday afternoon the rotation looks like this:

1. Buchholz - the definition of uncertainty
2. Porcello - could be a good #2, could be a #4 in a #2 slot
3. Miley - innings eater
4. Kelly - on the team by default
5. Masterson - might improve the bullpen

This is the Boston Red Sox. This is a big market team with money, history, prestige. And THAT'S the rotation?!?

Imagine the potential playoff rotation. Buchholz facing the other team's ace, Porcello against a legitimate #2, Joe Kelly pitching in a possible elimination game. That's if Buchholz is healthy or effective. It might be Porcello, Miley, Kelly, with Masterson starting a game 4. Yikes. At least Miley will eat up those playoff innings. That's what you want in a short series: question marks and innings eaters.

Imagine if they signed Lester back in March. This is what your rotation might look like:

1. Lester
2. Buchholz
3. Porcello
4. Miley
5. Kelly

Maybe you don't get both Porcello and Miley. Who cares. You put an ace or a semi-ace up at the top, and it looks so much better. Especially in a playoff series. You depend less on Buchholz being healthy/effective and on Porcello bringing his 2014 success to 2015.

Everyone in the rotation should be given a number with 3 in it, because that's what most of them are.

Did the Cubs overpay to get Lester, or were the Red Sox too cheap to pay a premium for good pitching?

Jon Lester has reportedly signed with the Chicago Cubs for 6 years and $155 million. The deal includes a vesting option for a 7th year at $15 million. The Red Sox' final offer to reacquire their former #1 pitcher was worth $135 million, also over 6 years.

It's important to note that in March, the Sox offered a 4 year deal to Lester worth $70 million, essentially half of what they offered him in December. Even though they very vocally believe that 30+ year old pitchers aren't worth that kind of money. Except when they are.

Are Theo and the Cubs paying too much for Lester? Toward the end of the deal he'll be north of 35 years old. By then he might be a worn down #3 or #4 starter collecting $25.8 million to make 20 starts a season and to struggle to keep his ERA below 4.50. So it's stupid for the Cubs to pay so much money for that. It's also smart for the Red Sox not to. Or is it?

Top of the line, proven starting pitching is so difficult to find and so necessary to win, that you have to pay a premium to buy it. It's like paying for parking at a Sox game. There's so little of it available, that you shell out a wad of cash to rent a few square feet of asphalt for 5 hours.

Here's another comparison. The amount of money you spend for a beer inside Fenway. You drop $8, $9, even more because a baseball game without beer is a form of torture so cruel they didn't even use it to interrogate detainees at Guantanamo.

Beer at a baseball game is necessary, so it costs more. Parking at Fenway is rare, so it costs more. Quality pitching is something both necessary and rare, so it costs a lot more.

The Red Sox were willing to pay a premium for that quality pitching, just not as much as the Cubs were willing to pay. But don't mock the Cubs for eventually paying a 36-year old pitcher $25.8 million, or praise the Red Sox for their financial prudence. Your Sox were willing to pay the same guy $22.5 million. That $3.3 million difference is probably how much panda related revenue the Sox will be hauling in per season.

Making fun of the Cubs and praising the Red Sox for this would be like going to Fenway, buying a $9 Bud Light, and making fun of the guy who spent $10 for a Sam Adams.

Just a few days ago, the Sox seemed to have a win right now approach to the off-season, spending $22M/year for Hanley Ramirez and $19M/year for Pablo Sandoval. To win right now, however, you need pitching. And the Sox have none of that. Clay Buchholz isn't just your "ace," he's the entire rotation.

Is it dumb to spend $155 million for Lester? Which is dumber, spending that much for an aging pitcher, or having Clay Buchholz be your #1 starter?

There's still pitching available out there. But at a cost of big money and/or top prospects. With Lester off the market, the supply of quality pitching has decreased, yet the demand/need remains the same. If the Sox don't want to pay the required premium for that pitching, then maybe Sox fans should learn a lesson from them and be prudent with their money, and maybe not pay the required premium for parking or beer at Fenway. Or for tickets.

Photo Credit:
Frank Gunn/AP

Ten years after the day after the Red Sox won the World Series

Thursday October 28, 2004. It was sometime around 2 in the morning in a dorm room, in a college town in Upstate New York. My body didn't feel like sleeping and my mind didn't feel like I was in New York. I was wide awake and my heart was in Boston. Hours after the Red Sox had won their first World Series in 86 years, I couldn't sleep, I couldn't stay put, I had to go home. And so did two other Massachusetts expats in my dorm, one from North Reading, the other from Newton. So that night/early morning, we made the 350 mile drive home.

I could wax poetically about the sun rising on a new kind of Massachusetts that day, but I'll skip all that. We had finally won the World Series, and it was a completely new kind of feeling as a sports fan.

In retrospect, we Red Sox fans had spent years torturing ourselves, in a Calvinistic hope (give credit to Dan Shauhgnessy for the comparison between Sox fans, and the predestination believing religious folks who colonized Massachusetts centuries earlier) that with each painful experience, we would somehow be rewarded with greater amounts of joy if, AND ONLY IF, our team ever won. The more pain we went through on Earth, the greater joy Heaven would bring. That was the hope.

I'll come back to that torture/reward thing later. Returning to October 28, 2004...

I got home just as the morning commute was peaking. The Sox were the only story on the local news. The plane carrying the newly minted Champions landed at Logan. There were videos of grown men in business suits with briefcases, running alongside the team bus on its way to Fenway, jumping up and down for joy. There was a massive parade and I took the first Red Line train into Boston to get a good spot for it.

That unadulterated release of joy was something that had been building inside of us fans for years, even decades. And with each heartbreak, with each close call, with each Bucky Dent and Aaron Boone, the frustration built up. As the frustration and need for release increased, so did the feeling of gratification and joy that would be felt if we ever attained that release. In other words, we Sox fans had a terrible case of Blue Balls.

2004 was the epic release of that frustration, and also that joy. No sports moment will ever feel like that again.

That's why we no longer live and die with each pitch. That's why Red Sox fans went from religious zealots, to the people who only go to Church at Christmas and Easter.

John Henry, Larry Lucchino, and the Fenway Sports Group didn't help. Continuing the religious metaphor, imagine being the Pope the year after Jesus Christ came back to Earth. How would you get people fired up about anything?

You'd probably renovate the Vatican, and hire a bunch of high-priced Bishops and Cardinals (Renteria, Drew) to get people's attention.

I'll give Fenway Sports Group all the credit in the world for breaking The Curse. I'll also criticize them for not understanding what Sox fans were feeling, and still now not understanding how regular fans feel about this team. We couldn't have the same cultish devotion to the Sox after all our prayers had been answered. Henry and FSG didn't get that.

They didn't get a lot of things.

The same owners who hired The Epstein also chased him out of town. Twice. The same owners who hired Terry Francona also hired Bobby Valentine. The same owners who renovated Fenway Park also lied about sellouts and we still can't figure out why. Every 2 years they seem to acknowledge their mistakes and change their philosophy, and yet somehow they maintain a smug arrogance as though everything they do is right.

And perhaps most vexing of all, they kept Jerry Remy but dumped Jenny Dell. Giggly analyst who enabled his woman-beating son vs. attractive sideline fluff reporter who still had more interesting things to say than Remy.

Seriously? NESN and the Red Sox decided to take her off the TV screen. Good call, guys.

Everything changed after the Red Sox won the World Series. Red Sox fans changed. We went from anxiously anticipating an overdue release, to being normal fans of a normal big-market baseball team. Ownership didn't want our fandom to change, though. They wanted the same rapt attention, the same hopeful highs and desperate lows. It's like we fans were bipolar before the Sox cured us by winning the World Series. Yet the owners still wanted to prescribe us Prozac and Paxil.

We didn't want that after 2004. We just wanted a baseball team. And that's all I want now. We don't need to have owners and GMs who spend on JD Drew but skimp on Jon Lester. We don't need lavish ceremonies where lions are released and someone pulls the string on Kevin Millar's back so he says something country.

We just want a baseball team. Please.

Photo Credit:
Jim Davis/Boston Globe

John Lackey wanted to leave the Red Sox

Two years ago could you have imagined that John Lackey would be the one dumping the Red Sox, and not vice versa?

Lackey made it clear that if the Red Sox tried to exercise their $500,000 option on him for 2015, there was a strong likelihood that he'd retire. But that option nevertheless increased his trade value. At the very least the option gave leverage to the Sox or any other team negotiating a contract extension. They could offer less than market value to Lackey, whose choices would be to accept a few million to pitch or retire once the $500k option was exercised.

Immediately after Lackey was traded to St. Louis, Ken Rosenthal announced that Lackey informed the Cardinals he would honor the $500,000 option, and not retire. Had Lackey told the Red Sox that he'd be willing to play for $500,000 in 2015, there's no way the Sox would have traded him. In essence, Lackey engineered this trade.

Remember when all of us wanted Lackey to be included with Beckett and Crawford in the Great Purge of 2012? Then last year we became Lackey fans as he helped the team win a World Series. And now he is the one who orchestrated his departure.

The Cards and Lackey might come to terms on a new contract extension anyway. But isn't it odd that this option was a point of contention for Lackey here in Boston, then he gets traded and it's no longer an issue? He did not want to stay here.

Lackey had enough of the Red Sox. The way the non-negotiations went between Jon Lester and the front office probably had a lot to do with that. Once the Sox started shopping Lester, Lackey wanted out. He gave the Red Sox an incentive to trade him, with the threat of future uncertainty if they didn't. He also kept his trade value up with his performance on the field, and by never threatening to retire if a team besides the Red Sox wanted to exercise his $500k option.

If the Red Sox were the Titanic, sinking slowly into the North Atlantic, John Lackey got himself a spot on a lifeboat by threatening to blow up half the ship if he wasn't allowed off.

And here's the kicker. The Sox included that $500,000 option when they signed him as a way to mitigate the risk of his elbow issues. The idea was that he might miss a long time due to injury (which he did), costing the team lots of money (which he did), but that the team would recoup the loss with a year of almost free service.

But it's the Cardinals who look to benefit from that nearly free year that the Red Sox paid for. The Sox bought the the insurance policy and made all the payments, the Cardinals are cashing it in. And that's because Lackey wanted to leave.

Photo Credit: Barry Chin/Boston Globe

If Stephen Drew is worth a utility infielder, why didn't the Red Sox just sign a utility infielder in the first place?

With Stephen Drew's departure in exchange for Kelly Johnson, it's time to look at how the Red Sox managed and mismanaged the short-stop situation in 2014.

The Sox should have anticipated defensive difficulties at short. Signing a defensive backup would have been a perfectly normal and prudent thing to do. That backup could have been used in the late innings of close games, especially games the Sox were leading.

I didn't mind when the Red Sox removed Xander Bogaerts from short-stop. He couldn't field his position, and you can't afford to have poor defense at short, especially when the offense is struggling to score runs. I don't care what the move might have done to Bogaerts' development or self-esteem. The Major League level is not the place to nurture prospects and worry about their confidence. It's the place to win games or lose them. Bogaerts' defense was not helping them win.

However, when Bogaerts' defense compelled the Sox to act, signing Drew was a completely wrong decision, utterly incorrect in every single way. Moving Bogaerts to third was also unwise. But he was hitting well when few other Sox batters were, and the Sox had no third baseman. In other words, because the rest of the team was sucking at the plate, and another young infielder (Middlebrooks) was having difficulties, Bogaerts stayed in Boston. But was moved to third. Drew was signed to play short.

If the Sox felt that Bogaerts' defensive issues were so critical that they were worth $10 million to address, they should have sent Bogaerts to Pawtucket to work on it, not sign an overpaid replacement and shift Bogaerts to an unfamiliar position he'd have to learn on the fly at the Major League level.

The Sox tried to play it both ways, removing Bogaerts' glove from short-stop, but keeping his bat in the Major League lineup. If only they could have sent his glove to Pawtucket and kept his bat in Boston.

It didn't work. Why would anyone think it would?

What the Sox truly needed at that time was flexibility in their infield. Again, a Kelly Johnson type of utility infielder could have been acquired as a defensive replacement for Bogaerts, and perhaps to play in Boston for a few weeks while Bogaerts focused on defense in Pawtucket. The solution was something cheap and flexible, like I like my women.

However, Stephen Drew did not bring flexibility, he brought abject inflexibility. Because he was going to play at short-stop. Period. And he was going to play every day because you don't spend $10 million on backups. Period. Drew even seemed to have a negotiated limit for how long he'd stay in Pawtucket getting ready to play in Boston.

And of course, Drew's bat was nonexistent, and Bogaerts' hitting went down the tubes as he shifted to third. Bogaerts' defense was still bad over there. The fiasco cost millions, defense at short improved but defense at third was degraded, and offensive production decreased.

Now Drew is gone. Again. Notice the increased flexibility in his departure. The Sox can make choices with what they want to do in the infield. Bogaerts will be back at short again. However I don't think this experience has helped his development. It certainly hasn't helped the Red Sox win games in 2014.

Stephen Drew is evidently worth a utility infielder on the trade market, who will make $3 million in 2014, instead of the prorated portion of $14 million that Drew was signed for. So why didn't the Sox sign a utility guy to begin with? Why didn't they pick up a defensive specialist at short? Why didn't they either keep Bogaerts where he was, or send him to Pawtucket to work on his problems without it hurting the team in Boston?

Stephen Drew wore a 7 on his jersey here. I think that should have been modified slightly to be a giant question mark.

Photo Credit: John Tlumacki/Boston Globe

The Red Sox didn't even try to keep Jon Lester here

I'd rather have Yoenis Cespedes now than next to nothing when Jon Lester walks as a free agent. That's not why I'm disappointed/enraged at the Red Sox today. I'm mad because I'd much much much MUCH rather have Jon Lester over Yoenis Cespedes. There's essentially nobody the Sox could have gotten in exchange for Lester that would have left me content. Unfortunately the Sox made no legitimate effort to keep Lester here. The fact that he's gone, and that we'll never know how much of a hometown discount he would have accepted to stay, leaves me shaking my head.

How could the Red Sox do this to themselves?

The Sox traded a guy who had recently become a bona fide Ace, and who had also grown into a leader, for a Homerun Derby winner. That's like trading Kevin Durant for the winner of the slam dunk contest. And this happened because the Sox hardly tried to keep their Ace. That lack of effort is the most irritating aspect of what unfolded at the trade deadline.

The $70 million offer for 4 years offer was an insult, not a starting point. You can't negotiate with insults. Watch Shark Tank and see how the potential investors react when someone makes an absurd demand. Or go to a car dealership and offer to buy a brand new Mercedes for half the sticker price. The dealer won't make a counter offer, they'll just move on, because it's clear you're not serious.

I've heard some people question Lester's camp for not making a counter-offer, but how do you counter a joke? How can you negotiate with someone who thinks that you're worth slightly more money a year than Clay Buchholz was? How can you negotiate with someone who is clearly terrified of long-term commitment, which I'm sure is something Lester wants? Lester has been underpaid by the Sox for years, this is his chance to cash in, and the Sox were too cheap.

Or were they? Were they cheap or did they want to make a token offer they knew would get rejected? They've done similar things before.

These cloak and dagger, deceptive, disingenuous tactics are what we've come to expect from the Red Sox front office. And don't exclude Ben Cherington from these mind games. He's King John's pawn, he's Lord Lucchino's foot soldier. He's happy to be their puppet, or to stay out of baseball decisions when his masters get involved.

The Red Sox have no clue what it will cost to sign Lester in the off-season. They don't even know what his hometown discount rate might have been. That's the proof that their "negotiations" with him were not negotiations. If you don't at least come away with knowing what the other party wants, then you haven't negotiated.

If Lester signs a massive deal somewhere else, let's say $200 million for 7 years, I won't praise the Red Sox for knowing the price would be too high. They don't know anything. They made a crap offer that pissed off their Ace, then failed to immediately make a legit offer, then traded their best player from the 2013 World Series run. They sent a pitcher with 110 career wins, a 3-0 record in the World Series, and 2 rings to Oakland in exchange for a guy with 66 career homeruns and 2 HR Derby trophies.

If this had been the end of a hard fought negotiation, then it would be easier to accept. It's not, though.

5 years and $100 million, perhaps with a vesting option for a 6th year. Maybe 5 years at $110 million. That might have been enough to keep Lester. We simply do not know, though. We'll never know. Which is why this whole situation pisses me off so much.

Photo Credit: Barry Chin/Boston Globe

I'm not a fan of Yoenis Cespedes

The Red Sox traded Jon Lester along with Jonny Gomes to Oakland for an outfielder with decent power who doesn't get on base as often as you'd like.

That's Yoenis Cespedes. Cespedes will also be costing the Sox $10.5 million in 2015, and is scheduled to hit free agency after that.

He's 28, but he's also Cuban, so let's call it 28ish.

He hit 26 homeruns last year and 23 the year before. He's on pace to hit a similar amount this year. He'll probably be more of a power hitter in Fenway's friendly confines. Nevertheless, his career OBP is .318, and that just sucks for someone you want to hit in the middle of the lineup. He doesn't walk much, he does strike out a lot, he doesn't see lots of pitches.

He's an improvement, don't get me wrong. He's a solid player, he's better than anything the Sox have in the outfield today. But he's what you get for your Ace? For the guy who was your playoffs MVP last year? For a guy who won games for you this year even with some of the worst run support in baseball?

The Red Sox didn't sign Lester because they were worried about the future. So the future is this 20-30 HR outfielder who strikes out a lot and struggles to get on base 30% of the time? That's the future the Sox intend to build?

Photo Credit: Getty Images/Ezra Shaw

The Oakland A's had Moneyball, the Red Sox have Cheapball

The Red Sox don't want to spend to keep Jon Lester. He's over 30, and John Henry recently read a study about teams overpaying for players over 30, and underpaying players under 30. Jon Lester is 31, so the Red Sox don't want to overpay to keep him. That's why the Sox might even ship Lester before Thursday's trade deadline.

The study John Henry is partially basing this significant baseball decision on makes sense. It makes sense that a player over 30, who has proven what they can consistently do at the Major League level, would get more money, even more money than their production merits. Such players come with guarantees, or at least the closest things to guarantees you can get. There's also a short supply of such players, and high demand, which drives the cost up.

For the Sox to keep Lester, they'd have to "overpay" for what Lester gives them. So what? When has that stopped the Sox before? They overpaid to extend David Ortiz, they overpaid to bring Stephen Drew back. So Drew is worth $10 million a year and Lester only worth $17.5 million? That's what the Sox offered Lester before the 2014 season.

The Sox have also been able to benefit from Lester while underpaying him. He makes $13M this season, and made under $12M in 2013. Before that he never got paid more than $8 million a year.

One problem facing Henry and his value study is that the high end SP market is overwhelmingly made up of pitchers 30+ years old, with a few 29 year olds mixed in. Henry's philosophy pegs him into a corner, since there are essentially no proven, high end SP free agents under 30, he'll never be able to sign one OR re-sign one. Meanwhile, the rest of baseball seems happy to sign these guys. So while Henry can pat himself on the back for saving money, other teams will win games thanks to their overpaid players.

Overpay to win, or save to lose?

John Henry's unwillingness to overpay for 30+ year old talent is like someone buying a 6-pack of beer and staying home by themselves on a Friday night because drinks at bars are more expensive. He'll keep more cash in his pocket but the people who went out will have more fun.

There's no salary cap in baseball. The Red Sox are one of the most valuable sports teams in the world. Their cash flow is one of their biggest competitive advantages. The Sox can overpay for a key player and not be crippled by it. Yet they're the ones being cheap? Because of a study?

John Henry doesn't want to exploit that edge. He's figured out that the 29 other teams are wasting money, and he won't do it. He'll get his 6-pack of beer and drink by himself while other teams are having fun at the World Series.

Had Jon Lester's contract expired after the 2012 season, John Henry might have used this study to justify not re-signing him then. Lester would have been 29, and Henry might have wanted to avoid signing a soon-to-be 30 year old to a long term deal. So if Lester had been a free agent before the 2013 season, it's possible that Henry wouldn't have wanted to sign him.

What would that have meant for the 2013 season? There wouldn't have been a parade in Boston.

Parades are expensive. John Henry and the Red Sox have become cheap.

Photo Credit: AP

Luis Suarez Should Be Banned from the World Cup, John Henry Should Make a Statement

Luis Suarez is one of the most dangerous strikers in world soccer, not just for his scoring, but for his biting. Late in Uruguay's match against Italy, Suarez bit Giorgio Chiellini. He received no punishment on the field but FIFA are investigating the incident.

It's the third time Suarez has bit an opposing player. A dental hat trick. He's bitten opponents in three countries on two continents. In the past he's sampled Dutch and Serbian flesh. This was his first taste of Italian.

The whole thing is just insane. It's one thing for players to push, shove, even headbutt or punch in the heat of the moment. In all sports, players lose tempers and cross such lines. But to revert to biting someone, and to do so repeatedly, is so psychologically bizarre. That's something you'd expect a troubled kindergartner to do, and then the teacher would have to call home to his parents.

"Hello, Mr. and Mrs. Suarez? I'm afraid I have bad news. Luis is biting again."

As the Hannibal Lector and vampire jokes flow, so does the disgust and embarrassment from the soccer world. Few are defending Suarez. One of the few is Uruguay head coach Oscar Tabarez. After the game he said:

"I do not see why he would not play anymore at the World Cup as you are suggesting. Suarez is the target of some British press. If we see he is going to be attacked, which has begun at this press conference, we're going to defend him. I'm not going to repeat a response three times. I didn't see (an) incident with Suarez. I'm not going to comment. This is a World Cup. It is not about morality."

Those remarks had been translated from Spanish to English. I'll translate from English to Coachingese:

"If Suarez gets suspended, we have no chance. I'd defend him even if he bit off my left nut."

Uruguay's captain, Diego Lugano is in utter denial:

"You need to show me what happened because I didn't see anything. Did you see it today or did you see what happened in other years? You couldn't have seen it today because nothing happened.”

It's up to FIFA to discipline Suarez, because his coach has no interest in doing so, and clearly Suarez has no concept of self-discipline. Suarez feels unfairly criticized by media and fans even though he's been suspended twice for biting other players, and once for using racially charged language against an opponent. In his mind he's a victim. Everyone is out to get him and he can't figure out why.

There's a Boston connection to this. Suarez plays for Liverpool FC, which is owned by John Henry and Fenway Sports Group (FSG). Suarez is the team's best player, by far. This is the equivalent of David Ortiz biting an opponent during the World Baseball Classic.

Will John Henry do or say anything about this incident? Liverpool/Red Sox Ownership stood behind Suarez in 2011 when he was suspended 8 games and fined 40,000 pounds for directing racial language against an opposing player. I don't expect Henry or FSG to defend Suarez now. The evidence against him is too blatant, and he's a repeat offender.

I would like to hear something from FSG. Anything. This is a big story across the world, and Suarez works for John Henry. You'd think Henry would want to comment. Will any media in Boston ask Henry about it? Will any reporter have the stones to ask Henry if Suarez's recent contract extension includes full dental coverage?

Suarez should be banned for the remainder of the World Cup, perhaps longer than that. And the team that pays him millions should issue some sort of statement about the incident. John Henry and Fenway Sports Group can't sit on the sidelines. They need to take a stand one way or another.

He bit a dude. How can you not come out and say "That's messed up?"

People to Thank for the Red Sox World Series

Time to go to Hallmark and get some thank-you cards for a lot of people who made this World Series Championship possible. Here are the people who you should send your cards to...

1. The Los Angeles Dodgers
The Dodgers took all of the Red Sox' baggage. The Sox had a bad kidney (Gonzalez), infected tonsils (Crawford), and an appendix about to burst (Beckett), and the Dodgers accepted all of them. Then the Dodgers paid for most of the surgery. The Dodgers deserve their own duckboat in Saturday's parade for taking all of this payroll and malignant personality off of the Red Sox roster.

2. The Red Sox owners
The owners did the best thing that owners can do: delegate. Bob Kraft didn't become a good owner until he eased up and delegated. The Red Sox owners were good when they let Theo Epstein do his job, then they became overbearing, they then pulled back in response to the failures of the 2012 season. The best thing the Red Sox owners did in 2013 was what they didn't do.

3. Koji Uehara
Where would this team be if Uehara didn't emerge as one of the best closers in the game? Bailey and Hanrahan got hurt. Uehara filled a role that had been vacant since Papelbon was allowed to leave. And Uehara filled that role's brains out.

4. Ben Cherington
The Red Sox GM didn't go nuts, he didn't try to sign any "wow" free agents. He acquired guys who were hungry to win. Savvy ballplayers who knew how to do the little things. He didn't care that Stephen Drew was related to J.D. Drew. He signed Mike Napoli, who was starving for a ring. He made many small moves that combined to make a big difference.

The timing was right as there really weren't many big name free agents on the market anyway.

5. John Lackey
This guy pitched his ass off. He got no run support all season long. We all hated him. Many wanted him to be traded. He's a 35-year-old recovering from surgery, he pitched 189.1 innings in the regular season then 26 more in the postseason (including 1 in relief). And he still argued with Farrell to get just one more out in Game 6. He went from slacker to gamer. Lackey's hunger in 2013 (for doing well, not for beer and chicken) was a key part to the hunger this team had.

And again, give thanks to the Dodgers for not wanting to take this guy from us.

6. John Farrell
His in-game decisions weren't always correct. But trading for John Farrell was an important part to this team's success. He didn't try to discipline the players, he tried to make them more self-disciplined. He got the pitching staff to refocus, and he brought with him an attitude geared toward winning. Most importantly, he didn't put his own ego ahead of anything. If he made a mistake, he learned from it and made different moves. Pride is not one of John Farrell's faults.

7. J.J. Hardy, Jason Kipnis, Jose Bautista
I can't say I remember the All-Star Game. But these three guys all knocked in runs for the AL team. And that's why the Sox had homefield advantage in the World Series. Thanks, guys!

8. Pedroia, Lester, Ellsbury, all the rest of the players
The players who were here in 2011 and 2012 became reinvigorated. And the guys who weren't here brought a fresh energy. All the players, from Pedroia to Lester to Victorino to Bogaerts to Workman to Tazawa. They all gave 100%. Which you sadly could not say about the 2011 or 2012 Sox.

8. The Fans
Yes you. Your outrage over this team's failure in 2012 caused so much to change. In 2011, we weren't as angry as we should have been. And the owners thought they could use Francona as a scapegoat and we'd be happy with his dismissal. We were complacent for a time, until the team failed again in 2012. And the horrible managing of Bobby Valentine became evident.

We as fans actually accepted Bobby V. That's kind of sad. He was shit. Once the fans demanded that he be banished, along with all the other cancerous players and contracts, that's when things turned around. We threatened a revolution in Red Sox Nation and the front office responded.

So pat yourself on the back for being pissed about the 2012 season, then also ask yourself why you didn't start that season with the same skepticism.

Hopefully in 2014 Ben Cherington can continue to do his job, and the front office won't inflate attendance figures. Marketing people can market the team, and baseball people can assemble it, and baseball players can play baseball.

So Terry Francona Is a Pretty Good Manager

After the 2011 collapse of the Boston Red Sox, it was time for Terry Francona and the team to part ways. Like a relationship that just wasn't going anywhere and was becoming dysfunctional. And then the Red Sox did the equivalent of going on Facebook to badmouth their ex. Francona was blamed for being unaware of the deep-seeded problems that plagued the Red Sox clubhouse. And if he was aware, he was accused of not having enough respect from the players to do anything about it. And most despicably, he was accused of having a prescription drug problem.

Then in 2012 the Red Sox discovered that the clubhouse was just as toxic without Francona. And the team realized that players like Josh Beckett were the real problem.

Were the Red Sox still smart to let Francona go? I suppose they were. It had to happen. But I do think that if he were managing the same 2013 Red Sox team that John Farrell currently manages, the results would probably be similar. But that's just a hypothetical question.

Anyway, how about those Cleveland Indians? We've heard Francona jokingly remark about his team's success, attributing it to avoiding chicken and beer. I would love to hear what John Henry and Larry Lucchino think of the Indians' success, and how their former manager is doing in Cleveland.

I confess that I don't follow the Indians that closely, and have no idea why or how they went from a 68-94 record in 2012 to a 92-70 record in 2013 (an improvement of 24 wins, very close to the 28 win improvement the Red Sox made from 2012 to 2013). Masterson and Jimenez are pitching much better in 2013, just like how Lester and Lackey are pitching much better in 2013. The Indians have allowed 1.13 runs less per game in 2013 than they did in 2012. That's huge.

How much of that is the manager's doing? Not much. Essentially nothing. The players are playing better. Francona has little to do with that.

And that's what makes Francona a good MLB manager. He doesn't try to do more than manage. He lets his players be themselves. He let Kevin Millar be a goofball. He let Pedro Martinez and Curt Schilling be prima donnas. He let Manny be Manny and he let Kevin Youkilis be a prick. And the team won.

That was also Francona's ultimate undoing here in Boston. He let slackers be slackers. But out in Cleveland he has a group of no-names, a couple of has-beens, and a hodgepodge of semi-notable pitchers. Brett Myers found his way into 4 games out there. Jason Giambi, Nick Swisher, Matt Albers, former Devil Ray Scott Kazmir, Mike Aviles. It's like a roster you'd get in a 20-team fantasy baseball league and you didn't have a pick until the 5th round.

So Francona is a good manager because of what he doesn't do. He doesn't try to force people to be something they're not. He doesn't use the media to make examples out of people. He doesn't give inspirational speeches or come up with clever schemes to steal games. He manages with a relaxed confidence, and sometimes teams respond to that and play with the same kind of calm swagger.

Terry Francona isn't the reason the Indians improved by 24 wins. He, in a uniquely Francona way, allowed Masterson, Jimenez, Kazmir, and the rest of the players to become the reason.

I Don't Trust the Red Sox and Their Decision to Keep Jackie Bradley Jr. on the Major League Roster

It's Opening Day for the Red Sox. And 22 year-old outfielder Jackie Bradley Jr. is on the Major League roster. Bradley had an outstanding Spring Training. He has become the focal point of a massive grassroots/mass-media movement to have him on the 25-man roster on Opening Day. And now those who lobbied for him are satisfied.

From a strictly baseball standpoint, it makes sense to give Bradley this chance. If Bradley had been designated to the minors for 11 days, 2013 would not count as a year of Major League service for him, and his reaching free agency would be pushed back to 2019, instead of 2018.

He can still be optioned to AAA Pawtucket or AA Portland and this postponement of free agency can still be achieved. So if he doesn't excel in April, the Sox can send him down to the minors and thereby maintain their contractual control over him until 2019.

If he does excel, then that's good for the team. This is a 69 win club that could use all the help it can get. Even if it will make Bradley more expensive in 2018.

And who knows what the team's salary situation will be in 2018 or 2019? If Bradley turns into a star, isn't that a good problem to have? Does it make a significant difference if he gets his $100 million deal in 2018 (at age 28) or 2019 (at age 29)? It will be the same deal in either year.

And if he doesn't blossom into a star, and is just a serviceable Major League outfielder, then the Sox can let him go in 2018 and not lose much. Or they can sign him at a reasonable rate.

So from a baseball standpoint, this move makes sense.

However, as the lengthy title of this post stated, I do not trust the Red Sox to make decisions based solely on the desire to win games.

Had there not been such a crusade to get Bradley on the roster, would the Sox have kept him? If they didn't see an opportunity to showcase a young product of their minor league system, a symbol of future potential and success, would they have kept him?

Did they decide to put Bradley on the 25-man roster purely for baseball reasons, or were they also worried about a backlash from the fans? Were they afraid of being called cheap, and of being accused of not trying to win?

I don't know the answers to such questions. But I do know that I don't trust the Red Sox owners, their front-office, and their often forgotten puppet GM. Ben Cherington is like Kevin Pollak's character in Casino. He's the figurehead with a clean reputation that doesn't make any decisions, he's just there for appearance's sake.

And I don't trust Larry Lucchino to make a baseball decision without part of his twisted mind also considering the PR and financial impact of the decision. And John Henry probably thinks Jackie Bradley is the star of an action movie starring Samuel L. Jackson, or that he is the half-Scottish manager of Liverpool FC.

The Fenway Sports Group does not have any of my trust. And it will take a considerable amount of time to earn that trust back.

Pedro Martinez Is Coming Back, and I'm Not Happy About It

I love Pedro. He's my favorite athlete of all-time. I even have a Mets t-shirt because it says "Martinez" on the back. So you'd think the news that he's been appointed by the Red Sox as Special Assistant to the GM would thrill me. But it doesn't.

It reeks of a PR decision, a move to make fans happy. Give a popular former player from happier times a vague job, make all the fans smile, even have the news trend on Twitter.

Call me cynical, call me paranoid. But look at the timing. It's perfect. The Patriots have been eliminated from the NFL playoffs and the aftermath of that has settled down. And wasn't there just a book released recently that kind of made the Red Sox ownership look bad? It's the perfect time to throw a bone to the fans, and give them something to be happy about.

Jason Varitek is already a "Special Assistant" to the GM. How many more Special Assistants from the 2004 Red Sox will be hired? Will Bill Mueller be named Head Groundskeeper? Will Trot Nixon become the team bus driver?

Perhaps they were always going to hire Pedro and they announced it at the best time to maximize good publicity. And that's fine.

However, this ownership has, over the last 5 years, earned nothing but mistrust and skepticism. They acquire players for PR reasons, spend money for the sake of spending it, trash departing players in the media, lie about sellouts, and prioritize appearance over all else. So can you blame me for being skeptical?

I'm glad Pedro is part of the organization. I just wish the organization didn't make me question every single move they make.

Red Sox Trade Mike Aviles for John Farrell

You know what Fenway Sports Group does? They try to do everything differently. They can't just accept the norm and appreciate its efficiency and how well it functions. They have a compulsion to think and act out of the proverbial box. And this managerial hiring/trade is no different.

Have you ever heard of such a thing in baseball? Trading a Major League player for a Manager? It's only happened 5 times in MLB history. Unassisted triple plays have occurred 15 times in MLB history. So this is rarer than that.

Mike Aviles is hardly an All-Star, and the Sox can easily improve in that position. So I'm not upset about losing him. It's just the notion of surrendering anything substantial to get a 2 year manager with a .475 record. What does Farrell have that the other candidates looked at don't have? What makes him worth paying a price?

I said after the Sox hired Bobby Valentine that the Manager isn't very important. He can really only hurt the team. And that's how I feel about Farrell. He might help foster a certain attitude, but such an attitude must be supported by the performance of the players on the field. Farrell, or any Manager, isn't a solution to problems. The problems are with the roster and they need to be solved on their own.

I don't mind John Farrell as Red Sox Manager, but I can't help but worry that the Red Sox selected him for reasons beyond the realm of baseball. The fans wanted Farrell. Farrell brings that notion of discipline. He knows Boston, we know him, and he knows the organization. This smells a bit like a PR hire.

When the Patriots acquired Bill Belichick, they surrendered a 1st round pick in order to sign him. It was a football decision, and it's worked out for the Pats.It was not a PR hire.

When the Sox hired John Farrell, was the decision a baseball decision? How much PR and placating the fans was involved? How much did the Larry Lucchino publicity machine contribute to this decision?

Was this about selling tickets, or winning games? I just don't know anymore with this ownership. And that's why I don't trust them.

Comparing the 2004 and 2012 Red Sox

Last night the 2004 World Series winning Red Sox team was honored at Fenway Park. For some reason, the Sox chose to commemorate the 8th anniversary of this event. Whatever. Must sell tickets. Must continue streak.

Compare the 2004 and 2012 Red Sox and the differences are extreme, top to bottom, on the field, in the clubhouse, inside the Front Office.

The pitching was better in 2004. They had two potential Hall of Famers in Pedro Martinez and Curt Schilling. Then solidity after that with Wakefield, Lowe, and Arroyo. 933 combined career wins from those five guys.

The hitting was also better. Assisted by PEDs, David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez were the best 3-4 combo since Ruth/Gehrig. The Sox led the AL in runs, OBP, and SLG. The 2012 Sox offense is inconsistent, 4th in runs, 7th in OBP, 6th in SLG.

The 2004 Sox had a better attitude. The players were laid-back. They had a Manager that allowed that easygoing attitude. Kevin Millar, Johnny Damon, Manny Ramirez, and David Ortiz were entertaining characters. Quieter guys like Bill Mueller and Derek Lowe seemed to enjoy the Millar/Manny sideshows drawing all the attention.

The Manager also balanced a pair of prima donnas (Pedro and Schilling). Both of them remained focused on the same goal: winning. Terry Francona got the most out of those two just like General Eisenhower got the most out of Patton and Montgomery in World War II. Francona kept everything low key.

In 2012, Bobby Valentine goes out of his way to keep players on edge. He criticizes them in the media, and he doesn't move on and let things go.

The GM is different too. In 2004, Theo Epstein had the balls and the authority to trade Nomar. Could you imagine, in a pennant race, Ben Cherington being allowed to trade a star player?

Players, managers, and GMs change. But the ownership is still the same. Or is it?

In 2004 the owners owned just the Red Sox. They had no other concerns. And their only goal was to win the World Series, at all costs.

Now they own a struggling soccer team in Liverpool. And the aims of the Red Sox is scattered and out of order. It's tough to figure out which objectives are the most important for them. They have to sell tickets, use the media to besmirch ex-players, lie about sellout streaks, market the ballpark, overspend on free agents, and somewhere in this mess of priorities is trying to win ballgames.

In 2004, the Red Sox were John Henry's biggest concern, his main focus. Now, when the '04 Sox are honored at Fenway, the owners aren't even present.

The Sox were once Fenway Sports Group's entire empire. Now they're just a colony, and Larry Lucchino is the Imperial Governor, appointed by King John to run day-to-day operations.

But Larry Lucchino hasn't run the Sox, he's ruined them.

The way ownership operate this team is the biggest difference between 2004 and 2012.

Photo Credit:
AP Photo

Liverpool FC Really Sucks

Liverpool lost 2-1 to Manchester United this weekend, in a game full of officiating controversy (sound familiar?). And after 5 English League games this season, Liverpool are winless. They have 3 losses, 2 draws, and are 18th in the 20 team League.

That place in the standings is significant because at the end of the year the 18th, 19th, and 20th place teams are demoted to a lower level. Three teams are promoted from a lower level to replace them.

For a team with the history of Liverpool, it would be a huge embarrassment. And a massive financial setback. And I would laugh my ass off. The Fenway Sports Group would own a team that competed with the likes of Huddersfield Town, Nottingham Forest (insert Robin Hood reference about stealing from rich clubs and giving to poor), and Sheffield Wednesday. That's hardly the same as competing with Manchester United, Chelsea, and Arsenal.

I doubt Liverpool will stay winless or in 18th place. They're only 2 points (a win is worth 3) away from being tied for 12th. But the key positions in the League are the Top 4. These are the teams that get invited to next season's Champions League. It's worth a heap of money, and elite players will only play for teams that compete in the Champions League.

The chances of Liverpool finishing in the Top 4 are slim. They've only scored 4 goals in 5 games. They have no scoring threat up front. The natives are getting restless in Liverpool, and the anti-FSG anger is rising.

I love it.

Photo Credit:
PA Sport

Liverpool FC Sucks Too

Liverpool lost 2-0 to Arsenal on Sunday. They've played 3 games and remain winless, losing twice and drawing once. It's Liverpool's worst start since 1962, and the team currently sit in 18th place. The fans are blaming the struggles on the team's lack of a forward striker. They're mad at John Henry for not shelling out the cash to buy a forward before the transfer window closed (there are only certain times during the year that players can change teams, the next window is in 4 months).

In response to the criticism, John Henry does what he and Larry Lucchino have done to Red Sox fans: write an open letter.

You can read it here. Basically, he blames the previous regime, claims he didn't want to overpay for mediocre talent, that he wants Liverpool to be a long-term contender not just improve slightly in the short-term, blames the previous regime again, and ends by saying "our ownership is not about profit."

My favorite line was "Contrary to popular opinion, owners rarely get involved in sports in order to generate cash." Apparently Mr. Henry never met Jeremy Jacobs, or any owner of an NFL team, or saw Eight Men Out. Just ask an NFL referee how unconcerned with profits owners are.

Liverpool fans are upset because they thought new ownership would infuse their team with new cash so they could compete with the Manchester Uniteds and Chelseas of the world. Sorry, mates, but Henry isn't an oil tycoon looking to supplement his ego by spending money improving a soccer team and winning trophies.

He bought Liverpool because it had an old, cherished yet undervalued and underexploited brand. But the jawless Henry bit off more than he can chew (which isn't difficult for a man whose mouth is so small). The competition and the spending in European soccer is too much for him to handle. He's a slow, aging predator that's trying to compete for food with sharks.

I do love the open-letter strategy. Who is naive enough to be suckered in by such an artificial attempt to bond with the fans?

I think there's a basic template for the Fenway Sports Group open-letter. Here's what it looks like:

1. Paragraph about understanding and feeling the fans' frustrations
2. Point out positive performance of certain players (e.g. Cody Ross)
3. Mention the talent that's remained with the team
4. Compliment and support current GM/managers
5. Explain to the simple-minded fans why our strategy is ingenious, even if they don't understand it, and even if on-field results have yet to manifest how smart we are
6. Blame the past for present and (most importantly) future difficulties
7. Use the word "ethos"
8. Say: "It will not be easy, it will not be perfect, but there is a clear vision at work."
9. Allude to the history of the team and the desire to return team to glory
10. Promise to be better

In the open-letter, mention at least 5 players and 1 front-office person or field manager. And use as many 1st person plural pronouns as possible.

Who else wants to beat the tar out of John Henry? He's a cocky, smells-his-own-farts, overly talkative prick. He doesn't know anything about baseball or soccer. He's some Midwestern carpetbagger that doesn't give a damn about Boston or Liverpool or the Red Sox or Liverpool FC. He uses these teams to build himself an ego and earn himself enough money to buy another team.

My open letter to John Henry:

Dear John,
Go fuck yourself.

Sincerely,
Rob

One Thing That Bugs Me About the Big Red Sox Trade

From a baseball standpoint, the Red Sox freeing up salary and roster space makes sense. Fixing the problems with this team required more than just a few tweaks and some small additions. And to build a new foundation, the old rotting foundation needed to be completely removed.

From a business standpoint, the move made sense. The fans were sick of this team losing, and utterly disgusted with their attitude. So much so that a Facebook group with over 11,000 likes has been spawned, urging fans to boycott the team after only 4 current players attended Johnny Pesky's funeral. The fans were fed up, and the Sox were in danger of losing customers.

It's the business standpoint that bugs me. Lucchino and the Sox made this drastic move in order to keep people interested in the team, not to win. So while I wholeheartedly support and celebrate the decision, the motivation behind the decision irks me.

The goals of winning and selling aren't mutually exclusive. But when the primary goal of a team is to sell a brand, then things can go wrong. You wind up signing Carl Crawford for too much money. You go nuts and bid $51.1 million on a Japanese pitcher. You make bogus lowball offers to popular free agents, then leak stories to the press after they sign elsewhere. You fire a manager and do nothing else, and declare the team's problems solved with a new disciplinarian skipper.

Look at the Patriots. They're not afraid to make unpopular moves. They'll let Wes Welker sit out, they'll say goodbye to Richard Seymour, trade Randy Moss in the middle of the season, and give absolutely nothing to the media in a press conference.

And when they make these unpopular moves, they don't trash their former players. They don't wage PR wars. They don't try to present themselves as wanting to keep those players.

It's all about winning in Foxborough. Personnel decisions are made with winning as the only goal. Not the case at Fenway. Fenway includes selling and spinning in the equation, making decisions in an effort to build a winning ballclub AND market the brand. And that's a problem. That should be handled by marketing and promotions staff. Not baseball operations.

Could you imagine Bill Belichick or Cam Neely, or Danny Ainge trying to balance winning games/titles with building a brand? Why do Larry Lucchino and the Red Sox attempt this unprecedented and unsound balancing act?

As the Red Sox rebuild themselves, they need to do so with winning as the only goal. Sign players to win. Make trades to win. The goal of winning should be handled by the baseball side of the organization, and should be the only goal. And the goal of selling should be handled by a completely separate wing. There should be no overlap, no meeting point, no Larry Lucchino.

The Red Sox have pushed the reset button, but if they continue to play the same way it'll once again be "Game Over."

Red Sox Mouthpieces Try to Dismiss Meeting

I was listening to WEEI's broadcast of the game last night. Dave O'Brien and Joe Castiglione couldn't figure out why the July 26th meeting of players and Ownership was a big story. The two repeated the "nothing to see here" statements John Henry and Dustin Pedroia gave about the meeting: that such meetings are held throughout the season, and that nobody was lobbying for Valentine to be fired. O'Brien then remarked that "several facts" from Jeff Passan's article were "in dispute."

I switched to NESN. The Red Sox own most of NESN, by the way. Don Orsillo and Jerry Remy expressed a similarly dismissive attitudes toward the story. "I'm past it" Remy remarked. Neither felt that the story was noteworthy. And both agreed that the Red Sox' problems are all on the field, and that the buzz around this meeting was just noise about nothing.

These are the voices of the Red Sox Propaganda Machine. These are the dupes, the suckers, the inner circle of Boston Sports Media that is under the influence of John Henry and Larry Lucchino. These are the yes-men, the suck-ups, the naive, the blind, the fools.

Listening to them, I was reminded of Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Said al-Sahhaf, a.k.a. Baghdad Bob.

Team meetings do happen. And these kinds of meetings between Ownership and players don't seem to be a new thing for the Sox. But here is why this most recent meeting is a significant story:

1. What caused the meeting to be held
A text message from Adrian Gonzalez complaining about Bobby Valentine leaving Jon Lester in a game too long. That's apparently what provoked this meeting. Why are players texting Owners about gameday decisions at all? And why are Owners responding to them by giving them a forum to bitch and moan?

I wonder what that text looked like:

"OMFG we h8 BobbyV. He left J-les in the game 2 long. He needz 2 go. Yolo."

2. The divisive nature of the meetings
The Owners met with players, then met with coaches, then met with Valentine. All separate meetings. Why? Player-only meetings are commonplace, but don't typically involve Owners. And why isolate Valentine so much that even his assistant coaches have a different meeting?

How does dividing the team foster unity? And how does letting players go over their manager (and General Manager, let's not forget that the relative lack of Cherington in this story is interesting in and of itself), support the leadership hierarchy of the organization? The players ignored the chain-of-command, went over Valentine's head, to the side of Cherington's, and right into Larry Lucchino's text message inbox.

3. The leaks about the meeting
If this truly were a normal meeting, then why did Passan get leaked information about it? Why did he get multiple sources telling him about problems in the clubhouse and a tense meeting in which players ripped Bobby Valentine?

Maybe Passan was given faulty information. But that'd be a story too. If players and coaches are feeding lies to the media, then that implies the same thing that the original story about the meeting implies:

That something stinks with this team.

That's the story here. Something is rotten and it's stinks to high heaven.