Francona Co-writes book with Shaughnessy

[Palodios]

Sounds pretty brutal already! Not much we don't already know, but he's confirmed a lot of things. I had no idea Shaughnessy was involved.



Werner talked about slumping television ratings and whined, ‘We need to start winning in more exciting fashion.' ”

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

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

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

[jacksonianmarch]

This will be good.

[BSN07]

Should be no big surprises. Him stating that the ownership group pushed for the flashy names as opposed to developing talent was obvious. Still should make for a good read.

[seabeachfred]

Originally Posted by Palodios

Sounds pretty brutal already! Not much we don't already know, but he's confirmed a lot of things. I had no idea Shaughnessy was involved.



Werner talked about slumping television ratings and whined, ‘We need to start winning in more exciting fashion.' ”

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

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

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

Palodios, five will get you ten that this thread will consume a lot of our attention for quite awhile. Some of us have had deep suspicions about the Red Sox ownership for a few years now and suddenly on January 22 all hell may break loose. A lot of what I have already red from you and on other sites already tells a damning story and I sometimes wonder how we got all above this and still won two WS Titles during their reign. The thing that most impressed me was when Francona said they were not baseball people. Many of us have been saying that too for quite some time. I'll get that book the day it comes out.

[dupree]

I dont think Francona writes this book if he was still in Boston and finished his managerial career here. Its a shame that when people are let go from jobs they go back and slam their previous employers. Im not saying that the owners are perfect and that they didnt do things wrong here and there and that their love for the game is not in the right place, what im saying is i just held Terry Francona into a higher place and class and i just hope this book doesnt blackball his name. Some like when secrets come out and cant get enough of scandals while others just want the stuff behind the scenes stay behind the scenes, i am one of those people, i wont be purchasing this book i believe what goes on behind the scenes is their business and all i care about is if the team wins and is exciting to watch and has the potential to win World Series Championships.

I hope those who purchase and read really enjoy the book. And i hope the book does well and flys off the shelves. Im a big Tito fan and just hope this doesnt tarnish his character

[SoxSport]

Tito may be right about upper management sucking. But he sucked, too. He forgot about fundamentals his last couple years, and let the team get away from him. The players liked him because he left them alone--gave them a lot of leeway. Didn't criticize them publically like V foolishly did. Good guy, but he managed the last couple years like he was bored.

Every organization has a life cycle. They peak and they fall. The Red Sox peaked--and fell a couple years ago. The FO, Lucchino and Henry aren't the same as they were 5-10 years ago. They have made a lot of bad decisions. I can't see the current management group turning things around. It's time for them to move on. They need some new blood from the top down which is more interested in the team winning championships than NESN ratings.

[User Name?]

I don't understand the whole "baseball people" babble. Most baseball owners are businessmen first, and interested in baseball second.

[Dojji]

Originally Posted by seabeachfred

I sometimes wonder how we got all above this and still won two WS Titles during their reign.

And they managed to screw him over too, by insisting he try to rehab a shoulder that clearly needed to be surgically repaired.

Gotta love that Red Sox medical staff.

[jung]

I have often said here that I think somewhere along the way, something like "the fans got theirs [championships] and now it is time for us to get ours" in the form of maximizing their ROI leaked into ownership's thinking.

I absolutely believe that baseball owners are businessmen first and foremost. It is a business for them and they compete in a world of maximizing ROI. My problem with the information that has been coming out for awhile now, seemingly supported by these snippets from the new book is that looking to seed the team with players in the way suggested by these comments is bad business...not good business. To me it is the kind of thinking that not only results in missed business objectives but missed baseball objectives as well.

Sure you could say that the teams that won it all in 2004 and then again in 2007 were popular because they won....I sure cannot argue with that. However with few exceptions they were teams in the sense that the pieces fit both in the clubhouse and in a baseball sense. Those teams had a team persona that resonated for the fans. Sure Manny was a great hitter but the fact that he was a bit of a nut worked here....amongst the Kevin Mullar's and Pedey and Ortiz and Paps and even Youk. As much as some of the players were stars, the team was really the star. Of course as we have often discussed, those teams could pitch as well...an area of the team that has seemingly gone unattended during this same period of bringing in big name ballplayers, mainly everyday players to boot.

If in fact ownership started to push for players that independent of the team had "star power" they lost it on both scores. They no longer had a team persona that engendered empathy from the fans. The Sox no longer played like a team and they no longer had any depth of starting pitching that the team could rely on. Beckett is a pitcher. However, how much did locking him up to big money over years in his 2010 extension, a move many did not like, smack of just that same sort of star power kind of move?

Right in the middle of this whole mess, the organization from all outward appearances is overly focused on all of that marketing BS that revolved around the Fenway anniversary, another bad business move as they kept dropping the prices on all of that BS, a clear sign that fans were not buying the stuff.

So at least in my case my argument is not that my expectations for ownership is that they should not have their best business interests at the forefront. My argument is that much of what they did from about 2009 on was not good business. It was bad business and bad for the baseball.

[BSN07]

But wait, I thought the state of the team was all Theo's fault?

The people that burned and blamed him for everything when he was on his way out are going to look awful. I never understood the people who thought the downfall was all on Tito and Theo and the likes ok Lucchino and others never got any blame, and if they did it wasn't the same as the other two. The team became a ratings monster and had to be constantly fed even at the cost of the proven development route Theo and company had proven.

[a700hitter]

Originally Posted by BSN07

But wait, I thought the state of the team was all Theo's fault?

Sure he shoulders most of the blame. The FO opened their wallet and directred him to get exciting "sexy" players and Theo implemented that philosophy very poorly. He spent maga bucks on the likes of Lackey, Crawford and a first baseman with a bum shoulder. If he had gone for Cliff Lee and Matt Holliday the story of the last few years would have been very different the last few years in Boston. He executed the philosophy very poorly. The owners are interested in revenue and their concerns were well founded-- TV ratings had been slipping. Theo brought in the wrong guys, squandered their huge budget and left them with an enormously expensive but totally suckass team with no payroll flexibility. So, yes, he built this pile of garbage.

As for Francona, I love the guy, but he has a bit of an ax to grind.

[Bellhorn04]

Originally Posted by BSN07

But wait, I thought the state of the team was all Theo's fault?

The people that burned and blamed him for everything when he was on his way out are going to look awful. I never understood the people who thought the downfall was all on Tito and Theo and the likes ok Lucchino and others never got any blame, and if they did it wasn't the same as the other two. The team became a ratings monster and had to be constantly fed even at the cost of the proven development route Theo and company had proven.

I would like to ask Theo this question: whose idea was Carl Crawford? That might explain a lot. What I've heard so far is:

-The Red Sox scouted Crawford extensively, even reportedly following him around a bit to check him out as a person.
-Ben Cherington strongly supported the signing.
-John Henry had doubts about the signing but left it to 'baseball operations'.

[a700hitter]

Originally Posted by Bellhorn04

I would like to ask Theo this question: whose idea was Carl Crawford? That might explain a lot. What I've heard so far is:

-The Red Sox scouted Crawford extensively, even reportedly following him around a bit to check him out as a person.
-Ben Cherington strongly supported the signing.
-John Henry had doubts about the signing but left it to 'baseball operations'.

If the owner had serious reservations about the signing, it's hard to blame the owner for opening up his wallet. There is plenty of blame to go around. Theo gets the lion's share for building this mess. JH is responsible for giving Theo autonomy after 2007. The FO lost a lot good baseball judgment when Bill Lajoie left. IMO, that void has yet to be filled.

[Palodios]

I would like to ask....


Who the on earth thought John Lackey was a sexy signing?

[BSN07]

Originally Posted by Palodios

I would like to ask....


Who the on earth thought John Lackey was a sexy signing?

Hahaha some one had serious beer goggles going



I thought Lucc pushed for Crawford?

Whatever, it's all in the past and that's where I'm leaving it. The Sox look to be on a different path now, so I'm going to look at the book and what comes from it as entertainment and that's it.