Links

Sunday, October 05, 2008

Tito

Shaughnessy writes this morning that Terry Francona has done a wonderful job with the Red Sox but does not get the credit he deserves. A laudatory piece which has a nice perspective but also contains a few annoying Shank-isms:

- He talks about Francona's reaction to an MLB release which refers to him as Coach Francona vice the "manager". Shaughnessy says that true baseballers hate when managers are referred to as coaches. That is all good but this is pretty funny in a column when Shaughnessy refers to baseball's playoffs as a "tournament"...what idiot refers to the baseball playoffs as a tournament?

- He can't resist a dig at Belichick when he says "Just because Francona doesn't intimidate people or try to portray himself as a genius, is that any reason to diminish what the man has done?" Give it a rest Shank

- He talks about Francona's handling of Manny and how hard it must have been on him...this just two months after he ripped Francona for enabling Manny's behavior.

Have a good Sunday

12 comments:

roger bournival said...

Classic Shank:

Last year we challenged him when he didn't start Beckett in Game 4 at Cleveland.

When Shank's right, 'we' becomes 'this column'. When Shank's wrong, spread the blame around to other like-minded columnists.

Chris said...

'Those who can, do. Those who can't end up working for newspapers.' I think Shank has proven THAT point abundantly true. Happily, advertisers and subscribers are abandoning newspapers in droves.

Anonymous said...

He also wrote the following:

"the job application for Sox managerial candidates states "must be prepared to take abuse from fans who think they know more about your team than you"

Typical Shank, he left the MEDIA out of that sentence. Who second guess's more than them?......and who acts like they know more about baseball than them?

Chris said...

The root of all media evil stems from the fact that some people refer to them as 'The Fourth Estate.' That's a recipe for haughtiness, aloofness, and downright idiocy. When you get your chest puffed out in being called an 'Estate,' there's no cap you can put on that genie bottle.

Anonymous said...

And The Scribe said: “and that is true” … and we should believe him?

I would for a “piece” like this but then again it originates from the “Globe” famous, back-peddling, back-stabbing, flip-flopping, rooster sucker, and stool-pigeon of a scribbler.

I am sure that on numerous occasions the Shank ripped into Francona’s managerial intelligence and maneuvers. Weren’t there many previous attacks such as – “Francona wasn’t even the preferred applicant, Leyland (?) was.”

Has anyone compiled a digital library of The Shank’s body of “works”? Please direct me to that treasure trove I will demonstrate how that “work” define the clueless mind behind those scribbles.

Shank what was the purpose of going back to visit Professor Manny -

“It was always hard to watch him baby-sit Manny Ramirez.”

“Manny's disregard for winning and team play grated on the manager”

“Even though we once saw Francona spitting up blood after a game in Seattle.”

Is Shank trying to connect the dots here? Are we to assume that “spitting” up blood is caused by Francona's profession and specifically managing the Sox? Or did that “insensitive” Manny cause that? For the record, both Francona and Manny have successful “team” records, so the “winning and team play” is a total disconnect. Isn’t there a medical report that describes the “blood” condition that Francona experienced?


Somewhere in the article Shank states that Francona “knows” his players and I’m sure he had his “baby-sitting” chat with all his ballplayers and then warned them that playing in Boston you “must be prepared to take abuse from (Scribes) who think they know more about (you and) your team than you”.

That is the true skill of Francona. He has the genuineness and ability to get to the heart of the matter with his team. He can go one on one with individuals and collectively as a team.

g

mike_b1 said...

If managing was easy, anyone could do it. If indeed Tito had to "babysit" Manny, well, he was paid well to do so, and it certainly didn't hurt that Ramirez was hands-down the most productive Red Sox hitter since Ted Williams.

Anonymous said...

G,

To answer your question perhaps a little bit about Francona, I vividly remember him being referred to as "Tito ' I love these Guys!' Francona" for the better part of 2004. For the entire year (and espcecially during the playoffs and most especially during the Yankees series). The team itself has often been referred to as "The Sons of Tito".

Dan needs a sarcasm meter, its a very useful invention.

Dan's implications in his writings then and for most of Francona's tenure have been that he is LUCKY to manage this team and that they have carried him more than he has done a good job. Its an interesting stance considering the number of shots he's taken at the (from his view) questionable competence of players like Ortiz (sack of you know what), Schilling (the war rages on), Foulke, Lugo, Nomar, Drew, Pedroia, the list goes on and on.

Vin

Anonymous said...

Francona proved to the right choice for “the team” since he has been able to balance the player personalities, game preparation, overall organizational duties, and most importantly in Boston, accessibility to media types.

His dealing with media has created a necessary buffer between players and fanatical typists. The players love him for that!

Does he get second-guessed? Sure does. Does he make mistakes? Sure does. Has he had great players? Sure has? Does he have owners with deep pockets? You betcha!

However, he is a perfect fit for current (last 4 years) Sox. There is none one else I would rather have representing the players on the “Frontline” against the media warmongers.

g

ObjectiveBruce said...

Whew.

The bandwidth counters are gratified that Varitek held onto the ball long enough for an out to be recorded.

Had the Angels won it would have been the treasonous Shaughnessy's fault for predicting the Sawx would easily dispose of them and we would have been subjected to the usual "oh he's ticked that he's not selling curse books," or "oh he was showing his hatred and was being condescending and must enjoy rubbing our noses in it," or "he was lazy so he wrote the Sawx would win."

The Sawx were spared. We were spared.

Somewhere, John Kiley is playing his favourite few bars of Handel's Messiah.

Anonymous said...

OB:

"Favourite?"

Meet ya at the bubbler, bunky!

Your pal,

Timmy

Anonymous said...

Ob posted:

Had the Angels won it would have been the treasonous Shaughnessy's fault for predicting the Sawx would easily dispose of them and we would have been subjected to the usual "oh he's ticked that he's not selling curse books," or "oh he was showing his hatred and was being condescending and must enjoy rubbing our noses in it," or "he was lazy so he wrote the Sawx would win."

Yup, and then you would have defended Dan with the tried and true "just because he doesn't luv, luv, luv" the home team.

See, we're all transparent here Bruce... even you

Dave M said...

OB

What an idiot you are. Can you please explain why Shaughnessy has the compulsive need to declare series and seasons over before they really are over? What purpose does it serve? He does it all the time...he did it in 2004 when the Sox were down 3-0; he did it this year when the Sox were up 2-0; he declared the Yankees season over in August. He does it all the time...sometimes he is right and sometimes he is wrong. Sometimes he does it in favor of the Sox. Sometimes he doesn't. It does not matter. It is just absolutely insipid. Why does he do it? I am sure I can go back in the past 5 years and find at least 15 examples where he does this and I just know understand what he is bringing to the table when he does it. Enlighten us.