Terry on Board
The Red Sox and Terry Francona agreed on a 3 year contract extension. Word is that it will pay him roughly $10mm over the 3 seasons. Not bad.
I'm glad this issue is resolved. Francona has won 2 Championships in 4 seasons for a team well, you know the history.
With Spring Training just under way, there are really no major issues. Coco Crisp said he'd prefer to be traded if he isn't the starter. No surprise and you certainly can't blame him. The question becomes, will the Red Sox move him now or when they know more about the holes on the team later in the season? I can't see Crisp being a distraction as long as he is told he will be moved eventually.
There are the usual stories about this minor leaguer or that journeyman player working really hard to prove his place on the major league roster. I doubt we'll see any surpsise roster decisions this year though.
Hammerin' Hank Steinbrenner continues his quest to get sued by offering this one. When asked about how Boston fans might treat Andy Pettitte at Fenway he said, "I don't think they would want to be hollering too loud at Andy up in Fenway. They had plenty of players doing this stuff, too. It's just that those players weren't mentioned in the Mitchell Report."
So what exactly are his sources? First off, there were plenty of Red Sox players on the list. If you recall, I wrote that there were 15 players with Red Sox ties on the Mitchell report. So it wasn't that there were no Red Sox players in the report. Secondly, to suggest there were a boat load of others without offering proof, is opening oneself up to litigation. Granted he didn't name specific names, but as a Red Sox player, you have to be a bit annoyed. I'm not trying to say there aren't current or former Red Sox that used HGH or steroids, but I don't have proof aside from what I've seen on the field. If Hank has something more, he has an interesting way of demonstrating it.
Anyway, I will say that Hank has shown some amazingly poor public relations decisions in his brief tenure, but he is interesting. As a Red Sox fan, I am kind of happy about it. As for Yankee fans, I'm not sure what they feel. There must be some feeling that finally, we've got a leader (since George has withdrawn) that will do/say anything to win, but at the same time, there were many that grew tire of George's act.
Comments
Of course he doesn't have any sources, but do you really think he is wrong after what we have learned this winter? At best, I would say the league was rife with drugs and I would say the only reason we didn't get more names is because the only sources Mitchell could find were in New York and the Bay Area.
No Red Sox is going to be stupid enough to sue Hank over anything like this because he would have to testify under oath with Congress circling around and you can bet the first two questions would be 1- did you use PED's and 2- did you know of anyone who did?
Posted by: Peter
|
February 24, 2008 05:52 PM
|
Peter, It doesn't matter what I think. I'm sure there had to have been members of the Red Sox that used.
But again, that's not the point here. It is irresponsible at best to say that garbage. By not pointing a finger at one player (or specific players), he is painting a broad brush stroke.
As for the sueing Hank part. I don't think most of us thought we'd see Jose Canseco write the book he did (firstly b/c many of us thought he might not be able to read or write let alone out a major issue in baseball). The might very well be a Jose type on the Red Sox or on some other team that Hank has yet to accuse.
Posted by: andy
|
February 24, 2008 07:54 PM
|
Andy
As you said, "you are sure there had to have been members of the Red Sox that used". Mitchell talked about a "rampant" culture of PED's in baseball.
So, is Hank wrong? And why is he irresponsible for saying that, why do the players keep getting a free pass for fighting every attempt at stringent drug testing?
Better put, if he had said this about the White Sox would you care at all?
Posted by: Peter
|
February 24, 2008 08:47 PM
|
Peter, are you saying it is ok for anyone to make claims like this? I'm not talking about freedom of speech, as of course he can, but isn't it in bad form? Are you really ok with this?
Posted by: andy
|
February 24, 2008 10:17 PM
|
Andy
You didn't answer my question, so I will wait for that first.
BTW- this comment was made in a piece in the Post from Tuesday. You can read it here, I think the context changes things a bit.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02192008/sports/yankees/hank__focus_too_muchon_yanks_98354.htm
Posted by: Peter
|
February 25, 2008 12:06 AM
|