I've listened to the whole thing and at no point does JWH sound "unhinged". That's Felger-talk.
Felger and Mazz - Creating False Naratives one day at a time
- Thread starter HomeBrew1901
- Start date
I just listened and PH is right. Henry seemed really uncomfortable at some of the questions from Felger and Mazz. And either he or a member of the Sox hierarchy is ultimately full of it regarding dragging personal issues into the equation, as 'dog points out earlier in the thread:
This is a real shame.
I thought Henry came across OK on the show. But, it's all subjective, isn't it? Those who want to buy into the "ownership smeared Tito' story will hear what they want to hear.
Let's go ahead and assume for the moment that J/W/H are indeed completely innocent of the leaks. That still wouldn't absolve John Henry and his partners of being asshats with their handling of the Tito affair in the aftermath of the Globe article.
To wit, I've yet to see anyone here calling out Henry for being so oblivious to the initial questions regarding the nature of the Tito leak during the early moments of the interview. It seemed all he wanted to do was repeatedly state that neither he nor either of his co-principals were responsible for feeding the info on Tito's marriage and prescription drug use to Hohler. But when pressed on why none of the H/W/L troika saw fit to repudiate such a callous internal leak and character assault, and why it took 3 days and an in-studio confrontation to elicit any such comments, Henry played dumb and turned it into a "who's on first?" routine.
He knew damn well what Felger and Mazz were after, yet he danced around it. And that's pretty fucking pathetic.
To wit, I've yet to see anyone here calling out Henry for being so oblivious to the initial questions regarding the nature of the Tito leak during the early moments of the interview. It seemed all he wanted to do was repeatedly state that neither he nor either of his co-principals were responsible for feeding the info on Tito's marriage and prescription drug use to Hohler. But when pressed on why none of the H/W/L troika saw fit to repudiate such a callous internal leak and character assault, and why it took 3 days and an in-studio confrontation to elicit any such comments, Henry played dumb and turned it into a "who's on first?" routine.
He knew damn well what Felger and Mazz were after, yet he danced around it. And that's pretty fucking pathetic.
Nuh uh not true this just means you think Lucchino or Henry is the boogeyman. Edes has to be lying right?!?!?!
I expressed that I didn't believe Henry leaked the info to Hohler. I believe that because I believe he is above that, or because I am/was duped by his "what, lil' old me?" act which would be quite the elaborate ruse. Never before on SoSH have I made a post critical of Lucchino. For you to take my inference of Lucchino as the one man out of the Henry/Lucchino/Werner group who I believe would have leaked the info on Francona to Hohler and turn that into me going on a LL witch hunt is fucking laughable.
The evidence is there based on Lucchino's quotes, Henry's quotes, their respective MOs, and (most importantly) Edes' information. The sum of it led me to believe that Lucchino was the most likely to have been Hohler's source. If you want to disagree with me, fine. Just don't put the words of some bullshit witch hunt in my mouth.
must be great ratings for when they simulcast on CSNNE
let's start the countdown until Crawford demands a trade...now we need to get rid of both Lackey and Crawford
let's start the countdown until Crawford demands a trade...now we need to get rid of both Lackey and Crawford
Henry did say, however, that Lucchino was the "guy who ran the Red Sox".
If the failure is as collective as Henry has described it, doesn't Lucky bear also significant portion of the blame? Is his management. position in jeopardy as a result?
If the failure is as collective as Henry has described it, doesn't Lucky bear also significant portion of the blame? Is his management. position in jeopardy as a result?
Maybe this has been brought up, but I'll bet Ordway was throwing stuff around his studio when he got wind of this. Kind of telling that Henry chose the other station to do this instead of the one that carries his team's games. Maybe it was because of Felger's comments specifically, but that shows how far WEEI has fallen.
Listening right now, thanks.
Edit: Didn't sound much different than the rest of the interview. I think the reason he chose TSH over EEI is that he got legitimately pissed over what he was hearing on TSH and decided he was tired of getting fucking killed in the press, on the radio and online and decided it was time to put an end to it.
I don't think he succeeded in what he set out to do and possibly opened up another set of problems with some of the things he said but as many others have mentioned, at least it shows that he still cares and won't be heading to Florida for the next couple of years and just collecting paychecks.
As for EEI, I flipped it over during the commercial break and Ordway and Bradford were absolutely killing Henry for
Bingo. And as you know, Lucky is going to be extended beyond the year remaining on his contract.
Someone please identify one other MLB franchise where this stuff goes on. And please, do not cite Cashman's tiffs with "Tampa" a few years ago, or some of his more pointed comments earlier this year. Those are not in the same ballpark as this meltdown or the one that occurred here 6 years ago.
Genuinely confused that anyone who heard the full interview would say that Henry was accountable and that he stepped up and answered all questions. His handling of the Tito leaks was baffling, and it took him around 45 minutes to state that yes, he is responsible for everything that happens with the team. He agreed that the Tito stuff was reprehensible but said nothing about what he would do to ensure that that kind of thing doesn't happen in his organization. He pleaded ignorance on the clubhouse division stuff, and on the stuff around conditioning of the SPs the best he could say was that they were looking into it.
To be fair it's hard to expect much more than this, but given myriad opportunities to be firm and emphatic he really dropped the ball. I think Felger was absolutely right when he asserted that, while it was unlikely that Henry himself leaked any information, it was still highly likely that someone else in ownership did.
Honestly, I'm also disturbed that Henry didn't take this appearance as a chance to speak more directly to the fans. September was inexcusable, and to even do something like compare it to a month that the Orioles had this year speaks for itself in terms of how objectionable this should be. It may not mean much, but I would have like to hear an acknowledgement that the people who attend the games, who watch NESN, and who buy merchandise are owed a considerably better on-field product than what we got in September.
To be fair it's hard to expect much more than this, but given myriad opportunities to be firm and emphatic he really dropped the ball. I think Felger was absolutely right when he asserted that, while it was unlikely that Henry himself leaked any information, it was still highly likely that someone else in ownership did.
Honestly, I'm also disturbed that Henry didn't take this appearance as a chance to speak more directly to the fans. September was inexcusable, and to even do something like compare it to a month that the Orioles had this year speaks for itself in terms of how objectionable this should be. It may not mean much, but I would have like to hear an acknowledgement that the people who attend the games, who watch NESN, and who buy merchandise are owed a considerably better on-field product than what we got in September.
Dude, the guy was practically speaking at a normal volume, which for JWH is shouting. He was sputtering, talking over Mazz and Felger and even said "I'm so angry!" and had to take a drink of water because he was unglued.
I felt that JWH came off as a Sgt. Schultz type (I know nothing!!!!), however I doubt that Henry is the leak. That being said, Henry didn't do himself or the franchise any favors by showing up on the radio, as the only good thing that came out of it is that he was answering questions. I was waiting for him to turn into the hulk on live radio, but they all brought this on themselves. If Henry truly had no clue about "Chicken and Beerfest 2011" then shame on him, shame on him for "rewarding" his players with $300.00 headphones and a night on a yacht, but once again the last thing people want to hear is that "I don't run the Red Sox, Larry does" after an epic collapse.
I felt Mazz and Felger handled it well, overall it was a solid interview in which the experience outweighed the substance, however if it was on WEEI I think Henry would have came off as more knowledgeable, as those guys would have thrown him slow pitch questions.
I felt Mazz and Felger handled it well, overall it was a solid interview in which the experience outweighed the substance, however if it was on WEEI I think Henry would have came off as more knowledgeable, as those guys would have thrown him slow pitch questions.
I'm sorry but in no way does that meet the sports talk radio definition of unhinged. He was angry. He was also very coherent and cogent and omitted a lot of stuff that an "unhinged" person would have just simply blurted out.
I'm sure he was mad; Felger was attacking his wife. He had good reason to be mad. And then Felger had the nerve to play the "if it's okay to attack Tito personally, why can't we bring your wife into it?" argument. I'm sorry Felger, but two wrongs don't make a right.
This. I don't live in the Boston area, so listening to yesterday's interview was my first experience with Messers. Felger and Mazz. They were trying to be provocative, and what's surprising is that Henry remained as coherent as he did when asked some questions. I understand that many on this board applaud the asking of provocative questions, for they believe that ownership must be held accountable. That's fine, and for fans who want to believe that the ownership smeared Tito, the Henry interview will not dissuade them.
Give it a rest. He pointed out how dumb it was that taking a drink of water means you've become unhinged. He's right. It was a ridiculous point to make in the first place. This thread is full of "you're new, you must be a troll", which is just about the laziest form of argument. I don't mean to single you out, but it's running rampant in this thread and it derails what could be an otherwise good discussion.
I listened to the interview. The problem I had is that Felger and Mazz have such a publicly stated opinion of what they think happened that it destroyed any chance of it being a thorough intereview. In fact, both guys were made to sound like idiots (not difficult, I know).
I thought Henry seemed credible. for those who don't believe him, why would he without preparation from a PR person or attorney walk inot the wolve's den if he wasn't truthful? Or atleast thinking what he was saying was truthful?
I thought Henry seemed credible. for those who don't believe him, why would he without preparation from a PR person or attorney walk inot the wolve's den if he wasn't truthful? Or atleast thinking what he was saying was truthful?
No, he's not right. If you've ever seen John Henry interviewed when he's not upset, he's very measured and soft spoken. So much so, in fact, that people frequently make fun of the fact that you can barely hear the guy. So for him to sputter and talk over Felger and Mazz and then say "I"m so angry, I need a drink" is out of the norm. The guy showed up unannounced and unexpected to a radio station and barged in the middle of the show but you don't think he was upset? Whatever.
Acknowledging that this is one of the sole clips I have heard of this continued dog-and-pony show, I was wondering why it doesn't make a significant difference that the "I opposed the Crawford signing" remark came in the context of a question as to if the Crawford signing was a PR move or a baseball move?
While Henry's reply makes a great soundbite to rant from and run for headlines, it seemed to me more that he was denying the "Crawford was a signing for NESN ratings and was forced on baseball ops"-angle that Tony Mazz in particular has played, and Henry's response is one of the two we would want to hear in this sort of case. He was stating that he opposed it, but it happened, so the baseball ops people convinced him of it.
The other options were that he was all for it, and it happened, which revitalizes some arguments for the people that it was a public-relations driven signing that baseball ops went with, or that he wanted it and baseball ops disagreed and it happened anyway, which is exactly that.
Do we care if Henry is not a part of player acquisition decisions as long as he backs his baseball ops with his checkbook when they make convincing arguments? I don't know that I want our owner involved in baseball decisions, other than hiring good people to make them, unless we want more of a a Jerry Jones, Al Davis, or old-school Steinbrenner running the show.
I just thought it was kind of crazy how contextually lacking the discussion of that quote is going to be.
While Henry's reply makes a great soundbite to rant from and run for headlines, it seemed to me more that he was denying the "Crawford was a signing for NESN ratings and was forced on baseball ops"-angle that Tony Mazz in particular has played, and Henry's response is one of the two we would want to hear in this sort of case. He was stating that he opposed it, but it happened, so the baseball ops people convinced him of it.
The other options were that he was all for it, and it happened, which revitalizes some arguments for the people that it was a public-relations driven signing that baseball ops went with, or that he wanted it and baseball ops disagreed and it happened anyway, which is exactly that.
Do we care if Henry is not a part of player acquisition decisions as long as he backs his baseball ops with his checkbook when they make convincing arguments? I don't know that I want our owner involved in baseball decisions, other than hiring good people to make them, unless we want more of a a Jerry Jones, Al Davis, or old-school Steinbrenner running the show.
I just thought it was kind of crazy how contextually lacking the discussion of that quote is going to be.
Yes, the discussion about the Crawford comment has been largely context-free. Henry wanted to portray himself as someone concerned about the product; his interviewers insinuated that he's only concerned about profit.
I don't care whether Henry voices his opinion about acquisitions during discussions, especially those that will cost a ton of money (like Crawford). (It's his money, after all.) But those discussions need to be led by a baseball operations crew who are given a great deal of latitude to manage trade and contract negotiations. Baseball ops sets the tone and runs the show, but if an acquisition will involve a big investment from ownership, then ownership should be allowed some opportunity to comment.
Nobody said he wasn't upset. He admitted as much. "Unhinged" implies that his answers were incoherent or he was belligerent etc. The fact that he was fuming and still managed to be more logical and even-handed than the tag team interrogating him is a point in his favor, if anything. Then again, that sip of water, I gotta give you that. That was chilling to hear as a Red Sox fan.
This 1000%. It's now being made to look like he came in, sat down, and before they could ask him a question, he wanted to declare that he was against signing Crawford and therefore is blameless. Couldn't be further from the truth. For god's sake, read the Guardian article, he doesn't even believe the CC contract is bad ("he just had a bad year"). He still shouldn't have said it, for Crawford's sake, but it was honest and it's now being spun into something completely different than what it was.
Listening to the interview now.
1.JH claims Hohler stated that is was not one of the owners that leaked the info. Edes repudiates that
2.Feels it's reprehensible that the fact that the owners were blamed for the leak and then later that it was reprehensible that the stuff on Tito came out at all.
3.Early in the interview, JH very snippy.
4.Admit that he was listening to show while driving around. Jason Wolfe must have just fallen over. He also goes back previous quotes by Felger on his show.
5."I need water. I am so angry" ~12:45 mark of interview
6.Claims no discussion about a new manager (~15:30 mark) as late as Sept 30. Hmmmm
7.Claims commish wanted games played around the DH time with the A's ~24:30 mark.
8.Admitted there were issues with weight gain during the year ~29:00
9.~30:50 start of Theo stuff
10. "I'd love to have Theo back" 31:30
11.33:40--Chaos is more external than internal
12. Part 2 1:15--Story by Globe was regrettable. Continues to deny the owners leaked the info.
13.3:20--Started wondering on Sept 1 as to why the team can't make it through 162 games healthy.
14.9:20--Owners don't get involved in player issues
15.13:40--Larry Lucchino runs the Red Sox UGH
16.15:00 LL contract up in 2011. Expects him to be back. Expects it to be multiple years (16:55)
17.~18:30--Starts to go down Theo road a little bit and then states "What am I doing?" and says he can't discuss it.
18.21:10--JH starts going down Pats owning a MLS team path. Weak comparison
After hearing this and the D&C interview with H/W/L, F & M blew blew away D&C. Much harder hitting interview and a lot of genuine back and forth between Felger and Henry.
1.JH claims Hohler stated that is was not one of the owners that leaked the info. Edes repudiates that
2.Feels it's reprehensible that the fact that the owners were blamed for the leak and then later that it was reprehensible that the stuff on Tito came out at all.
3.Early in the interview, JH very snippy.
4.Admit that he was listening to show while driving around. Jason Wolfe must have just fallen over. He also goes back previous quotes by Felger on his show.
5."I need water. I am so angry" ~12:45 mark of interview
6.Claims no discussion about a new manager (~15:30 mark) as late as Sept 30. Hmmmm
7.Claims commish wanted games played around the DH time with the A's ~24:30 mark.
8.Admitted there were issues with weight gain during the year ~29:00
9.~30:50 start of Theo stuff
10. "I'd love to have Theo back" 31:30
11.33:40--Chaos is more external than internal
12. Part 2 1:15--Story by Globe was regrettable. Continues to deny the owners leaked the info.
13.3:20--Started wondering on Sept 1 as to why the team can't make it through 162 games healthy.
14.9:20--Owners don't get involved in player issues
15.13:40--Larry Lucchino runs the Red Sox UGH
16.15:00 LL contract up in 2011. Expects him to be back. Expects it to be multiple years (16:55)
17.~18:30--Starts to go down Theo road a little bit and then states "What am I doing?" and says he can't discuss it.
18.21:10--JH starts going down Pats owning a MLS team path. Weak comparison
After hearing this and the D&C interview with H/W/L, F & M blew blew away D&C. Much harder hitting interview and a lot of genuine back and forth between Felger and Henry.
I believe that John Henry is without guile when it comes to this crap.
Few have been harder on this organization than I the past couple of weeks, but the F&M accusations that this acquisition or that were marketing driven have always been low life efforts to tease ratings and nothing more. So that's the way you characterize them -- call it for what it is.
Instead, JH says he didn't want a player who has many years and a ton of money left on his contract -- a player coming off a tough year, who yet seems to have a ton of baseball character. And, by the way, JH's personal views would not necessarily preclude the Crawford signing from being marketing driven, and even if they did, Felger and/or Mazz are likely to end up calling him a liar to drive their baseless narrative.
Is it the end of the world? No. But it shows, I think, that JH is a sheep among wolves dealing with the mediots. Sometimes I get the feeling Stephen Hawking owns the Boston Red Sox.
This is really in Lucky's wheelhouse. But Lucky is staying mum because he has finally realized that Gordon Edes is out there in the woods with a sniper's rifle and is a most excellent shot.
In the early stages of the interview, there were things JWH did (aside from the aforementioned side-stepping of the "why didn't the organization immediately castigate the Tito marriage/drug abuse leaks and apologize for them" questions) that suggested to me he was covering shit up. A sure sign of someone trying to do that is when they repeat the question that was just asked of them, a common tactic used by those trying to formulate an answer that's different from the truth. Henry does this at least a half-dozen times in the first 6 minutes.
The degree to which John Henry remains unaware of viral elements involving his team is stupefying. He didn't know about the "I Like Beer" video featuring pretty much his club's entire starting rotation, which has been making the rounds on YouTube for months now. He had no idea about the pitchers' off-day circus going on in the clubhouse. He says he doesn't know who might have leaked the Tito crap despite the fact that, in his words, "a very small number" of team employees would have access to such information. And on this very show, he refuses to believe Lucchino said the Tito crap in the Hohler piece was "interesting", and then sits there like a deer in headlights as Felger & Mazz play the clip. How can fans NOT be expected to make the quantum leap in reasoning that Henry is strikingly distracted and detached from his most valuable asset?
I think the part that pisses me off the most is this exchange from 4:49 to 5:10 of Part 1:
The amount of respect I've lost for John Henry and this ownership group is downright staggering, and the number of morons in this thread who remain defiantly intent on giving them a free pass is both confusing and infuriating.
The degree to which John Henry remains unaware of viral elements involving his team is stupefying. He didn't know about the "I Like Beer" video featuring pretty much his club's entire starting rotation, which has been making the rounds on YouTube for months now. He had no idea about the pitchers' off-day circus going on in the clubhouse. He says he doesn't know who might have leaked the Tito crap despite the fact that, in his words, "a very small number" of team employees would have access to such information. And on this very show, he refuses to believe Lucchino said the Tito crap in the Hohler piece was "interesting", and then sits there like a deer in headlights as Felger & Mazz play the clip. How can fans NOT be expected to make the quantum leap in reasoning that Henry is strikingly distracted and detached from his most valuable asset?
I think the part that pisses me off the most is this exchange from 4:49 to 5:10 of Part 1:
I mean, really? Seriously? You and your two principal partners were all too fucking busy FOR THREE DAYS to defend the honor of the guy who fell on his sword and parroted the company line in order to spare you assholes a shitload of embarrassment? Take your arrogant, dismissive tone of voice and shove it up your ass.
The amount of respect I've lost for John Henry and this ownership group is downright staggering, and the number of morons in this thread who remain defiantly intent on giving them a free pass is both confusing and infuriating.
Excellent stuff.
You see, it's the calling people "morons" because they don't happen to share your opinion that I find frankly unhelpful. I had assumed this board was above that, but I just joined yesterday, as someone noted above. For the record, I happen to agree with the remainder of your post. And I think the Hawking owning the Sox analogy is rather apt. But I suppose I need to see a bit more than innuendos, conjectures and gut feelings to assert that, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Lucchino fella sure is the devil. I empathize with Henry, but he does need a PR person. Going on Felger and Mazz, the very show that is besmirching you and talking about your wife, was a pretty stupid, emotional move, in my opinion.
There are aspects of this story that I couldn't give two shits less about (the cold release of Francona and subsequently Epstein, Lucky running the Sox, The Revolution/Pats thing), but there are other, more concerning parts of the interview that are absolutely cause for concern.
First off, as much as I love Tito, as much as I respect him, and as much as I appreciate the two World Series titles he brought us, eventually relationships run their course. I feel like, in baseball more than most, with fully guaranteed contracts and the inability to trade a malcontent for draft picks, among other things, a manager can lose his clubhouse suddenly and be incapable of getting it back. And this year, Tito finally lost the clubhouse. Once that happens, a manager needs to go.
What the retarded part of this was, was the media hatchet job after he left. The club line should have been, and should have ALWAYS been, "Terry Francona was the greatest manager the Red Sox have seen in the modern era. His contributions to the team are beyond reproach. But right now, we feel the team needs to head in a different direction, and we need a new voice. We thank Terry for his contributions, and wish him all the best. ", and once the Hohler article came out, they should have a) reaffirmed that, b) completely shredded the relevancy of the marital issues and alleged drug issues, along with c) stating that his commitment to his job was unwavering, and d) if they felt the need to give him the hatchet job on the way out to make it seem like the issues weren't with him, let the fucking locker room problems speak for themself.
There was plenty there that made Tito look less than impressive in his performance this year. In fact, it has the exact opposite effect. If anything, it takes legitimate issues with how the clubhouse was run, takes those out of the microscope, and shifts the focus on to something else entirely, something that, if they planted, they completely misunderstood what the response would be. Because now, everything else is swept under the rug as a multitude of people rush to Tito's defense on this one. If they planted the story, they should have left it out altogether because it's stupid. If they didn't, then they should have repudiated it right away and tried to cut its legs out. That neither one of these happened does not reflect well on the Ownership.
Furthermore, with regard to JWH's appearance on F&M, I don't know how you could listen to the first few minutes of that interview and come away with anything other than "he was rattled" or "he was lying". I know he normally doesn't speak with much authority, but even for him, he was speaking with very little confidence, a lot of anger, and still seemed to act like he was wading through a minefield. That attitude gives F&M the momentum to continue to ask more and more bombastic and instigative questions. When he finally took a deep breath and got away, he was better, but he obviously did not think this through very well.
First off, as much as I love Tito, as much as I respect him, and as much as I appreciate the two World Series titles he brought us, eventually relationships run their course. I feel like, in baseball more than most, with fully guaranteed contracts and the inability to trade a malcontent for draft picks, among other things, a manager can lose his clubhouse suddenly and be incapable of getting it back. And this year, Tito finally lost the clubhouse. Once that happens, a manager needs to go.
What the retarded part of this was, was the media hatchet job after he left. The club line should have been, and should have ALWAYS been, "Terry Francona was the greatest manager the Red Sox have seen in the modern era. His contributions to the team are beyond reproach. But right now, we feel the team needs to head in a different direction, and we need a new voice. We thank Terry for his contributions, and wish him all the best. ", and once the Hohler article came out, they should have a) reaffirmed that, b) completely shredded the relevancy of the marital issues and alleged drug issues, along with c) stating that his commitment to his job was unwavering, and d) if they felt the need to give him the hatchet job on the way out to make it seem like the issues weren't with him, let the fucking locker room problems speak for themself.
There was plenty there that made Tito look less than impressive in his performance this year. In fact, it has the exact opposite effect. If anything, it takes legitimate issues with how the clubhouse was run, takes those out of the microscope, and shifts the focus on to something else entirely, something that, if they planted, they completely misunderstood what the response would be. Because now, everything else is swept under the rug as a multitude of people rush to Tito's defense on this one. If they planted the story, they should have left it out altogether because it's stupid. If they didn't, then they should have repudiated it right away and tried to cut its legs out. That neither one of these happened does not reflect well on the Ownership.
Furthermore, with regard to JWH's appearance on F&M, I don't know how you could listen to the first few minutes of that interview and come away with anything other than "he was rattled" or "he was lying". I know he normally doesn't speak with much authority, but even for him, he was speaking with very little confidence, a lot of anger, and still seemed to act like he was wading through a minefield. That attitude gives F&M the momentum to continue to ask more and more bombastic and instigative questions. When he finally took a deep breath and got away, he was better, but he obviously did not think this through very well.
This. SOSH is supposed to be a place where rational discourse takes place. That's why all the Big Boys get to play on the Members Only board. They are supposed to muster empirical evidence to support their contentions, not mouth off like the talk radio crowd.
I, for one, have no idea whether the "ownership smeared Tito" story is true. I do know that ownership has not used the best PR tactics to defend/explain recent developments with the team. But, calling those of us who are willing to listen to both sides of this debate "morons" is not helpful.
.
It might not exactly be helpful, but I guess my question would then be: How does one explain Gordon Edes having unimpeachable knowledge that ownership expressed concerns over Tito's marriage. Knowing that fact and then listening to the first portion of the interview tells me everything I need to know about where this "source" came from. And while I don't think Henry was the source, it was pretty damn apparent he knew far more about the situation than he was letting on.
I realize that many SOSH members hold Gordon Edes in high regard. They like the fact that he seemed to be asking the tough questions at the Tito press conference. But, I haven't always found Edes' reporting to be above reproach. (Indeed, his latest column, asking the Red Sox to make the following changes or he would walk was pretty laughable. The story shouldn't be about him but the team.) Apparently, you find Edes to be an unimpeachable source, and that is your prerogative. We all choose which media sources to believe and which not to believe.
Did you actually read the column? The walking was a gimmick. That was the subtitle to the headline, neither of which the writer actually pens. He wasn't walking, in the sense of quitting. Here's the opening paragraph of the article:
And that's it for walking until the very end, when he does one minor callback of
Listen, I've had my issues with Edes before too. And if you really thought his piece about the Sox being salvageable was laughable or remotely about himself, I suggest you need to read it again because frankly, neither of those things are true.
And please point to me where I said Edes is an unimpeachable source. Go ahead, I'll wait. All I said was that he has unimpeachable knowledge that ownership had expressed concerns over Tito's marriage. And yeah, I DO chose to believe a media source who uses language like 'unimpeachable' to describe a specific situation. It's just not a word those in the sports media say every day and there's very good reason for that.
It seems that the ESPN OTL segment from yesterday is not available online. Can anyone further clarify what Edes actually said?
Per mabrowndog:
"Edes says he has "absolutely unimpeachable knowledge" {from Tito, I'll guess} that ownership was concerned about Tito's divorce because they expressed it to him {him = Tito here, or does him = Gordon?} directly when they declined {when was this? at season's end, or some earlier point?} to pick up his option."
It would be great if Gordon could check in here and clarify.
Thanks, but that doesn't really clarify anything. Gordon's knowledge could have come from either the ownership or from Tito's side. The real issue is how it got into the Globe article.
EDIT: In other words, is Edes saying the owners (despite denials) were peddling the stuff about Tito to media members (including Edes), or is Edes challenging the "Tito did not want to return." storyline given that Edes knows the owners didn't want Tito back?
And I fail to see how this leads to the pervasive, and apparently unimpeachable conclusion that one of HWL leaked to Hohler.
Sure but it was still something Gordon knew about (as you said, likely from Tito). How it got to the Globe article is clearly from a different source and seeing how there are only a handful of people who should know this type of information, I think it's becoming increasingly obvious where such a leak actually came from.
I'm not sure if I'm really following you here. We agree (I think) that Edes has knowledge of ownership being concerned over Tito's marriage and that his source was likely Tito, himself.
If it's not clearly a different source in the Hohler piece, then are you inferring it was Francona who leaked the information? If so, I just can't agree. The piece doesn't read like that at all.
Probably not from Tito directly, but the Globe piece is messy, with references to "Team sources", "Sox owners", and even "Sources", along with some direct stuff from Tito. For example, where would Tito's best buddy on the coaching stuff fit into this kind of typology? What about Theo or his lieutenants? It could have been a Francona ally that informed the Globies as in "Can you believe what those bleeps upstairs did/said to Tito?"
Again, is Gordon saying I know the owners leaked because they leaked it to me (and hoped I'd print it), or is he saying I know the owners didn't want Tito back so the "Tito wanted to leave" story is fiction? What exactly is he attacking?
If Hohler has any professionalism -- and let's assume that he does -- he does not run with the assertion that ownership were "concerned" about his personal life and his pill taking unless he has heard this OR had it confirmed by someone who is in that group or who is very tight with that group. That leaves the 3 owners (one of or all) saying "yeah, we were worried" or it's Theo saying "Yeah, they were worried" or it's Francona who said "They told me they were worried." Now, since Francona is quoted by name and appears to have taken Hohler's call when he phoned to ask about the pill taking story, we can write him off since if he did confirm it, that would have been the headline: Terry Francona says owners expressed worry over his personal life; didn't offer new contract."
I think they did a great job firing off a bunch of tough questions with no preparation, one thing that got missed in the Felger/Mazz interview was what JWH believed. They never asked him, "Is it true that you were concerned about his use of Rx painkillers? Do you believe that Francona's personal life interfered with his job performance? "
I think they did a great job firing off a bunch of tough questions with no preparation, one thing that got missed in the Felger/Mazz interview was what JWH believed. They never asked him, "Is it true that you were concerned about his use of Rx painkillers? Do you believe that Francona's personal life interfered with his job performance? "
That and unless I missed it they never brought up John Lackey. Otherwise they covered just about every angle anyone could want an owner to answer for in a situation like that.
Edit: Is there any chance that the Tito pill stuff came from a disgruntled player who heard a rumor that management was concerned about his pill use? "That guy was worried about us drinking in the clubhouse and I know managment was concerned he was addicted to painkillers"
It certainly was disheartening that Henry didn't condemn and totally deny the Tito marriage/pill stuff.
I thought Henry came off as sincere but not polished. I don't think he was lying - but I do believe he was angry. Whether that caused him to word things in a less than optimal manner is subjective. I think he portrayed himself and the Red Sox quite well with one exception: Hohler's article. His initial anger wasn't for Tito, but rather that the ownership group was being accused as the source. Additionally, instead of saying that they would be investigating the situation to prevent similar situations in the future, he didn't take accountability and brushed it off with a "do you know how many people work for the Red Sox organization" and "there are no secrets in baseball".
Henry seemed more concerned that the owners be blamed for what was said than that his organization smeared Francona. I fully expected a "if we find out who leaked this they no longer will work for the Red Sox". Likely, he's not in a place to can Lucchino.
Why hasn't Larry Lucchino come out and said this leak didn't come from him? If he's running the baseball operation, then run it. It was peculiar his single-minded focus on defending the ownership. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
Why hasn't Larry Lucchino come out and said this leak didn't come from him? If he's running the baseball operation, then run it. It was peculiar his single-minded focus on defending the ownership. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.