Since Buster Olney’s column on Monday describing the Red Sox clubhouse as “Toxic,” there have been many other voices weighing on the state of the team’s chemistry. It’s a topic tailor-made for sports talk radio and television.
As you might expect, there are divergent opinions on the topic.
Debunking more myths when it comes to these ‘toxic’ Red Sox – On Tuesday, Rob Bradford launched an impassioned missive that said that Toxic is too strong a word, that people just don’t like teams that aren’t winning, and even if there are problems, it hasn’t nothing to do with the performance on the field thus far.
Bradford is making a name for himself as something of a Red Sox, and in particular, Josh Beckett apologist. He makes some valid points, and as usual, things are not always as bad as they seem, but it would be nice if he applied this logical, thought-out, reasonable approach to all topics. This is the same guy you recall, who spent the fall just screaming “TYLER PALKO!” for hours on end.
Jerry Remy: I don’t find it toxic at all – This morning on Dennis and Callahan, the NESN analyst painted the Red Sox as the good ship lollipop, noting how tight the players are, though he did say some of Valentine’s methods could cause some tension, such and not letting players know in advance if they have a day off or not. He also thinks Carl Crawford is going to come back and be the Tampa version of Carl Crawford. All is well!
Red Sox a house divided? – Sean McAdam paints a more serious portrait, stating that “emerging details of the 2012 Red Sox reveal the organization to be somewhat dysfunctional at nearly every level, more closely resembling a soap opera than a successful team.” He though, also notes that the players are tight, and that tension is aimed at Bobby Valentine and ownership. He also notes that some players have taken to bringing complaints directly to GM Ben Cherington, which immediately brings to mind the late 1990’s Patriots under Pete Carroll and Bobby Grier.
So where’s the truth? Or does it even matter?