While the talk shows and columnists of New England have been focused on the Patriots and whether or not the Super Bowl Champions plotted to let .02 PSI out of footballs, the last-place Red Sox have avoided the spotlight for their 21-26 start.

We’ve even had Chris Gasper with these alternating columns this week – Don’t give up on the Red Sox just yet and Patriots hated because they can’t be trusted.

Tell me which team is owned by the same person who employs Gasper?

Don’t give up on the last place team, but the World Champion can’t be trusted.

In general though, things seem to be swinging around to examining the Red Sox. That will likely change as soon as the next step in Tom Brady’s appeal process takes place, but for now, the Red Sox are back in the spotlight.

Depending on where you listen, the problem is either with the manager or with the Latino players. I’ll let you figure out which is which.

A few views on the current state of the Red Sox:

Why are Red Sox losing? It’s not that complicated – Rob Bradford says that Red Sox aren’t winning because they’re not playing well. Basically.

Solution to Red Sox offense must come from within — and fast – Tim Britton says that the Red Sox need to figure this out themselves.

Eduardo Rodriguez at the head of Red Sox’ class of pitching prospects – Scott Lauber looks at the lefty who will make his MLB debut for the Red Sox tonight in this post from January.

It’s no surprise Eduardo Rodriguez reached majors quickly – Alex Speier has more on the 22-year-old.

Boston Red Sox’s commitment to Rick Porcello through 2019 a concern – as is John Farrell’s deal – Christopher Smith looks at a pair of decisions that could haunt the Red Sox for years to come.

Fire Cherington and Farrell? That’s not going to happen – Peter Abraham references the Patriots after the Kansas City game as hope for these Red Sox.

Advertisements

48 thoughts on “Who’s Happy About All The Deflated Talk? The Red Sox.

  1. “The Patriots can’t be trusted.” Been mulling over that Gaspar statement for a little while now and I just don’t get it. Why can’t they be trusted? Because the Wells report tried to (I guess successfully) frame them for allegedly violating a rule that NO ONE ever cared about, including the league office prior to Jan. 19, 2015? Because 8 years ago they became the first team ever punished for filming signals, despite it being a common practice around the league prior to 2007? (See: Jimmy Johnson and several other SB-winning coaches and their feelings on the matter). Because the Ravens whined about perfectly legal formations that were used in a post-season game they lost — formations that, despite John Harbaugh’s protestations, had been used before in the NFL and at the collegiate level? Why can’t they be trusted? If we’re going to brand them as deceitful and untrustworthy from now until the end of time because of these two misdemeanor rules violations, for which they’ve been excessively and absurdly punished by the parity-desiring league office, then we need to start viewing ALL multiple rules offenders in the same light. Let’s start with Denver, which cheated the salary cap twice, which videotaped opponent’s practices, etc. Then lets move on to the Jets, a team that has tampered, repeatedly, with players (and coaches…Bill Parcells) under contract with other teams. Where does it end? EVERY team in the league has several skeletons in its closet, and for media morons like Gaspar to pretend that the Patriots are the only one is not only downright idiotic, it’s completely dishonest. But hey, Gaspar is a member of the media; talk about an institution that can’t be trusted………..

    1. Exactly. In the context of every other team in the league, why can’t the Pats be trusted and everyone else can? Is Gaspar Shank’s intern? Seems like he should be on NESN in the morning.

    2. Gasper has way too much Globe in him. You are on point on observing yet another example of a media member who seems to have lost his head over this incident. You would think at some point some editor would have to take a hard look at the quality, or lack there of, of thinking going into some of these pieces and think “hmmm…I think I can get better professional analysis than this”.

      From a media perspective the only story I can think of that got as stupid and dumb coverage was the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill fiasco. The thing these two stories have in common is that there was an irrational hatred held by a large group of non critical thinkers towards one of the parties involved. It did not matter what was said people for some reason could not see the truth and they wanted blood.

      For gasper to say the Patriots can’t be trust proves he is a moron. An honest to god idiot. It proves he is void of critical thinking. If he truly believes the Patriots are the only organization who ever employed their own PR and marketing departments to shape messages then I really want to sell him some real estate in a swamp in Florida.

      1. Editors, in the old-fashioned sense of telling a reporter what they should or shouldn’t write, just don’t exist anymore. Which is a big reason why journalism today is circling the toilet bowl.

        1. There’s a passage in “All the President’s Men” where either Woodward or Bernstein (not sure which) had written an article about a Nixon press conference, and the writer made reference to Nixon’s “trembling hands”. In the passage, they state that the Washington Post’s editor, while reading the article, took a pencil and crossed out the “trembling hands” reference, and scolded the writer: “You should know better than that.” That’s how they did it in the old days. I’m sure that editor hated Nixon as much as everyone else in the newsroom, but there were still certain lines you didn’t cross back then. Today, the “trembling hands” reference would be EMPHASIZED, not struck, and it would be used to frame the entire story line….you know, like “body language experts” were used to analyze Brady’s presser back in January to prove that he was lying.

          1. That book was my bible when I was a journalism student. The high point of the profession came in the 60s and 70s with the Civil Rights movement, Vietnam and Watergate. It’s been going downhill ever since.

            Ben Bradlee told Woodward and Bernstein they could publish anything without two confirmed sources. The “Deep Throat” nickname was because that particular source was “deep background,” i.e. NEVER to be quoted. Today he’d still be anonymous, but he’d be someone’s *cough*Mortenson*cough* lone source.

            I can’t wait to retire.

  2. Watching Max Scherzer outduel Lester last night, I had to laugh that the Sox decided to go all in on Porcello. The Nationals pay Scherzer $70 million the next five seasons (albeit a lot more in the future) while the Sox are paying Porcello about $95 million. Thank you Ben Cherington. So far this year, Scherzer is one of the best I have ever seen. Close to 99-03 Pedro.

    1. I know Scherzer is rocking it so far this year but let’s not go overboard by saying he is close to the 99-03 Pedro. It’s a pitchers league now that there has been a crackdown on PED’s and good pitchers like Scherzer look even better because of it and even with that no one today looks like the Pedro from those years.

      1. Fair point. I was speaking more of the entertainment value of his starts than an objective view of their performances.

        1. Yeah, you’re right. The entertainment value is up there. Kershaw is one (well, maybe not yet this year) that provides that today as well.

    2. They really jumped the gun on the Porcello deal. I know they wanted to lock him up before free agency, which is fine, since he’s a talented 26-year old. But to pay him like he’s already won Cy Young’s and is an established staff ace is totally mind-boggling. Also, he won 15 games last year playing in an airport of a ballpark out in Detroit, and in a division with relatively large ballparks across the board (Comiskey and Target Field are pretty big, though Jacobs Field can be a launch pad at times). If I were the Sox I would have waited to see how he handled hitter-friendly places like Fenway, Yankee Stadium (for lefties) and Camden Yards before I committed that kind of money. I don’t mind the Ramirez and Sandoval signings so much. Both guys are professional hitters and both had been producing before their respective injuries slowed them down. And neither of them is “old” at this point. At least those deals aren’t in the 7 or 8 year range like the disastrous Crawford deal, or the Pujols deal which the Angels are going to live to regret (if they’re not already).

      1. They really did. I didn’t understand it at the time and it makes less sense now after seeing him pitch. The team is a mess and I don’t really blame anyone yet because everyone on the team appears to be having an off year. Pitchers are not bailing out the hitters and vice versa. I am looking towards the future now.

  3. Sandoval’s numbers, before he was hit in the knee and missed a few games and perhaps (too early to tell) fell out of rhythm, where right in line with what he had produced in the last two seasons with the SFG.

    The real big problems in the lineup are Betts, Ortiz, Napoli, Right Field (hopefully Rusney changes that), Hanley’s month long power drought and losing two catchers. It’s a loooong list. None of these personnel decisions were made by Farrell. To make a play on Bruce’s headline: No one is loving the “Blame Farrell FOR EVERYTHING Brigade” more then Ben Cherington, who for whatever reason, gets a free pass at every turn. I really don’t understand how SO MANY people could be deceived into blaming the manager. It’s as if they think Cherington doesn’t exist and simultaneously, that a baseball field manager has as much control over the production of his team as a football team’s head coach…

  4. Gaspar is totally wrong and is showing his lack of historical perspective. Besides winning a lot which is plenty of ammo for haters (“YANKEES SUCK!” chant) BB and the Pats have been making absolute fools of the national sports media power structure since “HC of the NYJ”. A short list of fools from the top of my head.
    John Madden
    Tom Jackson
    Ron Borges
    Shank
    Dilfer, et al last October
    Every BB press conference
    A bunch more that I can’t remember right now.

    When you make a fool of these folks they look for any gotcha they can find. They then trash the Pats to every other fan in the nation who can’t understand why their team sucks. It’s a ridiculous double standard to say the Pats can’t be trusted but every other team are choirboys. Gaspar is a lightweight and his inability to analyze anything beyond 5 years back should be an embarrassment for the Globe.

    1. That’s really the main reason why every time the Patriots “do something wrong” it blows up into a national scandal, whereas other team’s transgressions are pretty much ignored or are simply listed on the “sports ticker” at the bottom of the TV screen for a day or so. The media drove the entire Spygate b.s. because of their hatred for BB. I distinctly remember one of the more honest journalists, at the time, relaying a conversation he had with another writer, in which Writer #1 said, “Why is everyone making a big deal out of this? Almost every team was doing it.” And Writer #2 replied: “Who cares? Belichick is a jerk and he deserves this.” (Words to that effect). I wish I could remember now where I read that, but it was telling. The personal feelings of the supposedly “non-biased” and “objective” chroniclers of sporting events clearly got in the way of reality and perspective back then. I also remember Kerry Byrne of Cold, Hard, Football Facts, at the time, writing that the Spygate coverage as all about media types exacting a measure of “revenge” against Belichick. How right he was. Now, this situation with the footballs may not involve BB directly, but the media’s “template” for covering anything Patriots-related was established with Spygate; hence, the insane overreaction to something this trivial and, to this day, still unproven.

    2. ” an embarrassment for the Globe.” …ROFLMAO….when you have no shame you can’t be embarrassed. Got to love the Globe…they are the print version of the fictional UBS nightly News from the movie Network years ago. A collection of charlatans, crack pots and ideologies all devoid of common sense spewing forth with made up drivel all in an attempt to increase readership. They have been proudly yelling “I mad as hell and I am not going to take Bill Belichick any more” out their office windows from the moment he took the reigns in Foxboro.

      1. The Globe, a few years ago, used to run promotional ads on TV where several people were giving “man on the street” perspectives of the paper’s coverage of certain topics. One guy with an Irish brogue said, “they really let you know what’s going on politically,” — words to that effect. The ad then cut to some youngish woman, obviously a Globe staff member, sitting at her computer, who looks into the camera and says, “we are truth-seekers.” I laughed so hard at that line that I nearly tore a rib-cage muscle. That had to be the most unintentionally funny line ever to appear in an advertisement, ever.

      2. And I thought I was the only one who made Seventies references . . .
        All in all, quite the image, though.
        By the way, remember the scene with Ned Beatty as head of the network – – all silky smooth and deferential with others around – – then going nuclear and tearing Howard Beale a new one when they’re alone? I harken back to that scene whenever I imagine naives like perhaps our current president ushered into the seats of true power. But now I’ve wandered off point . . . flashbacks, the gift that keeps on giving.

      3. I really enjoyed the BDC column last week calling all of us racists. The article was written by a silver spoon 22 year old girl who has never even stepped foot into a public school. I believe her name is Wider if anyone is interested.

        1. Just need to give you a shoot out for the Stripes icon. To this day my most favorite guilty pleasure…when times are tough I day dream about my own Hulka-burger franchise.

          1. When in doubt; What would Sergeant Hulka Do? My life has been much better since I adopted this philosophy.

          2. We’re Americans! That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We’re the underdog. We’re mutts!

  5. I don’t get why these media morons like Breer, Gasper, CHB, Tomasse, Tanguay, etc. claim “everyone knows that the Patriots push the limit”. How would the average fan know that Pats are pushing the boundary of the rules? The only way I know, as a fan, is from hearing these f’ing morons whine about it. Imagine if BB pulled a John Harbaugh after a loss, complaining about a formation used because he (BB) was unaware of it – he would get crucified by these same idiots. Yet Harbaugh skates; or the Colt’s equipment guy who puts a gauge in Pat’s ball during the CHAMPIONSHIP game. Should not that guy been fined since he was messing with the ball during the game??? (full disclosure – I did not read Wells’ report so maybe this was footnoted) The hypocrisy makes me batsh!t crazy…

    1. The mediots you reference don’t know. They assume, postulate, insinuate and make crap up in the hope of getting more ratings/page views/notoriety etc. Long ago Bruce set up this website to shine a spotlight on hacks who are more involved with the “look at me” aspect of newsfotainment than they are with the providing thoughtful analysis and actual news. All you can do is help with the good fight because somewhere out there the wrong message is getting out.

    2. The “Patriots push the envelope” b.s. can easily be translated thusly: Belichick and his staff actually read every word in the rulebook, analyze them, and understand them fully. Other teams don’t bother to drill down for that sort of detail. So when they (BB and McDaniels) pull those unbalanced line formations out of the storage room during a key point in a playoff game, the world squeals like stuck pigs and says things like: “Nobody has ever seen that before” (Harbaugh); or “There’s winning, and then there’s winning with HONOR; the Patriots don’t win with HONOR” (Doyel) — remember, Doyel’s moronic comments came BEFORE the AFC title game and the “deflation” b.s. He was actually trying to argue that using perfectly legal — albeit rarely used — formations was akin to winning “without honor.”
      In college I roomed with this guy who was absolutely, positively, unbelievably good at board games (this was a LONG time ago, when board games were still part of the culture…LOL). He was especially good at strategy games, war simulation games, etc., like “Stratego” and “Risk.” None of us could ever beat him. He had this mathematical brain that allowed him to wait until he knew when the odds were in his favor whenever he rolled the dice before a battle, etc. But what also made him unbeatable was his attention to detail. He would read a game’s rulebook front to back, and then again and again. He knew everything he could and could not do, and everything you could and could not do. We squawked like hell every time he did something that we thought was illegal, only to have him point out the rule pertaining to that move and show us that it was legal, or at least not prohibited. What could we do? We could either learn the rules in depth ourselves and be prepared for every possible move he might make, or we could cry about it. The rest of the NFL, instead of adapting, has decided to cry about BB’s “antics” and is using the Competition Committee, Ted Wells and the league’s Jet-centric home office to “punish” and rein in BB and his team. And the BB-hating media has given their full endorsement to this crybaby approach. It’s all pretty pathetic, actually.

  6. Gentlemen, remember growing up and reading about Ted Williams and his feud with the “knights of the keyboard”? Me too, and I couldn’t name a single “knight” with a gun to my head.

    This BS will be mentioned in perpetuity, but history loves winners and so the (historical) winning history will win. It is what it is. Do your job. Hate us ’cause you ain’t us. Etc.

    1. And the stories were always told as if Ted was the problem and not the writers. As I got older I realized that it wasn’t Ted, it was them.

      1. Bob Costas once interviewed Ted on his old “Later” TV show back in the 90s, I believe. Costas, in one segment, said to Ted: “You’re the guy that John Wayne was playing in all of those old movies.” And Ted said, “Yeah, I know it.” LOL. Ted was the man. Sportswriters probably hated him because of their own insecurities — projection, as psychiatrists call it.

        1. But the point is their power loud but fleeting. Meanwhile, .406 and 4 SB titles are forever, and I actually think the sportswriters might have had a point with Ted. Doesn’t matter now, though, and what will Belichick smearing matter in 20 years when it will be obvious that it was about sportswriters trying to make themselves bigger than a giant in the sport?

          1. One thing they can’t deny about Belichick is that he’s played a major role in winning SIX Super Bowls, while coaching in NINE. He was the DC of the Giants during their two Super Bowl runs under Parcells; that’s a pretty important job. Hell, his defensive guys carried HIM off the field — not Parcells — after the 1986 NFC title game at the Meadowlands. He also was with Parcells when the Pats went to the SB in ’96. They can write and say “Belicheat” to their heart’s content, but how does that explain the integral part he played in the success of those other teams? Parcells never won jack without BB on his coaching staff, yet no one ever questions his credentials as an all-time great (nor should they). Bottom line: You don’t coach in NINE Super Bowls because you “cheated” better than everyone else. Ridiculous. It’s just pure hater-ade on the media’s part.

          2. Not only that, but in 1995 Belichick pulled Parcells’s pants down both in the regular season AND in the playoffs. I remember this because I was all chesty about the ‘Belichick made Parcells’ noise (funny that there was once that noise) and i was, at the time, a Parcells guy (though I quickly grew to dislike him intensely). He outcoached Parcells in those games with Vinny Testaverde, who Parcells somehow got credit for salvaging when he brought him to the Jets.

          3. And, really, a reporter can dislike the way Belichick treats them, but they can’t credibly deny that he’s the greatest football coach in the history of football. And I say this as someone who HATED the hire, but — hey — I was wrong. … See, fellas, it’s not that hard.

            The dude crushed the K-Gun, and often stifled Bill Walsh’s offensive machine, and that was before he basically put a clown suit on the league when it comes to team and salary cap management. He’s an absolute Titan in the most popular sport, other football “geniuses” flock to him, players worship him, etc. But he shits on reporters. Oh, well.

            They should just rename it the Belichick Trophy and be done with it.

          4. I didn’t hate the hire because I felt he’d at least made Cleveland competitive during his time there. It’s hard to impress upon people today just how much of a mess that roster was when he took over in ’91. The core of those teams that had gone to the AFC title game in the 80s was either gone or had grown very long in the tooth, and within three years he had them at 11-5, while having the guts to dump the physically beaten up/past his prime face of the franchise (Kosar), and taking all the heat associated for it. And I also thought he got a bum rap in being fired after the ’95 season, because no coach could have salvaged that nightmare once Modell announced the team was moving to Baltimore. I also had always preached “defense, defense, defense” to anyone who would listen, having grown up watching the Steelers and Cowboys dominate the 70s and then watching great defensive teams like the Bears and Giants impose their will on other teams during the 80s. So, after BB was hired I was excited about the prospects for the Patriots having that kind of dominant defense. I did, however, feel that giving up a first rounder for a guy who had been to the playoffs once as a head coach was too much. I also didn’t like the idea of letting him wear both hats (GM and coach), especially since Kraft’s not allowing Parcells to do both jobs was the main reason for the split in ’97; suddenly, he was reversing himself on that philosophy in order to hire BB. Oh well, shows how much I know.

          5. Sports writers love the Belichick flamed out in Cleveland story line. He needed Brady to be a good coach, blah blah blah. It is wrong. The Browns made it to the divisional round in ’94 and were Super Bowl contenders before the start of the ’95 season. That team was on the upswing and Modell pulled the rug out from under them. If Belichick was loved by the media there is no way Modell fires him at the end of that season.

          6. Exactly. See my post below. People just don’t realize what a mess that Cleveland roster was when BB took it over in 1991. They were coming off a 3-13 season and the core of their three-time AFC title game participants was either gone, or long in the tooth, including the franchise QB who got old way before his time…hard to believe, but Kosar was only about 28 or 29 before his physical abilities just left him (too many hard hits and injuries).

          7. I am with you on all of your points. Looking back at it now. That KosarTestaverde issue was so big in Cleveland. Kind of sad that it was too when you look back at it now. Kosar was terrible but Cleveland fans were SO PISSED that BB did that to him. The Cleveland ’95 Football Life episode is recommended viewing for anyone.

          8. I have a friend from Cleveland and there’s been some uncomfortable exchanges on fb with some of his friends from Cleveland. They’re STILL mad about it and STILL think Belichick was wrong. SMH.

          9. Great points Tony C. Anytime I hear a BB v Parcells conversation on the radio it always circles back to the “coaching tree” and that Parcells has to be a better coach because he hired Coughlin and Belichick and somehow he made them better.

            First thing, Coughlin and Belichick are who they are because they wanted to be and worked at it. Not saying they didn’t learn anything from Parcells. I think either of those guys could have worked under the worst coach in the league and would have come out to be the same as they are now. It’s an insult to them to say they became who they were because of Parcells.

            Second thing is if Parcells had better coaches under him then doesn’t that automatically mean Belichick is a better coach because he hasn’t hired anyone who turned out to be great? He is doing it all by himself?

            Parcells is a good coach. No doubt about it. I just think he gets way too much credit around here by those in the media who were around when he was here.

    1. Think of those deals as like Halley’s Comet, so every ~75 years–and, not just for the Sox.

      Equate that lifesaving dump to what Danny did Summer of 2007.

      Red Sox would have been put back 5-8 years if Ned Colletti wasn’t dumb.

      It is less probable than not that some GM will bail them out this time. Who knows. There are always way more stupid GMs than smart ones.

  7. Can’t say that most modern publications–and, really mainstream media outlets–aren’t a PR firm for whatever their ideology/ownership is. Look at its angles on Sox vs. Pats. Olympics, etc (all which benefit Henry/FSG.)

Comments are closed.