If Wil Middlebrooks was struggling, it would be a lot easier to play Youkilis, even if Youkilis wasn't performing well. But Middlebrooks is now hitting .331/.368/.592, OPS+ of 155 in 152 PAs.

This doesn't make him Mike Schmidt (indeed, look at the first month or two of Shea Hillenbrand's career in 2001). He strikes out a lot, and he doesn't walk very much. But it is Middlebrooks' performance that is making this decision come to a head at least as much as Youkilis' lack of performance.

"Allowed to sit YOUKILIS?"

Youkilis wants to know why he's being singled out. Yea, the manager controls the lineup card, but "allowed to sit Youkilis?" Like he's some kind of special case. Makes him look like a self-serving prima donna.


This needs further media frenzy.

What about the other veteran who's hitting .259 .314 .392--can we sit him once in a while instead?

“I’m just trying to play the people I want to be in the lineup,” Valentine said. “I think that’s one of the things I’m allowed to do.”

Yes, the manager makes the lineup. But the actual question here is whether he was lying about informing Youk that he wasn't playing. It sounds from TFA like Valentine did not speak to Youk, but rather told a coach to do it, and then never checked back with that coach about the result. (Which would certainly imply that BV didn't care all that much about whether Youk got informed, or about what his reaction to it was.)

If BV started off saying "I don't have to tell anyone when they're not playing and I didn't this time", then well, that's showbiz. But that's not what happened here. When you say "I talked to him about this" and the response is "no, you didn't", "well, I didn't have to" is not an admirable counter-response.

Especially since I think Valentine came into this gig with a reputation for being rather two-faced, it would behoove him to be as straightforward as possible with his players and not play here's-what-I-MEANT-to-say with the media. (Given that he is 62 years old, has been doing this sort of thing his whole life and is dealing with a far more aggressive media than even the Mets had, I don't much like the odds of that change occurring.)

One can of course say that none of this matters because the manager doesn't matter and the players' opinion of the manager doesn't matter. In which case, they're wasting a lot of money on a manager...

“I’m just trying to play the people I want to be in the lineup,”

Yeah, I can see why he wouldn't want to be Youkilis.

EDIT: More Red Sox: MLB Twitter says Buchholz on DL with "gastrointestinal situation.". Sounds unpleasant.

this is why highly paid veterans get played over better cheaper less veteran players.

of course, if bobby v did NOT tell youk to his face that he was gonna be on the bench and middlebrooks was gonna be playing and that the team was gonna trade him to a team that would play him more as soon as they could - well, that sounds like business as usual for boston. this was, the media can portray youk as A Problem To The Chemistry Of The Team like they do with every other player who is traded/unsigned

I don't think Valentine ever claimed that he talked to Youkilis (although I also had gotten the impression that he had from what he said). What I think Valentine actually said was along the lines of "Youkilis understands why this is happening, he's not happy with it because he wants to play, but he understands." Nothing in that statement actually says that Valentin talked to Youkilis.

I'll try to find the actual quotation...

The stories I found all have "Valentine talked to Youkilis" as something the reporter says. The direct quotations of Valentine say nothing about his actually talking to Youkilis...

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/20161/youkilis-sits-middlebrooks-at-third

#8: You're right. But the first sentence of that article is:

Red Sox manager Bobby Valentine said he talked with veteran third baseman Kevin Youkilis on Friday about decreased playing time, and that Youkilis, while not happy about it, understands the decision.

If Valentine didn't in fact say he talked with Youkilis, that reporter needs to be fired.

I dunno, I think it's one of those things where people make incorrect (though understandable) assumptions and end up misunderstanding what the other person means. I can see something like this happening...

Reporter: You've been playing Middlebrooks a lot. Have you talked to Youkilis about having a reduced role?
Valentine: Youkilis understands his role. He's not happy, but he gets it.

The reporter might think that Valentine has said that he talked to Youkilis and is relaying Youkilis's reply. Valentine thinks he is saying that he doesn't think he needs to talk to him, but that he knows Youkilis is a professional who'll do what the manager wants. And the whole exchange gets misrepresented up until someone asks Youkilis, "Did Valentine talk to you?"

Apparently Robin Ventura is now the one who's allowed to bench Kevin Youkilis.

If something like that happens, you don't say "Valentine said he talked to him." You report what Valentine actually said.

A reporter's job is to gather and report facts, not make assumptions and report them as facts.

Some people are so good at answering a question that is different from the one the reporter asked that the reporter truly doesn't understand how to parse the answer. Valentine's exactly the kind of mouthy egotist who would think he can spin people around this way and often get away with it.

If something like that happens, you don't say "Valentine said he talked to him." You report what Valentine actually said.

A reporter's job is to gather and report facts, not make assumptions and report them as facts.

Right, not to mention that even if it comes from legitimately respecting the employee's professionalism, it's not a wise idea to just assume without checking that said employee is ok with a change in responsibility.