BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: ESPN Boston: Healthy Youkilis talks Bobby V, ‘witch hunt’

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, January 27, 2012

ESPN Boston: Healthy Youkilis talks Bobby V, ‘witch hunt’

Council of Papelbon: Death to all witch-hunters!

He said on Thursday he was surprised by some of the stories that came out and called it a “witch hunt.”

“We’re a team and we lose as a team and we all failed,” Youkilis said. “There wasn’t one player that didn’t fail because we lost. We all failed. We’re going to make a difference this year and that difference is going to be winning. We’re going to go out there and win and hopefully start out winning a lot earlier this year. Last year was a little tough at the beginning.”

A major talking point and concern was the notion the clubhouse culture ultimately led to the team’s debacle in September, in which the Sox missed the postseason for the second consecutive season.

“I definitely didn’t think we had the best vibe in the clubhouse,” he said. “It was very different. It was noticeable early, but when you win, winning heals all the wounds. We definitely didn’t have the right attitude in a lot of ways, but when you’re winning, and everyone always refers to, and I didn’t live through that era, but with the Oakland A’s and things weren’t always right but they went out there and played the game.

“Sometimes it snowballed out of control where we were worrying about things we shouldn’t have been worrying about and not playing the game of baseball.

Repoz Posted: January 27, 2012 at 06:35 AM | 29 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: red sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. boteman Posted: January 27, 2012 at 07:22 AM (#4046994)

I think it's fair to say that Jacoby Ellsbury most certainly did not fail during that stretch of futility. It might even be fair to say that he was almost single-handedly responsible for them winning those two measly games during that stretch.

2. villageidiom Posted: January 27, 2012 at 10:05 AM (#4047046)

I think it's fair to say that Jacoby Ellsbury most certainly did not fail during that stretch of futility. It might even be fair to say that he was almost single-handedly responsible for them winning those two measly games during that stretch.

But he didn't win three.

3. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 27, 2012 at 10:18 AM (#4047054)

“I definitely didn’t think we had the best vibe in the clubhouse,” he said. “It was very different. It was noticeable early, but when you win, winning heals all the wounds. We definitely didn’t have the right attitude in a lot of ways

So, it's really not a "witch hunt", b/c there was a problem?

I mean, if there actually were witches, the term "witch hunt" wouldn't be a perjorative.

4. Moneyball can't buy you love (Joey B.) Posted: January 27, 2012 at 10:28 AM (#4047064)

Are they STILL looking around for scapegoats in Boston?

5. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 27, 2012 at 10:31 AM (#4047069)

Are they STILL looking around for scapegoats in Boston?

Yes. It's a lot cheaper than improving the team.

6. villageidiom Posted: January 27, 2012 at 10:49 AM (#4047091)

So, it's really not a "witch hunt", b/c there was a problem?

A witch hunt has general disregard for whether the target is actually a witch. Its sole regard is to identify a target and condemn him or her. IOW it's the nature of the pursuit, not the nature of the target, that makes it a witch hunt.

Youk is saying they had problems, and that there was a witch hunt. IMO he's correct on both counts.

7. villageidiom Posted: January 27, 2012 at 10:50 AM (#4047094)

Are they STILL looking around for scapegoats in Boston?

No, they've moved on to looking around for reasons why this team will be lucky to win as many as 70 games.

8. zack Posted: January 27, 2012 at 11:03 AM (#4047113)

Only Boston could turn on a team with two titles in the last 8 years that quickly.

9. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 27, 2012 at 11:07 AM (#4047122)

A witch hunt has general disregard for whether the target is actually a witch. Its sole regard is to identify a target and condemn him or her. IOW it's the nature of the pursuit, not the nature of the target, that makes it a witch hunt.

I though "witch hunt" presupposed no actual witches.

i.e., the people who originally branded McCarthyism a "witch hunt" said there were no Communists in the gov't (even though there were - Truman purged hundreds of them before McCarthy even got started). Those people refused to accept the guilt of Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs for decadesm, until the Venona decrypts proved it beyond a doubt.

Likewise, the pre-school sex abuse cases in Mass. were a witch hunt, b/c the claims were fabricated and preposterous on their face.

10. Nasty Nate Posted: January 27, 2012 at 11:42 AM (#4047173)

Are they STILL looking around for scapegoats in Boston?

Yes. It's a lot cheaper than improving the team.

11. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 27, 2012 at 11:50 AM (#4047187)

Do you think Cherington and Henry are right now actively trying to dig up blame for the 2011 season, or do you think jaded fans and writers are the people who spend money on player payroll? Which is it? I know the 2011 Sox team is ripe for mocking, and time is running short before the new season starts, but get some better material.

I think it's both.

Cherington certainly has an interest in painting the team as groslly disfunctional, so that if it takes him a couple of years to right the ship, he can deflect blame to Theo and Tito.

And the press always loves a good controversy.

12. Nasty Nate Posted: January 27, 2012 at 11:56 AM (#4047199)

Cherington certainly has an interest in painting the team as groslly disfunctional

but you really think he's actively doing that now? How exactly is he looking for scapegoats still? Do you you understand that Joe Macdonald of ESPN asking Youkilis questions at a fundraiser isn't really Cherington in disguise? Did you forget that during this offseason he has interviewed and hired a whole new coaching staff, made 3 trades, and some signings or are you under the impression he has been sitting in a dark office making sinister public relations strategies the whole time? I suggest you either go smoke the objective pipe or make your Sox-baiting funnier.

13. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 27, 2012 at 12:00 PM (#4047204)

but you really think he's actively doing that now? How exactly is he looking for scapegoats still? Do you you understand that Joe Macdonald of ESPN asking Youkilis questions at a fundraiser isn't really Cherington in disguise? I suggest you either go smoke the objective pipe or make your Sox-baiting funnier.\

Actively, no. But he, or Henry, or Lucchino, or Valentine have nothing to gain by defusing it, so the writers go on their merry way.

The worse the situation is portrayed by the media, the more rope Cherington and Valentine have, and the more credit they'll get if they actually fix it and make the playoffs.

14. JE

Posted: January 27, 2012 at 12:06 PM (#4047211)

i.e., the people who originally branded McCarthyism a "witch hunt" said there were no Communists in the gov't (even though there were - Truman purged hundreds of them before McCarthy even got started). Those people refused to accept the guilt of Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs for decadesm, until the Venona decrypts proved it beyond a doubt.

Oh yeah, this thread will flame out within the hour.

15. Dale Sams Posted: January 27, 2012 at 12:10 PM (#4047214)

I think it's fair to say that Jacoby Ellsbury most certainly did not fail during that stretch of futility. It might even be fair to say that he was almost single-handedly responsible for them winning those two measly games during that stretch.

and yet.

16. Nasty Nate Posted: January 27, 2012 at 12:10 PM (#4047215)

Actively, no. But he, or Henry, or Lucchino, or Valentine have nothing to gain by defusing it, so the writers go on their merry way.

Then your joke in #5 makes no sense. And of course they have something to gain by defusing it: they want a good atmosphere this year around the team and Lester/Youkilis/Beckett et al are still on the team. And for PR reasons they want 2012 to be the story, and for 2011 to be forgotten.

17. villageidiom Posted: January 27, 2012 at 12:44 PM (#4047277)

i.e., the people who originally branded McCarthyism a "witch hunt" said there were no Communists in the gov't (even though there were - Truman purged hundreds of them before McCarthy even got started). Those people refused to accept the guilt of Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs for decadesm, until the Venona decrypts proved it beyond a doubt.

Likewise, the pre-school sex abuse cases in Mass. were a witch hunt, b/c the claims were fabricated and preposterous on their face.

Again, "witch hunt" is about the nature of the pursuit, not the nature of the target. A witch hunt is not something for which the end defines (or justifies) the means.

McCarthyism was a witch hunt not because there were no Communists in the government, but rather that at some point McCarthy was more concerned with branding people as Communist than determining if they were actually Communist. (Not that Wikipedia is the be all and end all, but it defines "McCarthyism" as "the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence.") The sex abuse cases were identical in kind to this, except that McCarthy's premise was less false. The means of pursuit were very similar.

18. villageidiom Posted: January 27, 2012 at 12:58 PM (#4047298)

Actively, no. But he, or Henry, or Lucchino, or Valentine have nothing to gain by defusing it, so the writers go on their merry way.

Henry (and to a lesser extent Lucchino) addressed this earlier in the offseason. If they respond to everything people bring up, then they're feeding the monster and living in the past. But if they leave anything unaddressed, people allege that a lack of denial = a confirmation. So he essentially told everyone to grow up and move on.

Mostly, the writers have moved on. Unclear on whether they've grown up.

19. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 27, 2012 at 01:03 PM (#4047307)

Those people refused to accept the guilt of Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs for decadesm, until the Venona decrypts proved it beyond a doubt.

So they refused to accept the guilt of accused parties until adequate evidence of that guilt was provided? Those monsters!

20. Bob Evans Posted: January 27, 2012 at 04:50 PM (#4047612)

So they refused to accept the guilt of accused parties until adequate evidence of that guilt was provided?

What, the list McCarthy had in his hand wasn't good enough?

21. Squash Posted: January 27, 2012 at 05:19 PM (#4047652)

What, the list McCarthy had in his hand wasn't good enough?

Wasn't the list in his briefcase?

22. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 27, 2012 at 05:33 PM (#4047667)

So they refused to accept the guilt of accused parties until adequate evidence of that guilt was provided? Those monsters!

Sure, if you ignore all the actual evidence produced by Whitaker Chambers against Hiss, and by the prosecution against the Rosenbergs, which was proven 100% correct by Venona.

23. Something Other Posted: January 27, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4047688)

Oh God.

24. OCD SS Posted: January 27, 2012 at 10:02 PM (#4047883)

I think it's fair to say that Jacoby Ellsbury most certainly did not fail during that stretch of futility. It might even be fair to say that he was almost single-handedly responsible for them winning those two measly games during that stretch.

The problem is that Jacoby Ellsbury weighs the same as a duck, especially when Paplebon happened to be leaning on the other arm of the scale.

25. Crispix Attacks Posted: January 27, 2012 at 10:19 PM (#4047896)

Call me a pedant, but only a moron would spell "Whittaker Chambers" with one T. This begs the question, are you a moron? When did we stop caring about grammer and the meanings of words?

26. Bob Evans Posted: January 27, 2012 at 11:25 PM (#4047935)

Wasn't the list in his briefcase?

I thought the cliche was, "I have here in my hand a list..." But then that wasn't my time. Maybe Edmundo can fill us in.

27. Brian

Posted: January 28, 2012 at 12:51 AM (#4047991)

Pedant? I think ####### is more accurate. Really, calling someone a moron for a missing letter?

28. a bebop a rebop Posted: January 28, 2012 at 01:08 AM (#4047998)

This thread is too meta!

29. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: January 28, 2012 at 01:15 AM (#4048001)

I think ####### is more accurate. Really, calling someone a moron for a missing letter?

I think there's a # between # and #, you ########!

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Friday, January 27, 2012

ESPN Boston: Healthy Youkilis talks Bobby V, ‘witch hunt’

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics