Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Terry Francona finally fires back at Boston Red Sox owners - ESPN Boston

Tito bites back.

Jim Furtado Posted: January 16, 2013 at 07:57 AM | 61 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. NJ in DC (Now unemployed!) Posted: January 16, 2013 at 08:33 AM (#4347985)
The book stated the marketing report said: "(W)omen are definitely more drawn to the 'soap opera' and 'reality-TV' aspects of the game ... They are interested in good-looking stars and sex symbols," parenthetically citing All-Star second baseman Dustin Pedroia as an example of the latter.


Uh...
   2. OCD SS Posted: January 16, 2013 at 09:20 AM (#4347995)
The Pedroia reference is awesome.

I think that's pretty clearly Tito giving joking around and giving Pedroia a little bit of business, which just continues the trash talking from when they were playing cribbage before games.
   3. villageidiom Posted: January 16, 2013 at 09:22 AM (#4347997)
...I don't think they love baseball. I think they like baseball. It's revenue, and I know that's their right and their interest because they're owners -- and they're good owners. But they don't love the game. It's still more of a toy or a hobby for them. It's not their blood. They're going to come in and out of baseball. It's different for me. Baseball is my life.
Ooooh, burn. They're "good owners".

The distinction Francona makes above is, to me, a fair assessment. It won't be spun that way, for sure.
   4. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: January 16, 2013 at 09:29 AM (#4347999)
Terry Francona finally fires back at Boston Red Sox owners - ESPN Boston

I find myself suddenly anti gun-control.
   5. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 16, 2013 at 09:33 AM (#4348000)
Watch the comically diligent Red Sox media management team / comically indulgent Boston press in action:
As for chairman Tom Werner, the book describes how the manager nearly walked out of a lunch meeting he had with the owners in 2010 when, according to the excerpt, "Werner talked about slumping television ratings and whined, 'We need to start winning in more exciting fashion.'

"Francona started to get up out of his chair, but Epstein grabbed his knee. 'A good move by Theo,' Francona said later. 'When Tom started talking about ratings, Theo knew I was getting ready to flare.'"

Francona admits he may have been primed to react "aggressively" at that meeting. A person with knowledge of Werner's comment said Tuesday that Werner was laughing when he said it, and the parties present, with the possible exception of Francona, understood it to be a joke.
This was a lunch meeting with ownership! The only people who could be sources here are the owners or Theo. The source is obviously entirely self-serving, and there is zero utility to giving him anonymity. (Even if it's Theo, which seems unlikely, there's still nothing gained from the anonymity.)

I don't know if it's funnier that the Red Sox have a rapid response team in place to release counter-intelligence directly from ownership to rebut an at most mildly embarrassing non-story within 24 hours, or that Gordon Edes thought this rapid response rebuttal was so journalistically valuable that it entitled his source to anonymity.
   6. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 16, 2013 at 09:33 AM (#4348001)
Don't be afraid to use your nails, boys!
   7. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 16, 2013 at 09:42 AM (#4348004)
This was a lunch meeting with ownership! The only people who could be sources here are the owners or Theo.


Maybe it was the caterer.
   8. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 16, 2013 at 09:43 AM (#4348005)
How many owners truly love the game and don't view it as a hobby? Ryan I guess, but other than that...?

I think the Yawkeys were probably pretty passionate about it and I'll take Henry and friends over them any day. If this is the big "diss" or whatever the right term is then this book isn't exactly going to be shocking in its revelations (which is what I would expect from Tito).

This was a lunch meeting with ownership! The only people who could be sources here are the owners or Theo.


You are probably right but that assumes it is a first hand comment. The source could be someone who heard the story from Werner or someone else at the meeting. "Hey, Tom told me that Tito seemed upset over his joke about..." But yeah, it's probably Werner.
   9. depletion Posted: January 16, 2013 at 09:44 AM (#4348006)
But they don't love the game. It's still more of a toy or a hobby for them. It's not their blood. They're going to come in and out of baseball.

I'm sure that, more than a toy or a hobby, it's a source of income for them. It isn't a charity or a non-profit. They may love baseball, but they love money even more. This is true of pretty much every single entity I've worked for, anyway.
The book contends that Epstein was responding "to the pressure from his bosses and the sagging ratings" when he traded for Adrian Gonzalez and signed free agent Carl Crawford, eventually signing the pair for a combined total of 14 years and $296 million.

Were these two trades defensible, at the time, for baseball reasons?
   10. veer bender Posted: January 16, 2013 at 09:54 AM (#4348010)
Were these two trades defensible, at the time, for baseball reasons?


Absolutely defensible. Crawford (FA, not trade fwiw) was shakier, relying on a belief that advanced defensive stats are truly predictive to make it a really good contract, but on the flip side, he was not a very "sexy" signing either (all-around talent instead of big HR numbers, not especially talkative with the media).

I think it's safe to say both were primarily baseball moves, at least as much as the average big trade/FA.
   11. villageidiom Posted: January 16, 2013 at 10:01 AM (#4348012)
But Lackey, he was acquired for sex appeal.
   12. veer bender Posted: January 16, 2013 at 10:10 AM (#4348016)
Aside from being the least sexually appealing person on earth, I think the argument for metaphorical sex appeal is the strongest with Lackey. 1) It did seem like the worst of the 3 moves on the baseball merits, and 2) Lackey probably had the most (or maybe tied with Crawford) name recognition with casual fans due to being a long-time successful SP for a regular rival. I think (tickets sold) / (annual salary) was probably greater with Lackey than the other two.
   13. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 16, 2013 at 10:14 AM (#4348021)
But Lackey, he was acquired for sex appeal.

Absolutely. Those growths on Lackey's face are all pleasure points.
   14. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 16, 2013 at 10:15 AM (#4348022)
I think the argument for metaphorical sex appeal is the strongest with Lackey.


I would argue that it was strongest with Crawford. The sexy thing to do in the 2009/2010 off-season would have been to sign Holliday. Big slugging outfielder to fit into the left field tradition at Fenway, known to Sox fans from the '07 World Series, I think that would have been the easy one.

Crawford is the sexy pick. He may not be media friendly but he's a flashy player of the type the Sox have rarely had, he fit the team's needs less than Lackey and Gonzalez and was the one of the three with the biggest difference between perceived value and actual value among fans.

Entirely anecdotal but from the friends and family I talked to there was MUCH more enthusiasm for the Crawford move than there was for Lackey.
   15. philly Posted: January 16, 2013 at 10:22 AM (#4348025)
I'm going to fool you into believing that I wrote the Sox 100k market survey by using the word synergy...

The other thing about the Crawford signing is that in combination with the Gonzalez signing it created the story that the Sox won the winter and had assembled a Dream Team of sorts. I don't think either Gonzalez (too low a profile in SD) or Crawford (TB profile, speed and defense based valuation) were tremendously sexy signings by themselves.

But pair them together and clearly the Sox were back in business, baby!

And damnit, I never did use the actual word synergy. No wonder I can't get my feet in the door at a marketing company...
   16. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 16, 2013 at 10:23 AM (#4348026)
Don't badmouth synergy.
   17. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 16, 2013 at 10:24 AM (#4348027)
And damnit, I never did use the actual word synergy. No wonder I can't get my feet in the door at a marketing company...

But you increased your brand recognition across all demographic sectors!
   18. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 16, 2013 at 10:27 AM (#4348029)
At first read, Epstein offers one of the most damning indictments of the owners' priorities in the excerpt, although the consultants -- and this meeting was a first, and last, of its kind for the GM in his tenure in Boston -- are clearly the target for much of his scorn

"They told us we didn't have any marketable players, that we needed some sizzle," he recalled. "We need some sexy guys. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. This is like an absurdist comedy. We'd become too big. It was the farthest thing removed from what we set out to be."


i have mocked consultants regularly but my background has been with finance/operational people who are highly prone to apply approaches that have worked elsewhere into every circumstance ignoring obvious contextual differences

i find this version hard to believe. at a superficial level it makes for a good read but i struggle to believe there is any semi-competent consultant who would make such an outlandish recommendation to a professional sports team like the red sox.

i understand if folks are going to point to my first paragraph to challenge my statement in paragraph 2.

still not buying what theo is selling here.

but i will accept being corrected by others
   19. Famous Original Joe C Posted: January 16, 2013 at 10:33 AM (#4348033)
I wish *literally* anyone else had written this book. I refuse to buy it on principle and frankly would feel dirty reading it.
   20. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 16, 2013 at 10:36 AM (#4348036)
i have mocked consultants regularly but my background has been with finance/operational people who are highly prone to apply approaches that have worked elsewhere into every circumstance ignoring obvious contextual differences

i find this version hard to believe. at a superficial level it makes for a good read but i struggle to believe there is any semi-competent consultant who would make such an outlandish recommendation to a professional sports team like the red sox.
The big 2010 marketing survey is not news. This has been previously reported in a number of places. So Red Sox ownership was already committed to the notion that improving ratings and ticket sales and market whateverness required more than just winning ballgames. So the heart of the story is entirely believable based on what we already knew.

Now, is this report of Theo's comment surely his letting off steam and overstating the rift between himself and ownership? Sure. Does Tom Werner understand that winning brings butts to the seats and eyes to the screen? Sure. But there's a lot of wiggle room between a driving focus on building a winning ballclub and a recognition that a winning ballclub is an important piece of the puzzle. Epstein seems to be at point (a), with much of ownership and their marketing team closer to (b).
   21. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 16, 2013 at 10:37 AM (#4348038)
I wish *literally* anyone else had written this book. I refuse to buy it on principle and frankly would feel dirty reading it.
Same. I really like Tito, and this book's mere existence makes me like him less. I figure all the juicy stuff will be in the excerpts, and I'll fly through the non-juicy bits at a library at some point.
   22. Nasty Nate Posted: January 16, 2013 at 10:49 AM (#4348050)
I'm a big fan of Francona, but I really wish he had chosen a different co-author.

I kind of want to hear what Schilling thinks about Francona and Shaughnessy collaborating. (probably the first sentence ever that began with "I kind of want to hear what Schilling thinks...")
   23. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 16, 2013 at 10:53 AM (#4348055)
I kind of want to hear what Schilling thinks

Schilling? Bah. I want to hear what Carl Everett thinks!
   24. bob gee Posted: January 16, 2013 at 10:56 AM (#4348057)
#19 - surprised that hadn't been mentioned before. can't support CHB or anything he does.
   25. Tom Nawrocki Posted: January 16, 2013 at 10:56 AM (#4348059)
"They told us we didn't have any marketable players, that we needed some sizzle," he recalled.


What strikes me about this is not just that it's silly to acquire players for their marketability, but that the Red Sox of that era had about as many recognizable personalities as any team in baseball. Ortiz, Pedroia, Papelbon... you can't market these guys? Youkilis is kind of disgusting, but certainly has his share of sizzle. Jacoby Ellsbury had a lot of promise. You've got the grizzled old captain, Jason Varitek.

If those aren't marketable players, then the only marketable player is Ichiro.
   26. Nasty Nate Posted: January 16, 2013 at 10:56 AM (#4348060)
I want to hear what Carl Everett thinks!


Well, this is true of all topics.

Sadly, Everett's time in Boston did not overlap with Francona's or this ownership group's.
   27. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 16, 2013 at 10:59 AM (#4348062)
Sadly, Everett's time in Boston did not overlap with Francona's or this ownership group's.

But it overlaps with CHB's!
   28. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 16, 2013 at 11:12 AM (#4348078)
(probably the first sentence ever that began with "I kind of want to hear what Schilling thinks...")
I thought Schilling was reasonably close to excellent as a commentator during the playoffs. He really, really loves baseball, he knows a ridiculous amount about pitching, and he's much better at communicating that knowledge than the average ballplayer. I figure that if Schilling became a professional commentator - which seems more likely if he's legit broke now - there will be a three to five year period of excellence followed by a speedy decline into ludicrously self-involved and schticky.
   29. villageidiom Posted: January 16, 2013 at 11:18 AM (#4348085)
If those aren't marketable players, then the only marketable player is Ichiro.
Ichiro could win in a more exciting fashion, if he wanted to.
   30. JJ1986 Posted: January 16, 2013 at 11:24 AM (#4348087)
If signing Lackey and Crawford were done to add "sexy" players, then those moves were even more poorly calculated than if they were done to add good players.

I don't get why Theo is trying to pass off the credit for the Gonzalez acquisition. That ended up working out for the team.
   31. baudib Posted: January 16, 2013 at 11:25 AM (#4348088)
Just echoing what others have said..hard to believe Red Sox ownership or any consultant worth his salt (not many of those) would fail to recognize that the Red Sox brand is worth far more than the marketability of any single player.
   32. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 16, 2013 at 11:27 AM (#4348091)
I don't get why Theo is trying to pass off the credit for the Gonzalez acquisition. That ended up working out for the team.
He isn't, or at least, we don't know that he is. The quote from Theo is un-dated, and it sounds more like what Theo felt in the direct aftermath of a bad meeting than like a later attempt to throw blame for bad decisions made after the meeting.
   33. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 16, 2013 at 11:28 AM (#4348092)
matt

i get that the team had a big marketing initiative

it's the stuff above where the recommendation came to 'get more s8xy players'.

as much as i loathe consultants i struggle to believe anyone but a complete dimwit would put anything like that on a powerpoint.

but hey, maybe so. in which case shame on sox management for hiring doofuses
   34. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: January 16, 2013 at 11:41 AM (#4348105)
But Lackey, he was acquired for sex appeal.

Horse-people are the new market inefficiency. It's a completely untapped market. Why else do you think the Yankees gave ARod 300m?
   35. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: January 16, 2013 at 11:53 AM (#4348116)
   36. Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio Posted: January 16, 2013 at 11:57 AM (#4348119)
I can't wait until Manny Ramirez finally releases his long-awaited book. Along with it's accompanying box of Crayola crayons.
   37. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: January 16, 2013 at 12:01 PM (#4348124)
I wish that last picture had been Madeleine Albright.
   38. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 16, 2013 at 12:01 PM (#4348125)
A Manny Ramirez coloring book would be kind of great. I imagine I'd wear the brown crayon out, though...
   39. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 16, 2013 at 12:04 PM (#4348127)
I wish that last picture had been Madeleine Albright.

If you click a link that mentions horses and sex appeal, you get what you deserve. In fact, I'd argue you WANTED it! Pervert.
   40. Depressoteric Posted: January 16, 2013 at 12:29 PM (#4348149)
If you click a link that mentions horses and sex appeal, you get what you deserve. In fact, I'd argue you WANTED it! Pervert.
I clicked.

I deserve my punishment.
   41. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: January 16, 2013 at 12:39 PM (#4348160)
I also clicked... aaaand it's not even the first time I have seen that picture.
   42. villageidiom Posted: January 16, 2013 at 12:44 PM (#4348164)
but hey, maybe so. in which case shame on sox management for hiring doofuses
As I said in another thread, I am shocked, shocked that a marketing research consultant would say, essentially, "Marketing jobs would be easier if you signed players who were more marketable."

They passed along a lot of other interesting and useful information, I'm sure. And hearing it only from the angle of disgruntled former employees, I think the highlights of the meeting will tend toward the doofus stuff, or at least be spun that way. But I don't doubt a significant part of their message could indeed be summarized as, "Marketable players are more marketable."
   43. Cblau Posted: January 16, 2013 at 12:57 PM (#4348174)
Tito bites back.

It's not Tito, it's his son, Terry.
   44. morineko Posted: January 16, 2013 at 12:58 PM (#4348175)
Marketing jobs are also easier if the marketable players don't get injured at the beginning of the season. No matter how marketable you think Lackey and Crawford may be, they don't do anything for your preplanned campaign if they can't get on the field.

This is brought to you by the 2012-13 Minnesota Timberwolves advertisements, of which it is too late to change to "See Andrei Kirilenko play >30 minutes a game, if he's not out of the lineup due to temporary injury."
   45. Dale Sams Posted: January 16, 2013 at 01:20 PM (#4348199)
Well, hopefully...like "The Yankee years"...the book is really more about "What a manager of a baseball team actually does" than 400 pages of mud-flinging. I've been waiting for this book for seven years damnit!
   46. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 16, 2013 at 01:21 PM (#4348202)
It's not Tito, it's his son, Terry.
Who, for reasons that have remained obscure, also goes by "Tito".
   47. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: January 16, 2013 at 01:31 PM (#4348221)
Maybe I'm wrong on this, but with baseball players, 'marketable' and 'good' tend to correlate pretty strongly, no? I suppose rookie players might be less marketable at first, but it seems like homegrown players are ultimately more marketable than journeyman free agents.
   48. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: January 16, 2013 at 01:40 PM (#4348234)
Maybe I'm wrong on this, but with baseball players, 'marketable' and 'good' tend to correlate pretty strongly, no?

Not always. Eric Byrnes sucked but he was very popular in Arizona, and I'm sure marketing was a key reason reason they gave him 3/30. He may be an exception and not the rule, though. I'm trying to think of other players who were not very good but were popular anyway. David Eckstein?
   49. Ron J2 Posted: January 16, 2013 at 01:51 PM (#4348251)
#28 As I've mentioned before, a friend of mine heard Joe Morgan at the start of his broadcasting career and was very impressed (and he's not easily impressed)
   50. Flynn Posted: January 16, 2013 at 02:18 PM (#4348281)
Hell, Tim McCarver was excellent in the 80s. Enthusiastic and knowledgeable. It's very hard to be a good analyst for years in baseball. Jerry Remy's fallen off a cliff to me (he sounds bored more often than not) and Mike Krukow, while still totally in love with the game and paired with a good play by play man who is his best friend, has become increasingly schticky in the past few years.

I do think having the right kind of play by play man is very important, I don't think McCarver would be as bad if Joe Buck wasn't a cipher with vocal cords.
   51. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: January 16, 2013 at 02:30 PM (#4348299)
Not always. Eric Byrnes sucked but he was very popular in Arizona, and I'm sure marketing was a key reason reason they gave him 3/30. He may be an exception and not the rule, though. I'm trying to think of other players who were not very good but were popular anyway. David Eckstein?

This happens a lot with position players but almost never with pitchers, seems to me.
   52. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 16, 2013 at 02:36 PM (#4348308)
It's tough for a pitcher to be "gritty" without being successful. An outfielder can go crashing into the wall face first and even if he doesn't catch the ball the effort will be appreciated. The only comp for a pitcher is a guy who gets good run support and gets a lot of wins despite a high ERA. I would say those guys do get disproportionately liked but they are rarer than the Byrnes/Trot Nixon/Eckstein types largely because it's out of their control.
   53. Jim (jimmuscomp) Posted: January 16, 2013 at 02:37 PM (#4348309)
I'm trying to think of other players who were not very good but were popular anyway. David Eckstein?


Darin Erstad fits this profile. He was good with the glove, but couldn't hit a lick, sans 2000.
   54. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: January 16, 2013 at 03:08 PM (#4348335)
It's tough for a pitcher to be "gritty" without being successful.

Pitchers (starters, anyway) also only play every 5th game or so. A starting offensive player has nine innings every single game to endear himself to the audience.
   55. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: January 16, 2013 at 03:12 PM (#4348339)
The only people who could be sources here are the owners or Theo.


This reminds me of when I read Woodward & Bernstein's The Final Days. They were protecting their WH sources, but there were scenes in which the source could either be (A) Richard Nixon or (B) the only other guy in the room (often Kissinger). I have grave doubts about Nixon's being forthcoming with reporters . . . who is being protected here, if it's obvious that your "unnamed" source is Dr Kissinger?
   56. 'Spos lost the handle trying to make the transfer Posted: January 16, 2013 at 03:24 PM (#4348346)
"...when an anonymous club source told The Boston Globe that Francona appeared distracted during the season," Shaughnessy writes in the excerpt. "It was actually the opposite. Coping with a dissolving marriage, a son in Afghanistan, and severe pain and insomnia, Francona sought refuge at the ballpark and went to work earlier than in any of his previous years in Boston."


Sportswriter, not logician.
   57. bobm Posted: January 16, 2013 at 03:45 PM (#4348359)
It's tough for a pitcher to be "gritty" without being successful. An outfielder can go crashing into the wall face first and even if he doesn't catch the ball the effort will be appreciated. The only comp for a pitcher is a guy who gets good run support and gets a lot of wins despite a high ERA. I would say those guys do get disproportionately liked but they are rarer than the Byrnes/Trot Nixon/Eckstein types largely because it's out of their control.


There's your Jack Morris HoF plaque.
   58. Walt Davis Posted: January 16, 2013 at 04:38 PM (#4348395)
Maybe I'm wrong on this, but with baseball players, 'marketable' and 'good' tend to correlate pretty strongly, no?

Jeff Francoeur says hi.

On pitchers, the key is to be quirky or have a cool motion -- Willis, Fernando, El Duque, Fidrych, Fingers with the mustache, the Mad Hungarian, Bill Lee. But, still, pitchers are on a short quality leash.
   59. beer on a stick Posted: January 16, 2013 at 10:54 PM (#4348654)
How many owners truly love the game and don't view it as a hobby? Ryan I guess, but other than that...?


Mike Ilitch played minor league ball, long before he dreamt up Little Ceasars.
   60. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: January 16, 2013 at 11:09 PM (#4348665)
Jeff Francoeur says hi.

Not sure if he's the best example; his marketability is enhanced by his heart/grittiness/nickname/etc..., but all that rests on a pretty damn impressive slash line his first (half) season, followed by some XBH's and (IIRC) gritty fielding in a nationally televised playoff series. That he's stayed more marketable than most ballplayers despite performing worse than most of them does lend itself to your point (and probably reflects his willingness to market/whore himself, as well as the heart/grittiness etc...), but it's not liked he was terrible when he got anointed.
   61. base ball chick Posted: January 16, 2013 at 11:55 PM (#4348706)
35. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: January 16, 2013 at 11:53 AM (#4348116)
Speaking of ARod, horses, and sex appeal...


neigh, neigh

no sex appeal - at least not to straight females

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BDC
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogDmitri Young explains his amazing weight loss
(25 - 4:28pm, Jul 28)
Last: Eddo

NewsblogTigers Display Focus on 2014; acquire Joakim Soria
(10 - 4:22pm, Jul 28)
Last: Willie Mayspedes

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-28
(19 - 4:21pm, Jul 28)
Last: Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3384 - 4:17pm, Jul 28)
Last: Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora

NewsblogO'Connor: Tulo looks more A-Rod than Jeter
(26 - 4:16pm, Jul 28)
Last: puck

NewsblogFull Count ยป Mike Carp explains why he requested a trade from Red Sox
(32 - 4:09pm, Jul 28)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogSchoenfield: Why didn't the Braves win more titles?
(84 - 4:03pm, Jul 28)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogDeadspin: David Ortiz Pissed Off the Rays Again
(47 - 4:02pm, Jul 28)
Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit

NewsblogRoger Angell goes into the Hall of Fame
(29 - 3:53pm, Jul 28)
Last: Flynn

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(457 - 3:44pm, Jul 28)
Last: Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!

NewsblogHall of Fame Announces Changes to Voting Process for Recently Retired Players, Effective Immediately
(92 - 3:37pm, Jul 28)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

Newsblog2014 Prospect Watch | MLB.com: UPDATED
(7 - 3:36pm, Jul 28)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogSickels: George McClellan, Dayton Moore, and the Kansas City Royals
(627 - 3:33pm, Jul 28)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(983 - 3:32pm, Jul 28)
Last: Manny Coon

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-28-2014
(40 - 3:32pm, Jul 28)
Last: Batman

Page rendered in 0.4487 seconds
52 querie(s) executed