Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the 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.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Mike Webber Posted: November 26, 2005 at 05:22 PM (#1746990)
Has anyone else noticed how white this team is getting? That has to be a concern on a number of fronts.

I think it is only a concern if you think the club is passing over better Latin/African American/Asain candidates to hire Anglos.

Lowell is Puerto Rican - of Cuban descent, Mota is Dominican, Beckett is Texan, which if you believe their tourism ads is a whole other country.

Could this be a concern on the marketing front? Maybe, but with David Ortiz as the clubs most visable and most beloved player it seems unlikely that this is a concern in the short term.
   2. karlmagnus Posted: November 26, 2005 at 05:29 PM (#1746997)
Most beloved player is manny, not Ortiz. KEEP MANNY! THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE! With Beckett re-loading the pitching, and the young guns, this could be a decent team in '06, but only if they don't trade Manny.
   3. 1k5v3L Posted: November 26, 2005 at 05:33 PM (#1746999)
Arizona for ???

I really don't see it; AZ isn't moving Gonzo from LF, and the Dbacks and Sox match up really poorly in terms of personnel anyhow. The Sox now have no interest in Glaus (if they ever had any); and they'll probably want Tracy, whom the Dbacks want to keep. My guess is Manny stays.
   4. 1k5v3L Posted: November 26, 2005 at 06:05 PM (#1747026)
Next three years, no? Plus options for two more years after that?
   5. The Ghost of Archi Cianfrocco Posted: November 26, 2005 at 06:17 PM (#1747045)
As much as people still talk about Manny being gone I just don't see it. In my mind there were really only two teams who we could match up with - the Mets and Angels. The Mets have been throwing money around left and right and the best trading chip in their stack (Milledge) is being held back according to every story I've read. They Mets just don't have the need like they did before Delgado, making the value proposition weaker.

While Manny may want to play in California I never saw a good value for the Sox to make that trade. None of the proposals mentioned names that were young, talented and cheap enough to make it work. They've remained quiet and, if smart, will just ignore all this talk until the Sox beg them to take Manny and get the value THEY need to make the deal work.

What gets me the most is trying understanding how 'disruptive' Manny can be. I'm used to the Derek Bells, Sheffields and other loud-mouthed disruptive players who are in the media all the time. How disruptive can Manny, a normally quiet player, be? Can he be disruptive enough to stop Beckett and Schilling from being healthy? Can he really force Renteria to boot balls to his left and cause Varitek to make that flailing wave at an outside pitch when he's been guessing inside the whole AB? It seems more like he'd be Nick Esasky disruptive, which I can handle.

Much like Kevin said, it's a case of "we can't do it, it'd kill the team, so be happy... what do you want? Clemens' old chicken franchise? Mo's old table at the Foxy Lady? Play nice or we'll lock you in a room with a stable of talk radio hosts? We'll do it too!"
   6. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 26, 2005 at 06:32 PM (#1747057)
As David Ortiz would say, Manny ain't going to no Mets. Except this time that statement is going to be correct. The Delgado and Cameron deals make the Mets a bad fit and Manny has said that he doesn't want to go to New York.
   7. Nasty Nate Posted: November 26, 2005 at 06:35 PM (#1747059)
Most beloved player is manny, not Ortiz.


ha ha ha. thats a good one.
   8. Darren Posted: November 26, 2005 at 08:20 PM (#1747132)
Most beloved player is manny, not Ortiz.

Actually Dan Duquette trumps them both.
   9. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: November 26, 2005 at 09:11 PM (#1747188)
Most beloved player is manny, not Ortiz.

You're crazy.
   10. Mister High Standards Posted: November 26, 2005 at 09:35 PM (#1747215)
Most beloved player is manny, not Ortiz.

Thats a joke right. Forty percent of greater boston is praying for the day he is shipped out of town, rightly or wrongly. They are RIGHTFULLY tired of the diva act and his selfish playing style.
   11. HMS Moses Taylor Posted: November 26, 2005 at 09:52 PM (#1747234)
The Angels could get make a play for Manny later if they lose out on Konerko.
   12. robinred Posted: November 26, 2005 at 09:59 PM (#1747242)
"Has anyone else noticed how white this team is getting? That has to be a concern on a number of fronts."

The Red Sox aren't much whiter than most of MLB. I'd say the Red Sox pigmentation specifcally might concern Howard Bryant, but that's about it.

If the Red Sox really want to move Ramirez, the best shot, by far, would seem to be the Angels. I think Moreno would wet his pants at the prospect of having Ramirez in the 4-hole behind Guerrero and the Angels have appropriate bait in Kotchman. It would be a question of ither players and, of course, the money.

I am removed from the situation, but I find it hard to believe most Red Sox fans would be particularly bummed about losing Ramirez. I has always assumed Ortiz and Varitek were the most popular guys on the team.
   13. robinred Posted: November 26, 2005 at 09:59 PM (#1747243)
other
   14. Darren Posted: November 26, 2005 at 11:16 PM (#1747333)
The Red Sox aren't much whiter than most of MLB. I'd say the Red Sox pigmentation specifcally might concern Howard Bryant, but that's about it.
Context is important, though. This is a team that a few years ago would have people waving Dominican flags in the stands. It doesn't look like they're hurting for fans, but they may still be losing a certain segment. There's also the possibility that you might alienate a certain 'greatest clutch hitter ever' if all the other Hispanic players + Johnny Damon are shipped out of town.
   15. robinred Posted: November 26, 2005 at 11:19 PM (#1747336)
Context is important, though. This is a team that a few years ago would have people waving Dominican flags in the stands. It doesn't look like they're hurting for fans, but they may still be losing a certain segment. There's also the possibility that you might alienate a certain 'greatest clutch hitter ever' if all the other Hispanic players + Johnny Damon are shipped out of town.


Well, maybe, but it is hard to picture anything really damaging the Boston fan base. But you know more about it than I do.
   16. Toby Posted: November 27, 2005 at 03:15 AM (#1747641)
right now, the projected starting lineup includes:

a Venezuelan 1b, Petagine
a Puerto Rican 2b, Cora
a Puerto Rican (Cuban?) 3b, Lowell
a Colombian ss, Renteria
a Dominican lf, Ramirez
a ____ cf (if Damon returns, a half-Asian cf; if Roberts)
a Dominican dh, Ortiz

that's 6 (with Damon, 7) non-white everyday players out of 9 spots.

in other words, of the starting lineup, only Trot and Varitek are white, and those two each start only about 80% of the games.

Yes, the pitching staff is almost entirely white. But what's your point?
   17. Darren Posted: November 27, 2005 at 04:13 AM (#1747712)
The Red Sox first responisbility is to put the best team they can on the field.

I believe it's to make a profit. It's also important to undertsand that I'm not talking about what the Red Sox responsibility here is.

Toby,

My argument (if you want to call it that) assumes that Manny will be dealt. If not, the Sox will still have a decent amount of diversity. But I think listing out players and ethnicities misses the point (it's also laughable to think that Petagine is expected to start a 1b or that Lowell will be identified as Latino by fans). A couple years ago, Boston's most recognizable players were Nomar, Pedro, Manny, and perhaps Ortiz. Now, they're going to be Schilling, Beckett, and ??? (Varitek? Trot?). That, to me, certainly indicates a shift whiteward.

Yes, the pitching staff is almost entirely white. But what's your point?

Nothing too fancy. I only think that the team would want to appeal to as many demographics as possible. I also think that the team would want to have the reputation such that Latinos and other minority groups feel comfortable signing with the team, re-upping with the team, or choosing the team as a 16-year-old. I don't claim to have the answer to this, I just thought it would be an interesting topic for discussion.
   18. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 27, 2005 at 04:35 AM (#1747743)
I'm basically with Darren on the integration issue. The "face of the team" used to be more heavily Hispanic than it is now, and if Manny goes, it will be so significantly. (The Sox also traded their best young non-white players and kept their best young white players. This isn't an argument against the trade, but it is a statement of fact. And, as I'll argue, the Sox should be concerned about this.)

It's not just profit, I'd say, though that has to be a consideration. It's also a social good. I thought that what Dan Duquette worked to do, in opening Red Sox fandom to a wider swath of the population and changing the image of the Red Sox, was truly productive in Boston. I'll never forget running down Mass Ave, screaming and high-fiving people in a line of cars, all of them waving huge Dominican flags. Dan Duquette built the foundation for that experience, in more ways than one.

I can hear the "it's a business" response already. I completely agree it's a business. I'm not saying that John Henry should be held, by law or regulation, to ensure that the team presents a truly multicultural face to the community. I'm saying it's a good thing, an ethical thing, a productive thing if they do so, and thus they should.

I'll add, on the Manny front, that arguing who the most favoritest player on the team is, that just creates annoying arguments. It's probably Papi. But the idea that a huge percentage of the fanbase wants Manny gone, I'm very skeptical of that. There are a ton of #24 shirts out there, he gets cheered wildly at the games, and he has a lot of fans outside the Boston area.
   19. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 27, 2005 at 04:39 AM (#1747758)
I realize I said I'm "with Darren," and then started talking obliquely about responsibility, which he said he wasn't talking about. So, yeah, hope I didn't overstate that.

I'm not saying the Red Sox should avoid improving the team in order to keep Manny.

I'm saying that when they plan out the offseason, one item on the agenda, one thread running through the decision process, should be the maintenance of a truly multicultural roster. I generally have faith that's the case, I think.
   20. Dave Cyprian Posted: November 27, 2005 at 05:25 AM (#1747874)
Pedro is literally a top-flight Dominican national hero, essentially rivaled only by Sosa. One of my closest friends from college is Dominican, and he tells me fascinating stories about the unmitigated adulation Pedro receives there. He even said that a good number of Red Sox games had been available on broadcast television in the DR (man what I would have given up for that in Vermont, before i moved and got cable). Adressing Darren's point, when Pedro left, there was probably no escaping a drastic reduction of Dominican flags in the Fens.

At least we still have Mr. Ortiz, who my friend notes is a rising star in DR culture, but still far off from Mr. Martinez. I certainly hope Ortiz continues to thrive and enjoy the Sox because A) I love him, B) he is our best player who doesn't want out, C) from what I've learned from my friend, I honestly think there might be some credence to the idea that the Sox would have an easier time signing future Dominican stars as long as we retain one.

Anyway, are the Red Sox getting whiter? Subtly, yes. And to be honest I thought last winter that might have been a choice the FO was unconsciously making. The year before, Schilling and Theo quite obviously hit it off at the Thanksgiving Day fete. You could tell these men understood and trusted each other. In juxtaposition, the effort to resign Pedro was a disaster of leaks, miscommunication, and hurt feelings on both sides. I'm not accusing the FO of being racist; I do believe their ethnic culture ultimately influenced the decision making.

However, since then, the FO has brought in two prominent Colombian short-stops, and even gave one of them $40 million. Whether they did this with Darren's critique in the back of their minds or not is irrelevant. IMO, it absolves them of suspicion of an Anglo-bias.

Hey I hope this debate goes on... I've been wanting to talk about this for a while.
   21. The Artist Posted: November 27, 2005 at 08:49 AM (#1748036)
I see absolutely nothing "ethical" about passing over a good white player for a worse Dominican player, as post 21 seems to suggest. That's Jim Crow in reversal, and just as stupid. The Sox' responsibility is to put the best team on the field - not to meet some inane racial quota system or use it as a factor in player evaluation. I'm brown - I don't feel alienated by the Sox because they don't have Sachin Tendulkar on their team.
   22. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 27, 2005 at 02:25 PM (#1748187)
That's Jim Crow in reversal, and just as stupid.
I don't feel like having a really long debate in Sox Therapy, so feel free to get the last word in after this post. Or just email me.

But, no, no it isn't. That's the whole point. The reason a multicultural face matters is because race is still an issue in this country. Being white and being non-white are not two sides of the same coin - all these ethnic and racial identities in America have a history, and people who inhabit those identities inherit that history. A team chock full of white faces tells a different story and recalls a different history from a team roster that reflects and even magnifies the levels of differance in the US - and in the greater American culture.

The implication that one can even talk about "reverse Jim Crow" suggests that a reversal of history and a reversal of power relations has occured. That the discrimination against a white person somehow gives that white person claim to the history of discrimination and worse against blacks in this country; I find that claim untenable and frankly, dangerous. Actions only have meaning within their context and history, and in America, that means a history where discimination and violence against non-whites, and particularly against blacks, recalls and reenacts a long history of not only discrimination, but murder, rape, the worst kinds of violence. Mild discrimination against whites does no such thing, and though it certainly wouldn't fly in a utopian setting, in our current historical situation it can help create something good - the creation of visible symbols of our diversity - or more than symbols, in the case of affirmative action as practiced by the US Army, for example. (The armed forced produced some of the most influential amicus briefs in the recent U Michigan case.)

It seems you want to take the neoconservative line here and claim widely that we're living at the end of history. That belief (and I realize I'm stretching Fukuyama's phrase much further than he ever meant it - I still think the point stands) has been prominent in any historical period you can study. That our history no longer has a hold on us, and we should argue from a literally u-topian ethic. We're not unique in that belief, and we're not unique in being wrong.

I see also that you jumped to "inane racial quota" when I started talking about the importance of the maintenance of diversity. I'm not entirely sure when that word came to speak for an inarguable evil, but I think it's notable I never said it. I said it ought to be a part of the decision-making process, considering the final face of the team. Given some situations, that could result in quota-like outcomes, but it isn't the form of reasoning I espoused.

It also appears I'm a liar and I just stuck 95% of my arguments in one post and I'll derail the thread. I apologize for that, and I apologize to The Artist, because this isn't really fair Internet debating practice. But I'm doing it anyway, and, well, yeah.
   23. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 27, 2005 at 03:26 PM (#1748208)
I would be willing to wager that for every Dominican, there are at least 4 Chinese. So, by your standard, we should trade Manny for Hee Sop Choi. That would make a lot of sense.

That actually wouldn't make any sense because Hee Seop Choi is Korean.

ANyhoo... everytime I hear a "Manny trade", I ALWAYS hear the names "Finley" or "Erstad" which anger me greatly.

Here's a trade idea for you... this shoudl shore up the defense, replace Damon's spot in the #1 spot, and address the racism issue:

Manny and $$$ for ICHIRO!!!!

We can have Ichiro hit leadoff and place him in RF (our pitching staff will benefit greatly with Ichiro playing in the massiev RF at Fenway). We then move Trot to LF... Trot after surgery will be better in the field again, and replacing Manny's LF D with an average RF (That's what i"m projectin for post-surgery Trot) in LF should save the team a great deal of runs in LF too.

Anyhoo... that's just my thoughts. I'm sick of hearing "Finley" and "Erstad"
   24. Sexy Lizard Posted: November 27, 2005 at 04:51 PM (#1748243)
I think the race issue should be in the minds of the Red Sox FO, if only because of the team's poor history in the area and the continuing perception in many people of Boston as a not entirely color-blind town. The Sox, thanks to 2004, are a national brand, so the perceptions of people in East Podunk are relevant to the John Henry's bottom line. I don't know what this means in practice, certainly not quotas or anything like that. Maybe just keeping it in mind.

The idea that the FO has related better to its white stars (i.e., we all tend to get along with people more like ourselves, which is basic human nature) reminds me of something Howard Bryant said when I saw him speak at the BPL. He noted that Duquette's great ironic strength in this area, what led him to make a real positive break with certain aspects of the franchise's history, was his basic lack of people skills. He didn't interface well with anyone, meaning that he was about as unprejudiced as a person could be. So only a player's potential on-field contributions had any bearing on Duquette's decision-making, and hence an integrated team. Just one more piece of evidence that Dan Duquette is the Greatest Red Sox Man of All Time.
   25. Sexy Lizard Posted: November 27, 2005 at 05:04 PM (#1748248)
What gets me the most is trying understanding how 'disruptive' Manny can be.

I wanted to address this from way back in #7. Manny is sensitive and a little weird, sure, and will likely sulk his way out of some games over the course of the season, but I think that, to his credity, he doesn't have it in him to be a jackass. He won't pull an Operation Shutdown or anything like that. He'll miss some games in ways that will make CHB say stern things, he'll generate a few anonymous quotes from teammates, and he'll put up a 950+ OPS. And when the next Trade Manny crisis erupts in July we'll (gulp) wish Kevin Millar was still around. My impression is that his teammates generally like him, though, so he's not going to wreck a clubhouse or anything like that.

Last year when I went to games Manny looked really depressed in the field. I never knew it was possible to catch a fly ball in a depressed way, but Manny pulled it off.
   26. Toby Posted: November 27, 2005 at 07:17 PM (#1748372)
Darren,

The idea of Petagine as starting 1b is not as laughable as the idea that it can be remarked "how white this team is getting".

You say let's not make lists of the players' ethnicities, but then that's exactly what you do.

Personally, I would argue that if a team's 4 "face of the team" players were all Latino, the team could stand to be less Latino. You and Mikael seem to be lamenting the loss of the pan-Latino "face of the team".

Look, I think everyone would agree that what is important is that the team both BE and BE PERCEIVED AS being fair and inclusive. There are some who believe the best way to achieve this is to pay careful attention to demographics; there are others who believe the best way to achieve this is to act without regard to demographics. Put me in the camp that leans toward the latter while respecting the former. Simply put, I think it's the method that works in the long run.
   27. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: November 27, 2005 at 08:20 PM (#1748454)
I don't think many people here would argue that the FO should sign a certain number of non-white players and ignore good white players, but I agree with Toby that it's important that the team be perceived as being more that friendly, but desirous of non-white players. Who does it hurt to make an extra effort to be welcoming to non-white players? Boston as a city and as a team does not have the best reputation when it comes to racial diversity. I can see how non-white players might look at Boston's checkered racial history in general, and the Red Sox' racist history in particular and might not be that excited to play here. I think it's really in the FO's best interests to create a culture of welcoming and celebration of the team's non-white stars, if only so that those players are happier playing here and perhaps would take less money or wouldn't need to be overpaid to come here (i realize this is probably a pipe dream). I don't think it would hurt the teams' ability to sign white stars at all and it could only help in signing non-white players. If only from a crass financial point of view, I think some kind of soft affirmative action plan is a very good idea, not to mention the right thing to do. The Red Sox have a pretty shameful history in this regard, and it would be great to see them become a team that non-white players would take a discount to play on.
   28. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: November 27, 2005 at 08:44 PM (#1748472)
right now, the projected starting lineup includes:

a Venezuelan 1b, Petagine


Heh. Funny joke. That's not ever happening.

The FO should completely ignore race when it comes to player acquisition.
   29. chris p Posted: November 27, 2005 at 08:45 PM (#1748473)
another thing to consider ... seattle and anaheim (and to a lesser extent, both new york teams). you can overpay ichiro becuase the extra money you pay him is offset by money that you bring in becuase ichiro is on your team. having japanese stars (sign matsusaka, please!) on your team means maybe a japanese tv station will pick up your games. having pedro meant that latinos all over the world were red sox fans.
   30. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: November 27, 2005 at 08:46 PM (#1748475)
The Red Sox have a pretty shameful history in this regard,

When do you feel that this era ended? Under whose administration? I'm not being snarky, just curious. Do you think the treatment of Mo Vaughn as he was leaving town was 100% not racially motivated, as Mo himself thinks?

At what point did the Sox become a "win games with whatever race of player you need to win the games" organization? I think it's generally accepted that they were last to think like this in MLB, or at least close to last.
   31. chris p Posted: November 27, 2005 at 08:46 PM (#1748476)
<strike>a Venezuelan 1b, Petagine</strike>a Jewish Romanian (or is he a Greek God?) 1b, Youkilis
   32. chris p Posted: November 27, 2005 at 08:51 PM (#1748483)
When do you feel that this era ended? Under whose administration? I'm not being snarky, just curious. Do you think the treatment of Mo Vaughn as he was leaving town was 100% not racially motivated, as Mo himself thinks?

mo's wrong. they let mo go becuase he was a fat first basemen that was (just) past his prime that wanted a big pay day. duke brought in african americans (everett) and black latinos (pedro, offerman), and went nuts signing asian pitchers.
   33. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: November 27, 2005 at 08:55 PM (#1748488)
I'm waiting for my relief (famous for being quite late all the time). But I just wanted to toss this match:

If Lou Merloni were black, would he have continued to play for the Sox as long as he did?
   34. Toby Posted: November 27, 2005 at 09:31 PM (#1748531)
TVe,

I'm not really sure why you are trying to hard to play the race card against the Sox.

Clemens, Boggs, and Nomar (to name just a few) were run out of town worse than Mo.

The Dodgers (to single out the franchise many consider to have the "best" legacy with respect to racism) had Jackie Robinson, but then again they also had Al Campanis.

No franchise with any lengthy history comes into this with clean hands.
   35. Toby Posted: November 27, 2005 at 09:36 PM (#1748543)
The Duquette administration, it should be noted, also outbid the Yankees for Bernie Williams and outbid the Twins for Kirby Puckett, but in both cases the player decided to take less to stay put.
   36. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: November 27, 2005 at 09:39 PM (#1748549)
I'm not really sure why you are trying to hard to play the race card against the Sox.

I'm not. I'm playing devil's advocate, using examples that I can support. I have absolutely no idea whether the Sox (or my Yanks) are racially motivated, but I'm interested in the history of this.

And I think the Merloni question is a legitimate one.
   37. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: November 27, 2005 at 09:43 PM (#1748555)
No franchise with any lengthy history comes into this with clean hands.

I have no problem with this. But it seems to me that IF the Sox were unclean like this and then clean like this, there was some defining time, some era that can be pointed to, at which time this changed.
   38. Digit Posted: November 27, 2005 at 09:55 PM (#1748576)
Re:

If Lou Merloni were black, would he have continued to play for the Sox as long as he did?

I think it's more of a "Hometown boy from Boston, Massachusetts" thing than the color of his skin, really.
   39. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 27, 2005 at 10:18 PM (#1748631)
But it seems to me that IF the Sox were unclean like this and then clean like this, there was some defining time, some era that can be pointed to, at which time this changed.
I just have to disagree on this very basic level. History doesn't admit of such easy answers.

Dick O'Connell finally purged the worst racists from the front office in the late 60s and brought in a diverse mix of talent. But the Red Sox continued to treat their black stars (Rice, in particular) differently, and Haywood Sullivan's incompetence just exacerbated all this. Duquette made a big effort to change the Sox' image, but it's never perfect - racist tropes were certainly leveled against Mo when he left.

You seem to expect both a clear turning point rather than several, and to expect an essential purity at either end of the spectrum. You're just not going to find that.
I think it's more of a "Hometown boy from Boston, Massachusetts" thing than the color of his skin, really.
I highly doubt Merloni would be perceived as sharing a hometown in quite the same way if he were a black kid from Mattapan. I expect Manny Delcarmen, if he ever harnesses that curveball, will have his fans, but he won't be The Governor.
   40. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 27, 2005 at 10:22 PM (#1748640)
That last Vaughn line, I hope, isn't too wildly controversial. I certainly don't think Duquette made a mistake in letting Vaughn go. I mean, jeez, he fell apart when he left Boston.

I'm just saying that the portrait of a lusty, boozy irresponsible man - a black man in the throes of his appetites - that arose from the nexus of the Boston media and the Red Sox front office, played on some bad themes in popular culture.

And not that Mo didn't have those appetites, and in fact that his weight was a very good reason for letting him leave for Anaheim - just that his story is far more complicated than that.
   41. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: November 27, 2005 at 11:48 PM (#1748777)
I think this book hits on some of the race issues the Red Sox have faced. It's not the best book, but it's an ok read.
   42. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: November 28, 2005 at 12:42 AM (#1748821)
I just have to disagree on this very basic level. History doesn't admit of such easy answers.

Dick O'Connell finally purged the worst racists from the front office in the late 60s and brought in a diverse mix of talent. But the Red Sox continued to treat their black stars (Rice, in particular) differently, and Haywood Sullivan's incompetence just exacerbated all this. Duquette made a big effort to change the Sox' image, but it's never perfect - racist tropes were certainly leveled against Mo when he left.


After smacking down my question, you gave me exactly the kind of answer I wanted, Matt. I didn't know any of that, and wasn't familiar with Dick O'Connell at all.
   43. Darren Posted: November 28, 2005 at 02:40 AM (#1748988)
The idea of Petagine as starting 1b is not as laughable as the idea that it can be remarked "how white this team is getting".

Really? I think there's ample evidence that 'Petagine at 1B' is not at all in the FO's plans; at the same time, I think I made a reasonable case that the team is getting whiter, although that statement needed to be clarified. Please note, I didn't mean the 'laughable' comment as some sort of slam on you.

You say let's not make lists of the players' ethnicities, but then that's exactly what you do.

I thought I did the opposite. I conceded that a list of the team's players and their ethnicity would not reveal my point, so I tried to illustrate that the team's identity, as defined by its biggest, most recognizable stars, was skewing whiter. We can certainly argue over whether that's a big deal or not, but I think it's pretty clearly happened.

Overall, I tend toward Mikael's notion that this sort of thing should be considered somewhere in the process. It wouldn't hurt to consider Asian/southern/Canadian/Australian/etc. players in the same way.
   44. Darren Posted: November 28, 2005 at 02:59 AM (#1749000)
Interesting Heyman thread over on Primer main area. Minaya is still after Manny, but has to shed other payroll to get him. My guess is that Cliff Floyd would be in any deal and Milledge probably would not. Floyd would be a very, very nice shortterm replacement in LF.
   45. chris p Posted: November 28, 2005 at 03:05 AM (#1749006)
Floyd would be a very, very nice shortterm replacement in LF.

so would trot nixon. and then we could get a right fielder that could run down the ball in the gap like nixon used to.
   46. Toby Posted: November 28, 2005 at 03:05 AM (#1749009)
TVe,

Sorry to have misunderstood your intent. If you are looking for an actual watershed moment, I don't know what it would be. But an important symbolic watershed moment came when the Sox finally stopped accepting memberships to a certain white-only club in the Winter Haven area. I don't remember the name of the club or the exact date this occurred, but I think it was early 1990s.

Darren,

the only difference between my decision to list 6 and your decision to list 4 is, um, 6-4=2. And you started this topic by essentially bean-counting the people in this one particular trade: we are getting back more white guys than we are sending away, is the gist of what you are saying. And I don't think that's a useful sort of count to undertake. But no big deal; you and Mikael are welcome to be more sensitive about this than I am. I think there is room for all of us under the same tent.
   47. Toby Posted: November 28, 2005 at 03:07 AM (#1749012)
We had Floyd once and he hated being here. Or at least that's what I remember about it. Am I misremembering?
   48. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 28, 2005 at 03:08 AM (#1749013)
so would trot nixon. and then we could get a right fielder that could run down the ball in the gap like nixon used to.

Ichiro!!!!
   49. Darren Posted: November 28, 2005 at 05:08 AM (#1749115)
so would trot nixon. and then we could get a right fielder that could run down the ball in the gap like nixon used to.

And that would be....?

the only difference between my decision to list 6 and your decision to list 4 is, um, 6-4=2.

Do not try to confuse me with big numbers! Just to belabor this a bit, I still think you're missing my point if think this boils down to the number of players each of us chose. My list consists of the players I think were the face of the team. My point was that the players I listed, by virtue of their popularity (or stardom), came to define the team's identity in a more important way than what percentage of the team was actually Latino. i.e., Pedro and Cora are each one player, but one carries a heavier weight in defining his team. So I would say that the difference between our two approaches amounts to a lot more than "2."

We had Floyd once and he hated being here. Or at least that's what I remember about it. Am I misremembering?

As I recall it, a lot of fans were down on Floyd because he didn't hit that many HRs for Boston, or wasn't clutch or something. I think the animosity from Floyd's side came when he left and Boston offered him arbitration, which he thought was not genuine. My guess is that they offered him arb but told him that he would be playing 1B (which he hated) if he took it. That's just a guess though, and it bears noting that they reportedly offered him something like 3/24.
   50. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: November 28, 2005 at 01:34 PM (#1749513)
You mean as long as Darren Lewis?

Is this a fair comparison? My perception (and again, it could be mistaken) is that Lewis was at least known to be a good defensive player, able to play the outfield at a very high level. Wasn't he the best CF on the team?

Merloni, as far as I could tell, didn't do anything other than cheerlead particularly well.

Given that, I think that Lewis had more value on the field than Merloni. My question (and I never really stated it clearly, which was my fault) had much less to do with front-line players than replaceable bench chum.
   51. chris p Posted: November 28, 2005 at 02:34 PM (#1749535)
merloni hit lefties reasonably well and played all of the infield positions.
   52. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: November 28, 2005 at 02:37 PM (#1749538)
I don't remember Lou ever playing SS. I remember 2B (I believe he started there for a time), and I can picture him at 3B. I'm sure part of the reason that he didn't man SS is that John Valentin gave the position directly to Nomar - there's been a regular over there for the last ten or fifteen years. Did Lou ever play there in a pinch?
   53. Dan Szymborski Posted: November 28, 2005 at 02:49 PM (#1749555)
Merloni, as far as I could tell, didn't do anything other than cheerlead particularly well.

Given that, I think that Lewis had more value on the field than Merloni.


Merloni played all the infield positions with the Red Sox, mostly well and 2B particularly well and he hit 269/325/383 with the Red Sox. How many teams have better utility infielders than Merloni? Damn few.
   54. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: November 28, 2005 at 02:52 PM (#1749557)
I bow to your superior numbers, Dan. My mind had him pegged at below replacement-level, where your numbers (and the recollection of Chris P) place him solidly above.
   55. Rob Base Posted: November 28, 2005 at 02:53 PM (#1749558)
Lou played 75 games at short for the Sox btw 1998 and 2002.
   56. OlePerfesser Posted: November 28, 2005 at 04:23 PM (#1749637)
Assuming the "Boston-is-a-racist-town" and the "Sox-ought-to-be-more-inclusive" issue(s) haven't been exhausted, I'd offer the following:

Subtle "racism" usually isn't about skin color, national origin, etc. per se, but about culture, i.e., one culture failing to understand and value another. Seems to me that IF the Sox are vulnerable on this score, it's that they MIGHT be imposing some sort of cultural uniformity on the team in the interest of "chemistry." (Note: I'm trying to emphasize that these are very tentative observations so I won't be accused of being, well... an accuser. I don't know that this is true, but merely suggest it's consistent with some--definitely not all--of the FO's behavior in recent years, behavior which is also consistent with other, benign rationales.) In essence, the theory is that the FO's pre-occupation with certain personality-types might be leading them to (erroneously) undervalue players from cultures with which they're unfamiliar.

I'll leave it to others to deconstruct past moves (e.g., why was Schilling's personality evidently more attractive than Pedro's?). The problem, of course, is that there's always multiple factors affecting any decision. (Other examples: It's possible to argue that the FO's complete disinterest in re-signing Lowe--a definite member of the white guy club, but one with a personality the FO found objectionable--is a data point in support of this theory that it's more about culture/personality than race. But jettisoning D-Lo was certainly defensible on both sabermetric and economic grounds, too. And Beckett is apparently a Dirt Dog--but attractive for other reasons as well.)

Anyway, the future holds some interesting tests for the theory. Will Manny go but will the FO make a big play for Damon? Will Millar come back in any role whatsoever? Perhaps some sociology profs at Tufts will start offering Sox-oriented classes...
   57. Toby Posted: November 28, 2005 at 04:33 PM (#1749660)
Darren,

but the thing is, the "face of the team" list is not something that the FO can directly control. Will Beckett become part of the face of the franchise? We can only speculate (and hope). Fans identify with players of all abilities -- Pokey, El Guapo, etc.
   58. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 28, 2005 at 05:38 PM (#1749788)
Fans identify with players of all abilities -- Pokey, El Guapo, etc.

I love Pokey and Guapo too. They weren't even that good. Well Pokey was damn awesome with teh glove.

There's gotta be some marketing majors aruond here who study this krap. You know, what player's market well and what players do not.
   59. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: November 28, 2005 at 09:47 PM (#1750151)
Will Millar come back in any role whatsoever?

This may be the one thing that could cause me to lose some interest in the team...
   60. Answer Guy Posted: November 28, 2005 at 10:09 PM (#1750191)
Lost in all of this is the fact that it looks like they're not going to get anything like reasonable value for Manny Ramirez back, which is not helped by the emergence of a new "trade Manny" crisis three times a year. Given that he's still one of the very best hitters out there, why on earth are they hell bent on trading him, assuming that's even the case?
   61. 1k5v3L Posted: November 28, 2005 at 10:11 PM (#1750198)
why on earth are they hell bent on trading him, assuming that's even the case?

because the mets seem hell bent on overpaying for him.
   62. Answer Guy Posted: November 28, 2005 at 10:12 PM (#1750199)
Merloni was a hometown kid, was supposedly best chums with Nomar Garciaparra, and could play all four infield positions. He wasn't a great hitter but plenty of teams give susbtantial playing time to people who hit less well than Lou Merloni did for the Sox.
   63. Answer Guy Posted: November 28, 2005 at 10:18 PM (#1750211)
because the mets seem hell bent on overpaying for him.

That's all well and good if it's true, but when I hear names like "Erstad" pop up in these trade rumors it makes my stomach crawl.
   64. chris p Posted: November 28, 2005 at 10:30 PM (#1750258)
was supposedly best chums with Nomar Garciaparra,

apparently they vacationed together on the cape down the street from my parents cape house.

That's all well and good if it's true, but when I hear names like "Erstad" pop up in these trade rumors it makes my stomach crawl.

you don't think erstad would be a good answer to our center field problem? i think he would be great!
   65. Joel W Posted: November 29, 2005 at 02:16 AM (#1750480)
I think we stadheads react to Erstad for 2 reasons: 1, he can't hit. 2, We're contrarian/anti-media and the media loves him.

But the truth is that if he's 75% of what he was in 2003 when he switched to CF, he'd be good enough in CF to make up for hist bat, at least at his price compared to Damon's. The thing is we have basically 100% confidence in our hitting measurements, but only 75% confidence in our fielding measurements. That's why I think we react like that to Erstad.
   66. Joel W Posted: November 29, 2005 at 02:19 AM (#1750483)
I think we stadheads react to Erstad for 2 reasons: 1, he can't hit. 2, We're contrarian/anti-media and the media loves him.

But the truth is that if he's 75% of what he was in 2003 when he switched to CF, he'd be good enough in CF to make up for hist bat, at least at his price compared to Damon's. The thing is we have basically 100% confidence in our hitting measurements, but only 75% confidence in our fielding measurements. That's why I think we react like that to Erstad.
   67. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: November 29, 2005 at 05:05 AM (#1750668)
As a matter of fact, I read that Lou Merloni rescued two drowning damsels in Boston Harbor. No, wait... three.
   68. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 29, 2005 at 05:07 AM (#1750672)
Will Millar come back in any role whatsoever?

If this happens, i will gladly foot the ammunition bill for the Boston Residents of Therapy.
   69. Darren Posted: November 29, 2005 at 05:07 AM (#1750677)
Anyone have another topic they'd like linked to on ST? Send me an email.

I seem to be paralyzed because of the Manny thing and the lack of movement in the FO. I just can't seem to worry about anything else Sox-related, it all comes back to those two.
   70. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 29, 2005 at 05:09 AM (#1750680)
That's all well and good if it's true, but when I hear names like "Erstad" pop up in these trade rumors it makes my stomach crawl.


Or Finley
   71. chris p Posted: November 29, 2005 at 05:30 AM (#1750711)
Or Finley

that name scares me. he is defintely NOT a good center fielder. erstad was a great center fielder not too long ago.
   72. villageidiom Posted: November 29, 2005 at 03:08 PM (#1751076)
Will Millar come back in any role whatsoever?

Someone thinks so.
   73. Toby Posted: November 29, 2005 at 03:19 PM (#1751089)
Sox will release spring training schedule today. see here.
   74. chris p Posted: November 29, 2005 at 03:23 PM (#1751096)
vi, that's a joke, right?

right?!?!
   75. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: November 30, 2005 at 05:44 AM (#1752522)
The latest rumor seems to be Cliff Floyd, Lastings Milledge and Aaron Heilman for Manny. link
   76. chris p Posted: November 30, 2005 at 06:09 AM (#1752538)
The latest rumor seems to be Cliff Floyd, Lastings Milledge and Aaron Heilman for Manny. link

that would be a great haul. any idea how bad cliff floyd is with the glove? i don't see how he could be as bad as manny except when he's injured (which i guess he is pretty often). heilman would be great as a 6th starter/swingman and milledge is everything that hanley was supposed to be!
   77. J. Cross Posted: November 30, 2005 at 06:18 AM (#1752545)
I think BPro ratings had Floyd as the best fielding full-time LFer last year but realistically I think that when his legs are healthy he's average. When he's a little gimpy he falls below average (but but manny-bad).

I don't think the Mets would do Floyd, Heilman and Millege even if the Sox are paying half of Manny's remaining salary but we'll see.
   78. Nasty Nate Posted: November 30, 2005 at 02:56 PM (#1752698)
I had a crazy, but not original, idea last night: Nomar. As a 2b / 1b. Start him most games at second, with Youks/Lowell/Papi at first. For late inning defense, bring Cora in at 2nd and shift Nomar to first. Let the wall-denting resume! ... and if the Sox do switch Manny for Floyd, they would need some righties in the lineup.
I'd guess the likelihood is about 1 in 329
   79. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 30, 2005 at 03:13 PM (#1752711)
I've been throwing out the Nomar idea for a long time though.

And I know somebody came up with it before I did.
   80. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 30, 2005 at 03:28 PM (#1752725)
The search for a setup man for Wagner should be somewhat easier. The Mets may already have him. Minaya said yesterday that he was elated with the emergence of Aaron Heilman and indicated that he became less tradable once Wagner signed.

That's from the NY Times.

Mets left fielder Cliff Floyd almost certainly will not be part of any trade offer for Red Sox left fielder Manny Ramirez. Floyd has limited no-trade protection, and the Red Sox are believed to be one of the teams to which he can block a deal. The Sox did not grant him an extension after trading for him in 2002. Floyd, a free agent after next season, essentially would be a lame duck replacing Ramirez ...
That's from a Rosenthal article. Take them for what they are worth.
   81. karlmagnus Posted: November 30, 2005 at 04:29 PM (#1752799)
Floyd was DREADFUL in 2002 -- more or less single handedly responsible for the Sox not making a run at it that year. Getting Nomar back woould almost but not quite console me for losing Manny (Nomar will have to be lucky to make the HOF, Manny is a slam dunk, whatever his UZR.) In any case, this bunch of sharp operators are not what Nomar is looking for; he was treated badly enough that he probably won't want to return while Lucchino is still there and triumphant. Only if they brought back Dan Duquette as GM might Nomar return, but they're not going to do THAT either.
   82. OlePerfesser Posted: November 30, 2005 at 04:39 PM (#1752813)
I'd guess the likelihood is about 1 in 329

Hmm. That's an optimistic assessment, Nate. I don't think Nomah will ever forgive; maybe if Lucchino repents, resigns, and joins a monastery, however... Anyway, the rumor down here in Chesapeake Bay country is that the Orioles are trying hard to snag Mr. Hamm, to use at either 1B or LF.

Whoever Manny brings back (and we should probably all get a head start on dealing with the grief of a parting), one key question is how high to bid for Giles as a possible replacement. The Toronto offer scares me, and I wouldn't match it, so that takes him off the board, in my mind.

Then you have Konerko, and I'm reluctant to make a commitment to him for many reasons, not least he put up 7.5 WARP in his walk year, but never put up as many as 5 WARP in any other season.

So what other heart-of-the-order possibilities exist? Is Manny's bat irreplaceable this off-season, at anything like a reasonable cost?
   83. OlePerfesser Posted: November 30, 2005 at 04:43 PM (#1752825)
Floyd was DREADFUL in 2002 -- more or less single handedly responsible for the Sox not making a run at it that year.

Not really, karl--that would be Mr. Tony Clark. (But do remember they started 40-17 and did make a run.)

Anyway, the chances of DD coming back to town are even more remote than Nomah.
   84. karlmagnus Posted: November 30, 2005 at 04:44 PM (#1752830)
Yes, Manny's bat is irreplaceable at a reasonable cost. We don't HAVE to trade him, just because he has girlfriend problems -- he'll find another. And if he sells the penthouse in the Ritz-Carlton he can always go live in the suburbs like a normal person, where he will be less bothered by fans than in a downtown hotel (Duh!)

The numbers say Floyd was good for the Sox in '02; the memory says distinctly otherwise. Wonder why? Don't want him, but will take him if we get Milledge. DEFINITELY don't want Giles, who's too old and too expensive, and will block the stars of the next decent Sox team, which won't be in '06 if we trade Manny.
   85. Rob Base Posted: November 30, 2005 at 04:47 PM (#1752839)
What did Floyd do for the Red Sox besides hit .316/.374/.561 ?
   86. Dizzypaco Posted: November 30, 2005 at 04:57 PM (#1752870)
Cliff Floyd with the Red Sox:

No one on base: .341/.375/.692
Runner on first: .287/.372/.412
Runners in scoring position: .234/.333/.277

Never has one player done so little with a .935 OPS. That's why you remember he wasn't very good.
   87. karlmagnus Posted: November 30, 2005 at 05:16 PM (#1752927)
Thank you, dizzypaco; small sample size no doubt, but I remember endless Sox rallies being needlessly slain by Floyd; the pain obviously lingers. Small sample size presumably, though it didn't feel so at the time!
   88. Nasty Nate Posted: November 30, 2005 at 05:58 PM (#1753045)
yeah floyd had 21 doubles and 7 homers, but only 18 rbis.
But Tony Clark really killed that team: a half season of .265 on-base and .291 slugging! God damn i hate that ####### #########. Rickey, Merloni, offerman, and Mirabelli all out homered that jizz-brain Clark in less atbats that year. Then that ass goes out and hits 16 hrs in each of the next 2 years in less at-bats before slugging .636 in 2005. I hope he gets shingles.

I forgot about Pedroia when thinking about Nomar, so scrap that plan.
   89. 1k5v3L Posted: November 30, 2005 at 05:59 PM (#1753051)
But Tony Clark really killed that team:

you guys signed him a couple of years too early.
   90. OlePerfesser Posted: November 30, 2005 at 06:20 PM (#1753122)
And you guys signed him for a couple of years too many, levski.

BTW, I believe Nasty has earned his nickname for #93; well-above-replacement-level number of insults to poor Tony. Just for the record, Nate, Mr. Clark is by all accounts a gentleman, and his lack of slugging for us was a small price to pay for all his stellar work on that year's CBA. ;-)

--Mr. Sunshine
   91. 1k5v3L Posted: November 30, 2005 at 06:23 PM (#1753136)
And you guys signed him for a couple of years too many, levski.

yeah, but we're still paying him less than what boston gave him for one year.
   92. Nasty Nate Posted: November 30, 2005 at 06:24 PM (#1753140)
i know i was a little too harsh. Imagine what i would say if he hadn't struck out to end game 6 in '04.

Tony, if youre out there, i dont hope you get shingles.
   93. Dizzypaco Posted: November 30, 2005 at 06:30 PM (#1753159)
Nate,

You really shouldn't think badly of him. After all, he was terrible for the Yankees as well, which kind of cancels out the Sox year.
   94. Joel W Posted: November 30, 2005 at 06:35 PM (#1753178)
Nate,

That was the worst moment of that Yankees series for me. The thought of Tony Clark hitting a homerun to win that game is just beyond words. That big looping bat, Foulke completely gassed. I shudder thinking about it.
   95. villageidiom Posted: November 30, 2005 at 07:04 PM (#1753270)
vi, that's a joke, right?

right?!?!


It's from Call of the Green Monster. So, uh, yes.

In other news... FLIP!
   96. Darren Posted: December 01, 2005 at 12:32 AM (#1754022)
I'm worried that Beane is going to swoop and offer Zito for our precious (Milledge) and Floyd.
   97. chris p Posted: December 01, 2005 at 12:34 AM (#1754025)
I'm worried that Beane is going to swoop and offer Zito for our precious (Milledge) and Floyd.

i'm not.

yaknow, doesn't the konerko signing make it a little easier to find a taker for manny?
   98. OlePerfesser Posted: December 01, 2005 at 01:52 AM (#1754168)
Rumor has it the Halos, left at the altar by Konerko, will deal Kotchman to KC for Sweeney.

I find it hard to believe Stoneman is that dumb. Sweeney hasn't topped 4 Wins Above Replacement Player since '02. I'd be shocked if Kotchman couldn't give you 4+ WARP next year; if you're willing to move The Great Erstad off 1B for Konerko, you should have the stones to do it for Kotchman.

Of course, if LAAoA simply must have a big veteran bat behind Vlad, I'd have to seriously consider an offer of Kotchman for Manny. I'd miss Manny a bunch, but if he's gonna go no matter what and it's a choice of Kotchman or Milledge coming back...
   99. Darren Posted: December 01, 2005 at 04:21 AM (#1754371)
yaknow, doesn't the konerko signing make it a little easier to find a taker for manny?

I don't see it. He doesn't seem like their kind of player. I think OleP's rumor of Sweeney sounds a lot more likely. Still a little foolish, but not as bad dealing a bunch for Manny. I would like to have Erstad in CF and Kotchman at 1B though.

Our only hope is to make it look like LAA is interested in Manny and hope that the Mets go for it.
   100. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: December 01, 2005 at 04:30 AM (#1754380)
I would like to have Erstad in CF and Kotchman at 1B though.


UGHHH

Darin Erstad:
1. Made 900 gabillion dollars last yaer
2. Had a .320OBP and .370SLG
3. Would injure himself in 40 games playing CF... which we don't even know if he's still good at anymore.

The ONLY redeeming quality about Erstad is that he's a good 1B defender. That's it. I'd rather have John Olerud at 1B.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dock Ellis on Acid
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9610 seconds
60 querie(s) executed