This Is A Tragedy

[Kenny Cole]

Scott.

I agree that a manager's responsibilty is to field the best team and, more importantly, to win. Francona did that for most of the season. Then he didn't. Did he suddenly become a poor manager and make bad decisions at the end of the season? My guess is that he remained pretty well the same and that some (nearly all) of his players tanked at the end of the season.

I would be real interested in your input about what he should have done to reverse a 7-20 September, what decisions he should have made and didn't, and who should have been in the lineup (in order to win) who wasn't. Let me know when you have that all figured out. Then we can talk.

Kenny

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Scott.

I agree that a manager's responsibilty is to field the best team and, more importantly, to win. Francona did that for most of the season. Then he didn't. Did he suddenly become a poor manager and make bad decisions at the end of the season? My guess is that he remained pretty well the same and that some (nearly all) of his players tanked at the end of the season.

I would be real interested in your input about what he should have done to reverse a 7-20 September, what decisions he should have made and didn't, and who should have been in the lineup (in order to win) who wasn't. Let me know when you have that all figured out. Then we can talk.

Kenny

Kenny - we don't really need to talk further on this. If you think a manager's responsibilities end on September 5, that's your right.

[Kenny Cole]

Scott,

Wow, this is like the old days. Did Francona's responsibilities end on 9/5? Obviously no. Did he become a much worse manager on that date? I think the answer to that question is evident as well. Did his players falter after 9/5? I defy you to say no.

There is no question that a manager (or pitching coatch) can impact the result of a game. But can you seriously argue that Francona somehow became a worse manager than he was in the years when he was winning the series? Did he make worse decisons with better players? If you believe that to be the case, please explain because I'm not seeing it.

Kenny

[barrysloate]

On Sunday, September 4, Curb Your Enthusiasm ran an episode starring Bill Buckner and Mookie Wilson, and it parodied Buckner's famous error as he dropped a ball signed by Mookie out an open widow. The next day the Red Sox began their historic collapse.

Call it the curse of Larry David.

[Ladder7]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

On Sunday, September 4, Curb Your Enthusiasm ran an episode starring Bill Buckner and Mookie Wilson, and it parodied Buckner's famous error as he dropped a ball signed by Mookie out an open widow. The next day the Red Sox began their historic collapse.

Call it the curse of Larry David.

Damnit. Another 86 freakin years?

Curb, still a great show, but i really miss cheryl hines.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Scott,

Wow, this is like the old days. Did Francona's responsibilities end on 9/5? Obviously no. Did he become a much worse manager on that date? I think the answer to that question is evident as well. Did his players falter after 9/5? I defy you to say no.

There is no question that a manager (or pitching coatch) can impact the result of a game. But can you seriously argue that Francona somehow became a worse manager than he was in the years when he was winning the series? Did he make worse decisons with better players? If you believe that to be the case, please explain because I'm not seeing it.

Kenny

Kenny - in the real world people can have differing opinions and they don't have to have to end up agreeing in the end. But this is the internet, and I realize that all discussions have to end in a virtual dual to prove 'the winner'.

I'm opting out.

[D. Bergin]

As much as I think this is a poor decision by the Sox, I think that it ultimately boils down to the fact Francona didn't really want to stay in Boston.

If he had campaigned to keep his job, I think he'd be there next year.

Maybe if he had a few weeks to really digest the situation, he would have fought it more. Coming so soon after the famous collapse, he probably didn't have the right mind-set, nor did anyone else in the Sox front office.

[calvindog]

Face it, the Sox are no different than the Yankees. Joe T was forced out and so was Francona. Same franchises now.

[carrigansghost]

At least it makes for good conversation over the long winter. I rather enjoyed the pre 2004 days.

Rawn

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

As much as I think this is a poor decision by the Sox, I think that it ultimately boils down to the fact Francona didn't really want to stay in Boston.

If he had campaigned to keep his job, I think he'd be there next year.

Maybe if he had a few weeks to really digest the situation, he would have fought it more. Coming so soon after the famous collapse, he probably didn't have the right mind-set, nor did anyone else in the Sox front office.

I think you're right that Francona was ready to leave, but why? When the Red Sox won it all in '04, as a franchise they had a totally different attitude, just because it had been so long. While their payroll was huge, they weren't perceived as being just another group of overpaid superstars, as were the Yankees. Now they are. They are no longer in the same class as the woeful, cuddly Cubs.

It's a different team attitude to deal with now than it was in '04, and different situations require different managerial types. There was a good article in today's paper that described Francona's frustration over the fact that the players weren't a tight group, and he couldn't get more out of them. That is part of managing. None of the 'keep Francona' proponents seem to see this, but at least Francona does.

Sure, it's possible he could come right back next year and win it all for the 3rd time in 9 years. Maybe, as you suggest, he should have taken time off, figured out what he could do differently to make that happen, and lobbied to keep his job. But like you said, he was ready to get out of Boston.

[barrysloate]

I read that Francona has been having trouble communicating with this group of players, and that there were clubhouse problems. Maybe it just boiled down to he didn't want the job any more.

[sox1903wschamp]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

As much as I think this is a poor decision by the Sox, I think that it ultimately boils down to the fact Francona didn't really want to stay in Boston.

If he had campaigned to keep his job, I think he'd be there next year.

Maybe if he had a few weeks to really digest the situation, he would have fought it more. Coming so soon after the famous collapse, he probably didn't have the right mind-set, nor did anyone else in the Sox front office.

This post has merit. When the going got tough, this "entitiled" team could have cared less about the tough getting going (except for Pede). Francona could not get the tough going and that says a lot because Tito is a very good Manager. He lasted 8 years which is a long time in Boston. Longest since Cronin back in the 30's and 40's. He will do well wherever he might land.

[novakjr]

Tragedy? Not a chance...Travesty? Maybe. Disappointing? Definitely. Honestly, there was nothing else Francona could've done. With a 9 game lead in the Wild-Card, Tito made the right decision by sticking with his slumping players. All things considered, if the team were to have any chance of winning the WS, he had to stick with those guys in the hopes that they'd turn it around. That team was built to win it all, and not just simply make the playoffs, and that fact led to the decisions and to what happened. Despite the confidence he showed in those players, and HAD to show, they didn't turn it around. Missing the playoffs under those circumstances was a freak occurrence, that even going into the rain delay, no one could've predicted.

I wouldn't fault Francona at all for what happened, because everything he did, was what he HAD to do in hopes of winning it all..

As an Indians fan, I hope he doesn't end up in Chicago..

[howard38]

.