Re: Bobby V is management's puppet
posted at 3/1/2012 10:23 AM EST
In Response to Bobby V is management's puppet
[QUOTE]That's my opinion, here's why: -People talk about him being his own man, and not acquiescing to management. Well, that was over ten years ago, he hasn't showed any of that since his days with the Mets. -He's Lucchino's long-time friend. -His name was floated in the original manager's list before Ben C narrowed it down to 2 finalists, and management stepped in and chose a 3rd person. The thought of Valentine was roundly laughed at initially, and his name being thrown out there was often viewed as just the name of one of the more reckognizable people out there, not an actual candidate. -He backed off his Beckett remarks (about time used for pitches). Most agreed with him when he said it, but he's here now, and won't say anything about management's golden boy (Theo quit when they wanted him back, and Henry commented that the players were all in shape, an opinion shared ONLY between Henry and Beckett). -One of Valentine's jobs in Japan was a pitch-man. He would get spoon fed questions about the company, and he would answer so absurdly it's a joke it was ever taken seriously. Expect more of this. Those in game interviews are going to turn into Brick and Coffee Table Book infomercials. -The banning of beer. If he felt that way, why wouldn't he do it on day one? Why wait until all eyes and ears are tuned into you? I agrtee that it was a 100% PR move that management initiated, not a move I disagree with, but I think it's more evidence of the strings. Maybe I'm wrong, but why bring in a manager who's up there in age, and will certainly NOT be a long term solution? This isn't a young team that needed a certain type of leader to come in a kick them in their a s s e s. Why go with a man you KNOW you'll be replacing in a few short years? I think he's a likeable guy that management could run out there, and he'd say anything they want him to say. He'll take any bad PR hits for the team (organization and players), and he'll happily sell anything they ask him too. That's my take, I guess we'll all see. I would be happy to be wrong. In fact, if I'm wrong about Crawford AND Valentine, that'd just be awesome.
Posted by ma6dragon9[/QUOTE]
Dragon, I would not disagree with your assessment of Valentine as management's puppet. But, I do wonder why this would make him different than any other manager in the game. That is part and parcel to the job. The days of the omnipotent manager are long gone. Even Everyone's Favorite Rogue Manager Ozzie Guilllen: he might spout off the cuff in the media and be a spitfire, but, at the end of the day, he his totally beholden to his bosses, their plan, their structure, etc. I just don't see how it is the negative that you imply. All managers are "puppets" of the FO. Thats how I see it.
However, as far as the Beckett remarks, I do not agree that this is part of him towing any company line. Of course, as an ESPN analyst, he is expected to criticize josh's abnormally slow pace. however, even then, if he was in the dugout as manager, I am certain Josh would have had his full and complete blessing to work at that snails pace, just as long as it was effective. He would have totally understood Josh's psychological weapon against the mighty yankee line-up. And, you know what, it did work. At the end of the day, Bobby the manager is paid to win. So, if Beckett gets wins by messing with the hitters' timing, I am sure he is all for it.
The beer ban could not and should not have come on day 1. No question in my mind, even though OF COURSE there is a giant PR element of the decision, that the edict had to come direct from bobby's mouth to his players with all assembled. Sure to engender negative feelings amongst the players if it isn't a direct communication.
And, FWIW, what is the problem with bobby taking the PR hits? To me, that is nothing but a positive. This group of players in particular, after the disaster of 2011, needs some of that pressure taken off their shoulders. Bobby is more than willing and able to do that. I see that as nothing but a good thing.
As for being a shill for products and a pitch man, hey, I am a pinko commie moonbat at heart and don't particularly dig corporate shills. But, that is just personal taste, which you seem to share. Beyond our own aesthetic value in this matter, what difference does it make?