Francona? Surely, you jest!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hammah29r2. Show Hammah29r2's posts

    Re: Francona? Surely, you jest!

    In response to udontnojack's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    coma-that says it all.the worst in game manager in baseball

    [/QUOTE]

    yeah right! with TWO WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONSHIPS. so why did you change you screen name from BOSOX1941 eh?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: Francona? Surely, you jest!

    In response to royf19's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This is very similar to Ted not being a unanimous choice for the HOF  

    how writers hold grudges  and make the vote a travesty and demean the whole of their peers. Just a plain joke. 

    I am not saying it would have made Farrell win or should have won but would have made the vote a honest one.

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't think that had anything to do with it. I have nothing against Francona winning it. I would have voted Farrell-Tito 1-2. But you can have an honest difference of opinion.

    One ESPN voter who went Francona-Melvin-Maddon, and that's not a terrible ranking even though I don't agree with it. The problem with her explanation as I mentioned on another thread.

    She wrote, "With most of their success falling within the realm of the expected in terms of player performances, the midseason injury to Clay Buchholz was about the only thing that represented a significant setback."

    The bullpen issues were much bigger than losing Buchholz for three months, considering other guys stepped up. By not acknowleding the bullpen issues simply shows ignorance. So to me, she hurt her case for the vote.

    [/QUOTE]
    The problem with the above is the "expected" part. They were expected to be in 4th or 5th with NO expectations for first. The part I was talking aboutt was the two Toronto writers that did not even include him on their ballot because he left the Jays and it pizzed them off.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: Francona? Surely, you jest!

    I think it's time for Toronto to get over its weird, slightly creepy obsession with Farrell. I thought Dickey and Johnson were supposed to be leading the Blue Jays to the promised land, or something.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Francona? Surely, you jest!

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:

    This is very similar to Ted not being a unanimous choice for the HOF  

    how writers hold grudges  and make the vote a travesty and demean the whole of their peers. Just a plain joke. 

    I am not saying it would have made Farrell win or should have won but would have made the vote a honest one.




    Nobody has been a unanimous choice for the HOF.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Dave F. Show Dave F's posts

    Re: Francona? Surely, you jest!

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to crix's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    The 2013 Indians were 24 games better than '12 record and lost the Wild Card game.

    The 2013 Red Sox were  28 games better than '12 record and won the World Series.

    Who did a better job turning a team around?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Though I believe Farrell  deserved the award, Kimmi is right, the voting is done before  the playoffs begin. So what the Sox did in the postseason didn't factor.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yup, I'd give it to Tito for regular season results, but if the vote was post-WS, then it's Farrell easy.  OTOH, if that was the case, then Tito would've won in 2004.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm confused. Just what was it that Farrell did during the playoffs that would have made him an easy winner? Personally I don't think he managed well during the playoffs. The Red Sox as a team did a complete turn around. The GM deserves most of the credit.
    IMO, managers are given too much credit for a team's success. Farrell didn't outmanage Leland.  Farrell just wasn't as bad as Leland was.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from steven11. Show steven11's posts

    Re: Francona? Surely, you jest!

    In response to bosoxmal's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Just who are the idiots who make these Manager of the Year, etc selections?

    [/QUOTE]


    He got 92 wins with a lot less talent than the sox had.  Yea he had an easier schedule but a win is a win.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Francona? Surely, you jest!

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to royf19's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This is very similar to Ted not being a unanimous choice for the HOF  

    how writers hold grudges  and make the vote a travesty and demean the whole of their peers. Just a plain joke. 

    I am not saying it would have made Farrell win or should have won but would have made the vote a honest one.

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't think that had anything to do with it. I have nothing against Francona winning it. I would have voted Farrell-Tito 1-2. But you can have an honest difference of opinion.

    One ESPN voter who went Francona-Melvin-Maddon, and that's not a terrible ranking even though I don't agree with it. The problem with her explanation as I mentioned on another thread.

    She wrote, "With most of their success falling within the realm of the expected in terms of player performances, the midseason injury to Clay Buchholz was about the only thing that represented a significant setback."

    The bullpen issues were much bigger than losing Buchholz for three months, considering other guys stepped up. By not acknowleding the bullpen issues simply shows ignorance. So to me, she hurt her case for the vote.

    [/QUOTE]
    The problem with the above is the "expected" part. They were expected to be in 4th or 5th with NO expectations for first. The part I was talking aboutt was the two Toronto writers that did not even include him on their ballot because he left the Jays and it pizzed them off.

    [/QUOTE]


    No you're right, it's a very good point.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: Francona? Surely, you jest!


    Just "Quit calling me Shirley".  Smile

    I know.. it was a softball, just lobbed up there - and I couldn't resist. 

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Francona? Surely, you jest!

    In response to LagunaJose's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    /QUOTE]

    Yup, I'd give it to Tito for regular season results, but if the vote was post-WS, then it's Farrell easy.  OTOH, if that was the case, then Tito would've won in 2004.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm confused. Just what was it that Farrell did during the playoffs that would have made him an easy winner? Personally I don't think he managed well during the playoffs. The Red Sox as a team did a complete turn around. The GM deserves most of the credit.
    IMO, managers are given too much credit for a team's success. Farrell didn't outmanage Leland.  Farrell just wasn't as bad as Leland was.

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually and factually the writers made their decision before the playoffs began. This has been stated about ten times already on this thread. Perhaps posters should read the thread from the beginning before commenting. Once again: they voted before the post season began.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm pretty sure JoeB knows this and was merely commenting on the hypothetical 'if the vote was post-WS'.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Francona? Surely, you jest!

    I think the MOTY award is as meaningless as they get. 

     

Share