Skip to content

The Red Sox are wondering who squealed to the press

Aug 16, 2012, 8:00 AM EDT

Bobby Valentine AP

Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe has a story this morning, the upshot of which is that everyone on the Red Sox is concerned about who leaked the stuff to Jeff Passan for his explosive report the other day:

“It’s a shame that someone would do that and spread wrong information,” Valentine said. “It hurts our team. If you really care about our team, why would you do something like that, no matter what your agenda is?”

Said a prominent Red Sox player, “If I knew it was one of my teammates, we’d have a big problem. A big problem.

“We’re supposed to be together. We’re supposed to be in this together. To spread gossip like that about important players on this team who have been falsely accused is just horrible. That person should be ashamed of himself.”

Others, like David Ortiz, talk about how it can’t possibly be a player who talked and suggest, again sort of obliquely, that the story is baloney.

Thing is, the stuff that was leaked — stuff about player problems with Valentine, comments Valentine made during the game in the dugout and things of that nature — almost certainly did come from a player. No one else was in a position to know and talk about such things.

  1. drmonkeyarmy - Aug 16, 2012 at 8:06 AM

    It was John Lackey.

    • bsbiz - Aug 16, 2012 at 8:11 AM

      Passan got a message from a bottle.

    • kiwicricket - Aug 16, 2012 at 8:12 AM

      Yeah, F it. No one likes that guy. It was John Lackey!

    • sarcasticks - Aug 16, 2012 at 8:23 AM

      Valentine: “It hurts our team. If you really care about our team, why would you do something like that, no matter what your agenda is?”

      If your agenda is to get Valentine fired, it’s likely that someone leaked the info in an attempt to accomplish that. What the players seem to have miscalculated is that the fans and media will only take your side if you’re playing very well. Good play increases your perceived value and gives more credence to your arguments. Since, in general, the players are underachieving, there is little sympathy to go around for their point of view.

    • cur68 - Aug 16, 2012 at 11:31 AM

      John Henry has a history of being a blabbermouth. I bet it was him.

    • juggernauthomes - Aug 16, 2012 at 4:00 PM

      It doesnt matter they did anyways they haven’tmade the playoffs in 3 years now.

    • badintent - Aug 16, 2012 at 5:39 PM

      Please vote for your rat choice:
      Deep thoart
      Bugs Bunny
      Jullian Assuage
      Paul Revere
      The equipement manager
      Hazel Mae
      Whitey Bulger
      Some Kennedy
      Herbert Hoover
      TMZ

  2. Walk - Aug 16, 2012 at 8:09 AM

    Kinda hard for it to be a leak if the information leaked was wrong.

  3. bigleagues - Aug 16, 2012 at 8:13 AM

    “Thing is, the stuff that was leaked . . . almost certainly did come from a player. No one else was in a position to know and talk about such things.

    Unless, of course, it was some in ownership or the front office, who were in on all three sequestered meetings . . .

    . . . but then that would beg the question: exactly what would they be trying to accomplish?

    Agendas, agendas, agendas.

    • homelanddefense - Aug 16, 2012 at 9:20 AM

      well, the GM never wanted Valentine in the first place………perhaps the leak came from his side.

    • bigharold - Aug 16, 2012 at 11:16 AM

      “Unless, of course, it was some in ownership or the front office,…”

      Impossible. Not the same front office that handled the Francona departure with such class and integrity. You Sir are barking up the wrong tree.

      • stlouis1baseball - Aug 16, 2012 at 12:14 PM

        Hahaha! Great point Harold.
        As for his age…
        I believe it was Churchill who said (and I am paraphrasing)…
        Between the ages of (18 – 30) people vote with their hearts.
        From the ages of 30+ they vote with their brains.
        Of course…he also said the best argument AGAINST democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.
        On a separate note (and not that it matters to you)…
        But I responded to you on the other article from a couple of days ago.
        Essentially, I apologized as I was NOT trying to insult you in anyway.
        Somehow…Pink felt I did.
        So I felt obligated to apologize as it was not my intention (if you took it that way that is).

      • jimeejohnson - Aug 16, 2012 at 12:52 PM

        stlouis1baseball : great post, especially the very relevant argument against democracy.

  4. proudlycanadian - Aug 16, 2012 at 8:16 AM

    As far as the Red Sox are concerned, leaks are part of the team’s culture.

    • skids003 - Aug 16, 2012 at 8:19 AM

      Like the current White House.

      • aceshigh11 - Aug 16, 2012 at 8:37 AM

        Not to mention your fuckin’ head, Slingblade.

      • aceshigh11 - Aug 16, 2012 at 8:39 AM

        The balls on you right-wing mouth-breathers…bringing up leaks after the Judy Miller and Valerie Plame debacles…

        Right down the memory hole, eh? Just like it never happened, you Orwellian pricks.

      • heyblueyoustink - Aug 16, 2012 at 8:46 AM

        Aces, those grimy right wingers took their medicine, just like this sleazy left winger should. Both cases will amount to nothing in the end, so step down from your high and mighty pedastool, my liege.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Aug 16, 2012 at 10:54 AM

        Valerie Plame’s husband, Joe Wilson, who wrote the original editorial about no yellow cake…. A Gaucho.

        Go Gauchos.

        Meanwhile, Blue, some of us believe the high and mighty stand is the one that forgets everything that happened all the way back less than 20 years ago.

        To each his own.

      • sabatimus - Aug 16, 2012 at 10:55 AM

        Oh great, a political “discussion” on the HBT forums. Just shut up already.

      • delawarephilliesfan - Aug 16, 2012 at 10:58 AM

        @ saba

        I always come here to find out what really happened 10 years ago – do you know of a better level headed group to ask? ;)

      • stlouis1baseball - Aug 16, 2012 at 11:16 AM

        Wow…that’s an awful lot of “hate” coming from Aces.
        What did you do to him Skids? I am certain he isn’t reacting this way solely because he disagrees with your politics. I mean…wow. Serious language. Serious “hate.”
        All because he disagrees with you?

      • heyblueyoustink - Aug 16, 2012 at 12:15 PM

        sorry Mitzy, Aces loses me at “mouth breathing” and “Orwellian pricks”… it’s mongering, 10,000 years of evolution and that’s the best he could come up with. And if he’s referring to 1984, IMO he’s inaccurate in his comaprison.

        Perhaps he should be reading more about Holden Caufield. That’s where I place his version of ration.

      • heyblueyoustink - Aug 16, 2012 at 12:36 PM

        @ St Louis It’s a phenomenon i’ve not seen before, all presidents are rightly, on some levels very deserving, of scrutiny and criticism. ALL of them. However you say one word about this dude and it’s like your assaulting all that is pure and good in this world, and his defenders act rabidly, with venom and vinegar.

        Makes me shake my head, I thought reasonable, critical thought from all sides of the forest is how things get done in this country. It’s getting to the point where he’s being defended like some kind of royalty.

    • 18thstreet - Aug 16, 2012 at 8:56 AM

      No, they just have good journalists following the team. This story could be reported about any sinking ship. I’ll bet it could be written about the Phillies or Angels, if anyone tried hard enough.

      • proudlycanadian - Aug 16, 2012 at 10:39 AM

        Journalists talk to executives and players of teams if they can get juicy stories from that team. I have often suspected that the Red Sox were the source of many stories that claimed that certain players were available in trades. I do remember that when the Blue Jays were looking for a new manager, all of the stories about the search, seemed to originate in Boston.

      • delawarephilliesfan - Aug 16, 2012 at 10:49 AM

        The Phillies have had there share of moments this year – see Vicrtorino and Lee getting inot it in the dugout – but I have to disagree that this is run on the mill stuff for a struggling team. In fact, I would be stunned if any Phillies player went to the Front Office and said they want Charlie gone. Not to mention the notion of players ratting out other players, i.e. leaking to Passan. That is not typical

      • phillyphever - Aug 16, 2012 at 11:46 AM

        Doubt it about the Phils. As I posted yesterday, the team is being professionals about this (including Papelbon) even with this garbage season and the FO trading away a good friend of theirs in Victorino. There’s just something going on with the Red Sox that’s more than just the manager.

  5. cornfedhonky - Aug 16, 2012 at 8:19 AM

    Probably Ortiz himself. Fn big as crybaby, he’s always one of the first to go running to the media about how this is bs and that’s bs. Of course, anything he has to say is always subject to interpretation (literally), since he seems to want to give his interviews in Spanish. GTFO “Big Papi”.

    • homelanddefense - Aug 16, 2012 at 9:22 AM

      actually most of the reports around here are saying that Ortiz didnt even attend the meeting, he seems to be a Valentine guy.

      Oh, and I hear plenty of Ortiz interviews in English. He also is from a Spanish speaking country, I would be more comfortable speaking my native language too, especially to a Boston media that is notorious for taking comments out of context.

  6. bigleagues - Aug 16, 2012 at 8:23 AM

    Also, I would add that Passan appears to have at least one fabricated or speciously reported item in his column: that being the genesis and demise of the Crawford 4-days on/1-day off playing program.

    Passan claims that it was Valentine who conceived of and implemented that program only to abandon it.

    Now either Passan, a national columnist, has better sources than the New England-based beat writers or it’s an outright lie to further someone’s agenda.

    Until Passan’s piece I had yet to read an account that said anything other than that it was the head trainer who designed and implemented the Crawford program and that Valentine refused to follow it from the very beginning – which led to the Trainer going over Valentine’s head to enforce the proscribed regimen.

    Now Passan is reporting something ENTIRELY different and strangely, NO ONE has called him to the mat on it.

    I tried. I tweeted Passan late Tuesday afternoon asking for him to elaborate or clarify that item and got no response. Sure he could have missed my menial little tweet, but still he has been all over the media in Boston and no one I have heard or read have asked him to clarify that.

    CRAIG, perhaps you or one of the other guys can send a message off and seek an answer from Passan?

    I think this is important as it speaks to the credibility of Passans sources.

    • bigleagues - Aug 16, 2012 at 9:19 AM

      I didn’t write this for the thumbs, but I cannot even fathom how down thumbs could be outnumbering up thumbs 2-1 at this point.

      There are two completely different versions of the Crawford playing regimen story out there: the one reported by Boston beat writers and the one reported Tuesday by Passan.

      Someone is wrong. If it’s Passan’s source, why wouldn’t we want to know?

    • psousa1 - Aug 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM

      Big League – I belive you are correct. This guy Passan thought he was going to do a victory lap on Boston radio yesterday and all he did was stutter, double talk and back down and basically said “don’t quote me on that” . He only spoke in general terms. He sounded like a total fool like he fabricated the story. Now he is under attack from the Boston media. One guy said this Passan is known, with other baseball writers, for hyperbole and not accuracy.

      Why is it that a so called journalists can go on forever naming ‘sources’? You can just fill in your own thoughts and attribute them to ‘sources’ and you are not questioned. This is the first time I have finally seen some pushback from other writers agains another writer (probably because most of them have ficticious ‘sources’)

      • Glenn - Aug 16, 2012 at 11:08 AM

        I heard one of his interviews and I agree that he didn’t sound too credible. He laughed too hard and too often for little reason and danced around things. He did make a few points that made sense – that he has been in the Red Sox clubhouse and Gonzalez definitely knows him, so those “who is this guy?” routines may have been over done. He also points out that too many people seem to want to talk in Boston so the truth will come out eventually.

        No one is looking good in this childish soap opera.

      • bw1980 - Aug 16, 2012 at 3:24 PM

        Why? Because Fox News, MSNBC, Rush, ESPN….all of them have contributed to the idea that this is the entertainment business and that the bottomline is making money–not giving people credible, accurate news and letting them decide how they feel once the facts are presented to them. The media feel the need to shape people’s feelings–they are reporting stories or issues–they are making stories and issues, controlling the narrative in this country.

        That’s the bottom line: it’s all about ad dollars, twitter followers, hits, views, et. al.

  7. eshine76 - Aug 16, 2012 at 8:27 AM

    I think AGon & Pedroia are telling the truth – they never said “fire” Bobby V. They just said they really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really don’t like the guy and listed 50 reasons why he’s an ass. To an observer, they’d think “these guys really want him fired” especially if they are running around the clubhouse saying “I want that guy fired.” Secondly, they might not have said they won’t play for him to ownership, but I bet they’ve said that in the clubhouse. All of this BS is an argument in semantics and Bobby V is just trying to say and do the right things (for once).

  8. aceshigh11 - Aug 16, 2012 at 8:36 AM

    MAKE IT STOP. This is absolutely brutal. Talk about trying times for fans that had grown accustomed to an abnormally smooth-sailing ship for a few years (2004-2009, say).

    At least all the bandwagon fans will lose interest and forget they ever “rooted for” the team.

    Ending that bogus sellout streak would be the best thing that could happen to the club.

    Vote with your money, folks: diminishing revenue is the ONLY thing that will get this ownership’s attention. The Sox are only a component of the owners’ investment portfolios.

    Say what you want about the Steinbrenner family, but at least they have pride and a dedication to winning that is personal, and goes beyond mere dollars and cents.

    • 18thstreet - Aug 16, 2012 at 9:04 AM

      Yes, the Yankees under the first 10 years of Steinbrenner were a model of stability that John Henry should emulate.

    • paperlions - Aug 16, 2012 at 9:09 AM

      Huh? Throughout the history of the Steinbrenner ownership, the less they are involved the better the team has been. Their ONLY positive direct contribution has been the money, their next biggest contribution has been getting out of the way (either via banishment or choice).

      • delawarephilliesfan - Aug 16, 2012 at 10:56 AM

        Yes, recall how the fans at Yankee Stadium gave a standing O in 1990 when it was announced that Steinbrenner was banned from running the team

        18 managers in 17 years. That was his involvement. Get the heck out of the way? 4 WS in 5 years

      • bigharold - Aug 16, 2012 at 11:43 AM

        “Their ONLY positive direct contribution has been the money,..”

        It’s easy to take shots at George Stenbrenner but you are wrong his contribution. As a Yankee fan that predated the Steinbrenner’s I’ve seen and heard everyone of George’s highlights/lowlights. He did and said some profoundly stupid things. But, through it all he was, if nothing else, a sports entrepreneur in every sense. He wanted to turn a profit sure but his overriding concern was winning championships. He understood that if the Yankees won, the finances would take care if themselves. He absolutely had and displayed a passion for winning that few owners show, .. frequently to his determinate. Something John Henry doesn’t have. To Henry the RS are just another business he owns.

        Now the retort will be a litany of stories highlighting Steinbrenner’s gaffs, mistakes and blunders. Stories that show Steinbrenner in the worst light, .. and so be it. He earned those stories. Just remember that Steinbrenner wasn’t ever the richest owner in the game, .. the Yankees were not only not the most valuable team in baseball when he bought them they were in fact a shell of their former selves. He took a broken down marquee team and turned it around quickly. During his tenure the Yankees won more championships than any other team in baseball. He took a 10 million dollar investment and turned it into a billion and a half. That is success no matter how you look ay it. I’m glad he was the Yankee owner because not only did they win under his stewardship, .. his desire to win was never in doubt. Can’t say that about the RS owners, .. or a few others as well.

    • mickeylolich1968 - Aug 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM

      I hear ya. I have quit watching. I have quit listening. However, i am still a loyal red sox fan because i have yet to quit bitching!
      These dark days will only serve to make it that much sweeter when the sox once again win the world series in a four game sweep…I can wait another eighty six years…no problem…sigh.

    • delawarephilliesfan - Aug 16, 2012 at 10:54 AM

      Re: Steinbrenner. Aces High clearly is under the age of 40, or has a convienient memory.

      • stlouis1baseball - Aug 16, 2012 at 11:18 AM

        Based upon his politics, “hateful” language, etc…I would venture to guess he is under 30.
        My guess….23 – 28.

      • bigharold - Aug 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM

        What’s his age to do with it? His comments are valid.

      • delawarephilliesfan - Aug 16, 2012 at 1:21 PM

        I was noting that anyone who thinks Steinbrenner was a Sage clearly does not remember the 70’s and 80’s, when even Yankee fans reviled him. Heck, Yankee fans reviled him the most!

        As was more eloquently posted elsewhere, Steinbrenner was only “effective” when he got out of the way. He was a stubborn, arrogant and very short sighted owner who was his own worst enemy. Once he did nothing more then write checks, the team exceled

      • bigharold - Aug 16, 2012 at 2:24 PM

        I remember the 70’s, .. the good the bad and the ugly. I remember a guy buying the team, .. who I’d never heard of, .. couldn’t pronounce his name from reading it in the papers or until I heard it spoken. He took over a team that was essentially a joke. And, in three years they were in the WS. Within his first decade they won 2 WS and two more pennants.

        You point to the 70s and 80s but that not nearly the whole story. Unless you remember the Yankees from 1966 to 1972 it hard to see what Steinbrenner really did to turn the Yankees around. Sure, he sure shot himself in the foot regularly but he also set the pace, .. or cracked the whip, ..if you like. But, whichever you knew where he stood, you knew what the mission as and that everything was going to be done to accomplish that mission. And, the results, early in his tenure as well as later speak for themselves. If writing a check was all that was necessary the Yankees should have about 10 more WS by now.

        The notion that Steinbrenner was nothing more than a loud mouth with a check book is as factually inaccurate as it is missing the point. George Steinbrenner to a very great degree made the Yankees what they are today. Not merely a successful baseball team with it’s own network and money making machine. He took the Yankee brand and built it into more than it ever was. Steinbrenner, .. like the Yankees, are something you generally either love or hate. Regardless, they are both more than just wealthy entities, .. and to dismiss either as a product of their their resources would be a mistake.

      • delawarephilliesfan - Aug 16, 2012 at 2:46 PM

        I don’t dispute that Steinbrenner was good at creating his network – and yes, the 1973 Yankees were in the toilet. But the 77 & 78 teams were a result of “Good Steinbrenner. Starting in the summer of 78, he became unhinged.

        Trivia Question: name the only decade the Yankees have not won a WS since the 1910’s? Yes, the 1980’s with the Dick Howser/Gene Michael/Bob Lemon/Gene Michael/Clyde King/Billy Martin/Yogi Berra/Billy Martin/Lou Pinella/Billy Martin/Lou Pinella/Dallas Green/Bucky Dent carousel (and you darn well I could bump that out a year in each direction to make it look even sillier). Not to mention spying on Dave Winfield

      • bigharold - Aug 16, 2012 at 3:05 PM

        “Trivia Question: name the only decade the Yankees have not won a WS since the 1910’s? Yes, the 1980’s”

        True but they also won the most games in the eighties at the same time. So, the notion that they were terrible in the 80s is, again, factually in accurate and missing the point.

        Had there been a wild card in the 80s I’ve no doubt that they would have had another WS or two.

  9. paperlions - Aug 16, 2012 at 8:40 AM

    I think the Red Sox organization does a thing like Secret Santa, only instead of giving a gift to that person, you are required to leak information to the press about them.

    • mississippimusicman - Aug 16, 2012 at 9:51 AM

      This is so full of win I don’t even- thank you for the belly laugh.

    • mickeylolich1968 - Aug 16, 2012 at 11:38 AM

      HEY!…What if Santa himself worked for the Red Sox?
      At some point he would leave the organization and then would follow the leaks…
      Santa was a bad guy, he let himself get out of shape.
      Santa was a club house lawyer,he was distracted by his marital problems with Mrs Claus, etc

    • badintent - Aug 16, 2012 at 5:49 PM

      best quote of the day !! bar none

  10. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Aug 16, 2012 at 8:40 AM

    YOUK!

    • deathmonkey41 - Aug 16, 2012 at 11:24 AM

      Youk’s probably reading the paper this morning, looking at the standings, then reading this crap and laughing his ass off.

  11. sincitybonobo - Aug 16, 2012 at 8:59 AM

    Does anyone think Valentine will be back next year?

    After 2012, the Sox will have spent over $700 million on payroll since their last playoff game. Watching this debacle is brutal, but imagine having to pay for it.

    Bobby V undoubtedly knows the game better than most managers. Yet there was a reason he wasn’t offered a job for ten seasons. Steve Phillips would likely be an interesting interview right now (off the record, perhaps).

    As for the players, addition by subtraction would likely be helpful- even with a new manager. The problem is that the Sox have so many awful contracts that unless they are prepared to eat a bunch of $, they are likely stuck with Beckett, etc. How much is ownership willing to pay for a better atmosphere? The cheapest contract to eat is Valentine’s.

    • bigleagues - Aug 16, 2012 at 9:37 AM

      Funny you should mention it, because on this morning’s Evan & Phillips in the Morning Steve Phillips offered the following on Bobby Valentine:

      I think Bobby V. survives the season. I think he manages next year I look forward to going up to Boston next week to broadcast a couple of their games and get a chance to catch up with Bobby a little bit . . . The fans in New York started to like Bobby V. when we fired the coaches. He became a sympathetic figure. He’s now a sympathetic figure in Boston. And they’re (the fans) are gonna start to rally around him as well.

      • bigleagues - Aug 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

        {edit function} on my transcripting: their not they’re

      • bigleagues - Aug 16, 2012 at 9:40 AM

        strike that. I’m way over-tired. Had it right int he first place.

      • jimeejohnson - Aug 16, 2012 at 1:05 PM

        The spelling and grammar police appreciate your efforts!

    • bw1980 - Aug 16, 2012 at 3:33 PM

      There’s a flaw in the logic: Bobby V. is not a sympathetic figure. This is a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend–Sox fans are utterly disgusted with the players (I would say it’s about 95% Josh Beckett’s fault as he’s become a figurehead) and want a reason or will accept any reason to rag on them. I haven’t seen a flood of support for Bobby Valentine and many Sox fans, myself included, feel the same way now that we did when his hiring announced which is that this was a bad move.

      Bobby V has not lasted anywhere he’s been. He’s had a confrontational relationship with the various front offices and an adverserial relationship with the players whom he has managed. By all account he is intelligent (not just baseball intelligent), he knows the game very well and he’s also egotistical, condescending and, as has been evinced this year, more than willing to throw players under the bus to cover or attempt to cover his own ass.

  12. trybe29dr - Aug 16, 2012 at 9:06 AM

    wrong information? valentine is delusional. theres obvious problems in that clubhouse

  13. vcupats - Aug 16, 2012 at 9:31 AM

    Francis, it’s a nation of f***ing rats.

  14. muir6 - Aug 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

    Yah skids lot more secure back in the day of wiki and cheney

  15. houndsman - Aug 16, 2012 at 9:51 AM

    Bobby V managing the Sox is the best thing that ever happened to the Yankees. That guy is a complete douchebag. Whatever problems the Sox had on or off the field are being exacerbated by the “V” man… he’s pure poison.

  16. 1historian - Aug 16, 2012 at 10:05 AM

    The sox are a joke. A well-paid joke I grant you, but they are a joke.

    Johny Pesky passes on but nothing stops the red sox silly wagon – NOTHING.

  17. willclarkgameface - Aug 16, 2012 at 10:57 AM

    Nick Punto. Put your money on it.

  18. zzalapski - Aug 16, 2012 at 11:00 AM

    Shouldn’t they be wondering how they’re 4 games under .500 in mid-August with a $146M payroll?

    • Glenn - Aug 16, 2012 at 11:15 AM

      Actually 31% of their payroll has been on the DL this year. The next closest team is San Diego with 21%. At one point, I believe that their top seven outfielders were on the DL at once. They also have a poor record compared to their run differential and a few other indicators that reflect in-game bad luck as well.

      • Glenn - Aug 16, 2012 at 3:57 PM

        My mistake – the Sox have had 41% of their payroll on the DL so far this year not 31% – San Diego has had 31%. Jonah Keri has a great post on Grantland about the Sox misfortunes, among other things.

        http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/34740/whos-really-to-blame-for-the-red-sox-apocalypse

    • bklynbaseball - Aug 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM

      What is there to wonder about??? They’re playing bad baseball. What their payroll is has got NOTHING to do with it. [See Pittsburgh Pirates] Why do people always try to make a direct correlation between payroll and performance??? It is NOT a direct proportion. There are SO many factors that play in a 162-game season. Injuries, luck, cohesiveness/camaraderie, bad players playing well, good players playing badly – did I mention injuries – which NO ONE can predict. It doesn’t matter what your payroll is, you still have to go out between the lines and play 162.

  19. xpensivewinos - Aug 16, 2012 at 11:24 AM

    What about one of the coaches who is still loyal to Francona?????

    They’re close enough to know everything that goes on.

  20. rc33 - Aug 16, 2012 at 12:40 PM

    What’s the name of the WikiLeaks guy again?
    Asante Samuel or something?

    • aceshigh11 - Aug 16, 2012 at 2:16 PM

      You’re thinking of Armand Assante:

  21. vallewho - Aug 16, 2012 at 1:03 PM

    Don’t you just love anonymous sources…

    • jimeejohnson - Aug 16, 2012 at 1:08 PM

      Love lobstah, chowdah, scallops, and clams; anonymous sources not so much.

  22. bradmoss1 - Aug 16, 2012 at 2:23 PM

    “The meeting wasn’t all kumbaya, hold hands, let’s get on the same page,” Passan said. “It was, a lot of it focused on Bobby Valentine and on the players’ lack of content with his job this year. Look, there was more than I reported, guys. And there’s more than I reported because I couldn’t get second and third sources to confirm some of the details. But there’s more out there than what has been written at this point. And because this is Boston and because these are the Red Sox, that stuff is going to come out.

    Do people really think Passan made this stuff up? Read the bold, he’s saying he has two or more sources for the stuff that did come out.

  23. delawarephilliesfan - Aug 16, 2012 at 3:19 PM

    Just wonderign when soemone is going to “Few Good Men” this string.

    Oh wait, I just did

    • bigleagues - Aug 16, 2012 at 4:10 PM

      I think we had collectively decided against this because, well . . . the Sox clubhouse would actually need “a few good men” for it to work comedically.

  24. stevem7 - Aug 16, 2012 at 5:23 PM

    There is so much denial going on you know that this particular 15 alarm fire is completely true. Just normal Sam Adams KFC nine behavior from up there on Yawkey Way. Grown men who have to hide away and CRY to the owners thatt they don’t like the manager and then attempt to deny it all. PATHETIC.

  25. sheriffpeyton18 - Aug 17, 2012 at 12:18 AM

    Please stop talking about the BoSucks!!

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Yet another WS run for the Giants
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. Y. Molina (2569)
  2. T. Ishikawa (2420)
  3. M. Bumgarner (2293)
  4. L. Cain (2058)
  5. J. Shields (2026)
  1. T. Lincecum (1743)
  2. B. Posey (1545)
  3. A. Pierzynski (1467)
  4. R. Martin (1409)
  5. N. Markakis (1344)