6 comments Jim Rich Calls Terry Francona and Joe Girardi Hypocrites, Which Highlights His Own Small Hypocrisy

The Biogenesis scandal has given a lot of sportswriters a chance to do some moral grandstanding and start to take out long-standing grudges on anyone even somewhat affiliated with Biogenesis, Alex Rodriguez, and every other MLB team. Sportswriters rarely pass up a chance to do some moral grandstanding and blame everyone and their brother for steroids being prevalent in MLB. I read the "New York Daily News" sports section everyday for a reason. I like to read sportswriters freaking the hell out about sports and many writers at the "Daily News" do this very well. Jim Rich of the "Daily News" says that Terry Francona and Joe Girardi are hypocrites because they have benefited from managing players who have been accused of using PED's or have been caught using PED's. What's so interesting is that the managers of the Red Sox and Yankees are hypocrites and the focus of Rich's scorn, yet he gives the guys in the Red Sox/Yankees clubhouse a pass for benefiting and playing alongside these PED users. I don't think guys in the Yankees or Red Sox locker room should be scorned for not tattling on their PED-using teammates, but it's an interesting sort of double standard Jim Rich sets forth.

So while Rich criticizes Francona/Girardi for coaching along side these players, while he completely lets clubhouse leaders for the Red Sox and Yankees like Dustin Pedroia, Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, and Kevin Youkilis off the hook. If he is going to blame Girardi and Francona for the steroids in the locker room, shouldn't Rich blame the players in the locker room as well. These players, like Derek Jeter, who have (rightly) spoken against steroid use yet said nothing about the steroid use in the Yankees locker room. To Jim Rich, these guys aren't hypocrites at all because no one is supposed to criticize these players. You just don't criticize the Jeter or a scrappy guy like Pedroia. Interesting how this works, huh? Jeter is a great leader of men, but Rich doesn't know how Jeter could have known of A-Rod's PED use. I guess Jeter's leadership doesn't extend to tattling on his teammates. In Rich's view, Joe Girardi should have known and publicly condemned A-Rod when he didn't expect the same from the Yankees players.

Most people would think of the legacies of Joe Girardi and Terry Francona as scrappy players turned successful managers for two of the most influential franchises in baseball history.

Most people would not go out of their way to be contrarians and accuse two managers of being hypocrites for managing two teams that had PED users on the roster, while not calling the players in the clubhouse out for playing on a team that had PED users. Most people are not Jim Rich. I don't think either party should be condemned, but I have a hard time going after Girardi/Francona for not throwing their PED users under the bus, while not holding the Red Sox/Yankees players to the same standard. It's all madness. 

But the Biogensis bombshell this past week, where as many as 20 big leaguers could face suspension as a result of their link to the performance-enhancing-drug lab, has exposed the two skippers for what they truly are:

One of a couple dozen managers who managed players who were proven to use PED's or accused of using PED's, but you simply go after Francona and Girardi because you are more interested in getting attention than being intellectually honest? 

Frauds.

Oh, frauds. So if Girardi and Francona are frauds for managing the Yankees and Red Sox when they were two of thirty teams that at some point had a PED user on the roster, then doesn't that mean Tony LaRussa (I know, the great LaRussa!), Bobby Cox, and pretty much any manager over the last 10-15 years is also a fraud? Wouldn't this mean the "clean" baseball players like Cal Ripken Jr, Chipper Jones, Ken Griffey Jr., Frank Thomas, and other guys who (I don't) think used PED's are frauds as well. Why let them off the hook if you are going to bury Girardi and Francona? Why not call Tony LaRussa a fraud? It's a good thing he is retired because he's a fraud. 

Case 1: On Wednesday, Girardi, when asked about Alex Rodriguez’s alleged PED use and looming 100-game ban, said he was only going to talk about baseball.

What? He didn't condemn and throw one of his own players under the bus? What kind of half-assed leadership and clubhouse does Girardi run? If Girardi's players feel like he will take to the media to condemn their actions how will he keep control of the clubhouse and keep the player's respect? I'm sure Girardi has a lot to say about A-Rod, but he keeps it to himself because A-Rod is a Yankees employee and Girardi is a Yankees employee. 

What would Jim Rich want Girardi to say about A-Rod? Would he want to hear Girardi bash A-Rod or hear Girardi tell the media what a disappointing person A-Rod is? Why do we need to hear Girardi say these things, other than to give media members like Jim Rich something to talk about in their columns? The media simply likes it when teams implode because it gives them interesting stories to write. So Jim Rich wants Girardi to comment on A-Rod's 100-game ban because it will help the team potentially implode and give Jim Rich more stories to write. 

Some people just want to watch the world burn. 

“This is in MLB’s hands. For me to speculate doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

A statement that basically says, "no comment"? In order to not be a fraud, Joe Girardi must comment on these allegations against A-Rod. Otherwise, by not condemning A-Rod's actions Girardi is basically injecting PED's into A-Rod's ass. 

Really? What could be more about baseball than a guy taking illegal drugs

Jim Rich is putting words in Girardi's mouth. In this quote Girardi didn't say A-Rod's PED use was not baseball-related. He said it was in MLB's hands and it doesn't make sense for him to speculate. Talking about a potential PED suspension for one of his players isn't an entirely baseball-related conversation that Girardi should be having with the media.

to improve his performance to the point that he hits the fifth-most home runs (647) in history, drives in the seventh-most runs (1,950) and wins three MVP Awards?

A-Rod didn't compile all of these numbers because he used PED's. At least some of these home runs and RBI's can't be directly attributed to his use of PED's. I don't know how many, but I feel very safe in believing all 647 of A-Rod's home runs aren't due to his use of PED's. 

While Rodriguez was launching 129 of those bombs under Girardi’s watch, the Yankees manager was more than happy to discuss them, presumably because that qualified as baseball talk.

I'm sensing the sarcasm that is being written here, but when Girardi was asked about home runs that A-Rod hit during a baseball that did qualify as baseball talk. It was in Girardi's purview as the manager of the Yankees. How long MLB will suspend A-Rod isn't really part of Girardi's job description, so when he is asked about it his answers are pure speculation. 

But now that every one of A-Rod’s 2,901 career hits (37th most) must be called into question as the result of his second association with steroid use -

This is the incorrect use of reasoning and logic. Every single one of A-Rod's hits should not be called into question. Steroids improve an athlete's performance, but they don't make a player who can't hit a baseball at all end up with nearly 3,000 career hits. It just doesn't work that way. It is somewhat reasonable to call a portion of A-Rod's career hits into question, but not every single one of them.

don’t forget how he admitted to juicing for the three years he was in Texas, but never before or after, Scout’s honor - Girardi feels he’s exempt from the discussion?
What a joke.

So Girardi is included in this discussion because he is guilty by association? Should the Yankees first base coach or third base coach also be seen as hypocrites? After all, they are associated with A-Rod and because they coach on the team A-Rod plays on they are guilty. How about the Yankees players, including revered guys like Rivera and Jeter, are they guilty by association? After all, why should they be exempt if Girardi isn't exempt? 

Hypocrisy oozes from Girardi’s dismissal of the discussion as a distraction, nothing more than a persistent gnat buzzing around the brim of his interlocking N and Y on an otherwise peachy spring day.

So because Girardi doesn't give an opinion (based on his own speculation) about A-Rod this makes him a hypocrite? It's not hypocrisy, but simply Girardi recognizing he is a Yankees employee and there is nothing to be gained and everything to be lost by commenting. Jim Rich simply wants something to write about and he needs a little controversy to fuel his writing. 

Here is a guy who, as a player, stood shoulder to shoulder with steroid cheats ranging from Sammy Sosa to Chuck Knoblauch, then went on to manage the likes of A-Rod and admitted HGH user Andy Pettitte.

Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera played with Chuck Knoblauch, Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, and A-Rod. Neither Rivera or Jeter have ever been implicated in using steroids, so isn't Jeter a hypocrite for taking a stand against steroids while also benefiting from his teammates that use steroids? I would argue "no," but if Girardi is implicated by being a teammate of Sosa and Knoblauch I can't see how Jeter or Rivera are magically off the hook. They both benefited from their teammates using PED's and only condemned these teammates and ex-teammates after their PED use was found out. 

Why even place blame on Girardi or any other players? Blame A-Rod and the other PED users. No player or manager worth a shit is going to throw a current teammate under the bus for using PED's nor should they.

So, let’s get this straight, Joe: while you were earning close to $30 million as a player and/or coach over the past 24 years, it was OK for you to benefit from all of those players’ pumped-up performances, but when someone wants your thoughts on how they went about executing and maintaining that level of play, you say it doesn’t make a lot of sense for you to speculate?

Yes. That's how it works. Girardi is a Yankees employee and isn't going to criticize or speculate on the fate of one of his current players. It's frustrating for a sportswriter who desperately wants some controversy to discuss, but it's the right thing for Girardi to do.

Case 2: Cleveland manager Terry Francona also said Wednesday “as an industry we kind of buried our heads in the sand a little bit.”

While, on its surface, Francona’s indictment is refreshing,

But if you look beneath the surface and need a column idea then you can look at this comment and think that Francona is a hypocrite. 

where was his searing self-assessment when busted steroid cheats Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz were blasting a combined 289 home runs while leading Boston to two World Series over the eight years that Francona was manager?

Francona's head was in the sand. That's exactly what his quote says. "As an industry" baseball had their heads in the sand a bit. Ortiz and Ramirez weren't busted steroid cheats at the time the Red Sox won these two World Series, so it is possible Francona didn't know. Where was a column about steroids in baseball and how MLB has their head in the sand 15 years ago from Jim Rich during the Steroid Era? Where was all of Jim Rich's searing indictment of baseball managers over a decade ago? It was nowhere because he was too busy enjoying the Steroid Era.

Francona won an average of 93 games a season and made the playoffs five times on the inflated backs of Ramirez and Ortiz, but did you ever hear a word of suspicion from him as he was hoisting his World Series trophies and being lauded as one of the best managers in the game?

This is just stupidity. Is Francona supposed to stop the World Series victory parade and alert the Red Sox fans to his suspicions that Ortiz and Ramirez are using PED's? What kind of manager who likes his job and doesn't want to lose the respect of his team announces his suspicion that some of his players are using PED's? I didn't realize Francona needed to call a press conference to alert everyone to his suspicions of PED use on the Red Sox roster.

Jim Rich can try as hard as he wants, and he's trying very hard, but simply being the manager of the Red Sox during a time when two Red Sox players were using PED's doesn't make Francona a hypocrite or culpable for the actions of either baseball player. I love how some in the media are adopting the "Why didn't the players and managers tell everyone about the steroid issue?" stance now as if reporting on steroid use in baseball is Terry Francona's job now or was his job in the early 2000's. It was Francona's job to manage the Red Sox, and whether Jim Rich likes it or not, it is not Francona's place to publicly speculate that two of his players are using PED's when neither player had tested positive at that point. 

As selfish and infuriating as the two managers’ stances are on the steroid issue, their most egregious hypocrisy lies in the fact that they have managed or played with so many other unnamed cheats, who, in part, were allowed to tarnish the game as a result of their willing blindness.

What about Tony LaRussa? He managed Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire. Canseco literally wrote the book (or two books) about steroids in baseball and he was managed by LaRussa in Oakland. Why does LaRussa get a pass? It's fun to point blame and not pointing the finger at specific individuals certainly doesn't help your column get read, but there was more willing blindness in baseball than that exhibited by these two managers. 

I'm also not sure how it is hypocrisy for Francona to say MLB stuck it's head in the sand. He's admitting there were mistakes made, so he's not really being a hypocrite. He admitted a mistake was made.

Francona and Girardi certainly have had plenty of company in allowing this fraud on the game and its fans to exist,

But Jim Rich writes for a New York paper and so he only cares about Joe Girardi and Terry Francona's hypocrisy. Those Yankees and Red Sox players, like Derek Jeter, who are disappointed in players like A-Rod they aren't hypocrites though. Jim Rich has to select who he calls a hypocrite based on whether he likes that person or not. Sure, Jeter played with named and unnamed cheats, but his stance against PED's in baseball isn't hypocrisy because Jim Rich doesn't want it to be hypocrisy. It would sound insane, and it is insane, to call Derek Jeter a hypocrite for speaking against PED use while playing on a team with PED users. Jim Rich would get torn apart by other members of the media, so he goes after Joe Girardi. Rich only points the finger at select individuals. He points the finger at the managers for managing and playing with cheats, but never at the current players who also played with cheats. They're off the hook.

but there have been very few who have basked more in its tainted glow.

There's Dusty Baker who has basked in the tainted glow of steroids. He managed Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa. Yes, managers and players benefited from steroids, but I don't know if it is fair to single out Girardi and Francona. Plus, if Jim Rich wants to talk about willful blindness then he needs to start that conversation by talking about the media's willful blindness to the records being set during the Steroid Era.

4 comments Are You Being Serious? Dan Shaughnessy Shows His Mastery of Trolling Through the Written Word

Dan "How's my Perm Look?" Shaughnessy has taken time out from writing about chicken and beer (There was chicken. And beer. In the Red Sox clubhouse. Shockingly society has managed to endure.) and how chicken and beer helped lead to the downfall of the 2011 Boston Red Sox. He has taken this time away from harping on a non-issue to allow his audience, or what is left of his audience, know he really likes Bobby Valentine. Valentine is much better than that shithead Terry Francona. Or IS Valentine better than Francona? You can't tell from this article. It sounds like Dan is saying there needed to be changes with the Red Sox and Bobby Valentine is going to bring those needed changes to the team.

You know they say a manager is a "player's coach?" Well, Bobby Valentine is a sportswriter's coach (He promises change! Has any manager promised this ever before? The answer is "no.") and Dan Shaughnessy is totally digging it. Or IS Dan digging it? It also sounds like Dan is saying (through the use of sarcasm) that nothing will change and Valentine's words consist of empty promises. But then Dan is pretty complimentary of Bobby Valentine, so it is hard to tell.

Last time I heard about anything regarding Dan Shaughnessy and Terry Francona in the same sentence, they were were writing a book together. (It is kind of weird of Dan to write a book with a guy like Francona and then be critical of how Francona ran the Red Sox team.) On one hand this article seems like a basic Theo Epstein and Terry Francona bashfest. The article is about how the Red Sox are going to be a much better team under Valentine as compared to Francona, the manager Dan Shaughnessy called the best Red Sox manager of all-time.

Here's what Shaughnessy said about Francona in the past...

"I think you have to put him number one," Shaughnessy said. "I know you can go back to the teens, and the [Joe] Kerrigan days, and obviously Joe Cronin was here for like a million years in the 1940s and 1950s and all that jazz. But to win two World Series in this day and age, and to come from where they've come from ... I'm going to put him number one."

BUT NOW, Bobby Valentine is going to be the best Red Sox manager of all-time (apparently). In fact, he very well may be the greatest manager ever in the history of baseball and better than any other coach or manager that has ever existed and you can't ever change Dan's opinion of this...though a five game losing streak would possibly do the trick.

What sportswriter worth a shit writes an article where the audience can't tell the tone of the piece? Shaughnessy has the innate ability to tweak both Bobby Valentine supporters, those who like Terry Francona and Red Sox fans in general. No matter what you believe, you hate this column. It would be impressive if it wasn't so embarrassing for him to troll his audience like this. I can't believe Dan Shaughnessy is serious and actually wrote an article where the tone seemed to be sarcasm, but it also seems a bit serious in parts. At this point, the only purpose Dan Shaughnessy serves is to piss off readers. Checks the comments of this article. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on what this article is saying, but whatever it is saying it is really pissing people off at each other, the Red Sox and Dan Shaughnessy.

It’s been two weeks in paradise watching Bobby Valentine and the “all new’’ Red Sox. I see the new drills and the subliminal video messages and the longer workouts and the smarter-than-everybody manager and I keep asking myself the same question . . .
Why does my face constantly look bloated? Who can I bash in my latest column in order to tweak Red Sox fans? How do I consider myself to be an expert on Boston sports when I don't really do anything but write reactionary columns which serve more as a pathetic attempt at notoriety and cause me to be the laughingstock of fans and fellow sportswriters alike? Why won't Heidi Watney return my repeated phone calls?

How did the Red Sox win two World Series, average 93 wins per season, and make the playoffs five times when they were clearly such a chaotic, disorganized mess in spring training for the last eight years?

Is this sarcasm? Is this not sarcasm? Herein lies the issue with this article. Dan Shaughnessy doesn't seem to care to further any certain point of view, he just wants to piss us off. Shaughnessy has criticized the Red Sox for the chicken and beer scandal (There was chicken and beer. In the clubhouse. The world will never be the same.), so I can see where he would think the team was a chaotic mess. Also, this statement is stupid and even someone who trolls as blatantly as Shaughnessy could be serious in making this statement.

How could we all have been fooled?

That's a great question to ask, especially if Dan is being serious when writing this statement. It's not like he gets paid to write about the Red Sox or has access to the locker room, players and coaches. So I guess my question, if he is being serious, is how he could have been fooled?

It’s amazing when you really think about it. All these years they could have been great and they settled for just plain pretty good. Fans ate hamburger when they could have been feasting on prime rib.

The Red Sox won two World Series under Terry Francona. That was prime rib compared to anything else the Red Sox had done over the previous 80 years.

It’s all different now, that’s for sure.

Again...sarcasm or not? This article is such a mess that if the Boston Globe had an editorial staff at all (which I assume they don't, otherwise there's no way this article gets published) they would tell Shaughnessy to re-write it. What Shaughnessy doesn't realize is his audience has such little respect for him, we actually believe he is trolling and stupid enough to believe the two World Series victories were "hamburger" and a new manager promising changes would make things different. I actually believe Dan Shaughnessy would write something as inane as this.

This isn’t like the old days when the Sox always went through the motions during spring training.

And look where it got them! The Red Sox only made the playoffs five of the eight seasons Francona was the manager. That's it. The Curse of Francona dragged this team down!

Sox players are no longer allowed to drive themselves to spring training games. Everyone must take the bus. Francona not only allowed players to drive themselves around Florida, he allowed high-roller players to charter a plane and separate themselves from the jamokes on the bus.

The tone here seems to be very serious. It is obvious to me Dan Shaughnessy believes Valentine's way is better.

Oh, and remember how Tito allowed Josh Beckett to have Varitek as his binkie? No more personal catchers.

“It’s not my choice or style,’’ said Valentine.

And we all know Valentine's style that has led to a .510 winning percentage and zero division titles are much better than Terry Francona's choices or style. You can't argue with his way of doing things with the success he's had.

Now we have Bobby V reinventing baseball in Fort Myers. Bobby has the brainwash videos looping in the Sox clubhouse (one day it might be pitchers making routine fielding plays, another day it’ll be relays from the outfield).

Now Dan Shaughnessy is being snide about the videos that Valentine is having his team watch. Is Dan not really saying anything so he can jump on the Valentine bandwagon if the Red Sox succeed, but still jump off the bandwagon if Valentine is a failure? I can only assume that's what he is doing.

Bobby has his coaches using real bats instead of fungo bats to replicate game-condition spin on the baseball. Sox pitchers no longer shag fly balls during batting practice.

Again, I don't know if Shaughnessy is being serious or not. He really needs to work on the tone of his writing or perhaps quit writing about sports altogether (crosses fingers). It sounds like he really thinks Valentine is a better option than Francona was. This is clear until you read where Shaughnessy writes,

It’s pretty clear now that Theo Epstein and Terry Francona were doofuses. They didn’t know what they were doing. They just threw the bats, balls, and gloves on the field and told the fellows to “go get ’em.’’

This just isn't true and I think Shaughnessy would know this isn't true. So essentially Shaughnessy is just baiting every single person he can bait in an effort to get a reaction. Again, if Valentine succeeds he can point back to this article as proof he was on-board and if Valentine fails then he will attempt to make his readers feel stupid for believing he was serious. This article is sarcasm wrapped in super-seriousness.

My favorite Bobby-isn’t-Tito moment came in the middle of one of his early news conferences on the picnic table outside the Sox clubhouse. Francona’s pet peeve was cellphones going off in the middle of his pressers. Woe was the reporter or camera guy who forgot to turn off his phone before the start of the session.

So what happened when Bobby V got into it with us last week? His own phone went off!

His OWN phone?! Amazing and shocking. Bobby Valentine is built for success with the Red Sox because his phone rings during press conferences and he baits the Yankees.

And you wonder why we all love this guy?

But do you love this guy, Dan Shaughnessy? Or are you simply baiting your audience and doing the only thing you know how to do well at this point in your career, which is writing bullshit in an effort to get a reaction from readers?

I ask if Dan Shaughnessy is being serious or not, but sadly, I think he is being serious. He's just not exactly sure what he is being serious about at this point, it's just the reaction he gets which is all that matters.

4 comments BotB Podcast #14

Do you dislike Terry Francona? Are you a fan of the NBA Playoffs? Do you want to know why Shin-Soo Choo's DUI was the dumbest arrest in the history of mankind? Hit the play button below and all your deepest desires shall be fulfilled.

0 comments Tek Check

Couldn't let this slide, in reference to my commentary on Varitek about a week ago. Et tu Francona?

Francona said before Sunday's game that he wasn't aware of the ESPNdeportes interview. And he didn't know whether Ramirez was in a good mood.

"I'm not sure that matters," Francona said. "I'd take a guy that's hitting .500 that's miserable as opposed to a guy that hands out bouquets to his teammates and is hitting a buck 45. ... You move on. The goal is to get better from it. I think we've done a good job of that here."

Francona woke up in a cold sweat 14 hours later at 2am and yelled "FUCK! I made it too obvious!"

Jason Varitek .218/.302/.358. Still in bouquet saving territory, but only just.