Terry Francona's Book Shines Negative Light on Red Sox Franchise
Greg Fiume/Getty Images
Former Boston Red Sox and current Cleveland Indians Manager Terry Francona has a book coming out with Boston Globe Columnist Dan Shaughnessy titled "Francona: The Red Sox Years." Hold on Red Sox fans. This is one you might want to pass up if you have any attachment to Red Sox ownership whatsoever.
Francona takes shots at the owners and even includes a few conversations with former Sox GM Theo Epstein.
According to the Boston Globe, Red Sox ownership felt that they didn't have enough, as Epstein puts it, "sexy players" who would be more marketable to the fans.
After the 2010 season, the Sox went out and aquired Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford who apparently were the "sexy" players that the owners were looking for, which eventually led to the departure of Francona and Epstein.
However, Francona doesn't let Epstein do all of the talking. Here's a particularly interesting passage from the manager's writings:
“I don’t think they love baseball, I think they like baseball. It’s revenue and I know that’s their right and their interest because they’re owners … it’s still more of a toy or hobby for them. It’s not their blood. They’re going to come in and out of baseball. It’s different for me. Baseball is my life.”
Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images
Francona also mentions that team chairman Tom Werner told Francona that the team needed to win in "more exciting ways." Who wants a win if it's not exciting?
The Boston Red Sox were once a team that was all about winning baseball games. It didn't matter who was on the field, who they were playing against or even how long Johnny Damon's hair/beard was. They went out and won in any way possible.
Now, according to Francona's book, the Red Sox owners are all about looking good, which apparently doesn't translate to wins. The Red Sox went just 69-93 last season.
Francona's controversial book will arrive on shelves on January 22.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?