Boston Red Sox: As If More Gasoline Were Needed To Spread This Fire
The fire is already burning out of control, with no immediate signs of stopping. Red Sox owner John Henry decided to add a little more gas to the blaze.
One of the biggest things Henry supposedly said on a CBS Radio interview was about the expensive signing of Carl Crawford and how he opposed it. Henry cited a reason of having plenty of left-handed bats already, and he didn't think there was a need for another one.
Although Henry opposed this signing, he didn't interfere with baseball operations.
I can understand Henry doing an unscripted interview like this, perhaps to try to calm the waters a little bit in Boston, but saying things like this will do anything but lower the waves. Henry also supposedly denied starting the spread of the issues with former manager Terry Francona.
You can hear the interview for yourself and depict what you want, but for me all of the issues that were discussed during this interview were great, except for going public with not wanting Crawford.
Crawford had a terrible season in his debut with the Red Sox, and you don't think he knows that? He apologized to the fans for his performance, and nobody else looked more disappointed than he did. But now, he knows the owner didn't want him there in the first place.
I find this a little hard to believe. How could you not want to add an all-star? Regardless of which side of the plate he swings from, a guy like that will still bring value to your lineup. Had Crawford performed up to par this season, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Adding this to the way Henry and the rest of the ownership has treated Francona, Henry should be and could be a hated man in Boston. How can the owner of a team throw a player under the bus like that? Basically telling him to his face that he wasn't wanted—what a way to add salt into the gaping wound that Crawford has already.
This is an unbelievable way to start rebuilding from a collapse that is continuing to get worse almost a month later!
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?