Another week, another mail bag, and… holy shit, is it already August 6th? Well then, I’d better get Griff Baggin’ [note: huh?] by hijacking up the latest edition of Richard Griffin’s mail bag from over at the Toronto Star.
As always, I have not read any of Griffin’s answers.
If there’s a question you’d like me to answer, email it to firstname.lastname@example.org and maybe he’ll select it for a future mail bag. Fingers crossed!
Q. Hi Richard,
I for one am tired of hearing this nonsense already. I think John Gibbons is doing a fine job. Is he giving up five runs before the game is two innings old? Is he leading the league in strikeouts with runners in scoring position? Is he batting around .200? Plus he passes my “Sam Mitchell” test. I thought the former Raptor coach was an arrogant, condescending, first class you-know-what. When Gibbons is interviewed by the media, he is always gracious, honest and truthful. He is doing the best he can with the load he has been given.
If change needs to be made I, for one, say Jose Bautista, goodbye and good riddance. A true team player/leader plays for the name on the front of the jersey not back. Jose is all about Jose, his constant battles with the umps, his exclusion from the home run derby, his place in the lineup and I could go on. This team currently “belongs” to Edwin Encarnacion and if he can ever get his head screwed on right it will be Brett Lawrie’s team. He is the logical choice and Canadians are just dying for him to be the star. Unfortunately he is frustratingly screwed up right now.
Wow. This letter is positively fucking Romero-like in the way it totally looked like it had it, then completely lost any semblance of the plot.
Yes, John Gibbons– any manager, really– takes way more shit he deserves. He didn’t blow up the rotation, and doesn’t have nearly the impact on on-field results that certain people, as they grope around for something to focus their pissy negativity on, want to ascribe to him.
All you have do to to grasp what a manager is worth is have a look at what they get paid, relative to payroll– it ain’t much. All you have to do to understand why is to ask yourself, did John Farrell suddenly become a genius when he got to Boston, or is his success this year and his lack thereof in the previous two maybe down to… I dunno… the players?
On that subject we’re golden, S. Rain. But holy shit, the other stuff. It’s an incoherent mess based on such invented nonsense that I barely know where to start taking a giant dump on it.
Like… you’ve decided you have enough evidence that Bautista isn’t enough of a team player to want to get rid of him?
And, knowing dick all about anything that’s actually relevant to the question of his leadership (which, for the record, is a pretty dumb question in the first place), like how he interacts with his teammates behind closed doors, you’ve decide to base that on the fact you think he’s arguing with umpires out of selfishness (even though he’s done it repeatedly after key at-bats for the team), that he opted out of the Home Run Derby (at the team’s request– or maybe because he bristled slightly about it while accepting their directive?), and something about his place in the lineup.
This shit that fans sometimes invent like this– about their teams needing to “belong” to someone– is just staggering to me. Like… think for two seconds about how a group of 25 disparate, millionaire athlete personalities might work and why anyone should ever bother thinking in such quaint, ass-backwards ways. It makes for a real Grantland-esque narrative, I guess, to think of the one leader as a focal point in the room, rallying his fellow troops to a common goal and imbuing in the all they need to know about playing the right way, but… uh… maybe get real?
Bautista is a great player, your characterization of him is based on absolutely nothing, and even if it weren’t completely ridiculous and he were some kind of selfish jackass (a label that, FYI, the Canadian whose balls you’re so ready to fluff might do a better job of qualifying at, if you really want to make ridiculous claims based on scant evidence), so what?
It’s not difficult comprehend all the various and sundry characters who’ve had success in this game before inventing horseshit about one having some unique personality flaw that makes it so that not only can he not, but he’ll drag down everyone else in his path. If his personality rubs you the wrong way, why the hell not just say that and decline slipping away into this warm bathtub of greasy dung?
P.S. Smitch forever.