Dear Strange Zimbal-person,

Thank you for this.  We've Fedex'd your voucher for a one-week cruise on our yacht.

Regards,

John and Linda

Sports economist? Professor of Economics at Smith...please....apparently you're a consultant to the Sox. Live outside the classroom for a few years. Maybe you'll get it....

Is he gunning for the Will the Shill  position at the Globe?

The day a manager is hired he is going to get fired and it always ends ugly.  Just ask Joe Torre.  Tito's got his side of the story.  If John Henry, that bloodless freak, wants to tell his side of the story he can write his own book or crash the studio at WEEI again.  Who leaked all the dirt on Tito to Bob Hohler?  It wasn't a player, it had to be Lucchino, Henry or Werner.  Probably Werner, it looked like his kind of move.  I'm not the expert on sports economics that Prof. Zimbo is but I know that running your team based on focus groups is a recipe for failure and that NESN ratings go up when the team wins and go down when the team struggles.  There, I just saved you the cost of a marketing study.  Signing aging free agents to big long term contracts is stupid because you're paying for who the player used to be and not for who he is and is going to be.  A-Rod case in point.  The Cardinals and the Marlins have been continually successful spending a fraction of what the Red Sox spend and they don't do it with focus groups, they do it by doing a good job drafting and developing players and letting them go or trading them when they approach free agency and get too expensive (see ya, Albert Pujols, and thanks for all the memories).   The Red Sox and Tito were successful when the Sox played smart moneyball and became unsuccessful when the Red Sox tried to be the Yankees, and since the Yankees were generally unsuccessful being the Yankees it is hardly surprising that the Red Sox failed at it.  You know, you give people a choice between the Yankees and the Yankees and they'll pick the Yankees every time.  But, Tito didn't change what he was doing and the Red Sox did change what they were doing, and it failed and now the team is scr*wed, and that sure isn't Tito's fault.

Does it sound to anyone out there that the author would perhaps like to work for "Doctor Charles"?

"nasty, petty, inaccurate, and unfair"

Pretty much sums up the consistent behavior of Red Sox owners for the last hundred years.  And the back-hand given Francona when canned, the way the winning team was systematically driven into the ground .... confirmation that, as before, albeit in a different way, as much as things change they remain the same.  Professor Sports Economist got his point by point from HarryRPitts, above.  No wonder the professor is an economist, hardly a qualification to have a reliable or sound opinion, apparently about anything.

I have my doubts about how quickly you scanned this book? How could you have missed the crucial role that Theo played in bridging and managing the emotions flowing between the owners and the manager? Theo's own cynicism and paving of his path out of town was the difference at the end. Without each other as perceptive and loyal allies, there was no joy in dealing with an ownership with egos as big as their pockets and people skills inversely proportional to their business skills. It is winning, not over the top sizzle oriented marketing that puts the butts in the seats. Great team work and baseball fundamentals and skills is what creates the entertainment. Look at what happened to the Celtics and the new Garden: enough overstimulating promos and blasting music to drive the real lover of the game to avoid going in there at all costs...

Want to improve ratings for the Sox and NESN..drop Tom Caron as quickly as possilbe.  Win or lose, haven't watched pre or post game coverage in 5 years.  He's totally boring and doesn't communicate, always sounds like he's reading, and NEVER a smile.  There, just saved you another $100,000 for a marketing survey.  Added thought....owners wanted to get "more sexy" and they have TC anchor?

Ah, entertaining.   We eat our own, don't we?   

While I agree with some of your points, especially the fallacy that ownership was distracted by multiple business interests, when you say that the owners don't sleep when the team loses and that, had they not invested $300 million in Fenway renovations, puiblic funds would have had to have been used for a new park (ever been to Gillette?), you lose credibility as you come across as a shill for ownership.

Sox ownership should be commended, and has been, for the good that they've done with the Sox, including the team winning two World Series. But, as they say, the true test of a man is when he faces adversity. I hold Tito responsible for a lot of what went on in 2011 and he admits he had to go. His book  shows the ugly underbelly of ownership, what we've been seeing over the past couple years as they've faced adversity for the first time with the Sox.

I would have done the same thing if I was Tito. The Sox PR machine didn't have to do the rip job they did to him on his way out. Now they're getting their payback. Nasty, petty, inaccurate and unfair are words that describe Larry Lucchino, not Terry Francona. Larry's made a career of behaving this way and has the reputation to show for it.

I am no expert on the sport of baseball, nor its economics.  I am a fan when the home team is in the playoffs.  I have not and probably will not purchase Mr. Francona's book. I did watch Mr. Francona's rather bumptuous interview with that Rooney woman on Channel 2 this past Monday night and found him entertaining.   As for this Andrew Zimbalist person . . . maybe he is too far away from Boston to get clear reception to Red Sox games and news coverage.  This commentary of his certainly makes him a candidate for Boston Globe  blowhard of the week.  One has to wonder at either Zimblast's inexplicible praise or subtle sarcasm found in his praise of Red Sox exeutives for the past two years coming at the end of his efforts to be scathingly critical of Mr. Francona. Did the Red Sox perform well in the 2012 season?

Sorry. . .I have more faith in Terry Fancona's integrity that the Sox owners or Theo or Ben or anyone else involved in the  Sox.  As far as losing control of the team, it was always clear that Tito was a players manager.  Those players (read child millionaires) who took advantage of this good human being who cared about them and was substantially responsible for their success should be ashamed of themselves.  They are not worthy to clean Tito's spikes.

Andrew,  This is where you lost me......  "Why do they stay riveted at Fenway for every play, watch all games on TV when they are out of town, and lose sleep when the Sox lose?"  ............. I can't tell you how many games I went to over the last few years (many!) but what I can tell you is that this is BS.  When the servers tell me that "Mr. Henry is already gone" and Sweet Caroline is still at least 3 innings from being played, you know he's either home because it's past his bedtime or he has otherwise lost interest.  Again, you write this as fact.  I'm telling you it's just dead wrong.

Watch for Andrew to be in the Sox owners's box on opening day!

If you've ever spent any time behind the scenes with this ball club (I have) you would be appalled how this management team treats its employees, right down to the ushers and the kids selling the programs.  You would never want your kid working here. Elitist, obnoxious, penny pinching snobs.

Maybe Prof. Zimbalist really is objective.  Maybe everybody in and around the sport of baseball is completely devoid of any personal interest or desire to see things come out one way or another.  But I doubt it. 

So when Dan Shaughnessy undertook the project of writing a book with Terry Francona, they both had doubts -  mostly about each other and how the collaboration would work out.  But one thing neither of those baseball guys did was to pretend they were doing anything but telling one side of the story: the side that had been untold until then. 

I personally find the professor's tone condescending and offensive.  Characterizing Tito's reaction to guiding the team with market study as "doing naughty things". Pretending the person you disagree with speaks like a baby is disrespect.  I never got the idea from the excerpts the Globe published that Tito or Shaughnessy were saying the owners didn't love or understand baseball - only that he'd loved it longer and understood it better.  The professor also contradicts himself between excusing the owners for having other interests (in pp4) and expressing how they never EVER missed a game and went sleepless through all the bad times (in pp5). 

But what bothers me most about this is the question, "Who's he speaking for?"  Looking at his CV, he's got a lot of contacts at the league level; spent a fair bit of time scratching Bud Selig's back.  Tom Werner's got a critical blurb - okay, uncritical - on  one of the professor's books. How close is Dr. Z to the owners, anyway?  That fourth paragraph sounded like he knew about their activities first-hand.

The most offensive single part is when Prof. Zimbalist 'forgives' Mr. Francona for not understanding sports economics the way he does.  He calls Tito's stupid, but not in so many words.  That part stinks, and makes the writer sound despicable.

And what about the Boston Globe itself?  Isn't the paper's parent company (excuse me while I hold my nose) The New York Times Company, a minority owner?  So how about a little disclaimer?  Like, "These are my buddies, so I've got their back," or "The paper's paying me a pretty tidy sum to defend them and their fellow owners, so here goes."  I guess that kind of simple and direct language doesn't come out of *Economists*.  (Eugh, I gotta go brush my teeth.) 

IMHO: If Tom Werner wants baseball wisdom, he should go back to Yogi Berra.  (This guy's kind of a d*ck.)

Terry Francona is upset because he got kicked to the curb. I don't blame him one bit. He was the best manager this franchise ever had in my 59 years of being on this earth. He was always very classy with people, media and fans. He was an exceptional manager of people and isn't that what managing is really all about? To be able to manage all the pieces and pull off winning. It must have been a nightmare managing some of these man-children that played for him. Calling him petty etc. is uncalled for. He was wronged on his way out the door, pure and simple. If any organization gave up highly personal/medical information about an employee who is legally entitled to strict confidentiality they must take responsbility for their actions. I do not think the sox management ever did that.

As far as good owners, I would say they had done their best and I for one am very pleased that I lived to see two world series wins and I thank them for making that happen.That said they will recoup every cent of their investment and much, much more so I do not feel like I owe them anything for being good business people. In my humble opinion, Terry Francona should be honored in the future with his own night at Fenway Park and his number permanently retired and placed on the face of the right field grand stand. 

What's petty here is Andrew Zimbalist's review. A college professor that draws conclusions about what's in a person's mind, with no proof whatsoever, should take up another profession.

Now that I think about it, maybe I'm being too harsh. Zimbalist is an economics professor and they rarely know what they're talking about anyway.

I think this column is off the mark.  Like most things, the truth is somewhere in between.  The Red Sox won 2 world series, and everyone gets some credit for that.  Francona kept a lot of borderline personality problems very quiet.   Then the team melted down, which can happen as quickly as the success, so of course there was an ugly story to go with it.  To praise the owners and blame Francona is ridiculous.  The book is just part of the PR fallout of the team melt-down.  The comment about the "painkiller problem" is nothing but a cheap shot.  Clearly Terry Francona is hurt, and that's why he wrote his book.  But I think he is also an honest man.  He's had some serious health issues and had reason for taking pain medication.  That's not a "problem", that's a cheap shot.

This is just all emotion.  Just enjoy the memories.    Good luck, bad luck, it all comes around in time.  The Patriots have shown us that.  There was some very good maneuvering, some very smart people that got us in position to have the good luck.  Terry Francona was a big part of that.  Probably a bigger part than the owners, but that's for history to judge.  The owners deserve some credit too.

I suspect I'd rather have a beer with Terry Francona than a glass of wine with John Henry.  And I prefer wine.  

     Of course, there are many versions of the story; and an economist might well view the Sox from a numbers perspective that fails to consider or discounts the human dimension. Nevertheless, it it is grossly unfair of Mr Zimbalist to trash Tito's version. I have read the book and find Terry Francona's narrative compelling.  Is it objective fact? No, but it is authentic.

     /Ed Dailey