0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.
Well, they told him last night, the night before the anniversary. I'm all for compassion, but devil's advocate, should the Sox potentially lose games by keeping him around longer than they feel is necessary, due to a rough day in his personal life?
Quote from: Roy Hobbs on May 20, 2010, 01:15:48 PMWell, they told him last night, the night before the anniversary. I'm all for compassion, but devil's advocate, should the Sox potentially lose games by keeping him around longer than they feel is necessary, due to a rough day in his personal life?Losing games? Because having Angel Sanchez at shortstop for the next few days is going to mean the difference between winning ans losing rather than having Bill Hall there?
Quote from: nickagneta on May 20, 2010, 01:20:27 PMQuote from: Roy Hobbs on May 20, 2010, 01:15:48 PMWell, they told him last night, the night before the anniversary. I'm all for compassion, but devil's advocate, should the Sox potentially lose games by keeping him around longer than they feel is necessary, due to a rough day in his personal life?Losing games? Because having Angel Sanchez at shortstop for the next few days is going to mean the difference between winning ans losing rather than having Bill Hall there?What if it does? I can't hate on an organization that's trying to gain every edge possible in winning games.I mean, when would have been an appropriate time to let SS know? The night before the anniversary is off limits, meaning the anniversary was, too. Would the day after have been? Or two nights later?Ultimately, if the player is cool with it, I don't think it's a big deal.
This article is trying to play on everyone's hearts. I'd consider the writer more classless to mention this just happens to be the anniversary of his wife's passing than the Red Sox cutting him on said day. I mean, really?