Talking about our issues

692754.jpg

Talking about our issues

The Red Sox finally got a win last night. In the process, they mercifully pumped the breaks on their season-long losing streak and forced the vultures to find something else to bitch about for the next 24 hours.

Shhh, everybody listen for a second

You hear that?

Silence.

God, it's a beautiful. Now let's just hope the Sox can string together a few more wins, so we can keep this going.

To be honest, that's what this season has become for me. I'm not only rooting for the Sox for the obvious reasons, but also to spite the bitter crazies who are so obsessed with stirring the pot. Who aren't happy until they've turned every little thing into really big thing, and ruin the experience for everyone else. I'm sick of it.

Blah.

Anyway, the latest source of drama is surrounding Buster Olney's repeated claims that there's trouble in the Sox clubhouse. And you know, if it was anyone else (EXCEPT FOR CSNNE.COM RED SOX INSIDER SEAN MCADAM), I'd probably ignore the story. But with Olney, it's fair to assume that there's maybe a little something to this.

Here's what he said yesterday, on Mike and Mike:

"There are still some players on that team angry with what happened last fall," he said. "The accusations, questions about who the mole was on that chicken and beer story. One loud conversation I heard about between two teammates on that team. They've got to get that settled. It really tells you the depth of the anger that was felt after that story got out. ... there's a lot of questions among some Red Sox players about who was the guy that leaked that information out there and that has not been resolved."

The funny thing about this is the constant reference to "some Red Sox players" as if there's any question as to who might still have a problem with last year. Hmm Darnell McDonald? Maybe Matt Albers? How about Frankie Mo?

It could only be Josh Beckett.

And if it's true, that sucks, but thankfully, he only matters once every five days. And if the Sox can start winning, it won't matter at all. But before we move on from Boston's alleged clubhouse issues, I need to pass along this great quote from Big Papi, when he was asked about the reports after last night's game.

"We're just going to try and play the game right and go through it, he said. "People need to put whatever happened last year behind. You're not going to resolve any problems by talking about it."

You're not going to resolve any problems by talking about it.
I get what he's saying, but in any context that's pretty funnyastounding. Hopefully there are a few other influential leaders in that clubhouse who feel differently. If not, it might not be long before the Sox have some new problems on their hands.

Rich can be reached at rlevine@comcastsportsnet.com. Follow Rich on Twitter at http:twitter.comrich_levine

McAdam: Ridiculous to think Bradley's streak ended because he hit leadoff

felgerst_1280x720_693930051772.jpg

McAdam: Ridiculous to think Bradley's streak ended because he hit leadoff

BOSTON -- If you think John Farrell's decision to hit Jackie Bradley Jr. leadoff for one night is the reason Bradley's 29-game hit streak came to an end, I've got some swamp land you might be interested in buying.

Such silly talk first surfaced mid-afternoon when the lineup was announced. With Mookie Betts getting his first day off this season, somebody had to hit leadoff. Farrell went with the guy who was leading the league in hitting.

That sounds reasonable. But not to some, who cried that putting Bradley at the top was (take your pick) disrupting Bradley's routine, putting him in a place with which he wasn't familiar, or asking him to change his approach.

Of course, none of those made much sense.

First of all, Thursday night marked the sixth (SIXTH!) different spot that Bradley has hit during the hitting streak. He had hit second, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth. So the notion that any change was disruptive was absurd.

As for the notion that Bradley would treat his at-bats differently because he was leading off? Also wrong. Bradley's major adjustment since spring training has been being aggressive early in the count. So, do you know how many pitches Bradley saw in four at-bats as the leadoff hitter? Eight.

Does that sound like someone who was being forced to be more patient for the night, or someone changing their approach by working the count more?

Finally, Bradley hit two balls on the screws -- one to the warning track in right, just in front of the bullpen in his first at-bat and another in front of the center field door, some 400 or so feet away, in his third.

Streaks come to an end, even when hitters belt the ball hard. Twice.