rico43
<B>Director of Minor League Reports</B>
The tweet from Dave O'Brien was not terribly accusatory, but was as damming as a pointed finger at the Braves clubhouse:
Honestly, I don't see leadership in tough times
Fredi has called out his players in his own soft way:
"It’s a maturity thing. You’ve got to take the good with the bad. Everybody likes stuff to be written that’s good about them, but when you lose a tough game or someone needs to ask you a question about something, you need to be at your locker.”
"...when (a media relations official) tells me a couple of guys don’t want to talk (after a game), that’s not right. That’s something that we need to – that I need to —address. And I will.”
It's an absence of leadership, veteran or otherwise. Specifically, Simmons has been a bitch about talking some days, while Johnson and Laird have been singled out as go-to guys.
It might be experience, certainly, it might be the lack of character, or lack of heart, or lack of backbone. What I'm seeing after years of a Braves team that followed the example of Chipper, of Glavine, of Smoltz, of Pendleton, there's no one leading by example.
The cure might be a year of maturing, a year of letting it get away as is currently the case, but it might be a chemistry thing, where a change is gonna have to come. Maybe it's Peraza, maybe it's Bethancourt Hell, it might even be La Stella, but it's looking more and more like Freeman is reluctant to lead, Heyward seems to have the demeanor of a role player and the Uptons can't back up any talk with deeds.
Knowing Harang, Santana (who has been a role model for Teheran) and Laird will be among those gone after this year, it might be incumbent on the Braves finding an on-field leader, like they did when they brought Pendleton in.
In other words, as long as the core stays largely the same, the team demeanor will not change. It is not a winning attitude.
Honestly, I don't see leadership in tough times
Fredi has called out his players in his own soft way:
"It’s a maturity thing. You’ve got to take the good with the bad. Everybody likes stuff to be written that’s good about them, but when you lose a tough game or someone needs to ask you a question about something, you need to be at your locker.”
"...when (a media relations official) tells me a couple of guys don’t want to talk (after a game), that’s not right. That’s something that we need to – that I need to —address. And I will.”
It's an absence of leadership, veteran or otherwise. Specifically, Simmons has been a bitch about talking some days, while Johnson and Laird have been singled out as go-to guys.
It might be experience, certainly, it might be the lack of character, or lack of heart, or lack of backbone. What I'm seeing after years of a Braves team that followed the example of Chipper, of Glavine, of Smoltz, of Pendleton, there's no one leading by example.
The cure might be a year of maturing, a year of letting it get away as is currently the case, but it might be a chemistry thing, where a change is gonna have to come. Maybe it's Peraza, maybe it's Bethancourt Hell, it might even be La Stella, but it's looking more and more like Freeman is reluctant to lead, Heyward seems to have the demeanor of a role player and the Uptons can't back up any talk with deeds.
Knowing Harang, Santana (who has been a role model for Teheran) and Laird will be among those gone after this year, it might be incumbent on the Braves finding an on-field leader, like they did when they brought Pendleton in.
In other words, as long as the core stays largely the same, the team demeanor will not change. It is not a winning attitude.