"I thought that the manager that managed the Mets that I was not a big fan of was now going to be a different manager, and I don't think there's anything different at all. There's a lot of things I think that are happening not just from his perspective, but when you talk to these guys -- and I'm still talking to some of these guys -- I don't think this is going well. And I think it's going bad quicker than I expected it to."

-- Curt Schilling

When it comes to Bobby Valentine, it's time for Curt Schilling to shut up. 

Look, I think Schilling is a terrific baseball analyst. In a world where all we are fed is vanilla ex-players and managers on TV, it's a very good thing to have someone with smarts and no fear. And that's Schilling. Can he be a blowhard? Sure. Does he always think he's the smartest guy in the room? Yup. Does he call WEEI too much? You bet (I mean, I love it when he's on eight straight days and says the same thing, riveting stuff).

When he's focused and truly believes what he's talking about, no one -- no one -- is better than Schilling. But his criticism of Valentine means nothing to me. It's flawed from the start and we all know why, right?

Bias. 

Schilling loves Terry Francona. OK, that's perfectly understandable. They were close in Philadelphia, and without Schilling there's probably no Francona in Boston the last eight years. They've won World Series together and by every account are still close friends. 

And that's swell, it really is. I get it. In the life of an athlete, those kinds of relationships are going to happen. But it's disingenuous and borders on offensive to go on the radio and attack the guy that replaced your pal before he's managed a game with that organization. All credibility gets completely lost when Schilling starts bashing Valentine, as it strikes anyone paying attention on any level as agenda-driven. 

Francona was Schilling's guy, Schilling has issues with Sox ownership, and the Sox hired a manager that is the opposite of Francona is a million ways.  Bobby Valentine is a walking, talking indictment of all that went wrong under Francona's watch last September -- at least that's the image that is being projected. And that angers Schilling, who has decided that he's going to hold the torch for what was, what used to be. 

And there -- as Chad Finn wrote in the Globe last Friday -- is where Schilling enters the territory of hypocrisy. I don't care that he's a former Red Sox player -- World Series hero, bloody sock, all that -- taking shots at the Red Sox. Good for him, ESPN pays him a salary to be an analyst, not to be a member of the Red Sox Hall of Fame. There should be zero loyalty when it comes to examining your former team, at least on a national platform (local analysts will always be flag wavers, that'll never change and it will always make me want to vomit). 

What drove Schilling nuts as a player -- see Stearns, Butch -- was when he thought a member of the media was trying to create a story, not report one. And that's exactly what he's doing with Bobby Valentine. Schilling is forcing an issue that doesn't yet exist. Do I think it's going to end well for Valentine in Boston? I do not, if only because A) there is history of lousy endings for Valentine and B) there is a history of lousy endings for almost every coach in every sport. 

But put it another way: If a former Sox player went on WEEI in March 2004 and said things weren't going well during spring training (without making an appearance in Fort Myers) Schilling would have blasted the guy for having no clue and then would have questioned what exactly his motive was for trying to forward such an angle. And he would have been right. I have no problem with a healthy debate about Bobby Valentine, but how about letting the guy manage, I don't know, one inning of an actual game before we start kicking dirt?

Bias is everywhere, agendas are inescapable. It exists locally -- Ron Borges is a great, great football writer now defined in many ways for what is perceived as a blind hatred for Bill Belichick. Reporters write books with coaches and athletes and then give them free pass after free pass. Beat writers tweet back and forth with players like they are best friends. And it's no different nationally -- the world will end before Chris Broussard says or writes anything negative about LeBron James, for example. Bob Knight won't even say the word "Kentucky" on TV because he's so offended by how John Calipari runs his program (guess Calipari never chokes his players during practices or makes jokes about rape to reporters, but that's another story and now my anti-Knight bias is bleeding). 

And it's not just sports, of course, turn on the TV and you'll hear Al Sharpton on one side and Ann Coulter on the other of this horrific Trayvon Martin story. And if you're anything like me, you read Borges on Belichick or Broussard on LeBron or Rick Reilly on Lance Armstrong or Coulter or Sharpton and just roll your eyes and try and find someone with something resembling perspective. This is how it goes. 

Curt Schilling has made it clear -- he doesn't think it's going to work for Bobby Valentine and the Red Sox. The problem with that is Curt Schilling doesn't want it work for Bobby Valentine and the Red Sox. It's a fair subject, but this time Schilling is the wrong guy to ask. 

On this subject, it's time for Schilling to keep quiet.

Think that's going to happen?