Thursday, January 26, 2006

'The Curse of the Lucchino'

Let's consider how many player transactions the Red Sox make in a typical season, shall we? OK!

In 2005, the Sox conducted roughly 150 transactions (trades, free agent signings, waiver moves, DL moves, etc.) That's nearly one per game. And it's reasonable to believe that for every move they made, there were probably several others considered.

Given all that action, there's little reason to get hung up on a trade involving a minor league catcher and a fourth outfielder, especially when said trade never came off. Except, of course, if you have little reason.

Last week, the Red Sox announced Theo Epstein would return to its management ranks. Now, all those who believe that the presence of Epstein makes the Sox stronger raise your hands. I don't see yours up, Dan. I wonder why.

Perhaps it's because Dan is out on a shaky limb after first not having the sense to leave a non-story alone and then following that with repeated trashings of Theo over the past three months.

Now, with Epstein back in the fold, surely the Globe's lead columnist can put it all into perspective for us. Or not.
Step back for a second there and listen to what the man is saying -- or not saying. The Bigbie deal -- in which the Rockies obtained Bigbie from the Orioles, with the intention of sending him to the Sox for Adam Stern and Kelly Shoppach -- involved territorial rights between Epstein and Lucchino. The early, popular version was that Lucchino killed Theo's deal. It was later reported that ownership volunteered to take the hit on a deal Theo no longer wanted to make.
Let's put aside for the moment that Mr. Hysterical is the only -- repeat -- only person in this galaxy or any other who cares about Larry Bigbie (and that includes Bigbie's mom). Makes one wonder whether Dan is Bigbie's own CHB, if you know what I mean. That last line of that quote is equally peculiar. As Dan was the one who in his Dirty Laundry column tattled on Theo, why not own up to it, instead of sidestepping it as if it came from "that other paper?" Plenty of stomach, but no guts, Dan.

More laughs. Dan calls the Red Sox paranoid: "Not sure precisely when the new ownership group morphed into the Nixon White House, but expect managed news from Yawkey Way from this point forward." Hello kettle, you're looking might black today!

OK, so only about 10 million words have been spoken regarding this whole issue. And that makes it oh-so-easy for the media to look up something one of the parties said weeks or months ago and, upon finding any slight discrepancy, drive a truck through it. Well, turnabout is fair play, Sybil.

Buried in Dan's column is this little line: "We know the fans want [the media] to move on, pretend none of this ever happened." I guess Dan forgets that on Nov. 2 he told Dennis and Callahan, "I write for the readers."

Today's column rebukes that: "It was a story," writes The CHB. "It is a story. It will always be a story." Great. The Curse of the Lucchino, coming soon to a Barnes & Noble near you.

Wouldn't it be fun if the Globe staff dedicated so many pieces to its own internal personnel matters?

There's a word for such behavior: hypocrisy.


John Farrell said...

Excellent piece. Just found your blog through a media connection.

I'm just glad someone is dealing on a regular basis with Shaughnessy's ongoing predilection for spiteful hypocrisy.

Why doesn't the NYTimes bring him home, to NY, where he belongs, and where is irrational spite will find welcome readers.

Anonymous said...

Home? Shaughnessy is from Groton, Mass. I believe. He still sucks, but he isn't from New York.

Best post yet Chief.

The Chief said...

"I write for the readers."

jenny said...

To toot my own horn a la CHB, part of me wonders if I was at least a small impetus behind his continued fixation on Larry Bigbie in this column. I sent him an extremely nasty long e-mail on the subject last week on the theory that he'd gotten so many e-mails over the past few months about the Dirty Laundry column that I should wait until most of it had died down to see if I could get a response. In it, I took his version of the Bigbie trade and basically ripped it to what I felt were extremely small pieces. And it was about a page and a half long. And I accused him of writing like a propaganda columnist for the Pyongyang Times. I imagine that went over like a ton of bricks. Maybe it stuck with him.

I'll stop inflating my own self-importance now.

The Chief said...


I'm all for anyone who gives the CHB a taste of his bitter medicine. Feel free to share it here.

ObjectiveBruce said...

This is more incoherent nonsense which demonstrates little more than how childish hatred trumps logic. Larry Bigbie's abilities as a baseball player was never at issue. The club is clearly going to extraordinary lengths to control spin -- it held a news conference on a non-signing, but does individual one-on-one interviews over the ex-GM coming back? That's not Nixonesque paranoia? Watch a press conference when someone is on the defensive some day; the media questions layer upon each other and the answers become big news. When everyone in town does a one-on-one, the quotes each outlet gets becomes the story; anything harmful is diluate. And you think Larry/Theo is a dead story? Ithink I was wrong earlier. Childish hatred doesn't trump logic. It fosters stupidity (although that's a conclusion your series of childish rants has more than justified in the past.)

The Chief said...

Better be careful: John Henry's goons are watching you!

Anonymous said...

Ha! Burn!

jenny said...

Well, I got a response back from CHB on his 1/20 column, but I didn't read it, because the first line that I saw seemed to be accusing me of hacking his e-mail. Sorry, Dan, it's not my fault that your responses to some readers are so offensive that they want to post them on message boards to let everyone else know what an ass you are. Some examples of said e-mails:

"I guess it's good that no one cares what you think, then." (in response to someone correcting a fact he got wrong)

"Since when do they let people in mental asylums have access to computers?"

Deleted, Dan. Nice of you to throw out unfounded accusations, though. Just like the columns...hmm...

ObjectiveBruce said...

Wow,the syncophants are just as absurd as the blogger. Seems we have people who like to fire off angry e-mails but lack the courage to even read the response. And this after "ripping to shreds" an ancient (by newspaper standards) column! My, but we have delusions. Seems Shaugnessey would be justified reprising Bill Lee's classic response to a letter from Dapper O'Neil...

The Chief said...

Answer us this, OB:

Are you having an affair with Larry Bigbie and if not, when did it end?

Anonymous said...

Funny how "objectivebruce" can only attack the blog author and can't find a single positive thing to say about the Globe. Isn't it hysterical how that works? You never hear anyone say "The Globe is lively, engaging read, whose columnists bring fresh, thought-provoking takes on what is going on in our world. I could not get through a single day without the Globe and it is a vital asset to the community." Ever. It used to be that only right-wing cranks hated that Globe, now everyone thinks it sucks.

The Chief said...

Seems Dan is in violation of Globe policy -- see below (itals mine).

A. On the Job

A1. Our Duty to Our Audience

17.We treat audience members no less fairly in private than in public. Anyone who deals with our public is expected to honor that principle, knowing that ultimately our readers are our employers. Civility applies whether an exchange takes place in person, by telephone, by letter or by e-mail.

objectivebruce said...

I'm responding to what the blog writer says, to the extent that it is impossible to make any sense from his generally incoherent nonsense. But no, I don't think the Globe sucks. As long as there is a Boston Herald, the Globe will never suck by comparison. The Globe is a good paper. It could be better. It used to be better. And if you don't read it, you are missing something.

Now as for civility, we have only allegations of incivility, lodged by someone who admits not reading the e-mail. Which brings us full circle to the blogger -- he seems to run off on rants without understanding what he is reading. Not as bad as not reading at all, but still pretty childish.

The Chief said...

Well Dan, I'm sure that when your boss checks your old email (they can do that, you know), we'll know who's telling the truth. Not that JS has the ethics do anything about it.

Anonymous said...

Well OB, if the best you can come up with in defense of the Globe is "it is better than the Herald," that about sums things up. Especially when you consider that as bad as a paper as it is, the Herald has still been kicking the Globe's ass all winter long on Red Sox coverage. And, unlike the Globe, the Herald doesn't pretend the Patriots don't exist.