Count The CHB as one of those "fans." Here’s his shot at the Sox manager from Sept. 26, 2004:
For almost six months, he was just harmless, never-say-bunt Tito. A player's boss in the tradition of Pete Carroll, Terry Francona told us he loved his guys and he took blame for anything they did wrong. He drove some fans crazy with game strategy and pitcher deployment (the usual stuff), but most of Red Sox Nation viewed him as a benign bystander in the 2004 quest for the grail. And then came Friday night when Francona morphed into Grady Lite.Going a little farther back, here’s what he said Aug. 29, 2004:
Some of us think you put the players first too much. We fear you take too many bullets for the fellows. Not enough tough love. Certainly nothing public.And June 3, 2004: "That's exactly what He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said right up until the day the Red Sox sent him back to Pinehurst, N.C."
Back to today’s piece: "Until this week, it seemed the Sox were willing to let Francona start the 2006 season as a lame duck manager …” Not to those who have been paying attention. This approach is in line with the closed-mouth stance Sox management have taken since The CHB, et al, created the Epstein maelstrom.
“No details were released, but the Sox no doubt gave Francona a significant bump in salary.” Interesting that Dan thinks the Red Sox should openly comment on the salaries of their personnel. Just like the Globe does. Not.
“Would he like to be here a long time?” In the ocean of idiotic logic that is Dan’s brain, this may be the dumbest question yet. Francona just signed a new contract. How many ways do you think he would possibly answer this question?
Most of the line of questioning followed Dan’s past interviews with Francona:
*Aug. 29, 2004: "But don't expect him to listen to nitwit radio. 'I think I have a pretty good perspective on that," he said. [R]eally I don't listen to it that much.' "
*July 19, 2005: "I don't wake up in the morning and run to the radio to see how I'm being perceived," Terry Francona said before last night's 3-1 loss to the Devil Rays. "I'd be in trouble if I did that."
*March 15, 2006: "I have no idea how I am perceived," Francona said. "That's the times we live in, and in a major market that's what sports radio has become -- who can out-smart-aleck each other -- and it doesn't interest me."
Finally, Dan can’t seem to mention Francona’s name without bringing up Grady Little or Don Zimmer, which he did today and in all the aforementioned columns. Obsessed much with the past, Dan-o?
Like we said yesterday, it's time to hire some new monkeys.
9 comments:
A twi-nighter today! Not much intelligent discussion in either the original post or in the first posted response.
I'm not Dan. Never met him. But if your delusions of grandeur want you to think that, there is nothing I can do about it.
So you really think the Sox conceded game three and decided, in the fifth inning, to go ahead and lose to take their chances down 0-3 in games?
And this on a day when the blogger put his Globe archive account into overdrive, although it seems like wasted energy since the posting makes absolutely no sense.
Is there a point in there?
One need not correct differences of opinion, but clearly the factual mistakes of the original blogger still need correcting. But that won't happen; apparently pride goeth before hypocrisy.
People who begin to read an article or column with an agenda of hate and the preconceived notion that they will find something they don't like are apt to come to the wrong conclusions about what they read. Sometimes it's deliberate, as in the "what can I find to quibble about today, oh no there's nothing better toss some phrases through the archives" mentality we see in this blog
Now if I understand the broken English of the previous comment, bloggers aren't supposed to correct their errors when their venom-filled agendas taint their reading skills to the point that they spew falsehoods in a petty effort to make something of their lives by launching ill-conceived and irrational public attacks on others.
It should be clear I'm not him, but in the grand tradition of the knee-jerk reactions that drive this blog and it's mindless fans, you consider facts a troublesome technicality that get in the way of your jealousy-driven petty feuds.
Wow, well put. I don't claim to be an expert on any of this stuff, but it seems to me that Troy made and excellent point, whereas "Bruce" is just looking for a fight. Honestly, I come here every time Danny Boy writes just to laugh at the criticisms. Personally, I used to like him for one book: "Seeing Red." This one book was given to me as a gift when I was a kid, and it really got me interested in sports and the past. Now, I'm a college student with a passion for sports. Did that book play a role in defining my sports past; sure it did. But just because I initially liked some of the things that Shaughnessy wrote doesn't mean that I haven't been concerned with his more recent work. It seems to me like he has become bitter and focused on the negative, a master of spin. So I know this has been rambling, but I just wish more writers today would try to return to uniting readers, and not always focusing of the negative and dividing their readers. So to sum it all up, Dan used to be a good writer, and I wonder where that went. And I agree with Troy. Happy Saint Patrick's Day everyone!
Most people who use "impeccable" English remember to use a verb in their sentences.
It is absolutely amazing that you have this hang-up that I am Shaughnessy.
AS for the Republican playbook, I'd say the blogger and his fans seem to have done a fairly good job taking a lesson there. The old "repeat it often enough and they'll believe it's true" approach seems to be a favorite.
Correcting one's error is a simple matter of good grace. One either has it or one does not. Two of the most egregious errors seen recently -- that the Yankees managed to "touch out the Red Sox for the division title" when baseball clearly provides for co-champions in the case of a equal-record tie, and the claim that Shaughnessy stated that the MIAA awards a Superbowl MVP -- are not matters of interpretation.
The fact is, this blog is dedicated to ripping one columnist -- not to critiquing his work. If the name Shaughnessy appears at the top of a column, it is considered to be fodder for diatribes or archive-checking to discover some perceived inconsistency with words written long ago and in another context. I merely have decided not to let this one run amok like so many others who want a public forum, but take offense at idea that their rantings should be held to any sort of standard of fairness and decency.
"Of all the blogs in all the Internet cafes in all the world, Bruce walks into mine." How sweet.
You forgot to mention this cheap shot:
"Francona moved his wife and four children (two already in college) from Pennsylvania to Massachusetts last August, a commitment Rivers has been unable to make."
What does Doc Rivers' family have to do with Terry Francona's contract extension? Four paragraphs later, he writes this:
"He said he doesn't know who Glenn Ordway is (this is where the columnist resists the temptation to interject an easy cheap shot)."
Wow! How big of you, CHB! Whats your favorite cookie so we can reward you with a batch of them?
Chief, I'm new to your site and I bookmarked it right away. Dan Shaughnessy is Boston's worst by a long way. He fires off personal shots, he doesn't do his homework, and he is redundant! He knows he's unfireable and it shows in his work. He just cares about producing his 1200 words 2-3 times a week without a whole lot of concern for what sense the 1200 words will make. I'm glad someone is out there who thinks the way I do and studies his archives and holds him accountable online. Someone has to because his employer won't and he knows it. I will tell all my friends about your great site. Keep up the good work.
I'm still not Dan, despite your delusions. But facts and fairness are such a rare commodity around this space, you fit right in. I know you like your sports columnists to be either jock-sniffers or part of the crude radio crowd. But that doesn't make me Dan; no matter how hard you wish it.
Dan is amused by this cute little blog.
The rest of us are amused by how much the Globe sports section sucks.
Post a Comment