The Yankees are kind of good.
For a while, it was tempting to think the Yankees might go away. Fade into the sunset. Disappear from sight altogether. The Red Sox had ripped off 12 straight wins and Yankee millionaires were falling like Italian soccer players in the path of Zinedine Zidane. The Red Sox were going to win the American League East with ease. Like Secretariat in the Belmont or some such thing . . . And now the Yankees are in the rearview mirror again, high beams blinking, grill touching your rear bumper. Increasing your paranoia.Can I plead simile overload and go hide under my bed now? There is such a thing as a poignant use of a literary technique, and then there is beating people over the head with it. This reads like a middle school English paper with the prompt: "Using what you have learned about similes and metaphors, write a paragraph on the Red Sox and Yankees. Believability not a requirement." What a horribly written paragraph.
`We never thought they were going away," Red Sox general manager Theo Epstein said yesterday afternoon from the Sox clubhouse, where a giant flat-screen television showed the Bronx Bombers trouncing the world champion Chicago White Sox, 14-3, to pull to within one game of first place. ``They score a lot of runs and they have veteran pitchers. They deserve a lot of credit."This really isn't that objectionable. Which I guess is the problem. This is such a duh excerpt that I don't know why he bothered including it. If you are looking for bulletin board material, Theo Epstein is not the guy to go to. He's a master of the artfully boring. "The Yankees are good. They have a good team." Thanks for the insight! Also, why are you still talking to this guy, Theo?
The soccer analogy can die now. And this isn't even grammatically correct. It would be "AC Steinbrenner." It's not "Milan AC," it's "AC Milan." And soccer standings are computed by points, not games, because they can have ties in soccer, so this analogy just really doesn't work on any level, OK, Dan? Even the Zidane headbutt thing, while that was amusing to watch, really doesn't work. Just drop it.
Less then two weeks ago, the Red Sox held a four-game lead over the Steinbrenner AC.
Was there some point in time at which Red Sox fans were not in a New York state of mind? That would be a story. Not this.
So once again we are in a New York state of mind. Even though it's July 16. Even though the Sox don't play the Yankees again until the third week of August.
Following this are a series of quotes from Jason Varitek, Trot Nixon, and Mark Loretta, respectively, demonstrating that no, they never forgot about the Yankees. What exactly is Dan's point here?
The stakes may be higher this year. Boston managed to get into the playoffs despite finishing second to the Yankees in each of the last three seasons. That may not be good enough this time.Everyone has been talking about this since May. There's no need to mention it again. It's common knowledge.
I'm not sure if the first sentence is true. One example of support does not a hypothesis prove. But I quoted it anyway because I hate Sidney Ponson, and it's good to hear they weren't considering him. Although it's amusing to think that they faked it to get the Yankees to quickly sign a violent drunk.One thing that may have changed is the idea that the Red Sox are the more obsessed rival. Baseball stories in New York newspapers have become increasingly Boston-centric. Yesterday's Post insisted that pitcher Sidney Ponson ``snubbed" the Sox when he signed with the Yankees Friday.
``Not true," said Epstein. ``We had no interest in him. None. And you can quote me."
Done.
7 comments:
Lets see if I read this right:
CHB comments on how everyone thought the Sox were going to pull away and then uses quotes from Varitek (Are you kidding me) and Theo (We never thought they were going away) that contradict the argument. Again, I may have read that wrong.
The quick shots part was classic. That was a mixed-up Joe Morgan-ish answer to the question if I ever read one. Note to the Globe: Don't stack CHB with other writers.
Here's what The CHB wrote on June 26, 2005:
"The 2005 Red Sox are going to win the American League East. By a landslide. Come late September, this is going to look like Secretariat at the Belmont in 1973."
Appears he just inverted that column for today. Funny what a few too many nights at the bar will do to you. Mmmmm...beer.
This is how Buster Olney linked CHB's stories today:
"Dan Shaughnessy went to a place extremely important for baseball, a place where you are not permitted if you are a sports fan."
"It's time to pay attention to the AL East race, writes Dan Shaughnessy."
About the first one, we know CHB hates athletes so no wonder he was allowed inside.
About the second one, Buster should have included "Thanks, Captain Obvious!"
That Quick Shots was totally unintelligible. I have no idea what he said. "They will win, but the Yankees might win, but it's going to be hard, but they'll win." What?
Jenny, the best part is when he finished it up with "I like the Red Sox' chances better than anyone else." Then, Edes, Benjamin, and Cafardo show why they like the Sox' chances better than CHB does.
What can one say about something as incoherent as this posting?
Young Jenny really ought to edit herself before offering for public consumption such monstrosities of construction as this:
"There is such a thing as a poignant use of a literary technique, and then there is beating people over the head with it."
Wince.
Incidentally, Steinbrenner AC is a correct usage. It's not a soccer analogy; the construction is as in Steinbrenner Athletic Club, itself a reference to often-used nomenclature for sports organizations sponsored by individuals, chiefly on the amateur level.
I think the chief is obviously overpaying her. Anyone with such problems following basic rules of journalism should be fired.
Right?
Post a Comment