Tuesday, August 01, 2006

A sack of you-know-what

Today's column is your standard Big Papi ballwashing. I am all for this. I support Big Papi ballwashing in all its various forms. It is entirely deserved.

But at the time he was acquired, CHB called him a "sack of shit." How soon we forget, Dan. Or you forget. Nobody else has. Ignorant, knee-jerk, offensive, and possibly racist? Classic Dan! I firmly believe the David Ortiz signing to be the greatest move of Theo Epstein's tenure, and possibly one of the greatest GM moves of all time. You can own up to that remark any time now, Dan. I won't hold my breath.

Nonsensical analogy watch: "Ortiz has turned major league baseball into Wiffle ball games you'd play with makeshift rules regarding rooftops, clotheslines, and summer winds."

If someone could explain to me what this has to do with anything, I'd very much appreciate it, though I'm sure this is inviting snarky remarks from OB about my intelligence. How is this a coherent, relevant sentence?

Typographical error watch: "It most definitely would take the bat our of Ortiz's hands."


Starterjacket said...

Do you guys know why Shaugnessy's "They're Left with the Old Lefty" article from the Globe this morning is mysteriously not available at

It was typical of his pervasive snot-nosed tone.

"And speaking of deadline deals and non-deals, can anyone pin-point precisely when baseball's trading deadline day became an event on a par with the NFL draft? Like NCAA basketball's Selection Sunday and the insufferable ESPY's, the MLB trading deadline has morphed into a highly contrived, made-for-TV event."

This is almost exactly what he said on the Red Sox pre-game show yesterday.

Firstly, no one watches the ESPY's. They are almost completely irrelevant.

Secondly, forgive us, dufus Dan, if fans get excited on trade deadline day.

Trades are exciting, as was the possibility that this club would fix some of its flaws.

Now because they did nothing we'll have to line the bottom of the birdcage with another tiresome and redundant ''winter descends over Red Sox nation'' article by the Dufus if the Sox don't make the postseason...

fadedredsoxhat said...

Can you imagine someone at the Globe looking at that Papi column and saying "Great job, Dan. We sure missed you. I bet that those two weeks off were very refreshing for you"? It was typical CHB. Find the easiest thing to write about and write the simplest 1000 words about it.

Starterjacket, I live too far away to get the Globe in print. What did I miss?

starterjacket said...

It was typical monotone CHB drivel on the fact that Wells was their 'aquisition'.

It's still not online as of Wednesday, so I guess it won't be.

I can re-post here if you like, although it will sully the blog a little.

Objectivebruce said...

Parading one's ignorance is not a very attractive way to go through life, so if you can't understand the Wiffleball analogy, nobody on this earth will ever explain it to you.

Using vulgar terms as a quote, when no such vulgar term appeared in print or in any broadcast medium is not a very attractive way to go through life, either.

Just when and where did Shaughnessy refer to Ortiz as a "sack of s---." They're your quotes, so one must assume that the columnist said exactly what you claim he said. So direct us to the column or quote so we can see or hear it in context.

What's that? You can't? My my. I guess self-styled critics can simply repeat things they've "heard," not only without perspective, but without being able to cite to anything other than second-hand reports of what was said.

Fact is, anyone who claims that they knew Ortiz would become what he has become back in February of 2003 is lying.

Sports columns and sports talk are a reflection of a moment in time; there is a rise and fall to all athletic careers and many careers rise and fall several times. Criticizing a columnist for being critical of someone when they were a second-string retread, which is exactly what Ortiz was when he signed, is monumentally vapid.

jenny said...

Jan. 4, 2003, on the radio station WWZN, Bruce. And don't try to shit on me for not linking it, because you know as well as I do that there's no way a 3.5-year-old audio file is going to be available online. Not a valid complaint. Just Google "david-ortiz shaughnessy sack" and you'll see that I am not making it up.

Also, I'm psychic! I predicted that OB would insult my intelligence for not getting the Wiffle ball analogy, and lo and behold, I was right!

jenny said...

Also, there most certainly is cause to criticize a columnist for criticizing a "second-string retread." I don't care who he was talking about; calling someone a "sack of you-know-what" is not an appropriate way to talk about anyone. The fact that you need that explained to you tells me quite a lot.

The Chief said...

Hehe, Jenny is pretty damn funny and those with the near-negative IQ of Bruce should think twice before insulting her.

As it were, Bruce wrote: "Criticizing a columnist for being critical of someone when they were a second-string retread, which is exactly what Ortiz was when he signed, is monumentally vapid."

Fine. Let'f forget for the moment that Minnesota cut Ortiz loose because he was in line to make millions more in arbitration than they could afford. Let's instead ask, why did the (then) lead Boston Globe sportswriter find so offensive about "a second-string retread" that he deemed it necessary to go to town on him?

For the record, and as I have identified many times before, The CHB's now-infamous (and completely incorrect) reference to David Ortiz was made on WWZN on Jan. 4, 2003.
At the time, he said: "[David Ortiz is] a giant sack of you-know-what ..."

The point is, there's simply no point in being a dick. If Ortiz was really as bad as The CHB said he was, why bring him up at all? As has been shown time and again, it's just plain stupid for The CHB and his ilk to make such assessments. The odds of them being proven wrong are high, and in the rare event that they guess right, it comes across not as predictive but as as nasty.

Soxfan living in enemy territory... said...

So, last night Seth Mnookin had his last reading of the East Coast tour presentation of his book in New York. It was very good. When I mentioned that the CHB has been absent from the public eye since the book came out until very recently, Mnookin responded that he has not heard anything from him. Even Doris Kearns, who was moderating the event, nodded her head in disapproval of the CHB’s negativity and role in the whole Theo/Larry saga. As in the WEEI interview he compared again the now infamous column to Archduke Ferdinand's assassination.

As far as this last column is concerned, what can you say? He first thinks Theo is an ingrate and duplicitous, then a few weeks later writes he is the man for the job. Which is it Bruce?

Anonymous said...

I just stumbled upon this site and I LOVE IT !
Shaugnessy is such an incredible hack.

Your site has been bookmarked !

dbvader said...

I know you do not like to support your arguments with facts or anything, so you may find my response overwhelming.
Check out these stats for David Ortiz:
21 y.o. in 258 AA at bats:
22 y.o in 278 Major League ABs:
23 y.o. in 476 AAA at bats:
24 y.o in 415 Major League ABs:
25 y.o in 303 Major League ABs:
26 y.o in 412 Major League ABs:

Hardly a sack of shit or a second-string retread. Nobody thought Ortiz would hit 40 HRs and get on base at .380 clip, but he was talented. The Twins never gave him a good shot to stick. They yanked him between the minors and Minnesota and played him at first, which aggravated his legs.
But as is often the case with CHB, the facts are beside the point. Not only was the statement wrong, I am almost certain it was borne out of ignorance of the facts. Dan probably just thought if the Twins released him, Ortiz cannot be any good. It is faulty, sloppy logic, the type Dan displays in all his opinions.

Objectivebruce said...

Still waiting for the full "sack of you know what" quote, as well as confirmation from someone who actually heard it...

Come on, you people who criticize your betters, let's see exactly what he said, and give me something better than parroting what's on a zero-credibility Web site (I'm also still waiting for some actual reporting, the kind the grown-ups do, on the Shaughnessy/internship rumor that this zero-cred Web site was so eager to spread without an ounce of sourcing.) There are no tapes of this comment? Something on WWZN, where every talent was airchecking every minute in hopes of getting off the sinking ship?

Stop the babbling and tell me exactly what he said, and in context.

Anyone behind Jason Giambi on the depth chart is surely second string. But that's the thing about sports, heroes come out of nowhere and surprise us all and most are still around as their skills diminish. How many athletes in Boston, from Stanley to Urbina to Slocomb to Greenwell to Reggie to Yaz to Schwall have ridden the rollercoaster from obscurity to adulation to boo-riddled condemnation in a short period of time?

Oooops. I forgot. This is the site for the sycophants who want everything to be all positive all the time about their beloved heroes; where reporting is condemned if the people reported upon get upset and go running away into the night dressed as gorillas.

Also, the blogger's crush on young jenny is becoming a bit tedious.

dbvader said...

Jeremy Giambi. Again facts give you trouble.
And he wasn't behind Giambi. There was a rotation between Hillenbrand, Giambi, and Ortiz. He was getting regular AB's before the Hillenbrand trade.

fadedredsoxhat said...

Bruce's crush on his CHB is becoming a bit tedious.