Today's column is the inevitable piece about Sox inaction at the deadline. It's about a week late, but if you take the view that the real impact of the deadline non-moves won't be known until the end of the year or even the end of the next few years (as I do), it's still too early. However, he had to write something, right? There are only a few parts I have an issue with, and it's nothing major. In general, this column is exceedingly boring. I have noticed this about pretty much every piece that relies heavily on quotes from Theo Epstein. Aside from that hilarious remark about the World Series trophy and Paris Hilton, he's not really a good go-to guy for interesting material. He's too careful.
Anyway, what I had issue with:
On the hot seat for the first time in his big league career, Epstein disputes the notion that the Sox have been intransigent at the negotiating table because they've fallen in love with their prospects.He's joking, right? He doesn't really think this is the first time Theo's been on the hot seat? I think 2005 was one giant hot seat, and I don't even know what the offseason was. Spontaneous combustion? Nuclear meltdown? The entire summer of 2004 was a hot seat; if the Nomar trade had backfired, Theo would probably be either scouting for the Pirates or trying investment banking right now. Actually, his entire job is a hot seat. I find this little fragment ridiculous. I mean, Dan makes my point in the last paragraph:
But if the Sox fail to make the playoffs, Epstein knows that July 31 will be cited as the beginning of the end of Boston's chances for 2006. And he'll be blamed. That's a fact of life when you are general manager of the Red Sox. There is no escape from the sound and the fury.This seems a bit contradictory to me. I'm also annoyed by all the "The Sound and the Fury" references, since I hate William Faulkner (thanks to "As I Lay Dying," hands-down the worst book in my high-school curriculum save maybe anything by Willa Cather), but that's Theo's fault. He opened the door. Boooooo, I say.
Really, it's not a bad piece except for that one stupid remark. It's just very, very bland.
I liked the first paragraph:
ReplyDelete"Criticism comes in many forms when you are general manager of the Boston Red Sox. It swallowed a great man named Lou Gorman and it no doubt expedited the departure of Dan Duquette. Being in charge of the Sox makes you a target for nasty newspaper columns, raging radio opinions, TV panel shows, blogs, and standard water cooler conversation."
LOL, as if his hands are clean.
It was good but NOTE TO THE GLOBE: Don't put a Ryan column and a CHB column in your paper on the same day! CHB will come out inferior every time.
faded,
ReplyDeleteI liked it, too. A veiled threat: We can turn on you at any minute and take you out.
BS. Both GM's cited lost their jobs because they failed to put good teams on the field and mismanagement. I don't think Allard Baird would have lasted as long in Boston as he did in KC, but the most important factor in how long GMs stay is ownership.
Another minor point: Dan is just throwing names out when he mentions Murphy, Delcarmen, and Hansen. Only the latter had any great value at the trading deadline. The other two are spart parts on good teams, not what rebuilding teams are looking for. CHB just wrote them down because those are the only names he knows.
Duquette was a major architect of the team that won in 2004, having acquired the entire outfield and three of the first four starters and won a division in 95 and wildcards in 98-99, far from "failed to put a good team on the field."
ReplyDeleteGorman won a pennant in 86 and divisions in 88 and 90 before the Hobson debacle
It was more management style and personalities
Bruce,
ReplyDeleteLook at the 91-93 teams. They were awful on offense. Bad signings of Dawson, Clark, and Young, and he lost Ellis Burks for nothing.
And Duke made a series of boneheaded moves. Trading Tankersly for about 20 ABs of Ed Sprague, signing O'Leary for big money, the Arrojo trade, loosing Eckstein for nothing, and the Manny signing.