WTF?

I do apologize for the incredibly banal and immature title. But it's 4:00 AM, I'm sick, and these three letters are the only things that come remotely close to conveying my bewilderment and disgust at today's column.

I don't know what happened; my guess is that Dan has been bombarded with complaints about his negativism in the wake of his recent abortions about Theo and Manny, and that this column is the result. It's quite possibly the most sickeningly sarcastic piece of rubbish I've ever had the misfortune to read. I don't even know where to start, or if I should even bother. Let's start here, though:

Remember what Theo Epstein told us Sunday night as he stood on the Fenway lawn before Game 4 of the Carnage by Lansdowne Street: ``We're not going to change our approach and all of a sudden try to build an uberteam and all of a sudden win now at the expense of the future."

There you have it. Let's not win now. This should help you enjoy the remaining 36 games of 2006. Just relax and check out Dustin Pedroia's footwork around second base. It's not about 2006 anymore. It's about the future.

Looking at this quote in isolation brings me to the conclusion that Dan's interpretation of it is asinine. Theo did not say "let's not win now," nor did he imply it. In fact, this isn't what he said at all. The last part of the sentence is mere paraphrasing and Dan has conveniently left out six subsequent sentences that better explain the point Theo is trying to make. By consensus of other reputable articles on the same conversation, here is what Theo actually said:

"We're not going to change our approach and try to build an uber-team and all of a sudden win now and discard the future. That's not an excuse. I'm not trying to throw a cloak over the clear holes on this team by talking about the future. I'm not. Our goals are now, and our goals are to put ourselves in a position to win every single year. That's the reality. It's going to occasionally leave us short."

Had Dan included these other sentences, the impression given would have been vastly different. But it also would have been kinder to Theo, and we can't have that!

Dr. Charles Steinberg is already working on some promotional material for the final Fenway homestands of this season. At this moment he's reviewing three prospective ad campaigns for the non-stretch drive:

``Save that pricey trip to Fort Myers and come see our prospects closer to home."

``Where Would We Play Bobby Abreu?"

``Red Sox: It's called Bruins."

If the first slogan is meant to be negatively sarcastic, it fails: I think a lot of Red Sox fans actually appreciate this. The second one is a valid question to be discussed, not made fun of. And the third slogan is so absurd and lacking in perspective that I won't even try to address it. I assume everyone has enough familiarity with the current state of the Bruins to understand how stupid such a comparison is.

The 2007 Red Sox go to Seattle after Minnesota and the Sox could sweep at Safeco. I wouldn't be surprised if they win their first six games. We might even be calling them an uberteam by the time they get to Fenway. The Sox make four trips to the West Coast and I think they're going to win every game. It'll be sweet to see Theo's '07 Machine march through Chavez Ravine. Take that, Grady Little! And those home games with the Yankees? Forget about everything that just happened. The Sox are only going to get better while the Yankees will only get worse. It's obvious if you really know baseball. So stop fretting about what just happened and take the long view for a change.

Who exactly is he talking to here? Who set him off like this? The sarcasm is just incredible. He sounds like Joe Morgan ranting about Moneyball.

It's very exciting. Future-rama.

I believe the name of the show is actually "Futurama."

And here at 17 percent Daddy Globe we plan to bombard you with happy stories about all the great ballplayers the Sox refused to trade July 31, 2006. Trust me when I tell you that someday soon you're going to be glad to have Manny Delcarmen instead of Roy Oswalt.

The first sentence is sour grapes. The second sentence represents a fundamental misunderstanding about what happened at the trade deadline, either due to ignorance and laziness in regards to actually doing research on it, or due to the fact that no one in the front office will tell him. If it's the former, which I suspect it is, shame on him, and how typical. If it's the latter, I applaud everyone who said "no comment." In case you were wondering, though, Dan, the Red Sox were willing to trade prospects for Roy Oswalt. It was the Astros who weren't willing to deal Roy Oswalt for prospects. It's kind of hard for Theo to make a deal when there's nothing on the table, huh?

If you can't see what's happening here, it is your own fault. The Red Sox, like the Patriots, are simply smarter than every other organization.

Ah, the easily identifiable stench of a man who has been pushed to his breaking point by an overload of responses defending the front office and feels the need to fire back by making even more ignorant, insulting remarks.

They have vision while the rest of the baseball world wears bifocals.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but people with bifocals also have vision, no?

And they rely on a flock of fans who are willing to pay $12 just to walk into an empty ballpark and look at the ancient poles.

I went on that tour last year. I had a blast.

Let's face it: 2004 bought a lot of patience and solidified Epstein as a hardball genius. These are days of Camelot at olde Fenway and there's nothing that Edgar Renteria, Matt Clement, Coco Crisp, Rudy Seanez, Julian Tavarez, or Josh Beckett can do to change that.

You know he was just dying to add "unfortunately" to the end of that paragraph. This is all about him trying to turn the fans against Theo and the fans not following his lead. Irksome, isn't it, Dan? After all this time, they still like Theo better than you. All that effort, gone to waste; you haven't managed to single-handedly tear him down yet.

Cynics might wonder about the rest of this year. Nattering nabobs might take issue with the top prices in baseball when it's all about the future. Cheapos might ask the Sox to scale back prices since we're no longer worried about '06. Not me. I have seen Baseball Future and its name is Boston Red Sox.

I think he needs to be medicated.