Thursday, October 05, 2006

Back to the Future

So this is how it's going to be. One month worth of columns on the Major League Baseball playoffs, none of them more than lists of names of players who used to play for Boston.

Yesterday's column on Derek Jeter featured a strange sidetrack on Nomar Garciaparra. Today's piece, which had more to do with commuting and Red Sox past than baseball present, mentioned no less than seven former Boston employees. In order:

* Derek Lowe
* Grady Little
* Bill Mueller
* Dave Jauss
* Nomar Garciaparra
* Dennis Eckersley
* Lowe (again)
* Cliff Floyd
* Nomar (again)
* Nomar (again) .

The CHB also managed to work in references to the Red Sox World Series' teams of 1946 and 1967, Fenway Park and the CITGO sign.

Meet the new CHB. Same as the old CHB.


shawn said...

Boring, uninspired, yet ultimately inoffensive column. Must have to justify the per diem.

koot said...

If he loves NY so much, why doesn't he stay there?!? They can keep him.

Also, I'm always suspicious when he, Tim McCarver, Joe Buck or Michael Kay suggest that respected baseball people actually talk to them. In my heart, I honestly believe any and all respected baseball people avoid this clown like the plague.

Seriously, if I was a respected baseball person, if he approached me, I'd pretend to get a call on my cell real quick. If I saw him coming, I'd reach for the phone before he gets to me. That's just my trick though, I'm sure Gammons probably has a much better way to deal with the various nuisances around the baseball field.

And, Mr. Gammons, if you're reading this, and feeling generous, I'd love to find out how you free yourself from excruciating social situations.

I suspect being as beloved as Gammons is a double-edged sword. Everyone loves and respects you, which is cool. But, I'm sure he has all these annoying characters (Shank) who are always bothering him. However, if he's too obvious with his disdain of them, he's less beloved. I suspect Gammons walks a thin line.

Objectivebruce said...

Silly Silly Silly.

Of the seven "former Boston employees," five are current Dodgers and one is a Met and the column was about two playoff games one involving The Dodgers and The Mets.

But criticize we must, even if it means writing an utterly absurd exercise in parading one's ignorance such as this.

Michael said...

"parading one's ignorance"

Bruce is right. If it weren't for Dan's column, none of us would have made the connection that all those guys used to play for the Red Sox.

The Chief said...

Yes, Bruce, Dan is silly. And stupid. And redundant.

But criticize him we must!

dbvader said...

Yes, the Dave Jauss and Bill Mueller mentions were quite relevant.
Shank filled his column with former Red Sox because it furthers his silly, nihilistic agenda. Wasting column space with a series of injured players and coaches is a way to avoid having to offer any analysis. Classic Shank.

If a collection of Shank's columns were ever to be published, later readers would be left to wonder what the fuck (yes, I said you nancy bitch, OB) Shank was wasting his time on. With all the onfield action, Shank wastes his time with petty jealousy. Burn the Globe and take OB's job with it.

objectivebruce said...

dbvader seems to be out to prove the pitfalls of immaturity.

Oh, and "nihilistic agenda" is a contradiction in terms.

dbvader said...

"nihilistic agenda" is a contradiction in terms.

No its not, you dope. You can have a personal agenda for nihilism.

Is it possible for you, obtusebruce, to address the merits of a criticism? Or is tut-tutting others' use of language a tacit admission that you have nothing to counter their point?

I'll put it straightforward enough so that even you can understand: How is mentioning Dave Jauss, a former Red Sox advance scout and 1st base coach, and Bill Mueller, who was out for the postseason, remotely relevant or important in any discussion of the NLDS?