Last night, DBVader's post gave us a chance to predict what Shaughnessy would say about Barry Bond's visit to Fenway this weekend. I figured that CHB would be so entranced with the Red Sox' vanishing lead that he would have no time for a Bonds' angle. I was wrong. Of course, I should have figured as much - Shaughnessy probably wrote this story as soon as he saw that the Giants were coming to town on the Sox schedule.
The column is very predictable--Shaughnessy rips Bonds left and right. He comes up with a half dozen ways to crack jokes about Bonds head and body size. He rips the other steroid suspects as well from Giambi to Sosa and McGwire in between. There are lots of references to the proud Red Sox tradition which stand in contrast to Bonds' joyless pursuit. And he concludes by saying Red Sox fans will let Bonds have it this weekend.
Surprise, there is absolutely nothing new here. Nothing I have not heard a thousand times before either on sports talk radio or sports pages. No revelations. No new angles. It is truly Shaughnessy at his very finest. He had to get this stock column out of the way and I imagine we will be treated to a "sky is falling" column before the weekend is done.
(Please excuse this short entry- am running a bit late this AM to work)
13 comments:
This blog posting is very predictible.
That comment contained no new information or surprises.
OB
You are exactly right - my blog post was predictable. Shaughnessy trots out his usual crap and there are only so many ways to call him on it.
I agree with Shaughnessy to a great extent - Bond's home run chase is a joyless pursuit and there is a large cloud over Bonds' large head.
The thing I find fascinating about Bonds is his walk totals; he is an incredibly disciplined hitter. I imagine there are plenty of hitters on steroids (the David Seguis of the world) that don't hit homers by the bushel. I do think Bonds is a phenomenal talent and I think that has to be acknowledged on some level.
At any rate, I suppose I don't disagree with Shaughnessy's message but the method of delivery is truly worn and predictable. Would you disagree? Can you please tell me what Shaughnessy added to the dialogue this morning? Please?
OB:
What department do you work in at the Globe?
Tim
Nope, don't work for the Globe, although the narcissism of the posters to this blog seems to dictate the position that if I don't share their point of view it must be due to a conflict of interest. Sorry to dash the conspiracy theories.
What did Shaughnessy "add to the dialogue?" Probably nothing, it depends on how you read the column. In some ways, it's a call to arms or manifesto of sorts encouraging an appropriate greeting tonight. The Sawx-Giants game tonight is as big an event as we're apt to see this weekend, unless watching golf is your idea of fun.
Then there's Terry Francona with an absolutely moronic statement comparing Bonds visit to playing Rocco Baldelli and the Jays. But then Francona is hardly among baseball's geniuses.
I thought, by the way, that the ending of the column was rather weak and wonder if it was bitten off for space or if that's the way it was supposed to end.
Here's hoping Dave Roberts steals home (in a non-crucial situation) or something, just for the fun of it.
Not much to add in the way of the article. He pretty much said everything that has been said already about Bonds.
It seems to me that although Bonds clearly did cheat, which is wrong, he is not the only one. If the Alex Sanchez's, the Matt Lawton's, and the Jason Grimsley's of the world are on steroids to go along with many of the stars, whose to say 90+% of MLB players are/have been on the juice? Bonds certainly should be booed, but it seems like fans want to crucify the guy like he is the ONLY player to do it. He is simply the best player to take 'roids, not the only. I can guarantee that right now, there is at least one player on every MLB roster that has used PED's, or is using them right now.
Fans want to crucify a guy like Bonds because he clearly cheated, he is an asshole, and because he is arguably one players of the best ever. In an era where everyone was juicing, he put up numbers that look outrageous compared to hitters of the same era. I'm not defending what Bonds did, but I think that the way he is attacked to a much further extent than anyone else, when everyone is guilty of the same crime is outrageous.
Hey OB:
Remember the article on the murder victim
Half Zantop, saying he had an affair and that probably had something to do with the crime?
(He and his wife were murdered.)
It was front page, above the fold. Turns out, it
was wrong and Globe ran a retraction three or four days later, about five pages in at the bottom in a tiny paragraph.
Now that's some great journalism!
Okay, take care.
Tim
Dan wrote a boring piece stating nothing that hasn't already been said. The most corageous columnist that Joe Sullivan knows should be able to come up with something more interesting. Dubegedi offered a unique perspective and it ain't even his job.
Lots of Danisms here.
In no order:
1. Dan forgetting his April 2, 2006, column, where he complained, "The Major League Baseball season starts tonight and the Red Sox season starts tomorrow afternoon here in a ballpark built with some help from George W. Bush, and we are talking about steroids. Now and again. Forever, it seems."
(http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2006/04/02/opening_day_arrives_under_cloud_of_steroids/ )
2. Dan forgetting his May 31, 2006, column (http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2006/05/31/troubling_ingredient_in_hall_vote?mode=PF) where he wrote: "and it looks as if his days in the National League are almost over. At best, Bonds is bound for a role as a designated hitter, but right now he'd be a drag on any American League team, and Oakland is probably the only place where he'd be welcomed by new hometown fans."
3. Dan forgetting how he wrote, on March 8, 2006 (http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2006/03/08/book_bind/),
"Palmeiro's failed drug test of 2005 almost certainly cost him Cooperstown, but skeptics look at what happened to the bodies of Pudge Rodriguez and Sosa and Roger Clemens and they wonder. This is when it truly does feel like a witch hunt."
4. Dan forgetting he wrote, on Oct. 18, 2002, “Why does America hate Barry Bonds so much? Is it because he's too good? Is it because we constantly hear that his teammates can't stand him? Is it the phony, Carl Everett-esque point to the heavens when he crosses the plate after homering? Is it because he sounds so insincere? Are we threatened by the prospect of him passing hardball gods Willie Mays, Babe Ruth, and Hank Aaron on the all-time homer list? Bonds is the central figure of this World Series. It is difficult to come up with another player who's gotten more attention before the start of the event. We want to know how/if the Angels will pitch to him. We want to see if he can finally perform in the clutch. Despite his (relatively) strong showing in the first two rounds, Bonds will still be remembered as a postseason bust if he fails in this World Series. And so many are rooting against him. It should make for fascinating theater.”
(In the same piece, Dan even nominated Bonds’ father to throw out the first ball.)
That piece, which ran on the eve of the 2002 World Series, never mentioned the “S” word.
Forgot two things:
1. Dan's repeated reference to Bond's
"joyless and fraudulent pursuit" of the record, a phrase he has trotted out on multiple occasions.
2. The idea that Aaron didn't cheat. Most players in the 50s-90s took some form of uppers (known as "greenies"). I'm not aware of any proof that Aaron was among them. Then again, Bonds has never failed a drug test. My guess: The Hammer used, often, the drug of choice in his day.
3. Aaron's take on Bonds is far different than has been generally portrayed, including by the CHB (from an May 22, 2007, AP story): “Aaron doesn’t plan to see the milestone homer in person, wherever it might happen.
"Asked why, Aaron said: 'I traveled for 23 years, and I just get tired of traveling. I’m not going to fly to go see somebody hit a home run, no matter whether it is Barry or Babe Ruth or Lou Gehrig or whoever it may be. I’m not going any place. I wish him all the luck in the world.' "
Be sure to read that last line twice. Especially you, Dan.
OB - "Francona is hardly one of baseball's geniuses." To manage any lineup with as flaky a player as His Mannyness and be able to keep the team winning and His mannyness on some even keel - that's genius, Bruce.
I have to give Shank the benefit of the doubt here - attacking Barry "Up The Ass" Bonds is mandatory for any baseball fan or writer; until he is removed from the game he remains a blot on it.
On Hank Aaron cheating - my understanding is "greenies" are not performance-enhancers, they're more stay-awake pills. I don't consider that cheating and I doubt anyone else does.
Sort of disturbing when a guy as homely as Shank starts attacking Bonds on his appearance.
Bonds has an unusual head I'll agree but one look at the CHB and you gotta wonder about the genetic swamp he emerged from.....
monkeesfan, I'd suggest you read The Long Season, Ball Four, or other related texts. Greenies are most definitely performance enhancers. Players swore by them; said they couldn't play without them. In fact, it was only in the past year or so that teams banned them from the clubhouse. Recall that in the clubhouses there used to be two coffee pots brewing -- one "leaded," one not.
Post a Comment