We read him so you don't have to.
Why the mere facts get in the way of a rude column about somebody Dan doesn't like?
That should read, Why let mere facts get in the way of a rude column about somebody Dan doesn't like? Duh! (See, unlike Dan, I'll admit to a mistake!)
Could CHB be a bigger douche bag if he tried? I mean, if there was steroids that made you a bigger douche bag, and he took them, would they have any effect at all? Basically, Schilling is done. Maybe he comes back, but like he said, it's more likely that he throws 85 with so-so crap. Here's Douche Bag Dan with his shot at burying the hatchet. Basically, he could sack up and just say "Hey, I don't get along with the guy, and there's a lot of things he says and does that I don't like, but he did a lot for the Red Sox, and he always gave you everything he had."Nope. Not in Douche Bag Dan. And then he f's up the facts about whether the Red Sox knew or not. And BTW-can he be a bigger girl? I mean, writing "didn't have the decency to inform his employer that he was going to say this on the show" or whatever he wrote (if he can't get facts straight, why should I?) is akin to just being an old, blue-haired, gossipy lady. What a bitch. Really. Dan the Bitch. I'm not sure whether I like that or Douche Bag Dan.
Interesting that you seem to think Shaughnessy ought to follow some sort of journalistic rules that you're ignoring yourself.How do you know what the Sawx brass knew and when they knew it? What is the basis for saying "The Red Sox did know that Curt in the Car was going under the knife..." Did you ask Shaughnessy for clarification, or are you somehow immunized by your status as one of the "Schill-o-phants, blog-boys, and others who worship at the altar of Curt."Oh that's right. The Great Schill said its true.Who is right, Schilling with the vested interest or the columnist who wrote a piece in which two Sawx officials were quoted, one via e-mail, ans the CEO with a personal quote.? I don't know. Maybe Shaughnessy blew it. Maybe not. But I admit I don't know, unlike the Schill-o-phants, blog-boys, and others who worship at the altar of Curt.That's why we still need newspapers; the blog-boys will never understand why the sentence referenced above ought to read "Schilling claims the Red Sox did know..."Oh, and The Great Schill ought to understand that credibility IS an issue in any paid interview, whether the money goes in the interviewee's pocket or whether it is used to further his reputation with a very public (and oft-repeated) pronouncement that it goes to charity. That is why most legitimate news organizations won't do paid interviews.
But members of those same news organizations will take fees -- often hefty ones -- to appear on talk shows. And they take free tickets to all sorts of events -- like baseball games, for instance -- and scarf down the buffets like a bunch of starving African kids.
OB: Good points. Written in that "smarter than thou" style we've all come to know and love, but good points. The fact remains, however, that Danny is a bitter, vindictive, lazy man prone to hackneyed phrases and tired cliches. Keep churning out those buggy whips, CHB!Your pal, Timmy
OB,There is no indication in Dan's column that Lucky Larry or Powder said they did not know about the surgery or that Dan talked with Schilling. You mentioned the quotations from the two owners, but why would Dan not quote them if they had said they were surprised?
I find it hard to believe that Schilling would specifically name Theo and Tito as the ones he discussed the announcement with if it wasn't true. Because all anyone would have to do is ask the two of them ... they say he didn't, then he is a liar. If Schilling is lying the safer thing would have been to say "I discussed it with Red Sox management the night before ..." ... i.e. pulling a Shank and not naming names or sources.
Objective BruceYour logic is once again flawed to no end. Seriously, what is wrong with you?You imply that Shaughnessy has credibility because he wrote an article in which "two Sawx officials were quoted, one via e-mail, and the CEO with a personal quote."Did you take a look at these quotes you moron? Shaughnessy is claiming that Schilling snookered the Red Sox and yet his two sources in the "Sawx" organization do not back him up whatsoever and yet Shaughnessy nonetheless attacks Schilling's integrity. What proof does Shaughnesy offer? Absolutely nothing. Zilch. Nada. It is unsubstantiated speculation. He has no proof. On the other hand, we have a direct quote from Schilling - a direct source who specifically states that Shaughnessy's attack is baseless and flat out wrong. Should I accept this on faith without any other back up? Perhaps not - however, I am much more inclined to believe Schilling on this one - one because you think he would know-he was a direct participant. And to my knowledge, his claim has yet to be refuted. Shaughnessy on the other hand does not have direct knowledge and his two supposed sources fail to confirm his accusation. You are a moron Bruce - seriously do you ever think about the meandering garbage that spews forth from your mouth?The other point--his repeated accusation that Schilling knew he was damaged goods and the Red Sox didnt. The Red Sox are a business - they performed due diligence before they committed $8 million. Why blame Schilling? Does Shaughnessy have proof that Schilling snookered the Red Sox? No, he doesnt. If, in fact, if it is the case that Schilling snookered the "Sawx"; then who is to blame - Schilling or the Red Sox for failing to perform due diligence?Bruce - dont come in here with flawed logic. You want to make a point - thats fine. But your arguments are fundamentally flawed and I am tired of your stepefying logic
Once again, Dave has problems with elementary reading comprehension.I don't say Shaughnessy is right. I don't say Schilling is right. I think Schilling's statement needs to be labeled for what it is. If Shaughnessy had included a quote from the Sawx brass, his comment might carry more credibiity. He didn't and it doesn't.Logic 001.
OB: Love the use of "Sawx." Way to elevate yourself above the unwashed locals! Weiner-face 2.0.Your pal, Timmy
No Bruce - you make a flawed case. You imply Shaughnessy has credibility because he quoted two Red Sox sources. Do these sources back him up? No. Does he offer any other proof? No. What I am saying is that when you look at the balance of the two parties involved for this particular discussion, the weight favors Schilling's case Schilling has direct knowledge and has not been refuted yet. Shaughnessy does not have direct knowledge and his sources fail to back him up.
I don't get where the two exec quoted in Shanks article amount to anything. First: they were not quoted in the section of the article where Shank accuses Schilling of blindsiding the Sox by announcing his surgery on the D&C show. He doesn't quote anyone for that accusation:"Without telling his bosses ($8 million for not pitching doesn't buy loyalty the way it used to), Schilling last Friday broke the news of his upcoming surgery on his paid radio gig (yes, the money goes to charity, but Schilling would not be talking to WEEI if the financial arrangement didn't exist, and he knows there will be no tough questions)."Second - the two Red Sox exes he does quote, Larry Lucchino (who in the past had a paid gig on the very same D&C show) and John Henry are in reference to his leading questions where he tries to get them to say Schilling conned them:Shank - Great, Larry. But you already had the rings, and Curt was a free agent. Was it really necessary to bring back a 41-year-old pitcher with a bad shoulder for a guaranteed $8 million - knowing there was a risk that he was all done?Lucchino - "Today is not a day for regret," "Today is a day for acknowledgement and best wishes for Curt's surgery and recovery."Shank - What about it, John? Any quarrel with forking over $8 million for a guy who never threw a pitch this year?John Henry - "He has been one of the greatest pitchers of all time,"Schilling has come out and publicly stated on his blog and on the radio he spoke with Theo and Terry the night before the appearance on D&C and discussed (and they approved) him making the announcement on "the paid gig". Shank never says who told him that Schilling blindsided Sox management.Knowing how lazy the Shank is, my guess as to how this went off was that Shank asked Lucchino if he knew Schilling was going to make this announcement on the D&C show and Lucchino probably honestly said no ... and Shank never bothered to investigate any further before making the accusation.
Anon 3:45Thanks - exactly the points I was making. Appreciate your spin on them and agree that your conclusion has a lot of merit
Anon 3:45:The point about the quotations is that they show Dan spoke w/ LL and JH, but probably had no quotation from them stating that Schilling never spoke with them. It is all speculation at this point, and your theory is plausible, too.What is not plausible is that the quotations show that LL and JH told them Schilling had not spoken to the team. If so, why didn't Shank attribute the information or quote them?
Shank didn't quote LL or JH about the team not knowing about the surgery because Schilling DID tell the Sox -- Epstein and Francona.Regarding due diligence, isn't that one of Lucchino's pat catch phrases? CHB has NO validity WHATSOEVER that the Red Sox didn't check Schilling out before re-signing him. In fact, didn't THEO say that he went thru a physical and MRI before signing the new contract?WHERE'S THE RETRACTION, YOU BLOWHARD?
Well, he appears regularly on Mike Barnicle's radio show, maybe he's taking tips from him as well on how to fabricate stories.
THIS JUST IN!Word has come down that Boston Globe ratfink Dan Shaughnessy is having his name changed - he will now be know as Matt Walsh.;-)
Post a Comment