Links

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Dan Gets Angry

With the news that Manny pushed the Red Sox traveling secretary to the ground on Saturday, we were certain that Dan would take the opportunity to get his panties in a bunch and unload on Manny.

And that is what he did. It is the same old crap from Dan, like it's from a script. Start with a Jimmie Foxx comparison and then proceed with the rip job.

- He quit in 2006 (forgetting the monster series he had against the Yankees). Dan writes "That one's difficult to prove, of course, but everyone who was there believes it. Including the manager." Dan finally admits he has been talking out of his ass the last two years.

- Manny rededicated himself last winter. Very clever. Imply that he was slacking off before that year even though he had one of the most productive stretches in the history of baseball.

- "Refusing to pinch hit, and insisting on a day off when the club needs you, are also crimes against baseball." This quotation is even cuter. He doesn't say that Manny committed those crimes (the evidence is unclear), but he leaves the reader with that impression.

32 comments:

mike_b1 said...

The Globe editors must have cut the part where The CHB called Manny an overrated, overpaid spic.

It's got to be killing him that the whole affair happened Saturday and he's just learning about it now. Shows how out of the loop he is.

objectivebruce said...

In ANY other business other than professional sports, assualting and battering a fellow employee once brings serious consequences. Doing it twice within a month often brings an ultimate consequence.

Battery is legally defined as harmful or offensive touching and assault as the reasonable fear thereof. Clearly, a legal finder of fact could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Manny committed multiple criminal acts on two separate occasions in the space of a month. Had he received probation in the first, as is likely, he'd be facing a probation violation hearing and perhaps a few days in the hoosegow. However, the matter didn't draw the attention of The Authorities in their prosecutorial capacity.

While there won't be any prosecution, the hockey-related criminal charges reported from various backwater hamlets over the past few years mean it's only a matter of time before publicity-seeking prosecutors start filing charges after baseball fights.

But, we luv, luv, luv our heroes, and if someone brings up previous episides of erratic behavior in the context of discussing Manny's assault and battery on a fellow employee, they have their "panties in a bunch" (whatever that means).

Interesting that links to the column no longer appear. It's probably just as well, some of the fanboys who comment exhibit a strong indication that they haven't read the piece, and the easier it is to compare the column to the commentary, the sillier the bloggers look, and you certainly don't need more help on that front.

For those too lazy to go find it themselves, here's Shaugnessy's point:

"There are times when it's OK to tell the world you're punishing Manny Ramírez. This is one of those times"

Indeed, the question is: Punish Manny or just continue to luv, luv, luv our hero.

mike_b1 said...

Hi! I'm Objective Bruce! Blah, blah, blah, blah...

Bill said...

"Clearly, a legal finder of fact could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Manny committed multiple criminal acts on two separate occasions in the space of a month."

Clearly, a legal finder of fact would do due dilligence to find out what really happened between Manny and Youk in the dugout before stating that he committed multiple criminal acts. All we saw was what the camera showed, which wasn't much. Did Youk push Manny out of the way first? I have no idea, but OB must have because, as we all know, he is the moral arbiter of all things Shank.

I am a Manny apologist, but do not agree with his behavior in this instance.

"Panties in a bunch?" Come on Bruce, it's what happens to you everytime someone has the courage to criticize what the CHB writes.

Anonymous said...

When your job is to vomit your bitter, phlegmatic, cancerous Irish heart and latch onto whatever anecdotal evidence you can distort into supporting your blighted worldview at precisely the moment the local sports scene is as good as it ever gets, your options are limited. C'mon Dan, loads of bitter, frustrated alcoholics depend on you to keep their spirits high - before your innards implode from disgust at the soul they've been forced to inhabit, please, fabricate just one more scandal for us all.

Anonymous said...

Actually, imho, nothing wrong with this article by CHB.
CHB, in my view, is essentially right.

Anonymous said...

What I find delciously ironic is the utter gall CHB has in lecturing someone on proper behavior.

Dave M said...

I agree with Shaughnessy on this one. Shoving an employee like this is inexcusable. I will however, leave a small space to consider that there is another part of the story that we don’t know about yet but I cant imagine what that might be.

That being said, why the heck does it have to be Shaughnessy that has to write this column? Why does he always have to be the flag waver for calling out athletes for their sins? Why is he always the one to cast the first stone? Here is a guy who consistently distorts the truth; he is intellectually lazy; he lays out one personal attack after another, in many cases unjustified; and he has some warped personal vendetta against Schilling. Yet he is the one who is always at the front of line to tell us right from wrong; to ride his high horse and stand in judgment of all that is evil in the world?

Man, I am sorry – the message may be on target; but I just don’t want to hear it anymore from the messenger

Anonymous said...

OB:

Shanky the Douche is right on this one. I'd come down on Manny, hard. See, we can agree, OB! Common ground, baby, common ground. Where's Lukas when you need him?

Your pal,

Timmy

Anonymous said...

OB:

I think "panties in a bunch" is when a woman's underwear gets all caught up in her hoo-hoo.

Your pal,

Timmy

Anonymous said...

Gotta say I'm with Shank on this one. The dust up between Youk and him really didn't bother me. I am more then tired of Youk's "Paul O'Neil" act after every unsuccessful at bat (at least he does it in the dug out instead of at home plate like O'Neil). They are two professional athletes who are in each others face almost every day from Feb - Oct. That much time together, people get on each others nerves. I saw similar things in the military during deployments ... guys would go at it, and be best friends the next day.

The McCormick dust up is completely different, McCormick is an 64 or 66 y/o employee (i.e. 28 to 30 years older then Manny) who Manny first treated like crap, then pushed to the ground. Totally unactable and I'm shocked at the number of Red Sox fans still defending him

mike_b1 said...

Let's see: The employees both apologized for their respective roles, the management said it was being handled in house, the owners said it was being handled in house...
what more does anyone want? Pistols at dawn?

Why can't a business be left to handle what truly is its internal business in private?

Jerry Gutlon said...

Much as I hate to do it, I am compelled to agree with Danny Boy on this. What Manny did was completely unacceptable.

Manny was flat wrong to put it mildly, and the team should take some significant disciplinary action against him ... and make it public. What kind of signal does it send to youngsters in particular, and the public at large?

Unfortunately, because Shaughnessy is so often off-the-mark and carries on petty, unwarranted and groundless attacks against one athlete or another (see: Schilling, Curtis Montague), Dan's soap box is so ricketty he really has trouble taking the moral high ground on this one. And that's really a shame because his standard mindless columns have relegated any valid points he may make into drek.

It really is too bad Shaughnessy's become such a vindictive cartoon character that he cannot be credited with being right, for once. His credibility is far, far below the Mendoza line, and his usual modus operandi taints any proper, on-the-mark arguments he proffers.

For the record, IMHO, Danny is on the mark regarding this mess. Let's give credit when credit is due ... even though many simply cannot applaud the man when he is right, for once.

(Just as an aside, the way the Red Sox have handled this has caused me to lose a great deal of respect for the organization. Perhaps the tactless manner in which they handled dumping Doug Mirabelli was a harbinger of things to come. Shame on them!)

Anonymous said...

"Let's see: The employees both apologized for their respective roles, the management said it was being handled in house, the owners said it was being handled in house...
what more does anyone want? Pistols at dawn?

Why can't a business be left to handle what truly is its internal business in private?"

Answer: The bottom line is people DON'T believe the organization did anything to discipline Manny. Manny has done whatever he has wanted to do since he got here, and the management (from Duquette to Epstein) has done nothing but enable him at the expense of his team, teammates, coaches and managers. There is no reason (in my mind) to believe they have done anything about this incident. If you they don't make it clear that this is unacceptable, then what comes next for Manny? Pushing down a fan who has the temerity to ask for an autograph? Based upon the Manny apologists I read/hear on WEEI the response would be "you don't know what they said exactly to Manny that caused this".

mike_b1 said...

Anon 8:54:

It doesn't matter what we, the public, believes. Whether the organization does anything, or nothing, isn't our business. Do you really think that these type of things don't happen every day in workplaces around the world? Heck, out and out fights are commonplace in football and hockey (and becoming more so in racing), and they aren't given a second glance.

We as a public complain the press is too microscopic of professional athletes, that the media blows every little event (e.g., an injured John Valentin not fully running out a ground ball, or a frustrated Nomar Garciaparra lamenting the Sox doctors, or a brusque Carl Everett telling a reporter to get away from him while he tries to prepare for work) way out of proportion. Then we turn around and act the same way. That's hypocrisy.

These are the same things that go on in workplaces everyday. Tell me you've never complained aloud about your boss, or had an argument with a colleague, or a fight with a friend. Now put that on the front page of the Globe and tell me you don't think the media storm that followed was unnecessary.

The question isn't whether we as a public should be informed as to the nature of any discipline. The question is, Why would we care?

Anonymous said...

I can say I've never pushed my boos or fellow employee to the ground .. especially not someone 30 years my senior.

Jerry Gutlon said...

It boggles my mind that many people out there continue to defend what Ramirez did.

McCormick is 18 years Ramirez's senior. And, now, Manny is referring to McCormick as "my friend."

What happened to "Just do your job?"

Face facts, McCormick is not Manny's friend. Manny views him as an employee.

The Red Sox have taken a totally gutless approach to this entire mess. They are showing no cujoles whatsoever.

God forbid, we wouldn't want Manny to stage on of his patented work stoppages. After all, he's been such a productive member of the line-up of late...

Again, I must reiterate that the CHB was correct in what he penned yesterday, every bit as much as Bob Ryan was in what he wrote today.

mike_b1 said...

Look, Manny shouldn't have shoved the guy. I don't care how old he is.

But everyone agrees on that. The debate is over what the Red Sox should do about an internal employee issue. For all we know, the Sox fined him and took away his boombox. But I have yet to hear someone make a compelling case for why Bush should sent in the troops, as some in the press would have him do. This isn't the 1820s. We don't have public hangings anymore.

Make an example out of him? Why? For the kids? Again, the message the media is sending is, If it's not good enough for us, it shouldn't be good enough for you, dear reader. Well, these are the same guys who try to sell us on the idea that John Henry would be the death of the Red Sox. Why trust their judgment now?

Both employees say it's over. So it's over. Except for a handful of media types who don't miss an opportunity to try to embarrass a Hispanic player or the team.

mike_b1 said...

Anon 10:49: So you never, in your life, hit anyone? Because if you have, that's battery. And OB and others would have you locked up because of it. Even if you were just 16. And I suppose whether your parents grounded you and suspended your allowance should be on the front page of the paper as well.

Anonymous said...

"Anon 10:49: So you never, in your life, hit anyone? Because if you have, that's battery. And OB and others would have you locked up because of it. Even if you were just 16. And I suppose whether your parents grounded you and suspended your allowance should be on the front page of the paper as well."

You are trying to compare a school yard fight to a 36 year old professional athlete and PUBLIC FIGURE pushing a 64 or 66 (depends on who you read) man down because he was upset with him? I suppose that makes sense if you rationalize everything that he does because he is a so called "man-child". But he is an adult, in years if not attitude, and physically assaulting someone because they didn't provide a "binky" fast enough is unacceptable.

I'm not advocating Manny go to jail, I'm not suggesting he he released / traded ... but doing nothing, which is what I'm convinced the Sox management has done, is totally unacceptable.

Anonymous said...

Had Manny shoved Theo, Larry Luccino or John Henry do you think he would have gotten away with a forced apology?

Anonymous said...

O Danny Boy, O Danny Boy. I didn't read you article to-doy. I haven't yet the time, but at least I've made this rhyme. The Internet is good luck. For every talentless schmuck. We can read what we choose. And then, let our vapid thoughts ooze. So now you're reading mine, another anonymous whine.

mike_b1 said...

Anon 1:32: You don't know what the Sox are doing, yet you are convinced it is nothing. Well, the first part is correct and the second means, well, what? The Sox don't owe you a statement. They are a business, and more or less a private one. This doesn't involve us. Why isn't enough to leave it at that? To me, this is a smaller deal than a schoolyard fight. No one went to the hospital.

And anon 1:34, we have no idea whether the apology was "forced."

Furthermore, had Manny shoved Theo, Larry Luccino or John Henry, I think the team response would essentially be the same.

(Btw, the Chacon vs. the Astros situation is totally different. The 'Stros wanted to dump him anyway. By wrestling with Ed Wade, it gave them the convenient excuse not to pay him, either.)

Anonymous said...

Jim Rice got a three game suspension for pushing Joe Morgan to the wall, Manny deserves at least one game. But, like Bob Ryan stated today it is all a matter of performance ... had Rice been hitting in 88 like he was in 78 he probably would gotten the same non-punishment manny got.

jerry gutlon said...

"Make an example out of him? Why? For the kids? Again, the message the media is sending is, If it's not good enough for us, it shouldn't be good enough for you, dear reader."

Excuse me? If Ramirez was a part-time, hanger-on, do you REALLY think that the Red Sox would have "handled the matter internally?"

Manny's behavior was boorish and ignorant, and if the Sox REALLY took any meaningful action against him they would have publicly announced what those actions were.

As a member of the media myself, I have taken stands against similar anti-social behavior in a number of my columns over the years, in part, because I didn't want my kids to behave as though their athletic/scholastic gifts gave them a right to do as they please.

"Well, these are the same guys who try to sell us on the idea that John Henry would be the death of the Red Sox. Why trust their judgment now?"

Unlike much of the Boston media (in part, because I now work outside of Atlanta), I took no stand on the sale of the team.

"Both employees say it's over. So it's over."

Mike, if you really think that the club actually views both men simply as employees, I've got a bridge I want to sell you in Brooklyn.

McCormick is an employee. Manny is a valuable member of the organization who took umbrage at ol' Jack becaues Jack failed to do his job.

"Except for a handful of media types who don't miss an opportunity to try to embarrass a Hispanic player or the team."

I'm grating my teeth. This has NOTHING to do with whether Manny is Hispanic, white, black, blue or Martian. Sheer ignorance cuts across all social,racial and cultural boundaries.

And nobody wants to see the Sox do well this year more than me. I have a book that will be in print in March whose sales will jump if they win again this year.

But right is right and wrong is wrong. And the way the club is handling this entire affair simply compounds Manny's misbehavoir.

mike_b1 said...

Jerry, everyone agrees what Mann did was wrong. What we are arguing is whether the Red Sox are obligated to tell you what they plan to do about it. And again, there is nothing about the Red Sox that obligates them to disclose to you their course of action, if any.
Where is it established otherwise?

There are plenty of media folks around here who, like you, grate their teeth over this idea that Manny is getting away with something. That smacks of jealousy. Where was the outcry when James Shields, who by beaning Coco Crisp instigated a major brawl, was handed a suspension that in effect meant he had a start pushed back all of one day? That was a lot bigger deal, and it happened on the field, and I didn't read squat in the paper about the "injustice."

And McCormick's tenure will outlast Manny's, so yes, "employees." No one is saying they are equals; that's misdirection.

mike_b1 said...

Someone brought this up in a different thread, so I can't take credit for it. But where were The CHB, Ryan et al when their colleague Ron Borges dwarf-tossed Michael Katz and his cane?

That's right: Sitting on the sidelines. And the Globe did nothing, either.

Anonymous said...

You don't have to convince me of Shank's hypocrisy ... the Borges incident was as bad as this, Borges a line backer sized man attacking a short fat 60ish cripple was pretty pathetic ... and since he wants to lump in the Youk - Manny scuffle which I don't think is a big deal, what about Will McDonough leveling Raymond Clayborn back in the day, made McDonough a legend to the Shankster.

Shank is a bile spewing hypocrite, but on this occasion I think he is correct .. a stopped clock is right twice a day!

ObjectiveBruce said...

Criminal acts are not an internal company matter.

What if a player denounced a black or Hispanic or Asian teammate on the basis of race or ethnicity? Should "business be left to handle what truly is its internal business in private" in that case?

What would the Sawx have done if a 64 year old man was attacked by, oh, say Wil Cordero?

mike_b1 said...

"Criminal acts."

So I guess there's no due process, no court, no nothing. Let's just tar and feather the "prima donna spic."

And I guess the hypocrisy of The CHB and his colleagues rules again, at least in the OB world.

ObjectiveBruce said...

I find mike's "spic" comments offensive and uncouth.

Due process would be wonderful. Unfortunately, the club swept it all under the rug, so there won't be any due process. Manny's reported acts, which have not been denied, constitute a crime and expose him to civil liability.

You could look it up.

mike_b1 said...

OB, I love it when you talk dirty.