- Shaughnessy is amazing in his ability to take one event and jump to all sorts of conclusions. After last night's loss, Shaughnessy amazingly concludes that coming to Yankee Stadium is no longer threatening. He concludes that it is a strong possibility there will be no post season baseball in Yankee Stadium. Alright, Shank, if you want to make these comments after the Red Sox sweep the Yankees and each game is a dominating shutout, that is one thing. But, after one game and the Sox are just 4 games up over the Yankees in the loss column? You're an idiot.
- Apparently, Shaughnessy thinks going 4-3 is a bad thing. He says
Game 1 of this four-game set was a walk in the ballpark for a Boston team that had lost five straight games and eight of 12If they have lost five straight and 8 of 12, that means they were 4-3 in the games preceding the 5 losses...and this is bad because? (Extrapolating 4-3 to an entire season translates to 92 wins which is not too shabby)
- Shaughnessy wont let the Manny incident die. I am not a Manny apologist but I agree with Mike to a large extent in that the Red Sox don't necessarily owe anyone an explanation. Plus, we dont really know what actions they took, do we? For all we know, this was the final straw. Maybe Theo and the brain trust have decided they will let him go after the season and for now, they want to let the season play out. I don't know. And I don't think Shaughnessy really knows either. To continually call them "enablers" without knowing is problematic and reflective of his lazy and vindictive journalism.
Happy 4th of July to our faithful readers. Enjoy the day!
25 comments:
Not since 2000 has 92 wins been enough to make the playoffs from the American League East, so when you're supposed to contend, and especially when you are the defending World Champions, 92-70 may well be shabby indeed.
Yes the club does owe us an explanation. Professional athletes beating on seniors is simply unacceptable. Assume for a second that a professional athlete's hands and fists are dangerous weapons. Assume that Manny's attack was intended to gain 16 baseball tickets from the traveling secretary. Assault with intent to rob on a person over the age of 60 in Massachusetts is a crime punishable by 20 years in state prison with a mandatory minimum term of ten years. Unlikely as it seems, prosecutors routinely overcharge suspects in court in Massachusetts and while assault with a dangerous weapon on a person over 60 with intent to rob would be a stretch, the existence of such a penalty makes it clear the society doesn't tolerate such acts. A baseball teams which spends millions marketing to kids, and earns millions more from selling to kids, has a moral obligation that stretches beyond its legal obligation not to tolerate illegal acts by its employees. Action by the club should have been swift, certain and public.
Bruce
The Red Sox don't owe us an explanation. Basic economics and market forces are a powerful force. If the Red Sox choose not to provide an explanation, that is their choice. If as a result of this, their reputation suffers and they are no longer considered a standard bearer, they will have paid a price for their "failure" to provide us an explanation. Ultimately, it is a business decision and time will tell if it is a worthy business decision. Perhaps it will backfire on them, so be it.
As for your 92 win point, the point was that Shaughnessy's "losers of five straight and 8 of 12" was mornic. If it was 10 of 12 or 11 of 12, that is one thing but here it makes no sense. I cant believe you are defending this idioocy
Dave M to OB: I cant believe you are defending this idioocy.
I can.
....Good Grief, objectivedouche....you are such a Shank Apologist....give it up.....
"Assume for a second that a professional athlete's hands and fists are dangerous weapons. Assume that Manny's attack was intended to gain 16 baseball tickets from the traveling secretary. Assault with intent to rob on a person over the age of 60 in Massachusetts is a crime punishable by 20 years in state prison with a mandatory minimum term of ten years"
That is the funniest thing I have ever read. You are so far gone, it's scary.
While we are making wild assumptions, why don't we assume Manny brandished a MAC-10 and raped the guy in the middle of the clubhouse?
I just started to read the column. Cannot get past the bad moon rising reference. Shankism alert. I have to go through the archives.
..I agree dbvader, let's keep it going. Let's assume Manny murdered the guy!....He COULD be facing the DEATH PENALTY!..( in SOME states)....OH THE HUMANITY!....jeeze, when "Bad Hair" Shaughnessy retires it will be a GREAT day...........
Isn't it IRONIC how certain members of the MEDIA always call FANS "get-a lifers" and "sycophants" YET it is THEY who act like sports are "Life and Death"?....note to members of the media: after a "Heartbreaking Loss" we don't literally, "jump off the Tobin Bridge"........we get up and go to WORK like we ALWAYS do.....
You can't be serious with this right-wing pablum. Not only is your position patently absurd, you have absolutely no conception of what you're talking about.
Criminal acts are not subject to the mythical free market. The criminal justice system does not defer to "market forces."
Moreover, Organized Baseball is exempt from the "free market" by court decision. To excuse the club's refusal to go public with sanctions after the assault and battery by an employee who works as a professional athlete on a 64 year-old fellow employee who works in an administrative capacity by serving up prattle about it being a business decision is monumentally ignorant.
As for dbvader, once again his reading comprehension issues force us to give him the gift of a D+. Operative missed phrases: "unlikely as it seems" and "routinely overcharge." You see, son, we were talking about charges that could result from an attack on a person over 60 by a person who wants something of value controlled by the victim.
I added nothing to the facts of the case, only speculate on the interpretation of the reported acts and the potential for overcharging, which is a fact of daily life in district courts all over Massachusetts. In your haste to appear clever, you and the anonymous 12:25 poster make asses of yourselves by adding absurdities to the facts, no doubt spurred by your desire to assume your traditional roles as apologists forthe immature men that you so much luv,luv, luv.
This could end up being one of those 'terms were not disclosed' sort of things, where Mr. Senior Citizen has been (or will be) paid off handsomely. No one should give Manny a 'Hall Pass' here, because what he did was inexcusable. But just because an explanation hasn't been issued right now, to the satisfaction of the media buzzards, doesn't mean one won't be forthcoming. In fact, I think the team will be dealing with this on their own satisfactory terms, which is a way of 'sticking it' to the angry media who wish things were, instead, on their schedule and terms. I do quite like it when the media screams and whines for 'A' and it turns out to be 'G.' Nothing like kicking these lower forms of life every chance athletes get.
Um, wait a minute...
Criminal acts are not subject to the mythical free market. The criminal justice system does not defer to "market forces."
Nice strawman argument there! Who, exactly, explicitly compared criminal acts to the mythical 'free market'/ 'market forces'? It's not there.
You were saying something about reading comprehension issues? Look in the mirror, OB.
Bruce
You truly are a moron. I don't know why I let myself get upset with your misrepresentations but enough is enough.
Stop misrepresenting. Stop being an idiot.
- First of all, there is absolutely nothing stopping the employee from reporting an assault. Manny can't stop him. The Red Sox can't stop him. If he wants to press charges, that is his decision. Why don't you get on his case for failing to report this crime?
- Do you know anything about baseball's antitrust exemption? Major league baseball is not exempt from the free market as you moronically claim and the Red Sox are not exempt from the free market. If patrons dont like how they are handling this situation, let them walk away. They can become Yankees fans; they can go to a minor league game; they can go to the movies. No court decision is telling you that you have to be a Red Sox fan. Baseball's antitrust exemption extends to franchise re-location -- if you do your homework before spewing your inflammatory agenda, you would know better. I did not suggest whatsoever that market forces dictate how this offense be handled from a legal prosecution perspective. I suggested that the Red Sox do not "owe us" an explanation and if they choose to not provide one, they run the risk of hurting their reputation. Baseball's antitrust exemption has absolutely nothing to do with this. Do your homework before you spew lies and misrepresent
- This all being said, I would suggest that a free press plays a critical role in market forces. If a thoughtful columnist wants to stand up and give a cogent argument as to why the Red Sox should consider taking public action, that is great. (Although I for one am sick and tired of this "athletes are role models" crap) But to give us this garbage that the Red Sox "owe" us an explanation, it's nonsense. They dont owe us an explanation. And again, baseball's antitrust exemption with respect to team re-location can nothing to stop Massachusett's legal system from taking action against Ramirez if the employee were to press charges. And if the employee presses charges, more power to him. I for one am not going to lose sleep if Manny gets in trouble for it - I dont hold athletes up on a pedestal and my kids dont either. I don't need a Red Sox rebuke to tell me that Manny's assault was a bad thing.
Wel, I don't believe the Sox did anything to Manny. They have a history of doing nothing, and from what I understand the CBA severely limits what the team can do if they don't suspend the player. I believe I heard something in the absurd range of $400.00 max fine.
How precocious:
"Baseball's antitrust exemption extends to franchise re-location -- if you do your homework before spewing your inflammatory agenda, you would know better."
Tell that to the heirs of Curt Flood.
"That to which it is incident, the exhibition, although made for money would not be called trade of commerce in the commonly accepted use of those words. As it is put by defendant, personal effort, not related to production, is not a subject of commerce." Federal Base Ball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Base Ball Clubs et. al. 259 U.S. 200 (1922) (Holmes,J.)
"We repeat for this case what was said in Toolson: 'Without re-examination of the underlying issues, the (judgment) below (is) affirmed on the authority of Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, supra, so far as that decision determines that Congress had no intention of including the business of baseball within the scope of the federal antitrust laws.' 346 U.S., at 357." Flood v.Kuhn 407 U.S. 258 (1972)
They damn well do owe an explanation. Whether athletes are on pedestals or are role models, is irrelevant, and certainly was not an argument that I advanced, but then reading comprehension is not a big subject hereabouts.
As for Roger, coherence is a necessary prerequisite to comprehension. Kindly offer some.
There you go again. Insisting that a private business -- and a baseball team -- owes you a detailed account of how they deal with an internal employee matter.
Hey OB: Please post all your employee reviews on this site.
Thank you.
OB
Do your damn homework you blabbering fool instead of cutting and pasting mindlessly. Get off your high horse about Curt Flood. I don't have to cut and paste since I have studied basebll's antitrust exemption extensively, albeit it has been a few years. In 1976, when the arbitrator (I believe it was Seitz?) ruled in favor of Messersmith, it effectively ended baseball's power over player movement through the reserve clause - and it opened up the flood gates of free agency. That is what Curt Flood wanted, wasnt it? That is what ended up happening just a few years later.
Baseball's antitrust power extends to franchise re-location only and some would even argue that. You have yet to post a cogent counter argument to the points I made. Your asinine statement about MLB being exempt from the free market is the most asinine comment I have ever seen you make and that is saying something. Keep cutting and pasting and keep demonstrating your complete ignorance.
And come again, who do they owe us an explanation? It is one thing if you were to say "The Red Sox should provide an explanation and here is why..." That would be fair enough. To keep mindlessly saying that they owe it to us is foolish
I added nothing to the facts of the case,
Assume for a second that a professional athlete's hands and fists are dangerous weapons. Assume that Manny's attack was intended to gain 16 baseball tickets from the traveling secretary.
Notice something? Assumptions are adding to the "facts of the case." Professional athletes' hands are not dangerous weapons, unless the athlete is a boxer. Further, Manny wasn't attempting to take tickets from McCormack. He didn't have them to be taken.
You are a moron. If you want to DA's to prosecute every shove, I hope that you intend to have a cop at every playground during recess.
One more time, OB:
Who, exactly, explicitly compared criminal acts to the mythical 'free market'/ 'market forces'? It's not there.
If you're not able to tell me who compared criminal acts and the 'mythical free market', then just say so and admit you're wrong.
There's no need to accuse me of incoherence when you seem to be the only person that doesn't understand my point. But I suppose that's the point (change the subject and all that), right?
Roger
You are correct - OB will not be able to show this because no one did make this comparison.
Dave
Um, boys, hate to point this out to you, but the babbling hereabouts has been about how the Red Sox owe nobody an explanation about acts which are, arguably, criminal in nature. (You may proceed with your argument, if you dare, that a)Manny didn't do it or b) that his acts did not meet the elements of the crimes and assault and battery).
The reason given for the Red Sox not owing an explanation for what it did about arguably criminal acts by one of its employees on another of its employees on grounds under common ownership with the ballclub is that no commentary is needed because the "free market" will take care of it. It's pretty clear; it's claimed the Red Sox owe no explanation about what happened and when it's pointed out that what happened was a criminal act, your response is a lot of discredited right-wing babble about free markets.
It's lonely up here, over your heads.
OB - your ignorance is astounding.
The Red Sox don't owe the public anything. If you don't like the way they have handled it, write them a letter and complain. Don't support them anymore. Gather signatures on a petition.
What you are not getting is this - how the Red Sox handle this publicly and how this matter is handled criminally are two distinct things. My argument on the free market deals with their public handling of it. I dont know what else to say to penetrate the denseness.
The Red Sox do not owe us anything. The Red Sox, however, do owe their support to the employee who was allegedly assaulted. They owe it to them that they will support him if he decides to file charges. Their responsibility is to him and him alone. It is not to you, me or the general public. I have no idea if the Red Sox have supported the employee or not and I doubt that you do either. If he were to pursue charges and then was subsequently blackballed by the organization, he could pursue charges against them. There are plenty of mechanisms in place for the employee to pursue recourse. I sure hope the Red Sox are not stifling him if he felt the assault was serious enough to warrant charges. But I say again, the Red Sox do not owe the public anything and you have yet to provide a reason as to why they do
And what do you mean, I can proceed with my argument that Manny did not do it? When did I offer that up? Reading comprehension problems again OB?
OB, refresh my memory: What did the Globe say about Borges after he beat up the cripple?
I'm not sure of the relevance of a fight involving boxing writers to the present discussion. But if it means I don't have to read this prattle any longer, then yeah, yeah, OK, Shaughnessy shoulda written a column about it. Talk shows should have discussed it for hours. Shame on everyone for not making a big issue about it. It means nothing you say about Manny is relevant. Happy? Good.
I love it when Dave realizes his arguments are sans-logic, because dissecting his emotional rants are child's play.
The Red Sox most certainly do owe an explanation to the public. Name one other industry in which large segments of the general population have an emotional, let alone a rooting, interest in the success of a for-profit corporation. The owners did not create the emotional attachment that binds team and fan; they bought it and they are quite legitimately exploiting it, but it existed before they bought the ball club and it will exist long after they finish maximizing cash-flow and cash out. Baseball is so obviously so much more than a business, and the anti-trust exemption is one way in which courts have recognized that it's no mere ordinary business. To say that if people don't like boorish behavior of overgrown adolescents that they can go to the movies or become Yankee fans is simply ignorant.
Now as for the reserve clause and Curt Flood, the only reason free agency was obtained was through an arbitrator's decision because Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally claimed free agency after playing a one-year renewal period and invoked the collective bargaining grievance procedure that the owners had agreed to after the Dodgers and Expos attempted to bind them for more than that first no-contract year. (Actually, both were offered lucrative deals to just forget about it and keep the case from being arbitrated, but each refused, while the third player involved, Richie Zisk,signed a new deal with Pittsburgh.) The case was decided on labor law, antitrust had nothing to do with it.
I never said organized base ball is exempt from the free market when it comes to competing for entertainment dollars. I do suggest that criminal acts, assaults and intolerable behavior by its gate attractions are not matters to be left to the inefficiencies of the fairy tale that right-wing wackos like to call the free market. Baseball cannot on one hand enjoy the benefits of antitrust decisions that allow it to engage in restraint of trade in defiance of free markets and on the other be entitled to hide behind the shield of free enterprise when it comes time to answering to the public.
The Red Sox do owe an answer. Corporations have a moral obligation to be good corporate citizens. The belief that relying on cost-benefit analysis so that "the market" can decide fundamental issues of right and wrong collapsed under the weight of exploding Pintos, flipping Explorers, disintegrating Firestone 500s and duplicitous sets of ledgers at Enron.
The antitrust exemption refers to franchise shifts only? That claim is as pedestrian as it is flat-out wrong. When the MLB Extra Innings package was set to go to Direct TV a could of years ago, it was very definitely an antitrust issue. If I decide I want to package games of the Cubs, Dodgers and Phillies, the clubs are prohibited from making a deal with me -- in any other industry that's an unlawful restraint of trade, but baseball has (drum roll, please) an anti-trust exemption which means it has the power to restrain free trade. There's a lot more to the anti-trust exemption that franchise moves. That's why I gave you the essence of the major decisions on baseball's antitrust exemption; there is a thing in this favored land called stare decisis -- courts do not merely engage in "cut and paste" as you so quaintly put it, they rely on the precise words of prior decisions, but the words are lost in your failed quest for a glib phrase.
Also, some have suggested that Manny has been convicted of no crime and is entitled to a presumption of innocence, that's why I suggested that an argument could be made that he was innocent. You have taken the phrase "make your argument" literally, I should not have used such a colloquialism when I meant the more awkward "the argument could be made that.."
Ever been to Detroit, OB? You'll find your answer.
Bruce
You are wrong on many points and you continue to confuse points - I will respond later
Dave
Post a Comment