Wednesday, October 01, 2008

And EYE-E-EYE Will Always Love You-oo-woo-oo

Treat a guy to dinner and he will write page one love letters to you.

Dan offers a profile of John Henry and hits all the hot topics: Manny, Theo and Lucchino, Fenway. It is a little creepy at times as Dan goes overboard in his love for Henry, but an interesting read.

One thing I want to scream about:

Seven years in charge of the Red Sox has taught Henry that sometimes the numbers do lie. Sometimes you have to believe in your GM when he says that a 5-foot-6-inch kid named Dustin Pedroia is going to be a .300 hitter in the big leagues.

THE NUMBERS SAID HE WAS GOING TO HIT .300 IN THE BIG LEAGUES. Pedroia hit .308/.392/.453 in the minors with more extra base hits than strikeouts. It was idiots like Shank who looked at Pedroia and dismissed him out of hand because he was short. Pedroia was the ultimate numbers over scouting decision. Dan doesn't have a shred of self awareness.


Anonymous said...

Sentimental Garbage.

So the Shank is promoting that Ownership wish to be afforded anonymity. Why not provide the same to ballplayers?

So the Shank feels it is OK to tell about the Owners divorce even after listening to him say he would prefer anonymity.

So the Shank tells about the “excessive” spending that occurred in the Brookline home even after listening to him say he would prefer anonymity. Why not print the address for good measurement.

So the Shank and Owner are still putting forth their biased story on the Manny situation without getting the other side to speak about the negotiation process that occurred.

So the Shank doesn’t understand that the owner is a “numbers” guy, very methodical and calculating.

So the Shank doesn’t get it … the Owner, in a measured way (emotional garbage), methodically used the Shank as a TOOL.

Shank, the owner is a “day-trader” and likes to push buttons and he has been very successful at manipulating "sentimental" volatility. Get it?


roger bournival said...

Did Shank steal more silverware this time?

For the record, The New York Times, which owns the Globe, owns 17 percent of the Red Sox

At least part of the NYT's balance sheet isn't a clusterfuck...

Chris said...

Dan doesn't have a shred of self- anything. Another all-expenses-paid multi-day junket to LA for Shank. How many weekly paychecks would that equal for some of the dispatched press-room people. On one hand, I might suggest 'Many' as a reflection of the 'Fine restaurants' and 'Fine-Stores-Everywhere' that will show up on his expense reports. But then I figured that these are UNION people we're talking about, so perhaps it's not so many.

Anonymous said...

The comments about Pedroia just prove what we already know.....Shank is a lazy hack who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Does anybody really think Shank pays any attention to the Red Sox farm system?...he had no idea who Pedroia was until he came to the big club.......LAZY HACK

Monkeesfan said...

Anonymous, "biased story on the Manny situation?"

Anonymous said...

And incredibly, Shank still cannot grasp that this idiotic, moronic "curse" that he invented should be eighty four years in duration.

The right fielder / pitcher was sold to Gotham before the 1920 season.

Red Sox WS champions in 2004.

Simple arithmetic. 2004 minus 1920 equals eighty four.

Not eighty six.
Eighty four.

"The "new" ownership in 2004 had snapped an 86-year-old Curse"

Just you think Shank has stooped to new levels of imbecility, he manages to top himself.

Anonymous said...

Monkeesfan ….

In my mind it will be biased until Boras or Manny put in writing what happened.

Otherwise common sense leads me to believe that the two sides could not agree on any extension beyond the 2 one year options.

For the Shank to quote John Henry - "Scott called to say if we would just drop the options that Manny would play every day and be fine,” seems so incomplete. The process was so much more involved and complex. Why describe only one dimension to the entire process?

I am not promoting conspiracies. I prefer both sides of the story.

I am not defending Manny. By using the example of Manny vs. Sox, I am just demanding a better effort on the part of journalists.