Well, not a tough call, mind you, but Dave M. comments in the previous thread:
I can hear Shaughnessy now - "he quit on the Sox" - "lasting image of him sulking as he watched Jeter dive over the rail...."; "he was never happy in boston" " he hated the media"; and "it's insidious to think he would actually work for espn" etc etc
God, please spare us
Let's see how close this prediction measures up
to reality:
Dan Shaughnessy
In historically bad taste here
----------
Great player.
Total fraud.
Welcome home, Nomie.
I hate to be the turd fly in the punch bowl here, but yesterday’s lovefest involving Nomar Garciaparra and the Red Sox was truly nauseating. If Nomar had been hooked up to a polygraph, the machine would have exploded.
Funny how a guy who
delighted in taking
shot after
shot at Nomar can write the following with no hint of irony:
Do not be fooled. Life is long and people change. There is certainly every possibility that Nomar has matured and will henceforth pledge allegiance to Boston and spread the Gospel of the Red Sox. But it’s downright fraudulent to deny or ignore how bad this relationship was at the end. Nomar hated Boston and the Red Sox in 2004, and the Sox knew they had to get rid of him if they had a chance to win a World Series. It was nasty and personal and it was obvious to everyone who was around the team in that iconic season.
Shank
amply contributed to the situation he now mocks as fraudulent. I'd say that's a pretty strong example of hypocrisy, yes?
In yesterday’s sorry spirit of disingenuousness and hypocrisy, Garciaparra announced that he has taken a job with ESPN. This makes him a member of the media, which is like Sarah Palin telling us she is going to be chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
One wonders if Shank can review his columns on Nomar over the years and reach the same conclusion.
12 comments:
Need I really trot out all the Dan-isms again? No one has a longer history of front-running than The CHB.
Danno really outdid himself this time. In an effort to keep things positive in "Red Sox Nation", the Sox (and Nomar) did the proper and polite thing and buried the hatchet.
Dan S. has nothing to write about if it isn't negative.
I'm not overly aware of editorial policy in a newsroom, but can the sports editor simply say, "No, we aren't printing this. You are the stick in the mud in an otherwise nice day. Your article serves no purpose."?
I do not agree with him on this one, and I have always thought Jeter was grandstanding when he did the belly flop into the stands chasing a popup.
But I'd much rather a columnist who swings at my assumptions and preconceptions than one of the incredibly large crowd of Boston writers who just spit back the conventional wisdom
While I agree the one day contract thing seemed a bit contrived considering how things ended....it is outrageously hypocritical for CHB to complain about not having a passion about the Sox.
For at least the last 5 years, his columns have bordered on unreadable because of his negativity and obvious lack of interest in anything Red Sox or baseball related. He's just like the disgruntled old worker hanging in there until his pension kicks in. Hang it up Dan!
http://www.yfsf.org/2010/03/a-tale-of-two-dans.html
A Tale of Two Dans. An interesting read.
Paul,
Thanks for the link. I needed that!
My read on what happened six years ago - The Sox Management threw Nomar a pitch high and inside. Nomar was unappreciative. = Divorce.
This past week parties reconciled (perhaps money motives.)
The Dink that is The Shank proves his miniscule might by insinuating that Nomar was a Steroid Creep.
Another pitch high and tight.
No wonder Nomar "despised" certain media whores.
g
Uh, Bruce? Where do you stand on the subject of total hypocrisy?
Shaughnessy, July 3, 2004:
"Garciaparra battled back from an Achilles' injury and always gives 100 percent on the field."
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2004/07/03/damaged_goods_deal_garciaparra/
Shaughnessy, March 11, 2010:
"Total fraud."
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2010/03/11/in_historically_bad_taste_here/
Mike - Bruce is silent on the hypocrisy angle for a reason; it's indefensible. Hope you're not holding your breath waiting on an answer.
He keeps referring to Nomar as a fraud. I don't get it. Is he a fraud in the sense that he was beloved by fans, and always was nice to the fans and complimentary of Boston, but treated Dan like a turd?
Because, if that's the case, then I want a team of frauds!
And, how is the SI cover evidence that Nomar used steroids? He has an athletic body... just like any pro athlete who trains several hours a day and takes care of themselves. And, you say he put on weight in his mid twenties?!? I must be on steroids too. I've put on like, 40 lbs since I left high school.
So Shank trashes Nomah and hasn't written since...Hmm...
I don't know if you guys have picked up on this, but the game I play when I see a new Shaughnessy column is to search for his favorite word, after which I usually emit a gleeful snort.
Ah, yes: "hideous"!
I'm not sure if there really IS a good way to use that word, but Dan-o always comes off sounding like some snooty old British lady:
"Looking back at those days and the HIDEOUS, shirtless Sports Illustrated cover..."
"It’s HIDEOUS of the Sox and their fans to complain about the Yankees buying championships."
"His passer rating was a HIDEOUS 53.1."
"The Patriots staggered to a grotesque 17-10 victory over the HIDEOUS Bills..."
"It's a HIDEOUS conflict, recklessly allowed by Mitchell, the Sox, and Selig."
"However, two innings later, he looked positively HIDEOUS ..."
I didn't see one today (March 19), sadly, though he did use fave word number two:
"Less than two minutes into the HORRID loss, veteran winger Shawn Thornton..."
Guess he's branching out.
Interesting observation, Gunny Feinberg...
Post a Comment