Sunday, October 05, 2014

Confusion over Winning Teams Throws Him for a Loss

Dan's at his worst -- and this is saying something -- when he falls back on his formula of comparing whichever team is that day's subject to the other Boston (or as he prefers "Hub") franchises.

Today's subject is the Bruins, so naturally we get a rundown of all the reasons (read: players) why the B's will be the guys to root for in 2014-15. There's no actual analysis, mind you; just a listing of the "name" players and management and a few shots at the other area teams, all of which is irrelevant because the Bruins don't, you know, actually play the Celtics or Red Sox or Patriots..

There's a moment in every Shank column where his prose makes the leap from vapid to plain goofy. Here's today's:

A Boston team that underachieves is generally condemned to a lifetime of abuse around here. Ask the 2011 Red Sox. Or the ’78 Sox. Or the 1970-71 Bruins. Those were powerhouses that folded at the finish. And they paid the price.

Does anyone mention the '78 Sox anymore? Or even 2011? Like Jim Beam at The Fours, World Series rings have a tendency to take the edge off. And who in the hell cares about the '70-71 Bruins? Talk about showing your age.

A complaint about a lack of winning local teams also falls on deaf ears. The Red Sox are not even a year away from a World Series Championship. The Patriots have made 10 playoffs in a row (the NFL's longest active streak) and are one year removed from the AFC Championship game.

Look closely, friends: This is what out of touch is.


BGD said...

Anyone who has been a Sox fan for a long time mentions the '78 Sox all the time. If you don't know that, you are not paying attention. I also suspect you are not in touch with what Red Sox angst truly means, because that was the year that seemed to cement the "we'll never win" mentality. BTW, the team went into free fall shortly thereafter and didn't become a force again until the arrival of Roger Clemens.

I have never understood the association of Shaughnessy bashers of which you must be an officer holder. He's a columnist, paid to write his opinions about the sports scene he observes. If you don't like those opinions, read someone else. Like yourself!!

Roger Bournival said...

From today's column:

Going back to famous film imagery, it’s a little like the scene in “Casablanca” when Peter Lorre’s Ugarte asks Humphrey Bogart’s Rick, “You despise me, don’t you?’’ and then hears Bogey snap back with, “If I gave you any thought I probably would.’’

Movie quotes that old tend to support the 'out of touch' charge.

mike_b1 said...

Hi BGD, How's it going? If you want o go around talking about 1978, be my guest. Hell, why stop there? 1967 was just as gut-wrenching. Oh and wait, what about 1946?!?

But I digress...

Are you seriously complaining that an opinion writer is being shown for what he is, a lazy hack? If The CHB actually wrote about, you know, sports, that would be one thing. But he doesn't. He gets paid to cut and paste old columns. And it's way too much fun -- and too easy -- pointing out the depths of his idiocy to stop now.

Your pal,


Anonymous said...

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Look at Sam Shaughnessy's LinkedIn profile. Every job was arranged by daddy, who uses his leverage as a vindictive shite behind the keyboard to take care of his drunken offspring. Is that courageous, Sullivan?