Dan continues his pitch to Roger Clemens, tossing him lines in the hopes the Rocket will hook up with the Red Sox.
Today's meatball: Remembering the anniversary of Clemens' first 20-strikeout game, 20 years ago today.
It's a fairly detailed account of the night, with some interesting side notes (the Globe's beat writer, Larry Whiteside, had the night off and thus missed the historic game) and some odd non-sequiturs ("While Patriots fans were digesting the résumé of SMU running back Reggie Dupard, who'd been selected earlier that day in the first round of the NFL draft, Clemens struck out the side ... in the first inning" -- as if Pats fans are supposed to care about some kid pitcher throwing on an April night).
The CHB closes with his "heater": "Roger Clemens is still able to pitch. Twenty years and seven Cy Youngs after his first great moment, he is being recruited to come home to Fenway where it all began." Of course, what Shaughnessy doesn't mention is all throws at the head he made at Clemens during the first six or so years of his exile from Boston. Call it memory loss, I guess.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Friday, April 28, 2006
Out of Gas at the Beanpot
This is what life should be: The CHB covering college baseball, out of harm's way and where no one's the wiser.
With the C's and B's on a spring break that will last until fall, the Red Sox out of town and the Globe out of money, Dan is confined to the East Coast's version of the Friendly Confines for ...(drum roll) ...a Harvard-Boston College baseball game.
Whoopee!
Among the observations of this man of letters:
* "It was weird to see Fenway virtually empty ..."
* " Another weird thing was the metal bats ... "
* "College baseball in New England is nothing like big-time college football, basketball, or hockey."
*That some scrub named Pete Frates who came into the game hitting .184 went 4 for 4, making it "probably the best day of [his] life."
The remarkable thing is, The CHB almost sounds sincere. Of course, the last time he covered this game, another kiss-ass piece back in May 2004, he told the world that a then 21-year-old Harvard player named Zak Farkes "plans to finish his studies at Harvard ... and knows the value of the Harvard degree," "apparently ... can hit," and "Farkes can play."
Dan wore the collar on that one. Farkes skipped his last year of school to sign with the Red Sox, and hit all of .174 last year in 40 games for the single-A Lowell Spinners.
Given that curse the CHB (the Curse of the CHB?) laid on Frakes, poor Pete Frates had better look both ways before crossing those Cambridge streets.
With the C's and B's on a spring break that will last until fall, the Red Sox out of town and the Globe out of money, Dan is confined to the East Coast's version of the Friendly Confines for ...(drum roll) ...a Harvard-Boston College baseball game.
Whoopee!
Among the observations of this man of letters:
* "It was weird to see Fenway virtually empty ..."
* " Another weird thing was the metal bats ... "
* "College baseball in New England is nothing like big-time college football, basketball, or hockey."
*That some scrub named Pete Frates who came into the game hitting .184 went 4 for 4, making it "probably the best day of [his] life."
The remarkable thing is, The CHB almost sounds sincere. Of course, the last time he covered this game, another kiss-ass piece back in May 2004, he told the world that a then 21-year-old Harvard player named Zak Farkes "plans to finish his studies at Harvard ... and knows the value of the Harvard degree," "apparently ... can hit," and "Farkes can play."
Dan wore the collar on that one. Farkes skipped his last year of school to sign with the Red Sox, and hit all of .174 last year in 40 games for the single-A Lowell Spinners.
Given that curse the CHB (the Curse of the CHB?) laid on Frakes, poor Pete Frates had better look both ways before crossing those Cambridge streets.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Pooper Scooper
The CHB turned in one column last week, and yet the best he can muster today is a slapped together list of shots at local sports management.
Is this really what the Globe is paying him for?
There's the obligatory Theo cheap shot, raising the Bronson Arroyo angle once again, as if there was any chance the dreadlocked pitcher would be throwing so well here in Boston. Ever heard of small sample size, Dan? Hint: Ask your urologist.
He calls Bill Belichick "His Infallibleness" and Epstein a "real sacred cow" who "forever will be the boy wonder who can do no wrong."
He brings up the minor league umpires strike," about which "nobody cares" (hey, he got that right). "These guys make peanuts as is, and folks simply do not feel their pain. It's unfortunate." Right: it's such deep personal issue for Dan that he waited until the beginning of the fourth week of the season to mention it.
He makes a bizarre case for this Celtics team being within two losses of the worst in team history.
Just a weird piece.
Memory loss. "Some would say the Sox should have been better prepared for a Wells collapse." They are: Move Papelbon to the starting rotation where he belongs.
Misrepresentation watch: "American Airlines gave vouchers for free flights to 19,000 fans (give or take a few) who attended the Mavs' regular-season home finale Wednesday night." The tickets can only be used at Love Field, meaning Mavs fans will have to make the gut-wrenching choice between Kansas City and El Paso for their complimentary flight.
They pay me to do ... what, exactly? "People who know a lot about the NFL draft -- weeks before the draft -- scare me." Of course they do. As does anyone who prepares for their job.
"Everybody OK with the Padres wearing camouflage uniforms at home against the Mets Saturday night? ... I wonder what the soldiers and their families think. Their opinions would be the ones that count." Ever trying asking them?
"Is Doug [Mientkiewicz] donating [the World Series Ball] to Cooperstown, or merely lending it to the Hall for a spell?" Ditto.
??? watch: "Mel Kiper is saying Texas quarterback Vince Young will go to the Raiders with the seventh pick Saturday. Remember in 1984 when Michael Jordan was picked by Chicago at No. 3, after Sam Bowie went to Portland at No. 2 (Hakeem Olajuwon went No. 1 to the Rockets)?" So is he saying Young is Jordan, or Sam Bowie?
Is this really what the Globe is paying him for?
There's the obligatory Theo cheap shot, raising the Bronson Arroyo angle once again, as if there was any chance the dreadlocked pitcher would be throwing so well here in Boston. Ever heard of small sample size, Dan? Hint: Ask your urologist.
He calls Bill Belichick "His Infallibleness" and Epstein a "real sacred cow" who "forever will be the boy wonder who can do no wrong."
He brings up the minor league umpires strike," about which "nobody cares" (hey, he got that right). "These guys make peanuts as is, and folks simply do not feel their pain. It's unfortunate." Right: it's such deep personal issue for Dan that he waited until the beginning of the fourth week of the season to mention it.
He makes a bizarre case for this Celtics team being within two losses of the worst in team history.
Just a weird piece.
Memory loss. "Some would say the Sox should have been better prepared for a Wells collapse." They are: Move Papelbon to the starting rotation where he belongs.
Misrepresentation watch: "American Airlines gave vouchers for free flights to 19,000 fans (give or take a few) who attended the Mavs' regular-season home finale Wednesday night." The tickets can only be used at Love Field, meaning Mavs fans will have to make the gut-wrenching choice between Kansas City and El Paso for their complimentary flight.
They pay me to do ... what, exactly? "People who know a lot about the NFL draft -- weeks before the draft -- scare me." Of course they do. As does anyone who prepares for their job.
"Everybody OK with the Padres wearing camouflage uniforms at home against the Mets Saturday night? ... I wonder what the soldiers and their families think. Their opinions would be the ones that count." Ever trying asking them?
"Is Doug [Mientkiewicz] donating [the World Series Ball] to Cooperstown, or merely lending it to the Hall for a spell?" Ditto.
??? watch: "Mel Kiper is saying Texas quarterback Vince Young will go to the Raiders with the seventh pick Saturday. Remember in 1984 when Michael Jordan was picked by Chicago at No. 3, after Sam Bowie went to Portland at No. 2 (Hakeem Olajuwon went No. 1 to the Rockets)?" So is he saying Young is Jordan, or Sam Bowie?
Friday, April 21, 2006
Story is Proof that Dan's Peak is Past
OK -- today's effort, on Larry Bird's lending his name to a brand of wines, was a good column. Only one problem: It's old news!
Really old, in fact.
This story came out Nov. 10, 2005, following heavy media saturation by the distributor. It's been covered by ESPN, CNN, SI, USA Today, Slate and just about every news channel imaginable.
Dan got scooped on a Larry Bird story by Wine Spectator. How low can life go?
Really old, in fact.
This story came out Nov. 10, 2005, following heavy media saturation by the distributor. It's been covered by ESPN, CNN, SI, USA Today, Slate and just about every news channel imaginable.
Dan got scooped on a Larry Bird story by Wine Spectator. How low can life go?
Monday, April 17, 2006
Switch Hitting
On Opening Day The CHB wrote how Fenway has "never looked better" and "it's amazing now to think there were plans to tear the thing down."
Here's what he wrote on May 16, 1999, after seeing the plans to tear the place down in favor of a new ballpark: "If the Red Sox can build the new Fenway they showed us yesterday, it could be their best move since they bought a beefy, 19-year-old southpaw from the International League Baltimore Orioles in 1914."
He even allowed that the old park's demise is inevitable: "But once you get past the obvious concession that old Fenway isn't forever, you'll see that this plan looks pretty good. In fact, it's almost too good to be true."
Wonder what changed? Oh yeah: now, the Globe owns part of the Red Sox.
Here's what he wrote on May 16, 1999, after seeing the plans to tear the place down in favor of a new ballpark: "If the Red Sox can build the new Fenway they showed us yesterday, it could be their best move since they bought a beefy, 19-year-old southpaw from the International League Baltimore Orioles in 1914."
He even allowed that the old park's demise is inevitable: "But once you get past the obvious concession that old Fenway isn't forever, you'll see that this plan looks pretty good. In fact, it's almost too good to be true."
Wonder what changed? Oh yeah: now, the Globe owns part of the Red Sox.
Papelbon: The New Larry Bird
Dan Shaughnessy’s defining characteristic is his ability to profess love for someone one day only to proclaim to the world just how same individual is nothing less than the Devil incarnate is the next. Usually the swing in Dan’s outlook is precipitated by some monumental mistake, like voting for a woman or not hating New York.
Dan's latest mancrush is on Jonathan Papelbon, who according to The CHB is Dick Radatz all over again, writing: "The Sox haven't had a young closer like this since Dick Radatz." Similarly, on April 6, he wrote: [Papelbon] looked like Dick Radatz." Of course, Shaughnessy compares every hard-throwing Sox reliever with The Monster, so take that with the provebial grain of salt.
But Dan's on a roll, enjoying his new love so much he even goes to former arch enemy Curt Schilling for a quote. "This is a huge advantage for a young guy," said Schill. (Last year, he was “blowhard Curt Schilling.” Now that he’s 3-0, he’s “Schill.”) "Young guy." Wonder if, as he dutifully copied down the quotes, Dan realized that yesterday’s starter, Josh Beckett, is 25 and has already pitched 630 innings in the majors.
Taking no. 38’s place as the new Devil is Keith Foulke, who apparently has made the unique mistake of getting injured: “Terry Francona, who made the bold (and now so obvious) switch from Keith Foulke to Papelbon on the night of the third game of the season in Texas.” So obvious, eh? This is Foulke’s line through 12 games: five appearances, six innings pitched, four hits allowed, four strikeouts, one walk, and two runs allowed. That's pretty good, especially for a guy who had surgery on both legs in the past year.
But Papelbon has to stay where he is, Dan says, claiming he is "too valuable" in the bullpen, naturally leaving the reader to wonder why the ninth inning is more important than the eight that precede it, and how the 200 or so innings he would likely throw as a starter are less important than the 70 or so he might pitch in relief (see aforementioned Beckett comment).
It's because Know-nothings like Shaughnessy hate to have their age-old notions challenged. Guys who throw 95 are closers. Guys who throw 89 are not. Here's what he wrote Dec. 30, 2003, after the Sox signed Foulke:
Dan's latest mancrush is on Jonathan Papelbon, who according to The CHB is Dick Radatz all over again, writing: "The Sox haven't had a young closer like this since Dick Radatz." Similarly, on April 6, he wrote: [Papelbon] looked like Dick Radatz." Of course, Shaughnessy compares every hard-throwing Sox reliever with The Monster, so take that with the provebial grain of salt.
But Dan's on a roll, enjoying his new love so much he even goes to former arch enemy Curt Schilling for a quote. "This is a huge advantage for a young guy," said Schill. (Last year, he was “blowhard Curt Schilling.” Now that he’s 3-0, he’s “Schill.”) "Young guy." Wonder if, as he dutifully copied down the quotes, Dan realized that yesterday’s starter, Josh Beckett, is 25 and has already pitched 630 innings in the majors.
Taking no. 38’s place as the new Devil is Keith Foulke, who apparently has made the unique mistake of getting injured: “Terry Francona, who made the bold (and now so obvious) switch from Keith Foulke to Papelbon on the night of the third game of the season in Texas.” So obvious, eh? This is Foulke’s line through 12 games: five appearances, six innings pitched, four hits allowed, four strikeouts, one walk, and two runs allowed. That's pretty good, especially for a guy who had surgery on both legs in the past year.
But Papelbon has to stay where he is, Dan says, claiming he is "too valuable" in the bullpen, naturally leaving the reader to wonder why the ninth inning is more important than the eight that precede it, and how the 200 or so innings he would likely throw as a starter are less important than the 70 or so he might pitch in relief (see aforementioned Beckett comment).
It's because Know-nothings like Shaughnessy hate to have their age-old notions challenged. Guys who throw 95 are closers. Guys who throw 89 are not. Here's what he wrote Dec. 30, 2003, after the Sox signed Foulke:
People in the A's front office think Keith Foulke made a mistake coming to Boston. Maybe that's sour grapes, but some fear he won't react well to the fallout that comes when a Sox closer blows a save against the Yankees. It takes a specific mentality (think Dennis Eckersley), and some of the A's believe Foulke is too sensitive. I tend to agree ....The Globe will never run a correction on any of that, but we know how wrong he was.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Alls is Not Wells
It was, as George Costanza might say, a column about nothing.
The CHB's take on David Wells abysmal pitching performance last night includes shots at Dick Cheney, Theo Epstein, Bengie Molina, Tony Graffanino's and yes, Wells himself.
And, as typical, in recent columns he has droned on about how it's not yet time to panic, which is his standard fallback (he writes the same thing every year). Of course, Sybil also claims, "Wells has yet to give us any indication that he can still get big-league hitters out."
What, 20 years of pitching major league ball isn't enough proof, Dan-o?
Has he forgotten that Wells stunk up the joint on opening night last year, only to morph into Boston's second-best pitcher (behind Tim Wakefield). Was last season really that long ago?
At the end Sybil's split-personality really kicks in, further muddying the point (if there ever was one). To wit:
Don't panic: "Even though the first-place Sox are 6-2 and even though Wells has pitched only once, there will be temptation to overreact."
Panic: During the winter, the Sox were all fat and happy with their seven starters. They seemed insulated from age and injuries. But now Arroyo has been traded and Jonathan Papelbon is a Radatz-like closer and Wells has yet to give us any indication that he can still get big-league hitters out. Suddenly, there are not so many options."
Don't panic (from April 12): "Veteran lefty David Wells gets the ball tonight, and another victory will give the Sox their best start since 1920."
Don't panic (from today): "Wells will get another chance, and maybe[emphasis mine] he'll revert to form ..."
Panic: "... but if he doesn't, Bob Lobel will be showing you more Arroyo highlights and asking, 'Why can't we get pitchers like that?' "
I'm beginning to wonder if Joe Sullivan knows how to read.
Bizzaro watch: Shamelessly, Dan again refers to Tony Graffanino's error in Game 2 of the ALDS last year "Buckneresque." Other than the fact that he missed a ball, there is little context for comparing the two. Of course, "context" isn't a term The CHB is familiar with.
The CHB's take on David Wells abysmal pitching performance last night includes shots at Dick Cheney, Theo Epstein, Bengie Molina, Tony Graffanino's and yes, Wells himself.
And, as typical, in recent columns he has droned on about how it's not yet time to panic, which is his standard fallback (he writes the same thing every year). Of course, Sybil also claims, "Wells has yet to give us any indication that he can still get big-league hitters out."
What, 20 years of pitching major league ball isn't enough proof, Dan-o?
Has he forgotten that Wells stunk up the joint on opening night last year, only to morph into Boston's second-best pitcher (behind Tim Wakefield). Was last season really that long ago?
At the end Sybil's split-personality really kicks in, further muddying the point (if there ever was one). To wit:
Don't panic: "Even though the first-place Sox are 6-2 and even though Wells has pitched only once, there will be temptation to overreact."
Panic: During the winter, the Sox were all fat and happy with their seven starters. They seemed insulated from age and injuries. But now Arroyo has been traded and Jonathan Papelbon is a Radatz-like closer and Wells has yet to give us any indication that he can still get big-league hitters out. Suddenly, there are not so many options."
Don't panic (from April 12): "Veteran lefty David Wells gets the ball tonight, and another victory will give the Sox their best start since 1920."
Don't panic (from today): "Wells will get another chance, and maybe[emphasis mine] he'll revert to form ..."
Panic: "... but if he doesn't, Bob Lobel will be showing you more Arroyo highlights and asking, 'Why can't we get pitchers like that?' "
I'm beginning to wonder if Joe Sullivan knows how to read.
Bizzaro watch: Shamelessly, Dan again refers to Tony Graffanino's error in Game 2 of the ALDS last year "Buckneresque." Other than the fact that he missed a ball, there is little context for comparing the two. Of course, "context" isn't a term The CHB is familiar with.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Stuck in Park
Remember a few months ago when an announcement by the Red Sox to move the rest of its televised games – which it owns, by the way – to NESN threw The CHB into conniptions? He called the move “elitist, classist, and probably greedy, too. The Sox are putting all their games on NESN because it means more money for the organization." (He then never raised the subject again, of course, adding fuel to the belief that he didn’t really care about the fans so much as he wanted to stir things up.)
That’s instructive, because today he says Fenway has never looked better.
That may be so. But Shaughnessy downplays the biggest issue for fans – the expense of attending games. He tries to write that off, arguing that “the Sox have more demand than supply and they're trying to compete with a team that doesn't blush at a $200 million player payroll.”
Let’s get this straight: The team drains money into an ancient, uncomfortable venue and Dan finds the results “spectacular.” The Sox decide to use an outlet they own in order to raise revenues and they are “greedy.”
Oh, yeah. Near the end – the third to last paragraph to be exact – he lays out the park’s warts: obstructed views, narrow seats, seats that face the wrong way, lack of parking, and yes, the cost. (Given how he minimizes that latter element, he might as well have left it out altogether.)
All of which misses the point. Fenway Park has been selling out for years, even before all the modifications. All the while, it's the fan experience that continues to be compromised. On the issue of cost, I don’t personally hold the owners accountable so much as I do the scalpers (and the city, which looks the other way). But that fact remains that in some towns – Baltimore, for one – scalping laws are enforced to the hilt – and face value means face value. To enter Fenway even for the least desirable games of the season means ponying up five or more times the face value of the ticket – none of which goes to the team. That's the situation that deserves a column. Heck, it deserves a series.
Dan has proclaimed the beauty of the new parks in San Francisco, Baltimore, San Diego, demonstrating that even the black hole that makes up the space between his ears can spit out the notion that starting over is often better than a new tube of lipstick. He even spends a good chunk of today's column lauding the work of the Larry Lucchino-led team that has had such an impact on the face of baseball around the country (he calls architect Janet Marie Smith "the godmother of modern baseball stadiums"). Yet he continues to wax nostalgic about a place that has truly outlived its usefulness. Why? Because he doesn’t feel the effects. Even as he cracks wise about blowing up the press box, he ignores the uncomfortable hypocrisy: those seats are 1) better than almost any other within the not-so-Friendly Confines and 2) free.
Boston needs a new park. If not now, when? If anything, "greedy" defines owners who refuse to build an appropriate venue without it being underwritten by the tax base.
Theo watch: “Larry Lucchino, a pinata for nitwit nation, isn't likely to get many bouquets from Sox fans who still blame him for the weird (and temporary) departure of general manager Theo Epstein ….” No Dan, we blame you.
About that $200 million payroll ...: The past five World Series winners, in reverse chronological order: White Sox, Red Sox, Marlins, Angels, Diamondbacks. Is it possible that maybe all the obsessing over the Yankees' payroll is just a bit overblown?
That’s instructive, because today he says Fenway has never looked better.
That may be so. But Shaughnessy downplays the biggest issue for fans – the expense of attending games. He tries to write that off, arguing that “the Sox have more demand than supply and they're trying to compete with a team that doesn't blush at a $200 million player payroll.”
Let’s get this straight: The team drains money into an ancient, uncomfortable venue and Dan finds the results “spectacular.” The Sox decide to use an outlet they own in order to raise revenues and they are “greedy.”
Oh, yeah. Near the end – the third to last paragraph to be exact – he lays out the park’s warts: obstructed views, narrow seats, seats that face the wrong way, lack of parking, and yes, the cost. (Given how he minimizes that latter element, he might as well have left it out altogether.)
All of which misses the point. Fenway Park has been selling out for years, even before all the modifications. All the while, it's the fan experience that continues to be compromised. On the issue of cost, I don’t personally hold the owners accountable so much as I do the scalpers (and the city, which looks the other way). But that fact remains that in some towns – Baltimore, for one – scalping laws are enforced to the hilt – and face value means face value. To enter Fenway even for the least desirable games of the season means ponying up five or more times the face value of the ticket – none of which goes to the team. That's the situation that deserves a column. Heck, it deserves a series.
Dan has proclaimed the beauty of the new parks in San Francisco, Baltimore, San Diego, demonstrating that even the black hole that makes up the space between his ears can spit out the notion that starting over is often better than a new tube of lipstick. He even spends a good chunk of today's column lauding the work of the Larry Lucchino-led team that has had such an impact on the face of baseball around the country (he calls architect Janet Marie Smith "the godmother of modern baseball stadiums"). Yet he continues to wax nostalgic about a place that has truly outlived its usefulness. Why? Because he doesn’t feel the effects. Even as he cracks wise about blowing up the press box, he ignores the uncomfortable hypocrisy: those seats are 1) better than almost any other within the not-so-Friendly Confines and 2) free.
Boston needs a new park. If not now, when? If anything, "greedy" defines owners who refuse to build an appropriate venue without it being underwritten by the tax base.
Theo watch: “Larry Lucchino, a pinata for nitwit nation, isn't likely to get many bouquets from Sox fans who still blame him for the weird (and temporary) departure of general manager Theo Epstein ….” No Dan, we blame you.
About that $200 million payroll ...: The past five World Series winners, in reverse chronological order: White Sox, Red Sox, Marlins, Angels, Diamondbacks. Is it possible that maybe all the obsessing over the Yankees' payroll is just a bit overblown?
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Hot in Texas
Not sure what the point of today’s column was except that he had to write about something. A basic rehash of the Red Sox loss, with no analysis at all (unless catcher Josh Bard’s apparent difficulty in catching the knuckeball was somehow responsible for Tim Wakefield’s getting shelled).
His sendoff -- "Might be time to panic. First Foulkie. Now Bard. And the Sox are one out in the loss column. How soon before somebody says they're playing for the wild card?" -- is hopefully a bit of sarcasm, but with the CHB, who knows?
Man love: Josh Beckett is again referred to as "stud starter." Let's hope that Shaughnessy learns to keep it in his pants around the kid. Pedophilia is a crime, even in Massachussets.
And are we going to be subject to daily updates on Johnny Damon? It's not like he's the first guy ever to leave the Red Sox.
His sendoff -- "Might be time to panic. First Foulkie. Now Bard. And the Sox are one out in the loss column. How soon before somebody says they're playing for the wild card?" -- is hopefully a bit of sarcasm, but with the CHB, who knows?
Man love: Josh Beckett is again referred to as "stud starter." Let's hope that Shaughnessy learns to keep it in his pants around the kid. Pedophilia is a crime, even in Massachussets.
And are we going to be subject to daily updates on Johnny Damon? It's not like he's the first guy ever to leave the Red Sox.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Dantasy Land
Mirror, mirror, on the wall: Who’s the fairest weather fan of them all?
Answer: The CHB (like we didn't already know).
Just months after taking howitzer-sized shots at an injured Curt Schilling, all is forgotten in Dan’s fantasy (Dantasy?) land.
Today, after shutting down the Rangers in yesterday’s opener, he’s “Big Schill” and "superhero/ultimate warrior/Boston sports deity."
It's hard to believe that just last June 26, Sybil Shaughnessy, manic-depressive presciption clearly expired, was busy calling Schilling "the Big Blowhard."
Dan even eases up on his recounting of Schilling’s troubles last year, writing, "He struggled to win eight games last year on an ankle that looked like a jigsaw puzzle with a couple of pieces gone." That's a far cry from his jackass remark last Nov. 2 on the Dennis & Callahan show when he said, "Tell Curt to go ask the people who paid him $13 million to win eight games last year about that situation. Maybe they can explain it to him."
That's fair weather Dan for you.
Sybil watch: Opening day 2004: “Why can't it just be about the baseball? Even for one day." Opening day 2006: Larry Lucchino was “conspicuously absent” but [John] Henry “insisted” he wasn’t “locked in the basement back at Fenway” and calling the Rangers the team that “used to be owned by Schilling's favorite president.”
Answer: The CHB (like we didn't already know).
Just months after taking howitzer-sized shots at an injured Curt Schilling, all is forgotten in Dan’s fantasy (Dantasy?) land.
Today, after shutting down the Rangers in yesterday’s opener, he’s “Big Schill” and "superhero/ultimate warrior/Boston sports deity."
It's hard to believe that just last June 26, Sybil Shaughnessy, manic-depressive presciption clearly expired, was busy calling Schilling "the Big Blowhard."
Dan even eases up on his recounting of Schilling’s troubles last year, writing, "He struggled to win eight games last year on an ankle that looked like a jigsaw puzzle with a couple of pieces gone." That's a far cry from his jackass remark last Nov. 2 on the Dennis & Callahan show when he said, "Tell Curt to go ask the people who paid him $13 million to win eight games last year about that situation. Maybe they can explain it to him."
That's fair weather Dan for you.
Sybil watch: Opening day 2004: “Why can't it just be about the baseball? Even for one day." Opening day 2006: Larry Lucchino was “conspicuously absent” but [John] Henry “insisted” he wasn’t “locked in the basement back at Fenway” and calling the Rangers the team that “used to be owned by Schilling's favorite president.”
Monday, April 03, 2006
Opening Bray
The CHB's annual opening day extravaganza is a piece of fetid crap. Sorry: We here at the Watch try to be a bit more analytical than that, but just trying to sort through it is giving me a headache.
The banter runs from the trite to the absurd. For instance: "It is Opening Day 2006, all teams are 0-0 ..." he says, a compound error which would be remedied only if 1) the season hadn't started the night before, and 2) that game, which pitted Cleveland vs. Chicago, had been rained out. (It wasn't.)
"It all goes back to pitching and defense," he claims (wrongly), then moments later cavalierly says Boston "will score enough runs to win 95-100 games."
In comparing the Sox to the Yankees, he for some oddball reason singles out a pitcher, Mike Mussina, who threw 180 innings last year as someone who "could implode at any moment," as if that's not true of any pitcher.
And he says the loss of Damon, Mueller, et al has led "many experts to dismiss the Red Sox as a noncontender." Many? Really, Dan? That's a huge overstatement.
And then The King of All Hyperbole reminds fans "not to overreact if your team loses the first game." Per usual, he's conveniently forgetting his own public hissy fits. Let's go back to what he wrote after some recent Opening Day losses:
* 2003: Dan's ready to tar and feather Bill James after the bullpen blew Game 1 of the season, a loss he termed was a "calamity."
* 2002: Dan writes, "[Martinez] had almost nothing. He said he feels fine. He credited the Blue Jay hitters. But clearly he is not yet Pedro. Will he ever be again? It's the big question that plagues Red Sox Nation as fans chew on this painful loss and pray that it's not too late to salvage the season."
We'll be sure to revisit that one if this team starts the season 4-6.
There's something about the start of a season that sends Dan into emotional overload. At least he didn't predict Schilling would throw a no-no as he used to with Pedro.
The banter runs from the trite to the absurd. For instance: "It is Opening Day 2006, all teams are 0-0 ..." he says, a compound error which would be remedied only if 1) the season hadn't started the night before, and 2) that game, which pitted Cleveland vs. Chicago, had been rained out. (It wasn't.)
"It all goes back to pitching and defense," he claims (wrongly), then moments later cavalierly says Boston "will score enough runs to win 95-100 games."
In comparing the Sox to the Yankees, he for some oddball reason singles out a pitcher, Mike Mussina, who threw 180 innings last year as someone who "could implode at any moment," as if that's not true of any pitcher.
And he says the loss of Damon, Mueller, et al has led "many experts to dismiss the Red Sox as a noncontender." Many? Really, Dan? That's a huge overstatement.
And then The King of All Hyperbole reminds fans "not to overreact if your team loses the first game." Per usual, he's conveniently forgetting his own public hissy fits. Let's go back to what he wrote after some recent Opening Day losses:
* 2003: Dan's ready to tar and feather Bill James after the bullpen blew Game 1 of the season, a loss he termed was a "calamity."
* 2002: Dan writes, "[Martinez] had almost nothing. He said he feels fine. He credited the Blue Jay hitters. But clearly he is not yet Pedro. Will he ever be again? It's the big question that plagues Red Sox Nation as fans chew on this painful loss and pray that it's not too late to salvage the season."
We'll be sure to revisit that one if this team starts the season 4-6.
There's something about the start of a season that sends Dan into emotional overload. At least he didn't predict Schilling would throw a no-no as he used to with Pedro.
Sunday, April 02, 2006
The Duck Stops Here
Dan's April Fool's column was published a day late, it seems.
In a perverse bit of hypocrisy, The CHB today complains that steroids still dominate the discussion. “[T]he Red Sox season starts tomorrow afternoon … and we are talking about steroids. Now and again. Forever, it seems.
The thing is, if guys like Shaughnessy, the self-styled overseers of baseball, had investigated the issue and held anyone accountable over the past decade, we wouldn’t still be talking about it. But no, they relied on cheap jokes and innuendo because, guess what, actually researching the issue is hard work.
Dan’s hyperbole is out in full force. “[T]he integrity of the game has been irreparably harmed -- more so than at any time since the Black Sox scandal….” If that’s true, then why do more fans buy tickets or watch televised games each year than the last?
He invokes Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis for doing the right thing, omitting that the man “endowed with power to do just about anything to preserve the best interests of baseball” used those same powers to keep blacks out of the sport.
And he blames everyone else – Bug Selig, Major League Baseball and the Players Association (“the silent and too-often-overlooked coconspirator in this cesspool explosion”) – for not cluing him: “Why did he allow us to embrace what we now know to be the artificial home run chase (Popeye McGwire vs. Bluto Sosa) in 1998?” Dan ducks altogether the media’s complicity, without which none of this could have happened. All in all, a shameful display by a man who did nothing but heap praise on Bonds while he chased down the record (see, for example, his Oct. 18, 2002, column).
“We all know,” he writes. “Bonds is in the on-deck circle, ready to overtake Ruth. He did it with his own talent, plus some illegal help from his friends.”
But while the evidence is strong, Victor Conte’s pleas notwithstanding (and it’s possible that Conte was being truthy when he said he did not give steroids to Bonds – it may be that he gave them to Bonds’ trainer who in turn dispensed them to Barry), there is no evidence of the effect, if any, that steroids has on the performance of a major league baseball player. No controlled study has ever been done. Everything else, then, is speculation.
And buck passing.
In a perverse bit of hypocrisy, The CHB today complains that steroids still dominate the discussion. “[T]he Red Sox season starts tomorrow afternoon … and we are talking about steroids. Now and again. Forever, it seems.
The thing is, if guys like Shaughnessy, the self-styled overseers of baseball, had investigated the issue and held anyone accountable over the past decade, we wouldn’t still be talking about it. But no, they relied on cheap jokes and innuendo because, guess what, actually researching the issue is hard work.
Dan’s hyperbole is out in full force. “[T]he integrity of the game has been irreparably harmed -- more so than at any time since the Black Sox scandal….” If that’s true, then why do more fans buy tickets or watch televised games each year than the last?
He invokes Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis for doing the right thing, omitting that the man “endowed with power to do just about anything to preserve the best interests of baseball” used those same powers to keep blacks out of the sport.
And he blames everyone else – Bug Selig, Major League Baseball and the Players Association (“the silent and too-often-overlooked coconspirator in this cesspool explosion”) – for not cluing him: “Why did he allow us to embrace what we now know to be the artificial home run chase (Popeye McGwire vs. Bluto Sosa) in 1998?” Dan ducks altogether the media’s complicity, without which none of this could have happened. All in all, a shameful display by a man who did nothing but heap praise on Bonds while he chased down the record (see, for example, his Oct. 18, 2002, column).
“We all know,” he writes. “Bonds is in the on-deck circle, ready to overtake Ruth. He did it with his own talent, plus some illegal help from his friends.”
But while the evidence is strong, Victor Conte’s pleas notwithstanding (and it’s possible that Conte was being truthy when he said he did not give steroids to Bonds – it may be that he gave them to Bonds’ trainer who in turn dispensed them to Barry), there is no evidence of the effect, if any, that steroids has on the performance of a major league baseball player. No controlled study has ever been done. Everything else, then, is speculation.
And buck passing.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Farmed Out
The CHB today makes the dubious assertion that Theo Epstein is "more powerful than any Boston GM since Dick O'Connell," a humorous bit of amnesia, considering that Dan Duqette is also prominently featured in the piece. Duquette, of course, was executive vice president and general manager under John Harrington, and for all intents and purposes completely ran the operation. Not even Theo can say that.
That's just nit one.
He digs himself in further by saying Theo is trying to build the farm system while also putting a playoff quality team on the field. Oddly, though, he offers as evidence Kevin Youkilis, "home-grown stud Jonathan Papelbon" and soon-to-be-ready Craig Hansen and Jon Lester. Perhaps the Sox can take credit for Papelbon, who has been in the farm system since 2003. But calling Hansen homegrown is a complete joke. He came from a major college program and is major league ready right now. And it completely ignores the talent that came out of the minors under Duquette, including Nomar Garciaparra and Trot Nixon. Moreover, The CHB is late to this development: at least one scouting service named the Red Sox minor league system the tops in the majors during the past year.
Nit no. 3: He writes, "In fact, only 24 of Boston's 53 draft picks last year were from a four-year college." Actually, according to the Globe's own Website, 27 came from four-year colleges. And six more came from the junior college ranks, which in many cases are designed to be baseball factories.
Nit. no. 4: "Development vs. acquisition is an age-old tug of war for the Sox." Right -- as it is for every team. But an acquisition model hasn't seemed to hurt the Yankees (you've heard of them, haven't you Dan?)
Finally, as only The CHB can do, there are plenty of shots fired at Messrs. Henry, and Lucchino for echoing Epstein's statements. Only Dan would find that much-needed unity and cohesiveness to be a problem.
That's just nit one.
He digs himself in further by saying Theo is trying to build the farm system while also putting a playoff quality team on the field. Oddly, though, he offers as evidence Kevin Youkilis, "home-grown stud Jonathan Papelbon" and soon-to-be-ready Craig Hansen and Jon Lester. Perhaps the Sox can take credit for Papelbon, who has been in the farm system since 2003. But calling Hansen homegrown is a complete joke. He came from a major college program and is major league ready right now. And it completely ignores the talent that came out of the minors under Duquette, including Nomar Garciaparra and Trot Nixon. Moreover, The CHB is late to this development: at least one scouting service named the Red Sox minor league system the tops in the majors during the past year.
Nit no. 3: He writes, "In fact, only 24 of Boston's 53 draft picks last year were from a four-year college." Actually, according to the Globe's own Website, 27 came from four-year colleges. And six more came from the junior college ranks, which in many cases are designed to be baseball factories.
Nit. no. 4: "Development vs. acquisition is an age-old tug of war for the Sox." Right -- as it is for every team. But an acquisition model hasn't seemed to hurt the Yankees (you've heard of them, haven't you Dan?)
Finally, as only The CHB can do, there are plenty of shots fired at Messrs. Henry, and Lucchino for echoing Epstein's statements. Only Dan would find that much-needed unity and cohesiveness to be a problem.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Driving Nostalgia Lane
After a long break, he's back. But those hoping The CHB spent his week away researching something, anything, are sure to be disappointed with his revelation today that UCLA basketball has a long tradition.
And could the CHB make it through an entire column on tradition without mention of the Yankees, Canadiens and Celtics? Of course not: "They were the New York Yankees and Montreal Canadiens of college basketball. They were collegiate cousins to the Boston Celtics."
Good old Dan. Where we would be without him and his fanciful drives down nostalgia lane?
Name drop watch: "After last Saturday's regional final victory over John Calipari's Memphis team, [Bill] Walton sent me an e-mail ... ."
And could the CHB make it through an entire column on tradition without mention of the Yankees, Canadiens and Celtics? Of course not: "They were the New York Yankees and Montreal Canadiens of college basketball. They were collegiate cousins to the Boston Celtics."
Good old Dan. Where we would be without him and his fanciful drives down nostalgia lane?
Name drop watch: "After last Saturday's regional final victory over John Calipari's Memphis team, [Bill] Walton sent me an e-mail ... ."
Monday, March 27, 2006
Off and On
It's a curious thing: The CHB writes several days in a row, then disappears for long stretches.
In the past two weeks, for example, he was off March 16-18, then issued (the best phrase for his mechanical, ho-hum style) four missives in a row (three on the World Baseball Classic),the last of which ran March 22, then hasn't published anything since.
One wonders why the Globe doesn't space his columns so as to avoid the slapdash inanity that spawned this blog.
One further wonders why the Globe doesn't simply can his sorry ass and hire someone who can juggle the apparently enormous task of 1) writing crisp, clear prose while 2) getting his facts straight.
In the past two weeks, for example, he was off March 16-18, then issued (the best phrase for his mechanical, ho-hum style) four missives in a row (three on the World Baseball Classic),the last of which ran March 22, then hasn't published anything since.
One wonders why the Globe doesn't space his columns so as to avoid the slapdash inanity that spawned this blog.
One further wonders why the Globe doesn't simply can his sorry ass and hire someone who can juggle the apparently enormous task of 1) writing crisp, clear prose while 2) getting his facts straight.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
And There It Is...
From today's Globe:
Correction: Because of a reporting error, a story in Monday's Sports section erroneously said that no Cuban national team baseball player had defected since Jose Contreras in 2002. While Cuban baseball players have defected since 2002, Contreras was the last one to do so during an international tournament.
Correction: Because of a reporting error, a story in Monday's Sports section erroneously said that no Cuban national team baseball player had defected since Jose Contreras in 2002. While Cuban baseball players have defected since 2002, Contreras was the last one to do so during an international tournament.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
An Embarrassment of a Column
One of the beauties of Dan's Sybil-like mind is his ability to present two sides of an argument and, through tortured calculus, determine that they somehow support a single thesis.
Case in point: Today's column.
Per The CHB, the United States' loss was "shocking" and "it's going to be difficult to argue that Americans are still the best at the sport we invented." Yet in the next graf, he says the U.S. team "was hastily assembled, did not include all of our best players (one of America's pitchers, Al Leiter, retired Sunday), and entered the tournament in midwinter form while many of the other squads were in midseason shape." He writes
Yet even while claiming Americans' were embarrassed by the outcome, he says that fans ignored it. In true Sybilish style, The CHB is saying that fans weren't even aware the games were going on, yet red-faced over the loss. A neat trick.
He concludes with typical Shaughnessy schmaltz: "[N]ow there's proof that the game belongs to the world." Perhaps he wasn't aware that the International Baseball Federation has more than 110 member countries. Or that 30% of major league players are not U.S. citizens. Strange, though; you think he would have noticed names like Ortiz, Martinez, Cabrera and Ramirez on the jerseys of the Red Sox players as they celebrated their 2004 World Series victory.
Case in point: Today's column.
Per The CHB, the United States' loss was "shocking" and "it's going to be difficult to argue that Americans are still the best at the sport we invented." Yet in the next graf, he says the U.S. team "was hastily assembled, did not include all of our best players (one of America's pitchers, Al Leiter, retired Sunday), and entered the tournament in midwinter form while many of the other squads were in midseason shape." He writes
We did not put our best team on the field (Jeff Francoeur, Michael Barrett, Brian Schneider?). Because the tournament was held in March, we sent players into games before they were ready. And we were embarrassed -- losing to Canada, Korea, and Mexico.If, as Dan argues, we sent Little Leaguers to compete against other nation's pros, wouldn't we be expected to lose? And if so, then why would a 2-1 loss to a pro team be grounds for bridge-jumping?
Yet even while claiming Americans' were embarrassed by the outcome, he says that fans ignored it. In true Sybilish style, The CHB is saying that fans weren't even aware the games were going on, yet red-faced over the loss. A neat trick.
He concludes with typical Shaughnessy schmaltz: "[N]ow there's proof that the game belongs to the world." Perhaps he wasn't aware that the International Baseball Federation has more than 110 member countries. Or that 30% of major league players are not U.S. citizens. Strange, though; you think he would have noticed names like Ortiz, Martinez, Cabrera and Ramirez on the jerseys of the Red Sox players as they celebrated their 2004 World Series victory.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Dan's Coverage is AWOL
Reading The CHB's recap of the final of the World Baseball Classic, you might think the top stories were that no one cared ("While half of America slept, and the other half blissfully ignored the event") and the time the game ended (12:57 a.m. EST).
You would be wrong.
Dan's story, a passive account of what happened on the field, plus a couple of quotes, could have been written from Newton. He misses so many nuances of the contest that made it interesting. For example:
*The Cubans wore their red uniforms, which they consider to be lucky.
*Cuba starter Ormari Romero was pulled after just 23 pitches.
*Petco Park, host to the finals, was packed with fans from Japan and Cuba who cheered their teams with flags, horns and cowbells.
*The San Diego Symphony Orchestra played the national anthems of Japan, Cuba and the U.S.
*Hank Aaron threw the ceremonial first pitch, and was escorted to the third-base line, by Sadaharu Oh, Japan's all-time home run king.
*Oh apparently forgot what made him famous, because the Japanese he bunted like crazy. (Sometimes you win despite your manager.)
Instead, he takes shots at the U.S. team, calling its loss to Mexico "embarrassing" and a "stunning departure."
And the snide remark about America's lack of interest was uncalled for. Perhaps if the telecast of the game had started before 9 p.m. EST, maybe a few folks at home would have watched.
"I root for the story," The CHB has said. He missed a good one here.
Correction watch: I have heard that the Globe will run a correction to The CHB's remark yesterday that no Cuban player has defected since José Contreras in 2002.
You would be wrong.
Dan's story, a passive account of what happened on the field, plus a couple of quotes, could have been written from Newton. He misses so many nuances of the contest that made it interesting. For example:
*The Cubans wore their red uniforms, which they consider to be lucky.
*Cuba starter Ormari Romero was pulled after just 23 pitches.
*Petco Park, host to the finals, was packed with fans from Japan and Cuba who cheered their teams with flags, horns and cowbells.
*The San Diego Symphony Orchestra played the national anthems of Japan, Cuba and the U.S.
*Hank Aaron threw the ceremonial first pitch, and was escorted to the third-base line, by Sadaharu Oh, Japan's all-time home run king.
*Oh apparently forgot what made him famous, because the Japanese he bunted like crazy. (Sometimes you win despite your manager.)
Instead, he takes shots at the U.S. team, calling its loss to Mexico "embarrassing" and a "stunning departure."
And the snide remark about America's lack of interest was uncalled for. Perhaps if the telecast of the game had started before 9 p.m. EST, maybe a few folks at home would have watched.
"I root for the story," The CHB has said. He missed a good one here.
Correction watch: I have heard that the Globe will run a correction to The CHB's remark yesterday that no Cuban player has defected since José Contreras in 2002.
Monday, March 20, 2006
'Defect'-ive
There are two prevailing stories in baseball this spring. There's the triple-story of Barry Bonds, the all-time homerun crown and steroids. Then there's the World Baseball Classic.
The CHB, who to date has acted the proverbial one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest when it comes such timely stories as Jim Rice's winning personality and Keith Foulke's thoughts on Burger King employees, finally gets around to writing about the WBC.
Of course, he doesn't study the merits of the contest. Nor does he capture the excitement of it -- and those who saw Alex Rodriguez' shock and dismay after the United States lost to Mexico or Jason Varitek's soft-spoken gratitude for the honor of representing his country know what I mean.
Instead, he writes back-to-back columns about what a wonderful team the Cubans have. And in doing so he obliterates reality and common sense. It's like watching a slow-motion car crash.
Let's roll the tape.
Sunday: "No 25 guys/25 cabs for the Cuban national team. It's all for one, all the time," he wrote. As if a Cuban player would even be allowed in a cab.
Today: He describes what a great time the players are having: "It's obvious the players are having fun. They travel, eat, practice, and play as a unit."
As usual, Dan contradicts himself mid-story without even realizing it. Is it the fun that binds the players together, or is it the "security guards near their rooms in the team hotel and representatives from the Department of Homeland Security stand[ing] guard?" Or maybe it's the presence of Antonio Castro, Fidel's son, who just happens to be the team doctor "and often can be seen standing next to [Cuba's manager] during games."
Can those who are considered threats to defect be seriously described as "having fun"? Fun is what I had while out on St. Patrick's Day, and the last thing on my mind was hopping a boat to Havana. Per Article 216 of Cuba's Penal Code, the penalty for any attempt to leave the country without prior government approval is up to three years in prison.
Some don't get off so easy. Truth is, potential defectors face a life-and-death decision. In his childlike ignorance, The CHB apparently is unaware that on July 18, 1978, Cuban baseball star Pedro José Rodríguez was assassinated by Cuban agents while in Colombia for a exhibition series. He was thrown from the 5th floor window of his hotel room for attempting to defect.
Moreover, as Cuban law (Article 90 of Law No. 16, June 28, 1978) mandates, "The promotion of athletes to higher categories takes into account not only their athletic achievements, but also their social and political attitude." In short, you want to play, you gotta pray at the altar of Fidel.
What was that about the cabs, Dan?
Here's where Dan truly goes off the deep end. "Baseball truly is a religion in Cuba. ... Players pledge allegiance to Fidel and none has defected since José Contreras went AWOL in 2002 [SIC!]." Let's forego the pure MGH-bound craziness of that non sequiter and focus on the "none has defected since 2002" comment. That is, pure and simple, wrong.
In October 2003, Cuban baseball stars Maels Rodriguez and Yobal Dueñas defected, hoping to make it to major leagues, according to Baseball America.
And in a New York Times article on March 6, 2006, Jack Curry wrote: "Joe Kehoskie, an agent who has represented Cuban defectors since 1998, said he knew of several players who would like to defect. He estimated that more than 40 players, none as renowned as Contreras, have defected in the past three years."
So what happened in 2002? Cuba began negotiating with foreign teams for its best players. As economics professor Katherine Baird noted in her paper, Cuban Baseball: Ideology, Politics, and Market Forces, in 2002, two top Cuban players, Omar Linares and Germán Mesa, were sold to Japan teams. Notes Baird: "In all likelihood, the Cuban government received significantly more than 80 percent of Linares’ earnings. While it is less clear if the average Cuban player is exploited, those who are able to play overseas are clearly exploited by the Cuban goverment." There's something about being able to leave (mostly) on your own that sort of undermines the need to defect.
Ignorance is bliss, ain't it Dan?
Say what? watch: The CHB says the Cubans are "one victory away from being true champions of the world." Ooooookkkaaayyyy.
Selective memory watch: "Lazo made the lead look huge. No one-inning relief stint for him. The big righty threw 4 2/3 innings of relief, which we all know is not the American way." Is it me, or was Dan among those who screamed bloody murder three years ago at the closer-by-committee concept, under which extended high-leverage relief appearances would be acceptable? We need only turn to April 1, 2003, when he wrote: "Let's start with a memo to Bill James: Perhaps the seventh inning is not the most important inning to hold a lead."
Selective memory watch, redux: Do you think there's pressure to win? Dan did last year, when covering the Red Sox-White Sox playoff series last Oct. 8 he wrote of Orlando "El Duque" Hernandez, "There's little pressure in life after you've already stared down Fidel Castro."
Plagiarism watch: The NYT's Jack Curry, on March 6: Yulieski Gourriel, a 21-year-old infielder who carries himself with the swagger of Derek Jeter ... ."
Dan on March 19: "Gourriel -- the Derek Jeter of Cuba ... ."
Thank God they're a two-newspaper company: Curry again: "Kehoskie speculated that the young pitchers Danny Betancourt, who was dazzling in the Athens Olympics, and Frank Montieth were excluded from the Classic because they were viewed as threats to defect."
The CHB (quoting Velez): "If someone says that we have them under control because they might want to leave, they might want to run away, it's not true. You know very well that if you want to run away, if you want to go to another place, you can do that whenever you want. You can just leave the stadium, grab a cab, leave the hotel, and that's it. They don't want to do that." (Propaganda 1, The CHB 0.)
The CHB, who to date has acted the proverbial one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest when it comes such timely stories as Jim Rice's winning personality and Keith Foulke's thoughts on Burger King employees, finally gets around to writing about the WBC.
Of course, he doesn't study the merits of the contest. Nor does he capture the excitement of it -- and those who saw Alex Rodriguez' shock and dismay after the United States lost to Mexico or Jason Varitek's soft-spoken gratitude for the honor of representing his country know what I mean.
Instead, he writes back-to-back columns about what a wonderful team the Cubans have. And in doing so he obliterates reality and common sense. It's like watching a slow-motion car crash.
Let's roll the tape.
Sunday: "No 25 guys/25 cabs for the Cuban national team. It's all for one, all the time," he wrote. As if a Cuban player would even be allowed in a cab.
Today: He describes what a great time the players are having: "It's obvious the players are having fun. They travel, eat, practice, and play as a unit."
As usual, Dan contradicts himself mid-story without even realizing it. Is it the fun that binds the players together, or is it the "security guards near their rooms in the team hotel and representatives from the Department of Homeland Security stand[ing] guard?" Or maybe it's the presence of Antonio Castro, Fidel's son, who just happens to be the team doctor "and often can be seen standing next to [Cuba's manager] during games."
Can those who are considered threats to defect be seriously described as "having fun"? Fun is what I had while out on St. Patrick's Day, and the last thing on my mind was hopping a boat to Havana. Per Article 216 of Cuba's Penal Code, the penalty for any attempt to leave the country without prior government approval is up to three years in prison.
Some don't get off so easy. Truth is, potential defectors face a life-and-death decision. In his childlike ignorance, The CHB apparently is unaware that on July 18, 1978, Cuban baseball star Pedro José Rodríguez was assassinated by Cuban agents while in Colombia for a exhibition series. He was thrown from the 5th floor window of his hotel room for attempting to defect.
Moreover, as Cuban law (Article 90 of Law No. 16, June 28, 1978) mandates, "The promotion of athletes to higher categories takes into account not only their athletic achievements, but also their social and political attitude." In short, you want to play, you gotta pray at the altar of Fidel.
What was that about the cabs, Dan?
Here's where Dan truly goes off the deep end. "Baseball truly is a religion in Cuba. ... Players pledge allegiance to Fidel and none has defected since José Contreras went AWOL in 2002 [SIC!]." Let's forego the pure MGH-bound craziness of that non sequiter and focus on the "none has defected since 2002" comment. That is, pure and simple, wrong.
In October 2003, Cuban baseball stars Maels Rodriguez and Yobal Dueñas defected, hoping to make it to major leagues, according to Baseball America.
And in a New York Times article on March 6, 2006, Jack Curry wrote: "Joe Kehoskie, an agent who has represented Cuban defectors since 1998, said he knew of several players who would like to defect. He estimated that more than 40 players, none as renowned as Contreras, have defected in the past three years."
So what happened in 2002? Cuba began negotiating with foreign teams for its best players. As economics professor Katherine Baird noted in her paper, Cuban Baseball: Ideology, Politics, and Market Forces, in 2002, two top Cuban players, Omar Linares and Germán Mesa, were sold to Japan teams. Notes Baird: "In all likelihood, the Cuban government received significantly more than 80 percent of Linares’ earnings. While it is less clear if the average Cuban player is exploited, those who are able to play overseas are clearly exploited by the Cuban goverment." There's something about being able to leave (mostly) on your own that sort of undermines the need to defect.
Ignorance is bliss, ain't it Dan?
Say what? watch: The CHB says the Cubans are "one victory away from being true champions of the world." Ooooookkkaaayyyy.
Selective memory watch: "Lazo made the lead look huge. No one-inning relief stint for him. The big righty threw 4 2/3 innings of relief, which we all know is not the American way." Is it me, or was Dan among those who screamed bloody murder three years ago at the closer-by-committee concept, under which extended high-leverage relief appearances would be acceptable? We need only turn to April 1, 2003, when he wrote: "Let's start with a memo to Bill James: Perhaps the seventh inning is not the most important inning to hold a lead."
Selective memory watch, redux: Do you think there's pressure to win? Dan did last year, when covering the Red Sox-White Sox playoff series last Oct. 8 he wrote of Orlando "El Duque" Hernandez, "There's little pressure in life after you've already stared down Fidel Castro."
Plagiarism watch: The NYT's Jack Curry, on March 6: Yulieski Gourriel, a 21-year-old infielder who carries himself with the swagger of Derek Jeter ... ."
Dan on March 19: "Gourriel -- the Derek Jeter of Cuba ... ."
Thank God they're a two-newspaper company: Curry again: "Kehoskie speculated that the young pitchers Danny Betancourt, who was dazzling in the Athens Olympics, and Frank Montieth were excluded from the Classic because they were viewed as threats to defect."
The CHB (quoting Velez): "If someone says that we have them under control because they might want to leave, they might want to run away, it's not true. You know very well that if you want to run away, if you want to go to another place, you can do that whenever you want. You can just leave the stadium, grab a cab, leave the hotel, and that's it. They don't want to do that." (Propaganda 1, The CHB 0.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)