Hanging It Up

I have been going back and forth on this in my mind for awhile now but I have decided to hang it up. I have really enjoyed contributing to this site--its been a little over 2 and a half years now for me personally and the website is about to make its 4th anniversary overall.

When I first started posting, there was a comment from someone asking what we were hoping to accomplish with this website. For me personally, I wanted an outlet for my self and for others to share their frustration about Shaughnessy. Dan is a talented writer but I was frustrated with his seeming laziness, his personal vendettas, and his weak logic. Contrary to the opinion of some of those who commented, my agenda was never about protecting heroic athletes against Shaughnessy's biting criticism.

Deep down, I also harbored (a probably misguided) belief that Shaughnessy would happen upon this site and magically change his ways and become a good writer (again?). Let me assure you folks...Shaughnessy is not walking through that door. I actually had a nice 20 minute conversation with Shaughnessy recently. I did not discuss this site with him; I am not sure he knows about it; or if he would even make the connection between me and the site. Even if he is aware of site, he is not changing his ways. For better or worse, he is what he is.

In any event, I had sent him a critical e-mail questioning his ethics in light of his laziness/self-plagiarism for the spring training column and for accusing Ortiz of being a liar without accomplishing due diligence. He offered his rationale which I did not find altogether convincing but I at least respect his willingness to face the heat. He actually went to a lot of trouble to contact me, accommodating my schedule. Considering I questioned his ethics, he was pretty gracious about it all. We had a cordial discussion and agreed to disagree... but it was a civil discussion nonetheless. During our discussion, he made the point that much of the banter on the internet has become shrouded in anonymity and in this transformation of communication, we have lost a lot in terms of civility. I would like to think this site has always been conducted in a mostly civil way but I recognize that at times, I personally have resorted to some amount of petiness and I regret that. The intent is/was to provide constructive criticism. I think we always strived to be fair - giving Shaughnessy credit when he would write a good column but more than often not, it seemed to me that he was mailing it in--which I think is a shame.

But again, Shaughnessy is not going to change at this stage in his career. He has a carved a successful niche for himself and many view him as the voice of New England sports and that is a pretty good accomplishment so I imagine he is doing something right. He seems comfortable with himself and that is good. And from what little I know, he seems to be a compassionate Dad and there is a lot to be said for that.

If anyone is interested in carrying on, please drop me a line - just email me - my email address is in my profile. Other than that, I would like to thank the dedicated followers of this blog and for those who have taken the time to leave comments. I have always enjoyed the banter. I have no idea how many people follow this blog but I am grateful that people would actually take the time to stop by and leave a few words of wisdom. Yes, even thanks to Bruce. Your contrarian voice has been good for business. I dont think I have agreed you with much at all but at least I can give you credit for being able to laugh at yourself - an ability that I see peek through your posts from time to time.

Again, thanks to everyone. I am grateful.

(Edit 8:33, Tuesday): Also, in my haste, I forgot to add thanks to Chief, DBVader and the late Jerry Gutlon- thanks for being great teammates!)

Penny Wise, Penny Foolish

Dan offers a fair assessment of Brad Penny's woeful performance last night against the Yankees. Penny is not working out so well these days and Shaughnessy provides his two cents on the matter.

Update, 8:28: Dan also offers a nice tribute to Yaz as he turns 70. Wow, I feel old. Yaz was a favorite of mine growing up

More Pieces

Dan writes a picked up pieces column on the 32nd anniversary of Elvis Presley's death. Very consistent with others he has written. If you like this format, you will probably enjoy today's offering, replete with references to Jason Varitek's underoos. If you don't like the format, it is easy enough to chip away at.

I don't particularly mind the format but I find it interesting that Shaughnessy likes to play the moral authority on issues such as steroids, adultery, and conflicts of interest when he himself: uses material from old books and presents it as new material; when he accuses someone of being a liar but does not have all the facts; and acknowledges that he can't be bothered to collect the relevant facts even though it is his job.

Even when he makes a valid point, he surrounds it with his laziness. He questions the millions that Epstein has wasted on free agents (fair enough) but starts with "Not sure if Edgar Renteria and Matt Clement are still on the books...." Dan, would it kill you to find this stuff out?

My carping aside, its your typical Shaughnessy fare. Good for some and not so much for others

Out of Town

Sorry all - I was out of town and had limited access and so I missed a fine article by Shaughnessy. Hope to get back on track. In the mean time - Bruce - just left you a response on the previous post. Really appreciated your translation of me and so I felt compelled to respond in kind.

Home Again

Dan offers an innocuous look at the Red Sox' return home to Fenway and a win over the Tigers. I am still so disgusted by this past weekend's effort (of Shaughnessy not the Red Sox) and stunned that he still has a job that I care not to comment further.

Shameless Shank

I thought hit Shaughnessy hit a low water mark last fall when he declared the Red Sox playoff series over after the Red Sox won the first game. But then he hit a lower point this spring when he self-plagiarized a column about spring training from a book that he had co-written with another person. But this past week, he has sunk to a whole new level.

Shaughnessy accused David Ortiz of lying but he did not have all the facts and could not be bothered to collect them (see my diatribe in the previous post below). Today's contribution is just as bad. He issues no mea culpas—instead he offers a mammoth rationalization as to why he wrongly/prematurely accused someone of lying. It is downright disgusting. At the least, I credit him for admitting he was too lazy to collect the facts

Click here to read Shaughnessy’s rationalization:

- First, he makes the astounding claim that the reason that Ortiz seems to be getting a pass here is that people like him personally. Meanwhile, Clemens and Bonds are being vilified because people don’t like them personally. Seriously? If you didn’t have your head so far up your arse, you would realize there are worlds of differences between the cases of Bonds, Clemens, and Ortiz. There is no Game of Shadows for Ortiz is there? To this point, no one has come out publicly to say they injected Ortiz with steroids, have they? Give people credit, Dan—they are able to seek the evidence and make their own conclusions. Personality certainly is a factor but it is not the decisive factor that you claim. The cases are different but you are too dense to understand that.

- Shaughnessy does admit to being too lazy although he is probably too stupid to realize he has made this stunning admission. He says

“Seriously, if Donald Fehr, Gene Orza, or Weiner had gone public with their questions about the legitimacy of the (2003) positive results back in February, there would have been less rush to jump on Ortiz when his name came out July 30.”

Did you even bother to ask any of them yourself Dan? Did you even try to get any of the facts right? Isn't that your responsibility before you claim someone is a liar?

Then he quotes Weiner:

"We thought we were pretty darn vocal,’’ Weiner said. “We wrote a long and publicly-released letter to congressmen Waxman and Davis. Maybe we made a mistake of thinking people would read a letter sent to congressmen.’’

and says:

Right. Most of us routinely inspect all correspondence between the Players Association and Congress. Sorry we missed this one.

Sorry you missed this one? Take your sarcasm and shove it. You shouldn’t have missed this one. It is your responsibility as a journalist to do due diligence before you make the accusation that someone has lied. And you didn’t do it. How dare you?

Oh and here is my favorite
“We’re trained to be cynical of accused cheaters who claim innocence.”

Wow, what journalism school did you go to? I thought you were trained to do research to prove your assertions? I thought you were trained to take each individual case and examine it on its own merits? What you seem to be saying is that you have lumped everyone together in one big pot and it is okay to accuse them all of lying because everyone seems to be lying?

Then you have the nerve to end your little piece of trash by suggesting that there were holes in the Ortiz and Wiener’s accounts? Maybe so….but nothing in comparison to the gaping holes in your credibility and ethics. Astonishing

In my nearly three years of working on this site, I have never been this utterly disgusted. Truly, a new low for Shaughnessy. A new low for the Globe. And a new low for journalism.

Shaughnessy Proves The Point

As I mentioned in my earlier post, today’s press conference with Ortiz was very interesting. Contrary to what Objective Bruce may try to lead you to believe, I am not here to criticize Shaughnessy because I am a “fanboy blogger” engaged in the hero worship of athletes. As I mentioned in a previous comment thread, I just retired from the military after 20 years and I know some of our country’s true heroes personally and they are not the ones who play professional sports. And I can assure you I am not doing a little happy dance because David Ortiz has been vindicated. I do think he has been partially vindicated but I very well acknowledge that subsequent information may come to light that could cast Ortiz in a totally different and negative light. Time will tell. But, for me, it is not about Ortiz. It is about Shaughnessy.

I have chosen to dedicate time to this blog because I continue to be dumbfounded how Dan Shaughnessy can be such a widely acclaimed journalist. I (and my wonderful cohorts) have tried to repeatedly point out (and I hope to some degree we have been successful) that he is a lazy, vindictive reactionist. So, yes, today's press conference makes me quite happy because it proves my point vividly and dramatically.

In case you have not been following, last week Dan Shaughnessy quickly ripped into Ortiz after Ortiz’s name was leaked to be on “the list” of steroid users. Shaughnessy declared “David Ortiz lied to you. It seems safe to say that his entire Red Sox career is a lie.” Never mind that Shaughnessy never talked to Ortiz. Never mind that Shaughnessy did not know what Ortiz tested positive for. Never mind that Shaughnessy did not know there was a question of the validity of the test. Never mind that Ortiz did not know he even tested positive for anything. These things did not matter because Shaughnessy was in such a rush to punch out a column. There was no time for fact checking; there was no time for corroboration; there was nothing anyone would expect of a professional journalist. No, this was yellow journalism at its finest This was Shaughnessy…. ever ready to bury a hatchet in someone, any proof be damned

It was offered in one of the comments here that John Powers’ column proved that Ortiz was lying. No, that was not the case. Here is what Powers said: “MLBPA executive director Donald Fehr told House committee chairman Henry Waxman in a letter last summer that the players were not explicitly informed that they had tested positive, but only that they were on a list of players the government had seized, as part of an investigation into an illegal steroids operation.”

Ortiz acknowledged there was some meeting on this issue but that it was confusing. After listening to the union rep explain all the inconsistencies and after re-reading the above from Powers, I would be confused too.

Shaughnessy may eventually prove to be right about Ortiz. But that doesn’t matter. At the time he accused Ortiz of being a liar, he did not have the information to make the accusation. He did not seek the full story because he is lazy. He was ready to prematurely attack because he is vindictive. If anyone lied to us, it was Shaughnessy. If anything is tainted, it is his ethics. He is the one who should be suspended for a year. And he is not the only one – Massarotti and Ryan and many others also piled on. It was disgraceful and shameful.

Fascinating Press Conference

I am watching the Ortiz-Wiener press conference...it is fascinating and it confirms that Shaughnessy and many of the other "journalists" are lazy. They make sweeping statements of guilt and yet they did not have all the facts. Wiener's statement of facts is compelling.

Let's see if Shaughnessy issues a mea culpa

Game recap

Dan lays out a straightforward game recap and an honest (negative but not overly so) perspective of recent Red Sox recent collapses in the wake of the Red Sox crushing but nonetheless thrilling loss to the Yankees in 15 innings last night.

This being said, Shaughnessy does not offer much beyond what Amalie Benjamin's game recap offers....besides reminding us for the 300th time of the year that Manny (Act 1) quit and the year Theo stood still at the trading deadline.

Dan also offers an interesting line when he says, "It was mildly reminiscent of a magical event at Candlestick Park in 1963. That was the night 42-year-old Warren Spahn and prime-time Juan Marichal locked up for 16 innings of shutout ball. " He says that as if he were there throwing the word "mildly" in for good measure...which I sort of doubt that he was.

Dan is sure to be covering the Ortiz press conference today and that will make for interesting fodder in all sorts of ways. I hold out hope that Ortiz will provide an honest approach in which people will look back in years to come and say "That is way this issue should have been handled" but I dont think that will happen...CHB must be over the top waiting for this one...and I fear for years we will be hearing "Ah yes, 2009...the year of Massacre II and the year Ortiz lied"

Stay tuned my friends

Chicken Little, Swiss Miss

Chicken Little? Shaughnessy takes one loss to the Yankees and is ready to close the door on the Red Sox playoff chances (“Suddenly, the thought crosses the mind that the Red Sox might not even make the playoffs.”)

Little Swiss Miss? I swear you can set a watch by this guy. This piece was so bloody predictable (and consequently so is this blog entry), that it is past comical.

That being said, I really cant argue with Chicken Little’s basic premise. Definitely lots of warning signs about the Red Sox. I just wish for once he would deviate from the mad libs cookbook approach to writing.

And maybe he is trying….but sadly, even his attempts fall apart…He tries to go Bill Simmons on us and suggest that Earl Weaver’s “reverse lock” theory is in play. He says the theory is that when a team has no chance to win, said team will prevail because of that.” What? Is he suggesting the theory held last night because the Yankees had lost 8 in a row to the Sox and thus had no chance of winning? Let’s see, the Yankees have been playing well and the Sox? Not so much. The Yankees are at home and the Red Sox trot out Smoltz who stinks? Does not seem to me that the basic assumptions underlying the reverse lock theory are in play.

Throw in an obscure reference (Fred Wenz? I admit I had to look it up – pitched for the Sox and Phillies in 68-70 timeframe) and a shot at Ortiz for not talking to the press (eventhough he has scheduled a press conference for tomorrow) and you have another putrid entry from the region’s best sportswriter.

Shaughnessy's Piss-poor Lack of Execution

As much as I criticize Dan Shaughnessy's writing, I usually like his "turn back the clock" and high school sports pieces. Dan writes a turn back the clock piece today and the idea behind it has much potential but Shaughnessy's execution of it is shockingly bad and again smacks of his laziness.

Shaughnessy looks back 30 years - to the day Thurman Munson died; the day Edward Bennett Williams bought the Orioles; and the day Tony Larussa first got a managing gig.

- It may not have been his intent but Shaughnessy paints Munson as a petty man--padding his stats and being way too concerned about what Curt Gowdy would say about him on Saturday afternoon baseball games.

- Shaughnessy wastes a lot of space detailing his travel plans and how he missed a big story - too much detail for something that adds precious little to the story.

- I would agree that Williams' ownership was influential but it would have been nice if Shaughnessy would connect those dots. Was it because Williams laid the groundwork for Camden Yards? Or was it because (as Shaughnessy clumsily suggests) that it gave birth to the baseball career of Larry Lucchino?

- I would also agree that Larussa's managerial career is influential because I think it reflected the first wave of the overt analytical approach to managing baseball. Shaughnessy does not explore that - instead he makes a quick (and again clumsy) reference to Larussa's career victories and the fact that Larussa was in the dugout when the Sox won the 2004 World Series. Shaughnessy curiously writes "He was also in the other dugout when the Red Sox forever changed the baseball universe in St. Louis on Oct. 27, 2004." (Note, this is a World Series victory that Shaughnessy two days ago called "forever tainted.")

So, in the end, Shaughnessy seems to be losing a grip for even the types of columns for which he typically receives a passing grade. It is an astonishing collapse.

Ortiz lied to us

A Sox player gets caught up in controversy and Mr Knee-Jerk is itching to chime in right away.

You knew this was coming. The question was how quickly it would take to Dan write about it. The answer: Not long. The Globe even videotaped Dan at his desk talking about David Ortiz' name popping up on the infamous Steroid 103 list. Dan probably wrote this article a year ago and has been waiting and waiting to hit the publish button.

Yet again, this is piss-poor journalism. Yet again, this is Shaughnessy. Who is the fraud? Ortiz, quite possibly. Shaughnessy, most definitely

There are anonymous sources who say Ortiz is on the list. Yet, Ortiz says he did not even know. There is no corroboration. There is no indication of what he tested positive for. There is no due process. Yet, this doesn't stop Shaughnessy (and pretty much the entire press for that matter) for declaring him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Shaughnessy emphatically and dramatically starts his column, "David Ortiz lied to you. It seems safe to say that his entire Red Sox career is a lie."

When did Ortiz lie to me? What proof do you have Shaughnessy that he lied to me? Have you done any damn bit of investigation to give us any more than an anonymous source? Shaughnessy, you may end up being right but yet again, you have engaged in lazy, wreckless and knee-jerk journalism. Unfortunately, it is a sad commentary on the state of journalism that you are not alone here.

And, Shaughnessy why do you even bother anymore? For the second straight time this week, you have simply said pretty much the same thing Massarotti did. So not only are you a lazy hack, you are redundant.

Dice-K

There is nothing like a good player controversey to flush a rat from hiding. Shaughnessy returns from many days away from his column to write about Daisuke Matsuzaka's recent comments about the Red Sox handling of him.

This one (save one thing*) contains all the elements that drive me personally to want to continue this website. *The one surprising element is that it did not end with the line "This must be a case of Dice-K being Dice-K. " Shaughnessy must have realized that he had already written the same piece as Tony Massarotti who did end with the "Being Dice-K" line and realized that perhaps he should try to at least be a little different. As for the standard Shaughnessy fare that he did invoke, we have:

- Painting a picture of things that never really happened in the first place. Shaughnessy talks about what a dream marriage this was in the beginning -- World Series victories, 18-3 records, etc. Except Shaughnessy glosses over the fact that the marriage has never been particularly rosy--high salary, high walks, high pitch counts...high maintenance. Dont think this was ever a "perfect marriage"?

- Contradicting the picture that he paints: Shaughnessy starts his column saying "At the beginning, it was a perfect marriage." and he ends the column with "Since Day 1, Matsuzaka has been a hired gun in the clubhouse." Hmm, which is it Dan?

- Throw in a couple of inappropriate cultural references (which incidentally are also contradictory). He calls this a "hundred-million arranged marriage" after calling it a "perfect marriage"? Why call it an arranged marriage? Was it any more arranged than Texeira signing with the Yankees? It was a mutual business deal - no one forced anyone into anything.

- Failure to allow for the possibility that something is lost in translation: It seems like many of Shaughnessy's targets (Pedro, Manny, and now Dice-K) are ones whose native language is not English. Any chance that something is lost and misunderstood in the cultural and language translations? Do you really think Dice-K purposely upset the retirement ceremony of Jim Rice's number? Was there something taken out of context? Perhaps not but Shaughnessy is not likely to take the time to even consider the other perspective

This is simply another case of Shaughnessy piling on clumsily and lazily--tripping over himself along the way. Pathetic.

Farewell, Jerry

It is with much regret that I inform readers that Jerry Gutlon, the latest keeper of the DSW, has passed away.

In times like these I often need to borrow the words of others. In F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic novel, The Great Gatsby, upon learning of Gatsby’s passing, Meyer Wolfsheim tells the narrator, Nick, “Let us learn to show friendship for a man when he is alive and not after he is dead.” My wish here is I that had taken the time to do that for Jerry.

Jerry had intimated he had health problems, but never truly acknowledged (to me, at least) the extent of his fight. I am posting a note I received from his wife, Kristie. She and his family have my sincerest sympathies.

---------------

Dear Friends,

My husband, Jerry Gutlon, passed away July 7^th after a long battle with heart and lung disease. He fought hard, but in the end, it was time for the Lord to take him home.

I have to admit, this has been very hard for me to take. I love him with all of my heart and wish he would come back. His son, Joshua, has been my rock through this whole thing. His daughter, Alicia, hasn’t taken this very well, and I feel like I just need to back off and let her grieve in her own way.

The funeral will be Tuesday, July 14, at 5:30pm at Conner Westbury Funeral Home in Griffin, GA.Visitation will follow until 8:30. The address for Conner Westbury Funeral Home is 1891 W. McIntosh Rd., Griffin, GA 30223.The phone number is (770) 227-2300. The burial will take place Wednesday, July 15, at 1:00 at the Georgia National Cemetery in Canton, GA. He will be buried with full military honors.

The address for the Georgia National Cemetery is 2025 Mount Carmel Church Ln., Canton, GA 30114. The phone number for the administration office is (770) 479-9300. For those of you who live in the New England area, I’m considering the possibility of traveling to Massachusetts to do something in his memory with his friends and family up there. I don’t know for sure if I’ll be able to do it, but I’m hoping I can.

If you would like to contact me, my e-mail address is HiCNote@yahoo.com. I’ll try to keep track of Jerry’s e-mail for a while.

Thank you all so much for being Jerry’s friends. Jerry was a good man, and I’m honored and privileged to be his wife. God bless all of you.

Sincerely,

Kristie Gutlon

Picked up pieces

Dan dusts off a format he has not used in awhile - picked up pieces. Woo hoo. Good to hear the random thoughts of a media titan.

Let's see....Manny blasting: Check, check, check; Gratuitous Schilling Shot: Check; Strained analogies to the Red Sox - Yankees rivalry: Check (Comparing the recent NBA FA wheeling and dealing to the Red Sox and Yankees "winter wars" is downright stupid); John Henry close talker comment: check. Attempt to show cultural hipness: Check (Dos Equis commercial)

Also, Shank takes a shot at a recent NY Times Op Ed on steroids. Shank is critical of Chafets apparent indifference on the steroid issue. Chafets points out that many folks take performance enhancers in different forms and MLB has a long history of it. Shank ridicules Chafets but I personally think Chafets makes valid arguments. I personally use performance enhancers everyday (caffeine) and I take meds (motrin) to help me recover from injury - where do you draw the line? As usual, Shaughnessy is too lazy to at least consider the logic of an opposing viewpoint and instead issues dismissive one-liners. (And if you ever email Shaughnessy a critical comment, he does the same thing in his responses.)

Well, at least we were spared any 70s music references. And I actually did appreciate Shaughnessy's book and TV recommendations (I did not know about the HBO special on Ted Williams and look forward to it)

Baseball's Softer Side

On Monday night, Dustin Pedroia missed the Red Sox game because his wife went into premature labor. Dan talks about the old school days of baseball when players missed births and graduations compared to baseball's new softer side where family trumps baseball. He posits that Terry Francona represents the best of new and old in his approach to managing the game and its players.

Perhaps, I am reading too much into this but I think there is some Shark snarkiness here when he notes that the Red Sox were thrashed by the lowly Oakaland A's but then says:

No problem. The important thing was that Kelli Pedroia was OK and Dustin Pedroia had some peace of mind

And he concludes the column noting that Pedroia's return to the lineup came as the Red Sox won the game.

In my mind, the two words "no problem" is tinged by Shank sarcasm. Perhaps I am too jaded by Shank's continued negative vibes?

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Dan writes about Nomar's return to Fenway last night. Dan reminds us of how beloved Nomar was before it all went south. Dan says "He bled for this team for eight seasons."

I am surprised Dan gives Nomar eight seasons of credit because wasn't it old Dan who said that Nomar had to go? Wasn't it Dan who was leading the "Get Nomar out of here" bandwagon because Nomar had quit on the team in the bitter end? But, now good ole Dan is actually hinting that a reunion between the Sox and Nomar would be a good idea? As much as I think that a reunion would be kind of cool, it is disingenuous for Dan to be the one to suggest it. I imagine it is akin to a friend of a married couple who is pushing for the couple to get divorced only to say a couple years later, "You guys should get together. You would make a great couple."

Dan, you are truly an idiot.

Pathetic., just pathetic

Dan is blind. He is blinded by ignorance; he is blinded by laziness; he is blinded by his bitter contempt for professional athletes. His work on Manny Ramirez is pathetic, today's piece is particular rubbish.

(Disclaimer: I am not here to defend Manny Ramirez. Manny is a cheat and there seems to be a consensus that he quit on the Red Sox. I am not arguing this. I am appalled, however, at Dan's analysis of the whole situation.)

For what seems the 100th time, Dan lashes out at Manny. He lashes out at the softball media in LA. And he lashes out the ignorant fans who cheer Manny on. This has been a recurring theme. For some reason, Dan traveled to LA last month and forecasted that the fans would be cheering Manny on. Low and behold, Dan was right! Now he is back in southern California to recertify his contempt for Manny and the baseball universe.

Given all this, Dan concludes "Nobody cares about steroids." His statement is not qualified or caveated. Dan takes one sample of behavior, extrapolates it across the entire universe, and concludes that this sample represents everything. This is thin analysis. But this is Shaughnessy analysis. It is reckless and lazy journalism.

For once, why can't Shaughnessy move past his venom? Perform some analysis. Is it really the case that "Nobody cares about steroids?" Barry Bonds did not see a lot of love outside of northern California, did he? ARod is sure not receiving the adulation of the masses. Couldn't Shaughnessy simply look at those two cases and then conclude that "Everyone cares about steroids." That would be about as fair of an assessment as his conclusion from looking at Manny that no one cares.

Some analysis, Dan, please? What is different about Manny? Is it strictly his goofy personality? Is it the fact that he lives and plays now in Southern California, the hub of superficiality? Is there roid backlash? Has the coverage hit a tipping point where folks are so numb to it now, that they just don't care? There are many angles here but you have explored none of them. You are so blinded by your contempt of Manny and southern California that you are incapable of extricating yourself from it. Instead, we have your lazy conclusion that "And now we know the fans don't care. About steroids"

And now we know (again) that Shaughnessy is incapable.

Of Analysis.

He flew 3000 miles for this?

Seriously?

The Globe, ever mindful in these tough economic times, sent the obsessive one to San Diego to cover Manny's return. Shaughnessy says it was a circus. Does he realize he is the clown? He strings together quote after quote; throws a John Lennon reference in for good measure and calls it a day. Hope the Globe gets a good return.

Lou Gehrig's Disease

Somehow I missed Dan's nice column yesterday about MLB's efforts to raise funds for research on ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease. Shaughnessy provides a very nice summary of the disease, Lou Gehrig's struggles and eventual death, and a look at this weekend's efforts at major league ballparks to raise funds.

It is a good effort. Two quibbles - he repeats the "luckiest man on the face of the earth" twice but in the earlier online editions, one of the lines said "this earth". Looks like it has since been corrected. He also acknowledges Schilling's efforts with respect to this disease but for some reason he feels compelled to introduce Schilling's political orientation into it. Just did not think that was necessary.

Happy 4th. Let's see if Shaughnessy delivers fireworks this weekend. If the Celtics sign Rasheed Wallace, he may have a new favorite target?