Crap Sandwich

I have varying theories about how Shaughnessy puts together his column. One theory has him sitting in front of his keyboard—one hand mindlessly typing and spewing out clichéd thoughts while the other hand is dipped in a bag of Cheetos as he intently watches Rosie on The View. Another perspective has Shank backed in a corner by mobsters cowering for his life. He somehow manages to lay his hands on a machine gun and he furiously fires hoping that he will hit his mark and yet he always seems to miss. A final theory is that “Big Daddy Globe” retired Shank five years ago in a purge and they replaced with him a computer program that uses a random generator to produce columns. They have pre-programmed certain thoughts (“Manny quit”) and catch-phrases (“Theo and his minions”) which appear and re-appear. (Note: I think they better fire that computer programmer).

I like the computer program theory for today’s effort—the random generator was in overdrive. The main theme for today is that Manny quit last year and Shank breathlessly awaits for Manny’s appearance at spring training. More on this in a minute but I would like to quickly recap the worn out Shank-isms that Dan trots out today….

We have the tired refrain that Florida sucks (Fort Myers is a “godforsaken town”); there is a reference to “Elvis Matsuzaka”; Shank calls Schilling the “Big Blowhard”; we get a "Theo and his minions" reference; I always love mentions of “fanboy bloggers” and we are treated to one of those today. Another tired technique is Shank’s attempt to paint Ramirez as the clueless wonder….Shaughnessy writes…”Can’t wait for that Manny Moment when he sees Daisuke Matsuzaka for the first time and asks teammates. “Hey, who is that Japanese guy and why is he wearing Johnny Damon’s number?”

One of Shaughnessy’s other classic techniques is where he subtly lays claim as the voice of “Red Sox Nation” by using “We”. He says “We have rejoiced in the retirement of Keith Foulke”; “We won’t sleep until the Sox make a decision on [Schilling’s contract]; and “We don’t care if he talks.” He also loves to tell his readership what they should believe. He says, “…please don’t be a stooge and attempt to perpetuate the farcical theory that Manny was too wounded to play last summer.” (By the way, who rejoiced in the retirement of Keith Foulke anyway? Shaughnessy hated him because he wasn’t passionate enough about baseball. Yet Shank hates us because we are too passionate about sports.)

As for the main theme, for the umpteenth time, Shank claims that Manny quit on the team last year during the infamous Yankees series. To be honest, I don’t really know if Manny quit. But Shaughnessy offers no tangible proof. He simply asks that we take it on faith that he is right. I don’t think many (if any) Red Sox players talk to him so I have a hard time believing that Shank's voice somehow represents what Manny’s teammates truly believe behind the scenes.

Bemoaning the Beast

In the spirit of Shank himself, let me begin by stating the obvious. Dan Shaughnessy is a columnist. Columnists, unlike traditional reporters, are given much latitude. They can speculate; they can use humor; they can inject personal opinion. When you read a column, the expectation is that you will be treated to a unique insight or be told a story that you have not heard multiple times elsewhere. Let me end this paragraph by stating the obvious. Dan Shaughnessy fails as a columnist.

Today, we are treated to yet another look at Daisuke Matsuzaka. Shaughnessy bemoans the beast that is the press attention being given to Matsuzaka. Let’s see, where do I start? First of all, the Matsuzaka coming out party has already been mocked ad nauseum. See, for example, Gerry Callahan’s mocking column from earlier in the week. In a bit of irony, Shank says “it’s a little embarrassing the way we’re reacting to the introduction of the Japanese hurler.” Shaughnessy, aren’t you perpetuating the very beast by writing this column? Shaughnessy asks “Are we not staid old Boston?” Come on Shank, do you really believe that characterization of Boston? Aren’t you the same guy who got on the pulpit the other day to remind us that we are too focused on sports stars and that we need to remember the true heroes? Is all of this attention really a big surprise to you? Give me a break.

A few other thoughts:

- Shank loves Gerry Callahan’s characterization of the press. Shank himself wishes he could have come up with Callahan’s “Million Cameraman March” to describe the press contingent. I am sorry but I don’t think that line is particularly funny—at least not funny enough to wish it were your own. (I like Jeff Horrigan's rattlesnake similie instead)

- I, for one, despise the whole “Dice-K” nickname. Reminds me too much of the horrid comedian Dice Clay. Shank perpetuates that god awful nickname four times today.

- Once again, Shank spurts out the line that it cost the Red Sox $51 million just to talk to Matsuzaka. That’s not really true—the $51 million should be considered a part of the overall signing package. If they had not signed him, they would not have been on the hook for the money in which case they would have talked with him for $0.

Shank ends his column with the familiar platitude that it doesn’t matter what words are spoken by the player or the press during all this hoopla; what matters is what happens on the field. Thanks, Shank, for your grand insight.

Pedroia Watch

Dan is nothing if not repetitive. He finds a joke or reference and beats it into the ground. He finds something he doesn't like and continually harps on it. Since the beginning of the new year, Dan has laid down a steady beat questioning Dustin Pedroia.

To start off, a brief statistical background of Pedroia.

Some of the highlights:
He will be only 23 this season;
His career minor league numbers are .308/.392/.454
In his minor league career, he has 121 XBH, 125 BB, and only 77 K.

A sampling of what people say about him:
John Sickels rates him the #7 Red Sox prospect and gives him a B;
SoxProspects.com rates him the #4 Sox Prospect and gives him a B;
Baseball America rates him the #6 Red Sox Prospect;
si.com rates him the #68 Prospect in MLB.

A couple of notes from scouts:
Ken Rosenthal writes that "some scouts believe he simply can't play."
Nick Cafardo relays one scout's advice for Pedroia to spray the ball and work on his footwork.

A few statistical projections:
ZiPS - .274/.347/.394
Marcel Projections - .257/.328/.414
Chone Projections - .283/.356/.416
(all three projections can be found at fangraphs.com)

Those are the statistics and what some people who follow the minors very closely have to say.

Here is what Dan has been saying:
At the beginning of November, Pedroia is Dan's second picked up piece:
"Why do I get the feeling that Dustin Pedroia, through no fault of his own, is destined to become the line in the sand in Fort Myers next spring? Theo Epstein and the minions love the little guy. Longtime scouts, people who wear baseball uniforms, and most fans are not convinced. This will be interesting."

He continues the Theo v. scouts theme a month later:
"...Theo/minion Poster Boys, Dustin Pedroia and Kevin Youkilis..."

In a February boston.com chat:
"still not sold on pedroia at 2b". . . "obviously they didn't want to pay loretta. org loves pedroia. lot of questions about him, though"

In this February column, Dan includes Pedroia in a list of things we will talk about, but shouldn't take too seriously:
"We'll question Dustin Pedroia's ability to get the job done at second base"

In a column towards the end of March, Dan includes Pedroia in a list of questions in the lineup:Then there's Dustin Pedroia. Any chance the kid is in over his head? (Did you notice the clever short joke?)

In the Page One, Opening Day column, Dan offers this bit of insight on the upcoming season, "Dustin Pedroia is a suspect/prospect" We are still waiting for an explanation as to why this particular prospect is suspect.

After Opening Day, Dan writes a sidebar on Pedroia's day. He is short and he "is a poster boy for Theo Epstein and his crew of baseball stat men, and there is organizational split on Pedroia's ability to make an impact."

Mark "They didn't want to pay" Loretta hit .285/.345/.361 last season. (All three are below his career numbers and at or near his full season lows.)

Your thoughts and mine in the comments section throughout the season as Dan keeps the beat steady.

Edit - 3/28/07
Edit - 4/2/07
Edit - 4/3/07

Dan Hates You and Thinks You Are Stupid

Dan today reminds us of local news story you might have missed, a Boston firefighter who rescued three young children from a burning house this Saturday. A remarkable feat of heroism, and Dan gives a brief recap.

Dan uses this opportunity to remind us dimwitted readers that sports stars are not heroes, that heroes are people like firefighter Andrew Lee. Thanks Dan. This statement must be one of the biggest cliches in sportswriting. Weren't we reminded of this by Dan's colleagues after 9/11? And doesn't some local columnist always trot out this angle after every example of heroism by police or firefighter?

Its not that these heroes shouldn't be praised, but we don't need to be reminded that the real heroes are not on the field. We get it. And most well adjusted, semi-bright 16-year olds have figured it out. At some point in our lives we realize that there are more important things than sports and we are disabused of any notion that sports stars are infallible or worthy of any special respect. It doesn't mean we can't still enjoy following our favorite teams and players.

But Dan thinks that a passion for sports is evidence of a warped personality and a lack of perspective; or in Dan's lexicon, you are a "fanboy."

A fan's passion for sports does not preclude other interests or a full and rich life. Indeed, it adds to it. It is what we have in common. But in Dan's world, if you don't have a detached, cynical take on things, you are a childlike idiot.

Another thing Dan should take note of. As a group, firefighters are some of the most passionate fans I have come across. He should go to a Sox-Yankees game, either in the Bronx or Fenway, and see how many of the out-of-towners are firefighters. They come by the busload. But, I guess they don't have the proper perspective.

Pedroia Watch: Dan takes this opportunity to question again whether Pedroia can play second. We will keep track of Pedroia references as it seems this is Dan's drum for the 2007 season.

Where have you gone Dom Dimaggio?

Today's effort is a very enjoyable read. Great update on Dom Dimaggio as he is set to turn 90--still very active and on the top of his game. As DBvader pointed out a couple of weeks ago on the Jackie Robinson feature, CHB resists the temptation to invoke the old school ballplayers as an archetype in order to cast aspersions at today's generation of ballplayers. Said another way, CHB does not take gratuitous shots at Manny Ramirez and Curt Schilling. Dan must have a soft spot when it comes to writing about old-timers on their birthdays.

Dan does claim that

and you can make a case that he belongs in the Hall of Fame with brother Joe.

Yet, Dan doesn't even attempt to make that case. Dimaggio had a solid career but Hall of Fame like? I am not so sure. If he is going to throw a line like that out there, he should try to back it up.

But again, I very much enjoyed the article...good job Shaughnessy!

AutoPilot

Not much to read in today's piece. It looks like Dan wrote most of this piece before the game and stuck a paragraph in about the game. He would have been stuck if the Celtics managed to win, but it was a safe bet, though, that they would lose to the Heat.

This column is a chance to reel off a bunch of stats and complain about the current state of the Celtics. Nowhere does he bother to offer any analysis beyond their abysmal record or to suggest how things could be improved. That is Dan's analysis for you. About as deep as a puddle.

Dan also takes this opportunity to trot out some of his distant and irrelevant cast of characters. This time it is Clive Rush and Butch Hobson. Some of the graybeards who post can tell the young whippersnappers all about these two. I am guessing most people under thirty had to look these two up.

But the most annoying dated reference for this writer was "Thanksdad", referring to Paul Gaston, the owner when the Celts last went into the tank. Dan's use of it always has a connotation of a moral failing, as if anything Gaston did was tainted by the fact that he happened to inherit his wealth. I realize fans don't like him for his time as owner, but how he got his money isn't relevant to his decisions. I would like to know what Dan expected Paul Gaston to have done with his family wealth. It's a fact of life for some people and not a sign of moral weakness.

Note: In second to last sentence changed "inheritance" to "family wealth" and fixed typos.

Chat Wrap

Dan spreads his wisdom.

I am disappointed, in both myself and Dan. I should work on my subtlety; my repeated questioning revealed my bias. Dan answered only one of my questions, which was my last and most cynical. I need to change my ways.

But Dan avoided my questions about his questionable associate and his propensity for factual errors.

Instead he fielded a bunch of softball questions from people who know no better than to ask CHB questions about the Pats offseason and the Red Sox starting rotation. These people are competent enough to manipulate their computers to enter a boston.com chat, but aren't smart enough to go to the many websites that offer more knowledge and insight than Shank? God help us.

A few of the highlights as Dan spent more time chatting than he probably does writing a column:

: Dan types like a 14-year old girl on IM. It's great when a professional writer abuses the English language while it is in its dying throes.

: Dan claims the Sox didn't sign Loretta because of money. The Sox didn't sign Loretta because of his collapsing skills. Their biggest question in the lineup isn't their second baseman hitting ninth, but their aging catcher and third baseman.

: Dan missed Francona's statement that Papelbon will not be a closer because the medical staff has ruled that out.

Provide your own thoughts regarding Dan's "insights" in the comments.

Dan Talks to the Masses

If you have not had the pleasure to have an email correspondence with CHB, then come enjoy the next best thing today at 10:30 AM as Dan hosts a chat at boston.com.

Ask him for hair care tips; or what to do when Edes leaves the seat up; or what the earliest is he has ever had a game column written. (My guess is he wrote his World Series columns at least a week in advance.) Whatever you do, bring your A game because we all know Dan will be bringing his.

See you all at 10:30. (My nom de chat will be Dated Music Reference.)

Update: Changed link to chat login.

An Equal Opportunity Hack

Today Dan shows that his laziness extends to all sports. Give him a press guide and watch him go wild.

The Beanpot column is a annual rite. The Boston papers trot out a columnist with little interest in college sports, let alone hockey, and ask him/her to write an interesting column. With no background knowledge, the writer falls back on the press guide and a few recent game recaps.

Dan offers up all the statistics that show BU's dominance, gives BU's rank, and actually talks about a few of the teams' recent games.

But the press guide and a quick search through the Globe Sports archive let Dan down. Dan quotes two BU seniors, Kenny Roche and Sean Sullivan, who happen to be from St. Sebastian's. Using a classic Danism, Dan repeats a phrase (didn't they all play there?) to overemphasize his point and beat it into the ground.

The joke may have worked better if more than two players on the roster were from St. Sebastian's. Or if there were not four other teams with two or more players on the current BC roster. (I guess it isn't as funny to write that it seems like every player comes from the US National Under-18 Team.) But with a little bit of historical knowledge that went beyond the press guide, Dan would have known that Catholic Memorial is the traditional pipeline to the BU hockey program.

Those darn facts. Always tripping up Dan's lame attempts at humor.

Getting in Gear for Baseball

Today is classic Shaughnessy. CHB picks up the phone to call his old friend Schilling and as he says, he does so to take a "rare hike on the high road." This is a classic case of CHB instigating news so that he can write a column. Once again, he injects himself into the story as he does so often. In this case, it is actually an interesting story. As CHB puts it himself, it is Rosie versus Trump. And I am actually liking the CHB-Rosie analogy.

Shank has long standing issues with Schilling and his latest bone to pick with Schilling is the pitcher's recent announcement that he plans to pitch another year despite previous comments that 2007 would be his last. CHB believes that Schilling is playing the Sox and CHB definitely has issues with it. Schilling is articulate enough in his own defense and I would tend to side with Schilling's explanation as opposed to siding with Shaughnessy's distrust.

Perhaps Schilling's timing could be better but you know Schilling's case is nothing compared to what has become an annual rite of summer...that being the issue of Roger Clemens holding the Astros, Red Sox and Yankees hostage, subject to his "Do I want to play?" whims. I don't think Schilling even comes close.

I do give credit to Shaughnessy credit for running this quote from Schilling about CHB

"I think there's things that you write that are absolutely and totally unequivocally uncalled for. I think you take personal vendettas to the paper. I think you rip people in the paper because you don't like them whether they're good people or not. As an athlete, that bothers me, but as a teammate of these people, it bothers me even more . . . I certainly came in with a little bias, but I don't think that given what's happened that it's unmerited."

I think that quote in a nutshell sums up much of the reason why this blog site exists in the first place. Shaughnessy doesn't fight back at the comment and my sense is that he included the quote with a perverse grin on his face as he typed. He probably considers it a badge of honor. If so, Shaughnessy just doesn't get it.

A letdown to start

A fine article by CHB today marking the 88th birthday of Jackie Robinson and his daughter’s efforts in honoring his legacy. An interesting topic with important insights and a few new bits of trivia for this reader (Oil Can Boyd’s father pitched against Hank Aaron and Willie Mays in semi-pro baseball). The interview of Sharon Robinson is good, yet the writing is a little bland; mostly quotations strung together. And he manages to tie it into this week’s historic Super Bowl without being overbearing. Nothing to note.

A fine article is more impressive when one considers that CHB manages to write over one thousand words without any cheap asides or ad hominen attacks. It is a serious subject and only the most cynical observer would expect Shank to use it as a forum to attack his familiar whipping boys. But the article had a few setups I bet he wishes he could have taken a swing at. Oil Can is there; the Elks Club situation came up; and there even was chance to take a swipe at Mo Vaughn (The Hit Dog was one of the few players who continued to wear 42 after its retirement), and by extension Dan Duquette. It must have been tempting, but Dan’s sense of propriety triumphed.

Note: Is it me, or does Dan quote Selig a great deal? Although for this column Selig’s input was relevant, CHB seems to rely too much on a Commissioner with many questionable dealings in his past. But then again, a questionable past never kept Dan from appearing on a friend's talk show.

Now on to the Celtics

With the Patriots in the rear view mirror (Well not quite…Shaughnessy gets one dig in at Belichick today) and the Red Sox still a few weeks away from spring training, the CHB predictably sets his sites on the woeful state of the Boston Celtics. Lucky us.

Shaughnessy’s grand insight is that the Celtics are woeful and yet they seem to draw the praise and adoration of the home crowd regardless. He seems perplexed as to why no one seems to care? His premise calls to mind William Bennett’s Death of Outrage that was focused on the indifference of the public towards Bill Clinton’s White House in the 1990s.

Yet, if Shaughnessy’s basic thesis is correct (and Celtics crowds really are in a state of bliss) he seemingly answers his own question. People have written off this season because of the farsighted hope that Greg Oden or some other draft stud will make their way to Boston next season. Is this such a bad thing all things considered? At least it is understandable on some level. Look back in the files and Shank himself says such a situation should be written off.

In a column from April 2006, CHB also examines dismal teams from the Celtics past. He writes that the 1996-97 Celtics “don’t count because they were trying to lose games under ML Carr”. Is this really any different? The Celtics brain trust would never admit that they are trying to lose games but at this point, the 2006-2007 Celtics do seem to be operating under a similar paradigm as their 1996-1997 predecessors.

Shaughnessy’s idea, however, is that the Celtics games have become more show than competition. He talks about the dancers and he talks about tee shirts shot from cannons whipping the fans into a frenzy. I don’t buy into Shaughnessy’s argument. I find it hard to believe that Celtics fans have become so brainwashed – I think it is a simple case of Celtics fans being realistic about what this team can accomplish.

One final note…it is apparent that for Shaughnessy, the Carl Everett of the Celtics was/is Sidney Wicks. He loves to use Wicks as the poster child for all that was wrong with the late 1970s Celtics.

Friday's Random Thoughts Column

Today we are treated to a “Picked-up pieces” column from Shaughnessy. I suppose the format is tried and true if not a little tired. If you are going to use a “random thoughts” approach, however, you should try to come up with angles that are fresh and ones that are perhaps subtle. Get away from stating the obvious or stating things that have been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere. Probably too much to ask for from Shaughnessy.

In his third nugget, Shaughnessy speculates about the potential conversation about Belichick and Tomlinson at the Pro Bowl…have only seen this discussed in a dozen places elsewhere…and not sure if anyone really cares about it at this point. Of course, we get the common shot at Belichick’s hoodie while we are at it.

There's also a nice swipe at Mientkiewicz to start the column. The Mientkiewicz ball controversy is also a beaten path but of course CHB likes to pile on. And another gratuitous shot – I believe that is Shank’s second time in a week to take a shot at Tony Eason

CHB asks us to suppose if Barry Bonds get hot and show us up at Fenway with a chance to beat Aaron’s record. Suppose what Shank? Bonds home run chase is going to be a dominant story regardless of the venue I know we Boston fans think Fenway is the hub of the baseball universe but in this case, I don’t think the venue (whether Boston or Kansas City) is really going to change the dynamics of the attention that Bonds' home run chase will receive.

As for the nonsensical, what the heck is he talking about when he says, “Wish I'd known Boston College was playing at Notre Dame (Oct. 13) when I saw Charlie Weis in the press box at the RCA Dome Sunday night.” What’s the point of this statement?

Always nice to see a Larry Bird reference in a picked up pieces column (or any Shaughnessy column). Looks like Larry is in for a nice return on the sale of his home—maybe he will throw Shaughnessy a 1% finder’s fee and a bottle of wine?

Oh yeah, one more gratuitous shot…this time at Verne Ruhle. Long time Red Sox fans certainly know about Ruhle breaking Jim Rice’s hand with a pitch in 1975. What I did not know (and of course we do not learn this from Shank) is how highly Ruhle was regarded…picked that up in reading his obits. Rest in peace, Verne Ruhle. I think this Ruhle entry could have waited a few weeks or could have included a reference to his character.

Happy to give Shaughnessy a little credit – nice comment about Kathryn Nixon; a funny line about the Bengals latest arrest but I seriously doubt CHB came up with that himself; and an interesting tidbit about Dave McCarty and Wally the Green Monster (although Shaughnessy admits he is not the original source).

Thanks Chief!

Thanks to the Chief for graciously inviting me to re-initiate columns on this website. I will do my best to follow in his footsteps and keep the spirit alive.
DB - I hope you will join me as well - please contact the chief!

Dan, Rehashed

The CHB outdoes himself today, flip-flopping all over the sports page like a netted cod. He criticizes the Red Sox for overspending for Daisuke Matsuzaka while also arguing that the Sox are finally waking up to the "fact" they need to "win now." The piece epitomizes everything that is wrong with Dan Shaughnessy:

His problem with facts:
*“The Red Sox just spent $51.1 million for the right to negotiate with a player.” Wrong. The Red Sox didn’t spend anything to negotiate with him. They pay only if he signs. Try reading Nick Carfado, Dan-o.

*“One year later, the Contreras contretemps was followed by the Alex Rodriguez Valentine's Day fiasco.” Since that “fiasco,” the Red Sox have been to the playoffs twice and won a World Series – one more than A-Rod’s Yankees.

His incoherent babble:
*He complains about the dollar figures tossed around, but then acknowledges that its the right move. "The figures are absolutely staggering." ... "We will resist the temptation here to trace Contreras's disappointing career with the Yankees and wonder if that fate could find Matsuzaka." ... "[T]he urgency is back on Yawkey Way and this can only be a good thing ... "

His racism:
*“That would send the Dice Man (D-Mat? We badly need a nickname for this guy) …” Why? Because Dan finds it hard to pronounce anything more complicated than Whitey MacPaddy.

His failing memory:
*“The 2006 Red Sox suffered an unspeakable spate of injuries, but their dysfunctional roster was woefully equipped for land mines encountered in the second half of the season.” Let's recall what Shaughnessy wrote on April 3, 2006: “[T]hese 2006 Red Sox are a new-look team, stressing defense, pitching, and boredom … the Idiot culture is gone and has been replaced by an organizational professionalism that would make Boss Steinbrenner proud.

*On that same day, he also predicted the Sox would win the AL East: “[M]any experts … dismiss the Red Sox as a noncontender and perhaps a third-place team in the vaunted American League East. … That opinion is not shared here. … It says here this is the year the Red Sox finally vault over the Yankees and win the AL East outright for the first time since 1995 (ah, the Kevin Kennedy years).” Dan, get thee to a neurologist.

His hypocrisy:
"Boston's sad, sloppy September was little more than extended spring training (at whopping big league prices)." Right, like the Boston Globe cuts subscription prices every time they have a layoff.

Tuck this away. The CHB writes, “A Red Sox starting rotation of Matsuzaka, Jonathan Papelbon, Josh Beckett, Curt Schilling, and Tim Wakefield looks pretty good.” Let’s remember this when, in the midst of a three-game losing streak in June, The CHB spends a good 40 inches of column space bitching about how the Sox management should have known better than to bet the season on a rotation made up primarily of guys who had either never started in the majors or are old enough to be dead.

And a quick farewell. It’s nonsense like this that a little more than a year ago spurred me to launch this column. All good things end, however, and this is one. I am officially retiring this site. Thanks to everyone who read and commented, especially Jenny, who carried this place for the past several months.

Maybe we’ll get lucky and Dan will realize it’s time for him to go too.

Hey, we can wish, right?

Oh, great

Well, folks, he's back. And he wrote one of those irritating columns where every line is about a different subject and, in aggregate, is essentially one big obnoxious stream of consciousness. So here goes:

What was most annoying about NBC's telecast of the Patriots and Colts last Sunday night? Was it John Madden's incessant references to "wham" blocks, or those John Mellencamp Silverado commercials? A close third would be the beer ads with Dick Vermeil and Bill Walsh at pretend press conferences.

I actually identify with this particular rant. I think the John Cougar Mellencamp commercials were hands-down the worst part of Sunday night, because they had me wishing for political ads. I don't know a single person who likes those commercials. The Coors Light commercials with Dick Vermeil and Bill Walsh were obnoxious for their terrible editing. And what is a "wham" block? I must have missed the explanation amid all the inane blathering that usually comes out of Madden's mouth. The good news is, he's lost more than most people had to begin with, but the bad news is, he's lost a LOT.

Why do I get the feeling that Dustin Pedroia, through no fault of his own, is destined to become the line in the sand in Fort Myers next spring? Theo Epstein and the minions love the little guy. Longtime scouts, people who wear baseball uniforms, and most fans are not convinced. This will be interesting.

Look! It's another "Theo Epstein and his little weenie friends are a bunch of dorks who don't know anything about baseball and should just go home and play World of Warcraft because they're so tethered to their iMacs" rant! And the statement about the scouting opinion of Pedroia is misleading. Just because they are not convinced doesn't mean Pedroia can't be good. Most scouts are not convinced about anybody, because drafting in baseball is a notoriously inexact science. I have seen good things about Pedroia. How about this little thing called "wait and see," Dan? He can't be worse than the Singles-Hitting Statue, otherwise known as Mark Lorettta.

Please, tell us the 2006 Patriots aren't going to wind up like the 2006 Red Sox.

This is followed by a bunch of asinine analysis attempting to compare baseball to football and Rodney Harrison to Jason Varitek. You came to this conclusion after a loss to the best team in football, Dan? Do continue.

There are already as many Bryant 24s as Bryant 8s at Staples Center. Personally, I think he did it to honor Manny Ramírez.

*vomits*

The Boston Garden's new video board is terrific, but something has to be done about the sound system on Causeway Street. It's muffled in many parts of the building and we're missing some good stuff when people speak.

Wow. I think we may have just found one of the only reasonable lines in the entire article. Somebody fix that sound system! Really. I'm serious.

"The 1980s happened, too"? What is that supposed to mean? The 1985-86 Celtics had eight white players and four black players. They also went 40-1 at home, won the championship easily, and may have been the best NBA team in history. Oh, then the team was picked by a black head coach, K.C. Jones -- hired by Red. Enough of the high-brow criticism. With Red, it was about talent, not color. And that's exactly why Auerbach was every bit a "crusading barrier crasher." He went with the best players when nobody else would. No need to apologize for going with the best players in the 1980s.

I think we may have also just found the only man in Boston Dan will defend to the hilt. This is actually a very solid analysis. I'm a little surprised he left out Len Bias, though. It would seem to further his point, however tragically.

It's weird to see that TV spot featuring athletes at home. Nomar Garciaparra and Mia Hamm? Aren't these the all-time privacy buffs? And now they're showing off their crib, Deion Sanders style?

If you're going to be random with this column, I guess you have to go the whole way, because I don't really know why this is in here. How about remarking on Nomar swinging that giant knife like a baseball bat to cut the lemon, Dan? It makes me nervous every time. I'm sure you could make some insulting remark about it.

Bob Lobel reports that Bill Belichick's postgame press conference late Sunday was a true walkoff moment. "It was a walkoff press conference," observed Lobel. "The coach walked off in mid-answer!"

Irrelevant tangent: I firmly believe Bob Lobel is insane, and I also believe he is drunk on camera for a good portion of the time. His post-2004 World Series interviews gave me the impression that he had been consuming liberally during the game and was, by that point, completely trashed. This made for a very hilarious interview of a decidedly sober John Henry, and a very hilarious interview of a tipsy Theo who, while instructing the fans in Boston to "celebrate responsibly," waved his can of beer in the camera and chugged it while Lobel was asking him the next question. Great moment.

Bet Tony La Russa shows up at a Patriots game this year. In the history of baseball managers, only Connie Mack and John McGraw won more games than La Russa.

I think Dan likes Tony La Russa.

Still trying to figure out what Dave Wallace and Ron Jackson did wrong? Same here. Two of the most decent men who ever wore Boston uniforms. Jackson was replaced by Dave Magadan, who may be a fine hitting instructor, but most hitting coaches are hired by the manager, not the general manager.

I'm going to go ahead and say they were asked to leave because a) Wallace is reportedly no good at working with younger pitchers, and b) Ron Jackson apparently has problems with analyzing swings, which is important for a hitting coach. I don't know how you can separate the quality of offense the last few years from the hitting coach. I'm going to say the offense was pretty good by itself just because the players were good, but go ahead and think it was Ron Jackson, Dan! And by all means, credit Dave Wallace for how good Pedro Martinez and Curt Schilling are. As far as said coaches being hired by the manager and not the general manager, I don't think this is true, but I do appreciate that you're just trying to tell us that Theo is a meddling little busybody and you hate him.

"Blah blah yadda yadda . . . If I wanted to be an ass, I would ask if it really makes sense for a middle-aged man to be awed by a younger man who happens to be really good at putting a ball through a hole suspended 10 feet above the ground." (Paul Shirley)

Just something to ponder next time you button up your XXL Schilling jersey.

So is it the XXL part we have a problem with, the Schilling part, or the jersey part? Are fans now not allowed to wear jerseys and idolize players because *gasp* sports has little bearing on real life? Where ever did you come up with that philosophical gem, Dan?

Red Auerbach

Wow, it's been awhile, hasn't it? Sorry about the hiatus. Some of it was Dan not writing much, and some of it was me being lazy. I don't normally read the Celtics page on the Globe website, so I completely missed this column, which is now almost 4 days old. My apologies.

It's actually pretty good. It's a nice tribute, and it trucks along nicely for several paragraphs, until we hit this bit:

In 1984, I brought my young wife and infant daughter to the NBA meetings in Salt Lake City. Red had given me a box of cigars when our daughter was born (probably a company violation to accept them, but hopefully the statute of limitations on graft has expired) and I was anxious to have him take a look at our 6-week-old baby. Red took one look at little Sarah, blew some smoke past my wife's head, and said, "Lady, you got a lot of balls bringing that baby all the way out here. Yes, sir, a lot of balls."

It took a while to explain to my wife that this was Red's highest form of praise.

There he is, injecting himself into the middle of a story again. What's even stranger is that this story is about him injecting himself into the middle of something he shouldn't be, the NBA meetings. "Here's a random segment about how I interrupted Red Auerbach and made him look at my cute baby! Oh, and did you know I'm so special that Red gave me cigars?" I also love his flippant remark about "company violations." Is this the same daughter who got an internship thanks to Daddy doing some leaning on Tom Werner in violation of every existing standard of journalistic ethics?

Modern laws be damned, the Celtics should hand out cigars at the Garden opening night. After the anthem, before the opening tap, turn out the lights and let everybody light up a Hoyo de Monterrey. It'll smell like victory.

This is actually kind of a nice idea for a tribute. I'm merely confused as to what he's referring to when he talks about "modern laws." Laws about smoking indoors? Okay, sure, that's modern. I can buy that. How about the law prohibiting the importation of Hoyo de Monterrey cigars? That has been illegal since September 4, 1961, when Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act instituting a trade embargo against Cuba. Not exactly modern.

All in all, not a bad tribute, though.

Polar Bear Award

When I first read the title of today's column, I thought it was going to be yet another rant about how terrible it is that playoff games start so late at night. This is a valid complaint, and I wish MLB would fix it. They are not doing their job in attracting younger fans by putting the biggest games of the season on TV at a time when said fans are supposed to be in bed. This needs to be addressed in the next network deal.

But no, that is not the purpose of today's column. Today, Dan has discovered an essential truth of life:

A) Playoff baseball is played in October.
B) In many northern cities, it tends to get kind of cold in October.
C) Therefore, playoff baseball is kind of cold.

For Dan and others who may be interested, here is a basic scientific explanation of what causes the seasons on the NOAA website, and thus, why it is cold in Detroit in October, when playoff baseball is played.

I'm betting Dan got the idea for this column when he became chilled during the brief walk from the hotel lobby to his taxi. "Gee, it's cold! I'll write a column about how cold it is." And today's effort was born.

Despite perhaps ten paragraphs of complaining, no solution to the problem of this cold, if it really is a problem, is ever proposed. Do we shorten the season? Spend billions of dollars to make all stadiums enclosed and with climate control? Learn to deal with nature as humans have been doing for thousands of years? So many options!

Car Wreck

Enjoy the game from the bar, Dan? Because this trip down Nostalgia Lane that you are trying to pass off as a column was in the can long before Game 1 started.

And yes, there are many '67 Red Sox references sprinkled in, for no apparent reason.

Jim Leyland Appreciation Week

The World Series starts tonight, and so this morning, Dan delivers his customary "human interest" piece on a character associated with said World Series. Ladies and gentlemen, prepare to learn about Tigers manager Jim Leyland!

There's no computer on his desk. Jim Leyland doesn't spend a lot of time looking at spreadsheets and percentages. He is not a numbers cruncher and he probably wouldn't last long in a room with Bill James, Billy Beane, and Theo Epstein.

If this article doesn't show up on Fire Joe Morgan sometime in the next day or two, I'll think those guys have fallen asleep at the switch. This is the kind of stuff they live for. "Jim Leyland doesn't like numbers! Computers are evil! He's nothing like those stathead dorks Billy Beane and Theo Epstein, who actually know how to turn on a computer and operate Microsoft Excel! What a waste of time!"

I have no problem with the fact that Leyland isn't a stats guy. He's a successful manager who's gotten more public compliments from his players in the last few days than I can remember any other manager getting. And, to use what seems to be a favorite expression of the Red Sox FO, "there's more than one way to skin a cat."

What I do have a problem with is Dan's derisive tone. He's probably been saving that snarky line since the A's were eliminated. I'm surprised he managed to restrain himself until today.

He'd be gone even quicker if they were gathered in a non-smoking room. Leyland's got to have his Marlboros.

Time for me to climb up on my soap box. There is nothing folksy and charming about chain smoking, Dan, so stop writing about it as if it's some kind of running joke. I keep seeing this line about Marlboros in pretty much every article about Leyland, and I don't know why the media is treating it as if it's something really cute and quirky. Chain smoking is a sad and disgusting addiction. Leyland's need to constantly smoke is not only terrible for his own health, but is polluting the air around him and putting others at risk. I'm sure that in this hypothetical meeting Dan speaks of, Theo and the two Bills would be quite grateful if Leyland takes his Marlboros elsewhere so they don't get cancer from the secondhand smoke.

End of sanctimonious nitpick. Back to the article.

He doesn't have a Francona bone in his body. He's a manager, not a baby sitter. If Manny Ramírez quit on him, he'd call him out. Or he'd quit himself.

I know exactly where this dislike of Francona came from: it's a nasty comment Tito made about Dan in Seth Mnookin's book in which he told Dan he'd lost all respect for him. You and me both, Tito, although I don't know if I ever had any respect to lose in the first place.

Also, once again, Dan makes insulting generalizations without all the facts. How does he have any idea what the dynamic between Francona and the players is? Does he really think Francona is a glorified baby-sitter? And what is this assumption that Manny quit on people? I keep seeing this thrown around (mostly in the Globe, it's important to note) and I haven't seen a single shred of substantive proof for any of it.

He's a little uncomfortable in the eye of the storm. Earlier in the week, when the Tigers were waiting for the Cardinals and Mets to finish their National League Championship Series, Leyland said, "I don't photograph very well. I'm tired of everybody saying I'm craggy, Marlboro man and all that [expletive]. My wife thinks I'm good-looking. When I look in the mirror, I think I look a lot younger than in my pictures [he's 61]. You guys are doing a horse-[expletive] job."

This is a great quote. Especially the last sentence.

He's had the golden touch throughout this postseason. Rookie pitchers in big games? No problem. Alexis Gomez as DH? The guy hit a homer and knocked in four runs. Pulling a starter in the middle of a count? Tough toenails. This isn't about tiptoeing around egos of big-league ballplayers.

Another indirect shot at Manny and Francona. I'm already dreading the end of the World Series, when the offseason really kicks into high gear and we're forced to read pages upon pages of pure speculation as to what teams are going to do because the media really has no clue. I can already see what the theme of the Globe coverage is going to be.

It was a high school moment on a big-league stage, rare in this cynical century.

The phrase "cynical century" as uttered by Dan Shaughnessy is so ironic it's making me nauseous.

His Tigers swept the Cardinals in three games in June, outscoring the Redbirds, 21-13. Naturally, he says that means nothing.

It doesn't. It's called a "small sample size." It means "this data set is not good to use in predicting future outcomes, because it could be the product of random chance." Perhaps that's too geeky, though.

Leyland's brother, Tom, is a Catholic priest. His wife, Katie, is well versed in Red Sox lore. His teenage daughter, Kellie, toured Boston College when the Tigers played at Fenway in August and Leyland might be at The Heights for parents weekend in a few years. But right now there's a World Series to be won for a town that deserves something good.

First of all, where's the mention of this son that was brought up a few paragraphs ago? You know, the one whose baseball team Leyland used to coach? And second, what in the world does the last sentence of the paragraph have to do with the first three?

At this hour, Jim Leyland and the 2006 Tigers are the best story in baseball.

Yeah, they are, and I'm rooting for them tonight. But I'm tired of hearing about what a great story they are. Last year, Ozzie Guillen and the White Sox were a great story. The year before that, the "cursed" Red Sox were everybody's favorite. The year before that. . .okay, you get my point.

Kill Bill vol. 2

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Today's hack job is merely one volume in Dan's ongoing tome, "How to Gratuitously Slander Popular Public Figures Out of Personal Pettiness." It will be put next to Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" in the self-help section of your local bookstore, just as a good way to show Carnegie buyers what NOT to do. Anyway, onto the column:

I was shelling peanuts and hardly paying attention as Tony La Russa delivered a rambling answer to a pregame question regarding the expanded format of today's baseball playoffs.

We learn two things from this line. First, Dan doesn't listen to his interview subjects. This should hardly surprise anyone, since he misquotes them and takes them out of context so often. Second, he appears not to like Tony La Russa. Add another successful well-known figure to the list of people Dan doesn't like. Anyone see a pattern developing here? How snobby of you, Dan. Why would you brag that you don't listen when other people are talking? That's appallingly rude, especially for a guy who's PAID to listen.

(For the record, I don't like Tony La Russa, either. He's whiny and he wears sunglasses in the dark. That bothers me, and I'm not joking. Plus he tends to throw his injured players under the bus. See Rolen, Scott and Edmonds, Jim.)

Whoa. It is what it is. That got my attention. Brought me back to Gillette Stadium. It is what it is is the ultimate Bill Belichick phrase. When Belichick is rightfully honored with his image on a silver dollar, It is what it is will replace E Pluribus Unum. It is the mantra of the Church of Belichick. It explains everything and it explains nothing (try it out on your wife or boss next time you're in trouble), which makes it the perfect Belichick answer.

"Image on a silver dollar?" "Church of Belichick?" I don't even know what to do with this paragraph, that is how awful it is. Seriously, Dan, what is your problem with Belichick? He's not good for soundbites? His sense of fashion offends you? He's, I don't know, smart and successful, sort of like Theo Epstein? Cut the sarcastic deification before I throw up. It's a tired act and nobody's actually absorbing any of your point of view. Of course, maybe that's why you keep trying to beat us all over the head with it.

Standing behind the batting cage, the two gods of game-calling talked for a solid hour while the Cardinals took batting practice. Had they been joined by pompous Phil Jackson, we'd have had a sports Yalta -- the greatest collection of coaching geniuses ever assembled -- with the obvious exception of anyplace Red Auerbach ever went.

For the record, "pompous" Phil Jackson is not on the same level as Belichick and Auerbach. I don't think La Russa really is, either, but I guess that's debatable.

Also, "sports Yalta?" I guess I'm more insulting the readership here, but I'd bet a significant amount of money that the percentage of readers who know what the Yalta conference was and who was there is below 40.

(It was a 1945 conference between FDR, Stalin, and Churchill where they agreed upon how to deal with Nazi Germany after its surrender and Stalin agreed to help the US in Japan after the war in Europe was over, by the way.)

Belichick acknowledges knowing little about baseball.

Yeah, and I'd bet another significant amount of money that Belichick's slight knowledge of baseball is a lot more than other people's slight knowledge of baseball.

Belichick wore a La Russa jersey to his press conference Tuesday at Gillette Stadium. He looked like one of those 54-year-old goobers you see wearing Curt Schilling shirts to Fenway.

Ladies and gentlemen, Dan Shaughnessy. So verbose and creative that he resorts to calling people "goobers." Are you kidding me, Dan? And what in the world is wrong with 54-year-old men wearing Schilling jerseys? At what arbitrary point does that start to offend you? I have a Big Papi t-shirt, is that also gooberish? Grow up. "Goobers?" Seriously.

The Patriots coach gave up baseball for lacrosse at an early age. He's got square eyes from watching so much football film, which leaves little time for baseball viewing.

I don't even know what the last sentence means. "Square eyes?" Huh? I'll assume it's an insult, since it usually is.

``I really don't understand it that well," he said after his hour with the Cardinals hardball master. ``I was in the dugout with him in spring training and I couldn't believe how much was involved. He calls every pitch. Every pitch! He's involved with the pitcher stepping off the rubber and moving guys in the outfield, figuring out whether they're going to steal, whether they're going to squeeze. It was fascinating."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Tony La Russa is the exception here, not the rule. Most managers let their catchers call the majority of the pitches, and the pitcher decides whether he wants to step off the rubber. This just furthers my impression that La Russa is a whiny, micro-managing control freak, but perhaps I'm biased.

Whatever you say, Coach. I mean . . . it is what it is.

This column is a piece of rubbish. I mean. . .it is what it is.

Cory Lidle

Not much to say about today's column. I could pick on alleged factual inaccuracies, but looking around at other newspaper accounts of the crash, it seems that no two papers have the same story, so I'll leave it alone.

It's ironic, though, don't you think? Why does Dan continually write columns indirectly complaining about the media? You ARE the media, Dan, in case you hadn't noticed. You've committed every sin you rail about.

Here is the column, in a nutshell: "A plane crashed into a building. The news got all frantic and treated it like terrorism. It turned out to be Cory Lidle. The story deflated."

OK. So?

Suddenly, a lot of television watchers switched from CNN to ESPN. The international news story was becoming a sad sports story.

ESPN was the last station I thought of turning to. I had CNN Headline on all afternoon. Why would I want to listen to Steve Phillips talk about this?

And why isn't this still an international news story? A plane flew into the side of a building. Yes, it was a known athlete piloting it, but it was still a plane crashing into a building. That shouldn't happen. What went wrong? This doesn't have to be a sports story.

I don't want to pick at this too badly because of the nature of the subject matter. There's really nothing tasteless in here except for the fact that he's Dan Shaughnessy and therefore everything is inherently tasteless.

Thoughts and prayers go out to the Lidle family and the families of the flight instructor and the injured firefighters. A horrible, random tragedy.

Want Some Cheese with that Whine?

Thanks to an attentive reader, we bring you this tasty Dan quote, courtesy of the Denver Post:

"Now every team has a handler who is there to limit everything we do," says Boston Globe columnist Dan Shaughnessy, who began covering professional baseball in the 1970s. "It's a stupid game we have to play. Every day, our access is shrinking."

...

"It's preposterous," Shaughnessy says. "The self-importance today is off the charts."

Actually, the irony is off the charts. He could be talking about himself. And if reporters' access is shrinking, so-called writers like Shaughnessy who exist solely to do hatchet jobs on athletes deserve nothing more.

Day of celebration

Like many Red Sox fans, I spent all of yesterday partying. Before someone calls me pathetic, it was also my birthday, so that was kind of an excuse. But what better present could I get than the Yankees being eliminated from the playoffs?

We got to watch a $200 million choke job. Every year it's more expensive. And every year, it's the same result.

Dan, as you all knew he would, chimes in this morning. Not much here, folks. Well, okay, there's this:

But today we come to celebrate the colossal flop of the 2006 Pinstripes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Dan spend much of the last 6 weeks saying how stupid the Red Sox were and how they should be more like the Yankees, who were probably going to go all the way? Hmmm. Now it turns out their net advantage was exactly 4 extra games, for a nice sum of $80 million. We sucked, too, and we did it for less!

Red Sox fans are still licking their wounds from the five-game disgrace at Fenway Park in August, but if you love to hate the Yankees, it doesn't get any better than what went down the last three days in New York and Detroit.

Anybody here still bemoaning that series? Honestly, I got over it weeks ago. Maybe I'm the only one.

Brian Cashman has to trade him now (assuming A-Rod waives his no-trade, and why wouldn't he?).

I keep seeing this, and I don't buy it. Torre batted him 8th, sure, but there's news that Torre may be fired. Why does Cashman have to trade him? Until November, he's the reigning AL MVP. And with Texas picking up no small portion of his salary, he's not exactly a huge hit to the Yankee checkbook, no more so than any of the other overpaid geezers they have on that team.

As a side note, I think the expression on Brian Cashman's face as he watched from the box seats yesterday is now my new favorite expression, narrowly edging out the "deer in the headlights" look Peyton Manning gets during playoff games.

The numbers are numbing. Six straight years of playoff failure. A $200 million payroll going home after only one round. It should make some of you smile to realize that since the end of the 2000 season, George Steinbrenner has spent $1.2 billion in player salaries (plus luxury taxes) and he's 0 for 6 in championships. The Yankees were 3-1 favorites to beat the Tigers in the first round, then got swept three straight after winning the first game.

I printed this because it makes me laugh. It's all right there in front of you. The Yankees, ladies and gentlemen. $1.2 billion and 0 for 6. Keep doing what you're doing, George!

Back to the Future

So this is how it's going to be. One month worth of columns on the Major League Baseball playoffs, none of them more than lists of names of players who used to play for Boston.

Yesterday's column on Derek Jeter featured a strange sidetrack on Nomar Garciaparra. Today's piece, which had more to do with commuting and Red Sox past than baseball present, mentioned no less than seven former Boston employees. In order:

* Derek Lowe
* Grady Little
* Bill Mueller
* Dave Jauss
* Nomar Garciaparra
* Dennis Eckersley
* Lowe (again)
* Cliff Floyd
* Nomar (again)
* Nomar (again) .

The CHB also managed to work in references to the Red Sox World Series' teams of 1946 and 1967, Fenway Park and the CITGO sign.

Meet the new CHB. Same as the old CHB.

Revisionist History

Think Shaughnessy can write a column on Derek Jeter without mentioning Nomar Garciaparra?

It's been more than two years since "Nomie" was the regular Red Sox SS, yet The CHB recalls those happy times like they were yesterday -- and never forgets to mention how Garciaparra watched while Jeter carelessly threw himself into the Boston stands chasing a popup.

"That was the play that ultimately made Boston realize that Nomar Garciaparra (he was sulking on the bench when Jeter put himself in the hospital) had to go," asserts The CHB. Revisionist history aside, that would be the same Garciaparra who finished in the top 11 of the MVP race six times; the same Garciaparra who was hitting .321 and slugging .500 when he was traded; the same Garciaparra who was clearly hurt that season (he was on the DL three times all told) and has spent a career fighting injuries both major and nagging; the same Garciaparra about whom Nick Carfado presciently wrote in June 2004:

Nomar Garciaparra just wants to play. Boston's All-Star shortstop is tired of the stories -- some new, others that have been around for years -- that always seem to crop up when his name is mentioned.

Some of those tales include whether Garciaparra purposely delayed his return from a recent Achilles' injury as a message to management, either in response to not receiving a contract extension or lingering bitterness over the offseason pursuit of Alex Rodriguez. He's tired of people speculating about property he's thinking of buying or selling.

Overall, it's quintessential CHB, overrating the significance of a single game in order to back up a dubious hypothesis. Who's next up for the CHB Love Machine? Brian Doyle?

Decisions, decisions!

We should all feel very sorry for Dan today. He was faced with a difficult choice--the Patriots' post-game festivities were going on at the same time as Theo Epstein's press conference! What to do, what to do? Cincinnati or Boston? On the one hand, the opportunity to take shots at Theo, accuse him of being arrogant and incompetent, and ask snarky questions about whether he's going to quit again. On the other hand, the opportunity to take shots at Belichick, accuse him of being arrogant and incompetent, and ask snarky questions about whether he thinks it might be a good idea to have a wide receiver on the roster.

In other words, same poo, different day.

Apparently, Cincinnati is nice this time of year, because he chose to completely flip-flop on his stance from last week and start being positive about the Patriots again. With a 38-13 victory, that's not so hard, is it, Dan? Sort of like the guy who only believes in God when it's sunny and 75 out.

National television commentators talked about it. Scribes wrote about it. Fans looked at the game films after the Denver debacle and dissected Brady's every gesture. Nonstop nuance. Forget about body surfing, body painting, body politic, body by BALCO, and Jesse ``The Body" Ventura -- we were immersed in Brady's body language.

You know, I keep hearing about what a good writer Shaughnessy is, even if the content is sometimes bothersome, but I really don't see it. The metaphors and allusions to pop culture are awkward and forced. The parallel structure isn't parallel. The diction is lazy. It's like he doesn't even try.

``How's your body language now?" we asked him.

``The word of the week, right there," he said with a grin. ``Even my dad was like, `Tell me about your body language', and I'm like, `Are you kidding me? Dad, not you, too!' I think instead of talking about concentrating on how you're walking or all that, I think worrying about how I'm passing the ball and how we're executing and converting on third down and converting in the red zone -- I think that's the reason why we won the game."

I was about to say that those reporters asked him one of the silliest questions I've heard in awhile, but I think that award goes to Brady's dad. Congratulations, sir!

At the same time there were multiple theories on Brady's sub-par performance: He wasn't getting the help he needed. He was frustrated because the Patriots let his top two receivers go. He was upset because he took less dough to stay in New England and management wasn't holding up its end. He was injured. His receivers were running the wrong routes. He couldn't remember what he was doing after popping an Ambien. On and on it went.

Uh, the first three theories are the exact same theory written three different ways, Dan. Simply put, "he didn't have the personnel and was frustrated about it." But I guess you have to get to a certain word count.

And what's up with the Ambien theory? Is it just random rubbish or is it a joke about Terrell Owens? How funny! Not.

Turns out he was right. The Patriots yesterday were firing on all cylinders.

Hear that? That's the sound of Dan vomiting on his keyboard as he types this compliment.

Indeed, Patriots fans have come to expect to see Bill Belichick outsmart the other team, and that's what we saw yesterday.

Anyone know the Heimlich? I think he's choking! He just had to say something nice about Belichick!

His only interception came on a ball tipped by Doug Gabriel, who looked remarkably like Wily Mo Peña running back on a long fly ball in Fenway's right field.

Ah, there it is. Heaven forbid we get through a football column without a cheap shot at the baseball team.

I guess we'll get the Red Sox post-mortem tomorrow. I've set the over/unders as follows:

• bad song lyrics: 2
• references to "young Theo": 5
• references to "minions": 3
• "Manny being Manny" insults: 2
• gorilla jokes: 2
• Casablanca references: 1
• incorrect/misleading statistics: 8
• rational, measured responses to the season: 0

Pass the Vicodin

During all the hoopla surrounding T.O.'s alleged suicide attempt yesterday, it briefly occurred to me that there was no possible way the coverage of that "event" could get any worse than it already was.

Well, I didn't anticipate Dan doing a column on it, so I take it all back. It got worse this morning with this insensitive pile of rubbish. I'm sort of speechless right now--that's how bothered I am by this piece. But let's carry on anyway:

First of all, the title is incredibly offensive. "We snapped to attention?" "Attention seeker Owens was given some more?" This makes me wonder what Dan would have said if it had actually turned out to be a suicide attempt. You know what, Dan? People who try suicide usually ARE seeking attention, and you know what? You'd better give them exactly what they want without judgment or resentment, because otherwise they have a tendency to wind up dead. I've spent 2+ hours on the phone talking someone out of it in the middle of the night before, and I have three friends with suicide attempts on their records, so I'm not just spouting Dr. Phil here. It doesn't matter to me that T.O. himself apparently didn't try suicide; it's the principle of the thing.

So there you have it. A new low in TV tabloid journalism. James Frey is reportedly already at work on events of the day.

If you plug "Dan Shaughnessy" into this sentence in place of "James Frey," the sentence still has exactly the same meaning! How funny!

We're never going to know the real story, of course. Only Owens really knows what happened. We know he loves attention. But it's hard to believe he would stoop to these depths just to make himself a bigger story. The tape of Etheredge's 911 call might shed more light on this and you can be sure the Dallas and Philadelphia media will produce said audio within a few hours.

But why do we care?

It is hard to believe, isn't it? Which is why I don't think anybody, in their heart of hearts (Dan probably doesn't understand this concept), believes that. And why would the Dallas police release the 911 call? It's an invasion of privacy.

Also, we care because anybody who doesn't care when a public figure or anyone else allegedly tries to kill himself has something wrong with them. If this was a story about Tom Brady attempting suicide, Dan, you'd be singing a different tune. If it was about Theo Epstein, you'd be laughing and jumping for joy.*

But he does not seem to be a liar and there is really no reason to doubt his story from the strange Tuesday night. In the end, Terrell Owens is an entertainer, not that much different from Paris Hilton, Tom Cruise, or Mel Gibson. He is flawed, just like the rest of us. He needs attention and we provide. Never more than yesterday.

The Cowboys play at Philadelphia Oct. 8. Think anyone will be watching that one?

First of all, yes, they will, because it'll be a good football game if nothing else. Second of all, I don't know what to make of the first paragraph. He spends much of the column ripping T.O. and indirectly listing reasons we should doubt his story, then says we shouldn't doubt it? Yeah, okay. Just Dan being Dan, I guess. I give up.

*Note: I don't actually mean that. He's not THAT awful.

Acquiring target. . .

Apparently having tired of writing ineffective stories about what a horrible person and GM Theo Epstein is, Dan has set his sights on the possibly the only other two men in Boston who fans have even less reason to dislike: Bill Belichick and Tom Brady. Hey, Dan? If you want to make people hate someone, you probably shouldn't pick three of the most popular guys in the city. You're setting yourself up for failure.

In this column, Dan communicates the urgent message that he thinks Belichick is an arrogant snot.

The Patriots dominate the rest of the NFL but stubborn Mike Shanahan simply won't sign on to the theory that he's supposed to lose because the New England organization is smarter and better-prepared.

This "smarter and better-prepared" rubbish is media hype, Dan. You are the media. You could stop perpetuating it, but that would also prevent you from unloading on Belichick, so I guess that's not actually a viable option.

It proves only that arrogant attrition can catch up with any organization. Sometimes it's actually the team with the better players that wins.

Arrogant attrition, huh? I can see the theme of this column: Bill Belichick is arrogant. Guess what: if anyone has a reason to be, it's him. When did you start channeling Ron Borges? One of each of you is too much.

There was more booing at Gillette Stadium and the Patriots truly look like a team in distress, but we'd do well to remember that New England's 2003 Super Bowl champs were pancaked by Buffalo, 31-0, in September.

Anybody who boos the Patriots 3 games into the season after all the success they've brought to the city is too stupid and ungrateful to be allowed to be a fan. Go back to your basements, guys. Mean? Yes. But these people really irritate me. It's like they're taking their Red Sox frustrations out on the football team or something.

All in all, not a great show. The game was scheduled to be broadcast early this morning in Beijing and one could easily see why several million Chinese might not give a damn. Given this sample of American football, new viewers in Asia might prefer something more along the lines of a Jerry Lewis Film Festival.

First of all, they might not give a damn because, as you said, it's early in the morning there and they all have to go to work. Of course, they might actually give a damn because the vast majority of stuff on Chinese state television is absolutely horrendous. It makes tonight's game look like the premiere of "The Godfather."

Not to be confused with the Scorpion Bowl at the Kowloon off Route 1, the China Bowl will be played in Beijing's Workers Stadium, the site of the soccer competition for the XXIX Olympics. You'll have to rise at 8:30 a.m. to catch the Patriots and Seahawks in what could be a rematch of Super Bowl XLI.

What a funny joke! Oh, wait, no it wasn't. This sounds vaguely racist to me, too, but perhaps I'm too cynical.

Also, getting up at 8:30? What a burden. Sigh.

It's hard to believe Coach Bill could be thrilled with the decision to fly halfway around the world during the Patriots' preseason. The vaunted New York Yankees spent two months complaining about jet lag after they opened their 2004 regular season in Japan.

Yes, because these situations and sports are so incredibly comparable! Baseball vs. football, regular season vs. preseason, rigorous schedule vs. one game a week, etc. Extremely comparable!

Mike Mussina still hasn't recovered.

OK, this is funny.

No word yet on whether Bob Kraft plans to show off a championship ring to Chinese president Hu Jintao, but the government officials no doubt will applaud Belichick's crackdown on free speech in the Patriot locker room.

He isn't seriously comparing Belichick's taciturn demeanor with the Chinese Communist Party, is he? What a horrendous comparison. Why don't we compare their roster management with the Tian'anmen Square massacre? That would also be incredibly appropriate, sensitive, and rich in historical perspective.

Coach Bill was in boring overdrive after the spanking.

Oh, I get it. He's arrogant AND he gives you bad soundbites! And he's successful! Just like Theo! I see the pattern here!

It gets tougher before it gets easier. Next week the Patriots go to Cincinnati to face the 3-0 Bengals. Coach Bill says they have to play better.

What is the point of the last sentence other than to drive home the point that the columnist is really petty and immature?

Please leave the Patriot-bashing beat to your friend Ron Borges, Dan. I can't take this. If we put the two of you together, we'd have the worst football columnist on the planet. Has Borges apologized for criticizing the Richard Seymour draft pick yet?

Identity theft

Dan went by a new moniker today: "Gordon Edes."

This column is horrendous. There's not really much else to say. It is as bad as anything Shaughnessy has ever written about Manny, although (I can't believe I'm saying this) it's less subtle. Just a terrible, terrible article.

In the middle, we get this gem:

While the Red Sox crumbled when Ramírez went on hiatus -- last night was the 22d game out of 30 Ramírez has missed since taking himself out of the last game of the Yankee massacre Aug. 21, during which he has been paid $1.918 million (calculated on his base salary of $15 million this season) -- he had the audacity this week, through agent Greg Genske, to reiterate to the Red Sox his desire to be traded this winter.

First of all, there is every reason in the world to doubt this phrase (remember Gordon's brilliant article last winter, the one entitled "Epstein signs three-year contract?"). Second of all, I can't believe we have to go through this again. 6 more months of anti-Manny columns and baseless speculation about this enigmatic player is enough to make me wish Theo would quit again just so there's something else to write about. I'm dreading the offseason.

Twinkies

Today's "effort," if it can be called that, is about the Minnesota Twins and how much the Red Sox suck in comparison to them. The basic thesis is that the Twins have implemented a system of player development and small ball that fills their team with underrated no-names and makes them very good, while the Red Sox suck.

So the point here is that you like their system, Dan? OK, I can see that it's working. Guess what? The Red sox are trying to implement pretty much the same system save the emphasis on small ball. Yet you keep tearing them a new one. Do you not see the parallels here, Dan? Or are you too busy ignoring everything Theo says because you're trying to think of more ways to discredit him? I'd bet on that.

When will we learn? The Twins have a system. The fundamentals apply. They cultivate pitchers who throw strikes and fielders who catch the ball. They get runners on base, move them over, and drive them home.

Theo has been trying to do this practically since he got here, Dan. And I think every system in baseball tries to teach fundamentals. What you describe is, simply, playing baseball. It's not revolutionary. Also, their system? It tried to turn David Ortiz into a slap hitter. It's directly responsible for one of the weakest offenses in the majors over the last 4 years. But of course let's ignore that.

They play in the image of the people who live in the Twin Cities. They are honest and hard-working and they give you a lot for your money.

Ah, stereotyping! Two can play that game. I live near the Twin Cities right now, and let me tell you, there are just as many weirdos and dishonest people here as anywhere else, they're just not as diverse.

Amazing. It is Sept. 20, and the Red Sox have been done for more than three weeks while the Twins are winning with rookie pitchers and talented faces with no names.

Hmm. I think there was a three-week period in there where I didn't recognize half the guys on the field for the Sox at any given time. Who's in our rotation? A bunch of no-names. Hmm.

The Twins are 50-24 at home this year, including a 3-0 record vs. your Boston Red Sox. Counting spring training, the Twins are 8-1 overall against your Red Sox. Boston's lone victory was a Grapefruit League contest, which was won only after the Twins had clinched the coveted Mayor's Cup.

Why are we including spring training records? That's completely stupid. Spring training games have even less meaning than preseason football. Putting that in there serves no purpose except to baselessly make the team look bad. But when do we care about substance?

It's startling to examine how the fortunes of these two teams have changed after the Sox arrived in the Twin Cities June 12. The Red Sox were a first-place team back then and no one in New England dared make any plans for October.

Really? And this is strange? I would call making plans for October in June, no matter what your record was at that time, jumping the gun by quite a bit and, if you believe in that sort of thing, jinxing yourself. But that's odd to you, Dan? Wow.

Minnesota's three-game sweep of the Sox triggered a four-month surge, and last night the Twins pulled within a half-game of the Tigers (even in the loss column).

Right after that sweep, the Red Sox went on their 12-game winning streak. But we wouldn't want to mention that, because it would ruin the comparison.

Ryan is sort of the anti-Theo Epstein. He's bald, he's managed to stay out of the limelight, and he's been on something of a hot streak when it comes to deal-making since giving up a tad early on a young David Ortiz after the 2002 season.

First of all, the treatment of David Ortiz by the Twins was one of the most stupid, inexcusable management moves of the last 10 years. Let's not treat this as a throwaway line at the end of a paragraph. That was a HUGE mistake. If the Twins hadn't been so stuck in their small-ball slap-hitter system and tried some different things, they might have had a genuinely great power hitter for cheap. But they gave up and let him go for nothing. It was a horrendous move. No one's saying they should have predicted what Ortiz would become, but they sure should have seen him as more than worthless. That alone knocks Terry Ryan's Genius-meter down a few notches.

Second (I did this backwards), let's look at the beginning of the paragraph. So Terry Ryan is the exact opposite of Theo because he is bald? Theo's twin brother will be interested to hear that. He might also be interested in examining the implication that his brother doesn't "manage to stay out of the limelight." Does Dan seriously think Theo is a media-whoring attention-seeker? That he WANTS to be in the limelight? Because that's the stupidest thing I've heard, and it sure sounds like that's what he's trying to imply in a backhanded way. Newsflash, Dan: Theo hates the media. This is incredibly well-documented. The media make his life a living hell. He can't go to the store and buy coffee without getting mobbed. He can't get his hair cut. He can't go to the bar with friends. He can't take his girlfriend to the movies. Basically, it is completely impossible for him to do any of the things that a normal guy his age likes to do, and yet you think he wants this when he has stated on several occasions that it makes his daily life horrendous? That's just ridiculous. Find something less obviously wrong to blame him for next time.

Ryan is the man who acquired closer Joe Nathan, starter Francisco Liriano, and starter Boof Bonser (young Mr. Bonser legally changed his name from John to Boof) for A.J. Pierzynski before the 2004 season.

This was a great trade. And I'm more of the opinion that it was about Brian Sabean being a complete idiot who doesn't know the second thing about prospects than it was about Terry Ryan being a genius, but whatever.

Santana is going to win the Cy Young Award, but Minnesota lost Liriano last week when the 22-year-old lefthander reinjured his pitching elbow against Oakland.

Santana's going to win the Cy Young? Can I borrow that crystal ball? I need to know how long it's going to take the maintenance people to fix our shower this morning. It's got no cold water and it's been scalding people, but they have to turn the water off to the whole house to fix it and it would be nice to know how long it'll take!

Oh, and they don't have any Mannys being Manny, either. There were no fewer than 20 Twins on the Fenway lawn at 2 p.m. yesterday, and not one player was on the bus when it left the team hotel for the ballpark at 4 p.m. Everybody was already at the park.

It wouldn't be a CHB column without at least one denigration of Manny Ramirez. Ladies and gentlemen, Dan Shaughnessy! Exit to your left, recycle your programs at the door!

Litter box liner

These days, the above title is really the only decent use for the Globe. Since Dan has disappeared lately, I'd like to point out the following line from today's Nick Cafardo article on David Murphy and the 2003 draft:

The '03 draft produced Rocco Baldelli, Mark Teixeira, Jose Reyes, Joe Mauer, Miguel Cabrera, Justin Morneau, Johan Santana, Travis Haffner, Hanley Ramirez, Rich Harden, Lastings Milledge, Brandon Wood, Nick Markakis, Chad Cordero, and Rickey Weeks."

Does this paper employ editors? I really wonder. Look at that list again. First of all, Travis Hafner and Rickie Weeks' names are spelled wrong. Second of all, the only players on that list that were actually in the 2003 draft were Brandon Wood, Chad Cordero, Rickie Weeks, Lastings Milledge, and Nick Markakis. The remaining names are flat-out wrong (plus they left out Delmon Young and Conor Jackson). Some of those were international free agent signings and were never drafted. Johan Santana? Try 1995, not 2003. The idiocy of that line is mind-boggling. Did anyone bother to look this up? You can get this info on Baseball America in approximately 25 seconds.

I'm really at a loss here. Of course, the current online version of the article has been edited, so people who didn't see it earlier will never know exactly how stupid and careless the Globe was.

With garbage like this, is it any surprise that columns by the likes of Shaughnessy and Ron Borges continue to be front and center with this paper? If the Herald would improve the quality of their other sections, I guarantee they'd be stealing a LOT of Globe customers. This kind of error is inexcusable.

It's time to denigrate the Patriots!

Fresh off watching an ugly Patriots game yesterday afternoon, Dan resurfaces this morning to tell us that the first half sucked. Really, Dan? I had no idea! Being down 17-7 at halftime told me nothing!

In the midst of a column about the Patriots, Dan can't resist taking shots at the Red Sox:

New England football fans, ever trusting, loyal, and anxious to pay homage to everything the organization does, were booing the offense with nine minutes to go in the first half of the first game of the season. Julian Tavarez certainly would not have approved, but Brady just shook his head and said, ``I don't blame 'em. I don't think we gave 'em much to cheer. They want to see us do some things offensively, put the ball in the end zone, and we turned the ball over, you know, we can't complete a pass. I'd be booing up there, too, if I were them."

The first sentence is highly debatable, especially since he follows up his claim that fans are anxious to laud the organization by pointing out that they were booing REALLY quickly. I think the rope is considerably shorter than you believe, Dan.

And why the shot at Julian Tavarez? Just because Tom Brady didn't complain about booing fans doesn't mean no one is allowed to. I think booing a team that's given you 3 Super Bowls in 5 years less than halfway through the first game of the season is the height of stupidity, and I don't care how bad they looked. Show a little gratitude and have a little bit of rope, huh?

Do we blame the Revolution or is Coach Infallible gaining some perceived competitive edge from the golden sand?

This is ridiculous. "Coach Infallible?" Is no one safe? Bill Belichick is on my short list of Boston guys never to boo, no matter what he does on the field. Also on the list: Tom Brady, Pedro Martinez, Curt Schilling, David Ortiz, Jason Varitek, and yes, Keith Foulke. "Coach Infallible?" I guess Belichick's sin is to win too much, which makes people happy. Dan can't stand that. Good grief. When does he start bashing Brady?

This, ladies and gentlemen, is called throwing yourself under the bus, taking one for the team. New England's offense was most inept in the second quarter, when a succession of running plays yielded a succession of three-and-outs and inspired fans to give their heroes the Seanez treatment.

Phew. Dan still likes him. And the "Seanez treatment?" You could insert pretty much anybody's name there, and I guarantee you that idiot Boston fans will have booed him at one time or another.

Opening Day was an SOS to the front office.

I don't even know what to say here, besides this: YOU CANNOT JUDGE A TEAM BASED ON ONE GAME! Jeez, Dan. Jump to conclusions much?

Get A Grip? How About a Noose?

The CHB ends today's mail-in in typical negative fashion:

But playoffs?

Please. Get a grip.

This raises an important question: What purpose does Shaughnessy serve?

Does he raise the collective knowledge of the readers? Does he enlighten or entertain? Does he shed light on problems that need correcting? Do his rantings, accusations, malignings and bitterness serve the public?

The answer to all of the above, of course, is no.

His impotence is shocking. Accomplishing at least one of those "feats" on any given day is not all that hard to do. Christ, even Joan Vennochi hits a single once in awhile. Meanwhile, day after day The CHB trudges back to the bench, club in hand, having swung and missed yet again.

He's a waste of newsprint and money. It's high time the New York Times shareholders questioned why their investment dollar is being used to support what is clearly a weak and incompetent Globe management team.

Jon Lester

No criticism today. The only criticism I can even try to offer here is that Dan called the Lesters when it was probably better not to, but since he's been through it and offered advice and support, I think even that can be excused.

This column broke my heart. It was well-written and incredibly emotional. Not the Dan we're used to.

I really have nothing to say, other than that that the news about Jon Lester is extremely upsetting and that we should all be thinking about him and praying for him, if one is so inclined. Best wishes, Jon. You can lick this thing. Get well soon.

And may I put in a voluntary plug here for everyone to please donate to the Jimmy Fund. Cancer can hit anyone, whether it be a favorite athlete or someone close to you or even yourself. I've already had two close friends lose parents to cancer (one to lymphoma, though he was MUCH older than Lester) and a grandfather nearly die of it, and I'm barely out of high school. It's everywhere, and they need all the help they can get to find a permanent cure.

Other places you can donate, if the spirit moves you:

American Cancer Society
Children's Miracle Network
Ronald McDonald House Charities
Lymphoma Research Foundation

In which Dan tries to be tactful

After a hiatus of maybe three days, Dan returns this morning! Let's face it: the column title is appropriate. It is indeed time to mail it in and look ahead. This August has, to put it in dignified terms for our sensitive friend Bruce, sucked. It's hard to even know what to say any more. Nothing is probably best, so rest assured Dan will not do that.

Think of September at Fenway as Fort Myers with higher ticket prices.

We never miss an opportunity, do we, Dan? I could think of several differences between Fenway and Fort Myers other than the ticket prices, such as "Fort Myers has not been around since 1912 and is basically a strip mall with palm trees" or "Fenway is not like Fort Myers, because Florida is really awful to be in this time of year, unless you enjoy getting concussions from flying pieces of aluminum siding and drowning in your car." But moving on!

Sox general manager Theo Epstein was reluctant to admit the significance of yesterday's deal, which is expected to bring Triple A catcher George Kottaras into the fold. Boston's young executive with the faded halo said, ``It doesn't mean that these games aren't important. It doesn't mean that the performances of our players aren't important, but it's a balancing act and we thought this was the right thing to do.

``It's not where we expected to be," he admitted. ``It's not where we want to be. But we're not immune from that kind of month [9-21 in August] . . . This is the reality now. And we're going to work hard to make sure it's not going to happen again."

I watched this press conference. It was the funniest thing ever. Dan kept trying to get Theo to come out and say he was throwing in the towel, and Theo just wouldn't do it. Damned if you do and damned if you don't, Theo. If you say you're throwing it in, he jumps on that. If you don't, he jumps on you for being disingenuous. May I suggest a restraining order?

Now, I actually want to congratulate Dan on this next part. He handles the Lester cancer rumors very well, in a sensitive and appropriate manner. Given that his own daughter had cancer some years ago, he probably knows exactly what the Lesters are feeling right now. Kudos, Dan. Also, kudos for including this quote from Francona:

Irresponsible headline update 2: ``His family is going through a little bit of a loop when they woke up and saw what they saw [including a Herald front-page headline that read, `Sox cancer scare -- Lester's enlarged lymph nodes a big concern.'] "

Although this is perhaps somewhat ironic, I think this amounts to calling the Herald out on their incredibly insensitive headline, and I like it. Tony Massarotti, you know you've hit rock bottom when I'm calling Dan a better man than you.

Of course, he then takes most of the second page to play his favorite game: "Crap on Theo Epstein." You can just hear the glee in his voice now that the team has hit a rough patch. How happy you must be, Dan. The team sucks AND you can blame it on Theo! This must be like Christmas!