Silenced

If only!

Shank recaps last night's 4-1 loss to the Angels. Now that the Sox are down two games to none, they have become...

Your beloved Red Sox are reeling.

At least he's consistent...

Happy 55th, Bruce!

Just wanted to say 'Happy Birthday!' to the Dan Shaughnessy Watch's resident Globeophile. Write soon!

Tables Turned

The Boston Red Sox lost last night to the Angels, 5-0. Shank gives a vintage recap of the game:

ANAHEIM, Calif. - The Angels hate the Red Sox.

You would, too, if you had to listen to what the Angels have heard for the last couple of weeks.

The Sox are in your head. You will choke in the playoffs against Boston. They beat you with Manny Ramírez and Curt Schilling and now they will beat you with Jon Lester and Jason Bay.

Which is halfway hypocritical, since Shank was one of the sports writers saying these very things. You might admire his use of the passive voice attempting to deflect any blame on his part.

Other Shankisms are deployed throughout the column: The Halos are used on a couple of occasions, a thirty-seven year old Billy Joel song reference is trotted out (Piano Man - killed by massive overplay on commercial radio), and, since we're in the vicinity of the La Brea Tar Pits, we have the pièce de résistance of Shankisms:

After getting one out, the big galoot gave the ball to Darren Oliver, a man once traded to Boston for Jurassic Carl Everett.

Shank can't resist one chest-thumper, though:

Josh Beckett - Boston’s Mr. October in 2007 - gets the ball tonight. Not to be an I-told-you-so, but some of us wanted Beckett to pitch Game 1.

Um, don't the Sox have to score at least one run for this to make a difference?

Going Soft, Shank?

That's what I conclude after reading today's column on Sox captain Jason Varitek. It's not often that we see Shank pen articles that are sympathetic towards an athlete, as this one is. Along with last month's Richard Seymour trade, I think Shank is showing one of three things: 1) he's become rather sentimental of late; 2) he's atoning for past columns where he rips an athlete a new bunghole; or 3) it's a natural ebb in his writing biorhythym, and we'll be reading good old piss & vinegar columns once this phase passes.

One quibble:

Does he feel slighted by fans and media who have turned against him?

I'm pretty sure there's a difference between turning against an athlete (an art where Shank is a sixth-degree black belt) and recognizing that a player is simply too old to be playing effectively at a major league level.

Shank concludes that Varitek has one more start in him. Varitek is quoted as saying, "... but the fact of the matter is that we need to put our best lineup out there". One of these notions is wrong.

What I Did On My Fall Vacation

I think Shank got out to Anaheim a little too early. Today it appears he actually talked to more athletes, specifically Red Sox players, and their memories of postseasons past.

While the article itself is decent, I'm left wondering if there might have been something else to write about. Since this isn't an obvious rehash of a column from last year, or before that, the answer must be no.

Some of them know a lot about baseball history. Most know less than the average fan. Just because you are good enough to make it to the big leagues does not mean you spent your childhood memorizing the batting averages of the 1977 Seattle Mariners.

I suppose that's because they're more interested at being good at playing the game instead of being the next Peter Gammons.

Daniel Milhous Nixon

Today Shank strolls down memory lane and recites the highlights (or lowlights, if you're an Angels fan) of the Sox-Angels playoff series. Among other things, the column lets Shank relive his two favourite decades, the 1960's and 1970's. He also chronicles former president Richard Nixon, longtime baseball & Angels fan. Overall, the column's a good effort of blending the past and the present.

I thought this part was pretty funny:

Before the first pitch is thrown, the Globe’s staff of crack baseball writers will dissect and analyze the strengths and weaknesses of both ball clubs.

I wonder if they're getting the all expense paid Anaheim trip as well?

The Mini Curse

Looks like I was a little off base in the prior post. This week Shank gets an all-expense paid trip to California to piss off the Angels and remind them of the previous three playoff series, all of which the Angels lost.

What makes this column special? He actually talks to an athlete!

ANAHEIM, Calif. - I am having a moment with John Lackey.

Lackey has just made his last regular-season start of 2009, and he has been coy about which game he will pitch against the Red Sox. Standing in front of his locker while his teammates pack and dress for a final weekend in Oakland, the big righty handles all questions professionally, occasionally smiling and making a joke. But there’s an edge to the proceedings because there’s a guy from Boston in the group.

Me.

And he knows. He knows that I know that he knows. He knows that, deep down, the Angels are incredibly frustrated by the Red Sox. He knows that I know the Sox think they can beat the Angels just by showing up.

Shoot yourself in the foot? Lackey knows that the Angels have blown toes off their feet in the playoffs against Boston. They have run themselves out of innings, thrown stupid pitches, and made ridiculous errors. They have lost nine playoff games in 10 tries against the Sox since 2004. And Lackey has seen it all.

Me, too.

So it’s awkward to ask the questions. But that’s what we do.

“Does it tick you off the way Boston has dominated you?’’ I start.

“I really got nothing to say to that,’’ he says, shaking his head. “What else can I say, you know?’’

I do know. I know the Angels are a ball of frustration when it comes to the Red Sox. They hate the Red Sox. They hate coming to Fenway Park, just as the Magic Johnson/Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Lakers hated coming to Old Boston Garden.

Even an oft-used Celtics / Lakers reference doesn't detract from yet another decent article from Shank. Enjoy the run while it lasts...

Skid Row

The Red Sox just lost their sixth straight game. Why do I get the feeling Shank is about to take a world-class, Metamucil powered dump on the Sox for limping into the wild-card slot?

Full House?

After losing to the Yankees on Saturday, Shank hedges his bet and writes about the different approaches to the end of the regular season by managers Joe Girardi and Terry Francona. Shank's World Series predictions are, like, so yesterday!

The proof is in the pudding:

The other team is the Red Sox - asking you to stand back and look at the big picture.

The starting lineups told you everything you needed to know about the respective approaches of these rivals.

This is why you are asked not to be bothered that the Sox are 1-8 against the Yankees since Aug. 6. This is why you should close your eyes and think about October if the Yankees beat the Sox again today and clinch the American League East.

When Shank's aboard the bandwagon, he uses 'we' and 'our' in his sentences. When Shank starts hedging or goes negative, he distances himself from such inclusiveness and uses 'you' and 'your' instead.

I understand the logic of resting pitchers and starting players as the playoffs approach. It's hard to accept this logic when the Yankees have been beating the snot out of the Sox in the past few months.

Close Call

Shank devotes this morning's column to the line drive that hit Jon Lester off the right leg during last night's Sox game with the Yankees. Fortunately for Lester, it turned out to be just a bruise, and he plans on making his next scheduled start against the Cleveland Indians on Thursday.

Fortunately for us, this is the third column in a row that is well written and devoid of the usual Shankisms. Any theories?

So Much For Shank's Next Four Columns

The Big Lug will not run for the open Mass. Senate seat:

NEW YORK — Curt Schilling won’t test out just how popular he is in Massachusetts.

The former Boston Red Sox pitcher, beloved in the state for his starring role in ending an 86-year championship drought, announced Tuesday he isn’t running for Edward M. Kennedy’s seat in the U.S. Senate.

Earlier this month, Schilling expressed interest in pursuing the post held by the Massachusetts Democrat for almost 50 years before he died in August. But appearing on "Joe Buck Live" on HBO on Tuesday night, Schilling quashed the notion.

"Regardless of the amount of support and outreach that’s been given to me, it just did not make sense," he said.

It would have been entertaining, if nothing else.

Circus Time

Dan follows up on the Pats / Jets game today. He's writing for the fans with these last two columns, and writing rather well.

I wonder how long that's going to last...

The Boston Globe Lives?

Rumors of its death may have been greatly exaggerated. Let's cut to the chase:

Several bills have been introduced in Congress to aid the newspaper industry, including a Senate measure that would allow newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks. The President was noncommittal about the legislation but said: "I haven't seen detailed proposals yet, but I'll be happy to look at them."

Sounds like another industry bailout is in the works. Question: will this turn out to be a case of throwing good money after bad?

Bombastic

Well rested after his last effort, Shank cranks out a pretty good column about today's Patriots - N.Y. Jets game. He chronicles the week's trash talk, gives some good highlights about the rivalry over the past fifty years, and makes a few funny points.

I think he overstates one thing, though:

Patriots fans grow up to hate the Jets the way Red Sox fans hate the Yankees.

In terms of longevity and intensity of the two rivalries, comparing the two is a stretch.

Welcome aboard the Patriots bandwagon, Dan!

Bandwagon Dan

In today's column, Dan jumps on the bandwagon that he jumped off of about six weeks ago.

It feels like 2004. It feels like 2007.

It feels like the Red Sox are going to the World Series.

Sorry. I know some of you think this puts some kind of whammy on the locals. I know you think I can “Gowdy’’ the whole season with a single statement.

It's the dreaded curse!

The rest of the column goes over the Sox winning streak, the Rangers fading fast, a gratuitous swipe at Sox ownership, and a very dated reference:

Anybody remember Curly of the Three Stooges winning every boxing match with the help of “Pop Goes the Weasel’’? That’s the effect Fenway Park has on the Red Sox.

I'm sure my father remembers, Shank...

The Red Sox are a rocket sled on rails. They are going to the World Series.

Shank making World Series predictions makes me nervous.

Dan On The Pats - Bills Game

Shank focuses on Tom Brady's first game back as the Boston Patriots quarterback. For now, Shank plants many wet, sloppy kisses on Tom, and the column reads like a Peter King parody. Overall, it's an average effort with some of the usual Shank signatures: two Elvis references, a semi-shot at Curt Schilling, and a lame song reference, which no Shank article should be without.

One quibble, though:

He (Belichick - ed.) wore his New England Patriot gray hoodie with cutoff sleeves - a look that was invented in this century.

For those of us that watched the game, it was not a hooded sweatshirt, he was wearing a sweatshirt and the sleeves were cut off near the elbows. It all depends on what look you're going for...

Memory Lane

Today's installment of Shankology is a look at the Boston Patriots. There are two sides to this coin: 54 year old farts like Objective Bruce will enjoy the history Dan tells, and tells fairly well; the under 40 crowd won't know or care what the hell he's talking about and might wonder if he's rewriting yet another column from an earlier year.

Dan Nails One

Shank takes U Mass Amherst to task for inviting former coach John Calipari to an event dubbed 'Celebrate UMass Basketball'. You might even say this is an 'excellent and much-needed column', in light of recent events.

Would the state of Illinois invite Rod Blagojevich to a high school government seminar? How ’bout “Jose Canseco Day’’ at the Oakland Coliseum?

Well, I can see both of those things happening. However, the coach bears ultimate responsibility for his program, whether or not the things that make him look sleazy are within his control.

It's a perfect column for Shank, who wastes no time getting up to ramming speed and crashing into the bandwagon.

Fore!

Dan went back to Norton Monday and finished his coverage of the TPC.

It's an average column, with the occasional annoying material:

It was Stricker the Ball Striker,

Clever!

TPC Boston, a magnificent course that was crushed by the world’s best players over the last four days, has a par-5, 528-yard 18th hole, which is simply too easy for these guys. Imagine NBA players shooting from the NCAA 3-point line.

Should we believe (all) NBA guys find deep shots easy to make? Shaq?

Stricker looked a little bit like Bill Belichick talking about Tedy Bruschi. This is a Stricker trademark.

Shank mentioning Belichick in nearly every column is a Shank trademark.

The 42-year-old was born in Edgerton - a tiny town in the south central Cheeseland.

Wisconsin. Cheese. We get it, Shank...

Class Act?

Fresh from following Tiger's bathroom breaks in Norton, Shank chimes in on the Richard Seymour trade, and he doesn't like it.

This article is classic Shank. The quota of cheap shots has been met (Coach Belichick, starring as Flatline Bill, Robert & Jonathan Kraft, Curt Schiling, natch, and 'you Belichick toadies'), non-football references are made (1980's Celtics), and we are thankfully spared from lame song lyrics from the era when 8-track tapes ruled the land.

On to the highlights, as they were...

Nonetheless, it’s a shocker.

Surprising, maybe, but a shocker? A buddy and I were watching the ESPN announcement on this trade yesterday morning. The first thing he says: "it's doubtful the Pats were going to resign him next year, and at least we get a draft pick out of it. It's Oakland's draft pick, they suck, and Belichick will probably trade down and get two players out of it. It's a smart move."

Also, the average NFL career spans four years. You have 53 active roster spots, so on average you'll have about a fourth of your roster turn over every year. Yet Shank is shocked, shocked! at this trade? Do I detect some faux outrage here just to take shots at the Patriots? Nahhh, that would be too cynical...

More shocking that the retirements of Rodney Harrison and Tedy Bruschi.

Question for Bruce - is this the copy desk's fault?

Patriots fans, ever worshiping at the altar of Hoodie, are stuck with thousands of XXXL No. 93 jerseys.

This, from a scribe who once proclaimed "I write for the fans", now pisses on these same fans. Stay classy, Shank!

Is there any doubt that Bruschi retired because he was told he was going to be cut? Bruschi’s “decision’’ to step down enabled all parties to save facemask.

While that's plausible, I would think a columnist could, you know, make some phone calls and verify this? It's also plausible that Bruschi thought "it's been 13 years, I'm too old for this crap" and called it a career. This lack of inquiry simply allows Shank to take another shot at the Patriots.

The Patriots didn’t come across as thankless meanies, and the classy Bruschi got to leave on his own terms - looking downright senatorial (sorry, Curt).

You knew he was waiting to use that one all week, didn't you? And, somehow, I don't think it's the last one.

Woe is the pundit who questions any Coach Bill decision and, you have to admit, his track record is pretty good.

I wonder if Shank has ever considered the possibility that, on occasion, he has to admit this? This is also classic Shank - when things are good or positive, you'll see references to 'our Red Sox' or some such. When the spleen is being vented, it is now 'you', 'your' or some derivative.

So save some of your applause for Richard Seymour, you Belichick toadies. Seymour was a winner and a class act in our town for eight seasons, and the 2009 Patriots are going to miss him.

We can be thankful there's at least one class act around here, right?

Stinker

That's the only way to describe this execrable effort by Shank. Get the barf bags ready and jump right in.

NORTON - Tiger is just like you and me. He occasionally throws a club when he hits a bad shot and he uses a port-o-potty when there is no other option.

That’s right, ladies and gents, Eldrick T. Woods is one of us. If not for the 14 victories in majors, the hundreds of millions of dollars in winnings and endorsements, and his standing as the most famous athlete on the planet, Tiger would be just another guy hacking his way around TPC Boston in this weekend’s Deutsche Bank Championship. He shot a 1-under 70 yesterday and is seven strokes off the lead.

So, Tiger's just like us, except for the fame and riches part!

But you’re still wondering about the trip to the port-o-potty, right?

Um, actually, I wasn't. I was kind of wondering about how Tiger played on Friday, but Dan proceeds, for whatever reason, to devote half the column to Tiger's use of a portable bathroom.

This column exemplifies nearly every criticism of Shank: lazy, contradictory, scattershot and stupid. It's all there, and less...

More Globe 10.0 With Bob & Shank

The Globe's dynamic duo discuss Josh Beckett and his recent struggles (you'll have to scroll down to the next clip, more as time passes; they don't embed video clips as separate URL's). I would think that these two would share notes beforehand, as Shank stumbled on a couple of fact-type things and was quickly corrected by Bob. I'm aware that Ryan's been on TV more often (ESPN's Sports Reporters, etc.) and for a longer time, but Dan doesn't look comfortable on the telly. Other than that, he's not a bad Ed McMahon to Ryan's Johnny Carson.

In another clip (further down the list), they discuss the second most important New England Patriot (besides Tom Terrific - I'm such a fanboy, ya know!). Shank is much better here in terms of looking comfortable and interacting with Ryan. Maybe he was having, if you'll pardon the expression, a bad hair day in the first clip?

Shank (and Ryan) On The Big Lug

Curious about their opinion on Curt's (various & changing) intentions about running for U.S. Senate? Wonder no more. I only detected one obvious cheap shot by Shank, at the very end of the clip, but both Bob & Dan were fair and reasonable in their opinions on the issue.

Multi Media Dan - II

Since I saw Dan the Man on the Sunday night TV sports show, I though it would be a good idea to include CHB sightings a bit more in radio and TV media, instead of focusing primarily on his Boston Globe columns. Otherwise I'm only posting once a month...

I just stumbled upon this appearance on WEEI's Dennis & Callahan's morning show when Meter & DeOssie were hosting that day, having missed the original broadcast.

This appearance (8/6/09) was a week after Dave M. went nuclear on Shank for claiming that Ortiz lied to us, and two days before Ortiz's press conference, when Shank's lying charge, at least for the moment, became less than airtight. I think Shank's words about Ortiz in the audio clip were chosen somewhat carefully, so is this some pre-emptive backpedaling on Shank's part?

A quick recap of covered topics:

It was a rough start with some uneasy jokes, but the topic soon turned to the Yankees / Sox series, then to David Ortiz and the revelation of him being on the steroid list. Shank noted that Ortiz has a great deal of goodwill from the fan base, but feels he should be defending himself sooner rather than later, and gave some examples of others accused of steroid use quicker to respond to those charges. A few more jokes around minute 11, then some Patriots talk from that point to the conclusion of the appearance. As with Shank's TV appearance on Sunday night, I was pleasantly surprised.

At least he's learning. I remember a Shank interview on WBCN from a few years ago when Hardy interviewed him in the mid-morning section, and Shank came across as a total dick. Then again, so was Hardy. It was like listening to a trainwreck. Some years later, some people still think he's a dick (the In A Gadda Da Vida extended clip is here, start at the 14:00 mark). But that's an improvement!

I wonder when Shank will be on the Dennis & Callahan show again, but when D & C are in the studio themselves? When hell freezes over?

UPDATE at 5:39 PM:

Is The Big Lug sounding more serious about a Senate run?

SECOND UPDATE at 6:00 PM:

Now he's saying slim to none on the probability of running. Almost makes Brett Favre look decisive by comparison...

Dan's Gonna Love This

Oh, my - a blogboy, a Shanque bête noir extrodinaire, is considering a run for the U.S. Senate:

Schilling expresses some interest in Kennedy seat

By GLEN JOHNSON (AP) – 2 hours ago

BOSTON — Curt Schilling, the former major league pitcher who won the allegiance of Bostonians by leading the Red Sox to the 2004 World Series, said Wednesday that he has "some interest" in running for the seat held for nearly 50 years by Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

Schilling, a registered independent and longtime Republican supporter, wrote on his blog that while his family and video gaming company, 38 Studios, are high priorities, "I do have some interest in the possibility."

"That being said, to get to there, from where I am today, many, many things would have to align themselves for that to truly happen," he added.

Any other comment "would be speculation on top of speculation," Schilling said, adding, "My hope is that whatever happens, and whomever it happens to, this state makes the decision and chooses the best person — regardless of sex, race, religion or political affiliation — to help get this state back to the place it deserves to be."

Schilling refused to comment when his office was contacted by phone.

The 42-year-old lives in suburban Medfield and campaigned for President George W. Bush in 2004 and Sen. John McCain in 2008.

As a player, he won three World Series, in 2001 with the Arizona Diamondbacks and in 2004 and 2007 with the Red Sox. He became a Sox legend when he won Game 6 of the 2004 American League Championship Series while blood from an injured ankle seeped through his sock. He retired in March.

He and his wife, Shonda, have four children ages 7 to 14.

Reaction among the Red Sox was decidedly jovial Wednesday.

"If he runs, good luck," said first baseman Kevin Youkilis. "I don't know if I'd want to do that job."

Team manager Terry Francona said Schilling should do whatever makes him happy but noted, "I don't think he'd want me as his campaign manager."

So far, no major Republicans have taken out nomination papers to be a candidate in the Jan. 19 special election. Former Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey and state Sen. Scott Brown are among those considering campaigns.

Democrats said to be considering a campaign include U.S. Reps. Stephen Lynch of Boston, Michael Capuano of Somerville and John Tierney of Salem, as well as Kennedy's nephew, former U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II.

So far, only state Attorney General Martha Coakley has taken out papers for a Democratic campaign, though she has refused to make any follow-up comment.

Kennedy died last week at age 77 from a brain tumor. A special election to replace him is scheduled for Jan. 19, although the Massachusetts Legislature is considering a bill that would allow Gov. Deval Patrick to fill the seat on an interim basis during the campaign.

That bill is the subject of a hearing next week.

AP freelance writer Mark Didtler in St. Petersburg, Fla., contributed to this report.

Do you think Shank is, at this very moment, reworking his next column (well, if he can be bothered to write one this week, that is) to include some potshots / snide asides at 'the Big Lug'? Do I even have to ask?

One problem I see with this - I understand (from listening to WEEI earlier this week) that the former home of Drew Bledsoe, where the Big Lug currently resides, is still on the market. I don't see how you can square that with running for a U.S. Senate seat unless you take it off the market immediately and convince the wife and kids to go back on plans that are probably already made to book state.

Plus, he may have Joe Perry to deal with. If Al Franken can land a U.S. Senate seat, I suppose anything's possible.

Thoughts?

Great Moments In Editing History

Cruising one of my favorite sites, I came across the following sub headline:

The Rays dumped underachieving lefthander Scott Kazmir and the $22 million left on his contract to the Angels. They insist their not waving a white flag.

Heh...

Update at 1:29 PM:

Corrected sub headline:

The Rays dumped underachieving lefthander Scott Kazmir and the $22 million left on his contract to the Angels. They insist they're not waving a white flag.

Dan Shaughnessy Watch - we get results!

The Show Must Go On

Hello, everyone. I've asked the proprietor(s) of this site to grant me the priviledge to throw in my opinions about Dan in a more formal manner.

I'd like to lay a few cards on the table before doing so. For what it's worth, I used to blog here for a few years. In addition to my comments here for the past year or so, it is no secret, then, that I don't like the Boston Globe.

I know a few people that work there, and while I feel a little bad that they eventually will lose their jobs, I shed no tears for the Globe's demise. One might say I'm not inclined to extinguish them in certain manners if they were set on fire. They breathlessy support and otherwise advocate for liberal / left-wing causes, policies and people, a phenomenon that spreads well past the editorial pages, where it rightfully belongs. They kiss the asses of the likes of Kennedy and Kerry while taking huge dumps on Romney or anyone with the '- R' suffix. They adore government programs of all shapes and sizes and don't seem entirely thrilled with the private sector. That infusion of liberalism across the entire newspaper is what caused me to moderate my Globe intake many moons ago.

In 1994 I used to buy the Globe, grab the sports section and throw away the rest of the paper. I believe it was 1995 when Shank was doing an interview with Wade Boggs (yes, he used to actually interview athletes!). I have searched for the transcript high and low a few times, unable to confirm the following, but here is the exchange:

Dan: "What newspapers do you read?"

Wade: "I listen to Rush Limbaugh."

Dan: "Yoooou listen to Rush Limbaugh?"

From that, I am convinced that Dan wanted Wade to tell him how freakin' wonderful the Boston Globe was. Wade didn't bite. I thought, if Shank hates Rush Limbaugh, then Rush must be cool. I've listened to Rush ever since, and I haven't bought the Globe since.

Since this time, the Boston Globe has slowly but surely lost it's shirt. The New York Times has seen it's 1.1 billion investment all but disappear after the 1993 purchase. A commenter on this board refused / failed to respond to my prediction that certain readership parameters would decline by a third. Good call on his part.

Here's the thing - why don't people pay to read the Globe anymore? It's three things. 1) an inability to attract advertising revenue, 2) it's free over the Internet, and 3) the product sucks, so why would you pay fo it? The only quibble is over the percentages assigned to each factor.

I'm not much of a Shank fan, either, but at least now you know why. I believe I was fair in my commentary of him over the past year or so as I acknowledge both good and bad articles he's written, so my intention here (if / when the question is asked, as has been in the past) is simply to carry the torch. For the Globe cheerleaders out there - think of it as public service; I'm just giving back to my community.

And now, with mike's most recent comment in the last thread, such things matter. It's fair for us to comment on what they write, and if they take issue with our commentary, that's fine, and should be welcome. That's the essence of the whole dead tree / internet debate, isn't it?

This is the type of article that Shank writes best, when he's not pissing on someone or trying his best to run them out of town.

I have to add this - I saw the Shankster on a local weekend sports show (a Sunday night 11:30+ show), and I was quite impressed. In tough markets, you need to diversify...

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?

Shattered victory

Dan offers an endearing look at a local high school pitcher who pitched the final out in his team's high school championship--only to suffer a severely broken leg in the celebration that ensued. The kid (Chris Halliday of Auburn) sounds like a kid with a fresh perspective on life - it is neat to see his attitude towards it all. No bitterness whatsoever. These are the types of story Dan should stick to. ( Although this particular story took place two weeks ago when Dan must have been preparing his trip to California to carp about LA and Manny)

Dan does relate the two stories of two professional athletes who were hurt during celebrations (Bill Gramatica, the kicker and Dave Henderson from the 1986 Red Sox series--after he hit the homer). The Gramatica story is pretty clear although there is debate about the Henderson story--a debate that I believe that even Shaughnessy has written about. Henderson has apparently claimed that he was hurt prior to jumping up and down after the homer

Catching Up

A brief look at some of Dan-o's recent offerings:

- On June 26, 2009, Dan wrote that the Celtics should not trade Rajon Rondo. Relatively straightforward piece but as usual Dan can't resist the Red Sox references (favorite targets: Pedro the diva and a new Manny twist with Dan's introduction of "Rajon being Rajon"). He also makes the comment that the Cavaliers just got a lot better with Shaquille O'Neal. O"Neal is old and this is typical Shaughnessy hyperbole.

As an aside, was there a fleeting/passive acknowledgement of our little DSW site? Shaughnessy refers to the recent speculation about the Celtics point guard as the "Rondo Watch". I think ole Dan has missed us

- Shaughnessy does a little puff piece on June 24th with his article on Nancy Kerrigan who was to be recognized at a Boston sports gala in support of the Sports Museum. The Shank hyperbole factor is much worse here when he claims Kerrigan "knows more about performing pressure than any of the fabled fellows" (like Brady, Russell, Schilling, etc). That's a little over the top Dan. I was going to take issue with his claim that the 1994 Olympics were some of the most watched TV ever ranking right up there with MASH (I remember the whole Harding saga well but did not think the TV ratings would be so high) but I did check and Shaughnessy was actually on the money with that stat. Finally, Dan's line "Harding has since gone on to live the life of every country-western song ever written." This is an awkward sentence at best and just a tad bit overreaching

- Outside of Bill Belichick and possibly now Rajon Rondo, Dan does not really have the whipping posts that he used to have. With the likes of Pedro, Mo Vaughn, Schilling et al gone, Shaughnessy must travel to Los Angeles to find an outlet for his bitter diatribes. Why would the Globe waste so much money on travel to LA for this crap? They did the same thing last year - but this year's dispatches from LA are even worse. It is the standard Manny shots that we have seen from Shank time and time again. But the most curious thing about this article is the timing - why is Shank in LA writing about this? It's just really odd. Must be the case that Shaughnessy was going nuts in the sports department with no one to carp about--CHB was probably suffering from headaches, profuse sweating and the jitters in general and so they sent him to LA to get his fix

- Shank's piece on the LA sports scene was one of his worst offerings ever. What a load of garbage. Snarky bitterness. He comes across as a little baby at the playground. Shaughnessy claims to be above the zealous fandom in the local Boston sports scene and yet he comes across as one of the biggest sore losers in the sports world with this garbage. The trip out to LA must have been a hard one on Dan--this and the aforementioned Manny piece were atrocious.

Dave

Blast from The Past

Hi All,

I just wanted to offer a quick post. I do not know how Jerry is doing - I have not heard from him and sincerely hope he is okay. Jerry, please drop us all a line if you can.

Dbvader and I decided earlier this year that we had too many things going on to continue and Jerry was gracious enough to take this on. Things have settled down me for a little bit and I am going to do what I can to post as time allows and until Jerry gives us an update and indicates he is able to resume posting.

Jerry - please know we all hope you are doing okay.
To the regular readers: thanks for your patience and understanding. Glad folks are still checking in

Will post later this weekend with a recap of some of Shaughnessy's recent classics. He has been in rare form.

Dave M