No Goodwill in Dan's World

I was curious what would happen in Dan's World if and when Damon left. Who would he trash: Red Sox management, or Damon? (That Damon simply felt that the best place for him would be New York would never have crossed The CHB's mind, of course.)

The answer: Red Sox management!

Johnny Damon is a Yankee and it looks like the Red Sox don't know what they are doing. ... So now your Boston Red Sox have no center fielder, no shortstop, and no first baseman to go along with no Theo Epstein and no clue. It's fair to say this is becoming a winter of discontent in Red Sox Nation. Ben and Jed and Craig and Larry and Tom and John and Crosby, Stills & Nash can spin this anyway they want, but Sox fans can't escape the conclusion that there's chaos at the top. The Josh Beckett trade bought some goodwill and glad tidings, but losing Damon to the Yankees is a devastating blow to the foundation of the Nation.

Pouring it on a little thick this morning, aren't we Sybil? Want to pick a few nits? OK, let's go!

"[N]o Theo and no clue." Here's what Dan wrote on Nov. 29: "Josh Beckett, Guillermo Mota, and an overpaid Mike Lowell for two Double A players and two Single A players? Back in the days when Charlie Finley was strip-mining the Oakland A's, commissioner Bowie Kuhn used to block these kinds of deals. Could the trade have been any sweeter if Theo were still on the job?" Not to mention that in his infamous Dirty Laundry column, Dan made the case that Lucchino, not Theo, has been the brains behind the operation all along.

"[L]osing Damon to the Yankees is a devastating blow." Was it just April 2, 2005, when Dan wrote: "Then there's Johnny Damon, who wants to be a movie star and gives a whole new meaning to the term 'idiot.' "

"Johnny Damon is a Yankee and it looks like the Red Sox don't know what they are doing." That's a switch. Less than two months ago, in his infamous Dirty Laundry column, Dan/Sybil wrote: "It was downright hilarious to read agent Scott Boras and Johnny Damon claiming the Sox weren't communicating with them because of Theo's own contract status. This from an agent who likes to make his deals on the eve of spring training. If there's silence from the Sox regarding Damon, maybe it's because the Sox are waiting for Johnny and Scott to get off their ridiculous five-year contract demand."

Indeed, if there's "chaos at the top," maybe it's because Lucchino, Steinberg et al are spending all their time looking for an intern.

Leave it to Dan to get hysterical. Cult of personality notwithstanding, the Damon of today is just another player, on the decline due to age and injuries. The Yankees are paying for past performance, and by the end of this contract will likely be getting little return for their investment. But in Dan/Sybil's world, every story has a villian. Some perspective, please.

2 p.m. edit: A great breakdown of the signing here by Joe Sheehan. Excerpts:

Despite all the attention paid to him, however, Damon is not a superstar, or arguably even a star. ...

As much as anything else, Damon looks like a lesser version of the center fielder the Yankees recently became so disenchanted with. ... Damon, like Nomar Garciaparra, got a big boost from Fenway Park, on the order of 50 points of batting average and OBP the last three seasons. The Yankees aren’t really getting a .310/.370/.450 guy so much as they’re getting a .285/.345/.425 guy. ...

Like many free-agent contracts, the problem with this one isn’t the immediate future. Damon is enough of an upgrade on the available options to help the Yankees in 2006. As he declines, however, he will present the dual problem of hurting the team in center while not hitting enough to be a viable option on an outfield corner. I don’t see where a 34-year-old Johnny Damon is going to return enough value to be worth $13 million, meaning he’ll be just another aging Yankee in decline at the back end of this deal.

The Red Sox could actually end up huge winners here. There’s a rumor making the rounds that they’re trying to deal Matt Clement to the Mariners for Jeremy Reed. If they can do that, they will have replaced Damon with, essentially, a Damon Starter Kit, complete with functional arm and 25-year-old legs, and saved $20 million a year in the process. ... If they get Reed, they’ll never miss Damon.

The Return of Sybil

Dan's Sybil-like tendencies have been pointed out before. Today, though, he puts those tendencies to good use with a debate between glass half empty guy and glass half full guy.

Dan effectively describes both sides of the issues (We have lost 10 games to the Yankees in three months, but there are 16 games left versus the Orioles and Devil Rays.) It is well done, but you are left wondering where Joe Sullivan's bravest sportswriter is.

Sybil's Back!

Shank's month long hiatus from his CNN / SI gig ended today.

Brace yourself, NFL. It looks like Bill Belichick plans to come back from the lockout with guns blazing.

...

Playoff failure is a sore subject in Foxborough these days. While putting together some pretty nifty regular-season records, the Pats haven't gone anywhere in the tournament. Fact is, they haven't won a playoff game since the 2007 AFC Championship Game. This means that 13 teams -- the Seahawks, Jets, Ravens, Packers, Steelers, Bears, Cowboys, Cardinals, Colts, Vikings, Eagles, Chargers and Giants have all won playoff games since the last time Belichick and Brady won a playoff game.

Safe to say there's some obvious 'sampling' from today's Globe column (see below)?

About the Sybil comparison - why does Shank lack the balls to rip the Patriots in the CNN / SI columns, as he's free to do in the Globe columns?

Alls is Not Wells

It was, as George Costanza might say, a column about nothing.

The CHB's take on David Wells abysmal pitching performance last night includes shots at Dick Cheney, Theo Epstein, Bengie Molina, Tony Graffanino's and yes, Wells himself.

And, as typical, in recent columns he has droned on about how it's not yet time to panic, which is his standard fallback (he writes the same thing every year). Of course, Sybil also claims, "Wells has yet to give us any indication that he can still get big-league hitters out."

What, 20 years of pitching major league ball isn't enough proof, Dan-o?

Has he forgotten that Wells stunk up the joint on opening night last year, only to morph into Boston's second-best pitcher (behind Tim Wakefield). Was last season really that long ago?

At the end Sybil's split-personality really kicks in, further muddying the point (if there ever was one). To wit:

Don't panic: "Even though the first-place Sox are 6-2 and even though Wells has pitched only once, there will be temptation to overreact."
Panic: During the winter, the Sox were all fat and happy with their seven starters. They seemed insulated from age and injuries. But now Arroyo has been traded and Jonathan Papelbon is a Radatz-like closer and Wells has yet to give us any indication that he can still get big-league hitters out. Suddenly, there are not so many options."

Don't panic (from April 12): "Veteran lefty David Wells gets the ball tonight, and another victory will give the Sox their best start since 1920."
Don't panic (from today): "Wells will get another chance, and maybe[emphasis mine] he'll revert to form ..."
Panic: "... but if he doesn't, Bob Lobel will be showing you more Arroyo highlights and asking, 'Why can't we get pitchers like that?' "

I'm beginning to wonder if Joe Sullivan knows how to read.

Bizzaro watch: Shamelessly, Dan again refers to Tony Graffanino's error in Game 2 of the ALDS last year "Buckneresque." Other than the fact that he missed a ball, there is little context for comparing the two. Of course, "context" isn't a term The CHB is familiar with.

Dantasy Land

Mirror, mirror, on the wall: Who’s the fairest weather fan of them all?

Answer: The CHB (like we didn't already know).

Just months after taking howitzer-sized shots at an injured Curt Schilling, all is forgotten in Dan’s fantasy (Dantasy?) land.

Today, after shutting down the Rangers in yesterday’s opener, he’s “Big Schill” and "superhero/ultimate warrior/Boston sports deity."

It's hard to believe that just last June 26, Sybil Shaughnessy, manic-depressive presciption clearly expired, was busy calling Schilling "the Big Blowhard."

Dan even eases up on his recounting of Schilling’s troubles last year, writing, "He struggled to win eight games last year on an ankle that looked like a jigsaw puzzle with a couple of pieces gone." That's a far cry from his jackass remark last Nov. 2 on the Dennis & Callahan show when he said, "Tell Curt to go ask the people who paid him $13 million to win eight games last year about that situation. Maybe they can explain it to him."

That's fair weather Dan for you.

Sybil watch: Opening day 2004: “Why can't it just be about the baseball? Even for one day." Opening day 2006: Larry Lucchino was “conspicuously absent” but [John] Henry “insisted” he wasn’t “locked in the basement back at Fenway” and calling the Rangers the team that “used to be owned by Schilling's favorite president.”

The Prodigal Son Returns, and Sybil Ain't Happy

The CHB is one pissed-off dude this morning. Clearly the CHB read the predictions in this space last night, then did exactly the opposite.

On Nov. 9, the CHB proposed that the Sox and Epstein reconcile: "The Red Sox should offer the job to Brookline native Theo Epstein." In the same column, he wrote: "The Red Sox are looking for a general manager and he's clearly the best man for the job."

Now that the prodigal son has returned, however, Sybil's working overtime. Today he calls Epstein a "cutthroat politician," "immature" and "duplicitous." Writes Dan: "[H]e undermined the credibility of the entire Boston front office by straddling the fence regarding his place in the organization."

This is too good.

Again, no doubt in response to what was written here last night, he plays up what he considers to be inside information, claiming: "At 7:13 p.m., I got an e-mail from Henry that read, 'I want to give you a heads up that we are going to make an announcement tonight.' " Somehow, I bet every media person in Boston was cc'd on that one.

Indeed, in Chris Snow's story today, he says Boston owner John Henry told him of Epstein's imminent return yesterday morning: "[I]n an interview with the Globe yesterday prior to the team's formal announcement, acknowledged Epstein would be coming back ..." How's it feel to be scooped by a rookie (again), Dan?

Why all the ire? We can't help but recall what Dan wrote on Nov. 18: "They obviously waited too long to negotiate with Theo and now they look like George McGovern trying to find a running mate in 1972." That now smacks of Dan was trying to cover his tracks after the Dirty Laundry column. Far from being a happy camper now that Epstein is coming back, we suspect Dan will be frozen out of Fenway ongoings like Michael Jordan in the 1985 All-Star Game.

Dan lays it on really thick at the end: "So Theo is back, and maybe he never really left. But damage has been done inside the walls of old Fenway."

Damage to whom? The team, which has added a top-of-the-rotation starting pitcher, some serious bullpen help, a starting second baseman, and rid itself of an ineffective shortstop? The fans, who are so upset that they went out and bought up an entire season's worth of tickets? Management, about whom nobody in Boston cares except their families and bankers?

And here we believed him when he told ESPN, "I always say I look at the bright side." Silly us.

Looks like the good times are coming to an end, Dan. Better brush up on your hockey trivia. Here's a hint: the local team is the Bruins.

Bill Clinton watch: "For the record, this 17 percent cartel correspondent has not spoken with Lucchino, Epstein, or Dr. Charles Steinberg since before Christmas." But "spoken with" doesn't include emailing, does it Dan-o? Sneaky.

Frauds?

If there's anyone out there thinking that anything Shank wrote in praise of the 2014 - 2015 New England Patriots was in the slightest bit sincere or honest, guess again.

Longtime readers of this site are well aware that Shaughnessy has hated this team since / shortly after Robert Kraft assumed ownership, and anything he's ever written in praise of the team from that point forward has been insincere, dishonest and bullshit. There is nothing more entertaining for Shank than to pull the endless Sybil / Jekyll & Hyde routine so as to give some sort of lame and semi-deceptive appearance of evenhandedness, and he tries to pull the wool over the Boston Globe readers one more time.

This guy's all over the fucking place. From today's column:

Are the 2014-15 Patriots Super Bowl-bound, or are they Adams Division/Presidents’ Trophy “more days in first place” frauds?

Here's Shank, rubbing their balls on November 14, 2014, with a 9-2 record:

See you in Glendale Feb. 1.

Behold, Shank's complete and utter hatred for anything connected with this team (most likely because they refuse to give him 'comped' meals):

This game against the Ravens is a valid test. It’s going to tell us whether these Patriots are the real thing, or yet another January patsy, artificially inflated by the clown show that is the AFC East, unable to punch back when they get smashed in the mouth in the playoffs.

There’s a lot to love about this Baltimore-New England matchup. It’s not another All-Access “try-the-burgers-at-the-CBS-Scene” layup. And that’s good. You’re supposed to win hard games in order to advance to the championship. And for all their regular-season success, it has been a while since the Patriots won the hard games in the playoffs.

Try this on with your Patriot Place footie pajamas: Since running the table in 2007, the Patriots have one postseason victory against a quality opponent. One.

He then goes on to mention the Patriots' playoff performances since 2004, when they won their last Super Bowl. Conveniently ignored are a) the Patriots vast improvements in the defense, notably the free agent signings of Darrelle Revis and Brandon Browner, and b) the fact that ten regular season games are played outside of the 'tomato can' AFC East, which isn't even the worst division in the NFL (NFC South).

It's one thing to mention the Baltimore Ravens and the problems they've posed to the Patriots in recent years. It's quite another to do what Shank did with this column and rub his hands with obvious glee like Mr. Burns in The Simpsons.

An Uncertain Man - II / The Weathervane Returns

Well, it didn't take long for Shank to do his 180 degree / Sybil act after shitting on the Patriots in his previous column, did it?

“Nothing changes on New Year’s Day.”

— U2

MIAMI GARDENS, Fla. — This brand new year is working out pretty well for Tom Brady thus far.

Two thousand and seventeen will be the year when Brady turns 40. It will be the year when he has a chance to play quarterback in a record seventh Super Bowl and perhaps win his fifth. It will be the year in which he is named NFL Most Valuable Player for the third time.

Well, we don't know that yet, do we?

Brady’s Happy New Year got off to a near-perfect start Sunday at Hard Rock Stadium when he threw three more touchdown passes in a 35-14 rout of the playoff-bound (really) Miami Dolphins.

Which, naturally, contradicts his last tweet, where he calls the rest of the AFC 'Tomato Cans' for the millionth time:

Beat goes on. Now looks like Hou, Miami or Oak in Pats 1st playoff game. 2016 Pats Highlight reel can debut at Tomato Cannes Film Festival.

— Dan Shaughnessy (@Dan_Shaughnessy) January 1, 2017

Let the record show that in the controversial campaign in which Brady was forced to serve a commissioner-mandated/court-upheld, four-game suspension, QB12 came back with a vengeance.

You know, Deflategate, where Shank called Tom Brady and the Patriots cheaters.

Last example:

Brady and coach Bill Belichick — the Bill Russell and Red Auerbach of this century — were in generous moods after the holiday festival in southern Florida. The Hoodie feted his squad as a “very physically and mentally tough team, no question,’’ while Brady called Dante Scarnecchia “the best offensive line coach in the NFL,’’ and repeatedly reminded us that “we worked pretty hard to get to this position.’’

Here's my question - was there even the slightest hint of this in Shank's previous column? No, there wasn't. He is the ultimate weathervane.

An Embarrassment of a Column

One of the beauties of Dan's Sybil-like mind is his ability to present two sides of an argument and, through tortured calculus, determine that they somehow support a single thesis.

Case in point: Today's column.

Per The CHB, the United States' loss was "shocking" and "it's going to be difficult to argue that Americans are still the best at the sport we invented." Yet in the next graf, he says the U.S. team "was hastily assembled, did not include all of our best players (one of America's pitchers, Al Leiter, retired Sunday), and entered the tournament in midwinter form while many of the other squads were in midseason shape." He writes

We did not put our best team on the field (Jeff Francoeur, Michael Barrett, Brian Schneider?). Because the tournament was held in March, we sent players into games before they were ready. And we were embarrassed -- losing to Canada, Korea, and Mexico.

If, as Dan argues, we sent Little Leaguers to compete against other nation's pros, wouldn't we be expected to lose? And if so, then why would a 2-1 loss to a pro team be grounds for bridge-jumping?

Yet even while claiming Americans' were embarrassed by the outcome, he says that fans ignored it. In true Sybilish style, The CHB is saying that fans weren't even aware the games were going on, yet red-faced over the loss. A neat trick.

He concludes with typical Shaughnessy schmaltz: "[N]ow there's proof that the game belongs to the world." Perhaps he wasn't aware that the International Baseball Federation has more than 110 member countries. Or that 30% of major league players are not U.S. citizens. Strange, though; you think he would have noticed names like Ortiz, Martinez, Cabrera and Ramirez on the jerseys of the Red Sox players as they celebrated their 2004 World Series victory.

Sybil Returns

I knew I should have looked into this when he wrote it.

On Feb. 7, in a column ostensibly about the Super Bowl, The CHB wrote: "Shaun Alexander's 95 yards on 20 carries earn him the Dominique Wilkins/Elvin Hayes/Wade Boggs Award for compiling a fairly impressive stat line while having no impact on the outcome."

My initial response was:

Not sure why he threw Boggs in there. As Bill James and others can attest, Boggs' was not only the most valuable Red Sox player for much of his tenure there, an argument could be made that for a stretch he was the most valuable player in the majors (see James' essay on this in the 1988 Baseball Abstract). The entire Red Sox philosophy during the (highly successful) Theo years has been built on the concept of OBP. Or maybe Dan has forgotten about that World Series title in 2004.

What I might have done, however, was look back just one year earlier, to Jan. 5, 2005, when Dan's opinion of Boggs was a bit more boffo: "He was anything but boring, a hitting machine who tortured the opposition ..." ... "His on-base percentage was off the charts. He scored runs." ... "He took hundreds of grounders every day and made himself a Gold Glove fielder."

Or I could have reviewed Dan's July 31, 2005, column, where he wrote:

We sometimes forgot to marvel at what [Boggs] was doing. Let's take 1987, for example. In that season, Boggs hit .363 while also hitting 24 homers. There were times it looked as if he were throwing the ball from the batter's box, aiming line shots over the shortstop's head and into left-center. He was a lefthanded batter with an inside-out swing made for Fenway Park. Lacking speed, quickness, and raw power, he had sensational vision and hand-eye coordination. Always on base, refusing to swing at the first pitch, rarely chasing a ball out of the strike zone, he was actually born too soon.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good smear.

'The Curse of the Lucchino'

Let's consider how many player transactions the Red Sox make in a typical season, shall we? OK!

In 2005, the Sox conducted roughly 150 transactions (trades, free agent signings, waiver moves, DL moves, etc.) That's nearly one per game. And it's reasonable to believe that for every move they made, there were probably several others considered.

Given all that action, there's little reason to get hung up on a trade involving a minor league catcher and a fourth outfielder, especially when said trade never came off. Except, of course, if you have little reason.

Last week, the Red Sox announced Theo Epstein would return to its management ranks. Now, all those who believe that the presence of Epstein makes the Sox stronger raise your hands. I don't see yours up, Dan. I wonder why.

Perhaps it's because Dan is out on a shaky limb after first not having the sense to leave a non-story alone and then following that with repeated trashings of Theo over the past three months.

Now, with Epstein back in the fold, surely the Globe's lead columnist can put it all into perspective for us. Or not.

Step back for a second there and listen to what the man is saying -- or not saying. The Bigbie deal -- in which the Rockies obtained Bigbie from the Orioles, with the intention of sending him to the Sox for Adam Stern and Kelly Shoppach -- involved territorial rights between Epstein and Lucchino. The early, popular version was that Lucchino killed Theo's deal. It was later reported that ownership volunteered to take the hit on a deal Theo no longer wanted to make.

Let's put aside for the moment that Mr. Hysterical is the only -- repeat -- only person in this galaxy or any other who cares about Larry Bigbie (and that includes Bigbie's mom). Makes one wonder whether Dan is Bigbie's own CHB, if you know what I mean. That last line of that quote is equally peculiar. As Dan was the one who in his Dirty Laundry column tattled on Theo, why not own up to it, instead of sidestepping it as if it came from "that other paper?" Plenty of stomach, but no guts, Dan.

More laughs. Dan calls the Red Sox paranoid: "Not sure precisely when the new ownership group morphed into the Nixon White House, but expect managed news from Yawkey Way from this point forward." Hello kettle, you're looking might black today!

OK, so only about 10 million words have been spoken regarding this whole issue. And that makes it oh-so-easy for the media to look up something one of the parties said weeks or months ago and, upon finding any slight discrepancy, drive a truck through it. Well, turnabout is fair play, Sybil.

Buried in Dan's column is this little line: "We know the fans want [the media] to move on, pretend none of this ever happened." I guess Dan forgets that on Nov. 2 he told Dennis and Callahan, "I write for the readers."

Today's column rebukes that: "It was a story," writes The CHB. "It is a story. It will always be a story." Great. The Curse of the Lucchino, coming soon to a Barnes & Noble near you.

Wouldn't it be fun if the Globe staff dedicated so many pieces to its own internal personnel matters?

There's a word for such behavior: hypocrisy.

Standing Pat

Today's predictable Patriots plug (you're not the only one who can toss off cheesy alliteration, Dan) is heavy on the game quotes, meaning Dan actually waited until after the first quarter to finish his piece.

Two lines stand out.

First, yet another unsubstantiated dig that the Pats threw their final regular seaon game: "But the Patriots went into the tank (making it look good, of course) and got the team they wanted for first-round fodder." (Any proof of that from all your connections inside the organization, Sybil? Didn't think so.)

And then there was this non-sequiter: "It was 24 degrees at kickoff and it looked like it might be a long night for the Patriots when Brady's first pass careened off the shoulder of umpire Chad Brown." I thought the cold weather spelled doom for the Jags. At least, that's what you said yesterday.

There's a larger problem to all this. The Globe is assigning a columnist to write about a sport of which he knows nothing and doesn't follow (except during the playoffs). As such, he turns in these pedestrian accounts that do nothing to shake the insight tree. Unless, of course, you think such analysis as "Once again, Belichick knew what he was doing" and "You can be sure folks in Denver and Indianapolis noticed" passes for wisdom. Is that really what the Globe pays him for?

To quote reader "objectivebruce": "No wit, no intelligence, nothing to think about. Just pointless babbling." Dan himself couldn't write that better.

Out of Touch

As the Patriots embark on what could result in their fourth Super Bowl in five years, it's only natural that the CHB would dredge up a few fossils (Bill Russell, Red Auerbach, Scott Zolak!) in his coverage. It's an old trick: hide your ignorance of the present by talking about the past. He even manages to drag Derek Jeter into the fray. Wrong season, Sybil.

Then there's this absurd line: "The NFL annually manufactures more non-news than our other three major sports combined." That, from the same person who drones on endlessly about the sale of baseball memorabilia.

He follows that up with: "... but still it's been a challenge for fans, scribes, and talk-meisters to generate legitimate story lines regarding tonight's game." Well, try telling that to the folks at Football Prospectus. They didn't seem to have any problems. A little knowledge ain't a bad thing, Dan.

Indeed, would it be too much for a columnist who has covered sports for like, five centuries, to trot out a piece of data once in awhile instead of falling back on that old saw about how the weather dictates the victor? ("There'll be some legitimate doubt next weekend. The Patriots will not be playing at home. It will not be cold if the game is played in Indianapolis.") Are Jon Gruden's mind games that mesmerizing? ("Here's what I remember when I first got here, we had never won a game in our history below 42 degrees. We broke that hex beating the Bears in Week 16 in '02, and then we beat the Eagles below 32 degrees [in the 2002 NFC Championship Game]. But, what can I say? Our players aren't really acclimated to the cold weather.")

For the love of Belichick, man, Go out and do some research! Here, I'll do it for you: "Home field advantage increases by roughly 15 percent when a southern team plays in a northern outdoor stadium after November 1, and the effect is even stronger when the game is played at night."

Out-of-season insult watch: "It's a new arrogance in our midst, almost laughable given the history of haunting and hyperbolic gag jobs by the local baseball team." More ancient history, Dan.

Bird watch (his first of 2006!): "Those Celtics (the 11 of 13 Celtics, not the Bird Gang) and these Patriots. Teams of infallibility."

But all in all, I guess we should feel lucky: At least he didn't compare Brady to Bird. For the CHB, that's restraint.

New York Post State of Mind

Here's the start of Jay Jaffe's column today on relief pitchers and the Hall of Fame.

In the past quarter-century we've seen a drastic change in pitching usage patterns. Not only has every team gone to a five-man rotation, but starters rarely pitch complete games anymore. Instead they routinely yield to a bullpen which, if the lead fits into a narrow box outside of which 95 percent of all managers are afraid to think, passes the baton to a one-inning specialist imbued with mystical powers that relievers of an earlier era somehow did not possess.

If this specialist, called a closer, is successful--and for the most part, such success is as attainable as that for an NFL placekicker--he collects a statistical cookie called a save (mmm, cookie) and is exalted by the media. Meanwhile the closer’s fireman predecessors, who often pitched two or three frames at a clip and entered when the score was tied or (heaven forbid) tilted in the other team’s favor, receive little love from the Hall of Fame electorate, which has trained itself to value an 80-inning/40-save season more highly than the 110-inning/25-save ones of that bygone era.

We shouldn’t be fooled by high save totals; it’s the runs that matter, and due to the limited innings they throw, the Davenport numbers tell us that it’s nearly impossible for the best late-model relievers to be more valuable than the best everyday players or starting pitchers. Annual Wins Above Replacement Player (WARP3) totals above 10.0 are common for elite players at their peaks, but the best relievers--of either variety--top 8.0 only in a rare Mariano Rivera/Eric Gagne-caliber year. The three enshrined relievers (Hoyt Wilhelm, Rollie Fingers, and Dennis Eckersley) have a combined two seasons above 8.0 as relievers (Eck topped 8.0 twice as a starter).

Jaffe goes on to explain the arguments for and against enshrining various relievers and the methodology behind it.

Also today, Joe Sheehan posts an elegant piece arguing that Nomar will not be a good buy for the Dodgers. Unlike a few folks we know, here's the most inflammatory line: "Garciaparra is at a point in his career where you have to question his ability to both stay on the field and be a productive player when he does so." Sheehan then makes the case that L.A. will be paying more (and getting less production) than it would had it just stuck with its incumbent first baseman.

We bring this up only because they are shining examples of what strong and relevant columns are being written today.

Then there's the CHB (aka Sybil). Today's missive, likely written on a napkin over lunch, is on the selling of various Manny Ramirez memorabilia.

What, is Shaughnessy primping for a spot on Page Six of the Post?

The Sybil Award (More Dan-isms)

Quick: What’s the significance of May 1, 2003 in Boston sports history? Would it help if I narrowed it down to the Celtics?

“If you are the Celtics, you have to hope you win tonight, or even Saturday. Win either game and the horrors of Game 5 at Conseco Fieldhouse become nothing more than a footnote. But . . . If the Celtics lose two more times, then Tuesday's nightmare in Indianapolis goes down in infamy. It will simply never be forgotten. It will take its place in the New England Sports Museum Hall of Shame alongside Bill Buckner's error and Too Many Men on the Ice.” (Boston Globe, May 1, 2003. For the record, the sixth-seeded Celtics beat the third-seeded Pacers. Big deal, wasn’t it?)


Based on the 1500 or so hits received after our first column on Dan-isms, perhaps we should throw out a few more:

“So, what exactly were the Houston Astros thinking when they shipped Carl Everett to Boston in exchange for minor league prospects Adam Everett and Greg Miller? Everett had three more hits and four RBIs in yesterday's 14-2 rout of the Oakland A's. In 10 games with the Red Sox, he's hitting .444 with a team-high four homers and 13 RBIs.” (on Carl Everett, Boston Globe, April 16, 2000)

“Could this have worked out any better for Carl Everett and the Red Sox?
Doubtful.” (Boston Globe, May 27, 2000)

“Carl Everett was the Ebola virus of the Boston clubhouse. The Sox should have dealt him for a sack of doorknobs if that's what was offered." (Boston Globe, Dec. 13, 2001)

Based on what we have seen in April of 2002, the best move by the loathed and deposed general manager was the December 2001 trade in which he dumped nutcase Carl Everett …” (Boston Globe, May 1, 2002)


“The best man for the job is getting the job. ... Such a concept.” and “It makes so much sense. How can it be true?" (on the hiring of Dan Duquette, Boston Globe, Jan. 27, 1994)

“The Red Sox in this holiday season have become Fools 'R' Us.” (on Dan Duquette’s offseason moves, Boston Globe, Nov. 27, 1998. The Red Sox made the playoffs in 1999)

“Dan Duquette has gone from doofus to genius in less than 24 hours.” (on signing Manny Ramirez, Boston Globe, Dec 13, 2000)

“But spare us the tears, Dan. Where was all that emotion when you heartlessly bulldozed dozens of people in the organization and ran the team in a completely bloodless, corporate fashion?” (on the firing of Dan Duquette, Boston Globe, March 1, 2002)


“Fourteen starts. Three wins. Roger Clemens is never going to be confused with Mr. October. Clemens is Wilt Chamberlain and the postseason is one gigantic free throw. Last night, he was given the ball with a chance to close out the Oakland A's in the fourth game of the American League Division Series. (on Roger Clemens, Boston Globe, Oct. 8, 2000)

“The hair on his head is starting to thin, but Roger Clemens still throws 96 miles per hour, hits all the corners, and wins more than any pitcher in the American League.” (Aug. 31, 2001)

“How could anybody miss that butt?” (on Shawn Estes’ attempted beaning of Roger Clemens, Boston Globe, June 16, 2002)

“Roger Clemens is 40 years old and will be a free agent at the end of this season. … The new Red Sox management should explore the possibility of mending fences and signing the Rocket to a one-year contract. Sox fans may hate the guy, but a Pedro Martinez-Derek Lowe-Roger Clemens top three would look pretty good next spring.” (Boston Globe, Sept. 4, 2002)


“But now it’s time to come back to his basketball roots. It's time to return to the land of Jack Leaman, Dr. J, Al Skinner, Dave Gavitt, Ronnie Perry, Joe Mullaney. It's time to come home to the New Garden where Red and K.C., and the Cooz and Tommy Heinsohn still prowl. It's time to come back to New England to rescue the once-proud Boston Celtics.” (on the hiring of Rick Pitino, Boston Globe, July 7, 1997)

“Thanksdad Gaston has to be wondering if he made a wise move when he turned over complete control and $50 million to a man who we know is a terrific college coach, a snappy dresser, and a top-shelf motivational speaker.” (on Rick Pitino, Boston Globe, May 25, 1999)


“The Cowboy Uppers of last year did not bring a World Series to Boston, but few would argue that it was among the most thrilling of all Boston baseball summers, taking a place alongside pennant-winning years of 1967, 1975, and 1986. All three of those embraceable teams flopped badly the next year and the 2004 Sox are threatening to do the same thing.” (on the Red Sox, Boston Globe, July 1, 2004)

“The Red Sox really are put on this earth to torture and test the faith of their fans. Just when you thought it couldn't get any more hideous, the Sox did it again last night. The Red Sox really are put on this earth to torture and test the faith of their fans. Just when you thought it couldn't get any more hideous, the Sox did it again last night.” (on the Red Sox, Boston Globe, July 2, 2004. Four months later, the Red Sox were World Series champions)


“But hubristic Bill erred when he dealt Bledsoe to a division rival. It was the football equivalent of telling Roger Clemens he was in the ''twilight'' of his career. And let's not forget a transaction 82 years ago when the Red Sox sold their best player to a division rival from New York. That one hasn't worked out too well, either.” (on Bill Belichick, Boston Globe, Nov. 3, 2002. Since the trade, the Patriots have a regular season won-loss record of 46-16 and two more Super Bowl wins; Bledsoe has a regular season won-loss record of 31-31)

“The University of Belichick takes its rightful place alongside Harvard and MIT. And the New England Patriots of the 21st century are established as an NFL dynasty on par with the Packers of the 1960s, the Steelers of the '70s, the 49ers of the '80s, and the Cowboys of the '90s.” (following the Patriots’ third Super Bowl Win, Boston Globe, Feb. 7, 2005)


“A fourth straight one-and-out would expose the myth of Billy Beane’s ‘ Moneyball’ A’s.” (during the AL playoffs, Boston Globe, Oct. 6, 2003)

“Having the top payroll doesn’t guarantee that you're going to win the World Series, and we worry about the small markets, but we’ve seen Oakland compete in the last couple of years with teams that finish in the first place. … You need good management in addition to money; having the money is not enough.” (on WGBH Forum, March 30, 2004)