The CHB returns today from a long hiatus, sticks his finger in the air and sees the wind blowing against Barry Bonds. Not surprisingly, the new No. 2 all-time homerun hitter becomes Dan's immediate target.
But first, The CHB has the gall to complain about having to follow the Hall of Fame voting rules (ironic, isn't it?), whining about how difficult it is to navigate the Hall's character clause: "Baseball writers making judgments about a ballplayer's character? Pretty absurd, no? It's never been a comfortable place for this 30-year member of the association."
Ha! Thirty-plus years of snide remarks say otherwise. Do we really need to remind Dan of this?
He critizes baseball for not outlawing steroids ("And what about the fact that baseball did not legislate against most of the stuff during the times Bonds appeared to be juicing?"), apparently and conveniently forgetting that steroid use without a prescription is a violation of federal law.
Then there's some nifty tightrope dancing. Dan is certain of Barry's guilt, saying, "I'm still hoping Barry retires, or confesses and asks our forgiveness." And he's sure of Mark McGwire's too: "McGwire clammed up because he knew he was dirty and he didn't want to face a perjury charge down the road." But while Bonds is a "plague" for which we "hold our noses" (to mix a metaphor), McGwire is simply guilty, and still possibly Hall worthy.
Possibly, because Dan won't say which way he is leaning: "Will I vote for McGwire? Not telling."
To clarify: He'll blare to the world that he's voting for Jim Rice, a lesser candidate if ever there were one. And through the years he has doubtlessly voted for dozens of players who used cocaine, greenies and other such substances. But when it comes to a truly controversial choice, The Bravest Columnist Joe Sullivan Has Ever Known(TM) clams up. Just like McGwire. And just like Barry.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Friday, May 26, 2006
On Vacation
Sorry for the long delay in posting...have been on vacation for 10 days (it's hard to believe myself). Will be back with posts on Sunday.
--The Chief
--The Chief
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Bonds and Gagging
Each Sunday the Globe poses a question to its sports department. More often than not, it provides yet more evidence for the maxim that The CHB should be seen and not heard. Today's query: Do you care about Barry Bonds's pursuit of Ruth?
"No," says the lead Globe sports columnist. This despite having previously said "I root for the story," and having in multiple previous columns raved about Bonds, as he did on on Oct. 18, 2002 ("Why does America hate Barry Bonds so much? Is it because he's too good?"). So either The CHB has a short memory, or he's lying.
He adds that "The best opinions on this would be those from the likes of Willie Mays, Frank Robinson, and Hank Aaron -- the guys who did it on the level."
Well, that we have. On Costas Now (May 5, 2006), Costas asked Mays about Bonds' alleged steroid use. Mays replied (attention, Danny Boy):
Ironically, while Dan claims "It's obvious that Bonds used performance enhancers," in the same piece senior assistant sports editor Gregory Lee points out it's likely that Robinson, Mays, Aaron et al did too:
Even better, read this piece on the use of amphetamines in baseball from Will Carroll of Baseball Prospectus, which notes that some claim as one source none other than Shaughnessy idol Ted Williams:
In another article, Carroll notes that "There is no evidence that anyone can identify a steroid user by sight. It would certainly save time and money if this were the case. Some pictures of suspected steroid users have been taken at times when the players were said to be out of condition. Again, the only way to prove use of a banned substance is a positive test." [itals mine] So while more than 80 baseball players have tested positive, Bonds hasn't, and in the absence of such proof it would seem libelous for The CHB to declare his guilt.
I don't typically discuss other journalists in this space, but I couldn't let this pass. In response to the Bonds question, Alan Miller, the Globe's producer for new media, issued this response:
"No," says the lead Globe sports columnist. This despite having previously said "I root for the story," and having in multiple previous columns raved about Bonds, as he did on on Oct. 18, 2002 ("Why does America hate Barry Bonds so much? Is it because he's too good?"). So either The CHB has a short memory, or he's lying.
He adds that "The best opinions on this would be those from the likes of Willie Mays, Frank Robinson, and Hank Aaron -- the guys who did it on the level."
Well, that we have. On Costas Now (May 5, 2006), Costas asked Mays about Bonds' alleged steroid use. Mays replied (attention, Danny Boy):
What you're saying, until it's proven that this is what happened, you got to give the benefit of the doubt. I never asked him [meaning Barry Bonds], I don't think I will. I may not get the right answer.He added that
When Mark McGwire was hittin' home runs out of every ballpark, when Sammy was hittin' home runs out of every ballpark, I didn't hear this.It's called the Internet, Dan. Try using it.
Ironically, while Dan claims "It's obvious that Bonds used performance enhancers," in the same piece senior assistant sports editor Gregory Lee points out it's likely that Robinson, Mays, Aaron et al did too:
Yes, amphetamines are a stimulant, but they got many players through the season and helped them pad their stats. If it were not for the stimulants, a player would perhaps play 135 games instead of 150 games.Note to Dan: Read Ball Four and The Long Season. Both recount rampant use of "greenies." I expect the book reports by noon Friday.
Even better, read this piece on the use of amphetamines in baseball from Will Carroll of Baseball Prospectus, which notes that some claim as one source none other than Shaughnessy idol Ted Williams:
Pilots and other servicemen were given the drugs to keep them alert during marathon sessions, and they brought the usage back to the game after the war ended. Some have pointed to Ted Williams as one of the initial sources, though there is no hard evidence that this is true. Williams was but one of several pilots returning from the war.(More irony: in his column today Bob Ryan writes on a new book from the authors of Baseball Prospectus.)
In another article, Carroll notes that "There is no evidence that anyone can identify a steroid user by sight. It would certainly save time and money if this were the case. Some pictures of suspected steroid users have been taken at times when the players were said to be out of condition. Again, the only way to prove use of a banned substance is a positive test." [itals mine] So while more than 80 baseball players have tested positive, Bonds hasn't, and in the absence of such proof it would seem libelous for The CHB to declare his guilt.
I don't typically discuss other journalists in this space, but I couldn't let this pass. In response to the Bonds question, Alan Miller, the Globe's producer for new media, issued this response:
Many feel he has cheated to get where he is. But until last year, baseball did not have any rules banning steroid use. If there are no rules against it, you cannot call it cheating. So while some may feel Bonds's accomplishments may be tainted, Major League Baseball only has itself to blame for where we are today.Excuse me, Alan, but which drugs are you on? There is a rule against it: Use or possession of steroids without a prescription is a federal offense. Per the article: "The Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990 places steroids in the same legal class – Schedule III -- as amphetamines, methamphetamines, opium and morphine. Simple possession of any Schedule III substance is a federal offense punishable by up to one year in prison and/or a minimum fine of $1,000." It is irrelevant, Alan, whether MLB had previously outlawed the drug.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
All Wet
The Man Upstairs was busy dumping boatloads of the Atlantic Ocean onto Fenway Park last night, but the game was played (sort of).
You recall that on May 4 The CHB bitched about the Sox waiting until after game time before calling a washout, saying that it was just the owners being greedy.
So in the wake of hours of pre-game downpour and a nasty looking forecast, the teams managed to play almost six innings of ball -- enough for it to go in the books.
Oh, and the Sox lost. Good thing they didn't call it.
A day earlier, Shaughnessy posted a head-spinning column that careened from Hideki Matsui's on-field injury in which the Yankee leftfielder suffered a broken wrist to a weird (and out of place) reference to the Patriots to a brief recap of the three-game series to Curt ("inimitable" nee "Big Shill") Schilling's depature from the game to Dan's whack-job analysis that somehow losing Matsui means the Red Sox have gained the upper hand in the rivalry this season.
You recall that on May 4 The CHB bitched about the Sox waiting until after game time before calling a washout, saying that it was just the owners being greedy.
So in the wake of hours of pre-game downpour and a nasty looking forecast, the teams managed to play almost six innings of ball -- enough for it to go in the books.
Oh, and the Sox lost. Good thing they didn't call it.
A day earlier, Shaughnessy posted a head-spinning column that careened from Hideki Matsui's on-field injury in which the Yankee leftfielder suffered a broken wrist to a weird (and out of place) reference to the Patriots to a brief recap of the three-game series to Curt ("inimitable" nee "Big Shill") Schilling's depature from the game to Dan's whack-job analysis that somehow losing Matsui means the Red Sox have gained the upper hand in the rivalry this season.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
No Contract a Bad Sign? Only to Dan
Shaughnessy's report on Theo Epstein's contract status leads with this darn-near accusatory hiss: "Red Sox general manager Theo Epstein is working without a signed contract."
A few grafs later, The CHB, whose relationship with Red Sox management has turned vinegar-sour, states: "Last night, Epstein and Henry insisted there was nothing newsworthy about the fact the GM has been working without a signed contract for almost four months."
"Insisted." Nice pejorative. One would almost think it's an editorial. But it's not.
Never mind that the two men to whom this matters -- John Henry and Theo himself -- both emphatically state that there is an agreement in place and that the lack of a piece of paper is irrelevant. The CHB's tone is needlessly harsh, not to mention out of place for a news story.
Let's consider another, neutral way to phrase it: "Boston Red Sox executive Theo Epstein has worked nearly four months without a formal contract, although he and tram owner John Henry agree a 'long-term commitment' is in place." Or something like that.
I'm sure no one in the history of the world has ever worked a high level position without of piece of paper signifying the terms. Only Shaughnessy could be bothered by this. Let's hope that Theo never signs.
A few grafs later, The CHB, whose relationship with Red Sox management has turned vinegar-sour, states: "Last night, Epstein and Henry insisted there was nothing newsworthy about the fact the GM has been working without a signed contract for almost four months."
"Insisted." Nice pejorative. One would almost think it's an editorial. But it's not.
Never mind that the two men to whom this matters -- John Henry and Theo himself -- both emphatically state that there is an agreement in place and that the lack of a piece of paper is irrelevant. The CHB's tone is needlessly harsh, not to mention out of place for a news story.
Let's consider another, neutral way to phrase it: "Boston Red Sox executive Theo Epstein has worked nearly four months without a formal contract, although he and tram owner John Henry agree a 'long-term commitment' is in place." Or something like that.
I'm sure no one in the history of the world has ever worked a high level position without of piece of paper signifying the terms. Only Shaughnessy could be bothered by this. Let's hope that Theo never signs.
A Man of Contra Diction
Using logic that can only be called bizarre, The CHB credits Yankee owner George Steinbrenner for their win over the Red Sox yesterday.
Even Dan seems confused. He claims last night's hero, Alex Rodriguez, was "due," just after telling us that Steinbrenner's tirade against his team -- in which he singled out A-Rod's play -- is proof that "The Boss knows how to motivate."
Yet A-Rod himself said of the criticism that, while surprising, "It doesn't really matter."
Even Joe Torre debunked the idea that King George was fired up: "He didn't say anything other than he was supporting us .... He said he didn't criticize my player."
Say A-Rod: "He can say whatever is on his mind ... but we can't lose perspective because we're playing pretty well."
From the evidence, it doesn't appear that The Boss's rant -- if it even happened -- meant squat.
Even Dan seems confused. He claims last night's hero, Alex Rodriguez, was "due," just after telling us that Steinbrenner's tirade against his team -- in which he singled out A-Rod's play -- is proof that "The Boss knows how to motivate."
Yet A-Rod himself said of the criticism that, while surprising, "It doesn't really matter."
Even Joe Torre debunked the idea that King George was fired up: "He didn't say anything other than he was supporting us .... He said he didn't criticize my player."
Say A-Rod: "He can say whatever is on his mind ... but we can't lose perspective because we're playing pretty well."
From the evidence, it doesn't appear that The Boss's rant -- if it even happened -- meant squat.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Holidays in the Sun
Were Sunday and Monday holidays? Because Dan got paid for doing nothing.
Sunday's love letter to Wily Mo Pena included this half-hearted line: "What else can we tell you?" You could almost see The CHB sitting at his typewriter (PCs are a bit beyond him) thinking, "100 more words...I need 100 more words..."
The piece ended with this kiss of death: "He's destined to be big in Boston." Uh oh.
Then today he tells us the Yankees are coming to town and that the Red Sox are starting to hit.
Wow.
Sunday's love letter to Wily Mo Pena included this half-hearted line: "What else can we tell you?" You could almost see The CHB sitting at his typewriter (PCs are a bit beyond him) thinking, "100 more words...I need 100 more words..."
The piece ended with this kiss of death: "He's destined to be big in Boston." Uh oh.
Then today he tells us the Yankees are coming to town and that the Red Sox are starting to hit.
Wow.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Water on His Brain
Perhaps The CHB slipped in the wet grass at Fenway and pulled a muscle in his brain, because he is really reaching today.
Seeking yet once again to make a mountain out of a wad of Terry Francona's chewing tobacco, he goes off on the Sox (or $ox, as he uses, apparently ignorant of the cliche) for having the gall not to call the game well in advance of the scheduled gate opening time, a move he claims was made for the sake of a few bucks.
And let's face it: None of these conditions (high cost of tickets and concessions, expensive parking, the advertising around the stadium) exist because Mother Nature decided to deposit a few million gallons of the Atlantic on top of Boston proper. This is a situation that has been brewing for years.
Conveniently, Dan forgets all that. At the season's opening he waxed on about how beautiful the renovated Fenway looked, ignoring that the bandbox in the Fens simply cannot through traditional avenues generate the revenue the team feels it needs to compete (not to mention finance the awesome debt the owners took on).
Dan is clearly trying to reinvent himself as the voice of the little man. Well, he has a little man's voice alright.
Sox owner John Henry took umbrage at the allegation. Dan quotes him as saying:
Seeking yet once again to make a mountain out of a wad of Terry Francona's chewing tobacco, he goes off on the Sox (or $ox, as he uses, apparently ignorant of the cliche) for having the gall not to call the game well in advance of the scheduled gate opening time, a move he claims was made for the sake of a few bucks.
And let's face it: None of these conditions (high cost of tickets and concessions, expensive parking, the advertising around the stadium) exist because Mother Nature decided to deposit a few million gallons of the Atlantic on top of Boston proper. This is a situation that has been brewing for years.
Conveniently, Dan forgets all that. At the season's opening he waxed on about how beautiful the renovated Fenway looked, ignoring that the bandbox in the Fens simply cannot through traditional avenues generate the revenue the team feels it needs to compete (not to mention finance the awesome debt the owners took on).
Dan is clearly trying to reinvent himself as the voice of the little man. Well, he has a little man's voice alright.
Sox owner John Henry took umbrage at the allegation. Dan quotes him as saying:
That's a cheap shot at our integrity. We're not going to make our fans suffer just to sell hot dogs. In 2002, we canceled a game at 9:30 in the morning and then the sun came out. It's very hard to predict the weather in Boston. If we knew we weren't going to play, we wouldn't have sent [Josh] Beckett down to get warm. We heard it was going to be misty. It really didn't start raining until 10 after 8.The CHB counters by arguing that Sox management could have known what to do simply by heading to the farms:
Henry and Co. should have checked with any local dairy farmer. Take it from one who grew up in Groton, everybody knows it's going to rain when the cows are lying down in the pasture, and the cattle were definitely horizontal Tuesday.So Dan grew up in a pasture. That explains why he's so full of shit.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
More Yankee? No Thankee
I cringed when Dan's column appeared yesterday, worried that it portended three (or four) straight overwrought pieces on the Yankees-Red Sox series this week.
Thankfully, he didn't write today (maybe there is a God), thus sparing all of us from the episodic narcolepsy his work brings on.
Yesterdays' column was his usual pre-series rundown of all the mindless stats comparing the two teams. Simply mind-numbing.
Just as predictably, he dragged out all the side stories between the teams over the past few years, plus a few that had nothing to do with the rivalry.
Pursuant to the latter, for example, he recalled "Theo Epstein's Machiavellian power play," as if Theo sat around conjuring up ways to trick John Henry into handing his the reins to the ballclub ("I bet if I quit my job, John Henry would have to make me the GM. Wouldn't that be clever? ... [A few months later] ... Oh wait, I already was the GM. Oops!") Is Shaughnessy really Geraldo Rivera with makeup and a perm?
And there was the obligatory discussion of Johnny Damon's departure: "Damon last winter became ... the latest in a century-long line of Red Sox stars who went to New York searching for fame, fortune, and a championship ring." Somehow it escapes The CHB that Damon already had all of that.
It's getting harder and harder to stick up for the guy.
Fuzzy math watch: "New York's lineup is simply spectacular (Bernie Williams batting ninth?)" Over the past two seasons (161 games, 545 at-bats) Williams is hitting a collective .246 with 13 homeruns and an OBP of .317. Yeah, he's another Babe Ruth.) On April 1 last year, The CHB called Williams "decaying," adding, "We expect poor Bernie to calcify in mid-stride sometime this season, much like Artis Gilmore in his final days." Wonder what changed?
Spoke-too-soon watch: "The Red Sox, meanwhile, appear vulnerable, never more than when Josh Bard tries to catch Tim Wakefield's knuckler, as he will tonight." Bard was traded before the game for Doug Mirabelli, who fielded the position flawlessly last night.
Thankfully, he didn't write today (maybe there is a God), thus sparing all of us from the episodic narcolepsy his work brings on.
Yesterdays' column was his usual pre-series rundown of all the mindless stats comparing the two teams. Simply mind-numbing.
Just as predictably, he dragged out all the side stories between the teams over the past few years, plus a few that had nothing to do with the rivalry.
Pursuant to the latter, for example, he recalled "Theo Epstein's Machiavellian power play," as if Theo sat around conjuring up ways to trick John Henry into handing his the reins to the ballclub ("I bet if I quit my job, John Henry would have to make me the GM. Wouldn't that be clever? ... [A few months later] ... Oh wait, I already was the GM. Oops!") Is Shaughnessy really Geraldo Rivera with makeup and a perm?
And there was the obligatory discussion of Johnny Damon's departure: "Damon last winter became ... the latest in a century-long line of Red Sox stars who went to New York searching for fame, fortune, and a championship ring." Somehow it escapes The CHB that Damon already had all of that.
It's getting harder and harder to stick up for the guy.
Fuzzy math watch: "New York's lineup is simply spectacular (Bernie Williams batting ninth?)" Over the past two seasons (161 games, 545 at-bats) Williams is hitting a collective .246 with 13 homeruns and an OBP of .317. Yeah, he's another Babe Ruth.) On April 1 last year, The CHB called Williams "decaying," adding, "We expect poor Bernie to calcify in mid-stride sometime this season, much like Artis Gilmore in his final days." Wonder what changed?
Spoke-too-soon watch: "The Red Sox, meanwhile, appear vulnerable, never more than when Josh Bard tries to catch Tim Wakefield's knuckler, as he will tonight." Bard was traded before the game for Doug Mirabelli, who fielded the position flawlessly last night.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Striking Memories
Dan continues his pitch to Roger Clemens, tossing him lines in the hopes the Rocket will hook up with the Red Sox.
Today's meatball: Remembering the anniversary of Clemens' first 20-strikeout game, 20 years ago today.
It's a fairly detailed account of the night, with some interesting side notes (the Globe's beat writer, Larry Whiteside, had the night off and thus missed the historic game) and some odd non-sequiturs ("While Patriots fans were digesting the résumé of SMU running back Reggie Dupard, who'd been selected earlier that day in the first round of the NFL draft, Clemens struck out the side ... in the first inning" -- as if Pats fans are supposed to care about some kid pitcher throwing on an April night).
The CHB closes with his "heater": "Roger Clemens is still able to pitch. Twenty years and seven Cy Youngs after his first great moment, he is being recruited to come home to Fenway where it all began." Of course, what Shaughnessy doesn't mention is all throws at the head he made at Clemens during the first six or so years of his exile from Boston. Call it memory loss, I guess.
Today's meatball: Remembering the anniversary of Clemens' first 20-strikeout game, 20 years ago today.
It's a fairly detailed account of the night, with some interesting side notes (the Globe's beat writer, Larry Whiteside, had the night off and thus missed the historic game) and some odd non-sequiturs ("While Patriots fans were digesting the résumé of SMU running back Reggie Dupard, who'd been selected earlier that day in the first round of the NFL draft, Clemens struck out the side ... in the first inning" -- as if Pats fans are supposed to care about some kid pitcher throwing on an April night).
The CHB closes with his "heater": "Roger Clemens is still able to pitch. Twenty years and seven Cy Youngs after his first great moment, he is being recruited to come home to Fenway where it all began." Of course, what Shaughnessy doesn't mention is all throws at the head he made at Clemens during the first six or so years of his exile from Boston. Call it memory loss, I guess.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Out of Gas at the Beanpot
This is what life should be: The CHB covering college baseball, out of harm's way and where no one's the wiser.
With the C's and B's on a spring break that will last until fall, the Red Sox out of town and the Globe out of money, Dan is confined to the East Coast's version of the Friendly Confines for ...(drum roll) ...a Harvard-Boston College baseball game.
Whoopee!
Among the observations of this man of letters:
* "It was weird to see Fenway virtually empty ..."
* " Another weird thing was the metal bats ... "
* "College baseball in New England is nothing like big-time college football, basketball, or hockey."
*That some scrub named Pete Frates who came into the game hitting .184 went 4 for 4, making it "probably the best day of [his] life."
The remarkable thing is, The CHB almost sounds sincere. Of course, the last time he covered this game, another kiss-ass piece back in May 2004, he told the world that a then 21-year-old Harvard player named Zak Farkes "plans to finish his studies at Harvard ... and knows the value of the Harvard degree," "apparently ... can hit," and "Farkes can play."
Dan wore the collar on that one. Farkes skipped his last year of school to sign with the Red Sox, and hit all of .174 last year in 40 games for the single-A Lowell Spinners.
Given that curse the CHB (the Curse of the CHB?) laid on Frakes, poor Pete Frates had better look both ways before crossing those Cambridge streets.
With the C's and B's on a spring break that will last until fall, the Red Sox out of town and the Globe out of money, Dan is confined to the East Coast's version of the Friendly Confines for ...(drum roll) ...a Harvard-Boston College baseball game.
Whoopee!
Among the observations of this man of letters:
* "It was weird to see Fenway virtually empty ..."
* " Another weird thing was the metal bats ... "
* "College baseball in New England is nothing like big-time college football, basketball, or hockey."
*That some scrub named Pete Frates who came into the game hitting .184 went 4 for 4, making it "probably the best day of [his] life."
The remarkable thing is, The CHB almost sounds sincere. Of course, the last time he covered this game, another kiss-ass piece back in May 2004, he told the world that a then 21-year-old Harvard player named Zak Farkes "plans to finish his studies at Harvard ... and knows the value of the Harvard degree," "apparently ... can hit," and "Farkes can play."
Dan wore the collar on that one. Farkes skipped his last year of school to sign with the Red Sox, and hit all of .174 last year in 40 games for the single-A Lowell Spinners.
Given that curse the CHB (the Curse of the CHB?) laid on Frakes, poor Pete Frates had better look both ways before crossing those Cambridge streets.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Pooper Scooper
The CHB turned in one column last week, and yet the best he can muster today is a slapped together list of shots at local sports management.
Is this really what the Globe is paying him for?
There's the obligatory Theo cheap shot, raising the Bronson Arroyo angle once again, as if there was any chance the dreadlocked pitcher would be throwing so well here in Boston. Ever heard of small sample size, Dan? Hint: Ask your urologist.
He calls Bill Belichick "His Infallibleness" and Epstein a "real sacred cow" who "forever will be the boy wonder who can do no wrong."
He brings up the minor league umpires strike," about which "nobody cares" (hey, he got that right). "These guys make peanuts as is, and folks simply do not feel their pain. It's unfortunate." Right: it's such deep personal issue for Dan that he waited until the beginning of the fourth week of the season to mention it.
He makes a bizarre case for this Celtics team being within two losses of the worst in team history.
Just a weird piece.
Memory loss. "Some would say the Sox should have been better prepared for a Wells collapse." They are: Move Papelbon to the starting rotation where he belongs.
Misrepresentation watch: "American Airlines gave vouchers for free flights to 19,000 fans (give or take a few) who attended the Mavs' regular-season home finale Wednesday night." The tickets can only be used at Love Field, meaning Mavs fans will have to make the gut-wrenching choice between Kansas City and El Paso for their complimentary flight.
They pay me to do ... what, exactly? "People who know a lot about the NFL draft -- weeks before the draft -- scare me." Of course they do. As does anyone who prepares for their job.
"Everybody OK with the Padres wearing camouflage uniforms at home against the Mets Saturday night? ... I wonder what the soldiers and their families think. Their opinions would be the ones that count." Ever trying asking them?
"Is Doug [Mientkiewicz] donating [the World Series Ball] to Cooperstown, or merely lending it to the Hall for a spell?" Ditto.
??? watch: "Mel Kiper is saying Texas quarterback Vince Young will go to the Raiders with the seventh pick Saturday. Remember in 1984 when Michael Jordan was picked by Chicago at No. 3, after Sam Bowie went to Portland at No. 2 (Hakeem Olajuwon went No. 1 to the Rockets)?" So is he saying Young is Jordan, or Sam Bowie?
Is this really what the Globe is paying him for?
There's the obligatory Theo cheap shot, raising the Bronson Arroyo angle once again, as if there was any chance the dreadlocked pitcher would be throwing so well here in Boston. Ever heard of small sample size, Dan? Hint: Ask your urologist.
He calls Bill Belichick "His Infallibleness" and Epstein a "real sacred cow" who "forever will be the boy wonder who can do no wrong."
He brings up the minor league umpires strike," about which "nobody cares" (hey, he got that right). "These guys make peanuts as is, and folks simply do not feel their pain. It's unfortunate." Right: it's such deep personal issue for Dan that he waited until the beginning of the fourth week of the season to mention it.
He makes a bizarre case for this Celtics team being within two losses of the worst in team history.
Just a weird piece.
Memory loss. "Some would say the Sox should have been better prepared for a Wells collapse." They are: Move Papelbon to the starting rotation where he belongs.
Misrepresentation watch: "American Airlines gave vouchers for free flights to 19,000 fans (give or take a few) who attended the Mavs' regular-season home finale Wednesday night." The tickets can only be used at Love Field, meaning Mavs fans will have to make the gut-wrenching choice between Kansas City and El Paso for their complimentary flight.
They pay me to do ... what, exactly? "People who know a lot about the NFL draft -- weeks before the draft -- scare me." Of course they do. As does anyone who prepares for their job.
"Everybody OK with the Padres wearing camouflage uniforms at home against the Mets Saturday night? ... I wonder what the soldiers and their families think. Their opinions would be the ones that count." Ever trying asking them?
"Is Doug [Mientkiewicz] donating [the World Series Ball] to Cooperstown, or merely lending it to the Hall for a spell?" Ditto.
??? watch: "Mel Kiper is saying Texas quarterback Vince Young will go to the Raiders with the seventh pick Saturday. Remember in 1984 when Michael Jordan was picked by Chicago at No. 3, after Sam Bowie went to Portland at No. 2 (Hakeem Olajuwon went No. 1 to the Rockets)?" So is he saying Young is Jordan, or Sam Bowie?
Friday, April 21, 2006
Story is Proof that Dan's Peak is Past
OK -- today's effort, on Larry Bird's lending his name to a brand of wines, was a good column. Only one problem: It's old news!
Really old, in fact.
This story came out Nov. 10, 2005, following heavy media saturation by the distributor. It's been covered by ESPN, CNN, SI, USA Today, Slate and just about every news channel imaginable.
Dan got scooped on a Larry Bird story by Wine Spectator. How low can life go?
Really old, in fact.
This story came out Nov. 10, 2005, following heavy media saturation by the distributor. It's been covered by ESPN, CNN, SI, USA Today, Slate and just about every news channel imaginable.
Dan got scooped on a Larry Bird story by Wine Spectator. How low can life go?
Monday, April 17, 2006
Switch Hitting
On Opening Day The CHB wrote how Fenway has "never looked better" and "it's amazing now to think there were plans to tear the thing down."
Here's what he wrote on May 16, 1999, after seeing the plans to tear the place down in favor of a new ballpark: "If the Red Sox can build the new Fenway they showed us yesterday, it could be their best move since they bought a beefy, 19-year-old southpaw from the International League Baltimore Orioles in 1914."
He even allowed that the old park's demise is inevitable: "But once you get past the obvious concession that old Fenway isn't forever, you'll see that this plan looks pretty good. In fact, it's almost too good to be true."
Wonder what changed? Oh yeah: now, the Globe owns part of the Red Sox.
Here's what he wrote on May 16, 1999, after seeing the plans to tear the place down in favor of a new ballpark: "If the Red Sox can build the new Fenway they showed us yesterday, it could be their best move since they bought a beefy, 19-year-old southpaw from the International League Baltimore Orioles in 1914."
He even allowed that the old park's demise is inevitable: "But once you get past the obvious concession that old Fenway isn't forever, you'll see that this plan looks pretty good. In fact, it's almost too good to be true."
Wonder what changed? Oh yeah: now, the Globe owns part of the Red Sox.
Papelbon: The New Larry Bird
Dan Shaughnessy’s defining characteristic is his ability to profess love for someone one day only to proclaim to the world just how same individual is nothing less than the Devil incarnate is the next. Usually the swing in Dan’s outlook is precipitated by some monumental mistake, like voting for a woman or not hating New York.
Dan's latest mancrush is on Jonathan Papelbon, who according to The CHB is Dick Radatz all over again, writing: "The Sox haven't had a young closer like this since Dick Radatz." Similarly, on April 6, he wrote: [Papelbon] looked like Dick Radatz." Of course, Shaughnessy compares every hard-throwing Sox reliever with The Monster, so take that with the provebial grain of salt.
But Dan's on a roll, enjoying his new love so much he even goes to former arch enemy Curt Schilling for a quote. "This is a huge advantage for a young guy," said Schill. (Last year, he was “blowhard Curt Schilling.” Now that he’s 3-0, he’s “Schill.”) "Young guy." Wonder if, as he dutifully copied down the quotes, Dan realized that yesterday’s starter, Josh Beckett, is 25 and has already pitched 630 innings in the majors.
Taking no. 38’s place as the new Devil is Keith Foulke, who apparently has made the unique mistake of getting injured: “Terry Francona, who made the bold (and now so obvious) switch from Keith Foulke to Papelbon on the night of the third game of the season in Texas.” So obvious, eh? This is Foulke’s line through 12 games: five appearances, six innings pitched, four hits allowed, four strikeouts, one walk, and two runs allowed. That's pretty good, especially for a guy who had surgery on both legs in the past year.
But Papelbon has to stay where he is, Dan says, claiming he is "too valuable" in the bullpen, naturally leaving the reader to wonder why the ninth inning is more important than the eight that precede it, and how the 200 or so innings he would likely throw as a starter are less important than the 70 or so he might pitch in relief (see aforementioned Beckett comment).
It's because Know-nothings like Shaughnessy hate to have their age-old notions challenged. Guys who throw 95 are closers. Guys who throw 89 are not. Here's what he wrote Dec. 30, 2003, after the Sox signed Foulke:
Dan's latest mancrush is on Jonathan Papelbon, who according to The CHB is Dick Radatz all over again, writing: "The Sox haven't had a young closer like this since Dick Radatz." Similarly, on April 6, he wrote: [Papelbon] looked like Dick Radatz." Of course, Shaughnessy compares every hard-throwing Sox reliever with The Monster, so take that with the provebial grain of salt.
But Dan's on a roll, enjoying his new love so much he even goes to former arch enemy Curt Schilling for a quote. "This is a huge advantage for a young guy," said Schill. (Last year, he was “blowhard Curt Schilling.” Now that he’s 3-0, he’s “Schill.”) "Young guy." Wonder if, as he dutifully copied down the quotes, Dan realized that yesterday’s starter, Josh Beckett, is 25 and has already pitched 630 innings in the majors.
Taking no. 38’s place as the new Devil is Keith Foulke, who apparently has made the unique mistake of getting injured: “Terry Francona, who made the bold (and now so obvious) switch from Keith Foulke to Papelbon on the night of the third game of the season in Texas.” So obvious, eh? This is Foulke’s line through 12 games: five appearances, six innings pitched, four hits allowed, four strikeouts, one walk, and two runs allowed. That's pretty good, especially for a guy who had surgery on both legs in the past year.
But Papelbon has to stay where he is, Dan says, claiming he is "too valuable" in the bullpen, naturally leaving the reader to wonder why the ninth inning is more important than the eight that precede it, and how the 200 or so innings he would likely throw as a starter are less important than the 70 or so he might pitch in relief (see aforementioned Beckett comment).
It's because Know-nothings like Shaughnessy hate to have their age-old notions challenged. Guys who throw 95 are closers. Guys who throw 89 are not. Here's what he wrote Dec. 30, 2003, after the Sox signed Foulke:
People in the A's front office think Keith Foulke made a mistake coming to Boston. Maybe that's sour grapes, but some fear he won't react well to the fallout that comes when a Sox closer blows a save against the Yankees. It takes a specific mentality (think Dennis Eckersley), and some of the A's believe Foulke is too sensitive. I tend to agree ....The Globe will never run a correction on any of that, but we know how wrong he was.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Alls is Not Wells
It was, as George Costanza might say, a column about nothing.
The CHB's take on David Wells abysmal pitching performance last night includes shots at Dick Cheney, Theo Epstein, Bengie Molina, Tony Graffanino's and yes, Wells himself.
And, as typical, in recent columns he has droned on about how it's not yet time to panic, which is his standard fallback (he writes the same thing every year). Of course, Sybil also claims, "Wells has yet to give us any indication that he can still get big-league hitters out."
What, 20 years of pitching major league ball isn't enough proof, Dan-o?
Has he forgotten that Wells stunk up the joint on opening night last year, only to morph into Boston's second-best pitcher (behind Tim Wakefield). Was last season really that long ago?
At the end Sybil's split-personality really kicks in, further muddying the point (if there ever was one). To wit:
Don't panic: "Even though the first-place Sox are 6-2 and even though Wells has pitched only once, there will be temptation to overreact."
Panic: During the winter, the Sox were all fat and happy with their seven starters. They seemed insulated from age and injuries. But now Arroyo has been traded and Jonathan Papelbon is a Radatz-like closer and Wells has yet to give us any indication that he can still get big-league hitters out. Suddenly, there are not so many options."
Don't panic (from April 12): "Veteran lefty David Wells gets the ball tonight, and another victory will give the Sox their best start since 1920."
Don't panic (from today): "Wells will get another chance, and maybe[emphasis mine] he'll revert to form ..."
Panic: "... but if he doesn't, Bob Lobel will be showing you more Arroyo highlights and asking, 'Why can't we get pitchers like that?' "
I'm beginning to wonder if Joe Sullivan knows how to read.
Bizzaro watch: Shamelessly, Dan again refers to Tony Graffanino's error in Game 2 of the ALDS last year "Buckneresque." Other than the fact that he missed a ball, there is little context for comparing the two. Of course, "context" isn't a term The CHB is familiar with.
The CHB's take on David Wells abysmal pitching performance last night includes shots at Dick Cheney, Theo Epstein, Bengie Molina, Tony Graffanino's and yes, Wells himself.
And, as typical, in recent columns he has droned on about how it's not yet time to panic, which is his standard fallback (he writes the same thing every year). Of course, Sybil also claims, "Wells has yet to give us any indication that he can still get big-league hitters out."
What, 20 years of pitching major league ball isn't enough proof, Dan-o?
Has he forgotten that Wells stunk up the joint on opening night last year, only to morph into Boston's second-best pitcher (behind Tim Wakefield). Was last season really that long ago?
At the end Sybil's split-personality really kicks in, further muddying the point (if there ever was one). To wit:
Don't panic: "Even though the first-place Sox are 6-2 and even though Wells has pitched only once, there will be temptation to overreact."
Panic: During the winter, the Sox were all fat and happy with their seven starters. They seemed insulated from age and injuries. But now Arroyo has been traded and Jonathan Papelbon is a Radatz-like closer and Wells has yet to give us any indication that he can still get big-league hitters out. Suddenly, there are not so many options."
Don't panic (from April 12): "Veteran lefty David Wells gets the ball tonight, and another victory will give the Sox their best start since 1920."
Don't panic (from today): "Wells will get another chance, and maybe[emphasis mine] he'll revert to form ..."
Panic: "... but if he doesn't, Bob Lobel will be showing you more Arroyo highlights and asking, 'Why can't we get pitchers like that?' "
I'm beginning to wonder if Joe Sullivan knows how to read.
Bizzaro watch: Shamelessly, Dan again refers to Tony Graffanino's error in Game 2 of the ALDS last year "Buckneresque." Other than the fact that he missed a ball, there is little context for comparing the two. Of course, "context" isn't a term The CHB is familiar with.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Stuck in Park
Remember a few months ago when an announcement by the Red Sox to move the rest of its televised games – which it owns, by the way – to NESN threw The CHB into conniptions? He called the move “elitist, classist, and probably greedy, too. The Sox are putting all their games on NESN because it means more money for the organization." (He then never raised the subject again, of course, adding fuel to the belief that he didn’t really care about the fans so much as he wanted to stir things up.)
That’s instructive, because today he says Fenway has never looked better.
That may be so. But Shaughnessy downplays the biggest issue for fans – the expense of attending games. He tries to write that off, arguing that “the Sox have more demand than supply and they're trying to compete with a team that doesn't blush at a $200 million player payroll.”
Let’s get this straight: The team drains money into an ancient, uncomfortable venue and Dan finds the results “spectacular.” The Sox decide to use an outlet they own in order to raise revenues and they are “greedy.”
Oh, yeah. Near the end – the third to last paragraph to be exact – he lays out the park’s warts: obstructed views, narrow seats, seats that face the wrong way, lack of parking, and yes, the cost. (Given how he minimizes that latter element, he might as well have left it out altogether.)
All of which misses the point. Fenway Park has been selling out for years, even before all the modifications. All the while, it's the fan experience that continues to be compromised. On the issue of cost, I don’t personally hold the owners accountable so much as I do the scalpers (and the city, which looks the other way). But that fact remains that in some towns – Baltimore, for one – scalping laws are enforced to the hilt – and face value means face value. To enter Fenway even for the least desirable games of the season means ponying up five or more times the face value of the ticket – none of which goes to the team. That's the situation that deserves a column. Heck, it deserves a series.
Dan has proclaimed the beauty of the new parks in San Francisco, Baltimore, San Diego, demonstrating that even the black hole that makes up the space between his ears can spit out the notion that starting over is often better than a new tube of lipstick. He even spends a good chunk of today's column lauding the work of the Larry Lucchino-led team that has had such an impact on the face of baseball around the country (he calls architect Janet Marie Smith "the godmother of modern baseball stadiums"). Yet he continues to wax nostalgic about a place that has truly outlived its usefulness. Why? Because he doesn’t feel the effects. Even as he cracks wise about blowing up the press box, he ignores the uncomfortable hypocrisy: those seats are 1) better than almost any other within the not-so-Friendly Confines and 2) free.
Boston needs a new park. If not now, when? If anything, "greedy" defines owners who refuse to build an appropriate venue without it being underwritten by the tax base.
Theo watch: “Larry Lucchino, a pinata for nitwit nation, isn't likely to get many bouquets from Sox fans who still blame him for the weird (and temporary) departure of general manager Theo Epstein ….” No Dan, we blame you.
About that $200 million payroll ...: The past five World Series winners, in reverse chronological order: White Sox, Red Sox, Marlins, Angels, Diamondbacks. Is it possible that maybe all the obsessing over the Yankees' payroll is just a bit overblown?
That’s instructive, because today he says Fenway has never looked better.
That may be so. But Shaughnessy downplays the biggest issue for fans – the expense of attending games. He tries to write that off, arguing that “the Sox have more demand than supply and they're trying to compete with a team that doesn't blush at a $200 million player payroll.”
Let’s get this straight: The team drains money into an ancient, uncomfortable venue and Dan finds the results “spectacular.” The Sox decide to use an outlet they own in order to raise revenues and they are “greedy.”
Oh, yeah. Near the end – the third to last paragraph to be exact – he lays out the park’s warts: obstructed views, narrow seats, seats that face the wrong way, lack of parking, and yes, the cost. (Given how he minimizes that latter element, he might as well have left it out altogether.)
All of which misses the point. Fenway Park has been selling out for years, even before all the modifications. All the while, it's the fan experience that continues to be compromised. On the issue of cost, I don’t personally hold the owners accountable so much as I do the scalpers (and the city, which looks the other way). But that fact remains that in some towns – Baltimore, for one – scalping laws are enforced to the hilt – and face value means face value. To enter Fenway even for the least desirable games of the season means ponying up five or more times the face value of the ticket – none of which goes to the team. That's the situation that deserves a column. Heck, it deserves a series.
Dan has proclaimed the beauty of the new parks in San Francisco, Baltimore, San Diego, demonstrating that even the black hole that makes up the space between his ears can spit out the notion that starting over is often better than a new tube of lipstick. He even spends a good chunk of today's column lauding the work of the Larry Lucchino-led team that has had such an impact on the face of baseball around the country (he calls architect Janet Marie Smith "the godmother of modern baseball stadiums"). Yet he continues to wax nostalgic about a place that has truly outlived its usefulness. Why? Because he doesn’t feel the effects. Even as he cracks wise about blowing up the press box, he ignores the uncomfortable hypocrisy: those seats are 1) better than almost any other within the not-so-Friendly Confines and 2) free.
Boston needs a new park. If not now, when? If anything, "greedy" defines owners who refuse to build an appropriate venue without it being underwritten by the tax base.
Theo watch: “Larry Lucchino, a pinata for nitwit nation, isn't likely to get many bouquets from Sox fans who still blame him for the weird (and temporary) departure of general manager Theo Epstein ….” No Dan, we blame you.
About that $200 million payroll ...: The past five World Series winners, in reverse chronological order: White Sox, Red Sox, Marlins, Angels, Diamondbacks. Is it possible that maybe all the obsessing over the Yankees' payroll is just a bit overblown?
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Hot in Texas
Not sure what the point of today’s column was except that he had to write about something. A basic rehash of the Red Sox loss, with no analysis at all (unless catcher Josh Bard’s apparent difficulty in catching the knuckeball was somehow responsible for Tim Wakefield’s getting shelled).
His sendoff -- "Might be time to panic. First Foulkie. Now Bard. And the Sox are one out in the loss column. How soon before somebody says they're playing for the wild card?" -- is hopefully a bit of sarcasm, but with the CHB, who knows?
Man love: Josh Beckett is again referred to as "stud starter." Let's hope that Shaughnessy learns to keep it in his pants around the kid. Pedophilia is a crime, even in Massachussets.
And are we going to be subject to daily updates on Johnny Damon? It's not like he's the first guy ever to leave the Red Sox.
His sendoff -- "Might be time to panic. First Foulkie. Now Bard. And the Sox are one out in the loss column. How soon before somebody says they're playing for the wild card?" -- is hopefully a bit of sarcasm, but with the CHB, who knows?
Man love: Josh Beckett is again referred to as "stud starter." Let's hope that Shaughnessy learns to keep it in his pants around the kid. Pedophilia is a crime, even in Massachussets.
And are we going to be subject to daily updates on Johnny Damon? It's not like he's the first guy ever to leave the Red Sox.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Dantasy Land
Mirror, mirror, on the wall: Who’s the fairest weather fan of them all?
Answer: The CHB (like we didn't already know).
Just months after taking howitzer-sized shots at an injured Curt Schilling, all is forgotten in Dan’s fantasy (Dantasy?) land.
Today, after shutting down the Rangers in yesterday’s opener, he’s “Big Schill” and "superhero/ultimate warrior/Boston sports deity."
It's hard to believe that just last June 26, Sybil Shaughnessy, manic-depressive presciption clearly expired, was busy calling Schilling "the Big Blowhard."
Dan even eases up on his recounting of Schilling’s troubles last year, writing, "He struggled to win eight games last year on an ankle that looked like a jigsaw puzzle with a couple of pieces gone." That's a far cry from his jackass remark last Nov. 2 on the Dennis & Callahan show when he said, "Tell Curt to go ask the people who paid him $13 million to win eight games last year about that situation. Maybe they can explain it to him."
That's fair weather Dan for you.
Sybil watch: Opening day 2004: “Why can't it just be about the baseball? Even for one day." Opening day 2006: Larry Lucchino was “conspicuously absent” but [John] Henry “insisted” he wasn’t “locked in the basement back at Fenway” and calling the Rangers the team that “used to be owned by Schilling's favorite president.”
Answer: The CHB (like we didn't already know).
Just months after taking howitzer-sized shots at an injured Curt Schilling, all is forgotten in Dan’s fantasy (Dantasy?) land.
Today, after shutting down the Rangers in yesterday’s opener, he’s “Big Schill” and "superhero/ultimate warrior/Boston sports deity."
It's hard to believe that just last June 26, Sybil Shaughnessy, manic-depressive presciption clearly expired, was busy calling Schilling "the Big Blowhard."
Dan even eases up on his recounting of Schilling’s troubles last year, writing, "He struggled to win eight games last year on an ankle that looked like a jigsaw puzzle with a couple of pieces gone." That's a far cry from his jackass remark last Nov. 2 on the Dennis & Callahan show when he said, "Tell Curt to go ask the people who paid him $13 million to win eight games last year about that situation. Maybe they can explain it to him."
That's fair weather Dan for you.
Sybil watch: Opening day 2004: “Why can't it just be about the baseball? Even for one day." Opening day 2006: Larry Lucchino was “conspicuously absent” but [John] Henry “insisted” he wasn’t “locked in the basement back at Fenway” and calling the Rangers the team that “used to be owned by Schilling's favorite president.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)