It was Curt Schilling on Saturday, then Keith Foulke on Monday and today it's Matt Clement.
Three pitchers on the comeback trail in three columns: is this rehab week?
And like the former two pieces, Dan sticks to the script: A blow-by-blow of everything that went wrong for the player last year, a recount of his high points, and most of the column is just the pitcher's own words, with a few transitions from The CHB thrown in.
But while he seemed to be making up with Schilling, calling him "the big guy" -- a switch from "the Big Blowhard," as he did last year -- The CHB still can't get out of his own way. After belittling Foulke on multiple occasions for "insulting the fans," Shaughnessy uses the same language to describe Clement following last season's playoff loss, saying he "looked like a man who'd rather be working alongside Johnny from Burger King."
It appears the team of monkeys Dan hires to write his columns may be running out of steam.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Monday, March 13, 2006
Foulke Festival
Today's piece is a nice summary of Dan's shortcomings as a columnist and a human being.
His bizzaro world analysis: "[Jonathan Papelbon] was in Double A a year ago and he never has saved a game in the majors. He's a nice option for Francona, but Mike Timlin might be the safer choice." Hmmm ... does Bobby Jenks ring a bell? Or is last October too long ago? How about Francisco Rodriguez? Truth is, closers are cheap: if you don't have Mariano Rivera, just find the hot hand and ride him.
His total lack of compassion and humanity: "Along the way he insulted the fans, told us he doesn't like baseball, and appeared miserable just about all the time. He finished with 15 saves and a 5.91 ERA in 43 games. When the Sox were losing their second playoff game in Chicago, Foulke was watching the Bruins at the Garden. Now he comes to the balllpark, works early, and goes home to watch NASCAR while his teammates play in the games." We know, Dan, we know: You rehashed every reason why Foulke is a bad person on Feb. 20.
His Reagan-like math: "The Sox are committed to giving him a chance, but they can't let him torpedo the early part of their season if he's not right. It's too important ... ." I guess I missed that change in the rules that makes the first 30 games count more than the last 30. Don't you recall that on June 26, 2005, the Yankees were 37-37 and you had given them up for dead? All they did after that was go 58-30 to touch out the Sox for the division title.
His bizzaro world analysis: "[Jonathan Papelbon] was in Double A a year ago and he never has saved a game in the majors. He's a nice option for Francona, but Mike Timlin might be the safer choice." Hmmm ... does Bobby Jenks ring a bell? Or is last October too long ago? How about Francisco Rodriguez? Truth is, closers are cheap: if you don't have Mariano Rivera, just find the hot hand and ride him.
His total lack of compassion and humanity: "Along the way he insulted the fans, told us he doesn't like baseball, and appeared miserable just about all the time. He finished with 15 saves and a 5.91 ERA in 43 games. When the Sox were losing their second playoff game in Chicago, Foulke was watching the Bruins at the Garden. Now he comes to the balllpark, works early, and goes home to watch NASCAR while his teammates play in the games." We know, Dan, we know: You rehashed every reason why Foulke is a bad person on Feb. 20.
His Reagan-like math: "The Sox are committed to giving him a chance, but they can't let him torpedo the early part of their season if he's not right. It's too important ... ." I guess I missed that change in the rules that makes the first 30 games count more than the last 30. Don't you recall that on June 26, 2005, the Yankees were 37-37 and you had given them up for dead? All they did after that was go 58-30 to touch out the Sox for the division title.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Memory Lapse
The CHB, failing memory and all, returns to Ft. Myers, Florida, and reports that during spring training "Nobody complains about anything."
Say what? Ever heard of John Valentin, or David Wells, or Carl Everett, or, ... ?
Heck, ever heard of Dan Shaughnessy, who on Feb. 22 bitched about Manny Ramirez's absence?
All in all, it's just a rehash of his Feb. 24, 2006, column.
Say what? Ever heard of John Valentin, or David Wells, or Carl Everett, or, ... ?
Heck, ever heard of Dan Shaughnessy, who on Feb. 22 bitched about Manny Ramirez's absence?
All in all, it's just a rehash of his Feb. 24, 2006, column.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Little Insight
It's just two days after we were hit with the biggest story hands-down in baseball in months.
The questions abound:
* Did Barry Bonds use steroids or other performance enhancing chemicals?
* Did the authors/publishers time the book's publication in order to affect the upcoming baseball season?
* Is there proof that steroids or PECs actually make a difference in a player's on-the-field performance (insert Raffy joke here)?
* How should baseball react?
* How should fans react?
And so on.
And then there's this little event going on right now called the World Baseball Classic, which holds lots of promise even if the execution and timing aren't necessarily ideal.
So what does The CHB write about today? Grady Little and Terry Francona and their freewheeling (ha ha) days as roommates while coaching in the minor leagues 14 years ago.
Sample insight: "Did Francona learn from the man who preceded him in the corner office at Fenway? 'I'm sure I did,' said Francona. ... 'But I can't sit here and tell you one thing that he did different.' "
It's an incredible display of mindlessness. Even Jim Rice's non-election to the Hall of Fame merited more coverage from Dan. But remember, he "writes for the readers."
The questions abound:
* Did Barry Bonds use steroids or other performance enhancing chemicals?
* Did the authors/publishers time the book's publication in order to affect the upcoming baseball season?
* Is there proof that steroids or PECs actually make a difference in a player's on-the-field performance (insert Raffy joke here)?
* How should baseball react?
* How should fans react?
And so on.
And then there's this little event going on right now called the World Baseball Classic, which holds lots of promise even if the execution and timing aren't necessarily ideal.
So what does The CHB write about today? Grady Little and Terry Francona and their freewheeling (ha ha) days as roommates while coaching in the minor leagues 14 years ago.
Sample insight: "Did Francona learn from the man who preceded him in the corner office at Fenway? 'I'm sure I did,' said Francona. ... 'But I can't sit here and tell you one thing that he did different.' "
It's an incredible display of mindlessness. Even Jim Rice's non-election to the Hall of Fame merited more coverage from Dan. But remember, he "writes for the readers."
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Dan's Stock is (Finally) on Bonds' Guilt
The CHB’s take on an upcoming book on Barry Bonds and his alleged steroid use is troubling. Troubling because The CHB wants to fire on Bonds but is struggling with his aim.
One reason is the sheer number of weasel words in the piece. He leads with “Sounds like they really have him this time,” and later writes, “Bonds has been able to stay ahead of the posse thus far.” The implication is that Bonds has cheated but has thus far not been caught.
But the piece is characterized by plenty of “out” phrases, such as “seems to” and the aforementioned “sounds like.” To wit: “It's increasingly clear that he was pumping a lot of stuff into his body.” Not “crystal” clear, but “increasingly.” How lawyerly.
Troubling because it deviates from his past statements demanding proof, as he wrote on March 3, 2004: “No one will ever be able to prove anything from the past, of course. It's like asking police to prove your blood alcohol level was over the legal limit when you drove home from your cousin's wedding in July of 1999.”
Troubling because as sure as he is now of the evidence, he failed all previous opportunities to indict Bonds. For instance, Dan’s comments on Oct. 18, 2002, on the eve of the Giants-Angels World Series, feted Bonds while failing to mention steroids:
Dan ignores all that, however. Now, he says, Bonds is a fraud. So, it seems, is fair-weather Dan.
Color blind. “And now we seem to have hard evidence that Barry didn't make himself Popeye solely by pumping iron.” As The Chimp might say, Did Popeye have black arms?
Revision watch: On March 18, 2004, Dan wrote that Bud Selig would not have the ability or legal standing to change baseball’s rules governing (and penalizing) steroids. How wrong that turned out to be.
Also, on Feb. 25, 2005, Dan attacked Tony LaRussa: “He knew about Jose Canseco . . . and he said nothing? … His apparent involvement in the steroid coverup is alarming, given the way he has presented himself to us for all these years.” Then, on March 17, 2005, he let LaRussa off the hook. Nice turnabout.
One reason is the sheer number of weasel words in the piece. He leads with “Sounds like they really have him this time,” and later writes, “Bonds has been able to stay ahead of the posse thus far.” The implication is that Bonds has cheated but has thus far not been caught.
But the piece is characterized by plenty of “out” phrases, such as “seems to” and the aforementioned “sounds like.” To wit: “It's increasingly clear that he was pumping a lot of stuff into his body.” Not “crystal” clear, but “increasingly.” How lawyerly.
Troubling because it deviates from his past statements demanding proof, as he wrote on March 3, 2004: “No one will ever be able to prove anything from the past, of course. It's like asking police to prove your blood alcohol level was over the legal limit when you drove home from your cousin's wedding in July of 1999.”
Troubling because as sure as he is now of the evidence, he failed all previous opportunities to indict Bonds. For instance, Dan’s comments on Oct. 18, 2002, on the eve of the Giants-Angels World Series, feted Bonds while failing to mention steroids:
Why does America hate Barry Bonds so much? Is it because he's too good? Is it because we constantly hear that his teammates can't stand him? Is it the phony, Carl Everett-esque point to the heavens when he crosses the plate after homering? Is it because he sounds so insincere? Are we threatened by the prospect of him passing hardball gods Willie Mays, Babe Ruth, and Hank Aaron on the all-time homer list? Bonds is the central figure of this World Series. It is difficult to come up with another player who's gotten more attention before the start of the event. We want to know how/if the Angels will pitch to him. We want to see if he can finally perform in the clutch. Despite his (relatively) strong showing in the first two rounds, Bonds will still be remembered as a postseason bust if he fails in this World Series. And so many are rooting against him. It should make for fascinating theater.In the same piece, Dan even nominated Bonds’ father to throw out the first ball.
Dan ignores all that, however. Now, he says, Bonds is a fraud. So, it seems, is fair-weather Dan.
Color blind. “And now we seem to have hard evidence that Barry didn't make himself Popeye solely by pumping iron.” As The Chimp might say, Did Popeye have black arms?
Revision watch: On March 18, 2004, Dan wrote that Bud Selig would not have the ability or legal standing to change baseball’s rules governing (and penalizing) steroids. How wrong that turned out to be.
Also, on Feb. 25, 2005, Dan attacked Tony LaRussa: “He knew about Jose Canseco . . . and he said nothing? … His apparent involvement in the steroid coverup is alarming, given the way he has presented himself to us for all these years.” Then, on March 17, 2005, he let LaRussa off the hook. Nice turnabout.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Wrong Call on Homers
Updating a previous post, it is well-known that the Globe choses to publish only a few of the factual errors in Shaughnessy's columns.
Here's an example from Dec. 10, 2004. The CHB wrote: "[Kapler] was in the majors for six full seasons, saw the home run explosion, and the tapering off [sic!] of homers with the advent of limited drug testing."
In fact, at the time it was written, that latter comment was absolutely wrong.
MLB instituted steroid testing in 2004. That year, the number of homers per game rose. In 2004 it was 1.123 per game, up from 1.071 in 2003 and 1.043 in 2002. Moreover, the number of doubles -- another power indicator -- rose to 1.837 in 2004 from 1.816 in 2003 and 1.793 in 2002. (Other averages such as runs per game also went up.)
I don't have the final 2005 numbers handy, and in fact they are irrelevant to this point. The point is, it's just another example of Dan not bothering with the research -- at the time he wrote the column, ESPN.com had all the data on its MLB statistics page -- making stupid extrapolations and the Globe looking the other way.
(I should add that a few months later Gordon Edes once again quietly put things into proper perspective.)
Here's an example from Dec. 10, 2004. The CHB wrote: "[Kapler] was in the majors for six full seasons, saw the home run explosion, and the tapering off [sic!] of homers with the advent of limited drug testing."
In fact, at the time it was written, that latter comment was absolutely wrong.
MLB instituted steroid testing in 2004. That year, the number of homers per game rose. In 2004 it was 1.123 per game, up from 1.071 in 2003 and 1.043 in 2002. Moreover, the number of doubles -- another power indicator -- rose to 1.837 in 2004 from 1.816 in 2003 and 1.793 in 2002. (Other averages such as runs per game also went up.)
I don't have the final 2005 numbers handy, and in fact they are irrelevant to this point. The point is, it's just another example of Dan not bothering with the research -- at the time he wrote the column, ESPN.com had all the data on its MLB statistics page -- making stupid extrapolations and the Globe looking the other way.
(I should add that a few months later Gordon Edes once again quietly put things into proper perspective.)
Monday, March 06, 2006
Hang 10
Say it ain't so.
The CHB is headed South for 10 more days, he warns in his Sunday column. God save us all. Here's hoping he pulls over to pee at a South Carolina rest area.
Other than that, Sunday's column was more Baseball Notes than anything else. We are treated to anecdotes about the offspring of Mike Greenwell and coach Brad Mills, and shots at Pedro Martinez and Johnny Damon. Yawn.
And there's this: "We get to see Nomar Garciaparra playing first base when the Sox go to Vero Beach Thursday. Nomar has a good teacher. He's been getting lessons from Eddie Murray, who played more games at first base (2,413) than anyone else in the history of baseball."
Nice piece of trivia, but Dan's recall, well, sucks. Eddie Murray pulled absolute rocks at first. Here's a guy who made 19 errors one season, 18 another, and had six straight years of 10 or more errors. Nomar would be better off with Bill Murray as an instructor.
Hall watch: Interesting that Shaughnessy spends three columns on Jim Rice's Hall of Fame worthiness (even if they were for the most part the same work -- nearly verbatim -- he has been trotting out for years), yet it is left to Gordon Edes to make the case for an much bigger omission: Buck Weaver.
EDIT: That should be Buck O'Neil. It was the desk's fault.
The CHB is headed South for 10 more days, he warns in his Sunday column. God save us all. Here's hoping he pulls over to pee at a South Carolina rest area.
Other than that, Sunday's column was more Baseball Notes than anything else. We are treated to anecdotes about the offspring of Mike Greenwell and coach Brad Mills, and shots at Pedro Martinez and Johnny Damon. Yawn.
And there's this: "We get to see Nomar Garciaparra playing first base when the Sox go to Vero Beach Thursday. Nomar has a good teacher. He's been getting lessons from Eddie Murray, who played more games at first base (2,413) than anyone else in the history of baseball."
Nice piece of trivia, but Dan's recall, well, sucks. Eddie Murray pulled absolute rocks at first. Here's a guy who made 19 errors one season, 18 another, and had six straight years of 10 or more errors. Nomar would be better off with Bill Murray as an instructor.
Hall watch: Interesting that Shaughnessy spends three columns on Jim Rice's Hall of Fame worthiness (even if they were for the most part the same work -- nearly verbatim -- he has been trotting out for years), yet it is left to Gordon Edes to make the case for an much bigger omission: Buck Weaver.
EDIT: That should be Buck O'Neil. It was the desk's fault.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Latest Effort on B's Rhymes with 'Rink'
If this keeps up, I'm going to start an "X isn't walking through that door" watch.
Like Dan himself, the now ancient Rick Pitino quote is long past retirement age. Yet no one seems to have told The CHB, who keeps trotting it out like a Suffolk Downs nag that's overdue for the glue wagon. It's probably hard-coded into Microsoft Word on his PC.
Today's incarnation: "Bobby Orr, Phil Esposito, Terry O'Reilly, Ray Bourque, and Joe Thornton aren't walking through that door. Cam Neely and Pie McKenzie aren't walking through that door, either."
It's just one more in a string of cliches and suckups. The Bruins are the
"team with the most loyal fans." Those same fans are "by far the most knowledgable [sic!] fan base in our town" -- good luck proving that -- and adds "you know a large number of men in the crowd are dads who talk about Orr when they watch the game with the new generation of hockey fans," as if we are to believe Dan ever leaves the press box.
Dan's weak attempt to peddle a feelgood Bruins story feels as contrived as O.J. Simpson's assertions that he's looking for Nicole's killer.
One need only recall his Jan. 16 piece, when he wrote
As if Boston needed more proof of The CHB's blindness to his surroundings, he writes: "Close your eyes and you can tell what is going on simply by listening to the Garden crowd." It is a nice insight on how he does his job, though.
Like Dan himself, the now ancient Rick Pitino quote is long past retirement age. Yet no one seems to have told The CHB, who keeps trotting it out like a Suffolk Downs nag that's overdue for the glue wagon. It's probably hard-coded into Microsoft Word on his PC.
Today's incarnation: "Bobby Orr, Phil Esposito, Terry O'Reilly, Ray Bourque, and Joe Thornton aren't walking through that door. Cam Neely and Pie McKenzie aren't walking through that door, either."
It's just one more in a string of cliches and suckups. The Bruins are the
"team with the most loyal fans." Those same fans are "by far the most knowledgable [sic!] fan base in our town" -- good luck proving that -- and adds "you know a large number of men in the crowd are dads who talk about Orr when they watch the game with the new generation of hockey fans," as if we are to believe Dan ever leaves the press box.
Dan's weak attempt to peddle a feelgood Bruins story feels as contrived as O.J. Simpson's assertions that he's looking for Nicole's killer.
One need only recall his Jan. 16 piece, when he wrote
One thing is for sure: The Patriots' sudden, stunning defeat in Denver Saturday night is not a good thing for Mike O'Connell and the Bruins. While Tom Brady and Friends were bound for Super Bowl XL in Detroit, it was easy to ignore the train wreck on Causeway Street, but now the moribund Bruins and the southbound Celtics have our attention again -- at a time when they'd rather be hiding in the weeds.Or his Nov. 22, 2005, piece, in which he called the B's
... a defenseless, last-place team in a town that's all too ready to relegate hockey to the status accorded the New England Revolution. Hockey -- the new professional soccer. Ugh.Where were all those loyal fans when you wrote that?
As if Boston needed more proof of The CHB's blindness to his surroundings, he writes: "Close your eyes and you can tell what is going on simply by listening to the Garden crowd." It is a nice insight on how he does his job, though.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Bad Casting
Try as he might to cast Antoine Walker as the hero of last night's Heat-Celtics game, Dan's assertion that the former Celt's 13 points somehow made the difference falls way short of the rim.
There's this odd tenet of sportswriting that says that for the sake of drama, it's OK to ignore what actually happened on the court. And what happened was that Shaq bullied his way around floor for 16 (would have been more if he made a few free throws) and Dwayne Wade scored 24 points and Shandon Anderson rang up 15 in just 23 minutes. And without all that, Walker's late-game binge would have been meaningless. But never let the facts get in the way of a good tale.
And where would a good drama be without a villian? Dan writes:
Wrong sport watch: Compares Walker's results during the first three quarters of last night's game to the 2005 edition of Sammy Sosa, all while failing to recognize that Walker's entire season has been a trainwreck.
Star watch: Of the Boston glitterati, is Bill Belichick really the glitterest? "The Celtics' sixth sellout of the season included Boston movers, shakers, fakers, and people who ride in limos," The CHB wrote. Yet of all those movers and shakers, the Pats coach is the only one mentioned by name. For some reason, Shaughnessy has a habit of turning Celtics coverage into Page 6, as he showed May 10, 2003, when his analysis of the Nets-Celtics playoff series could be summed as: "It was certainly a night to see and be seen at the New Garden. Governor Mitt Romney was there and got booed when his face was plastered on the big board. Patriots owner Bob Kraft took a front-row baseline seat."
There's this odd tenet of sportswriting that says that for the sake of drama, it's OK to ignore what actually happened on the court. And what happened was that Shaq bullied his way around floor for 16 (would have been more if he made a few free throws) and Dwayne Wade scored 24 points and Shandon Anderson rang up 15 in just 23 minutes. And without all that, Walker's late-game binge would have been meaningless. But never let the facts get in the way of a good tale.
And where would a good drama be without a villian? Dan writes:
'Toine said he wanted to stay in Boston after the nifty run he had in the spring of 2005, but said talks never got off the ground with Ainge. "For some reason, Danny didn't want me to come back," Walker said.Let's consider that, shall we? For the season, Walker has been busting pine, while the immortal, undrafted Udonis Haslem starts ahead of him. He averages just shy of 27 minutes a game -- seventh on the team -- and is shooting just 43% -- far below the Celt's team average of 47%. For this performance, the Heat will pay him the bargain basement sum of $40 million through the 2010-2011 season. Still think Ainge was wrong not to keep him? Or perhaps Dan thinks the solution to the C's problems was another Mark Blount? By not rebutting Walker, that's the impression he leaves.
Wrong sport watch: Compares Walker's results during the first three quarters of last night's game to the 2005 edition of Sammy Sosa, all while failing to recognize that Walker's entire season has been a trainwreck.
Star watch: Of the Boston glitterati, is Bill Belichick really the glitterest? "The Celtics' sixth sellout of the season included Boston movers, shakers, fakers, and people who ride in limos," The CHB wrote. Yet of all those movers and shakers, the Pats coach is the only one mentioned by name. For some reason, Shaughnessy has a habit of turning Celtics coverage into Page 6, as he showed May 10, 2003, when his analysis of the Nets-Celtics playoff series could be summed as: "It was certainly a night to see and be seen at the New Garden. Governor Mitt Romney was there and got booed when his face was plastered on the big board. Patriots owner Bob Kraft took a front-row baseline seat."
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Dan on …
Picked up pieces while waiting for The CHB’s wisdom to fell more trees.
Chauncey Billups: “… a wasted No. 3 pick …” Feb. 19, 1998
Pete Carroll: “… little more than a smarter, drug-free Butch Hobson …” Jan. 3, 1999, and “Papa Pete, the drug-free Daddy Butch Hobson of this southbound train …” Nov. 29, 1999
Dan Duquette: “What do the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Rangers, Indians, Padres, Expos and Reds have in common? All said goodbye to Greg Harris with no compensation. This means there must be a lot of baseball general managers like Dan Duquette – guys who don't know what they need to build a winner.” July 16, 1994 (The 38-year-old Harris won 2 more games in his major league career. The Red Sox won their division the next year.)
Donald Fehr: “an East German border guard in a previous life.” Dec. 22, 1994
Dave Gavitt: “… the Teflon CEO of the Celtics …. Because of his reputation, and his friendly personality, he hasn't been the target of many slings or arrows. It's time.” March 3, 1994
Terry Glenn: " Terry Oil Can Glenn."
Bob Kraft: “… an owner who is rapidly spinning out of control …” Feb. 4, 1997 and “ … a man with an ego bigger than the Citgo sign …” Nov. 19, 1998
Jose Offerman: “How do you say "junk" in French?”
Robert Parish: “[T]he Chief is full of baloney. His comments … reek of the same tired stuff he floated here any time he needed an excuse for why he wasn't Larry Bird.” Nov. 17, 1994
Rick Pitino: “We know never to believe anything the man says …” Boston Globe, Feb. 19, 1998.
Jim Rice: “Regarding a hometown candidate with borderline Hall numbers, it's easier to vote for Rice than to defend oneself against the standard charges of revenge and racism.” Jan. 9, 2002, and “He hasn't played in two years, but Jim Rice is still contemptible.” Dec. 18, 1991
The AL East race: “The team that gets off to the hot start usually wins the American League East …” April 26, 1987 (If only…)
Chauncey Billups: “… a wasted No. 3 pick …” Feb. 19, 1998
Pete Carroll: “… little more than a smarter, drug-free Butch Hobson …” Jan. 3, 1999, and “Papa Pete, the drug-free Daddy Butch Hobson of this southbound train …” Nov. 29, 1999
Dan Duquette: “What do the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Rangers, Indians, Padres, Expos and Reds have in common? All said goodbye to Greg Harris with no compensation. This means there must be a lot of baseball general managers like Dan Duquette – guys who don't know what they need to build a winner.” July 16, 1994 (The 38-year-old Harris won 2 more games in his major league career. The Red Sox won their division the next year.)
Donald Fehr: “an East German border guard in a previous life.” Dec. 22, 1994
Dave Gavitt: “… the Teflon CEO of the Celtics …. Because of his reputation, and his friendly personality, he hasn't been the target of many slings or arrows. It's time.” March 3, 1994
Terry Glenn: " Terry Oil Can Glenn."
Bob Kraft: “… an owner who is rapidly spinning out of control …” Feb. 4, 1997 and “ … a man with an ego bigger than the Citgo sign …” Nov. 19, 1998
Jose Offerman: “How do you say "junk" in French?”
Robert Parish: “[T]he Chief is full of baloney. His comments … reek of the same tired stuff he floated here any time he needed an excuse for why he wasn't Larry Bird.” Nov. 17, 1994
Rick Pitino: “We know never to believe anything the man says …” Boston Globe, Feb. 19, 1998.
Jim Rice: “Regarding a hometown candidate with borderline Hall numbers, it's easier to vote for Rice than to defend oneself against the standard charges of revenge and racism.” Jan. 9, 2002, and “He hasn't played in two years, but Jim Rice is still contemptible.” Dec. 18, 1991
The AL East race: “The team that gets off to the hot start usually wins the American League East …” April 26, 1987 (If only…)
Friday, February 24, 2006
Say Anything
Full squad training has begun, and not a moment too soon. For it's crystal clear that The CHB has nothing left in the tank, save the occasional random insult.
While the beat writers are busy earning their keep, it's clear that the New York Times shareholders aren't getting their money's worth underwriting the columnists' winter vacations.
"If you live for baseball, the first full squad spring workout is just about the best day of the season," he writes. But the positive tone is deceiving and short-lived, for in the very next sentence he compares Red Sox owner John W. Henry to "Curious George's Man in the Yellow Hat" (I'm not sure that that means, except the reference is likely a solid clue as to Dan's favorite book).
In the next graf, GM Theo Epstein is "boy wonder." Later, Dan wisecracks about tension between Epstein and Larry Lucchino, and Curt Schilling's leadership. (Rumor has it Schilling is instructing players not to speak with The CHB. We can only hope.)
In an inadvertently hilarious segment, Dan tries getting answers out of Henry and Lucchino, both of whom defer to Epstein. (If that's not evidence Sox management is on the same page, what is?) This is funny on two levels: 1) in trying to subtly note management's lack of candor, he makes himself look impotent and 2) as we all know, Theo's not talking, at least not to Shaughnessy. Dan didn't just burn that bridge, he nuked it.
For everyone else, this is a time of anticipation and excitement. Yet Dan can't leave the sarcasm in the clubhouse long enough to finish the piece. In a way, it's understandable: With no one talking to him (not counting a few anonymous quotes that he probably made up), it's going to be one long season in CHB-ville.
While the beat writers are busy earning their keep, it's clear that the New York Times shareholders aren't getting their money's worth underwriting the columnists' winter vacations.
"If you live for baseball, the first full squad spring workout is just about the best day of the season," he writes. But the positive tone is deceiving and short-lived, for in the very next sentence he compares Red Sox owner John W. Henry to "Curious George's Man in the Yellow Hat" (I'm not sure that that means, except the reference is likely a solid clue as to Dan's favorite book).
In the next graf, GM Theo Epstein is "boy wonder." Later, Dan wisecracks about tension between Epstein and Larry Lucchino, and Curt Schilling's leadership. (Rumor has it Schilling is instructing players not to speak with The CHB. We can only hope.)
In an inadvertently hilarious segment, Dan tries getting answers out of Henry and Lucchino, both of whom defer to Epstein. (If that's not evidence Sox management is on the same page, what is?) This is funny on two levels: 1) in trying to subtly note management's lack of candor, he makes himself look impotent and 2) as we all know, Theo's not talking, at least not to Shaughnessy. Dan didn't just burn that bridge, he nuked it.
For everyone else, this is a time of anticipation and excitement. Yet Dan can't leave the sarcasm in the clubhouse long enough to finish the piece. In a way, it's understandable: With no one talking to him (not counting a few anonymous quotes that he probably made up), it's going to be one long season in CHB-ville.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Overcooked
It's hard to believe Jim Rice has been retired since 1989, not when he's the subject of a column a month by The CHB. Funny how a guy who couldn't stand him when he was playing is now his biggest booster for post-career accolades. But that's what happens when you have a split personality.
So Globe readers are treated to the litany of "data" supporting Rice's candidacy, most of which are simply random trivia: how over 12 seasons he led the American League in everything except nose-picking, how he was the first player since Joe DiMaggio to reach 400 total bases in one year, how he is the only player in baseball history with three consecutive seasons of 35 homers and 200 hits.
And for the third straight time Dan contrasts Rice's megawatt charm to that of Kevin Millar's, who is apparently the only outgoing and jovial player in the history of Major League Baseball.
"But his body betrayed him in his mid-30s ... " Dan writes. As has been written elsewhere, it wasn't so much his body as his eyes and his vanity: It's been well documented by SI and others that Rice was too vain to wear glasses and complained that he didn't like contacts. Bummer, dude.
While the piece serves mostly to highlight Rice's double-barreled assault on respect and diction ("Gwynn didn't dominate nothing. Cal Ripken didn't dominate nothing. If you look at Bruce Sutter, Bruce Sutter ain't dominated nothing ..."), it should be noted that The CHB once again fails to acknowledge any reasons why Rice is being overlooked, except of course, his somewhat less-than-charming personality. At least Dan's consistent about something.
So Globe readers are treated to the litany of "data" supporting Rice's candidacy, most of which are simply random trivia: how over 12 seasons he led the American League in everything except nose-picking, how he was the first player since Joe DiMaggio to reach 400 total bases in one year, how he is the only player in baseball history with three consecutive seasons of 35 homers and 200 hits.
And for the third straight time Dan contrasts Rice's megawatt charm to that of Kevin Millar's, who is apparently the only outgoing and jovial player in the history of Major League Baseball.
"But his body betrayed him in his mid-30s ... " Dan writes. As has been written elsewhere, it wasn't so much his body as his eyes and his vanity: It's been well documented by SI and others that Rice was too vain to wear glasses and complained that he didn't like contacts. Bummer, dude.
While the piece serves mostly to highlight Rice's double-barreled assault on respect and diction ("Gwynn didn't dominate nothing. Cal Ripken didn't dominate nothing. If you look at Bruce Sutter, Bruce Sutter ain't dominated nothing ..."), it should be noted that The CHB once again fails to acknowledge any reasons why Rice is being overlooked, except of course, his somewhat less-than-charming personality. At least Dan's consistent about something.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Error Prone
It was suggested earlier that Dan's contract must contain a clause prohibiting the Globe from running corrections to his column. As recent events have shown, that's not quite true. What the record also shows, however, is that the Globe does a lousy job of living up to its written objective to quickly identify and correct errors in print.
Here's a list of recent corrections to Dan's work. Some of these mistakes are downright embarrassing, e.g., not knowing Mark Mulder is lefthanded or mocking Ed Anzalone for "dressing up" as a fireman for Jets games (Anzalone is a fireman). (The date of the mistake is bolded, and the date of the correction notice is in parens at the end.)
Feb. 6, 2006 -- Correction: Because of an editing error, Terry Bradshaw was incorrectly included in a list of former Super Bowl MVPs who were introduced before this year's game in two stories in the Feb. 6 Sports section. (Correction published Feb. 15, 2006)
Feb. 3, 2006 -- Omission: Linebacker Dwayne Sabb was omitted from a list of University of New Hampshire players who have played in the Super Bowl in Dan Shaughnessy's column in the Feb. 3 Sports section. (Feb. 14, 2006)
June 13, 2005 -- Correction: Because of a reporting error, the name of Gary Alexander was incorrect in a column about Red Sox fans at Wrigley Field in the June 13 Sports section. (June 30, 2005)
June 11, 2005 -- Correction: Because of a reporting error, the birthplace for Chris Chelios of the Detroit Red Wings was incorrect in Dan Shaughnessy's column in Saturday's paper. Chelios was born in Chicago. (June 14, 2005)
May 30, 2004 -- Correction : Because of a reporting error, a column in the May 30 Sports section comparing Manny Ramirez with Joe DiMaggio gave an incorrect career batting average for Ramirez entering this season. Ramirez had a .317 average before 2004. (June 23, 2004)
Dec. 29, 2003 -- Correction: Because of a reporting error, the losing pitcher in Game 6 of the 2003 World Series was incorrect in Dan Shaughnessy's column in yesterday's Sports section. Andy Pettitte was the loser. Also, because of an editing error, the game in question was misidentified in some editions as Game 7. (Dec 30, 2003)
Nov. 3, 2003 -- Correction: Because of a reporter's error, Ron Perry's term as Holy Cross athletic director was incorrect in a story in Monday's Sports section. Perry was AD from 1972 to 1998. (Nov. 5, 2003)
Oct. 2, 2003 -- Correction: Because of a reporting error, the time when the Red Sox playoff game ended was incorrect in Red Sox stories yesterday on page one and in the sports section. The game ended at 2:45 a.m. EDT. (Oct. 3, 2003)
March 16, 2003 -- Correction: Clarification: In Sunday's editions, a story on Red Sox GM Theo Epstein stated that John F. Kennedy was America's youngest president. Kennedy, at 43, was the youngest man elected president, but Theodore Roosevelt, at 42, was the youngest ever to serve as president, moving up from vice president when William McKinley was assassinated in 1901. (March 18, 2003)
Oct. 10, 2001 -- Correction: Because of a reporting error and incorrect information provided to the Globe, there were three errors in Dan Shaughnessy's column yesterday. Roger Clemens is 39, his career ERA in postseason games is 3.59, and Oakland pitcher Mark Mulder is lefthanded. (Oct. 10, 2001)
Sept. 24, 2001 -- Clarification: It was mentioned in Dan Shaughnessy's Monday column that New York Jets fan Ed Anzalone "dresses up as a fireman" for the games; Anzalone, in fact, is a New York City firefighter.
Dec. 17, 2000 -- Clarification: Dan Shaughnessy's column on Sunday may have left the impression that Patriots owner Bob Kraft did not play football at Columbia University as stated in the team's media guide. Kraft played 150-pound and under (lightweight) football, which was formerly a varsity sport at Columbia. (Dec. 19, 2000)
April 12, 2000 -- Correction: Because of a reporting error, the retired numbers of Joe Cronin and Bobby Doerr were reversed in Dan Shaughnessy's column in Wednesday's paper. Cronin wore No. 4 and Doerr wore No. 1. (April 14, 2000)
Jan. 24, 1988 -- Because of a reporting error, incorrect telephone numbers were listed for the Hyde Park Lions Club in Dan Shaughnessy's baseball column in Sunday's Globe. The correct numbers are 364-3410 and 361-2118. (Jan. 26, 1988)
This is hardly exhaustive, of course. And it does not reflect countless other errors that the Globe has simply chosen not to publicly fix, such as his Dec. 6, 2005, contention that 18 players with career marks of 350 homers and a .290 or better average have made the Hall of Fame ballot, which he contradicted just one month later by claiming there were 17.
Here's a list of recent corrections to Dan's work. Some of these mistakes are downright embarrassing, e.g., not knowing Mark Mulder is lefthanded or mocking Ed Anzalone for "dressing up" as a fireman for Jets games (Anzalone is a fireman). (The date of the mistake is bolded, and the date of the correction notice is in parens at the end.)
Feb. 6, 2006 -- Correction: Because of an editing error, Terry Bradshaw was incorrectly included in a list of former Super Bowl MVPs who were introduced before this year's game in two stories in the Feb. 6 Sports section. (Correction published Feb. 15, 2006)
Feb. 3, 2006 -- Omission: Linebacker Dwayne Sabb was omitted from a list of University of New Hampshire players who have played in the Super Bowl in Dan Shaughnessy's column in the Feb. 3 Sports section. (Feb. 14, 2006)
June 13, 2005 -- Correction: Because of a reporting error, the name of Gary Alexander was incorrect in a column about Red Sox fans at Wrigley Field in the June 13 Sports section. (June 30, 2005)
June 11, 2005 -- Correction: Because of a reporting error, the birthplace for Chris Chelios of the Detroit Red Wings was incorrect in Dan Shaughnessy's column in Saturday's paper. Chelios was born in Chicago. (June 14, 2005)
May 30, 2004 -- Correction : Because of a reporting error, a column in the May 30 Sports section comparing Manny Ramirez with Joe DiMaggio gave an incorrect career batting average for Ramirez entering this season. Ramirez had a .317 average before 2004. (June 23, 2004)
Dec. 29, 2003 -- Correction: Because of a reporting error, the losing pitcher in Game 6 of the 2003 World Series was incorrect in Dan Shaughnessy's column in yesterday's Sports section. Andy Pettitte was the loser. Also, because of an editing error, the game in question was misidentified in some editions as Game 7. (Dec 30, 2003)
Nov. 3, 2003 -- Correction: Because of a reporter's error, Ron Perry's term as Holy Cross athletic director was incorrect in a story in Monday's Sports section. Perry was AD from 1972 to 1998. (Nov. 5, 2003)
Oct. 2, 2003 -- Correction: Because of a reporting error, the time when the Red Sox playoff game ended was incorrect in Red Sox stories yesterday on page one and in the sports section. The game ended at 2:45 a.m. EDT. (Oct. 3, 2003)
March 16, 2003 -- Correction: Clarification: In Sunday's editions, a story on Red Sox GM Theo Epstein stated that John F. Kennedy was America's youngest president. Kennedy, at 43, was the youngest man elected president, but Theodore Roosevelt, at 42, was the youngest ever to serve as president, moving up from vice president when William McKinley was assassinated in 1901. (March 18, 2003)
Oct. 10, 2001 -- Correction: Because of a reporting error and incorrect information provided to the Globe, there were three errors in Dan Shaughnessy's column yesterday. Roger Clemens is 39, his career ERA in postseason games is 3.59, and Oakland pitcher Mark Mulder is lefthanded. (Oct. 10, 2001)
Sept. 24, 2001 -- Clarification: It was mentioned in Dan Shaughnessy's Monday column that New York Jets fan Ed Anzalone "dresses up as a fireman" for the games; Anzalone, in fact, is a New York City firefighter.
Dec. 17, 2000 -- Clarification: Dan Shaughnessy's column on Sunday may have left the impression that Patriots owner Bob Kraft did not play football at Columbia University as stated in the team's media guide. Kraft played 150-pound and under (lightweight) football, which was formerly a varsity sport at Columbia. (Dec. 19, 2000)
April 12, 2000 -- Correction: Because of a reporting error, the retired numbers of Joe Cronin and Bobby Doerr were reversed in Dan Shaughnessy's column in Wednesday's paper. Cronin wore No. 4 and Doerr wore No. 1. (April 14, 2000)
Jan. 24, 1988 -- Because of a reporting error, incorrect telephone numbers were listed for the Hyde Park Lions Club in Dan Shaughnessy's baseball column in Sunday's Globe. The correct numbers are 364-3410 and 361-2118. (Jan. 26, 1988)
This is hardly exhaustive, of course. And it does not reflect countless other errors that the Globe has simply chosen not to publicly fix, such as his Dec. 6, 2005, contention that 18 players with career marks of 350 homers and a .290 or better average have made the Hall of Fame ballot, which he contradicted just one month later by claiming there were 17.
Honorable Mention
Ha ha ha. Ha ha, ha ha ha ha.
Manny is late to camp and the joke's on Shaughnessy.
In today's column The CHB grinds his teeth so hard over the absence of Manny Ramirez from spring training you can almost hear it through the page. He's trying to come up with a way to trash the hands-down best player to put on a Red Sox uniform since the turn of the century without looking like he's trashing him -- a feat he's just not capable of pulling off.
Why go after Manny? Easy: because 1) he doesn't accommodate Dan (who does?), 2) he doesn't share Dan's view of what's important (ditto), and 3) he is Latin American.
Amid all this, he finds the time to refer to Red Sox GM Theo Epstein as "Belichick" and "Duquette," references to the teamwide decision to no longer cater to The CHB.
And he reminds us yet again that he has Larry Lucchino's cellphone number (who doesn't?).
"So the Red Sox once again are forced to play by Manny Rules." Yes, Dan, and that's quite all right with us. Like I said, the joke's on you.
Blog watch: "Meanwhile, Curt Schilling and his little late-night friends no doubt will remind us that this is just another example of the Knights of the Keyboard making something out of nothing."
Don't think Dan (aka "objectivebruce") doesn't read this space daily? Ha ha ha.
Manny is late to camp and the joke's on Shaughnessy.
In today's column The CHB grinds his teeth so hard over the absence of Manny Ramirez from spring training you can almost hear it through the page. He's trying to come up with a way to trash the hands-down best player to put on a Red Sox uniform since the turn of the century without looking like he's trashing him -- a feat he's just not capable of pulling off.
Why go after Manny? Easy: because 1) he doesn't accommodate Dan (who does?), 2) he doesn't share Dan's view of what's important (ditto), and 3) he is Latin American.
Amid all this, he finds the time to refer to Red Sox GM Theo Epstein as "Belichick" and "Duquette," references to the teamwide decision to no longer cater to The CHB.
And he reminds us yet again that he has Larry Lucchino's cellphone number (who doesn't?).
"So the Red Sox once again are forced to play by Manny Rules." Yes, Dan, and that's quite all right with us. Like I said, the joke's on you.
Blog watch: "Meanwhile, Curt Schilling and his little late-night friends no doubt will remind us that this is just another example of the Knights of the Keyboard making something out of nothing."
Don't think Dan (aka "objectivebruce") doesn't read this space daily? Ha ha ha.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
All is Not Wells
David Wells won't talk to the media (or at least, he won't talk to the CHB).
Oh, and Dan thinks the Sox should keep him.
That's all for today, folks.
(Almost forgot: Jeff Horrigan wrote about this yesterday.)
Oh, and Dan thinks the Sox should keep him.
That's all for today, folks.
(Almost forgot: Jeff Horrigan wrote about this yesterday.)
Monday, February 20, 2006
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:
Or I could have reviewed Dan's July 31, 2005, column, where he wrote:
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.
Foulke Rocked
Nearly 1,700 words on Keith Foulke today. Let's break it down:
*111 on his appearance at a Bruins game last year;
*180 on his feelings toward blue collar work;
*115 on who deserves the ball from the last out of the 2004 World Series;
*107 on Foulke's magical 2004 season.
*64 on other AL closers (a graf that shows up in jarring fashion).
The rest of the piece is comprised of quotes from Foulke's media interview yesterday (the same that NESN and everyone else in town is airing), plus a few comments from Terry Francona.
Maybe it's the Ft. Myers sun. Steven Kranser turned in an almost identical piece for the Providence Journal today.
For sure, Sox fans want to know the health of their $7 million man. But they don't need to relive ancient history to get it. For a better take on the Sox's designated out man, check out Jeff Horrigan's piece today. It has all the same "new" info and then some, all in a tidy 687 words.
*111 on his appearance at a Bruins game last year;
*180 on his feelings toward blue collar work;
*115 on who deserves the ball from the last out of the 2004 World Series;
*107 on Foulke's magical 2004 season.
*64 on other AL closers (a graf that shows up in jarring fashion).
The rest of the piece is comprised of quotes from Foulke's media interview yesterday (the same that NESN and everyone else in town is airing), plus a few comments from Terry Francona.
Maybe it's the Ft. Myers sun. Steven Kranser turned in an almost identical piece for the Providence Journal today.
For sure, Sox fans want to know the health of their $7 million man. But they don't need to relive ancient history to get it. For a better take on the Sox's designated out man, check out Jeff Horrigan's piece today. It has all the same "new" info and then some, all in a tidy 687 words.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Insults Spring Eternal
Spring training hasn't officially even started but The CHB has already thrown out the season's first insult.
Make that the first barrage.
The first -- "Curt Schilling tried to lose the biscuit belly while burning all the copies of February's GQ Magazine" -- was the most humorous, although unintentionally so. I say unintentionally because, while hefty, Schilling is hardly the one to make fun of, especially when 1) he shares clubhouse with David Wells (whom Dan calls the "portly portsider") and Trot Nixon; 2) the author has made regular pleas for porkmeister Roger Clemens to return; and 3) the author could stand to lose a few pounds himself (better switch to Lite this year, Dan). Never realized a pitcher's effectiveness and weight went so hand in hand. Doesn't he remember ex Sox (Red and White) pitcher Wilbur Wood? Or for that matter, Babe Ruth?
The CHB then mocks ownership -- expect a lot of that this year, now that he is officially persona non grata around the offices at Yawkey Way. "John Henry lost millions," Dan snidely notes, and "Tom Werner made a home movie begging Roger Clemens to return" (Dan begged too, but why let that get in the way of a public flogging?). He then refers to former favorite snitch Larry Lucchino as "Daddy Dearest." Break ups are hard, aren't they Dano?
And let's not leave out Dan's subtle racist digs: "Manny's agent might be calling to warn the Sox about visa problems." Wells asks repeatedly to be traded, but it's the wacky but harmless (nonwhite) Boston slugger who has replaced Pedro Martinez as Dan's favorite bullseye.
Joe Sullivan calls him "brave," but I have to think Joe either suffers from acute memory problems or he doesn't actually read Dan's material. Indeed, when it comes to doling out insults, Dan is as fair weather as they come. Time was, Ortiz was Dan's trash receptacle, until he started hitting everything in sight out of sight and became a fan favorite and thus untouchable. Nomar: same story; revered in print until the talk radio masses turned against him, only then did he become fair game for Dan. Pedro, Schilling, Manny ... the list goes on. How long until Josh Beckett gives up a walkoff to ARod then misses his next start and Dan sets his sights on him?
This is the worst of the lot. Referring to the team's decision to take a more guarded approach with the media (hard to blame them after the free-for-all of the offseason), The CHB writes: "Epstein indicated that the Sox wanted to be more Patriotlike. Ugh. Paranoia strikes deep."
Sheesh, you'd think 3 Super Bowl wins in four years would buy you a little more respect. Anywhere but the Globe.
Make that the first barrage.
The first -- "Curt Schilling tried to lose the biscuit belly while burning all the copies of February's GQ Magazine" -- was the most humorous, although unintentionally so. I say unintentionally because, while hefty, Schilling is hardly the one to make fun of, especially when 1) he shares clubhouse with David Wells (whom Dan calls the "portly portsider") and Trot Nixon; 2) the author has made regular pleas for porkmeister Roger Clemens to return; and 3) the author could stand to lose a few pounds himself (better switch to Lite this year, Dan). Never realized a pitcher's effectiveness and weight went so hand in hand. Doesn't he remember ex Sox (Red and White) pitcher Wilbur Wood? Or for that matter, Babe Ruth?
The CHB then mocks ownership -- expect a lot of that this year, now that he is officially persona non grata around the offices at Yawkey Way. "John Henry lost millions," Dan snidely notes, and "Tom Werner made a home movie begging Roger Clemens to return" (Dan begged too, but why let that get in the way of a public flogging?). He then refers to former favorite snitch Larry Lucchino as "Daddy Dearest." Break ups are hard, aren't they Dano?
And let's not leave out Dan's subtle racist digs: "Manny's agent might be calling to warn the Sox about visa problems." Wells asks repeatedly to be traded, but it's the wacky but harmless (nonwhite) Boston slugger who has replaced Pedro Martinez as Dan's favorite bullseye.
Joe Sullivan calls him "brave," but I have to think Joe either suffers from acute memory problems or he doesn't actually read Dan's material. Indeed, when it comes to doling out insults, Dan is as fair weather as they come. Time was, Ortiz was Dan's trash receptacle, until he started hitting everything in sight out of sight and became a fan favorite and thus untouchable. Nomar: same story; revered in print until the talk radio masses turned against him, only then did he become fair game for Dan. Pedro, Schilling, Manny ... the list goes on. How long until Josh Beckett gives up a walkoff to ARod then misses his next start and Dan sets his sights on him?
This is the worst of the lot. Referring to the team's decision to take a more guarded approach with the media (hard to blame them after the free-for-all of the offseason), The CHB writes: "Epstein indicated that the Sox wanted to be more Patriotlike. Ugh. Paranoia strikes deep."
Sheesh, you'd think 3 Super Bowl wins in four years would buy you a little more respect. Anywhere but the Globe.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Gretzky 2, CHB 0
I'm not saying that this is the end of the New Jersey based gambling ring issue for hockey, as Rick Tocchet's role (and possible punishment) has yet to be fully determined. But today's AP story seems to close the book on the involvement of Wayne Gretzky and wife, and according to authorities no book will be thrown at the Great One.
What this also means is The CHB's Tuesday insta-punditry was, as usual, just so much skate slop. What Dan called a "dreadful development for ... the legend of Wayne Gretzky" is turning out to be just another broken stick in the hockey game of life. Or something like that.
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- Wayne Gretzky will not face criminal charges in connection with a multimillion-dollar sports betting ring busted in New Jersey last week, and he is unlikely to be called to testify against others in the case, his lawyer said Thursday.The story goes on to note that wagering is not a crime in New Jersey (fans of Tony Soprano rejoice).
Attorney Ron Fujikawa said he received assurances from New Jersey authorities last week that the hockey great was not in any way a central figure in the criminal investigation. That's not surprising, Fujikawa said, because Gretzky did nothing illegal.
"He is not a person of interest," Fujikawa said Thursday. "We have received no indication he is somebody who will be called before a grand jury. We have received assurances that he is at most a fact witness."
A fact witness is someone interviewed informally by authorities, the lawyer said.
Gretzky's wife, Janet Jones, also is unlikely to face criminal charges in the case, her lawyer said Thursday. Jones wagered more than $100,000 through the ring, a person with knowledge of the investigation has told The Associated Press; her husband was not directly implicated.
What this also means is The CHB's Tuesday insta-punditry was, as usual, just so much skate slop. What Dan called a "dreadful development for ... the legend of Wayne Gretzky" is turning out to be just another broken stick in the hockey game of life. Or something like that.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Imitations of Dan
Picked up pieces while waiting for the Globe to publish yet another correction to Dan's columns ...
Mrs. Wayne Gretzky, aka Janet Jones, wasn't part of a gambling ring; she was rehearsing for her role in the upcoming sequel to The Flamingo Kid.
Why is it that Jim Rice, who for 12 years swung a 36 oz. bat better than any man alive, needs a ticket to get into the Hall of Fame, while it rolls out the welcome mat for Peter Gammons, who can barely handle a 2 oz. pen?
What George Foreman was in the 90s, Jerome Bettis is today. Who will be the next scary black man to rehab his image -- Allen Iverson?
Hold off on the hate mail. I wanted to see how long it would take to imitate one of Dan's columns. In case you were wondering, about 15 seconds.
Mrs. Wayne Gretzky, aka Janet Jones, wasn't part of a gambling ring; she was rehearsing for her role in the upcoming sequel to The Flamingo Kid.
Why is it that Jim Rice, who for 12 years swung a 36 oz. bat better than any man alive, needs a ticket to get into the Hall of Fame, while it rolls out the welcome mat for Peter Gammons, who can barely handle a 2 oz. pen?
What George Foreman was in the 90s, Jerome Bettis is today. Who will be the next scary black man to rehab his image -- Allen Iverson?
Hold off on the hate mail. I wanted to see how long it would take to imitate one of Dan's columns. In case you were wondering, about 15 seconds.
Two for the Road
From today's Globe:
Anyway, at least the Globe finally admitted to The CHB's mistakes, even if "the bravest columnist" Joe Sullivan has ever seen lacks the guts to fess up.
Correction: Because of an editing error, Terry Bradshaw was incorrectly included in a list of former Super Bowl MVPs who were introduced before this year's game in two stories in the Feb. 6 Sports section.An editing error?! Dan pontificates on something that never happened, and it's the copyeditor's fault. That will really score him points with the copydesk. Think he blamed the desk for stiffing his wife on flowers yesterday, too?
Anyway, at least the Globe finally admitted to The CHB's mistakes, even if "the bravest columnist" Joe Sullivan has ever seen lacks the guts to fess up.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
One and Counting
From today's Globe:
Omission: Linebacker Dwayne Sabb was omitted from a list of University of New Hampshire players who have played in the Super Bowl in Dan Shaughnessy's column in the Feb. 3 Sports section.One down, a lifetime to go.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Snow Job
Another column, another meatball.
Here's the lede from Dan's column today:
Hey Dan, there's this new invention called the Internet. Might want to try it some time.
____________
On Sunday, Dan looked at the commonplace of gambling in sports, and the look-the-other-way attitude of athletes and fans. It could have been a hard-hitting and, for a change, relevant piece. Instead, Dan crapped out. Reason: Overreliance on rumor and innuendo.
Two examples.
1. "On Tuesday, when details of the ring surfaced, Gretzky said, 'The reality is, I'm not involved, I wasn't involved, and I'm not going to be involved,' but two days later the Newark Star-Ledger reported that wiretaps had Gretzky on tape talking about the gambling ring and potential damage the news would cause his wife and himself."
Today came news from the AP that the wiretaps were conducted after Tocchet was arrested. (We should also note that The Great One's, ahem, bettor half has not been charged.)
2. "This was a problem when Michael Jordan was losing big at golf, and there's still suspicion that his first 'retirement' from the NBA was actually a suspension ordered by NBA commissioner David Stern (Stern always has denied the theory)."
Hey Mr. Science, something that has no substantiation whatsoever does not a theory make. Slander is more like it.
Is this the Globe, or the Enquirer? It's hard to tell sometimes. (Probably the copy desk's fault.) This is AM talk radio trash, not journalism.
There's no doubt gambling is a problem in society. A good reporter would want to know just how pervasive it is among athletes. But hey, this is Dan were talking about here.
Here's the lede from Dan's column today:
The game goes on. The NBA is like the Post Office and the Iditarod. It has no fear of a little snow. There can be parking bans, whiteout conditions, orange alerts, and/or projections of Doppler doom, but the games always are played as scheduled.Not exactly. In January 2004, Memphis had two games postponed due to ice and snow. In December 2000, a game in Chicago was canceled because the visiting Nets' flight to Chicago was blocked by a snowstorm. On Jan. 26, 2000, a Knicks-Wizards game was snowed out. And that's just what a simple GoogleNews search came up with.
Hey Dan, there's this new invention called the Internet. Might want to try it some time.
____________
On Sunday, Dan looked at the commonplace of gambling in sports, and the look-the-other-way attitude of athletes and fans. It could have been a hard-hitting and, for a change, relevant piece. Instead, Dan crapped out. Reason: Overreliance on rumor and innuendo.
Two examples.
1. "On Tuesday, when details of the ring surfaced, Gretzky said, 'The reality is, I'm not involved, I wasn't involved, and I'm not going to be involved,' but two days later the Newark Star-Ledger reported that wiretaps had Gretzky on tape talking about the gambling ring and potential damage the news would cause his wife and himself."
Today came news from the AP that the wiretaps were conducted after Tocchet was arrested. (We should also note that The Great One's, ahem, bettor half has not been charged.)
2. "This was a problem when Michael Jordan was losing big at golf, and there's still suspicion that his first 'retirement' from the NBA was actually a suspension ordered by NBA commissioner David Stern (Stern always has denied the theory)."
Hey Mr. Science, something that has no substantiation whatsoever does not a theory make. Slander is more like it.
Is this the Globe, or the Enquirer? It's hard to tell sometimes. (Probably the copy desk's fault.) This is AM talk radio trash, not journalism.
There's no doubt gambling is a problem in society. A good reporter would want to know just how pervasive it is among athletes. But hey, this is Dan were talking about here.
Corrections Coming?
I know I've missed a couple of Dan's columns. Please pardon the delay in posts; I've been out of town on assignment and am just returning now.
According to a source at the Globe, Shaughnessy's (incorrect) statements that Isaiah Kacyvenski was homeless as a child and that two alumni of the University of New Hampshire have played in the Super Bowl, a correction will "probably" run Tuesday.Per the source, the Globe "received incorrect info."
Also, the source said that the Globe will run a correction on Dan's assertion that Terry Bradshaw received a huge ovation from the Super Bowl crowd.
However, according to the source, the Globe denies that Shaughnessy wrote that Matt Hasselbeck was the 1992 MIAA Division 1-A Super Bowl MVP. Here's the paragraph in question:
According to a source at the Globe, Shaughnessy's (incorrect) statements that Isaiah Kacyvenski was homeless as a child and that two alumni of the University of New Hampshire have played in the Super Bowl, a correction will "probably" run Tuesday.Per the source, the Globe "received incorrect info."
Also, the source said that the Globe will run a correction on Dan's assertion that Terry Bradshaw received a huge ovation from the Super Bowl crowd.
However, according to the source, the Globe denies that Shaughnessy wrote that Matt Hasselbeck was the 1992 MIAA Division 1-A Super Bowl MVP. Here's the paragraph in question:
There was no trip to Disneyland for the 1992 MIAA Division 1-A Super Bowl MVP. There was no full-page newspaper advertisement showing Matt Hasselbeck with a milk mustache. And the only Roman numeral was X, as in Xaverian.It begs the question, If not Hasselbeck, then to which MIAA Division 1-A Super Bowl MVP was The CHB referring?
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Stop Him Before He Errs Again
Picked up pieces while waiting for the Boston Globe to run overdue corrections to errors in Dan's last several columns ...
In his column today, a collage of inane and occasionally nasty tidbits, The CHB manages to toss a couple of bombs Joe Montanta's way. Snidely referring to the three-time Super Bowl MVP as "Joe Cool," he writes "you didn't see Joe Montana strolling out with the other former MVPs in the pregame parade of champions." Why single him out? We didn't see Terry Bradshaw either. Oh wait, Dan did.
Speaking of poor vision, on Feb. 3 the CHB wrote that "[Dan] Kreider will become the third player in UNH history to play in a Super Bowl, joining former Wildcats linebackers Bruce Huther (Cowboys) and Scott Curtis (Broncos)."
Dan apparently forgot the immortal Dwyane Saab, who played for the New England Patriots (perhaps you've heard of them) in Super Bowl XXXI against Green Bay. According to this boxscore from USA Today, Saab was credited for a solo tackle and two assists.
Again, I can't take credit for catching this; that honor goes to Sheriff Sully and his crew for picking up on this. Great work.
Lean on me. Dan simply can't put away the references to other sports. It's a crutch, which owes to his lack of command of the subject. Here's today's wildly wrong comparison: "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." 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.
Oh, and objectivebruce, where are you?
In his column today, a collage of inane and occasionally nasty tidbits, The CHB manages to toss a couple of bombs Joe Montanta's way. Snidely referring to the three-time Super Bowl MVP as "Joe Cool," he writes "you didn't see Joe Montana strolling out with the other former MVPs in the pregame parade of champions." Why single him out? We didn't see Terry Bradshaw either. Oh wait, Dan did.
Speaking of poor vision, on Feb. 3 the CHB wrote that "[Dan] Kreider will become the third player in UNH history to play in a Super Bowl, joining former Wildcats linebackers Bruce Huther (Cowboys) and Scott Curtis (Broncos)."
Dan apparently forgot the immortal Dwyane Saab, who played for the New England Patriots (perhaps you've heard of them) in Super Bowl XXXI against Green Bay. According to this boxscore from USA Today, Saab was credited for a solo tackle and two assists.
Again, I can't take credit for catching this; that honor goes to Sheriff Sully and his crew for picking up on this. Great work.
Lean on me. Dan simply can't put away the references to other sports. It's a crutch, which owes to his lack of command of the subject. Here's today's wildly wrong comparison: "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." 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.
Oh, and objectivebruce, where are you?
Monday, February 06, 2006
4th and Long in Detroit
Blogging late today; have been out of town since Saturday.
As several posters have noted, The CHB's recap of the Super Bowl was notable only for its utter lack of redeeming value. He did manage to spot an otherwise invisible Terry Bradshaw, however, claiming the absent Steeler "generated the loudest ovations." Someone please tell me this did not run on A1 of the Globe today.
Hope you enjoyed the Hockeytown Cafe, Dan. Be sure to have a drink on us before you leave town.
Error-prone. As noted, The CHB blew the Bradshaw bit. That wasn't his only goof this weekend, however. I'm not going to begin to take credit for knowing (or noticing) this, but Shaughnessy's Saturday column included the claim that Matt Hasselbeck was MVP of the state high school football championship game. (As sportswriter Jeff Sullivan points out, the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association does not and never has named an MVP.)
Here's the sentence in question; you decide whether this is poor prose or an error of fact: "There was no trip to Disneyland for the 1992 MIAA Division 1-A Super Bowl MVP."
Dan not only needs an editor, he could use a fact-checker to boot. Recall that on Dec. 6 he wrote "Of the 17 players (who've been on the ballot) boasting at least 350 homers and a .290 average, all are in Cooperstown -- except for Rice and Dick Allen" only to state on Jan. 11: "Among 18 players who've been on the ballot with 350 homers and an average of .290, all are in the Hall except for Rice and Dick Allen."
No correction was run.
Wonder how objectivebruce will defend this.
As several posters have noted, The CHB's recap of the Super Bowl was notable only for its utter lack of redeeming value. He did manage to spot an otherwise invisible Terry Bradshaw, however, claiming the absent Steeler "generated the loudest ovations." Someone please tell me this did not run on A1 of the Globe today.
Hope you enjoyed the Hockeytown Cafe, Dan. Be sure to have a drink on us before you leave town.
Error-prone. As noted, The CHB blew the Bradshaw bit. That wasn't his only goof this weekend, however. I'm not going to begin to take credit for knowing (or noticing) this, but Shaughnessy's Saturday column included the claim that Matt Hasselbeck was MVP of the state high school football championship game. (As sportswriter Jeff Sullivan points out, the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association does not and never has named an MVP.)
Here's the sentence in question; you decide whether this is poor prose or an error of fact: "There was no trip to Disneyland for the 1992 MIAA Division 1-A Super Bowl MVP."
Dan not only needs an editor, he could use a fact-checker to boot. Recall that on Dec. 6 he wrote "Of the 17 players (who've been on the ballot) boasting at least 350 homers and a .290 average, all are in Cooperstown -- except for Rice and Dick Allen" only to state on Jan. 11: "Among 18 players who've been on the ballot with 350 homers and an average of .290, all are in the Hall except for Rice and Dick Allen."
No correction was run.
Wonder how objectivebruce will defend this.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
On Cruise Control in Detroit
Is he live, or Memorex?
On Jan. 23, 2003, three days before the Super Bowl, Shaughnessy penned an essay on the ordeal of Tampa wide receiver Joe Jurevicius.
On Feb. 4, 2006, one day before the Super Bowl, Shaughnessy penned an essay on the ordeal of Seattle wide receiver Joe Jurevicius.
Analysis watch: "Jurevicius could be one of Seattle's top weapons in Super Bowl XL tomorrow night ... ." Or he couldn't be. Is this what Joe Sullivan meant when he said, "Dan is the most opinionated writer I know. He is the bravest columnist I've ever seen and is not afraid to take a stand"?
On Jan. 23, 2003, three days before the Super Bowl, Shaughnessy penned an essay on the ordeal of Tampa wide receiver Joe Jurevicius.
On Feb. 4, 2006, one day before the Super Bowl, Shaughnessy penned an essay on the ordeal of Seattle wide receiver Joe Jurevicius.
Analysis watch: "Jurevicius could be one of Seattle's top weapons in Super Bowl XL tomorrow night ... ." Or he couldn't be. Is this what Joe Sullivan meant when he said, "Dan is the most opinionated writer I know. He is the bravest columnist I've ever seen and is not afraid to take a stand"?
Friday, February 03, 2006
Quantity Beats Quality
Today Dan answers the question, Who in the hell is Dan Kreider?
Kreider, the Steelers fullback, is a University of New Hampshire alumnus (of course!), which is as good as reason as any to write a column about him.
This is the latest in a series, started Tuesday, on players with local ties whose teams will vie for the Lombardi Trophy this Sunday. And like his previous efforts, Dan tries to wow us with the hypertrivial (yesterday, it was that Lofa Tatupu played for King Philip Regional in the Hockomock League; today, we learn that the Maine-UNH matchup is called the Brice-Cowell Musket Bowl. Yowsa.).
It makes you want to stand up and shout, WHAT ABOUT THE GAME?
If you're not scoring at home, Dan's four for four this week: four columns, four yawns. I guess it's quantity over quality.
Kreider, the Steelers fullback, is a University of New Hampshire alumnus (of course!), which is as good as reason as any to write a column about him.
This is the latest in a series, started Tuesday, on players with local ties whose teams will vie for the Lombardi Trophy this Sunday. And like his previous efforts, Dan tries to wow us with the hypertrivial (yesterday, it was that Lofa Tatupu played for King Philip Regional in the Hockomock League; today, we learn that the Maine-UNH matchup is called the Brice-Cowell Musket Bowl. Yowsa.).
It makes you want to stand up and shout, WHAT ABOUT THE GAME?
If you're not scoring at home, Dan's four for four this week: four columns, four yawns. I guess it's quantity over quality.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Sleep Deprived
I'm yawning a lot this morning and it's not due to lack of sleep.
If this is Thursday, this must be Dan's rundown of the players in the Super Bowl who have local connections. Did you know, for example, that Matt Hasselbeck played at Xaverian High School and Boston College and Isaiah Kacyvenski played at Harvard and "regularly dined at the Stockyard in Brighton"? Or that Lofa Tatupu played for King Philip Regional in the Hockomock League? Did you know there even is a Hockomock League?
Then he tells us that Dan Rooney is "the most beloved and respected owner in the NFL." Guess we missed that poll.
And since it's Black History Month, Shaughnessy adds that "the rule that requires organizations to interview minority candidates to fill head coaching positions is known as the Rooney Rule." Which is ironic, seeing as how Rooney has never interviewed a black for a head coaching position, something that somehow escapes The CHB's penetrating expose.
And what, praytell, does "Paul Allen ... can't help that he's a legitimate billionaire" mean?
I guess we can be thankful he's not writing on his daily 1-mile run or how Tom Brady is considering cutting his hair (yet).
Time to get some sleep. Sounds like The CHB needs some, too. That, plus an editor.
If this is Thursday, this must be Dan's rundown of the players in the Super Bowl who have local connections. Did you know, for example, that Matt Hasselbeck played at Xaverian High School and Boston College and Isaiah Kacyvenski played at Harvard and "regularly dined at the Stockyard in Brighton"? Or that Lofa Tatupu played for King Philip Regional in the Hockomock League? Did you know there even is a Hockomock League?
Then he tells us that Dan Rooney is "the most beloved and respected owner in the NFL." Guess we missed that poll.
And since it's Black History Month, Shaughnessy adds that "the rule that requires organizations to interview minority candidates to fill head coaching positions is known as the Rooney Rule." Which is ironic, seeing as how Rooney has never interviewed a black for a head coaching position, something that somehow escapes The CHB's penetrating expose.
And what, praytell, does "Paul Allen ... can't help that he's a legitimate billionaire" mean?
I guess we can be thankful he's not writing on his daily 1-mile run or how Tom Brady is considering cutting his hair (yet).
Time to get some sleep. Sounds like The CHB needs some, too. That, plus an editor.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Super Dull
Sorry for the lack of a post yesterday. The CHB writes so much about Larry Bigbie these days that on those rare instances when he changes topic I sometimes miss it.
Then again, did I really miss anything?
Yesterday's column was a rambler (get it?) about Detroit, host city to the Super Bowl this year. Characteristically, Shaughnessy's first piece of the Super Bowl week is on the city itself. He also did that last year, and the year before, and well, you get the picture.
So Dan gives us a mini lesson on what Detroit is famous for: Henry Ford and the Pistons and Bob Seger and the Temptations and Rosa Parks and Stroh's Beer and Lionel Trains and one time at band camp ... it just goes on and on like this. I'm not making this up; that's the column!
Why Globe Sports Editor Joe Sullivan sends Shaughnessy to cover football, a sport he knows even less about than field hockey, is anyone's guess. But since Shaughnessy writes about everything but the game, I guess that's a moot point.
The biggest shock is that The CHB managed to raise the ghost of Mark Fidrych without mentioning that he pitched a few games for the Red Sox. I guess we should be glad for that.
On to today's lesson: Seahawks linebacker Isaiah Kacyvenski went to Harvard and has an alcoholic father. That he made it to the bigtime is heartwarming and all, kind of like a East Coast Rudy. That's about it, though. (And it reminds of his piece on Joe Jurevicius on Jan. 23, 2003, prior to the Bucs-Raiders Super Bowl.)
Reading him, you'd almost forget the biggest game of the football season takes place Sunday.
Then again, did I really miss anything?
Yesterday's column was a rambler (get it?) about Detroit, host city to the Super Bowl this year. Characteristically, Shaughnessy's first piece of the Super Bowl week is on the city itself. He also did that last year, and the year before, and well, you get the picture.
So Dan gives us a mini lesson on what Detroit is famous for: Henry Ford and the Pistons and Bob Seger and the Temptations and Rosa Parks and Stroh's Beer and Lionel Trains and one time at band camp ... it just goes on and on like this. I'm not making this up; that's the column!
Why Globe Sports Editor Joe Sullivan sends Shaughnessy to cover football, a sport he knows even less about than field hockey, is anyone's guess. But since Shaughnessy writes about everything but the game, I guess that's a moot point.
The biggest shock is that The CHB managed to raise the ghost of Mark Fidrych without mentioning that he pitched a few games for the Red Sox. I guess we should be glad for that.
On to today's lesson: Seahawks linebacker Isaiah Kacyvenski went to Harvard and has an alcoholic father. That he made it to the bigtime is heartwarming and all, kind of like a East Coast Rudy. That's about it, though. (And it reminds of his piece on Joe Jurevicius on Jan. 23, 2003, prior to the Bucs-Raiders Super Bowl.)
Reading him, you'd almost forget the biggest game of the football season takes place Sunday.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Dan-isms, Part 3
The King of Contradictions rides again.
"If you are a fan, you cannot be an objective reporter." -- to John Molori, Boston Sports Review, Jan. 30, 2006.
"I'm sick of him, you know?" -- on Pedro Martinez, Dan Shaughnessy's Two Cents on FM Talk 96.9 with Bob Lobel, August 2004.
--------
“[W]hat I hated about that piece, is that the guy won’t use his name. … If the guy would use his name, I'd have a lot more respect for the piece. It’s easy to go off when no one knows who they are.” -- At a forum at the John F. Kennedy Library and Foundation, March 30, 2004.
"I'm certainly not going to reveal a source." -- Responding to the Dirty Laundry column, on Dennis and Callahan's WEEI show, Nov. 2, 2005.
"This dynamic made Theo less than popular with some of his hard-working friends in baseball operations." -- On Theo Epstein, Jan. 20, 2006. (Note: No source provided.)
------
"Everyone knows Theo is better-suited for the position than Jim Beattie, Jim Bowden, Ben Cherington, Peter Woodfork, Craig Shipley, Jed Hoyer, Dan Duquette, or Lou Gorman."
(and)
"Theo Epstein can come back. It's not too late. The Red Sox are looking for a general manager and he's clearly the best man for the job." -- on Epstein, Boston Globe, Nov. 9, 2005.
"Again, I choose to believe that Epstein is smarter and more mature than that. Much smarter. And much more mature." -- Boston Globe, Nov. 1, 2005.
“[W]e ended up having a good chat. I thanked him for everything. My column had nothing to do with his resignation.” -- Discussing Theo Epstein, John Molori's Sports Blitz, Nov. 21, 2005.
"[T]here wasn't much honor or glory in Theo's comportment after he left Fenway in that gorilla suit Oct. 31. Rather, he undermined the credibility of the entire Boston front office ... He revealed himself to be every bit the cutthroat politician Lucchino is. He's been at best, immature and at worst, duplicitous." -- Boston Globe, Jan. 20, 2006.
-------
“[Y]ou need to have that trust of the fan that the game is not fixed.” – at the JFK Library forum, March 30, 2004.
"Does anyone seriously think the Patriots went all out to win against the Dolphins? Does anyone think they should have? It's a fact of sporting life that pointless late season games are manytimes played with marked loss of enthusiasm, especially by teams 'saving' themselves for the playoffs." -- "objectivebruce" (aka The CHB), Jan. 29, 2006.
"If you are a fan, you cannot be an objective reporter." -- to John Molori, Boston Sports Review, Jan. 30, 2006.
"I'm sick of him, you know?" -- on Pedro Martinez, Dan Shaughnessy's Two Cents on FM Talk 96.9 with Bob Lobel, August 2004.
--------
“[W]hat I hated about that piece, is that the guy won’t use his name. … If the guy would use his name, I'd have a lot more respect for the piece. It’s easy to go off when no one knows who they are.” -- At a forum at the John F. Kennedy Library and Foundation, March 30, 2004.
"I'm certainly not going to reveal a source." -- Responding to the Dirty Laundry column, on Dennis and Callahan's WEEI show, Nov. 2, 2005.
"This dynamic made Theo less than popular with some of his hard-working friends in baseball operations." -- On Theo Epstein, Jan. 20, 2006. (Note: No source provided.)
------
"Everyone knows Theo is better-suited for the position than Jim Beattie, Jim Bowden, Ben Cherington, Peter Woodfork, Craig Shipley, Jed Hoyer, Dan Duquette, or Lou Gorman."
(and)
"Theo Epstein can come back. It's not too late. The Red Sox are looking for a general manager and he's clearly the best man for the job." -- on Epstein, Boston Globe, Nov. 9, 2005.
"Again, I choose to believe that Epstein is smarter and more mature than that. Much smarter. And much more mature." -- Boston Globe, Nov. 1, 2005.
“[W]e ended up having a good chat. I thanked him for everything. My column had nothing to do with his resignation.” -- Discussing Theo Epstein, John Molori's Sports Blitz, Nov. 21, 2005.
"[T]here wasn't much honor or glory in Theo's comportment after he left Fenway in that gorilla suit Oct. 31. Rather, he undermined the credibility of the entire Boston front office ... He revealed himself to be every bit the cutthroat politician Lucchino is. He's been at best, immature and at worst, duplicitous." -- Boston Globe, Jan. 20, 2006.
-------
“[Y]ou need to have that trust of the fan that the game is not fixed.” – at the JFK Library forum, March 30, 2004.
"Does anyone seriously think the Patriots went all out to win against the Dolphins? Does anyone think they should have? It's a fact of sporting life that pointless late season games are manytimes played with marked loss of enthusiasm, especially by teams 'saving' themselves for the playoffs." -- "objectivebruce" (aka The CHB), Jan. 29, 2006.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
This Sun Wannabe is a Real, er, Moon
Classic Shaughnessy today. His make-believe fight for the little man is really a front for shots at Red Sox management.
Let's start at the top:
Then he writes: "It's unfortunate. It's also elitist, classist, and probably greedy, too. The Sox are putting all their games on NESN because it means more money for the organization." Funny, just a few weeks ago the Globe was conducting an online poll asking whether readers would be willing to pay for Web content -- including Shaughnessy's. Why? "More money for the organization," perhaps? Where's the column on that?
Heck, a historian like Dan should know that over time teams (read: businesses) do all they can to separate fans from their wallets. Time was, baseball allowed fans to watch live games for free. Then they built bleachers in order to generate -- what was it again? -- more revenue. And not long ago fans could bring their own food and drinks to games. No more (a few stadiums excepted). A better argument would be to ask why the Atlanta Braves and Chicago White Sox, for two, can sell gameday tickets for under $10 and still compete with the high revenue squads. (Hint: A park that holds more than 34,000 people would be a start.)
And maybe he missed the decade-long legal wrangling between the Tribune Co., which owns the Cubs, and nearby landlords who let fans watch games at Wrigley from their rooftops. The Cubs went so far as to erect giant sheets to keep the would-be Peeping Fans in check -- until they ponied up millions for the viewing rights, that is.
One would think that if Dan were truly outraged by whether Joe Six-pack gets his games for free, he would offer to do something about it. He could take a page from Baltimore Sun columnist Dan Rodricks, who in an effort to reduce that city's out-of-control homicide rate wrote an open column inviting drug dealers and gang members to call him for help in finding a way out of their criminal lives. He could have used his mighty pen to command the city's wealthy to help subsidize cable for those 5% who don't have it. He could even have offered to donate the first $30. And maybe he could enlist those poor kids the Globe dispatches to city neighborhoods to hawk subscriptions to take up collections for those put out by the Sox's money-grab.
But, as we noted at the top, The CHB's true agenda lies somewhere else, as this line makes clear: "It's a little lame for Werner to pin this whole thing on McGrail. The move is simply too big for the NESN president to make alone. This goes all the way to the top: John W. Henry."
That would be Red Sox chairman John Henry, the same man who has been feeding scoops to Globe reporter Chris Snow while shunning the man who thinks he is the sun around which Red Sox Nation revolves.
That's the real story.
Let's start at the top:
It was an announcement that barely got anyone's attention. A couple of weeks back, the Red Sox and NESN declared the end of their Friday night relationship with Channel 38, committing all locally televised Red Sox games to pay cable.Could it be that the reason it flew under the radar was because the Boston Globe's lead sports columnist was too busy whining about Larry Bigbie to notice? (Note: He offered essentially the same approach when writing on Bill Mueller's departure in December.)
Then he writes: "It's unfortunate. It's also elitist, classist, and probably greedy, too. The Sox are putting all their games on NESN because it means more money for the organization." Funny, just a few weeks ago the Globe was conducting an online poll asking whether readers would be willing to pay for Web content -- including Shaughnessy's. Why? "More money for the organization," perhaps? Where's the column on that?
Heck, a historian like Dan should know that over time teams (read: businesses) do all they can to separate fans from their wallets. Time was, baseball allowed fans to watch live games for free. Then they built bleachers in order to generate -- what was it again? -- more revenue. And not long ago fans could bring their own food and drinks to games. No more (a few stadiums excepted). A better argument would be to ask why the Atlanta Braves and Chicago White Sox, for two, can sell gameday tickets for under $10 and still compete with the high revenue squads. (Hint: A park that holds more than 34,000 people would be a start.)
And maybe he missed the decade-long legal wrangling between the Tribune Co., which owns the Cubs, and nearby landlords who let fans watch games at Wrigley from their rooftops. The Cubs went so far as to erect giant sheets to keep the would-be Peeping Fans in check -- until they ponied up millions for the viewing rights, that is.
One would think that if Dan were truly outraged by whether Joe Six-pack gets his games for free, he would offer to do something about it. He could take a page from Baltimore Sun columnist Dan Rodricks, who in an effort to reduce that city's out-of-control homicide rate wrote an open column inviting drug dealers and gang members to call him for help in finding a way out of their criminal lives. He could have used his mighty pen to command the city's wealthy to help subsidize cable for those 5% who don't have it. He could even have offered to donate the first $30. And maybe he could enlist those poor kids the Globe dispatches to city neighborhoods to hawk subscriptions to take up collections for those put out by the Sox's money-grab.
But, as we noted at the top, The CHB's true agenda lies somewhere else, as this line makes clear: "It's a little lame for Werner to pin this whole thing on McGrail. The move is simply too big for the NESN president to make alone. This goes all the way to the top: John W. Henry."
That would be Red Sox chairman John Henry, the same man who has been feeding scoops to Globe reporter Chris Snow while shunning the man who thinks he is the sun around which Red Sox Nation revolves.
That's the real story.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Scoop Shaughnessy
In the past 30 days The CHB has brought up what he feels are two major stories: 1) the Patriots' laydown to the Dolphins on the last game of the regular season and 2) the canceling of an agreed-upon deal between the Red Sox and Rockies by Theo Epstein and his subsequent passing the buck to upper management (read: Larry Lucchino).
We know The CHB feels these are the most important stories going because he's brought each up -- in caustic tones -- at least three times.
We wonder why, however, with such earth-shattering "scoops" at his fingertips, Dan doesn't follow through on either story? While any real reporter would be rubbing their PC-gnarled hands with glee over a tanked football game, Mr. "I write for the readers" tosses out his insinuations (sans proof, of course) and just walks away. Think about all the fun it would conjure up, with all those gamblers who lost having quite the axe to grind -- and in the head of a certain Patriots head coach, no less.
Reminds me of the old Perry Mason shows where the courtroom naturally falls for any old hypothesis the cunning lawyer offers up. Dan seems to think that whatever he spews, the readers will naturally eat up. In the real world, though, we generally like our innuendos a little more in-the-end, if you know what I mean. In other words, if it's Brangelina vs. Bigbie, Brangelina wins every time.
Dan, here's your chance: Put up, or shut up.
We know The CHB feels these are the most important stories going because he's brought each up -- in caustic tones -- at least three times.
We wonder why, however, with such earth-shattering "scoops" at his fingertips, Dan doesn't follow through on either story? While any real reporter would be rubbing their PC-gnarled hands with glee over a tanked football game, Mr. "I write for the readers" tosses out his insinuations (sans proof, of course) and just walks away. Think about all the fun it would conjure up, with all those gamblers who lost having quite the axe to grind -- and in the head of a certain Patriots head coach, no less.
Reminds me of the old Perry Mason shows where the courtroom naturally falls for any old hypothesis the cunning lawyer offers up. Dan seems to think that whatever he spews, the readers will naturally eat up. In the real world, though, we generally like our innuendos a little more in-the-end, if you know what I mean. In other words, if it's Brangelina vs. Bigbie, Brangelina wins every time.
Dan, here's your chance: Put up, or shut up.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
'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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Two for Tuesday
The Charlotte, er New Orleans, er Oklahoma City Hornets played in Boston last night. I guess that merits a column about how they have yet to play a real "home" game this season.
Also today, a snide brief on how the Red Sox will opt for a statement versus holding a press conference discussing the return of Theo Epstein. The brief (253 words) begins "More strangeness from Fenway?" and concludes "As of late last night, Henry, Lucchino, and Tom Werner had not returned calls from the Globe." Gee, I can't imagine why, with all the venom spit their way of late, they wouldn't want to jump back in the snake pit.
Larry Bird watch: "Larry Bird once went for 60 in New Orleans." (We assume he means points, not Buds.)
Also today, a snide brief on how the Red Sox will opt for a statement versus holding a press conference discussing the return of Theo Epstein. The brief (253 words) begins "More strangeness from Fenway?" and concludes "As of late last night, Henry, Lucchino, and Tom Werner had not returned calls from the Globe." Gee, I can't imagine why, with all the venom spit their way of late, they wouldn't want to jump back in the snake pit.
Larry Bird watch: "Larry Bird once went for 60 in New Orleans." (We assume he means points, not Buds.)
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Snow Job
Dan's trashing of Theo Epstein isn't 48 hours old and already his fellow Globe writers are taking shots at his Friday column.
Recall that on Friday the CHB described a Boston front office steeped in chaos and confusion. Of course, issuing blanket statements with no supporting evidence is a Shaughnessy hallmark. Wonder what he thinks of Chris Snow's excellent rebuttal today, for which he interviewed several parties including uber-agent Scott Boras, Blue Jays general manager J.P. Ricciardi and San Diego GM Kevin Towers and found them all singing the praises of Boston management over the past three months.
Say what? On Friday Dan claimed an "an inside look at how it works over at Fenway these days." Yet several paragraphs later, he allows that "For the record, this 17 percent cartel correspondent has not spoken with Lucchino, Epstein, or Dr. Charles Steinberg since before Christmas." I guess that's Dan's way of saying his column is his work, and not a plant by one of the Sox officers. What's startling, though, is the admission by the Globe's lead sports columnist to being out of the loop with most of the key Sox officials. That's nothing to be proud of.
Big Mac attack. On Saturday, Jackie MacMullen called for Esptein to publicly explain his actions over the past three months. I'm sure that Ms. MacMullen would do and has done the same every time she changed or considered changing jobs. Epstein is an employee of a private company, not an elected official. His relationship with his employer is none of our business.
Recall that on Friday the CHB described a Boston front office steeped in chaos and confusion. Of course, issuing blanket statements with no supporting evidence is a Shaughnessy hallmark. Wonder what he thinks of Chris Snow's excellent rebuttal today, for which he interviewed several parties including uber-agent Scott Boras, Blue Jays general manager J.P. Ricciardi and San Diego GM Kevin Towers and found them all singing the praises of Boston management over the past three months.
Say what? On Friday Dan claimed an "an inside look at how it works over at Fenway these days." Yet several paragraphs later, he allows that "For the record, this 17 percent cartel correspondent has not spoken with Lucchino, Epstein, or Dr. Charles Steinberg since before Christmas." I guess that's Dan's way of saying his column is his work, and not a plant by one of the Sox officers. What's startling, though, is the admission by the Globe's lead sports columnist to being out of the loop with most of the key Sox officials. That's nothing to be proud of.
Big Mac attack. On Saturday, Jackie MacMullen called for Esptein to publicly explain his actions over the past three months. I'm sure that Ms. MacMullen would do and has done the same every time she changed or considered changing jobs. Epstein is an employee of a private company, not an elected official. His relationship with his employer is none of our business.
Friday, January 20, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Prediction: Theo's Return is Bad News for Dan
It was just about three weeks ago when the CHB threw Theo Esptein under the bus, ran him over, then backed up and ran him over again, mocking him no less than four times in his "predictions" for 2006.
Here's what his "Jan. 18" entry said:
So no doubt tomorrow, when the papers ring out with the news of Theo's return, Dan will go in search of credit. (He'll ignore the Jan. 11 entry forecasting Jim Rice's election to the Hall of Fame, and the Jan. 16 entry, which claimed the Patriots would beat the Colts, 38-7. But never mind all that.)
Here's a prediction: Dan's column tomorrow will lead with "Theo Epstein is walking through that door again."
Another prediction: Dan's scoopless streak -- what's it at, like nine years? -- will continue forever. Theo seems like a reasonable guy, but he's no fool, and now that the CHB has shown his true colors the guess here is Dan's cellphone is about to get very quiet.
Here's what his "Jan. 18" entry said:
Theo Epstein is back. In a cramped press conference held inside the left-field wall (the only part of Fenway not currently under construction), Epstein was introduced as the official ''Baseball Guru" of the Red Sox. Team owner John W. Henry would not specify Epstein's precise rank in the chain of command, but said, ''Theo will be a consultant on all baseball matters. When anything turns out well, we will applaud him madly for his contributions, but he will not be responsible for any moves that fail to succeed." Larry Lucchino was not present at the press conference.
So no doubt tomorrow, when the papers ring out with the news of Theo's return, Dan will go in search of credit. (He'll ignore the Jan. 11 entry forecasting Jim Rice's election to the Hall of Fame, and the Jan. 16 entry, which claimed the Patriots would beat the Colts, 38-7. But never mind all that.)
Here's a prediction: Dan's column tomorrow will lead with "Theo Epstein is walking through that door again."
Another prediction: Dan's scoopless streak -- what's it at, like nine years? -- will continue forever. Theo seems like a reasonable guy, but he's no fool, and now that the CHB has shown his true colors the guess here is Dan's cellphone is about to get very quiet.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Thanks for the Mention
Dear Dan,
In yesterday's post-mortem about the Patriots, thank you for the extended tangent on the Bruins and Celtics. Sure, what could have been a polite reflection on Saturday's game turned into a cheap shot on our franchises, but we do appreciate the attention. After all, any press is good press, right?
No doubt, you have all sorts of ideas on what we should be doing to revive our teams. We wait in anticipation of your helpful, well-considered suggestions, which could only come from an ex-athlete like yourself. Let's do lunch!
Sincerely,
Danny Ainge, executive director of basketball operations, Boston Celtics
Michael O'Connell, general manager, Boston Bruins
In yesterday's post-mortem about the Patriots, thank you for the extended tangent on the Bruins and Celtics. Sure, what could have been a polite reflection on Saturday's game turned into a cheap shot on our franchises, but we do appreciate the attention. After all, any press is good press, right?
No doubt, you have all sorts of ideas on what we should be doing to revive our teams. We wait in anticipation of your helpful, well-considered suggestions, which could only come from an ex-athlete like yourself. Let's do lunch!
Sincerely,
Danny Ainge, executive director of basketball operations, Boston Celtics
Michael O'Connell, general manager, Boston Bruins
Sunday, January 15, 2006
'The Greatest Patriots Victory of Them All'
Note to Ron Borges, Jerome Solomon, Nick Carfado and any of the other Globe writers who follow the Patriots on a regular basis: Your employer thinks you suck.
How do I know? Because although the CHB writes about football maybe six times a year -- half of which to inform the world that Tom Brady is Larry Bird -- his accounts of the most important Pats games of the season are run on A1, while the rest of you are relegated inside.
The CHB's reporting of last night's loss in Denver is by any measure a pedestrian account, but hey, Govnr's Park was beckoning. As with all his columns, however, Dan's journalistic epilepsy kicked in a couple times:
Petit mal. "The Patriots won an NFL-record 10 consecutive playoff games, dating to January 2002." Not really. The Patriots didn't make the playoffs for the 2002 season. Thus, saying the Pats won 10 consecutive playoff games is like saying the Steelers won four straight Super Bowls.
Grand mal. "The Dynasty, and three Super Bowls in four years, is officially over." Expect a lot of this in the weeks to come. Truth is, we don't know what's over and what's beginning, and won't for years. If the Pats take it all next year, I'd say the "Dynasty" would be still intact.
Pyschomotor flashback. And of course, there's no mention of his absurd Dec. 19 prediction that the Pats would defeat Indy in the playoffs this year. Remember, this was supposed to be "The greatest Patriots victory of them all." Or something like that.
How do I know? Because although the CHB writes about football maybe six times a year -- half of which to inform the world that Tom Brady is Larry Bird -- his accounts of the most important Pats games of the season are run on A1, while the rest of you are relegated inside.
The CHB's reporting of last night's loss in Denver is by any measure a pedestrian account, but hey, Govnr's Park was beckoning. As with all his columns, however, Dan's journalistic epilepsy kicked in a couple times:
Petit mal. "The Patriots won an NFL-record 10 consecutive playoff games, dating to January 2002." Not really. The Patriots didn't make the playoffs for the 2002 season. Thus, saying the Pats won 10 consecutive playoff games is like saying the Steelers won four straight Super Bowls.
Grand mal. "The Dynasty, and three Super Bowls in four years, is officially over." Expect a lot of this in the weeks to come. Truth is, we don't know what's over and what's beginning, and won't for years. If the Pats take it all next year, I'd say the "Dynasty" would be still intact.
Pyschomotor flashback. And of course, there's no mention of his absurd Dec. 19 prediction that the Pats would defeat Indy in the playoffs this year. Remember, this was supposed to be "The greatest Patriots victory of them all." Or something like that.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
No Hall for Rice Leaves Dan Steaming
On Dec. 6, the CHB opined that a supposed steroid backlash among voters would help sweep Jim Ed Rice into the Hall of Fame: Yesterday, the announcement was handed down and, well, let’s just say the juice is on Dan.
Should Rice’s supporters be steamed? Dan seems to think so. What's disturbing, though, is that in attempting to explain why Rice is cooked, the CHB falls back on that old saw: his testy relationship with the media. (How ironic, now that Jim Ed is one of them. Even more ironic, Rice reportedly declined to speak to local reporters after the announcement.)
Wrote the CHB on Dec. 6: “It's too easy to say Rice isn't in the Hall because he was nasty to the writers.” Those who forget the past are condemned to reread it, I suppose, because Dan wrote essentially the exact same column today. More on his self-plagiarism in a moment.
For evidence Dan conducts the ultimate poll: two reporters, only one of whom is acknowledged to have a vote.
One is Bill Madden of the NY Daily News, who does not vote for Rice. The other, Bob Gillespie of The State, published in Rice’s home state of South Carolina, said: "Most people here say, 'He didn't get along with writers, so people are taking it out on him.' " Well that seals it. The Palmetto State is such a representative demographic, what with so many major league baseball teams down there. Good research, Dan.
Yet from this, the CHB extrapolates that "certainly the possibility exists that Rice's attitude is hurting him at the ballot box." He goes on to suggest that unlike other sour stars, Rice "falls significantly shy of being a no-brainer." From that, I extrapolate that Dan has never heard Rice on NESN.
Here’s where it gets interesting. In his piece today, Gillespie, The State reporter, also quotes –- who else? -– Shaughnessy and Madden. Was this a group project, boys?
Thankfully, instead of concentrating on Rice’s attitude, Gillespie gets at the heart of the matter: The writers he talked to (which included two other voters as well) said that Rice simply lacked Hall numbers.
Here’s wishing Dan would try looking at the statistical reasons why writers are turning up their noses at Rice. Like, perhaps, the strong case against his inclusion presented by Baseball Prospectus.
The rest is just a rehash of Dan’s Dec. 6 piece.
Then: "Rice was the dominant slugger of his time."
Now: "Rice was the American League's dominant hitter from 1975-86."
Then: "He is the only player in major league history with three consecutive seasons of 35 homers and 200 hits."
Now: "He's the only player in big league history with three straight seasons of 35 homers and 200 hits."
Then: "Of the 17 players (who've been on the ballot) boasting at least 350 homers and a .290 average, all are in Cooperstown -- except for Rice and Dick Allen."
Now: "Among 18 players who've been on the ballot with 350 homers and an average of .290, all are in the Hall except for Rice and Dick Allen." (Apparently baseball is played in December, because someone was added to the list; perhaps you could enlighten us, Dan?)
Then: "Other than Rice, the only retired players with at least 382 homers and a career average of .298 are Hank Aaron, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, and Ted Williams."
Now: "Rice is one of 10 players with at least 382 homers and an average of .298: The other nine -- Hank Aaron, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, and Ted Williams -- all are in the Hall of Fame."
Then: "Do not underestimate the steroids backlash. Voters dread the day they'll be asked to pass judgment on the Hall worthiness of artificially inflated sluggers who hit 500 home runs with help from illegal substances."
Now: “… and the residual stench from the steroid scandal figured to boost Rice's image. We know he was clean when he was hitting cleanup.”
Then: “Eddie Murray made Rice look like a combination of Winston Churchill and Kevin Millar. … [T]here may be voters who do not give Rice a vote because he was nasty.”
Now: “Is Rice coming up short because of his terrible relationship with baseball writers during the time he played? Is this petty payback for years of churlishness? Would Rice be in the Hall of Fame if he'd been as media-friendly as, say, Kevin Millar?”
This was the fifth column of Dan’s published in the Globe in the past week. At first, I was impressed with the volume, even if the content was wanting.
Upon further review, when work consists of cut-and-pastes from your past columns, it’s pretty Dan easy.
Should Rice’s supporters be steamed? Dan seems to think so. What's disturbing, though, is that in attempting to explain why Rice is cooked, the CHB falls back on that old saw: his testy relationship with the media. (How ironic, now that Jim Ed is one of them. Even more ironic, Rice reportedly declined to speak to local reporters after the announcement.)
Wrote the CHB on Dec. 6: “It's too easy to say Rice isn't in the Hall because he was nasty to the writers.” Those who forget the past are condemned to reread it, I suppose, because Dan wrote essentially the exact same column today. More on his self-plagiarism in a moment.
For evidence Dan conducts the ultimate poll: two reporters, only one of whom is acknowledged to have a vote.
One is Bill Madden of the NY Daily News, who does not vote for Rice. The other, Bob Gillespie of The State, published in Rice’s home state of South Carolina, said: "Most people here say, 'He didn't get along with writers, so people are taking it out on him.' " Well that seals it. The Palmetto State is such a representative demographic, what with so many major league baseball teams down there. Good research, Dan.
Yet from this, the CHB extrapolates that "certainly the possibility exists that Rice's attitude is hurting him at the ballot box." He goes on to suggest that unlike other sour stars, Rice "falls significantly shy of being a no-brainer." From that, I extrapolate that Dan has never heard Rice on NESN.
Here’s where it gets interesting. In his piece today, Gillespie, The State reporter, also quotes –- who else? -– Shaughnessy and Madden. Was this a group project, boys?
Thankfully, instead of concentrating on Rice’s attitude, Gillespie gets at the heart of the matter: The writers he talked to (which included two other voters as well) said that Rice simply lacked Hall numbers.
Here’s wishing Dan would try looking at the statistical reasons why writers are turning up their noses at Rice. Like, perhaps, the strong case against his inclusion presented by Baseball Prospectus.
The rest is just a rehash of Dan’s Dec. 6 piece.
Then: "Rice was the dominant slugger of his time."
Now: "Rice was the American League's dominant hitter from 1975-86."
Then: "He is the only player in major league history with three consecutive seasons of 35 homers and 200 hits."
Now: "He's the only player in big league history with three straight seasons of 35 homers and 200 hits."
Then: "Of the 17 players (who've been on the ballot) boasting at least 350 homers and a .290 average, all are in Cooperstown -- except for Rice and Dick Allen."
Now: "Among 18 players who've been on the ballot with 350 homers and an average of .290, all are in the Hall except for Rice and Dick Allen." (Apparently baseball is played in December, because someone was added to the list; perhaps you could enlighten us, Dan?)
Then: "Other than Rice, the only retired players with at least 382 homers and a career average of .298 are Hank Aaron, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, and Ted Williams."
Now: "Rice is one of 10 players with at least 382 homers and an average of .298: The other nine -- Hank Aaron, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, and Ted Williams -- all are in the Hall of Fame."
Then: "Do not underestimate the steroids backlash. Voters dread the day they'll be asked to pass judgment on the Hall worthiness of artificially inflated sluggers who hit 500 home runs with help from illegal substances."
Now: “… and the residual stench from the steroid scandal figured to boost Rice's image. We know he was clean when he was hitting cleanup.”
Then: “Eddie Murray made Rice look like a combination of Winston Churchill and Kevin Millar. … [T]here may be voters who do not give Rice a vote because he was nasty.”
Now: “Is Rice coming up short because of his terrible relationship with baseball writers during the time he played? Is this petty payback for years of churlishness? Would Rice be in the Hall of Fame if he'd been as media-friendly as, say, Kevin Millar?”
This was the fifth column of Dan’s published in the Globe in the past week. At first, I was impressed with the volume, even if the content was wanting.
Upon further review, when work consists of cut-and-pastes from your past columns, it’s pretty Dan easy.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Monday, January 09, 2006
The Mailman Always Writes Twice
What's the secret to the Patriots' amazing 10-game playoff win streak? The defense? The QB? The running game? The coaching?
None of the above, says the CHB today. It's the attitude.
It seems the CHB simply updated his Jan. 7 column, substituting the word "respect" for any reference to "disrepect" in that piece. Now, everyone in the NFL "respects" the Patriots. Wow, how things change in 48 hours.
More mailtime:
Thrown in: For the third straight column, the Mailman accuses the Pats of having thrown their season-ending game in order to ensure a first-round matchup with the Jaguars. "They did not have the luxury that Belichick had on New Year's Day. They could not dictate the identity of their opponent for the next playoff game" and "Obviously he knew what he was doing when he tanked the Miami game and set up a first-round match with the softies from Jacksonville." Would someone please alert the NFL office! No, wait, someone call my bookie!
History lesson no. 1: "If you are a young sports fan in our region, know this: It does not get any better than what we are seeing in this latter half of the 2005-06 Patriots season." I guess nine straight NBA titles and 11 in 13 years just isn't what it used to be.
History lesson no. 2: "The Patriots in 2005-06 are like the 1969 Bill Russell Celtics, who finished in fourth place but won the NBA championship, beating the Chamberlain-West-Baylor Lakers on the road in Game 7." More regurgitation from Dan's Dec. 19 column.
History lesson no. 3: "I prefer to remember the Monday night game the Patriots won in Denver Nov. 3, 2003, just a few days after Grady Little spit the bit in Yankee Stadium." So now it's Little's fault? That's not what you said just a few weeks after that game: "Think Schilling would blow a 5-2 lead in the eighth against the Yankees, then throw his manager under the bus?"
Memory lane no. 1: "A lot of us were hoping for an immediate matchup with the Colts in the RCA Dome next weekend." Remind me, who was it who just three weeks ago announced that the Pats would beat Indy this week? Oh yeah, him.
Memory lane no. 2: "That was in the middle of the season when the Patriots went 14-2 and won their second Super Bowl in three years, squashing theories that they were one-year wonders." Right, yours included.
Memo to Joe Sullivan: This piece's lack of analysis is superseded only by its lack of originality. Want a tip on improving your budget and your coverage? Fire this self-plagiarist and use the money to hire a couple of young, smart reporters. The sports desk -- and greater Boston -- will thank you.
None of the above, says the CHB today. It's the attitude.
It seems the CHB simply updated his Jan. 7 column, substituting the word "respect" for any reference to "disrepect" in that piece. Now, everyone in the NFL "respects" the Patriots. Wow, how things change in 48 hours.
More mailtime:
Thrown in: For the third straight column, the Mailman accuses the Pats of having thrown their season-ending game in order to ensure a first-round matchup with the Jaguars. "They did not have the luxury that Belichick had on New Year's Day. They could not dictate the identity of their opponent for the next playoff game" and "Obviously he knew what he was doing when he tanked the Miami game and set up a first-round match with the softies from Jacksonville." Would someone please alert the NFL office! No, wait, someone call my bookie!
History lesson no. 1: "If you are a young sports fan in our region, know this: It does not get any better than what we are seeing in this latter half of the 2005-06 Patriots season." I guess nine straight NBA titles and 11 in 13 years just isn't what it used to be.
History lesson no. 2: "The Patriots in 2005-06 are like the 1969 Bill Russell Celtics, who finished in fourth place but won the NBA championship, beating the Chamberlain-West-Baylor Lakers on the road in Game 7." More regurgitation from Dan's Dec. 19 column.
History lesson no. 3: "I prefer to remember the Monday night game the Patriots won in Denver Nov. 3, 2003, just a few days after Grady Little spit the bit in Yankee Stadium." So now it's Little's fault? That's not what you said just a few weeks after that game: "Think Schilling would blow a 5-2 lead in the eighth against the Yankees, then throw his manager under the bus?"
Memory lane no. 1: "A lot of us were hoping for an immediate matchup with the Colts in the RCA Dome next weekend." Remind me, who was it who just three weeks ago announced that the Pats would beat Indy this week? Oh yeah, him.
Memory lane no. 2: "That was in the middle of the season when the Patriots went 14-2 and won their second Super Bowl in three years, squashing theories that they were one-year wonders." Right, yours included.
Memo to Joe Sullivan: This piece's lack of analysis is superseded only by its lack of originality. Want a tip on improving your budget and your coverage? Fire this self-plagiarist and use the money to hire a couple of young, smart reporters. The sports desk -- and greater Boston -- will thank you.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
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.
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.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Dan Knows Football
This weekend’s playoff game between the Patriots and Jacksonville Jaguars is a layup, says renowned football writer Dan Shaughnessy. That’s right: The CHB is now a football expert.
His rationale for deeming the Jaguars roadkill? “It’s a warm weather team." Well, Dan should know about that. After all, he’s the ultimate fair weather fan.
Here’s the question though: Writers like Peter King, John Clayton and yes, even Ron Borges spend most of the year tracking the NFL. The CHB, on the other hand, sees Curt Schilling in his sleep. So why, at this critical point in the season, would NECN -- nay, anyone -- seek the CHB’s opinion on football, a subject that he couldn’t possibly (and doesn't) know anything about?
Watch the video (the link is on the right, under “Shaughnessy: Jaguars will be road kill”): Dan literally talks out of the side of his mouth.
His rationale for deeming the Jaguars roadkill? “It’s a warm weather team." Well, Dan should know about that. After all, he’s the ultimate fair weather fan.
Here’s the question though: Writers like Peter King, John Clayton and yes, even Ron Borges spend most of the year tracking the NFL. The CHB, on the other hand, sees Curt Schilling in his sleep. So why, at this critical point in the season, would NECN -- nay, anyone -- seek the CHB’s opinion on football, a subject that he couldn’t possibly (and doesn't) know anything about?
Watch the video (the link is on the right, under “Shaughnessy: Jaguars will be road kill”): Dan literally talks out of the side of his mouth.
Monday, January 02, 2006
No Scoops for Vanilla Dan
When was the last time the CHB actually broke a story? Recall that in his most talked about piece of last year, the CHB insisted later that the gist of the story was already "out there."
So while Dan seems to have a Batphone to Dr. Charles Steinberg's desk, it's up to Red Sox beat writers Gordon Edes and Chris Snow to supply the hot news. Heck, even Bob Hohler broke his share while he was on the beat -- and he seemingly couldn't wait to be reassigned.
Today, in his monthly non Red Sox piece, Dan tells us the Pats threw their game against Miami yesterday. Well, maybe they did and maybe they didn’t. And by stating as much he’s simply voicing what all the talk shows were saying anyway.
I guess a few inside scoops are too much too ask for from the Globe's lead columnist.
Bad metaphor watch: “It almost looked like intentional grounding . . . or something Matt Clement threw against the White Sox in the playoffs.” What, you couldn’t come up with a football reference? Like, perhaps, “ or something Flutie threw against the Jets last week.”
So while Dan seems to have a Batphone to Dr. Charles Steinberg's desk, it's up to Red Sox beat writers Gordon Edes and Chris Snow to supply the hot news. Heck, even Bob Hohler broke his share while he was on the beat -- and he seemingly couldn't wait to be reassigned.
Today, in his monthly non Red Sox piece, Dan tells us the Pats threw their game against Miami yesterday. Well, maybe they did and maybe they didn’t. And by stating as much he’s simply voicing what all the talk shows were saying anyway.
I guess a few inside scoops are too much too ask for from the Globe's lead columnist.
Bad metaphor watch: “It almost looked like intentional grounding . . . or something Matt Clement threw against the White Sox in the playoffs.” What, you couldn’t come up with a football reference? Like, perhaps, “ or something Flutie threw against the Jets last week.”
Sunday, January 01, 2006
'Danagrams'
It is well known that Dan Shaughnessy can spin garbage into gold. He pulls off that every time he gets paid for a column. But have you ever wondered what you can spin "Dan Shaughnessy" into?
Here's 19 of the best anagrams (Danagrams?) for "Dan Shaughnessy." I like no. 9; which is your favorite?
1. She shuns gay Dan
2. He’s sunny, had gas (Ed.: well, maybe the second part)
3. Sung a shady hens
4. A sun shy hags den
5. A hang ends hussy
6. Shag a nuns hydes
7. A hun ends shy gas
8. Any gas ends hush
9. He an ass-shy dung
10. Gnashed a shy sun
11. Hand say, He’s snug
12. Handy ass he sung
13. He shun gassy Dan (Ed.: right on!)
14. Dan says he’s hung (Ed.: yeah, right)
15. Hush, Danny gases
16. He has sandy guns
17. Shy as ashen dung
18. Hey - shun Dan’s gas
19. End hush, nag says
Here's 19 of the best anagrams (Danagrams?) for "Dan Shaughnessy." I like no. 9; which is your favorite?
1. She shuns gay Dan
2. He’s sunny, had gas (Ed.: well, maybe the second part)
3. Sung a shady hens
4. A sun shy hags den
5. A hang ends hussy
6. Shag a nuns hydes
7. A hun ends shy gas
8. Any gas ends hush
9. He an ass-shy dung
10. Gnashed a shy sun
11. Hand say, He’s snug
12. Handy ass he sung
13. He shun gassy Dan (Ed.: right on!)
14. Dan says he’s hung (Ed.: yeah, right)
15. Hush, Danny gases
16. He has sandy guns
17. Shy as ashen dung
18. Hey - shun Dan’s gas
19. End hush, nag says
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)