Dirty Laundry Redux

I was debating whether or not to do this, but since the column was being discussed in the comments of the last post anyway, I figured why not. Let's take another look at that column. I have nothing else to do right now. CHB appears to be on vacation and has not published any crap for awhile. It's probably going to be re-analyzed everywhere else anyway, now that we have new information. So, in honor of a frequent CHB technique...regurgitation, ladies and gentlemen!

The first few paragraphs consist of vague ballwasheries (look, a neologism!) and some fluff about the Bible that doesn't seem to make me recall any biblical stories I know, but perhaps I'm just forgetting one. Skip all that. It's not worth your time. Here's where the bullshit starts:

Larry taught Theo too well and now he is looking in the mirror as he tries to hammer out a deal with the GM he made in his own image. Both are merely doing what they are trained to do. In Theo's case, he's doing what Larry trained him to do.

"Made in his own image." I know where that is in the Bible. Genesis! Larry is God. Theo is Adam. Who is Eve in all this? Who caused Theo to sin and fall out of favor? I'll arbitrarily attach the label to, um....okay, never mind. This whole thing is bunk anyway. CHB is acting like Theo is some toddler who needs his personality formed by his parents, like both of them are the result of some Pavlovian conditioning experiment in which they're "trained to act" in a certain way. That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

What is alarming -- for the future of the Sox franchise -- is Theo's sudden need to distance himself from those who helped him rise to his position of power. Lucchino and Dr. Charles Steinberg are a pair of Red Sox executives who ''discovered" Theo when he was a student at Yale. They picked him out of thousands of wannabe interns. They hired him in Baltimore and then took him to San Diego with them. They held his hand and drove him places during his Wonder Years. They urged him to get his law degree. And when they set up stakes at Fenway Park, they fought vigorously to bring him home. A year later, when Billy Beane got cold feet, Lucchino turned to 28-year-old Theo and made him the (then) youngest GM in the history of baseball.

This absolutely has Steinberg and Lucchino written all over it. It's so badly done that all you can do is laugh at how crude the parrot job is. I'm fairly sure that this is the first thing that set Theo off, the second thing coming shortly after. "Held his hand?" "Wonder Years?" Again, let's please not commit the logical fallacy of making him seem like a precocious toddler, Dan, because everybody and their brother absolutely knows that's not true. If you want to do a rip job, you have to at least make it seem believable.

And now Theo ''bristles at the notion of Steinberg and Lucchino taking credit for his success."

The problem with this is? Why do they get to take credit for it? If somebody took the credit for my success, I'd be pretty pissed off. It wasn't their success, it was his. Astonishing.

That was in March. And now we are in October. And a considerable amount of misinformation has been spilled.

"And I'm going to add to the cesspool."

Let's start with Theo being a ''baseball guy" while Larry is a lawyer with a lofty title (CEO). Granted, Epstein is a student of the game, but it's a mistake to say he knows more about baseball than Lucchino or anyone else in the Red Sox baseball operation. Theo is 31 years old and did not play baseball past high school. He spent four years at Yale and three years at law school. That hardly leaves time for much more than rotisserie league scouting.

Let's start with this being a pile of absolute horseshit. What is Lucchino's background in player evaluation? Oh, that's right, he doesn't have any. Yes, actually, Dan, Theo does know more about baseball than Lucchino. Maybe not the business side, but the playing side? Sure he does. Being born in 1973 does not logically lead to the conclusion that he doesn't know anything. You can know a lot at 31. Also, those 3 years in law school? Ran concurrently with a full-time BASEBALL OPERATIONS job with the Padres. You wrote that in your own goddamned book, you moron.

Lucchino was a good high school baseball player and made it to the NCAA Final Four with Princeton's basketball team. He came to baseball as an executive in 1979, when Theo was 5 years old. That doesn't make him George Digby or Ray Boone, but he's not Les Otten, either.

This makes absolutely no sense. He bashes Theo for not playing baseball past high school, and then he never mentions that Lucchino didn't, either! A "good high school baseball player." And then he played BASKETBALL in college. Which has absolutely no relationship whatsoever to baseball except that the words have some of the same letters. Good God. And there's the whole, "Larry is older than Theo" angle. So are you, Dan. It doesn't make you any less of a shit.

Lucchino-bashers, and they are legion, maintain that he repeatedly has undermined Theo and on occasion killed deals made by Epstein and the minions. There was one, for sure. When Theo's assistant Josh Byrnes (hired by Arizona as GM Friday) made a deal with Colorado, Epstein thought he had a better deal with another club and requested that Lucchino fall on the sword and invoke the ownership approval clause to kill the Rockies deal. Accustomed to people hating him, Lucchino took the fall, killing the deal and saving Epstein.

I would guess this is the paragraph that pushed Theo over the edge. There's only one place CHB could have gotten that info. And, FWIW, it's wrong. John Henry killed that deal. He wanted to send money instead of prospects and wasn't aware that Colorado had made a deal in anticipation of that one being rubber-stamped. Why he then let Josh Byrnes and Theo take the blame, I have no clue. But the above version is wrong And it probably came from Steinberg. And if CHB had stopped to think about it, he would realize that it makes no sense. Read the quotes after the trade, Dan. Lucchino didn't fall on his sword for anybody, and doing so would be completely out of character. Instead, he threw Josh Byrnes under the bus, forcing Theo to come out and accept blame for something he probably didn't have much to do with, given all the Manny shit at the time. Have we forgotten this? And if the Epstein-Lucchino relationship was in as bad shape as Mnookin claims it to be, it is absolutely unfathomable that Theo would ask Lucchino to do such a thing. That, and he's not a weasel.

It was charged last week that Sox management conducted a ''smear campaign" against Epstein. How? Where's the campaign?

Right here, retard.

Juicy gossip redux

There is a big excerpt of Seth Mnookin's book in the Globe magazine this morning. It's pretty long and most of it is irrelevant, but I would like to reproduce the following portion:

Then he got a phone call alerting him to an article in that day's Boston Globe. On the front page of the paper's sports section was a Dan Shaughnessy column entitled, "Let's Iron Out Some of This Dirty Laundry." When Epstein began reading, he felt his stomach drop. After weeks during which he'd talked with Henry, Werner, and Lucchino about his unease about the organization, here was confirmation of his worst fears. In his column, Shaughnessy, who'd known Lucchino since the 1980s, when both men worked in Baltimore, chided Epstein for not properly respecting his superiors. After all, Shaughnessy wrote, it was Lucchino who'd "discovered" Epstein and "held his hand" during his first years in baseball. Now, Shaughnessy wrote, Epstein was exhibiting an "alarming . . . need to distance himself from those who helped him rise to his position of power." Epstein, according to Shaughnessy, didn't even know all that much about baseball. "It's a mistake to say [Epstein] knows more about baseball than Lucchino or anyone else in the Red Sox baseball operation," he wrote.

Duh. Okay. Most of us have seen this crap enough times already, including in the article on Friday. Sorry for repeating it . I just didn't feel like the next part flowed very well without a brief intro.

Either Lucchino or Red Sox executive vice president in charge of public affairs Charles Steinberg, Epstein felt sure, had prompted the column. Both men, after all, had been heard saying lines almost identical to some Shaughnessy had used. (About a week earlier, several sources confirm, Steinberg had a conversation with Shaughnessy and another reporter in which he said many of the things that ended up in Shaughnessy's column. Steinberg says he never "spoke ill against Theo." "Nor would I," he says, "because that's inconsistent with how I've felt about him all these years, and I still know, with the grace of God, he's destined for more greatness.")

Mystery solved. There it is, right there. We all knew CHB was a tool, right? This is all the proof you need. It's amazing how poorly done the whole job was, too. If you're going to do it right, at least make a token effort to have it seem balanced. Instead it came out like some editorial in the Pyongyang Times. So it was the Minister of Fun, eh? This was already called at the time:

FWIW the article didn't make Theo leave, but if you were gonna bet on it, I'd tell you to bet that it was the proverbial "straw" given the load of BS in it, and the 100% blatantly obvious "industry source" who uttered, OUT LOUD, some of the EXACT comments that were IN the article on Sunday, verbatim.

Curt Schilling on SoSH, ladies and gentlemen, on November 4, 2005. As a side note, I call BS on Steinberg's comments about Theo, as an acquaintance of mine worked with both of them in Baltimore and says they haven't been on the best of terms since Theo was 18 years old (1991). I wouldn't say that it was anything like what apparently happened last fall, but let's not pretend they were buddy-buddy. Steinberg is a PR guy, after all, which means that you really can't take anything at face value.

Does it seem to anyone else that by printing this excerpt of the book in the Globe, somebody may be trying to throw Shaughnessy under a bus? He comes off really, really badly here. It's one thing to talk to a source and write something based on what he says. Quite normal, actually. It's another to not even bother to investigate any possible agenda behind it and make any sort of attempt to get the other side. I know it was a column, not a news story, but let's please have some standards here. This just smacks of laziness and malevolence. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Perhaps the 17% Globe is trying to make itself appear more objective. Or maybe they're just trying to make themselves the story again. Note to the Globe: It's not always a good thing.

If this is all the mention CHB gets in the book, rest assured that I will say as much when I finish it and post no more about it. I know some of you have to be getting tired of it. But I fully expect him to be mentioned in conjunction with Nomar and some others, so there will probably be more. Hey, it's not like you're actually being forced to read his writing, just Mnookin's and mine.

Juicy gossip

I'd like to address this article by Gordon Edes, which, along with its subject matter, is going to be pretty controversial.

Seth Mnookin, a columnist for various papers, is coming out with a book about the Sox FO called "Feeding the Monster" on July 11. Being a Red Sox-obsessed geek, I've pre-ordered a copy and can't wait to read it. That didn't change at all after today's column on it, but I have to admit I was a little repelled, which is not my normal reaction to Edes.

What he does here is give us a little smattering of material in the book. That's well and good. I've seen some of it already on Mnookin's website. But Edes focuses almost entirely on the events of last Halloween. The book is 450 freaking pages, there is a lot more in it than that. Everyone's going to read it anyway, but why did the Globe have to highlight it? Given their ambiguous ties with the Red Sox and all the media shit that hit the fan last year, you'd think they might want to be a little more cautious.

CHB watch: Of course, our favorite columnist is also mentioned. Here's the excerpt:

And Epstein, despite his ``bitterness" over leaks about the negotiations, ``was at peace" with his decision to return, until reading an Oct. 30 column in the Globe by Dan Shaughnessy, headlined ``Let's iron out some of this dirty laundry," that was critical of Epstein. Convinced that either Lucchino or his longtime lieutenant, Dr. Charles Steinberg, was the source of the column, Epstein e-mailed Henry with his intentions to resign the next day, according to the book.

``I have a huge pit in my stomach," Epstein wrote, ``but it's nowhere near as big a pit as I'd have if I'd already signed a contract."

So there you have it, clear as day. This has long been what I suspected, and what CHB couldn't seem to get through his thick skull. The column in and of itself did not cause any sort of huge about-face. It just pushed Theo over the edge. CHB never seemed to understand that it wasn't the words themselves that did it, but what they were symbolic of: a breach of trust. And since he wrote the damned thing, he's complicit. Let's not pretend he's the only one that would have written the thing, because journalists are journalists (read: turdballs) but his poison pen is unique.

I'm not quite sure why the paper would want this published. It's publicity, but I don't subscribe to the adage that any publicity is good publicity. They had enough egg on their face when that "Epstein signs 3-year contract" story (written by Edes, incidentally) turned out to be wrong, and then when it turned out that another one of their columnists was a reason why it was wrong, the egg became an omelet. Nobody trusts the Globe any more. I personally know dozens of people who called in and cancelled their subscriptions on Nov. 1. And yet here they are, broadcasting clear as day what people suspected already, and even linking to the stupid column! I just don't get it.

And one more thing: After reading what I've read, I have to say that anybody in the Sox FO who was surprised when Theo resigned is an oblivious idiot. There were multiple openings to stop that train wreck. It was coming from a mile away.

A shot of sanity

As you can tell by the title, I am not talking about a CHB column today. Instead, how about a little change of pace toward the positive? Bob Ryan has written a really excellent column today. Basically, he voices the incredulity many of us feel at watching half the fan base alternatively jump on and off the bandwagon based on whether or not the Red Sox have won or lost 2 games in a row, and tells these people to stop getting their panties in a bunch. After all, come on, guys, we're not Yankees fans.

So Bob Ryan, I salute you, and I wish you would give your colleague lessons.

Hitting Bottom

Forget the life preserver. Dan has struck bottom and I don't think he's coming back up.

The Red Sox finish their demolition of the National League, going 16 and 2. The NBA draft just ended and Celtics have all sorts of tricks up their sleeves (we hope). The Bruins have a new GM, a new coach and a new star defenseman. Wimbledon! The World Cup! Locusts!

And there's The Bravest Columnist Joe Sullivan Has Ever Seen(TM), the star of the Boston Globe sports pages, writing on ... women's golf.

And not just writing on it; he's outright rooting. "You can take Annika Sorenstam. I'm going with Pat Hurst.

"ESPN and the gin-drinking Nick Carraways and Jordan Bakers on the porch at the stately Newport clubhouse no doubt will be rooting for Annika. It makes for a much better story line. Not me. I'm pulling for the working mom who sits on her golf bag between shots."

What happened to "I root for the story?" Sounds good, but in truth it's just D.S.

Anchor's away!

How many game recaps do we need?

Sorry this is late, I was watching a thrilling match between Germany and Argentina (brother is currently running around the house in his Lukas Podolski jersey yelling his head off) and didn't feel like ruining my fun to read this junk.

Today, we learn that the Boston Red Sox are playing fairly well.

Really? Wow. I had no idea. ESPN has only told me approximately 8 million times that they have won 12 straight games and that they have some huge long errorless streak going. I've only, you know, watched all these wins, being a Sox fan. The Red Sox are looking good? Who would have guessed it?

Honestly, what is the point of this column? There really isn't much to say about it, because the game recap is right above it and contains pretty much the same information. So let's just leave it at that.

He Named Names

It was Dan's long awaited take on the even-longer awaited return of Pedro Martínez to Fenway Park. It was hard to say which one stunk worse.

Summoning the ghost of Saul Bellow, The CHB ticked off a litany of names and out-of-place references: John Wasdin, Sonny Liston, Floyd Patterson, Johnny Damon, Cal Ripken, Barbra Streisand, Ann Coulter (!). Other than naming names, though, intermixed with a pedestrian game account, the column lacked any sense of depth or proportion of what the game meant to Martínez.

The CHB did note that Pedro didn't have his best stuff (eight runs allowed on seven hits and two walks in three innings), yet he (thankfully) shelved the childish nicknames (the Dominican Diva, for example) and his usual snideness, save one line: "We saw some of old Pedro when he drilled Loretta in the wrist on an 0 and 2 pitch with two outs and nobody aboard in the second" (as if Pedro, down 4-0 at that point and with Ortiz and Manny due up next, would really pick that spot to make a point).

Perhaps The CHB let up as he sensed -- correctly for a change -- that the winds were blowing Pedro's way, that Boston fans recognized the masterful performance he put on during his time in Boston and were ready to welcome him home.

No, you don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows. Just read Dan.

Grady Little watch (you knew there would be one, didn't you?): "He rarely cracked 90 miles per hour and needed 75 pitches to get through the three frames. Even Grady Little would have pulled him out of this one."

Dan Good Parodies

Bruce Allen's Write Like Dan contest has produced some outstanding parodies. I'm not so sure The CHB himself didn't submit the piece titled, A Prodigal Returns to face Red Sox Nation.

Read and vote on your favorite here.

No Pedro column yet?

Oh, darn. Guess I'll have to deal with that one tomorrow morning. Anyway, I might have a little trouble with today's contribution, because I wasn't born in 1986. So please forgive me for largely leaving the historical stuff out, and feel free to pick away at it in the comments, because I'm really not going to know the difference. We all good? Okay.

Today's piece is intended to be a smarmy, heart-warming work about the 1986 Red Sox, the infamous Bill Buckner posse. Unheralded! Fantastic! Surprising! Soul-crushing! You get the idea. Right off the bat, we get such nonsense as this:

The Red Sox? They were well below the radar, coming off a thoroughly boring 81-81 season.

Okay, I don't live in Boston, and I wasn't around then, but have the Red Sox ever been below anybody's radar? I have trouble believing this. And since when is 81-81 boring? Seems pretty exciting to me. The season could go either way after that. But what do I know?

There was no Nation, no Monster Section, no pink hats, no ``Sweet Caroline", no Curse, and no automatic sellout for every game.

Minor nitpick: "Sweet Caroline" was written by Neil Diamond in 1969 (yes, I had to look that up). So technically, it was there. Just not at Fenway. But I know what he meant.

Major nitpick: Yup, people, there's that "Curse" again! It wasn't there yet because a certain ugly curly-haired columnist hadn't yet come up with a completely stupid way to make money by writing a book about an odd coincidence! And here he is, pimping it! Yay for CHB!

Also, why does he list things that have only occurred since the Henry/Werner/Lucchino group took over? Nation? Monster Section? Automatic sellout? Not exactly ancient history, Dan. Most of us can remember back farther than 4 years.

They've all been treated unfairly, of course, and I'll own up to my contributions in this area.

Oh my gosh. Is CHB apologizing? Look at this! Oh, wait. He says "I'll own up to my contributions." Future tense. Then he never does. Never mentions anything he said previously. I should have known better.

Now, we get to the most ridiculous paragraph I've ever seen:

These men who'll be honored tonight engineered a comeback every bit as unlikely as what the '04 Red Sox did against the Yankees. Trailing the California Angels, three games to one, they came back from a 5-2 deficit in the ninth inning of Game 5 in Anaheim. And it was Buckner who started the rally with a single up the middle in the ninth. A home run by Dave Henderson became instant Boston folklore as the Sox rallied to win Game 5, 7-6, in 11 innings.

They won the next two in Boston with ease, then took the first two games of the Series in New York.

Holy shit, Dan. No, they didn't. The '04 Red Sox had the most unlikely comeback in the history of sports. Coming back from down 3-0 in the series had never happened before. Please don't tell me you've forgotten all this already, how magical it was, how unexpected: it was two freaking years ago! Coming back from down 3-1, winning one game in extras, and then the other two "easily" is nowhere near as unlikely as coming back from down 3-0, never done before in MLB history, winning two games in extras, winning a game with a pitcher who probably shouldn't have been able to walk at all, and then winning the fourth game easily. Utter BS. Just wow.

The 1986 team deserves credit, not just for coming back against the Angels, not just for making it to Game 7 of the Series, but for putting big league baseball back on the map in New England.

I firmly believe this to be a hot load of crap, but I might be wrong.

Moral pontificating

Hello, readers!

I'm not Chief. As you may have noticed. Some of you will probably recognize me as "jenny" from the comments, and for those who don't, well, that's me. Chief has asked me to help out with the unenviable task of running CHB's crap through a strainer, and I'm grateful for the invitation. So, with that out of the way, let's get to today's Sunday surprise.

People should not beat their wives.

Shocking, right? I have no problem with this message. Wife-beating is unacceptable. We all know that.

But coming from Dan Shaughnessy? Let's get something straight here: I am NOT comparing the crime of writing insulting garbage in a newspaper to the crime of domestic abuse. There's no comparison. But please. With all the horrible things this man has written about people over the years that HE should be called out publicly way more than he is, this is a little ironic.

And so he was out there throwing cut fastballs and changeups on a misty, humid afternoon. Nice message for all the young folks watching at home and in the stands.

You know what the nice message was? The nice message was that the guy got the shit booed out of him every time he stepped out of the dugout. It was abundantly clear that NOBODY approved of what he'd done. As far as those "young folks," let's take a look around the league, Dan. Brett Myers is neither the first nor the last player to beat his wife, as you noted later on with your mention of Wil "Telephone Bludgeon" Cordero. The league is full of drug abusers (and yes, you can take that any way you please), drunk drivers, and other such lovely role models. Sidney Ponson and Jason Michaels are in trouble for assaulting police officers. Point is, Dan, most of these guys are not really people you want your kids emulating. Let's not act like Brett Myers is the sole scum of the earth.

It's just plain wrong. It's an embarrassment to baseball and an embarrassment to the Phillies. At the very least, Myers would have been better off if he'd been sent home to start counseling with his wife. Or maybe someone in authority could have condemned domestic violence -- in the generic sense. Instead all we got was ``the game must go on" -- 36 hours after a man was arrested for beating his wife.

Yes, it is an embarrassment. It's always an embarrassment. Does Dan think for some reason that if he draws attention to this issue, which has already been written about twice in the Globe by other people, it will become more of an embarrassment? Everybody already condemns domestic violence. We don't need Dan Shaughnessy, of all people, to tell us it's wrong, especially when this issue has already been beaten (no pun intended) to death by various other writers. It's quite obvious what everyone thinks of Myers, Dan, since you aptly pointed out the resounding chorus of boos he received from the Fenway crowd. What exactly is the point of this column?

Oh, and I don't think he can go home and start counseling right away. He's not allowed to go near her.

Where Was Dan?

While Boston Red Sox players were popping pills, rubbing on creams and injecting needles, their baseball writers were ... where, exactly?

And while ex Red Sox come forward to tell their tales, where is their star columnist?

The Boston Globe edit page today complains that while drugs were running rampant, no one was minding the store: "Selig, the owners, and the union might have stopped it from reaching the scale it did in the late-1990s if baseball had not welcomed the explosion of home runs powered by the drugs as a way to lure back fans disillusioned by the strike of 1994."

But in taking everyone to the whipping shed, the paper conveniently spared a few lashes for the one group whose only job is to inform the public: its very own writers.

While the needles were being filled, where was Dan?

And while the battle and disclosures of today rage on, where is Dan?

Write Like Dan

Are the Globe editors as confused as Shaughnessy is? His latest "picked up pieces" column is filed under GOLF.

Not much here...just the usual tripe: Dan hates soccer, Mark Cuban and Gary Glitter, and loves Tom Verducci, Jeff Samardzija and Stephen Stills. Whoopee!


In anticipation of the return of Pedro Martinez to Boston, Bruce Allen at Boston Sports Media Watch is offering a "Write like Shaughnessy" contest. I'd highly recommend it. But first, borrow a friend's motorcycle and ride it, helmutless, into a concrete wall. Next, get really, really drunk. Then write your column.

On another note, jenny when you get a moment drop me a line at thechbblows@yahoo.com.

Last Legs?

Putting aside for a moment the complete inanity of The CHB's latest effort, let's recap his coverage since coming back from his own private Idaho (or wherever the hell he was for the better part of May):
* A groundbreaking, insider's look at Harvard's equipment man, whose name (Chet Stone) sounds like a porn star's.
* A trio of dispatches from the crucial Twins-Red Sox series.
* A rewrite of his tongue-in-cheek breakdown of the typical Boston fan.

In the Boston fan piece, he interviews the two village idiots, Bob Lobel and Gerry Callahan, perhaps with the rare insight that by putting those two clowns front and center, it would take the attention (and heat) off Dan himself.

In the pieces from Minneapolis, he can barely cast a middle finger toward the Sox; the worst insult he can manage is to call the then-tepid Boston offense "vaunted." He actually sounds like he feels sorry for Matt Clement.

He is clearly picking his spots, picking subjects and taking positions that are of such little interest to the five readers he has left that no one will bother to criticize him.

In today's column, two items stick out, and for all the wrong reasons.

1. What Dan wrote: "But what about the absurdity of Frank Robinson not making baseball's 30-man All-Century team in 2000? Mark McGwire was on that team. Pete Rose was on that team. Ken Griffey Jr. was on that team. No room for Frank -- a guy who could hit, run, field, and throw? The MVP in both leagues? Pete Rose over Frank Robinson?"
What Dan didn't write: Anything about the omission at the time it occurred.

2. What Dan wrote: "Frank Robinson is quite possibly the most underrated player in the history of baseball. Certainly he got his props, making the Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility and being part of 12 All-Star teams. He remains the only man to win the MVP award in both leagues and had his No. 20 uniform jersey retired by both the Reds and Orioles. He was Rookie of the Year with the Reds in 1956 and in 1975 became the first African-American to manage in the majors. Ever-dramatic, Robinson homered in his first game as player-manager of the Indians."

This graf is The CHB in a nutshell. A hypothesis statement, followed by a point by point ticking off of occasionally random facts that completely obliterate that very hypothesis. And amid all Dan is completely oblivious to the fact that his "proof" does not support his argument. Quintessential Shaughnessy.

And it's just another shovel of dirt cast on the vestiges of a mediocre career.

Sh*t Hits at Fans

As if we didn't have enough proof that The CHB has been getting paid a princely sum the past few years simply for pressing CTRL+C and CTRL+V, he so much as admits it here.

In this week's Globe magazine, the Mailman rewrites his essay of 16 years ago in which he categorized the sports fans of Boston. For this year's version, he digs up some of the fans he spoke with in the 1990 piece, while also interviewing better-known faces like Bob Lobel and Gerry Callahan, of whom it is said "co-hosts a sports talk show on WEEI radio" (Callahan's Boston Herald affiliation is mysteriously absent). Ain't it sweet when you can take a 4,400 word article, complete with interviews, without ever leaving the press box?

Weird quote of the column: " 'By any measure, it's a football town,' says WEEI's Callahan. 'How can it not be? There's more interest in out-of-town football than there is in out-of-town baseball. The passion for the Red Sox does not make it a baseball town. Look at the TV ratings.' " Ever heard of summer, Gerry? That's when baseball is played. That's also when the weather is nice and people take vacations and there's lots of stuff to do outside. Can't exactly say the same about Sunday afternoons in December in Boston.

Wild Daze Ahead

Sorry for the late post; have been traveling way too much recently.

I read today's column while en route from Boston to Philly. My first thought was, Hey Dan, haven't seen you in awhile. My second was, The CHB reappears for this?

Shaughnessy has barely caressed the keyboard of late, and when he has the topics have been for the most part peripheral to sports life in Boston. He's gone from rewriting old columns to barely writing at all -- and sending them by box turtle when he does.

There was the 50,000-word dispatch on some relic at Harvard who handled equipment for the sports teams. That ran almost two weeks ago, and was more or less Dan's only effort until his road trip this week to the baseball Mecca of Minneapolis, where he had drafted a pair of mundane pieces on the key Red Sox-Twins matchup.

On to today's attempted whimsy.

His latest remarks come in response to the announcement that Globe sportswriter Chris Snow is leaving to take a front office job with the Minnesota Wild NHL franchise. There are numerous problems with this piece, as several folks have already cited. Two others are:

* He finishes the piece by calling Snow's move "one in a million," yet before the jump he ticked off no fewer than seven pro sports executives who got their starts as sportswriters.

* His claim that Peter Gammons would make a great GM: "What fan would not be comfortable with Gammons making personnel decisions for his or her team?" Ummm, me (although I think Dan's imitation of Gammons' famously fractured syntax was amusing -- assuming it was intended, of course).

This appears to be the end of the line for Dan. The Red Sox and Yankees are engaged in yet another classic struggle, and the best he can do is weak reminisces. I find it sad, in a way, though not Shakespearean. It's more like seeing the poor sot who used to go around talking to himself in the park now curled in the fetal position waiting to finally succumb to death's grip. So long, Aqualung.

Grim Reaper

Last night Arizona pitcher Jason Grimsley was busted by federal agents for possession of human growth hormone and steroids. Why is this relevant? Because Dan (and other media types) have droned on and on about how baseball players who have used such drugs weren't until recently breaking any rules.

This is just more evidence that said scribes are stuck, perhaps hopelessly, in a black hole of awareness.

Major League Baseball may have its own rules. But those dictates do not obviate the laws of the nation, and it would be novel if the media quit acting to the contrary.

Spiked Spokes

Bruins fans, take heart: With his second column on the Bruins in the can, The CHB has hit his annual quota and you won't have to worry about his ugly mug appearing anywhere near your beloved B's again this year.

I have to say, you'll surely miss him. Where else could you get his special hockey expertise, gleaned from 30-plus years of baseball watching? Where else could you get his wisdom of knowing just whom the B's should hire as GM, and on what terms? Where else could you see his "Make me look just like Ronald McDonald" perm?

Truly a loss for both sides.

Be Like Barry

The CHB returns today from a long hiatus, sticks his finger in the air and sees the wind blowing against Barry Bonds. Not surprisingly, the new No. 2 all-time homerun hitter becomes Dan's immediate target.

But first, The CHB has the gall to complain about having to follow the Hall of Fame voting rules (ironic, isn't it?), whining about how difficult it is to navigate the Hall's character clause: "Baseball writers making judgments about a ballplayer's character? Pretty absurd, no? It's never been a comfortable place for this 30-year member of the association."

Ha! Thirty-plus years of snide remarks say otherwise. Do we really need to remind Dan of this?

He critizes baseball for not outlawing steroids ("And what about the fact that baseball did not legislate against most of the stuff during the times Bonds appeared to be juicing?"), apparently and conveniently forgetting that steroid use without a prescription is a violation of federal law.

Then there's some nifty tightrope dancing. Dan is certain of Barry's guilt, saying, "I'm still hoping Barry retires, or confesses and asks our forgiveness." And he's sure of Mark McGwire's too: "McGwire clammed up because he knew he was dirty and he didn't want to face a perjury charge down the road." But while Bonds is a "plague" for which we "hold our noses" (to mix a metaphor), McGwire is simply guilty, and still possibly Hall worthy.

Possibly, because Dan won't say which way he is leaning: "Will I vote for McGwire? Not telling."

To clarify: He'll blare to the world that he's voting for Jim Rice, a lesser candidate if ever there were one. And through the years he has doubtlessly voted for dozens of players who used cocaine, greenies and other such substances. But when it comes to a truly controversial choice, The Bravest Columnist Joe Sullivan Has Ever Known(TM) clams up. Just like McGwire. And just like Barry.

On Vacation

Sorry for the long delay in posting...have been on vacation for 10 days (it's hard to believe myself). Will be back with posts on Sunday.

--The Chief

Bonds and Gagging

Each Sunday the Globe poses a question to its sports department. More often than not, it provides yet more evidence for the maxim that The CHB should be seen and not heard. Today's query: Do you care about Barry Bonds's pursuit of Ruth?

"No," says the lead Globe sports columnist. This despite having previously said "I root for the story," and having in multiple previous columns raved about Bonds, as he did on on Oct. 18, 2002 ("Why does America hate Barry Bonds so much? Is it because he's too good?"). So either The CHB has a short memory, or he's lying.

He adds that "The best opinions on this would be those from the likes of Willie Mays, Frank Robinson, and Hank Aaron -- the guys who did it on the level."

Well, that we have. On Costas Now (May 5, 2006), Costas asked Mays about Bonds' alleged steroid use. Mays replied (attention, Danny Boy):

What you're saying, until it's proven that this is what happened, you got to give the benefit of the doubt. I never asked him [meaning Barry Bonds], I don't think I will. I may not get the right answer.

He added that

When Mark McGwire was hittin' home runs out of every ballpark, when Sammy was hittin' home runs out of every ballpark, I didn't hear this.

It's called the Internet, Dan. Try using it.

Ironically, while Dan claims "It's obvious that Bonds used performance enhancers," in the same piece senior assistant sports editor Gregory Lee points out it's likely that Robinson, Mays, Aaron et al did too:

Yes, amphetamines are a stimulant, but they got many players through the season and helped them pad their stats. If it were not for the stimulants, a player would perhaps play 135 games instead of 150 games.

Note to Dan: Read Ball Four and The Long Season. Both recount rampant use of "greenies." I expect the book reports by noon Friday.

Even better, read this piece on the use of amphetamines in baseball from Will Carroll of Baseball Prospectus, which notes that some claim as one source none other than Shaughnessy idol Ted Williams:

Pilots and other servicemen were given the drugs to keep them alert during marathon sessions, and they brought the usage back to the game after the war ended. Some have pointed to Ted Williams as one of the initial sources, though there is no hard evidence that this is true. Williams was but one of several pilots returning from the war.

(More irony: in his column today Bob Ryan writes on a new book from the authors of Baseball Prospectus.)

In another article, Carroll notes that "There is no evidence that anyone can identify a steroid user by sight. It would certainly save time and money if this were the case. Some pictures of suspected steroid users have been taken at times when the players were said to be out of condition. Again, the only way to prove use of a banned substance is a positive test." [itals mine] So while more than 80 baseball players have tested positive, Bonds hasn't, and in the absence of such proof it would seem libelous for The CHB to declare his guilt.


I don't typically discuss other journalists in this space, but I couldn't let this pass. In response to the Bonds question, Alan Miller, the Globe's producer for new media, issued this response:

Many feel he has cheated to get where he is. But until last year, baseball did not have any rules banning steroid use. If there are no rules against it, you cannot call it cheating. So while some may feel Bonds's accomplishments may be tainted, Major League Baseball only has itself to blame for where we are today.

Excuse me, Alan, but which drugs are you on? There is a rule against it: Use or possession of steroids without a prescription is a federal offense. Per the article: "The Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990 places steroids in the same legal class – Schedule III -- as amphetamines, methamphetamines, opium and morphine. Simple possession of any Schedule III substance is a federal offense punishable by up to one year in prison and/or a minimum fine of $1,000." It is irrelevant, Alan, whether MLB had previously outlawed the drug.

All Wet

The Man Upstairs was busy dumping boatloads of the Atlantic Ocean onto Fenway Park last night, but the game was played (sort of).

You recall that on May 4 The CHB bitched about the Sox waiting until after game time before calling a washout, saying that it was just the owners being greedy.

So in the wake of hours of pre-game downpour and a nasty looking forecast, the teams managed to play almost six innings of ball -- enough for it to go in the books.

Oh, and the Sox lost. Good thing they didn't call it.


A day earlier, Shaughnessy posted a head-spinning column that careened from Hideki Matsui's on-field injury in which the Yankee leftfielder suffered a broken wrist to a weird (and out of place) reference to the Patriots to a brief recap of the three-game series to Curt ("inimitable" nee "Big Shill") Schilling's depature from the game to Dan's whack-job analysis that somehow losing Matsui means the Red Sox have gained the upper hand in the rivalry this season.

No Contract a Bad Sign? Only to Dan

Shaughnessy's report on Theo Epstein's contract status leads with this darn-near accusatory hiss: "Red Sox general manager Theo Epstein is working without a signed contract."

A few grafs later, The CHB, whose relationship with Red Sox management has turned vinegar-sour, states: "Last night, Epstein and Henry insisted there was nothing newsworthy about the fact the GM has been working without a signed contract for almost four months."

"Insisted." Nice pejorative. One would almost think it's an editorial. But it's not.

Never mind that the two men to whom this matters -- John Henry and Theo himself -- both emphatically state that there is an agreement in place and that the lack of a piece of paper is irrelevant. The CHB's tone is needlessly harsh, not to mention out of place for a news story.

Let's consider another, neutral way to phrase it: "Boston Red Sox executive Theo Epstein has worked nearly four months without a formal contract, although he and tram owner John Henry agree a 'long-term commitment' is in place." Or something like that.

I'm sure no one in the history of the world has ever worked a high level position without of piece of paper signifying the terms. Only Shaughnessy could be bothered by this. Let's hope that Theo never signs.

A Man of Contra Diction

Using logic that can only be called bizarre, The CHB credits Yankee owner George Steinbrenner for their win over the Red Sox yesterday.

Even Dan seems confused. He claims last night's hero, Alex Rodriguez, was "due," just after telling us that Steinbrenner's tirade against his team -- in which he singled out A-Rod's play -- is proof that "The Boss knows how to motivate."

Yet A-Rod himself said of the criticism that, while surprising, "It doesn't really matter."

Even Joe Torre debunked the idea that King George was fired up: "He didn't say anything other than he was supporting us .... He said he didn't criticize my player."

Say A-Rod: "He can say whatever is on his mind ... but we can't lose perspective because we're playing pretty well."

From the evidence, it doesn't appear that The Boss's rant -- if it even happened -- meant squat.

Holidays in the Sun

Were Sunday and Monday holidays? Because Dan got paid for doing nothing.

Sunday's love letter to Wily Mo Pena included this half-hearted line: "What else can we tell you?" You could almost see The CHB sitting at his typewriter (PCs are a bit beyond him) thinking, "100 more words...I need 100 more words..."

The piece ended with this kiss of death: "He's destined to be big in Boston." Uh oh.

Then today he tells us the Yankees are coming to town and that the Red Sox are starting to hit.

Wow.

Water on His Brain

Perhaps The CHB slipped in the wet grass at Fenway and pulled a muscle in his brain, because he is really reaching today.

Seeking yet once again to make a mountain out of a wad of Terry Francona's chewing tobacco, he goes off on the Sox (or $ox, as he uses, apparently ignorant of the cliche) for having the gall not to call the game well in advance of the scheduled gate opening time, a move he claims was made for the sake of a few bucks.

And let's face it: None of these conditions (high cost of tickets and concessions, expensive parking, the advertising around the stadium) exist because Mother Nature decided to deposit a few million gallons of the Atlantic on top of Boston proper. This is a situation that has been brewing for years.

Conveniently, Dan forgets all that. At the season's opening he waxed on about how beautiful the renovated Fenway looked, ignoring that the bandbox in the Fens simply cannot through traditional avenues generate the revenue the team feels it needs to compete (not to mention finance the awesome debt the owners took on).

Dan is clearly trying to reinvent himself as the voice of the little man. Well, he has a little man's voice alright.

Sox owner John Henry took umbrage at the allegation. Dan quotes him as saying:

That's a cheap shot at our integrity. We're not going to make our fans suffer just to sell hot dogs. In 2002, we canceled a game at 9:30 in the morning and then the sun came out. It's very hard to predict the weather in Boston. If we knew we weren't going to play, we wouldn't have sent [Josh] Beckett down to get warm. We heard it was going to be misty. It really didn't start raining until 10 after 8.

The CHB counters by arguing that Sox management could have known what to do simply by heading to the farms:

Henry and Co. should have checked with any local dairy farmer. Take it from one who grew up in Groton, everybody knows it's going to rain when the cows are lying down in the pasture, and the cattle were definitely horizontal Tuesday.

So Dan grew up in a pasture. That explains why he's so full of shit.

More Yankee? No Thankee

I cringed when Dan's column appeared yesterday, worried that it portended three (or four) straight overwrought pieces on the Yankees-Red Sox series this week.

Thankfully, he didn't write today (maybe there is a God), thus sparing all of us from the episodic narcolepsy his work brings on.

Yesterdays' column was his usual pre-series rundown of all the mindless stats comparing the two teams. Simply mind-numbing.

Just as predictably, he dragged out all the side stories between the teams over the past few years, plus a few that had nothing to do with the rivalry.

Pursuant to the latter, for example, he recalled "Theo Epstein's Machiavellian power play," as if Theo sat around conjuring up ways to trick John Henry into handing his the reins to the ballclub ("I bet if I quit my job, John Henry would have to make me the GM. Wouldn't that be clever? ... [A few months later] ... Oh wait, I already was the GM. Oops!") Is Shaughnessy really Geraldo Rivera with makeup and a perm?

And there was the obligatory discussion of Johnny Damon's departure: "Damon last winter became ... the latest in a century-long line of Red Sox stars who went to New York searching for fame, fortune, and a championship ring." Somehow it escapes The CHB that Damon already had all of that.

It's getting harder and harder to stick up for the guy.

Fuzzy math watch: "New York's lineup is simply spectacular (Bernie Williams batting ninth?)" Over the past two seasons (161 games, 545 at-bats) Williams is hitting a collective .246 with 13 homeruns and an OBP of .317. Yeah, he's another Babe Ruth.) On April 1 last year, The CHB called Williams "decaying," adding, "We expect poor Bernie to calcify in mid-stride sometime this season, much like Artis Gilmore in his final days." Wonder what changed?

Spoke-too-soon watch: "The Red Sox, meanwhile, appear vulnerable, never more than when Josh Bard tries to catch Tim Wakefield's knuckler, as he will tonight." Bard was traded before the game for Doug Mirabelli, who fielded the position flawlessly last night.

Striking Memories

Dan continues his pitch to Roger Clemens, tossing him lines in the hopes the Rocket will hook up with the Red Sox.

Today's meatball: Remembering the anniversary of Clemens' first 20-strikeout game, 20 years ago today.

It's a fairly detailed account of the night, with some interesting side notes (the Globe's beat writer, Larry Whiteside, had the night off and thus missed the historic game) and some odd non-sequiturs ("While Patriots fans were digesting the résumé of SMU running back Reggie Dupard, who'd been selected earlier that day in the first round of the NFL draft, Clemens struck out the side ... in the first inning" -- as if Pats fans are supposed to care about some kid pitcher throwing on an April night).

The CHB closes with his "heater": "Roger Clemens is still able to pitch. Twenty years and seven Cy Youngs after his first great moment, he is being recruited to come home to Fenway where it all began." Of course, what Shaughnessy doesn't mention is all throws at the head he made at Clemens during the first six or so years of his exile from Boston. Call it memory loss, I guess.

Out of Gas at the Beanpot

This is what life should be: The CHB covering college baseball, out of harm's way and where no one's the wiser.

With the C's and B's on a spring break that will last until fall, the Red Sox out of town and the Globe out of money, Dan is confined to the East Coast's version of the Friendly Confines for ...(drum roll) ...a Harvard-Boston College baseball game.

Whoopee!

Among the observations of this man of letters:
* "It was weird to see Fenway virtually empty ..."
* " Another weird thing was the metal bats ... "
* "College baseball in New England is nothing like big-time college football, basketball, or hockey."
*That some scrub named Pete Frates who came into the game hitting .184 went 4 for 4, making it "probably the best day of [his] life."

The remarkable thing is, The CHB almost sounds sincere. Of course, the last time he covered this game, another kiss-ass piece back in May 2004, he told the world that a then 21-year-old Harvard player named Zak Farkes "plans to finish his studies at Harvard ... and knows the value of the Harvard degree," "apparently ... can hit," and "Farkes can play."

Dan wore the collar on that one. Farkes skipped his last year of school to sign with the Red Sox, and hit all of .174 last year in 40 games for the single-A Lowell Spinners.

Given that curse the CHB (the Curse of the CHB?) laid on Frakes, poor Pete Frates had better look both ways before crossing those Cambridge streets.

Pooper Scooper

The CHB turned in one column last week, and yet the best he can muster today is a slapped together list of shots at local sports management.

Is this really what the Globe is paying him for?

There's the obligatory Theo cheap shot, raising the Bronson Arroyo angle once again, as if there was any chance the dreadlocked pitcher would be throwing so well here in Boston. Ever heard of small sample size, Dan? Hint: Ask your urologist.

He calls Bill Belichick "His Infallibleness" and Epstein a "real sacred cow" who "forever will be the boy wonder who can do no wrong."

He brings up the minor league umpires strike," about which "nobody cares" (hey, he got that right). "These guys make peanuts as is, and folks simply do not feel their pain. It's unfortunate." Right: it's such deep personal issue for Dan that he waited until the beginning of the fourth week of the season to mention it.

He makes a bizarre case for this Celtics team being within two losses of the worst in team history.

Just a weird piece.

Memory loss. "Some would say the Sox should have been better prepared for a Wells collapse." They are: Move Papelbon to the starting rotation where he belongs.

Misrepresentation watch: "American Airlines gave vouchers for free flights to 19,000 fans (give or take a few) who attended the Mavs' regular-season home finale Wednesday night." The tickets can only be used at Love Field, meaning Mavs fans will have to make the gut-wrenching choice between Kansas City and El Paso for their complimentary flight.

They pay me to do ... what, exactly? "People who know a lot about the NFL draft -- weeks before the draft -- scare me." Of course they do. As does anyone who prepares for their job.

"Everybody OK with the Padres wearing camouflage uniforms at home against the Mets Saturday night? ... I wonder what the soldiers and their families think. Their opinions would be the ones that count." Ever trying asking them?

"Is Doug [Mientkiewicz] donating [the World Series Ball] to Cooperstown, or merely lending it to the Hall for a spell?" Ditto.

??? watch: "Mel Kiper is saying Texas quarterback Vince Young will go to the Raiders with the seventh pick Saturday. Remember in 1984 when Michael Jordan was picked by Chicago at No. 3, after Sam Bowie went to Portland at No. 2 (Hakeem Olajuwon went No. 1 to the Rockets)?" So is he saying Young is Jordan, or Sam Bowie?

Story is Proof that Dan's Peak is Past

OK -- today's effort, on Larry Bird's lending his name to a brand of wines, was a good column. Only one problem: It's old news!

Really old, in fact.

This story came out Nov. 10, 2005, following heavy media saturation by the distributor. It's been covered by ESPN, CNN, SI, USA Today, Slate and just about every news channel imaginable.

Dan got scooped on a Larry Bird story by Wine Spectator. How low can life go?

Switch Hitting

On Opening Day The CHB wrote how Fenway has "never looked better" and "it's amazing now to think there were plans to tear the thing down."

Here's what he wrote on May 16, 1999, after seeing the plans to tear the place down in favor of a new ballpark: "If the Red Sox can build the new Fenway they showed us yesterday, it could be their best move since they bought a beefy, 19-year-old southpaw from the International League Baltimore Orioles in 1914."

He even allowed that the old park's demise is inevitable: "But once you get past the obvious concession that old Fenway isn't forever, you'll see that this plan looks pretty good. In fact, it's almost too good to be true."

Wonder what changed? Oh yeah: now, the Globe owns part of the Red Sox.

Papelbon: The New Larry Bird

Dan Shaughnessy’s defining characteristic is his ability to profess love for someone one day only to proclaim to the world just how same individual is nothing less than the Devil incarnate is the next. Usually the swing in Dan’s outlook is precipitated by some monumental mistake, like voting for a woman or not hating New York.

Dan's latest mancrush is on Jonathan Papelbon, who according to The CHB is Dick Radatz all over again, writing: "The Sox haven't had a young closer like this since Dick Radatz." Similarly, on April 6, he wrote: [Papelbon] looked like Dick Radatz." Of course, Shaughnessy compares every hard-throwing Sox reliever with The Monster, so take that with the provebial grain of salt.

But Dan's on a roll, enjoying his new love so much he even goes to former arch enemy Curt Schilling for a quote. "This is a huge advantage for a young guy," said Schill. (Last year, he was “blowhard Curt Schilling.” Now that he’s 3-0, he’s “Schill.”) "Young guy." Wonder if, as he dutifully copied down the quotes, Dan realized that yesterday’s starter, Josh Beckett, is 25 and has already pitched 630 innings in the majors.

Taking no. 38’s place as the new Devil is Keith Foulke, who apparently has made the unique mistake of getting injured: “Terry Francona, who made the bold (and now so obvious) switch from Keith Foulke to Papelbon on the night of the third game of the season in Texas.” So obvious, eh? This is Foulke’s line through 12 games: five appearances, six innings pitched, four hits allowed, four strikeouts, one walk, and two runs allowed. That's pretty good, especially for a guy who had surgery on both legs in the past year.

But Papelbon has to stay where he is, Dan says, claiming he is "too valuable" in the bullpen, naturally leaving the reader to wonder why the ninth inning is more important than the eight that precede it, and how the 200 or so innings he would likely throw as a starter are less important than the 70 or so he might pitch in relief (see aforementioned Beckett comment).

It's because Know-nothings like Shaughnessy hate to have their age-old notions challenged. Guys who throw 95 are closers. Guys who throw 89 are not. Here's what he wrote Dec. 30, 2003, after the Sox signed Foulke:

People in the A's front office think Keith Foulke made a mistake coming to Boston. Maybe that's sour grapes, but some fear he won't react well to the fallout that comes when a Sox closer blows a save against the Yankees. It takes a specific mentality (think Dennis Eckersley), and some of the A's believe Foulke is too sensitive. I tend to agree ....

The Globe will never run a correction on any of that, but we know how wrong he was.

Alls is Not Wells

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stuck in Park

Remember a few months ago when an announcement by the Red Sox to move the rest of its televised games – which it owns, by the way – to NESN threw The CHB into conniptions? He called the move “elitist, classist, and probably greedy, too. The Sox are putting all their games on NESN because it means more money for the organization." (He then never raised the subject again, of course, adding fuel to the belief that he didn’t really care about the fans so much as he wanted to stir things up.)

That’s instructive, because today he says Fenway has never looked better.

That may be so. But Shaughnessy downplays the biggest issue for fans – the expense of attending games. He tries to write that off, arguing that “the Sox have more demand than supply and they're trying to compete with a team that doesn't blush at a $200 million player payroll.”

Let’s get this straight: The team drains money into an ancient, uncomfortable venue and Dan finds the results “spectacular.” The Sox decide to use an outlet they own in order to raise revenues and they are “greedy.”

Oh, yeah. Near the end – the third to last paragraph to be exact – he lays out the park’s warts: obstructed views, narrow seats, seats that face the wrong way, lack of parking, and yes, the cost. (Given how he minimizes that latter element, he might as well have left it out altogether.)

All of which misses the point. Fenway Park has been selling out for years, even before all the modifications. All the while, it's the fan experience that continues to be compromised. On the issue of cost, I don’t personally hold the owners accountable so much as I do the scalpers (and the city, which looks the other way). But that fact remains that in some towns – Baltimore, for one – scalping laws are enforced to the hilt – and face value means face value. To enter Fenway even for the least desirable games of the season means ponying up five or more times the face value of the ticket – none of which goes to the team. That's the situation that deserves a column. Heck, it deserves a series.

Dan has proclaimed the beauty of the new parks in San Francisco, Baltimore, San Diego, demonstrating that even the black hole that makes up the space between his ears can spit out the notion that starting over is often better than a new tube of lipstick. He even spends a good chunk of today's column lauding the work of the Larry Lucchino-led team that has had such an impact on the face of baseball around the country (he calls architect Janet Marie Smith "the godmother of modern baseball stadiums"). Yet he continues to wax nostalgic about a place that has truly outlived its usefulness. Why? Because he doesn’t feel the effects. Even as he cracks wise about blowing up the press box, he ignores the uncomfortable hypocrisy: those seats are 1) better than almost any other within the not-so-Friendly Confines and 2) free.

Boston needs a new park. If not now, when? If anything, "greedy" defines owners who refuse to build an appropriate venue without it being underwritten by the tax base.

Theo watch: “Larry Lucchino, a pinata for nitwit nation, isn't likely to get many bouquets from Sox fans who still blame him for the weird (and temporary) departure of general manager Theo Epstein ….” No Dan, we blame you.

About that $200 million payroll ...: The past five World Series winners, in reverse chronological order: White Sox, Red Sox, Marlins, Angels, Diamondbacks. Is it possible that maybe all the obsessing over the Yankees' payroll is just a bit overblown?

Hot in Texas

Not sure what the point of today’s column was except that he had to write about something. A basic rehash of the Red Sox loss, with no analysis at all (unless catcher Josh Bard’s apparent difficulty in catching the knuckeball was somehow responsible for Tim Wakefield’s getting shelled).

His sendoff -- "Might be time to panic. First Foulkie. Now Bard. And the Sox are one out in the loss column. How soon before somebody says they're playing for the wild card?" -- is hopefully a bit of sarcasm, but with the CHB, who knows?

Man love: Josh Beckett is again referred to as "stud starter." Let's hope that Shaughnessy learns to keep it in his pants around the kid. Pedophilia is a crime, even in Massachussets.

And are we going to be subject to daily updates on Johnny Damon? It's not like he's the first guy ever to leave the Red Sox.

Dantasy Land

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's fair weather Dan for you.

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

Opening Bray

The CHB's annual opening day extravaganza is a piece of fetid crap. Sorry: We here at the Watch try to be a bit more analytical than that, but just trying to sort through it is giving me a headache.

The banter runs from the trite to the absurd. For instance: "It is Opening Day 2006, all teams are 0-0 ..." he says, a compound error which would be remedied only if 1) the season hadn't started the night before, and 2) that game, which pitted Cleveland vs. Chicago, had been rained out. (It wasn't.)

"It all goes back to pitching and defense," he claims (wrongly), then moments later cavalierly says Boston "will score enough runs to win 95-100 games."

In comparing the Sox to the Yankees, he for some oddball reason singles out a pitcher, Mike Mussina, who threw 180 innings last year as someone who "could implode at any moment," as if that's not true of any pitcher.

And he says the loss of Damon, Mueller, et al has led "many experts to dismiss the Red Sox as a noncontender." Many? Really, Dan? That's a huge overstatement.

And then The King of All Hyperbole reminds fans "not to overreact if your team loses the first game." Per usual, he's conveniently forgetting his own public hissy fits. Let's go back to what he wrote after some recent Opening Day losses:

* 2003: Dan's ready to tar and feather Bill James after the bullpen blew Game 1 of the season, a loss he termed was a "calamity."
* 2002: Dan writes, "[Martinez] had almost nothing. He said he feels fine. He credited the Blue Jay hitters. But clearly he is not yet Pedro. Will he ever be again? It's the big question that plagues Red Sox Nation as fans chew on this painful loss and pray that it's not too late to salvage the season."

We'll be sure to revisit that one if this team starts the season 4-6.

There's something about the start of a season that sends Dan into emotional overload. At least he didn't predict Schilling would throw a no-no as he used to with Pedro.

The Duck Stops Here

Dan's April Fool's column was published a day late, it seems.

In a perverse bit of hypocrisy, The CHB today complains that steroids still dominate the discussion. “[T]he Red Sox season starts tomorrow afternoon … and we are talking about steroids. Now and again. Forever, it seems.

The thing is, if guys like Shaughnessy, the self-styled overseers of baseball, had investigated the issue and held anyone accountable over the past decade, we wouldn’t still be talking about it. But no, they relied on cheap jokes and innuendo because, guess what, actually researching the issue is hard work.

Dan’s hyperbole is out in full force. “[T]he integrity of the game has been irreparably harmed -- more so than at any time since the Black Sox scandal….” If that’s true, then why do more fans buy tickets or watch televised games each year than the last?

He invokes Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis for doing the right thing, omitting that the man “endowed with power to do just about anything to preserve the best interests of baseball” used those same powers to keep blacks out of the sport.

And he blames everyone else – Bug Selig, Major League Baseball and the Players Association (“the silent and too-often-overlooked coconspirator in this cesspool explosion”) – for not cluing him: “Why did he allow us to embrace what we now know to be the artificial home run chase (Popeye McGwire vs. Bluto Sosa) in 1998?” Dan ducks altogether the media’s complicity, without which none of this could have happened. All in all, a shameful display by a man who did nothing but heap praise on Bonds while he chased down the record (see, for example, his Oct. 18, 2002, column).

“We all know,” he writes. “Bonds is in the on-deck circle, ready to overtake Ruth. He did it with his own talent, plus some illegal help from his friends.”

But while the evidence is strong, Victor Conte’s pleas notwithstanding (and it’s possible that Conte was being truthy when he said he did not give steroids to Bonds – it may be that he gave them to Bonds’ trainer who in turn dispensed them to Barry), there is no evidence of the effect, if any, that steroids has on the performance of a major league baseball player. No controlled study has ever been done. Everything else, then, is speculation.

And buck passing.

Farmed Out

The CHB today makes the dubious assertion that Theo Epstein is "more powerful than any Boston GM since Dick O'Connell," a humorous bit of amnesia, considering that Dan Duqette is also prominently featured in the piece. Duquette, of course, was executive vice president and general manager under John Harrington, and for all intents and purposes completely ran the operation. Not even Theo can say that.

That's just nit one.

He digs himself in further by saying Theo is trying to build the farm system while also putting a playoff quality team on the field. Oddly, though, he offers as evidence Kevin Youkilis, "home-grown stud Jonathan Papelbon" and soon-to-be-ready Craig Hansen and Jon Lester. Perhaps the Sox can take credit for Papelbon, who has been in the farm system since 2003. But calling Hansen homegrown is a complete joke. He came from a major college program and is major league ready right now. And it completely ignores the talent that came out of the minors under Duquette, including Nomar Garciaparra and Trot Nixon. Moreover, The CHB is late to this development: at least one scouting service named the Red Sox minor league system the tops in the majors during the past year.

Nit no. 3: He writes, "In fact, only 24 of Boston's 53 draft picks last year were from a four-year college." Actually, according to the Globe's own Website, 27 came from four-year colleges. And six more came from the junior college ranks, which in many cases are designed to be baseball factories.

Nit. no. 4: "Development vs. acquisition is an age-old tug of war for the Sox." Right -- as it is for every team. But an acquisition model hasn't seemed to hurt the Yankees (you've heard of them, haven't you Dan?)

Finally, as only The CHB can do, there are plenty of shots fired at Messrs. Henry, and Lucchino for echoing Epstein's statements. Only Dan would find that much-needed unity and cohesiveness to be a problem.

Driving Nostalgia Lane

After a long break, he's back. But those hoping The CHB spent his week away researching something, anything, are sure to be disappointed with his revelation today that UCLA basketball has a long tradition.

And could the CHB make it through an entire column on tradition without mention of the Yankees, Canadiens and Celtics? Of course not: "They were the New York Yankees and Montreal Canadiens of college basketball. They were collegiate cousins to the Boston Celtics."

Good old Dan. Where we would be without him and his fanciful drives down nostalgia lane?

Name drop watch: "After last Saturday's regional final victory over John Calipari's Memphis team, [Bill] Walton sent me an e-mail ... ."

Off and On

It's a curious thing: The CHB writes several days in a row, then disappears for long stretches.

In the past two weeks, for example, he was off March 16-18, then issued (the best phrase for his mechanical, ho-hum style) four missives in a row (three on the World Baseball Classic),the last of which ran March 22, then hasn't published anything since.

One wonders why the Globe doesn't space his columns so as to avoid the slapdash inanity that spawned this blog.

One further wonders why the Globe doesn't simply can his sorry ass and hire someone who can juggle the apparently enormous task of 1) writing crisp, clear prose while 2) getting his facts straight.

And There It Is...

From today's Globe:

Correction: Because of a reporting error, a story in Monday's Sports section erroneously said that no Cuban national team baseball player had defected since Jose Contreras in 2002. While Cuban baseball players have defected since 2002, Contreras was the last one to do so during an international tournament.

An Embarrassment of a Column

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

Case in point: Today's column.

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

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

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

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

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

Dan's Coverage is AWOL

Reading The CHB's recap of the final of the World Baseball Classic, you might think the top stories were that no one cared ("While half of America slept, and the other half blissfully ignored the event") and the time the game ended (12:57 a.m. EST).

You would be wrong.

Dan's story, a passive account of what happened on the field, plus a couple of quotes, could have been written from Newton. He misses so many nuances of the contest that made it interesting. For example:

*The Cubans wore their red uniforms, which they consider to be lucky.
*Cuba starter Ormari Romero was pulled after just 23 pitches.
*Petco Park, host to the finals, was packed with fans from Japan and Cuba who cheered their teams with flags, horns and cowbells.
*The San Diego Symphony Orchestra played the national anthems of Japan, Cuba and the U.S.
*Hank Aaron threw the ceremonial first pitch, and was escorted to the third-base line, by Sadaharu Oh, Japan's all-time home run king.
*Oh apparently forgot what made him famous, because the Japanese he bunted like crazy. (Sometimes you win despite your manager.)

Instead, he takes shots at the U.S. team, calling its loss to Mexico "embarrassing" and a "stunning departure."

And the snide remark about America's lack of interest was uncalled for. Perhaps if the telecast of the game had started before 9 p.m. EST, maybe a few folks at home would have watched.

"I root for the story," The CHB has said. He missed a good one here.

Correction watch: I have heard that the Globe will run a correction to The CHB's remark yesterday that no Cuban player has defected since José Contreras in 2002.

'Defect'-ive

There are two prevailing stories in baseball this spring. There's the triple-story of Barry Bonds, the all-time homerun crown and steroids. Then there's the World Baseball Classic.

The CHB, who to date has acted the proverbial one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest when it comes such timely stories as Jim Rice's winning personality and Keith Foulke's thoughts on Burger King employees, finally gets around to writing about the WBC.

Of course, he doesn't study the merits of the contest. Nor does he capture the excitement of it -- and those who saw Alex Rodriguez' shock and dismay after the United States lost to Mexico or Jason Varitek's soft-spoken gratitude for the honor of representing his country know what I mean.

Instead, he writes back-to-back columns about what a wonderful team the Cubans have. And in doing so he obliterates reality and common sense. It's like watching a slow-motion car crash.

Let's roll the tape.

Sunday: "No 25 guys/25 cabs for the Cuban national team. It's all for one, all the time," he wrote. As if a Cuban player would even be allowed in a cab.

Today: He describes what a great time the players are having: "It's obvious the players are having fun. They travel, eat, practice, and play as a unit."

As usual, Dan contradicts himself mid-story without even realizing it. Is it the fun that binds the players together, or is it the "security guards near their rooms in the team hotel and representatives from the Department of Homeland Security stand[ing] guard?" Or maybe it's the presence of Antonio Castro, Fidel's son, who just happens to be the team doctor "and often can be seen standing next to [Cuba's manager] during games."

Can those who are considered threats to defect be seriously described as "having fun"? Fun is what I had while out on St. Patrick's Day, and the last thing on my mind was hopping a boat to Havana. Per Article 216 of Cuba's Penal Code, the penalty for any attempt to leave the country without prior government approval is up to three years in prison.

Some don't get off so easy. Truth is, potential defectors face a life-and-death decision. In his childlike ignorance, The CHB apparently is unaware that on July 18, 1978, Cuban baseball star Pedro José Rodríguez was assassinated by Cuban agents while in Colombia for a exhibition series. He was thrown from the 5th floor window of his hotel room for attempting to defect.

Moreover, as Cuban law (Article 90 of Law No. 16, June 28, 1978) mandates, "The promotion of athletes to higher categories takes into account not only their athletic achievements, but also their social and political attitude." In short, you want to play, you gotta pray at the altar of Fidel.

What was that about the cabs, Dan?

Here's where Dan truly goes off the deep end. "Baseball truly is a religion in Cuba. ... Players pledge allegiance to Fidel and none has defected since José Contreras went AWOL in 2002 [SIC!]." Let's forego the pure MGH-bound craziness of that non sequiter and focus on the "none has defected since 2002" comment. That is, pure and simple, wrong.

In October 2003, Cuban baseball stars Maels Rodriguez and Yobal Dueñas defected, hoping to make it to major leagues, according to Baseball America.

And in a New York Times article on March 6, 2006, Jack Curry wrote: "Joe Kehoskie, an agent who has represented Cuban defectors since 1998, said he knew of several players who would like to defect. He estimated that more than 40 players, none as renowned as Contreras, have defected in the past three years."

So what happened in 2002? Cuba began negotiating with foreign teams for its best players. As economics professor Katherine Baird noted in her paper, Cuban Baseball: Ideology, Politics, and Market Forces, in 2002, two top Cuban players, Omar Linares and Germán Mesa, were sold to Japan teams. Notes Baird: "In all likelihood, the Cuban government received significantly more than 80 percent of Linares’ earnings. While it is less clear if the average Cuban player is exploited, those who are able to play overseas are clearly exploited by the Cuban goverment." There's something about being able to leave (mostly) on your own that sort of undermines the need to defect.

Ignorance is bliss, ain't it Dan?

Say what? watch: The CHB says the Cubans are "one victory away from being true champions of the world." Ooooookkkaaayyyy.

Selective memory watch: "Lazo made the lead look huge. No one-inning relief stint for him. The big righty threw 4 2/3 innings of relief, which we all know is not the American way." Is it me, or was Dan among those who screamed bloody murder three years ago at the closer-by-committee concept, under which extended high-leverage relief appearances would be acceptable? We need only turn to April 1, 2003, when he wrote: "Let's start with a memo to Bill James: Perhaps the seventh inning is not the most important inning to hold a lead."

Selective memory watch, redux: Do you think there's pressure to win? Dan did last year, when covering the Red Sox-White Sox playoff series last Oct. 8 he wrote of Orlando "El Duque" Hernandez, "There's little pressure in life after you've already stared down Fidel Castro."

Plagiarism watch: The NYT's Jack Curry, on March 6: Yulieski Gourriel, a 21-year-old infielder who carries himself with the swagger of Derek Jeter ... ."

Dan on March 19: "Gourriel -- the Derek Jeter of Cuba ... ."

Thank God they're a two-newspaper company: Curry again: "Kehoskie speculated that the young pitchers Danny Betancourt, who was dazzling in the Athens Olympics, and Frank Montieth were excluded from the Classic because they were viewed as threats to defect."

The CHB (quoting Velez): "If someone says that we have them under control because they might want to leave, they might want to run away, it's not true. You know very well that if you want to run away, if you want to go to another place, you can do that whenever you want. You can just leave the stadium, grab a cab, leave the hotel, and that's it. They don't want to do that." (Propaganda 1, The CHB 0.)

Return of the Monkeys

Terry Francona's contract extension gives The CHB all the reason he needs to trot out all his favorite comparisons. "Francona's success has elevated him above the sad status of unfortunate sons like Grady Little and Don Zimmer, but he's not considered a genius on a par with Coach Bill. Affable Tito still gets routinely hooted on sports talk radio, and there are a lot of Sox fans who maintain that Boston won its championship in spite of the man in the corner office."

Count The CHB as one of those "fans." Here’s his shot at the Sox manager from Sept. 26, 2004:

For almost six months, he was just harmless, never-say-bunt Tito. A player's boss in the tradition of Pete Carroll, Terry Francona told us he loved his guys and he took blame for anything they did wrong. He drove some fans crazy with game strategy and pitcher deployment (the usual stuff), but most of Red Sox Nation viewed him as a benign bystander in the 2004 quest for the grail. And then came Friday night when Francona morphed into Grady Lite.

Going a little farther back, here’s what he said Aug. 29, 2004:

Some of us think you put the players first too much. We fear you take too many bullets for the fellows. Not enough tough love. Certainly nothing public.

And June 3, 2004: "That's exactly what He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said right up until the day the Red Sox sent him back to Pinehurst, N.C."

Back to today’s piece: "Until this week, it seemed the Sox were willing to let Francona start the 2006 season as a lame duck manager …” Not to those who have been paying attention. This approach is in line with the closed-mouth stance Sox management have taken since The CHB, et al, created the Epstein maelstrom.

“No details were released, but the Sox no doubt gave Francona a significant bump in salary.” Interesting that Dan thinks the Red Sox should openly comment on the salaries of their personnel. Just like the Globe does. Not.

“Would he like to be here a long time?” In the ocean of idiotic logic that is Dan’s brain, this may be the dumbest question yet. Francona just signed a new contract. How many ways do you think he would possibly answer this question?

Most of the line of questioning followed Dan’s past interviews with Francona:
*Aug. 29, 2004: "But don't expect him to listen to nitwit radio. 'I think I have a pretty good perspective on that," he said. [R]eally I don't listen to it that much.' "

*July 19, 2005: "I don't wake up in the morning and run to the radio to see how I'm being perceived," Terry Francona said before last night's 3-1 loss to the Devil Rays. "I'd be in trouble if I did that."

*March 15, 2006: "I have no idea how I am perceived," Francona said. "That's the times we live in, and in a major market that's what sports radio has become -- who can out-smart-aleck each other -- and it doesn't interest me."

Finally, Dan can’t seem to mention Francona’s name without bringing up Grady Little or Don Zimmer, which he did today and in all the aforementioned columns. Obsessed much with the past, Dan-o?

Like we said yesterday, it's time to hire some new monkeys.