Shaughnessy Proves The Point

As I mentioned in my earlier post, today’s press conference with Ortiz was very interesting. Contrary to what Objective Bruce may try to lead you to believe, I am not here to criticize Shaughnessy because I am a “fanboy blogger” engaged in the hero worship of athletes. As I mentioned in a previous comment thread, I just retired from the military after 20 years and I know some of our country’s true heroes personally and they are not the ones who play professional sports. And I can assure you I am not doing a little happy dance because David Ortiz has been vindicated. I do think he has been partially vindicated but I very well acknowledge that subsequent information may come to light that could cast Ortiz in a totally different and negative light. Time will tell. But, for me, it is not about Ortiz. It is about Shaughnessy.

I have chosen to dedicate time to this blog because I continue to be dumbfounded how Dan Shaughnessy can be such a widely acclaimed journalist. I (and my wonderful cohorts) have tried to repeatedly point out (and I hope to some degree we have been successful) that he is a lazy, vindictive reactionist. So, yes, today's press conference makes me quite happy because it proves my point vividly and dramatically.

In case you have not been following, last week Dan Shaughnessy quickly ripped into Ortiz after Ortiz’s name was leaked to be on “the list” of steroid users. Shaughnessy declared “David Ortiz lied to you. It seems safe to say that his entire Red Sox career is a lie.” Never mind that Shaughnessy never talked to Ortiz. Never mind that Shaughnessy did not know what Ortiz tested positive for. Never mind that Shaughnessy did not know there was a question of the validity of the test. Never mind that Ortiz did not know he even tested positive for anything. These things did not matter because Shaughnessy was in such a rush to punch out a column. There was no time for fact checking; there was no time for corroboration; there was nothing anyone would expect of a professional journalist. No, this was yellow journalism at its finest This was Shaughnessy…. ever ready to bury a hatchet in someone, any proof be damned

It was offered in one of the comments here that John Powers’ column proved that Ortiz was lying. No, that was not the case. Here is what Powers said: “MLBPA executive director Donald Fehr told House committee chairman Henry Waxman in a letter last summer that the players were not explicitly informed that they had tested positive, but only that they were on a list of players the government had seized, as part of an investigation into an illegal steroids operation.”

Ortiz acknowledged there was some meeting on this issue but that it was confusing. After listening to the union rep explain all the inconsistencies and after re-reading the above from Powers, I would be confused too.

Shaughnessy may eventually prove to be right about Ortiz. But that doesn’t matter. At the time he accused Ortiz of being a liar, he did not have the information to make the accusation. He did not seek the full story because he is lazy. He was ready to prematurely attack because he is vindictive. If anyone lied to us, it was Shaughnessy. If anything is tainted, it is his ethics. He is the one who should be suspended for a year. And he is not the only one – Massarotti and Ryan and many others also piled on. It was disgraceful and shameful.

Fascinating Press Conference

I am watching the Ortiz-Wiener press conference...it is fascinating and it confirms that Shaughnessy and many of the other "journalists" are lazy. They make sweeping statements of guilt and yet they did not have all the facts. Wiener's statement of facts is compelling.

Let's see if Shaughnessy issues a mea culpa

Game recap

Dan lays out a straightforward game recap and an honest (negative but not overly so) perspective of recent Red Sox recent collapses in the wake of the Red Sox crushing but nonetheless thrilling loss to the Yankees in 15 innings last night.

This being said, Shaughnessy does not offer much beyond what Amalie Benjamin's game recap offers....besides reminding us for the 300th time of the year that Manny (Act 1) quit and the year Theo stood still at the trading deadline.

Dan also offers an interesting line when he says, "It was mildly reminiscent of a magical event at Candlestick Park in 1963. That was the night 42-year-old Warren Spahn and prime-time Juan Marichal locked up for 16 innings of shutout ball. " He says that as if he were there throwing the word "mildly" in for good measure...which I sort of doubt that he was.

Dan is sure to be covering the Ortiz press conference today and that will make for interesting fodder in all sorts of ways. I hold out hope that Ortiz will provide an honest approach in which people will look back in years to come and say "That is way this issue should have been handled" but I dont think that will happen...CHB must be over the top waiting for this one...and I fear for years we will be hearing "Ah yes, 2009...the year of Massacre II and the year Ortiz lied"

Stay tuned my friends

Chicken Little, Swiss Miss

Chicken Little? Shaughnessy takes one loss to the Yankees and is ready to close the door on the Red Sox playoff chances (“Suddenly, the thought crosses the mind that the Red Sox might not even make the playoffs.”)

Little Swiss Miss? I swear you can set a watch by this guy. This piece was so bloody predictable (and consequently so is this blog entry), that it is past comical.

That being said, I really cant argue with Chicken Little’s basic premise. Definitely lots of warning signs about the Red Sox. I just wish for once he would deviate from the mad libs cookbook approach to writing.

And maybe he is trying….but sadly, even his attempts fall apart…He tries to go Bill Simmons on us and suggest that Earl Weaver’s “reverse lock” theory is in play. He says the theory is that when a team has no chance to win, said team will prevail because of that.” What? Is he suggesting the theory held last night because the Yankees had lost 8 in a row to the Sox and thus had no chance of winning? Let’s see, the Yankees have been playing well and the Sox? Not so much. The Yankees are at home and the Red Sox trot out Smoltz who stinks? Does not seem to me that the basic assumptions underlying the reverse lock theory are in play.

Throw in an obscure reference (Fred Wenz? I admit I had to look it up – pitched for the Sox and Phillies in 68-70 timeframe) and a shot at Ortiz for not talking to the press (eventhough he has scheduled a press conference for tomorrow) and you have another putrid entry from the region’s best sportswriter.

Shaughnessy's Piss-poor Lack of Execution

As much as I criticize Dan Shaughnessy's writing, I usually like his "turn back the clock" and high school sports pieces. Dan writes a turn back the clock piece today and the idea behind it has much potential but Shaughnessy's execution of it is shockingly bad and again smacks of his laziness.

Shaughnessy looks back 30 years - to the day Thurman Munson died; the day Edward Bennett Williams bought the Orioles; and the day Tony Larussa first got a managing gig.

- It may not have been his intent but Shaughnessy paints Munson as a petty man--padding his stats and being way too concerned about what Curt Gowdy would say about him on Saturday afternoon baseball games.

- Shaughnessy wastes a lot of space detailing his travel plans and how he missed a big story - too much detail for something that adds precious little to the story.

- I would agree that Williams' ownership was influential but it would have been nice if Shaughnessy would connect those dots. Was it because Williams laid the groundwork for Camden Yards? Or was it because (as Shaughnessy clumsily suggests) that it gave birth to the baseball career of Larry Lucchino?

- I would also agree that Larussa's managerial career is influential because I think it reflected the first wave of the overt analytical approach to managing baseball. Shaughnessy does not explore that - instead he makes a quick (and again clumsy) reference to Larussa's career victories and the fact that Larussa was in the dugout when the Sox won the 2004 World Series. Shaughnessy curiously writes "He was also in the other dugout when the Red Sox forever changed the baseball universe in St. Louis on Oct. 27, 2004." (Note, this is a World Series victory that Shaughnessy two days ago called "forever tainted.")

So, in the end, Shaughnessy seems to be losing a grip for even the types of columns for which he typically receives a passing grade. It is an astonishing collapse.

Ortiz lied to us

A Sox player gets caught up in controversy and Mr Knee-Jerk is itching to chime in right away.

You knew this was coming. The question was how quickly it would take to Dan write about it. The answer: Not long. The Globe even videotaped Dan at his desk talking about David Ortiz' name popping up on the infamous Steroid 103 list. Dan probably wrote this article a year ago and has been waiting and waiting to hit the publish button.

Yet again, this is piss-poor journalism. Yet again, this is Shaughnessy. Who is the fraud? Ortiz, quite possibly. Shaughnessy, most definitely

There are anonymous sources who say Ortiz is on the list. Yet, Ortiz says he did not even know. There is no corroboration. There is no indication of what he tested positive for. There is no due process. Yet, this doesn't stop Shaughnessy (and pretty much the entire press for that matter) for declaring him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Shaughnessy emphatically and dramatically starts his column, "David Ortiz lied to you. It seems safe to say that his entire Red Sox career is a lie."

When did Ortiz lie to me? What proof do you have Shaughnessy that he lied to me? Have you done any damn bit of investigation to give us any more than an anonymous source? Shaughnessy, you may end up being right but yet again, you have engaged in lazy, wreckless and knee-jerk journalism. Unfortunately, it is a sad commentary on the state of journalism that you are not alone here.

And, Shaughnessy why do you even bother anymore? For the second straight time this week, you have simply said pretty much the same thing Massarotti did. So not only are you a lazy hack, you are redundant.

Dice-K

There is nothing like a good player controversey to flush a rat from hiding. Shaughnessy returns from many days away from his column to write about Daisuke Matsuzaka's recent comments about the Red Sox handling of him.

This one (save one thing*) contains all the elements that drive me personally to want to continue this website. *The one surprising element is that it did not end with the line "This must be a case of Dice-K being Dice-K. " Shaughnessy must have realized that he had already written the same piece as Tony Massarotti who did end with the "Being Dice-K" line and realized that perhaps he should try to at least be a little different. As for the standard Shaughnessy fare that he did invoke, we have:

- Painting a picture of things that never really happened in the first place. Shaughnessy talks about what a dream marriage this was in the beginning -- World Series victories, 18-3 records, etc. Except Shaughnessy glosses over the fact that the marriage has never been particularly rosy--high salary, high walks, high pitch counts...high maintenance. Dont think this was ever a "perfect marriage"?

- Contradicting the picture that he paints: Shaughnessy starts his column saying "At the beginning, it was a perfect marriage." and he ends the column with "Since Day 1, Matsuzaka has been a hired gun in the clubhouse." Hmm, which is it Dan?

- Throw in a couple of inappropriate cultural references (which incidentally are also contradictory). He calls this a "hundred-million arranged marriage" after calling it a "perfect marriage"? Why call it an arranged marriage? Was it any more arranged than Texeira signing with the Yankees? It was a mutual business deal - no one forced anyone into anything.

- Failure to allow for the possibility that something is lost in translation: It seems like many of Shaughnessy's targets (Pedro, Manny, and now Dice-K) are ones whose native language is not English. Any chance that something is lost and misunderstood in the cultural and language translations? Do you really think Dice-K purposely upset the retirement ceremony of Jim Rice's number? Was there something taken out of context? Perhaps not but Shaughnessy is not likely to take the time to even consider the other perspective

This is simply another case of Shaughnessy piling on clumsily and lazily--tripping over himself along the way. Pathetic.

Farewell, Jerry

It is with much regret that I inform readers that Jerry Gutlon, the latest keeper of the DSW, has passed away.

In times like these I often need to borrow the words of others. In F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic novel, The Great Gatsby, upon learning of Gatsby’s passing, Meyer Wolfsheim tells the narrator, Nick, “Let us learn to show friendship for a man when he is alive and not after he is dead.” My wish here is I that had taken the time to do that for Jerry.

Jerry had intimated he had health problems, but never truly acknowledged (to me, at least) the extent of his fight. I am posting a note I received from his wife, Kristie. She and his family have my sincerest sympathies.

---------------

Dear Friends,

My husband, Jerry Gutlon, passed away July 7^th after a long battle with heart and lung disease. He fought hard, but in the end, it was time for the Lord to take him home.

I have to admit, this has been very hard for me to take. I love him with all of my heart and wish he would come back. His son, Joshua, has been my rock through this whole thing. His daughter, Alicia, hasn’t taken this very well, and I feel like I just need to back off and let her grieve in her own way.

The funeral will be Tuesday, July 14, at 5:30pm at Conner Westbury Funeral Home in Griffin, GA.Visitation will follow until 8:30. The address for Conner Westbury Funeral Home is 1891 W. McIntosh Rd., Griffin, GA 30223.The phone number is (770) 227-2300. The burial will take place Wednesday, July 15, at 1:00 at the Georgia National Cemetery in Canton, GA. He will be buried with full military honors.

The address for the Georgia National Cemetery is 2025 Mount Carmel Church Ln., Canton, GA 30114. The phone number for the administration office is (770) 479-9300. For those of you who live in the New England area, I’m considering the possibility of traveling to Massachusetts to do something in his memory with his friends and family up there. I don’t know for sure if I’ll be able to do it, but I’m hoping I can.

If you would like to contact me, my e-mail address is HiCNote@yahoo.com. I’ll try to keep track of Jerry’s e-mail for a while.

Thank you all so much for being Jerry’s friends. Jerry was a good man, and I’m honored and privileged to be his wife. God bless all of you.

Sincerely,

Kristie Gutlon

Picked up pieces

Dan dusts off a format he has not used in awhile - picked up pieces. Woo hoo. Good to hear the random thoughts of a media titan.

Let's see....Manny blasting: Check, check, check; Gratuitous Schilling Shot: Check; Strained analogies to the Red Sox - Yankees rivalry: Check (Comparing the recent NBA FA wheeling and dealing to the Red Sox and Yankees "winter wars" is downright stupid); John Henry close talker comment: check. Attempt to show cultural hipness: Check (Dos Equis commercial)

Also, Shank takes a shot at a recent NY Times Op Ed on steroids. Shank is critical of Chafets apparent indifference on the steroid issue. Chafets points out that many folks take performance enhancers in different forms and MLB has a long history of it. Shank ridicules Chafets but I personally think Chafets makes valid arguments. I personally use performance enhancers everyday (caffeine) and I take meds (motrin) to help me recover from injury - where do you draw the line? As usual, Shaughnessy is too lazy to at least consider the logic of an opposing viewpoint and instead issues dismissive one-liners. (And if you ever email Shaughnessy a critical comment, he does the same thing in his responses.)

Well, at least we were spared any 70s music references. And I actually did appreciate Shaughnessy's book and TV recommendations (I did not know about the HBO special on Ted Williams and look forward to it)

Baseball's Softer Side

On Monday night, Dustin Pedroia missed the Red Sox game because his wife went into premature labor. Dan talks about the old school days of baseball when players missed births and graduations compared to baseball's new softer side where family trumps baseball. He posits that Terry Francona represents the best of new and old in his approach to managing the game and its players.

Perhaps, I am reading too much into this but I think there is some Shark snarkiness here when he notes that the Red Sox were thrashed by the lowly Oakaland A's but then says:

No problem. The important thing was that Kelli Pedroia was OK and Dustin Pedroia had some peace of mind

And he concludes the column noting that Pedroia's return to the lineup came as the Red Sox won the game.

In my mind, the two words "no problem" is tinged by Shank sarcasm. Perhaps I am too jaded by Shank's continued negative vibes?

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Dan writes about Nomar's return to Fenway last night. Dan reminds us of how beloved Nomar was before it all went south. Dan says "He bled for this team for eight seasons."

I am surprised Dan gives Nomar eight seasons of credit because wasn't it old Dan who said that Nomar had to go? Wasn't it Dan who was leading the "Get Nomar out of here" bandwagon because Nomar had quit on the team in the bitter end? But, now good ole Dan is actually hinting that a reunion between the Sox and Nomar would be a good idea? As much as I think that a reunion would be kind of cool, it is disingenuous for Dan to be the one to suggest it. I imagine it is akin to a friend of a married couple who is pushing for the couple to get divorced only to say a couple years later, "You guys should get together. You would make a great couple."

Dan, you are truly an idiot.

Pathetic., just pathetic

Dan is blind. He is blinded by ignorance; he is blinded by laziness; he is blinded by his bitter contempt for professional athletes. His work on Manny Ramirez is pathetic, today's piece is particular rubbish.

(Disclaimer: I am not here to defend Manny Ramirez. Manny is a cheat and there seems to be a consensus that he quit on the Red Sox. I am not arguing this. I am appalled, however, at Dan's analysis of the whole situation.)

For what seems the 100th time, Dan lashes out at Manny. He lashes out at the softball media in LA. And he lashes out the ignorant fans who cheer Manny on. This has been a recurring theme. For some reason, Dan traveled to LA last month and forecasted that the fans would be cheering Manny on. Low and behold, Dan was right! Now he is back in southern California to recertify his contempt for Manny and the baseball universe.

Given all this, Dan concludes "Nobody cares about steroids." His statement is not qualified or caveated. Dan takes one sample of behavior, extrapolates it across the entire universe, and concludes that this sample represents everything. This is thin analysis. But this is Shaughnessy analysis. It is reckless and lazy journalism.

For once, why can't Shaughnessy move past his venom? Perform some analysis. Is it really the case that "Nobody cares about steroids?" Barry Bonds did not see a lot of love outside of northern California, did he? ARod is sure not receiving the adulation of the masses. Couldn't Shaughnessy simply look at those two cases and then conclude that "Everyone cares about steroids." That would be about as fair of an assessment as his conclusion from looking at Manny that no one cares.

Some analysis, Dan, please? What is different about Manny? Is it strictly his goofy personality? Is it the fact that he lives and plays now in Southern California, the hub of superficiality? Is there roid backlash? Has the coverage hit a tipping point where folks are so numb to it now, that they just don't care? There are many angles here but you have explored none of them. You are so blinded by your contempt of Manny and southern California that you are incapable of extricating yourself from it. Instead, we have your lazy conclusion that "And now we know the fans don't care. About steroids"

And now we know (again) that Shaughnessy is incapable.

Of Analysis.

He flew 3000 miles for this?

Seriously?

The Globe, ever mindful in these tough economic times, sent the obsessive one to San Diego to cover Manny's return. Shaughnessy says it was a circus. Does he realize he is the clown? He strings together quote after quote; throws a John Lennon reference in for good measure and calls it a day. Hope the Globe gets a good return.

Lou Gehrig's Disease

Somehow I missed Dan's nice column yesterday about MLB's efforts to raise funds for research on ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease. Shaughnessy provides a very nice summary of the disease, Lou Gehrig's struggles and eventual death, and a look at this weekend's efforts at major league ballparks to raise funds.

It is a good effort. Two quibbles - he repeats the "luckiest man on the face of the earth" twice but in the earlier online editions, one of the lines said "this earth". Looks like it has since been corrected. He also acknowledges Schilling's efforts with respect to this disease but for some reason he feels compelled to introduce Schilling's political orientation into it. Just did not think that was necessary.

Happy 4th. Let's see if Shaughnessy delivers fireworks this weekend. If the Celtics sign Rasheed Wallace, he may have a new favorite target?

Shattered victory

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

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

Catching Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave

Blast from The Past

Hi All,

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

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

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

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

Dave M

Back to His Old Shenanigans

Well, the old Danny Boy is back, with a smarmy May 27th column he cribs from Sports Illustrated's Peter King on Patriots' QB Tom Brady.

Every bit of decent information the Shank provides comes from King. Dan is relegated to making snotty comments suck as how "cash [must changes] hands" at Foxborough in order for a reporter to get any useful or pertinent information.

Dan also avails himself to info from the Boston Herald to augment his backhanded comments.

Might it be that Danny's a bit jealous that other sports reporters are given the opportunity to speak with Boston sports professionals because they are trusted ... and that he's universally distrusted?

Hmmmmm... Lemme see....

Dan Makes Some Funnies

Celebrating a sweep-preventing win over the Mets of New York, Shank tried his hand at comedy writing and pretty much succeeded.

Invoking a veritable litany of names -- real and imagined -- Dan mentioned Willie Tasby (interestingly enough the first black ballplayer the Sox acquired via trade) and Forrest Gump, and refered to umpire Joe West as "Country Joe."

He cited the "golfball-size hail," cracking that "All hail broke loose."

And for the second consecutive game, the umpiring crew used instant replay to determine the legitimacy of a homerun. Unfortunately the umps didn't see the replay on Turner Broadcasting System ... because clearly Kevin Youkilis ultimately was robbed of a four-bagger.

Last but not least, the Shankster continued to lobby for the benching of the woeful David Ortiz, suggesting the Sox conjure up a means of placing the Big Man on the disabled list, or ship him to the minors until he gets back into a groove.

Dan Gives Buddy Bob Ryan a Backhand

Dan got a bit snippy with his Globe colleague, Bob Ryan, in a Red Sox column May 23 that otherwise was a credible effort.

Snipped Shank, "Our man Bob yesterday submitted that they should just start the game with the bases loaded or perhaps start the game with a 3-2 count on the leadoff batter."

Isn't that special?

Usually the Shank is the one who is implanting the shank.

He might have written a better, more prescient piece if he'd enumerate on the stupidity of the World Baseball Classic. Dice-K, Youk, Petey. Who's gonna go down the next time?

Hmmm...

Some Graciousness

I must admit that I didn't expect it.

But Dan continues to surprise and pens a gracious, well-written column about Big Papi finally breaking out of his homerless slump in the wake of a smarmy column he wrote for Wednesday's Globe.

For some reason, the site is not allowing me to emplace a link to the website, so here it is:

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2009/05/21/for_papi_big_sigh_of_relief/

He's not only been strangely productive of late, but rather muted regarding his usual snotty, inflammatory missives.

Shank Returns with His Sharpened Shanks

Although my health is still precarious, Dan's latest diatribe forces me to recount his May missives.

Since the beginning of the month the Shankster has penned twelve columns, most of which were relatively free of Shanksterisms, although a number of comments from several blog boys und girls found fault with some of Danny Boy's smarmy smears.

Of his twelves efforts, six involved the Celtics, three were centered on the Bruins, and three were aimed at the Red Sox. Surprisingly, when the Celtics were humiliated by the Orlando Magic the other night Shank did not aim his poison pen at the men in green.

But he made up for his lack of comments regarding the C's no showing of the other evening with his column concerning David Ortiz, a/k/a Big Papi, in Wednesday's Globe.

Entitled "No. 1 Problem Is in No. 3 Spot," Shaughnessy laments the fact that both the Celtics and the B's have been eliminated from their respective playoffs because their continued presence deflected attention from Big Papi's woeful performance at the plate thus far this season. He finds fault with the fact that Ortiz has been tight-lipped of late with the media. Yet Shank goes on to quote Sox manager Terry Francona as saying that Ortiz is tired of answering the same questions.

Duh!

Dan predicts that Papi is singelhandedly poised to sink the Sox. Yet methinks the starting pitching is actually more critical to righting Boston's ship, especially with the imminent return of Kevin Youkilis. And I'll bet Tito juggles the line-up and moves Jason Bay & Co. and drops Ortiz's spot in the batting order until (if) he reacquires his prowess at the plate.

This seems to be another one of Shank's patented rushes to judgement. But the jury's still out...

Forgiveness

Hi, all...

Please forgive me for not posting this week.

I've been hospitalized with pneumonia and congestive heart failure since Sunday last, and probably won't be discharged until tomorrow (Friday, May 8th).

I haven't had Internet access until this morning, and that proved a total fluke.

Sharpen your knives, if warranted, and I'll update tomorrow.

Until then, cheers -- and jeers!

May Flowers

Has Dan misplaced his snideness?

He's submitted another workmanlike column for Saturday's Globe, essentially a game account of the Bruins' 4-1 victory over the Carolina Hurricanes in Game One of the second round in the Stanley Cups.

What's missing are his snotty comments, low blows, Eighties references and smarmy asides. (He did slip one in about Moses Malone, though...)

Although one wonders why the Globe folks assent to a second game account (along with reporter Fluto Shinzawa's version) in lieu of a column, Dan does try to adhere to a story line -- the Bruins' facial hair.

Maybe the newspaper ought to take a page from that of the Baltimore Sun which has pared its Orioles coverage back to a single beat reporter. What a concept.

Shank Didn't Shank This One

Well, ol' Danny's done it again.

Danny filed a right-on column for Friday's Globe, appropriately capturing the excitement and intensity of the Celtics-Bulls first-round NBA playoff tilt.

So, he's submitted yet another credible piece -- or his editors really exerted their craft.

Maybe it's something in the water...

Minutes Wasted

Dan is back to the same old hyperbole that oftentimes marks his column with a wasted effort Thursday.

He reverts to his nabob of negativity persona and rails about how many minutes key members of the banged-up Boston Celtics are logging. And he goes on ... and on ... and on ... employing virtually every mottled cliche in the book to make his point.

Maybe the editors had the night off ...

Just FYI, this was Shank's 16th column for the month of April. Pretty impressive numbers, even though half of them were half-assed efforts.

No bitches about these...

Again, Dan continues to surprise, with two more credible columns this past weekend.

First, Shank penned an ode to the Sox in the wake of their come-from-behind victory Saturday over the A-Fraudless Yankees.

Then he follows that with a paen to the Boston sports scene Monday last.

I just wonder why the editors seem to be doing their jobs ... finally.

Or, could it be that Dan's actually putting some effort in to help line up another job if, or when, the Globe goes the way of the dinosaurs, with all due apologies to Carl Everett.

Hah!

A Veritable Dynamo

Something's definitely up with ol' Dan-O.

He's suddenly become a virtual cornucopia of columns, adding four more columns to his April grab bag since my last posting on April 14th ... and they're all decent, workmanlike bits, with just a tad of snideness...

With his additional four efforts, he brings his monthly total to thirteen. (Time for a few weeks off to flex his typing fingers, eh?)

His April 16th offering, entitled "With or Without Garnett, Repeat Unlikely" kicked off his Celtics' playoff coverage, lamenting the fact that it looks as though big Kevin is through for the year, and ceding Boston's playoff hopes to one opponent or another. Decent piece but nothing earth shattering.

Shank follows that up with an April 17th piece on the Bruins, who are flying high and currently on the verge of sweeping the Montreal Canadiens. Again, a reasonable column ... but no blockbusters.

Then, on April 19th, Shaughnessy appears to write off the Celtics.

But in a compilation article in the wake of the Patriots' Day contests, Danny reverses course and hold out hope for the boys in green.

His production over the past several weeks makes one wonder if his editors are finally holding his feet to the fire ... or if he's auditioning for another job just in case the Globe goes the way of the Rocky Mountain News.

Four in a Row?

Yup.

You got it.

Dan filed columns four days in a row -- all on college hockey, three of them on BU's run to the NCAA Division I title. All were solid pieces.

Factor in columns on pro baseball on April 4th, 6th and 8th, and it appears that Shank's due for some time off. Seven whole columns in a 10-day span?

As the late Phil Rizzuto would say, "Holy cow!"

Dan the Hockey Man

Dan capped his hockey coverage off April 12 with a solid column on BU's comeback, overtime victory to take the NCAA Division I crown Saturday.

The bit was Shank's third consecutive hockey piece, two on the Terriers, and one on hockey parents.

All three were good columns.

The Shankster ought to stick with school sports, as his venomous bent doesn't constantly come through as it does when he writes about professional sports.

Beware...Dan has filed articles three days in a row. He'll probably need some significant time off...

Red Sox Grab Bag

Dan penned two Red Sox-based columns this week, one semi-positive, the second snarly and bitchy.

His April 6th piece accused the franchise of becoming too bland. The drama and angst of spring trainings past weren't in evidence this season and our boy apparently thinks that's a bad thing.

With Curt Schilling a thing of the past, and ManRam gone, not to mention the infamous Carl Everett, it appears as though Shank is desperately seeking new targets to skewer.

"No holdouts, no latecomers, no intramural dustups around the batting cage. No long-hair leaping gnomes. It was all about baseball.

"Once a roster peppered with divas, blogboys, and Jesus action figures, the Red Sox of 2009 are downright button-down. No more gypsies, tramps, and thieves."

Oh, my. How horrid! The team is about PLAYING baseball. Imagine that!

His second column was a tad more gracious. Just a tad, as the Shankster slammed sundry individuals and groused about Youk grousing about "several Hub scribes did not pick the Sox to win the World Series."

Ho hum...

I apologize for running late on these this week, as I was a tad under the weather and busy promoting my book, which has gone for a third printing since its release last month. Rest assured the three errors that have been pointed out to me will be corrected in the fourth printing ... unlike another scribe who wrote about the so-called "Curse."

Hep me!!!

This terrific piece from the Herald's Howie Carr...

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1164722

Kind of puts it into perspective, eh?

Ode to Francis Scott Key

Dan provides a reasonably insightful look back at the Baltimore Orioles in his April 5th column, although he does revert to his time-worn rhapsodic manner of invoking ancient catch phrases (e.g., Ain't Too Proud to Beg, etc.) into his columns.

He also equates Baltimore's acquisition of Frank Robinson to the Celtics' acquisition of Bill Russell. The only problem with that is that the Celts drafted Russell out of college, while the Orioles traded for Robinson. The other mystery Shankism relates to how Fenway was empty in 1998. Huh?

Overall, however, the piece is a solid one and provides some perspective on where the Orioles are now, and where they spent nearly 20 years not so long ago, atop the American League and AL East.

Now, on a personal note, the Globe endorsed my book today. Betcha that pissed off a couple of people who shall remain nameless. To assuage one of my chief critics, and in an effort of making full disclosure, the author of the review did identify a glaring error of mine, which, unlike another author who wrote about the Curse, will be corrected in the next edition of my book.

The Armpit of Pitt

Shank again mailed it in with this one on March 29, essentially providing readers with a game account in place of a column.

His inconsistency continues to boggle the mind. Aside from a couple of asides, Dan pens a column that recounts how Pitt lost in the final minute of its Elite Eight contest against Villanova. He regales us with memories of Danny Ainge against Notre Dame and Christian Laettner's efforts versus Kentucky.

He also laments Pitt's lack of getting the ball to DeJuan Blair, the guy with "the enormous derriere." There it is again ...

It all makes one wonder why the Globe editors let him get away with half-assing his way through life...

He Ain't Tony Blair...

Ok, blog boys 'n' girls ... I'm b-a-a-a-a-ck. Some personal matters have kept me out of the loop since I departed for Fort Myers last week, but now let's get back to the issue at hand.

Dan continues his schizophrenic ways by penning a good column about Pitt's DeJuan Blair, published Friday last, discussing Blair's oversized rear end. Hmmm...

The Shank's ruminations about Blair's backside could have implications other than the topic for a column, eh?

Nevertheless, Shaughnessy again writes a well-focused column -- even though he lets slip that he garnered his quotes in a press conference setting. Perhaps his reputation has preceeded him in Pittsburgh.

Meet the Hendersons

Dan turned in a solid, workmanlike column Thursday, March 25, featuring the Hendersons -- Gerald and Gerald, Jr.

He's even got quotes from both, and -- from the sounds of them -- I'll stake money (but not much, mind you) that Dan actually obtained those thoughts in one-on-one interviews.

It's a crying shame that Dan doesn't apply himself like this consistently, instead of utilizing shortcuts and his usual templates that oftentimes make his columns indistinguishable, vindictive and vain. Some days he's Bob Ryan but most days he's Dilbert.

On a personal note, my wife and I are off to Fort Myers today for the weekend to do a spring training book signing. Since my laptop is on the fritz I'm hoping one of my compatriots on the site will post entries over the weekend. If not, I'll see ya Monday.

Another Prospect for Dan's Hit List

I was bowled over this morning to get an e-mail from my publisher notifying me that my book, It Was Never About the Babe, which our hero, CHB, thought was "unfair" to him, had been endorsed ... in the Irish Times!

Stunned can't describe the feeling. And the author of the review, long-time Boston journalist, George Kimball, denigrates Dan's mythical thesis on decades of Red Sox failure, as well. I can't help but believe that Danny Boy's Irish eyes won't be smiling.

"Gutlon argues that the Red Sox were cursed, all right. For more than 80 years they were cursed by a policy of institutionalized racism and a mind-boggling litany of wrong-headed business decisions ...

"... although he is a professional journalist by trade, Gutlon is first and foremost a lifelong Red Sox fan, and what he brings to the table in his eminently readable new book is a comprehensive accumulation of anecdotal evidence delivered from that perspective – the winning argument, if you will, in a hypothetical bar-room debate on the subject."

And the hits just keep on coming!

Shank the Sham and His Pharisees

All of us blog boys (and girls) over the age of fifty certainly can identify the above play on words -- based upon the Sixties band Sam the Sham and the Pharoahs (who could forget Little Red Riding Hood or Wooly Bully?).

What brings it to mind is Dan's over-the-top, self-serving, self-imposed appearance on Dan Patrick's radio program on Tuesday. In the words of my DSW compatriot, Dave M. ...

"Shaughnessy was on the Dan Patrick Show ... and man, what an absolute joke ... all the pettiness revealed itself ... First, it was Shaughnessy who forced his way ... on the ... show - calling in to offer his opinion. Unfortunately, Patrick seemed all [too] willing to oblige. All the typical crap [concerning Curt Schilling] - complaints about the blog; complaints about the politics; complaints about being unethical for accepting [$8 million] while injured; and complaints about being … a big lug. Shank claims to be brave enough to call Schilling out on his inconsistencies but that Schilling always picks one member of the local media to pick on and it was poor little Shaughnessy."

What a surprise! First, to don the cape of a super hero! The maligned defender of all thing true and just. Yep, that's our boy!

OK, let's see. Why don't we go through Dave's points sequentially, shall we?

First, imagine Schilling's temerity to establish his own blog so he can offer his own opinion and bypass the media-imposed filters. That, in itself, should warrant a prison term, eh? Oh, and the guy's a right winger who openly, vehemently and vocally supported John McCain? Well, that should warrant the electric chair.

As far as the unethically obtained $8 million? I seem to recall Red Sox general manager Theo Epstein's public pronouncement thereafter that Schilling passed his physical with flying colors before the "big lug" signed his 2008 contract. But, naturally, Shank never bothered to correct his previous scurrilous claim. Guess Theo (backed by his minions, of course!) should've saved his breath.

(Sort of reminds me of Dan's identification of one of the three black Negro League players who tried out for the Sox back in 1945, Marvin Williamson. Uh, Dan, his name was Marvin Williams. Yet, twenty printings later, Dan's fairy tale "Curse" book continues to misidentify the man. Surprise! Surprise! Now that's responsible reporting!)

Inconsistencies? Boy, Dan, you are just such a pillar of integrity. Not!!!

Granted, I think Shank deliberately writes inflammatory columns and makes ridiculous assertions simply to attract attention and generate buzz. I also believe that the CHB goes out of his way to insert himself into the story, to become a play-AH in his own right. That said, I am outraged that the man has so little self-perspective that he constantly perceives himself as a victim.

I don't think I could put it any better than Roger Bournival who posted the following:

"In other words, intentionally pissing off fans and readers (let's assume, for argument's sake, they are one and the same) is a testament to the noble columnist's objectivity and perspective (whatever the latter's supposed to mean). Criticism of said columns by 'basement-dwelling blog boys' (a rough, but accurate portrayal of well, us! by yourself, Shank and other defenders of the ever-shrinking, dying, dead-tree media) is thus minimized and summarily dismissed. Failure to incorporate self-analytical and self-correcting procedures in one's work product results in a recursive process that reduces the eventual answer to zero."

Whatever one thinks of Schilling's faith, politics or outspoken persona, the man is genuine. And without his presence in 2004 and 2007 the Red Sox would still be seeking the Holy Grail of another world championship.

It's deliciously ironic that a Philadelphia Inquirer scribe (who apparently disagreed with much of what Curt vociferously stands for) penned a wonderful column entitled Curt Schilling has a lot of detractors, but belongs in the Hall of Fame reprinted in the Boston Herald. Kudos to the Herald for having the guts to print it. And shame on the Globe editors for allowing this vocal version of Harpo Marx to continue to spew his venom without any constraints!

Boston Sports Media Watch "Worst Boston Sports Column Contest"

Bruce Allen had an epiphany while on vacation a couple of weeks ago: Have the BSMW sponsor a contest to identify the worst Boston sports column in recent memory.

Prominently mentioned was one from the poisoned pen of our hero, Dan Shaughnessy.

Here's the link: BSMW Group Project - Worst Boston Sports Column.

Happy hunting!

You're Bloody Predictable, Shank

God forbid that Dan Shaughnessy, Boston Globe hack extraordinaire, be gracious.

As predicted yesterday by Bruce Allen of Boston Sports Media Watch, the CHB used his post as Globe columnist (of sorts) to slam Curt Schilling in the wake of Schilling's retirement announcement.

Shank's March 24th column, with the headline He Was Bloody Good Here, featured few platitudes to the pitcher without whom the Red Sox would still be without a post-1918 World Championship. Instead, he calls Curt "Schill," a "big lug" and an "uber-blowhard."

"I'm going to miss the big lug. In the past 30 years in Boston sports, there haven't been many guys more fun to write about than Curt Schilling. And it's nice to know he's not really going away. The uber-blowhard still will be part of our lives in cyberspace, on the airwaves, and probably at every town meeting and polling place in Suffolk, Middlesex, and Norfolk counties."

Look in the mirror, Dan! Agree or disagree, at least Schilling doesn't sway in the wind with every other paragraph. If there's an uber-blowhard in the room, methinks he might have a big red Afro. And, in my mind, anyway, you should alter your terminology. Change the word "write" to "slander."

You're not only predictable, you're pathetic.

Batten Down the Hatches: Schilling Has Left the Building

Over the years Dan Shaughnessy has -- for whatever reasons -- adopted numerous targets for his venomous tirades, much like Dave "The Colonel" Egan did in the "bad old days." (see: Williams, Theodore S.)

Well, with his announcement on 38pitches.com this morning, Curt Schilling made it official: He's retiring from baseball. Interestingly enough, Bruce Allen, founder of Boston Sports Media Watch, wonders if the Shank attacks on the Schill might continue, anyway.

Now, with both Schilling and Manny Ramirez no longer on the premises, Shank is going to have to determine who will serve as his new whipping boy. Lions and tigers and bears! Oh, my!

Maybe we ought to start a lottery to vote on who it should be. Yours truly excluded.

Dan Versus the Pros

OK, let me begin with a slam levelled at one of our erstwhile posters by none other than Dan Shaughnessy's masked defender, the infamous Objective Bruce, affectionately known as "OB."

Quoteth OB [quoting Chris]: "'The vast majority of Boston's professional sports personnel (athletes and management alike) simply turn their back on CHB with utter disdain.' Prove it. Schilling's musings don't count."

All righty then, Brucie. Let us briefly count the ways Danny Boy is consistently iced out on the Boston pro scene, shall we?

Thus far, the Boston Globe has published eleven (11) of Shaughnessy's columns in the month of March. Five (5) of those columns dealt with professional athletes. Are ya with me thus far?

Dan opened the Ides of March with a missive entitled Cassell Trade is a Loud Statement (March 1, 2009), of course dealing with the Patriots' trade of quarterback Matt Cassell to the Kansas City Chiefs. There were NO quotes. Lots of contradictory statements on Dan's part, but NO, I repeat, NO quotes. By the way, he penned the column while in Florida, ostensibly covering spring training, but in reality squandering the Globe's money.

On March 3, 2009, Shaughnessy filed a column with the headline, Masterson on Solid Footing. In it, he quotes Sox manager Francona and pitching coach John Farrell, along with young pitcher Justin Masterson. Frankly, I couldn't determine if Shank got those quotes himself, or culled them from a press conference. My gut says it was the latter, a la his coverage of the Patriots at the Super Bowl last year. Makes sense. On the other hand, Masterson is still so green it's possible he's not yet wise to the ways of the Shankster...

Shank then submitted a column published with the headline An Infusion of Intrigue (March 4, 2009), dealing with Sox outfielder J.D. Drew's never-ending physical problems. Dan quotes Tito -- no doubt from a group briefing -- and Drew, via NESN's Heidi Watney. Thanks, Heidi!

Let's move on, shall we? On March 5, 2009, Dan wrote a column entitled Hip Trouble … and Lip Trouble, driving my compatriot, Dave M., to distraction, as El Shanko hammered Manny (who, I must say, is a piece of drek and -- as Jon Papelbon pointed out -- had become a cancer in the Sox clubhouse before the team jettisoned him ... and slammed A-Roid, er, Rod. (Nice hookers, A-Fraud.)

Anyhoo, Dan quotes Manny and Dodgers' owner Frank McCourt in his piece ... via ESPN. By the way, the CHB was at spring training when he purloined most of this column from previous Shankisms.

After that point in time, Dan limited his topics to high school, junior college and college basketball, with the exception of his March 18, 2009 effort, Hottest of the Heat. Shaughnessy quoted the Miami Heat's D-Wade and head coach Erik Spoelstra. Typical, since those out-of-town pro athletes and coaches generally aren't wary of the Big D.

Otherwise, I think it's fairly obvious that Shank is hamstrung in trying to obtain meaningful quotes from professional athletes, coaches and executives in Boston.

How can you refute it, oh Master of Objectivity?

And They Pay Him to Write This Drivel?

Dan regresses to his usual trite approach to writing in his recap of BC's loss to USC in the first round of the NCAA tournament in his March 21st column.

Chronologically, let's see how Shank meanders down memory lane and, once again, name drops, shall we?

Silvio Conte, Bill Walton, Ed McMahon, Doug Flutie, Will Ferrell, O.J. Simpson, Fleetwood Mac and (tah dah!) Larry Bird.

All of the above -- and more -- are sandwiched among quotes from both coaches, BC's captain, Tyrese Rice and Trojan forward Taj Gibson.

Shank trots out arcane references that are meaningless to many (Mary Ann's ... wasn't she on the SS Minnow with Gilligan?) and brings up one of the very worst of Fleetwood Mac ("Tusk," 1980), and calls the USC squad "dysfunctional," then proceeds to illustrate how dysfunctional and uneven BC's regular season's performance was.

He slams the Trojans for their lack of camaraderie on the floor, likening their "California-cool" attitude to the Red Sox of 1978 with this gem: "These guys looked about as connected as the 1978 (25 players, 25 cabs) Red Sox." Seems to me the "25 players, 25 cabs" reference was much more applicable to the Red Sox of the mid-Sixties, pre-1967.

But virtually no Shaughnessy column is complete without references to the Sox or the Pats or both.

And I was astounded to learn that President Obama's brother-in-law apparently beat the entire USC basketball squad singlehandedly at Oregon State.

Can we get a video of that, Dan?

Shank Logic: New England Only Extends to Rt. 128

Dan's in Minneapolis ostensibly to cover the Boston College Eagles' post-season efforts in the NCAA tournament (one-and-out, as it turns out).

Since his March 20th piece wasn't time stamped, there's no telling when Dan filed his column, but it wasn't posted to Boston.com Friday morning ... or maybe the Globe techies collectively lurking in their mothers' basements figured out a way to prevent me from accessing it in a timely manner here in Atlanta.

Be that as it may, Dan returns to his hackneyed ways with a trip down memory lane, invoking a variety of cultural icons and limiting the boundaries of New England to the 128 beltway. Then, in inimitable Shank fashion, he contradicts the basic premise of his story and proceeds to briefly outline the March Madness experiences of other men's hoop programs that -- technically, I guess -- exist in other parts of New England.

He begins, "Without the Eagles, New England would not be involved in an annual nationwide sports festival that has grown to monstrous proportions."

Huh?

After invoking the names of Forrest Gump and his sidekick, Bubba, he then morphs into extolling the tourney's popularity by trotting out "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars," mentions the president (of the U.S., not of BC), and lamented the fact that "nobody noticed" BC's No. 2 ranking in college football in 2007, because we all were hung over from the Red Sox World Series victory and caught up in the Patriots' march to 18-0.

Writes Dan, "New England's history in the NCAA basketball tourney is ancient and rare." Uh, last time I checked, Connecticut is actually considered a New England state ... and I seem to recall a couple of latter day NCAA championships trolled in by the UConn men from Storrs.

Combine that minor fact with this next Dannism, "This is BC's 10th NCAA Tournament appearance since 1994." Hardly ancient history, Danny Boy.

The Shankster also delivers this gem, "As every Worcester schoolchild knows, Holy Cross won the thing back in the day when Bob Cousy was a freshman on Mount St. James (1947)." Dan, perhaps you spent four years at Holy Cross, but you obviously never ventured off campus. Having spent the bulk of the Eighties living and working in Worcester, I know that 99 percent of the schoolchildren in that city only know that the Holy Cross campus is just on the other side of I-290. Trust me, the Crusaders' foray into the stratospheric regions of the NCAA tournament in the late 1940s isn't a staple of the Worcester school system.

So, what are we left with? Just another meandering column that Dan slapped together without doing any footwork. In other words, back to one of the trickster's basic templates. And they pay him to do this. Shame, shame.

Is Dan Feeling the Heat?

Dan turns in yet another good column March 18, on the Miami Heat's visit to Boston to face the Celtics Wednesday night.

The piece includes quotes from Heat coach Erik Spoelstra and the NBA's leading scorer, Dwayne Wade.

Too bad Shank is so distrusted by virtually all Boston-based pro athletes and most club officials that few will give him the time of day, hampering Shaughnessy's ability to produce such columns about Boston's pros...

It's an effective, well-written column without any references to Larry Bird, the Eighties or the straw men Shank loves to knock down. And no hackneyed cliches.

Makes one wonder if the editors at the Globe might be holding Shaughnessy's feet to the fire after a string of half-baked, half-assed columns he submitted during the latter part of the winter. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Will the Real Dan Please Stand Up?

Recently I stumbled across an interesting posting on a website called the Daily Dollop.

My question to you, dear Dan Shaughnessy fans, is this: How accurate is this representation?

Dan Shaughnessy Answers His Critics

What's your educated take?

Three-for-Three? OMG!

Well, Dan continues to astound, with a sterling March 15th column on a day's worth of state high school basketball championship contests at my old stomping grounds formerly known as the Centrum in Worcester.

Dan -- or his editor(s) -- actually did a fine job utilizing Millbury High School's nickname, the Woolies. And, yes, as Shank pointed out, it's gotta be difficult not to root for a team called the Woolies. Wonder if they got the nickname from that huge trash-to-energy plant built in the 1980s...

Either way, Dan's batting .1000 since March 11th. The big question is: Can he keep the streak going?

Two for the Road

Once again, Dan shows he can write a relevant and effective column with this March 12th piece about the Massachusetts Bay Community College men's basketball team and its foray into the upper stratosphere of the JUCO playoffs.

I must duly note that, with the preponderance of quotes the column virtually wrote itself, complementing its formatting.

It truly is a shame that he'll no doubt momentarily return to hack status, with the tacit approval of his Globe editors. Having spent much of my adult life in news and sports reporting I can attest that editors who actually improve your writing are few and far between. Most either ignore the problems posed in one's stories and columns, or simply butcher them.

Giving Credit When Credit Is Due

Dan's March 11th piece on one of the state schoolboy basketball championship games is indicative of what he can do when he puts his mind to it.

Shank can be one heck of a columnist when he applies himself and doesn't take shortcuts, regurgitate past columns or wax nostalgic over the immortal eighties by trotting out his suitcase full of well-worn cliches.

It's sort of sad that he's tanked his reputation in recent years by cutting corners. In fairness to Dan, his editors could force him to become a better journalist, or at the very least, hold his feet to the fire and make him write better and not coast his way to a paycheck. I found it very telling that he told me in a March 13th e-mail, "[N]o need for us to argue the merits of column writing."

Indeed, if his Globe editors cared enough they could profoundly impact his columns. Too bad they don't bother. Hey, it's a paycheck.

Hello, Dan ... You Must Be Going

The above title is an offshoot of a quote from the mouth of the inimitable Groucho Marx.

Although I never envisioned becoming a part of this site -- aside from entering my comments regarding other postings -- I've changed my mind, essentially because Dan has berated me for "being unfair" to him in my book, It Was Never About the Babe: The Red Sox, Racism, Mismanagement and the Curse of the Bambino.

I find that accusation both amusing and ironic since Dan has acquired the nickname "Shank" through his relentless and seemingly vindictive attacks on others. Perhaps the best example of this is Curt Schilling, whom Shank continues to shamelessly refer to in his columns. Apparently Curt (another abrasive personality who can easily get under one's skin) upset Dan after his trade to Boston in November, 2003, when he refused to cuddle up to the Shankster.

So, even though Dan lauded Schilling's acquisition by the Boston Red Sox, Curt quickly gained Shank's enmity. From that point onward, Schilling became a moving (and, sometimes, a stationary) target of Dan's. Dan has accused Schilling of "channeling" through a psychotic Astros pitcher who physically attacked his general manager, and of taking millions from the Sox last year even though he knew his shoulder was blown out and couldn't pitch.

Despite the fact that the Red Sox braintrust refuted those claims, Shank never saw it fit to correct that particular charge. I'm sorry, but, Dan, that's unfair! In subsequent postings I'd like to endeavor to illustrate how Dan never saw fit to correct the many, many pieces of misinformation in his tome, The Curse of the Bambino, even though it's in it's 21st printing (at last count), and Shank's gotta know that much of his fairy tale is flat out wrong!

I personally have been pilloried by at least one Dan apologist for refuting the so-called "Curse" even though it's been done before by other authors, albeit in much shorter form. Be that as it may, the myth needed to be buried once and for all.

And Dan really ought to send a "thank you" letter to my publisher, Skyhorse Publishing, Inc., of New York City, since its editor seriously watered down my chapter on the Boston sports media. Otherwise, Shank might have sent a Holy Cross hitman after me.

Finally (for now), I'm using my real personal information to back up my involvement on this website. For one thing, I think that's only fair and proper. A secondary reason, frankly, is I've got a book to promote. And, just for the record, since Dan loves to slam bloggers and Internet addicts, I'm not some cretin holed up in my basement -- we don't have a basement ... we live outside of Atlanta -- endlessly logged on. Our office is off our living room, and that's where our computer is!

Get Over it Dan

Dan's obsession with Manny continues. Dan's obsession with ARod continues. Dan's self-plagiarism continues. Dan's twisted logic continues. And we get all of this in one neat little package.

Dan writes about Manny's signing and ARod's hip.

The Manny part is very similar to an article that he wrote last October when his obsession was in full gear. In October, he wrote

Wow. Unhappy for eight whole years. While the Sox were winning the World Series and fans were worshiping at Manny's feet, he was unhappy. He must have been unhappy when you stood and applauded while he ran onto the field carrying that American flag on the day he became a US citizen. He must have been miserable riding in the duck boat, seeing the hand-held signs of fans who lined the parade route.

Today he writes:

There you go, Sox fans. Manny was suffering while you were cheering for him. He was suffering when the Sox paid him $160 million. It must have been hell, making all that cake, hearing the applause, and seeing little kids and big dads wearing his No. 24 Sox jersey. I guess we'll never know how hard it was to win two World Series, playing in front of baseball's best fans in baseball's best ballpark.

Look I think we all find it hard to believe that someone could be unhappy with all the money and fame and Shaughnessy hammers this home (again and again and again). But ever think that there may be a sincere sentiment there? I honestly dont think Manny ever understood or appreciated the passion of Red Sox fans and he just wasnt comfortable with it. Is that too difficult to comprehend? Get over it, Dan

Then there is this gem

These monstrous issues have two common denominators: Scott Boras and the Red Sox. Boras represents both superstars. And no matter what happens in Baseball America, it's always about the Red Sox.

What? Shaughnessy's tortured logic against puts Boston at the center of everything.I just dont get it. How is ARod's hip all about the Red Sox? How is Manny signing in LA all about the Red Sox? Get over it Dan

Enough of this Crap

Shaughnessy is apparently in Florida covering the Red Sox but the Globe sports department felt the Cassel trade was a big enough story that we just absolutely needed to hear from the CHB on this one.  The result is an utter piece of meandering crap.  What the hell is Shaughnessy talking about?

He starts off with some notion that there is blind allegiance to Bill Belichick.  What?  The coach has won three Super Bowls and his decisions have turned out to be on target more often than not.  So is it really that absurd to conclude that "His Hoodiness" has built up some immunity and good will?  Even Shaughnessy admits that he was calling for Cassel to be cut at the end of preseason...Belichick turned out to make a pretty good decision by sticking with him, didn't he?  Belichick has certainly earned some benefit of the of the doubt over the years although that should not be confused with "blind allegiance" and the insipid attack at the beginning of today's column.

That being said, Shaughnessy has every right to examine and question the merits of this trade as (unfortunately for us) that is his job.   But he can't seem to make a coherent, consistent point.  He starts off with this blind allegiance b.s. but then drifts to this statement "Intellectually and strategically, this deals makes sense"  But then in the very next paragraph, he goes back on the trade and says it could be the football equivalent of Varitek and Lowe for Slocumb.  Yet, then he goes back to the idea that the Patriots have always been ruled by what makes sense on the field--no place for emotion.  (Isn't that the way a good business is supposed to be run?)  Yet, later he says "saying goodbye to Cassel is particularly risky."  Wait, what?  I guess no matter how this turns out for the Patriots, Shaughnessy can look back to this little gem of a column and say "I told you so."

Shaughnessy concludes with the biggest head scratcher of them all by suggesting that Bill Parcells is somehow behind the scenes on this one by virtue of the fact that he is the father in law of Pioli?  ("There is a smell of tuna in the air.") Shaughnessy, what the hell are you talking about?  Parcells has been Pioli's father in law for years...are you suggesting that Pioli has been working to undermine the Patriots for all these years? Or now that he is free of the clutches of Belichick that he is going to suddenly conspire with Parcells to screw the Patriots?  And exactly how are they going to conspire to do this?  It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  There is a smell of crap in the air and it's emanating from our self-plagiarizing, lazy, incoherent front page columnist.