Protecting the Shields -- The Nick Cafardo Thread
- Thread starter MyDaughterLovesTomGordon
- Start date
- Status
Would it be the former hs coach of a 7-6 British stiff who washed out at North Carolina and was too injured to even see the floor at Holy Cross?
The Carl Crawford article today was pure lickspittle. "Hey you meany media types (not me, Carl!), stop being so down. Carl just might prove you wrong! And then won't you look really silly for saying someone making $20 million really ought to be over .300 OBP by game 120! Oh, yes. So silly."
Spare me, Nick.
I don't give a shit how hard Crawford is supposedly working or how supposedly talented he is. Tell me something other than "people really like him" that gives any indication he's going to turn things around and be worth half his paycheck. One thing.
Spare me, Nick.
I don't give a shit how hard Crawford is supposedly working or how supposedly talented he is. Tell me something other than "people really like him" that gives any indication he's going to turn things around and be worth half his paycheck. One thing.
Cafardo has at least one of these types of quotes in just about every one of his articles:
2. Right now? That would be a dumb deal for both sides.
3. Ok. If you say so.
4. It would be nice if you expounded on it. Posnanski already has, BTW.
The quote is essentially useless because Lester admits that he doesn't even have an opinion on what is being asked of him and even if he does have an opinion, its moot because Lester hasn't studied up on it (which is insane, BTW) to offer an informed quote. Why even use the quote? To show that he speaks with Lester? Who cares. This was an absolutely useless quote that should have been edited out.
1. Nope
2. Right now? That would be a dumb deal for both sides.
3. Ok. If you say so.
4. It would be nice if you expounded on it. Posnanski already has, BTW.
This sounds exactly like Ricciardi and Beattie.
Now who gave these two men these contracts? Man, who would do such at thing? Maybe an analytical, young executive who has a resume with a successful organization.
Full disclosure: I don't read Nick Cafardo. But I do read this thread every once in a while because I find it amusing.
With that said, I have to comment on the essential unfairness of JMOH's last post. Not "unfair" in the sense that I'm implying any criticism of JMOH. I mean "unfair" in the sense that the quotes he offered are so chock full of stupid that it makes shooting fish in a barrel look like an Olympic competition by comparison.
Holy good God.
With that said, I have to comment on the essential unfairness of JMOH's last post. Not "unfair" in the sense that I'm implying any criticism of JMOH. I mean "unfair" in the sense that the quotes he offered are so chock full of stupid that it makes shooting fish in a barrel look like an Olympic competition by comparison.
Holy good God.
For some reason, I found this sentence on the Cubs' GM job search to be the perfect combination of Cafardo make-believe, anonymous sources, vagueness, and wishcasting:
Then the Maraschino cherry:
Unfortunately, this is not a different look.
Awesome. Looks like you read today's Globe,had the same reaction, and went to this thread about 9 minutes before me.
Imagine the contracts JP would get himself into with the money he would have to spend?? I cringe. BJ Ryan, Vernon Wells and Alex Rios would be dwarfed.
He'd make us into what the Cubs are now.
Seemed like Nick decided that instead of just saying "I don't think Cashman and Epstein are going anywhere" and preserving whatever positive perception the readers have of his intelligence, he decided to head down the speculation road.
A SoSH member familiar with tims4wins' thinking believes this school of thought should not be discounted.
I think we now need a new word to describe what Cafardo does on a weekly basis for J.P.
This is well beyond apple polishing, brown nosing, protecting sources, pimping, marketing or a cozy of favor. It's a full-on Cafardo. Cafardo is doing a Cafardo for J.P. Ricciardi. It's the only way we can describe it.
This is well beyond apple polishing, brown nosing, protecting sources, pimping, marketing or a cozy of favor. It's a full-on Cafardo. Cafardo is doing a Cafardo for J.P. Ricciardi. It's the only way we can describe it.
It's also worth noting that he based his whole column on an ESPN "report" that was in fact an idle tweet. So, what one journalist thought deserved 140 characters, another thought worth 700 words...
:rolling: :rolling:
Dear Nick:
What's "Google?"
At least he's still trying to reach new lows even as the season heads into the home stretch. No "resting the regulars" for Nick.
Cafardo's dream quote:
“I understand bringing in a lefty for a different look, but after two or three times, it’s not a different look anymore,’’ Gonzalez said. “If I had my druthers, I’d face a lefty who’s not that good over a righty who’s very good any day."
“I understand bringing in a lefty for a different look, but after two or three times, it’s not a different look anymore,’’ Gonzalez said. “If I had my druthers, I’d face a lefty who’s not that good over a righty who’s very good any day."
Ask Nick: Should Gonzo, Youk lose weight?
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2011/09/ask_nick_do_gon.html
Yeah, ask this guy about weight loss:
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2011/09/ask_nick_do_gon.html
Yeah, ask this guy about weight loss:
I am literally half-way through Cafardo's baseball column and I have to just say, bravo, Nick this is the worst piece of shit that you've ever written. Here is the link just for posterity:
It's all Manny's fault
Read the gibberish. God, this is terrible.
It's all Manny's fault
Read the gibberish. God, this is terrible.
I had to stop reading. That's godawful. Just terrible... for someone who can manage to make it to the end, does he mention that arguably the Rays best player since he was called up, Desmond Jennings, might not have been playing at all had Manny been playing left?
*edit*
Oh God. I skipped to the Notes... he's really playing the Jason Bay card here? Really?
*edit*
Oh God. I skipped to the Notes... he's really playing the Jason Bay card here? Really?
I didn't even think about Jennings, but that's a good point. The thing about the Rays article is that he is all over the place, Manny is to blame, the Rays look good, will they compete in the future?, the fans in Florida suck, the Rays have no money; it's like he just took a bunch of crap about Florida and threw it against the wall. There's no flow to it at all. Will Matt Moore do well in a few years? Who's to say, but Manny Ramirez is an asshole and what's the deal with the Marlins? They have a new stadium next year but how come Tampa fans don't want to cross a bridge.
And yes, Jason Bay is obviously the solution for what's hurting the Sox.
Will Tony LaRusa go to the Cubs? Maybe the White Sox? Who knows, I'm asking you, dear reader. All this need was a reference to JP Riccardi and this would have been the perfect column.
And yes, Jason Bay is obviously the solution for what's hurting the Sox.
Will Tony LaRusa go to the Cubs? Maybe the White Sox? Who knows, I'm asking you, dear reader. All this need was a reference to JP Riccardi and this would have been the perfect column.
Nick: The Rays have done a great job of dumping people; the proof being a good number of them have gone elsewhere and done poorly (not a bad argument at all).
Nick: The Red Sox should have kept Jason Bay who went elsewhere and has done very poorly.
Makes perfect sense....if you're Nick.
Yes, he is. Just when you think he can't get any dumber or lazier, he never fails to set a new low.
A column of complete rumor-mongering, piling on, shilling, and colossal stupidity.
A column of complete rumor-mongering, piling on, shilling, and colossal stupidity.
:lol: At Nick for calling out the Sox for being fat, lazy and out of shape. I guess he lives in a house with no mirrors.
Dough Boy Nick, who couldn't bash Ellsbury enough last year, takes another cheap shot at the pudgy Sox by lauding Ells:
Booooooooo....
A Most Valuable Player
Booooooooo....
Bobby V was rumored to be a candidate back in '04 when they hired Tito. Guess Nick just went back to that well.
Having been subjected to Bobby V's intelligence as a broadcaster, it's hard to imagine that any of us would be alive today had he taken over instead of Tito.
I actually don't think Bobby V would be a terrible manager; while his Mets time was up and down he did win in Japan with Chunichi, which means he's got to be doing something right.
But Bobby's a egotist and I don't think that type of manager plays well in Boston. Tito is a self-effacing guy who allows his players to get all the credit.
Nick relies on anonymous sources more than Woodward and Bernstein.
The difference is that Nick keps asking people the same question and quotes the one who gives them the answer he wants. "A scout says the Sox are out of shape," leaving out the fact that 48 other people he asked said, "No, I dont think it's possible to reach that conclusion based on what we know."
The really ironic thing is that he gives Jenks, of all people, a pass, due to the embolism, overlooking the overall conditioning issue with him. Bobby must've picked up the check last time.
EDIT: typos and agreement with SJH on Valentine. Taking the blame AND deflecting the credit has not been Valentine's style.
The difference is that Nick keps asking people the same question and quotes the one who gives them the answer he wants. "A scout says the Sox are out of shape," leaving out the fact that 48 other people he asked said, "No, I dont think it's possible to reach that conclusion based on what we know."
The really ironic thing is that he gives Jenks, of all people, a pass, due to the embolism, overlooking the overall conditioning issue with him. Bobby must've picked up the check last time.
EDIT: typos and agreement with SJH on Valentine. Taking the blame AND deflecting the credit has not been Valentine's style.
No one is going to point out that Nick completely missed that Chad Fox isn't in the Red Sox organization this...decade?
Cafardo interviews three people about Francona's firing, these three people say they don't know anything about the team's situation yet comments on it anyway. Oh by the way, these three quotes were back-to-back-to-back in his story.
Why doesn't Cafardo interview three random SoSHers or three random congressmen or three random homeless people? I would guess that Cafardo is in the clubhouse nearly every day and he's got to have a few sources, this would have been a perfect opportunity for him to use his unnamed sources, but instead he gives us Stan Kasten (a former president of a team that isn't in the Sox' league), Brian Sabean (a GM who isn't in the same league as the Sox or even on the same coast) and Kevin Kennedy (a guy who managed the Red Sox 15 years ago and hasn't had a sniff of a job since). Aside from being the first three to return his calls/emails, what's the point of talking to these guys?
I get talking to Damon and some extent Burks, they were guys who played under Tito (five and seven years ago respectively) but this is just dumb. Cafardo had to know that this was going to be his lead for the Sunday Notes and he gives us this shit?
Why doesn't Cafardo interview three random SoSHers or three random congressmen or three random homeless people? I would guess that Cafardo is in the clubhouse nearly every day and he's got to have a few sources, this would have been a perfect opportunity for him to use his unnamed sources, but instead he gives us Stan Kasten (a former president of a team that isn't in the Sox' league), Brian Sabean (a GM who isn't in the same league as the Sox or even on the same coast) and Kevin Kennedy (a guy who managed the Red Sox 15 years ago and hasn't had a sniff of a job since). Aside from being the first three to return his calls/emails, what's the point of talking to these guys?
I get talking to Damon and some extent Burks, they were guys who played under Tito (five and seven years ago respectively) but this is just dumb. Cafardo had to know that this was going to be his lead for the Sunday Notes and he gives us this shit?
NO FUCKING SHIT, NICK. Look in a mirror.
I'm just echoing what many others have posted, including John Marzano; there is no such thing as a "off day" when it comes to media coverage of the Red Sox from March onward; they are in the clubhouse every day, yadayadayada, but none the best any of these geniuses could come up with before all this broke this week was that there were a few guys out of shape?
Well, to be fair, Nick's statement doesn't necessarily mean he'd remain third base coach.
Yeah, I get that Tim Bogar is a below average 3b coach but apart from that, I know very little about him. If that item above is true, good for him. So long as he's not at 3b, I'm fine with good talent being retained or promoted.
Or, being a shitty 3b coach is the only qualification you need for consideration to manage the Red Sox.
Or, being a shitty 3b coach is the only qualification you need for consideration to manage the Red Sox.
Ugh. Here's the Theo-is-only-a-stats-guy meme surfacing. Seriously, a lot of the recent FA signings went against statistical analysis and seemed to be done to placate the "traditionalists." Crawford, for one, whose offensive skills didn't augur well over the lifetime of the contract, and whose alleged defensive [font="'Times New Roman"]prowess would be wasted in Fenway. That signing seemed to be all about getting the athlete scouts loved for the season ticket holders.[/font]
[font="'Times New Roman"]
[/font]
[font="'Times New Roman"]Whatever. As far as the Phillies go, that's a terrible franchise to emulate. This year, they made it only five games further than the Sox, and they're headed for a very ugly downturn in their future. [/font]
[font="'Times New Roman"]
[/font]
[font="'Times New Roman"]
[/font]
[font="'Times New Roman"]
[/font]
[font="'Times New Roman"]Here we go again with the "media makes it tough to play in Boston" crap. [/font]
[font="'Times New Roman"]
[/font]
[font="'Times New Roman"]Again, the problem is that the Sox went after the top-name FAs when they got Lackey and Crawford, the traditionalists' darlings. The Gonzo trade is the way it should be done, IMHO. Last thing I want to see is a revisiting of the 70s and 80s and FA pickups like Jack Clark and Larry Parrish because, you know, we need the veteran presence on the club.[/font]
[quote name='richgedman'sghost' timestamp='1318250690' post='3800623']
I get the theme and substance of your post but why include Larry Parish? Unlike Crawford, Lackey and Clark, he was not signed during the winter meetings but during the 1988 season. Technically he was a "free agent" signing at the trade deadline in 1988, but I do not think he cost the Sox much money since he had been recently released by the Rangers. In addition, he retired at the end of the season so his overall cost was probably minimal. The Red Sox did not have a long term commitment to Parish. Finally, the Red Sox made the playoffs in 88 while they have yet to do so with Crawford and Lackey and never did with Clark. I am curious as to why you included him in with your comparison to Lackey, Crawford and Clark since he does not seem to fit in with the rest of the comparison. Not trying to be snarky, but curious.
[/quote]
Honestly, I just threw him in there as the typical 1B/DH right-handed batter type the Sox used to pick up, and wasn't considering the details of his employment. Yes, as I recall (and am backed up by B-R.com), he had a half-decent run with the Sox (tho' with an anemic .298 OBP) -- but I didn't know the details of his contract.
In short, he just came to mind. The late night posting and hard cider I was drinking had something to do with it, too, heh.
I get the theme and substance of your post but why include Larry Parish? Unlike Crawford, Lackey and Clark, he was not signed during the winter meetings but during the 1988 season. Technically he was a "free agent" signing at the trade deadline in 1988, but I do not think he cost the Sox much money since he had been recently released by the Rangers. In addition, he retired at the end of the season so his overall cost was probably minimal. The Red Sox did not have a long term commitment to Parish. Finally, the Red Sox made the playoffs in 88 while they have yet to do so with Crawford and Lackey and never did with Clark. I am curious as to why you included him in with your comparison to Lackey, Crawford and Clark since he does not seem to fit in with the rest of the comparison. Not trying to be snarky, but curious.
[/quote]
Honestly, I just threw him in there as the typical 1B/DH right-handed batter type the Sox used to pick up, and wasn't considering the details of his employment. Yes, as I recall (and am backed up by B-R.com), he had a half-decent run with the Sox (tho' with an anemic .298 OBP) -- but I didn't know the details of his contract.
In short, he just came to mind. The late night posting and hard cider I was drinking had something to do with it, too, heh.
Yes! And sometimes the signings work, too. Like Don Baylor. Only it worked -- not because Baylor was a veteran presence -- but because he produced, with an 111 OPS+ in '86, despite hitting .238.
Exactly my point- Baylor did something, Dawson, not so much.
At least the Baylor deal made up quite a bit for the Sox getting another Nick Cafardo favorite, Mike Easler, in a bogus deal for John Tudor. Easler got swapped for Baylor.
Life imitating art, according to Nick. Carmine is machine-gunned, Tito shot-gunned, and Theo shot in the back running up the stairs, while Lucky is at the baptism. Revenge of the old school.
Interesting stuff, but far too simplistic. Tom Verducci threw a discordant note into the aria just as the compelling ending was picking up steam:
http://mobile.sportsillustrated.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1190632/5/index.htm
Interesting stuff, but far too simplistic. Tom Verducci threw a discordant note into the aria just as the compelling ending was picking up steam:
http://mobile.sportsillustrated.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1190632/5/index.htm
In his first of two seasons with the Red Sox, Easler hit .313/.376/.516 with 63 extra-base hits and an OPS+ of 140. In his, Baylor hit .238/.344/.439 with 55 extra-base hits and an OPS+ of 111. Their second seasons, respectively, were pretty much a wash statistically.
This about sums it all up
Double edit: also, how quickly they forget. Down 3-2 in the ALCS to Cleveland, season on the line, about to squander a bases loaded, no out opportunity, JD hits the grand slam. It's a shame he wasn't one of the "idiots", then he might have popped up on the first pitch or something awesome like that.
Edit: it baffles me that people argue that Crawford was a stats signing. Yes, his defensive value was tied to stats, but if anything, he was an "excitement" signing. Fast player who flies around the field, steals bases, makes diving catches, and seemed to be a great teammate and personality in Tampa Bay. He had no personality this year because he SUCKED, not because of his "character".
Double edit: also, how quickly they forget. Down 3-2 in the ALCS to Cleveland, season on the line, about to squander a bases loaded, no out opportunity, JD hits the grand slam. It's a shame he wasn't one of the "idiots", then he might have popped up on the first pitch or something awesome like that.
- Status