Protecting the Shields -- The Nick Cafardo Thread
- Thread starter MyDaughterLovesTomGordon
- Start date
- Status
I do think he's been getting some heat from somewhere about the anonymous sources. So, what's he do: Trots out his buddy Ken Macha and then calls Cashman. Hilarious. Surely they're the only guys all along (plus JP in Toronto) that would talk to him and he didn't just want to print the same names over and over again. Next week should be interesting. Does he venture outside of the AL East and former NESN employees? I'm dying to find out...
I know Cafardo has been opining in his apropos of garbage for weeks/months now about how he feels Sheffield will have a big season. Well, I guess Dombrowski is not one of his silent sources.
Sheffield released
Sheffield released
Today, Nick wasn't even one of the 6 baseball staff members to give a prediction in the '09 Preview Section, and all he had for his Notes was a half-page at the very back. Approximately one-fourth of which, of course, was used wailing about the "growing concern" of the decline of black players in MLB and proceeding to list every single African-American on a Major League roster, grouped by team and sorted by frequency. That means that the very last line of the article simply reads "NONE: Boston" and honestly, reading that ignited something in my head which just thought that the whole positioning of that line, how it stands out (it is indented as its own paragraph" was somehow intended as a shot at the city, trying to chomp on any last crumb supporting the racist stereotype of the city and everything associated with it. It may sound crazy, but that whole section kind of aggravated me a little, both for its lameness and annoyance.
Also, apparently both Upton brothers will be the breakout players of the year and Jay Payton, because of how shocking it is that no one has taken a shot on him, is a "victim of the times."
Also, apparently both Upton brothers will be the breakout players of the year and Jay Payton, because of how shocking it is that no one has taken a shot on him, is a "victim of the times."
He wasn't on the six person staff member page because he wrote every single one of the capsules on the previous pages.
True, but he didn't get to do the playoff predictions and everyone else with the exception of Ryan and Kilgore did another section of the preview as far as I remember. But, perhaps you are right and being on the staff predictions isn't overly significant.
My point was that it was surprising to see him not get a spot on the predictions staff, and have less room for his own column (Notes), and maybe that was a sign he was slowly losing influence or something. I don't care what his predictions are. All speculation, like much of the stuff around here. But, I guess I was wrong.
But he did do the predictions. Next to the capsules he has the teams that will make it to the post season. If I remember correctly he has the Rays facing the Cubs in the World Series with the Cubs winning the whole thing.
Maybe he should break a sweat and do some research to see how many African-American players are in the Red Sox minor-league organization and how that number compares to other teams.
Over on BSMW this morning, Bruce has a list of the Globe sports staffers who were apparently given "jobs for life" and who cannot be laid off without their permission.
Unfortunately, Cafardo's on it. Thankfully, Shaughnessy is not.
Full sports list. Obviously Borges and May are no longer with the paper:
Ron Borges
Mark Blaudschun
Nick Cafardo
Frank Dell’Apa
Kevin Paul Dupont
Nancy Marrapese-Burrell
Peter May
John Powers
Bob Ryan
Michael Vega
We're gonna be stuck with this guy for a long, long time.
Unfortunately, Cafardo's on it. Thankfully, Shaughnessy is not.
Full sports list. Obviously Borges and May are no longer with the paper:
Ron Borges
Mark Blaudschun
Nick Cafardo
Frank Dell’Apa
Kevin Paul Dupont
Nancy Marrapese-Burrell
Peter May
John Powers
Bob Ryan
Michael Vega
We're gonna be stuck with this guy for a long, long time.
"Job For Life?"
Since when did the Globe "Make" people, like in the mafia?
No wonder their product sucks, every key player on their team has a longterm contract with no incentives. What a joke.
Since when did the Globe "Make" people, like in the mafia?
No wonder their product sucks, every key player on their team has a longterm contract with no incentives. What a joke.
As much as I despise CHB at times, I find it hard to believe Cafardo makes that list but Shank does not.
I feel the same way. Nine out of ten Bostonians could tell you that Shank writes for the Globe, I don't think that the number would be so high with Cafardo.
And there could be ways of getting Cafardo off that list if Joe Sullivan wanted to. He could have him cover the college hockey beat or the the Candlepin bowling circuit. Make him substantiate all of his stories. Crap like that.
And there could be ways of getting Cafardo off that list if Joe Sullivan wanted to. He could have him cover the college hockey beat or the the Candlepin bowling circuit. Make him substantiate all of his stories. Crap like that.
From what I understand, the "job for life" thing stems from terms negotiated back when the paper was sold by the Taylor family to the NYT in 1993. Certain union members with X-amount of service time qualified. Though realistically you will probably never get rid of Cafardo unless he's hit by a short bus, he *could* technically be gone under that "job for life" scenario as long as there's cause...
This is the kind of thing that just kills me with Cafardo:
He's just so lazy. I don't think he even believes that question, but he needed to get from point A to point B, wanting to make the point that he wasn't sold on them yet. So he lapsed into some kind of football analysis, where game to game variation actually means something. Just frustrating.
Um, the team with Kris Benson starting his first game in forever? Or the team that plays baseball, which has a 162-game season where you're going to lose some games?
He's just so lazy. I don't think he even believes that question, but he needed to get from point A to point B, wanting to make the point that he wasn't sold on them yet. So he lapsed into some kind of football analysis, where game to game variation actually means something. Just frustrating.
The problem is that teams, especially those with a good eye for talent such as the Braves, will know that Delcarmen's stats aren't indicative of how he pitches ... especially in high pressure situations. Cafardo should also know this, and really should know that the people who read his Sunday column would know it as well.
Are we still debating this clutchness nonsense?
Manny Delcarmen's value will be set not by the splits but by his overall numbers. Look at K-Rod. The guy choked during both the 2007 and 2008 playoffs, yet even in a down economy he was able to land a 3-year, $37 million contract.
Yes, but the 'overall numbers' would include the playoffs....and including the playoffs, Delcarmen's 2007 ERA was 2.60 (instead of 2.05 based on regular season stats alone) and his 2008 ERA was 3.89 (instead of 3.27). That might well impact his value.
The difference being that K-Rod was a known, all-star commodity whereas MDC is a reliever that many of the fans of his own team would like to see traded and even those who don't won't admit to wanting to see him enter with a game on the line.
The last two years, K-Rod's post-season ERAs have been 7.71 and 54.00. That really dampened his market.
You do realize that there were plenty of Angels fans who were happy the team didn't spend big bucks on him, right?
You're missing, or ignoring, my point. This is a total hijack so this will be my last point on the topic. Manny Delcarmen's overall ERA last year was 3.89.
K-Rod's, counting his 54.00 ERA in 0.1 IP in the playoffs, was 2.49. Are you really equating the two? Plus who knows if it dampened K-Rod's market to have two straight mediocre post-seasons? We have no idea what the market would have been if he'd repeated his 2002 post season in 2007 and 2008; are you so sure it wouldn't have been more?
Are you saying that if you were a GM you would prefer a smaller sample size and ignore all October statistics? That is really really really odd.
No, I'm saying that all of these criticisms of Delcarmen are based on small sample sizes. That if we applied the same standards to other pitchers (like K-Rod), the market values we'd end up assigning to them would be out of whack with their real-world market values.
Manny Delcarmen has a 95-97 mph fastball, a nice curve, decent control and a history of success on a contending team that plays in a high-pressure market. If anybody thinks he doesn't have good trade value -- that teams aren't going to want to trade for him on account of a few innings in the post-season or some very selective splits -- they're missing the forest through the trees.
File under: How far we've fallen. In Cafardo's Sunday "Baseball Notes" column, we get this little bit of "analysis" --
There's a lot more to object to in this article, like where he admits that he doesn't know who's on the Padres (fine for the guy on the street, not fine for a professional sportswriter), but these five words were the last straw for me. I can't even summon the energy to rant about it. I'll be off in the corner, mourning the Globe sports section I once loved.
Code:
2. Roy Halladay is the best;The weird thing about the Padres comment is that he has 20 inches of story devoted to Jake Peavy. And David Eckstein (hero of the national baseball writer) is on the team too.
I'm still not certain why writing the first five random things that pop into your head is considered a good idea.
I'm still not certain why writing the first five random things that pop into your head is considered a good idea.
I'd started to miss Cafardo's random generalizations about character traits that have no basis in reality:
I also love his winnerific performance in the playoffs: 0-2, 12+ ERA, 19 hits in 9.2 innings, 4 BB, 5 K.
God he's such a winner. It's really hard to see how anyone could say different.
I had totally forgotten what a winner Peavy was when the playoffs were on the line against Colorado at the end of 2007 and he put up this totally winnerific line: 6.1 IP, 10 H, 6 ER, 4 BB, 6 K, 2 HR. I loved it when he was a winner then.
I also love his winnerific performance in the playoffs: 0-2, 12+ ERA, 19 hits in 9.2 innings, 4 BB, 5 K.
God he's such a winner. It's really hard to see how anyone could say different.
Cafardo is abysmal and the guy should just relinquish this notes column. What a wreck.
On a side note a friend of mine overheard John Tomase railing against BABIP, basically calling it B.S. then in the same sentence admitting he didn't know what it means.
And these guys wonder why no one takes their work seriously.
On a side note a friend of mine overheard John Tomase railing against BABIP, basically calling it B.S. then in the same sentence admitting he didn't know what it means.
And these guys wonder why no one takes their work seriously.
Cafardo is so blatantly trying to ape Peter Gammons with these personality profile angles that only an "insider" can glean. They're intolerably saccharine when Gammons does it, but at least Gammons usually characterizes performance somewhat accurately.
Get rid of the "LS" - "losing series". See, Nicky's being clever - they'd be better off if they won. The wit on that guy and the scorn he doles out...
But hey - be sure to raise one in honor of 40 years of Ricky Trlicek's mullet today.
Natina
Leave out the O and the LS is what I think he meant. Cafardo's a hack but this week he seemed to write a decent column.
But we really need a thread on how Adam Kilgore is nothing short of atrocious! Errors, both factual and grammatical, fill his columns- not sure if that is on his editors or not. He is by far the worst writer I have ever read, including crap on men's room walls and school newspapers. He is unarticulate, has no baseball sense, and his articles are impossible to read (unless you are a 4th grade teacher and are use to this level of writing). I swear to god he passes in his work hand written in crayon! Sorry for the hijack, I had to get that out of my system.
I just came here to post this.
I have been trying to figure out what he meant for 5 minutes and I cant figure it out.
What the hell?
Actual conversation from tonight's game:
Person: Nick, can you tell me about Saito?
Cafardo: (long pause) He gives you a different look.
Nick Cafardo, ladies and gentleman!
Person: Nick, can you tell me about Saito?
Cafardo: (long pause) He gives you a different look.
Nick Cafardo, ladies and gentleman!
I can't tell you guys how much I look forward to this thread getting bumped every Sunday. It's sure-fire entertainment every time.
In four seasons, Koby Clemens has posted .256/.350/.406 total numbers. As I recall (and as the number suggest) he was drafted by the Astros as a favor to Roger Clemens. Yet, it's because of his father's troubles that he has taken a turn from prospect to suspect and needs to be shipped out of town to have a new start.
Cafardo claims its because of his name that he hasn't been doing well.
Cafardo claims its because of his name that he hasn't been doing well.
Jesus Christ. Seriously? I know this is not in print, but this is unbelievable.
I would imagine that a similar question posed to McAdam, Kilgore, Benjamin, or Jon Couture would garner a much longer and in depth response. But "contract for life" Nick gives you one meaningless sentence.
How's Frank Fucking Catalanotto doing again, Nick?
Take the buyout. Please.
One sentence he says that Nick Green is expected to be in the lineup then the next he says that Green will be used in the utility role. Why would Green be expected to be in the lineup when Lugo is your starter? Green is a fill-in who should be expected to go back to the bench when Lugo comes back.
Huh?
Green's playing tonight, despite Lugo being activated. He shouldn't expect that to continue going forward.
Green's playing tonight, despite Lugo being activated. He shouldn't expect that to continue going forward.
- Status