Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo
* * - - - 2 votes

Dan Shaughnessy: Taking a dump in your mouth one column at a time


1065 replies to this topic

#301 Mirabelli28

  • 64 posts

Posted 20 November 2011 - 07:56 AM

I know people here hate this guy, but in this column he happens to be right. I don't know how you could say differently...

My link

#302 denilson3

  • 40 posts

Posted 20 November 2011 - 08:55 AM

I know people here hate this guy, but in this column he happens to be right. I don't know how you could say differently...

My link



i would say that its mostly deceitful garbage. stringing together his usual entertaining narrative that falls apart on closer examination.

#303 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8,345 posts

Posted 20 November 2011 - 09:09 AM

I know people here hate this guy, but in this column he happens to be right. I don't know how you could say differently...

My link

That's because you agree with the CHB's premises.

Plausible arguments could be made that:

- Insisting on compensation for Theo in advance could have resulted in a PR disaster for the Sox. Keeping Theo in place had become untenable and if the Cubs went in another direction -- unlikely but possible -- things would have been ugly. We also don't yet know whether the ultimate compensation will be as weak as Dan is suggesting.

- As to the manager, the Sox FO is entitled to change course if they aren't in favor of any of the choices the GM selected. Was anyone really pining for Sveum? Is anyone pining for any of the three remaining guys? Thinking that they should accept Ben's choice even if they weren't convinced is naive.

- It's possible that the FO looked at the existing candidates and then looked at Valentine and said "he's better." That's not sexy or Oliver Stone-like, but that may have been what happened.

- A first year GM should not be given ultimate power. As Dan himself has written, LL has enjoyed considerable success as the CEO of the Red Sox. That success can be attributed to the fact that the buck does indeed stop with him. Those ringing their hands over LL's role conveniently ignore that Theo's power had not increased post Gorilla Suit when the Sox won the 2004 title and that Beckett and Lowell were obtained when Theo was following Pearl Jam around.

- While Dan loves to bang the drum that Henry is distracted, there's no evidence that his outside interests have hindered the Red Sox or even matter. Would anyone want him being intimately involved day to day? If he was, Dan would write that he's under qualified for direct involvement and meddling. Either way, Danny Boy wins.

- Paps just wasn't worth the years and coin. The CHB's mantra is that he was an accountable gamer, and you should overpay for that if need be. But that's not a slam dunk argument and I think a lot of Sox fans would have been justifiably concerned if they had matched or beaten the Philly offer.

Of all those arguments, I'm least sympathetic to the Theo compensation point. But I don't think it's ridiculous. I like using leverage as much as anyone, but there was a sense of "let's move on" at that time and it's very easy to second guess now when that sentiment has passed.

#304 bankshot1


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,963 posts

Posted 20 November 2011 - 09:26 AM

Whether CHB is right or wrong on his "points", the bigger picture seems to be he always revels in Sox misfortune.
Its his schtick, its what he does.

#305 drleather2001


  • given himself a skunk spot


  • 15,068 posts

Posted 20 November 2011 - 12:20 PM

Had the Red Sox sat pat and kept both Theo and Francona, and re-signed Paps, Shank would be beating the "Where's the urgency!?" drum. He's a shit-stirrer.


It's entirely plausible that the Red Sox are the best team in the AL East next year. It's likely, I'd say, that they will compete for a wild card spot.

If either of those things happen, then this article, like so many of Shank's, is just so much air baggery.

#306 Jackson

  • 129 posts

Posted 20 November 2011 - 12:37 PM

Had the Red Sox sat pat and kept both Theo and Francona, and re-signed Paps, Shank would be beating the "Where's the urgency!?" drum. He's a shit-stirrer.


It's entirely plausible that the Red Sox are the best team in the AL East next year. It's likely, I'd say, that they will compete for a wild card spot.

If either of those things happen, then this article, like so many of Shank's, is just so much air baggery.

This MFer must have one miserable goddam life. Is there anything, other than NY teams, that he likes???

#307 BoSoxLady


  • Rules Red Sox Nation with an Iron Fist


  • 2,955 posts

Posted 20 November 2011 - 12:54 PM

This MFer must have one miserable goddam life. Is there anything, other than NY teams, that he likes???


He likes to stir the pot and get people talking about him. The best way to enjoy Shank is to ignore him.

#308 Harry Hooper


  • SoSH Member


  • 15,182 posts

Posted 20 November 2011 - 01:06 PM

- While Dan loves to bang the drum that Henry is distracted, there's no evidence that his outside interests have hindered the Red Sox or even matter. Would anyone want him being intimately involved day to day? If he was, Dan would write that he's under qualified for direct involvement and meddling. Either way, Danny Boy wins.



Bravo, this point needs extra plaudits. Anyone remember the CHB mocking Kraft over the rumor that Kraft had a stopwatch at pats workouts?

#309 Rocco Graziosa


  • owns the lcd soundsystem


  • 11,339 posts

Posted 20 November 2011 - 01:52 PM

Wasn't most of the article just stating the obvious? Read the main board here...........not many are happy with whats gone on here the last month. And Bobby Valentine..........good lord.

#310 lexrageorge

  • 3,166 posts

Posted 20 November 2011 - 01:56 PM

The problem is that Shank would be critical of the Sox no matter what happened. If they hired Sveumt he first week after the World Series, he would have been all over them for having the unexciting management team of "Cherington and Sveum" replacing the dynamic duo of "Theo and Tito". Had they got Matt Garza, CHB would have castigated ownership for holding Theo hostage for a ransom. And he trots out some of the same old tired arguments (John Henry's other ventures, in this case).





#311 Foulkey Reese


  • foulkiavelli


  • 20,263 posts

Posted 20 November 2011 - 02:03 PM

Honest question. If Gordon Edes wrote that, would people be reacting the same?

I mean I hate Shank, but there are some good points in there.

#312 SoxinSeattle

  • 583 posts

Posted 20 November 2011 - 02:34 PM

Not good points, bad points. Once again putting the negative spin on what's happening on Yawkey way. He is the Fox news or MSNBC of baseball. Unfair, unbalanced and uninformed.

#313 Foulkey Reese


  • foulkiavelli


  • 20,263 posts

Posted 20 November 2011 - 02:43 PM

Not good points, bad points. Once again putting the negative spin on what's happening on Yawkey way. He is the Fox news or MSNBC of baseball. Unfair, unbalanced and uninformed.


Worst collapse in regular season history, GM gone, manager gone, clubhouse a mess, stud closer gone without a second thought, awful Bobby V now favorite for manager.

Hard to spin all of that positively.

#314 SoxinSeattle

  • 583 posts

Posted 20 November 2011 - 03:52 PM

All facts Foulkey but only the first one is absolutely negative. Did Theo leave because it was such an awful place to work or because he wanted a new challenge? Every job gets stale after awhile. Maybe Ben and LL will work together much better then Theo and LL ever did. Is Tito being gone a bad thing? We don't know yet. He admitted he lost the club house and the next manager could be better. Will Pap be missed? Maybe Bard will step up and the Sox can spend Pap's money on 2 or 3 other effective pitchers. Is Bobby V. awful? I assume he is but maybe he's learned a thing or two in the ten years since he left the Mets.

Based on results this is one of the best run teams and ownership groups in the game and I just don't get why CHB and others constantly jump to the negative spin every time change occurs. Other than selling fish wrap I mean. I'm from here, I get the built in bitterness but I just can't find that much to hate about the Sox in the last ten years.

#315 Jackson

  • 129 posts

Posted 20 November 2011 - 05:33 PM

The problem is that Shank would be critical of the Sox no matter what happened. If they hired Sveumt he first week after the World Series, he would have been all over them for having the unexciting management team of "Cherington and Sveum" replacing the dynamic duo of "Theo and Tito". Had they got Matt Garza, CHB would have castigated ownership for holding Theo hostage for a ransom. And he trots out some of the same old tired arguments (John Henry's other ventures, in this case).
Thank you. Absolutely, 100% correct. He has an incredibly enviable position. No matter what transpires, he's critical. And if whatever moves are made by the teams he criticizes turn out well, he just merrily skips along without admitting he was wrong. It's the "Never Can Lose Club", with Borges, Felger, Mazz et al. Thery're incredibly phony assholes.





#316 pedros hairstylist


  • Allison?


  • PipPipPip
  • 5,577 posts

Posted 20 November 2011 - 05:38 PM

Nobody leaves a job they love, with the franchise they grew up rooting for, for a roll of the dice in Sad Sack City. He wanted out.

#317 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15,814 posts

Posted 20 November 2011 - 06:11 PM

Honest question. If Gordon Edes wrote that, would people be reacting the same?

I mean I hate Shank, but there are some good points in there.


If Saint Gordon had written the exact article, he'd be lauded for 'telling it like it is'. Some people see the Shaughnessy byline and can't see anything but shit, because they have convinced themselves that everything he writes is shit.

Dan's job is to stir up shit. That some people STILL don't understand that is silly.

#318 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8,345 posts

Posted 20 November 2011 - 06:52 PM

If Saint Gordon had written the exact article, he'd be lauded for 'telling it like it is'. Some people see the Shaughnessy byline and can't see anything but shit, because they have convinced themselves that everything he writes is shit.

Dan's job is to stir up shit. That some people STILL don't understand that is silly.

First, I'm not sure where you're getting that Edes point. Edes is good and I appreciate him as much as anyone, but I would have had exactly the same reaction to that column regardless of the author, except that I wouldn't have personalized my reaction had it been written by someone I like or am neutral about.

Second, recognizing that the CHB's job is to stir up shit doesn't mean that we shouldn't comment on what he writes. A poster here essentially said what he wrote today is beyond dispute. It's not. There are counter arguments to Dan's points.

Edited by TheoShmeo, 20 November 2011 - 06:53 PM.


#319 Brianish

  • 4,351 posts

Posted 20 November 2011 - 07:24 PM

There are counter arguments to Dan's points.


Fangraphs agrees.

http://www.fangraphs...essy-is-guilty/

#320 bd11

  • 570 posts

Posted 20 November 2011 - 08:41 PM

If Saint Gordon had written the exact article, he'd be lauded for 'telling it like it is'. Some people see the Shaughnessy byline and can't see anything but shit, because they have convinced themselves that everything he writes is shit.




Correct, and it is healthy to have someone challenge the front office, shit stirrer or not.



#321 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15,814 posts

Posted 20 November 2011 - 09:05 PM

First, I'm not sure where you're getting that Edes point. Edes is good and I appreciate him as much as anyone, but I would have had exactly the same reaction to that column regardless of the author, except that I wouldn't have personalized my reaction had it been written by someone I like or am neutral about.

Second, recognizing that the CHB's job is to stir up shit doesn't mean that we shouldn't comment on what he writes. A poster here essentially said what he wrote today is beyond dispute. It's not. There are counter arguments to Dan's points.


1. The point is that most of the comments are about the messenger and not the message. Had someone like Edes, who's "good and appreciate[d] as much as anyone" written it, the article might have been discussed - not the writer. And unlike the Cafardo sucks thread, this one isn't littered with asinine pull-quotes for the ridicule-deserving author, it's filled with "I haven't read it, but Dan sucks shit".

2. I don't think labeling knee-jerk reactions (and the people who have them) silly is even remotely connected with whether those yahoos have a right to post such pavloivan drivel. Of course you can reply "Shaughnessey sucks" when he posts a new column. Knock yourself out. My long-standing (and repeated about once a quarter) opinion is that Dan is a great columnist because a columnist is paid to have people say "can you believe he wrote THAT?!" Dan holds up a mirror on this region better than anyone else, has for a long time. I think today's column mirrors a lot of the main board over the past three months. It's arguable...but that's his job, to create argument.

#322 Rough Carrigan


  • reasons within Reason


  • 16,893 posts

Posted 20 November 2011 - 11:57 PM

Nobody leaves a job they love, with the franchise they grew up rooting for, for a roll of the dice in Sad Sack City. He wanted out.

Oh no. It was just that it had been 10 years. He told us so in his remarkably self-effacing editorial that made no mention of getting a ton more money.

Theo couldn't possibly have lied to everyone, could he? It's so fvcking weird that he bothered to write that column just to lie. It comes across, in retrospect, like some sort of control freak thing. Can't let the proles think poorly of me. Just get the fuck out, forget the damn spin.

and, here's a fangraphs article identifying 11 logical fallacies just in shank's last column.

Edited by Rough Carrigan, 21 November 2011 - 12:02 AM.


#323 CJM

  • 518 posts

Posted 21 November 2011 - 01:34 AM

1. The point is that most of the comments are about the messenger and not the message. Had someone like Edes, who's "good and appreciate[d] as much as anyone" written it, the article might have been discussed - not the writer. And unlike the Cafardo sucks thread, this one isn't littered with asinine pull-quotes for the ridicule-deserving author, it's filled with "I haven't read it, but Dan sucks shit".

2. I don't think labeling knee-jerk reactions (and the people who have them) silly is even remotely connected with whether those yahoos have a right to post such pavloivan drivel. Of course you can reply "Shaughnessey sucks" when he posts a new column. Knock yourself out. My long-standing (and repeated about once a quarter) opinion is that Dan is a great columnist because a columnist is paid to have people say "can you believe he wrote THAT?!" Dan holds up a mirror on this region better than anyone else, has for a long time. I think today's column mirrors a lot of the main board over the past three months. It's arguable...but that's his job, to create argument.


1. Edes wouldn't have written that article. Part of it is that Edes is a reporter, so he doesn't have the license to throw out speculation and leading phrasing like a columnist can. But Edes was deeply critical of the way Francona's supposed drug issues were handled, and because Edes has proven himself a fair and ethical journalist, that criticism carried weight. Shaughnessy has a track record, well deserved, of taking very negative interpretations of events and presenting those interpretations in a shrill and condescending manner. And this particular instance is no different. The comedy of Shaugnessy is that you usually don't have to read him -there should be an instant Shaughnessy generator.

2. There's a difference between being a successful columnist and a great one. Pandering to the most reactive, lowest common denominator aspects of the fanbase isn't "speaking truth to power" (as bd11 implies) or "telling it like it is"; it's a cynical and effective way to stay relevant and drive traffic. Or, even worse, he actually constantly feels this way and only has righteousness and some measure of success keeping him from turning that loathing inward and chewing on the business end of a shotgun.

#324 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8,345 posts

Posted 21 November 2011 - 07:25 AM

2. I don't think labeling knee-jerk reactions (and the people who have them) silly is even remotely connected with whether those yahoos have a right to post such pavloivan drivel. Of course you can reply "Shaughnessey sucks" when he posts a new column. Knock yourself out. My long-standing (and repeated about once a quarter) opinion is that Dan is a great columnist because a columnist is paid to have people say "can you believe he wrote THAT?!" Dan holds up a mirror on this region better than anyone else, has for a long time. I think today's column mirrors a lot of the main board over the past three months. It's arguable...but that's his job, to create argument.

Terming immediate disagreement with Dan's arguments as knee jerk and pavlovian doesn't prove your point. That column was a regurgitation of the CHB's various talking points. Many disagree with those points because they disagree with them, not because they dislike Dan.

I think you're also ignoring that Dan sometimes garners praise in this thread. I've read more than one post where people have written something like "I dislike Dan but he nailed it with this one." I've thought that before. I thought his piece on LL several weeks ago fell into that category. In any event, the brush you're painting with is very wide, and it's just not the case that those of us who don't think that LL fundamentally blew the Theo negotiation or the team screwed up on Paps or that it's evidence of buffoonery that they've moved from the first five choices to someone different in kind or that JWH's lack of day to day involvement is relevant are reacting to Dan without thinking.

Late edit..fixed typo.

Edited by TheoShmeo, 21 November 2011 - 10:35 AM.


#325 Rocco Graziosa


  • owns the lcd soundsystem


  • 11,339 posts

Posted 21 November 2011 - 09:40 AM

I'm a little suprised he's beign taken to task here for being too negative. I thought if anything it was too unoriginal.......it was like he summed up the temperature and opinions of the main board here. To me it came across as a lazy, master of the obvious column. The Red Sox have had a pretty tough month huh? Well I'll be darned, that hadn't crossed my mind.

#326 Seonachan

  • 31 posts

Posted 21 November 2011 - 10:31 AM

2. I don't think labeling knee-jerk reactions (and the people who have them) silly is even remotely connected with whether those yahoos have a right to post such pavloivan drivel. Of course you can reply "Shaughnessey sucks" when he posts a new column. Knock yourself out. My long-standing (and repeated about once a quarter) opinion is that Dan is a great columnist because a columnist is paid to have people say "can you believe he wrote THAT?!" Dan holds up a mirror on this region better than anyone else, has for a long time. I think today's column mirrors a lot of the main board over the past three months. It's arguable...but that's his job, to create argument.

While I think everyone can agree that provoking incredulity is the primary hallmark of a great columnist, I think you are selling Shaughnessy a bit short here. It's his uncanny knack for consistently eliciting such responses as "I sure can believe he wrote that . . . again." that truly places him among the giants of his profession.

#327 John Marzano Olympic Hero


  • has fancy plans, and pants to match


  • 15,301 posts

Posted 21 November 2011 - 10:34 AM

So for the folks in this thread that think that this Shaughnessy column is wrong, what particular points are you arguing against and saying that CHB is incorrect?

#328 CJM

  • 518 posts

Posted 21 November 2011 - 01:12 PM

So for the folks in this thread that think that this Shaughnessy column is wrong, what particular points are you arguing against and saying that CHB is incorrect?


I don't think that he's outright incorrect so much as he takes what could have a kernel of truth in it, takes the most negative aspect of that kernel, and presents it as probable truth with no evidence beyond supposition.

Meanwhile, an increasingly uneven and cumbersome ownership group - ever concerned with image - confuses all with ever-changing explanations of ball club governance.


The implication here is that the ownership group is flawed, and their actions are driven by PR rather than good faith. Henry's interview on Felger & Mazz seemed like a well-intentioned, if odd, attempt at explanation. Is the ownership group "cumbersome and flawed"? I have no idea. I'd sure like to know why that may be true.

Let's start our weekly update with the state of non-compensation for Theo. What a joke this has become. Theo is ensconced in his office at Wrigley Field, laughing at the dopes in Boston who let him out of his contract before insisting on payback. And now there's nothing the Sox can do except wait for Uncle Bud to force the Cubs to send Boston some Single A outfielder who'll be waiting tables in a year or two.Why didn't the Sox hold out for Matt Garza before letting Theo go? The Cubs had to have Theo after all the hype. Now they have their man and the Sox have lost all leverage. The Sox are like a guy who "sells'' his house, and lets the new owner move in before closing. The played "seller'' has to go to court to evict, or make the new owner pay. It's a joke. Epstein had tremendous value and the Sox let him walk and now they are begging. Pathetic.


As has been gone over to the nth degree on the main board, the situation is neither this simple nor this definitively a blight on the Sox. A lot of Shaughnessy's outrage here is based on a fan's assumption of how this should work and what the Sox should get back (Sox have all leverage; A lot).


John Henry has gone underground since bursting into the SportsHub studios. It's pretty clear that pork bellies, Liverpool, and his new family have taken his attention away from the Red Sox. Meanwhile, Inspector Werner is now on the case looking for the next Heidi and more of that nifty, award-winning NESN programming. That leaves Larry Lucchino, "the man who runs the Red Sox.''


This is almost entirely smug assumption -that Henry doesn't care, that Werner is a flake.

The Sox could have used some of Larry's urgency when Jonathan Papelbon was allowed to walk without receiving an offer.


This I just flat-out disagree with. I think there's a general consensus, at least here, that Papelbon's time with the Sox is deeply appreciated, but at the price the Phillies paid he was right to leave and the Sox were right not to try and match. The handling of the Papelbon situation is one of the best things the Sox have done the past few months.

Here are the bits I don't disagree with, and might have been interesting had they been looked at with more insight and information that the general fanbase didn't already know:

It doesn't really matter how long it takes if the Sox wind up getting the right guy,

Why the misdirection?...What is happening at the top?

No one is saying Sveum is any great loss.


So, a column on the missteps and mysteries behind the managerial search, that would have been great. Instead there's a column providing no new information, no new takes on old information, a metric ton of negative leading language, and an impressive amount of fallacy. Shaugnessy may not be wrong, but he sure seems like an asshole.

#329 joyofsox


  • empty, bleak


  • 6,723 posts

Posted 21 November 2011 - 01:57 PM

Hits, runs, and errors? The offseason Sox take hits. People run from the Boston franchise. And the goofy owners make more errors than Julio Lugo in a day-night doubleheader.

Hi-ooooh!
Posted Image

If Edes had written that, I'd be worried he was going senile. CHB is undoubtedly proud of it, since he writes variations of it frequently.

Sadly, not enough people are running from the Boston franchise. Like ones with curly hair.

#330 Van Everyman


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,641 posts

Posted 22 November 2011 - 09:18 AM

Even when he writes a "positive" column, Shank is a relentlessly miserable son of a bitch:

The only question that remains is Ö How did Valentine do with the soccer-loviní, NASCAR-obsessed, sports-radio-listeniní, low-talkiní, absentee owner of the Red Sox? Hope Bobby V didnít go all Sveum and spit tobacco juice into a Styrofoam cup during lunch.


http://mobile.boston..._right_sox_fit/

#331 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8,345 posts

Posted 22 November 2011 - 09:22 AM

Even when he writes a "positive" column, Shank is a relentlessly miserable son of a bitch:



http://mobile.boston..._right_sox_fit/

Henry's outside interests and the hideous distraction that they inflict on the Red Sox is a talking point we will be reading about for as long as Henry owns the team and is not singularly focused on the team.

#332 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,764 posts

Posted 22 November 2011 - 09:32 AM

Henry's outside interests and the hideous distraction that they inflict on the Red Sox is a talking point we will be reading about for as long as Henry owns the team and is not singularly focused on the team.

This is a joke, right?

#333 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8,345 posts

Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:02 AM

This is a joke, right?

That the CHB will be forever talking about Henry's outside interests and how they distract him from the task at hand was not a joke. He's been at this for about a year and I don't see why he will ever stop. It's his mantra and he's sticking to it.

Any suggestion in my post that Henry's outside involvements actually matter was not serious. The intent was to frame Henry's non-Sox involvements as Dan apparently sees them.

#334 Soxbrained

  • 151 posts

Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:12 AM

1. Edes wouldn't have written that article. Part of it is that Edes is a reporter, so he doesn't have the license to throw out speculation and leading phrasing like a columnist can. But Edes was deeply critical of the way Francona's supposed drug issues were handled, and because Edes has proven himself a fair and ethical journalist, that criticism carried weight.


The Edes ass-kissing on this board is borderline ridiculous. Edes wouldn't have written that? Really? How do you know that? He has proven himself a "fair and ethical" journalist? I mean, come the bleep on. His quality is above average, I'll give you that, but he's hardly God-like. His hatchet job on Duquette a week or so ago was hardly "fair". Granted, next to Shaughnessy he's Bob Woodward, but that's a rather low bar.

#335 dcmissle


  • SoSH Member


  • 13,075 posts

Posted 22 November 2011 - 11:24 AM

Even when he writes a "positive" column, Shank is a relentlessly miserable son of a bitch:



http://mobile.boston..._right_sox_fit/


He is an aging, lazy, sloppy, angry, mean spirited prick. Boston's Tony Kornheiser.

This does not mean that individual columns should not be evaluated on their merit. They should be, solely on that basis.

But the identity of the author does provide a useful filter. So it is hilarious when he pulls punches with respect to Lucky -- who does everything but put Dan in the high chair and fit him in his bib before feeding the next story.

It must be asked: if LL is so vital and smart, and if, as Henry insists, LL has been and always will be the RS boss, then how is it that the RS are harmed by the ownerships varied interests?

#336 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8,345 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 07:53 AM

Today's CHB regurgitation contains more complaints about the Sox two month process to name their new manager, suggests that it will cost them as free agents wont want to sign in Boston given the uncertainty, repeats the mantra about the soccer team slowing things down via an attempted joke at the end and criticizes Larry for asking Murray Chass what he thought of Valentine.

Seeking input from someone who might have a perspective on one of the candidates? Horrors!

#337 CJM

  • 518 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 08:48 AM

The Edes ass-kissing on this board is borderline ridiculous. Edes wouldn't have written that? Really? How do you know that? He has proven himself a "fair and ethical" journalist? I mean, come the bleep on. His quality is above average, I'll give you that, but he's hardly God-like. His hatchet job on Duquette a week or so ago was hardly "fair". Granted, next to Shaughnessy he's Bob Woodward, but that's a rather low bar.


My personal Edes ass-kissing comes from the fact that he has a track record as a solid reporter who seems to abide by journalistic ethics and maintains a reasonable tone, none of which are a given in the industry. So no, I don't think he would have written the Shaughnessy piece. The Duquette article you mention is a good counterpoint -it's certainly not a glowing endorsement, but it lists Duquette's past achievements, his dearth of experience in the past decade, and very well-known complaints about his interpersonal skills. It uses verifiable fact to cast understandable doubt on Duquette's ability to turn the Orioles around (though the Kardashian line was weak).

It also doesn't hurt that Edes chatted here and answered questions in the same manner - thoughtful, reasonable, and insightful- that he generally reports. It would be remarkable if Shaugnessy came here and answered a series of questions about his articles and his views. Since the two are a longtime couple, maybe Gordon can persuade Dan to stop by.

#338 jsinger121


  • @jsinger121


  • 10,708 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 03:31 PM

http://www.wickedloc...t#axzz1gRsS1WGQ

#339 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,764 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 03:45 PM

Looks like the 3-2 Kid has a chance to become the 3 to 5 Kid.

#340 Mystic Merlin


  • SoSH Member


  • 22,149 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 04:12 PM

Clearly Dan's commitment to truth-seeking and hard-hitting analysis is coming at the expense of his parenting.

#341 Brianish

  • 4,351 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 04:58 PM

He's writing a book with Tito.

You know what I hadn't realized until right now? For all we rip on CHB for being a muckraker, a sad sack, and a mouth-dumper who isn't happy unless he has something bad to say, he's mostly avoided getting involved in this lowest-common-denominator of a Red Sox disaster. It's exactly the sort of ditch I'd expect him to hop down and wallow in, and he's generally stayed above the fray. Then he goes and writes this article, which is really nice - even bordering on sweet at times.

We should probably give him some credit for that.

Edit - Referring to the piece on Theo, not Larry.


So forget all that, probably.

#342 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8,345 posts

Posted 07 February 2012 - 07:59 AM

So I guess we'll be reading about Yoko Bundchen at every turn from Dan.

Yes, Giselle gave him a wide opening, and yes, others are saying this too (such as Simmons), but one difference will be that the CHB will not be able to write a single Pats or Brady column without repeating it.

Wonderful.

#343 Humphrey

  • 151 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 07:49 PM

How many times did he write Lucas Oil "Can Boyd" Stadium (puke)

#344 Jackson

  • 129 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 09:19 PM

How many times did he write Lucas Oil "Can Boyd" Stadium (puke)

His parenthetical "Gulp" is my favorite. It always looks as though it's been lifted from a caption balloon from a fucking Archie '60s comic book.

#345 ForKeeps

  • 352 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 12:50 PM

The only comforting thing about his undying love for stuff like that is that you know the CHB nickname must drive him insane.

#346 Dick Pole Upside

  • 3,439 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 09:54 AM

Me: “Well, if it makes you feel any better, he’s our hockey writer.

Papi: “Well, [expletive] him.


When there's Globe on Globe crime, everybody wins.

http://www.boston.co...l_error/?page=2

Edited by Dick Pole Upside, 25 February 2012 - 09:55 AM.


#347 Blacken


  • Paddy Tanniger the Caddy Manager


  • 8,593 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 06:12 PM

That was...not horrible. In a bitch-off between Shank and CC, I will take Shank ten times out of ten.

#348 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8,345 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 10:38 AM

From today's column:

Regarding the bollixed Epstein compensation issue, Henry said, “If it’s a tough negotiation, both sides generally are a little unhappy with the way it worked. The Cubs probably aren’t happy with it. We probably aren’t happy with it. Given the amount of time that was spent on it, it probably was the appropriate result.

“I think there was a basic misunderstanding between [Cubs owner] Tom Ricketts and I when we first spoke about it. I really admire Tom Ricketts as an owner. We probably had a misunderstanding, at least as far as expectation. There was no real agreement. We probably had different expectations based on our first conversation.’’


Not the first time Henry’s inattentiveness has cost the Sox.

What about Liverpool, John? Have your attention and wallet moved across the Atlantic in the quest to battle Manchester United?

“I’m not actually here right now,’’ Henry joked. “If I were here . . . it’s about baseball. With us, every day is about baseball.
“We have other things . . . but virtually every day there’s something about baseball.

Is his eye still on the ball?

“I think more recently there’s been more to attend to,’’ he acknowledged, without referencing Liverpool, Fenway Rousch Racing, or LeBron James.

What a stupid, pathetic effort.

Dan can't demonstrate that Henry's direct involvement in the Theo negotiations would have yielded a different or better result. He can't demonstrate that Henry's "other involvements" have ever cost the Sox jack shit. He ignores that most owners in sports don't make ownership of their teams a full time job. He ignores that he has Lucchino and a GM to handle the baseball side. He ignores that it's highly unlikely that LL didn't give Henry real time updates on the discussions with the Cubs and the chance to discuss and change course on the direction of same.

He again takes the easy way and assumes that if he blames the soccer team and Henry's other interests enough, that people will begin to accept these straw men as real explanations for...anything.

I don't know why I'm surprised. This is the CHB's MO. Again and again and again.

http://www.bostonglo...PJVJ/story.html

#349 lexrageorge

  • 3,166 posts

Posted 11 March 2012 - 12:01 PM

Some in the Sox FO must have done something to really piss of CHB this week:

http://www.boston.co...the_sunny_side/

Some of his gems (among others):

Daniel Bard is a two-pitch pitcher, easy to track (unless he’s throwing 100), and probably limited to 140 innings. How does that make him a serviceable starting pitcher?



We could explain why he could be serviceable as a 4th or 5th starter, (as opposed to Lackey in 2011), but that's obviously over Dan's head.

Gonzalez is one sour dude. Almost Nomar-esque. Nobody likes a know-it-all.





Well, given that Gonzalez was crucified for making a rather innocuous comment about a tough stretch of September scheduling, I wouldn't exactly expect him to become a charter member of the CHB welcoming committee this spring. Most fans would take a 1.000 OPS guy that hates the media any day over a lineup full of Nick Punto's; most, that is, except for the Globe.



#350 twibnotes


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,016 posts

Posted 11 March 2012 - 01:20 PM

At the risk of stating the obvious, who is Dan Shaughnessy to call anyone sour?

Edited by twibnotes, 11 March 2012 - 01:22 PM.




Reply to this topic



  


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users