I can just see Dan coming up on Kraft's cell phone all day long, and Bob Kraft sending it to voicemail each time.
Dan Shaughnessy: Taking a dump in your mouth one column at a time
- Thread starter weeba
- Start date
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2012/11/08/why-tommy-heinsohn-celtics-institution/MXwRBxaQtXca8q0rxZ7n2I/story.html
I kill the CHB regularly. But fair is fair...the article above was extremely enjoyable.
The point about the 70s titles being somewhat forgotten was interesting. I loved that team and that era but it's true that it doesn't get much attention given what came before and after it.
I question the premise that a lot of Cs fans don't know that Tommy was a player and coach of the team but that's a small point.
I kill the CHB regularly. But fair is fair...the article above was extremely enjoyable.
The point about the 70s titles being somewhat forgotten was interesting. I loved that team and that era but it's true that it doesn't get much attention given what came before and after it.
I question the premise that a lot of Cs fans don't know that Tommy was a player and coach of the team but that's a small point.
That was a great article, great read.
Sadly, I have a feeling this might be true. Between the Celtics dark ages [post-Bird and pre-KG], I have a feeling the passing down of Celtics history didnt happen as much as it did in previous generations for the non-hardcore fans. Just like the non-hardcore Pats fans dont know Cappelletti was once a Patriots kicker.
Here's one C's fan that has not forgotten those early-mid 70s team(s), and enjoyed a lot of memorable games, including games/series against a resurgent Knick team (that rivalry helped revive the Boston-NY fan craziness that we've seen for about 40 years--he Cs should have won another title in '73) and Game 5 of the 1976 NBA Finals against the Suns, perhaps the greatest NBA game ever.
Sadly the late 70s Rowe-Wicks Kentucky Fried Celtics were not nearly as enjoyable.
Good read by Shank.
Which, IMHO, makes him even more loathesome. I won't give him anymore page clicks, but I remember almost always enjoying his too-infrequent non-shit-stirring pieces. The man can certainly turn a phrase, and had he not dedicated his career to being a troll extraordinaire, he'd probably be a regular must-read for me. Maybe that's a function of the industry, that's it's easier to make a living being a shit-stirring douchebag than someone who consistently writes thoughtful, informative pieces, but it's a goddamn shame anyway. Brings to mind a line from the movie A Bronx Tale: "the saddest thing in life is wasted talent." There's a not-inconsiderable amount of that where Shank is concerned.
Another low hanging fruit day for Dan.
He spends a column on BB's lack of candor. Shocking! Why should we want or expect Bill to change his basic mode of operation now, Danno? Revealing only what he has to reveal has worked well for him here in NE thus far. Only the media seems exercised by this.
And then he knocks the "insipid" fans who booed Adam. Ok, there are good arguments against booing Vinateiri. But however you come out on that one, we all know that Boston/NE fans will boo stars who join hated rivals. It's what we do. Nothing new here either. Dan's faux outrage at the Ray Allen booing is going to be epic.
He spends a column on BB's lack of candor. Shocking! Why should we want or expect Bill to change his basic mode of operation now, Danno? Revealing only what he has to reveal has worked well for him here in NE thus far. Only the media seems exercised by this.
And then he knocks the "insipid" fans who booed Adam. Ok, there are good arguments against booing Vinateiri. But however you come out on that one, we all know that Boston/NE fans will boo stars who join hated rivals. It's what we do. Nothing new here either. Dan's faux outrage at the Ray Allen booing is going to be epic.
Call me paranoid, but I got an accute sense of forboding when the CHB refered to Houston as the "fraud Texans" in his column this morning.
Dan isn't Nostradamus and his words carry no karmic powers. You may recall that in October, 2004, he proclaimed that the Sox would be frauds and dead if they went down 3-0 to the MFYs. Now, it's true, many people thought they'd be dead, but the frauds part was uniquely Danno's.
Anyway, like the Cafardo Curse of a few years ago, Dan's pet phrases are impotent.
http://www.boston.co...y_up/?page=full
I think that was the poster's point - that CHB calling them frauds is almost like a reverse lock and they'll end up beating the Pats in the championship game.
Yeah, I know. And my point is that Dan is powerless. My example sucked in that what he wrote there could be viewed as reverse lock action, I know.
Seriously, fuck Dan Shaughessy. I'm sick of defending him.
There is no doubt in my mind CHB doesn't believe what he just wrote. He's not an idiot, and only an idiot would use the prior matchup as a rubric for what to expect this weekend. A series of fluke events that made the matchup blowout-friendly for the Pats in the first quarter doesn't invalidate all the possible ways things could play out favorably for the Texans on Sunday. There are only three reasons for writing this:
1) Get a reaction from the Texans. He made the conscious choice to use such strong language, no doubt he wanted to be intentionally inflammatory. Misson accomplished. Even if you don't believe in "bulletin board material" and stuff of that ilk, there is a chance that inflammation causes the Pats job to be incrementally harder, even if it's just by one tenth of a percent I don't like it. Fuck him.
2) Position his next column. It's utterly predictable. If the Pats lose - Brady is old, BB is old, Pats are no longer elite and are regular season paper tigers. If the Pats win big - ho hum, it's what we expected, and isn't Brady FAN-tastic? If the Pats win small - The Texans surprised EVERYONE by being competitive gamers. Fuck him.
3) Here, sadly, is the real reason: he thinks this is what the general fanbase thinks and wants to hear. CHB, at his worst, always seems like he wants to operate as a mouthpiece for the BDD/pink hat segments of Boston fans rather than a producer of original opinion and analysis[sup]1[/sup]. While it's great to connect with your readers in a "he writes what I wish I could say" kind of way (see Simmons, Bill, circa 2001), it has to happen organically and with some sense of honestly-held opinions. Fuck him.
I've posted before that I've had positive interactions in real life with Dan and have stuck up for him, at least on a personal-attack level. But...goddammit. Growing up, until I got a close look at the inner workings of journalism, all I wanted to be was a sports columnis[sup]2[/sup]. I can't take it anymore. I was halfway off with the horrific Rex/Bill column from 2010 (still the single worst piece of writing I've ever seen published in a major newspaper that wasn't a reader submission from Ask Abby), and I'm all the way off now. Both articles, for different reasons, are a complete perversion of what being a columnist is supposed to be.
I'm done, Dan. I tried for years and years. You're Mariotti to me.
[sup]1[/sup]Which is probably why I thought CHB was a good columnist when I was growing up in the 90s - I was dumb.
[sup]2[/sup]This is post-1991. Until then, I wanted to be a park ranger and live by myself in a treehouse in the woods.
There is no doubt in my mind CHB doesn't believe what he just wrote. He's not an idiot, and only an idiot would use the prior matchup as a rubric for what to expect this weekend. A series of fluke events that made the matchup blowout-friendly for the Pats in the first quarter doesn't invalidate all the possible ways things could play out favorably for the Texans on Sunday. There are only three reasons for writing this:
1) Get a reaction from the Texans. He made the conscious choice to use such strong language, no doubt he wanted to be intentionally inflammatory. Misson accomplished. Even if you don't believe in "bulletin board material" and stuff of that ilk, there is a chance that inflammation causes the Pats job to be incrementally harder, even if it's just by one tenth of a percent I don't like it. Fuck him.
2) Position his next column. It's utterly predictable. If the Pats lose - Brady is old, BB is old, Pats are no longer elite and are regular season paper tigers. If the Pats win big - ho hum, it's what we expected, and isn't Brady FAN-tastic? If the Pats win small - The Texans surprised EVERYONE by being competitive gamers. Fuck him.
3) Here, sadly, is the real reason: he thinks this is what the general fanbase thinks and wants to hear. CHB, at his worst, always seems like he wants to operate as a mouthpiece for the BDD/pink hat segments of Boston fans rather than a producer of original opinion and analysis[sup]1[/sup]. While it's great to connect with your readers in a "he writes what I wish I could say" kind of way (see Simmons, Bill, circa 2001), it has to happen organically and with some sense of honestly-held opinions. Fuck him.
I've posted before that I've had positive interactions in real life with Dan and have stuck up for him, at least on a personal-attack level. But...goddammit. Growing up, until I got a close look at the inner workings of journalism, all I wanted to be was a sports columnis[sup]2[/sup]. I can't take it anymore. I was halfway off with the horrific Rex/Bill column from 2010 (still the single worst piece of writing I've ever seen published in a major newspaper that wasn't a reader submission from Ask Abby), and I'm all the way off now. Both articles, for different reasons, are a complete perversion of what being a columnist is supposed to be.
I'm done, Dan. I tried for years and years. You're Mariotti to me.
[sup]1[/sup]Which is probably why I thought CHB was a good columnist when I was growing up in the 90s - I was dumb.
[sup]2[/sup]This is post-1991. Until then, I wanted to be a park ranger and live by myself in a treehouse in the woods.
Did anyone catch Tom Curran on Sportsnet Central tonight? Left the channel on after the Celtics game and caught him absolutely ripping Shaugnessy to the point that he had Mike Giardi cracking up and Bob Neumier awkwardly trying to pretend nothing happened when they cut back to studio.
When asked about Foster's use of the column on Twitter, Curran first said "I guess somebody still actually reads Shaugnessy". Then before they signed off on the segment, Curran said something to the effect of "Apparently a guy who usually can't stick around past the opening coin toss now represents New England football opinion".
Good for Shaughnessy because this whole thing has gotten fucking ridiculous. He's a freakin columnist that is paid to put stuff like this out there, this isn't a quote coming from Wilfork or Brady or Belichick, it's from a columnist and it is now gaining national attention.
That this is the main storyline about the game right now that tells you how little there is to talk about and if this is what Arian Foster needs to fire him or his team up that shows how pathetic they really are.
Edit: Maybe they can get some Wildcard Weekend patches for their Letterman Jackets.
That this is the main storyline about the game right now that tells you how little there is to talk about and if this is what Arian Foster needs to fire him or his team up that shows how pathetic they really are.
Edit: Maybe they can get some Wildcard Weekend patches for their Letterman Jackets.
CHB did a segment on CSN Hou the other night and now he's doing radio interviews down there. Here is an edited version I got off Barstool Sports. What a total jackass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64aiTWcCQkw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64aiTWcCQkw
Yeah and then this really fucking happens
https://twitter.com/NSSA_DaveGoren/status/288754873749622785
https://twitter.com/NSSA_DaveGoren/status/288754873749622785
In Lucchino's recent radio interviews he's pretty much exonerated Tito from the scathing comments in his book. Instead, he laid the blame squarely at the feet of Shank.
Here's what happened today when Lucchino met reporters:
:lol:
Here's what happened today when Lucchino met reporters:
:lol:
One day after lamely attempting to inject himself into the story with the tired "I'll shave my head if Jacoby is on the Sox next sesaon," the CHB disingenuously stated that Sox players noting that things are better this year under JF, or that there were problems last year under Bobby, were thereby suggesting that ALL of last year's problems were caused by Bobby. Nice theory except that even Bobby's most vocal critic -- Ortiz -- didn't go that far.
Earth to Dan: A player can think or even say that Bobby was a huge problem last year and at the same time acknowledge that Bobby was not the sole cause of all that went wrong in 2012. Said differently, the next player who actually says that it was ALL down to Bobby will be the first.
And Dog, I'm late on this but Larry's shifting of the blame to the CHB was indeed great listening.
Earth to Dan: A player can think or even say that Bobby was a huge problem last year and at the same time acknowledge that Bobby was not the sole cause of all that went wrong in 2012. Said differently, the next player who actually says that it was ALL down to Bobby will be the first.
And Dog, I'm late on this but Larry's shifting of the blame to the CHB was indeed great listening.
Really? The only thing that jumped out in that piece to me was his WTF comment on Green/Perkins. That man has not watched OKC play one game, ever.
It wasn't good at all.
Cliff Notes Version:
Crawford: the media in Boston was mean to me.
Shank: we were much meaner to much better players, so shut up.
Bleh.
Cliff Notes Version:
Crawford: the media in Boston was mean to me.
Shank: we were much meaner to much better players, so shut up.
Bleh.
Well, since I stuck my head out of the foxhole, I'll say that I found it entertaining and well written. He had colorful examples of the heat that other heros have taken, including Pedro and Ted. His attitude towards CC's whining was about the same as is generally expressed here, so I don't see that as something that you can fault him for. If anyone else had written that column it would have been greeted more warmly.
I had no problem with the Crawford portion of the column with the exception of its "Francisco Franco is still dead" level timing. Writing a column about a topic that has already been thoroughly covered by SoSH for several days is never good.Koufax said:
And here's another nod to his comment about Perk and Green. He was either putting inordinate emphasis on one game or just has his head up his ass on the subject. He also threw out a strong view without offering any back-up whatsoever.
Koufax said:
No it's not. His attitude was "we weren't mean to Crawford", when, as has been noted here, he was very critical of Crawford, especially with the $142 million references. If Shank's attitude was "he sucked and we called him on it", then I would agree with you.
Actually, the Green / Perkins comment was a low blow. He said that he would prefer to have Perkins than Green on the Celtics. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt on that and say that Perkins is a better player. What difference does that make when the reality was that there was no way that the Celtics could have re-signed Perkins; and that Danny did what he could to get some value by trading a player that was going to leave at the end of the season anyway? Maybe that loused up that season, and maybe it was a bad idea, but having Perkins on this team was never ever going to happen. Skank knows that, and thus his comment was a cheap shot.
On CC, though, I don't have an issue with his writing about a subject that has been digested here. Original it wasn't. Well written it was.
On CC, though, I don't have an issue with his writing about a subject that has been digested here. Original it wasn't. Well written it was.
And saying the trade cost the Celtics a title in 2011 is insane even if they didn't make the trade and let Perk walk. Perkins was worthless in the playoffs that year for OKC and Green was actually their best defender against Lebron that series.Koufax said:
as did his editors, I guess.
Or they figured Boston sports fans wouldn't know who Munch was (wasn't he an outfielder for the Rangers?)
Or they figured Boston sports fans wouldn't know who Munch was (wasn't he an outfielder for the Rangers?)
Dan, A 'Will The Sox Ever Lose?' column? Really?
This must have taken you a whole 2 minutes to cut and paste it from your last 'Will They Ever Lose' column. And, spoiler alert, all of them are useless crap.
This must have taken you a whole 2 minutes to cut and paste it from your last 'Will They Ever Lose' column. And, spoiler alert, all of them are useless crap.
Trolling of the worst kind. Just awful. Proud of Papi to tell him, basically, to name the whisperers or go f*ck off.
My favorite part is where he writes "I asked the tough questions." Oh Dan you're such a great journalist and thank you so much for telling us because we thought you were a lazy mean-spirited mediocre cliche machine who really, when you come right down to it, doesn't like sports or the people who play them.
I just read it and I don't see it the way you guys do. He gave David a platform to answer the question, "Why are you, an old guy, doing so well?" and David gave great, very convincing answers which DS didn't quibble with.soxhop411 said:
The PED undertone was totally palpable because as soon as the story didn't make much hay here, he took it on the talk show/network tour to try and fan the flames. He showed up on MLB Network and mad a huge asshole out of himself and even stretched it to the point where he used Ortiz's slow start in 2009 as evidence that he was in decline while completely omitting the injury. Then of course, Harold Reynolds mentioned that Ortiz was injured and that might have had something to do with it, and Shank just blew it off and started talking about 'this is the world we live in,' yadda yadda. Guy is such a steaming bag of shit it's not even funny. The fact his peers don't take him to the woodshed a bit is even worse. Dude's career was built on coming up with a bullshit ghost story, demolishing the personal life of Bill Buckner and writing cliche-riddled and fill-in-the-blank sing along columns for 20 years. Why anyone treats this dude with reverence is beyond me. Every few months at the first hint of trouble, he peaks his pube-head out of the toilet bowl to come profit off of someone's misfortune before slithering back from whence he came. Dude should have his credentials revoked at this point. He adds nothing to the conversation anymore.
If you recall , in 2009 Papi denied the wrist was an issue. He also had a similar slow start in 2010, albeit a shorter one which led to Tito to pinch hit for him. I always thought the wrist was an issue in 2009 but not 2010Towney007 said:
I think the topic is appropriate. You have a guy who tested positive in the same year he became a power hitter , in his first year with the Red Sox as a teammate of Manny and Giambi, and blamed the result on supplements. Links to a trainer tied to steroids. Had close to a career year in 2012 at age 36 and has improved every year since 2009 , as pitching has improved. Has had injuries and illnesses linked to steroids (Achilles, heart palpitations).
If he was a Yankee we would be all over him.
None of this proves he is using steroids now, or ever did, but not asking questions just makes the local print media look more like the lap dogs they are , especially when they go off any other player tainted with the suspicion or allegation of using steroids
CHB had the balls to write what the other lap dogs may have been whispering about but dared not touch. He gave Papi the opportunity to deny what many fans outside Boston were thinking. That's good IMO.
I thought Papi gave good answers and came off as believable. Maybe some fans are less skeptical as a result, maybe not, but when you make 30K per AB, you should not be too upset at being questioned about such matters.
Given Ortiz's age & success etc., the topic may indeed be appropriate. But Shaughnessy's approach is, at best, juvenile. Here's a guy -- Shaughnessy -- who has an opinion on everything. And as a columnist, he's paid to give that opinion, we we can agree with it or not. Or rip him for givng an opinion based on non-facts.
But here, he doesn't actually give us his opinion. Instead, he plays "straight" journalist and just "asks questions." Shaughnessy won't tell us what he actually thinks about Ortiz because he doesn't have the balls to do so. Doing it the way he did it, he can say "I never accused him of anything."
In one of the 3 or 4 phone conversations I've had with him in the last 20 years-- get under his skin enough and he'll call you, too! -- I asked him, "so if you think Pedro/Manny is lying/faking the injury, why don't you come right out and say." He responded with a vague reference to the fear of libel laws.
But here, he doesn't actually give us his opinion. Instead, he plays "straight" journalist and just "asks questions." Shaughnessy won't tell us what he actually thinks about Ortiz because he doesn't have the balls to do so. Doing it the way he did it, he can say "I never accused him of anything."
In one of the 3 or 4 phone conversations I've had with him in the last 20 years-- get under his skin enough and he'll call you, too! -- I asked him, "so if you think Pedro/Manny is lying/faking the injury, why don't you come right out and say." He responded with a vague reference to the fear of libel laws.
InsideTheParker said:
Papelbon's Poutine said:
Ortiz was named as a PED user. Quibble about the circumstances of that fact all you'd like but you sound like a naive trolling douchebag when you complain about it. And when you suggest DS's job is to "innocently...marvel" or do a "nice piece". If Shaughnessey doesn't ask a 37 year old guy coming off a serious injury who's previously been named as a PED user about PEDs he's not doing his job. Not being an ostrich, the question occurred to me.
And I agree ITP - Shaughnessey asked the question and Ortiz responded convincingly. That's infinitely better journalism than ignoring the "whispers" and writing a "nice piece" that "innocently...marvels" at Ortiz's accomplishments at age 37 and recovering from a career threatening injury. Read Cafardo if that's what you want from sports journalism.
Shaughnessey (Woodward) asked Ortiz (Nixon) if he was still taping conversations. A totally fair question, given the facts.