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

TomBrunansky23

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2006
783
Crapchester, NY
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
I take you to mean CHB didn't vote for Schilling, right?
No. He actually stated that he and Schill do not like each other and for that reason he felt compelled to vote in favor of his induction lest he be accused of not voting for him because of their personal animosity - i.e. he's voting for him because he doesn't like him.


As if we needed any more proof that the HOF voting system is broken.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,341
TomBrunansky23 said:
No. He actually stated that he and Schill do not like each other and for that reason he felt compelled to vote in favor of his induction lest he be accused of not voting for him because of their personal animosity - i.e. he's voting for him because he doesn't like him.

 
 
I have no use for Shank, but that's pretty misleading.
 

TomBrunansky23

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2006
783
Crapchester, NY
moondog80 said:
 
I have no use for Shank, but that's pretty misleading.
Don't take my word for it, read CHB'S own words:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/01/09/dan-shaughnessy-how-handled-poison-hall-fame-ballot/lq9l9hHtbK6fteJfvdqmiN/story.html?event=event12

Specifically:

"I didnt want to let my personal feelings for a player get in the way (hello, Jim Rice). So perhaps I gave Schilling the nod because I dont like him defusing the ever-handy charge that we use our vote to take out grudges against players who were uncooperative."

So CHB threw in the qualifier "perhaps" a year ago. He did not this morning on the radio.
 

MJM2344

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,436
In the 3 minutes that I heard, Shank on Gresh and Zo today said that there should be an investigation on Belichick/Schiano because "their buddies, the Rutgers connection,  and the fact that Schiano gave Belichick his 2 best players for nothing expecting to get fired shortly after."  Paraphrased.  I'll assume that he was un-aware that Doug Martin was (I believe) top 5 in rushing yards his rookie year, and that Blount had ran for less than 1000 yards in his 2nd and 3rd seasons combined in Tampa.  
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,099
MJM2344 said:
In the 3 minutes that I heard, Shank on Gresh and Zo today said that there should be an investigation on Belichick/Schiano because "their buddies, the Rutgers connection,  and the fact that Schiano gave Belichick his 2 best players for nothing expecting to get fired shortly after."  Paraphrased.  I'll assume that he was un-aware that Doug Martin was (I believe) top 5 in rushing yards his rookie year, and that Blount had ran for less than 1000 yards in his 2nd and 3rd seasons combined in Tampa.  
 
And that Talib (who I assume is the other guy he's talking about) came with almost as much baggage as Albert Haynesworth.
 
He's just looking for a fight, ch. n+1.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
MJM2344 said:
In the 3 minutes that I heard, Shank on Gresh and Zo today said that there should be an investigation on Belichick/Schiano because "their buddies, the Rutgers connection,  and the fact that Schiano gave Belichick his 2 best players for nothing expecting to get fired shortly after."  Paraphrased.  I'll assume that he was un-aware that Doug Martin was (I believe) top 5 in rushing yards his rookie year, and that Blount had ran for less than 1000 yards in his 2nd and 3rd seasons combined in Tampa.  
 
 
And what would be propose be done about one Haubaugh trading to his brother Boldin for a 6th round pick?  That trade is more likely than the one he is exercised about to be impactful on SB Sunday.
 
I would propose that neither warrants investigation.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
47,699
Hartford, CT
I must have missed his call to investigate the Harbaughs - who have the connection of being BROTHERS - in light of the Boldin trade this past offseason.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,188
Deep inside Muppet Labs
MJM2344 said:
In the 3 minutes that I heard, Shank on Gresh and Zo today said that there should be an investigation on Belichick/Schiano because "their buddies, the Rutgers connection,  and the fact that Schiano gave Belichick his 2 best players for nothing expecting to get fired shortly after."  Paraphrased.  I'll assume that he was un-aware that Doug Martin was (I believe) top 5 in rushing yards his rookie year, and that Blount had ran for less than 1000 yards in his 2nd and 3rd seasons combined in Tampa.  
 
I must've missed the fact that Schiano was the GM down in Tampa.
 
Oh wait. He wasn't.
 
I must've missed that Tampa trade Talib to the Pats in the 2012 season, Schiano's first year there. Oh wait, I didn't.
 
He's really an enormous piece of shit, this Shaughnessy.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,188
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I saw that and loved it. He's a fraud. I should try to find that article he wrote that's referenced in the Grantland article, I've seen it before and it's shocking in the way he shits on the reporting talking about the andro.
 

The Social Chair

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 17, 2010
6,268
The paragraph before that quote is pertinent

 
 
In an odd twist, several writers joined La Russa's crusade. This is an unfortunate tic of sportswriting — when a writer becomes so deadened by the code of silence that he begins to demand it himself. (This frequently occurs when writers blame players for "throwing teammates under the bus.") A Fort Worth Star-Telegram columnist called Wilstein "rude." Dan Shaughnessy wrote in the Boston Globe, "No wonder players loathe the media."
 
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,188
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Here's the fuller quote from Dan:
 
 
It's no wonder players loathe the media. In McGwire's case, it is misleading to write that he's using a performance enhancing drug. He's a baseball player, not an Olympic sprinter. There's nothing sold at drugstores that would help any of us hit a home run in the big leagues (unless that store has a book on hitting written by Ted Williams.) Facing Randy Johnson and hitting a ball over the fence requires bravery, timing, hand-eye coordination, reflexes, leverage, and strength. Most of all, it requires practice."
 
Quite a change in tone, eh?
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
64,800
Rotten Apple
Yeah, just WOW. And also got to thinking...
 

I spoke to Shaughnessy recently about the steroid issue. "I've never been an investigative reporter," he said. "I'm not really interested in that. It's not what I got into this for."
What DID you get in this for anyway? Cheap shots and trolling?
He is a decent writer when he wants to be, but what actually motivates him other than petty revenge and power trips?
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,099
ifmanis5 said:
Yeah, just WOW. And also got to thinking...
 
 
What DID you get in this for anyway? Cheap shots and trolling?
He is a decent writer when he wants to be, but what actually motivates him other than petty revenge and power trips?
 
Like a million Boston-area boys, he read a lot of Gammons and Ryan and McDonough and Montville.  That's why he got into it.
 
What really bothers him is being held accountable by people he thinks are beneath him. Like readers. And "bloggers."  Its turned him into a miserable person whose first reaction is *always* to lash out. Send him an email with pointed (but polite) criticism, and his first response is always from the asshole book. Respond with "is that really how you treat readers with real questions?" and he tones it down a bit.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
64,800
Rotten Apple
joe dokes said:
 
Like a million Boston-area boys, he read a lot of Gammons and Ryan and McDonough and Montville.  That's why he got into it.
 
Sure, but I don't ever remember Gammons and Ryan and McDonough and Montville ever saying 'I don't like reporting.' To the contrary, they loved it.
It's like a truck driver saying 'I didn't get into truck driving because I don't like driving.' It is what you do. That's why the list of guys you mentioned are held in high esteem and Shank is, well, Shank.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,099
ifmanis5 said:
Sure, but I don't ever remember Gammons and Ryan and McDonough and Montville ever saying 'I don't like reporting.' To the contrary, they loved it.
It's like a truck driver saying 'I didn't get into truck driving because I don't like driving.' It is what you do. That's why the list of guys you mentioned are held in high esteem and Shank is, well, Shank.
 
He probably once liked it.
Or maybe he never did, but was good at it, didn't find it difficult and got paid well.
 

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
22,171
A Scud Away from Hell
MJM2344 said:
In the 3 minutes that I heard, Shank on Gresh and Zo today said that there should be an investigation on Belichick/Schiano because "their buddies, the Rutgers connection,  and the fact that Schiano gave Belichick his 2 best players for nothing expecting to get fired shortly after."  Paraphrased.  I'll assume that he was un-aware that Doug Martin was (I believe) top 5 in rushing yards his rookie year, and that Blount had ran for less than 1000 yards in his 2nd and 3rd seasons combined in Tampa.  
 
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
I must've missed the fact that Schiano was the GM down in Tampa.
 
Oh wait. He wasn't.
 
I must've missed that Tampa trade Talib to the Pats in the 2012 season, Schiano's first year there. Oh wait, I didn't.
 
He's really an enormous piece of shit, this Shaughnessy.
 
See, CHB can troll all he wants about how Pats aren't "very good" or Colts are a bunch of "tomato cans".
 
But when he 100% misleads or outright lies about facts, that's when I truly wish his career would end for good. 
 
On top of what SJH mentioned, LGBT was about to be released if not traded. And Pats were the only team to offer a draft pick. If it was a favor, it was from BB to Schiano, for offering a pick for a player whose career in TB was about to end. CHB's broadly laid out context of how that trade went about is without merit or facts.
 
Calling for an "investigation" is comedy of the highest (or lowest) order. Talk about barking up the wrong tree -- shame that this fucker gets any airtime at all.
 

BucketOBalls

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2009
5,643
Steak of Turmoil
joe dokes said:
 
He probably once liked it.
Or maybe he never did, but was good at it, didn't find it difficult and got paid well.
 
Sports writing is probably about 50% fact and 50% opinion. I'm assuming he liked the opinion aspect more, so it's about 10%/90% for him.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,099
BucketOBalls said:
 
Sports writing is probably about 50% fact and 50% opinion. I'm assuming he liked the opinion aspect more, so it's about 10%/90% for him.
 
Which is ironic (i thinks it's irony, anyway), because his straight reporting (Celtics of the 80s; Sox 2004 post-season) was pretty good. His opinion work is awful, not because of the content of his opinion, ("I hate pizza"), but because of the seeming randomness and lack of a basis for those opinions ("I've never eaten pizza, but I hate it"; "I will make no effort to understand this stuff, but I reject it.")
 
And that doesn't even get to the idea that he's seemed to spend much of the last several years opining just to piss off enough people to get clicks or guest spots elsewhere, not because he really believes those opinions.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,245
Maine
Has Kraft made a habit of lobbying for rule changes?  Aside from when he advocated for adding more wildcards to the post-season right after the Pats missed the playoffs with an 11-5 record, I can't recall Kraft appearing all that reactionary about anything.
 
Leave it to Shank to lock on to one instance and make a lifelong storyline out of it.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,099
So, not surprisingly, he calls Ortiz selfish,etc., for talking about an extension. I have little sympathy for Ortiz's utterly leverage-less position, and agree that he doesn't come off too well here.  But Shaghnessy ends by saying that Ortiz should "honor his contract."  Funny how no one ever accused Jon Lester of "not honoring his contract" when he talked about an extension. 
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Dan's agenda -- clicks and Tiz bashing -- is so apparent here.
 
And that column is by the books formulaic.  Obligatory Ortiz praise.  Then the hatchet.
 
And his premise -- that Oritz has zero leverage -- is just wrong.
 
It's of course possible that if the Sox don't give him another year, that he'll have another strong season in 2014 and any of the AL teams with money to spend, and in particular the Yankees who get extra jollies at sticking it to the Sox and their fans, would roll the dice on an expensive contract.  All it takes is one and that NY, Texas and Detroit are arguably set at varying degrees right now doesn't mean that things wont look a lot different due to injuries or performance issues after the 2014 season.
 
Dan also ignores that the price for making David shut up and be happy in 2014 is likely one more year at $15 mm or so...a price that is well within the Sox budget and worth paying given the sum total of what Papi provides, and his role on this particular team. He also ignores the cloud that not getting Tiz done might place over the 2014 season.   
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,099
TheoShmeo said:
Dan's agenda -- clicks and Tiz bashing -- is so apparent here.
 
And that column is by the books formulaic.  Obligatory Ortiz praise.  Then the hatchet.
 
And his premise -- that Oritz has zero leverage -- is just wrong.
 
It's of course possible that if the Sox don't give him another year, that he'll have another strong season in 2014 and any of the AL teams with money to spend, and in particular the Yankees who get extra jollies at sticking it to the Sox and their fans, would roll the dice on an expensive contract.  All it takes is one and that NY, Texas and Detroit are arguably set at varying degrees right now doesn't mean that things wont look a lot different due to injuries or performance issues after the 2014 season.
 
Dan also ignores that the price for making David shut up and be happy in 2014 is likely one more year at $15 mm or so...a price that is well within the Sox budget and worth paying given the sum total of what Papi provides, and his role on this particular team. He also ignores the cloud that not getting Tiz done might place over the 2014 season.   
 
I think the leverage thing is debateable. So, IMO, its a fair point to make. But there's little "dishonorable" about it -- or Lester.
 
Writers as moral scolds. :barf:
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
joe dokes said:
 
I think the leverage thing is debateable. So, IMO, its a fair point to make. But there's little "dishonorable" about it -- or Lester.
 
Writers as moral scolds. :barf:
Even if it's debateable, the CHB presents it as if it's all on the side of the Sox and Ortiz has none, which is pretty simplistic.
 
But yeah, the morality point -- "honor your contract" -- is rather naive.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,860
Even if it's debateable, the CHB presents it as if it's all on the side of the Sox and Ortiz has none, which is pretty simplistic.
 
 
Where is Ortiz' leverage?
 
He has a contract, so holding out would be dumb. He's a 38-year-old DH, so if he plays the rest of the year and then skips down he can't go to the National League (so eliminate half the teams there). In the American League, there are only a few teams that have a need and the deep pockets to sign him, so that whittles down his suitors even more. I doubt the Yankees will, they have a crap ton of players that are aging and can be DHs. The Tigers won't because of the same issue and that's the same problem the Rangers are facing. And would Ortiz go to Toronto or Seattle, two teams that could win but aren't a sure thing? I doubt it.
 
Ortiz also means more to Boston than he would in a new city.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
 
Where is Ortiz' leverage?
 
He has a contract, so holding out would be dumb. He's a 38-year-old DH, so if he plays the rest of the year and then skips down he can't go to the National League (so eliminate half the teams there). In the American League, there are only a few teams that have a need and the deep pockets to sign him, so that whittles down his suitors even more. I doubt the Yankees will, they have a crap ton of players that are aging and can be DHs. The Tigers won't because of the same issue and that's the same problem the Rangers are facing. And would Ortiz go to Toronto or Seattle, two teams that could win but aren't a sure thing? I doubt it.
 
Ortiz also means more to Boston than he would in a new city.
First, it only takes one team to want David.  Second, I don't know why you doubt the Yankees will want him.  I get that they have other DH candidates but David has been one of the most productive DHs in the game, their other DH candidates in 2015 may be gone or compromised and the Yankees have shown a propensity for signing former Red Sox players.  The Tigers and Rangers could also view Ortiz in 2015 as the last piece of the puzzle and may be willing to sign him notwithstanding that they have other players who could DH.  Last, David has leverage in light of his importance to the Sox as an organization and how he fits into the Sox line-up.
 
That David means more to Boston -- which is inarguable -- doesn't mean that another team might also value him enough to overpay for him in 2015. 
 
Last, my point wasn't that Ortiz has more leverage or even a lot of leverage.  It was that Dan presents it as if he has no leverage at all, which I think is simplistic.   
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,860
First, it only takes one team to want David.  Second, I don't know why you doubt the Yankees will want him.  I get that they have other DH candidates but David has been one of the most productive DHs in the game, their other DH candidates in 2015 may be gone or compromised and the Yankees have shown a propensity for signing former Red Sox players.
 
 
Right. But the Red Sox front office isn't going to get into a bidding war over a 39-year-old designated hitter.
 
The Yankees have five people that can be their designated hitter in 2015. I don't believe that Jeter is retiring this year. They also have Teixeira. ARod may be back with them. They signed Carlos Beltran to a three-year deal. Brain McCann will undoubtedly get some at bats as a DH. If the Yankees sign David Ortiz to DH, they're more than dumb. And Ortiz isn't going to take a one-year deal to move to New York, he'll want a minimum of two, possibly three. The Yankees won't sign him.
 
And the Yankees have a "propensity" (Ellsbury and Damon, right?) for signing former Red Sox players in the prime or close to the prime of their career. Not one in the late stages of his career, unless you count Luis Tiant.
 
The Tigers and Rangers could also view Ortiz in 2015 as the last piece of the puzzle and may be willing to sign him notwithstanding that they have other players who could DH.  Last, David has leverage in light of his importance to the Sox as an organization and how he fits into the Sox line-up.
 
 
Texas? With Rios (assuming the team picks up his option), Choo, Fielder and Beltre all could be DHs. And the Tigers make the most sense, but again, Ortiz isn't going to Detroit for a one-year deal. And the Tigers (or the Ranger or the Yankees) will have to really make it worth his while with both years and money. I don't see any team granting a $18M+ payday to a DH who is closing in on 40. If the other teams do, then I'll be sad to see him go, but that's business.
 
And yes, Ortiz is very important to the Red Sox lineup, but he's going to retire within the next two or three years anyway. The front office has a contingency plan, they just bump it up a year.
 
That David means more to Boston -- which is inarguable -- doesn't mean that another team might also value him enough to overpay for him in 2015. 
 
 
One has nothing to do with another. Ortiz' value to the Red Sox is irrelevant to how much another team pays him. It's only relevant to how much the Red Sox would pay him. Why would the Tigers care how much he's worth to the Red Sox and why would they overpay him for that?
 
Last, my point wasn't that Ortiz has more leverage or even a lot of leverage.  It was that Dan presents it as if he has no leverage at all, which I think is simplistic. 
 
 
Your point may be true, but Ortiz doesn't have a ton of leverage here. The team that will probably pay him the most is the Boston Red Sox and they've taken care of him for the last 11 seasons. It seems kind of dumb to talk about taking your bat and going to another club when the Red Sox have your rights for the next year and there might not be a ton of suitors next winter.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
 
Right. But the Red Sox front office isn't going to get into a bidding war over a 39-year-old designated hitter.
 
The Yankees have five people that can be their designated hitter in 2015. I don't believe that Jeter is retiring this year. They also have Teixeira. ARod may be back with them. They signed Carlos Beltran to a three-year deal. Brain McCann will undoubtedly get some at bats as a DH. If the Yankees sign David Ortiz to DH, they're more than dumb. And Ortiz isn't going to take a one-year deal to move to New York, he'll want a minimum of two, possibly three. The Yankees won't sign him.
 
And the Yankees have a "propensity" (Ellsbury and Damon, right?) for signing former Red Sox players in the prime or close to the prime of their career. Not one in the late stages of his career, unless you count Luis Tiant.
 
 
Texas? With Rios (assuming the team picks up his option), Choo, Fielder and Beltre all could be DHs. And the Tigers make the most sense, but again, Ortiz isn't going to Detroit for a one-year deal. And the Tigers (or the Ranger or the Yankees) will have to really make it worth his while with both years and money. I don't see any team granting a $18M+ payday to a DH who is closing in on 40. If the other teams do, then I'll be sad to see him go, but that's business.
 
And yes, Ortiz is very important to the Red Sox lineup, but he's going to retire within the next two or three years anyway. The front office has a contingency plan, they just bump it up a year.
 
 
One has nothing to do with another. Ortiz' value to the Red Sox is irrelevant to how much another team pays him. It's only relevant to how much the Red Sox would pay him. Why would the Tigers care how much he's worth to the Red Sox and why would they overpay him for that?
 
 
Your point may be true, but Ortiz doesn't have a ton of leverage here. The team that will probably pay him the most is the Boston Red Sox and they've taken care of him for the last 11 seasons. It seems kind of dumb to talk about taking your bat and going to another club when the Red Sox have your rights for the next year and there might not be a ton of suitors next winter.
To your last point, my argument was never that Ortiz has a shit ton of leverage.  It's that it isn't the purely one-sided situation that Dan presented.  Whether we agree on Texas, NY, Detroit or another team, all it takes is one.  And if David puts up a stellar 2014 (admittedly, not a slam dunk), it would not be a shock if Ortiz, butt hurt over not getting that extra year before the 2014 season, bolted for whichever team said "screw it, having David Ortiz for one year at $18 mm isn't going to kill us, and it might be that thing that pushes us over the top."
 
As to the Yankees, their propensity isn't limited to Ellsbury and Damon.  Cashman has also brought in Bellhorn, Lowe, Embree, Minky, Myers and Youks since 2005.  Many of those guys were indeed in the latter stages of their careers.  During that same period, I believe the only former Yankees signed by the Sox were David Wells and Alfredo Aceves.  Now maybe there were good baseball reasons for all of those NY moves, and maybe Cashman has some special motivation when it comes to former Red Sox. 
 
Your point about who the Yankees have clogging up the DH position is well taken, but life is full of surprises and the Yankees giving Ortiz one or two years, and him taking it, wouldn't shock me.  All it would take would be him being pissed that he wasn't extended before this season, the Yankees deciding that the candidates they have for DH had under performed in 2014 or could play their respective positions well enough, and the Yankees delighting in sticking it to the Sox.  Three years strikes me as a red herring and sorry, and we're talking about a team that has regularly spent liberally and just shelled out almost half a billion to free agents.  I don't think two years would be necessary but them giving David an extra year to clinch the deal isn't a huge stretch. 
 
Last, each of the players you mentioned can be explained away.  Teix may stay on first where he has been great defensively.  Teix might also continue to slide offensively, making him a bad solution for DH.  A-Rod playing ever again in NY is an open question given all the nonsense.  Jeter is the hardest to explain away as he really belongs as a DH given how terrible he is now at SS.  But even there, how surprising would it be to see him walk away if he has another weak or injury prone season?  And while Beltran and McCann may need to see some time at DH, signing David would not preclude that as an aging Ortiz would need a rest from time to time.  
 
All of that said, I think this is purely academic as I think it would be a huge upset if Ben doesn't tack on an extra year before the season starts.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
64,800
Rotten Apple
Nice of Shank to remind us today that the World Series Hangover years have been historically disappointing. So, time for us all to stop celebrating and get used to sucking again.
What was the point of that? Oh yeah, you're a miserable crank. Cool story, br0.
 

MoGator71

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,117
Well, they made the playoffs in '05 and '08, and that's actually kind of a good year in MLB. So yea, he's a tool.
 

terrisus

formerly: imgran
SoSH Member
Ortiz: Only problem is with 'haters' (Edes article)
 
"My problem is not the Red Sox. My problem is not the fans. I'm super happy to be here. I'm glad to wear this uniform. The fans know that I'm more than proud of performing in front of them. I try my best every time I go out there in front of them. It's just a couple of haters out there, flipping things around.''

After Ortiz's news conference, there was a verbal confrontation in the Red Sox clubhouse between Ortiz and Boston Globe columnist Dan Shaughnessy, who called the designated hitter "selfish" for talking about his contract a year before it expired in a story that ran in late January.
 
 
Seriously, I can't understand why people continue to read and pay attention to this guy.
I would say I can't understand why he continues to be employed here - but it's because of all the people who read and pay attention to him.
 
He needs to go far, far away.
 

SemperFidelisSox

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2008
31,949
Boston, MA
Pubes Head has been in Ft. Myers for all of five minutes and he's already written an article bringing up past failures of Sox championship teams the year after and got into a confrontation with a player.

There should be a duck boat parade when this hack finally takes his last breath.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,099
Jon Lester talks extension one year before his contract expires -- (white)Cancer(white) Hero(white)Ace(white)Bulldog Does Team Favor
 
David Ortiz talks 1 year extension year before his contract expires (notwhite)PED Suspect(not white)DH(notwhite)OldPlayer "dishonors contract"
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Today's column was amusingly defensive.  And classic "it's all about me, the CHB."  The gist, though some of it was unspoken:
 
"REALLY BOSTON, I DON'T HATE DAVID.  I just think he has no leverage and that it's against God and Country for him to, horrors, want to play under a contract that extends beyond the current season and even worse, say that out loud.  And PLEASE, BOSTON, don't hate ME for saying this."
 

Dick Drago

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2002
1,312
Too late Dan, Boston hates you already. He really seems to resent Hispanic players in particular. He spent lots of column space describing Jose Offerman's fancy car, Pedro's jewelry etc. as examples of how they are less committed to the game, and focused on their lifestyle.
 

mrsbeasley

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 19, 2005
560
Boston
Am I remembering incorrectly? Before Ortiz came to Boston didn't CHB call him a "bag of shit" or something similar? With his history, does Shaughnessy really believe he can get away with saying he doesn't hate David Ortiz? (And does he really think asking us to not hate HIM will do anything but make us hate him more?)
 

joyofsox

empty, bleak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
7,552
Vancouver Island
mrsbeasley said:
Am I remembering incorrectly? Before Ortiz came to Boston didn't CHB call him a "bag of shit" or something similar? With his history, does Shaughnessy really believe he can get away with saying he doesn't hate David Ortiz? (And does he really think asking us to not hate HIM will do anything but make us hate him more?)
 
I believe it was on the radio - not in print - and he referred to him as a "sack of shit". Bruce Allen at Boston Sports Media Watch posted about it.
 
Searching the net, I find this:
 
The CHB's reference to David Ortiz was made on WWZN on Jan. 4, 2003.
At the time, he said: "[David Ortiz is] a giant sack of you-know-what ..."
http://danshaughnessy.blogspot.ca/2007/05/after-long-week-spent-unsuccessfully.html?showComment=1179851640000#c2414988503441573181
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,245
Maine
joyofsox said:
 
I believe it was on the radio - not in print - and he referred to him as a "sack of shit". Bruce Allen at Boston Sports Media Watch posted about it.
 
Searching the net, I find this:
 
The CHB's reference to David Ortiz was made on WWZN on Jan. 4, 2003.
At the time, he said: "[David Ortiz is] a giant sack of you-know-what ..."
http://danshaughnessy.blogspot.ca/2007/05/after-long-week-spent-unsuccessfully.html?showComment=1179851640000#c2414988503441573181
 
I presume that given the date of that quote, Shank was probably discussing the merits of the Red Sox signing Ortiz at the time it happened.  Clearly he wasn't optimistic about a Twins castoff.
 
So along with proving him dead wrong about Ortiz's value and potential impact on the team/lineup, Ortiz played a key role in destroying Shank's "Curse" cash cow in 2004.  No wonder the CHB is bitter and angry.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,188
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
I presume that given the date of that quote, Shank was probably discussing the merits of the Red Sox signing Ortiz at the time it happened.  Clearly he wasn't optimistic about a Twins castoff.
 
So along with proving him dead wrong about Ortiz's value and potential impact on the team/lineup, Ortiz played a key role in destroying Shank's "Curse" cash cow in 2004.  No wonder the CHB is bitter and angry.
 
I believe Dan's comments were related to a poor postseason Ortiz had with the Twins.
 
In any case, it shows what kind of character Shank has to make a personal attack on a player in public like that. It's one thing to say you think a player isn't very good; it's quite another to call him a "giant sack of you-know-what." That brings a level of personal animosity to the proceedings.
 
In any case, Shank's a fossil and the sooner we stop paying attention to his columns and thoughts the sooner he'll go away. He's already irrelevant.