It's not libel if they're proved true.
If he knows it's going to be libel, then... yeah, the innenudoes are pretty damn pathetic.
If he knows it's going to be libel, then... yeah, the innenudoes are pretty damn pathetic.
Dan Shaughnessy: Taking a dump in your mouth one column at a time
- Thread starter weeba
- Start date
DavidTai said:
The Krafts are public figures. He can't libel them unless he publishes something he knows to be false, or does so with reckless disregard to the truth.
(IANAL, TINLA, HIPPA, FEMA, OSHA, IRS, ROFL, 401(k)).
CHB on Gresh and Zo: "I'm still not giving up the idea of trying somebody like Cespedes or Betts at 3rd."
Cespedes at 3rd? What?
Cespedes at 3rd? What?
RedOctober3829 said:
Confusing him with Castillo, who has some experience at 3B (and 2B) in Cuba?
Red(s)HawksFan said:
I believe it was Peter Abraham who reported Cespedes was working out in practice at 3B in Fenway in September.
The CHB's "it's all lining up for the Pats" column will be in the Globe tomorrow. And yes, there's some truth to that. It ignores that the Pats still have to deal with some tough opponents, including GB. But make no mistake, the mantra is coming.
Honestly, Theo, and I'm not picking on you specifically, after last night's big win who really gives a shit? Shank is an irrelevant troll, and everything he's ever written has been proven to be wrong whether it be over the short term or long term. Of course after shitting on the Pats all year he's going to find a way to minimize a big win over a very good team on the road; it's what he does. It doesn't make his thoughts interesting or noteworthy.
Pick on me all you like.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
I'm ecstatic over the win. I don't think there is a highlight show I haven't watched.
But this is a thread on the CHB. Two of his hallmarks are being lazy and repeatedly sounding themes. That I am predicting that we'll see one of his tired themes tomorrow does not in any small, tiny way take away from my joy over last night or tell you that I find that his comments to be interesting.
Haven't read the guy in years for reasons delineated time and again above, but I was just thinking what a shame it is that we can't use this guy as a weapon to our advantage. Instead of spending all his time insulting the local teams, it would be nice to aim him at, say, Terrell Suggs for the next week. It would never happen, of course, because he only cares about insulting the local teams and local fans. But it would be nice to see someone in the media get under Suggs skin, and that's Shagnasty's specialty.
Nite Vizhun UV said:
What about the time Dan trashed the Houston Texans to such an extent that Arian Foster made Dan's article his twitter avatar?
Gregg Doyel of the Indy Star tweeted thusly:
Shaughnessy: "Colts have no chance to beat Patriots." RT @ColtsFarmboy: Such Boston arrogance. #colts fan must read. http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/01/15/face-facts-colts-are-match-for-patriots/cQ7wDL5RgEbUznZ4eopRsL/story.html?hootPostID=5aa1db21d3009f33bdcbec6acf518072 …
What Doyel doesn't understand is that Shank doesn't represent Pats fans or the way they think. Indy fans can read his crap all they want; we won't.
Shaughnessy: "Colts have no chance to beat Patriots." RT @ColtsFarmboy: Such Boston arrogance. #colts fan must read. http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/01/15/face-facts-colts-are-match-for-patriots/cQ7wDL5RgEbUznZ4eopRsL/story.html?hootPostID=5aa1db21d3009f33bdcbec6acf518072 …
What Doyel doesn't understand is that Shank doesn't represent Pats fans or the way they think. Indy fans can read his crap all they want; we won't.
And the irony of it in this case is that Doyel is a new columnist in Indy who tries to be a Shaughnessy wannabe. Doyel's column today (see BBTL AFC Championship Game thread) is straight out of CHB101
Dick Pole Upside said:
One visit to Doyel's twitter page was all needed to confirm my suspicions of him. He's a attention-whoring troll, plain and simple.
Shank's always good when he's not shitting on someone. Unfortunately, his non-negative stuff amounts to about 3% of his output.John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
That's because at the end of the day he actually does appreciate sports.
One tweak he's made to his persona of late is to embrace his reputation in the Twitterverse for being a troll. Much of the time it's self-serving, other times kind of enlightening (such as his somewhat odd column saying "only positive things"). But when it all comes together:
In the scheme of things, that's progress.
One tweak he's made to his persona of late is to embrace his reputation in the Twitterverse for being a troll. Much of the time it's self-serving, other times kind of enlightening (such as his somewhat odd column saying "only positive things"). But when it all comes together:
...it's disarmingly amusing, charming and warm.
In the scheme of things, that's progress.
I have to admit that I really liked this column: http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/01/18/belichick-red-minus-cigar/yfTrrjOTGTNU6j4AOXP87K/story.html
The possibility that Pagano and the Colts might add it to the disrespect pile exists but the media portion of that pile is already pretty big.
Ignoring that angle, there is a lot in that column that a Celtics/Patriots fan will really enjoy.
The possibility that Pagano and the Colts might add it to the disrespect pile exists but the media portion of that pile is already pretty big.
Ignoring that angle, there is a lot in that column that a Celtics/Patriots fan will really enjoy.
It's lovely how the media ignores how Edelman went to Disneyland the next day with Butler, and wasn't laying low in a dark room somewhere.
It's lovely that Chancellor wasn't fined (nor was their a flag thrown) for blatantly targeting the head.
I clicked on the Globe's "Red Sox Notebook" to read about Porcello's performance in today's game. The first paragraph was a snarky commentary on how Porcello is 'all the Red Sox have to show for Jon Lester.' Annoyed, I checked the byline to find that today's notebook was penned by the CHB. I had successfully avoided this hack for years, but today they got me.
The CHB trotted out one of the themes this morning in the Globe (I refuse to link it and increase clicks) that he will no doubt beat into the ground in print and on TV this Spring: That the Sox think they are the smartest guys in the room when they defy convention and go with no "ace."
As is typical, Dan goes for a nice zinger and ignores any possibility that this is all more nuanced than all that.
One, he assumes that Ben didn't try mightily to make a deal for an ace and was simply unwilling (and likely rightfully so) to pay the high prices that were being demanded. That the Sox public position was that they did not need an ace tells us nothing. A good GM doesn't betray any sense of desperation. But a believable answer is that guys like Amaro were insisting on Betts and/or Swihart, or were making other demands that were deemed to be beyond the pale. Especially since some of the possible targets were in the last year of their contract. And incidentally, we know for a virtual certainty that had the Sox traded Swihart, the CHB would be on a soap box about how they panicked and are now paying the price in light of Vazquez's injury.
Two, continuing anger over the failed Lester effort is likely underlying this. Dan conveniently ignores that it takes two to tango and that Lester cut off negotiations with the Sox in ST and then ended up taking a deal that is very rich. All the power to him but it's not as if the Red Sox could have just snapped a finger. Sure, some will say that the original low ball offer is what caused all of this, but I still don't believe that Lester's experienced agents could have been remotely surprised by an opening position that was on the very low side. That Jon cut off discussions suggests to me that he reacted overly emotionally or that he was never serious about signing in ST and used the opening offer as a pretense. I am not trying to re-open the Lester debate; my point is that the CHB's implication is that not trading for an ace and not having Lester is ALL on the Sox, when there are other reasonable ways to look at both.
Three, he ignores that it's still March. If it becomes clear when they actually start playing games that the no ace experiment isn't working -- because they all look like 3s at best or for some other reason -- it's not as if this team doesn't have the resources (financial and prospects) to make a deal during the season. Ben can agree that it's better in theory to have an ace but not want to press that button (and give up valuable prospects) unless and until he has to.
Ironically, I agree that Ben is taking a pretty big risk here and would have liked to have seen him acquire one of the potential targets already. But I just covered three reasons why the failure to have Lester or another "ace" is not as simple as having decided that you just re-invented baseball.
Last: I know, I know, some will say "why even read this turkey?" But this is a thread about him and I fall victim to reading some of his columns....
As is typical, Dan goes for a nice zinger and ignores any possibility that this is all more nuanced than all that.
One, he assumes that Ben didn't try mightily to make a deal for an ace and was simply unwilling (and likely rightfully so) to pay the high prices that were being demanded. That the Sox public position was that they did not need an ace tells us nothing. A good GM doesn't betray any sense of desperation. But a believable answer is that guys like Amaro were insisting on Betts and/or Swihart, or were making other demands that were deemed to be beyond the pale. Especially since some of the possible targets were in the last year of their contract. And incidentally, we know for a virtual certainty that had the Sox traded Swihart, the CHB would be on a soap box about how they panicked and are now paying the price in light of Vazquez's injury.
Two, continuing anger over the failed Lester effort is likely underlying this. Dan conveniently ignores that it takes two to tango and that Lester cut off negotiations with the Sox in ST and then ended up taking a deal that is very rich. All the power to him but it's not as if the Red Sox could have just snapped a finger. Sure, some will say that the original low ball offer is what caused all of this, but I still don't believe that Lester's experienced agents could have been remotely surprised by an opening position that was on the very low side. That Jon cut off discussions suggests to me that he reacted overly emotionally or that he was never serious about signing in ST and used the opening offer as a pretense. I am not trying to re-open the Lester debate; my point is that the CHB's implication is that not trading for an ace and not having Lester is ALL on the Sox, when there are other reasonable ways to look at both.
Three, he ignores that it's still March. If it becomes clear when they actually start playing games that the no ace experiment isn't working -- because they all look like 3s at best or for some other reason -- it's not as if this team doesn't have the resources (financial and prospects) to make a deal during the season. Ben can agree that it's better in theory to have an ace but not want to press that button (and give up valuable prospects) unless and until he has to.
Ironically, I agree that Ben is taking a pretty big risk here and would have liked to have seen him acquire one of the potential targets already. But I just covered three reasons why the failure to have Lester or another "ace" is not as simple as having decided that you just re-invented baseball.
Last: I know, I know, some will say "why even read this turkey?" But this is a thread about him and I fall victim to reading some of his columns....
The point of my post wasn't whether Dan's (or my) concerns about not having an ace -- however you define that -- are well founded. And the point wasn't how you define an ace.
The point I was trying to make is that Dan foolishly has decided that the Red Sox failure to retain Lester or obtain someone who many would view as an ace is evidence that they think that they are smarter than everyone else. And that he is going to hammer home that theme until our eyes cross and ears bleed.
Now, true, one could argue that the fact that Dan thinks the Sox need a so-called ace, or that he thinks they should go to extremes to get one even before we see how things play out this season, is also worth ridiculing. Fair enough.
For what it's worth, I don't think the term "ace" needs a lot of refinement. To me, it's someone who is clearly the best starter (or one of two starters on generally the same level) on his team and who the manager should be extremely confident in sending out to the mound in a "win or go home" game. I'm sure that there are better ways to describe what it is and that the term "ace" itself isn't at all perfect. I also think that most (though not all) playoff and championship teams end up having one or more of whatever it exactly is. The 04 Sox had Pedro and Schill. The 07 Sox had Beckett. The 13 Sox had Lester. Not that they all were the same by any means. But I think that they had a One or an Ace or a Staff Leader was key in those seasons, and I am not confident that any of the current five (or five plus the guys next in line) will become someone like that. I hope that I am wrong.
The point I was trying to make is that Dan foolishly has decided that the Red Sox failure to retain Lester or obtain someone who many would view as an ace is evidence that they think that they are smarter than everyone else. And that he is going to hammer home that theme until our eyes cross and ears bleed.
Now, true, one could argue that the fact that Dan thinks the Sox need a so-called ace, or that he thinks they should go to extremes to get one even before we see how things play out this season, is also worth ridiculing. Fair enough.
For what it's worth, I don't think the term "ace" needs a lot of refinement. To me, it's someone who is clearly the best starter (or one of two starters on generally the same level) on his team and who the manager should be extremely confident in sending out to the mound in a "win or go home" game. I'm sure that there are better ways to describe what it is and that the term "ace" itself isn't at all perfect. I also think that most (though not all) playoff and championship teams end up having one or more of whatever it exactly is. The 04 Sox had Pedro and Schill. The 07 Sox had Beckett. The 13 Sox had Lester. Not that they all were the same by any means. But I think that they had a One or an Ace or a Staff Leader was key in those seasons, and I am not confident that any of the current five (or five plus the guys next in line) will become someone like that. I hope that I am wrong.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/04/06/for-day-anyway-red-sox-plan-worked-perfectly/P6fWmHq7phUDcIcwKLwycK/story.html
It's one of his trash pieces, but this article is why I hate him as a writer.
Hey douche why does it have to be the Boston Media v The Team ? Why can't he just be like "well damn it looked good" instead of "well we(the media) looked bad here and everything came up roses for the FO and team, BUT we, the media, will probably still be right just look at Theo's failure.
Ugg it's time to put away the quill when you can't just enjoy this Opening day without the us v them narrative ( which by the way is an insane way to cover a baseball team and has to be one of the reasons why Pedro and Ortiz and other openly detest him.)
It's one of his trash pieces, but this article is why I hate him as a writer.
Hey douche why does it have to be the Boston Media v The Team ? Why can't he just be like "well damn it looked good" instead of "well we(the media) looked bad here and everything came up roses for the FO and team, BUT we, the media, will probably still be right just look at Theo's failure.
Ugg it's time to put away the quill when you can't just enjoy this Opening day without the us v them narrative ( which by the way is an insane way to cover a baseball team and has to be one of the reasons why Pedro and Ortiz and other openly detest him.)
Even in a column when he's not on in full on douche mode (and I'm referring to the one in today's Globe), the CHB can't resist pushing his little agenda.
Anyone with the misfortune of or bad judgment shown by reading this miserable puke for years knows that the ordering of Gordon and LL was not by accident and rather was done to further the point Dan made several weeks ago that Gordon now outranks Larry in the Sox hierarchy.
When challenged on that, Dan brought the one bit of evidence he had: The placement of their names on the masthead.
Crack investigative reporting at its finest.
And Dan being Dan.
Anyone with the misfortune of or bad judgment shown by reading this miserable puke for years knows that the ordering of Gordon and LL was not by accident and rather was done to further the point Dan made several weeks ago that Gordon now outranks Larry in the Sox hierarchy.
When challenged on that, Dan brought the one bit of evidence he had: The placement of their names on the masthead.
Crack investigative reporting at its finest.
And Dan being Dan.
Because it's just one more example of Dan picking a theme (and a scab) and just continuing to make his point in column after column, even when it's specious and has no apparent basis.John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
Seemingly every Pats column this past season included the CHB's pet reference to the owners' high chairs at the games. For some reason, Dan was amused by that, thinks he is making some sort of point by invoking it, and tucked it in to his work repeatedly.
Here he comes up with a theory, gets challenged on it, has really no basis other than something trivial and likely meaningless, and yet persists with his agenda. It's just so him.
And, at bottom, I think it's the pettiness of what he's doing that really annoys me. My perception is that Dan knows that he has nothing other than intuition (or nothing that he's willing to say in print), and yet he will continue to make his point, however clumsily.
TheoShmeo said:
You missed another layer of snark in that same paragraph (see bolded). He's riffing on the time John Henry went on Felger and Mazz and kept slapping the back of his hand into his palm, saying "Larry. *slap* Lucchino. *slap* Runs. *slap* The Red Sox! *slap*" So he's actually antagonizing his own boss, which I find amusing.
I love Dan Shaughnessy. He is a master troll, on a da Vinci-like level. I look up to his greatness.
TheoShmeo said:
Dan's daughter played softball at BU when I was there. I only knew her casually, but was better friends with some of her teammates who had been to the Shaughnessy house. Apparently, he repeatedly allowed his daughter's friends to add lines to his columns that were just collections of random thoughts or observations. Like, he'd leave his computer open with a half-written draft up and say - hey if you have an idea, just write it down and I'll make sure it gets printed. I don't think he takes this stuff very seriously.
Marciano490 said:
Seriously? I find that kind of endearing.
As you can probably tell, I like Shaughnessy a bit more than your average SoSHer. Since the Sox won in 2004, he's powerless and I think that there are certain columns where he can really turn it on and be a great writer. But I don't understand why one would read him if one truly hates him*.
* And I'm saying this as a person who reads Nick Cafardo's bullshit every, single Sunday. I get it. But I've pretty much stopped reading King and Simmons because I find them annoying.
I wish to God one of those kids typed this in: Hey, everybody. I'm a stupid moron with an ugly face and a big butt and my butt smells, and I like to kiss my own butt.
Marciano490 said:
In "The Kingdom and the Power", Gay Talese related the story of young reporter working the late shift and taking scores of high school basketball games. His job was to assemble the rudimentary type box score -- FG-FT-PTS. He added his own last name to one obscure team in an obscure game. He was in Sulzberger Sr's office within a day or 2 and nearly fired. (been awhile since I read it; apologies if i didn;t nail it).
No, it was a very context appropriate reference. Dan is leaving himself open to a possible prankster much the same as Moe the Bartender was. It's an entirely sensible joke.Lose Remerswaal said:
