Dan Shaughnessy: Taking a dump in your mouth one column at a time
- Thread starter weeba
- Start date
i would say that its mostly deceitful garbage. stringing together his usual entertaining narrative that falls apart on closer examination.
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.
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.
Its his schtick, its what he does.
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.
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???
He likes to stir the pot and get people talking about him. The best way to enjoy Shank is to ignore him.
Bravo, this point needs extra plaudits. Anyone remember the CHB mocking Kraft over the rumor that Kraft had a stopwatch at pats workouts?
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.
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).
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.
I mean I hate Shank, but there are some good points in there.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fangraphs agrees.
http://www.fangraphs.com/not/index.php/fallacies-of-which-dan-shaughnessy-is-guilty/
Correct, and it is healthy to have someone challenge the front office, shit stirrer or not.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
This is almost entirely smug assumption -that Henry doesn't care, that Werner is a flake.
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:
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.
Hi-ooooh!
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.
Even when he writes a "positive" column, Shank is a relentlessly miserable son of a bitch:
http://mobile.boston.com/art/22/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2011/11/22/valentine_is_the_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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
Seeking input from someone who might have a perspective on one of the candidates? Horrors!
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.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/brookline/features/x405442461/Son-of-sports-columnist-allegedly-kicked-police-during-arrest#axzz1gRsS1WGQ
Clearly Dan's commitment to truth-seeking and hard-hitting analysis is coming at the expense of his parenting.
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.
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.
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.
From today's column:
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.bostonglobe.com/sports/2012/02/26/chatter-from-red-sox-owner-henry-was-minimal/JWeQjSNtJAnCLcAb6aPJVJ/story.html
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.bostonglobe.com/sports/2012/02/26/chatter-from-red-sox-owner-henry-was-minimal/JWeQjSNtJAnCLcAb6aPJVJ/story.html
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):
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.
http://www.boston.co...the_sunny_side/
Some of his gems (among others):
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.
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.
