I know people here hate this guy, but in this column he happens to be right. I don't know how you could say differently...
My link
That's because you agree with the CHB's premises.I know people here hate this guy, but in this column he happens to be right. I don't know how you could say differently...
My link
This MFer must have one miserable goddam life. Is there anything, other than NY teams, that he likes???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.
He likes to stir the pot and get people talking about him. The best way to enjoy Shank is to ignore him.This MFer must have one miserable goddam life. Is there anything, other than NY teams, that he likes???
- 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.
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.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.
The problem is that Shank would be critical of the Sox no matter what happened. If they hired Sveumt he first week after the World Series, he would have been all over them for having the unexciting management team of "Cherington and Sveum" replacing the dynamic duo of "Theo and Tito". Had they got Matt Garza, CHB would have castigated ownership for holding Theo hostage for a ransom. And he trots out some of the same old tired arguments (John Henry's other ventures, in this case).
Thank you. Absolutely, 100% correct. He has an incredibly enviable position. No matter what transpires, he's critical. And if whatever moves are made by the teams he criticizes turn out well, he just merrily skips along without admitting he was wrong. It's the "Never Can Lose Club", with Borges, Felger, Mazz et al. Thery're incredibly phony assholes.
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.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.
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.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.
Fangraphs agrees.There are counter arguments to Dan's points.
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.
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".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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.2. I don't think labeling knee-jerk reactions (and the people who have them) silly is even remotely connected with whether those yahoos have a right to post such pavloivan drivel. Of course you can reply "Shaughnessey sucks" when he posts a new column. Knock yourself out. My long-standing (and repeated about once a quarter) opinion is that Dan is a great columnist because a columnist is paid to have people say "can you believe he wrote THAT?!" Dan holds up a mirror on this region better than anyone else, has for a long time. I think today's column mirrors a lot of the main board over the past three months. It's arguable...but that's his job, to create argument.
While I think everyone can agree that provoking incredulity is the primary hallmark of a great columnist, I think you are selling Shaughnessy a bit short here. It's his uncanny knack for consistently eliciting such responses as "I sure can believe he wrote that . . . again." that truly places him among the giants of his profession.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.
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.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?
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.Meanwhile, an increasingly uneven and cumbersome ownership group - ever concerned with image - confuses all with ever-changing explanations of ball club governance.
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).Let's start our weekly update with the state of non-compensation for Theo. What a joke this has become. Theo is ensconced in his office at Wrigley Field, laughing at the dopes in Boston who let him out of his contract before insisting on payback. And now there's nothing the Sox can do except wait for Uncle Bud to force the Cubs to send Boston some Single A outfielder who'll be waiting tables in a year or two.Why didn't the Sox hold out for Matt Garza before letting Theo go? The Cubs had to have Theo after all the hype. Now they have their man and the Sox have lost all leverage. The Sox are like a guy who "sells'' his house, and lets the new owner move in before closing. The played "seller'' has to go to court to evict, or make the new owner pay. It's a joke. Epstein had tremendous value and the Sox let him walk and now they are begging. Pathetic.
This is almost entirely smug assumption -that Henry doesn't care, that Werner is a flake.John Henry has gone underground since bursting into the SportsHub studios. It's pretty clear that pork bellies, Liverpool, and his new family have taken his attention away from the Red Sox. Meanwhile, Inspector Werner is now on the case looking for the next Heidi and more of that nifty, award-winning NESN programming. That leaves Larry Lucchino, "the man who runs the Red Sox.''
This 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.The Sox could have used some of Larry's urgency when Jonathan Papelbon was allowed to walk without receiving an offer.
It doesn't really matter how long it takes if the Sox wind up getting the right guy,
Why the misdirection?...What is happening at the top?
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.No one is saying Sveum is any great loss.
Hi-ooooh!Hits, runs, and errors? The offseason Sox take hits. People run from the Boston franchise. And the goofy owners make more errors than Julio Lugo in a day-night doubleheader.
http://mobile.boston.com/art/22/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2011/11/22/valentine_is_the_right_sox_fit/The only question that remains is … How did Valentine do with the soccer-lovin’, NASCAR-obsessed, sports-radio-listenin’, low-talkin’, absentee owner of the Red Sox? Hope Bobby V didn’t go all Sveum and spit tobacco juice into a Styrofoam cup during lunch.
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.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/
This is a joke, right?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.This is a joke, right?
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.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.
He is an aging, lazy, sloppy, angry, mean spirited prick. Boston's Tony Kornheiser.Even when he writes a "positive" column, Shank is a relentlessly miserable son of a bitch:
http://mobile.boston..._right_sox_fit/
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).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.
So forget all that, probably.You know what I hadn't realized until right now? For all we rip on CHB for being a muckraker, a sad sack, and a mouth-dumper who isn't happy unless he has something bad to say, he's mostly avoided getting involved in this lowest-common-denominator of a Red Sox disaster. It's exactly the sort of ditch I'd expect him to hop down and wallow in, and he's generally stayed above the fray. Then he goes and writes this article, which is really nice - even bordering on sweet at times.
We should probably give him some credit for that.
Edit - Referring to the piece on Theo, not Larry.
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.How many times did he write Lucas Oil "Can Boyd" Stadium (puke)
When there's Globe on Globe crime, everybody wins.Me: “Well, if it makes you feel any better, he’s our hockey writer.
Papi: “Well, [expletive] him.
What a stupid, pathetic effort.Regarding the bollixed Epstein compensation issue, Henry said, “If it’s a tough negotiation, both sides generally are a little unhappy with the way it worked. The Cubs probably aren’t happy with it. We probably aren’t happy with it. Given the amount of time that was spent on it, it probably was the appropriate result.
“I think there was a basic misunderstanding between [Cubs owner] Tom Ricketts and I when we first spoke about it. I really admire Tom Ricketts as an owner. We probably had a misunderstanding, at least as far as expectation. There was no real agreement. We probably had different expectations based on our first conversation.’’
Not the first time Henry’s inattentiveness has cost the Sox.
What about Liverpool, John? Have your attention and wallet moved across the Atlantic in the quest to battle Manchester United?
“I’m not actually here right now,’’ Henry joked. “If I were here . . . it’s about baseball. With us, every day is about baseball.
“We have other things . . . but virtually every day there’s something about baseball.
Is his eye still on the ball?
“I think more recently there’s been more to attend to,’’ he acknowledged, without referencing Liverpool, Fenway Rousch Racing, or LeBron James.
Daniel Bard is a two-pitch pitcher, easy to track (unless he’s throwing 100), and probably limited to 140 innings. How does that make him a serviceable starting pitcher?
Gonzalez is one sour dude. Almost Nomar-esque. Nobody likes a know-it-all.