I don't think he's a perfect fit, but Sean McAdam would be an upgrade(a significant one in my mind) over Mazz and he's already on the Sports Hub payroll.
Felger and Mazz - Creating False Naratives one day at a time
- Thread starter HomeBrew1901
- Start date
Sean is well informed on many things and doesn't toss out foolish opinions on the things he is not informed about. He is scrupulously fair and passionate when others are not.
Could Felger endure it when he pushes ones of his ridiculous hot buttons -- e.g., John Henry and Bob Kraft are "cheap"? -- and then McAdam then dismantles him on the issue? To his credit, Orway did endure it ("Oh Glen, stop it...!"). I'm doubtful about Felger.
Clicked it on this afternoon, heard Mazz doing his psuedo-tough guy routine about how the Red Sox really do have a $180m payroll (his point was?) and had to turn the station.
Too bad that Mazz is almost single-handedly ruining afternoon sports talk for me. I've heard he's a nice guy, but I fucking despise his radio shtick.
Too bad that Mazz is almost single-handedly ruining afternoon sports talk for me. I've heard he's a nice guy, but I fucking despise his radio shtick.
Undoubtedly, to side with Buck Showalter, who just left town tail between legs ("Theo's not so great; money covers a lot of mistakes.")
Of course, if Lester and Buchholz remain sidelined for much longer, Mazz will excoriate the RS for not increasing that payroll by another $30 MM by the trade deadline ("Henry is cheap.") Or, he'll fault Theo for not sending every significant prospect in the organization to Washington for Jordan Zimmerman, for example ("They overvalue their prospects!").
I had to shut it off when he started splooging over Jeter ("He does everything right", "If I were starting a team, he's one of the first 5-6 players I'd take, " etc ).
Trolling at its finest.
Trolling at its finest.
Could be worse, Gresh talked for an hour today about how once "jeter dove into the stands" everyone in Red Sox Nation respected him and finally realized that he was better than Nomar. I don't even know where to start with that argument.
I can't find it on youtube, don't remember if it was fair or not but he took about 4 steps before he even got to the stands after he had caught it
And Pokey Reese made a BETTER catch in the exact same game (If memory serves me correctly...maybe the night before?) that went largely ignored.
Turning Jeters catch and the juxtaposition of Garciaparra sitting on the bench (and then telling Francona he could pinch hit) into something other than a seminal moment with Sox fans IMO is revisionist history at best. I always considered that the beginning of the end for Garciaparra in Boston. At the very least it was HUGE deal at the time. HUGE.
It can't be both? Nomar can't have been a sulking dick at the time, triggering more serious trade talks, AND it's possible that Jeter didn't have to walk over a large bed of water to get the ball?
The game itself was a big juxtaposition of Jeter's all out effort to Nomar's no-longer-caring attitude, but nobody ever really questioned Jeter's effort before. The problem is people reminiscing about this play like he was running through concrete walls to get to a ball nobody else in the league would have made it to.
Before the play a large marjority of baseball fans, like myself, would have chosen Garciaparra over Jeter. After that? Well not so much, and we were proven right.
2003 was Nomar's last healthy season and he had a better year than Jeter in '03. You want to talk about revisionist history go right ahead but in 2003 Nomar was still better than Jeter, running catch or not.
And yes, he caught the ball on the field and then ran into the stands. I think someone here back in the EZBoard days said that it looked like a fat guy running down a hill, which it did. I'm glad we traded Nomar, but that was a clear case of a sports narrative being hatched out of pretty much nothing. We still had the better shortstop.
And yes, he caught the ball on the field and then ran into the stands. I think someone here back in the EZBoard days said that it looked like a fat guy running down a hill, which it did. I'm glad we traded Nomar, but that was a clear case of a sports narrative being hatched out of pretty much nothing. We still had the better shortstop.
But the catch had nothing to do with Nomar's decline. His body completely collapsed on him. That had been taking place all season long before that game.
Jeter's catch is probably the most overrated moment of his entire hall of fame career. Go watch it again, he caught the ball in fair territory and practically ran into the stands. Stupid and unnecessary and emblematic of his late-career fielding issues.
Mazz indirectly touching this off is too rich because Mazz was Nomar's defender in chief. Mazz has never really gotten over the fact that he torched the RS for dealing Nomar and was proven to be wrong.
The catch, of course, had nothing to do with the decline. My guess is that the (in)famous Sports Illustrated "Navy Seal" cover was emblematic of it.
The catch, of course, had nothing to do with the decline. My guess is that the (in)famous Sports Illustrated "Navy Seal" cover was emblematic of it.
But it's nothing more than a neat bow on top of an already-wrapped gift - Nomar had already been revealed to be a shell of his pre-'04 self by that point.
In fact, you're hawking the revisionist history, which is that that was some kind of 'turning point'. The decline of Nomar - and the deterioration of his relationship with the Red Sox - had started before that moment and was quite obvious to most. He rejected that 4/60, then was nearly traded in the '03 offseason, then bizarrely hurt his heel in spring training, etc. Let's say he pinch-hit in that situation (and that saga was merely a symptom of his then-longstanding, if not totally public, disillusionment with Red Sox management and the fanbase), and won the game. I'd say there's a 99% chance they make that same trade on July 31. Why? Because they traded him due to declining skills and constant injuries - his defense was awful by that point in his career, and defense was a serious problem for that team, which carried Nomar and Millar at SS and 1B up until that point.
We can quibble over whether it was perceived as a 'turning point' - which is no slam-dunk, IMO - but it most certainly was not a literal turning point; it was more like one of the last, talk-radio orgasmic bumps on a treacherous road.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
I've been saying that to anyone who would listen to me for years. No one remembers that but it was a better catch and no one sucked Pokey's dick for it like they have for Jeter since it happened.
I'm still waiting for Mazz to state literally one thing that an average Red Sox fan couldn't. I have no idea what makes him a specialist in any sport, let alone baseball. And he's not interesting like a good guest or funny like T&R or charismatic like Felger (who also actually has both good insight and inside information). Next time you listen, just take each sentence he says (for as long as you can do this) and ask yourself, was that worth anything? Could I, or anyone, have said that? Did that contain any insight I didn't know? Did that move the needle at all?
I had to turn it off immediately when I got in my car today and heard Mazz trashing the Sox for picking up Ortiz's extension.
"You pick up a $12 million extension, and now, at the end of this season, you're gonna sign him to a deal for something like 2 years, $25 mil, and at that point, you're looking at an investment of 3 years and 36, 37 mil for Ortiz, and for that same money, and an extra year, you could have kept Victor Martinez! They should have declined his option and signed him on the cheap last year".
A few points to this
1) I would be SHOCKED if Ortiz got 2/25 after this year. I'd be pretty healthily surprised if he got significantly more than 2/16 with an option for a 3rd.
2) It completely ignores the fact that the Red Sox decision to trade Kelley and Rizzo for Gonzalez instead of waiting out free agency may have been influenced by the knowledge that they had an extra mid first and supplementary pick coming from Detroit
3) It assumes a narrative that I highly doubt would have happened, which is "You decline his option, Ortiz takes it very well, and signs a very cheap contract to return to the Red Sox (the number I heard mentioned was 2 years, 8 mil)". I highly doubt that's how it plays out.
"You pick up a $12 million extension, and now, at the end of this season, you're gonna sign him to a deal for something like 2 years, $25 mil, and at that point, you're looking at an investment of 3 years and 36, 37 mil for Ortiz, and for that same money, and an extra year, you could have kept Victor Martinez! They should have declined his option and signed him on the cheap last year".
A few points to this
1) I would be SHOCKED if Ortiz got 2/25 after this year. I'd be pretty healthily surprised if he got significantly more than 2/16 with an option for a 3rd.
2) It completely ignores the fact that the Red Sox decision to trade Kelley and Rizzo for Gonzalez instead of waiting out free agency may have been influenced by the knowledge that they had an extra mid first and supplementary pick coming from Detroit
3) It assumes a narrative that I highly doubt would have happened, which is "You decline his option, Ortiz takes it very well, and signs a very cheap contract to return to the Red Sox (the number I heard mentioned was 2 years, 8 mil)". I highly doubt that's how it plays out.
Well put, and I think you'll be waiting a long, long time for that insight to come from his lips. They could do a lot better for the baseball hour (and the baseball-focused person with Felger, and hopefully eventually they do.
I love this show, and in general I'm a sports talk show fan, but when it comes to the dog days of summer I avoid it like the plague. There literally is nothing to talk about. Unless the Sox are 11 games back, the individual games, or even long stretches of games, are meaningless. The other stuff is pointless to talk about in July. I find its a perfect time to listen to music.
To be honest I feel for Mazz trying to find something interesting to talk about that the MASSES will enjoy these days. No one is talking about the Red Sox........at least no one that I'm coming in contact with in Boston.
To be honest I feel for Mazz trying to find something interesting to talk about that the MASSES will enjoy these days. No one is talking about the Red Sox........at least no one that I'm coming in contact with in Boston.
Yeah, and I think the usual summer doldrums are being exacerbated this year due to the recent adrenaline rush of the Bruins' postseason run. Once that was over, it was like, wow, that was great... now what the hell are we going to talk about?
This type of move is the worst kind of sports radio, and Mazz has mastered the art (although everyone uses the trick sometimes). It's getting all up in arms and trying to rile people up over something that hasn't even happened yet. Especially in baseball talk, Tony veers wildly between beating dead horses and creating hypothetical worst case scenarios from which he can conjure up bogeymen. He was ranting (in the 2 minutes I gave the show yesterday) about the fact that if the catchers stop hitting, and if Ortiz comes back to earth, and if Ellsbury slows down, then the lack of right field production could REALLY HURT THIS TEAM!
Well, it also ignores the risk management portion of having Ortiz on a single year deal where if he wasn't very good this year you would not have any commitment for 2012 and beyond. Basically the argument comes down to, "if the Red Sox had 20/20 foresight they could have made this decision" or, more accurate "I have a bunch of opinions and the ones I am right about I will harp on forever while the ones I am wrong about, even if I admit I am wrong, I don't really think about the disastrous effects those wrong decisions could have had."
I realize there are "clutch" issues but it also ignores that in the aggregate, Ortiz has been a better hitter than Martinez in 2011 and that simply subbing Ortiz out and Victor in would not have the Sox in the same place they are today.
It should also be noted that "they should have kept Victor" is the new "they should have signed Teixeira" for Mazz.
I realize there are "clutch" issues but it also ignores that in the aggregate, Ortiz has been a better hitter than Martinez in 2011 and that simply subbing Ortiz out and Victor in would not have the Sox in the same place they are today.
It should also be noted that "they should have kept Victor" is the new "they should have signed Teixeira" for Mazz.
The constant comments of Nomar Garciapoppup come directly to mind. I hated to see the decline and wished it turned out different but Jeter running 15 yards after catching a fair ball had nothing to do with it. As said above it wasn't even the best play that game. The kid in the hr derby made a better play 2 days ago.
Jeter deserves a lot of the honors etc. But that play does nothing for me.
His article in the Globe today was about this. Total crap. My favorite part is where he says Papelbon has been as valuable, or even more valuable!, than Ortiz. Whoever questioned why this guy is even a sports writer at all really just hit it on the head. No research, no reality, nothing that makes him interesting enough to print garbage. At least Shank is truly hateable. This guy is just vanilla flavored shit.
The "Garciapopup" comments originated the previous year, in September and October, when Nomar's ability to hit completely and mysteriously disappeared overnight (.170/.248/.351/.599 in September 2003 and .265/.333/.327/.660 in the postseason after having a typically fine Nomar season before that point).
Maybe he finally noticed that the Red Sox would have been better in 2009 with Teixeira, but worse in 2010 and 2011. For that matter, right now the Victor Martinez transaction I regret is the one that brought him to Boston at all.
Yes, he is pulling Teixeira after 7; Victor is in for the 8th, with Paps warming in the pen to close the game out.
The triumph of F&M over The Big Show -- and it now appears to be definitive based on the recent book -- is an illustration of the principle that the more things change, the more they remain the same. The medium is performance art, period; there is no there there.
Consider that Felger covered the Pats for a decade as a beat writer, and Mazz the Sox in the same capacity for how long? You reasonably expect better. Hell, there is enough low hanging fruit on both teams to mount reasonable criticisms. But these guys contort themselves to repeat the same mantra -- Theo and BB are arrogant, Henry and Kraft cheap.
What is he supposed to talk about yesterday?
The MLB All-Star break drags on. There are no games to speak about.
The NFL is in a lockout.
The NBA is in a lockout.
The NHL is its off-season and nothing is really happening.
No one cares about college sports or tennis.
The only two things to speak of are the British Open (without Tiger Woods) and the Women's World Cup. That's literally it.
I'm not say that Mazz is great, because I heard him for about an hour and a half on Wednesday and I got so bored I found some CDs that I burnt in 2000 (no joke) and listened to them trying to figure out why the fuck I would burn a bunch of Limp Bizkit songs on a CD. Massarotti is a bit more knowledgeable than most talk show hosts (he certainly knows more than Toucher, Rich, Gresh and Zolak -- but not as much as Felger and DA) and he does a decent job when he's with Felger. But he can't talk for five straight hours by himself. He's just not a lead guy.
If I had to compare him to a pitcher, he's Bronson Arroyo. Arroyo is good if he's your three or four guy, but he's not a number one. That's Mazz.
Having said that, crabbing that he's talking about stupid shit in the middle of July is lame. There is nothing but stupid shit in the middle of July.
These radio threads are getting increasingly "Wow this segment sucked today" or "Why are they talking about "x"?"
I'd like to see some agendas from people here for 20 hrs per week of sports talk, that's interesting, funny, highly intellectual while appealing to stat geeks and common fans when there's very little going on.
This entire forum can be summed up in three concepts:
1. Toucher and Rich and Joe Poz are great
2. Everybody else sucks
3. Especially Simmons
Somebody please help me understand this Tony Mazz article:
http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists/massarotti/2011/07/in_second_halves_sox_have_had.html?p1=Well_Sports_links
He starts off with this thought:
>>>This year, the Red Sox might be able to get away with finishing second again and suffer no major penalty.>>>
Then he completely contradicts his opening:
>>>This year, if the Red Sox lose out to the Yankees in the second half, the cost would be relatively minimal. Instead of facing Detroit or, say, Cleveland in the first round, the Sox would face Texas as the wild card team. That is a big difference.>>>
Isn't he even contradicting himself within the above sentences?
What does NEXT season have to do with the second half of THIS season? Aren't we playing *this* season with *this* season's rules? And haven't these rules allowed the WC to advance to the WS at a surprisingly high rate?
http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists/massarotti/2011/07/in_second_halves_sox_have_had.html?p1=Well_Sports_links
He starts off with this thought:
>>>This year, the Red Sox might be able to get away with finishing second again and suffer no major penalty.>>>
Then he completely contradicts his opening:
>>>This year, if the Red Sox lose out to the Yankees in the second half, the cost would be relatively minimal. Instead of facing Detroit or, say, Cleveland in the first round, the Sox would face Texas as the wild card team. That is a big difference.>>>
Isn't he even contradicting himself within the above sentences?
What does NEXT season have to do with the second half of THIS season? Aren't we playing *this* season with *this* season's rules? And haven't these rules allowed the WC to advance to the WS at a surprisingly high rate?
Here's your void filler --
It's fun to whine like a bitch about the Pats' failing to meet admittedly "absurdly high" expectations, especially when I help set them absurdly high:
http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists/massarotti/2011/07/as_football_returns_patriots_l.html
No trophy since January 2005, lagging all the other pro teams in the city. The end of the BB/Brady era. OMG.
The NFL free agency period will dovetail nicely with mlb's trading deadline for general pissing and moaning.
The cherry on the sundae is that Tim Tebow -- Felger's dream Brady "gooser" -- reportedly has been handed the starting job in Denver. "We ought to watch him Tony ... he bears watching closely as Tom enters the twilight of his career.
It's fun to whine like a bitch about the Pats' failing to meet admittedly "absurdly high" expectations, especially when I help set them absurdly high:
http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists/massarotti/2011/07/as_football_returns_patriots_l.html
No trophy since January 2005, lagging all the other pro teams in the city. The end of the BB/Brady era. OMG.
The NFL free agency period will dovetail nicely with mlb's trading deadline for general pissing and moaning.
The cherry on the sundae is that Tim Tebow -- Felger's dream Brady "gooser" -- reportedly has been handed the starting job in Denver. "We ought to watch him Tony ... he bears watching closely as Tom enters the twilight of his career.
Ahh...Felger and Mazz are back to questioning the Krafts and the way the Patriots do business. All feels right in the world.
And no, I don't really say that facetiously. This is what this show and to a lesser extent this station was built on. EEI is completely in the bag for the Krafts and all NFL owners. We needed a second voice in this town and that's been the mission statement of "Felger and Mazz" since day one.
Both viewpoints are extreme, and the right way to look at things probably falls somewhere in the middle. But we needed a counter-point to Ordway's "suit ass kissing" and Felger has brought that. It's arguably the biggest reason for the show's success, second to the attention paid to the Bruins.
And no, I don't really say that facetiously. This is what this show and to a lesser extent this station was built on. EEI is completely in the bag for the Krafts and all NFL owners. We needed a second voice in this town and that's been the mission statement of "Felger and Mazz" since day one.
Both viewpoints are extreme, and the right way to look at things probably falls somewhere in the middle. But we needed a counter-point to Ordway's "suit ass kissing" and Felger has brought that. It's arguably the biggest reason for the show's success, second to the attention paid to the Bruins.
I actually think Felger has been rather objective so far today. he's acknowledged that the patriots "way" of taking FA's to the limit has worked in the past and usually works, it just hasn't this time. I also get the feeling that the "news" that mankins did not apparently ask for $10 million as well, altered Felger's opening comments. I feel like he would have been pretty hard on that specific tactic... just my opinion.
... but, of course. The irony is that although there have been several occasions when the Pats could have been, and were, criticized for playing hardball, this is not one of them. Not if the last published reports of the offer the Pats made to Mankins are to be believed.
And both need to be reminded, by the way, that Felger's prediction of "this isn't going to end well" with Brady totally went up in flames. As we sit here today, Brady is signed and Manning is not. But let us not let those stubborn things -- facts -- get in the way.
As I noted, this is going to dovetail nicely with a full scale attack on the RS way of doing business as we approach the MLB trading deadline.
This said, I'd pay to see Orway turn blue and keel over if Mankins if granted FA as the price of getting the deal done.
But not THE middle. Or really all that close to it.
So long as the Patriots continue to be, like, the premiere franchise (at least a top 5) the only way for the Felgers of the world to claim the answer is 'somewhere in the middle' - implying a parity in the viewpoints that does not actually exist - is to move the goalposts. I'm not defending Ordway or the Smerlas/DeOssie jocksniffers at 'EEI, believe me - they're even more boorish than Felger and his ilk.
I also find it amusing how my strongest criticisms of the Patriots are never echoed by Felger, who simply goes for the juicy story over the more systemic issues with the team.
DC is right, too - they pick Mankins as their example of the Pats' hardball tactics, when they, well, didn't play hardball. If you want to make this point, throw Asante Samuel out there.
EDIT - As a complete aside: I do wonder if the small army of people who enjoy creating or amplifying flaws in the Pats - and the Sox, for that matter - are even getting any enjoyment out of this wonderful era in their histories. I mean, how will these people react when the team really isn't that good anymore? I don't understand why hyperbole is necessary, and I never will - the Pats aren't perfect, and their flaws off and on the field are right there for all to see. But, yes, let us continue to bludgeon the Moss/Mankins/Brady soap opera stories of the world, which rely on distortion/misinformation, unreliable media reports, and outright speculation.
Of course it's sensationalistic...it's sports talk. "Down the middle" is Mut and Merloni, and they rate about as well as a college radio show.
Felger and Mazz provide a complete counter to what you hear on "The Big Show." Some of it is infuriating, especially their outrageous "criticisms" about the Red Sox being cheap, but it's a different voice and one that has worked well. It's the show's mission statement.
Felger and Mazz provide a complete counter to what you hear on "The Big Show." Some of it is infuriating, especially their outrageous "criticisms" about the Red Sox being cheap, but it's a different voice and one that has worked well. It's the show's mission statement.
They will be much happier then because their jobs will be easier. Negativity sells.
Do they get enjoyment? I've seen snippets here and there. I recall Ron Borges saying he shared an "unprofessional moment " with the late Will McDonough when the Pats won their first Super Bowl -- they high fived in the press box. This after Borges predicted they would lose the game by 70-something points and score none themselves.
The fact is that F & M honor their 'mission statement" in style but flunk it in substance. You certainly can go negative on these teams, but it requires some thought and work. Beat writers both for a very long time with the teams in question, these two refuse to do the work. The are lazy.
Felger was about 75% of the way through a lucid Red Sox comment but couldn't get his mind all of the way there. Which sucks.
He kept saying the Red Sox need to hold onto their prospects because they are necessary to build a championship team. This is probably true. Mostly because when you're paying Lester and Buchholz and Pedroia and Youkilis and Ellsbury below market money for all star performances, it gives you the flexibility to pay people like Carl Crawford and Adrian Gonzalez to get over the hump.
Felgie kept saying - if you trade all of your prospect, you're like the Mets...well, maybe but because you can't acquire enough talent. Not because a free agent magically doesn't try as hard as a home grown prospect.
2004 Red Sox - catcher was traded for, 1B was a FA, 2B was a FA, SS was traded for, 3B was a FA, LF a FA, CF a FA, RF an actual homegrown prospect. SP1 traded for, SP2 a FA, SP3 traded for (DLowe), SP4 a ML FA (Arroyo), SP5 ML FA (Wake). Bullpen all FA except Embree who was traded for.
I actually think he has a great mind, it's just not deep enough to get through everything and articulate it thoroughly.
He kept saying the Red Sox need to hold onto their prospects because they are necessary to build a championship team. This is probably true. Mostly because when you're paying Lester and Buchholz and Pedroia and Youkilis and Ellsbury below market money for all star performances, it gives you the flexibility to pay people like Carl Crawford and Adrian Gonzalez to get over the hump.
Felgie kept saying - if you trade all of your prospect, you're like the Mets...well, maybe but because you can't acquire enough talent. Not because a free agent magically doesn't try as hard as a home grown prospect.
2004 Red Sox - catcher was traded for, 1B was a FA, 2B was a FA, SS was traded for, 3B was a FA, LF a FA, CF a FA, RF an actual homegrown prospect. SP1 traded for, SP2 a FA, SP3 traded for (DLowe), SP4 a ML FA (Arroyo), SP5 ML FA (Wake). Bullpen all FA except Embree who was traded for.
I actually think he has a great mind, it's just not deep enough to get through everything and articulate it thoroughly.
Well damn, you made me do it! I stopped listening to Mazz for health reasons... But, I read your post and turned on Felger and Mazz to catch some of Felger's thinking... and, instead, I caught some of Tony Mazz' inane comments:
Felger noted that the Sox are now up by 8 in the wild card over TB/LAA, and that they were just too good to blow that kind of lead. (He didn't even bother to add the injury qualifier) But the Mazz opined that the only way the Sox could blow it was if they got lazy and pointed to their 2-10 start and their two 4 game losing streaks against inferior teams.
I can't understand how a former baseball beat reporter doesn't grasp the concept of streaks -- good and bad -- in baseball. How even a great team can get swept by a poor team in any given series, for a variety of reasons ... if the poor team has the top of it's rotation matched vs the bottom of the good team's rotation, or if the poor team just gets the lion's share of the lucky bounces and breaks that happen so many times in every game. Over the course of 162 games, it all evens out and better talent and depth triumphs, but game to game, even week to week, there are huge swings. How can Massarotti not grasp that point? Baseball is not football. In football great teams play .850 ball and go 14-2, but in baseball, great teams play .650 ball about once a decade.
If Weiland and Miller pitch like crap the next two games, and the Sox lose both games by scores of 8-6 and 7-5, Massarotti will offer that as exhibits A & B as to how the Sox are prone to getting lazy and losing to much weaker teams.
How is this idiot on the air?
I heard him say that too and I was a bit shocked that he would say something so stupid.
But as he was making his point he seemed to realize how dumb it sounded. He went through it all, but not quite as vigorously as he should have. It reminded me of something Bill Simmons said about appearing on the radio, basically once you say something on the air you have to defend it to the death because there is no delete key. Even if you know it's wrong and dumb, you just have to keep moving. Otherwise you sound like you have no clue at all.
Great point JMOH and one I think explains just about all of Tony's windmills, especially Texeira and his stance on draft picks. There is no real difference between the way the show treats the "Nile is a river in South America" and "Texeira should have been signed" at this point.
The difference between written Tony and spoken Tony is enormous. Written Tony makes carefully considered and researched points. Spoken Tony blurts out things like the "lazy team" thing, realizes what he said [almost] audibly sighs and then launches into a diatribe that is sort of about the ridiculous statement but mostly is pointless flailing. And then the go to break and Mike invariably says, "Tony tell them what you said off air" and the Tony makes a more reasonable point and tries to backpedal from his lunacy.
Even when I vehemently disagree with Tony (or Felger) I prefer listening to them because there are, on average, at least 4 or 5 provocative thoughts in each show. Contrast that to the fence-sitters on WEEI, who seem to offer a new, fresh opinion once a month.
Tony's gotten better in the past two years. He is still far too lazy (uh, what does he watch if he didn't see the ASG, the Sox or the Women's World Cup?) and prone to making lazy arguments (i.e. cheap Sox) but he's also gotten much, much more thick-skinned and is a fairly funny guy when set up properly.
The difference between written Tony and spoken Tony is enormous. Written Tony makes carefully considered and researched points. Spoken Tony blurts out things like the "lazy team" thing, realizes what he said [almost] audibly sighs and then launches into a diatribe that is sort of about the ridiculous statement but mostly is pointless flailing. And then the go to break and Mike invariably says, "Tony tell them what you said off air" and the Tony makes a more reasonable point and tries to backpedal from his lunacy.
Even when I vehemently disagree with Tony (or Felger) I prefer listening to them because there are, on average, at least 4 or 5 provocative thoughts in each show. Contrast that to the fence-sitters on WEEI, who seem to offer a new, fresh opinion once a month.
Tony's gotten better in the past two years. He is still far too lazy (uh, what does he watch if he didn't see the ASG, the Sox or the Women's World Cup?) and prone to making lazy arguments (i.e. cheap Sox) but he's also gotten much, much more thick-skinned and is a fairly funny guy when set up properly.
I find written Tony little better; perhaps it's a question of the sample of his columns one has read.