Protecting the Shields -- The Nick Cafardo Thread
- Thread starter MyDaughterLovesTomGordon
- Start date
- Status
Himmler would have worked better, they are both trying to hang Nick.
Even though it's a baseball column, was shocked that Nick refrained from mentioning this on Sunday.
I don't think he counts getting a starter's ass out of there a batter too soon rather than a batter too late...like he did yesterday.
That was a big run and even the radio guys were saying that Buchholz was cooked.
I took the time to email Cafardo about the Drew not playing thing and this is what he wrote back to me:
Cafardo said:
BTW, his boy Johnny Damon is hitting .158 now, with his first HR this weekend. That's working out nice for Cleveland
'All-around good guy' Jason Bay is doing about the same. When he plays.
What you guys don't understand is that Bay and Damon bring untold amounts of leadership and presence to a team as well as anonymous quotes to a certain scribe at the Globe -- for when people in Boston actually give a shit about hearing what's going on in the Indians and Mets clubhouses.
The different looks of Nick Cafardo...
A Pavlovian call for an article.
A Pavlovian call for an article.
http://www.boston.co...n_with_red_sox/
Nick has this whole paragraph archived about Jamie Moyer, where the only thing he ever has to do is fill in the blank for "The Oldest Player/Pitcher to ever ________________", and plug in the date and teams. It's a great space eater for the Sunday Notes.
99% of the time I just think Nick is a lazy, insecure, hopeless doofus. The other 1% of the time he's irritating.
In an article about fans showing up late, where his reporting effort constitutes copying and pasting Tweets, he takes another potshot at Ellsbury.
Does he think he's playing amateur Jedi Mind Tricks on Ellsbury and Scott Boras to "will" him back into the lineup? (I have an image of Nick as the YouTube Star Wars kid). Does he believe he's doing the Sox FO a favor by inferring Ellsbury is a malingerer?
This type of stuff is just so unnecessary.
/end of useless rant
In an article about fans showing up late, where his reporting effort constitutes copying and pasting Tweets, he takes another potshot at Ellsbury.
http://www.boston.co...shionably_late/
Does he think he's playing amateur Jedi Mind Tricks on Ellsbury and Scott Boras to "will" him back into the lineup? (I have an image of Nick as the YouTube Star Wars kid). Does he believe he's doing the Sox FO a favor by inferring Ellsbury is a malingerer?
This type of stuff is just so unnecessary.
/end of useless rant
I don't think that's a shot at Ellsbury, I think that's a shot at the Boston fans. What he's saying is that Boston fans are now going to games later because one of their stars, the leadoff hitter Jacoby Ellsbury, isn't in the lineup so thus they don't have to be in their seats first thing.
At least that's what it sounds like to me.
However, what he seems to be missing is that the top of the first has already ended so Ellsbury wouldn't be the first Red Sox player that they saw in action that night. It would be the day's starting Boston pitcher. It's a completely illogical statement to make, BTW. But that's pretty much par for the course with Nick Cafardo.
At least that's what it sounds like to me.
However, what he seems to be missing is that the top of the first has already ended so Ellsbury wouldn't be the first Red Sox player that they saw in action that night. It would be the day's starting Boston pitcher. It's a completely illogical statement to make, BTW. But that's pretty much par for the course with Nick Cafardo.
Well, today's classic non-sequitur was his On Baseball article about how the Sox need to acquire another starting pitcher (an argument that certainly has merit), followed by his Notes column that talks up acquring Upton from the Dbacks for, you guessed it, a starting pitcher (Buch).
Hey, Nick blows, but this isn't exactly advocating a trade of a starter:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2012/06/10/managers-top-major-league-baseball/RYnpY8jOFolTyogSKTdlsJ/story.html
His thesis is that the DBacks aren't looking for a starter. I agree, it's superfluous to even mention Clay, since he a trade for a starter isn't happening in his view. But I don't see the above as him pushing the Sox to move a starter.
Separately, Nick is back to beating the drum beat for Jose Iglesias.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2012/06/10/matsuzaka-return-enough-bolster-sox-pitching/7HKSTeYcDyLTmjur5kRELJ/story.html
Nicky forgets that there's no such thing as a Designated Fielder and that he can't simply compare Aviles and Iglesias without taking into account the offensive side of the game.
Bobby Valentine is doing the fourth-best job in the majors at manager, according to Nick. An alternative viewpoint: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/standings/
Enjoyed the Kapstein shout-out.
Enjoyed the Kapstein shout-out.
At least it now seems like his readers are starting to take him to task in his "Ask Nick" section...
Why do you feel the need to give smart-aleck answers? Like the one about Middlebrooks playing second. You answer because he's a third baseman. Or your remark to a question about Ortiz bunting. In any profession including pro baseball you need to be versatile, continue learning and improving yourself to remain competitive. I see nothing wrong with Ortiz learning to bunt (which he could have mastered years ago) or Middlebrooks giving short or second a try. These guys are athletically gifted and paid very well to boot. Heck, Adrian Gonzalez is holding his own in right. Dial that pitching machine up to 90 and have Ortiz bunt 50 times every day. If he starts putting bunts down third imagine what his average would be. Middlebrooks could spend time at short or second before every game. so enough with the smart-aleck answers and stop giving the guys a pass.
-- Jeff, Fogelsville, Pennsylvania
OK Jeff, I’ll get the bunting machine ready for Ortiz. That’s what I want my biggest slugger to do, bunt. I’m sure the opposition would love it. As I answered in a previous question, Middlebrooks did take grounders at short and second as an emergency when Pedroia got hurt. Hope that satisfies you.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2012/06/ask_nick_is_sen.html
Why do you feel the need to give smart-aleck answers? Like the one about Middlebrooks playing second. You answer because he's a third baseman. Or your remark to a question about Ortiz bunting. In any profession including pro baseball you need to be versatile, continue learning and improving yourself to remain competitive. I see nothing wrong with Ortiz learning to bunt (which he could have mastered years ago) or Middlebrooks giving short or second a try. These guys are athletically gifted and paid very well to boot. Heck, Adrian Gonzalez is holding his own in right. Dial that pitching machine up to 90 and have Ortiz bunt 50 times every day. If he starts putting bunts down third imagine what his average would be. Middlebrooks could spend time at short or second before every game. so enough with the smart-aleck answers and stop giving the guys a pass.
-- Jeff, Fogelsville, Pennsylvania
OK Jeff, I’ll get the bunting machine ready for Ortiz. That’s what I want my biggest slugger to do, bunt. I’m sure the opposition would love it. As I answered in a previous question, Middlebrooks did take grounders at short and second as an emergency when Pedroia got hurt. Hope that satisfies you.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2012/06/ask_nick_is_sen.html
That's not exactly taking Cafardo to task for his real shortcomings, though. It IS stupid and deserving of mockery to suggest that the team's best slugger be bunting more than once in a blue moon. And it is stupid to expect a rookie to be able to sufficiently handle a position he hasn't played in years, if ever, in anything other than a dire emergency situation (like if Punto or Aviles were hurt while Pedroia was down).
"Ask Nick" is just terrible. Sometimes the questions are good and often they're not-so-good but in any case, Cafardo expends a minimal amount of effort, adds no real insight or analysis, and basically half-asses the whole thing. "Ask Nick" makes a JoeChat seem insightful. I was just happy to see him criticized by a reader in print.
Why is Scott Atchison so effective? He doesn't have blazing speed nor mystifying breaking stuff. It is such an amazing story.
-- Jack, Brookline
Strike-thrower. That’s the key to good relief. He doesn’t hurt himself. He attacks hitters and has good location. Learned how to pitch.
Why is Scott Atchison so effective? He doesn't have blazing speed nor mystifying breaking stuff. It is such an amazing story.
-- Jack, Brookline
Strike-thrower. That’s the key to good relief. He doesn’t hurt himself. He attacks hitters and has good location. Learned how to pitch.
And this from the same column:
So when the Sox eventually do trade Youks, it will not be because he was "bait." It will be for some other reason.
Nick's failure to understand that Youks' performance impacts the return the Sox will get as opposed to their ultimate ability to move him is...classic Nick.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2012/06/13/sox-offense-needs-makeover/0wPjwerGtnw79uKgc4kuGI/story.html
So when the Sox eventually do trade Youks, it will not be because he was "bait." It will be for some other reason.
Nick's failure to understand that Youks' performance impacts the return the Sox will get as opposed to their ultimate ability to move him is...classic Nick.
Nicky's seething hatred of Jacoby Ellsbury is alive and well.
Nicky again used the "we" construct about a zillion times and didn't tell us why seeking counsel from Stan Kasten was extraordianary.
While not racist per se, this comment is beyond idiotic, even for Nicky.
http://www.bostonglo...jcVI/story.html
I always love the "Here are 10 young players I have heard of" columns by guys like Cafardo.
Two tweets:
Nick Cafardo ‏@nickcafardo
Jacoby Ellsbury is taking BP!
Nick Cafardo ‏@nickcafardo
Ellsbury is running!
Given what he's written in the past I don't think he is that excited about Ellsbury taking the field that he needs to use exclamation points. If you're going to hate on the guy just come out and do it. None of this passive-aggressive sarcastic bullshit.
Nick Cafardo ‏
Jacoby Ellsbury is taking BP!
Nick Cafardo ‏
Ellsbury is running!
Given what he's written in the past I don't think he is that excited about Ellsbury taking the field that he needs to use exclamation points. If you're going to hate on the guy just come out and do it. None of this passive-aggressive sarcastic bullshit.
I so wish someone would call him on it. Even politely, so that he would have to explain himself. Which he couldn't do, since he's neither a doctor, nor has he spoken with one.
Look! Nick is eating! #sunsetsinwest
Isn't Pedroia the poster boy for "just rub some dirt on it and get back in there" crowd, of which Nick is the chapter president?
He's (a) mostly sucked since he got hurt and (b) aggravated the injury. I belive the gritty Nick Punto has hit more homers (what a blast that was) in that span than Dustin (unless he maybe hit ONE, but I don't remember it).
He's (a) mostly sucked since he got hurt and (b) aggravated the injury. I belive the gritty Nick Punto has hit more homers (what a blast that was) in that span than Dustin (unless he maybe hit ONE, but I don't remember it).
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2012/06/21/kevin_youkilis_trade_would_make_red_sox_lineup_normal/
Yes, Nick. The Sox want something in return because they drafted him. In 2001. Because trade partners always pony up more in return when the guy you're trading is a "homegrown product." Especially when he is playing like twigs and seeds.
He's at it again this morning in a piece calling for trading Ellsbury and Lester for King Felix:
And this little gem too:
Even the biggest Youks fan has to admit that Youks is only valuable if he's producing. However you gauge dirt and sweat, they don't mean a whole lot without production. Right, Nick?
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2012/06/30/why-did-teams-strike-out-youkilis/8gotJg3dnv3lN8yToo3eHJ/story.html
Completely mailed in. He wrote that 2-3 days ago. Writes about McDonald in the present tense. Trying to generate faux Youk-smear. Lame, as always.
Seriously. Youk is hitting .227 with a .534 OPS with the White Sox, down from his gaudy .692 OPS with the Red Sox. For all the reasons they may be 4-2 since the trade, Youk is loooooow on that list.
There are two interesting parts of that Youks piece:
1. Ken Williams is the smartest General Manager in baseball. I don't think that he's bad as a lot of people say, but he's not the "smartest". Which, in typical Cafardo fashion, Nick doesn't even bother to define other than Williams went to Stanford.
2. Cafardo makes a four or five paragraph Youkilis defense about how awesome he is and he gets a scout to back him up. Only the scout says the exact opposite, which Cafardo refutes with a "Yeah, but still ..." Then he starts talking about what a terrific guy Youks is in the clubhouse, which again is refuted by a quote from Jackie Mac's column calling Youkilis a "cancer", which again Cafardo brushes off.
The odd thing isn't the fact that Cafardo is "proven" wrong, but that he choses to use these quotes in his piece. I guess one could say that he's giving his readers both sides of the story, but it makes it seem as if he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
1. Ken Williams is the smartest General Manager in baseball. I don't think that he's bad as a lot of people say, but he's not the "smartest". Which, in typical Cafardo fashion, Nick doesn't even bother to define other than Williams went to Stanford.
2. Cafardo makes a four or five paragraph Youkilis defense about how awesome he is and he gets a scout to back him up. Only the scout says the exact opposite, which Cafardo refutes with a "Yeah, but still ..." Then he starts talking about what a terrific guy Youks is in the clubhouse, which again is refuted by a quote from Jackie Mac's column calling Youkilis a "cancer", which again Cafardo brushes off.
The odd thing isn't the fact that Cafardo is "proven" wrong, but that he choses to use these quotes in his piece. I guess one could say that he's giving his readers both sides of the story, but it makes it seem as if he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
But in defense of Nick, the whole premise of the piece is that Youk cost nothing so why not take a flier? Unless there's something we don't know, I'd agree that it was a little odd.
Incidentally, for a column I regularly kill, I still find myself hunting it down over at MLB Trade Rumors every Sunday. Not sure why exactly.
Incidentally, for a column I regularly kill, I still find myself hunting it down over at MLB Trade Rumors every Sunday. Not sure why exactly.
What was really interesting is that no one on the sports desk went back in changed the DMcD reference
From the feedmail bag
Is he suggesting that Houston's suckage since 2009 makes Lee less of a player? Did an intern compose the first four sentences of the answer before Nick added the final touch?
Since quality of performance isn't mentioned -- only veteran-ness is a prerequisite -- they might as well sign Mike Lowell. Or maybe George Scott -- he started out as a third baseman.
Carlos Lee started yesterday for the Astros. The game began at 2:20 p.m. Central time and lasted 2:23. Thus, Carlos Lee hasn't played competitive baseball in almost 24 hours. I guess technically that is "some time."
Is he suggesting that Houston's suckage since 2009 makes Lee less of a player? Did an intern compose the first four sentences of the answer before Nick added the final touch?
I think there's no doubt that he's suggesting that Houston's suckage makes Lee less of a player. It's poor wording and poor reasoning, but do we expect any less of Cafardo at this point?
At least that explains why he thinks the Sox should get Felix Hernandez. :blink:
- Status