Protecting the Shields -- The Nick Cafardo Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
33,076
Deep inside Muppet Labs
So for some reason I re-looked at Cafardo's Sunday column and something struck me as egregious, even for him.

(Hanley) won many of us over in spring training. He played well at his new position, first base, though he didn’t have to scoop many throws out of the dirt. Ramirez was never really tested except for a handful of times, with mixed results. The Sox need Ramirez to have an April like he did last year (.293 average, 10 homers, 22 RBIs, .999 OPS), and then keep going. They need him to hit for power in a doubles-oriented lineup. Will playing first base (and occasionally DHing) help him to stay healthy and productive? While he’s won us over with his attitude and maturity in camp, he has to keep that up over a full season. He was once one of the top players in baseball. He won the National League batting title in 2009 with a .342 average (Pablo Sandoval finished second at .330).
There's nothing in there are WHY Hanley wasn't productive after April last year: his shoulder injury. That he suffered playing left field. A position he volunteered to play because the team needed him to do so.

I mean, yeah, there's a subtle reference to staying healthy later, but basically a reasonable person could read that paragraph and conclude that Hanley stopped hitting last year because he stopped giving a shit, which couldn't be further from the truth.

We're so used to Nick writing stupid things that sometimes we're unprepared for him to write blatantly false and malicious things. He's going to shoehorn reality into his little narratives at any cost. It's absurd.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,010
You know, SJH, with the proper attitude and grit, Hanley could have willed the left field wall out of existence, made the catch and willed the wall back to our reality. It's something that Darrin Eckstein did on a daily basis.

I mean, it's just really about wanting it and hustle and it's obvious that Hanley is lazy. Now if you excuse me, I'm going to write a random, nebulous list of the 50 most important players in Major League Baseball. Why is 40-year-old DH of a last place team David Ortiz at eight and a 20-something, centerfielder for a club that has made the postseason three straight years, Andrew McCutchen in the 30s? Only the Eye of Agamatto knows for sure.
 

Dogman

Yukon Cornelius
Dope
Mar 19, 2004
14,365
Missoula, MT
I had to google that and then I laughed!

It's funny because I had to do some research and it is in a Nick thread.

I missed the Darrin Eckstein reference the first time. That was just outstanding.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
24,829
From: Sullivan, Joseph
To: [Me]
_____________________________

we'll publish a correction Friday









 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
24,829
E5Y may be right:


https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/04/07/for-record/xNPiByOeOfYOJqwtWO4YqO/story.html

■ Correction:
Because of a reporting error, the owner of the Montreal Expos at the time the team sought a trade for Derek Jeter was incorrect in the Sunday Baseball Notes on March 27. The owner at that time was Claude Brochu.
****************************************************

Mr. Sullivan...
That correction is accurate, Brochu was the owner. However, Pedro Martinez was not with the Expos, either. And Brochu's ownership at the time means that the entire premise of the item --- Loria's obsession with Jeter -- is undermined. As I said, the correction is accurate. But it seems to fall short of actually correcting much.


[Me]
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
11,261
I admit I was sort of eagerly awaiting this: Nick on the new slide rule.

It's pretty stupid. But it's really long and boring and not stupid in a particularly fun way. Still, this is kinda fun:

“Too many rules. Too many restrictions on players,” said one ex-player. “You have to be able to play the game without feeling like you’re doing something wrong.

“If it’s blatant, like it was with Utley and Tejada, that’s one thing, but if you’re questioning and reviewing every borderline situation, which I believe the Toronto/Tampa Bay situation was, that’s just boring. I don’t think the fans want to see that. I don’t think anyone wants a game ending like that.”

Really? We need an anonymous "ex-player" for that? I might even agree with this anonymous ex-player, but how is it possible he couldn't find an actual person to say that thing? And why on earth would an ex-player not want to be quoted saying that? What possible harm could come to that ex-player? It's absolutely insulting to the reader, and there's really no reason not to believe that's just Nick wrapping things up nicely with a bow because he couldn't find a good quote that he liked to finish the piece.

...Hmmm, I know, I'll just say the words I want to say and attribute them to some "anonymous ex-player." Oh, yes, that will work nicely...
 

GreenMonster49

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
531
I admit I was sort of eagerly awaiting this: Nick on the new slide rule.

It's pretty stupid. But it's really long and boring and not stupid in a particularly fun way. Still, this is kinda fun:

Too many rules. Too many restrictions on players,” said one ex-player. “You have to be able to play the game without feeling like you’re doing something wrong.
Here's what I really don't get. The new slide rule is still the Wild West compared to Rule 8-4 covering sliding into force-out situations in NCAA baseball. I am sure that some purists thought that the games were worthless once middle infielders could try to complete double plays with a reduce likelihood of maiming, but the college game has somehow survived these onerous restrictions. The NCAA has had this rule in play for several seasons now. If only Nick could use his super reporting skills to find out how that rule affected the game, for good or for ill.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,010
E5Y may be right:


https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/04/07/for-record/xNPiByOeOfYOJqwtWO4YqO/story.html

■ Correction:
Because of a reporting error, the owner of the Montreal Expos at the time the team sought a trade for Derek Jeter was incorrect in the Sunday Baseball Notes on March 27. The owner at that time was Claude Brochu.
****************************************************

Mr. Sullivan...
That correction is accurate, Brochu was the owner. However, Pedro Martinez was not with the Expos, either. And Brochu's ownership at the time means that the entire premise of the item --- Loria's obsession with Jeter -- is undermined. As I said, the correction is accurate. But it seems to fall short of actually correcting much.


[Me]
Great to see that Sullivan has a thorough understanding of the situation. Well done, Joe! Now get back to murdering and defiling print media in one of the only American cities that gives a shit about these sorts of things.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,512
Hingham, MA
I just wrote Sullivan on this. His response:

"It was not a fabrication"

My reply:

Thank you for the response. Here is the quote from the article:

"As the story goes: When Jeffrey Loria owned the Expos, he was obsessed with Derek Jeter. So he ordered his general manager, Jim Beattie, to try to make a deal with the Yankees and to give up whatever he had to. Beattie offered Yankees GM Brian Cashman Vladimir Guerrero and Pedro Martinez. Stunned, Cashman told Beattie, “I can’t trade Derek Jeter."

Which part is not fabricated? Because when you start with the fact that it was Jeffrey Loria who was obsessed with Jeter, and piece it together with the fact that Loria did not own the Expos until December 1999 - two full years after Pedro was traded to the Red Sox - then it is not possible for the story to be true. If it is not true, how it is not a fabrication?
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,010
This is just further proof that Nick Cafardo is going to be in our lives for a long, long, long time. He isn't going anywhere. I mean if Sullivan doesn't give a shit about a proper correction (and make no mistake, I don't think that this is anything that Cafardo should lose his job over but it's a symptom of a much bigger problem) then he doesn't care about the quality of the sports section.

It could be the Sullivan's hands are tied by the unions or Cafardo saved Sullivan's life once, but this is a little disappointing.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,512
Hingham, MA
Sullivan just responded

"He had the owner wrong; the trade was proposed"
My reply:

Brian Cashman did not become GM of the Yankees until February 1998. Pedro was already a member of the Red Sox at that point.

So I guess you have another correction to report - that Beattie called Bob Watson.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
24,829
I can't imagine he just made it up. I'm guessing some scout sitting too long in the Florida sun got some stuff wrong, and Nick ran with it before checking. All of which, I suppose, constitutes "a reporting eror." But the correction reads like Sullivan ran with "couldn't be Loria" and just corrected that, rather than the item itself.

Was Claude Brochu fixated on Jeter after not drafting him? Was it really assistant GM Beattie calling assistant GM Cashman? Tune in next century for the answers; Nick will still be here.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
33,076
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Jesus.

The whole point of that stupid little anecdote was Nick showing that Loria was obsessed with Jeter to the point of insanity. Sullivan issuing a correction that Brochu was the owner at the time misses the entire fucking point of Nick printing the scout's (bullshit) story in the first place....making Sullivan the ideal boss for Cafardo.

Neither one of these guys could find their own asshole with two hands and a flashlight.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
79,445
Oregon
Our own Chad Finn was asked about this in a chat today and gave this response:

Chad Finn:
Didn't see the correction, but I have to admit, when I read that, my first reaction was, "Wow, that's amazing" ... and then 10 seconds later I realized the timeline didn't work. I imagine he got it from a scout -- my guess was Jim Beattie -- and didn't make the requisite visit to baseball-reference to confirm it was possible.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,512
Hingham, MA
My reply:

Brian Cashman did not become GM of the Yankees until February 1998. Pedro was already a member of the Red Sox at that point.

So I guess you have another correction to report - that Beattie called Bob Watson.
No response from Sullivan on this. Crickets.
 

Humphrey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2010
2,275
Not that there's no cause for concern, but Nick's already given up on the rotation in record time; in fact, two guys haven't even made ONE start yet. Shocked that he got through the article without mentioning James Shields.
 
Last edited:

Granite Sox

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
4,720
39.932N, -85.848W
Today's start by Porcello will no doubt confuse hm either way, what with Enzo in the lineup at 3B, Castillo in CF, Shaw at 1B and Hanley The Dog at DH. It's a different look.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
15,212
Wow, today's column is so bad. Clearly Bautista and/or his agent wanted Cafardo to start some speculation about Bautista to Boston, so Nick obliges with a dumb article about how the Red Sox "need" to bring in a high priced bat next year to be a fulltime DH. Apparently we will need to have a RH slugger who is only a DH, and apparently that guy can't be Hanley Ramirez, for some reason.

Why does this team need to spend $25 million a year or whatever on a guy who is already 35 when we already have Hanley under contract and need a starting pitcher so much? Because Bautista's agent wants to make Toronto sweat and wants there to be a bunch of chatter about Bautista coming to Boston, that's why.

What does Cafardo get out of it? A bunch of quotes provided for him and half of his column written for him, so he can knock off early this week.

But wait, there's more! Nick says maybe the Red Sox should sign Mark Teixiera next year, when he will be 37. Guess his wife doesn't hate Boston anymore now that his contract is going to be done. This is laughable stuff.

True, the Red Sox will be low on guys over 35 making over $20 million a year next season, so Nick just wants to help them find some. And obviously the Red Sox are going to pay someone loads of money to take Hanley off the team next year because he is a bad guy, so that they can then spend way more money on an old slugger. It all makes sense.
 

InstantKarmma

Boomer Sympathizer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Pablo Sandoval’s agent, Rick Thurman, had an interesting line last week regarding his client’s benching: “If you’re going to win, why keep the Ferrari in the garage?” It was interesting because Sandoval has told me, “I don’t like Ferraris.”
What's more interesting is Cafardo's lack of understanding of what a metaphor is.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
31,744
Wow, today's column is so bad. Clearly Bautista and/or his agent wanted Cafardo to start some speculation about Bautista to Boston, so Nick obliges with a dumb article about how the Red Sox "need" to bring in a high priced bat next year to be a fulltime DH. Apparently we will need to have a RH slugger who is only a DH, and apparently that guy can't be Hanley Ramirez, for some reason.
Nick borrowed a trick from Wade Boggs. He willed Hanley invisible.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,010
The funny part of the Joey Bats to Boston piece was that Cafardo kept saying, "He's a perfect DH!" And Bautista saying he'd still like to play in the field and Nick doing a 180 in the middle of his column saying that yeah, he could play outfield or first then doing another 180 and saying he's a DH.

It didn't even make me angry. It's just more Cafardo. And that's really sad.
 

Humphrey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2010
2,275
Two things I learned from Nick this week:
1. If the Sox starters don't go deep in games the bullpen will get worn out.
2. The Sox need to improve their home winning percentage to do better overall.
Never would have thought about either one of those. :)
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
24,829
Two things I learned from Nick this week:
1. If the Sox starters don't go deep in games the bullpen will get worn out.
2. The Sox need to improve their home winning percentage to do better overall.
Never would have thought about either one of those. :)
Except last year, when they improved their home winning percentage and finished last again.

Its also even worse than usual when Nick has to write everyday. The pump keeps running, but the well is dry.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
23,136
Newton
Today's piece on Chuck Waseleski is telling in a lot of ways. It's not a terrible piece. But in a column memorializing a "stats pioneer," we get a lot of testimonials from Globe sports page staff and alumnus about how dedicated he was but little more than a passing reference or two to what stats he kept ("swings and misses, balls hit on the ground, line drives, averages on certain counts and conditions" and the number of foul balls Boggs hit).

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2016/04/12/farewell-the-maniacal-one-chuck-waseleski/RNise4P4WCtqWiH1nLT6rL/story.html

Again, it's not as bad as I initially thought – he does go into Waseleski's influence on agents in arb hearings and the media. He says he gave writers like him hooks. And it def. suggests that the only player to give two shits about this stuff was Boggs.

But there's a distinct lack of appreciation or insight into why this might have made the game richer – or even, if he wanted, why guys like him were different or better than the know-it-all, bandwagon jumping whippersnappers who are running teams and ruining the game from their moms' basements.

It should be noted that it's a warm piece – Nick obviously had a genuine affection for the guy. But it seems to reveal a lot more about Nick than it does Chuck.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
24,829
Today's piece on Chuck Waseleski is telling in a lot of ways. It's not a terrible piece. But in a column memorializing a "stats pioneer," we get a lot of testimonials from Globe sports page staff and alumnus about how dedicated he was but little more than a passing reference or two to what stats he kept ("swings and misses, balls hit on the ground, line drives, averages on certain counts and conditions" and the number of foul balls Boggs hit).

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2016/04/12/farewell-the-maniacal-one-chuck-waseleski/RNise4P4WCtqWiH1nLT6rL/story.html

Again, it's not as bad as I initially thought – he does go into Waseleski's influence on agents in arb hearings and the media. He says he gave writers like him hooks. And it def. suggests that the only player to give two shits about this stuff was Boggs.

But there's a distinct lack of appreciation or insight into why this might have made the game richer – or even, if he wanted, why guys like him were different or better than the know-it-all, bandwagon jumping whippersnappers who are running teams and ruining the game from their moms' basements.

It should be noted that it's a warm piece – Nick obviously had a genuine affection for the guy. But it seems to reveal a lot more about Nick than it does Chuck.

Then there's this:
He was 61 when he died Thursday . With it, a generation of Red Sox baseball numbers that were way ahead of its time and which actually meant something were gone for good.
Gone for good. Today's numbers dont mean anything. Nick can't just celebrate a friend who was ahead of his time.
 

Dummy Hoy

Angry Pissbum
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2006
7,742
Falmouth
Not to speak ill of the dead, but I always thought Waseleski's stats were mostly trivial, and not particularly suited for measuring value or making predictions. It's almost exactly the opposite of what Nick thinks.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,010
He was 61 when he died Thursday . With it, a generation of Red Sox baseball numbers that were way ahead of its time and which actually meant something were gone for good.


What the fuck does the bolded even mean? Because he was Nick Cafardo's buddy, Waseleski's numbers mattered more than Rob Neyer's or Bill James' or Tom Tango's stats? Fuck him, he's such a bitter, mean-spirited, stupid prick with a brain the size of garbanzo bean.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
24,829
I wonder how recently those "calls from agents" took place.

He would often give Boggs all of the data. The big thing there was he kept up with foul-ball pop-ups, for which for many years there were none, a sign that Boggs rarely had a bad swing.
Nobody liked to see proof of how great Wade Boggs was more than Wade Boggs.

I can accept that the guy was statistically ahead of his time, in the same way that Allan Roth, Casey Stengel, Branch Rickey and Earl Weaver were ahead of theirs.

But much like Nick Cafardo, and like that picture in the story, he was 1993 when everyone else was 1983 AND ALSO when everyone else was 2013. I only know his work from his Sunday contributions, but at least 75% of stuff over the last few years was interesting, but arguably meaningless, exccept to Nick, who used the bits to buttress his points about grit, hunger and leadership.

61 is too young (I dont have to squint very hard to see it). And I hope this doesn't come off as piling on him. And the Glob guys liked him. But Nick has trouble writing a good appreciation.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
24,829
Hanley's a bum and always has been.
Hanley will be a bum if he's not hitting
Hanley's not hitting and not a bum.
Hanley has to start hitting or else it wont matter that he's not a bum.

The many Feces of Nick.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
24,829
Was last night the event that Nick is talking about? I don't know, maybe it is. Maybe it isn't./nickyism
That's the timeless, inscrtuable beauty that is Nick. He could take one anomalous play in one game and project a career out of it, actual results be damned; or he can take an anomalous play from 10 years ago and have it define a career, subsequent results be damned.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,010
That is also very true. But I'm sure that it's coincidental that the players who are superstars are also the ones who feed him the most information. Like Jacoby Ellsbury.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.