Protecting the Shields -- The Nick Cafardo Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

terrisus

formerly: imgran
SoSH Member
I know I'm a couple of weeks late on this, but: 
 
 
1. Andy Pettitte is a Hall of Famer. Period. He has 255 victories, a record 19 postseason wins, and has pitched big games in a big-time setting. We forgive him for dabbling in human growth hormone. He had the class to admit it.
 
Yeah, Alex Rodriguez admitted to using steroids too. ("Only while with Texas, to live up to the contract." Kind of like Pettitte's "Only when injured, to get healthy quicker") So, let's start making out Rodriguez's plaque.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
SydneySox said:
It doesn't matter if Joe Morgan is not a 'stats' guy, what sets Joe Morgan apart is that he is a 'Moneyball' opponent, with moneyball in this context being all the newfangled bullshit that he believes is taking away the soul of the game, despite him very publically never having read it.
 
There are plenty of people who don't like getting into metrics. Joe Morgan's a dickhead because he proudly complains about things from ignorance. Basically, he's dumb.
 
He's a player's friend but someone like him running the org?
I'm not saying anything new with this but the irony is if he took the time to read the book and understand the statistics he would find that he was one of the top "Moneyball" players of all time.
 

PBDWake

Member
SoSH Member
May 1, 2008
3,686
Peabody, MA
There was an interview where Joe was informed of this. His response was that the stats were wrong and created by people who don't know baseball.
 

Corsi

isn't shy about blowing his wad early
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2010
12,955
Boston, MA
Game tied 3-3 in the 7th inning and Nick tweets:

Awfully hard to find Tropicana orange juice at The Trop
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
"Walks are for assholes" - Nick Cafardo.
 
But polishing Scott Boras's knob is a job for real reporters:
 
As time goes by we realize what Ellsbury means to this Red Sox team. Oh, some of his hits were bloopers and bleeders in this ALDS, but he’s a game-changer, no doubt about it.
And the game-changer may be changing addresses.
An organization always tries to replace a player with as close to what it has lost, but in Ellsbury’s case, the Red Sox may not be able to succeed in that area. Jackie Bradley Jr. may be a percentage of Ellsbury, but the jury is out as to how much.
Ellsbury, the free agent to be, was at it again Tuesday night
 
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
Humphrey said:
Where did he say that or the equivalent of that?
 
"Nor should they (odes be writen about Bogaerts's first walk). It was just a walk."
*****************************************************************************************************
 
No, he didn't literally  say that "walks are for assholes."  In actuality he may as well have called himself an asshole (or perhaps just an idiot) by devaluing a very significant play made by a (probably) rusty rookie, in a situation where most rookies don't make that same play (taking close, but probably unhittable, pitches).  Ironically, Cafardo is one of those gravy-stained hacks who goes around chirping about the inflammable horror of "lead-off walks." (This wasn't leading off, but the idea is the same -- a pitcher who walks someone (i.e., "fails to challenge the hitter") is a far less morally superior character than one who gives up hits).  Nick is little more than a carbuncle on the ass of baseball.
 
And........I think I used both "literally and "ironically" correctly there.
 
 
“I tried to stay calm and stay with my approach. Walks are fine,” Bogaerts said.
 
 
I hope he ended that with a Muntz-ian "ha-ha."
 
Jul 10, 2002
4,279
Behind
Lol, someone 'Ask Nick' about the start of the 9th inning of the 2004 ALCS.

There should be odes created for X. He had two, huge, key at-bats. They were game changing. I love how immediately after dismissing it, he's reminded by Silverman of what can happen, and it turns out to be prophetic.

Next on Nick's list ... infield singles to the shortstop with a runner on 3rd. Meh. Just a slow roller.

Amazing that this turd is their baseball expert. Wilbur, CHB, Nick, Silva ... what a disappointing collection of dreck. This is why I only read Finn and the blurbs that Abraham writes in the Extra Bases section.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
Next on Nick's list ... infield singles to the shortstop with a runner on 3rd. Meh. Just a slow roller.
 
 Not when Iglesias hit them!
 
Lol, someone 'Ask Nick' about the start of the 9th inning of the 2004 ALCS.
 
To further the point, I dont think any of the pitches to Millar were as close as the ones to Bogaerts.
 

Bellhorn

Lumiere
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2006
2,328
Brighton, MA
Corsi said:
Wait....this really happened? I mean, I know he's not too bright and all, but wow....that should be on the list of tweets that are groins for immediate firing for a 21st century sportswriter (I know, I know, if he were going to be fired it would have happened long before now.)

joe dokes said:
"Nor should they (odes be writen about Bogaerts's first walk). It was just a walk."
*****************************************************************************************************
 
No, he didn't literally  say that "walks are for assholes."  In actuality he may as well have called himself an asshole (or perhaps just an idiot) by devaluing a very significant play made by a (probably) rusty rookie, in a situation where most rookies don't make that same play (taking close, but probably unhittable, pitches).  Ironically, Cafardo is one of those gravy-stained hacks who goes around chirping about the inflammable horror of "lead-off walks." (This wasn't leading off, but the idea is the same -- a pitcher who walks someone (i.e., "fails to challenge the hitter") is a far less morally superior character than one who gives up hits).  Nick is little more than a carbuncle on the ass of baseball.
That attitude goes all the way back to Henry Chadwick, the first baseball statistician in the 19th century, who thought that walks were more or less just errors by the pitcher, and that the hitter had nothing to do with them. He's the reason we got saddled with BA as the primary measurement of hitting prowess in the first place. It takes a special breed of stupid not to be aware of the massive advances in understanding that have taken place since then.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
Apparently, Nick has blessed us this day with a two-fer of stupid (I realize this was probably for the early edition, but was there nothing else to write about before the game?):
 
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/10/08/red-sox-will-face-challenge-keeping-that-old-gang-together/6e68xAKwHIHMBJrpGeu0uN/story.html
 
 
 
Looking at the Red Sox warming up before Tuesday night’s Game 4 of the American League Divisional Series against the Rays, it was interesting to imagine how different the team could look next season.
............
The Giants won the World Series in 2012 and then fell back badly the next season with virtually the same personnel.
When one looks at this very good Red Sox roster, there may be some key departures next season.As time goes by, one realizes what Jacoby Ellsbury means to this team. Oh, some of his hits in this ALDS have been bloopers and bleeders, but Ellsbury’s a game-changer. And the game-changer may be changing addresses. If so, the Red Sox will do the best they can to replace him, but they may not succeed. (So good he used it twice....)
 
..............
Other than David Ortiz, nobody hits the ball with more authority on this team than Ellsbury.
............
Saltalamacchia is an asset as a catcher. A switch-hitter who can mash 40 doubles and 14 homers is valuable. How valuable? Perhaps enough for the Red Sox to make him a qualifying offer of $14 million.
.............
Then there’s the shortstop situation.
.............
There’s also the story of Mike Napoli
............
Who knows which members of the coaching staff could get rewarded with managerial and/or upgrades to their current roles?
...........
General manager Ben Cherington and his assistants, Mike Hazen and Brian O’Halloran, will be challenged to figure out the Year After.
The Year After Much Success.
.............
 
 
 

Humphrey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2010
3,163
Nick as i recall was the biggest pisser and moaner about moves the Sox had to make in the winter of 2004-5 and during the 2005 season.
 
No matter that Mueller was near the end of the line due to injury, Foulke had cooked himself by his valiant efforts in that post season, you had gotten as much out of Bellhorn as you were going to, yadayadayada.   Instead, he made comments like 'it's too bad that they couldn't have kept that team together for a while longer".
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
Humphrey said:
Nick as i recall was the biggest pisser and moaner about moves the Sox had to make in the winter of 2004-5 and during the 2005 season.
 
No matter that Mueller was near the end of the line due to injury, Foulke had cooked himself by his valiant efforts in that post season, you had gotten as much out of Bellhorn as you were going to, yadayadayada.   Instead, he made comments like 'it's too bad that they couldn't have kept that team together for a while longer".
He also still laments the loss of one Jason Bay.  
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
lexrageorge said:
He also still laments the loss of one Jason Bay.  
 
2012 was the clearest indication that a baseball team run by Nick Cafardo would finish, well, last. The Sox did everything he wanted them to after 2011 and look what happened.
 
He's a dolt. There's zero doubt in my mind that the snark he posted about X drawing that walk has its ultimate roots in his unhappiness that the Sox traded away his binky Iglesias.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
2012 was the clearest indication that a baseball team run by Nick Cafardo would finish, well, last. The Sox did everything he wanted them to after 2011 and look what happened.
 
 
That's really a great point. Start with Valentine and the wins will come from there.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,370
General manager Ben Cherington and his assistants, Mike Hazen and Brian O’Halloran, will be challenged to figure out the Year After.The Year After Much Success.
 
 
 
So, Cafardo is worried about 2015?
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,743
Rotten Apple
I prefer Lazy Nick to Churlish Nick.
 
Lazy Nick is good for a laugh or three. When he's petty and vindictive (I guess if you walk and score it counts for half a run?) he's well into Shank territory. And there's certainly nothing funny about that.
 
Jul 10, 2002
4,279
Behind
Merkle's Boner said:
 
Yes, good on Speier.  Of course it would be someone like him to put together a wonderful ode.  Love that guy.
 
Britton wrote something similar as well:
 
http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/content/20131009-xander-bogaerts-sparks-offense-with-patience.ece
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
From time to time we have great chats with reporters.  Is there any chance we could get one of the Globe's editors and cordially discuss some of the lack of editing and effort in some of Nick's pieces?  I think we could avoid an all out bashing but point to things that dont seem to hold up to the Globes standards.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
wutang112878 said:
From time to time we have great chats with reporters.  Is there any chance we could get one of the Globe's editors and cordially discuss some of the lack of editing and effort in some of Nick's pieces?  I think we could avoid an all out bashing but point to things that dont seem to hold up to the Globes standards.
 
There is no way in hell that any editor would discuss another writer's work on a web site on the record. We'd probably have to fill them up with sodium pentothal and Jaegermeister before the started talking. They'd say something about how Cafardo caters to the "majority of Globe readers" and how popular, well-respected and thorough he is. If this was a chat they would then roll their eyes and make the wanky-wanky motion, but we wouldn't be able to see that.
 

Blacken

Robespierre in a Cape
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2007
12,152
John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
We'd probably have to fill them up with sodium pentothal and Jaegermeister before the started talking.
With all the expertise on SoSH, this can't be that difficult.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
There are several schools of thought here: 1) It doesn’t matter who the Red Sox play because they can handle any team; 2) They should play the Tigers because Miguel Cabrera is banged up; 3) They should play the A’s, because Oakland forever is seen as the Cinderella team whose chariot eventually turns into a pumpkin.
 
 
1) Sox are really talented
2) Tigers are talented but banged up
3) Nothing to do with playing baseball.
 
Does that make a pitcher stronger or does it sap him of energy having to throw in such a high-leverage situation on a day when he wasn’t suppose to pitch?
 
 
"Suppose to"?
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
Cafardo's hatchet job on Farrell's lineup represents a new low even for him. Makes me wonder if those anonymous quotes from "NL scouts" were basically from Bobby Valentine and his shills.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
lexrageorge said:
Cafardo's hatchet job on Farrell's lineup represents a new low even for him. Makes me wonder if those anonymous quotes from "NL scouts" were basically from Bobby Valentine and his shills.
 
Wait, Bobby V still has shills?  I mean, aside from Cafardo of course.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
One American League scout we spoke to during the game thought the Sox’ grind-it-out approach likely backfired because Scherzer is a strike-thrower. He thought the Sox needed to be more aggressive earlier in the count and not let Scherzer get into a pitcher’s count.
“Scherzer’s sheer power never allowed the Red Sox’ hitters into any type of comfortable rhythm,” said one National League East scout. “He spotted his fastball perfectly. Honestly, his stuff was so good tonight that no lineup on the face of this earth could have done much with it. You can talk about different approaches and all that, but the bottom line is he’s just sawing your bat off. You can see it in the reactions of Red Sox hitters. That’s usually a real confident bunch of guys, but they kind of knew they had no chance.”
A third scout from the NL was critical of Boston’s lineup — particularly the inclusion of Mike Carp and Jonny Gomes over Daniel Nava and Mike Napoli.
 
 
 
First of all, the first scout is contradicted by the second  (i.e., "no one had a chance whatever the lineup or approach).  Does Nick have so few sources that he'll just write down anything? ("Rufus 'Stinky' Higgins, great grandson of the late Sox manager, said the Sox problem was 'too many coloreds.'")
 
 
 
I'm guessing that this section is a vestige of the story Nick wrote about the Sox losing the game.  Even so......
 
--They ground it out enough to get Scherzer out of the game.
 
---And that lineup Won the game. I know, around here, that results aren't immunity from bad decision making. And that's how it should be.  But the irony with Nick is that he is the quintessential "It worked so it must've been right" reporter. Then again, its no longer irony. Its hypocrisy.
 
--Who could possibly object to giving Carp a shot there.
 
Are there any scouts there other than Tigers, Dodgers and Cardinals?

 
“I just think you go with your [regular] lineup. Mike Napoli gives you the best chance to do something productive. I don’t care what his stats are against Scherzer. Think of it this way — for me, Scherzer’s best pitch is his change and the Red Sox are using Carp [two strikeouts and a double-play grounder]. Go with your best.”
 
 
 
 
 
 
Oh wait, results ARE a good tool to analyze past decisions.
 
 
Nick Cafardo -- Replacement Level Reporting
As the games get tougher, Nick just gets worse. He's like the anti-Ortiz.
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,249
from the wilds of western ma
joe dokes said:
 
First of all, the first scout is contradicted by the second  (i.e., "no one had a chance whatever the lineup or approach).  Does Nick have so few sources that he'll just write down anything? ("Rufus 'Stinky' Higgins, great grandson of the late Sox manager, said the Sox problem was 'too many coloreds.'")
 
 
 
I'm guessing that this section is a vestige of the story Nick wrote about the Sox losing the game.  Even so......
 
--They ground it out enough to get Scherzer out of the game.
 
---And that lineup Won the game. I know, around here, that results aren't immunity from bad decision making. And that's how it should be.  But the irony with Nick is that he is the quintessential "It worked so it must've been right" reporter. Then again, its no longer irony. Its hypocrisy.
 
--Who could possibly object to giving Carp a shot there.
 
Are there any scouts there other than Tigers, Dodgers and Cardinals?
 
 
Oh wait, results ARE a good tool to analyze past decisions.
 
 
Nick Cafardo -- Replacement Level Reporting
As the games get tougher, Nick just gets worse. He's like the anti-Ortiz.
 
 
 He reiterated this idiocy on MLB network last night. It's almost surreal in 2013 seeing/hearing someone utter the words" I guess Carp has better numbers against Scherzer, but I really don't understand that. The old baseball scouts I talked to say you have to dance with the lineup that got you here"  And per above, if these "scouts" he quotes aren't waiters at Bobby V's restaurant, they're almost certainly 90 year old guys who haven't had the windbreaker and the clip-board out in very long time.          
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
cornwalls@6 said:
 
 
 He reiterated this idiocy on MLB network last night. It's almost surreal in 2013 seeing/hearing someone utter the words" I guess Carp has better numbers against Scherzer, but I really don't understand that. The old baseball scouts I talked to say you have to dance with the lineup that got you here"  And per above, if these "scouts" he quotes aren't waiters at Bobby V's restaurant, they're almost certainly 90 year old guys who haven't had the windbreaker and the clip-board out in very long time.          
 
The irony that Nick is incapable of seeing is that in 1968 the very same Tigers pulled one of the great "we're NOT dancing with the lineup that got us here" in history when they moved the *center fielder* Mickey Stanley, to SS for the World Series and benched the noodle bats of Ray Oyler / Dick Tracewski (and that's being kind, even by 1968 standards, look 'em up) and played Kaline, Northrup, and Horton in the OF (Kaline had missed time with injury during the season, and wasn't a regular).  Up until the WS, Stanley had played in 9 games at SS during '68 (130 in CF), and none before then.
 

Humphrey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2010
3,163
Came within a few points of Ray Oyler's .135 batting average (I recalled 130)...forgot that Tracewski was even on the team (he hit .156).
 
Neither one really did any better in 1969, when hitting rose dramatically due to rule changes and 4 expansion teams.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
Nick pimpin' for Boras.  Now the Tigers are a good spot for Ellsbury because they need a leadoff hitter. (Jackson OBP 337 this year 370 last year. career 344 vs. Ellsbury 350. Jackson 3 years younger.)
 
I would have to paste the whole section to give the complete flavor. I won't . Its just a complete total Boras knob job. Bad even by Nick's usual standards
 
 
 
 

baruch20

New Member
Jul 31, 2006
226
North Shore
Lazy Nick
 
Do the tigers really want another 20 million dollar player onto their payroll long term?  They need to work on signing their younger pitchers/players, moving Cabrera to 1st base and getting someone to take a discounted Grimace off the books first.  (Is that even possible?)  They can't continue to have 4 DH's on the roster, 3 of which need to field positions:  I include Peralta with Miggy, Victor and Fielder.
 
 
  Player                                                        Age     Contract                   Year Avg.        FA
Prince Fielder at 1st Base                           29    9 yr/$214,000,000     $23,777,778 2020 2021
Justin Verlander at Starting Pitcher                30    7 yr/$180,000,000    $25,714,286 2020 2021
Miguel Cabrera at 3rd Base, 1st Base             30    8 yr/$152,300,000    $19,037,500 2015 2016
Anibal Sanchez at Starting Pitcher                 29    5 yr/$80,000,000     $16,000,000 2018 2019
Victor Martinez at Designated Hitter, 1st          34    4 yr/$50,000,000     $12,500,000 2014 2015
Torii Hunter at Right Field                          38    2 yr/$26,000,000     $13,000,000 2014 2015
Joaquin Benoit at Relief Pitcher                   36    3 yr/$16,500,000     $5,500,000 2013 2014
Jhonny Peralta at Shortstop                       31   2 yr/$11,250,000      $5,625,000 2013 2014


 
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
9,580
NOVA
Wait, I know this is off-topic, but Prince Fielder makes around 24 million a year and isn't FA until he 37? HAHAHHAHAHHHAHA
 

Muddy Chicken

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2011
597
Boston, MA
Nick claims John Farrell was the pitching coach when the Sox last faced the Cards in the World Series. Simply turning back a page Pete Abraham tells us what we all know. I guess this should be on his editors, but it's not hard to find that info.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
Awright, folks, I got my HazMat suit on and I'm goin' in.  Somebody be ready with the Decon Shower  . . . . .
 
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/10/21/former-manager-bobby-valentine-rooting-for-red-sox-doesn-quite-understand-all-criticism/MCANhR0rbllVFs33PrYi7L/story.html?event=event12
 
 
My mother used to take the braided rug she made by hand to the clothesline once a week and beat the living daylights out of it with a broom to shake out the dirt.
Bobby Valentine often feels like that rug.
The anger directed toward Valentine seems to escalate with every Red Sox win, which accentuates the job done by manager John Farrell this season and the failure of Valentine with the 2012 Red Sox.
Valentine, now the athletic director at Sacred Heart University in Connecticut, owner of Bobby V’s Sports Bar in Stamford, Conn., operator of a film company, and part-time guy on NBC radio, doesn’t quite get that. All he has to understand, really, is that Grady Little still gets hammered for keeping Pedro Martinez in Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS and Bill Buckner still hears it for the ball that went between his legs in the 1986 World Series.  (ME: NO, HE DOESN'T)
 
 
Sox president and CEO Larry Lucchino and yours truly still hear it for recommending Valentine after Terry Francona presided over the awful September 2011 collapse, when it was clear the Red Sox needed more of a disciplinarian in the manager’s office so the boys wouldn’t get away with chicken and beer during the game.
 
There was all kinds of resentment, a dysfunctional coaching staff, and Valentine never helped himself with the things he said. Nowadays saying what comes immediately to your mind has to be filtered and re-filtered before the words appear in public.
 
Only if you're unfiltered words are shit-laden.
 
“I picked them to win the division, the ALDS, the ALCS, and now the World Series,” Valentine said. “I’m rooting them on. The [12] guys left on that team that I managed were all good guys. I enjoyed all of them, so why wouldn’t I root for them?”
 
 
I wonder what he means by "picked."
Most managers get more than one year to turn around a bad ship, which tells you how bad Red Sox ownership thought Valentine’s tenure was. (ME: Did ANYONE disagree with that assesment?)
 
If Farrell hadn’t been traded to the Red Sox, he would have had another year to turn around a 73-win team in Toronto. It’s a good thing, in more ways than one, that Farrell got the chance to come to the Red Sox, who revamped their team and spent the money they saved in the Dodgers deal almost perfectly. Farrell was able to establish himself, because up until now there were many questions about his ability to do the job.
I’d like to think that if I came back for my second year that, given the changes and improvements, I would have been able to do the same thing,” Valentine said.
 
 
I'm sure you would "like to think" that.  which is different than actually "thinking it."
 
Cherington deserves a lot of credit for the 2013 edition of the team, and he personally took blame for the 2012 season. Give him credit for not only firing the manager, but firing the players, too. That’s doesn’t happen very often. It was Valentine who took the fall on the management side. Nobody else lost their job.
 
 
 
Nobody? Really? Except for the entire coaching staff, the training staff, the medcial staff and the catching guy. Yeah, other than that, it's all the same.
Although Valentine has not returned to Fenway Park for a game since he was fired, he has kept in touch with players and front-office people.
Pedroia said he tried calling Valentine during the season to check on him.
 
 
Which is it? "Kept in touch" or "tried."
 
Ortiz was a Valentine backer until Valentine said at the end of last season that Ortiz decided to shut it down (because of an Achilles’ heel injury) after he knew the season was over.
Ortiz has hammered Valentine ever since.
 
 
As he should, because that, in a microcosm, was Valentine's problem. Even when he might have been "right," in some techincal sense (like about Youkilis being coooked, Aviles not going out far enough for cutoffs from noodle-arm in CF, or Ortiz (maybe, who the fuck really knows), YOU JUST DONT SAY THAT SHIT IN PUBLIC WHEN YOU ARE NEW ON THE JOB (Ortiz came later, but the point is the same). Only bad can come of it. And not seeing that is a major, major, major failing. And its not some new-age crap like Cafardo wants you to believe. Even older-than-dirt-school Jim Leyland blamed HIMSELF for Benoit giving up the granny to Ortiz.  THAT's why Leyland could have managed til he was 70 if he wanted and Valentine was essentially done at 52.
 
Valentine recently lost a TBS gig because he said the Yankees didn’t do enough during the terror attacks of 9/11. He played a big role in helping with the healing process while managing the Mets.
So he’s using his words carefully now
 
. He knows just by being quoted he’ll get hammered again. (ME: Only if he makes shit up.)
 

 
It's because what he said about the Yankees was shown to be absolutely FALSE, and given the context (9/11), the falsity was reprehensible.
 
 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.