Dan Shaughnessy: Taking a dump in your mouth one column at a time

[Doug Beerabelli]

I borrowed the Francona bio (refused to pay for it)from our local library. Well written, but it was like two books. One was really interesting telling Tito's story and perspective on events known and behind the scenes. This was interesting and enjoyable. The other was a running series of one liners, non sequiturs and gratuitous potshots at certain parties involved, written and placed in a way that stood out because they clearly weren't coming from the subject of the book, despite the fact they were juxtaposed with quotes and other info from Tito to make it appear that way.

I've got sensitive antennae to look out for and locate this stuff, like most here, but it's still pathetic. It took away from the quality of the book. It wasn't necessary to tell the story. It detracted from it, in fact.

 

[knucklecup]

Shaughnessy getting grilled on Twitter for his Hall of Fame piece this morning. It's worth reading for the laughs alone. Just a disgraceful piece of Journalism.

 

[axx]

Shaughnessy getting grilled on Twitter for his Hall of Fame piece this morning. It's worth reading for the laughs alone. Just a disgraceful piece of Journalism.

 
How is that different than any of his other articles?

 

[knucklecup]

It's not. He's a disgraceful journalist.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

As usual, Old Hoss Radbourn puts it quite succinctly...
 

Always nice to see D. Shaughnessy emerge from under his bridge to submit a column.

 

[joe dokes]

Send him an email comparing Morris and Mussina. Watch what happens.

 

[ifmanis5]

Maybe I’d get clarity pills for Christmas.

 
Nope.

 

[YouDownWithOBP?]

Solid rationale in his article. Holy shit.
 

 
 
I don’t vote for the PED guys, so it’s easy to say no to Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, McGwire, and Palmeiro. They have positive tests and/or admissions and/or multiple appearances in the Mitchell Report. Piazza and Bagwell have none of that. They just don’t look right.

 

[Rough Carrigan]

Shaughnessy's like a guy who considered himself the smartest guy in the room and got upset when he found out about things that other guys (like Bill James) had written that he'd never thought of and would never have worked out on his own.  Instead of reacting with courtesy and intellectual curiosity to new information (like Bob Ryan), he reacted with insecurity and lashes out.
 
I still remember him gleefully telling the story of how Earl Weaver had a huge collection of 3 by 5 cards with matchup information and other info about players and how during one game of the 1979 ALCS, one of the Orioles' gofers ran up to Earl with the card that showed that John Lowenstein had a great record against some pitcher the Angels were bringing in the game and how Lowenstein then hit a crucial pinch hit home run off the guy.
 
So, he delighted in Earl Weaver seeking out information and using information but somehow can't see that everything Bill James started in motion, everything that sabremetrics is, is just the logical extension of the same impulse as he applauded when it was Earl Weaver doing it.  It's very sad.
 
And Jack Morris simply does not belong in the Hall of Fame.  The guy had four full seasons in the prime of his career when he pitched to an ERA+ of less than 100.  And he had another one when his ERA+ was exactly 100.  That's FIVE seasons in the prime of his career when he was a league average pitcher or worse.  Yes, he was a league average pitcher who pitched more innings than average.  That's not nothing but it ain't the stuff of the Hall of Fame.   If somebody bothers to email his trollship they might want to ask him if he voted for Tommy John for the Hall of Fame.  Because here's a quick comparison of Tommy John and Jack Morris:
 
----------John----Morris
Wins-----288-----254
ERA+---111------105
IP-------4710----3824
 
So, Tommy John, even giving away a season and a half in his career for the surgery named after him and having a so-so next season, pitched almost 900 innings more than Morris and much better.  A career 111 ERA+ is a *hell* of a lot better than a career 105 ERA+.  Did Shaughnessy vote for Tommy John?  If not, what says that Morris is better?  He wasn't as durable, didn't win as many games, didn't pitch as well?  Is it all about a single stupid World Series game?
 
Or is it all about sticking it to the guys who showed him that he's not the smartest guy in the room?

 

[nattysez]

I'm not the first person to say something like this, but I'll say it again because I'm convinced it's true -- the only solution to guys like CHB, Bruce Jenkins, Murray Chass, et al. is to ignore them.  Every tweet in their direction, every impassioned blog post, every click on their articles, drives more eyes to their drivel, which is what they live for.  It can gnaw at you not to respond to stupidity like theirs, and you may feel left out because you haven't read their latest article, but this is just like Brad Pitt shooting Kevin Spacey at the end of Se7en -- doing the thing that feels right means you've fallen into their trap. Don't do it.  Just ignore their existence entirely, ask your friends and teach your kids to do the same, and find satisfaction in reading writers you enjoy.   

 

[scottyno]

I like where he shoots down Mussina for winning a lot of games because he pitched for good teams and then praises Morris for winning games and pitching well in clutch situations.
 
Mussina actually pitched better in the playoffs than Morris also, but I guess it's his fault he spent a large amount of his career with mediocre Baltimore teams who couldn't get past the yankees to the world series because they only had 1 Mussina.
 
also more wins less losses more ks better era better whip in virtually the same number of starts, even if you don't know anything about or want to ridicule advanced stats

 

[JohntheBaptist]

Heaven for a sportswriter is a non-stop Springsteen concert where he's written a rock opera about Jack Morris' career achievements, right?

 

[ifmanis5]

Heaven for a sportswriter is a non-stop Springsteen concert where he's written a rock opera about Jack Morris' career achievements, right?

And the name of that opera is called The Human Element.
 
Great post by Rough. Shank is a huge Weaver fanboy since way back and yet the thing that Weaver helped to invent is the very thing Shank has mocked his whole career. Dan is just a world of contradictory nonsense.

 

[richgedman'sghost]

Shaughnessy's like a guy who considered himself the smartest guy in the room and got upset when he found out about things that other guys (like Bill James) had written that he'd never thought of and would never have worked out on his own.  Instead of reacting with courtesy and intellectual curiosity to new information (like Bob Ryan), he reacted with insecurity and lashes out.
 
I still remember him gleefully telling the story of how Earl Weaver had a huge collection of 3 by 5 cards with matchup information and other info about players and how during one game of the 1979 ALCS, one of the Orioles' gofers ran up to Earl with the card that showed that John Lowenstein had a great record against some pitcher the Angels were bringing in the game and how Lowenstein then hit a crucial pinch hit home run off the guy.
 
So, he delighted in Earl Weaver seeking out information and using information but somehow can't see that everything Bill James started in motion, everything that sabremetrics is, is just the logical extension of the same impulse as he applauded when it was Earl Weaver doing it.  It's very sad.
 
And Jack Morris simply does not belong in the Hall of Fame.  The guy had four full seasons in the prime of his career when he pitched to an ERA+ of less than 100.  And he had another one when his ERA+ was exactly 100.  That's FIVE seasons in the prime of his career when he was a league average pitcher or worse.  Yes, he was a league average pitcher who pitched more innings than average.  That's not nothing but it ain't the stuff of the Hall of Fame.   If somebody bothers to email his trollship they might want to ask him if he voted for Tommy John for the Hall of Fame.  Because here's a quick comparison of Tommy John and Jack Morris:
 
----------John----Morris
Wins-----288-----254
ERA+---111------105
IP-------4710----3824
 
So, Tommy John, even giving away a season and a half in his career for the surgery named after him and having a so-so next season, pitched almost 900 innings more than Morris and much better.  A career 111 ERA+ is a *hell* of a lot better than a career 105 ERA+.  Did Shaughnessy vote for Tommy John?  If not, what says that Morris is better?  He wasn't as durable, didn't win as many games, didn't pitch as well?  Is it all about a single stupid World Series game?
 
Or is it all about sticking it to the guys who showed him that he's not the smartest guy in the room?

 

And the name of that opera is called The Human Element.
 
Great post by Rough. Shank is a huge Weaver fanboy since way back and yet the thing that Weaver helped to invent is the very thing Shank has mocked his whole career. Dan is just a world of contradictory nonsense.

Not for nothing but the notecard guy just happened to be our old friend "The Dentist", Charles Steinberg. At the time, he was interning in the O's front office and working part-time as a Dentist. We have Earl Weaver to thank for the Dentist sticking with baseball.

 

[Big Papa Smurph]

One of the dumber parts of his ballot this year is that he says, "Not voting for Raines and Martinez also feels totally unfair. I just never thought of them as Hall of Famers. They fail the “I know it when I see it” test."
 
Except he voted for Raines on his 2012 ballot, according to fangraphs writer Jason Collette. "I have never before voted for Raines or Trammell, but I’m doing it this year as kind of a Roids Backlash. Raines was a switch-hitting speedster who won a batting title, stole 808 bases, and scored 100 runs in a season six times. He had a little pop (170 homers), too.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

One of the dumber parts of his ballot this year is that he says, "Not voting for Raines and Martinez also feels totally unfair. I just never thought of them as Hall of Famers. They fail the “I know it when I see it” test."
 
Except he voted for Raines on his 2012 ballot, according to fangraphs writer Jason Collette. "I have never before voted for Raines or Trammell, but I’m doing it this year as kind of a Roids Backlash. Raines was a switch-hitting speedster who won a batting title, stole 808 bases, and scored 100 runs in a season six times. He had a little pop (170 homers), too.

 
Why bother? Here's what I assume Shank's response would be:
 
"Notice I said 'I never thought of them as Hall of Famers', not 'I would never vote for them.' I stated pretty explicitly that I voted for Raines/Trammell as a backlash to the steroids era. It is my job as an unbiased journalist to make the occasional moral stand and do what I believe to be right."
 
Fin.

 

[joyofsox]

Based on the emails other posters have received from CHB and posted here over the years, his response would be more like:
 
"typical basement nerd. go outside, a little sunlight might clear your mind"

 

[Reverend]

One of the dumber parts of his ballot this year is that he says, "Not voting for Raines and Martinez also feels totally unfair. I just never thought of them as Hall of Famers. They fail the “I know it when I see it” test."
 
Except he voted for Raines on his 2012 ballot, according to fangraphs writer Jason Collette. "I have never before voted for Raines or Trammell, but I’m doing it this year as kind of a Roids Backlash. Raines was a switch-hitting speedster who won a batting title, stole 808 bases, and scored 100 runs in a season six times. He had a little pop (170 homers), too.

 
I peeked at the Collette piece and was floored to see this excerpt he was critiquing:
 

I’ve been voting since 1986 and I truly miss the good old days when we argued about home runs, batting averages, ERAs, World Series performances, All-Star Games, and a player’s dominance at his position in his era. Things were so much simpler then. Saying yes to Ron Santo or no to Jim Kaat was a serious baseball debate. This was before PEDs and WAR and ALDS and Deadspin buying a Hall of Fame ballot. Now there is so much to consider, it makes one’s head explode.

 
I mean, medicine and healthcare was simpler before we understood, like biology and shit, but we weren't very good at it because we didn't actually understand what was going on. To criticize a mode of analysis as bothersome without reference to its quality--whether or not it's accurate or useful or not--renders the criticize by definition irrelevant.
 
To build on Rough's excellent insight, he's like the opposite of a JoePos who seems to relish learning as much as he can about sport. That might actually be a useful criteria for differentiating between writers worth reading and those who are not.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Dan's column this morning with his rankings of the playoff QBs was more mealy mouthed than usual.
 
First he ranks Manning over Brady.  The CHB isn't exactly alone in making that choice, even if it's an unpopular one in New England.  But then he wusses out with the proverbial "most of us" fallback in his Brady write-up.  If Manning is better, who is the "us" who would prefer Brady to Manning?  Or is this just Dan wanting to have it both ways?  Methinks it's the latter and that Dan is a curly haired bitch.

 

• 
  You know the dossier. He won his first 10 career playoff games. Three Super Bowl rings. Two Super Bowl MVPs. But the trend is downward. Brady is 3-5 in his last eight playoff games. If you subtract the hideous Broncos game of two years ago, Brady has nine interceptions and 11 TD passes in his last seven playoff games. He’s also coming off a season that featured his lowest completion percentage (60.5) since 2003. Most of us still would take Brady over Manning in any playoff showdown, and we can only hope we see this matchup Jan. 19 at Mile High.
  

 

 

[ifmanis5]

After 1 minute of Googling Shank would know that Peyton is also 3-5 in his last 8 playoff games including 4 1st round losses.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

Dan's column this morning with his rankings of the playoff QBs was more mealy mouthed than usual.
 
First he ranks Manning over Brady.  The CHB isn't exactly alone in making that choice, even if it's an unpopular one in New England.  But then he wusses out with the proverbial "most of us" fallback in his Brady write-up.  If Manning is better, who is the "us" who would prefer Brady to Manning?  Or is this just Dan wanting to have it both ways?  Methinks it's the latter and that Dan is a curly haired bitch.


Unreal...

"Get rid of the 6 TDs and 360 yards from his best playoff game, and his numbers don't look great."

Way to cherry pick, EV.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

Speaking of cherry picking, it's cute that CHB starts his numbers at the 2008 SuperBowl. Not the start of those playoffs.
 
So we're starting on a random date and removing Brady's best game. Great stuff, Dan.
 
I also enjoy how Brady is 3-5 in his last 8 games in this article, but how he's lucky to have had a great team defense and hall of fame head coach to help him win his 3 titles. In other words, he gets to own the loses but was lucky to get the wins.
 
CHB. The ultimate troll.

 

[Reverend]

Speaking of cherry picking, it's cute that CHB starts his numbers at the 2008 SuperBowl. Not the start of those playoffs.
 
So we're starting on a random date and removing Brady's best game. Great stuff, Dan.
 
I also enjoy how Brady is 3-5 in his last 8 games in this article, but how he's lucky to have had a great team defense and hall of fame head coach to help him win his 3 titles. In other words, he gets to own the loses but was lucky to get the wins.
 
CHB. The ultimate troll.

 
I noticed that too. Talking about streaks by starting at the last date that supports your contention is at least imaginably defensible in looking at hit streaks or something because you get a larger n and are trying to figure out if momentum is real. Splitting up a cohesive set of games like the playoffs is indefensible.
 
I mean, what would the argument be? That the JAX game was an entire three weeks before the beginning of his inexorable decline?

 

[redsahx]

 
I noticed that too. Talking about streaks by starting at the last date that supports your contention is at least imaginably defensible in looking at hit streaks or something because you get a larger n and are trying to figure out if momentum is real. Splitting up a cohesive set of games like the playoffs is indefensible.
 
I mean, what would the argument be? That the JAX game was an entire three weeks before the beginning of his inexorable decline?

 
Well Dan has plenty of peer-reviewed scientific reasoning for this. That Jacksonville game doesn't really count because it came against Jacksonville, and we all know they suck (actual argument Tony Mazz made on the radio last year in discounting Brady's two playoff victories over Jax. I'll call this the Mazz corollary for retroactively applying the "sucks" label to a previous team based on a future team from that franchise). The Denver game doesn't count because it came against Tebow (actual argument many have made, including Mustard & Johnson on WEEI this past weekend so obviously it has scientific merit), and the Houston game in the Divisional Round last year where Brady threw for 344 and 3 TDs doesn't count because we can apply the Mazz corollary to assert that the 2012 Texans sucked because the 2013 Texans sucked. Of course I am not qualified to point out this possible scientific "defense" of CHB because I am a sun-starved stats nerd, so we're back to square one.
 

Based on the emails other posters have received from CHB and posted here over the years, his response would be more like:
 
"typical basement nerd. go outside, a little sunlight might clear your mind"

 
He can be less than gracious even when you're not attacking him. A friend of mine wrote him a few years ago as a courtesy to see if he or any of the other sports staff at the globe were interested in talking to his father, who had just receivied a major recognition (several other papers had already contacted the family at this point for a story). Dan's response via email was a curt "I have no interest". That's it. Nothing else in the body. While it's not terribly rude, you'd think if he was going to take the time to respond at all, he'd have made an effort to be a little more personable.

 

[Humphrey]

 
Well Dan has plenty of peer-reviewed scientific reasoning for this. That Jacksonville game doesn't really count because it came against Jacksonville, and we all know they suck (actual argument Tony Mazz made on the radio last year in discounting Brady's two playoff victories over Jax. I'll call this the Mazz corollary for retroactively applying the "sucks" label to a previous team based on a future team from that franchise). The Denver game doesn't count because it came against Tebow (actual argument many have made, including Mustard & Johnson on WEEI this past weekend so obviously it has scientific merit), and the Houston game in the Divisional Round last year where Brady threw for 344 and 3 TDs doesn't count because we can apply the Mazz corollary to assert that the 2012 Texans sucked because the 2013 Texans sucked. Of course I am not qualified to point out this possible scientific "defense" of CHB because I am a sun-starved stats nerd, so we're back to square one.
 
 
He can be less than gracious even when you're not attacking him. A friend of mine wrote him a few years ago as a courtesy to see if he or any of the other sports staff at the globe were interested in talking to his father, who had just receivied a major recognition (several other papers had already contacted the family at this point for a story). Dan's response via email was a curt "I have no interest". That's it. Nothing else in the body. While it's not terribly rude, you'd think if he was going to take the time to respond at all, he'd have made an effort to be a little more personable
 

Not sure if it was on this board or not, but someone told the story about Shank getting emails from some company email address (not offensive ones)...and calling the guy's boss complaining.   Now, THAT's thin-skinned.

 

[JimD]

Nice to see that NESN chose to call out Shank's preseason dismissals of the 2013 Red Sox on the 'Band of Bearded Brothers' DVD.

 

[Humphrey]

Nice to see that NESN chose to call out Shank's preseason dismissals of the 2013 Red Sox on the 'Band of Bearded Brothers' DVD.

But that draws attention to the prick.

 

[joe dokes]

 
CHB. The ultimate troll.

 
And today proves it (again). So obviously taking an extreme position simply to get a reaction, not necessarily because he believes it to be true.
 
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/01/07/dan-shaughnessy-patriots-must-like-their-path/RpB9NbUrV6PNiu5F4bBqsM/story.html

 

[Dirty Sanchez Forever]

The tomato can columns are his new "picked up the pieces". He was probably balancing his check book while he cut and pasted it.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

And today proves it (again). So obviously taking an extreme position simply to get a reaction, not necessarily because he believes it to be true.
 

 
I'm not sure what's wrong with that column and where he's trolling.
 
People rip Shank when he's too negative towards the home teams.
People rip Shank when he gives the home teams too much credit.
 
What do you want him to write about? The 2013 New England Patriots aren't a great team, especially with the injuries that they've suffered over the last season. They got a break in getting a team that they can probably whip pretty good on Saturday and then they'll see what happens next week.

 

[joe dokes]

 
I'm not sure what's wrong with that column and where he's trolling.
 
People rip Shank when he's too negative towards the home teams.
People rip Shank when he gives the home teams too much credit.
 
What do you want him to write about? The 2013 New England Patriots aren't a great team, especially with the injuries that they've suffered over the last season. They got a break in getting a team that they can probably whip pretty good on Saturday and then they'll see what happens next week.

 
To me its the analysis-free dismissiveness, and the turning of the "they suck" dial to 11. 
He's the guy at the bar in Framingham who sees you walk in with your wife and kids wearing a Colts jersey and starts yammering about how the Colts suck; not because he's a fan, but because his girlfriend dumped him and he just wants to start a fight.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

 
To me its the analysis-free dismissiveness, and the turning of the "they suck" dial to 11. 
He's the guy at the bar in Framingham who sees you walk in with your wife and kids wearing a Colts jersey and starts yammering about how the Colts suck; not because he's a fan, but because his girlfriend dumped him and he just wants to start a fight.

 
Huh?

 

[bankshot1]

Shank's "dance of the tomato cans" narrative is no-lose for him. If the Pats beat the Colts, it was expected and of little merit, if/when they lose its "I told you so", if they win it all he'll laud Brady/BB and most fans will just forget his snarkiness.  
 
And his contention, "Now they stand back, play mistake-free, cerebral football, and watch you beat themselves, seems so dismissive.
 
Is it really that easy to play mistake-free football, cerebral football?

 

[Dirty Sanchez Forever]

I'd rather that he continue doing PR for Jerry Remy. At least he believes in that.

Maybe it was an homage to WWE old school night. He's a man who offers opinions but he doesn't have any. A month ago I believe he called them a juggernaut, dropped a Hoboken reference for the 6 people who care about the head coach's past personal life, and waited for a loss so he could switch back to heel. His only goal is to bait the readers. I'm sure he'll clear everything up on today's radio appearances in support of the column.

 

[CantKeepmedown]

Didn't he write pretty much the same article about the Texans last year?

 

[tims4wins]

Didn't he write pretty much the same article about the Texans last year?

 
Yup

 

[mascho]

Didn't he write pretty much the same article about the Texans last year?

 
Texans Have No Chance
 
EDIT:  And that was after an earlier article calling them "tomato cans" and implying that the Patriots were given back-to-back byes to get to the AFC Championship game.

 

[Vandalman]

He's due for a "Pardon me Sir, do you have any Grey Poupon?" reference any day now.

 

[timlinin8th]

Nice to see that NESN chose to call out Shank's preseason dismissals of the 2013 Red Sox on the 'Band of Bearded Brothers' DVD.

They did the same on the '04 DVD, brought out how after they went down 0-3 to the Yanks he wrote the article calling them a bunch of frauds which Millar didn't seem to appreciate too much.

New year, new team, same ol song and dance from the CHB.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Predictably, Shank's making the rounds on Indy sports radio today, essentially peddling the same crap he wrote the other day. Shitting all over the Pats. According to BSMW his bon mots were:
 
"Worst 12-4 team ever"
"make the Super Bowl without a lot of hard work"
"I'm begging you to come in here and make it a game"
"haven't had an impressive playoff game in six years. "
"Five ridiculous comebacks where the other team caved"
 
So. Much. Ignorance.
 
So much for impartially rooting for the story.

 

[moondog80]

Shank is just a guy playing a role.  Getting mad at him is like getting mad at Nikolai Volkoff when he sings the Russian National Anthem.

 

[dcmissle]

So he is aiming to get booked by Francesa?
 
Batten down hatches.  This will go national.  The only media person more identified with Boston sports is Bob Ryan.

 

[joe dokes]

.

New year, new team, same ol song and dance from the CHB.

 
 
And that's why his opinions have no credibility.  He may or may not think that the Colts actually suck.  But (to go back to my apparently poorly thought out analogy) he definitely wants to fight you, and saying that the Colts suck is the best way to achieve that goal.

"Worst 12-4 team ever"
"make the Super Bowl without a lot of hard work"
"I'm begging you to come in here and make it a game"
"haven't had an impressive playoff game in six years. "
"Five ridiculous comebacks where the other team caved"
 

 And, as someone pointed out, he's covered either way.  If they lose or win a close one, they're a "fraud" and he's right. If they win, it doesn't really matter because the other team sucked.

 

[rodderick]

Predictably, Shank's making the rounds on Indy sports radio today, essentially peddling the same crap he wrote the other day. Shitting all over the Pats. According to BSMW his bon mots were:
 
"Worst 12-4 team ever"
"make the Super Bowl without a lot of hard work"
"I'm begging you to come in here and make it a game"
"haven't had an impressive playoff game in six years. "
"Five ridiculous comebacks where the other team caved"
 
So. Much. Ignorance.
 
So much for impartially rooting for the story.

 
And to think they were a couple of plays away from being the worst 14-2 team ever, or even the worst 15-1 team ever, with a little luck. What a bunch of underachievers.
 
I guess annihiliating the Broncos and the Texans in 2011-2012 isn't impressive, but apparently squeaking by the Jaguars and the Chargers is? 

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

 
And to think they were a couple of plays away from being the worst 14-2 team ever, or even the worst 15-1 team ever, with a little luck. What a bunch of underachievers.
 
I guess annihiliating the Broncos and the Texans in 2011-2012 isn't impressive, but apparently squeaking by the Jaguars and the Chargers is? 

 
It's an elegant dance, really:
 
If they win big, then the team they were playing is a fraud, so it's not an impressive win.
 
If they win close, they got lucky ("Cundiff missed a FG").
 
If they beat an 8-8 team by 35 points, they get no credit because their opponent was a "tomato can." (DEN in 2012)
 
If they beat a 13-4 team by 13 points, they get no credit because their opponent was scared and didn't show up (HOU playoff game last year). Or if they beat a 13-4 team they got lucky (BAL in 2012).
 
There's literally no extant criteria where he'll see a playoff win as impressive. It can be spun any way he likes. If the Pats were to go into Denver and beat the Broncos by 50 points to advance to the SB, I would bet my house that Shank would say that the Pats didn't win, but Peyton Manning choked and the Broncos are frauds.

 

[TomBrunansky23]

CHB was spouting his garbage this morning on MLB Network Radio, including that he voted for Raines and Trammel last year for HOF but not this year because he "changed his mind," and also that he voted for G38 because he doesn't like him (yes he said this).

The best part for me however was my three year old in the back seat screaming "that's the Grinch!" every time he spoke. Yes he is the Grinch, sweetie, yes he is.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

CHB was spouting his garbage this morning on MLB Network Radio, including that he voted for Raines and Trammel last year for HOF but not this year because he "changed his mind," and also that he voted for G38 because he doesn't like him (yes he said this).

The best part for me however was my three year old in the back seat screaming "that's the Grinch!" every time he spoke. Yes he is the Grinch, sweetie, yes he is.

 
I take you to mean CHB didn't vote for Schilling, right?

 

[dcmissle]

The dance should end with John Henry's guys stuffing him in an oil drum in Biscayne Bay.  Guys from Miami in American Hustle.  Figuratively, of course.
 
This of all years.  If you remove BB's coaching and roster building and assign this IR addled team to any other city, it probably ends up 9 and 7 at best and maybe even misses the playoffs.

 

[judyb]

I take you to mean CHB didn't vote for Schilling, right?

Nope. http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/2013/01/08/yes-dan-shaughnessy-voted-for-curt-schilling-for-the-baseball-hall-fame/PfzKsEhPo8J0GRJJwFwFFM/story.html

In case it's not clear, that's last year.

 

[CoffeeNerdness]

I think rather than trolling the fans he's actually trawling for radio/TV appearance $$$.  The guy may not have the energy to reinvent himself during the internet age, but he's certainly smart enough to know what keeps him doing radio and TV spots.  He'll have a nice comfortable retirement because the radio folks in Indy/Tex/Den need to have the guy on that called their team tomato cans, or that MLB network has to have the guy on who doesn't vote for people because his hemorrhoids flared up that day.  It's maddening that people care about what this guy has to say, but what are you going to do- that's the world we live in.