Felger and Mazz - Creating False Naratives one day at a time

HomeBrew1901

Has Season 1 of "Manimal" on Blu Ray
SoSH Member
Not to stick up for JWH here, but at no point did he say that he still didn't want Crawford on the team, he said AT THE TIME he opposed the signing for a number of reasons. Both Werner and Lucchino already came out and said that Theo had to push to sign Crawford so it has been known for months that the ownership wasn't united in his signing, I just don't see the big deal with Henry admitting he was one of the hold outs.

Does it really matter which owner didn't want him at the time? Honestly, I want the principle owner of the team to need to be convinced that a very long term contract for big money is worth it.
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
9,579
NOVA
Not to stick up for JWH here, but at no point did he say that he still didn't want Crawford on the team, he said AT THE TIME he opposed the signing for a number of reasons. Both Werner and Lucchino already came out and said that Theo had to push to sign Crawford so it has been known for months that the ownership wasn't united in his signing, I just don't see the big deal with Henry admitting he was one of the hold outs.

Does it really matter which owner didn't want him at the time? Honestly, I want the principle owner of the team to need to be convinced that a very long term contract for big money is worth it.
I think the point most are concerned about is CC's perception of Henry's statement. It's doubtful CC or any athlete would look at things the way you are.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
Not to stick up for JWH here, but at no point did he say that he still didn't want Crawford on the team, he said AT THE TIME he opposed the signing for a number of reasons. Both Werner and Lucchino already came out and said that Theo had to push to sign Crawford so it has been known for months that the ownership wasn't united in his signing, I just don't see the big deal with Henry admitting he was one of the hold outs.

Does it really matter which owner didn't want him at the time? Honestly, I want the principle owner of the team to need to be convinced that a very long term contract for big money is worth it.
Let's put it this way: John Henry is automatically in a no-win situation every time Crawford's name comes up.

If Henry said he wanted Crawford, he would have been criticized for forcing him down Theo's throat, or criticized for covering something up (given that there were rumors that the FO was divided over Crawford). If he says he didn't want Crawford at the time, he's criticized for potentially hurting a player's feelings. If he sidesteps the question all sorts of speculation begins.

I did find Schilling's comments on Jon Lester and his mental makeup later in that article more interesting:

http://bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view/2011_1016comp_talks_extend_schill_speaks_up/
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
When did you stop beating your wife, etc.
Sorry, that doesn't apply in this case.

In this case "the wife" has shown up in the pages of the Boston Globe with a black eye, claw marks and been accused of having a drug problem.

A strong denial and/or denouncement is called for, not "an interesting set of theories".
 

geoflin

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2004
709
Melrose MA
Has anyone considered the possibility that Crawford already knew that JWH was initially opposed to signing him so Henry's statement Friday was news only to us, not to Crawford?
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
You see, it's the calling people "morons" because they don't happen to share your opinion that I find frankly unhelpful. I had assumed this board was above that, but I just joined yesterday, as someone noted above. For the record, I happen to agree with the remainder of your post. And I think the Hawking owning the Sox analogy is rather apt. But I suppose I need to see a bit more than innuendos, conjectures and gut feelings to assert that, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Lucchino fella sure is the devil. I empathize with Henry, but he does need a PR person. Going on Felger and Mazz, the very show that is besmirching you and talking about your wife, was a pretty stupid, emotional move, in my opinion.
You guys know everyone can see the day you joined the site right?

Moderators can even do some pretty easy sleuthing to know when guys who claim they are new are actually just new handles for people that have been here before.

I honestly don't care except for when this kind of stupid crap is posted. At least, please, if you are going to try and tell other posters how they should post, don't do it under the guise of "oh I just came over here for the first time" blah blah. It really doesn't add anything to your point other than to make people (me at least) wonder what your motives are when you are being deceptive.
 

AMS25

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 29, 2008
3,121
Holland on the Plains
You guys know everyone can see the day you joined the site right?

Moderators can even do some pretty easy sleuthing to know when guys who claim they are new are actually just new handles for people that have been here before.

I honestly don't care except for when this kind of stupid crap is posted. At least, please, if you are going to try and tell other posters how they should post, don't do it under the guise of "oh I just came over here for the first time" blah blah. It really doesn't add anything to your point other than to make people (me at least) wonder what your motives are when you are being deceptive.
Soxbrained was being sarcastic. As his/her "timestamp" notes, he/she joined on August 8, 2006.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
My mistake, it came off as a solidarity thing with some other posters in the thread (and on the board in general) who have recently started posting that are merely reincarnations of previous posters.
 

MedfieldFan

New Member
Aug 26, 2006
61
Rich said he's been emailing with Hohler, not spoken to him. He said that Hohler's statement was that he hadn't made any public comment since the story had started, and that he hoped that the fact he's made no public comment covers it. I don't see how you go from a noncomittal response from Hohler and a flub from Henry to "ownership is definitively the source".

T&R have spent a huge part of the morning just banging away on this point, saying that Henry out-and-out lied. I don't know if they have other information that proves it was from ownership at 98.5 and are just using this as their cover, but at first face I don't understand how this is as big a deal as they are making it. Otherwise it seems like they are just poking at Henry hoping they can anger him enough to get him on air again.

Listened to a couple of minutes of 98.5 and D&C are staking out the idiotic position that Henry "made such a fool of himself" on air on Friday that the Red Sox have to ask for Starlin Castro and accept that the deal for Theo will be scuttled otherwise.
 

PortageeExpress

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2002
1,369
Austin, TX
Rich said he's been emailing with Hohler, not spoken to him. He said that Hohler's statement was that he hadn't made any public comment since the story had started, and that he hoped that the fact he's made no public comment covers it. I don't see how you go from a noncomittal response from Hohler and a flub from Henry to "ownership is definitively the source".

T&R have spent a huge part of the morning just banging away on this point, saying that Henry out-and-out lied. I don't know if they have other information that proves it was from ownership at 98.5 and are just using this as their cover, but at first face I don't understand how this is as big a deal as they are making it. Otherwise it seems like they are just poking at Henry hoping they can anger him enough to get him on air again.
From my perspective, the fact that Henry lied about Hohler making a public statement is a pretty big deal.

I really wish Felger and Mazz had asked Henry about it on the air on Friday.
 

MedfieldFan

New Member
Aug 26, 2006
61
From my perspective, the fact that Henry lied about Hohler making a public statement is a pretty big deal.

I really wish Felger and Mazz had asked Henry about it on the air on Friday.
Did he lie or not? I think it is open for debate whether saying something factually incorrect like that is a lie - maybe Henry thought that Hohler had gone on record like that. Going from "that wasn't correct" to "that was an outright lie" is crazy - especially on something like this that sounded right and that Mazz and Felger both accepted at face value.

My guess is that ownership probably did source some of Hohler's story, either directly or indirectly, but the type of journalism that the radio guys are employing in trying to make that argument is absolute BS and why this town is horrible for players to play in - not because the fans love the team so much.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
That Hohler said he has made no public comment since the story is pretty significant because this is what the story says about sources --

This article is based on a series of interviews the Globe conducted with individuals familiar with the Sox operation at all levels. Most requested anonymity out of concern for their jobs or potential damage to their relationships in the organization. Others refused to comment or did not respond to interview requests.
This cannot reasonably be interpreted as ruling out any person or persons as a source, much less ownership.

So the only way JH's statement could have been accurate is if Hohler privately assured someone in the RS organization that no owners were among the sources. And the chances of that are about zero.
 

Soxbrained

New Member
Aug 8, 2006
151
That Hohler said he has made no public comment since the story is pretty significant because this is what the story says about sources --



This cannot reasonably be interpreted as ruling out any person or persons as a source, much less ownership.

So the only way JH's statement could have been accurate is if Hohler privately assured someone in the RS organization that no owners were among the sources. And the chances of that are about zero.
Why are the chances of that "about zero"? Do you know beyond any reasonable doubt that Hohler didn't make any assurances to somebody privately?

We can all parse to the extreme and make things say what we would like them to say. Somebody posted a list of partners on the main board. Can some of them (some, not all) be reasonably be said to be "familiar with the Sox operation at all levels?". I mean, if you think about every detail and every word hard enough, you can conjectutre at will and make definitive statements to hide the fact that you're just conjecturing, and outright accuse somebody of being a "liar" - a fairly strong accusation. I just find such strength of opinion based on flimsy evidence to be mindboggling, but it's awfully pervasive around here.

Somebody else could say that Hohler made assurances to somebody in private (he does say he made no "public" statement), Henry heard (or was told) about it and assumed Hohler had made it publicly. That scenario, I'd think, similarly based on conjecture, has as much validity as saying that the owner went on the radio and outright lied (as in "knew it wasn't true, but stated it anyway"). I know we're supposed to hate the owners for some reason but C'mon.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Why are the chances of that "about zero"? Do you know beyond any reasonable doubt that Hohler didn't make any assurances to somebody privately?

We can all parse to the extreme and make things say what we would like them to say. Somebody posted a list of partners on the main board. Can some of them (some, not all) be reasonably be said to be "familiar with the Sox operation at all levels?". I mean, if you think about every detail and every word hard enough, you can conjectutre at will and make definitive statements to hide the fact that you're just conjecturing, and outright accuse somebody of being a "liar" - a fairly strong accusation. I just find such strength of opinion based on flimsy evidence to be mindboggling, but it's awfully pervasive around here.

Somebody else could say that Hohler made assurances to somebody in private (he does say he made no "public" statement), Henry heard (or was told) about it and assumed Hohler had made it publicly. That scenario, I'd think, similarly based on conjecture, has as much validity as saying that the owner went on the radio and outright lied (as in "knew it wasn't true, but stated it anyway"). I know we're supposed to hate the owners for some reason but C'mon.

Because that would make Hohler a complete a-hole is why, and I have no facts on which to indulge such an assumption.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
If he is ever pressed -- and Henry would be well advised to just STFU on the subject -- i suspect he will point to a very contorted interpretation of this --

This article is based on a series of interviews the Globe conducted with individuals familiar with the Sox operation at all levels. Most requested anonymity out of concern for their jobs or potential damage to their relationships in the organization. Others refused to comment or did not respond to interview requests.
*Well, he didn't say owner, so we're in the clear.*

From the get go, there has been a sizable shoot-the-messenger sentiment in SoSh about Hohler because he presented some ugly facts. We get it.
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
But you have facts to indulge on the other assumptions, including that Henry is a liar?
Why do you keep saying this? Who is saying Henry is a liar here? People seem to agree that Henry believes that no one in the troika ratted out Tito to Hohler, but it is entirely possible he is mistaken because he trusts the wrong people. That's not a lie. Henry himself admitted in that same interview that there are a TON of people who work in the Red Sox organization and he can't possibly say with 100 percent certainty that none of them talked to Hohler.

The second part -- that Henry said Hohler admitted none of the troika were part of the "team sources" -- is also inaccurate but I dont think it's a lie. Maybe Henry was told this by Larry or Werner? He sounds like he wants to believe this, and because he himself didn't rat out TIto, that makes it easier for him to believe others in his camp also acted similarly.

Re Hohler: no self-respecting journalist on earth is telling anyone -- least of all the public or the head of a company that was just the subject of a scathing expose -- who his anonymous sources are. These people talked anonymously out of fear of losing their jobs, and to violate that is akin to plagiarism in the realm of things you simply don't do. There's a reason why journalists go to jail when a court orders them to say who talked to them -- it's not done, period. You do it and you lose all professional credibility inside and outside the profession.
 

Soxbrained

New Member
Aug 8, 2006
151
Why do you keep saying this? Who is saying Henry is a liar here?
It's in this very thread, and as noted above, the guys on 98.5 are running with that.

PortageeExpress, on 17 October 2011 - 09:03 AM, said:

From my perspective, the fact that Henry lied about Hohler making a public statement is a pretty big deal.


People seem to agree that Henry believes that no one in the troika ratted out Tito to Hohler, but it is entirely possible he is mistaken because he trusts the wrong people. That's not a lie. Henry himself admitted in that same interview that there are a TON of people who work in the Red Sox organization and he can't possibly say with 100 percent certainty that none of them talked to Hohler.
And I would have no issue with the above. But I did get the sense from the tenor of some posts that Henry himself was being accused of lying. I stand corrected if I misunderstood.

Re Hohler: no self-respecting journalist on earth is telling anyone -- least of all the public or the head of a company that was just the subject of a scathing expose -- who his anonymous sources are. These people talked anonymously out of fear of losing their jobs, and to violate that is akin to plagiarism in the realm of things you simply don't do. There's a reason why journalists go to jail when a court orders them to say who talked to them -- it's not done, period. You do it and you lose all professional credibility inside and outside the profession.
Perhaps. I guess I don't entirely see the Boston Media as a paragon of journalistic ethics.
 

PedroSpecialK

Comes at you like a tornado of hair and the NHL sa
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2004
27,164
Cambridge, MA
Emphasis mine:

It's in this very thread, and as noted above, the guys on 98.5 are running with that.
...

From my perspective, the fact that Henry lied about Hohler making a public statement is a pretty big deal.

...

But I did get the sense from the tenor of some posts that Henry himself was being accused of lying.
So you're saying Henry's a liar... but he's not a liar?
 

Soxbrained

New Member
Aug 8, 2006
151
Emphasis mine:


So you're saying Henry's a liar... but he's not a liar?
That was a quote from PortageeExpress, at 09:03 in this thread, used to illustrate the fact that some people did call Henry a liar. Just didn't know how to put it in "quote" format.

And for the record, I'm not specifically making the argument that Henry did not lie. Merely that it's a harsh accusation to readily throw at somebody without tangible support, especially when other explanations are possible, as you yourself pointed out.
 

PedroSpecialK

Comes at you like a tornado of hair and the NHL sa
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2004
27,164
Cambridge, MA
My mistake, I can't believe I didn't see that line directly above the bit I quoted the first time.

My view (I guess as part of the OG "Henry is a liar" crew) isn't necessarily that Henry lied prior to the Felger & Mazz interview - just that someone high up in the organization did. That Henry cited a non-existent statement by Hohler in conjunction with distancing himself from the day-to-day operations of the Sox tells me at the very least that something fishy is going on with ownership and truth telling. My "jump to conclusions" side tells me that it was Lucchino based on his reaction outside Fenway when confronted as well as his proclivity to play "bad cop" (and that he has no apparent misgivings about playing the role), but in the end none of us know quite yet who's lying.
 

drtooth

2:30
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 23, 2004
11,305
Someone's Molars
Whether one feels that JWH lied or not, his statement that Hohler went on record stating that no one in the ownership gave him info is, at best, irresponsible. If he is not lying, he should have at least verified that Hohler made such a statement prior to stating that over the airwaves. He does not come out of this looking good on either count.
 

PortageeExpress

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2002
1,369
Austin, TX
Whether one feels that JWH lied or not, his statement that Hohler went on record stating that no one in the ownership gave him info is, at best, irresponsible. If he is not lying, he should have at least verified that Hohler made such a statement prior to stating that over the airwaves. He does not come out of this looking good on either count.
As one who said I thought he was lying, I have to agree with this 100%. If he wasn't lying, I don't think he looks much better.
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
It's in this very thread, and as noted above, the guys on 98.5 are running with that.

PortageeExpress, on 17 October 2011 - 09:03 AM, said:

From my perspective, the fact that Henry lied about Hohler making a public statement is a pretty big deal.

And I would have no issue with the above. But I did get the sense from the tenor of some posts that Henry himself was being accused of lying. I stand corrected if I misunderstood.

Perhaps. I guess I don't entirely see the Boston Media as a paragon of journalistic ethics.
Based on what information? Because weren't you the person who just said:
I mean, if you think about every detail and every word hard enough, you can conjectutre at will and make definitive statements to hide the fact that you're just conjecturing, and outright accuse somebody of being a "liar" - a fairly strong accusation. I just find such strength of opinion based on flimsy evidence to be mindboggling, but it's awfully pervasive around here.
Oh yeah, you were.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
F & M killing it today ... inspired, measured kill shots, calmly delivered, with humor

keep after it boys ... you often piss me off, but you're doing God's work in this instance
 

Soxbrained

New Member
Aug 8, 2006
151
Based on what information? Because weren't you the person who just said:


Oh yeah, you were.
That's an opinion. I never asserted that statement of opinion to be fact. Not really sure what the "see, gotcha!" is here. Anyway, this is pointless and has derailed the thread, so I'll get off the bus at this particular stop.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,367
Based on what information?
There's evidence that Abraham & Co. deliberately misrepresented Adrian Gonzalez's comments about the schedule, and probably misrepresented the players' issue with the split double-header as well. How is it unfair to ask what else might have been distorted in the Globe's reporting?
 

Phenom

as if andy gresh and gary tanguay had a baby
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
998
Interesting perspective from Mazz about the history of his relationship with Henry and Red Sox ownership. Good insights into some of the perils of beat reporting and how Mazz feels he inappropriately acted during the Theo "walk out" in 2005 due to a past grudge he held with Lucchino for misleading him in 2003 about the GM search.

Not that relevant to the story at hand, but I enjoyed hearing it.

(And yes Mazz, you're a target of SOSH)
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
They are teasing "another RS surprise, in the next hour" and sounded serious about it.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Curt Schilling is on.

"If I'm a CJ Wilson (for example), why the hell would I want to come here?" Reputation of the organization has taken a tremendouse hit.
 

MedfieldFan

New Member
Aug 26, 2006
61
Curt Schilling is on.

"If I'm a CJ Wilson (for example), why the hell would I want to come here?" Reputation of the organization has taken a tremendouse hit.
With all due respect to Curt, people always signed with the Yankees despite them having an owner that would send private investigators after them, call them "fat pussy toads", and theres a million other examples here that I'll just lob into an "etc".

That said, signing anyone this offseason probably will be a challenge, but this really is a temporary problem that can be solved with a more successful / drama-free season next year.
 

HomeBrew1901

Has Season 1 of "Manimal" on Blu Ray
SoSH Member
With all due respect to Curt, people always signed with the Yankees despite them having an owner that would send private investigators after them, call them "fat pussy toads", and theres a million other examples here that I'll just lob into an "etc".
The difference being that the Yankees would always throw a couple million more at someone they wanted to make that bitter taste in ball players mouth taste a little better, the Sox rarely do that.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
There's evidence that Abraham & Co. deliberately misrepresented Adrian Gonzalez's comments about the schedule, and probably misrepresented the players' issue with the split double-header as well. How is it unfair to ask what else might have been distorted in the Globe's reporting?
I have a substantial post on this subject in the Collapse thread on the main board, but suffice to say that the notion that the Boston media are to "believed", in the unquestioning way some seem to, is the single most insane thing I've seen on this board (P&G & V&N posts excluded).

The Boston media is telling the truth - it's everyone else who lies.

This forum in particular is home to lots of journalists with screen names - some who ID themselves and some who don't - and every post lauding the ethics of Boston media members should be examined very closely. I'm sorry to ruin the illusion for some of you but the media is only interested in page views and impressing their editors. They don't give two shits about "the truth" and anyone insisting they do is full of shit.

Curt Schilling is on.
Good to know that being between Curt and microphone is still more dangerous than being between Curt and an all-you-can-eat buffet.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,367
G38 is officially part of the "I hate Lackey!" club. The transcript will be up later, but he essentially said it was disappointing to hear about Lester and Beckett, but everything he's ever known about Lackey was that he was a cancer.
 

Guapos Toenails

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2001
1,900
Mean Street
Manny dressed with the trainers, not the other players? Was this new info? Also OC at one point confronted Manny about not playing...I hadn't heard that before but I don't pay as close attention as most of you...
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Manny dressed with the trainers, not the other players? Was this new info? Also OC at one point confronted Manny about not playing...I hadn't heard that before but I don't pay as close attention as most of you...

Schilling:

OC > Manny, "No ... you ARE playing tonight ..."
 

Guapos Toenails

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2001
1,900
Mean Street
Maybe this is some insight as to what got OC shipped out of town on a rail...OC bitch slapping Manny in the trainers room and then Manny telling ownership "OC goes or I don't play".
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Maybe this is some insight as to what got OC shipped out of town on a rail...OC bitch slapping Manny in the trainers room and then Manny telling ownership "OC goes or I don't play".
Shipped out of town? He was a FA, the team decided that Rent was a better buy.

The constant rumors bandied about regarding why the team decided not to pursue OC as a FA don't flow along the lines you suggest, for what it's worth.