Protecting the Shields -- The Nick Cafardo Thread
- Thread starter MyDaughterLovesTomGordon
- Start date
- Status
Stunningly insane. Did Valentine give Nick the best BJ of all time at some point? That's the only possible explanation I can think of.
https://twitter.com/nickcafardo/status/301367446349168640
wow, first no beer in the clubhouse, now no pates?
Also, Cafardo clearly has "record number of injuries" assigned to one of his F keys. Mention Bobby Valentine? F11. What a shill.
At some point, this has to come down to the editors. I can't believe this clown has the clout to get this kind of crap through.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
"Better QB, Tom Brady, who played with a great supporting cast on 3 Super Bowl winning teams or Tony Eason, who was surrounded by a record number of cocaine addicts in the huddle?"
"Better filmmaker--Alfred Hitchcock, creator of countless classics of form and broad appeal, or Ed Wood, who had a debilitating angora fetish?"
"Better musician--John Lennon, who had to write, sing and play music with George, Paul and Ringo or Ivan Doroschuk who had to write, sing and play music with the rest of Men Without Hats?"
I can't decide which comment from today's Notes column best captures Nicky's utter lameness.
Comment number one is a regurgitation of an entire column Cafardo wrote this week. So in case you missed him whining about the failure to sign Hamilton to a five year deal a few days ago, you get the cliff notes version today. In addition, there's no admission that Hamilton's Angels contract might have been a tad risky to match or better, especially given the Sox apparent overall strategy of avoiding long term commitments.
Comment number nine is just such a whiny shot at Tito (and the CHB, I suppose). And it's unclear. Is Nicky "done" as in finished reading it? Or, as it seems, is he "done" in that he is rather piqued with the book? Putting aside that, if anything, he should be done with the authors and not the actual book, would it be too much trouble to tell us, as Tom Werner did in part a few days ago, why his panties are in such a knot? What troubles him about Francona's book? Please, let us learn, Nicky.
Once again, shame on me for venturing into the whacky, inexplicable world of Nick Cafardo.
The protection thing is particularly infuriating. For one, there's always someone who's "not going to get protection." Say they did sign Hamilton - does he think he'd hit BEHIND Ortiz? Wouldn't Hamilton be your three hitter and Ortiz your four? And if Ortiz hits in front of Hamilton, who's protecting Hamilton?
It's inane.
But, even so, this idea that the Sox line-up comprises David Ortiz and a bunch of punch-and-judy hitters is absurd. Ellsbury is one injury-shortened season removed from an MVP-caliber effort. Pedroia actually WAS the MVP three years ago. Will Middlebrooks had 29 XBH in 267 ABs last year as a rookie. Against lefties last year, Gomes put up a .974 OPS - that's not good enough protection for Ortiz?
"Little or no protection"? Between Middlebrooks, Gomes, and Napoli, there's no reason they can't cobble together a pretty good #5 slot.
Or, if Ortiz is hitting third, as Farrell indicated would happen against righties, you've likely got Pedroia hitting fourth, where he continues to have a 1.117 OPS in 139 PAs. People are going to walk Ortiz to get to Pedey? Really Nick?
It's inane.
But, even so, this idea that the Sox line-up comprises David Ortiz and a bunch of punch-and-judy hitters is absurd. Ellsbury is one injury-shortened season removed from an MVP-caliber effort. Pedroia actually WAS the MVP three years ago. Will Middlebrooks had 29 XBH in 267 ABs last year as a rookie. Against lefties last year, Gomes put up a .974 OPS - that's not good enough protection for Ortiz?
"Little or no protection"? Between Middlebrooks, Gomes, and Napoli, there's no reason they can't cobble together a pretty good #5 slot.
Or, if Ortiz is hitting third, as Farrell indicated would happen against righties, you've likely got Pedroia hitting fourth, where he continues to have a 1.117 OPS in 139 PAs. People are going to walk Ortiz to get to Pedey? Really Nick?
I had the same reaction. NC actually ticked me off this morning. He's literally oblivious to anything that doesn't fit the fantasies he concocts in his head like an 11 year-old daydreaming in his bedroom.
Plus he's back to pimping David DeJesus again. His literary tics are returning...
Plus he's back to pimping David DeJesus again. His literary tics are returning...
Isn't this:
The Sox could trade some of their acquisitions at midseason and perhaps pick up extra draft picks.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/02/20/red-sox-spring-training-camp-low-expectations/U1UFyh0d4XRwrQXVbPrBRI/story.html
wrong?
The Sox could trade some of their acquisitions at midseason and perhaps pick up extra draft picks.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/02/20/red-sox-spring-training-camp-low-expectations/U1UFyh0d4XRwrQXVbPrBRI/story.html
wrong?
joe dokes said:
Absolutely it is. The only way to turn players into draft picks is to hold on to them for the season, make a qualifying offer, and hope they turn down the offer and walk away. I would think that the only possible candidates for this on the Red Sox roster are Napoli and maybe Drew. But of course that depends entirely on how well they play this season. If they're not worth the QO salary, it would be foolish to offer it to them.
There are tradeable draft picks as part of the new CBA's competitive balance lottery, but it's a very small number of them at the ends of the first two rounds. So technically, yes, they could trade those guys for draft picks. But they'll have to each be acquired in separate deals from separate teams, since no team has more than one and no team that acquires them can re-trade them.
It's technically correct, but it's dumb to think they're going to be able to accumulate a bunch of these 12 available picks. First and foremost, 7-9 of those picks are held by teams not likely to be adding at midseason. If Cafardo thinks they can make separate deals to acquire several of the available 3-5 picks, well...that shows you what sort of baseball mind he is.
It's technically correct, but it's dumb to think they're going to be able to accumulate a bunch of these 12 available picks. First and foremost, 7-9 of those picks are held by teams not likely to be adding at midseason. If Cafardo thinks they can make separate deals to acquire several of the available 3-5 picks, well...that shows you what sort of baseball mind he is.
Hendu for Kutch said:
Ahh....you must be referring to this (which is somewhat less than clear):
Beginning with the 2012 season, MLB allows one specific class of draft picks to be traded. As part of a newly signed collective bargaining agreement between MLB and its players' union, each team is allocated a "bonus pool"—a set amount of money it can use to sign its draft picks for that year. Teams that go over their threshold can be penalized by losing one or more future draft picks. Those forfeited draft picks will eventually end up in the possession of small-revenue teams, which can then trade them if they wish. The first picks awarded under this scheme are for the 2013 draft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_transactions
If he is correct, it is only by accident. The convoluted nature of the possibility of such a trade would cause even the hackiest of hacks to include an explanation, or at least a reference that its a new system. But not Nick, who was definitely looking at it NFL-style.
This was my favorite from his generally pathetic mailbag today:
So, the question is actually a pretty decent one, asking about how much defense is weighted in evaluating a player with contemporary metrics (though the use of BA shows the guy still has a way to go). Nick's response?
Literally, "way above my intellectual capacity." I mean, obviously, Nick - but is that really an acceptable response from the guy who is the lead Sox beat writer? Couldn't he refer the guy to Baseball Prospectus or the Bill James Almanac or some other source that explores the value of defense vs. the value of offense?
I'm sure there are plenty of pitchers who would rather have a masher with average defense over an automatic out with plus-plus defense. It depends on the rest of the line-up, the rest of the infield defense, etc.
It's not impossible that Iglesias is the better choice at shortstop, but that answer is just so devoid of actual interest in educating and serving the readers it's embarrassing.
So, the question is actually a pretty decent one, asking about how much defense is weighted in evaluating a player with contemporary metrics (though the use of BA shows the guy still has a way to go). Nick's response?
Literally, "way above my intellectual capacity." I mean, obviously, Nick - but is that really an acceptable response from the guy who is the lead Sox beat writer? Couldn't he refer the guy to Baseball Prospectus or the Bill James Almanac or some other source that explores the value of defense vs. the value of offense?
I'm sure there are plenty of pitchers who would rather have a masher with average defense over an automatic out with plus-plus defense. It depends on the rest of the line-up, the rest of the infield defense, etc.
It's not impossible that Iglesias is the better choice at shortstop, but that answer is just so devoid of actual interest in educating and serving the readers it's embarrassing.
Any columnist worth his salt would have reached out to an expert in the field and had them give an answer.MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:
"That's above my intellectual capacity, but I reached out to X and Baseball Prospectus and he says..."
Fucking lazy hack. Doesn't know the answer, so he throws out some cheesy platitudes instead.
Nick went to Tampa to talk to Kevin Youkilis.
Can Nick possibly be as tone-deaf as appears? Can't he see that Yook was simply sick of answering Cafardo's bullshit let's-rehash-2012 questions?
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2013/02/youkilis_turnin.html
Can Nick possibly be as tone-deaf as appears? Can't he see that Yook was simply sick of answering Cafardo's bullshit let's-rehash-2012 questions?
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2013/02/youkilis_turnin.html
Just as likely that Youk knows that Nick is in the tank for Bobby and doesn't want to feed the troll.
Kevin and Nick, a one-act play
Nick: "Kevin! Kevin! Kevin! Quick question Kevin, Bobby Valentine was the best manager ever, right?"
Kevin: "Uh, wha?"
Nick: "Bobby Valentine, your manager for a half-season last year, he's awesome. Don't you agree?"
Kevin: "I don't know about that. He kinda got me booted out of Boston."
Nick: "THAT IS BULLSHIT, KEVIN! YOU AND I BOTH KNOW THAT HE'S AWESOME AND YOU COULDN'T HACK HIS AWESOMENESS, SO YOU COMPLETELY PUSSED OUT! GOD, YOU'RE THE WORST! I HOPE YOU DIE!"
Kevin: "You’re pretty adamant about what you thought, so go with it."
And scene.
Nick: "Kevin! Kevin! Kevin! Quick question Kevin, Bobby Valentine was the best manager ever, right?"
Kevin: "Uh, wha?"
Nick: "Bobby Valentine, your manager for a half-season last year, he's awesome. Don't you agree?"
Kevin: "I don't know about that. He kinda got me booted out of Boston."
Nick: "THAT IS BULLSHIT, KEVIN! YOU AND I BOTH KNOW THAT HE'S AWESOME AND YOU COULDN'T HACK HIS AWESOMENESS, SO YOU COMPLETELY PUSSED OUT! GOD, YOU'RE THE WORST! I HOPE YOU DIE!"
Kevin: "You’re pretty adamant about what you thought, so go with it."
And scene.
Ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow's "column."
One guy is on a different team now and doesn't want to talk about Valentine. The other ONLY talks about Valentine. And Nick thinks the first guy hasn't "moved on."
What does Nick think "moved on" means.
One guy is on a different team now and doesn't want to talk about Valentine. The other ONLY talks about Valentine. And Nick thinks the first guy hasn't "moved on."
What does Nick think "moved on" means.
In the "broken clock is right twice-a-day" dept., I have to give the man the praise he deserves for this one:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/02/22/former-captain-ever-courageous/ekhrtA3GSwecidLXXQ9S2K/story.html
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/02/22/former-captain-ever-courageous/ekhrtA3GSwecidLXXQ9S2K/story.html
Read this take on the Yankees from Jonah Keri. And compare it to the sunshine and lollipops shit burger that Cafardo turned in for yesterday's paper.
If anyone can find it online and link it here, that would be great. The basic gist is that the Yankees are old, but they're still going to be awesome. I meant to link to it yesterday because it was so terrible (honestly, it was easily his worst column of the last six months) but I can't find it. Actually, here it is, but I can't get around the paywall.
One of the bon mots from Mr. Cafardo is to lay off the Baseball Ops folks because they're trying hard. So take that as your marching orders, folks. LAY OFF!
If anyone can find it online and link it here, that would be great. The basic gist is that the Yankees are old, but they're still going to be awesome. I meant to link to it yesterday because it was so terrible (honestly, it was easily his worst column of the last six months) but I can't find it. Actually, here it is, but I can't get around the paywall.
One of the bon mots from Mr. Cafardo is to lay off the Baseball Ops folks because they're trying hard. So take that as your marching orders, folks. LAY OFF!
It's great how with each column you can tell who the one guy is he bothered to talk to that week. The Twins are in spring training next to the Red Sox, so Cafardo obviously talked to Gardenhire for like 15 minutes. Boom, Sunday notes column is all set! With like 6 nuggets of info on the Twins, which obviously everyone in New England can't wait to read. "So the Twins are excited about Aaron Hicks, that's interesting!"
He's actually so lazy that he doesn't talk to all of his 4 or 5 sources each week, he just talks to one of them. At least he actually talked to someone, instead of just giving us his "analysis," so I guess it could be worse.
He's actually so lazy that he doesn't talk to all of his 4 or 5 sources each week, he just talks to one of them. At least he actually talked to someone, instead of just giving us his "analysis," so I guess it could be worse.
The Gray Eagle said:
Crap. I forgot all about that jibberish.
He's still beating he Morneau is getting traded drum. Though this time the Blue Jays are looking at him, because gosh, it was only yesterday (actually 2006, seven years ago) that Morneau won the MVP. Since then absolutely nothing has changed and he's still the exact same player that he was in the mid 00s.
I have a Globe subscription, though I try to avoid Cafardo. But I had to see the Yankees' article, referenced above.
Here's my favorite part:
Here's my favorite part:
I actually laughed at the line, not because I think Teixeira sucks, it's just that in the face of data Cafardo just keeps on space truckin'.
So this guy asks Nick a somewhat reasonable question and he answers it with four questions of his own.
So if the Sox don't do well by the trade deadline and Victorino or Napoli or Gomes is doing well, the Sox are supposed to hold on to them because they aren't "a smaller team"?
Lets say the the Pirates are contending in the NL Central and the Rays and Blue Jays are way ahead of the Sox and Pittsburgh say "We haven't been in this position in decades and we need a veteran that will put us over the top. We will take on the salary and give you a draft pick, do we have a deal?"
Why the hell wouldn't Ben Cherrington say no to this? If he does believe in the crap that Cafardo is selling, I hope to god that someone fires Cherrington immediately. Because this is insane thinking.
Lets say the the Pirates are contending in the NL Central and the Rays and Blue Jays are way ahead of the Sox and Pittsburgh say "We haven't been in this position in decades and we need a veteran that will put us over the top. We will take on the salary and give you a draft pick, do we have a deal?"
Why the hell wouldn't Ben Cherrington say no to this? If he does believe in the crap that Cafardo is selling, I hope to god that someone fires Cherrington immediately. Because this is insane thinking.
Corsi said:
And again he brings up the topic of picking up draft picks. Teams can't trade draft picks, and traded players can't be given qualifying offers that could net the team a compensatory pick. Somewhere in that mailbag, he mentions he's been to 29 spring trainings. He's been around the game that long and isn't aware/doesn't remember that trading draft picks has NEVER been a part of major league baseball?
There are a small number of draft picks that are tradeable. 12 this year, I believe. But about 8 or 9 of them are going to teams who wouldn't be trading them for a rental. Why he keeps bringing it up as their main option is beyond me, that part is certainly stupid. It's about 100x more likely that if they make any trades it'd be for prospects, not draft picks.
soxhop411 said:
Jose Iglesias... we hardly knew ya.
Don't you know?... JBJ is the new binky that Cafardo is humping. Farrell pauses for a moment to formulate a measured response to a question from Cafardo about whether JBJ will stay with the parent club, and Cafardo interprets this as "bold thinking". I mean, it's such a childishly inane inference that to actually print it is the joke.
Nick: "Daddy... when I grow up, do you think I will be President?"
Nick's Dad: "Son... the possibility is there someday."
Nick: "Mom! I'm going to be PRESIDENT... of the whole world!"
Yeesh.
.
edit: and for the record, Bill Chuck (who the hell is Bill Chuck?) never reported it as a 10-year anniversary. That was solely on Nick not being able to figure out that February 2002 was 11 years ago.
http://www.billy-ball.com/2013/02/happy-anniversary-to-john-henry-tom-werner-and-larry-lucchino/
edit: and for the record, Bill Chuck (who the hell is Bill Chuck?) never reported it as a 10-year anniversary. That was solely on Nick not being able to figure out that February 2002 was 11 years ago.
http://www.billy-ball.com/2013/02/happy-anniversary-to-john-henry-tom-werner-and-larry-lucchino/
- Status