Protecting the Shields -- The Nick Cafardo Thread

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

Fun is for winners! Only. Without exception.

Also, players should be automatons and not distract us with their individuality, which takes away from the purity of the game.

Get your torches, men! Nick will lead us!

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

You know, back in the day newspaper men wore hats, dark suits and ties to work. And they also didn't gorge themselves at the press room buffet. It seems to me that they just did a better job when dressed that way and I enjoyed my paper more. Maybe baseball writers should have their own dress code before they advocate for other grown men to be told what to wear. 

 

[Vandalman]

You know, back in the day newspaper men wore hats, dark suits and ties to work. And they also didn't gorge themselves at the press room buffet. It seems to me that they just did a better job when dressed that way and I enjoyed my paper more. Maybe baseball writers should have their own dress code before they advocate for other grown men to be told what to wear. 

 
 
Don't forget the lid:
 

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I didn't forget the hats, it was the first thing in my list. 
 
Aside from someone like Paul Lukas, I'm not sure why anyone really gives a shit about the way an athlete wears his uniform or how he combs his hair. There are a million things in this world to be concerned about, hairstyle and baggy pants aren't one of them. 

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I didn't forget the hats, it was the first thing in my list. 
 
Aside from someone like Paul Lukas, I'm not sure why anyone really gives a shit about the way an athlete wears his uniform or how he combs his hair. There are a million things in this world to be concerned about, hairstyle and baggy pants aren't one of them. 

 
People who complain about the way players dress are almost universally old white guys, and the players they bitch about are almost universally Latino guys. Buchholz wore about a dozen of those stupid rope necklaces to the mound for years and I never heard peep about that from anyone. But God forbid Hanley's top button is undone.
 
Hell is other people.

 

[joe dokes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4Wfr5v6wX8

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

 
People who complain about the way players dress are almost universally old white guys, and the players they bitch about are almost universally Latino guys. Buchholz wore about a dozen of those stupid rope necklaces to the mound for years and I never heard peep about that from anyone. But God forbid Hanley's top button is undone.
 
Hell is other people.

 
Very true.
 
"Tsk, tsk Latinos! Your crazy hair, cha-cha music and fiery temper are ruining the seriousness of the great American game!"

 

[Granite Sox]

Fun is for winners! Only. Without exception.

Also, players should be automatons and not distract us with their individuality, which takes away from the purity of the game.

Get your torches, men! Nick will lead us!

 
The game needs more CHARACTERS!!*
 
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/06/06/baseball-executives-looking-for-some-real-characters/SLNi37gvg0TPGKbau9iQLP/story.html
 
 
 
 
 
*In Cafardo's eyes: with no facial hair, a short close-cropped hairdo, high socks, buttoned up uniform, and preferably of Western European ethnicity

 

[timlinin8th]

 
Very true.
 
"Tsk, tsk Latinos! Your crazy hair, cha-cha music and fiery temper are ruining the seriousness of the great American game!"

Clean up those sideburns, Mattingly!

 

[nattysez]

Would definitely like to see restrictions on the jewelry and Hanleys dreadlocks. It is distracting. When Hanleys helmet falls off after each swing, cmon, someone needs to say something. The Yankees do it right and always have. Very professional organization. Red Sox need to have a dress code on the field. Maybe that will change with Dombrowski in charge.

Since this wasn't in a quote box, I assumed you were just making up the answer you thought Nick would give. Then I clicked through to the article...

 

[Harry Hooper]

Since this wasn't in a quote box, I assumed you were just making up the answer you thought Nick would give. Then I clicked through to the article...

 
Yanks very professional when they were doing that wife-swapping thing, Nick.

 

[Corsi]

https://twitter.com/nickcafardo/status/638178981553012736

 

[Van Everyman]

The F&F films: decidedly in line with Nick's intellectual capacity.

Just found out Nick has blocked me on Twitter. No idea why.

 

[doc]

Nevermind

 

[joe dokes]

I was looking at the Borges article linked in the Rehash spygate thread and I hadn't been aware he was at the Herald now, so I looked him up on Wikipedia and that page is hilarious
 

 
Are you suggesting that Cafardo wrote it?

 

[doc]

 
Are you suggesting that Cafardo wrote it?

No sometimes I'm just a dumb ass

 

[joe dokes]

No sometimes I'm just a dumb ass

 
Welcome to the club.  :bravo:

 

[doc]

Oh I think I'm a charter member.

 

[joe dokes]

Oh I think I'm a charter member.

 
Eventually, we all become Nick Cafardo.

 

[Humphrey]

"5. How long will Rays ownership hang in there when Montreal would provide an attendance stream of at least 28,000 per game?"
 
Did I miss that city building a ballpark or at least having an iron clad agreement to build one  if the Rays moved there?

 

[joe dokes]

The F&F films: decidedly in line with Nick's intellectual capacity.

Just found out Nick has blocked me on Twitter. No idea why.

 
Nick also has no idea.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Yesterday's column was the first one that I literally skimmed through. As bad as they are, I usually do read most of what Cafardo writes in these columns (out of habit and because I'm genuinely curious as to what idiocy he's writing that day) but yesterday's piece was brutal. And boring. And hypocritical. He'd write one thing and then immediately contradict himself in the next sentence. I didn't feel like unraveling his moronic logic pretzel, so I gave up. 
 
You won, Nick. You made me stop reading my all-time favorite column. Well fucking done. 

 

[JBJ_HOF]

In his last couple of stories he has had Kelly being sent to the bullpen, traded to KC, and in trouble and scrambling to find a spot in 2016.
 
Today it's Kelly "got respect back" and "won us back and we want more."

 

[chrisfont9]

And now Cafardo has soiled himself in pursuit of Chris Davis. Davis has 4.3 b-WAR after bottoming out last year. Shaw would be on pace for 3.8 b-WAR in the same number of PAs. Is Cafardo just trolling us now?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

And now Cafardo has soiled himself in pursuit of Chris Davis. Davis has 4.3 b-WAR after bottoming out last year. Shaw would be on pace for 3.8 b-WAR in the same number of PAs. Is Cafardo just trolling us now?

 
Thanks a lot for making me read Cafardo to find out exactly what was so objectionable, but I don't see it.  Suggesting Davis as a possible free agent target for the Sox (and he classifies him as a luxury, not a need) isn't such an outlandish suggestion at all.  For Cafardo, it's downright intelligent.  I think it's more likely the Sox go into 2016 with Hanley and Shaw as plan A and B at 1B, but that's down to having so much invested in Hanley and his not having a great deal of trade value coming off the  worst season of his career rather than a reflection on outside options like Davis.  However, if Hanley were moved out somehow, a 2-3 year deal for Davis (considering he's 30) would be a better bet than relying on Travis Shaw to be anything more than a flash in the pan.
 
Cafardo sucks 99% of the time, but I'm not seeing trolling here.

 

[chrisfont9]

 
Thanks a lot for making me read Cafardo to find out exactly what was so objectionable, but I don't see it.  Suggesting Davis as a possible free agent target for the Sox (and he classifies him as a luxury, not a need) isn't such an outlandish suggestion at all.  For Cafardo, it's downright intelligent.  I think it's more likely the Sox go into 2016 with Hanley and Shaw as plan A and B at 1B, but that's down to having so much invested in Hanley and his not having a great deal of trade value coming off the  worst season of his career rather than a reflection on outside options like Davis.  However, if Hanley were moved out somehow, a 2-3 year deal for Davis (considering he's 30) would be a better bet than relying on Travis Shaw to be anything more than a flash in the pan.
 
Cafardo sucks 99% of the time, but I'm not seeing trolling here.

I don't see Davis coming here on a reasonable 2-3 year deal or Hanley moving out somehow. Davis spent last year in a season-long slump which was curtailed by a PED suspension. This year is one of his good years and he's still struck out 192 times and counting. I see him as someone who will command a big salary based on traditional stats and come with some real risk.
 
Shaw, meanwhile, is 25, cheap as hell, and already doing what Davis does without the strikeouts. There's a risk he can't keep doing it, but at 25 Davis was way below replacement level. So why would you gamble on the nine-figure guy instead of gambling on the minimum salary guy who is putting up comparable numbers? Why would you go the expensive route when plan B and C behind Shaw are two other expensive FA signings? At least when Cafardo was pining for Hamels there was a spot in the rotation for him.

 

[ifmanis5]

#1 priority for Boston is pitching and I'm guessing Dave D knows that. Nick doesn't.

 

[joe dokes]

 
Thanks a lot for making me read Cafardo to find out exactly what was so objectionable, but I don't see it.  Suggesting Davis as a possible free agent target for the Sox (and he classifies him as a luxury, not a need) isn't such an outlandish suggestion at all.  For Cafardo, it's downright intelligent.  I think it's more likely the Sox go into 2016 with Hanley and Shaw as plan A and B at 1B, but that's down to having so much invested in Hanley and his not having a great deal of trade value coming off the  worst season of his career rather than a reflection on outside options like Davis.  However, if Hanley were moved out somehow, a 2-3 year deal for Davis (considering he's 30) would be a better bet than relying on Travis Shaw to be anything more than a flash in the pan.
 
Cafardo sucks 99% of the time, but I'm not seeing trolling here.

I dont see Davis accepting -- or having to accept -- a 2-3 year deal anywhere.

 

[ifmanis5]

Nick takes on the new management structure is baseball this morning. He hates it, thinks it's too big and bloated. Then everyone he talks to in the piece tells him it's a necessary evolution of the sport. Nick complains, is the game on the field any better? Nick reminds himself that despite Boston's bloated staff (they even have therapists... and doctors!) that they've won 3 championships lately so it must be working. However, Nick concludes that the smaller market teams that have done well this year are extra smart since they're doing more with less. I can't think of another writer that openly argues with himself in his own work. It's like a tennis match inside his brain and everybody loses.

 

[JGray38]

The tennis match inside his brain is brick wall hitting a tennis ball against a brick wall.

 

[E5 Yaz]

The tennis match inside his brain is brick wall hitting a tennis ball against a brick wall.

 
It's like watching Inside Out

 

[JimBoSox9]

The tennis match inside his brain is brick wall hitting a tennis ball against a brick wall.

 
Nick Cafardo: powered by Pong.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Nick takes on the new management structure is baseball this morning. He hates it, thinks it's too big and bloated. Then everyone he talks to in the piece tells him it's a necessary evolution of the sport. Nick complains, is the game on the field any better? Nick reminds himself that despite Boston's bloated staff (they even have therapists... and doctors!) that they've won 3 championships lately so it must be working. However, Nick concludes that the smaller market teams that have done well this year are extra smart since they're doing more with less. I can't think of another writer that openly argues with himself in his own work. It's like a tennis match inside his brain and everybody loses.

 
Honestly, that piece felt like a copy and paste article. And what I mean by this, I think he wrote one version, then wrote another version, didn't like either of them and them smashed them together. Because he repeated himself a lot in those 15-20 inches. His prose was more confusing than usual. I was reading and kind of shaking my head and then I read some more and I thought, "Hey, did I literally just read that four paragraphs ago?" and "This sentence seems to contradict what I just two sentences ago."
 
Then I thought, never change, Nick. Never change. 

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Nick has something personal against Hanley. That's the only reason I can think of for today's article shitting all over Hanley to have been written. I mean, it's more than fair to say the OF has been better with the 3 kids out there than with Hanley, I think that's pretty self-evident. But gloating that the guy has gone home to start rehab on his shoulder early? Asserting it's because he doesn't work hard enough? That's a bit much coming from the most cliched writer in the city.

 

[joe dokes]

Nick has something personal against Hanley. That's the only reason I can think of for today's article shitting all over Hanley to have been written. I mean, it's more than fair to say the OF has been better with the 3 kids out there than with Hanley, I think that's pretty self-evident. But gloating that the guy has gone home to start rehab on his shoulder early? Asserting it's because he doesn't work hard enough? That's a bit much coming from the most cliched writer in the city.

 
But Nick only saw him working 2 days. Shouldnt that be enough evidence for you.
 
Nick also wrote the Sox had already finished last this season last week.

 

[tomdeplonty]

Cafardo calling out anyone, for being lazy, is intrinsically hilarious.

 

[Granite Sox]

Slagging a guy when he's already skipped town is about as low as it gets, in addition to the other issues with Cafardo that have been noted.
 

 
... who has exhibited "I don't care" body language...

 
Giving Mazz a run for the Most Execrable Sports Media Personality award (non-Tanguay division)...

 

[Toe Nash]

Nick has something personal against Hanley. That's the only reason I can think of for today's article shitting all over Hanley to have been written. I mean, it's more than fair to say the OF has been better with the 3 kids out there than with Hanley, I think that's pretty self-evident. But gloating that the guy has gone home to start rehab on his shoulder early? Asserting it's because he doesn't work hard enough? That's a bit much coming from the most cliched writer in the city.

Finn trashed him today too.
 
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/2015/09/30/time-for-hanley-ramirez/GWSXNUrLwDum0N9FrmZI5J/story.html?s_campaign=bcom:gigya:twitter

 

[Pilgrim]

If Hanley isn't putting in the effort, or is an asshole in the clubhouse, maybe they should write a whole article about that instead of assuming it as background and ripping the guys character.

The idea that on field performance is some sort of window into a persons morality is such a shitty sportswriter cliche.

 

[yecul]

He has dreadlocks. Do I need to say more? Give Nicky boy a break here.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Finn trashed him today too.
 
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/2015/09/30/time-for-hanley-ramirez/GWSXNUrLwDum0N9FrmZI5J/story.html?s_campaign=bcom:gigya:twitter

 
I'm a bit surprised at Finn for this piece. Mean-spirited hatchet jobs aren't usually his forte, I hope that this isn't a new thing for him. 

 

[Leather]

Ramirez was once a superstar. A slugger rather than a slug.
 

 
Jesus.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

I'm a bit surprised at Finn for this piece. Mean-spirited hatchet jobs aren't usually his forte, I hope that this isn't a new thing for him.

 

Even Speier wrote a piece today chiming in on Hanley as one of this year's most significant problems.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/09/30/how-did-red-sox-salvage-something-from-lost-season/fOKD6dBTwr1KwYaA6HpplL/story.html?event=event25

Where there's smoke, you know....

 

[JimBoSox9]

 

Even Speier wrote a piece today chiming in on Hanley as one of this year's most significant problems.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/09/30/how-did-red-sox-salvage-something-from-lost-season/fOKD6dBTwr1KwYaA6HpplL/story.html?event=event25

Where there's smoke, you know....

 
I think it's pretty clear there's a gap between the beat writers perception and what the FO has said or implied, about the level of effort Ramirez put into learning LF and being a good clubhouse citizen.  The extent to what Finn implies, it would be pretty surprising if the Pedroia/Ortiz clubhouse, the latter in particular, let it play out like that.  But then again, the writers are in there, I'm not, and who the hell knows.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Might as well add the link to Edes' piece here as well
 
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/47320/hanley-ramirez-goes-home-will-he-ever-come-back

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

 

Even Speier wrote a piece today chiming in on Hanley as one of this year's most significant problems.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/09/30/how-did-red-sox-salvage-something-from-lost-season/fOKD6dBTwr1KwYaA6HpplL/story.html?event=event25

Where there's smoke, you know....

 
I'm not saying that Ramirez isn't a problem. But I mean we were all on the Good Ship Hanley back in May when he was a one-man wrecking crew before he got hurt. There were countless articles written about how Hanley was taking extra fly balls in the outfield, how he approached the position change with a smile, how he's doing charity work and how he's grown up. 
 
Now he puts the "slug" in slugger? 
 
At one point we're getting fed a bunch of crap, or maybe not, I don't know. And you know what, he's probably a (very expensive) man without a position in Boston and he probably needs to go, but I'm not sure what the vitriol is for. Not every signing works out and that's okay. It doesn't make the guy Hitler. And furthermore, where is the ire for Pablo Sandoval? Hanley should probably be playing third base but this tub of goo is there. And he doesn't have the luxury of blaming a position change for his craptastic year. 

 

[joe dokes]

And furthermore, where is the ire for Pablo Sandoval? Hanley should probably be playing third base but this tub of goo is there. And he doesn't have the luxury of blaming a position change for his craptastic year. 

Maybe Yecul is right....its the dreadlocks.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

Yep, the writers are all going after Ramirez, while Sandoval is getting a free pass. Where are the complaints about Sandoval's work ethic, since he is in far worse shape than Hanley? He is the one who was Instagramming during a game, and had to come out of a game because he was exhausted from running the bases.
He also can't get back on the field now, and the team doesn't miss him a bit either. He also has a giant contract. 
 
I can only imagine what would have been written about Ramirez if he was the one posting to the internet during a game, or he was the one who was a fat tub of goo. And what is this nonsense about his "supposed injury"? He slammed into the wall in foul territory back in May, and sucked as a hitter afterwards. Also became even more tentative in the OF after that too. Why is that injury being snarkily questioned?
 
If one guy is a slug and needs to be dumped, why is the other guy getting no heat?
 
Since it's all the writers piling on Ramirez, something must have happened-- my guess is someone from the front office told them off the record that they plan to dump Hanley ASAP. So the writers can all dump on him and "predict" that he will be traded. And since he's not traveling with the team anymore, they don't even have to worry about seeing him face to face, so it's open season. 
 
Even if everything they write about Hanley is true, the fact that they all are piling on him and just him right now, makes it seem like something happened recently. 

 

[joe dokes]

 

Even Speier wrote a piece today chiming in on Hanley as one of this year's most significant problems.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/09/30/how-did-red-sox-salvage-something-from-lost-season/fOKD6dBTwr1KwYaA6HpplL/story.html?event=event25

Where there's smoke, you know....

 
Speier's piece is a lot shorter on the moral outrage. He sticks to the more obvious stuff-- somebody overestimated his ability to play LF; Ramirez's defense was killing the team; and if he's not hitting he's useless.  But that's not very exciting.

 

[Chad Finn]

 
I'm a bit surprised at Finn for this piece. Mean-spirited hatchet jobs aren't usually his forte, I hope that this isn't a new thing for him. 

 
Eh, I was too harsh. Not my best stuff. I actually like him more than most, though you sure as hell couldn't tell from that.