QUOTE (RIrooter09 @ Nov 1 2009, 10:36 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2660873
It really took this long?
I never really paid attention I guess.
It really took this long?
I never really paid attention I guess.
Protecting the Shields -- The Nick Cafardo Thread
- Thread starter MyDaughterLovesTomGordon
- Start date
- Status
QUOTE (joyofsox @ Nov 1 2009, 03:22 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2660863
And that's that.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/arti...llusion?mode=PF
I think this is one of the most interesting things Cafardo has written of late. To state the obvious, he is saying:
1: He is aware that statistical analysis shows Drew and Ellsbury in that light.
2. He doesn't agree with said statistical analysis.
Those [Ellsbury and Drew] are both interesting discussion points, and each has been debated here at SoSH, certainly. I find myself wondering, to what extent, I agree with each argument. I also wonder what the majority of SoSH readers think. It goes without saying that Drew has been a lightning rod, with more than a fair share of "Get this guy out of town; he sucks," vitriol hurled his way. Meanwhile, Ellsbury has received much praise for his defensive play.
Knowing the imperfection of defensive metrics, is Ellsbury truly no better than average? Personally, I'm a little skeptical that's true.
Is Drew a "really productive" player? I'm more prone to accept the validity of the numbers in his case, but I have to believe that a very large number of people aren't, based on what I've read and heard since he joined the team.
And that's that.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/arti...llusion?mode=PF
I think this is one of the most interesting things Cafardo has written of late. To state the obvious, he is saying:
1: He is aware that statistical analysis shows Drew and Ellsbury in that light.
2. He doesn't agree with said statistical analysis.
Those [Ellsbury and Drew] are both interesting discussion points, and each has been debated here at SoSH, certainly. I find myself wondering, to what extent, I agree with each argument. I also wonder what the majority of SoSH readers think. It goes without saying that Drew has been a lightning rod, with more than a fair share of "Get this guy out of town; he sucks," vitriol hurled his way. Meanwhile, Ellsbury has received much praise for his defensive play.
Knowing the imperfection of defensive metrics, is Ellsbury truly no better than average? Personally, I'm a little skeptical that's true.
Is Drew a "really productive" player? I'm more prone to accept the validity of the numbers in his case, but I have to believe that a very large number of people aren't, based on what I've read and heard since he joined the team.
QUOTE
I think this is one of the most interesting things Cafardo has written of late. To state the obvious, he is saying:
1: He is aware that statistical analysis shows Drew and Ellsbury in that light.
2. He doesn't agree with said statistical analysis.
The way it's written isn't interesting at all mainly because he didn't say anything. He just said that he didn't agree with the numbers, big deal. He didn't put his opinion in any context or didn't even bother to explain to his readers the analysis that he's commenting on, which runs contrary to "prevailing wisdom". It would be like if a music reviewer said, "I know that many people consider Sgt. Peppers to be the best Beatles album, but I think it sucks." and left it at that.
Again, Cafardo has a nugget of an interesting thought but is too lazy or too dumb to expound on it. He could be right, the numbers that show that JD Drew is the third most productive outfielder in the AL are full of shit, but tell me. Explain to me why he thinks that Ellsbury is a better centerfielder than the numbers say. He can even fall back on his old crutch of using anonymous quotes, but educate me, share an idea or thought.
That is Cafardo's job and again, he fails miserably. Just like he does every single week.
I think this is one of the most interesting things Cafardo has written of late. To state the obvious, he is saying:
1: He is aware that statistical analysis shows Drew and Ellsbury in that light.
2. He doesn't agree with said statistical analysis.
The way it's written isn't interesting at all mainly because he didn't say anything. He just said that he didn't agree with the numbers, big deal. He didn't put his opinion in any context or didn't even bother to explain to his readers the analysis that he's commenting on, which runs contrary to "prevailing wisdom". It would be like if a music reviewer said, "I know that many people consider Sgt. Peppers to be the best Beatles album, but I think it sucks." and left it at that.
Again, Cafardo has a nugget of an interesting thought but is too lazy or too dumb to expound on it. He could be right, the numbers that show that JD Drew is the third most productive outfielder in the AL are full of shit, but tell me. Explain to me why he thinks that Ellsbury is a better centerfielder than the numbers say. He can even fall back on his old crutch of using anonymous quotes, but educate me, share an idea or thought.
That is Cafardo's job and again, he fails miserably. Just like he does every single week.
QUOTE (David Laurila @ Nov 1 2009, 01:47 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2660961
I think this is one of the most interesting things Cafardo has written of late. To state the obvious, he is saying:
1: He is aware that statistical analysis shows Drew and Ellsbury in that light.
2. He doesn't agree with said statistical analysis.
Those [Ellsbury and Drew] are both interesting discussion points, and each has been debated here at SoSH, certainly. I find myself wondering, to what extent, I agree with each argument. I also wonder what the majority of SoSH readers think. It goes without saying that Drew has been a lightning rod, with more than a fair share of "Get this guy out of town; he sucks," vitriol hurled his way. Meanwhile, Ellsbury has received much praise for his defensive play.
Knowing the imperfection of defensive metrics, is Ellsbury truly no better than average? Personally, I'm a little skeptical that's true.
Is Drew a "really productive" player? I'm more prone to accept the validity of the numbers in his case, but I have to believe that a very large number of people aren't, based on what I've read and heard since he joined the team.
He gives absolutely no reasoning for his opinions at all. None. "The numbers say this, and I don't agree." No background info, analysis, or insight. If the numbers strike him as wrong, why doesn't he tell me why he disagrees?
It's one of the most useless things he's ever written, and that's saying something. He's essentially saying that he closes his eyes and ears to any analysis that strikes him as faulty, instead of reading it and coming up with arguments for or against. If the numbers don't ring true, explain why they don't. I'd be interested in hearing that. He can't be bothered.
There is nothing interesting here. It's empty disagreement, the type you might hear from drunken assholes in the bleachers after 6 or 7 innings. "JD DREW SUCKS!" For a guy who's supposed to have inside access, it's remarkably shallow and cynical writing. He never uses that access for anything useful. No, carrying JP Ricciardi's water doesn't qualify as useful.
He did the same thing with that Derek Lowe tidbit, that he thought Lowe might be dealt. That's interesting, and that's news to me. Tell me more. Why would Lowe be dealt? Who might want to acquire him? Nope, Nick can't be bothered.
There is no defending this guy any more. He's a useless pantload. Do some goddamn work for a change, Nick.
I think this is one of the most interesting things Cafardo has written of late. To state the obvious, he is saying:
1: He is aware that statistical analysis shows Drew and Ellsbury in that light.
2. He doesn't agree with said statistical analysis.
Those [Ellsbury and Drew] are both interesting discussion points, and each has been debated here at SoSH, certainly. I find myself wondering, to what extent, I agree with each argument. I also wonder what the majority of SoSH readers think. It goes without saying that Drew has been a lightning rod, with more than a fair share of "Get this guy out of town; he sucks," vitriol hurled his way. Meanwhile, Ellsbury has received much praise for his defensive play.
Knowing the imperfection of defensive metrics, is Ellsbury truly no better than average? Personally, I'm a little skeptical that's true.
Is Drew a "really productive" player? I'm more prone to accept the validity of the numbers in his case, but I have to believe that a very large number of people aren't, based on what I've read and heard since he joined the team.
He gives absolutely no reasoning for his opinions at all. None. "The numbers say this, and I don't agree." No background info, analysis, or insight. If the numbers strike him as wrong, why doesn't he tell me why he disagrees?
It's one of the most useless things he's ever written, and that's saying something. He's essentially saying that he closes his eyes and ears to any analysis that strikes him as faulty, instead of reading it and coming up with arguments for or against. If the numbers don't ring true, explain why they don't. I'd be interested in hearing that. He can't be bothered.
There is nothing interesting here. It's empty disagreement, the type you might hear from drunken assholes in the bleachers after 6 or 7 innings. "JD DREW SUCKS!" For a guy who's supposed to have inside access, it's remarkably shallow and cynical writing. He never uses that access for anything useful. No, carrying JP Ricciardi's water doesn't qualify as useful.
He did the same thing with that Derek Lowe tidbit, that he thought Lowe might be dealt. That's interesting, and that's news to me. Tell me more. Why would Lowe be dealt? Who might want to acquire him? Nope, Nick can't be bothered.
There is no defending this guy any more. He's a useless pantload. Do some goddamn work for a change, Nick.
QUOTE (Smiling Joe Hesketh @ Nov 2 2009, 03:28 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2663710
It's one of the most useless things he's ever written...
I disagree. The entries in the Apropos of Nothing section of his column are briefly-stated opinions, or observations, which aren't elaborated on. If your argument is that a columnist should never offer an opinion without explaining it, thus making "Apropos of Nothing" entries a waste of time -- sure, what you say makes perfect sense, and I'd concur completely. However, within the context of how he presented it, it is far from useless. The majority of his audience has no idea that Drew is, by analytical measures, a very productive hitter, or that Ellsbury might not be as good as they think he is. By bringing up a statistical-analysis-based argument in his column, he made many of his readers think. That is the reason I said it was one of the more interesting things he's written recently.
It's one of the most useless things he's ever written...
I disagree. The entries in the Apropos of Nothing section of his column are briefly-stated opinions, or observations, which aren't elaborated on. If your argument is that a columnist should never offer an opinion without explaining it, thus making "Apropos of Nothing" entries a waste of time -- sure, what you say makes perfect sense, and I'd concur completely. However, within the context of how he presented it, it is far from useless. The majority of his audience has no idea that Drew is, by analytical measures, a very productive hitter, or that Ellsbury might not be as good as they think he is. By bringing up a statistical-analysis-based argument in his column, he made many of his readers think. That is the reason I said it was one of the more interesting things he's written recently.
QUOTE (David Laurila @ Nov 2 2009, 11:00 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2663755
I disagree. The entries in the Apropos of Nothing section of his column are briefly-stated opinions, or observations, which aren't elaborated on. If your argument is that a columnist should never offer an opinion without explaining it, thus making "Apropos of Nothing" entries a waste of time -- sure, what you say makes perfect sense, and I'd concur completely. However, within the context of how he presented it, it is far from useless. The majority of his audience has no idea that Drew is, by analytical measures, a very productive hitter, or that Ellsbury might not be as good as they think he is. By bringing up a statistical-analysis-based argument in his column, he made many of his readers think. That is the reason I said it was one of the more interesting things he's written recently.
Without backing up his opinion with any type of reasoning or argument, his statement was utterly empty. He didn't make any of his readers think; he basically said, there's statistical analysis that says this and this, and I disagree. He didn't say why he disagreed, or note the limits of statistical analysis, or say anything of interest. His readers already think Drew sucks and Ellsbury's a fantastic OFer, because that's the conventional wisdom. By briefly noting that there's some disagreement via statistical analysis, and then blithely dismissing it, he's merely reinforced the status quo of the way those players are perceived. He certainly didn't make anyone think.
It was awful writing. Hell, his Apropos of Nothing section is a waste of column inches. This guy's getting over six figures to turn out this crap. No wonder the Globe is hemorrhaging money and subscriptions.
I disagree. The entries in the Apropos of Nothing section of his column are briefly-stated opinions, or observations, which aren't elaborated on. If your argument is that a columnist should never offer an opinion without explaining it, thus making "Apropos of Nothing" entries a waste of time -- sure, what you say makes perfect sense, and I'd concur completely. However, within the context of how he presented it, it is far from useless. The majority of his audience has no idea that Drew is, by analytical measures, a very productive hitter, or that Ellsbury might not be as good as they think he is. By bringing up a statistical-analysis-based argument in his column, he made many of his readers think. That is the reason I said it was one of the more interesting things he's written recently.
Without backing up his opinion with any type of reasoning or argument, his statement was utterly empty. He didn't make any of his readers think; he basically said, there's statistical analysis that says this and this, and I disagree. He didn't say why he disagreed, or note the limits of statistical analysis, or say anything of interest. His readers already think Drew sucks and Ellsbury's a fantastic OFer, because that's the conventional wisdom. By briefly noting that there's some disagreement via statistical analysis, and then blithely dismissing it, he's merely reinforced the status quo of the way those players are perceived. He certainly didn't make anyone think.
It was awful writing. Hell, his Apropos of Nothing section is a waste of column inches. This guy's getting over six figures to turn out this crap. No wonder the Globe is hemorrhaging money and subscriptions.
QUOTE (David Laurila @ Nov 2 2009, 10:00 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2663755
I disagree. The entries in the Apropos of Nothing section of his column are briefly-stated opinions, or observations, which aren't elaborated on. If your argument is that a columnist should never offer an opinion without explaining it, thus making "Apropos of Nothing" entries a waste of time -- sure, what you say makes perfect sense, and I'd concur completely. However, within the context of how he presented it, it is far from useless. The majority of his audience has no idea that Drew is, by analytical measures, a very productive hitter, or that Ellsbury might not be as good as they think he is. By bringing up a statistical-analysis-based argument in his column, he made many of his readers think. That is the reason I said it was one of the more interesting things he's written recently.
Can you give an example of something that you have not liked in an article? Any author, source, or context you choose.
I disagree. The entries in the Apropos of Nothing section of his column are briefly-stated opinions, or observations, which aren't elaborated on. If your argument is that a columnist should never offer an opinion without explaining it, thus making "Apropos of Nothing" entries a waste of time -- sure, what you say makes perfect sense, and I'd concur completely. However, within the context of how he presented it, it is far from useless. The majority of his audience has no idea that Drew is, by analytical measures, a very productive hitter, or that Ellsbury might not be as good as they think he is. By bringing up a statistical-analysis-based argument in his column, he made many of his readers think. That is the reason I said it was one of the more interesting things he's written recently.
Can you give an example of something that you have not liked in an article? Any author, source, or context you choose.
QUOTE
I disagree. The entries in the Apropos of Nothing section of his column are briefly-stated opinions, or observations, which aren't elaborated on.
This is why Cafardo is so frustrating because what he wrote isn't Apropos of Nothing, it's Apropos of Something. Right now, there are two sides to baseball analysis: the guys with the calculators and the old-time scouts. I think that we know which side of the fence that Cafardo falls on and he has a chance to present an argument that can enlighten his readers and maybe sway them to see another POV. But he doesn't, he just completely disregards the point with a hand wave.
As someone who fancies himself as a writer, you should be enraged Laurila. Is this good journalism? Would you do something like that? What's your writing philosophy, is it to educate your reader or do you just want to throw things out there?
I disagree. The entries in the Apropos of Nothing section of his column are briefly-stated opinions, or observations, which aren't elaborated on.
This is why Cafardo is so frustrating because what he wrote isn't Apropos of Nothing, it's Apropos of Something. Right now, there are two sides to baseball analysis: the guys with the calculators and the old-time scouts. I think that we know which side of the fence that Cafardo falls on and he has a chance to present an argument that can enlighten his readers and maybe sway them to see another POV. But he doesn't, he just completely disregards the point with a hand wave.
As someone who fancies himself as a writer, you should be enraged Laurila. Is this good journalism? Would you do something like that? What's your writing philosophy, is it to educate your reader or do you just want to throw things out there?
QUOTE (David Laurila @ Nov 1 2009, 12:47 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2660961
I think this is one of the most interesting things Cafardo has written of late. To state the obvious, he is saying:
1: He is aware that statistical analysis shows Drew and Ellsbury in that light.
2. He doesn't agree with said statistical analysis.
Those [Ellsbury and Drew] are both interesting discussion points, and each has been debated here at SoSH, certainly. I find myself wondering, to what extent, I agree with each argument. I also wonder what the majority of SoSH readers think. It goes without saying that Drew has been a lightning rod, with more than a fair share of "Get this guy out of town; he sucks," vitriol hurled his way. Meanwhile, Ellsbury has received much praise for his defensive play.
Knowing the imperfection of defensive metrics, is Ellsbury truly no better than average? Personally, I'm a little skeptical that's true.
Is Drew a "really productive" player? I'm more prone to accept the validity of the numbers in his case, but I have to believe that a very large number of people aren't, based on what I've read and heard since he joined the team.
Well, let me put it this way: based on what he's presented in the column we have exactly as much reason to think that Cafardo flipped a coin to determine the value of Drew and Ellsbury as we have to think it's based on reasoned analysis or informed perspective. I think that's a problem.
I think this is one of the most interesting things Cafardo has written of late. To state the obvious, he is saying:
1: He is aware that statistical analysis shows Drew and Ellsbury in that light.
2. He doesn't agree with said statistical analysis.
Those [Ellsbury and Drew] are both interesting discussion points, and each has been debated here at SoSH, certainly. I find myself wondering, to what extent, I agree with each argument. I also wonder what the majority of SoSH readers think. It goes without saying that Drew has been a lightning rod, with more than a fair share of "Get this guy out of town; he sucks," vitriol hurled his way. Meanwhile, Ellsbury has received much praise for his defensive play.
Knowing the imperfection of defensive metrics, is Ellsbury truly no better than average? Personally, I'm a little skeptical that's true.
Is Drew a "really productive" player? I'm more prone to accept the validity of the numbers in his case, but I have to believe that a very large number of people aren't, based on what I've read and heard since he joined the team.
Well, let me put it this way: based on what he's presented in the column we have exactly as much reason to think that Cafardo flipped a coin to determine the value of Drew and Ellsbury as we have to think it's based on reasoned analysis or informed perspective. I think that's a problem.
QUOTE (yecul @ Nov 2 2009, 03:09 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2663773
Can you give an example of something that you have not liked in an article? Any author, source, or context you choose.
I could easily give examples, sure. I used to do so here, primarily with CHB, but have admittedly mostly stepped back from doing so. I now find it more interesting to play devil's advocate when someone offers an opinion I find fault with, which sometimes results in interesting debate.
In the case of Cafardo's Sunday column, it's easy to find fault -- I often do -- but I also understand that his audience is far more Tim McCarver than BP. For better or worse, that's who he writes for, and I'm sure he is quite aware of what the people who sign his paychecks want from him. I choose to read both, because I enjoy a mix of the analytical and the more old-school journalistic offerings.
Can you give an example of something that you have not liked in an article? Any author, source, or context you choose.
I could easily give examples, sure. I used to do so here, primarily with CHB, but have admittedly mostly stepped back from doing so. I now find it more interesting to play devil's advocate when someone offers an opinion I find fault with, which sometimes results in interesting debate.
In the case of Cafardo's Sunday column, it's easy to find fault -- I often do -- but I also understand that his audience is far more Tim McCarver than BP. For better or worse, that's who he writes for, and I'm sure he is quite aware of what the people who sign his paychecks want from him. I choose to read both, because I enjoy a mix of the analytical and the more old-school journalistic offerings.
QUOTE (John Marzano Olympic Hero @ Nov 2 2009, 03:18 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2663781
As someone who fancies himself as a writer, you should be enraged Laurila.
I'm somewhat enraged that you've been trying hard to start a flame war and make this personal, but mostly I just shake my head and try to offer measured opinions of the subject at hand.
As someone who fancies himself as a writer, you should be enraged Laurila.
I'm somewhat enraged that you've been trying hard to start a flame war and make this personal, but mostly I just shake my head and try to offer measured opinions of the subject at hand.
Oh, your comments are certainly measured.
QUOTE (David Laurila @ Nov 2 2009, 10:44 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2663817
I could easily give examples, sure.
How about doing so then? You reference having issue with some of Cafardo's writing, so how about starting there? What do you feel is lazy or sloppy or simply bad writing on his part? You said it'd be easy, so I imagine that is not a big request.
QUOTE (David Laurila @ Nov 2 2009, 10:44 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2663817
I could easily give examples, sure.
How about doing so then? You reference having issue with some of Cafardo's writing, so how about starting there? What do you feel is lazy or sloppy or simply bad writing on his part? You said it'd be easy, so I imagine that is not a big request.
QUOTE
I'm somewhat enraged that you've been trying hard to start a flame war and make this personal, but mostly I just shake my head and try to offer measured opinions of the subject at hand.
How is this a flame war or personal? You're a writer, aren't you? I'm trying to figure out what makes you tick.
If you can't handle a simple question like that, than that's your problem.
I'm somewhat enraged that you've been trying hard to start a flame war and make this personal, but mostly I just shake my head and try to offer measured opinions of the subject at hand.
How is this a flame war or personal? You're a writer, aren't you? I'm trying to figure out what makes you tick.
If you can't handle a simple question like that, than that's your problem.
QUOTE (David Laurila @ Nov 2 2009, 10:44 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2663817
In the case of Cafardo's Sunday column, it's easy to find fault -- I often do -- but I also understand that his audience is far more Tim McCarver than BP. For better or worse, that's who he writes for, and I'm sure he is quite aware of what the people who sign his paychecks want from him. I choose to read both, because I enjoy a mix of the analytical and the more old-school journalistic offerings.
Then why was the Baseball Notes column such a great place to go on Sunday mornings for 20+ years? I am more of a "BP" guy and I loved reading it up until both the change of format and then when Cafardo took over.
It's like it's always been the Two And Half Men of the Sunday paper. It used to be the first thing I would read when I got the paper on Sundays and I always took something from it. Now, it's stupid and useless garbage that often times has incorrect facts.
Laurila... you seem to defend every media member. Is there any media member you don't like or feel does a poor job? If so, who?
In the case of Cafardo's Sunday column, it's easy to find fault -- I often do -- but I also understand that his audience is far more Tim McCarver than BP. For better or worse, that's who he writes for, and I'm sure he is quite aware of what the people who sign his paychecks want from him. I choose to read both, because I enjoy a mix of the analytical and the more old-school journalistic offerings.
Then why was the Baseball Notes column such a great place to go on Sunday mornings for 20+ years? I am more of a "BP" guy and I loved reading it up until both the change of format and then when Cafardo took over.
It's like it's always been the Two And Half Men of the Sunday paper. It used to be the first thing I would read when I got the paper on Sundays and I always took something from it. Now, it's stupid and useless garbage that often times has incorrect facts.
Laurila... you seem to defend every media member. Is there any media member you don't like or feel does a poor job? If so, who?
C
Corsi Combover
Guest
QUOTE (David Laurila @ Nov 2 2009, 10:00 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2663755
I disagree. The entries in the Apropos of Nothing section of his column are briefly-stated opinions, or observations, which aren't elaborated on. If your argument is that a columnist should never offer an opinion without explaining it, thus making "Apropos of Nothing" entries a waste of time -- sure, what you say makes perfect sense, and I'd concur completely. However, within the context of how he presented it, it is far from useless. The majority of his audience has no idea that Drew is, by analytical measures, a very productive hitter, or that Ellsbury might not be as good as they think he is. By bringing up a statistical-analysis-based argument in his column, he made many of his readers think. That is the reason I said it was one of the more interesting things he's written recently.
The problem is, his entire column is "apropos of nothing."
I disagree. The entries in the Apropos of Nothing section of his column are briefly-stated opinions, or observations, which aren't elaborated on. If your argument is that a columnist should never offer an opinion without explaining it, thus making "Apropos of Nothing" entries a waste of time -- sure, what you say makes perfect sense, and I'd concur completely. However, within the context of how he presented it, it is far from useless. The majority of his audience has no idea that Drew is, by analytical measures, a very productive hitter, or that Ellsbury might not be as good as they think he is. By bringing up a statistical-analysis-based argument in his column, he made many of his readers think. That is the reason I said it was one of the more interesting things he's written recently.
The problem is, his entire column is "apropos of nothing."
QUOTE (Smiling Joe Hesketh @ Nov 2 2009, 03:05 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2663765
This guy's getting over six figures to turn out this crap. No wonder the Globe is hemorrhaging money and subscriptions.
I am not doubting you, but where did you hear/read that Cafardo is getting over six figures?
This guy's getting over six figures to turn out this crap. No wonder the Globe is hemorrhaging money and subscriptions.
I am not doubting you, but where did you hear/read that Cafardo is getting over six figures?
QUOTE (SeanBerry @ Nov 2 2009, 04:21 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2663877
Laurila... you seem to defend every media member. Is there any media member you don't like or feel does a poor job? If so, who?
I don't believe that's true. Outside of saying that Cafardo presumably understands what his boss wants, and a recent post where I lauded Alex Speier, the only things I've "defended" have been individual points. Like I said earlier, I've been playing devil's advocate with certain opinions.
Are there people in the media who I feel do a poor job? Sure, and I've likely "defended" what some of them have written at some point or another. I don't think it serves any purpose for me to list who I'm no fan of, but I've certainly been critical of a few of them right here on SoSH. Among them are a Globe writer and a few WEEI hosts.
Laurila... you seem to defend every media member. Is there any media member you don't like or feel does a poor job? If so, who?
I don't believe that's true. Outside of saying that Cafardo presumably understands what his boss wants, and a recent post where I lauded Alex Speier, the only things I've "defended" have been individual points. Like I said earlier, I've been playing devil's advocate with certain opinions.
Are there people in the media who I feel do a poor job? Sure, and I've likely "defended" what some of them have written at some point or another. I don't think it serves any purpose for me to list who I'm no fan of, but I've certainly been critical of a few of them right here on SoSH. Among them are a Globe writer and a few WEEI hosts.
If by "over six figures" you mean "seven figures," then no, he doesn't make that. But is he making over $100K? If you look at the guild salary scale and extrapolate his 25+ years in you can probably figure that one out.
The "Apropos of Nothing" concept is the same as CHB's "Cleaning Out The Desk Drawer" or Barnicle's "I Was Just Thinking..." columns. Grab bags of disjointed information, observations, "jokes" and other tidbits that don't warrant or work in a straight column or story, but have some nominal interest. Generally, they should contain facts and they *ideally* should be a new way of looking at something familiar. Edes did a pretty good job with this and obviously, Gammo was the gold standard. The key difference is both those guys hustled and worked their vast array of sources hard to get stuff every week. Unfortunately, in NC's case, his contributions amount to little more than "Hey, you know who's fat? CC Sabathia!"
Perhaps the column should be retitled "No Shit, Sherlock."
The "Apropos of Nothing" concept is the same as CHB's "Cleaning Out The Desk Drawer" or Barnicle's "I Was Just Thinking..." columns. Grab bags of disjointed information, observations, "jokes" and other tidbits that don't warrant or work in a straight column or story, but have some nominal interest. Generally, they should contain facts and they *ideally* should be a new way of looking at something familiar. Edes did a pretty good job with this and obviously, Gammo was the gold standard. The key difference is both those guys hustled and worked their vast array of sources hard to get stuff every week. Unfortunately, in NC's case, his contributions amount to little more than "Hey, you know who's fat? CC Sabathia!"
Perhaps the column should be retitled "No Shit, Sherlock."
QUOTE (David Laurila @ Nov 2 2009, 11:57 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2663920
Are there people in the media who I feel do a poor job? Sure, and I've likely "defended" what some of them have written at some point or another. I don't think it serves any purpose for me to list who I'm no fan of, but I've certainly been critical of a few of them right here on SoSH. Among them are a Globe writer and a few WEEI hosts.
I must have missed these posts. Who are they?
Am I not understanding some reason why you can't say "I don't like Fluto Shinawza" or something? I mean Christ, Chad Finn writes the media notes column for the Globe and he will say who he doesn't like.
To defend Nick Carfardo's baseball notes column is just so fucking bizarre to me. It's awful. It's an awful, awful piece of work. The worst part is how great the Notes column used to be. Like, I can't imagine anyone reading that and not either confused or annoyed.
Are there people in the media who I feel do a poor job? Sure, and I've likely "defended" what some of them have written at some point or another. I don't think it serves any purpose for me to list who I'm no fan of, but I've certainly been critical of a few of them right here on SoSH. Among them are a Globe writer and a few WEEI hosts.
I must have missed these posts. Who are they?
Am I not understanding some reason why you can't say "I don't like Fluto Shinawza" or something? I mean Christ, Chad Finn writes the media notes column for the Globe and he will say who he doesn't like.
To defend Nick Carfardo's baseball notes column is just so fucking bizarre to me. It's awful. It's an awful, awful piece of work. The worst part is how great the Notes column used to be. Like, I can't imagine anyone reading that and not either confused or annoyed.
QUOTE (pedros hairstylist @ Nov 2 2009, 12:33 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2663967
The key difference is both those guys hustled and worked their vast array of sources hard to get stuff every week. Unfortunately, in NC's case, his contributions amount to little more than "Hey, you know who's fat? CC Sabathia!"
Perhaps the column should be retitled "No Shit, Sherlock."
I basically agree, but I actually think the key difference is that Cafardo doesn't seem to understand what Apropos of Nothing really even means. It's pertinent to nothing, relating to nothing, having nothing to do with anything.
But then he continually uses it for items that pertain to very major and important points. The "JD Drew is actually good" argument is one of the hottest arguments in all of Red Sox nation. It's apropos of virtually everything. "Ellsbury isn't as good as he looks" is an argument people have all the time. Is he the centerfielder of the next 10 years or not? That should not be under a heading: "apropos of nothing."
It should be things like: I sometimes count five rolls in the fat on CC's neck, other times four; I'm noticing more grey in JP's pubic hairs when I go down on him; the Philly cheese steaks are by far the best media spread item out there; sometimes it hurts when I pee, but then it goes away.
Okay, the last one might be pertinent to something, but it's the little things that sometimes drive you the craziest. When a guy who holds one of the best gigs in all of sports journalism just seems to not get at all a primary piece of his column, it's fucking infuriating.
He has a whole column he could be using to address the stats vs. what my eyes tell me argument on Ellsbury, and it would be great. If you can say that about an apropos of nothing item, then it's pretty obviously mis-categorized.
The key difference is both those guys hustled and worked their vast array of sources hard to get stuff every week. Unfortunately, in NC's case, his contributions amount to little more than "Hey, you know who's fat? CC Sabathia!"
Perhaps the column should be retitled "No Shit, Sherlock."
I basically agree, but I actually think the key difference is that Cafardo doesn't seem to understand what Apropos of Nothing really even means. It's pertinent to nothing, relating to nothing, having nothing to do with anything.
But then he continually uses it for items that pertain to very major and important points. The "JD Drew is actually good" argument is one of the hottest arguments in all of Red Sox nation. It's apropos of virtually everything. "Ellsbury isn't as good as he looks" is an argument people have all the time. Is he the centerfielder of the next 10 years or not? That should not be under a heading: "apropos of nothing."
It should be things like: I sometimes count five rolls in the fat on CC's neck, other times four; I'm noticing more grey in JP's pubic hairs when I go down on him; the Philly cheese steaks are by far the best media spread item out there; sometimes it hurts when I pee, but then it goes away.
Okay, the last one might be pertinent to something, but it's the little things that sometimes drive you the craziest. When a guy who holds one of the best gigs in all of sports journalism just seems to not get at all a primary piece of his column, it's fucking infuriating.
He has a whole column he could be using to address the stats vs. what my eyes tell me argument on Ellsbury, and it would be great. If you can say that about an apropos of nothing item, then it's pretty obviously mis-categorized.
QUOTE (SeanBerry @ Nov 2 2009, 01:04 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2664018
Am I not understanding some reason why you can't say "I don't like Fluto Shinawza" or something?
Maybe because David is classy? Especially since he's not hiding behind an anonymous username and, instead, quite often actually knows the writer that we're speaking of? (Cafardo, in particular, is by all accounts an extremely likeable guy.)
Nah, that can't be it. David must just be a scardy cat.
QUOTE (David Laurila @ Nov 1 2009, 12:47 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2660961
I think this is one of the most interesting things Cafardo has written of late. ... Knowing the imperfection of defensive metrics, is Ellsbury truly no better than average? Personally, I'm a little skeptical that's true. ...
The problem is that these are questions that one should be answering in the Baseball Notebook. He's got all that column space. Joe Posnanski shows time and again that it's possible to make statistical discussion fun/interesting.
The problem that people have with Cafardo is that he almost never goes into the interesting debates. We don't learn anything from him asking questions. With so many other options cluttering the media scene you have to seperate yourself from the pack. He's not doing that. It's okay. I sucked at writing columns in college too. So I don't do that anymore.
Mike Reiss has shown that the Boston market has an appetite for intelligent sports coverage. Chad Finn (in my opinion) provides far and away the best Sox coverage in the local media market, and I'm confident would write a more interesting version of the Sunday Notes.
Am I not understanding some reason why you can't say "I don't like Fluto Shinawza" or something?
Maybe because David is classy? Especially since he's not hiding behind an anonymous username and, instead, quite often actually knows the writer that we're speaking of? (Cafardo, in particular, is by all accounts an extremely likeable guy.)
Nah, that can't be it. David must just be a scardy cat.
QUOTE (David Laurila @ Nov 1 2009, 12:47 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2660961
I think this is one of the most interesting things Cafardo has written of late. ... Knowing the imperfection of defensive metrics, is Ellsbury truly no better than average? Personally, I'm a little skeptical that's true. ...
The problem is that these are questions that one should be answering in the Baseball Notebook. He's got all that column space. Joe Posnanski shows time and again that it's possible to make statistical discussion fun/interesting.
The problem that people have with Cafardo is that he almost never goes into the interesting debates. We don't learn anything from him asking questions. With so many other options cluttering the media scene you have to seperate yourself from the pack. He's not doing that. It's okay. I sucked at writing columns in college too. So I don't do that anymore.
Mike Reiss has shown that the Boston market has an appetite for intelligent sports coverage. Chad Finn (in my opinion) provides far and away the best Sox coverage in the local media market, and I'm confident would write a more interesting version of the Sunday Notes.
QUOTE (dynomite @ Nov 2 2009, 01:23 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2664043
Maybe because David is classy? Especially since he's not hiding behind an anonymous username and, instead, quite often actually knows the writer that we're speaking of? (Cafardo, in particular, is by all accounts an extremely likeable guy.)
Nah, that can't be it. David must just be a scardy cat.
I had no idea Laurila was that plugged in.
You'd think he would interview people I have heard of.
Maybe because David is classy? Especially since he's not hiding behind an anonymous username and, instead, quite often actually knows the writer that we're speaking of? (Cafardo, in particular, is by all accounts an extremely likeable guy.)
Nah, that can't be it. David must just be a scardy cat.
I had no idea Laurila was that plugged in.
You'd think he would interview people I have heard of.
QUOTE (pedros hairstylist @ Nov 2 2009, 12:33 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2663967
Perhaps the column should be retitled "No Shit, Sherlock."
This one-liner isn't getting nearly enough credit.
Perhaps the column should be retitled "No Shit, Sherlock."
This one-liner isn't getting nearly enough credit.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
QUOTE (mabrowndog @ Nov 2 2009, 03:18 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2664196
This one-liner isn't getting nearly enough credit.
Honestly, whenever PH works up a fuss about something, I'm so prepped to expect hilarity that it's not even surprising anymore. She's been really on fire the last few months. Berry-in-his-prime level snark, definitely, without the undertones of insecurity.
This one-liner isn't getting nearly enough credit.
Honestly, whenever PH works up a fuss about something, I'm so prepped to expect hilarity that it's not even surprising anymore. She's been really on fire the last few months. Berry-in-his-prime level snark, definitely, without the undertones of insecurity.
Not sure if anyone else cares but I often see Nick Cafardo down at the Independence Mall in Kingston MA.. it's usually about midday and he never has any bags. He might be one of those mall walkers... it's the only explanation I've got so far.
QUOTE (BellhornsBiatch @ Nov 3 2009, 04:33 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2665791
Not sure if anyone else cares but I often see Nick Cafardo down at the Independence Mall in Kingston MA.. it's usually about midday and he never has any bags. He might be one of those mall walkers... it's the only explanation I've got so far.
It where all his unnamed sources come from.
Not sure if anyone else cares but I often see Nick Cafardo down at the Independence Mall in Kingston MA.. it's usually about midday and he never has any bags. He might be one of those mall walkers... it's the only explanation I've got so far.
It where all his unnamed sources come from.
Great words of wisdom from Cafardo's "baseball official"....
Hideki Matsui, DH, Yankees - One thing the Yankees don't want to do after winning their 27th World Series is get old. That's why they parted with Abreu and Jason Giambi last season and why they might cut ties with the World Series MVP and Johnny Damon this year. Said a baseball official, "They could take that money and throw it at Matt Holliday or Jason Bay. They're afraid of sticking with a guy too long. They'd rather get rid of a guy a year sooner, ahead of his decline, than a year later. ''
Huh??
I guess they never signed Jorge Posada past his prime. This is the same team that traded Javy Vazquez for a 100 year-old Randy Johnson.
Cafardo's "baseball official" must have the Yankees confused with a team run by Theo Epstein up North...
I guess some "baseball officials" must have consumed too much bubbly in the Yankees postseason celebration to see things clearly... but it's the Red Sox that have the boldness to say goodbye to popular, but aging, superstars for a year or two early. See: Pedro Martinez, Johnny Damon.
Hideki Matsui, DH, Yankees - One thing the Yankees don't want to do after winning their 27th World Series is get old. That's why they parted with Abreu and Jason Giambi last season and why they might cut ties with the World Series MVP and Johnny Damon this year. Said a baseball official, "They could take that money and throw it at Matt Holliday or Jason Bay. They're afraid of sticking with a guy too long. They'd rather get rid of a guy a year sooner, ahead of his decline, than a year later. ''
Huh??
I guess they never signed Jorge Posada past his prime. This is the same team that traded Javy Vazquez for a 100 year-old Randy Johnson.
Cafardo's "baseball official" must have the Yankees confused with a team run by Theo Epstein up North...
I guess some "baseball officials" must have consumed too much bubbly in the Yankees postseason celebration to see things clearly... but it's the Red Sox that have the boldness to say goodbye to popular, but aging, superstars for a year or two early. See: Pedro Martinez, Johnny Damon.
QUOTE (SoundsofIglesias @ Nov 8 2009, 03:07 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2674321
Great words of wisdom from Cafardo's "baseball official"....
Hideki Matsui, DH, Yankees - One thing the Yankees don't want to do after winning their 27th World Series is get old. That's why they parted with Abreu and Jason Giambi last season and why they might cut ties with the World Series MVP and Johnny Damon this year. Said a baseball official, "They could take that money and throw it at Matt Holliday or Jason Bay. They're afraid of sticking with a guy too long. They'd rather get rid of a guy a year sooner, ahead of his decline, than a year later. ''
Huh??
I guess they never signed Jorge Posada past his prime. This is the same team that traded Javy Vazquez for a 100 year-old Randy Johnson.
Cafardo's "baseball official" must have the Yankees confused with a team run by Theo Epstein up North...
I guess some "baseball officials" must have consumed too much bubbly in the Yankees postseason celebration to see things clearly... but it's the Red Sox that have the boldness to say goodbye to popular, but aging, superstars for a year or two early. See: Pedro Martinez, Johnny Damon.
I took it to say that they have changed their approach, in part based on the errors you listed, and going forward don't want to keep guys too long.
The credibility of what he describes is, of course, quite open to question based on what he presents.
Great words of wisdom from Cafardo's "baseball official"....
Hideki Matsui, DH, Yankees - One thing the Yankees don't want to do after winning their 27th World Series is get old. That's why they parted with Abreu and Jason Giambi last season and why they might cut ties with the World Series MVP and Johnny Damon this year. Said a baseball official, "They could take that money and throw it at Matt Holliday or Jason Bay. They're afraid of sticking with a guy too long. They'd rather get rid of a guy a year sooner, ahead of his decline, than a year later. ''
Huh??
I guess they never signed Jorge Posada past his prime. This is the same team that traded Javy Vazquez for a 100 year-old Randy Johnson.
Cafardo's "baseball official" must have the Yankees confused with a team run by Theo Epstein up North...
I guess some "baseball officials" must have consumed too much bubbly in the Yankees postseason celebration to see things clearly... but it's the Red Sox that have the boldness to say goodbye to popular, but aging, superstars for a year or two early. See: Pedro Martinez, Johnny Damon.
I took it to say that they have changed their approach, in part based on the errors you listed, and going forward don't want to keep guys too long.
The credibility of what he describes is, of course, quite open to question based on what he presents.
QUOTE (TomRicardo @ Nov 8 2009, 06:59 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2675714
That entire article was abortion.
I loved how he pontificated for paragraphs and paragraphs about how and why the Red Sox should get Adrian Gonzalez, then only bothered to mention offhand on the second page that no one has a clue whether the Padres will actually trade him.
Unfortunately, this mindset doesn't seem confined to Cafardo. It's like half the media thinks Hoyer will be falling all over himself to trade Gonzalez to his buddies in Boston, just 'cuz.
That entire article was abortion.
I loved how he pontificated for paragraphs and paragraphs about how and why the Red Sox should get Adrian Gonzalez, then only bothered to mention offhand on the second page that no one has a clue whether the Padres will actually trade him.
Unfortunately, this mindset doesn't seem confined to Cafardo. It's like half the media thinks Hoyer will be falling all over himself to trade Gonzalez to his buddies in Boston, just 'cuz.
Did you know that Mark Teixeira slipped through the Red Sox fingers last winter?
Woo, I sure didn't... let's hope the Red Sox do their "due dilligence" this winter, like on this Lackey guy.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/reds...oing_their.html
BTW - 3 years and an option for Beckett, really?? I hope Cafardo was simply talking with someone at the Liberty Tree Mall and not actually Theo Epstein
Woo, I sure didn't... let's hope the Red Sox do their "due dilligence" this winter, like on this Lackey guy.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/reds...oing_their.html
BTW - 3 years and an option for Beckett, really?? I hope Cafardo was simply talking with someone at the Liberty Tree Mall and not actually Theo Epstein
QUOTE (SoundsofIglesias @ Nov 14 2009, 12:16 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2682312
Did you know that Mark Teixeira slipped through the Red Sox fingers last winter?
Woo, I sure didn't... let's hope the Red Sox do their "due dilligence" this winter, like on this Lackey guy.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/reds...oing_their.html
BTW - 3 years and an option for Beckett, really?? I hope Cafardo was simply talking with someone at the Liberty Tree Mall and not actually Theo Epstein
Come on, you're being harsh. You know his sources are at the Independence Mall and not the Liberty Tree.
Did you know that Mark Teixeira slipped through the Red Sox fingers last winter?
Woo, I sure didn't... let's hope the Red Sox do their "due dilligence" this winter, like on this Lackey guy.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/reds...oing_their.html
BTW - 3 years and an option for Beckett, really?? I hope Cafardo was simply talking with someone at the Liberty Tree Mall and not actually Theo Epstein
Come on, you're being harsh. You know his sources are at the Independence Mall and not the Liberty Tree.
My apology is extended to all the great baseball minds that roam the Independence Mall.
:rolling:
There's no where I'd rather be during hot stove baseball season than sipping a Coca Cola in the mall food court with Nick Cafardo...
:rolling:
There's no where I'd rather be during hot stove baseball season than sipping a Coca Cola in the mall food court with Nick Cafardo...
Mocking Cafardo is like shooting fish in a barrel...but how do you write about Scutaro as an option and not at least mention the draft pick compensation issue?
QUOTE
While Red Sox Nation isn’t happy about the loss of Alex Gonzalez to the Blue Jays, there really shouldn’t be a shortstop issue if Jed Lowrie is healthy and the Sox acquire someone like Marco Scutaro. Anyway, the Sox have bigger fish to fry with Jason Bay/Matt Holliday, Adrian Gonzalez/Miguel Cabrera and John Lackey/Roy Halladay.
Perhaps it's no surprise, but Scutaro himself has more on the ball than our boy Nick.
QUOTE
“I think it’s no secret that I am going to be offered arbitration, because they want their draft [pick],’’ said Scutaro, a Type A free agent.
When does the Globe realize what a joke this guy is?
Cafardo link
Scutaro comment link
QUOTE
While Red Sox Nation isn’t happy about the loss of Alex Gonzalez to the Blue Jays, there really shouldn’t be a shortstop issue if Jed Lowrie is healthy and the Sox acquire someone like Marco Scutaro. Anyway, the Sox have bigger fish to fry with Jason Bay/Matt Holliday, Adrian Gonzalez/Miguel Cabrera and John Lackey/Roy Halladay.
Perhaps it's no surprise, but Scutaro himself has more on the ball than our boy Nick.
QUOTE
“I think it’s no secret that I am going to be offered arbitration, because they want their draft [pick],’’ said Scutaro, a Type A free agent.
When does the Globe realize what a joke this guy is?
Cafardo link
Scutaro comment link
QUOTE (TheoShmeo @ Nov 29 2009, 10:25 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2702721
Mocking Cafardo is like shooting fish in a barrel...but how do you write about Scutaro as an option and not at least mention the draft pick compensation issue?
Perhaps it's no surprise, but Scutaro himself has more on the ball than our boy Nick.
When does the Globe realize what a joke this guy is?
Cafardo link
Scutaro comment link
Apparently Rotoworld doesn't know what a joke he is yet... or MLB Trade Rumors. They idolize his Sunday Notes column, as if he's a new Peter Gammons.
Mocking Cafardo is like shooting fish in a barrel...but how do you write about Scutaro as an option and not at least mention the draft pick compensation issue?
Perhaps it's no surprise, but Scutaro himself has more on the ball than our boy Nick.
When does the Globe realize what a joke this guy is?
Cafardo link
Scutaro comment link
Apparently Rotoworld doesn't know what a joke he is yet... or MLB Trade Rumors. They idolize his Sunday Notes column, as if he's a new Peter Gammons.
I ask this out of total curiosity and in a serious manner:
How do these people get elevated to such comfy positions? Politics? Luck? Or do Globe readers really relish this shit (though this wouldn't explain the severe decline in quality in just the past decade)?
How do these people get elevated to such comfy positions? Politics? Luck? Or do Globe readers really relish this shit (though this wouldn't explain the severe decline in quality in just the past decade)?
QUOTE (SoundsofIglesias @ Nov 29 2009, 08:55 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2703765
Apparently Rotoworld doesn't know what a joke he is yet... or MLB Trade Rumors. They idolize his Sunday Notes column, as if he's a new Peter Gammons.
The joke is on anyone reading Rotoworld or MLB Trade Rumors for analysis, really. Rotoworld is great for news, but the analysis is not really....top-tier.
I too thought this was the least-disagreeable Cafardo column in a while. That doesn't mean I learned a single thing, but it wasn't as obnoxiously uninformed and/or idiotic as most of the recent ones have been. If you're wondering why I still read it at all....well, sometimes I don't but I've been reading the Globe Sunday notes column for my entire adult life, so it's just tough to quit.
Apparently Rotoworld doesn't know what a joke he is yet... or MLB Trade Rumors. They idolize his Sunday Notes column, as if he's a new Peter Gammons.
The joke is on anyone reading Rotoworld or MLB Trade Rumors for analysis, really. Rotoworld is great for news, but the analysis is not really....top-tier.
I too thought this was the least-disagreeable Cafardo column in a while. That doesn't mean I learned a single thing, but it wasn't as obnoxiously uninformed and/or idiotic as most of the recent ones have been. If you're wondering why I still read it at all....well, sometimes I don't but I've been reading the Globe Sunday notes column for my entire adult life, so it's just tough to quit.
Nick Cafardo makes an appearance in the latest batch of Mary Worth comics:
This is where he gets most of information, BTW.
This is where he gets most of information, BTW.
This actually isn't a shot at Nick Cafardo... but
I didn't feel like scrolling for an old thread that (I think?) existed about Pete Abraham joining the Globe. I hope he turns out to be the first one to report certain Red Sox stories / signings like he was on top of things when he covered the Yankees.
So far, he's mostly just gave shoutouts to his boys in NY media on his twitter or linked to Globe articles on his twitter. I'm sure the big fella has something better planned when the offseason picks up. It has been slow to this point...
I didn't feel like scrolling for an old thread that (I think?) existed about Pete Abraham joining the Globe. I hope he turns out to be the first one to report certain Red Sox stories / signings like he was on top of things when he covered the Yankees.
So far, he's mostly just gave shoutouts to his boys in NY media on his twitter or linked to Globe articles on his twitter. I'm sure the big fella has something better planned when the offseason picks up. It has been slow to this point...
He's been slow the past few days, but he's been posting a lot prior to that. Perhaps he was digesting Thanksgiving.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/reds...as/extra_bases/
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/reds...as/extra_bases/
QUOTE (mt8thsw9th @ Dec 3 2009, 11:29 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=2711587
He's been slow the past few days, but he's been posting a lot prior to that. Perhaps he was digesting Thanksgiving.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/reds...as/extra_bases/
By the looks of him, it seems like he digests Thanksgiving a lot of days. Sorry *cheapshot*, LOL. I hope he breaks news a lot though, wish him the best.
He's been slow the past few days, but he's been posting a lot prior to that. Perhaps he was digesting Thanksgiving.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/reds...as/extra_bases/
By the looks of him, it seems like he digests Thanksgiving a lot of days. Sorry *cheapshot*, LOL. I hope he breaks news a lot though, wish him the best.
He really needs to get off of Extra Bases and have his own blog like he had when he was covering NY.
Oh god, Nicky boy. You must be reading this board...
:rolling:
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/arti...ties/?page=full
Because he decided to state nothing but questions after his opening paragraph and no answers throughout this glorious winter meetings teaser. It's as exciting reading as spending a few days in Indianapolis like those poor baseball scribes.
:rolling:
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/arti...ties/?page=full
Because he decided to state nothing but questions after his opening paragraph and no answers throughout this glorious winter meetings teaser. It's as exciting reading as spending a few days in Indianapolis like those poor baseball scribes.
- Status