I'm still hoping the Globe reaches out to Ringolsby or Etkin from the Rocky Mountain News. Either guy would be an upgrade to Carfado and I'm sure they're looking for a gig.
Was just about to write thisAnd the Apropos of nothing item about the Sox having two Bards is about the stupidest and most useless fucking thing he's written in that space since he started commenting about who made the best hot dogs around MLB a couple seasons back...
Ringolsby is and always has been absolutely terrible as an analyst. I'm sure he's a good reporter, but he's never gotten past BA and W/L as tools to evaluate players. I've been hurling columns of his at the wall for longer than I can remember.I'm still hoping the Globe reaches out to Ringolsby or Etkin from the Rocky Mountain News. Either guy would be an upgrade to Carfado and I'm sure they're looking for a gig.
For one reason or another, didn't we collectively tear Ringolsby a new one every time the Helton rumors popped up?I'm still hoping the Globe reaches out to Ringolsby or Etkin from the Rocky Mountain News. Either guy would be an upgrade to Carfado and I'm sure they're looking for a gig.
Is that for real? Does he really not understand that Brosius, O'Neill, Martinez, and Williams were just good enough to let Cone, Pettitte, Clemens, El Duque, Wells, Rivera, Stanton, Nelson, and Graeme Lloyd win them championships? The 1998 TEAM had a ERA+ of 116. No starter was below 104. Team ERA of 3.82 led the league. (Of course, they also led the league in runs scored with 965... but still.) 2nd in ERA in 1999.When the Yankees won their four championships, they didn't have a player with A-Rod's cachet. What they had was a group of winning players like Scott Brosius and Paul O'Neill and Tino Martinez and Bernie Williams who just got it. They still have players like that in Derek Jeter and Posada and Matsui and Xavier Nady and Damon, but they are aging, and whether they still have the "it" that those special Yankees had remains to be seen.
Is he giving away trade secrets there?"Losing Alex Rodriguez is never a good thing," said an AL GM. "But one thing this may do is bring the Yankee team closer. Sometimes in times like these, players tend to rally around the guy replacing the big superstar and the guy winds up winning a few games and adding a spark. That's what they have to hope for."
I believe Carfado's argument for this would be something along the lines of "But he's a career .333 hitter in the postseason! He knows how to get it done!"Further: Xavier Nady is a "winning player"? He's been in the playoffs exactly once, going 1-3 for the Padres in the 2005 NLDS. Nor is he exactly aging. He's 30. Prime of his career, I'd say.
He's doing color for a few innings.Is he doing play by play in the NESN game today?
For one reason or another, didn't we collectively tear Ringolsby a new one every time the Helton rumors popped up?
If you're referring to why the GM is being quoted anonymously, it is a pretty safe assumption that he asked to be.And good christ! Someone explain why this GM has to be anonymous.
Just because a source asks to be anonymous, doesn't mean you have to allow it. Just don't quote him. I mean, what's the point? What he said is completely common sense and a worthless addition to the piece. It doesn't add any value for the reader.If you're referring to why the GM is being quoted anonymously, it is a pretty safe assumption that he asked to be.
I think we could otherwise report that the Yankees are hosed without A-Rod, and there's no mention of the motivation whatsoever.This follows similar actions from the Boston Globe and Washington Post, among others. The rules stipulate that an anonymous source should be used only in situations where the story could not otherwise be reported, and that the reporter should reveal what might motivate that source to speak. New York Times assistant managing editor and standards editor, Allan M. Siegal, helped write those rules, and he joins me now. Welcome to the show.
That's a damn shame, David. You wonder how people get hired when stuff like that happens, and it's even more offensive to me because I was familiar with JohnIf you're referring to why the GM is being quoted anonymously, it is a pretty safe assumption that he asked to be.
On an unrelated-to-Cafardo matter, I just read something in the Globe that was a bit cringe-inducing. In the obituary for a long-time executive in the Cape Cod League, the writer referred to the deceased as "...a father figure and confidant to minor league players on their way up or on their way down." Needless to say, that showed a marked ignorance of what the Cape Cod League is, and it is unfortunate that an editor didn't catch it.
Fair enough. But Extra Bases is a blog. Not the same as a researched, thought-out, column. He's probably the one who got the info first and was closest to a laptop and wanted to get the info out before someone else. A quick check at the updates over there today indicates that Cafardo had heavy duties there.Not an unnamed source, but certainly something that virtually anybody (or their mother) could have written: http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/reds...ass_on_bon.html
Really? You picked a bad day to defend Cafardo. In his "researched and thought out" notes page 17 of 19 quotes were unattributed. 17 of 19! That's unbelievable.Not the same as a researched, thought-out, column.
This one's may favorite:Really? You picked a bad day to defend Cafardo. In his "researched and thought out" notes page 17 of 19 quotes were unattributed. 17 of 19! That's unbelievable.
A "baseball official"? So, someone working in the Commissioner's office? Or a union rep or something? That person is worried about retribution for saying Millar will "really add some sparkle"? How is that real? Who is the guy that gave Cafardo that quote and then said, "but that's just on background - don't attribute that to me"? Are we really to believe that MLB is so full of cowards and simpering losers that no one will comment on anything unless its anonymously? I refuse to believe that."What he's going to do is really add some sparkle to that clubhouse," said one baseball official. "There's nobody better at clubhouse management among players than Millar."
:lol:I enjoyed the fact that Nick was "surprised" that David Wright was considered a game-changing player.
It's not as though voters have forgotten about Blyleven. I can't fathom voters nine months from now thinking the WBC is enough to put him over the top.The great publicity Blyleven got for making the Netherlands pitching staff the Cinderella story of the World Baseball Classic just may get him elected to the Hall of Fame.
Oh, being a game changer encompasses being able to change the complexion of the game? Thanks.The new buzzword around baseball to describe an outstanding player is "game-changer." There's no one definition, but it encompasses things such as the ability to change the complexion of a game, to win a game singlehandedly, or to carry a team on your shoulders.
I wasn't defending his columns. The "researched and thought out" was in reference to his columns which should be, aren't, and deserve every amount of criticism they get here. A random blurb on the site's catch-all blog doesn't really qualify as the same thing for me.Really? You picked a bad day to defend Cafardo. In his "researched and thought out" notes page 17 of 19 quotes were unattributed. 17 of 19! That's unbelievable.
Put it this way, Mike Reiss in his NFL column had zero, Kevin Paul Dupont in his NHL column had one and Marc Spears in his NBA column had three. Cafardo had more than four times their entire total by himself.
That's not even including such insights as Jacoby Ellsbury might be the Sox player to win "Dancing With the Stars".
I know that I say this every week, but he's an embarrassment to the Boston Globe. A complete and utter failure of a writer. Terrible.
Yes they do. Cafardo, and the rest of his colleagues, are professionals. Every single word, whether posted on a blog or written in a newspaper should be researched and thought out. What's the point of the boston.com blog? To get information, right? Can we agree on that? Cafardo should be relaying information in every post, otherwise it's worthless characters on a computer screen.I wasn't defending his columns. The "researched and thought out" was in reference to his columns which should be, aren't, and deserve every amount of criticism they get here. A random blurb on the site's catch-all blog doesn't really qualify as the same thing for me.
The original remark I responded to:Yes they do. Cafardo, and the rest of his colleagues, are professionals. Every single word, whether posted on a blog or written in a newspaper should be researched and thought out. What's the point of the boston.com blog? To get information, right? Can we agree on that? Cafardo should be relaying information in every post, otherwise it's worthless characters on a computer screen.
The Sox blog on boston.com has broken some major news stories over the years, are these just "random blurbs"?
was just complaining that anyone could have written that blurb. I'm not sure what one is looking for there. There was no news to report except that the Sox took a pass on Bonds, as did every other team. Was there anything wrong in what he wrote there? No. But it certainly wasn't worthy of an entire column and there wasn't anything that needed to be added to it. There's so much Cafardo can be well-deservedly criticized for, but I don't see the issue with that one blurb.Not an unnamed source, but certainly something that virtually anybody (or their mother) could have written
Only 8% of MLB players are black, so a team having none is hardly out of the ordinary. This is a piece of no news.Also, does it really matter that the Sox don't have a black guy on the 25-man roster? Haven't we gotten beyond a paint-by-numbers roster?
If that's what it takes, then teams should line up to sign Michael Jackson. He has his own glove.He's also a guy who spends his days giving sick children tours of his farm and petting zoo. Wouldn't want a guy like that in the clubhouse.
Outstanding! :rolling:If that's what it takes, then teams should line up to sign Michael Jackson. He has his own glove.
It's so ridiculous.His attributed quotes outweighed his blind items, which was nice. Though the unnamed GM who said that "The other shoe is about to drop" was nice. What does that mean? Will the Sox get Salty? No follow-up from that?
But the Hillenbrand thing is very strange. Especially the last two lines that bluefenderstrat linked to.
Also, does it really matter that the Sox don't have a black guy on the 25-man roster? Haven't we gotten beyond a paint-by-numbers roster?
I count a good 1/3 of the probable regular roster as non-caucasian...Ortiz, Lowell, Lugo, Matsuzaka, Okajima, Saito, Delcarmen, Ramirez, Lopez, and Ellsbury. That's 10 of 25 right there. So they don't have an African American at the moment...I very much doubt it's intentional. They don't have a Venezuelan on the roster either...maybe Cafardo should be pointing out the hypocrisy of having that big Citgo sign looming over Fenway without a player from Venezuela on the team.It's so ridiculous.
Would Nick feel better if they traded Dustin Pedroia for Donnie Sadler?
So foolish. I could see if the Sox were going all Tom Yawkey and were only signing white guys, but there are more than a half dozen guys that would not check Caucasian on a tax return.
does Lowell not count as caucasian? His parents are Cuban exiles, but of German/Irish descent. Still a non-issue.I count a good 1/3 of the probable regular roster as non-caucasian...Ortiz, Lowell, Lugo, Matsuzaka, Okajima, Saito, Delcarmen, Ramirez, Lopez, and Ellsbury. That's 10 of 25 right there. So they don't have an African American at the moment...I very much doubt it's intentional. They don't have a Venezuelan on the roster either...maybe Cafardo should be pointing out the hypocrisy of having that big Citgo sign looming over Fenway without a player from Venezuela on the team.
You say it was in response to an e-mail, so it obviously wasn't "apropos of nothing"Apropos of nothing: ... 5. In response to an e-mail, yes, the Red Sox could open the season without an African-American on the 25-man roster.
Last time I checked, the Dominican Republic is in Central America so I'm quite certain David Ortiz is African-American, among others on the 25-man roster.Apropos of nothing: ... 5. In response to an e-mail, yes, the Red Sox could open the season without an African-American on the 25-man roster.
It doesn't necessarily unless someone is of African descent; it just makes someone American.Maybe I'm dense, but how does being from the DR make someone African-American?
Thank you.No, it's not gone. It's just now called "Thoughts While Shaving". It's still the exact same inane bullshit. In case you missed it:
Also another gem from the Bill Chuck files:
Of course, neither Chuck nor Cafardo bothers to mention that Teixeira played in 186 more games than Howard over that span, which included a cup of coffee for Howard in 2004 and half a season in 2005. Cafardo didn't write it, but he plucked it for his column and he should realize such a bullshit comparison.
The column is drivel as usual.