Protecting the Shields -- The Nick Cafardo Thread
- Thread starter MyDaughterLovesTomGordon
- Start date
- Status
"He has not pulled the plug on Daniel Bard as a starter even though every baseball scout you speak to who watches this team knows that Bard should be the closer.
Blame Valentine? Go ahead, if you want to. That’s a sport in and of itself in Boston. But he hasn’t exactly been dealt a great hand."
From today's Globe. Dead horse still being beaten.
Also makes another pitch for Iglesias, he of the 2-18, 1 walk, no extra base hits start down on the farm.
Blame Valentine? Go ahead, if you want to. That’s a sport in and of itself in Boston. But he hasn’t exactly been dealt a great hand."
From today's Globe. Dead horse still being beaten.
Also makes another pitch for Iglesias, he of the 2-18, 1 walk, no extra base hits start down on the farm.
// Cafardo // But he's only struck out 3 times, so he's clearly not overmatched
What is amusing to me is that for the weeks and weeks and weeks of Damon pimping, Cafardo didn't even get a chance to break the news. You would think that Boras or Damon himself would throw our Globe buddy a crumb to thank him for his efforts.
Didn't happen.
Didn't happen.
A column that he probably wrote last summer while on the vacation at the beach.
- Long-term deals: sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.
- Players are more chummy than they used to be.
- Obligatory Kapstein (pere) and Damon references, with a dollop of first person thrown in ("We've been saying for a while....").
- Chris Sale practices throwing change-ups before the game! Nick and BFF JIm Rice have been telling people to do stuff like this forever!
- Nick is really, really hungry. The Moby Dick and Strasburger are mouth-watering contributions to our baseball knowledge.
- Zach Grienke might be an interesting free agent... but then again he might not.
- Bard should be a closer, because Neftali Feliz once got nervous during a start. "This one time... at band camp..."
The thought of Cafardo destroying that fish platter is vomit inducing. Is there a Boston sports writers death pool?
No I did not. But I read somewhere that Johnny Damon was a great one for fouling off lots of pitches!
The long-term contract part of the article was another paid political announcement from Scott Boras.
The whole "chummy players not competing as hard" is baffling to me. It's not like this is football where someone might not lay as hard a hit on their buddy. I can't see any baseball player allowing his feelings for his competitor to work against his own self-interests. Or to use his logic, wouldn't he have more friends on his own team, and therefore be more inclined to compete harder?
More to the point, this has been the case for many years. I don't remember a time when David Ortiz et al weren't yucking it up with opposing players before games. I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I'm with Nick and also find it off putting, but it's not as if something happened in the last, say, two years to justify that much space in a notes column today.
You know what would be an interesting article and not at all a complete waste of time, is using facts to back up whether these long-term deals are beneficial to the teams that agree to them. For example, you could look at the five (or so) Red Sox players who got long-term deals before they were set to be free agents and conclude whether it was money well spent. It's actually pretty easy because you can make an arbitrary choice of using the player's numbers prior to signing the deal and see how the same player's numbers compare after the deal is done. After the Red Sox are done, you move on to the Yankees (YAY!), the Mets, etc. until you get a nice little grouping of stats and then you could write something a bit more useful then, "It might be good, it might not be good. Who knows!"
As far as players being chummy, who the fuck cares? I've been reading this bullshit since I started following baseball back in 1986 and Bob Gibson is always used as the barometer. I don't know Bob Gibson, but maybe the guy was a world-class prick. Same with Don Drysdale. I don't think that players should be playing grab ass while they're on the field, but saying hello to a friend (and seriously, if Pedroia saw his BFF Andre Ethier before the game don't you think they'd say hi?) who gives a shit. And furthermore, his example of "playing the game right" in Pedroia kind of falls apart when Pedroia says that he talks to Carlos Pena and Derek Jeter if he reaches first base against the Rays and second against the Yanks.
BTW, getting a scout to question the competitiveness in today's player? Why doesn't he just ask a 10-year-old if he enjoys candy and playing video games because you're going to get the same type of answer.
Nick Cafardo is the god damn worst.
Great point. Was going to post the same thing.
Why are Bob Gibson/Drysdale/Cobb the role models for most mainstream baseball (and really, all sports) writers? These guys were clearly type-A tools. Do we really want a sport filled with guys like this? Would that make for a better fan experience and a better quality of play? A game of bean balls, brawls, cheap shots etc. sounds like the kind of things the very same sportswriters sanctimoniously bemoan. Furthermore, why would you want a sport filled with nothing but the same kind of person? Isn't that kind of a limited world view? (And also kind of predictable?) There's a line between playing hard and being a tool. Let's retire the Bob Gibson canard, please.
Holy fuck is that infuriating to read. This man has the Globe Sunday Baseball Notes, one of the most prestigious posts in all of sports journalism, and yet his take on things is so backwards, devoid of logic, and just generally stupid. In this one particular statement he:
1) Draws a result from an worthlessly small sample size. If any result can be drawn about a player because of a 3 K day with a bad play in the field, then by definition whatever that result is should be applied to almost every hitter in MLB, because they've all had days just like that. In fact, Youkilis must have never really cared given that this is the 30th time in his career he's had a 3 K game. And you know who must really not give a shit? Jason Bay, because he's struck out more times than Youkilis this season. I eagerly await his mea culpa on Jason Bay.
2) Completely misrepresents the original statement. The statement had zero to do with results, it only dealt with how "into" the game Youkilis has been compared to past seasons. Seasons in which he routinely did what now supposedly proves something is different.
It's shameful that such intellectual dishonesty and straight-up water carrying comes from someone with such an amazing pulpit. He's gone from old-timey cluelessness to straight up lying to his readership, all while taking on an air of arrogance about his own knowledge of the game.
1) Draws a result from an worthlessly small sample size. If any result can be drawn about a player because of a 3 K day with a bad play in the field, then by definition whatever that result is should be applied to almost every hitter in MLB, because they've all had days just like that. In fact, Youkilis must have never really cared given that this is the 30th time in his career he's had a 3 K game. And you know who must really not give a shit? Jason Bay, because he's struck out more times than Youkilis this season. I eagerly await his mea culpa on Jason Bay.
2) Completely misrepresents the original statement. The statement had zero to do with results, it only dealt with how "into" the game Youkilis has been compared to past seasons. Seasons in which he routinely did what now supposedly proves something is different.
It's shameful that such intellectual dishonesty and straight-up water carrying comes from someone with such an amazing pulpit. He's gone from old-timey cluelessness to straight up lying to his readership, all while taking on an air of arrogance about his own knowledge of the game.
Not to mention, Cafardo could easily have tweeted something about BV being wrong to have questioned Youk as it's apparently had nothing but a bad effect on him given his performance last night. This would have been equally illogical.
I'm trying to figure out who he's mad at there. Francona? BV's critics? Pedroia? Everyone?
Cafardo missed his calling, that passive aggressive joke meister needs to be in Hollywood. In other words, Nick Cafardo is Kenny Bania.
That's good, Nicky. GOLD!
That's good, Nicky. GOLD!
Missed these on his Twitter account last night:
https://twitter.com/...434717482696705
https://twitter.com/...436432881725440
https://twitter.com/...434717482696705
https://twitter.com/...436432881725440
"What does the guy behind home plate with the yellow headset on do? He is at every home game and we have seen him on the field during pregame.
Roger, Stratham, N.H.
That’s Jeremy Kapstein, the pioneer sports agent. He’s the former president/CEO of the San Diego Padres and has served as Larry Lucchino’s senior adviser for more than 10 years with the Red Sox and with the Padres before that."
lol
Of course Nick doesn't mention that pitches per plate appearance is a common stat that can be looked up on ESPN.com, or that the 2012 Sox are averaging 3.93 pitches per plate appearance, and the 2011 Sox averaged 3.96 P/PA, compared to the '03 and '04 juggernaut offenses which averaged 3.83 and 3.93 P/PA respectively. But Nick doesn't have the 30 seconds it took me to look that up.
What is going to happen, Nick? A trade, or WMB being promoted? Thanks for being clear.
Why bother taking the time to look it up when it's "got to be a record"?
I was under the impression that injuries might affect bat speed, but Nick says otherwise, so it must be true. A-Rod is clearly a lock to stay healthy and put up 2007 type numbers.
So defensive, Nick.
I fucking hate this man.
FWIW the Prime 9 and Padilla questions appear to be formatting errors: "Wondered what you think about this?... Ralph, Birmingham, Ala." and "Why is it so difficult for the media to pronunce Latino names ... Anonymous, Jamundía" being unbolded questions.
Evan Longoria made 3 errors last night, 2 of them on consecutive batters. Guess he REALLY isn't in to playing this year.
Except Ortiz did *not* bust down the first base line. He ran a bit harder than he usually does on a grounder to second, but turned in on and visibly increased his speed when the ball was bobbled. If he had been busting as Nick claims he was, he would have been safe.
Just out of curiosity, is anyone aware of a site that lists DL stints for players? I was trying to determine if Jeter and ARod were ever on the DL simultaneously (since that would probably $40mm on the DL just between 2 players) and discovered (in Nick's defense, I guess) that it's harder to figure out than I would've thought.
No, I don't believe there is one.
Finding the answer would actually take, you know, real investigative journalism work to cobble together the information from multiple sources.
Dead on target here. Hard to fathom his childish animosity--can't believe that Pedroia or Youks would give him a second of their time after that.
How does this Q&A not get you fired if you're a beat reporter covering the Red Sox:
Apparently, the only way that Cafardo can gather information about what's going on in the clubhouse is to actually see it with his own eyes. Look, I know reporting on the Red Sox isn't a job for Woodward and Bernstein, but people care a whole fucking lot about the Red Sox, and where you have passionate fans you have opportunity and mandate for real reporting. Technology reporting isn't W&B either, but tech writers uncover juicy stories all the time. They develop sources and get a drop from time to time.
If the only way Cafardo can get information is to be present for its happening, what the fuck good is he? It's IMPOSSIBLE that he could have a source somewhere in the Sox clubhouse that could drop him a dime? Impossible?
A reader asks a legitimate question about why he dropped the ball and he says, "you saw the same things I did?" Then why do you have a job, Nick? Why would I ever bother reading your columns, Nick? Just so I can hear what you think and feel about the team? What fucking good is that?
Further, no, I did not know why the team was playing like ass in September. In fact, it was a subject of much debate. And it's your job to find out. Why didn't you do your job, Nick? Pretty simple goddamn question.
And there are legitimate ways to answer, too: "You know, Ray, I feel like I should have known. I've got lots of players on the team that I talk with on a regular basis and they never mentioned any discord in the locker room or that they felt any of their teammates were out of shape or not trying hard enough. If that was going on, it was deep seated and a matter of internal player trust that just couldn't be broken. Or, maybe it wasn't as big a deal as we're making it out to be, right? Either way, I wish I'd uncovered that information earlier, but it's out there now and I'm definitely on top of this year's team to see if things have really changed."
What's so hard about that answer? Why can't you have a little respect for those people who are so invested in the team that they actually read your work and ask you questions? He didn't call you a name, or swear, or be hostile at all (though, I'll admit here that it's possible the question wasn't framed in EXACTLY the way he reproduced it).
Man up, Nick. Try harder. Stop being a cowardly water carrier and do some work that you can be proud of.
What is a beat reporter's primary job? To gather information that fans of the team wouldn't otherwise be able to get and then to serve it back to them in a compelling fashion.
Apparently, the only way that Cafardo can gather information about what's going on in the clubhouse is to actually see it with his own eyes. Look, I know reporting on the Red Sox isn't a job for Woodward and Bernstein, but people care a whole fucking lot about the Red Sox, and where you have passionate fans you have opportunity and mandate for real reporting. Technology reporting isn't W&B either, but tech writers uncover juicy stories all the time. They develop sources and get a drop from time to time.
If the only way Cafardo can get information is to be present for its happening, what the fuck good is he? It's IMPOSSIBLE that he could have a source somewhere in the Sox clubhouse that could drop him a dime? Impossible?
A reader asks a legitimate question about why he dropped the ball and he says, "you saw the same things I did?" Then why do you have a job, Nick? Why would I ever bother reading your columns, Nick? Just so I can hear what you think and feel about the team? What fucking good is that?
Further, no, I did not know why the team was playing like ass in September. In fact, it was a subject of much debate. And it's your job to find out. Why didn't you do your job, Nick? Pretty simple goddamn question.
And there are legitimate ways to answer, too: "You know, Ray, I feel like I should have known. I've got lots of players on the team that I talk with on a regular basis and they never mentioned any discord in the locker room or that they felt any of their teammates were out of shape or not trying hard enough. If that was going on, it was deep seated and a matter of internal player trust that just couldn't be broken. Or, maybe it wasn't as big a deal as we're making it out to be, right? Either way, I wish I'd uncovered that information earlier, but it's out there now and I'm definitely on top of this year's team to see if things have really changed."
What's so hard about that answer? Why can't you have a little respect for those people who are so invested in the team that they actually read your work and ask you questions? He didn't call you a name, or swear, or be hostile at all (though, I'll admit here that it's possible the question wasn't framed in EXACTLY the way he reproduced it).
Man up, Nick. Try harder. Stop being a cowardly water carrier and do some work that you can be proud of.
It's so hard.
1) On one hand, you're absolutely and completely correct. I did a vague impression of a journalist once upon a time (as managing editor of my daily college paper) and his apparent indifference to a legitimate question from a reader shouldn't be acceptable.
2) On the other hand, the less I know about the interpersonal dynamics of the team, the easier it is to root for laundry and professional athletes. The naive and idealistic parts of me wish for a return to the days when baseball was the story and the clubhouse stories stayed in the clubhouse.* I don't want to know what Bobby Valentine thinks of Kevin Youkilis, or how Adrian Gonzalez behaves in the locker room. Save that for the Halberstams of the world, the true narrators and historians who'll write the book years from now, and let me watch my team in peace.
* N.B.: This doesn't include steroids, which was more than simply sewing circle gossip and actually affected on-field play. That said, if I could erase that entire episode from memory? I want to say that I'm happier embracing the sport warts and all, but I'm not sure that's the case.
1) On one hand, you're absolutely and completely correct. I did a vague impression of a journalist once upon a time (as managing editor of my daily college paper) and his apparent indifference to a legitimate question from a reader shouldn't be acceptable.
2) On the other hand, the less I know about the interpersonal dynamics of the team, the easier it is to root for laundry and professional athletes. The naive and idealistic parts of me wish for a return to the days when baseball was the story and the clubhouse stories stayed in the clubhouse.* I don't want to know what Bobby Valentine thinks of Kevin Youkilis, or how Adrian Gonzalez behaves in the locker room. Save that for the Halberstams of the world, the true narrators and historians who'll write the book years from now, and let me watch my team in peace.
* N.B.: This doesn't include steroids, which was more than simply sewing circle gossip and actually affected on-field play. That said, if I could erase that entire episode from memory? I want to say that I'm happier embracing the sport warts and all, but I'm not sure that's the case.
You know, dynomite, I don't necessarily disagree. But that would have been a fine answer, too: "Well, Ray, you and I may just have a differing interest in the Red Sox. I feel like it's my job to report on what happens on the field and that's what I try to focus on. The chicken-and-beer thing kind of blew up on me and other reporters may think that's a bigger story than I do. Hope that answers your question."
Basically anything other than, "how dare you!"
Basically anything other than, "how dare you!"
That's a great point and idea. I wish Cafardo were as thoughtful about his profession as you are: the Globe and their coverage would be better for it.
I know we always talk about him, but I think Mike Reiss is the best example of this attitude. He's a football beat writer, and he writes about football. I don't think his coverage of the Patriots suffers as a result.
I know we always talk about him, but I think Mike Reiss is the best example of this attitude. He's a football beat writer, and he writes about football. I don't think his coverage of the Patriots suffers as a result.
Cafardo is positively gleeful about the bullpen's disarray:
At least he's not using the "we" bullshit, but I suppose he shifts to "I" when he particularly wants to take credit.
As for whether it would work better, I think that's more than a little up for debate. Does it "work better" if Cook gets lit up for 6 runs in four inning and then your bully gets even more taxed and waxed and Bard sits on his hands and twiddles his thumbs during a blowout?
Bard to the pen is hardly a panacea for this team's ills.
At least he's not using the "we" bullshit, but I suppose he shifts to "I" when he particularly wants to take credit.
As for whether it would work better, I think that's more than a little up for debate. Does it "work better" if Cook gets lit up for 6 runs in four inning and then your bully gets even more taxed and waxed and Bard sits on his hands and twiddles his thumbs during a blowout?
Bard to the pen is hardly a panacea for this team's ills.
This plus the fact that while he hammers away on the "move Bard to the 'pen because the pieces fit better" schtick, he provides zero explanation of which pieces he's talking about and how exactly they would fit better. It's completely mindless.
They'll finally see there's no audience for these clowns and perhaps hasten their retirements.
Sad I have read them since Gammons started them back when I was a kid. There is zero chance I will pay for them. At least the NY Times let you read 10 articles a month for free. Oh well death of another tradition.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but these asshats are probably my least favorite thing about this whole situation. If they didn't exist, and the Sox just sucked without me having to hear self-important columnists and tv personalities go on about it? I'd get annoyed, then shrug and enjoy low-stakes baseball with pretty decent ticket prices. (Seriously, check out Stubhub; the last six months have destroyed the secondary market). As it is, I have to see articles from CHB and Abraham doomsaying, Cafardo's smug self-satisfaction, hear talk radio hosts ranting, and Yankee reporters gloating. The longer I follow baseball, the more I wonder why they can't just let us enjoy our game.
- Status