Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortMeade. Show FortMeade's posts

    Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?

    He also forgot to provide Crawford with the context in which the John Henry remark was made in. ( The Sox had too many LH batters already). The journalists are negative because negativity sells. This forum is a great example.
     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?

    The days of objective journalism are long gone. There are just as many writers who spin positive as negative.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hingham Hammer. Show Hingham Hammer's posts

    Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?

    In Response to Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?:
    [QUOTE]He also forgot to provide Crawford with the context in which the John Henry remark was made in. ( The Sox had too many LH batters already). The journalists are negative because negativity sells. This forum is a great example.
    Posted by FortMeade[/QUOTE]What context? I heard the entire interview and it was clear and to the point. Henry didn't want him. I don't agree with Henry because I liked the signing and still do. Crawford dug a hole last year and couldn't get out of it. If he settles his nerves and get back to the player he was in Tampa everybody will love him.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?

    In Response to Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?:
    [QUOTE]The journalists are negative because negativity sells. This forum is a great example.
    Posted by FortMeade[/QUOTE]

    This is true, except the posters on this forum aren't selling anything.

    They give it away for free.

    Nobody would pay for our opinions anyway, but for some reason sportwriters get paid for their own dumb opinions instead of just reporting the news. They should leave soap opera to the gossip columns. I am sick of every Red Sox season turning into a soap opera. Just like every celebrity death or arrest gets turned into a drama series. Michael Jackson, Amy Winehouse, Whitney Houston , Michael Jackson , Lindsey Lohan. I don't know why sports seasons need all the drama. It makes me think our society is just a bunch of peeping Toms that need to see all the smutty dirt that goes on behind the scenes , all the time.

    I mean if you are a ballplayer, can you at least eat fried chicken without some sportswriting nut making it sound like a crime?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from lowelll. Show lowelll's posts

    Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?

    In Response to Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots? : What context? I heard the entire interview and it was clear and to the point. Henry didn't want him. I don't agree with Henry because I liked the signing and still do. Crawford dug a hole last year and couldn't get out of it. If he settles his nerves and get back to the player he was in Tampa everybody will love him.
    Posted by Hingham Hammer[/QUOTE]

    Maybe you had a buildup of wax in your ears that day.

    Principal owner John Henry, who made a surprise appearance on 98.5 The Sports Hub’s Felger & Mazz on Friday, said it was “definitely a baseball signing,” but not necessarily one he agreed with.

    “In fact, anyone involved in the process, anybody involved in upper management with the Red Sox would tell you that I personally opposed that,” said Henry. “Why? Because we had plenty of left-handed hitting. I don’t have to go into why. I’ll just tell you that at the time, I opposed the deal.”

    Despite the fact he opposed signing Crawford to such a large contract, Henry did not want to interfere in the decision-making process.

    “I don’t mettle to the point of making decisions for our baseball people. This was driven, and Theo will tell you this, this was driven by our baseball people,” said Henry. “It wasn’t a PR move.”

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thomasmtom. Show Thomasmtom's posts

    Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?

    Don't blame Nick for Henry's bad judgment. Even though I agree with Henry that the Crawford signing didn't make sense. Him stating it publicly was foolish.
    Hopefully this helps to clear the air.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortMeade. Show FortMeade's posts

    Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?

    In Response to Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots? : Maybe you had a buildup of wax in your ears that day. Principal owner John Henry, who made a surprise appearance on 98.5 The Sports Hub’s Felger & Mazz on Friday , said it was “definitely a baseball signing,” but not necessarily one he agreed with. “In fact, anyone involved in the process, anybody involved in upper management with the Red Sox would tell you that I personally opposed that,” said Henry. “Why? Because we had plenty of left-handed hitting. I don’t have to go into why. I’ll just tell you that at the time, I opposed the deal.” Despite the fact he opposed signing Crawford to such a large contract, Henry did not want to interfere in the decision-making process. “I don’t mettle to the point of making decisions for our baseball people. This was driven, and Theo will tell you this, this was driven by our baseball people,” said Henry. “It wasn’t a PR move.”
    Posted by lowelll[/QUOTE]

    The trolls never bother to read and try to comprehend but that is never of importance to trolls. Henry stated that the lineup had plenty of left-handed hitting. Case closed for all non-trolls.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?

    They don't have to "try". It comes natural to them.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from mrmojo1120. Show mrmojo1120's posts

    Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?

    In Response to Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?:
    [QUOTE]They don't have to "try". It comes natural to them.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    +1
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?

    I don't care about Henry's opinion.  I doubt he knows anything more about BB than I do.  There are reasons why we pay GMs and other millions to run the team.

    Nor do I care about the writers' opinions.  If I want an opinion, I'll go to Fangraphs, Baseball Prospectus, etc.  Listening to BB writers for their BB opinions is akin to reading the Daily News Op-ed writers for opinions on the economy.  They're meaningless.  The sportswriters are generally worse, because of their inherent conflict of interest in promoting their own best interests.  But what kind of sports' background, or scientific background to they bring to the discussion.

    They are irrelevant.  If one chooses to read the opinions of the irrelevant, then get upset by them, that's their problem.
     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?

    In Response to Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?:
    [QUOTE]I don't care about Henry's opinion.  I doubt he knows anything more about BB than I do.  There are reasons why we pay GMs and other millions to run the team. Nor do I care about the writers' opinions.  If I want an opinion, I'll go to Fangraphs, Baseball Prospectus, etc.  Listening to BB writers for their BB opinions is akin to reading the Daily News Op-ed writers for opinions on the economy.  They're meaningless.  The sportswriters are generally worse, because of their inherent conflict of interest in promoting their own best interests.  But what kind of sports' background, or scientific background to they bring to the discussion. They are irrelevant.  If one chooses to read the opinions of the irrelevant, then get upset by them, that's their problem.
    Posted by Joebreidey[/QUOTE]

    Agreed on the nature of sports writers.  But,in this particular case, I do care about john henry's opinion, only because he made it public knowledge.  And that was just plain stupid.  Nothing positive could come from that statement, and I do not agree with his stance that the quote was taken out of context.  The context was clear.  He was distancing himself from the signing of Carl Crawford.  Fine.  But terrible from an excutive HR stand-point.  Although, on second thought, maybe it pisses off Crawford in such a way that it pushes him to his greatest heights, Indians-vs.-Rachel-Phelps style.  
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from lowelll. Show lowelll's posts

    Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?

    In Response to Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?:
    [QUOTE]I don't care about Henry's opinion.  I doubt he knows anything more about BB than I do.  There are reasons why we pay GMs and other millions to run the team. Nor do I care about the writers' opinions.  If I want an opinion, I'll go to Fangraphs, Baseball Prospectus, etc.  Listening to BB writers for their BB opinions is akin to reading the Daily News Op-ed writers for opinions on the economy.  They're meaningless.  The sportswriters are generally worse, because of their inherent conflict of interest in promoting their own best interests.  But what kind of sports' background, or scientific background to they bring to the discussion. They are irrelevant.  If one chooses to read the opinions of the irrelevant, then get upset by them, that's their problem.
    Posted by Joebreidey[/QUOTE]

    Isn't it possible that in respect to the team being overloaded with left-handed bats that someone like Bill James would agree with what John Henry said?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from AL34. Show AL34's posts

    Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?

    I did not read the article or Brady nor am I a Patriots fan. His receivers dropped two critical balls on him late in the 4th quarter which hurt them badly. The only fault I had with tBrady was tjhat he did not run when he could have. On that interception by the Giants Brady had nothing but daylight in front of him for at least 20 yards and still could have gotten out of bounds without getting hit. '
    The purpose of the writers is to sell their papers and write something eye catching.
    Crawford needs to put 2011 behind him and do what he use to do when he was in Tampa Bay. Its Henry's money and he can say what he wants to. Crawford needs to do it on the field.


    In Response to Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?:
    [QUOTE]Recently we've had Eric Wilbur go postal on the best quarterback who's ever worn a Patriots uniform - then post a soccer piece that was grossly inaccurate - and now Nick Cafardo has prodded Carl Crawford about the perception that John Henry didn't want to sign him. With all the turmoil surrounding the end of last baseball season, does Cafardo really have nothing better to do than try to stir up trouble with a guy who was a huge disappointment last year? What happened to responsible journalism? We should be looking forward to a new season and all the promise that comes with it.
    Posted by davetheknave[/QUOTE]
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?

    In Response to Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots? : Isn't it possible that in respect to the team being overloaded with left-handed bats that someone like Bill James would agree with what John Henry said?
    Posted by lowelll[/QUOTE]

    That's one of the problems with Henry's opinion on this.  Were we overburdened with LH bats?  You hear that a lot, but the term in undefined.  Our OPS was the same against lefty and righties, so that seems okay.  It's just not enough to say we're overloaded.  There has to be data behind that to support it.  Theoretically, with 100+ starts against righties, and maybe 54 v lefties, wouldn't you want more lefties?
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from lowelll. Show lowelll's posts

    Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?

    Regardless Cafardo posed the question to Crawford without explaining the context of the John Henry statement. It seems like those types of inflammatory questions are bad timing and ill advised at this time.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?

    Folks getting back to the name of the thread Are Boston writers trying to be idiots.

    Having been able to read sports pages since 1959 I will say this as an EXPERT.

    Boston sports writers have never had to try to be idiots it comes naturally
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?

    In Response to Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?:
    [QUOTE]Folks getting back to the name of the thread Are Boston writers trying to be idiots. Having been able to read sports pages since 1959 I will say this as an EXPERT. Boston sports writers have never had to try to be idiots it comes naturally
    Posted by JimfromFlorida[/QUOTE]

    Ha.  No doubt Jim.  The way I see it, as potent and intrinsic a force in the intense Red Sox dynamic as the intimacy of old Fenway, the "Curse" and its breaking, the Yankees, and the knowledgeable fans: the consistently moronic, rabble-rousing press corps has been a staple of that dynamic for as long as the club has been the Red Stockings, perhaps longer.  I mean, generations before Shaughnessy and Mazz et al, they even lambasted Theodore Samuel Williams consistently, because Teddy had a little aversion when it came to shucking and jiving with the press.  As a rule, the job qualifications for Big Press Sox beat writer start with: entitled, pompous, lacking in original thought.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortMeade. Show FortMeade's posts

    Re: Are Boston sportswriters TRYING to be idiots?

    This was added to today's Cafardo piece on Crawford:

    Henry said via text: "Again, this wasn't about Carl. At the time I was opposed due to too many lefties in the lineup and particularly in the outfield. Also, our two best prospects were lefthanded hitters. My answer was an honest, off-the-cuff response on a radio station to a false assertion that ownership signed him for offseason PR purposes.. This was a baseball decision I ultimately backed."
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share