Journalism, Schmournalism

It’s time to play "Guess who wrote this drivel?"

(I know, not as glamorous or fun as the Haiku contest…)

Here it is:

"Six weeks after they agreed to terms on new contracts, Barry Bonds and J. D. Drew remain unsigned. Bonds hasn’t signed with the Giants; Drew hasn’t signed with the Red Sox. That prompts a thought. If both contracts were to fall through, the Red Sox could sign Bonds to play left field and move Manny Ramirez back to his original position in right field"

Seriously, the Sox trusting Manny to patrol right field in Fenway?  Are you KIDDING ME? 

Hint: this writer is in the Hall of Fame.

31 comments… add one
  • Manny in right field… AND Bonds in left field. I really hope Crisp can cover that much ground.. =)

    Lar January 17, 2007, 9:43 am
  • Please tell me that wasn’t Gammo? Say it aint so!

    LocklandSF January 17, 2007, 9:52 am
  • That’s got to be the handiwork of Murray ChASS.

    Hudson January 17, 2007, 9:53 am
  • What a load of crap. What do Barry Bonda, J.D. Drew and the Red Sox outfield have to do with New York sports? Nothing!

    Paul SF January 17, 2007, 10:32 am
  • Manny in RF @ Fenway :lol:
    Bonds playing the field at this point in his career… that could be amusing as well.
    Manny and Bonds (provided some health for Bonds) in the same lineup. :( That’s not so funny.

    Rob (Middletown, CT) January 17, 2007, 11:11 am
  • Well, Rob, Bonds is going to play the OF next season, and I suspect that Fenway’s LF would be more conducive to his health than the outfield in SF.
    And his playing the field is already amusing at this point in his career.

    QuoSF January 17, 2007, 11:16 am
  • From the article: Selig cannot call Peter Magowan, the Giants’ managing partner, and urge him not to complete the contract. That call would violate the labor agreement’s rules against collusion.
    Magowan: “Hello?”
    KlinkSelig: “Hello Pete.”
    Magowan: “Oh, hi Bud. You know, I never really thanked you enough for bringing the All-Star game to PNC this summer.”
    Selig: “Hey, yeah. No problem, really. I’ve got this great idea that we should do a home-run shootout if we have a tie going into the ninth.”
    Magowan: “What?”
    Selig: “Like hockey. Without the ice. You know, for kids!”
    Magowan: “Right..well, thanks again. And if there’s ever anything I can do for you, just let me know.”
    Selig: “Haha. You know, I would say it’s funny that you would mention it, but you know, I wouldn’t ever call you and urge you not to complete the contract with Barry, because a call like that would violate the labor agreement’s rules against collusion.”
    Magowan: “I see.”
    Selig: “I mean really, I’d never make that call, nor would I urge you to walk away from the contract.”
    Magowan: “No, of course not.”
    Selig: “Just so you know.”
    Magowan: “I get it.”
    Selig: “Nope never.”
    Magowan: “Yeah, well, gotta go.” *click*
    Magowan: “Grace, get me Jeff Borris..”

    attackgerbil January 17, 2007, 11:18 am
  • “Well, Rob, Bonds is going to play the OF next season”
    That’s the plan. The impact on his health and his effectiveness in that role are the question. LF in Fenway is better for him than LF out in San Fran, sure. I’m just thinking that either one is a major risk considering his age and knee problems.

    Rob (Middletown, CT) January 17, 2007, 11:19 am
  • There would have been an impact on his health and effectiveness last season, and there was to some degree. At this point, I guess I just don’t think the difference between age 41 and age 42 will be that significant for him, even in the field. He’ll still be terrible, and he’ll still make everyone who cares about baseball feel awkward when he hits #756.

    QuoSF January 17, 2007, 11:22 am
  • Chass, like Steve Phillips before him, forgets that Bonds has said he’ll never play in Boston. And both are too stupid to understand that signing Bonds runs counter to the Red Sox’ organizational philosophy. I’m not sure many Red Sox fans would be able to cheer Bonds. We all route for the team, of course, but Bonds transcends teams as a loathesome person who ought to be booed at any given opportunity.

    Paul SF January 17, 2007, 11:25 am
  • Better ending:
    Grace: “Mr. Magowan, Jeff Borris is holding on two.”
    Magowan: “Voicemail him. So tell me more about this hockey idea.”

    attackgerbil January 17, 2007, 11:30 am
  • “Bonds has said he’ll never play in Boston”
    And it’s doubtful that he would change his mind given that it goes back to his father and is rooted in racial reasons.
    Talk about desperate for a column topic…

    lp January 17, 2007, 11:58 am
  • “What do Barry Bonda, J.D. Drew and the Red Sox outfield have to do with New York sports? Nothing!”
    You’re joking, right?

    Andrews January 17, 2007, 12:14 pm
  • Welcome to Yankee land, where every free agent is a possibility. That’s what comes from having seemingly no limit on the team’s payroll.

    Andrew January 17, 2007, 12:20 pm
  • Well, they’re all tangentially related in that the Yankees and Red Sox are rivals, but you don’t see Dan Shaughnessy writing columns about who the Yankees should get to fill their fifth-starter hole or speculating on why it took so long to get the Johnson deal done.

    Paul SF January 17, 2007, 12:59 pm
  • No, he’s generally busy writing some other drivel.

    Rob (Middletown, CT) January 17, 2007, 1:16 pm
  • “signing Bonds runs counter to the Red Sox’ organizational philosophy.”
    Not sure what this means. How? Because it’s bad publicity? Because they don’t want bad seeds? Because he’s not worth the cash? If he’s being undervalued elsewehere as a commodity, wouldn’t it be just the kind of thing they would do, just as Oakland signed Frank Thomas last year? I know, different case, but I don’t know what “organizational philosophy” means in this case.

    YF January 17, 2007, 1:28 pm
  • “Well, they’re all tangentially related in that the Yankees and Red Sox are rivals”
    The NY Times and the Boston Red Sox have a little bit more than a tangential relationship.

    lp January 17, 2007, 1:55 pm
  • …bonds on the red sox would be sweet…

    dc January 17, 2007, 2:19 pm
  • Regardless of “organizational philosophy”, which YF dismisses summarily even though he knows that Bonds is a unique case and hardly the type of player that gets picked up just because he’s undervalued, this speculation by Chass is barely sportstalk radio caller-level garbage. The least he could have done was search the newswire, where it could be found on last night that Drew and the Sox were close to finalizing the verbiage in the contract and the deal wasn’t in jeopardy.

    SF January 17, 2007, 2:41 pm
  • “Not sure what this means.”
    SF speaks to the undervalue-pickup aspect of the Sox’ philosophy. The other aspect is not to sign guys in their mid 40s who can barely walk up to home plate, let alone field a ball. While you’d think this would be most teams’ strategy, apparently it’s not San Francisco’s, nor George Steinbrenner’s. How is signing Barry Bonds NOT counter to the Sox’ strategy? That’s the question.
    Of course, the fact that we’re even discussing this as some sort of realistic option makes me feel dirty. It’s like letting the Chassisists win.

    Paul SF January 17, 2007, 2:52 pm
  • SF: I am not dismissing the idea of “organizational philosophy.” But in this case I’m not sure what philosophy that pertains to. The Sox “op” is ostensibly Jamesian/Beanian, and that is largely a means of constructing a team within a market. Barry Bonds, for all the talk, is still one of the most feared players in the game, and his defense is not bad at all (and better than Manny) according to numerous projections. So if he is going to be undervalued on the market, it would be a perfectly “beanian” move to take a flyer on him–and indeed there were plenty of rumors that Beane was going to do just that. So you’re being glib, but the question was not simply argumentative. Now then: lots of teams don’t want him, and there are good reasons to avoid him. Any good GM will do just that…until the benefits so outway the costs that it makes sense to go get him. Can there ever be a point? I hope not.

    YF January 17, 2007, 4:35 pm
  • I saw Beane referenced three times, YF. Yes the Sox have employed some Billy Beane techniques, but I like to think the Sox place more emphasis on character than he does, which is not to say his approach of getting best guys at the best value no matter what their character issues is wrong. Take Lugo, for example. The Sox did research on his past (i.e. banging his wife’s head against the hood of a car) and came back with the conclusion that he would at least not be doing it again.
    And that “flyer” is going to cost at least $15M or so. Seth Mnookin’s take on Chass’s latest piece (which I may use to wipe my ass later) sums it all up pretty well, I think.

    QuoSF January 17, 2007, 4:45 pm
  • Your points are all taken, YF. But the Red Sox seem a ridiculous destination for Bonds, particularly if it involves Chass’ (I don’t have a better word than this) MORONIC idea that Manny would move to Fenway’s right field. A simple search of recent news, as late as yesterday afternooon, would have shown Chass that Drew and the Sox are reportedly very close to working their deal out. The main point of my post was acutally petty: to point out how utterly lost Chass is. This is a Hall of Fame writer (more proof that the Hall is a wandering ship), and I am frankly sick of helping pay his salary, whether through a subscription to the Times or by attending a Sox game (how ironic is that?!).

    SF January 17, 2007, 4:48 pm
  • I’m not defending the Chass article at all, nor the idea that the Sox are actually or should be interested in Bonds, or that Manny should be playing right. Not at all. I agree with the premise. I brought up a semantic issue regarding the idea of “operational philosophy”–that’s it. No argument with the principle points about Chass. Feh to him.

    YF January 17, 2007, 4:54 pm
  • Gee, another contest I could have won, if I hadn’t been on the road, since you can find any text with Google.

    john January 17, 2007, 9:38 pm
  • Now it all makes sense to me, Quo: The Sox acquired Tavares because of his sterling character…

    Hudson January 18, 2007, 12:11 am
  • Until the issue with Gathright, Tavarez’s main character flaws stemmed mostly from him being a (sometimes too) intense competitor. It’s deeper than that with Bonds. I think we can all agree on that.

    QuoSF January 18, 2007, 12:36 am
  • Tavarez’s main character flaws seem to stem from him being an a**hole. When he was saying homophobic things about the San Francisco fans, it wasn’t a case of him being too intense a competitor.

    Nick-YF January 18, 2007, 9:42 am
  • the sox have players with character flaws…what???….how did our favorite crack journalist “murray the rat” miss this scoop?…

    dc January 18, 2007, 9:58 am
  • Had forgotten about his homophobic comments. I’ll simplify things: After the Jeremy Giambi and subsequent Jason Giambi fiascos, the Red Sox FO (and most others) would be leery of taking on a “known” steroid user. Where “known” means strongly rumored.

    QuoSF January 18, 2007, 10:34 am

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Next post:

Previous post: