Peter Gammons Chat

Via Lohud, Peter Gammons did a chat for There’s some very interesting stuff in there. First, the shocking news.


please tell me you’re a Hall & Oates fan, and what about Jon
Lester? Will he be able to harness his control, limit his baserunners,
and be an Andy Pettitte type?


I can’t say I’m a big Hall and Oates fan"

You think you know someone. I swore Gammons was the Hall and Oates type. Anyway, Gammons also talks Sox baseball during the chat, and there are some interesting tidbits. For one thing, he doesn’t think it’s a good idea for the Sox to trade for Johan. He says something about changing the culture of the team. I still don’t follow this argument which Pete Abe supports. Conspiracy theorist that I am, I wonder if this is a case of Gammons doing some spinning for the Sox front office. He also writes that the after the ALCS, the Indians front office felt that Jon Lester was Boston’s second best starting pitcher. At the end of the chat, Gammons is critical of A-Rod’s seemingly benign interview on 60 Minutes, taking exception with the Yanks star who claimed (probably correctly) that the game is easy for him. It sure looks easy for him. Why didn’t A-Rod lie about that? False modesty is what makes you gritty and a stand-up player. A-Rod is such a fraud.

63 comments… add one
  • JMI_Guest: “Do you think Lugo is the long term answer at shortstop for the Sox?”
    PG: “The way he played defensively the last 5 weeks, indicates he should be alright. He never recovered offensively from being sick before spring training.”
    What illness did Lugo suffer from?

    John - YF January 3, 2008, 3:00 pm
  • Ive respected Gammons for a long time but he really has become a mouth piece for the sox lately. This chat is kinda insane, every question is answered with a positive spin. Manny is gonna be great, Ortiz is gonna bounce back, Schilling is gonna have a great year… It goes on and on. Im sorry to say he sounds like an optimistic fan much more often than an unbiased writer. I couldnt even read it all…

    sam-YF January 3, 2008, 3:11 pm
  • Lugo had some sort of stomach virus, John. Apparently cost him 10 pounds off his already painfully skinny frame… It wasn’t mentioned much during the season, and I’d forgotten about it, but it was a point of some discussion when he was signed.

    Paul SF January 3, 2008, 3:21 pm
  • Nick, I understand that there is some humor in this piece, but I think you mischaracterize what Gammons said about A-Rod pretty badly. Here is the quote:
    “Alex’s performance on 60 Minutes proved one thing, he’s a baseball player, not a Hollywood star. And players around the game will not forget that he actually said that the game is easy for him.”
    Nowhere does Gammons say anything about whether or not he disagrees with this. What Gammons is saying is that to other players A-Rod’s hyper-confidence may not sit well. I can understand that, pretty easily – how many of us really like our colleagues who talk about how easy their greatness is, whether that is accurate or not? For you to imply that Gammons is (perhaps subconsciously) calling A-Rod a “fraud” is really unfair.

    SF January 3, 2008, 3:23 pm
  • Meanwhile, am I the only other person out here who’s down with Darryl Hall? Rich girl? Come on. The man’s got skillz.

    YF January 3, 2008, 3:28 pm
  • Well, by characterizing A-Rod’s interview as a performance, I would say that Gammons was being critical and calling into question issues of sincerity on A-Rod’s part.

    Nick-YF January 3, 2008, 3:31 pm
  • I think you are over-parsing, Nick. It’s unfair to Gammons — his comment about A-Rod is pretty reasonable and not like what you say at all. When I clicked through your link I expected something very different than what this post implies he said.

    SF January 3, 2008, 3:34 pm
  • I think parsing the use of “performance” may be splitting hairs a bit too fine. An equally plausible use of the word is Gammons critiquing how Rodriguez performed under the pressure of 60 Minutes questioning. Maybe “appearance” would have been a better word, but “performance” strikes me as being innocuously used here.

    Paul SF January 3, 2008, 3:34 pm
  • “I wonder if this is a case of Gammons doing some spinning for the Sox front office.” FWIW, we see this kind of comment all the time here, and it bugs me, because, whatever issues I have with Gammons, I think the idea that he’s in the pocket of Sox ownership is wrong. He is Boston based, and I think he loves the Sox as an institution, but he’s always been a voice of reason.

    YF January 3, 2008, 3:36 pm
  • No, performance is mentioned in the same line as Hollywood star. I don’t know. I sensed an edge in his comments. Coupled with the fact that he went ballistic on A-Rod post Game 4, I got the sense that Gammons was being hard on A-Rod.

    Nick-YF January 3, 2008, 3:37 pm
  • Also, Nick, how many times have we heard that players resent A-Rod’s contract, that a lot of the hostility towards him comes from jealousy over his pay? If that’s accurate, what does a boast of how easy the game is do to his fellow players, most of whom probably work their asses off to be what they are? I just don’t see how this comment is anything but a pertinent observation.
    Again, tell me how many of your hyper-confident colleagues who tell you how easy it is to do what you do that you consider really likeable?

    SF January 3, 2008, 3:39 pm
  • I dont think that Gammons is in the pocket of the sox FO as he certainly has been critical of them in the past. That said this “interview” reads like a fan piece to me for the most part, not too much insight just him saying every one is gonna be as good or better as last year.

    sam-YF January 3, 2008, 3:40 pm
  • but who even remembers this comment? If you’re talking about parsing, this is what Gammons culls from A-Rod’s boring interview? I don’t even think players will think a second thought about what A-Rod said to Katie Couric. To me it was needless criticism. Gammons is pissed at him.

    Nick-YF January 3, 2008, 3:42 pm
  • I did think the item on Lester and the Cleveland round-table was interesting, particularly since Lester didn’t fare so well in one of his outings during the ALCS.
    On the other hand, much of what he said isn’t particularly new or unlikely: Improvements for Schilling, Matsuzaka and Ramirez — considering the years they had last year — wouldn’t exactly be huge surprises.

    Paul SF January 3, 2008, 3:43 pm
  • I didn’t see the A-Rod interview, so I can’t comment on it personally. How did A-Rod come off? Sincere? Phony? In-between? Were the questions tough? Anything surprising in the line of inquiry that might have caught A-Rod off-guard, or was this all pre-interviewed? Did his answers seem prepared or practiced, off-the-cuff?
    Serious questions. Anyone see it who can offer an opinion?

    SF January 3, 2008, 3:43 pm
  • Also, this isn’t much different from Gammons’ hot-stove stuff in the past. He’s the king of “player X is coming into camp in the best shape of his career”. This can be any player from any team, not the Sox.

    SF January 3, 2008, 3:45 pm
  • He came across as A-Rod sui generis, which means he came across as a man concerned about his public image, kind of cheesy, latently weird, awkward. If we’re choosing movie actor analogies, Crispin Glover comes too mind.

    Nick-YF January 3, 2008, 3:45 pm
  • I do regret the conspiracy theorist comment about spin. I don’t think Gammons is spinning so much as that he has really great access to people within the organization who have articulated this idea. I think he believes in the idea, but I also think it represents a real view within the Sox front office.

    Nick-YF January 3, 2008, 3:47 pm
  • Honestly, does anyone really think the comment about things coming “easy” is going to bother other players? They all know Alex works hard, and they know he’s awesome, so he’s respected pretty much by all for his ability. What percentage of players do you think are actually paying attention to 60 minutes interviews in December, and what percentage consider anything in the press dubious to begin with? A BS discussion.

    YF January 3, 2008, 4:01 pm
  • YF, that’s my feeling as well. That’s why I read Gammons’ remark as a thinly veiled piece of criticism originating from Gammons.

    Nick-YF January 3, 2008, 4:08 pm
  • no doubt peter has issues with a-rod. he was by far the most outspoken on the a-rod opt out timing. pete was also throwing flames right after the “mine/ha” bluejays incident. pete is a defender of the old guard of baseball and sees these type of antics as an affront to the game. which they are.

    sf rod January 3, 2008, 4:13 pm
  • Honestly, does anyone really think the comment about things coming “easy” is going to bother other players?
    No clue. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it does bother some players, and some of these players have talked to Gammons. Maybe they haven’t. It’s maybe not an Einsteinian discussion, but it’s also not “BS” either. How many times did we hear about how A-Rod’s contract causing problems amongst his brethren? Was that BS?
    YF’s take on this effectively disallows discussion about how A-Rod is perceived by his colleagues, and why. If that’s the case, then we have to make sure we don’t speculate about how any other players are perceived by their colleagues either.
    It will be interesting to talk about our teams next year, about all of MLB, and not be able to discuss anything about public or professional perception of individuals. That’ll be fun.

    SF January 3, 2008, 4:16 pm
  • Yeah. I read the piece as Gammons being annoyed by Rodriguez.
    As much as I like Gammons it also showed a certain level of optimistic homerism on his part. Dice K and Schilling “imporving?” Schilling is getting older and has shown anything but improvement since his peak a few years ago and Dice-K pitched 800 billion pitches last year, may improve, may be what he is (which is good).
    Manny Ramirez in remarkable shape? I also like Manny but really?

    Anonymous January 3, 2008, 4:18 pm
  • me by the way

    walein January 3, 2008, 4:19 pm
  • The only way I see players being off-put by the A Rod comments is in the context of Peter Gammons and other media folk asking a player what he feels about A Rod’s comments on 60 minutes at which point the angle of the question will illicit the response Gammons is already implying.

    walein January 3, 2008, 4:21 pm
  • This is a case of Gammons being annoyed at A Rod and whether concious of it or not, he’s creating the story himself.

    walein January 3, 2008, 4:22 pm
  • This is absurd. Isolate ANY of Gammons’ claims in this chat and ask a simple question “reasonable or not?”. Dice-K improving? Reasonable or not? Okajima regressing? Reasonable or not? Manny playing more games than this year (when he missed a huge section of the season)? Reasonable or not? Wakefield remaining effective and undervalued? Reasonable or not? Coco Crisp being traded? Reasonable or not? Papi having surgery and feeling better? Reasonable or not? John Farrell telling Gammons that HE thinks Lester could be a Pettitte-type? Reasonable or not for Gammons to transmit this sentiment as a journalist?
    Honestly, all this criticism of Gammons comes off as sour grapes to me.

    SF January 3, 2008, 4:27 pm
  • “He is Boston based, and I think he loves the Sox as an institution, but he’s always been a voice of reason.”
    I can’t stand Gammons because I just can’t buy him as the “voice of reason”. The very fact that he wears his team allegiance so prominently on his sleeve seems unprofessional at the very least for a commentator/analyst with a national audience.

    The Sheriff (Andrews) January 3, 2008, 6:11 pm
  • Gammons WAS a “voice of reason”. More recently he’s become the silver lining guy for all things Sox. This chat shows exactly that again. And I agree completely with the “unprofessional” assessment. I used to really enjoy Gammons. But over the years he’s lost his objectivity. When’s the last time he criticized the Sox front office. Even during the meltdown of 2006, he praised their every move.
    Players lose something as they age. I don’t see why sportswriters should be any different, especially when they suffer a major injury to their most vital muscle. It’s about time Gammons retire to comfort of the Henry luxury box.

    Mike YF January 3, 2008, 6:54 pm
  • “Players lose something as they age. I don’t see why sportswriters should be any different”
    Murray Chass is a perfect example of that…

    The Sheriff (Andrews) January 3, 2008, 7:30 pm
  • More recently he’s become the silver lining guy for all things Sox
    Apparently Gammons has seen good things in the Sox more recently. How utterly unjustified, seeing as they’ve been such horrible failu– oh, wait…
    The funny thing about this Gammo-hate from a contingent of Yankees fans is that if there’s one team that most Bostonians HATE that Gammons also absolutely goes out of his way to treat with admiration and respect it is the Yankees. He’s been incredibly vocal about the Yankee organization, positively, over the last several years.

    SF January 3, 2008, 8:24 pm
  • Uh, tell me about the good things in 2006 when the Sox organization bailed on the season in August after they didn’t want an uberteam. Yet he praised that approach and philosophy. 200 million later that off-season…
    And meanwhile, if you’re going to use that argument, what negatives could he find with the Yankees? That they’ve won or lost in the playoffs for the last thirteen years? Indeed, he *should* be praising the Yankees, but he does it far less often than he praises the Sox.
    Here’s an easy game: Point to one criticism of the Sox or its players in that whole chat. Everything has a positive spin. Failing that (cause there isn’t one), find me one criticism he’s made since his boy band brother left Fenway in a monkey suit.
    Gammons is a national “reporter” but he’s a Sox fanboy. What’s sad is that hasn’t always been so obvious. There was a time where I really looked forward to his segments. John Henry is waiting on line 1 with the Gammons Endowed Chair of Red Sox Studies in his private box.

    Mike YF January 3, 2008, 9:27 pm
  • By the way, here’s a perfect example of how far Gammons has fallen –
    jonas__Guest: Will Jim Rice finally make it into the Hall of Fame?
    Peter_Gammons: I don’t think so. I voted for him, but it’s been interesting that there have been people like Rob Neyer who are so obsessed with degrading Rice’s career. The fact that he retired as early as he did clearly has cost him because of the 382 home runs. But for him to be in the top 5 in MVP balloting 6 times in 12 years, to me, speaks more about his career than the fact that his career OPS is the same as Ellis Burks.
    Seriously? He’s calling one of his colleagues and co-workers “obsessed” because they have a sound statistical argument? Worse, he acknowledges that argument and basically concludes that it doesn’t matter because of MVP votes?
    What happened to that respected and distinguished journalist we knew and admired? But it’s clear he’s gone. It’s sad, really. He used to be the best.

    Mike YF January 3, 2008, 9:45 pm
  • Yeah. Gammons has fallen a long, long way since his HOF-caliber days. Too bad, really, that there is one more person in the media who’s just another talking head.

    AndrewYF January 3, 2008, 9:47 pm
  • Ugh. I feel pretty guilty about the direction this thread has taken. I wasn’t happy with Gammons’ A-Rod comments, and I’ve already said I regret suggesting that Gammons might be spinning (it was mostly meant as light-hearted speculation), but I didn’t mean to suggest that I don’t think Gammons is a good reporter, and one of the best baseball reporters ever. He’s done a remarkable job, especially in recent years, of adapting to the changing baseball writing scene, and should be commended for this. His enthusiasm for the game and its people is unmatched. This should be celebrated. I’m sorry the thread turned out the way it did.

    Nick-YF January 3, 2008, 9:55 pm
  • “Ugh. I feel pretty guilty about the direction this thread has taken”
    Please. Is there only one point of view allowed here? Why is Gammons off limits in your book, when another HOF writer, Murray Chass, is belittled here basically after every column he writes, and that’s somehow OK?
    I think your point about Gammons only opens up what has been a real source of frustration for some of us who believe it’s very odd indeed that a writer of his caliber and reputation would so closely align himself with one particular team – I can think of no other reporter of in his position who has done likewise. It often makes me question his objectivity.
    “His enthusiasm for the game and its people is unmatched. This should be celebrated.”
    I venture to say that many people who write about the game have unbridled enthusiasm for it – Gammons is hardly alone in this regard.
    “I’m sorry the thread turned out the way it did.”
    Why? Because opinions have been expressed which are properly reverential with regard to Gammons?

    The Sheriff (Andrews) January 3, 2008, 10:46 pm
  • I echo Andrews statements. In fact, if you read this thread most of the people who had critiques of Gammons prefaced their statements with a statement of respect for him. I dont understand how anyone could read his chat and not see that he was totally gushing for the Sox the entire time. If this was Pete Abraham or Chass, the SFs on this site would have been all over him. Gammons has certainly changed the way in which he treats the Sox vs the other teams and I think its certainly fair game for criticism. SF calling it “sour grapes” is a total cop out IMO, the opinions expressed here are just another way of reviewing Gammons’ reporting.

    sam-YF January 3, 2008, 10:57 pm
  • I think the YFs here are using the wrong evidence to bolster their complaints, some of which I can agree with based just on what I’ve seen over the last year or so.
    I’ve winced more than once at the amount of love Gammons seems to show the Sox and their players, but sorry, folks, this chat ain’t that. As SF said, Gammons is pretty even-handed here. His statements are not fanboyish or overly optimistic. In fact, the two most outlandish statements are sourced to other teams — the Indians thought Lester was the Sox’ 2nd-best pitcher; the A’s think Crisp is the AL’s best (presumably defensive) center-fielder.
    The other statements don’t strike me as at all outside the realm of reasonable speculation based on what appears to be his own reporting:
    — It “will be interesting to watch” if Lugo can gain consistency
    — Guesses Ortiz “will be fine” and play with less pain
    — “Manny is getting himself into phenomenal shape”
    — Okajima will likely regress but remain “viable” as a lefty setup man
    — Lester’s velocity should return with a full offseason focused solely on training (and not fighting cancer)
    — Thinks J.D. Drew will have a better season based on September and postseason performance
    — Thought Matsuzaka was “good not great,” but expects him to do “much better” based on the fact that he won’t be dealing with transition issues.
    — If Wakefield remains healthy, he will be “one of the most undervalued pitchers in the game for another 3-4 years.”
    — Thinks Schilling will finish his career with “a great season.”
    That’s it. None of those is an out-there statement. The Wakefield and Schilling opinions are the most extreme, and they’re statements I’ve seen from other baseball analysts already this offseason.
    If predicting less pain for Ortiz and an innocuous note on Ramirez’s offseason regimen is your evidence for fanboyism on Gammons’ part, you need to search harder.

    Paul SF January 3, 2008, 11:23 pm
  • I asked for one example of Gammons-brand criticism of either the Sox front office or one of the players in that chat. You haven’t given that because it’s not there. That’s objectivity and balanced analysis. Gammons must have recovered in the Fox News Hospital for Journalists.
    Meanwhile, in what universe is predicting “better” or “great” seasons across the board not being a fanboy? Worse, he’s saying an oft-injured 40 year old is going to pitch “for another 3-4 years”.
    Whoops, my bad, he said a relief pitcher with a 214 ERA+ is likely to regress? Shocking! How dare he defile the Sox like that!

    Mike YF January 3, 2008, 11:53 pm
  • Peter Gammons is a Red Sox fanboy disguised as a “journalist”?
    No. Shocking!

    yf2k January 4, 2008, 5:38 am
  • Mainly I regret the direction of the thread because my post directed attention away from the actual chat to the oft-articulated anti-Gammons argument being expressed here. You’re allowed to have any opinion you want. I guess I just wish the content of the chat was being more engaged here. Or rather, I wish my original post had somehow been more suppoortive of Gammons. I don’t know. I feel complicit in the all-too-familiar Gammons bashing going on here.

    Nick-YF January 4, 2008, 8:11 am
  • The problem is, Nick, Gammons did absolutely nothing in that chat to refute the “Sox bias” arguments. Worse, the Neyer comment really showed me how much the honorable and dignified man has fallen. It’s sad really. I used to have a deep fondness for him and never considered he was a Sox fan. That has gradually been replaced by the fanboy of today.

    Mike YF January 4, 2008, 10:31 am
  • The only thing that really bugged me was the Neyer comment, because anyone who realkly reads Neyer would know he’s one of the most far n’ balanced columnists out there.
    As long as I’ve known Gammons’ stuff, he has always tended to focus on the positives – when asked about players, he almost always responds with positive anecdotes about them, like the Lester and Coco stuff cited above – he’s always been like that.
    He always spoke very highly of the Yankee dynasty from ’96-’01, and in his HOF induction speech, he did call the 2003 ALCS Game 7 the “Greatest Game Ever Played.” He probably has a special fondness in his heart for the BoSox, but really who can blame him for that?

    Mark (YF) January 4, 2008, 12:30 pm
  • “he has always tended to focus on the positives”
    “larry_david__Guest_ Will Scott Boras be making any announcements during the Super Bowl? Maybe another one of his clients will be filing for free agency that day?
    Peter_Gammons No, Scott has apologized for the timing and clearly feels badly for the storm he created. It was one of those perfect storms and he knows that it took away from that 4th game. What we don’t know is how much Alex Rodriguez was a part of the timing. Alex’s performance on 60 Minutes proved one thing, he’s a baseball player, not a Hollywood star. And players around the game will not forget that he actually said that the game is easy for him.”
    Yeah, he focuses on the positives there – gives Boras (!) a free pass, and in the next breath goes on to blast A Rod. Double standard, perhaps?

    The Sheriff (Andrews) January 4, 2008, 1:12 pm
  • The only thing that really bugged me was the Neyer comment
    I noticed the Neyer comment also, and agreed with it. I’ve been a Neyer fan since long before his stuff was pay-only, but for the last couple years, he seems to have gotten meaner on the subject of Rice, and I’m not sure why.

    Paul SF January 4, 2008, 1:48 pm
  • I can’t say I’ve read too much of Neyer’s stuff about Rice, but perhaps he’s stating his case stronger as the push for Rice becomes stronger. I’m guessing Rice will be in soon.

    Nick-YF January 4, 2008, 1:51 pm
  • There is a difference between Gammons giving a Sox-centric chat on the Globe’s website where he is asked his opinion about a team he knows very well and Murray Chass writing a national column parlaying (possibly) false information from anonymous sources, as he did with the JD Drew BS last year. Please spare us the false equivalency, ok? Criticism is fair, without a doubt, nobody is immune (I have had my say about Gammons elsewhere on this site, check the archives), but this thread has veered off course and has just gotten nasty, driven by a pretty obvious dose of dislike for Gammons.
    And Mike, if you want to attempt humor at the expense of a guy who had a brain aneurysm that’s your right, but it’s tasteless, utterly. I don’t think there’s one iota of humor in your “recovery” joke, frankly.

    SF January 4, 2008, 1:53 pm
  • Well, of course, you’d say that, Paul. Can we really expect you to side against Gammons AND Rice in a argument?
    Gammons has no business calling out a colleague let alone a co-worker. It shows just how far he’s slipped. He used to be the pinnacle of honor in the profession. Worse, his entire case for Rice starts with the MVP votes? Horrible. Perfect example where his fanboy perspective colors his opinion of very sound argument against Rice in the HOF. He doesn’t have to agree with the conclusions but he made it personal. Just a terrible example of professionalism there.

    Mike YF January 4, 2008, 1:58 pm
  • However you took it Andy, it was meant as a stark contrast. I used to really admire Gammons’ approach and demeanor. He’s changed remarkably since his injury. It’s really sad, and I’ve consistently said that here. But it’s time he retires.

    Mike YF January 4, 2008, 2:00 pm
  • Just out of curiosity, I Googled “Rob Neyer Jim Rice” and this shot out.
    Neyer has a very strong opinions on Rice, it seems almost like a famous and well-advertised and well-know position, his opposition to Rice’s HoF candidacy. On ESPN this year he has written three Rice-centric columns, many times that over the last six years it would seem including chats. I am not sure that Gammons has said anything that Neyer himself would deny, frankly, though the use of the term “obsess” is probably aggressive (it’s a chat, though, and in real time — in print Gammons might have written something different, though that’s not an excuse just a possible explanation). This is much ado about nothing, Gammons and Neyer are ESPN colleagues and we have no idea if Neyer is even remotely offended by Gammons’ comment.

    SF January 4, 2008, 2:03 pm
  • And of course no one’s mentioned how much propaganda Gammons was spewing during the winter meetings and Santana. I thought the deal was “all but done” Peter? Seriously, nice job on his part helping to drive up the price on the Yankees.

    Mike YF January 4, 2008, 2:04 pm
  • Problem is: Neyer’s right.

    Mike YF January 4, 2008, 2:06 pm
  • “All but done” was Will Carroll’s line, not Gammons’. Gammons broke in, as I recall, with news that the Twins might not trade Santana at all.
    So let’s try for some accuracy with our venom, shall we, Mike?

    Paul SF January 4, 2008, 2:16 pm
  • This thread is kind of amusing considering all of the time spent criticizing Pete Abraham over the last year on this site. Here the roles are reversed and with good reason.
    You can parse Gammons statements from his post but the fact is that they are all positive and rarely negative. This is an overall trend concerning his writing as of late. I think its pretty hard to claim that there is not at least some bias at this point on Gammons’ part towards the Sox. He is very close to the team but does not have use the critical level of analysis that he applies to other teams any more. The defensiveness concerning Rice should be evidence enough for this, Ive never seen him comment on other players like this. The fact that he was aggressive about this topic during a live session to me is revealing as he didnt have time to go back and edit and tone it down.

    sam-YF January 4, 2008, 2:31 pm
  • my favorite mike-ism of this thread is…….”Even during the meltdown of 2006, he praised their every move.”
    were you his personal bedside attendant or something?

    sf rod January 4, 2008, 3:02 pm
  • ” Gammons broke in, as I recall, with news that the Twins might not trade Santana at all.”
    ..and wasn’t it Gammons who broke the “5 for 1 trade” line?
    IMO, the bottom line with all of this is that anytime he speaks about either of our teams, doubts run through my mind as to whether or not Gammons’ sox bias affects his work.
    Kind of like the conflict of interest many of us were uncomfortable with in the Mitchell investigation.

    The Sheriff (Andrews) January 4, 2008, 3:55 pm
  • “This thread is kind of amusing considering all of the time spent criticizing Pete Abraham over the last year on this site.”
    I couldn’t agree more, sam.

    The Sheriff (Andrews) January 4, 2008, 3:56 pm
  • “There is a difference between Gammons giving a Sox-centric chat on the Globe’s website where he is asked his opinion about a team he knows very well and Murray Chass writing a national column parlaying (possibly) false information from anonymous sources, as he did with the JD Drew BS last year.Please spare us the false equivalency, ok?”
    SF, I assume you were responding to me?
    To use one of your favorite expressions, “this is not a zero sum game”. I’m speaking generally about Gammons work over the last few years, not just this chat session; likewise, with Chass, I’m not talking about that specific article; just pointing out that someone usually rails on him in a post here anytime he writes something unflattering about the sox.

    The Sheriff (Andrews) January 4, 2008, 4:09 pm
  • Is Gammons’ incorrect reporting on the 5-for-1 (which by the way I criticized heavily, especially because it was never corrected, as it should have been) in any way relevant to this discussion?
    Mike’s (laughable) point was that Gammons’ pro-Sox reporting was intended to drive up the Santana asking price for the Yanks. He then cited a quote Gammons never made, and I noted that Gammons in fact issued a report that would have depressed Santana’s value by showing the Twins weren’t about to accept the Sox’ offer.
    I guess you could circuitously argue that the 5-for-1 report would have potentially driven up Santana’s value, but it was a short-lived rumor and not very realistic in the first place — which is why I was so unimpressed with the way Gammons reported it (and never retracted it).
    Now the 5-1 could be used as evidence that Gammons is “losing his fastball,” as someone put it. In fact, that’s much better evidence than any of the quotes the YFs here has offered thus far.

    Paul SF January 4, 2008, 5:26 pm
  • Gammons said the same thing as Carrol. I heard it with my own ears on BT. But I have no idea what his intention was and I never said I did. He’s just too ready, in the last few years, to spew the Sox party line. I’m still waiting for any SF to point to one instance, just one, in the last three years, where Gammons has criticized the Sox. Because he didn’t come close to balanced analysis in that chat.

    Mike YF January 4, 2008, 6:04 pm
  • By the way, the bit about 2006 and Gammons referred specifically to the uber-team quote and the Wells trade. Regarding the uberteam, Gammons basically said that the Sox can’t compete on that level and so it’s true (though 200 million later…). And then when Wells was traded he supported that move as well.

    Mike YF January 4, 2008, 6:09 pm
  • Paul, the very fact that Gammons would be so quick to put out the 5 to 1, or have a part in any other rumors makes me wonder about his motives in being so involved in that circus.
    My problem with him, once again, is just that: he is so much on the record as being a fan of one team that his credibility (or the perception of it) as a national reporter suffers. The “lost fastball” IMO, is that.

    The Sheriff (Andrews) January 4, 2008, 6:36 pm
  • Exactly Andrew, but I’d go even further and say exactly because of his stated fandom AND his behavior (now with Neyer and Rice), the perception has become a reality. I really do hope he retires, and soon. I’d be much more saddened to see him enter Waldmanesque territory. Though, to be fair, she is actually is employed by the team.

    Mike YF January 4, 2008, 6:41 pm

Leave a Comment

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