5 comments Dan Shaughnessy Is Still Reveling in the Red Sox Failures

I posted something recently about how Dan Shaughnessy doesn't think the Red Sox should have Bill James take a greater role in the organization. Dan seems to be taking great pride and excitement in the Red Sox failings. I don't know why Dan feels so strongly about James, but he does. So while he has an opportunity, he is going to bash the Red Sox as much as possible. Today, Shaughnessy writes a brief article and says the Red Sox are losers for trying to win games and suggests trading Jacoby Ellsbury is a good idea.

The late Sparky Anderson said it best about “spoilers.’’

“Spoilers are losers,’’ said Anderson, who won World Series in both leagues before he was enshrined in Cooperstown.

So I guess major league teams should just give up once they are eliminated from playoff contention? I can just imagine how Dan Shaughnessy would react if the Red Sox announced (officially, of course) they had given up on the year. He would write a scathing column about how they are losers for giving up and this is the perfect type of attitude for a team who loves giving up and not caring.

“It’s easy to play in September when you got nothing to play for. No pressure. You always want to do your best, but anybody who takes pride in playing without pressure and eliminating someone else is a loser.’’

So I guess the 2011 Red Sox team was eliminated by a team of losers, also known as the 2011 Baltimore Orioles.

This probably isn't one of Sparky Anderson's best quotes. I think there is something to be said for playing hard after your team has been eliminated from the playoffs. Sure, your team isn't making the playoffs, but giving up is for losers.

Bobby Valentine is more relaxed than he has been at any time this season. Now that he is a cinch to be fired (the Red Sox probably will arrange something where they don’t have to use that offensive term)

And we will all be confused when the term "fired" isn't used?

The manager twice referenced players (Scott Atchison and Scott Podsednik) who “understand the difference between right and wrong,’’ which always feels like a larger statement about some of the other people who have been in a Boston uniform this season.

There is a strong tradition in Boston of the media bashing players, managers or GM's who are no longer with the Red Sox. It is funny how guys like Adrian Gonzalez and Josh Beckett can become a cancer and the epitome of what is wrong with the Red Sox once the team starts losing. Yeah, Beckett made some mistakes over the past year and a half, but Gonzalez fell out of favor quite quickly with the Boston media. Gonzalez was the quiet slugger the Red Sox were missing until the Red Sox starting losing and he became a moody hitter who couldn't hit when it counted.

Is it mean of us to take pleasure in the struggles of Adrian “The Cooler’’ Gonzalez and the Los Angeles Dodgers since the big deal went down?

Just as long as you stop bashing Gonzalez when he heats back up and helps carry the Dodgers to the playoffs, whether that is this year or next year.

Going into Wednesday’s night’s game, A-Gon was hitting .230 with a .311 slugging percentage since his first game (1 for 5 with a three-run homer) in Dodger Blue. The Dodgers were 6-10 since the trade.

BREAKING: Adrian Gonzalez isn't the only Dodgers player who is struggling to drive in runs right now.

It has been fun reading the Los Angeles scribes who first embraced Gonzo and fell for the phony explanation that he was a media victim in Boston.

Yeah, Adrian Gonzalez is such an asshole. All of his problems in Boston were of his own doing and had nothing to do with the media or the circus atmosphere that has circled the Red Sox for the past year. Dan Shaughnessy enjoys bashing players once they are out of Boston while suckling at that player's teat when that player was in Boston.

T.J. Simers of the Los Angeles Times wrote Tuesday, “He’s every bit the flat liner the folks in Boston said he was there, melting when called on to deliver in a key situation . . . This was his reputation in Boston, shutting down after games when the moment seemed to be too much . . . How do you root for a statue? J.D. Drew comes to mind.’’

Yes, take the word of T.J. Simers. Now there's a reliable and level-headed columnist. Let's briefly look at Dan's history of being a hypocrite in order to better appreciate what a waffling asshole he truly is...

From a February 28, 2012 piece on Gonzalez:

He is polite, aloof, and wildly talented. He is part Ted Williams, part Tim Tebow, and he doesn’t care what we think. He’s never going to get caught up in the noise of the Boston baseball experience.

What was once "not getting caught up in the noise" is now considered aloof and deaf to the needs and demands of the Boston media. Part Ted Williams and part Tim Tebow. What a compliment by Dan. Just six months later Gonzalez is the very cause of all the Red Sox problems. Sure doesn't sound like Dan is changing his story in order to fit the narrative he wants to write does it?

He is Adrian Gonzalez, the sweet-swinging, soft-spoken, almost invisible star of the Red Sox.

But Dan! You forgot to write about what a terrible person and a complete waste of money Gonzalez is going to end up being. How did you miss this important fact at the time you were writing this?

Nothing like overreactive journalism. Everything is going well, Gonzalez is "sweet-swinging" and once things go to shit and Dan Shaughnessy needs to find a culprit, Gonzalez is "The Cooler."

From a July 12, 2011 article that is titled "Gonzalez Might Be Best in Baseball:"

Another column written before the Red Sox started to struggle and the Boston media needed to find someone to point the blame.

Adrian Gonzalez might be the best player in baseball today. Think about it. Whom would you take ahead of him?

Apparently Dan would take a lot of players ahead of Gonzalez...well at least when things are going bad. When things are going well, Gonzalez magically becomes a sweet-swinging player who Dan would repeatedly compare to Ted Williams.

The Red Sox have a fine legacy of lefty sluggers coming up big in All-Star Games. Ted Williams hit a three-run walkoff to beat the National League in Detroit in the magical season of 1941. In ’46 at Fenway, Ted went 4 for 4 with two homers, including a blast off Rip Sewell’s eephus pitch.

That is two comparisons to Ted Williams in two articles. But again, Adrian Gonzalez is really better known now as "The Cooler" and a player who can't help his team win games. Of course, considering Ted Williams never won a World Series, Dan Shaughnessy probably thinks Ted Williams was "The Cooler" before Gonzalez was.

From another article on Gonzalez on May 23, 2011:

Here we are in the early part of the 2011 season and Boston fans are suddenly OK with the guy they have at first base.

At Fenway, Gonzalez might be a better fit than Teixeira.

Dan, if only you knew one year later you would find out that Adrian Gonzalez is a terrible fit for Fenway. This is what happens when you only write reactive columns about the Red Sox, as opposed to thoughtful columns which try to go further than merely finding blame.

He's the best Boston defensive first baseman since George Scott (though Gonzalez has the advantage of being left-handed) and his at bats have become must-see TV for Red Sox Nation.
Fans can't get enough of Yo Adrian's sweet left-handed stroke.
Gonzalez thinks fastball on every pitch, has velvet hands and is able to wait the extra split-second and go the other way. His left-center field power is perfectly suited for Fenway's Green Monster.

You can see how torn about Gonzalez that Dan Shaughnessy was. Isn't it funny how in the good times Gonzalez is a great hitter, but in tough times he is the very problem with the Red Sox? But who does Gonzalez remind Dan of? He hasn't mentioned this yet...

Sox hitting coach Dave Magadan compared Gonzo to Edgar Martinez.
Never mind, Edgar. How about Ted Williams?

That would be the third comparison to Ted Williams that Dan Shaughnessy has made. I don't understand how a player who is like Ted Williams one year ago is a guy who also shuts down when the moment means too much. I guess this is how a writer's perception can change when confronted with failure. Funny how what is so obvious to Dan now (that Gonzalez shrinks in the big moment) wasn't so obvious a year ago. Point the finger, quick!

"My dad always said, 'make sure you get a good pitch to hit -- a pitch up in the zone that you can drive,''' says Gonzalez.

That, of course, is the main message to Ted Williams' hitting manifesto, The Science of Hitting. Red Sox GM Theo Epstein issues Williams' book to all Sox minor leaguers. Gonzalez has learned to live by Ted's creed of hitting.

Doesn't Dan mean "The Science of Choking in Big Moments?" Amirightorwhat?
So we can all see what we already knew about Dan. Dan Shaughnessy changes his story when confronted with failure. After all, it has to be someone's fault the Red Sox struggled this year. They are a team destined to be great, so someone had to be at fault for stopping this greatness, right?

Remember the 2011 argument about who was the better center fielder, Curtis Granderson or Jacoby Ellsbury?
Ellsbury has three homers in 62 games this year. He is hitting .268.

Ellsbury is injured a lot. I don't know why this happens either. When he is not injured, he plays the game of baseball pretty well. In fact, Ellsbury was 2nd in the AL MVP race in 2011. That's all forgotten now though. In times for the Red Sox, Dan points the finger and starts bashing everyone.

Ellsbury is the greatest flight risk since Whitey Bulger,

Boooooooooooooooooooo!!! I feel like I should be throwing fruit at Dan right now.

and the Sox are not going to contend next year with him in center field.

Well I guess it is official then. The Red Sox won't contend with Ellsbury in center field next year. If Dan speaks it, then it must be true. Why should it matter the Red Sox contended in 2011 and every other year Ellsbury was in center field?

The Sox must trade Ellsbury this winter.

Brilliant idea from Dan Shaughnessy: Expert GM. Trade Jacoby Ellsbury at the very valley of his value. Brilliant. This is another reactive suggestion from Dan. Where was this suggestion after the 2011 season to trade Ellsbury, especially since the Red Sox can't contend with him in center field? I mean, why would Dan suggest the Red Sox trade the guy who was just 2nd in the MVP race, while fully knowing the Red Sox can never win with him in centerfield? Oh that's right, Dan didn't hold this opinion a year ago and he is just making this all up as he goes along.
Seriously, why trade Ellsbury when he is near the very bottom of his value? It makes not of sense.

But Ellsbury has missed 1½ of the last three seasons and is going the wrong way. He’s not even Carl Crawford this season. Trade the dude.

Dan is right. Ellsbury isn't even Carl Crawford because Crawford has just come off Tommy John surgery, is two years older than Ellsbury, makes less money and Ellsbury had played in 63 games this year when Dan wrote this, while Crawford has played in 31 games for the Red Sox this year. So Ellsbury is a much more preferable option than Carl Crawford is.

Add Bill James to the list of those who had nothing to do with the collapse of the Red Sox.

Because the Red Sox just can't lose games. There has to be someone to blame for these losses and this person must be fired immediately.

James’s friend, scribe Joe Posnanski, made it clear in a “Sports on Earth” piece that Bill was never high on Carl Crawford, nor John Lackey. Now we have James telling Posnanski, “After we [Red Sox] had been very successful for a long time, we lost sight of the fact that we were still capable of making huge blunders. We sort of started to assume that whatever we did would work out.

“It’s embarrassing, the performance of the organization. But at the same time it presents a new challenge. In some ways I’ve been impatient, waiting to get to the point where we could start to fix this. We’re there now.’’

And who cares if Dan Shaughnessy appears to agree with James' assessment? Giving Bill James a larger role with the Red Sox organization is still a bad idea in Dan's opinion. Only ideas formulated two years after the problem starts as to what an organization should have at that time are ideas that Dan Shaughnessy is willing to accept. He has no clue how to fix the Red Sox, but he knows what they should have done two years ago, even if Dan didn't suggest it at the time.

ESPN was here, Wednesday night, which meant sharing the press box, elevator, and media bathroom with Nomar Garciaparra and Curt Schilling. That’s a lot of awkward for one night, don’t you think?

Especially when you are a sports columnist who prides himself on being a hitman who criticizes players once they leave town and is constantly looking for someone to blame for the Red Sox problems...even when the Red Sox problems are something you weren't able to foresee yourself.