4 comments Phil Mushnick Is Still Old and Really, Really Cranky

Phil Mushnick hates so many things it's not worth listing them all. He hates showy athletes, hates announcers for using words he hates, and felt after his son's death was the best time to take a shit on Adrian Peterson. His online column (Mushnick probably spends time being self-loathing about the fact he has to publish columns on the Internet) is basically just a list of things that make him so angry because they didn't used to be that way. In two articles today, it's hard to say exactly all of the things that Phil is railing against, but it's instant replay, the way headlines are written, people being mean to Curt Schilling, and Jon Stewart.

Here is his first article of screeds against random things that pop into his mind which piss him off. 

Well, it finally happened. Didn’t make much news or noise, but that figures given baseball’s new replay rules have been widely celebrated for “getting it right.”

I'm shocked the new replay rules don't work perfectly after one year. Usually rule changes in a professional sporting event immediately works effortlessly with no issues.

In the top of the fifth inning in Aug. 20’s White Sox-Angels, Chicago’s Jose Abreu, with runners on first and third, hit a shot down the line that third-base ump Dana DeMuth ruled foul. Play, naturally, immediately stopped.

But the White Sox challenged the call. And there it was: The ball appeared to have nicked the line. Fair ball! Now what?

The umpires decide what bases to award the White Sox. I get the snark about "getting it right" but Mushnick is essentially going to argue that the umpires using hypotheticals to award bases to players is not preferable to the call being absolutely wrong. I would disagree, but I also am not a cranky person who can't handle any sort of change.

The umps held a meeting, a caucus to negotiate a settlement. It ended only after they reached an agreement on a guess of what, among scores of things that could have happened, as to what might have next happened. They determined — guessed — that because the runner on first was going on the pitch, both runners should score, and Abreu should be awarded second, as if it were a ground-rule double, which it was not.

I disagree with the conclusion here. I think the runner on first should be awarded third base just as if it were a ground rule double, but otherwise I have no issue with instant replay working in this exact way. It's almost impossible to know what really would have happened, so there has to be some educated guessing involved, assuming the umpires have the directive from MLB to get the call right by using instant replay. There is no other way, outside of guessing, to determine what would have happened had the call been correct initially.

So, in the name of “getting it right,” a pile of things that never happened — all of them impossible to determine would have happened — were deemed to have not happened while other impossibilities to determine were deemed to have happened.

You mean sort of like how defensive pass interference is called in the NFL and the offensive team is given the ball at the spot of the foul when there is no evidence that if there were no defensive pass interference the offensive player would have caught the ball? Or evidence the offensive player would have caught the ball and run for a touchdown? There is also no evidence the offensive player would have caught the ball, fumbled and then the defensive player would have run it back for a touchdown had the pass interference not occurred? Sort of how the NFL just assumes the offensive player would have caught the ball, and rewards the offensive team accordingly, when defensive pass interference occurs? I'm sure Phil Mushnick has no issue with this rule because it's not new and scary.

The White Sox took a 6-1 lead based on nothing more conclusive than a bunch of maybes as they related to the offense, the defense, and where that ball might’ve wound up then how it might’ve been played — had it been played.

This is what has happened on ground rule doubles for a long, long time now. A runner gets stopped at third base (if he were on first base) based on an assumption of how the ball would have been played. The alternative is that the call is entirely wrong without instant replay and the White Sox will keep the lead they have, but not keep the chance to have the big lead they should have had. So get it wrong or guess in an attempt to get it right? 

Once that foul ball, via replay rule, was determined to have been fair, imaginary baseball — official fantasy league baseball — was invoked.

I wish fantasy sports didn't exist so sportswriters would stop referring to real baseball as "fantasy baseball" when something happens in the sport that they don't like. It's a lazy fallback joke and it's tiring. 

The mind wanders and wonders … Game 7 of the World Series, bottom of the ninth. A ball initially ruled foul is reviewed, reversed. The umps gather to try to figure it out, to try to figure what can’t possibly be determined, then rule on what would’ve or might’ve happened, though it didn’t.

So in criticizing a pile of things that never happened---all of them impossible to determine would have happened---Phil Mushnick uses a situation that has never happened and it is impossible at this point to determine would happen in the World Series?

(Phil Mushnick) "Stop using hypothetical actions by runners on-base to determine what the score in the game would be in a hypothetical situation had the call been made correctly. Now here is a hypothetical situation with hypothetical actions by the umpires that I will use to determine how the World Series would end..."

Is the World Series over? “Gee,” says the crew chief, “I guess so.”

Instant replay has ended an NFL game before when a call was upheld or overturned. It happened in the Packers-Seahawks game a few years ago. This may never happen in the World Series, but I like how Phil criticizes using hypotheticals in order to get a call on the field correct using instant replay by using his own hypothetical situation. 

One of my favorite parts of Super Bowls is the solemn chat with the losing coach just outside the locker room, usually his back to a cinderblock wall.
Inevitably, whether the score was 52-10 or 28-27, he is asked: “What would you have done differently?” Almost always, he answers he would do nothing differently, which, given that his team lost, makes no sense. He would do it all the same, again. And lose the same, again.

Not necessarily. It's possible the issue wasn't the play call, but the execution of the play call. So a coach could easily decide to call the same play again, but have his quarterback choose to throw to a different receiver, run with the football or throw the ball to the receiver in a different spot where the defender can't catch the ball. This is the difference in a results-oriented mindset and a more educated mindset. If I get in a car accident driving to the grocery store using a different route than I usually use to get to the grocery store, it doesn't mean I should never go the different route again because I will get in another accident. 

The Golf Channel becomes comical when it goes into Tiger Woods Scramble Mode. When Woods shot a first-round 64 two Thursdays ago, GC apparently canceled all staff vacations, on-air personnel instructed to hyperventilate.

For a person whose job it is to cover the media, Phil Mushnick has a shitty grasp on how ratings work. Tiger Woods is in contention, which means there is more interest in the golf tournament. The ratings reflect this, so naturally a network will cover the story that the people watching the tournament are interested in. 

CBS was no better. Though Woods last Sunday was in the next-to-the-last pairing — “penultimate pairing,” as per ESPN from the British Open — Woods was listed first among those in second place, two behind leader Jason Gore. But Tom Hoge, tied with Woods, played with Gore.

Again, ratings. It doesn't matter how the players are sorted, but CBS wanted any person flipping channels to see Tiger is high on the leaderboard. Phil Mushnick covers the media. Networks like ratings and Tiger brings in ratings. 

ESPN’s late Sunday crawl read, “Davis Love wins the Wyndham as Tiger falters.” Reader Rich Monahan: “As if one was the reason for the other!”

This is very Easterbrookian on the part of Rich Monahan. It's not at all how that sentence is structured, as if one was the reason for the other. If I write, "I wrote in my notebook as my sister tried to color in the lines of her coloring book," I'm not indicating one event has a correlation to the other or indicating any causation. I'm simply stating what I'm doing while my sister is doing something else.

Another example: "Phil Mushnick bitches about stupid shit in his column as really good writers are unemployed." Wait, maybe I'm implying there should be some causation there...

Carlos Gomez, as a Brewer and now with the Astros, has been a conspicuous showoff, a me-first fool well worth the Yankees’ collective disdain over the past week.

But Gomez, who claims his teammates love such behavior from him — he’s delusional if he believes that — should be asked this:

Phil Mushnick knows Carlos Gomez is delusional for thinking his teammates love his behavior, because Phil Mushnick has been in the Brewers' and Astros' locker room to know whether his teammates like him or not? Not at all. Mushnick is assuming Gomez is delusional based on his own beliefs and assumptions. Basically, Mushnick is determining what Gomez's teammates think---while ignoring it's impossible to determine what they think---when ignoring other possibilities and deeming them to not have happened.

Would you instruct the kids in your life to exploit baseball, a team game, to demonstrate their excessive self-regard, or would you urge them toward modesty? Is public immodesty the professional legacy you choose for yourself?

That's a great question to ask. Carlos Gomez clearly needs a moral compass like Phil Mushnick to help him raise his children in the proper way. That is what is so great about Phil Mushnick. He knows how everyone should behave and act at all times and believes himself to be the final arbiter on what is and is not proper behavior. He has that excessive self-regard and displays some public immodesty by telling others what the proper behavior in a given situation might be. 

Now Phil Mushnick uses history to determine that Curt Schilling should not have been punished for comparing extremist Muslims to Nazis. Of course, because outrage has to take a back seat to actually reading and understand what Schilling put on his Facebook page, Phil Mushnick is outraged at Schilling being punished.

Schilling deleted the Tweet and even apologized for it. So clearly he knew what he posted was going to be offensive to some and chose to delete it off his Facebook page entirely. There is a recent history of people being outraged just to be outraged, but Schilling knew he shouldn't have posted what he posted and deleted it accordingly. He made a mistake, owned up to it and then got punished. We all move on. BUT, Phil Mushnick is angry that ESPN blatantly read what Schilling posted and didn't take history into account. Sure, Phil spends many of his columns only reading the body language and actions of players (see: Carlos Gomez, above) and then judging them harshly on those actions without investigating the history or reason behind those actions, but it's different for him. Phil Mushnick can rush to a snap judgment and condemn a person accordingly, but everyone else should not do this.

ESPN last week suspended its lead baseball analyst, Curt Schilling, not for talking games to death, but for a social-media message equating Nazis with current, extremist Muslims.

The message was comparing extreme Muslims now to Nazis in 1940, prior to the United States entry into World War II. I could be way off, but the indication being that extreme Muslims could become a threat on-par with Nazis and that even non-extreme Muslims will eventually take up the point of view of extreme Muslims. Again, I could be looking into it too much, but the year 1940 seems to indicate to Americans (yes, there was fighting prior to the Americans entering the war) that extremist Muslims could eventually recruit non-extreme Muslims to their cause to the point there is another world war.

“Curt’s tweet was completely unacceptable, and in no way represents our company’s perspective. We made that point very strongly to Curt and have removed him from his current Little League assignment pending further consideration.”

Completely unacceptable? Out of line with ESPN’s perspective?

Curt Schilling apologized for it. We live in an age where everyone is offended by everything. I recognize this. When Schilling apologizes for what he posted, it tells me that he recognizes the fallacy of posting this on his Facebook page. Remember, Schilling never apologized for his science v. God debate with Keith Law that got Law suspended. He isn't going to apologize just because he feels he hurt some feelings, so he must really think he was in the wrong. Maybe he just wanted to avoid a suspension, who knows? 

So, then what — very strongly, no less — is ESPN’s perspective?

To not compare extreme Muslims to pre-Americans-entering-World War II Nazis. That's their perspective. 

and “in no way represents our company’s perspective” was not only historically true, Schilling under-tweeted the truth. Islamists and Nazis were teammates!

Tens of thousands more eastern Muslims fought for Nazi Germany. Their mutual attraction was a shared desire to murder Jews.

So Phil Mushnick's reaction is to basically say, "Muslims have always been on the side of Nazis, so Curt Schilling should have lumped even more non-extremist Muslims in with Hitler and his political party."

Interesting.  

After the war, “rat lines” that provided escape and sanctuary to Nazi war criminals led to safekeeping in Islamic countries, especially Egypt and Syria. And little about radical Islam, as it today festers and explodes, has changed since the rise of the Ottoman Empire in the 14th century.

While this could possibly be true, there are radical sects of every religion that probably have gone unchanged for generations and every religion is responsible in some way for death and destruction. The Crusades weren't exactly a bloodless affair, but it doesn't mean the modern day conservative Christian is a danger to society. My point is Islam may have been historically tied to Nazi Germany, but this doesn't necessarily mean a baseball analyst should be posting brief tidbits that serve as a warning about the growth of radical Islam and comparing it to Nazi Germany in 1940. Maybe someone will read this sentence in 100 years and laugh at the naive American who was eventually wiped out by radical Islam...

So what Schilling tweeted was (a) true, (b) a vast understatement, and (c) intolerable to ESPN, so at odds with the company’s position that ESPN had no choice but to publicly censure and punish him.

It's not that the facts aren't necessarily true, though I have no evidence the facts are true, but it's the insinuation behind those facts that Schilling was seemingly making. There was an insinuation that non-extreme Muslims would eventually join the radical cause. Again, that's how I read it. 

Yet it rhymes with the media’s selective outrages and selectively quiet pandering. And pandering continues as the frightened media’s path-of-least-resistance substitute for hard, unfortunate truths.

Maybe, but I think Phil Mushnick is reading a bit too much into this. If I posted something on this blog that said (these are made up numbers),

"In 1933, African Americans made up 15% of the population of the United States population and violent crime was at it's lowest totals. Today, African Americans make up 45% of the United States population and violent crime is as high as it has been in the history of the United States."

If I wrote that, then I am only writing true things, but it doesn't mean that I'm not insinuating or encouraging my reader to make another assumption within the information I'm reporting. I wasn't offended by what was on Schilling's Facebook page, but combined with his argument with Keith Law, I can see why he was suspended. Naturally, Phil Mushnick is outraged.

Saturday night’s FOX 5 News sports report, anchored by Tina Cervasio of MSG renown, was an exercise in staggering group pandering. As her “amusing” kicker, she reported that Steve Smith, now a Ravens wide receiver, was ejected from that night’s preseason game. She didn’t say why he was tossed, but it was for fighting.

Usually if a football player is ejected from a game, it isn't for passing out flowers to his opponents. Even casual football fans know this. So there was obviously something that got Smith ejected and the reason can be explained, but it's a safe assumption he did something excessively violent or that wouldn't go over well in a normal work place. 

After his first-quarter ejection Saturday, Cervasio said Smith entered a suite to sit with his son, from where they tweeted a smiling “selfie,” along with his son’s happy message: “when ur dad gets ejected.” The kid added this was the first time he watched his father’s team play while seated with his father.

Isn’t that charming, family bonding predicated on Dad being thrown out of the game.

It is exciting and charming for a kid to watch a football game with his dad. Though I'm sure Phil Mushnick is very concerned about the example Steve Smith is setting for his son. Thank God that Mushnick is here to tell others how they should or should not parent. 

This brought approving, if not forced laughter from Cervasio and the pandering news folks also on the set. Anchor Antwan Lewis gave it final, full approval with, “That’s pretty cool.” Yeah, fabulous.

Don't be such a crab. Steve Smith by all appearances seems to be a really good father. Would it have been better if Smith got kicked out of the game and then didn't sit with his family? He's been kicked out of a preseason game (and may have been trying to get kicked out...I wouldn't put it past him), so why not sit with his family? Then his son took a picture of them watching the game together. This isn't a threat to humanity on-par to the Nazi-like rise of Islam.

Reader Wesley Drake, as likely did tens of thousands, thought the tear-filled Wilmer Flores “trade to Milwaukee” drama to be extra special, something that made all feel good for all the right reasons.

But then Drake, as did others, learned that Steiner Collectibles and Flores had joined to exploit the story for every tear-soaked dollar that suckers could spend. Flores autographed photos of him crying, Steiner peddled them.

He's making money off his own pain. That's absolutely something he is entitled to do. It could be tongue-in-cheek or it could be an easy way to make a dollar. What does it matter? Would it be better if Flores was not a part of these photos? Would his lack of participation in not autographing them be any less pathetic if someone else made money off the pain he was feeling at the time? 

“Now,” writes Drake, “I feel like an idiot.”

You bought an autographed picture of a man crying and then emailed Phil Mushnick about it. I would say the second part of that last sentence probably indicates you are self-aware enough to know it's not just a feeling. 

Was there no one with the Mets or perhaps Flores’s agent to discourage such a pathetic sell? Was there no one to tell Flores, perhaps naïve but not starving, that there are other, better ways to make an extra buck?

Again, why should he not make money off his own pain? It may be pathetic, but if there is a market for it, who cares? Plus, it's nice that Flores can autograph them and not take himself so seriously, even when photographed in a vulnerable moment like he was. 

Saturday, during the Red Sox-Mets game, one of the most trusted voices of New York sports, Howie Rose, retold the warm-the-cockles, trade-that-wasn’t story. He said that Flores, now a crowd favorite, “is very shy” and that “he was almost embarrassed” by all the attention. Hmmm.

Maybe “almost” covered it. He couldn’t have been that embarrassed.

He could have been that embarrassed and decided rather than continue to be embarrassed, fully knowing the pictures of him crying are not going away, why not embrace the embarrassment and participate? 

Et tu, Jon Stewart? If Stewart thought himself an idealist rather than an easy, cheesy populist, he blew it last week when he lent his presence to a WWE ringside skit.

My feelings about wrestling will always remain untold, because I don't want to tell others what to and not to like, but is Jon Stewart participating in a WWE skit really worth bitching about? I can't figure out how Jon Stewart being a part of a fake wrestling match could somehow be an indication there is no one left to corrupt and the sky of morality in sports is definitely falling. 

Perhaps he didn’t care that the McMahon family has for decades headed a drug-death mill for wrestlers, or that the McMahons’ form of entertaining kids is to have wrestlers point to their genitals while hollering, “Suck it!”

Yep, I'd say he probably didn't give a shit. It's fake and it's entertainment. What's the difference in Stewart participating in a WWE skit and acting in a movie where he plays a morally corrupt character? Either way, he is acting. Go find something else to be outraged about. 

But for 16 years, Stewart sat on a Comedy Central set and lampooned America’s biggest big shots for failure to choose right over wrong.

Participating in a WWE wrestling skit is "failing to choose right over wrong?" Really? Phil Mushnick needs to retire. For someone who doesn't like athletes who grandstand and have excessive self-regard, he does a hell of a lot of moral grandstanding and holds himself in high regard.

3 comments In a Shocking Twist of Events Sportswriter Who Hates Everything About Alex Rodriguez Hates His Apology Too

Mike Lupica is a self-important asshole who has singlehandedly disproved the theory that it pays off to be nice to people and that those who treat others like they want to be treated will be rewarded. You wouldn't have to search far to hear stories of how Mike Lupica believes himself to be superior to his fellow co-workers, his neighbors or any other human being walking on Earth or in Heaven/Hell. So A-Rod apologizes for using steroids and his other crimes of ego and vanity. It was either going to be enough for some or not enough for others and the decision was probably made which way this would go well before A-Rod actually wrote the apology. People hate everything A-Rod does or they don't. They believe him or they don't. Mike Lupica is on his high horse and can't just write, "I don't like Alex Rodriguez so I choose not to believe him." No, Lupica has to think of horseshit excuses WHY he knows that the apology doesn't ring true among fans, though Lupica is about as in touch with sports fans as Tony Bennett is with the latest dance craze. The last time Lupica watched a game with real sports fans was the one time he got locked out of the press box and had to watch the third quarter of a Knicks game in the last row of Madison Square Garden. Even then he probably forced anyone who he had to sit beside out of their seat so he wouldn't feel crowded as he leaned forward in his chair with his toes barely touching the ground. A-Rod is an asshole and a liar. I'm not sure there's any doubt about that, but Mike Lupica mocking A-Rod and trying to pretend he knows anything about what the real sports fan thinks is the real assholery and lie in this situation.

To the end with Alex Rodriguez you wouldn’t believe the guy if he told you water was wet, even if he wrote that out in the schoolboy cursive handwriting he used on Tuesday when he apologized to the fans for being a very bad boy.

(Mike Lupica if A-Rod didn't apologize): "The least A-Rod could do is set aside his mountainous ego and tell the truth for once, even if it isn't the truth. Just write a letter or make a statement saying you are sorry. Is that too much to ask?"

(Mike Lupica when A-Rod does apologize): "A-Rod apologized. He didn't mean it. This is just another lie to add to the rolodex of lies that A-Rod seems to be keeping around in a feeble effort to get back in the good graces of fans."

See, when someone hates another person, then NOTHING the other person will do can stop the other person from hating him. At a certain point, the person doing the hating gets tuned out or ignored. So I expect nothing from Lupica but hate towards A-Rod and his take on A-Rod's letter will never convince me of Lupica's point of view.

Most fans reading it probably wanted to write one back: Shut up and get out.

Mike Lupica has absolutely zero idea what fans wanted to write back. The big lie here is any time Mike Lupica claims to even be 1% in touch with modern sports fans and their feelings. It's hard to mingle with the people when you won't leave your pedestal.

So this is the way Rodriguez decides to play it, deciding not to hold some kind of press conference before spring training, opting out of the visual of his lawyer sitting next to him and telling him which questions he could answer, and which ones would require him to exercise his Fifth Amendment rights, so as not to face self-incrimination.

Quite a scene that Lupica has set up here. Obviously A-Rod was opting out of creating a circus around himself for his own benefit and the media will never have a chance to speak with A-Rod ever again during the 2015 season. Such a sneaky fellow to permanently escape the questions of the media as he has.

But then DEA informants — it is exactly what Rodriguez is — rarely want to tell their stories in public.

Snitches get stitches! Mike Lupica don't like it much when snitches start telling stories to the DEA. That's the right way to end up on the wrong side of Lupica's glock.

And yes, Mike Lupica is now criticizing Alex Rodriguez for helping to put a drug dealer behind bars. Because while it's not honorable necessarily, it's also not something that merits any form of criticism.

Now he tries to control his own cockeyed narrative about his drug use — is he really going to try to convince us once again that he didn’t know what he was buying from Bosch and using? — with a written apology that is like a nuanced legal brief, one in which the only thing he really admits is that he did an historic amount of time.

It never ends. The amount of blood required from A-Rod to make up for his previous transgressions will never be enough. Andy Pettitte is seen as fully honest in saying, "I used PED's, but I didn't use them to enhance my performance so fuck you for thinking that's why I did it." He gets a rub-and-tug from the New York media while the Yankees retire his jersey. Alex Rodriguez admits he cheated and apologizes, but he gets criticized by Mike Lupica for not giving up more information with which he can be criticized. Perhaps A-Rod would have been better off claiming he never took PED's to enhance his performance.

It is one thing to tell his story to a writer or to the new commissioner, Rob Manfred, behind closed doors. Or to do the same thing, again behind closed doors to Hal Steinbrenner of the Yankees and his team president, Randy Levine, and his general manager, Brian Cashman. It would have been quite another thing for Rodriguez to have answered questions out in the open without a lawyer present.

A-Rod told his story and was honest with the commissioner and nearly every important decision-maker with the Yankees team, but because Mike Lupica didn't get to hear A-Rod's story then obviously he hasn't come completely clean. The sense of entitlement from Lupica is astounding. A-Rod told his story to anyone who matters, but because he wasn't honest with a person who hates him, then that means A-Rod hasn't totally done his penance quite yet. I'd love to see if Mike Lupica would hold himself to this same standard. Of course he wouldn't. There are separate rules for athletes and Mike Lupica. Mike Lupica hasn't ever had to explain himself to anyone. No, he is the type of person who has others explain themselves TO HIM. He's an insecure bully who can't see past his own ego.

And that really wasn’t the visual he wanted, taking questions from the New York media and the national media, then having to stop for whispered conversations with his current attorney, Jim Sharp, before he might say something contradictory to what he has already told the feds;

And obviously A-Rod might say something contradictory to what he has told the feds, because he is a snitch and a liar. I bet Mike Lupica thinks that A-Rod took PED's given to him by Anthony Bosch, while also lying and framing Bosch for being a drug dealer. I wouldn't doubt that Lupica could hold those two separate, contradictory opinions. It hurts Lupica's little feelings that A-Rod may not owe him an explanation. Because if Lupica is not owed an explanation then that means he isn't as important as he believes himself to be. So like any child who doesn't get his way when he REALLY REALLY wants his way, Lupica throws a fit and accuses Rodriguez of dodging the truth, when in reality Rodriguez doesn't care to tell the media the truth. Mike Lupica doesn't want to be out of the loop or feel like he's less than his ego tells him he is. So naturally, he calls out A-Rod for only telling his story to those people that really matter and not to the media.

“I served the longest suspension in the history of the League for PED use,” he writes.

Which he did and it was cut down from an even longer sentence.

Notice the language here. Rodriguez never uses the word steroids, the way he never used that word back in 2009 when he begged everybody for his first second chance.

Yes, notice how Rodriguez doesn't admit to using the steroids that he didn't use. He used HGH and other PED's as defined by MLB, but not steroids. So yes, I did notice how A-Rod never actually admitted to taking the steroids that he wasn't suspended for taking.

He doesn’t say “my” PED use. Just PED use.

And given the fact he was writing an apology letter for using PED's, it was pretty fucking obvious to only the most thick-headed person that A-Rod was referring to his PED use. In fact, using the word "my" in this sentence would be somewhat redundant. By starting the sentence with "I" then it is clear A-Rod is referring to himself when talking about the suspension for PED use. If you are going to hate on A-Rod at least be good at it and don't sound so desperate. Rodriguez certainly isn't writing an apology letter on someone else's behalf while using the first person.

“I accept the fact that many of you will not believe my apology or anything I say at this point,” he writes. “I understand and that’s on me.”

There you have it, Rodriguez’s own weird version of accountability.

That really is his accountability. He's taking responsibility for his actions and saying he doesn't blame a person for not believing him. What else would Lupica have A-Rod say? This won't be revealed because Lupica has no idea what his expectations for A-Rod are. He just doesn't like A-Rod and stretches to rip him whenever possible.

Even as he asks the fans to believe how sorry he is for everything he’s done, he admits that the same fans to whom he is speaking probably don’t believe he’s really sorry.

Would Lupica have preferred if A-Rod has written, "You will believe my apology, I am sure of it"? Is that more preferable? Again, we won't ever find out because Mike Lupica has no idea what he wants A-Rod to say. He just doesn't want A-Rod to say what he just said.

It will come out in the ESPN piece written by J.R. Moehringer that Alex is in therapy these days. Of course he is. It is about time, and better late than never, for somebody who really could be the buffet at a psychiatrist’s convention.

Mental health. Always a hilarious topic for a good laugh to break up the seriousness of a grown-ass sportswriter throwing a fit that he wasn't included as a stop on an apology tour. I'm sure Lupica would enjoy a few good hearty jokes at the expense of his family having to deal with his egomania.

"I hear Mike Lupica's daughter is in therapy for anorexia. It's about time, after all the bullshit she's had to eat from her dad's mouth all these years she's bound to just throw up as much as possible."

See? It's all in good fun to make a few jokes about mental health. It's not at all an asshole and mean thing to do.

But nobody gets Rodriguez’s Oprah moment now in some big room or hall or under some circus tent somewhere, with a roomful of Oprah Winfreys firing questions at him the way Oprah fired them at Alex’s patron saint, Lance Armstrong.

Yes, nobody gets the big media event that Alex Rodriguez so obviously owes the world. He wrote a letter stating he was wrong and is trying to move on with his life after serving his suspension in order to cut down on as much of the distractions as possible in order to prepare for the upcoming season. It's a very selfish move. Most players would be lauded for publicly apologizing and then trying to make sure they are as small of a distraction as possible, but for Mike Lupica this is just another strike against A-Rod. He owes the world a circus and it's a mark against his character he won't provide one on demand.

Most of the fans to whom Rodriguez spoke on Tuesday — and from the heart! — are probably wishing that there was some way for Stoudemire to take Alex Rodriguez back to Texas with him.

Snark is fun. I still would love to know what Mike Lupica wanted A-Rod to do. Other than hold a press conference and answer all of the questions that the media isn't entitled to have answered to their own satisfaction of course. A-Rod has told his story to those people who matter, he apologized in cutesy form, and now he has stated he wants to move on. Hate it or love it, doesn't matter.

He writes an open letter the way Ray Rice wrote an open letter in the Baltimore Sun. Rice did it because he needs a job. Rodriguez has one, a real good one with the New York Yankees, at least $61 million still coming to him over the next few years.

So A-Rod didn't have to write the letter, but he did anyway. This is clearly another mark against A-Rod's character that he at least pretended to give a shit. Maybe if Lupica pretended to give a shit about his writing then he wouldn't be seen as the egomaniac bully that he's seen by many in the media as being.

Bosch, his drug dealer? He goes to jail now for 48 months, three months shy of the maximum sentence he could have gotten for operating the kind of drug ring he was operating.

I can't believe this drug dealer got close to the maximum sentence for his crime. Why isn't the court system easier on drug dealers?

The star of that ring, still batting cleanup there, still a big name at Biogenesis, was Alex Rodriguez. He doesn’t go to jail. He goes to spring training. Is this a great country or what?

Apparently Mike Lupica advocates for the drug user to go to jail, while the drug dealer roams free? What a great country this is! A-Rod uses the drugs, but he gets off scot free while the poor innocent guy who dealt the drugs had the book thrown at him. Why can't Mike Lupica live in a world where the authorities ignore cartels and go after the real people who create the drug problem, which is the drug user? Obviously the reason there is a drug problem in the United States is that law enforcement has been going after the people who deal the drugs when they should be going after the people who use the drugs.

Mike Lupica is really working hard to make A-Rod seem like a bad guy. He's taking the side of and advocating for a drug dealer now.

Even after he admitted to being a drug user, he managed to have his best baseball October and lead the Yankees to a World Series. Judge me on what I do going forward, he said back in 2009. That is exactly what everybody has done.

And absolutely judge A-Rod on what he's done since then, which includes his second PED-related offense. He's been judged and punished. He apologized and either accept it and shut up or don't accept it and tell everyone what A-Rod should have done instead of apologize. Oh, and call A-Rod a snitch for ratting on a drug dealer, as if this shows another moral fallacy in his genetic code.

Now he is back, panhandling for redemption and another second chance,

He's making $61 million and doesn't need redemption or a second chance because he's getting one simply because he's making $61 million. That's another point that Lupica misses. A-Rod doesn't need his forgiveness. He doesn't want to be hated, but he isn't Ray Rice trying to get back into the sport. A-Rod is a Yankee because they owe him too much money otherwise. So he doesn't have to apologize and he doesn't have to talk to Mike Lupica about his "story."

trying to make one last first impression, the richest drug informant in all of baseball history.

Boy, Mike Lupica is riding this whole "A-Rod told on a drug dealer" thing hard isn't he? I'm not sure calling A-Rod a snitch will have the effect he wants it to have.

One more record for Alex Rodriguez.

You are a petty, sad man who has mocked A-Rod for apologizing, seeking mental health assistance and think a drug dealer should go to jail for a shorter span of time than a drug user. No one likes A-Rod, but we are stuck with him. No one likes you. Go away. 

3 comments Jay Mariotti Quickly Jumps on the "Ryan Braun's Apology Wasn't Enough" Train and Takes a Ride

I've written a couple of posts about Ryan Braun as it related to his 2011 positive drug test that was eventually overturned. I wrote Braun should not have his 2011 MVP stripped from him. I covered a Mike Lupica article where he basically accused Bud Selig of overturning the 2011 positive drug test because Braun played for the Brewers. Where's Mike at these days with that veiled accusation now that Selig has hit Braun with a 65 game suspension? All I hear is crickets. So Ryan Braun got busted, got a 65 game suspension and sportswriters everywhere got up in arms about how Braun needed to apologize because of "the kids" and how he cheated everyone with his lies and deception. Then Braun apologized in a public statement that was released. Then, in a shocking turn of events, this still wasn't enough for the sportswriters who originally wanted an apology and now they want more details and a better apology. It's now not sufficient that Braun has apologized in a statement, he needs to do more. Presumably if Braun did more and released the details surrounding his PED use this still wouldn't be enough. Jay Mariotti is one of these writers who finds it is never enough to get the apology that was requested and in a fit of writing brilliance has dubbed Braun "Lyin' Braun," which is clever and creative because his name is Ryan Braun and "Ryan" rhymes with "Lyin'."

It might have helped if he’d rented a hotel ballroom, invited every reporter and TV network in America, stood in front of a microphone and spoke to the people — the fans, the baseball industry, the human mechanism that generates the remaining $127 million still owed him — he so farcically has let down.
But I doubt it.

I think this sums it up best. Sportswriters desperately want an apology, but even that's not going to end up being enough for them. They want blood. They want to see Ryan Braun crawl and beg forgiveness from the fans, and even more importantly, beg forgiveness from the sportswriters who cover Braun. An apology is the first step to the public shaming of Ryan Braun. Braun apologizes, but sportswriters want a better apology. It's a never-ending need to convict Braun for lying and cheating.

If Ryan Braun couldn’t explain in 943 written words what we needed to hear, then he wouldn’t have had the guts to muster the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in a news conference, where his “apology” should have happened, where we could have looked him in the eyeballs and decided if he was contrite and genuine or simply, as I suspect, full of b.s.

This is the bullshit part of Jay's column (well, it's all bullshit, but I feel like this is the introductory bullshit part of the column). The media doesn't want an apology. They want to be able to serve as the jury as to whether Ryan Braun is truly contrite or not. It's not about the apology, it is about publicly shaming Braun and it is ridiculous. Just accept his apology, which at least Braun made one, and let's all move on. It's not like Braun murdered a member of Jay Mariotti's family, so I don't know why he feels the needs to be the one to stand in judgment of Braun. But any sportswriter who says it is about the apology is most likely lying. The sportswriter doesn't want an apology, he/she wants to look into Braun's eyes and judge Braun's ability to tell the truth about being sorry. I bet if these sportswriters could look into Braun's eyes they would judge that he is indeed not truly sorry.

Oh, he tried hard to make good with his family, his friends, his teammates, the Milwaukee Brewers franchise, the fans, his agents and advisors. “I have disappointed the people closest to me — the ones who fought for me because they truly believed me all along. I kept the truth from everyone. For a long time, I was in denial and convinced myself that I had not done anything wrong,” he wrote in his public letter, which we’ve impatiently awaited since he accepted his 65-game suspension from Major League Baseball.

It's not enough. He's not begging for forgiveness and allowing the media to stand in complete judgment of him while spilling all of the details of his PED use.

And sure, he tried to look like he was beating himself up. As if sitting on an analyst’s couch, he described himself as “self-righteous” and having “a lot of unjustified anger” two years ago while lying

It all depends on your point of view and whether you want to accept Braun's apology. I think that's the key point to be made here. If you want to believe Braun and want to believe he is truly sorry then his apology may not seem sincere, but you believe he is sorry. Of course Braun is probably the most sorriest that he got caught, but that's beside the point. If you don't want to believe Braun and probably aren't ever inclined to believe Braun then this statement won't seem sincere, but seem like a PR move on his part. Of course it was a PR move on his part, but these people probably won't ever believe Braun even if he did make a public apology on television like Tiger Woods did. Even then, I believe these people would only want to judge the sorriness of Braun and still wouldn't think he was truly contrite.

“I’m deeply ashamed,” Ryan Braun said.
Too bad he isn’t deeply forthcoming.

He's apologizing, but he's just not giving enough information. In the words of The Cure, it's never enough. Writers like Mariotti wanted an apology, they got the apology, and now they want details. It's not that they "want" details really, it's they believe themselves to be entitled to details. No story is too sordid and no confession is contrite enough without the proper amount of private details to sell the authenticity of the confession.

Cowardly as it is to hide behind an agency-crafted news release somewhere in southern California, Braun’s biggest strategic error was failing to provide specifics.

I wish Braun had said,

"I'm specifically deeply ashamed."

"I specifically have disappointed a lot of people..."

"I specifically was self-righteous and specifically had a lot of unjustified anger..."

If the five basic questions of what remains of journalism are who, what, when, where and why, I’m not certain he has answered any.

Ryan Braun isn't a journalist so he isn't required to provide the answers to who, what, when, where and why simply because these are the answers that Jay Mariotti wants. These are the questions Jay wants answered, but Braun doesn't have to answer these questions. So suck it.

Was this merely about the short-term use of a cream and lozenge? Or is that, too, a lie?

Do I really believe that Jay Mariotti would believe any answer Ryan Braun gave to this question if Braun had answered this question? No. I think Mariotti still wouldn't believe Braun's answer.

If that’s his only wrongdoing, it wouldn’t seem to have warranted a major coverup attempt that has led to a defamation lawsuit against Braun by a former friend; the smearing of a urine collector who also might want to consider legal action; 

I think the major coverup was to prevent Braun from being found out to have used PED's more than anything else. So in itself, having used PED's does warrant the major coverup.

The words “cream” and “lozenge” soften what anti-PED experts would describe as power and confidence, especially when presented with Braun’s numbers down the stretch that season:

It was a PR statement and "cream" and "lozenge" are often terms used to describe the use of certain PED's.

He won the MVP award and was hailed as one of the great hitters in the game, a future Hall of Famer, blessed with business acumen, good looks, considerable popularity and a power stroke that belied a slender build.

Belied, as in lie.

This is sports journalism at it's finest.

Finest, as in it would be a lie to call this writing the finest.

What we require from Braun now is an explanation. What were the precise names of the banned substances?

Previously an apology was required. Jay Mariotti got the apology and now he wants more details. If Jay Mariotti gets the additional details he feels entitled to, then he will want even more details. It never ends and Mariotti's sense of entitlement to stand in judgment of Braun doesn't end either.

Was he aware at the time that Biogenesis was a well-known marketplace for PEDs,

Yes, he probably was.

with 13 players suspended after MLB’s massive investigation of the clinic and founder Tony Bosch?

No, he probably did not or else he would have chosen to go to another clinic to get his PED's.

Why would he stand there and lie at spring training last year, assailing MLB’s testing system as “absolutely fatally flawed” when he was the one with the fatal flaw?

Because he had been cheating and didn't want anyone to know that MLB's testing system was not fatally flawed and that it had busted him red-handed. If Braun had said, "Man, that MLB testing system sure is pretty good" then I'm guessing it would have been fairly obvious to everyone that Braun knew he got busted and it wouldn't make much sense for him to be appealing the first positive drug test. I realize Jay has the brain of a donkey, but part of Braun being in denial and trying to beat the system had to do with Braun stating the system was no good in order to make himself look more credible. I don't need Braun to explain this to me, I can figure this out for myself.

Why would a gifted and accomplished multi-millionaire risk it all to smear some creme on a sore spot and swallow a lozenge? Forgive me for thinking we’re only reading bits and pieces of the truth, not the entirety.

I'm guessing he did it because he thought it would make him better at baseball. That's my thought about why Braun did it. Again, I'm not sure how much more detail I need.

Based on the language in his statement, Braun is trying to warm-and-fuzzy us. No one is in the mood to read it anymore,

Right, because I don't care about nor do I require an apology. I'm not one of those people who feels like he deserves an apology because a player got busted for using PED's. 

Nowhere in his statement does Braun address the most damning claims about him — that he asked his longtime friend, Ralph Sasson, to investigate and smear Laurenzi Jr. and participate in a prank against two ESPN reporters investigating Braun’s failed test.

Part of the reason Braun didn't comment on this is because any statement he makes could be used in a court of law should Sasson choose to sue Braun. So it actually makes a lot of sense he didn't comment on these claims. More importantly, anyone who expects Braun to publicly comment on these claims is an absolute moron. Just like Jay Mariotti couldn't comment on the claims about his legal issues with his ex-girlfriend, Braun can't comment on his potential legal issues with Ralph Sasson.

Didn't Jay just give us a re-introduction to himself where he says he understood athletes better because of all he had gone through over the past couple of years? Here's his first chance to prove it, by acknowledging Braun wouldn't be advised to comment on a potential legal issue, yet Jay acts like Braun had a responsibility to publicly comment against the (most likely) better advice of his attorney. 

According to ESPN, Braun, who is Jewish, went so far to spread word that Laurenzi Jr. was anti-Semitic. 

All Braun did in the statement was scrape the surface on those issues. “I sincerely apologize to everybody involved in the arbitration process, including the collector, Dino Laurenzi, Jr.,” wrote Braun, who should have devoted more words to Dino.

Again, someone who has been through legal issues recently should understand why Braun didn't comment further. Should Braun get sued, the collector will probably try to use a long, drawn-out public apology against Braun during the court case. Use your head, Mariotti. It doesn't take a genius to understand why Braun would not publicly comment on Dino Laurenzi, Jr. Braun also told friends that Laurenzi was a Cubs fan, which is also an accusation that could merit a lawsuit.

As we’ve seen with Alex Rodriguez in his continuing lone-wolf fight against MLB (not to mention his very superiors with the Yankees), teammates still will rally around a PED-troubled player if he produces on the field. If Braun rakes, the Brewers will take him back, even if Milwaukee fans are disgusted.

We should have known in Braun’s previous statement, after he won a reprieve from the positive test, that he protested a bit too vigorously to be believed.

It doesn't matter if he is believed or not, three independent arbitrators ruled the chain of custody was broken, which meant the positive drug test had to be thrown out. Sure, Braun was lying at the time, but if he really had not been using PED's I imagine Braun would have a vehement defense rather than just meekly deny the claims. If Braun had meekly denied the claims then sportswriters like Jay Mariotti would have stated that Braun was guilty because he didn't deny the claims and failed drug test vigorously enough.

Including his claim that Laurenzi Jr. supposedly is a Cubs fan, which Braun also used in trying to woo Brewers teammates to his side. You might have to go back to Richard Nixon to find a public figure who finagled and stretched like Lyin’ Ryan.

The "Lyin' Ryan" moniker is somehow getting dumber. It rhymes though!

“At that time, I still didn’t want to believe that I had used a banned substance,” Braun tried to explain in his statement. “I think a combination of feeling self-righteous and having a lot of unjustified anger led me to react the way I did. I felt wronged and attacked, but looking back now, I was the one who was wrong. I am beyond embarrassed that I said what I thought I needed to say to defend my clouded vision of reality. I am just starting the process of trying to understand why I responded the way I did, which I continue to regret. There is no excuse for any of this.”

More details! In what ways do you regret it? When you say "wronged" give specific examples. This apology means nothing without expansion on the idea of how Braun's clouded vision of reality. Tell us more, Ryan. Do you believe dinosaurs never existed? Is that a part of your clouded vision of reality? Your apologies mean nothing without a discussion of your beliefs on the existence of dinosaurs. Otherwise, the apology is just empty words. 

He is trying to be the anti-A-Rod, the ‘rowdier who fesses up and apologizes. But all he has done with this statement, I’m afraid, is make me think a 65-game ban wasn’t tough enough. 

Yes, that's right, by apologizing like the media wanted him to do this has resulted in idiot sportswriters suggesting because Braun apologized he should get a stiffer sentence. I imagine if Braun had offered up more details in his statement then Jay would have stated the details were so terrible that Braun should get a 265-game ban. You can sort of see why Braun didn't go into further detail. This further detail would only further outrage the sportswriting media (the same ones who insisted Braun should apologize) into suggesting Braun deserves a longer ban. Sometimes more details are not required.

It seems Lyin’ Ryan Braun copped a plea from the commissioner so he can return and collect his $127 million.

When he does show his face next spring, his nose might be longer than his bat.

Like Pinocchio!

Also, is stating that Braun's nose could be longer than his bat a slur against Braun because he is Jewish? I always figured Mariotti for an anti-Semite.

7 comments Jarrett Bell Says the Patriot Way Has Been Tarnished Forever

Jarrett Bell thinks the Patriot Way needs to be re-examined. I'm not sure the Patriot Way ever really existed since it seems like a really lazy way of trying to explain how the New England Patriots have put together a great team for over a decade now. It should possibly be called "The Belichick and Brady Way" or something like that, but that's beside the point. The point is Aaron Hernandez has been arrested for murder and Alfonzo Dennard was also arrested recently, so clearly the Patriots need to change the entire way they have chosen to build an NFL team. If the Patriots are going to keep drafting players who commit murder then the Patriot Way isn't the way Jarrett Bell thinks the team should keep going. Let's pause for a moment and mourn for a fictional term used so that lazy sportswriters can more easily explain the Patriots' decade-long success.

Bill Belichick entered the room wearing his game face, but right off the bat the New England Patriots coach — speaking publicly for the first time since Aaron Hernandez was arrested and charged with murdering Odin Lloyd — expressed remorse for the victim's family. Though he read from a statement, Belichick sounded genuine.

Belichick read from a statement because his statement about the Hernandez arrest will sound like it is coming from the Patriot organization also. Plus, of course Belichick is genuine. He doesn't want anyone to be murdered. Other than Eli Manning. He may want Eli Manning murdered, but not by one of his Patriots players. That would be counterproductive.

When you're running the show like Belichick, you have to read people.

Yes, I'm sure Bill Belichick needs tips on how to read people. 

It's easy now to deduct genius points from Belichick for whiffing on Hernandez, 

Not at all actually. Bill Polian drafted Rae Carruth, who is currently in jail for murder. Polian didn't lose genius points. Jeff Fisher drafted Pacman Jones, who had his own legal issues as a Titan. Dick Vermeil, a nice guy by any measure, drafted Leonard Little and Lawrence Phillips. If a coach/GM stays in the NFL long enough he is going to end up with a black mark or two on his record for choosing players that got into legal trouble. That's just the reality of it. You don't deduct genius points, you simply learn from it and move on.

who was scratched as a draftable prospect by some NFL teams when he came out of Florida because of character concerns.

The concerns were that Hernandez used marijuana during his time at the University of Florida and had failed a drug test while in college. Even the most fervent anti-drug crusader would be able to admit that failing a drug test isn't the same thing as committing murder (murders?). It's not like "This guy just may kill someone" was a real concern about Hernandez coming out of college. It's insane to knock Belichick and the Patriots for Hernandez's character concerns due to his marijuana use. Sure, these character concerns could lead one to believe Hernandez's judgment isn't the best, but it's a long way to go from "a Player X uses marijuana" to "Player X may kill someone."

The Patriots took a chance on him with a fourth-round pick and then upped the ante last year by signing the blossoming star to a five-year, $39.5 million contract extension.

The Patriots upped the ante because Aaron Hernandez was productive and had not gotten into trouble while playing for the Patriots. It's not like Hernandez was a suspect in a murder and the Patriots went ahead and gave him a contract extension.

"This case involves an individual who happened to be a New England Patriot," said Belichick, who mentioned Hernandez by name just once during a session that went on for more than 20 minutes.

Belichick probably didn't mention Hernandez because he is disgusted by the charges brought against Hernandez and doesn't want to speak his name.

Say what? Just happened to be a Patriot?

Yes, Hernandez is a human who played professional football for a living. The team he played for was the New England Patriots. His actions don't reflect on values that the team, organization or players believe or practice. The wording sounds weird, especially for a media that wants to bemoan the loss of "the Patriot Way," but Hernandez was a person who happened to play professional football for the Patriots.

If someone at my work commits a murder then he is a murder who happened to work at my place of employment, just like this same individual also happened to go to a certain college and was raised by a certain parent(s). I'm not saying the Patriots should be completely absolved from responsibility for employing Hernandez, but it's more happenstance he was a Patriot than there is any causation between the crime he committed and the identify of his employer.

Hernandez is the worst-case scenario that might change the game for reading red flags. Belichick maintains he doesn't expect radical changes for the team's evaluation process, maybe tweaks.

He shouldn't rule anything out. Not now.

I think the Patriots should at least, AT LEAST, ask potential draft picks if they are planning on committing a murder in the next 10-15 years. That should start to narrow the field down and give them a better idea of which players to choose in the draft and through free agency. The Patriots could also simply have these potential draft picks and free agents list the crimes they are planning to commit in the future. I think full disclosure is the best way to go about this. Having these players list the crimes they want to commit or possibly the Patriots should employ pre-cogs to meet with potential free agents and draft picks in order to see if they can determine any future crimes in this player's future. I think this is the best way to not rule anything out. Stop the crimes before they happen. The Patriot Way has failed and the only way to save it is to rely on pre-cogs and just asking a player how many murders he plans on committing while wearing a Patriot uniform. Full disclosure is best.

Not when it's possible the Patriots played games last season with a murderer in their midst.

Okay, it's not like Aaron Hernandez was walking around the Patriots locker room killing his teammates. This isn't a Hollywood thriller, so I would say the Patriots playing games "with a murderer in their midst" while possibly true is a bit overdramatic. This isn't "Scream 5," though if it is was then the murderer would definitely have been Josh McDaniels. He wanted to build the Patriots team in his own shape, but just couldn't do it with all these successful players around, so he had to "cut" players from the roster. Plus, McDaniels always wanted to be Bill Belichick, but just couldn't quite be him until Belichick was out of the picture. Once the main Hoodie was gone, another could take his place. That would be McDaniels' motive for committing murder.

Doesn't this sound like a bad Bill Simmons-suggested movie (wait, is there a good Bill Simmons-suggested movie?)?

The Patriot Way: Roster Cuts Hurt a Little More This Year

the sequel could be:

The Patriot Way 2: He's Back with a New Game Plan

then the third movie could be:

The Patriot Way 3: This Year the Signing Bonuses will be in Blood

the fourth movie:

The Patriot Way 4: The Injury Report Will Read "Out for Week 4- (Dead)"

See this is what happens when Jarrett Bell writes that the Patriots had a murderer in their midst. It sounds so dramatic and I start listing terrible fake movie titles like I am trying to be Bill Simmons or one of his loyal followers.

It's plausible the club had no inkling — as Belichick contended.

Or the Patriots new Aaron Hernandez had committed murder or was going to commit murder (that's where the pre-cogs come in handy) and covered up for him. The NFL must immediately investigate the Patriots for being accessories to murder.

But as they "move on," as Belichick put it, the risk-reward formulas for seeking talent for a violent sport are ratcheted up for the Patriots, of all teams.

I'm not sure any NFL team can predict whether a player will commit a murder or not. I'm not saying the Patriots shouldn't do a little bit something different in the future when seeking talent, but it's hard to predict a person's future behavior.

This is the franchise that in 1996 drafted Nebraska defensive tackle Christian Peter and then cut him within days after team owner Robert Kraft's late wife, Myra, learned of Peter's multiple sexual assault convictions and charges and demanded the team release him.

This is also a team that released Aaron Hernandez, taking a cap hit to boot, about 30 minutes after he was arrested. I don't know how the Patriots could have been more proactive or sent a more stern message on how they felt about Hernandez being a member of the Patriots organization, outside of cutting him before he even got arrested, which would be a bit presumptive.

Have the Patriots lost their way since then?

The Patriots cut Hernandez 30 minutes after he was arrested. I would say these are fairly close to being the same Patriots as they were in 1996.

When the veterans begin practicing Friday, second-year cornerback Alfonzo Dennard will be on the field despite his recent arrest for suspicion of DUI, a charge that might lead to a probation violation after a conviction for assaulting a police officer.

I feel like I shouldn't have to explain this, but there is a difference in an NFL player getting arrested for murder, a player having multiple sexual assault convictions, and a player being arrested under suspicion of DUI/assaulting a police officer. Assaulting a police officer and DUI are serious charges, but really aren't comparable to a murder charge and multiple sexual assault convictions.

Another cornerback, Aqib Talib, hasn't had off-field issues since he was obtained from the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in October. But he was once suspended by the NFL for a game for assaulting a taxi driver.

Talib was ONCE suspended for assaulting a taxi driver. Since he has been with the Patriots, he has seemingly been a great citizen. Maybe this fictional Patriot Way has turned Talib's life around? Why criticize the Patriots for the actions of Talib when he wasn't even a Patriots player at the time he got in trouble with the law? Other than to try and find supporting evidence for this reach of a column idea of course.

And as a first-round pick in 2008, he scuffled with another player at the rookie symposium designed to help players transition.

In 2011, Talib was involved in a dispute with his sister's boyfriend and charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The charges were ultimately dropped.

None of these incidents occurred when Talib was a New England Patriot. The Patriots have taken a chance on Talib and so far it has worked for them. The Patriots also took a chance on Randy Moss and Corey Dillon when they were seen as malcontents and that worked for them as well. Jarrett Bell seems to believe the Patriots (and therefore no NFL team) should employ Aqib Talib, or is it fine for another NFL team to take a chance on Talib, but the Patriots should be above doing this?

Belichick talked Wednesday about operating on a "case-by-case" basis. Dennard and Talib are not Hernandez. They have their own issues.

Talib has had no issues since he has been with the Patriots. Stop making it seem like he does.

"This process is far from perfect, but it's one that we've used from 2000 until today," said Belichick, who, to be fair, did release Hernandez shortly after his arrest. 

"To be fair..."? Just a few paragraphs ago in this very column Jarrett Bell cited the Patriots release of Christian Peter after Kraft's wife found out about Peter's sexual assault convictions as an example of what the Patriots used to be. Then Bell wrote and I will quote,

Have the Patriots lost their way since then?

But now Bell wants to be fair and acknowledge the Patriots did release Hernandez shortly (30 minutes after) his arrest. If he was really being fair he wouldn't muddy the waters by writing "Have the Patriots lost their way since then?" The Patriots treated Hernandez the same way they treated Christian Peter, so to act like they did not is kind of duplicitous and not being fair.

Belichick agreed with Kraft's assertion that he was "duped" by Hernandez — who pledged to be a good citizen after failing drug tests in college, when he was also investigated but not charged, in other incidents.

And really, outside of looking into the incidents that were investigated but not charged the Patriots have to make a decision based on what Hernandez or any other player tells them. It's possible the Patriots could have done more, but anyone who says they didn't draft Hernandez because they thought he was capable of murder is lying.

Kraft said that during those introductory chats he typically tells players they will be released with one off-field incident, adding this message: You are representing my family.

This is the Patriot Way apparently and also how the Patriots treated Aaron Hernandez after he got arrested. I don't get the urgency to re-examine the Patriot Way.

Belichick has the autonomy to pretty much run the football operation as he sees fit. Kraft said he allowed that on one condition: no thugs.

This condition is pretty vague. I guess it depends on your definition of a "thug."

Adherence to that philosophy — even with the essential zero tolerance the Patriots have had with players who have off-the-field issues after getting a chance in New England — is up for debate.

Is it up for debate? Only Dennard and Hernandez have had off-the-field issues after getting a chance with the Patriots and the Patriots cut Hernandez. Dennard has been accused of a lesser charge of assaulting a police officer and suspicion of DUI. Perhaps the Patriots should have immediately cut Dennard for being under suspicion of these charges, but I think New England has shown they still take it seriously when a player gets arrested. I just wish writers would stop talking about the Patriot Way as if drafting Hernandez was a serious violation of how the team usually does their research into a player's background. Even the best GM's and coaches have had players with serious legal issues and not every GM and coach cut that player after resolution of those legal issues. Leonard Little killed someone while drunk in 1998 and he still played for the Rams until 2009.

5 comments The Anatomy of an Apology of Sorts

I feel like I have become one of the official Tom Brady apologists out here on the ol' Interwebs. I have defended him from being called overrated a few times on this blog. I still feel he isn't overrated and I don't really blame him necessarily for the Patriots loss in Super Bowl 46. Sure, some of the blame falls on him, but I don't think we can point all the blame on him. I was going to cover Eric Wilbur's angry message board-type rant about the Patriots loss, but I noticed by the time I had a chance to start writing about it there had been several other developments. Wilbur wrote the article, the day next day stood by the story and then the day after that he apologized for it. So apparently he is sorry, though I don't know for what exactly. He wrote a shitty column, he didn't commit a crime of any sort, but he apologized the day after he wrote the column. Color me confused. Let's look at the original column, the "standing by my story" comments and then the somewhat forced apology seemingly made so people would quit emailing him about how bad he sucks.

This column is written about on par with a message board rant. Wilbur states he was trying to mirror the emotions of a Patriots fan in writing this. I'm not sure what holding a mirror up to the Patriots fan base would accomplish, but that's neither here nor there. What we do learn is the loss was mostly Tom Brady's fault. This screed was written on February 5th.

Sorry, Tommy Boy, this one's on you. Your hideous performance led to the Giants' 21-17 Super Bowl title win. How embarrassing for your coach, your teammates, and your fans.

Tom Brady's line from the three Patriot victories compared to his line from Super Bowl 46:

2001 Super Bowl: 16-27 for 145 yards, 1 TD, 86.2 rating.
2003 Super Bowl: 32-48 for 345 yards, 3 TD, 1 INT, 100.5 rating.
2004 Super Bowl: 23-33 for 236 yards, 2 TD, 110.2 rating.
2011 Super Bowl (Super Bowl 46): 27-41 for 276 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT, 91.1 rating.

You can clearly see his hideous performance in Super Bowl 46 wasn't too different from his other hideous performances in the three Super Bowls the Patriots managed to win.

It was one thing when you led the game off with a safety, which surely put plenty of faith into the heart of Patriot Nation, but just when you have the game, just when you might be able to run off the clock, you huck the thing downfield.

I will say again...I take Gronkowski over Blackburn in that situation. Was it a great decision by Brady? No, it wasn't. It also wasn't the primary reason the Patriots lost the game. Brady took a chance and it didn't pay off. If Manning's pass to Manningham down the sidelines had gotten intercepted everyone would be asking how he could throw into double coverage along the sidelines like he did.

fans will place the blame either way, but what happened to being safe in that situation? What happened to the Patriot Way and clock management?

The Patriots, at least from my point of view, aren't known for playing it safe and running the ball down team's throats. You have Tom Brady as your quarterback, have him throw the ball and trust him to do this well.

What an embarrassment for the Patriots organization and Bob Kraft.

Yes, losing the Super Bowl with the 31st ranked defense by four points to a team that beat you earlier in the year is the height of embarrassing. I don't see how a Super Bowl loss by four points is in any way embarrassing.

So now the Giants have taken Lombardi from you twice, and you haven't looked this bad in a playoff game since...well, two weeks ago against the Ravens.

That playoff game where the Patriots looked bad was against the Ravens. This win caused them to make it to the Super Bowl. Let's not act like an entitled brat. Whining the Patriots looked bad in the AFC Championship Game, a game they won, is acting entitled.

The Patriots haven't won a title in seven years,

Seven years! You are such a cursed city! Get Dan Shaughnessy and Bill Simmons writing articles about this immediately!

Even if Wilbur is trying to write like the Patriots fans think, this is obnoxious. The Patriots haven't won a Super Bowl in seven years? That's his complaint? There are teams that haven't made the playoffs in seven years, much less whined like an entitled brat the local team hasn't won a Super Bowl in that time.

but even worse, they're now turning into the Buffalo Bills, with the Giants being their Cowboy daddy.

Buffalo got pretty well beat in three of their Super Bowl appearances and never won one. The Patriots have been competitive in the last two Super Bowls they lost. They aren't the Buffalo Bills.

But, there you are, Tom. That's what you have become. Your legacy has been stamped, but you're turning your Joe Montana status into one of Jim Kelly.

Jim Kelly: 0-4 in Super Bowls.

Tom Brady: 3-2 in Super Bowls. Brady is exactly like Jim Kelly, if Jim Kelly had won three Super Bowls.

Granted. But when you begin the game with such a boneheaded play, then proceed to make random mistakes, sorry, Tom, game is on you.

I don't know if Brady's safety was a boneheaded play. Brady isn't the most mobile guy and if he had gotten sacked by Justin Tuck then the Giants would have had a safety anyway. So Brady threw the ball to an open area and hoped intentional grounding wasn't called. There weren't too many other options other than to escape the pocket and throw the ball out of bounds. Sure, maybe he should have been more decisive with the football, but that area of the field is where a quarterback has to be careful not to throw an interception.

These "random mistakes," I don't really get what those are. Maybe Brady was inaccurate on some passes, but I'm a little confused as to what other "random mistakes" he made during the game.

Welker was the closest thing to Asante, and the eeriness compared to the Tyree play will be discussed for decades to come.

Yes, the eerie comparison between a fourth down play which resulted in a receiver catching a ball on his helmet with a defender draped all over him and a second down play where a receiver drops a pass thrown a little behind him while he was wide open. They were pretty much the same play as long as you ignore all of the differences.

Tom, it's not all your fault, but you're the poster boy, you had opportunities, and you failed to make them. Add to that your blunders, and it all becomes about you.

The Giants didn't win the game. Tom Brady lost the game.

You denied your coach No. 4. You let down your teammates.

You aren't a real Patriot either! Ever since you married Gisele you are too focused on anything but football!

Eli and Peyton now have as many rings as you combined over the past five years.

That's right. Two Hall of Fame caliber quarterbacks have as many Super Bowl titles COMBINED as Tom Brady has. Clearly, Brady is a huge bum.

You haven't sniffed one in seven. How's that hit you?

I would say going to two Super Bowls over that seven year span is sniffing a Super Bowl, but what do I know? I'm not a reactionary sportswriter/fan.

Maybe it doesn't hit you as hard anymore, and maybe that's the problem.

TOM BRADY DOESN'T CARE ANYMORE BECAUSE HE'S TOO FOCUSED BEING MARRIED TO HIS SUPERMODEL WIFE AND HANGING OUT IN HOLLYWOOD! THIS IS A COMPLETELY NEW OBSERVATION AND COMMENTARY ON TOM BRADY'S INABILITY TO WIN A SUPER BOWL!

The safety killed the Patriots. Killed them.

Because the game was over at that point in the first quarter and the Patriots had no chances to come back during the game. It's not like the Giants fumbled the ball three times, any Patriots dropped passes during the game nor was Tom Brady under any type of pressure when he threw the ball which drew the intentional grounding call.

And there's nobody to blame but Tom Brady.

Absolutely, the offensive line isn't at fault for not blocking. The Patriots receivers aren't responsible for not getting open. The Patriots coaching staff isn't responsible for calling a passing play that close to the goal line which resulted in no players being open. It's all on Tom Brady. The same Tom Brady that completed 16 straight passes at one point in the Super Bowl.

However hard it might be to swallow, the glory days are gone.

The Patriots will have a hard time finding any talent in this upcoming draft with only two 1st and 2nd round picks. It's all over. The Patriots only made the Super Bowl this year and are in a position to only get 1-2 impact players in the upcoming draft.

Even Montana handed off to Mallett at some point, right?

Joe Montana never handed off to Ryan Mallett. Burn! Also, the indication that Tom Brady should hand off his starting quarterback job to the backup is so stupid it doesn't even merit a response.

Then in an interview with 98.5 The Sports Hub, Eric Wilbur stood by his story. This was on February 6th. Wilbur still seemed defiant and stood by what he wrote. All indications are that he didn't write a knee-jerk article and really believed what he wrote. He apologized a day later in a column, but does it sound like 24 hours earlier he regretted what he wrote?

Why he thinks so many people were upset with his column:

“I guess because I dared criticize the god of New England. If he had won that game we would’ve lauded him as the greatest quarterback ever so if he messes up in the game and loses it why can’t he take some of the poison? It seems like fans can’t admit that.”

If Brady had won that game I would not have lauded him as the greatest quarterback ever. What Wilbur is doing here is proving a fake argument wrong and only looking at the extremes. If you believe Wilbur, his article was him giving Brady some of the poison for the loss. That's not what the article was though. Of course Brady is somewhat responsible for the loss, but the article put the loss nearly completely on Tom Brady. That's not "some" of the poison, that's nearly all of the poison.

If he still believes what he wrote last night now that he has had some time to sit back and reflect on it:

“I still believe it.

He would issue a mea culpa 24 hours later. So was he forced to issue the mea culpa, really had a change of heart or just issued the apology to get the fans off his back?

There were a lot of people saying ‘you know sleep on this and you’re going to look bad in the morning.’ It was a little over-the-top and I admit that but I think that was purposely so just because like I said if he would’ve won the game it would’ve been ‘oh Tom Brady’ so you know what? Let him get a little bit of the criticism. I guess that’s what people don’t get. It was a little over-the-top and purposely so but then again you don’t understand Vancouver writers either so.”

Not to mention the article got Eric Wilbur in the national discussion. How great is that for him?

Again, he fails to understand what his own article was saying. It wasn't placing a little criticism on Brady. It was placing nearly all of the blame for the Patriots loss on Brady. Remember this part?

Tom, it's not all your fault, but you're the poster boy, you had opportunities, and you failed to make them. Add to that your blunders, and it all becomes about you.

Or this part?

Sorry, Tommy Boy, this one's on you. Your hideous performance led to the Giants' 21-17 Super Bowl title win. How embarrassing for your coach, your teammates, and your fans.

So the article wasn't giving Brady some of the blame, but giving him nearly all of the blame and repeatedly saying the loss was on him.

Whether or not he thinks Welker should’ve made the catch:

“The pass was bad but he should’ve had it. I think the most egregious play was the interception that Brady threw. It was ill-advised, it’s not what they would do in the past in that situation, and was a real head-scratcher.”

Was it an ill-advised throw? Probably. Gronkowski usually gets that jump ball and it wasn't like Brady threw the ball directly to a Giants defender. It was an ill-advised gamble that didn't pay off.

So it doesn't seem Eric Wilbur really feels differently about what he had written the night before. Notice there isn't a mention of him trying to write like Pats fans think in this excerpt from the radio interview. This reasoning for the article being written magically appears in Wilbur's mea culpa as to what his aim in writing the article truly was. Speaking of mea culpa, on February 7th Wilbur writes a column where he suddenly realizes the error of his ways. It's entitled "Uncle." I see four reasons Wilbur would write his original article, back up what he was saying in a radio interview a day later and then the day after that appear to change his mind.

1. He really did think what he wrote was wrong and after a time of reflection on what was written thought he was being a tad harsh.

2. Wilbur's article had served the purpose it was intended to. It got his name in the national discussion, got him some radio interviews, and got his columns some press. So it was time to not make himself look like a huge asshole.

3. His editors asked that he issue a mea culpa. I hope this didn't happen.

4. Wilbur really isn't issuing a mea culpa, but he believes if he says he was somewhat wrong everyone will get off his back.

To the hundreds that have demanded my immediate dismissal, the fan who hoped I got clipped by the Green Line, and even the Neanderthal who wished cancer upon me, I issue a mea culpa.

Clearly, I never intended Sunday night's column, written in the immediate aftermath of the Patriots' loss in Super Bowl XLVI, to garner quite the widespread attention - and negativity - it happened to find over the course of the next 24 hours.

Because thrashing the local starting quarterback immediately after he performed slightly above average in the Super Bowl is sure to avoid any type of attention. Where did all this negativity come from? All he did was write a screed about how Tom Brady should give way to Ryan Mallett, blamed the entire loss on Brady and compared Brady to a quarterback who never won a Super Bowl in four tries. Where's the controversy?

As I've tried to convey, perhaps with illustrious failure, the over-the-top tone of the piece was intentional, meant to convey the frustration that Patriots fans had to be feeling after the crushing loss to the Giants.

So it was meant as a parody of Patriots fans? Consider your attempt at hilarity and satire to have fallen short of its goal then, which I am sure Wilbur is aware of at this point.

The biggest problem I find with this excuse is that nowhere in the article did Wilbur talk about Patriots fans or any of their feelings after the loss. Nowhere in the article did Wilbur feature any of the anger directed at the Patriots defense, Wes Welker or the bad luck of Rob Gronkowski being injured. I could probably accept this excuse if anything but how this game was all Tom Brady's fault had been mentioned. Since only Brady was mentioned, I can't believe it was meant to convey the frustrations of Patriots fans. I'm guessing Patriots fans would have more angry over other aspects of the loss, rather than just focused on Brady's performance solely.

I intended to write something while the emotions were still bubbling, creating a destination where Pats fans could vent their own frustrations over another devastating Super Bowl loss.

There are so many other various places Pats fans can go to vent their frustrations. This is weak. Also, you just wrote "another devastating Super Bowl loss." Cry me a river and stop acting like the Patriots are entitled to win a Super Bowl every four years.

I still think Tom Brady was most at fault for the loss, but it wasn't directly because of the safety as I noted.

Granted, it did lead to forcing the defense on the field for most of the first quarter, but it wasn't the quarterback who happened to be the 12th man on the field.

The day before Wilbur said he knew what he wrote was over the top, but he stood by it. Now, he is mealy-mouthing his way around not fully blaming Brady anymore.

But rational thinking doesn't come to head in such a moment, and frankly, that was my intention; to present the knee-jerk reactions of what the fan base had to be feeling at that very moment.

Even if this was the intentions of Eric Wilbur, which I don't necessarily believe, why didn't he put any blame in the column on Welker for not making the catch or for Belichick for challenging the catch by Manningham on the sidelines? I'm not saying these two plays caused the Pats to lose, but why only blame Tom Brady and then insinuate Ryan Mallett should take over as the starter? Did Wilbur not believe any of the Pats fan base would blame Welker or blame the coaching staff for having 12 men on the field? How about the Pats fan base being upset the team couldn't recover a Giants fumble? Wouldn't that be a part of the knee-jerk reaction? The original article was way too focused on Brady's shortcomings for me to believe it was supposed to represent the reaction of the Pats fan base.

As it turned out, there was little anger directed toward the Patriots. Disappointment, yes, but the anger was at a minimum.

There was little anger because the Patriots lost a close game and didn't play terribly in the loss.

That, apparently, was reserved for me.

When you pin the blame solely on a player who should not have the blame pinned solely upon him, these things tend to happen.

As many Twitter commenters noted, my avatar's four picks in a Super Bowl is embarrassing, to which I say, "Lay off Drew." But that's a debate for another time.

Lay off Drew Bledsoe, who threw four interceptions in one Super Bowl, but let's blame Tom Brady for throwing one interception in a Super Bowl game. Makes sense to me.

It was an intentional, heat-of-the-moment analysis that did not work.

Come on. This wasn't even analysis. It was an angry message board screed. It was heat-of-the-moment, but I fail to see what kind of analysis involved comparing Brady to Jim Kelly. Even though Wilbur takes this comparison back, he still characterizes this as analysis, which it isn't.

Tom Brady is not Jim Kelly. At worst, he's John Elway in reverse, but the story has yet to be completed.

Except John Elway's teams got blown out in the Super Bowl, while Tom Brady's team lost two Super Bowls that came down to the final minute.

The erroneous blame I laid on Brady was a commentary that wasn't fully-flushed out, and thus immensely unsuccessful.

So far the article has been described as intending to be a reflection of the feelings Pats fans were feeling at the time, an analysis of Tom Brady's performance and now is being characterized as a commentary on Tom Brady. I'm not sure it can be all of those things. Specifically, if the article was intended to be a heat-of-the-moment reflection of the feelings Pats fans had at the time, I'm not sure how it can also be called an analysis of his performance.

If the Patriots had won the game, the initial reaction would have been that Brady is now Montana, that he had joined the ranks - like he hadn't already - of the greatest quarterbacks to play the game. He would have graced Sports Illustrated (again), gone to Disney World as the MVP, and sat in the Letterman chair occupied by Eli Manning last night.

And the Patriots didn't win, so Brady gets some blame.

But when they lose, everyone labels it a "team game."

You can't have it both ways.

Here Wilbur goes with this "everyone" argument again. He seems to enjoy characterizing a point of view that supports his contention as a point of view "everyone" holds. Quarterbacks usually get too much credit for a win and too much blame for a loss. No one is arguing the loss wasn't some of Brady's fault, but to go to the extent Wilbur did to blame Brady was a bit overboard.

In a rush to present a forum, I incredibly misjudged the audience, and that is my most crippling error.

It was a pretty short article. I'm a little confused how it could have served as a forum for the frustration of Pats fans, an analysis of Brady's performance, as well as a commentary. It certainly didn't come off as anything but the venting of a frustrated fan.

So, to the fans who called me one step below Skip Bayless (gulp),

Eric Wilbur wrote one bad article. Let's not get into calling him vile names that can't be taken back or forgotten.

Spring training starts next week, though I can't promise many gumdrops and rainbows about the Sox. I'll apologize for that now, too.

I can't wait for the first "Every Red Sox loss in the month of April was the fault of Adrian Gonzalez" article.

So what do you think? Think Wilbur regrets the article and his intention was to provide a commentary or a forum for Pats fans to vent? I think he probably regrets writing it, but it wasn't intended as a commentary, and he only regrets the response the article got and not what he wrote.