In defense of Theo (II)

Earlier today Media Nation received a private e-mail from J.M. about my first Theo item that ended with this: "What does that say about the stewardship of Theo and the owners? Seems to me they took a World Series winner and dismantled it."

It's a serious notion, worth analyzing. So, sorry for the baseball obsession today, but here we go.

At the end of the 2004 World Series, the Red Sox had a problem: its championship core was either aging or declining for other reasons, and couldn't be expected to perform at the same high level in 2005 or beyond. Keeping the team together was not an option. Don't believe me? Consider who they've gotten rid of over the past two years and why:

Not-so-dumb moves

Pedro Martínez: This was the big one -- Petey was #1A to Curt Schilling's #1 in '04. But he didn't want to re-sign with the Red Sox, so he was leaving in any case. And he's been hurt a lot over the past two seasons, something that was eminently predictable.

Derek Lowe: His well-documented personal problems made it a given that the Sox would let him go. You'd like to think he could have turned it around after his astounding post-season performance, but he had a lousy '05 for the Dodgers. He's pitching better lately, though.

Orlando Cabrera: Yes, in retrospect the Sox should have signed Cabrera rather than obtaining Edgar Renteria. At the time, though, virtually every knowledgeable baseball person believed Renteria would be an upgrade. And now the Sox have Alex Gonzalez, the greatest defensive shortstop ever to wear a Red Sox uniform.

Bill Mueller: The oft-injured third baseman is probably finished following yet another knee operation. A fine player and a class act, but it's a good thing the Sox picked up Mike Lowell.

Mark Bellhorn: An overachiever in 2004. Mark Loretta is a huge upgrade. For that matter, Tony Graffanino was a huge upgrade.

Kevin Millar: No explanation needed.

Dumb moves

Johnny Damon: Yes, I was among those who thought Coco Crisp could grow into a more-than-adequate replacement for Damon, and maybe he still can. But what Damon brought to the Red Sox, both on and off the field, is harder to replace than we realized at the time. Caveat: It's possible that, like Pedro, he wasn't going to re-sign no matter what. Damon might just see himself as someone who was born to play in New York.

Bronson Arroyo: This move is actually looking less dumb, not because of Arroyo's recent slump, but because the Sox are worse than we thought. Wily Mo Peña might be a star in a couple of years, and we're now officially in wait-till-next-year mode.

Bottom line

If Damon was willing to sign, then letting him go was the dumbest move that Theo and company have made since October 2004. And if that's the worst you can say, then that's not so bad.

As for whom the Sox have brought in to replace the guys they lost, well, that's another story. Josh Beckett has obviously been a huge disappointment, but he's got a world of talent. If he can listen and learn, he may yet be a star. Crisp was hurt, and I suspect he then started pressing. Seanez and Tavares were obviously busts. Timlin got old. Wakefield, Wells and Clement got hurt. And the absence of Varitek colors everything.

Epstein wasn't that good when his decision to trade away Nomar turned to instant gold, and he's not that bad now. Let's see what he does this off-season, which should be the least tumultuous (i.e., no gorilla suits) of his short career.

How's that trade working out? (XV)

Wily Mo Peña, who's off to a fast start with the Nationals, pays tribute to the Red Sox and their fans, according to a statement that appears in today's Herald:

To my sisters, brothers and fans of the Red Sox Nation. I want to take a moment to thank you and the entire Red Sox organization for your support during my time in Boston. Your constant passion for baseball and your beloved Red Sox is unmatched and has touched me deeply. I will always consider you with a special place in my heart.

The Red Sox organization deserves only the best and the Red Sox Nation is just that. Peace in life, Wily Modesto Peña.

No regrets over this trade, no matter how well he does in Washington. The only way Peña can develop into a serviceable major-league player is to play every day, out of the spotlight, and that wasn't going to happen here. Give him this: If you sent up Wily Mo to pinch-hit with the game on the line, you can be sure he'd at least swing at something — unlike, say, J.D. Drew.

Meanwhile, Bronson Arroyo is now 6-13, with a 4.58 ERA. This one ends with a whimper.

Is it over for Manny and the Sox?

Not to be overly dramatic, but it's possible that Manny Ramírez's career with the Red Sox will end a few hours from now. The Providence Journal's Sean McAdam reports that if Ramírez refuses to play in today's game against the Yankees, "disciplinary action — which could include a suspension — will be taken."

McAdam's bombshell is unsourced, but it looks to me like he wouldn't have made such a strong declaration unless it came directly from Terry Francona. Further evidence that Tito's had enough comes in Dan Shaughnessy's column in the Boston Globe. "Manny shut it down in 2006 and he's toying with the Red Sox again," Shaughnessy writes. "In the middle of a pennant race. It is despicable. And the front office and his teammates are burning. Off the record, of course."

I'm not going to endorse Shaughnessy's contention that Ramírez quit on the team in 2006; it seemed at the time that there was a better-than-even chance he had a legitimate injury. I quote Shaughnessy only to point out that he claims both management and players have had enough of Manny's act, even if they're not willing to be quoted. (Is Francona afraid he'll be overruled if he tries to suspend Ramírez?)

At the Boston Herald, blogger Rob Bradford lends support to McAdam's story, saying there are "strong indications" Manny will be disciplined, and possibly suspended, if he won't play today. And columnist Steve Buckley says Ramírez ought to be escorted from the premises right now.

A few observations.

1. I was listening to "The Big Show" on WEEI (AM 850) yesterday when McAdam came on to report that Ramírez had just taken himself out of the lineup. Seconds earlier, the consensus had been that the Red Sox should stick with Manny, and possibly renew his option for next year, because for the first time they control his destiny — no performance, no money. Post-McAdam? Flabbergasted incoherence. I can't say I blame them.

2. Whether Ramírez's injury is legitimate or not (an MRI reportedly showed nothing, but who knows?), he has conducted himself in an unprofessional manner. You can't blame the Sox for believing that Manny is faking it and pouting over the fallout from his pushing incident with traveling secretary Jack McCormick and the recent public roasting he received from principal owner John Henry.

3. Ramírez has been acting strangely for years, but this year is especially odd. On the one hand, he's been much more open. On the other, the incidents with McCormick and Kevin Youkilis are out of character. One possible explanation: He's desperately hoping to get his option picked up, and he senses that age is catching up with him and his skills are deteriorating. Even after a winter when he reportedly worked harder than ever to get ready for the season.

4. The 2008 Red Sox are a good team, but, with all the injuries and bullpen woes, they don't look like they're built to go all the way. If Manny's teammates are as frustrated with him as we've been led to believe, it might have a salutary effect to dump him right now. If Brandon Moss comes through, it might be the spark they need to make it into the post-season. But even if they're destined to finish second or third, management will have made a statement that could pay off down the line.

The Red Sox won two World Series in part because of Francona's ability to keep Ramírez happy and productive most of the time. It might be his single most important accomplishment as manager. Now it looks like it's over.

Photo (cc) by Jeff Wheeler and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

Shaughnessy bites hand

Mark Jurkowitz follows up my item on the Globe's gushing coverage of deluxe travel packages being offered by the newspaper's corporate partner, the Red Sox, with some tough talk of his own, calling the page-one story "a poster child for the evils of corporate synergy."

But for truly entertaining Globe-bashing, you have to turn to none other than the Globe's own Dan Shaughnessy, who buries this nugget in his column today on the Sox' dubious rain call Tuesday night:

Speaking of no-win propositions, we've got a problem here at Daddy Globe. Those of you not living in caves know by now that the New York Times Co. owns us, and also owns 17 percent of the Red Sox. This conflict of interest taints everything we do on these pages and the Globe looks especially compromised on days like yesterday when we ran a Page 1 story entitled, "Hit the road with the Sox and get ..."

Yesterday's journalistic wet kiss included a nifty graphic detailing exactly what Sox fans get if they purchase an official team VIP road trip package. The story contained no inside info that couldn't be gleaned by a fan with access to the Internet, but the timing was abysmal and the packaging worse. By any measurement, this was a Red Sox infomercial, a front-page story guaranteed to embolden those who believe the Globe is part of a Red Sox Cartel and certain to make life more difficult for Messrs. Snow, Edes, and all others who toil tirelessly to bring balanced coverage to our readers.

"Mercy," as the late Ned Martin would say. This is good stuff. Perhaps Shaughnessy should demand that Bruce Allen do a recount of his best and worst local sports columnists.

The ghost of Dan Shaughnessy

Boston Globe ombudsman Richard Chacón today weighs in with part two of his assessment of the Globe-Red Sox relationship.

His lead: "For an ombudsman, last week was pretty close to The Perfect Storm." Well, fear not: Chacón manages to stay high and dry. Incredibly, he doesn't even make an attempt to assess Dan Shaughnessy's role in last week's resignation of Red Sox general manager Theo Epstein.

It gets worse. Chacón closes with this:

Some Globe executives felt my last column accused the publisher and president of violating company policy by accepting Red Sox World Series rings. That was not my intent. Times Co. policy allows the rings to be accepted as a "business courtesy" because of its equity share in the team.

Well, "some Globe executives" are wrong. In fact, Chacón made no such accusation in his earlier piece. Here's what he wrote:

Times Co. policy, which applies to all Globe employees, states that business gifts must be ''nominal in value," not exactly how I would describe a diamond-encrusted ring.

[Globe publisher Richard] Gilman said last week that the ring, which he recently decided to put in a Globe display case rather than keep in his own possession, was not a gift. [Globe president Richard] Daniels declined to comment publicly.

"The expense of the rings was borne by the (NESV) partnership, including, therefore, The New York Times Co., meaning that the rings could hardly be considered gifts," Gilman wrote, adding that the rings should be considered taxable income.

I'm no accountant, and he may be technically right, but accepting the rings was wrong for public perceptions about the newspaper.

The ideal gesture -- and the best example for Globe employees -- would have been for the publisher and president to respectfully decline the jewelry, recognizing the possible harm it could cause to readers' opinions of the Globe.

The next best move would be to give the rings back.

Apparently Chacón isn't even allowed to raise an issue and let the publisher address it without having to backtrack two weeks later. I can't imagine that anyone who read part one believed Gilman and Daniels had violated any sort of Times Co. policy regarding the acceptance of gifts. They are, after all, business partners with the Red Sox thanks to the Times Co.'s 17 percent ownership share in the team.

That's the real issue, and Chacón was right to address it. His first column was respectful but tough. This one is, uh, respectful.

Running the numbers on the trade

I've been listening to WEEI Radio (AM 850) on and off for the last hour, and it seems that one early theme has emerged: it was time for Manny Ramírez to go, but the Red Sox gave up too much.

But did they? I don't think so. Clearly they weren't going to get equal value, because the whole world knew that the Sox were trying to dump Ramírez. Even so, they did pretty well — financially, too, despite their agreeing to pay Manny's salary for the rest of the season.

Let's start with the money. The Dodgers get Ramírez for free for the final two months of the year, as the Red Sox have agreed to pay the $7 million he's still owed. Jason Bay makes $7.5 million a year [not quite; see update] and the Sox will have to pay him for the rest of the season, or about $2.5 million. So, in essence, they're paying $9.5 million to have a left fielder for August and September (and, let's hope, October). That's a lot of money.

But turn that around. Bay is under contract for next year — again, at $7.5 million. Up until a few weeks ago, it seemed possible that the Sox would pick up Manny's option for next year, which would have cost $20 million. Manny turns 37 next May. Bay will be 30. Given that differential, there's a good chance that Bay will put up numbers as good as Ramírez next year, and at one-third the cost. And the Sox may be able to sign Bay to a long-term contract at far less than they would have paid to keep Manny around.

So the Sox will take a hit for two months this year, but will benefit hugely next year and perhaps beyond.

As for the prospects, well, Craig Hansen has been a monumental bust, and that's putting it mildly. If he's ever going to succeed, it's not going to be here. He needs a fresh start somewhere else. Pittsburgh will be a nice, quiet place for him to develop. It's only a slight exaggeration to say the Sox were lucky to find a way to get rid of him.

Brandon Moss? He turns 25 in September. Bay was the National League's Rookie of the Year when he was Moss' age. Moss might turn into a useful player, but he was never going to be more than a fourth outfielder in Boston. To get a player as good as Bay, you've got to give up something other than an aging superstar who'll walk at the end of the season (and who does the Pirates no good anyway) and a pitcher who is, at best, a reclamation project.

You never know how these things will work out. On paper, though, I'd say this is a good deal with the potential to be better than good.

Entercom's latest disaster

It's one thing for Entercom to screw up its fading Boston talk station, WRKO (AM 680). It's quite another for the company to mess with its highly successful sports operation, WEEI (AM 850). But that's exactly what has happened.

Boston Sports Media's David Scott got the scoop late last night, reporting that WEEI's top-rated morning hosts, John Dennis and Gerry Callahan, have been locked out over a contract dispute. The Herald's Jessica Heslam and Laurel Sweet follow today with a story that actually leads the paper. (Callahan is also a Herald columnist.)

Now, consider the ill-fated moves that have brought Entercom to this impasse. The big one took place last fall, when the company negotiated a deal with the Red Sox to move most of their games from the sports station to the talk station. Yes, some games are still on WEEI. The schedule is determined, as best as I can tell, by the phase of the moon. Fortunately, those of us who live in Media Nation are able to hear all the games on a non-Entercom affiliate, WBOQ (104.9 FM).

The residual effects: WEEI now has a talented host, Mike Adams, trying to do a sports show that competes with the Red Sox, an impossible task. WRKO's Howie Carr (like Callahan, a Herald columnist) is said to have been furious over having his show cut short by Sox games, thus helping to precipitate his move — pending the resolution of lawsuits he and Entercom have filed against each other — to rival WTKK (96.9 FM). Finally, both WRKO and WEEI have had their identities fuzzed up (a talk station with the Red Sox? a sports station without the Sox?), which is deadly for marketing.

In the case of "Dennis & Callahan," there is an additional drama. Callahan has been off the air for months, recovering from what Scott describes as "multiple surgeries to his throat." Supposedly Callahan was going to return to the airwaves today and explain, finally, what was at the root of his health problems. Scott also writes that "D&C" may not return to WEEI at all:

The final bit of intrigue in this whole complicated mess is the multiple reports we are receiving that D&C are being coveted by a completely separate broadcasting entity that would use the pair as its cornerstone to build a New England regional sports talk network. While some industry insiders are telling us that is a real, viable possibility others are more skeptical and assume it is a ploy on behalf of D&C's representatives to drive up their clients value on the open market.

Shots can confirm that a regional player fitting the description does have the infrastructure in place to build such a network, but whether or not the group would be able to guarantee the kind of money that Dennis and Callahan are looking for is open to debate.

Personally, I wouldn't miss "Dennis & Callahan," which trucks in low-rent populism, homophobia and — in one notorious incident — out-and-out racism. I think you could move the vastly superior "Dale & Holley" show into the morning drive-time slot without missing a beat or a ratings point.

But "D&C" is the number-one radio show among men between the ages of 25 and 54. I wouldn't think Entercom executives Jason Wolfe and Julie Kahn would want to take the chance of losing them.

Then again, maybe Tom Finneran can do sports.

Virtual Dennis: If you click on the WEEI home page right now, you might see a virtual John Dennis talking up the Jimmy Fund radiothon.

Schilling hits the wall

It's never pretty when a great athlete reaches the end. What compounds the human drama is that the very qualities that made him great cloud his ability to see reality.

Not that I'm going to try to choose among doctors. But it seems obvious that the Red Sox are hoping against hope that they might get some useful innings out of Curt Schilling this year through a conservative rehab program, whereas Schilling believes if they'd only let him have surgery, he can return to his glory days.

Neither scenario is realistic, but at least the Sox are pursuing the one route that might work to a limited degree. If Schilling has surgery, it's likely that he's done for the year, if not forever. If he doesn't, well, maybe there's a chance that Schilling's got one good post-season run left in him.

It's inevitable that the Boston sports media, and especially Globe columnist Dan Shaughnessy, would try to turn this into a controversy. Schilling hasn't helped, either. But it seems to me that there are really only two areas of possible controversy here, and neither hold up to inspection:

• The course of treatment. Doctors disgree. What do we know? Nothing. End of discussion.
  
• Schilling's condition at the time of his signing. We know he took a physical and got an MRI when he signed a one-year, $8 million deal last fall. We may assume that he did not pass with flying colors. I'm sure the Red Sox were told that it was no worse than expected and that, with luck, he'd be able to pitch one more season. It didn't happen. But to suggest that Schilling was hiding something is to assume that he could somehow fake his MRI.
  

Schilling says he needs surgery just to lead a normal post-retirement life. He sounds like someone who is deeply conflicted. I suspect he knows what he should do — announce his retirement, undergo surgery and forfeit the $8 million. If he feels like Josh Beckett next spring, well, he can always unretire.

But I'm sure Schilling believes he signed his contract in good faith, with both sides knowing the end was near, and that the Sox shouldn't get a pass for refusing surgery — especially since his own surgeon seems to think he could be back by mid-season. (Let's not forget that we're talking about a 41-year-old who took a year and a half to recover from ankle surgery.)

The thing is, I see no evidence that the Red Sox aren't acting in good faith, too.

All that said, I think there's something to what John Henry told Shaughnessy today — that Schilling's surgeon has created considerable doubt in the pitcher's mind as to whether rehab will work. Might a compromise be possible? How about letting Schilling go ahead with the surgery, but not letting him collect the $8 million if he's not back by, say, Aug. 1?

It's worth asking him. Then again, maybe they already have.

Photo (cc) by guano, and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

Just say no, Theo

Over at Boston.com, it's running 82 percent to 17 percent against trading Jacoby Ellsbury as part of a package to land Johan Santana. And I didn't even vote.

Yes, by any traditional baseball measure, the Red Sox should be willing to give up kids to get a great pitcher like Santana — even kids who thrived in the World Series spotlight, like Ellsbury and Jon Lester, or who have incredible promise, like Clay Buchholz.

But it shouldn't be all about winning — sometimes it should be about winning a certain way. As a fan, I'm tired of seemingly every star player whose current team has decided it can't afford ending up with either the Red Sox or the Yankees. Major League Baseball is not healthy right now. After the steroid scandal, the second-biggest problem is the economic dominance of Boston and New York.

Of course, I realize that if Santana doesn't wind up with the Sox, the Yankees are likely to land him. Let them do it. It won't be good for the Red Sox, and it won't be good for baseball. But I'd rather see what the kids can do than land yet another proven star and pencil in a guaranteed (barring injury) 18 to 20 wins.

It's supposed to be competition, not annihilation.

Sox talk

Two excellent Red Sox pieces today.

The must-read is by Globe columnist Bob Ryan, on the 39th anniversary of the day that the late Tony Conigliaro got beaned. Ryan:

But Aug. 18 is always a somber date for me, and, I'm sure, for many others. Tony C is the greatest of all "What-Ifs?" in Boston sports history. When he stepped into the box in that fateful fourth inning, he was 22 years old. He was the Golden Boy, en route to the Golden Career. Who among us wouldn't have traded places with Tony C?

The should-read is a feature in today's New York Times in which John Branch attempts to determine the exact border separating Red Sox fans from Yankees fans. He focuses on Connecticut, but eventually makes his way to Vermont and upstate New York.

There are a lot of unfortunate references to "Red Sox Nation," but that phrase, like the loathsome "blogosphere," appears to be beyond stamping out at this late date. Otherwise, first-rate.

The Fenway Globe

Yes, the Boston Globe ran the requisite disclosure about its shared business interests with the Red Sox. But that doesn't really explain why the editors believed it was necessary to run a front-page wet kiss today about the deluxe travel packages the team is setting up for well-heeled fans. At least make the Sox buy an ad.

By the way, the Web version includes a nine-photo slideshow with a headline right out of the Red Sox P.R. department: "Livin' the dream: Red Sox DestiNATIONs." Good grief.

A departure foretold

Tony Massarotti's Boston Herald column of last Thursday looks huge following the stunning resignation of Red Sox general manager Theo Epstein. Massarotti accused Sox president Larry Lucchino of using the team's chummy relationship with the Boston Globe (whose parent corporation, the New York Times Co., owns 17 percent of the Sox) to smear Theo.

I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs of the Globe-Sox relationship, and it strikes me that Massarotti's take is overheated in parts. But, hey, Theo's gone, and Massarotti's Herald colleague Michael Silverman now reports that Lucchino's sweet nothings in Globe columnist Dan Shaughnessy's ear had something to do with Epstein's decision to leave. Silverman writes:

Epstein had come close to agreeing to a deal Saturday evening but had not officially conveyed acceptance of it. On Sunday, he began having serious misgivings about staying on. A leading contributing factor, according to sources close to the situation, was a column in Sunday’s Boston Globe in which too much inside information about the relationship between Epstein and his mentor, team president and CEO Larry Lucchino, was revealed -- in a manner slanted too much in Lucchino’s favor. Epstein, according to these sources, had several reasons to believe Lucchino was a primary source behind the column and came to the realization that if this information were leaked hours before Epstein was going to agree to a new long-term deal, it signaled excessive bad faith between him and Lucchino.

Here, by the way, is the Shaughnessy column in question. Among other things, Shaughnessy pokes fun at Massarotti without naming him. What a lovely little newspaper war. And check out Hub Blogger Jay Fitzgerald's take. (Jay's a Herald business reporter. Yes, Boston is a small town.)

The definitive take on the Sox and the Globe was written last summer by the Phoenix's Ian Donnis. You can read it by clicking here.

It's a good thing the Red Sox won the World Series last year. It's starting to look like it will be another 86 years before they win again.

Unless there's one more act to be played out in this drama. Can I hope?

Theomania

Jay Fitzgerald's got most of the relevant links this morning, so I'm not going to repeat them all. There seems to be little doubt that Dan Shaughnessy's column in the Sunday Globe was a major factor in Theo Epstein's decision to quit as Red Sox general manager. For support, I cite a neutral observer, Sean McAdam of the Providence Journal, who has an analysis today at ESPN.com. McAdam writes:

A column in the Boston Globe on Sunday, which Epstein deduced had been leaked by Lucchino or others on the CEO's staff, intimated that the general manager had been at fault when a proposed multi-player deal with the Colorado Rockies fell through at last summer's trade deadline.

(In truth, ownership made Epstein cancel the agreed-upon deal, though Lucchino reportedly later blamed the mess on [Epstein's then-assistant Josh] Byrnes in talks with Rockies ownership.)

The column further stated that Lucchino had accepted public blame for the fallout to spare his general manager further embarrassment.

This incensed Epstein and, along with other anecdotal evidence, caused him to reconsider working under Lucchino for another three seasons. By late morning Monday, he had made up his mind: His tenure with the Red Sox was over.

This isn't spin from the Globe's archrivals over at One Herald Square. And it makes laughable Shaughnessy's assertion today that "it seems pretty ridiculous that Theo would break away from a man he worked with for 14 years because of a few lines he read in a column in the Sunday Globe." In fact, that's a grossly oversimplified version of what McAdam is reporting. It wasn't the column that made Epstein quit; rather, it was the fact that the column contained clear evidence that Epstein's rift with Sox president Larry Lucchino couldn't be mended.

Which leaves us with some questions:

1. Even if you accept that Shaughnessy's column helped push Epstein out the door, does it then follow that this has something to do with the reality that the Globe's parent company, the New York Times Co., is a 17 percent owner of the Sox? That's what everyone seems to think at the Herald and on WEEI Radio (AM 850), but I'm not sure how one follows from the other. Shaughnessy, after all, just did a huge amount of damage to the Times Co.'s investment.

Lucchino obviously likes to suck up to the Globe -- but that could be more because the paper is New England's dominant media institution than because they're business partners. Still, this is an awkward relationship given that such questions inevitably come up at times like this. Naturally, the Herald can't resist doing a sidebar today on the "Cozy Sox-Globe ties."

2. Should Shaughnessy have refrained from writing his Sunday column, with its over-the-top spin in favor of Lucchino and against Epstein? I'm not going to suggest that Shaughnessy should consider his words carefully lest they damage the team. (That's what he'd do if he really were concerned with protecting his employer's business interests.) But Shaughnessy appears to have used his column in order to advance Lucchino's version of events without taking into account the possibility that he was getting spun. Still, Bruce Allen is surely right when he says, "It is clear though, if Shaughnessy didn't write the article on Sunday, someone else would have."

3. Might Theo still be talked into staying? The line of the day goes to Toronto general manager J.P. Ricciardi, who tells the Globe's Gordon Edes, "I'll believe it when I'm at the general managers' meetings next week in Palm Springs and he's not in his chair. It's like a Mafia hit. You don't believe it until you see the guy at the funeral."

4. Will Shaughnessy show up on Mike Barnicle's radio program this morning?

5. What would I learn from Peter Gammons, whose wisdom would be available to me if only I were a paid subscriber to ESPN.com?

Tracking the Globe's sports coverage

The Herald's Inside Track goes after the Globe sports section today, claiming that the "Boring Broadsheet" favors the Red Sox over the three-time-champion Patriots because the Globe's corporate owner, the New York Times Co., owns a share of the Sox.

"National Football League sources" are said to be upset. What prompted their dime-drop appears to be a complaint that Globe sports editor Joe Sullivan made about access to the Patriots during practice.

Sullivan denies stinting on Pats coverage, telling the Tracksters, "I don't see how fans of either team could feel shortchanged."

But Bruce Allen of Boston Sports Media Watch thinks there's more than a little something to the Track's complaint.

ALLEN: Even the Inside Track is jumping on the Globe for their lack of Patriots coverage, and they report about Globe sports editor Joe Sullivan calling up the NFL to whine about access to the team during practice. As I mentioned in part II of my Globe Review last month, I thought that Sullivan had done some good things during his watch there, but lately he's been taking a lot of hits over the paper's Patriots coverage, and isn't looking good for it. His adamant stand that the paper has the most Patriots coverage in the region rings false to anyone who reads through the papers on a daily basis. His failure to promise or even admit that they'll try to do better continues to be a slap in the face to Patriots fans.

Here's the direct link to Allen's post today, although it wasn't working as of this morning.

On July 29, the Phoenix's Ian Donnis took a close look at the relationship between the Sox and the Globe.

Media Nation offers three not-very-original observations:

1. Baseball is more interesting than football.

2. Boston is and always will be a baseball town.

3. I'm a lot more concerned about how the Globe - and especially its editorial page - covers the Red Sox' development plans in the Fenway neighborhood than I am about measuring column-inches devoted to the Sox and the Pats. That's where the real conflict-of-interest potential is.

The new sports page

Barring a major development, I'm taking a rest from the Theo wars. But I do want to remind you that, this Sunday, Boston Globe ombudsman Richard Chacón is supposed to weigh in with part two of his take on the business relationship between the New York Times Co. and the Red Sox, and how that affects the Times Co.-owned Globe. Forget the sports section -- go straight to the editorial page.

Part one, I thought, showed some guts: Chacón opined that Globe publisher Richard Gilman and president Richard Daniels should give back their World Series rings "to protect the paper's credibility." But the larger problem isn't that Gilman and Daniels accepted the rings -- the issue is that they are business associates of the Red Sox, which quite naturally led them to believe there was nothing wrong with taking the jewelry in the first place. This is about high-stakes business ties, not rings.

Mind you, the contretemps of the past week strike me more as having to do with the Globe's being the dominant newspaper in town than it does with any ownership connection, and with the scrappy Boston Herald's being in a position to pounce on the Globe's missteps. Still, what people at the Globe -- and the Times Co. -- have to realize is that every time something like this happens, critics are going to beat them over the head with the ownership issue.

Silly me -- I always thought the real problem would be when the Red Sox tried to move ahead on the business side, putting the squeeze on city and state officials for land and money. The Globe's perceived interest could potentially become a huge problem in a situation like that, even if the paper's coverage was properly fair and neutral.

Baseball? Well, that's just fun and games. Except when it isn't.

A tip from the Cardinals

This is not going to be a good day for Red Sox pitching coach John Farrell. The Herald picks up an item from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on why Joel Piñeiro is doing so much better with the Cardinals than he did with the Red Sox. Cardinals pitching coach Dave Duncan says he's got the answer.

Here's an excerpt from the Post-Dispatch story, published Monday:

"You don't have the kind of stuff like he has and get hit like he did," Duncan said. "You start looking for why. Why is he getting hit? ... It was so obvious."

It took less than Pineiro's first start as a Cardinal for Duncan to pinpoint what he believes was a big part of Pineiro's problems: He was tipping his pitches. The righthander and his coach say an adjustment to his delivery erased the flaw that Duncan believes allowed "people to make it difficult on him."

Pineiro has pitched 14 innings since, allowing two earned runs and no walks, and takes a winning streak into today's scheduled start against the Cubs.

OK, so Piñeiro didn't pitch that great on Monday. But this is intriguing, no?

Farrell tells the Herald that Duncan is wrong, but Jason Varitek doesn't exactly give him a vote of confidence, saying, "We usually have guys who are watching the game on the side who usually pick up on that stuff pretty well." Yeah, usually.

Piñeiro cost the Sox $4 million, and they got next to nothing when they dealt him to the Cards.

Not to whine. The Sox are up six games today, they've got the best record in baseball, Farrell must have something to do with the great pitching, etc., etc., etc. But it sounds like Farrell may not have done a good job of protecting this particular investment. Unless Duncan is blowing smoke.

My guess is that Theo is going to be talking to Farrell. Maybe he already has.

Saturday in the Bronx

The problem with doing this today is that I won't be able to do it tomorrow. But I don't want to take any chances — after all, the Sox could lose this afternoon. Anyway ...

From the New York Post:

Could Torre, who is in the final year of his contract, really be fired before April is finished? Is Torre the reason the starting rotation has melted in the first month and put an alarming workload on the bullpen? Is it Torre's fault the lineup, so potent through 19 games, has gone 20 innings without an extra-base hit? [Obvious answers: yes, no and no.]

If Steinbrenner and the voices he is listening to believe the answers are "yes," and if the Yankees get swept this weekend by the Red Sox, it's not out of the realm of the possibility that The Boss could make a change.

Next up, the Daily News:

So where is the fight in this team? They didn't just lose last night, the Red Sox embarrassed them in their own Stadium, to the point where fans mocked them with cheers when they finally got three outs in the ninth inning....

Is this the year? Is this the year that, for all of the talent on the roster, the pieces never fall into place? Is this the year that age and injuries and bad karma send the Yankees tumbling down the mountain?

Oh, let's hope.

Finally, from the New York Times:

The season is too young to be slipping away from the Yankees. But it has gotten ugly quickly, with the team on its longest losing streak since 2000. The voices in the organization that grumble about Manager Joe Torre, whose contract expires after the season, will grow louder if the losses keep mounting.

Torre left Yankee Stadium at 12:40am this morning, much later than usual. He was nearly fired after last season, and if the Yankees are swept this weekend, his job security would be very much at risk. It is doubtful that General Manager Brian Cashman could save Torre's job again.

Great stuff, eh? And wouldn't it be wonderful if Torre got fired? The man is a great manager and a class act. Maybe the Sox could hire him as a bench coach. The Yankees should love looking into the other dugout and seeing that.

What happens to the Globe and NESN?

No doubt many folks at the Boston Globe are breathing a sigh of relief at the news that its corporate parent, the New York Times Co., plans to unload its 17.5 percent stake in the Red Sox. The conflicts of interest have been many — not over game stories, but over various Red Sox business ventures the Globe has had to cover over the years.

But hold on. I thought the main reason the Times Co. made this investment was because of the Sox' 80 percent ownership of New England Sports Network. Globe sportswriters have been all over NESN, and some — especially Bob Ryan — have been quite good.

I imagine NESN would still want Globe people on the air. But doesn't this mean the end of Globe exclusivity? I suppose NESN and the Globe could sign some sort of agreement, but that's not the same as ownership.

Among other things, it strikes me that Sean McAdam, formerly of the Providence Journal and now of the Boston Herald, is an accomplished on-air performer, and would fit right in at NESN.

More: Adam Reilly wonders the same thing that I did when I first read the story: Is the Globe really worth just $20 million? I think it's a typo. This suggests the Globe is worth $120 million. Of course, that's shocking enough, given that the Times Co. bought the Globe for $1.1 billion back in 1993.

The two most successful papers in the U.S. Really.

Let's take a time-out from the news apocalypse to acknowledge the two most successful newspapers in the United States: the New York Times and the Boston Globe.

What? Isn't the financially ailing Times selling part of itself off to a shady Mexican billionaire? Isn't the Globe, owned by the Times Co., losing a reported $1 million a week and eliminating 50 editorial positions?

Yes and yes. This week, though, the Nieman Journalism Lab pulled together a year's worth of Web site figures — compiled by Nielsen and reported monthly by Editor & Publisher — and found that the Times' and the Globe's Web sites are far and away the most successful in their respective weight classes.

Among national papers, the Times has built such a huge lead over its rivals that there's really no comparison. Look at the chart. With nearly 19.5 million unique visitors every month, the Times' online readership is nearly double that of its closest competitor, USA Today.

The Globe's Web site, Boston.com, ranked number six in the country, with 5.2 million unique visitors a month. If you consider the Los Angeles Times to be a national paper, then the Globe is by far the largest regional online newspaper.

One other thing. In December, visitors to the New York Times Web site spent an average of 33 minutes poking around. At the Globe, it was nearly 17 minutes. In other words, a substantial number of people are actually reading the paper on line, not just dipping in quickly from a search engine.

To be sure, there are some extenuating circumstances. According to the Nieman analysis, the Times' average monthly uniques were driven up by the resignation of Eliot Spitzer as New York's governor last March. The Globe benefited from Red Sox coverage during their September playoff drive. In fact, the Globe benefits from the Red Sox year-round, as Sox fans from around the country check in on a daily basis.

Still, this is further proof that what ails the newspaper business right now isn't a lack of readers — it's the collapse of the old business model, compounded by recession and debt.

If there's any good news here, it's that there are enough people who want what newspapers are giving them that there may be some way of figuring out the revenue dilemma.

How's that trade working out? (XI)

The Red Sox played 19 innings yesterday and never used Jason Johnson. So this seems like an odd time to challenge me on the Bronson Arroyo trade. But Anonymous is up to the task, writing, "Dan's gotten quiet about this, but in his last 6 starts Bronson Arroyo is 1-4 with a 4.91 ERA. Why can't we get guys like this?"

Look, we know who Arroyo is. He's the guy who went 14-10 with the Red Sox last year, with a 4.51 ERA. He's streaky. It's no surprise that he's returned to earth. But he's also a versatile pitcher with the right makeup to pitch in Boston. If he were with the Sox now, he'd be a decent fourth starter, the best fifth starter in the league or a good middle-innings guy -- someone who could help us win this year.

Bruce Allen, sick of trade critics, recently suggested that Arroyo and Johnson are actually similar pitchers. Well, we've seen how that's worked out, haven't we?

I'm thrilled that Jon Lester, Manny Delcarmen and Craig Hansen are all contributing. But Arroyo-for-Wily Mo Peña was still one of those trades that wasn't just dumb, but self-evidently dumb the moment it was made. Arroyo's recent slump doesn't change that.