February 17, 2008
Sports Redux: A Bruin Bummer
Is it just us, or does it seem like whenever the Bruins have the spotlight to themselves, they lose? When they play the same night as the Celtics, or Patriots, they're fine, but give everyone else the night off, and it feels like we always have to lead with a Bruins loss. Maybe it's just us. But they deserve better.
They certainly deserved better last night, as they dropped a 4-3 OT game in Toronto. Tim Thomas got snookered by Darcy Tucker and Nik Antropov while the Leafs had a two-man advantage (if you want to hear some cursing in French, ask coach Claude Julien why the Leafs were given a two-man advantage), to tie the game at 2, then take the 3-2 lead.
Zdeno Chara's last-minute goal (with net emptied) forced overtime and clinched at least one point for the Bruins, but one point is all they'd get, as Tucker hit the game-winner at 3:36 and denied the B's that second point, which hurts. Since there are currently 232 hockey teams within three points of that 8th and final Eastern playoff spot. The B's are off until Tuesday, when they happily have a chance to be overshadowed by the beginning of the Celtics' West Coast trip.
Last night was Contest Day at the NBA All-Star Game in New Orleans. Old friend Gerald Green won style points defending his Slam Dunk title; he did one dunk in his socks and on where he blew out a candle above the rim before dunking the ball. But the night went to Orlando's Dwight Howard, even if he did have to wear a Superman cape to do his tricks. Toronto's Jason Kapono won the three-point contest, catching fire enough to tie Craig Hodges' all-time record. The three-point record, not the catching on fire record.
Do yourself a favor. Instead of reading Dan Shaughnessy's column about Curt Schilling, read the Dan Shaughnessy Watch review of said column. Dan's piece reads like the instructions Perry White would give Jimmy Olsen while sending Jimmy to interview a corrupt mayor, if Perry White had just been punched in the head by General Zod.
(Photo by Adrian Wyld/AP)
|
I read the Dan Shaughnessy column after reading the Dan Shaughnessy Watch review. Dan's column was better and much less obsessive. Clearly, Dan dislikes Schill. However, there are legitimate issues raised by Dan about Schill.
The biggest issue is, of course, is how he hurt the shoulder. I've not heard the story about how he hurt it. I could have missed it. Bostonist might be able to enlighten me. It's curious that Curt isn't talking about it when he usually talks about anything.
Shaughnessy did refer to friction between Sox medical people and the baseball people over signing him. This could mean a couple of things. Dan is just regurgitating information in the public realm or he's talked off the record or for background with Sox people and he knows their feeling about the situation. Or, both.
It's lazy to assume he hasn't done research because he doesn't provide quotes from people.
Dan Shaughnessy Watch is also guilty of what they accuse Shaughnessy of doing: questioning someone's ethics.
Darn right I'm questioning his ethics and I am questioning his ethics based on his word and deed and his track record of being lazy. How does he get away with a column that ostensibly asks a series of questions but really is a juvenile ad hominem attack?
What's different is that Shaughnessy attacks Schilling below the belt, hinting that Schilling knew he was hurt before he signed the contract. That is a cheap shot.
If you read the blog again, I point out that Shaughnessy raises some legitimate questions but his overall column is such a hack job, it is not even funny.
That's an absolutely legitimate question to ask because Curt is 41 and was hurt and out of shape in 2007.
You think Theo, Larry and John Henry haven't discussed the same possibility amongst themselves? So, if the Sox discussed the issue internally, how is it not a legitimate issue for a columnist in a city very interested in the team?
You think they didn't review all medical data from the physical after the injury happened to see if they missed something?
C'mon...
Did you read the above note and the blog? They both indicate that Shaughnessy raised some legitimate questions...the point is that the legitimacy of his questions is squelched by the bias of his personal vendetta
Did you read my comments? Or, is the legitimacy of you questions squelched by the bias of your personal vendetta?
I'll repeat it. I bet the Red Sox rechecked the results of the physical for Schilling's contract after the injury became known to see if he was hurt before the deal was signed. It's a legitimate point even if Shaughnessy hates Schilling.