Joe Sheehan

[Baroquen131]

What I find funny is that he takes offense at Schmuck for "repeating tired perceptions" and "perpetuating the feedback loop" about Bonds.... yet then he does exactly the same thing about Trembley and the O's at the end of his article.

I REALLY doubt it was intentional...

[byrdz]

What I find funny is that he takes offense at Schmuck for "repeating tired perceptions" and "perpetuating the feedback loop" about Bonds.... yet then he does exactly the same thing about Trembley and the O's at the end of his article.

I REALLY doubt it was intentional...

Ironic isn't it? The same old tired stuff we hear day in and day out.

[Baroquen131]

Ironic isn't it? The same old tired stuff we hear day in and day out.

And I went back to look at his article to see if was trying to be clever, and was doing it intentionally. If it was, he didn't really succeed in that he just comes off as petty and obnoxious, whether his target was us or the Royals, or the Pirates or whatever.

/shrug

Can't say I thought much of (or even knew of) Mr. Sheehan before this... the article didn't improve his standing with me.

[now]

What I find funny is that he takes offense at Schmuck for "repeating tired perceptions" and "perpetuating the feedback loop" about Bonds.... yet then he does exactly the same thing about Trembley and the O's at the end of his article.

Well said.

[ChaosLex]

What a toolbag.

[Flip217]

You said it before I could.

The tone may not have been right(refer to Now's post on what I mean) but what he said is true.

Does that mean we should sign Bonds?

[BaltimoreTerp]

Wouldn't signing Bonds just add another to the list of overpaid thirtysomethings?

By my count, we have five "overpaid thirtysomethings" on this team: Hernandez, Mora, Huff, Payton, and Trachsel. I would even be willing to add Millar (who is starting to hit and doesn't make that much) and Walker (who has given up one run in 11 games since April 24th) though I don't think they belong there as much.

So, that is five-to-seven players. A quarter of the team. Only four are even signed through next year, and all can be contributers to that team in some form.

Our average age is even just over 29, with all of those old guys.

All of that, his bad point on Trembley, and his attempt to understate Bonds' flaws and overstate his present assets make this an extremely flawed article.

[Pruke]

Anyone know Sheehan's W/L record when managing in the majors?

Anyone familiar with Sheehan's work building an organization or a winning team?

Am I speaking to anyone here or are these crickets providing me my nightly symphony?

[Mu'ayyidSaafir]

People are piling on Sheehan too much. IIRC he bought hook, line, and sinker into the 2005 Orioles' fast start, even as late as July. He is not a reflexively anti-Orioles guy. Obviously he is exaggerating here. He is a pretty well-informed guy and I'm sure he knows that Roberts and Markakis are above average. His point is that there is nobody on the Orioles so amazing as to fill in the blank in the analogy of ____: the 2008 Orioles :: Barry Bonds: the 2002 Giants. The Orioles have talented players, just not talented enough to force the issue of special treatment that Bonds forced with the Giants. It was kind of a stupid thing for Schmuck to write in the first place; does he spend his nights wondering how Cal Ripken's separate hotel policy would have played in Trembley's clubhouse?

[BaltimoreTerp]

Anyone know Sheehan's W/L record when managing in the majors?

Anyone familiar with Sheehan's work building an organization or a winning team?

Am I speaking to anyone here or are these crickets providing me my nightly symphony?

Well, what are your's?

[byrdz]

People are piling on Sheehan too much. IIRC he bought hook' date=' line, and sinker into the 2005 Orioles' fast start, even as late as July. He is not a reflexively anti-Orioles guy. Obviously he is exaggerating here. He is a pretty well-informed guy and I'm sure he knows that Roberts and Markakis are above average. His point is that there is nobody on the Orioles so amazing as to fill in the blank in the analogy of ____: the 2008 Orioles :: Barry Bonds: the 2002 Giants. The Orioles have talented players, just not talented enough to force the issue of special treatment that Bonds forced with the Giants. It was kind of a stupid thing for Schmuck to write in the first place; does he spend his nights wondering how Cal Ripken's separate hotel policy would have played in Trembley's clubhouse?[/quote']

Sammy Sosa: the 2005 Orioles "stand out" player!

[KurtCDavidson]

Joe Sheehan is a good writer in the "new school" of baseball analysis.

Peter Schmuck is a good writer in the "old school" of baseball analysis.

Even worse to Sheehan is that Schmuck was the "king" of the old school establishment as the president of BBWAA. BBWAA has certainly deserved their share of criticism over the years.

Sheehan's article was a good old fashioned micturition contest with the leader of the establishment. Some of his statements are laughable such as:

"Barry Bonds doesn’t create a public relations problem."

Didn't we have a poll on this? Weren't people overwhelmingly against signing Bonds? Weren't people saying they would cancel their season tickets if it happened? Don't you think the same could be said for every team?

[clapdiddy]

I agree with this post.

For some reason, Sheehan has been a militant Bonds apologist since day-1. Bonds can do no wrong in Sheehan's eyes.

He has been on a crusade for years- lashing out at anyone who doesnt worship Bonds.

And of course there are lots of good reasons for the Orioles not pursuing Bonds.

Exactly right. If Bonds was SO revered in baseball circles, some contender would've offered him a contract by now. He is a difference maker, yet no one wants to get involved with him.

[DrungoHazewood]

He may have been a little off base with this article (which is actually a BP unfiltered post, which is more like a blog entry), but Sheehan is one of my 3-4 favorite baseball writers. He's 100% dead on a lot more than he's wrong.

[Mad Mark]

Re: Bonds.

Sheehan proves that Barry Bonds is something of a dumbass. I'm sorry, but if you're a professional athlete, the press comes with the territory. Even if I thought they were blood sucking leeches, they'd never find out from me.

Re: The Orioles.

On May 11, they were 19-19, and had needed to go 3-1 vs the hapless Royals to get back to .500 on the heels of that 1-5 slog through Anaheim and Oakland. They certainly didn't look like a team that was going to come home and go 4-1 vs the Red $ox and Nationals. His "overpaid thirtysomethings" comment and his Trembley-bashing were uncalled for, however.