Sunday, November 20, 2005

Chasshole watch, Part XIV

My lord, Murray Chass has made the Red Sox into an unhealthy obsession (and Yanks fans complain we're obsessed with them!). Another piece today, "Lucchino: Just a Soul That's Misunderstood". And no, the title is not ironic. (Though I can't help but think the headline writer was making fun of Chass a little.) Chass points to all the statements by candidates who turned down GM interviews that they wanted to "be with their families" as proof that the problem isn't Lucchino. Really now, Chass has been in the business for how long? Surely he knows the family argument is the polite way of saying "no way in hell". He also quotes Kevin Towers at length to bolster his case. But the reading Towers' comments, I can't help but think he hated the man, as a boss at least. Taken apart from Chass's editorializing, Towers said:
"I like the have to just let [aspects of his personality] roll off your shoulders....Over the years I think I figured out how to work with Larry....When you made a move you had to justify why you were making it...First of all, what are the financial implications of the move? You had to be prepared....If it was something you felt strongly about, he would test you and test you...I knew when to pick my battles with him. I picked ones I felt I had a chance to win. He's a tireless worker, a fierce competitor. He wants to win at all costs."
There you have it, proof that Lucchino is just a "misunderstood soul." More Hall-of-Fame-caliber writing. [For bonus ridiculousness, read the final item of the article. God I hate that man.]


  1. Are you saying that Chass is a
    Yankee fan? Are you saying that
    writing an article favorable to
    Lucchino is an example of a Yankee
    fan being obsessed about the Red Sox?
    Lastly, the NY Times is part owner
    (17%) of the Red Sox. Are you saying
    there's no chance whatsoever that the
    paper might take the side of the

  2. Well, all those things are pretty obvious, right? The point of the post wasn't any of that -- it was just how delusional he is. A big disconnect between what people tell him and how he interprets it. Fitting everything he hears into some proof of how stupid Red Sox fans are. This is a recurrent theme here.

  3. I really don't know. I have no idea what Chass' point in the article was. Actually I don't think he had a point - no big surprise coming from Murray.

    I couldn't even tell if it was a defense of LL or not. It was just strange. However, this definitely was not one of his rip the Sox and all their fan articles. I do wonder, however, why he (and many other NY writers) are so obsessed with the Red Sox. Sure, there are those in Boston that are, but not to the degree we have been seeing.

    One thing that I wonder about is all these people who "are no longer interested." Do we have to consider at least the possibility that it is the Sox that are not interested in them and that the team will not come out and say "we are no longer considering Dayton Moore or Wayne Krivsky as a candidate." The team has not been very open about who and when and they may not want to embarass someone by publicly saying, we're not interested. So they allow a guy to save some face by saying "I want to stay in CLE, MIN or ATL." Don't we have to at least consider it a possibility.

  4. I always refer to the auther as Murry Ch(ass). Sometimes you only "get" what his point is midway through the second reading. Great job MC.