Sadly Bad Articles Will Continue to Doom Terrible Writers

by Charlie on Dec 22, 2009 2:16 PM EST Comment 35 comments

Jeff Pearlman is writing about the Pirates again, this time about how they're going to sign Nomar Garciaparra, a player they have never been connected to and have no particular use for:

You are wondering if any team would be crazy enough to sign an unproductive, uncooperative utility infielder stripped of his range, his pop and his health.

Your question can be answered with a single word: Yes.

And yet, perhaps it won't be Nomar. Perhaps it will be Jermaine Dye or Rocco Baldelli; Melvin Mora or Orlando Cabrera; Carl Pavano or Miguel Olivo

Nobody, however, outdoes Pittsburgh. Seemingly year after year, the Pirates complete one boneheaded off-season move, then overhype it in an effort to hoodwink naive loyalists into thinking the organization is on the right track. Last year it was bringing in Eric Hinske, the long-ago AL Rookie of the Year who now evokes comparisons to a middle-aged Hensley Meulens. In 2008, it was the addition of Mientkiewicz (when it comes to bad teams, big Doug gets around). In 2007, it was the addition of Elmer Dessens. In 2006, it was the addition of Jeromy Burnitz, Sean Casey and Joe Randa (ie: The Holy Trinity of quintessential Pirate signees). The list goes on and on -- a Wayne Krenchicki Tribute Band brought to fruition.

What? I didn't care much about Mientkiewicz one way or the other, but how was signing him in any way "boneheaded"? Why was signing Hinske a dumb idea? And what does Elmer Dessens--who was signed to a minor league contract, never even played for the Pirates in 2007, and never presented even a small amount of risk to the Bucs--have to do with anything?

And, uh, why would signing Jermaine Dye, who hit 27 homers in 2009 and was a borderline MVP candidate in 2008, be boneheaded? Weird for the Pirates, sure, but boneheaded?

For those of you who have seen Pearlman's ridiculous, fact-challenged and inflammatory articles before, his apparent misunderstanding of the way baseball transactions work probably comes as no surprise. But just in case he happens to read this--he seems like the type who Googles himself daily--I'll spell it out: every team signs players to inexpensive contracts and minor-league deals to fill out its AAA roster and the back of its major-league squad. For example, the Yankees signed Angel Berroa before the 2009 season! In 2008, it was Chris Woodward (and Billy Crystal--talk about your inane, attention-hogging signings)! Before 2007, they signed Mientkiewicz! Whatever, I'm sure somehow it wasn't "crazy" or "boneheaded" when they did it.

1 recs | Comment 35 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Correction....

in the last paragraph I think you meant “inexpensive” rather than “expensive.”

by dtoddwin on Dec 22, 2009 2:24 PM EST reply actions

fixed.

by Charlie on Dec 22, 2009 2:30 PM EST up reply actions

I loved how he said Doug Mientkiewicz “gets around” to bad teams. In 12 seasons he’s played on 5 losing teams, his first 3 years with Minnesota, his year with KC, and his year with the Pirates. Otherwise he’s been on excellent teams.

85 wins with the Twins, 94 wins with the Twins, 90 wins with the Twins, split between the 92 win Twins and 98 win World Series Champion Red Sox, 83 win Mets, 94 win Yankees, 95 win Dodgers.

That’s 5 years on a team with at least 90 wins, 5 losing seasons (and I’m not sure you can count three of them because he wasn’t a FA signing), and 2 years in the mid-80s wins-wise. Not really sure what he’s talking about.

by ElDuce on Dec 22, 2009 2:26 PM EST reply actions

What a joke..

that article would have been relevant 3 years ago when DL was still GM. Apparently they are let just about anyone write for SI.com now. F.Y.I his email is listed at the bottom, incase anyone wants to send a friendly email : )

by jsn4219 on Dec 22, 2009 2:32 PM EST reply actions

Seems like...

…he’s attacking the loyalists for believeing these players will make a big difference which couldn’t be dumber.

The people who believe in the Pirates front office are the ones that have low expectations for these guys while the ones who don’t are the ones who have high expectations and are disappointed by the Hinskes of the world.

So in essence, the dumbass is attacking himself.

God Created the World Out Of Nothing, Paterno Built A National Superpower On Cow Fields...

by fugimaster24 on Dec 22, 2009 3:04 PM EST reply actions

I see...

his article likely served its purpose. To inflame…especially those whose sarcasm detectors aren’t running at 100% today. He IS right about the Pirates tendency to overhype signings. Although…surprisingly…they didn’t do it with Crosby…like they would have a couple of years ago.

by Thunder on Dec 22, 2009 3:48 PM EST reply actions

Yeah, I can see the hype machine now if Dave Littlefield would have signed “Former AL Rookie of the Year!!!” Bobby Crosby.

Then again, Littlefield probably would have just extended Jack Wilson again.

http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates

by Nate Rose on Dec 22, 2009 4:01 PM EST up reply actions

his article likely served its purpose. To inflame

You mean to say that many professional sportswriters are no better than the average message board troll?

by Adam Reynolds on Dec 22, 2009 4:08 PM EST up reply actions

I would add contemporary talk radio

of both the sports and political variety. Its all about rapidly creating a spectacle and then quickly moving on to the next spectacle — all heat, no light.

"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway

by SubLime on Dec 22, 2009 5:01 PM EST up reply actions

A perfect example...

Colin Cowherd at ESPN Radio. He freely admits that is his job.

by Thunder on Dec 22, 2009 6:12 PM EST up reply actions

I don’t know if I would say many…but definitely some.

by Thunder on Dec 22, 2009 6:13 PM EST up reply actions

"sarcasm?"

I won’t pretend to know what literary devices Pearlman thought he was employing, but I know sarcasm when I see it, and this article didn’t even meet the loosest definition of “sarcasm.” You could have said our “artichoke detectors aren’t running at 100%” and it would have made more sense.

by KPatrick on Dec 22, 2009 9:35 PM EST up reply actions

I guess...

the entire first half of the column doesn’t count. Y’know…the part that wasn’t quoted above.

by Thunder on Dec 23, 2009 2:54 AM EST up reply actions

At first I was in agreement with KPatrick but decided I’d look up the definition of sarcastic:
–noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

so I supose it is sarcasm. But it’s such a poor use of sarcasm that my thoughts were that it was something else… like stupid.

by MDBuc on Dec 23, 2009 8:03 AM EST up reply actions

sarcasm?

Not to my eyes. It seemed to me that the guy was trying to point to the Pirates as an example and simply does not know what he is talking about. Usually when one employs sarcasm there is some reference to a contrasting subject for comparison. I don’t recall any comparisons and I’m not reading that tepid pile of manure a second time for fear that I’ll be rendered hopeless stupid like the author.

Our beloved Buccos have provided such a fertile ground for ripping them over the years that it takes a real moron to latch onto one of the few subjects that is no longer ripe for ripping the team. Pearlman clearly knows not of what he speaks, yet I harbor some concern that we actually encourage this sort of lazy column with posts such as this one. So on the off chance Pearlman reads this, please note: this response is not due to us not wanting to hear the truth, it is about you writing a piece that is awash in misinformation.

Good day.

by Uncle Nate on Dec 23, 2009 8:15 AM EST up reply actions

I think it's more ironic than sarcastic

In the sense that – I’m bashing someone for doing something that makes no sense by writing a column that makes no sense.

by MarkInDallas on Dec 23, 2009 2:47 PM EST up reply actions

Dumb article

If it is supposed to be funny it isn’t. And if it is supposed indictment of the organization, the guy fails miserably.

by element1286 on Dec 22, 2009 4:05 PM EST reply actions

Hinske....

the guy so bad that the world champion Yankees traded for him midseason to fill the same bench role he served with the Bucs.

by McGreal on Dec 22, 2009 5:10 PM EST reply actions

Which was the same bench role he served with the pennant winning Rays in 08 and the World Champion Red Sox in 07.

by gorillagogo on Dec 22, 2009 5:14 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, if only the Pirates wouldn't have wasted $1.5M on Hinske

We could have concentrated on the rebuilding process with prospects. Too bad the Pirates just haven’t been focused on that and instead do these stupid moves with grandiose announcement of their veteran saviors.

What planet does he live on?

by MarkInDallas on Dec 22, 2009 5:37 PM EST up reply actions

Jeff Pearlman is a hack

It’s no small wonder how he’s still getting paid.

Formerly known as Econolodge

by Willton on Dec 22, 2009 6:01 PM EST reply actions

Not sure it's typical of his work...

…I liked his Bonds book, loved his Mets book, but his SI stuff, yeah, it’s a little shrill at least. There was so much that was terrible about the article it’s hard to know where to start, but

— how do you write an article in 12/09 about dumb personnel moves by the Pirates without putting the words “Matt” and “Capps” next to each other? Whether or not one thinks it was a good move, it has to get mentioned, right?

— wouldn’t even the most relaxed attitude toward intellectual honesty have compelled him to note that Neal Huntington didn’t make most of the moves that Pearlman cites as evidence? Whether or not one thinks Huntington a genius in training or a fool waiting to be fully exposed, you kind of have to the throw the “Dave Littlefield” footnote in there, do you not?

— Why pick on the Pirates right now? He’s not even kicking them when they’re down; yeah, they’re down at the major league level, and that’s where success has to happen, but…. why? What’s the value in it? I remember writing a record review one time where I just assassinated some record by some band that 5 people had ever heard of, and my editor said “great work, but what was the point of that?”

You don’t have to be a Huntington apologist or a blind optimist to think this article was crap. And the counterargument isn’t “the Pirates are TOO gonna be good this year!” There’s no counterargument to it. Engaging it on its own terms is probably a waste of time. But if you have to muster one up, mine would be “you get paid to write. Act like it.”

by KPatrick on Dec 22, 2009 9:47 PM EST reply actions

In the same boat...

I really enjoyed his books on the Mets, Bonds, Clemens, and the Cowboys. They’re entertaining reads on sports history. But even those works have flaws, like his argument that coaching and drugs ruined Doc Gooden’s career, they definitely have something to do with it, but let us not forget that he threw 276.2 regular season innings as a 20-year old in 1985.

Either way, I can’t stand his SI writing, which just proves that the guy is not creative enough to work on a weekly deadline. This is just boring and irrelevant journalism.

by Maxwell.C on Dec 23, 2009 3:41 AM EST up reply actions

I didn't much care for the Bonds book.

There’s just relentless intellectual dishonesty there. For example, in the chapter on Bonds’s college days, he characterizes Bonds as being paranoid and surly about other players driving his car without permission – which is fine. And then he characterizes Bonds as selfish and rude for using something that belonged to another player without permission (I think he ate a plate of homemade food from the guy’s mother, or something like that) – which is also fine. But then later in the same chapter, Pearlman kind of off-handedly reveals that players were routinely swiping Barry’s car and driving it without his permission behind his back (i.e. Barry’s paranoia and anger were entirely justified). At which point it’s no longer legitimate to criticize Bonds for both of those things. Either it’s OK to bogart your teammate’s stuff, or it’s not – you can’t arbitrarily decide one way in one case and the other way in the other, just to make Bonds look as bad as possible.

Anyway, the whole book is like that. A more even-handed treatment of the subject could’ve been a lot more damning. Pearlman’s book just felt like a bitter screed from a guy with an axe to grind.

by Vlad on Dec 23, 2009 11:10 AM EST up reply actions

I ripped when he killed.....

the McLouth trade this year. I went back and looked at the Nady trade and saw his commentary from the time arguing what a HUGE steal it was for the Yankees. Can’t forsee injury, but total lack of analysis, thought or where the two teams were coming from.

by dtoddwin on Dec 22, 2009 9:55 PM EST reply actions