PDA

View Full Version : Posnanski...what a joke this guy is.


bobj4400
09-09-2003, 02:58 PM
From his article in the KC Star today, lamenting the fact that the Royals are probably out of it:

"It was April. And the Royals could not lose.

Remember that? It seems 20 years ago, but the Royals started the year 16-3. Of course, back then everybody said it was just because of the “lousy competition.” “Wait until they play somebody,” they wrote in. “Who can't beat Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland?” they asked on the radio shows."


He still cant be critical of his beloved Royals...here is the whole article:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/baseball/mlb/kansas_city_royals/6725405.htm

Bobby Thigpen
09-09-2003, 03:04 PM
This guy makes the Tribune staff look like Pulitzer prize winners. I personally like the fact that he didn't even take the effort to find out who won the Sox/Twins game yesterday. Very professional.

doublem23
09-09-2003, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Bobby Thigpen
This guy makes the Tribune staff look like Pulitzer prize winners. I personally like the fact that he didn't even take the effort to find out who won the Sox/Twins game yesterday. Very professional.

I think the point was to say it doesn't matter who they're chasing in 1st and 2nd and that everyone in KC needs to stop worrying about the Sox and Twins and just pay attention to the Royals.

kermittheefrog
09-09-2003, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Bobby Thigpen
This guy makes the Tribune staff look like Pulitzer prize winners. I personally like the fact that he didn't even take the effort to find out who won the Sox/Twins game yesterday. Very professional.

He's actually not a bad writer if you get passed your White Sox bias. Sometimes he's way off the mark but you can say athat about most if not all sports columnists. And it's not that he didn't bother to find out who won the Sox/Twins game, he most likely had to turn in the article before anyone knew who won the game. And he actually seems VERY REASONABLE unlike most columnists. He says the Royals need to win 16 of their last 20 to win the division and admits it would be ridiculously good baseball. What is the man doing wrong other than being optimistic about it which is hated around here?

Unregistered
09-09-2003, 03:12 PM
Didn't Rob Neyer (shocker) say he was one of the best journalists in the business?

Bobby Thigpen
09-09-2003, 03:12 PM
he most likely had to turn in the article before anyone knew who won the game.

Granted, I don't know a heck of a lot about newspaper making, but don't most papers actually go to print around midnight? That means they would have had two hours that they would have known who won. Would it have been that hard for them to have put in the name of the winner in the article? Maybe it would have been, I don't know anything about paper making.

I don't know, maybe I just took it the wrong way, but it just seemed to be an awfully lazy statement to me.

MarqSox
09-09-2003, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
He's actually not a bad writer if you get passed your White Sox bias. Sometimes he's way off the mark but you can say athat about most if not all sports columnists. And it's not that he didn't bother to find out who won the Sox/Twins game, he most likely had to turn in the article before anyone knew who won the game. And he actually seems VERY REASONABLE unlike most columnists. He says the Royals need to win 16 of their last 20 to win the division and admits it would be ridiculously good baseball. What is the man doing wrong other than being optimistic about it which is hated around here?
What he's doing wrong is he's treating the Royals like they're a neighborhood sandlot team instead of a Major League team in a pennant race. That might be fine if he's writing for the Podunk Bugle about the Podunk Prairie Dogs' chances in the Little Valley Conference, but this is the Kansas City Star and the American League. He needs to grow a pair and quit acting like a dang sissy.

LASOXFAN
09-09-2003, 03:31 PM
Thanks for posting the article. I have to say it was a very good read. He's right, the Royals need to go back to winning baseball like they did earlier in the season and not worry about the other teams. I think the same could be said for the Sox (except that "earlier in the seaon" business. :smile: )

The Sox are definitely going to have to earn this. And I don't want it any other way.

kermittheefrog
09-09-2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
What he's doing wrong is he's treating the Royals like they're a neighborhood sandlot team instead of a Major League team in a pennant race. That might be fine if he's writing for the Podunk Bugle about the Podunk Prairie Dogs' chances in the Little Valley Conference, but this is the Kansas City Star and the American League. He needs to grow a pair and quit acting like a dang sissy.

What the hell does that mean? Was the writing bad? Did he say anything that wasn't true?

ma-gaga
09-09-2003, 06:37 PM
I agree with kermit, this article is very well written. He intentionally left blank the W.Sox/Twins name in there to get across the point that THEY DON'T MATTER to the Royals.

IMHO; the 'target' number is 90 wins.

The Royals need to go 17-3 to win the division.
The W.Sox need to go 13-7 to win the division.
The Twins need to go 14-6 to win the division.

:)