Blogs



Loading...

The Worst Red Sox Article Ever Written

November 30th, 2009 | by Darryl Johnston |

I have never been a fan of Bleacher Report.

There is too much ‘You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours’ over there for my liking.  The constant spamming and begging for comments helped me to stop posting there. And today, by way of Over The Monster, I discovered the worst Red Sox article ever written.

B/R

The funniest part about this article is that it was written by a Yankees fan.  I have to wonder if this Yankees fan isn’t a high school dropout, or at best, a fifth grader.

The absence of logic, spelling errors, grammar problems and lack of any evidence to support his opinion is astounding.  Enjoy some snippets…


The Boston Red Sox Will Be Lucky To Get A .500 Record In 2010
(Click here to read this masterpiece in its entirety)

-Please note that yes I am a Yankees fan, however, this will be a very well done article, even though I will bash the Red Sox.

Oh, I’m sure it will be.

Here are some of his projections with spelling errors and all…

Jacoby Ellesbury, CF: .269, 5 homers, 55 RBI, 70 SB-All he has is speed. He is a very bad hitter. However, his speed puts him at a different level: He can bunt well and run well, and is always a threat at the top of the lineup. Despite his low average, he is a great player.

Kevin Youkilis, 1B: .280, 22, 103, 6 ejections-His attitude will get the best of him this year. He will fall into a slump that he just won’t be able to climb out of. He may even get injured. It will be Youk’s worst year, and by the end of the season, his future in a Red Sox uniform will be unknown.

Jeremy Hermida, LF: .250, 15, 50, 100,000 fans who miss Jason Bay and Manny Ramirez-A very similar hitter to Drew, except Hermida will have an even lower average. Welcome to your worst nightmare, Red Sox fans!

?, SS: I don’t even know who will start here. Lets say it’s Jed Lowery: .250, 2, 25, 110 games played-It will be bad.

Hahaha. What do you say to that, honestly?

And for the pitchers…

3. Tim Wakefield: 5-9, 5.50 ERA, 50 Ks, 75 BBs-He looses much control of his knuckler, and his numbers flare.

4. Dice-k Matsuzaka: 4-6, 4.95, 150-He will get back some of his stuff, not all of it.

5. Clay Bucholtz: 1-5, 5.20, 10 balks-He will just loose it.

10 Balks? 10 balks? Who predicts balks?

-Please further note that all of this will come true and I will be laughing at the end of next year.

Well, Nostradamus, we are laughing at you now.

My favorite thing in this whole article is that he prefaced this by saying it would be a ‘very well done article.’

Indeed it was. Thank you for filling in the dead air this week.

Darryl Johnston is the Red Sox correspondent for Fanball.com. He has many years of sports writing under his championship belts. Email him – redsoxdj@gmail.com</em>

VN:F [1.4.6_730]
Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)
Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • NewsVine
  • Technorati

Tags: , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “The Worst Red Sox Article Ever Written”

  1. By Send 'Em Sveum on Nov 30, 2009

    Wow, that’s turrrrrrible. Typical insecure Yankee fan. Moron too.

    VA:F [1.4.6_730]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  2. By Craig F. on Nov 30, 2009

    It’s really a bad article. Bleacher Report has editors too, so that does not bode well for those reviewing it either.

    - Craig

    VA:F [1.4.6_730]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  3. By Darryl Johnston on Nov 30, 2009

    Yeah, I am not sure if he is 11 years old or just lacks a spell-checker.

    VN:F [1.4.6_730]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  4. By bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Nov 30, 2009

    Thanks for the link, Darryl. We got quite the laugh out of it too, although some people are concerned for the author.

    VA:F [1.4.6_730]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  5. By Darryl Johnston on Nov 30, 2009

    I am concerned for him too. It was mind-boggling!

    VN:F [1.4.6_730]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  6. By JS on Dec 1, 2009

    Also, it’s ‘lose’ it, not ‘loose’. Seriously.

    VA:F [1.4.6_730]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Post a Comment

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree