Why Red Sox Owner John Henry, a Savior of Local Journalism, Won’t Talk to the Press
Here are two things that are true about Red Sox owner John Henry:
-
1. He owns a newspaper, the Boston Globe.
2. He refuses to speak to the press.
Henry hasn’t taken questions from Red Sox reporters since 2020, amid the nuclear fallout of his club’s decision to trade Mookie Betts. Following Boston’s excision in April of longtime manager Alex Cora and five of his coaches, the Fenway Sports Group boss faced renewed calls to speak publicly.
“The owner’s silence isn’t golden,” wrote The Athletic’s Brittany Ghiroli, “it’s cowardly and speaks volumes about how one of the sport’s most iconic franchises has become rudderless.”
Stephanie Apstein, then of Sports Illustrated, also excoriated Henry for his refusal to face the music, declaring that he “should sell the team” — an opinion shared by the fans who chanted just that at Fenway Park earlier this season.
With the second half of their season beginning on Friday and the trade deadline fast approaching, the suddenly red-hot — but still sub-.500 — Red Sox face a crucial decision point. Will they be sellers if they scuffle or tread water coming out of the All-Star break? Or load up for a run at a wild card berth? Right now, Boston is only a half-game out of the final spot. Will chief baseball officer Craig Breslow be able to add salary to bolster his squad, winners of nine straight and 14 of its last 16? Through it all, Henry has kept mum.
Back in 2014, after Henry bought the Globe, I wrote a profile of him for Boston Magazine (a publication that Henry added to his media portfolio last year). For the piece, Henry and I engaged in a lengthy email back-and-forth over the future of journalism. After Cora was fired, I figured I’d try sending him another email, this time asking why he’d decided to stop talking to reporters.
“I saw it as unproductive,” he wrote back, in part. “Why? Because the Sox have a baseball chief, a CEO, a manager and a chairman speaking. There are plenty of front office voices every day.”
Henry’s silence over the last several years has always struck me as strange. In 2013, when he purchased the Globe from The New York Times Company for $70 million, it was already clear that you had to be absolutely out of your mind to buy a newspaper. The industry was in free fall, with no bottom in sight (still the case). At the Globe, things were bleak: Just a few years prior, the Times Company had threatened to shut down the paper unless its unions made $20 million in concessions. Other suitors for the Globe were proposing massive cuts to try to bleed out whatever profit they could before tossing its carcass off the Tobin Bridge.
In an interview for that Boston Magazine story, the Globe’s then-and-current editor-in-chief Brian McGrory recalled the sale process: “Do you have any idea what it was like to sit in a conference room at a downtown hotel, day after day, eating God-awful catered food, sitting there with people who you know just wanted to cut the living bejesus out of the place that you love the second they got their hands on us? And you had to be polite, you had to be informative, and these meetings stretched on forever, five, six hours at a time—most of the time I got so bored I just had to leave.”
Henry entered the Globe bidding having seemingly already secured his place in Boston history. Armed with a fortune made in futures trading, in 2002 he led the ownership group that purchased the Red Sox from the Yawkey Trust for $660 million. Henry promptly turned the historically inept franchise into Major League Baseball’s gold standard. The legendary 2004 curse-breaking team was followed by another World Series winner in 2007. As the Globe sale played out, the Red Sox were on their way to their third title in less than a decade, with another to come in 2018.
When I asked Henry why he wanted to buy a newspaper, it became clear that he’d started to think about his legacy beyond baseball. He replied, “I wanted to be a part of finding the solution for the Globe and newspapers in general. I feel my mortality. I don’t want to waste any of the time I have left, and I felt this was a cause worth fighting for.”
Unsurprisingly, his meeting with McGrory was the best of the bunch. Henry made clear to the editor — and the Times Company, which was looking for a graceful exit — that he wanted to save the Globe for the sake of Boston and New England.
And here’s the crazy thing: He has. With his wife Linda Pizzuti Henry installed as CEO, the Globe has emerged as one of the strongest regional newspapers in the country, if not the strongest. (Disclaimer: I am a freelance reporter who sometimes does work for the paper.) The Globe is far from perfect, but it has won Pulitzers, expanded its coverage of New England, and, God bless, continued to let Dan Shaughnessy bash the ever-living crap out of the Red Sox. John Henry has, in many respects, authored a phenomenal media success story.
So why won’t this savior of journalism talk to journalists?
This was the full response Henry sent to my question this spring:
I felt it was important to step forward when the Globe was for sale for the reasons you cited. Local news is key for a community — especially ours. I believe that more strongly than ever. It was hemorrhaging cash and shrinking. It needed a new set of strategies to survive.
It took years of work with a great editor and Linda becoming CEO to turn things around. She has been passionate about the mission, about the business and is a terrific leader.
To your question, I stopped speaking with local media about sports more than a decade ago with few exceptions. As you put it, I saw it as unproductive. Why? Because the Sox have a baseball chief, a CEO, a manager and a chairman speaking. There are plenty of front office voices every day.
I know that local media are frustrated that once again I’m not taking questions from them, but I had a long, close relationship with Alex. I’m not going to discuss why these changes were made. It would be a disservice to Alex and others. This is a very emotional time for my family who loves Alex and his family.
This is a tough business for families, and the Red Sox are a family. I made a statement thanking Alex for what he brought to the organization over the years.
Henry is the person ultimately responsible for setting Boston’s payroll, which has slid from the top of the league in recent years. I emailed him back to ask whether he owed public accountability on that count to the fans. In other words, doesn’t the buck stop with him? This time, he didn’t reply.
In May, Henry accepted a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Sports Business Journal. Standing before a well-dressed crowd at the Marriott Marquis in New York, he said, “When I arrived in Boston 25 years ago, I was told, ‘If you win the World Series in Boston, you’ll never have to buy another drink in this town.’ It doesn’t actually work that way.”
For someone who thinks about his legacy — and for whom the “sell the team” chants clearly rankle — the joke felt close to the bone. Henry continued his speech with an homage to the dedication of his FSG team, saying, “We work every day on behalf of the fans.”
Working on behalf of the fans is great, but if Henry wants those free drinks, he’s going to have to start talking to them again, too.
Jason Schwartz is a writer in Brooklyn, who has previously worked for Sports Illustrated, ESPN, Politico and Boston Magazine. Follow him on Twitter @JasonSchwartz and Bluesky @jasonschwartz.bsky.social.
nobody needs to buy the reclusive neurotic multi-billionaire a drink.
but is it such a bad thing that the owner spends money and keeps his mouth shut? i don’t need him to tell me why they fired cora. i watched the games. the mookie betts trade was unforgivable, dastardly, but we have to imagine that 4 championships in 25 years can balance that out a bit. even at 7th in payroll, or whatever, this is a tremendous ownership situation.
and the sell the team chants every time trevor story makes an error? spare me. didnt hear any during the yankees sweep.
A silent owner, in my estimation, ends up being treated by fans a bit like the offensive line of a football team. Criticized heavily when things go wrong, but mentioned far less when things are going right.
Now, I don’t think a silent owner should be immune from criticism, far from it. But I think we as fans need to make sure we are being even-handed in our assessments.
Yeah there are plenty of examples of owners who speak to the media to the determent of their clubs and fans. I do think that maybe an annual interview would be the way to go, with a good reporter. Essentially a state of the Sox. I’m a Sox fan and proud of it but I’ve been frustrated by the club in recent years and how they get hung up on relatively minor contract issues or the club deciding to fall asleep at the trade deadline. I think they should replace Sam Kennedy. Henry has to know that any time he has a media day he will be asked about the Mookie trade. Which looks at the calendar… Happened 7 seasons ago (yikes).
I get the frustration and I really dislike when ownership morphed into the FSG. But at the time he bought the team it seemed likely that any other new owner would have immediately begun looking for a new stadium. Just keeping Fenway deserves some recognition.
RIP Larry Lucchino
I think you made Henry’s point: “A silent owner . . .ends up being . . . Criticized heavily when things go wrong, but mentioned far less when things are going right.” Sounds almost exactly like an owner who talks to the press, except that one also gets criticized when he opens his mouth. And Sox fans (they of short memories) don’t seem too bothered about Henry’s silence, just the quality of teams the Sox put together (in some years). The complaints principally come from journalists, who want quotes for their stories and the ability to say they spoke with the owner. To them I say: I wouldn’t talk to you either.
Yes fans just want good teams and a willingness to spend when necessary. They are middle of the pack in terms of payroll and have a decent amount of space under the luxury tax threshold. I’d like it if they were more willing to crack the checkbook open to fill obviously holes. It’s ok to occasionally pay a premium or use that space to absorb a larger share of the contracts of players they trade for to reduce the prospect cost. Like this year Sonny Gray’s contract was alot because of back loaded it was. Just in dollar terms it was probably underwater the Cards chipped in $20 million, the Sox could have absorbed a greater degree of the contract and still been well short of the tax line and he only had the single year left with a mutual option with a buyout. Of course we don’t know if the Cards were insisting on certain players in a return but it’s been a long standing pattern for the Sox. I’d like to see them leverage their market size more effectively especially if it’s on short term deals
I do think FSG is overextending themselves and we see that in club by not being willing to swim a little deeper.
The Red Sox are not below the luxury tax threshold. They’re $20 million above it right now.
Yup. Red Sox diehards are typically deranged when it comes to their team, to the point where they believe outright falsehoods. (I am a Red Sox fan myself)
Mea Copa I just looked at their adjusted payroll not their tax salary.
It’s not at all a bad thing. In fact, fans often complain about owners who need the spotlight. But the problem with never talking is that the press gets really mad at you. I’ve read and heard local press say that they will just have to assume x unless Henry comes out and says otherwise. It’s stupid and unprofessional, of course, but that’s how they operate.
Boston press are scum. It’s kind of ironic considering that Henry also owns the Boston Globe.
Dan Shaughnessy is just downright rotten.
So.
The thing is.
The John Henry who spent money and won baseball games didn’t “keep his mouth shut.”
The John Henry who DOES “keep his mouth shut” me see a Yankees/Red Sox game in Fenway for less than $10.
But hey – I’m sure the price of a Fenway Frank has risen enough to balance the drop in attendance since Henry forced out Lucchino!!!
Hooboy.
I have no idea how often owners speak to the media. But these calls for owners to speak usually happen because the fans are mad at the team.
And I’m not sure it ever makes fans less angry when they do speak. If the owners are part of the story it’s because people think they’re spending too little, the team doesn’t have a direction, or they have a history of meddling. The owner speaking rarely assuages concerns over any of those, and can inflame them.
In this case, the reason why there are calls for John Henry to speak to the media is because the team has been a drama factory ever since he bought the team. (And before that, but that’s another story). Nobody knows whether himself, Kennedy, or Breslow (and until recently, Cora) was responsible for a specific decision. The team regularly reverses course, engaging in big spending sprees and then cost-cutting, partly because they keep firing their POBO every four years.
Nobody who speaks to the media has any credibility and they’re not sure how long any of them will be around anyway, so people keep asking him to talk, but then he wouldn’t have credibility either. It’s not easy making Red Sox fans happy, but the only way around this is to run a functional organization. Good luck with that.
In my imagination, owners speaking to the media should be a simple high-level reassurance that somebody, anybody is driving the bus, particularly in the case of an organization like the Red Sox. Are fans going to be happy? Not even a little, but just having a direction is something. It’s no different than a CEO addressing the employees. Does it make anything less crappy? No, but it at least gives the illusion of purpose. I’m suffering for a reason. Sure, it’s a dumb reason, but it carries the hope of something better.
In reality, no, it doesn’t matter at all, because very few owners (or CEOs, for that matter) are capable of stringing together a coherent sequence of words, much less an honest one.
How does having the “illusion” of purpose change anything
People thrive on hope, even when it’s fundamentally delusional.
Often when they do speak their message is “we aren’t making money,” which usually isn’t true and isn’t something fans want to hear anyway.
I am convinced that a large chunk of the attendance problems facing ownership of the Guardians, Marlins, Reds, and Rays is self-inflicted from whining about how they don’t have big revenue. And the A’s basically burned down the remainder of their fan base with that, badly enough that they moved to a minor league stadium and didn’t suffer much of a drop in attendance.
Why do they need to know? And to the extent that they need to know, why can’t they just go based on what Breslow, Kennedy, and Cora say?
Because nobody believes them? But John Henry speaking to the media doesn’t fix that.
This doesn’t answer why anyone cares who is making decisions. It’s one or all of them. So who cares?
I am guessing that people want to know because they think things are going badly, and they want some reassurance that things will get better.
But then the question is, why do they care about why their team playing poorly? Except in rare cases the team winning is not connected to their material well-being, but people like being part of a group and the process of rooting for a team.
I just don’t think drawing the line at “they shouldn’t care about who makes the decision” makes sense when there are so many other places to draw that line. They care about it because they care about the team, and if we’re questioning why people are so invested in teams we should all take a good look at ourselves in the mirror for a while.
In any case, I don’t really understand why people fixated on that part of what I said. It is self-evident that people care, and I don’t think it matters one way or the other if there is a good reason for it. Especially since I don’t think actually talking to the media would make it better.
You didn’t think it went well when Arte Moreno said Angels fans don’t care about winning?
It is a bit odd, but I don’t think Henry has any obligation to speak for the ownership group. The real problem has been putting Sam Kennedy in that role. He brings a good energy and seems like a good guy, but he puts his foot in his mouth on a regular basis. He and Breslow make quite the pair.
When he bought the team, there was real talk about tearing down Fenway and moving to a new park. Thank goodness they invested in Fenway.
How often does an owner speaking make people happy? I don’t have a lot of sympathy for these billionaires, but they are treated pretty much like everybody else in sports. Fans like (or at least tolerate) you when the team is winning and hate you when they are losing. There are no chants of “sell the team” at White Sox games this year, but Reinsdorf is still the only owner that has never handed out a 9 figure deal, the guy who always hires his buddies, and the guy who flat out said he wasn’t interested in hiring the most unique player in history because the price was too high. He’s also the owner with the second most championships in Chicago history (7) after George Halas (8) and you did hear those chants at Bulls games just a few months ago.
I keep thinking of Jerry Jones, how he runs his mouth constantly, and how he makes a yearly practice out of sabotaging his own team.
personally, i think owners do owe the fans at least a bit of lip service. similar to a ceo speaking on annual or quarterly earnings calls, i think they should provide the people invested in their product some small kernel of respect and accountability. even if it’s not what patrick o’shea (first time caller long time listener) wants to hear. i certainly understand why henry doesn’t “want” to speak to the fans, but i don’t think that should be a substitute for “needs” to talk to the fans.
Are you suggesting that fans are similar to stockholders?
in the way that they are “invested”? sure. the returns are different, but both are putting money into a business they want to see succeed.
If you really want to make a difference, stop putting your money into the team. That’s the only thing that will get the attention of any business owner.
the difference between shareholders and fans, though, is that the nature of fandom requires some degree of loyalty
if you’re invested in a company that you come to believe is being managed poorly or otherwise has poor fundamentals and you don’t see it turning around soo, you should obviously sell your stake in the company and reallocate your money in a better business. if you do that with your favorite team, you’re a fair-weather fan!
and even putting that aside, is there any evidence whatsoever that the fans who really care about the degree to which ownership is investing in the team have any leverage? The Red Sox make the lion’s share of their money through a TV deal negotiated years ago, right? And even just looking at ticketing/concessions, there seems to be no shortage of fans who don’t care all that much whether the Sox are a 85-win team or a 95-win team and would just like to spend a nice evening at Fenway.
if the diehards in any fanbase have leverage, it’s probably for a team that has to do its TV via a standalone subscription model. the Sox are an empire; the people who can name three free agents the team signed this past offseason are a minority of their audience.
I’ve been trying that one for a while to no avail… but nonetheless I fail to see why someone “down-voted” your comment.
This metaphor works much better than I thought it would.
TBH I’m not sure I’d want anyone, even an annoying billionaire, taking his PR notes from this five-car pile-up of cliché malapropisms.
The irony here is that Shaughnessy is exactly the kind of guy who makes you not want to talk to the press.
This article is a valuable reminder of how fans have benefited from Henry’s tenure. That said, I’ve been a sell the team guy since the Devers trade. This is an organization presently incapable of maintaining a direction, and the way it’s scaled back financially suggests that the commitment to competing has waned. Twenty years is a long time; it happens. So all gratitude to what Henry has brought to the Red Sox, but it might be someone else’s turn.
might wanna crack the case back open on that devers trade and post-devers “direction.” to my eyes, they won the trade handily and immediately used the money on roman anthony, aroldis chapman, sonny gray, willson contreras, and ranger suarez. im liking the direction!
Mr VW can speak for himself, but I think he was referring to the whole saga leading up to the Devers trade. Give the guy a huge long-term contract, commit to Devers playing 3B, then a week later sign another big name third baseman, then waffle on who is actually going to play 3B, then tell Devers he’s not going to play the field at all, forget to have a backup plan for your perpetually injured first baseman, then ask devers to play 1B, then trash Devers to the media and finally trade him to the west coast.
Again, it’s not the trade itself, it’s everything leading up to it. I think overall Henry has been excellent, but this was not a period of clear eyed long term thinking on the part of the Sox regardless of how the trade ultimately turned out.
This is why I think Henry has generally been hands-off (except for picking a GM). Bloom gave Devers the big contract and promised him 3B; Bloom got fired and then Breslow said “you don’t get 3B”. It’s not the kind of messaging that Henry *wanted*, that’s for sure.
The Devers trade was a clear indication that the club does, in fact, have a direction and wants to win. If they had kept him, they’d be resigning themselves to $240 million down the drain for the sake of fans being able to see a formerly good/great player play out his decline at Fenway. Instead, they booted him and immediately spent that money on extensions and free agent contracts for players who would actually contribute to the team.
Bloom should never have guaranteed him 3B. I can see paying Devers *with the understanding that he’d move to 1B”. It’d have been expensive, but not too different from, say, Pete Alonso. Breslow believed (correctly) that Devers should not be the 3B. Devers refused and threw a petulant hissyfit. So Breslow was forced to move on from him.
I doubt Bloom “guaranteed” that. In fact, during the negotiations of their negotiations of the extension, it was reported that they explicitly told Devers they were using 1B as comps because they saw him moving there sooner or later.
Then why did Devers say it had been?
How has the Devers trade worked out?
Saw him on the street once, in Kenmore Square. He looked miserable. Which was utterly unsurprising.
My personal problem with Sox ownership and Henry is not that they don’t speak to the media, it’s that they lie to the fans. I still have not forgotten “full throttle”, which lasted until the day after season ticket sales ended, at which point the Sox dropped back into 1st gear.
Andrew Friedman said, “If you’re always rational about every free agent, you will finish third on every free agent.” The Sox are exceptionally content to make money, finish third on every free agent, and lose in the playoffs every few years. There is no more desire to win a World Series.
This couldn’t be further from the truth. Why have they committed so much money to free agents?
Give us *one* example of lying to the fans.
Does the smear campaign against Tito count?
Apparently people whose jobs depend on people talking to them don’t like it when people don’t talk to them, yet those same people wouldn’t think twice about sticking a knife in the back of an owner that brought a bunch of titles to Boston to get a few more eyeballs or clicks.
John Henry doesn’t owe them anything, particularly for “public accountability”, which an awful lot of sports journalists use as a punchline at cocktail parties.
The piece reeks of journalistic pretentiousness. Neither owners nor players owe you material for your columns. As someone whose fandom has been plagued by owners that couldn’t stop meddling or who always wanted the spotlight to be on them rather than the team, an owner who stays out of the press sounds like a blessing to me.
There’s probably a happy-ish medium between those two extremes. It’s not like this is some random private individual — they own a sports team.
Yep. An owner who hires the best team-running talent they can come up with, and who lets that talent decide how to run things *because the owner correctly realizes he is not a baseball expert*….why on earth is this a problem? It’s what fans of every team really want–competence and wise spending toward being in the playoffs every year.
Seems to me that most so-called “journalists” who have a problem with this, are trying to create stories instead of being journalists. It’s hack-level stuff.
The Red Sox very demonstrably can’t get “the best team running talent,” because of FSG’s reputation since Lucchino was pushed out.
Demonstrably false.
I like the part where the journalist includes direct quotes from emails the owner sent to said journalist. He’s not talking to us! Except for when he actually did, just now!
Let me add though, I thought the article was at least interesting and appreciated the history. I just wasn’t persuaded that it’s cowardly or wrong for him to stay away from the media.
I think a guy who owns a newspaper knows when he’s on the record.
That wasn’t my point
Rightly or wrongly, I don’t think Henry has ever recovered from the thrashing he got for trading Mookie. His ownership group had ended an 86 year championship drought and won 4 titles. He had traded away Nomar and Manny, and let Pedro walk during that stretch. I think he thought that fans and the media would be upset with losing Mookie but would give him and the team some benefit of the doubt. But he instantly became public enemy #1 in the Boston sports world.
I think that it was at that time that he decided he no longer had much to say to the press. At around the same time, partially for other reasons I think, he decided that long-term deals that carried past about the age 35 were almost always a bad idea.
Yeah but he deserved that thrashing. They hired Dombrowski to do Dombrowski things, which he did, and then they fired him for Dombrowski things. They hired a guy with a radically different philosophy who aligned with them that they needed to get what they could for Betts, which apparently included dumping a bunch of David Price’s deal and the guy who Betts was upgrading on.
And while there was at least one big reason why Betts changed course and signed that it extension, the fact that he signed it so soon after the Red Sox gave up on it also was a gut punch.l a CD CD z , C r And D r re
Wow what happened there at the end, that is weird!
Yeah hoped you weren’t having a stroke as you were finishing that comment
That’s why I said “rightly or wrongly.”
In fairness, it was Lucchino who hired Dombrowski while they were ushering him out the door.
He watches Arte Moreno, John Fisher, and Steve Cohen put their foot in their mouths every time they speak to reporters or address the fans and figures silence is golden.
I mean, either way fans are gonna hate an owner because they’re A.) not spending enough which makes the team less competitive, B.) spending too much money on the wrong players constantly which makes the team less competitive, C.) meddling too much/won’t let the baseball and business ops do their jobs properly which makes the team less competitive, D.) trying to move the team out of town/nearly extorting local governments to fund a new stadium with tax dollars, and E.) they’re billionaires.
No point in talking to the media as an owner because the risk of saying something stupid and pissing everyone off even more is really high.
Perfect response.
He seems like a professional guy that knows that even the smallest statement will get twisted out of proportion, so why bother?
When he needs to make a statement, he will make one. Otherwise, he pointed out correctly that he hired guys to do that on his behalf.
Nothing abnormal here and strange subject for an article.
Boston resident here (Cardinals fan though) — this topic has been the matter of a great deal of interest and speculation here locally. It’s not necessarily the fact that Henry is silent, but rather the fact that he switched seemingly on a dime from being available to being unavailable and with no explanation. So I don’t think it’s strange at all to report on the reason why now that a journalist has succeeded in doing what everyone thought was impossible in getting Henry to explain himself (well, a bit at least). As some evidence, this article was the first piece published at FanGraphs that I have seen shared broadly (i.e., not just with baseball heads) via local NPR newsletters and such. So yeah, there’s interest, and I’m impressed the author got Henry on the line.
As to your point about hiring underlings to make statements on his behalf, I also don’t think it’s ridiculous for Sox fans to want to hear from the man in charge. There have been real questions about the strategic direction ownership is taking at the highest level of the business, and Kennedy and the parade of CBOs over the years clearly haven’t been authorized to speak about that. Respondeat superior, after all. When you suddenly go silent it, uh, makes it seem like you’re no longer interested in being accountable to your fans. A great owner understands that it’s a two-way street and respects their fans as more than just customers. I’m not saying Henry doesn’t anymore, necessarily, but the radio silence raises valid questions.
In the early part of the decade, the Red Sox may have ‘lacked direction’ but like it or not, they certainly have one now. A franchise that historically failed to develop pitchers seems to be doing a pretty good job of it, and while Breslow has issues there is a certainly some of that ‘vision’ thing there. Honestly, I couldn’t give a rat’s backside for what a billionaire thinks about anything but as a journalist myself, I can understand the potential frustration. Still, if the choice is between Silent John and Jerry Jones, I know who I’m picking.
I honestly don’t know what Breslow has for significant weaknesses.
He’s terrible at self promotion.
I suppose, but the work should speak for itself.
Communication and decision making.
The latter assertion is Grade A horse manure.
As a Mets fan first I’ll never understand some media and fan frothing at mouth waiting on Cohen to comment about how bad the team is. Some of this as well as media narratives about rudderless Red Sox seem hyperbolic and lazy. But in case of Henry and Cohen I will say once you’ve established a willingness to be public facing when everyone loves you you do kind of have to show up when the inevitable happens or you kind of seem small and fair weather. But I so know in 25 media Burris’s Boston early and they were a playoff team and possible rinse repeat this year. So maybe less reactionary feeding frenzies and if Henry wants to gloat after a deep playoff run just ignore him.
Shut the front door!
“Slaughterhouse 5 – Mets 4” absolutely had me busting my gut.
Vonnegut’s son is (or was?) a pediatrician in Quincy, Mass… I’d hope he’d see that & get a laugh.
“Savior of local journalism,” eh? Nice that someone feels that way but I find that to he an over generous description. As the crow flies I’m 16 miles from the Statehouse and the Globe hasn’t been relevant to me since I cannot remember when and I’ve never seen even a flash of real creativity from current ownership.
John Henry is the archetype of a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing, at least in my drippingly arrogant opinion.
Weird to see a journalismism article at the baseball analytics site. Does his silence functionally do anything outside of removing a source for vapid quotes for an article?