The Other Side Of Schilling

[Crash Course]

First, a confession. Curt Schilling once stood me up. So, I have do have somewhat of a personal bias on him. Back on May 9, 2002, I found Schilling on the 'net and asked him to do an interview for NetShrine. He agreed and I sent him the questions the next day - after spending a few hours on coming up with what I thought were good questions.

Two weeks went by with no reply - so, I wrote to him again. He got back to me (pretty quickly) and said that things were hectic; but, he "promised" to get back to me on the questions and assured that he would take care of it.

More weeks went by with nothing. Later that summer, when I read that his last child was born, I wrote to him, offered congrats on the baby, and repeated that we would love to interview him for NetShrine (still) - and said that he could answer the questions at any time and we would love to follow up on them (whenever).

I never got as much as an acknowledgment to my follow up note with the congrats. And, here we are, two and a half years later.

I've always thought it was low to promise something - and then promise it again - and then blow me off.

I have no issue with someone not wanting to do an interview. Just say it and I will leave you alone. But, if you say twice that you will do it, and I go to all the work of preparing the questions, you should do it.

Actually, I have no issue with someone changing their mind, after they agreed to do the interview. That's fine too. Just be a man and say it - make a BS excuse if you need to feel better about it. But, say something - - just don't leave the person hanging the way he did.

It takes less than 20 seconds to type an e-mail that says "I'm sorry. I can no longer grant this request. I will not be able to do the interview." But, again, that would require some class.

Of course, all this was just my personal opinion on Schiling based on one experience - and I always reminded myself of that - - that it was just me, and that (of course) I could always be wrong (and Schilling could be a great guy). The more that I would hear about his work with ALS and the like, I would remind myself of the possibility that I was wrong.

That said, Jon Heyman recently painted a picture of Schilling that was also very ugly. Among the things said were:

........it's hard to fathom a player who's more self-centered, self-aggrandizing and in-your-face than the con man they call "Shill.".......Schilling knows fans will eat up his words, no matter how false. He goes to astounding lengths to paint things in his light........

There's a lot more in the article and you really should read it - and not gloss over the link.

Why share this? Simple, we've been hearing a lot about Schilling lately - and will continue to hear it through the World Series - and it's 99.9% "good" stuff. However, there's more to what you have heard (and will hear) and should consider "the total" picture of Schilling before anyone starts fitting him for a crown. He is not the king of a man that many make him out to be - not even close. Heyman confirmed what I once wondered.

[Jim Rice]

I have never met or dealt with Schilling, but he does come off as a world-class self promoter at best, and as a pompous ass at worst. Much, and possibly all, of what was said of him in the column is probably correct. It would be nice to read a solid piece that says just that.

I don't think this is it. As much as Heyman would like us to question Schilling's holier-than-thou demeanor, Heyman's journalistic skills have to be questioned too. A serious journalist simply can't make those kinds of allegations against a guy who's getting incredibly good press at the moment by basing his charges on lame information like "I know someone who heard him say it", and "[i] heard that Varitek repeated his opinion of Schilling's absence from the meeting -- in harsher fashion -- behind closed doors."

That's weak. If it's a valid story - which it probably is - go get the quote personally. Get someone on the record now, instead of relying on Ed Wade's comment from the 1990s. Report what YOU heard, not what somone else told you they heard. If the point of the column is to make sure people know that Schilling's current press clippings don't tell the whole story, wouldn't it make sense to do so in a way that is solidly documented, instead of filled with hearsay and quotes that could be a decade old? Instead of doing the work to write a solid piece with current evidence and first-hand documentation, Heyman comes off as a guy with an axe to grind because Schilling called him an idiot. It's counter-productive, not only because it doesn't serve Heyman very well professionally, but because it also gives Schilling and his supporters ammunition to use to back up his tired allegations that the media are biased, unfair, blah, blah, blah. He just played directly into Schilling's hands.

[KCBOOMER]

I seem to recall the Schilling episode way back when. Seems like Crash was priming us to develop some questions for him. Maybe not. It was a while back. Of course, Curt should have blown us off with note. It wouldn't have taken any time at all, and certainly less than he had already spent on the matter. As Crash said, a simple "circumstances have changed and I will not be able ....." would have sufficed.

You might also recall that he had p.r. problems when he decided to be a part of some red sox blog (curseof the bambino???) and post lengthy comments and then got offended when these comments were used all over the net? Then the doofs running that blog decided they wanted to challenge everybody who used this info.

I suspect what we have is a person who needs/requires public support but will not accept criticism. Remember Clemens and he are both on record saying it took Schilling quite a while to dedicate himself to his profession and become a top flight pitcher.

Like all of us Schilling has feet of clay.

[Crash Course]

Here's the issue, IIRC, you mentioned, from last June: http://redsox.bostonherald.com/redSo...rticleid=31515

Earlier this week, according to sources, the Sox cyberace visited his friends in a private chat room at sonsofsamhorn.com, where he revealed that one course of treatment for his ailment would be surgery. Schilling then stated that he had no intention of exploring that route, though he acknowledged following last night's outing that he would have surgery if this were the end of the season.

It's not.

So he will deal with it.

``I would get it taken care of,'' said Schilling when asked if a surgical ``clean-up'' of the area might be necessary. ``(Currently), I'm not sure there are any other options (than to keep pitching).

``I'm not sure this is a situation where you give yourself a lot of other options. Whatever we're doing right now (to treat the problem), it's working.''

Schilling seemingly regards the media with general disdain, remember, and he is on record as saying he prefers to deal with fans via chat rooms and message boards because it eliminates the middle man and prevents any distortion of his message. Yet Schilling can be prone to dramatization, as we have already learned, and one member of the Sox organization suggested yesterday that any reference to surgery was hyperbole.

[Crash Course]

Am I understanding this right?

Schilling went from St. Louis, to Boston (for a stop at Fenway to see fans), to Disney in FLA (for a parade tied into his "I'm going to Disney World" plug at the end of WS Game 4), in a span of about 11 hours since the close of last night's game - with an appearance on GMA jammed in there as well?

What a busy guy.

[Crash Course]

Another recent case where Schilling could have taken the high road and kept his fat mouth shut:

Curt Schilling says what he thinks, and what he said to sports talk radio listeners in Boston on Wednesday afternoon is that the Red Sox would not have been in the World Series if Alex Rodriguez was on the team.

"The biggest move, when all was said and done, was the non-move. I think if we get A-Rod, we don't get here [to the World Series]. I don't question that for a second," Schilling said on WEEI's "The Big Show."

As recounted in the Boston Globe, Schilling continued, "He's a Hall of Famer, sure. But after getting to know people who, A, play with him and, B, have played with him, I don't think it would have worked here. I think this clubhouse would have been a much different place, and I don't think it would have been better, given the personalities involved."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/fallcl...ory?id=1911287

[nyy26wc]

If you accept what Schilling says as being true, that's a very harsh indictment, not on Alex Rodriguez, but on the entire rest of the Redsox. It would mean that they lack the character to do their jobs because they have a problem with one of their teammates.

It's roughly the equivalent of you telling your boss, "you know, I would have gotten the work done effectively, but that guy down the hall is a jerk, so I did a bad job on my part of the assignment."

[RedSeat]

Hey Crash, the kettle's looking for you...

[Crash Course]

Originally Posted by RedSeat

Hey Crash, the kettle's looking for you...

Here, I understand that you think I'm going out of my way to criticize someone for going out of their way to criticize someone. But, could not the case be made that Schilling deserves to be criticized here whereas A-Rod was just minding his own business and did not deserve the attack from Schilling?

[Jim Rice]

Originally Posted by Crash Course

Here, I understand that you think I'm going out of my way to criticize someone for going out of their way to criticize someone. But, could not the case be made that Schilling deserves to be criticized here whereas A-Rod was just minding his own business and did not deserve the attack from Schilling?

That depends on the context of the conversation in which he said it. If he called up the radio station unsolicited and started slamming A-Rod, yes, that's stupid and probably not fair. But if he was asked a question specifcally about how the Sox team chemistry would have been different if the A-Rod deal had been consumated in the off-season, then he's just giving his opinion. Not in a very PC manner, to be sure, but at least it's honest. Several Red Sox have commented upon what they perceived as being A-Rod's dishonest post-game comments about the ball-slapping incident in Game 6 of the ALCS, and I'm sure that's feeding into both Schilling's view of A-Rod and the blunt nature of his comments.

[Crash Course]

Well, if this was a case of Schilling taking a cheap/low shot at an opponent, it would not be the first time. From http://sports.espn.go.com/gammons/s/...4/1377881.html

With all due respect for the future of Josh Beckett, after beating the 21-year-old right-hander, Curt Schilling told the media, "It just goes to show it's not as easy as pure stuff. It's more than that. At midnight before the game, I was on my computer, preparing and reviewing video and scouting reports. He was probably sleeping. I was on the computer at 8 the next morning, preparing my game plan. He was probably sleeping. What is he, 13?"

Above, everything would be fine, IMHO, without the " What is he, 13?" comment - yet, it seems Curt is one of those people who always have to have the last word and cannot help but make it a dig too.

[Crash Course]

You know, I just realized that Schilling's slogan of "Why Not Us?" is an anagram for "Showy Nut." Yes, it's a slow day in the SOTS world.........

[guidry49]

how nutsy!! (another anagram)

[Crash Course]

Tomorrow, Barbara Wawa talks to Schill. What's the under/over on Schilling shedding a tear?

[Crash Course]

Any cowinky that Curt "broke" the news today about his recovery issue - the same day that Pedro was announced as leaving the Sox? He's not called Red Light Schilling for nothing!