Nov 02 2008
Posted by David as Bill Simmons, ESPN, Shots
By David Scott
Boston Sports Media Watch
We thought long and hard about temporarily suspending our book-writing sabbatical for the sole purpose of once again pointing out the (recurring, laughable) prima donna ways of the former Boston Sports Guy, Bill Simmons. Really, we did.
But when we got the following, carefully crafted three-sentence statement from an ESPN spokesperson (Paul Melvin) on Sunday night, we felt compelled to sort through the smoke ESPN puffed in the face of Simmons.
[BACKGROUNDER: In a nutshell, on Saturday, Simmons used his own, personal website to vaguely explain why his regular ESPN.com Friday picks column wasn’t running - and to give his weekly picks (along with the Sports Gal/Wife’s). With spite dripping from each word, Simmons wrote at his personal blog: “. . . Please know that I handed in that column as scheduled - on Thursday night, on time, like I always do — and on Friday afternoon, ESPN.com decided not to run the column. These are the facts. . .”
Trying to avoid a fuss - which is already brewing - ESPN would only reply to Shots two requests for comment with, “Editorial decisions are made every day about what content does and doesn’t appear on the site, when it runs and how it appears. This is no different. Our relationship with Bill continues to be a great one and he continues to be a singular, central voice that plays a very important role at ESPN.”
Using our Bristol Campus decoder rings, we loosely translate that response to: “This SOB is bitching and moaning again?!?! Wasn’t he just given months off to write his book?!?! Doesn’t he ALREADY have one of the best jobs at the Dot-Com - if not on the Internet?!?!? Hasn’t he gone back to Kimmel yet?”
PrimaSimmons - who was forced to dump a porn star dude earlier in the week - apparently is having yet another case of happy feet from the Left Coast headquarters of Simmons Inc. And you know what? That’s fine.
But why do we have to hear about it every time? Why does it always have to manifest itself in swipes and spitballs from the Sports Guy? Why does he have to take subtle digs and use phrases like “these are the facts?”
Who was disputing they were the facts, Simmer? Only you, at this point.
Can’t you hammer out your issues with your editor behind the curtain and not bring it into your writing (which, in fits and starts, is still some of the best stuff on the Web. Especially pertaining to the Celtics).
Everyone’s got issues in this economy, Bill. Everyone’s fighting The Man. Life sucks.
But not everyone wants to hear of the Sports Grouch’s inherent problem with being paid handsomely to write and yap about his buddies, his dad and his crummy life as an Internet hero.
David Scott writes from a seaside shanty on the shores of Hull, Mass. and can be reached at shotsATbostonsportsmediaDOTcom.
Scott’s first book, with Memphis Coach John Calipari, is scheduled for release in the Fall of 2009.
18 Responses
Nathan
November 2nd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
1If he’s that pissed, and if he’s got money in the bank, why stay? Principle? Or maybe he doesn’t want to give up being “ESPN’s Bill Simmons” to go back to plain old civilian life.
Dave Lapham
November 3rd, 2008 at 1:07 am
2Last paragraph is gold. I can think of at least a thousand people who can tell great stories about their buddies and parents for half the money the grouch is making and never complain. I know reporters who work their tails off actually culling sources and attending games and living out of hotels for half the money the grouch is making without complaint. He ought to shut up.
monte
November 3rd, 2008 at 1:08 pm
3From Simmons’ personal site:
‘Quick update: I received a slew of e-mails yesterday wondering what happened to my Friday NFL column and blaming me for being lazy and all the usual crap. Please know that I handed in that column as scheduled - on Thursday night, on time, like I always do — and on Friday afternoon, ESPN.com decided not to run the column. These are the facts.’
Seems like you lose the context of his point when you quoted from but left out the first part of that paragraph, no?
How long has his weekly picks been running? Yeah, I’d probably be ticked too if I had his gig and things were souring to the point where my weekly column, one of my staples, was falling victim to ‘editorial decisions’
Still, there’s really nothing more to his blog post other than ‘here are my picks so we have them on record’. Which isn’t to say he isn’t pissed but I’m not sure what he wrote justified taking a sabbatical from your book-writing.
michael
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
4Mr. Scott,
If you you want him to keep this stuff behind the curtains, why are you requesting comment (twice) from ESPN about this? I linked to your article because I wanted to find out. No shame in being curioius. Yet you seem to be. At this point, the drama with ESPN can be more entertaining than his articles. The reason this stuff is brought to the public is because of reporters like you. Thank you. It’s OK to be interested in the behind the scenes drama that kept one of the most popular running articles on the net (perhaps an overstatement) from seeing the light of day.
Jeff
November 3rd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
5I’m not sure I understand your issue here and kind of have to agree with Michael. He was getting emails asking about his column, so rather than send back individual email responses, he posted a paragraph on his personal blog. Unless he emailed it directly to you I’m not sure why you’re so bothered by it, just don’t check his blog and you’ll be fine. I have to wonder if you lost a little of your “unbiased” vew after the email spat you and Simmons had earlier in the year.
Tim
November 3rd, 2008 at 4:34 pm
6Somebody’s jealous they’re not as successful……..
wade
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:47 pm
7huh. this is my first trip to the site, but i’m kinda surprised. not that simmons is necessarily blameless in this, but i find it interesting that the author immediately springs to the defense of espn.com. big yankees fan? do you pity microsoft in the face of all of those nasty anti-trust regulations?
Cletus Van Damme
November 4th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
8Wow. Way to take down my comment that was critical of you from yesterday, Mr. Scott. Who’s the prima donna now?
Cletus Van Damme
November 4th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
9P.S. Congrats on the Deadspin link! As I pointed out yesterday before you removed it, that was obviously your goal, so mazel tov. Hang on tight to those coattails …..
DaveR
November 4th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
10This is just an ad hominem attack that really doesn’t inform me at all about the situation, other than informing me that you don’t like Simmons very much, Mr. Scott.
I really do enjoy your analysis of the media scene here in town, but these personal attacks — Simmons, Lobel, etc. — are just “shots”, and somewhat petty.
hylen
November 4th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
11What Tim said and what Cletus said.
Jim
November 6th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
12Why are you busting on Billy? You suck ass man. Just shut up and leave this his problems with ESPN (a notoriously crappy place to work) alone. He isn’t airing anything out, and you just come off as a bastard when you try to drag him through the mud.
Templeton Peck
November 6th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
13Why is it that every time there is criticism levied at Simmons, the response is “wahhhhh, you’re just jealous” ? The situation was a little odd, Shots followed up and reported it. What’s wrong with that? When he criticizes other media types there doesn’t seem to be any issue. Why is Simmons sacred ground? I was curious about what happened and what was behind the weird post on Simmons’ blog. While Shots did not get much of a response from ESPN, it was worth a shot (please ignore the unintentional pun). Calm down people
KF
November 7th, 2008 at 9:45 am
14David,
Simmons has turned Hollywood. He’s like a Mariah Carey of the internet - an entitled prima donna/diva where if something doesn’t go his way, he pouts. The job of an editor is to make sure the content is appropriate. Not everything written is a masterpiece. Although, to be fair, Simmons does have a point about being edited, particularly when Jemele Hill is allowed to publish a column in which the line where she compared rooting for the Celtics is like rooting for Hitler is unedited.
His rumpswabs will defend Simmons, but if you’ve read him for a long time (pre ESPN days), you know his columns have gone down hill. The quality of them just isn’t really there anymore. The only really entertaining column he now writes are the Mailbag columns, in which the questioner provides most of the comedy. Whatever happened to his Ramblings columns?
Billy Boy desperately needs a change of scenery and needs to leave the WorldWide Leader.
DryHeave1
November 8th, 2008 at 7:45 am
15…jeeze, sounds like MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING to me…..why does this supposed “story” upset David Scott so much?……does he have writers block?…..Shotts, get your ass back to writing that book…
sam the butcher
November 12th, 2008 at 8:12 am
16Simmons is an elitist ass. He personifies everything that is wrong with today’s sports media. It is all based in the, “Look at me!” syndrome. What does he think is going to happen when he tries to team-up with porn stars? He did it to get attention. These guys have a very short, relevant shelf life. That is why they turn to sensationalism. The hack should just go away.
carlton fisk
November 25th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
17Maybe I am not that bright but I read your little column here and only one sentence came to mind. Jealousy is a nasty thing.
Bob S.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
18Why does the media get a pass on in-house issues?
We fans clamor to know the dirt on sports team management (the 49ers are a good case study), the media should air it’s dirty laundry to all fans …
Email Shots
Email David Scott
Sponsored Links
Categories
Recent Comments
Blogroll
Archives
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).