Charlie Pierce Leaves Globe For Esquire

This is a good example of the fun Grantland editors could have with a typical Pierce piece

A friend passed along a Tweet from the reinventor of sportswriting in which he sends along some holiday cheer to This Blog. (Apparently, there are more, but This Blog has more to do than clean up after children who spill their juiceboxes all over the Intertoobz.) And right back at you, you mendacious (1), whiny little thin-skinned bag of breeze, you. I've been thrown out of better joints than your bibliography. And, really, such language. The good Fathers on Mt. Saint James (2) would not be pleased, old son. For the record, even if the facts alleged in that Tweet were true, and they're not, as we shall see, I mean, honestly, one not entirely bad review and you change your bibliography? Oh, Bill, you beast. I may not recover. Caddy, my fainting couch.

(1) mendacious - given to or characterized by deception or falsehood or divergence from absolute truth
(2) The good Fathers refer to the Jesuits who run Holy Cross College where Bill Simmons went to school and Mount St. James is the name people outside Worcester use to refer to the location of the college. To the locals it's just College Hill.

As to the Tweet itself, he's been running this rap all over the Intertoobz for a couple of years now, and he even got Jason Whitlock to believe it, which is a damned shame (3). Years ago, when he was still writing for Digital City (4), a friend gave This Blog his anti-sports-talk-radio screed, which it read and liked a great deal. We started an e-correspondence that was perfectly amiable. Then, at one point, right around Lebron's first year in the league, he fired off a pig-ignorant crack about Lebron's mother and the circumstances of Lebron's birth. This Blog sent him an e-mail saying, essentially, wow, that seemed a bit harsh. He replied with some snarkery and This Blog replied by telling him to "stay out of the deep end of the pool" until he'd actually learned how to report something. That was the last e-mail we ever exchanged.

(3) Whitlock believing the damnedthang
(4) Digital City was some sort of Internet myth. No trace of this place seems to exist. It is the Lost City of Atlantis of Sportsguy writing

Since then, he's been trafficking in the notion that he told This Blog to intercourse off because he was resisting its attempts to "mentor" him (5). (That's what he sold Whitlock. Pimp Hand, give us a call, man!) This is all my granny (6). This Blog had no intention of "mentoring" him because, to his credit, he was making his name in a new medium with which This Blog was not familiar, and because, if This Blog were going to mentor someone, it would pick someone with more intellectual integrity who was a helluva lot tougher. This Blog would be perfectly willing to explain this all to his face, including its genuine admiration for much of what he's accomplished, but, given his history in such matters, it fears it may die an unfulfilled blog in this regard.

(5) "Mentoring" to people who had Catholic education upbringing seems to have some overt sexual meaning.
(6) The author is attempting to appear relevant to a younger audience by using and inventing some slang - i may be best to picture the author wearing parachute pants while reading the above paragraph or picturing him as this woman

 

Mr Lynch, Mr Simmons on line 1, something about wanting you to edit Grantland.

 

Well done.

 

Sorry but I like my political writing, even the commentary, grounded more in facts with an occasional acknowledgement that the other side isn't made up entirely of demons and rat-bastards.

Charlie is way too strident and about 1.5 setbacks to his far-left agendas away from going completely off the rails. His credibility, beneath all the energy and talent, is almost nil because he's nothing but blast furnace ... all ... the ... time ... toward those with whom he disagrees. And by "disagrees," I mean loathes to the point of wanting his enemies' children and grandchildren disemboweled and fed to the hogs.

If not for the beard and mustache, the foam around his mouth as he writes would be easier to see.

 

Maybe that's the legend.

 

At one point in the Simmons/Pierce flareup someone asked a rhetorical question, which career would you rather have, Simmons or Pierce?

I know Simmons has brillantly branded himself and has made more money and has more name recognition than Pierce. But I would personnally prefer to have had the career of Pierce, because he has had the opportunity to write about a wider range of subjects. I think the Simmons brand has limited the scope of things that he could try.

Curious what others think.

 

I think at this point Simmons could write whatever he wanted to write and ESPN would let him, even if it involved making up hockey games. Also, he's made a lot more money.

I don't like Simmons' writing for the most part. Occasionally, when he veers from the pop culture sphere and sticks to the NBA, I enjoy a column. But that's one out of every 20. I respect, admire and enjoy Pierce. I wouldn't go so far as to call him the very best sports journalist working, but he can absolutely knock a feature out of the park. He's a pugnacious stylist, absolutely. He's also occasionally brilliant.

I would choose Pierce's path, if I could take either. I get the impression both men are doing fairly well financially, and I've never required a lot of money. I would love to do some of the traveling Pierce has, experience things first-hand.

But Simmons has definitely built a bigger brand and bankroll, and I think you're wrong on your point. I would say Bill Simmons could write just about anything and millions of people would read. Charlie Pierce doesn't run his own media outlet, so what he writes goes through an editing process. If it's freedom (or money) you're after, Simmons has it in spades.

 

Like we Democrats thought the economy was safe in the hands of Republicans.

 

Good golfing galloping Christ, take Pierce.
I don't think anybody who wants to be considered a real writer could think more than 2 seconds about that.

 

I think you have to apply the Mike Royko standard. Who would you rather have a beer with. Me - I would take Pierce

 

Depends - which career would you want now, or which career would you have had? If it's "have had," sure, it's Pierce.

If it's the career right now it's Simmons, and it's not close. And that's no disrespect to Pierce whatsoever. Simmons is in charge of his own website where he can write about whatever the hell he wants, and can hire some of the top writers in the field. He's got a very popular podcast he updates seemingly whenever he wants. He was one of the guiding forces behind the "30 For 30" series. In short, Simmons can do virtually anything he wants right now, and is paid very well for it. Regardless of anyone's feelings for his work, his gig is virtually unbeatable.