The season doesn’t end in mid July. If it did, the Red Sox might not have gone 86 years without a new flag.

For me the Globe story raises more questions than it answers. Chief among these, why is the Governor–bereft of any medical training or experience– apparently authorized to “reject” an employee’s application for disability retirement?

Imagine if Deval donned a white coat, took the Caddy over to the state lab and began examining petrie dishes to determine which mosquitos had EEE. The scenario is absurd, but no more so than Deval passing judgement on a state employee’s medical fitness.

State law seems both clear and strict in cases of disability retirement. Here’s an excerpt from the website of PERAC (Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission):

“When a member of a contributory retirement system applies for disability retirement benefits, he/she must file a Member’s Application for Disability Retirement with his/her retirement board. When the retirement board determines that the application is complete, the board (which meets at least once each month) will petition PERAC’s Disability Unit to appoint a three-member, independent regional medical panel (of doctors) to examine the applicant.”

“To be considered disabled, a member’s retirement board must find that the member is totally and permanently unable to perform the essential duties of his/her position.”

“If the member is applying for an accidental disability retirement, the retirement board must also find that the member’s incapacity is the natural and proximate result of sustaining an injury or undergoing a hazard while performing his/her duties at a definite time and place without willful and serious misconduct on his/her part.”

Elsewhere on the website is a reference to when certain employees must apply for disability retirement. State court judges are mentioned: “Firefighters, municipal police officers, elected officials, personal staff of an elected official chosen by that elected official, policy-making appointees, or immediate legal advisors of an elected official and state court judges must apply before reaching the maximum age for their group.”

Check out the PERAC site here: http://www.mass.gov/perac/disunit/processing2.htm

Please correct me if I’m missing something, but it seems that the decision making authority is placed in the hands of the retirement board (based on the findings of the medical panel) precisely to avoid political interference in cases just like Murphy’s.

While many of the above listed PERAC regulations may sound Greek to the folks in the dreaded private sector, most public employees are at least somewhat familiar with them. The first thing I thought of when reading the Globe story was, what did the medical panel say?

Frank Phillips would have done well to report on why a Governor with no medical expertise has the authority to “reject” an application for disability retirement and why Murphy’s application seems to have followed a far different route than prescribed by state law. Although judges seem to be covered by the PERAC regulations, perhaps there is some extraordinary alternate method for judges. It would have been nice to have an explanation in the Globe.

I won’t even delve into the whole separation of powers thing, but I also wonder why the Executive is exercising administrative powers over the Judiciary.

Apologies for any confusion to Bruce & Co.

I meant Boston Sports Media, ie the amalgam of pompous scribes and radio jocks and TV personalities who have been fawning over very imperfect trade transactions and the amount of kissing up in the last couple of days flying all around.

As for the Dig, you say:
“How you took my post as being anti-Dig is beyond me.”

Sir, you are not going to sit there and tell me your post was glowingly positive. There was no underpinning story involving the Dig, you weren’t lauding them for a job well-done on a particular story and you weren’t giving them advice. Some site that has nothing better to do picks up this nonstory and wants again to pick something or some scene to laugh at before going to bed and that is it. Your follow-up post was at the very very least a bit of a put down, which you are entitled to express, albeit on a substantive subject preferrably.

By default a newspaper is always on, their site should be on, the Digg’s is not on, we post on it and let the world know, somhow that doesn’t strike as very helpful. “They still have the nerve to have ads on there” kinda tone is not endearing either. It’s their site. It’s their bills that are due and if there is a willing advertiser, what is so special here that needs blogging about?

The same guy who trolls online just looking for someone to call Masshole yet again on one of his headlines. I cannot tell you how offensive that is for someone who worries about the image of this state being tarnished for the stupidest unfair little reasons and yet we bandy that around so easily.
The same guy who was going after the little Verizon ads kid, telling people to go get contraception just to avoid having any kids remotely like him. This is someone who HAS kids and makes fun of other people’s God given little kid. How classy! The kid strikes me as very sharp and a very natural, gifted actor, probably on his way to multimillionaire stardom in a few years. Why would I or anyone blog on how someone’s little kid is ugly or weird or anything, especially when it is false and the ad is very very well made? And I am allergic to PC garbage, but this was uncalled for.

I am sure Adam is a good guy, a very smart guy, but someone find him an additional new hobby, please.

Regarding your: “Oh, and my deepest apologies for not wanting to see my hometown destroyed.”

You don’t have to patronize observing me, I don’t have a horse in the race, so to speak. Address that to the 2/3 rds who voted it up for “their” hometown.

N.

You asked a loaded question. Had Arroyo turned in a season like he did in 2006 for the Red Sox, it would have been useful, sure. It would not have made up for all the injuries or the lousy team defense or the falloff in run production. To more specifically address your question, I’ve never heard anyone say: Gosh, if only we had Arroyo back, we would have made up those 11 games on New York.

Either way, it’s a big “had.” Since 2004, he had been getting worse. AL hitters knew to wait on the fastball, which isn’t all that fast. His inability to fool batters meant he wasn’t striking anyone out (his dropping K/9 rates bear this out), which meant he had to rely more on the (crap) defense for outs.

Here’s what BP forecast during the last offseason:
2007 (age 30)
W 12 L 11 GS 31 IP 203.3 WHIP 1.30 ERA 4.36 BB/9 2.2 K/9 5.9 HR/9 1.2

2008 (age 31)
W 11 L 11 GS 30 IP 193.7 WHIP 1.33 ERA 4.51 BB/9 2.3 K/9 5.7 HR/9 1.2

Absolutely pedestrian.

Arroyo’s streaky, but he had a very good year in 2006 and finished strongly. His implosion this year certainly wasn’t predicted by the Reds.

Mike this subject is long over with, but I find it fascinating that you keep holding me up for my alleged statistical ignorance.

Here’s challenge: Find one baseball pundit other than yourself, anywhere, who thinks the Red Sox didn’t miss Bronson Arroyo last year.