PDA

View Full Version : Phil Rogers Fires On Sammy...


DrCrawdad
03-05-2003, 10:14 PM
You have to respect Phil Rogers courage to write this piece whilst working for the Cubune.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/thumbnails/columnist/2002-04/2565200.jpg

Sosa cash grab hurts team

'I am not just a baseball player. I am a businessman who has to take care of business." — Sammy Sosa

Thanks for clearing that up, Sammy.

With Sosa, it is always about the home runs he can hit, and the adulation he receives after hitting the home runs. And it is always about the money.

TornLabrum
03-05-2003, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
You have to respect Phil Rogers courage to write this piece whilst working for the Cubune.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/thumbnails/columnist/2002-04/2565200.jpg

There have been several challenges to the way Illinois taxes professional athletes, including former Sox pitcher Scott Radinsky. And they challenge it with good reason. While each state taxes income made while players were working in their state, only Illinois taxes the entire income of players who work here, rather than the 84/165 of the income they actually make here.

voodoochile
03-05-2003, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
There have been several challenges to the way Illinois taxes professional athletes, including former Sox pitcher Scott Radinsky. And they challenge it with good reason. While each state taxes income made while players were working in their state, only Illinois taxes the entire income of players who work here, rather than the 84/165 of the income they actually make here.

Since when do they play 165 games? :D:

Vsahajpal
03-05-2003, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
You have to respect Phil Rogers courage to write this piece whilst working for the Cubune.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/thumbnails/columnist/2002-04/2565200.jpg


Wow, that was bad.

DrCrawdad
03-05-2003, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
Wow, that was bad.

Not sure what you're point is, please explain.

Vsahajpal
03-05-2003, 11:42 PM
Sosa yet again enters a season in renegotiate mode. He made that clear in remarks last weekend in another newspaper. Tucked away at the end of a column forecasting another great season were some words of warning for Cubs fans and Tribune Co. accountants.

"I can't answer that right now," Sosa said when asked about the early-exit clause in his contract. "I will be able to answer that after the season."

Hang on. This is going to be interesting.

If Sosa truly is intent on another power play, as his comments suggest, this could be his farewell to Chicago.


What did he make clear? His comments suggest what? I

A line at the end of a column in a different newspaper says that Sosa isn't sure what he'll do until the end of the season, and that's the premise for this article. He doesn't make anything clear.

And then to chalk up the Cubs miserable recent run to Sosa is laughable:

Despite the optimism Baker has created, the early outlook isn't good. It never is with Sosa's future up in the air. Consider the pattern:


1997—With Sosa eligible to become a free agent after the season, the Cubs start 0-14 and finish 68-94.

1998—Bursting with pride after being signed to a four-year, $40 million extension the previous July (with a mutual option for a fifth year), Sosa hits 66 homers and leads the Cubs to a wild-card spot in the playoffs.

1999—Again crushing homers at an unprecedented pace, Sosa decides by midseason he is sadly underpaid and uses friendly members of the media to lobby for a contract extension. The Cubs skid to 95 losses and fire Jim Riggleman.

2000—Sosa's contract is an ongoing issue, with the Cubs going so far as to make him available in trade, and coming close to one with the Yankees. They lose 97 games in Don Baylor's first season.

2001—After a proposed three-way trade that would have sent Sosa to Los Angeles collapses in spring training, Sosa cries uncle and accepts a four-year contract for $70.5 million (with an option for a fifth season) in March. He responds with his greatest performance—even better than the MVP season in '98—and leads a paper-thin lineup to 88 wins.

2002—Once again disenchanted after a miserable start, Sosa begins talking about the early-out clauses in his contract, which is not even 18 months old, and the Cubs suffer a 95-loss embarrassment that costs Baylor his job.


That's two of six seasons that were not nightmares for the franchise. Those happened to be the two when Sosa's contract was not an issue.


There's 24 other guys who share the blame, not to mention Ed Lynch, Andy MacPhail, and your bosses.

Sosa wasn't to blame for the losing in '97, '99, '00 and '02...

Yet "clearly" your comments "suggest" he was to blame, Phil. What gives?

But the turmoil his wandering eye generates has been like a constant rain cloud over a picnic. By constantly threatening to lean on management, Sosa has created a counterproductive dynamic that damages both his franchise and his image

Oh, there's the answer. It certainly wasn't the fact that Mark Grace was the cleanup hitter, followed by Henry Rodriguez, and a host of other re-treads (Glenallen Hill? Your main man Fred McGriff). Not to mention the fact that the likes of Mel Rojas, Rod Beck, Jeff Fassero, and Rick Aguilera were integral pieces of a horrible bullpen during those runs.

In an ideal world, if the Cubs and Sosa truly were satisfied with each other, this kind of stuff wouldn't matter. He would simply show up and play ball. Sosa and the Cubs wouldn't tinker with their fans' emotions.


I don't think Sosa's contract situation matters to any Cubs fan. And based on the article, it only matters to Phil. The way I see it, no team is going to give Sosa the money he's set to earn over the next few years. Nobody was remotely interested in Bonds when his contract ran out (after putting up historic #'s), and since then the market has gotten even worse (from the players' POV). And if Sosa does choose to exercise his buyout, then that leaves the Cubs with an enormous amount of money to throw at a viable replacement (Vlad).

But back to the article

Sosa's most recent threats about blowing town have centered on the competitiveness of the team.

Precisely. Yet the picture Rogers paints is that it is entirely about money.

But the focus must remain on how he can help the Cubs win, not on his contract.

lol! I think .300/60/130/1.000 is helpful, don't you Phil? Or do you want him to start 30 games and reach 190 innings too?

And finally...

Unfortunately for Baker, it appears this will be one of those seasons when the franchise player has one eye on the pitcher and the other looking for greener grass.

Again, this is attributed to that solitary quote in which Sosa doesn't exactly hint at his departure?

Seems like Rogers has an axe to grind.

moochpuppy
03-06-2003, 07:28 AM
Come on Vic. You guys get one negative article about the Cubs and you become a :whiner: . Man you guys are spoiled.

TornLabrum
03-06-2003, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Since when do they play 165 games? :D:

They don't. They play 3 games/year at Wrigley Field, which, the last time I looked at least, was somewhere withing the confines of the state of Illinois.

whitesoxwilkes
03-06-2003, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
[
I don't think Sosa's contract situation matters to any Cubs fan.


Those drunken morons at the Urinal don;t even know what a contract is, and will be pretty glum come next April when C-Patt is playing RF for them and they're wondering where Sammy went.

LuvSox
03-06-2003, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by whitesoxwilkes
Those drunken morons at the Urinal don;t even know what a contract is, and will be pretty glum come next April when C-Patt is playing RF for them and they're wondering where Sammy went. That'll be too funny. :) A HOF speech in a different hat would be priceless.

FanOf14
03-06-2003, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
They don't. They play 3 games/year at Wrigley Field, which, the last time I looked at least, was somewhere withing the confines of the state of Illinois.

I think he was referring to the 165 part of the 84/165 you wrote in your post.

bc2k
03-06-2003, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
2000—Sosa's contract is an ongoing issue, with the Cubs going so far as to make him available in trade, and coming close to one with the Yankees. They lose 97 games in Don Baylor's first season.

If I were you Vic, I'd still be upset that trade didn't go down. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Yanks offer Posada, Soriano, Bernie Williams, Ted Lilly, Jackson Milian, and Ricky Ledee for Sosa and some minor league scrub? The stipulation was the Yanks said the deal was only good for 10 minutes and Lynch called back after 10 min and said he needs more time. Then the Yanks said they're taking Ledee off the deal then and gave Lynch time to think and the rest is the continuation of futility.



Originally posted by Vsahajpal

But the focus must remain on how he can help the Cubs win, not on his contract.

lol! I think .300/60/130/1.000 is helpful, don't you Phil? Or do you want him to start 30 games and reach 190 innings too?

hahahah

czalgosz
03-06-2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
There have been several challenges to the way Illinois taxes professional athletes, including former Sox pitcher Scott Radinsky. And they challenge it with good reason. While each state taxes income made while players were working in their state, only Illinois taxes the entire income of players who work here, rather than the 84/165 of the income they actually make here.

Actually, Illinois taxes the entire income of players who play but do not live in Illinois. Illinois residents do not have to declare income paid out to other states in taxes.

IIRC, this law was passed specifically because of Michael Jordan. He was paying taxes on his entire income in North Carolina, and Illinois felt they were getting ripped off on tax income, so they changed the law.

voodoochile
03-06-2003, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum


They don't. They play 3 games/year at Wrigley Field, which, the last time I looked at least, was somewhere withing the confines of the state of Illinois.

Only 3? :D:


Originally posted by FanOf14


I think he was referring to the 165 part of the 84/165 you wrote in your post.

Yep, that's what I was referring to... The 84 makes sense because the flubbies play their 81 home games (at Wrigley) and then 3 more at USCF - but that doesn't expand the schedule. Maybe TL thinks the flubbies are going to get swept in the playoffs this year...

:)

voodoochile
03-06-2003, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
lol! I think .300/60/130/1.000 is helpful, don't you Phil? Or do you want him to start 30 games and reach 190 innings too?

Vic, I'm curious - do you think he will still put up those numbers without the "Flinstone vitamins "?

I'm really not trolling you, I'm interested in what you think...

Vsahajpal
03-06-2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by moochpuppy
Come on Vic. You guys get one negative article about the Cubs and you become a :whiner: . Man you guys are spoiled.

Mooch, get real. One? Maybe once a week.

In any case, my problem with this article is that it's so completely off-base. Rogers is upset with Sosa because he wasn't in Don Baylor's camp. For some reason, he believes Baylor was the greatest managerial mind in baseball history. To be honest, I couldn't name a worse manager (maybe Bevington) than Baylor.

Vsahajpal
03-06-2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Vic, I'm curious - do you think he will still put up those numbers without the "Flinstone vitamins "?

I'm really not trolling you, I'm interested in what you think...

If he stays healthy, he should be able to come close. But my point is that's precisely what he did during 1998-2001, so I'm not sure how he could've been more helpful.

Vsahajpal
03-06-2003, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
If I were you Vic, I'd still be upset that trade didn't go down. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Yanks offer Posada, Soriano, Bernie Williams, Ted Lilly, Jackson Milian, and Ricky Ledee for Sosa and some minor league scrub? The stipulation was the Yanks said the deal was only good for 10 minutes and Lynch called back after 10 min and said he needs more time. Then the Yanks said they're taking Ledee off the deal then and gave Lynch time to think and the rest is the continuation of futility.





hahahah

The Yankees offered Jackson Melian, RHP Jake Westbrook, OF Ricky Ledee, and either Soriano or Jimenez.

longshot7
03-06-2003, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
but didn't the Yanks offer Posada, Soriano, Bernie Williams, Ted Lilly, Jackson Milian, and Ricky Ledee for Sosa and some minor league scrub? The stipulation was the Yanks said the deal was only good for 10 minutes and Lynch called back after 10 min and said he needs more time. Then the Yanks said they're taking Ledee off the deal then and gave Lynch time to think and the rest is the continuation of futility.

Even without Ledee, this deal is highway robbery. No wonder Lynch is gone now.

Vsahajpal
03-06-2003, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by longshot7
Even without Ledee, this deal is highway robbery. No wonder Lynch is gone now.

That deal was never offered.

Hangar18
03-06-2003, 04:32 PM
I dont know....I think Rogers brings up a few good points,then goes with a theory. in this case, that Sammys Contract squabble is going to hurt the Team this year. However, I think Sam the Sham should milk the CUBS for all he can get. He put that team on the map didnt he?? where would they be the last 7 yrs if he wasnt in their stupid blue uniform ????? Hope Sammy Drains that Team Dry.....

bc2k
03-06-2003, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
That deal was never offered.

Vic, you're the Cubs fan, I guess I'm mistaken. But have you ever heard of the Cubs rap? Do you know it line by line? I'd like to read it.

Lip Man 1
03-06-2003, 07:39 PM
Some of you may want to go back and re-read Rogers interview with WSI. He specifically said that the Tribune owning the Cubs is a conflict of interest that does nobody on the sports beat side of the paper any good.

That being said he also stated categorically, that nobody at the Tribune Company has ever told anyone in sports what to write or how to write it.

Just FYI.

Lip

WhiteSoxWinner
03-06-2003, 09:57 PM
True Lip, but it is appearance and the perception that there is a conflict of interest that is enough to draw people's (particularly our) wrath.

It is just like public accounting. I can't own stock in any client that our firm audits. Doesn't matter if that company is audited by my office (Chicago) or by any other of the firm's offices throughout the world, I can't own stock in the company because of the appearance of conflict of interest. Nevermind the fact that I have no contact with teams doing these audits. It is the appearance of conflict of interest. Similarly, it doesn't matter if the Tribune has never put restrictions on the what the sports guys write, it is the appearance and perception that there is a conflict of interest.

TornLabrum
03-06-2003, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Only 3? :D:




Yep, that's what I was referring to... The 84 makes sense because the flubbies play their 81 home games (at Wrigley) and then 3 more at USCF - but that doesn't expand the schedule. Maybe TL thinks the flubbies are going to get swept in the playoffs this year...

:)

Ah, I didn't catch the TYPO.

Vsahajpal
03-07-2003, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
Vic, you're the Cubs fan, I guess I'm mistaken. But have you ever heard of the Cubs rap? Do you know it line by line? I'd like to read it.

lol, no I've not heard of the Cubs rap.