PDA

View Full Version : Chicago media at it again


Chisox353014
10-03-2001, 04:30 PM
PHG, if you ever needed a textbook example of how this city coddles the Cubbies look no further than this article here. (http://www.suntimes.com/output/slezak/cst-spt-carol03.html) Only in Chicago, and only with the Cubs, can a colossal collapse like the one the Flubs pulled this year turn into "Hey, the Cubbies had a great year" and "worst to third? not too shabby!". It's even worse because this isn't even the Cubune and Slezak is supposedly a Sox fan! And people still wonder why Sox fans think the media is biased towards the Cubs.

FarWestChicago
10-03-2001, 04:36 PM
I read that. Nice article:

:chunks

Soxboyrob
10-03-2001, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Chisox353014
PHG, if you ever needed a textbook example of how this city coddles the Cubbies look no further than this article here. (http://www.suntimes.com/output/slezak/cst-spt-carol03.html) Only in Chicago, and only with the Cubs, can a colossal collapse like the one the Flubs pulled this year turn into "Hey, the Cubbies had a great year" and "worst to third? not too shabby!". It's even worse because this isn't even the Cubune and Slezak is supposedly a Sox fan! And people still wonder why Sox fans think the media is biased towards the Cubs.

What are we getting at here? Slezak has written plenty of pro-Sox stuff. Are we to the point of criticizing anyone that writes anything positive about the Cubs at any time? I root against the Cubs w/ all of my heart and energy, but are we of the mindset that they are undeserving of a single positive note, article or comment.

Slezak's column was fairly realistic and didn't exactly paint a very pretty Cuddly picture. They went from last to third. Not a bad accomplishment. They had a great season that crashed and burned at the end, similar to our Sox season last year.

We are seeming a little overly concerned w/ the Cubs and Sosa lately, considering our nice comeback this season after one of our most horrendous starts ever.

Kilroy
10-03-2001, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Chisox353014
PHG, if you ever needed a textbook example of how this city coddles the Cubbies look no further than this article here. (http://www.suntimes.com/output/slezak/cst-spt-carol03.html)

Oh, today was a perfect example of how the media coddles the Cubs. It looked a little something like this:

On the front page...

SOSA CLUBS 60!!!!!

...three pages in...

Cubs eliminated from playoffs...

cheeses_h_rice
10-03-2001, 04:47 PM
Injuries to major players?

That's funny, I don't recall Sosa or Lieber being out for any part of the season.

Are you sure she isn't talking about the White Sox and the #2 AL MVP candidate last year?



:moron

A healthy Bill Mueller, and the Flubs are playing in November.

FarWestChicago
10-03-2001, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob
They had a great season that crashed and burned at the end, similar to our Sox season last year.Silly me. I thought we won the division last year.

Kilroy
10-03-2001, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob
I root against the Cubs w/ all of my heart and energy...

Hello? Your energy and heart is better spent rooting for the Sox.

GASHWOUND
10-03-2001, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
I read that. Nice article:

:chunks

Jeez West, now I'm gonna have a mental picture of that all night stuck in my head. BTW, do you have one spewing all over a Moronotti?

PaleHoseGeorge
10-03-2001, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob
They went from last to third. Not a bad accomplishment. They had a great season that crashed and burned at the end, similar to our Sox season last year.

What drugs were you on when you wrote this and why aren't you sharing with the rest of us?

It's one thing to think the Cubs deserve props. It's another to confuse our division championship season (our third since 1989, BTW) with yet another pathetic also-ran performance by the Flubs.

Let's get real.

Soxboyrob
10-03-2001, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


What drugs were you on when you wrote this and why aren't you sharing with the rest of us?

It's one thing to think the Cubs deserve props. It's another to confuse our division championship season (our third since 1989, BTW) with yet another pathetic also-ran performance by the Flubs.

Let's get real.

Very good point. I guess I look at things from a bit of an overall scheme. We got really hot in the first half of '00 and won enough games and built a big enough lead to overcome our barely above .500 second half. The Cubs did "almost" the same thing this year, but didn't build quite the lead that we did, hence, NO FIRST PLACE.

Certainly, winning our division was better than the Cubs' third place finish this season. But really, I'm still so disappointed in our 3 and out finish last season that in the grander scheme, I figure we had a very good season last year w/ bitter disappointment in the end and so did the Cubs this year.

The Cubs were a decent team this year. They at least deserve that.

Soxboyrob
10-03-2001, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


Hello? Your energy and heart is better spent rooting for the Sox.

Another good point and one well taken. I root against the Cubs w/ a lot of my heart and energy. I'm a far bigger Sox fan than an enemy of the Cubs and their fans. The Cubs have a lot of players that would look nice on the Sox. But good point anyway.

Soxboyrob
10-03-2001, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
Injuries to major players?

That's funny, I don't recall Sosa or Lieber being out for any part of the season.


They lost a few guys that would have probably made a difference, such as Mueller, White, Wood, Gordon....but big whoop. Everybody loses guys to injury.

Regardless of injuries, the Sox had a chance to compete this season and didn't sieze that opportunity due to untimely hitting, poor management, poor relief pitching and bad luck. No sense blaming our year on injuries.....our division was winnable.

Paulwny
10-03-2001, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob


No sense blaming our year on injuries.....our division was winnable.


Very, very true

PaleHoseGeorge
10-03-2001, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob
Very good point. I guess I look at things from a bit of an overall scheme. We got really hot in the first half of '00 and won enough games and built a big enough lead to overcome our barely above .500 second half. The Cubs did "almost" the same thing this year, but didn't build quite the lead that we did, hence, NO FIRST PLACE.

Have you been brainwashed by the media? The Sox were seven games over .500 the last three months of the season. We won the division by five games, a feat that would have looked even greater had the Indians not played out their *** the second-half.

Get a clue!

Certainly, winning our division was better than the Cubs' third place finish this season. But really, I'm still so disappointed in our 3 and out finish last season that in the grander scheme, I figure we had a very good season last year w/ bitter disappointment in the end and so did the Cubs this year. The Cubs were a decent team this year. They at least deserve that.

Soxboy, would you care to look up the last time the Chicago Cubs managed to win as many as 95 games like the 2000 Sox did? I did it for you. It was 1945.

This is no place for silly, misinformed opinions. If you're going to shoot your mouth off here, you had better be prepared to back it up. This isn't the troll board.

Think before you post, okay.

cheeses_h_rice
10-03-2001, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob


They lost a few guys that would have probably made a difference, such as Mueller, White, Wood, Gordon....but big whoop. Everybody loses guys to injury.

Exactly. And look at the Sox in 2000 -- we lost Eldred entirely, JB for a spell, Sirotka/Parque too (? my memory is bad here), and had to call up about a billion rookies in the stretch run of the season. YET THEY HELD ON AND WON THE DIVISION. Meanwhile, the Flubs did lose the above 4 guys for about a month or two apiece, but don't forget their "key" additions of Weathers, McGriff, Tucker, etc. Everyone was patting them on the back for making all the right moves, yet they still finished in 3rd place because the talent just wasn't there to begin with.

Huge difference.

chisoxt
10-03-2001, 09:42 PM
People make a big deal about the Tribune being biased, but handsdown, the Sun-Times is the biggest unabashed pro-Cub publication in town. Since they do not own the Cubs, the Sun Times has no reason to be unbiased, whereas the Trib may be compelled to offer a little objectivity. Remember those color photos splattered on page 1 a month ago every time the Cubs won a game? The paper is nothing more than a media whore that would sell out to anything to sell a newspaper.

If this collapse had happend to the Sox last year, the media would have had a field-day.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-03-2001, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by chisoxt
The (Sun-Times) is nothing more than a media whore that would sell out to anything to sell a newspaper.

Word up! They aren't owned by Murdoch anymore but you would never know it by their editorial content. You can pretty well bet the Sun-Times is going to spin whatever story they are covering to maximize their chances at increasing circulation. That's the m.o. of their sports columnist too.

They have no shame.

cheeses_h_rice
10-03-2001, 10:27 PM
:moron

No, the rumors you heard that I wrote this blurb are NOT true...






Jay Mariotti

"A Columnist Delivering the Story"

By nature, the best news writers look at the world objectively - and in the world of sports, Jay Mariotti is one of the best. Trained to go after the story, he aims for the heart of what makes the news. In his column in the Chicago Sun-Times and on his show on Sporting News Radio, Mariotti boldly delivers both the facts and his opinion, whether they please people or not.

Mariotti's objective approach is unusual. In the world of sports, everybody has their favorite teams and players. Not Mariotti.

"[I] never cheered or waved a terrible towel. I looked at things objectively and never viewed a game as a fan. I simply watched the game and analyzed the events that took place."

Mariotti roots for only one thing: the best story. It's a pretty safe bet that when the best stories do occur, Mariotti is present, sending his viewpoint out to be discussed by thousands.

Sometimes, he is the story

In addition to covering the top stories, Mariotti sometimes unintentionally becomes the story. Once during the NBA playoffs, Mariotti wrote that the Cleveland Cavaliers were playing "like marshmallows," prompting fans in Cleveland to throw marshmallows outside the Coliseum prior to Game 3. Fans sent Mariotti his own personal bag of marshmallows to his hotel room. Moments before tip-off, Michael Jordan told Mariotti, "It looks like I'm going to have to save your butt!"

Fearless

Mariotti describes himself as "fearless" and applies that trademark attitude to both his column and his show on Sporting News Radio, where he has the freedom to say whatever he wants without being strong-armed or censored by outside forces.

"The essence of sports is debate and that's why my show is on the cutting edge. It's informative and entertaining, but more than anything it's thought provoking. I don't do a show for the owners, general managers or the athletes. I'm not attached to any establishment... I tell it like it is. And that's why I relate to, and appeal to, the common fan."

He is there

The commitment that first drove Mariotti to become a writer continues to energize his show, where he brings to fans the biggest names in sports. His work for both the Chicago Sun-Times and Sporting News Radio takes him literally, straight to the sidelines. Through Mariotti, listeners get first-hand access to the events and newsmakers of the game.

Mariotti is a smart man. On his show, he makes use of the call-in format of Sporting News Radio to hear what his listeners think. He is there to discuss the issues, stir the pot a little and send his thoughts out for listeners to form their own reactions. And when they call in, Mariotti expects them to bring their best to the table.

Randar68
10-03-2001, 11:37 PM
They lost a few guys that would have probably made a difference, such as Mueller, White, Wood, Gordon....but big whoop. Everybody loses guys to injury.

So, you have 3 of the 4 who have never proven to be durable and capable of staying healthy for more than half a season, and yet they are expected to be healthy??? Cubs logic, my friend. When you sign broken down old players or guys with severe chronic injuries, there is no crying foul when those injuries again surface.

Eldred and Wells were expected, Osuna, Parque, Rauch, Biddle, Simas, Wunsch, Thomas, Barcelo, Sirotka. The only significant time Thomas has ever missed was when he had a bad foot and it was improperly diagnosed and he continued to play on it for another year. Not a single othe pitcher here lost time due to a previous injury that has reappeared (maybe wrong on Biddle, but he himself was quoted as saying he had never had this type of injury before.).

PaleHoseGeorge
10-04-2001, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
So, you have 3 of the 4 who have never proven to be durable and capable of staying healthy for more than half a season, and yet they are expected to be healthy??? Cubs logic, my friend. When you sign broken down old players or guys with severe chronic injuries, there is no crying foul when those injuries again surface.

Yep. And the best news is, Flubbies management intends to keep them all together for another run at third place next year.

LMAO!

Do you think they can get Gary Gaetti back?

Soxboyrob
10-04-2001, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Have you been brainwashed by the media? The Sox were seven games over .500 the last three months of the season. We [b]won the division by five games, a feat that would have looked even greater had the Indians not played out their *** the second-half.

Get a clue!



Soxboy, would you care to look up the last time the Chicago Cubs managed to win as many as 95 games like the 2000 Sox did? I did it for you. It was 1945.

This is no place for silly, misinformed opinions. If you're going to shoot your mouth off here, you had better be prepared to back it up. This isn't the troll board.

Think before you post, okay.

Not sure why you'd feel a need to compare me to a troll. I found last year's Sox season to be disappointing. 7 games over .500 in the second half....whoopdee frickin' doo! We looked like a team that was going to compete for a championship. My comparing this Cubs' season to last year's Sox season was meant only in passing. I didn't realize that you would try to show that the two teams' seasons don't perfectly mirror each other in all of the finer facets. We won the division. They came in third this year. Fine. I want a world series or at least a pennant for crying out loud and last year, I didn't get it. I'm disappointed, whether we won 95 or 120 games last year.

Shooting my mouth off? Not sure about that. My original point was that the Cubs did indeed have a decent season and that Slezak's column did nothing more than point that out. What's the harm in that? Why must we be so hugely opposed to the mere printing of such a column in the Times. From my perspective the only ones shooting their mouths(or keyboards) off appear to be you.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-04-2001, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob
Shooting my mouth off? Not sure about that. My original point was that the Cubs did indeed have a decent season and that Slezak's column did nothing more than point that out. What's the harm in that? Why must we be so hugely opposed to the mere printing of such a column in the Times. From my perspective the only ones shooting their mouths(or keyboards) off appear to be you.


Go back and re-read this thread, particularly post #9. NOBODY accused you of trolling, though now I'm having my doubts. Here's the nonsense you wrote and I took you to task for...

Originally posted by Soxboyrob:
They went from last to third. Not a bad accomplishment. They had a great season that crashed and burned at the end, similar to our Sox season last year.


That's just plain wrong. And if you don't like me pointing this out for you, that's just too damned bad.

Soxboyrob
10-04-2001, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge



Go back and re-read this thread, particularly post #9. NOBODY accused you of trolling, though now I'm having my doubts. Here's the nonsense you wrote and I took you to task for...

Originally posted by Soxboyrob:
They went from last to third. Not a bad accomplishment. They had a great season that crashed and burned at the end, similar to our Sox season last year.


That's just plain wrong. And if you don't like me pointing this out for you, that's just too damned bad.

Well then, if you'll go back just a couple of posts, it is you w/ the reference to me trolling in your sentence "this isn't a troll board."

I don't mind your disagreeing w/ my synopsis of how this year's Cubs season has a similar smell to it as last year's Sox season. I say *similar* but it's certainly not *identical.* George, I like nothing more than to have someone disagree w/ me and then hence forth to discuss it with me....sort of what I was trying to do in my original post on this thread. Your tone probably does your message a bit of a disservice because nobody likes being told they haven't a clue, are shooting their mouths off or are some sort of troll. If you disagree, fine. Tell me about it and we'll go from there.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-04-2001, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob
Well then, if you'll go back just a couple of posts, it is you w/ the reference to me trolling in your sentence "this isn't a troll board."

WRONG! I said this isn't the troll board, i.e. ESPN's Sox board. They love having silly traffic because they can serve more pop-up ads. We expect a higher level of discussion around here. Get your facts right.


I don't mind your disagreeing w/ my synopsis of how this year's Cubs season has a similar smell to it as last year's Sox season. I say *similar* but it's certainly not *identical.* George, I like nothing more than to have someone disagree w/ me and then hence forth to discuss it with me....sort of what I was trying to do in my original post on this thread. Your tone probably does your message a bit of a disservice because nobody likes being told they haven't a clue, are shooting their mouths off or are some sort of troll. If you disagree, fine. Tell me about it and we'll go from there.


Very well. Why don't you try making a case for all the reasons you think the '01 Cubs season was "similar" or to the '00 Sox championship. That has to be 100-times more effective than complaining about me or anyone else taking you to task for something you wrote, then adding new grist for the mill by responding further with nothing but complaints.

Again, this isn't the troll board. If you think you've made a valid point, back it up. If not, back down. Most of all, don't whine when you get called on it.

Soxboyrob
10-04-2001, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


WRONG! I said this isn't the troll board, i.e. ESPN's Sox board. They love having silly traffic because they can serve more pop-up ads. We expect a higher level of discussion around here. Get your facts right.





Very well. Why don't you try making a case for all the reasons you think the '01 Cubs season was "similar" or to the '00 Sox championship. That has to be 100-times more effective than complaining about me or anyone else taking you to task for something you wrote, then adding new grist for the mill by responding further with nothing but complaints.

Again, this isn't the troll board. If you think you've made a valid point, back it up. If not, back down. Most of all, don't whine when you get called on it.

That works for me. You've got to understand that when I express an opinion here, it's truly nothing more than an opinion. I make these posts during my down time at work. I haven't the time nor the resources to "back them up" w/ all kinds of stats and figures. I can only go on memory and what little statistical info I can find in my limited time.

I won't go the extra mile and try to prove the theorem that:
'00 Sox is approximately = to '01 Cubs. It would be a dead end road. It's merely my opinion that we surprised a number of people last year w/ our season and ended up disappointed in the end. Same goes for this years Cubs and their fans. Sure, you and I can get into the semantics of comparing records and division titles, but showing a direct relation was never my intention and still is not.

Now back to my original point.....why are we worried about Slezak pointing out that the Cuddlies had a respectable season? Let's worry about our Sox!!

FarWestChicago
10-04-2001, 12:25 PM
Now back to my original point.....why are we worried about Slezak pointing out that the Cuddlies had a respectable season? I wasn't worried. I just hadn't had a chance to use my spewing tag for a while. I saw an opportunity and went for it.

Chisox353014
10-04-2001, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob
Now back to my original point.....why are we worried about Slezak pointing out that the Cuddlies had a respectable season? Let's worry about our Sox!!

It's not so much pointing out that they had a respectable season, which they did, it's the fact that they had a huge division lead and coughed it up to the point where they finished completely out of the playoffs. Name me one other Chicago team that the media wouldn't rip to shreds if a similar thing happened. I mean, if the Bears somehow are leading the Central by 2 games at the beginning of December and end up not even getting a wild card berth, I don't think the reaction would be "way to go 3rd-place Bears!!!" Meanwhile the Flubs pull a mini-1969 and nobody (except Moronotti ironically) takes them to task for it. That's what bugs me-it's the whole "lovable losers" crap again.

FarWestChicago
10-04-2001, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Chisox353014


It's not so much pointing out that they had a respectable season, which they did, it's the fact that they had a huge division lead and coughed it up to the point where they finished completely out of the playoffs. Name me one other Chicago team that the media wouldn't rip to shreds if a similar thing happened. I mean, if the Bears somehow are leading the Central by 2 games at the beginning of December and end up not even getting a wild card berth, I don't think the reaction would be "way to go 3rd-place Bears!!!" Meanwhile the Flubs pull a mini-1969 and nobody (except Moronotti ironically) takes them to task for it. That's what bugs me-it's the whole "lovable losers" crap again. I think you have a point here.

cheeses_h_rice
10-04-2001, 01:04 PM
I honestly think it's a matter of low expectations. "Success" is often a relative thing, especially in this cursed city.

Dadawg_77
10-04-2001, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
I honestly think it's a matter of low expectations. "Success" is often a relative thing, especially in this cursed city.

This should win post of the week. Why did the Cubs have a "great"/respectable season because they suck, everyone knows they suck. So when the Cubs have mediocre season, everyone jumps on their bandwagon because they are better normal. Would a third place finish satify the rapid Yanks fans, I think not. They demand (and get it allot) first place every single year. That is the difference between Sox and Cubs fans, Cub fans are happy with a last to third place season with a mediocre club, while Sox fans are bitterly disappointed we didn't win a playoff game last year and with a team that struggled with injuries, young pitching staff, and lack of timly hitting finishing 2nd or 3rd. A big difference in mentality of the fan there.

Soxboyrob
10-04-2001, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Chisox353014


It's not so much pointing out that they had a respectable season, which they did, it's the fact that they had a huge division lead and coughed it up to the point where they finished completely out of the playoffs. Name me one other Chicago team that the media wouldn't rip to shreds if a similar thing happened. I mean, if the Bears somehow are leading the Central by 2 games at the beginning of December and end up not even getting a wild card berth, I don't think the reaction would be "way to go 3rd-place Bears!!!" Meanwhile the Flubs pull a mini-1969 and nobody (except Moronotti ironically) takes them to task for it. That's what bugs me-it's the whole "lovable losers" crap again.

Personally, it delights me when any attention is called to the Cubbie flop this year. Sure, she seems to be cutting them some slack in her article, but I just like the constant reminders that the Cuddlies had a 6 game lead and ended up a good long way from first place. Cub fans can, I suppose, take solace in their rebound from their permanent lease in last place but I tend to think that all of these conciliatory newspaper articles/columns are just salt in the Cub fans' wounds. When the Sox got blown out of the playoffs last year I didn't want anything that would even remind me of the Sox, good or bad.