PDA

View Full Version : Greg Couch Column


Lip Man 1
12-09-2004, 11:24 AM
Greg Couch in the Sun-Times has a great column on the entire Maggs situation but more importantly the 'White Sox philosophy.' Here is the link from Thursday:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/couch/cst-spt-greg091.html

Lip

Flight #24
12-09-2004, 11:29 AM
Greg Couch in the Sun-Times has a great column on the entire Maggs situation but more importantly the 'White Sox philosophy.' Here is the link from Thursday:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/couch/cst-spt-greg091.html

Lip
You're slowing down Lip. When I read that this AM, one of my first thoughts was when we'd see you post a link with a comment about "how right Greg is" with a quote or 2.:smile:

Of course, my other thought was that the article was a load of tripe. Greg likes to ignore that most if not all other star contracts include significant amounts of deferred money, and his convenient ignoring/disbelief of the widely reported 5/70 offer in midseason seems like wild speculation to help him make a point that he's predetermined wihtout the assistance of facts.

doublem23
12-09-2004, 11:30 AM
Of course, my other thought was that the article was a load of tripe. Greg likes to ignore that most if not all other star contracts include significant amounts of deferred money, and his convenient ignoring/disbelief of the widely reported 5/70 offer in midseason seems like wild speculation to help him make a point that he's predetermined wihtout the assistance of facts.
That's a requirement to work in the Chicago sports media, as far as I can tell.

Lip Man 1
12-09-2004, 11:33 AM
Flight:

Now why would I think ahead of time you'd be making those comments?

Charter member ****.

It's the fans fault, it's the media's fault, it's those greedy players fault, it's those unethical agents fault.....it's NEVER the organization's fault.

And 83 wins is 'above average'

LOL

Lip

fledgedrallycap
12-09-2004, 11:39 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/output/couch/cst-spt-greg091.html

Couch's column today in the Suntimes is simply laughable at times as is just another typical example of blaming the cheap White Sox.

If you didn't know any better, and judging by a lot of posts even at this site, many don't; it's as though the White Sox treated him like dirt. He even mentions as a paragraph header: The Sox Game Him Nothing. Nothing? I guess a ticket to the big leagues and providing the fifty plus million dollars he has banked in his playing days on the southside constitutes as nothing with Greg Couch.

I also had a problem with Couch making it out to seem as though this was a personal vendetta against Magglio when in reality it was a baseball/business decision. A $14 Million arbitration gamble just wasn't worth it, especially with concerns about Frank not being ready, meaning the Sox would have potentially $25 million sitting on the shelf come opening day.

I just find it funny that the Sox are all to blame despite Magglio turning down a fair offer, hiding medical procedures and records, and changing agents...his hands are dirty, too.

Flight #24
12-09-2004, 11:41 AM
Flight:

Now why would I think ahead of time you'd be making those comments?

Charter member ****.

It's the fans fault, it's the media's fault, it's those greedy players fault, it's those unethical agents fault.....it's NEVER the organization's fault.

And 83 wins is 'above average'

LOL

Lip
Sure it's the organization's fault when they do't win. But talking about how they mistreat players by including standard contract terms and then conveniently disbelieving the reported #s in offers doesn't have anything to do with that. I have a strong suspicion that as soon as writing that article was completed, Scott Boras had to remove his hand from the strings attached to Couch's arms.

That article was a nice example of falling poo.

Lip Man 1
12-09-2004, 11:42 AM
Rally cap says: "just another typical example of blaming the cheap White Sox."

The truth hurts doesn't it?

Look beyond the Ordonez situation, THAT's what Couch is trying to say. Look at the history of this ownership.

Lip

Mickster
12-09-2004, 11:48 AM
Rally cap says: "just another typical example of blaming the cheap White Sox."

The truth hurts doesn't it?

Look beyond the Ordonez situation, THAT's what Couch is trying to say. Look at the history of this ownership.

Lip
Lip,

Can we expect you to post a link tomorrow morning relating to a positive article regarding the sox siging Dye? We just signed Dye and you have nothing to say about it? I guess the cat has your tongue when it comes to positive sox news, huh? Kind of sad, actually.

fledgedrallycap
12-09-2004, 11:48 AM
Rally cap says: "just another typical example of blaming the cheap White Sox."

The truth hurts doesn't it?

Look beyond the Ordonez situation, THAT's what Couch is trying to say. Look at the history of this ownership.

LipWhile often true. I don't think the Magglio situation is deserving of that label (completly) with all the other variables involved.

voodoochile
12-09-2004, 11:50 AM
Lip,

Can we expect you to post a link tomorrow morning relating to a positive article regarding the sox siging Dye? We just signed Dye and you have nothing to say about it? I guess the cat has your tongue when it comes to positive sox news, huh? Kind of sad, actually.
He did say it was a solid signing in the main Dye thread.

rdivaldi
12-09-2004, 11:53 AM
Wow, that article was garbage. I can't really see any merit to his accusations, especially since he can't even get the players on our roster right. Anyone else catch this little gem?

"What does that leave for a roster? Flawed stars. Robbie Alomar and Carl Everett and a collection of supertalents with slashed prices because they, say, spit on an umpire or seem lazy or fat."

Someone want to explain to this clown that Alomar isn't on the team.

Are there any good journalists left in this city? :?:

nccwsfan
12-09-2004, 12:15 PM
Wow, that article was garbage. I can't really see any merit to his accusations, especially since he can't even get the players on our roster right. Anyone else catch this little gem?

"What does that leave for a roster? Flawed stars. Robbie Alomar and Carl Everett and a collection of supertalents with slashed prices because they, say, spit on an umpire or seem lazy or fat."

Someone want to explain to this clown that Alomar isn't on the team.

Are there any good journalists left in this city? :?:
:moron
You rang???

gosox41
12-09-2004, 12:22 PM
Greg Couch in the Sun-Times has a great column on the entire Maggs situation but more importantly the 'White Sox philosophy.' Here is the link from Thursday:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/couch/cst-spt-greg091.html

Lip
Wasn't too many facts in the article. He thought the Sox leaked the fact that Magglio turned down a $70 mill contract? Did they ? Is their proof? If he did, is their proof that this is false.

And where was Greg Couch when Magglio was here?


Bob

rdivaldi
12-09-2004, 12:22 PM
:moron
You rang???
:rolling:

LOL! Ah, that made my morning.....

ChiSoxBobette
12-09-2004, 12:46 PM
Greg Couch in the Sun-Times has a great column on the entire Maggs situation but more importantly the 'White Sox philosophy.' Here is the link from Thursday:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/couch/cst-spt-greg091.html

LipAs I e-mailed him , Greg Couch, with this question earlier, If Magglio was so hell bent on staying with the White Sox why would he go out and hire a sports agent who has such a bad history with the White Sox? The only answer could be that Magglio had no intention of ever resigning with the White Sox .So, SO Long and Good Luck. Also I'm so tired of hearing that the deal the White Sox offered Maggs was back loaded , SO What , I tired of these primadonnas getting money that the rest of us can only dream of and then going out there and tanking it. Yeah Maggs was so disrespected and unloved by the White Sox a 15 mil. contract backloaded or not so what. It seems its always the White Sox who are to blame for someone leaving if all of the crap Boras spouted off about the other day about the White Sox having Maggs medical records was true why now after we declined arbitration unless we did have them and know Maggs is done in which case great. As it was I would'nt have taken a chance on him being healthy and it seems a few other teams are also suspicious. Whether you like White Sox management or hate them which on this site seems to be the case I can't believe that its thier fault every time. I think you people over here are waiting for the 2nd coming of Bill Veeck which probably would'nt be a bad thing but I really don't think in this day and age he would be doing anything different.

CubKilla
12-09-2004, 12:48 PM
But talking about how they mistreat players by including standard contract terms and then conveniently disbelieving the reported #s in offers doesn't have anything to do with that.
Let's not forget the Organization's stellar track record when dealing with players where the contract is of no concern :rolleyes:

PaulDrake
12-09-2004, 01:07 PM
All of this picayune, little old lady criticism of Couch and his article. Yes, R Alomar may no longer be with the team as a poster pointed out. That should not detract from the overall content of the article. This vendetta against anybody and anything in the press that does not glowingly praise the Sox is childish and counterproductive. Yes, the quality of sports journalism in Chicago does not approach that of a generation or two ago. Still, from my vantage point Couch is far more right in this article than wrong. Most people are what they are, with little change over the course of their lives. Maggs was never an egotistical jerk in the mold of say a Bonds, or our friend on the north side. Now he wears the devils horns. Something went wrong. The Sox and their management have a track record whether some of you here want to believe it or not. Fortunately for the Sox management, and maybe tragically for Maggs his injury status is helping to perpetuate a slanted and jaded version of the Ordonez contract saga.

Irishsox1
12-09-2004, 01:13 PM
The article was a hatchet job. Here are the facts the writer danced around.

1. The Sox offered Maggs a long term deal, Maggs turned it down for whatever reason.
2. Maggs hurts his knee in a collision. The injury is hard to figure out, but Maggs comes back only to be worse off and is lost for the year.
3. Maggs has surgery-twice on the knee.
3. Maggs hires Scott Boras. All communication between Maggs and Sox ends.
4. Maggs leaves via free-agency.

Maggilo wanted to leave the White Sox no matter what. It's not the Sox's fault, he wanted more money and he wanted out of the south side.

rdivaldi
12-09-2004, 01:21 PM
1. The Sox offered Maggs a long term deal, Maggs turned it down for whatever reason.
2. Maggs hurts his knee in a collision. The injury is hard to figure out, but Maggs comes back only to be worse off and is lost for the year.
3. Maggs has surgery-twice on the knee.
3. Maggs hires Scott Boras. All communication between Maggs and Sox ends.
4. Maggs leaves via free-agency.

Maggilo wanted to leave the White Sox no matter what. It's not the Sox's fault, he wanted more money and he wanted out of the south side.
Post of the day.....

SpartanSoxFan
12-09-2004, 01:32 PM
The article was a hatchet job. Here are the facts the writer danced around.

1. The Sox offered Maggs a long term deal, Maggs turned it down for whatever reason.
2. Maggs hurts his knee in a collision. The injury is hard to figure out, but Maggs comes back only to be worse off and is lost for the year.
3. Maggs has surgery-twice on the knee.
3. Maggs hires Scott Boras. All communication between Maggs and Sox ends.
4. Maggs leaves via free-agency.

Maggilo wanted to leave the White Sox no matter what. It's not the Sox's fault, he wanted more money and he wanted out of the south side.
Amen. Can we finally put these stupid Maggs threads to rest already?!

:threadsucks

hosieryofthegods
12-09-2004, 01:59 PM
Agreed. Everybody heard rumors that his wife wanted to go somewhere warm blah, blah, blah. Enough already.

Lip Man 1
12-09-2004, 06:05 PM
Rdvaldi:

Regarding Alomar he was talking about the fact that this organization gets used washed up players to fill out the roster instead of getting top grade talent.

Alomar was an example of the organizational philosophy. he wasn't saying or referring to Alomar still being on the team was he?

Sigh...reading really IS a lost art.

Paul Drake....great post at last some reality.

Lip

maurice
12-09-2004, 06:15 PM
What does that leave for a roster? Flawed stars. Robbie Alomar and Carl Everett and a collection of supertalents with slashed prices because they, say, spit on an umpire or seem lazy or fat. This quote literally says that the non-tendering of Maggs leaves Robbie Alomar, et al. on the roster. Perhaps he didn't mean it literally, but that is literally what he said. (Humorously, a different article on the very same page notes that the Alomars were non-tendered.) The quote also incorrectly claims that Alomar doesn't get paid much because he spit on an umpire. On the contrary, he got paid plenty after spitting on an umpire. He gets little now because he can't hit any longer. Everett, OTOH, gets paid plenty.

The premise of the article is essentially true, but the specific examples show the author's ignorance.

southsider17
12-09-2004, 09:34 PM
Rdvaldi:

Regarding Alomar he was talking about the fact that this organization gets used washed up players to fill out the roster instead of getting top grade talent.

Alomar was an example of the organizational philosophy. he wasn't saying or referring to Alomar still being on the team was he?

Sigh...reading really IS a lost art.

Paul Drake....great post at last some reality.

LipTechnically, KW is taking the 'moneyball' approach. Meaning, he's looking for value where others don't see it. But that approach only works if you have a talent for evaluating talent. That's where his plans have gone awry.

TornLabrum
12-09-2004, 09:37 PM
This quote literally says that the non-tendering of Maggs leaves Robbie Alomar, et al. on the roster. Perhaps he didn't mean it literally, but that is literally what he said.Wrong. YOU used the preposition "on." The exact quote was, "What does that leave for a roster?" In other words, "What do you have for your roster when you are not taking the top-notch free agents." Had he been talking about who is on the current roster, he would have written, "And what does that leave ON THE roster?" As Lip said, reading is a lost art.

MeanFish
12-09-2004, 10:34 PM
That's where his plans have gone awry.
I happen to think that KW has a very GOOD eye for talent. You simply can't dispute the fact that when he makes a low-key deal, it almost always swings our way. Just look at last offseason. We were all pissing and moaning because he only got this weird guy we barely knew about from the Rockies, a marginal relief pitcher with a funny last name, and an old closer from Japan.

If I recall, Uribe has earned a starting position on our roster no matter how you spin it since, and nobody is upset about that. Politte for the most part was a good acquisition last year, one of the few at semi-bright spots in a horrid pen. And one of those small acquisitions got second place for rookie of the year, and ended the Billy Koch era. I refuse to think that KW simply got lucky with all of those.

Sure he does make some mistakes, but most GMs do. Hell, Billy Beane made a colossal one with Arthur Rhodes last year. KW only looks like a villain because of injuries that plagued the heart of the lineup last year. Had those not happened, he'd look like a genius. This year though, he's done one better and given us a bench.

pudge
12-10-2004, 01:39 AM
All of this picayune, little old lady criticism of Couch and his article. Yes, R Alomar may no longer be with the team as a poster pointed out. That should not detract from the overall content of the article. This vendetta against anybody and anything in the press that does not glowingly praise the Sox is childish and counterproductive. Yes, the quality of sports journalism in Chicago does not approach that of a generation or two ago. Still, from my vantage point Couch is far more right in this article than wrong. I basically agree with what Paul is saying here. But it really is a one-sided article with very little fact to back anything up. That's what is so frustrating about what passes as journalism these days.

Lip, reading may be a lost art, but so is REPORTING. If you don't know the facts, you better damned well be fair in your criticism.

We have posters and columnists here on WSI who spout their opinions because we don't have access to many of the facts. The sad thing is, pro-journalists aren't much better. Couch's article is hardly better or more insightful than what appears on the front page of WSI. Any one of us would love to have the access a professional journalist could have. If he/she is a great journalist, he/she will make strong contacts and gather inside info. It seems we have very little of that in chi-town.

Dan H
12-10-2004, 10:52 AM
The Ordonez situation was complicated by his injury and he was no angel in this. But it is not his obligation to hire an agent the Sox will like and he was a home grown player that is now gone.

Speaking of injuries, Dye has had a few including one that hurt his second half stats last year and limited his playing time in 2003. Hopefully, he will have a solid year and may just do that. But he has not played one game for the Sox and the team is willing to take a chance on him despite past or possible future injuries. Of course he comes cheaper.

I am convinced that Ordonez wanted to stay in Chicago, and the Sox didn't want pay him. I don't go for venom spewed at him at WSI. Ordonez did a lot more for this team than most who have put on a Sox uniform. I will miss him. Meanwhile I know that Dye only hit .265 last year.

rdivaldi
12-10-2004, 11:11 AM
Regarding Alomar he was talking about the fact that this organization gets used washed up players to fill out the roster instead of getting top grade talent.
Oh really? And how would you know this? I guess I should defer all of my comprehension of the English language to you now.

Give it a rest Lip, everyone knows it was a garbage article....

maurice
12-10-2004, 02:28 PM
Wrong. YOU used the preposition "on." The exact quote was, "What does that leave for a roster?" In other words, "What do you have for your roster when you are not taking the top-notch free agents."My post accurately quoted from the article. The words "for" and "on" do not have drastically different meanings in this context. Stop splitting hairs.

The following two sentences, when taken literally, make the same false assertion:
- Non-tendering Maggs leaves Robbie Alomar, et al. on the roster.
- Non-tendering Maggs leaves Robbie Alomar, et al. for a roster.
The Sox do not have Alomar, et al. "for" a roster, because Alomar is not "on" the Sox roster. Both constructions are literally false. As such, Rdivaldi's criticism (though petty) was at least arguably correct, and he doesn't deserve to have his reading skills pompously criticized by two other posters.

Had he been talking about who is on the current roster, he would have written, "And what does that leave ON THE roster?"Using your own silly argument, if he meant players like Robbie Alomar, he would have said "like" and the omission of that word proves that he thought Alomar was on the roster. It's absurd to give a hack like Couch the benefit of the doubt, while taking bogus shots at fellow Sox fans.

Lip Man 1
12-10-2004, 02:36 PM
Dan:

Right on the money...

Drivaldi:

Give your media hatred a rest. Read Torn's post for an explanation.

Lip

rdivaldi
12-10-2004, 02:51 PM
Dan:

Right on the money...

Drivaldi:

Give your media hatred a rest. Read Torn's post for an explanation.

Lip
It's not hatred Lip, it's disgust. The fact that all of the op-ed stuff has taken over for true journalism disgusts me. There is very little integrity and actual facts being spewed through the airwaves and in print lately.

By the way, perhaps you should take your own advice and give the KW hatred a rest there chief....

TornLabrum
12-10-2004, 08:34 PM
My post accurately quoted from the article. The words "for" and "on" do not have drastically different meanings in this context. Stop splitting hairs.

The following two sentences, when taken literally, make the same false assertion:
- Non-tendering Maggs leaves Robbie Alomar, et al. on the roster.
- Non-tendering Maggs leaves Robbie Alomar, et al. for a roster.
The Sox do not have Alomar, et al. "for" a roster, because Alomar is not "on" the Sox roster. Both constructions are literally false. As such, Rdivaldi's criticism (though petty) was at least arguably correct, and he doesn't deserve to have his reading skills pompously criticized by two other posters.

Using your own silly argument, if he meant players like Robbie Alomar, he would have said "like" and the omission of that word proves that he thought Alomar was on the roster. It's absurd to give a hack like Couch the benefit of the doubt, while taking bogus shots at fellow Sox fans.
Think what you want, but the precise way of saying that Alomar is currently on the roster would be to say, "on the roster," not "for a roster." The is a definite article. A is an indefinite article.

Lip Man 1
12-11-2004, 02:09 PM
Vivaldi:

You are confusing me with some others I don't hate Williams. I'd like to see a good experienced G.M. with a proven track record for winning but the fact is that's not going to happen.

As Kenny himself would say...'it is what it is.'

I have accepted the fact that he isn't going anywhere.

Lip

Tragg
12-11-2004, 09:43 PM
As I e-mailed him , Greg Couch, with this question earlier, If Magglio was so hell bent on staying with the White Sox why would he go out and hire a sports agent who has such a bad history with the White Sox? The only answer could be that Magglio had no intention of ever resigning with the White Sox .
I think that cuts straight to the core -

I don't know whether or not we should have tried to keep him, but to say we mistreated him is ridiculous; and to say he really wanted to stay here when the objective evidence suggests otherwise is also folly

Brian26
12-11-2004, 10:36 PM
Look beyond the Ordonez situation, THAT's what Couch is trying to say. Look at the history of this ownership.

The Sox actually have a pretty good history of knowing when to not hand out the big money. Look at: Belle, Alex Fernandez, Black Jack, and Baldwin for starters.

voodoochile
12-11-2004, 11:29 PM
The Sox actually have a pretty good history of knowing when to not hand out the big money. Look at: Belle, Alex Fernandez, Black Jack, and Baldwin for starters.
Don't kid yourself, they got lucky with Belle that he got greedy for the extra few mil.