PDA

View Full Version : Phil Rogers / Holtzman favorably compares JR to Tribco


ode to veeck
05-26-2006, 10:18 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-0605260276may26,1,7321653.story?page=2&coll=chi-sportsnew-hed

Will Phil get called in by McPhail for a brow beating ?

Baby Fisk
05-26-2006, 10:27 AM
Rogers expands on this in the first chapter of "Saying It's So". While it made for an interesting read, it left me wondering why the **** there's a chapter about Cubs ownership and management over the years in a book about the 2005 White Sox. :?:

tebman
05-26-2006, 10:35 AM
Rogers and Holtzman summarize it pretty nicely. No question that Reinsdorf's group made plenty of mistakes during their time, but they have learned from them.

The Tribune is a money-changing outfit, not a professional sports organization. Management by committee or revolving door, as Rogers describes at the top of the Tribune food chain, is never a good way to run anything. On top of that, their Cubs ownership casts a pall on the integrity of the newspaper.

I wonder if George Knue is going to dash off a fiery intra-company e-mail to Rogers telling him that he's "dreaming," or that he finds his whole premise "amazing." Pity we'll never see that. :D:

viagracat
05-26-2006, 10:47 AM
I've always considered Holtzman about the most astute baseball observer I've ever seen in Chicago (Lip, what do you think?) He essentially said the same thing I've been saying for over 25 years: the Cubs don't win because the people who inhabit Wrigley, many of their fans and the Chicago media--in short, Chicago in general-- doesn't demand it. They--the players, management and executives--get a free ride in this town. Winning takes money and effort. Why go through all that when you already own the town and fill up the ballpark? There's diminishing returns in making your team better in this case. The Cubs are the only team in MLB that can get away with this. I mean, there will be 39,000 screaming idiots in the Wrigley stands today.

Needless to say, the road to respect for the White Sox had to involve ultimately doing things right on the field. Which is the way it should be, and why Sox Pride is real.:smile:

Vernam
05-26-2006, 11:30 AM
Rogers expands on this in the first chapter of "Saying It's So". While it made for an interesting read, it left me wondering why the **** there's a chapter about Cubs ownership and management over the years in a book about the 2005 White Sox. :?:Agreed -- not only did it make me wonder, it made me stop reading. I haven't picked it up since.

Lest anyone get warm and fuzzy about Jerome "Dean of Baseball Writers and Official MLB Historian" Holtzman, I need to point out that he was at the very vanguard of using the Trib's sports section to promote Cubdom at the expense of the Sox. That's how he reached his current, exalted state, and it's an example that the younger sportswriters have noted quite well.

Vernam

SBSoxFan
05-26-2006, 11:32 AM
the Cubs don't win because the people who inhabit Wrigley, many of their fans and the Chicago media--in short, Chicago in general-- doesn't demand it.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I gotta believe Cubs' management cares whether the team wins. The problem is, they have no idea of how to make a cogent, long-term plan to win. Until they clean house from the top down, they'll continue to lose because it's apparent neither McPhail nor Hendry are going to change their ways. Just read McPhail's interview in the trib today. :rolleyes: How many times do Wood and Prior have to get hurt before you realize they can't be counted on? Isn't one definition of insanity doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different outcome?

Yesterday on the radio Bruce Levine, when asked about the possibility of the cubs having a fire sale this year, said they will continue to go with plan A because there is no plan B. That is, wait for all their injured players to come back, spend some more money and look to make a run; McPhail basically said the same thing in the interview. How many contingency plans does KW have, C, D, E?

No, the cubs don't lose because they have no external forces demanding they win. The cubs lose because the organization is inept.

viagracat
05-26-2006, 11:44 AM
I'm not sure I agree with that. I gotta believe Cubs' management cares whether the team wins. The problem is, they have no idea of how to make a cogent, long-term plan to win. Until they clean house from the top down, they'll continue to lose because it's apparent neither McPhail nor Hendry are going to change their ways. Just read McPhail's interview in the trib today. :rolleyes: How many times do Wood and Prior have to get hurt before you realize they can't be counted on? Isn't one definition of insanity doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different outcome?

Yesterday on the radio Bruce Levine, when asked about the possibility of the cubs having a fire sale this year, said they will continue to go with plan A because there is no plan B. That is, wait for all their injured players to come back, spend some more money and look to make a run; McPhail basically said the same thing in the interview. How many contingency plans does KW have, C, D, E?

No, the cubs don't lose because they have no external forces demanding they win. The cubs lose because the organization is inept.

Yeah, I agree the organization is inept, but they fail time and time and time again. I have to think at least some of it is the lack of urgency, killer instinct, whatever you want to call it. And that comes with complacency.

White Sox Randy
05-26-2006, 11:50 AM
Ummm....I think that there is an appropriate quote for this...something like.."necessity is the mother of invention "

when is it necessary that the flubs do something to fill the seats ?

Lip Man 1
05-26-2006, 11:53 AM
Fisk:

It's in there for two reasons.

1. To give the reader especially one who may not be from Chicago an understanding of the dynamics that drive the two teams in town and the forces that work between them.

2. To give the reader an understanding of what both franchises have done right and wrong in order to provide context to how important and special the championship was.

Lip

Baby Fisk
05-26-2006, 11:58 AM
Fisk:

It's in there for two reasons.

1. To give the reader especially one who may not be from Chicago an understanding of the dynamics that drive the two teams in town and the forces that work between them.

2. To give the reader an understanding of what both franchises have done right and wrong in order to provide context to how important and special the championship was.

Lip
That's understandable, but I didn't think it was necessary to demonstrate the Sox success through the prism of the Cubs failure in this book. I don't want to seem hypersensitive, but it's tiring when the Sox always have to be written about in relation to the Cubs, and never as an entity of their own. Other than 6 interleague games, the Cubs meant absolutely jack squat to the 2005 World Championship season.

SBSoxFan
05-26-2006, 12:10 PM
Yeah, I agree the organization is inept, but they fail time and time and time again. I have to think at least some of it is the lack of urgency, killer instinct, whatever you want to call it. And that comes with complacency.

Yeah, I can see that arguement, which is why they need to blow it up and start over. Doesn't anyone in their hierarchy see this? Oh, I guess not because they are inept!

Besides, what do they have to be complacent about? Resting on the laurels of their vaunted 88-win season of 2003? :rolleyes:

palehozenychicty
05-26-2006, 12:11 PM
Other than 6 interleague games, the Cubs meant absolutely jack squat to the 2005 World Championship season.

Thank you, and it's unfortunate that the local mediots won't figure this out. Here in the city, you never hear the Mets constantly viewed through the Yankmees unless they're playing one another. they have the red sox for this job.

Baby Fisk
05-26-2006, 12:20 PM
Thank you, and it's unfortunate that the local mediots won't figure this out. Here in the city, you never hear the Mets constantly viewed through the Yankmees unless they're playing one another. they have the red sox for this job.
A more apt comparison would have been the 2002 Angels, who finally broke out from under the Dodgers behemoth to win it all. How would the Sox compare to that team/organization? Were the approaches similar or very different? That would have been more interesting than "The Sox play in the same city as another team, so let's write about them for the sake of it."