PDA

View Full Version : Phil Rogers still doesn't get it


maurice
12-19-2006, 10:54 AM
We already knew that Phil Rogers came here to read our responses to the "JR and KW are cutting payroll and going with all rookies" Marriotti-esque hysterics. He responded (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-061218my2006rogers,1,4493189.story?coll=cs-home-utility) to our comments today:
Story that got the most reader response
Man, did White Sox fans hate the columns I wrote from the winter meetings critical of the Jerry Reinsdorf/Ken Williams decision to rebuild the World Series rotation over the next two years rather than adjust to the increased value of pitchers in this market. I can't believe fans really want to see Mark Buehrle and Jon Garland follow Freddy Garcia out of town, but they don't want any outsiders criticizing their team, especially not someone from "the Cubune."

You're missing the point, Phil. Our primary criticism (IIRC) was not that the decision to dump Buehrle and Garland and to replace them with rookies "over the next two years" is a good one. Rather, we questioned your evidence that any such decision actually had been made. (At about the same time, a fellow Cubune writer stated that Crede certainly was a goner.) Specifically, we read KW and JR's actions and comments as indicators that they wanted a contingency in case they couldn't re-sign all of their pitchers (or Crede)--for example, if Buehrle insists on leaving for the StL or Garland holds out for a 5-year / billion dollar deal. In other words, the complaint was that the arguments were unreasonable, not that an "outsider" was criticizing our team. Lord knows we've agreed with you plenty of times in the past.

Maybe the letters / e-mails you received stated it differently.

PaulDrake
12-19-2006, 11:09 AM
This comment is a beaut too.

This will be Lou Piniella's world if the Cubs can get off to a fast start (the rest of us just take up space). The Cubs' free-spending followed them losing the city's radio-TV ratings war to the White Sox for the first time since short wave radio. It will be fascinating to watch the ongoing battle for wins and headlines.

Yeah yeah we know Phil. Chicago's always been a Cub's town.

palehozenychicty
12-19-2006, 11:19 AM
As Officer Barbrady says, "Move along now, Nothing to see here!":rolleyes:

jackbrohamer
12-19-2006, 11:33 AM
He's furiously spinning the new Cubune talking point:

Not Spending Money Like Drunken Idiots = Not Trying To Win

bryPt
12-19-2006, 11:55 AM
The Cubune is the laughing stock of printed news media. This is just another example of it. Rozner shows up Morrissey by actually going to the source (KW) and gets the real story on Sox payroll then Mr. Rogers can't understand what the fans here were discussing. How out of touch are these Cubune reporters? As Jeff McMahon would say, it looks like they are just passing the time away until they can cash in on their retirement and 401k packages. They could care less what they write, fact or fiction. Keep toeing the company line so that their retirement is secure and not actually worry that millions of people reading their junk paper are not getting the real story.

oeo
12-19-2006, 01:48 PM
We already knew that Phil Rogers came here to read our responses to the "JR and KW are cutting payroll and going with all rookies" Marriotti-esque hysterics. He responded (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-061218my2006rogers,1,4493189.story?coll=cs-home-utility) to our comments today:


You're missing the point, Phil. Our primary criticism (IIRC) was not that the decision to dump Buehrle and Garland and to replace them with rookies "over the next two years" is a good one. Rather, we questioned your evidence that any such decision actually had been made. (At about the same time, a fellow Cubune writer stated that Crede certainly was a goner.) Specifically, we read KW and JR's actions and comments as indicators that they wanted a contingency in case they couldn't re-sign all of their pitchers (or Crede)--for example, if Buehrle insists on leaving for the StL or Garland holds out for a 5-year / billion dollar deal. In other words, the complaint was that the arguments were unreasonable, not that an "outsider" was criticizing our team. Lord knows we've agreed with you plenty of times in the past.

Maybe the letters / e-mails you received stated it differently.

And I still can't believe that he thinks he knows for a fact, that Garland and Buehrle are on their way out. :rolleyes:

Get over yourself, Phil.

SOXSINCE'70
12-19-2006, 02:45 PM
Phil must think his **** doesn't stink.

More sCrUBune propaganda.:angry:

Hitmen77
12-19-2006, 02:52 PM
You're missing the point, Phil. Our primary criticism (IIRC) was not that the decision to dump Buehrle and Garland and to replace them with rookies "over the next two years" is a good one. Rather, we questioned your evidence that any such decision actually had been made. (At about the same time, a fellow Cubune writer stated that Crede certainly was a goner.) Specifically, we read KW and JR's actions and comments as indicators that they wanted a contingency in case they couldn't re-sign all of their pitchers (or Crede)--for example, if Buehrle insists on leaving for the StL or Garland holds out for a 5-year / billion dollar deal. In other words, the complaint was that the arguments were unreasonable, not that an "outsider" was criticizing our team. Lord knows we've agreed with you plenty of times in the past.
:worship:
Thank you! There must be something about being employed by the Tribune that makes the concept of trying to be a consistently winning ballclub impossible to grasp. I'm not saying people don't have the right to wonder whether KW's plan will work. That's a legitimate debate. But all this talk about the Sox just dumping salary or being too cheap is just B.S.

Maybe the letters / e-mails you received stated it differently.
I doubt it. He either just doesn't get it or he's intentionally ignoring what the Sox are really doing in order to scream "breakup".

Ol' No. 2
12-19-2006, 02:57 PM
:worship:
Thank you! There must be something about being employed by the Tribune that makes the concept of trying to be a consistently winning ballclub impossible to grasp.


I doubt it. He either just doesn't get it or he's intentionally ignoring what the Sox are really doing in order to scream "breakup".If anyone ever doubted the anti-Sox slant of the Cubune, the last month should dispel it. These guys sound like political operatives the way they keep banging at the official talking points. If you can find a single article that doesn't contain the words breakup, rebuild or some facsimile, you're doing better than I. The contrast with the Sun-Times makes it all the more apparent.

Hitmen77
12-19-2006, 03:00 PM
Somehow, Barry Rozner "gets it":

http://www.dailyherald.com/search/searchstory.asp?id=259843

So the Sox don’t plan to trade their entire rotation and give up on 2007, as has been suggested?

“I’m trying to win next year and the year after that and the year after that,’’ Williams said. “Sometimes in order to set yourself up in that fashion, you have to make some unpopular decisions.

“But it’s really not a change of business practice. I said that long before we made the (Freddy Garcia) deal. I’ve tried to articulate our mission statement and let people in on the direction.’’

So unless they change their stance, the Sox will continue to sign the guys who will stay for a reasonable price, and occasionally Williams must deal those he believes are going to be overpriced while stockpiling young players who might be able to take their place.

It’s either that, or spend $400 million on a new starting rotation.

Ol' No. 2
12-19-2006, 03:08 PM
Somehow, Barry Rozner "gets it":

http://www.dailyherald.com/search/searchstory.asp?id=259843The Cubune writers "get it". They're not stupid. They just choose to stick with the official talking points instead. Is it coincidental that ALL the Cubune writers are spewing the same stuff while no one else is?

maurice
12-19-2006, 03:09 PM
If KW really was cutting payroll, tanking '07, and looking ahead to '08, why sign Hall? Why re-sign Podsednik? Why is he still looking for a veteran RP and (probably) a veteran backup CF? He could just go with Stewart / Owens / Sweeney / Logan / Tracey for the MLB minimum.

Is it coincidental that ALL the Cubune writers are spewing the same stuff while no one else is?

I hear that Moronotti is saying the same thing, but his anti-Sox agenda is equally well-known.

Hitmen77
12-19-2006, 03:14 PM
The Cubune writers "get it". They're not stupid. They just choose to stick with the official talking points instead. Is it coincidental that ALL the Cubune writers are spewing the same stuff while no one else is?

Even Joe Cowley at the Sun-Times provides a fair analysis. Like you said, only the Cubune is spewing the "breakup", "fire sale" line while other publications understand what the Sox are trying to do.


http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/165037,CST-SPT-cowley08.article

Ol' No. 2
12-19-2006, 03:15 PM
If KW really was cutting payroll, tanking '07, and looking ahead to '08, why sign Hall? Why re-sign Podsednik? Why is he still looking for a veteran RP and (probably) a veteran backup CF? He could just go with Stewart / Owens / Sweeney / Logan / Tracey for the MLB minimum.



I hear that Moronotti is saying the same thing, but his anti-Sox agenda is equally well-known.When your articles all start to sound like they were written by the Moron, it's time to find a new job.

fquaye149
12-19-2006, 03:25 PM
re: to what you guys are posting:

:threadrules:

Palehose13
12-19-2006, 03:26 PM
Wow Phil. You really don't get it, do you?

maurice
12-19-2006, 03:30 PM
It's interesting that Rogers' (relatively) pro-Sox / anti-Cub articles always appear in other publications, and not the Cubune. Some snippets from his most recent ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove06/columns/story?columnist=rogers_phil&id=2701105&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab5pos1) article:
''It's not about saving money, it's about feeling comfortable with what we have,'' Guillen told the Chicago Sun-Times. "The problem is what's going on next door, [with the Cubs] throwing money around the way they have.'' . . .

Last seen, the Cubs had committed over $300 million in a signing spree that began with manager Lou Piniella . . . . The most telling contract, however, might have been the four-year, $40 million deal that Hendry finalized with 30-year-old left-hander Ted Lilly while he was experiencing chest pains that led to his winter-meetings angioplasty. That's a lot of money to pay to a guy who is taking a 59-58 record to his fifth major league team. The Cubs made an identical offer to Gil Meche . . . before agreeing to a three-year, $21 million contract with Jason Marquis that raised an obvious question. What would he have gotten had his earned run average been better than 6.02 last year?

No team figures to feel the impact of these contracts more than the White Sox. They have constructed their strongest team in four decades through player development, inspired acquisitions and consistently prudent management of their payroll -- in other words, winning the right way.

Reinsdorf allowed that payroll to jump to $103 million last season, with Williams' acquiring Jim Thome and Javier Vazquez and spending heavily to keep Paul Konerko from jumping to the Los Angeles Angels. . . .

All four of [the Sox veteran starting pitchers} have résumés that put guys like Lilly and Meche to shame, so keeping them would figure to be very expensive in the rising market.

But even in ESPN, he can't help but drift off to Cubune-spin-land:
Reinsdorf appears to have ordered Williams to be ready to replace all of them within the next two years . . . . and uproot key players such as Crede and Jermaine Dye . . . .

Hendry makes no apologies for having driven the market upward, saying the Cubs "owed it'' to their fans to deliver a winner. If it causes teams like the White Sox some distress, well, that's their problem. The Cubs figure they've had more than their share in recent years.

santo=dorf
12-19-2006, 03:42 PM
....and on the other end of the spectrum, Sullivan does the Cub version of this article:
Best game I covered:
For sheer drama, A.J. Pierzynski's game-winning grand slam off Ryan Dempster on July 1 ( :?: )at Wrigley Fieldwas the season's defining moment, though the 13-12, 11-inning loss to Atlanta in May when a popup bounced off Aramis Ramirez's head and led to the winning run was also memorable. The best game was the Cubs' 5-4 victory April 19 at Dodger Stadium after Derrek Lee went down with a broken wrist. The Cubs improved to 9-5 and looked like they were scrappy enough to survive the injury. Of course it was a mirage.


Play of the year:
No doubt it was Scott Eyre's ill-advised flip to Lee that resulted into the aforementioned collision between Lee and Rafael Furcal. That play not only changed the course of the Cubs season, but ultimately led to the departures of Dusty Baker, Andy MacPhail and every coach except Larry Rothschild.
Yes Paul, the absence of one year wonder boy, Derrek Lee caused the Cubs to have one of the worst pitching staffs in the league. Didn't Ramirez and Pierre start hitting after Lee went down? :rolleyes:

Typical Cubs using the injury excuse. Where was this coverage in 2004 when Maggs and Frank went down?

maurice
12-19-2006, 03:49 PM
Where was this coverage in 2004 when Maggs and Frank went down?

They were too busy (1) completely ignoring the Sox down the stretch (the Sox beat writer literally was re-assigned), and (2) subsequently claiming that the Sox were very healthy.

BTW, the 2004 Sox finished in 2nd place, 9 games back. The 2004 Cubs finished in 3rd place, 16 games back. Neither team made the playoffs, though the Trib desperately pretended that the Cubs were in the WC race long after they were finished.

spiffie
12-19-2006, 04:13 PM
Neither team made the playoffs, though the Trib desperately pretended that the Cubs were in the WC race long after they were finished.
I can't really imagine how long this could be, considering that the Cubs were still leading the WC standings on Sept. 27, and were tied on Sept. 28.

maurice
12-19-2006, 08:54 PM
Then I must be thinking of 2005.

Vernam
12-20-2006, 12:32 AM
IHendry makes no apologies for having driven the market upward, saying the Cubs "owed it'' to their fans to deliver a winner. If it causes teams like the White Sox some distress, well, that's their problem. The Cubs figure they've had more than their share in recent years. That's priceless. After 99 years, the Flubs management had an epiphany and realized it was wrong not to try to field a winning team? :kneeslap:

Rogers has it backwards, though, because Hendry must be smart enough to realize his recent moves haven't brought them much closer to winning their weak division. That goal is actually secondary to proving that they're better keepers of the public trust than the Sox are. IOW, sticking it to the Sox and other financially responsible teams is not an afterthought -- it's their clear strategy, for all the good it will really do them. Their fans are going to be even more bitter when the house of cards collapses this time.

Vernam

Baby Fisk
12-20-2006, 08:05 AM
His book was boring.

spiffie
12-20-2006, 09:41 AM
Then I must be thinking of 2005.
That sounds more likely. I remember articles mentioning "sure they have 7 teams in front of them, but they can do it!" :?: