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

12-26-2006, 12:26 PM
While considering KW's most recent trade, it crossed my mind that the Cubune will be unable to spin this into their "KW is dumping payroll, white flagging '07, and looking ahead to '08 and beyond" BS. Logically, the trade undermines this "theory" because he traded a low-cost, young pitcher with potential (McCarthy) in place of a high-paid, veteran pitcher with a proven track record of 200+ inning seasons (Buehrle, et al.). Silly me. I forgot that logic has no place in the mind of a Cubune writer.

Phil Rogers' piece (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-0612240227dec24,1,4246025.column?coll=chi-sportswhitesox-hed) on the trade contains the following impartial judgments:
White Sox general manager Ken Williams' ultra-aggressive, shop-till-you-drop (even if you don't need anything) trades.
Hmmm. A 3rd place team that missed the playoffs doesn't "need anything"?
[KW is] trading known quantities for pitchers with big upsides but no guarantees.
That's true of the Garcia trade, but McCarthy is not remotely a "known quantity." On the contrary, he's one of those "pitchers with big upsides but no guarantees."
Williams concluded that the potential reward in adding two power arms for one polished workhorse was worth a roll of the dice.
No, that was the Garcia trade. Only a dimwit would call McCarthy a "polished workhorse." These outlandish claims would be appropriate if he traded Buehrle for prospects, but McCarthy is not remotely a "polished workhorse."
[i]t would have seemed more logical to use McCarthy as a chip that would bring back a significant outfielder, like the Devil Rays' Rocco Baldelli or the Blue Jays' Alex Rios.
First, McCarthy for Baldelli would be a horrendous trade. The Texas package has far more value than the oft-injured Baldelli. Second, there is absolutely no evidence that KW could have traded McCarthy for Rios or any other good, young OF.
the reality is he has now made four trades since November without addressing his most glaring needs.
No, Phil. The reality is that his most glaring need was pitching, especially bullpen depth. Did you actually catch any Sox games in 2006 or bother to peruse the team stats? You concede that KW has assembled "a potentially eye-popping bullpen." Is that not a huge, needed upgrade over the 2006 pen?
On the surface, the McCarthy deal is another part of the Williams/Jerry Reinsdorf plan to replace, rather than re-sign, Buehrle, Garland and Vazquez....This is a despicable plan....
Again, only a dimwit could come to this conclusion based on the available evidence. On the contrary, trading McCarthy INSTEAD OF TRADING BUEHRLE, etc. UNDERMINES this conclusion. This is a classic example of spin and prejudice. Rogers made up a conclusion and then tries to pigeonhole the facts into it, instead of reaching a conclusion BASED ON on the facts. Moreover, he simultaneously concedes that KW may use some of these guys to add a proven player at a need position. Brilliant anaylsis.
When this organizational strategy was revealed this month....
Nobody "revealed" an "organizational strategy" to you Jay . . . I mean Phil. You just pulled this out of your ass. Coincidentally, this BS serves your corporate masters.

An accompanying Cubune headline reads "So much for that budding Sox ace."

By contrast, the corresponding Sun-Times (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/184699,CST-SPT-sox24.article) headline reads "Sox swap potential for potential," a logical description of the trade. Go figure.