PDA

View Full Version : Rogers On Chicago Tribune Live!


Lip Man 1
12-26-2006, 07:42 PM
Given the recent controversy I thought some of you might be interested in hearing Phil Rogers comments today from Chicago Tribune Live!

All comments are direct quotes in order of the conversation:

"I don't think it's a bad talent for talent trade, He's (Williams) getting a lot in return. What I don't like about it is the mindset behind it. He's trying to accumulate pitching talent because he knows he's not going to be able to re-sign Buehrle after this year and Garland and Vazquez in two years."

"The Sox don't re-sign pitchers for longer then three years, when the market moved, they saw what Gil Meche and Ted Lilly got and they shifted their approach (regarding their own starting pitchers.)

"He's (Williams) made four trades and maybe he helped out his bullpen but he didn't do anything else to help him in 2007." (talked about center field, left field and shortstop with David Schuster)

"He's (Williams) trying to do two things at once. Win now and ready the supply of pitchers when the other guys are gone. I don't know if you can rebuild and win at the same time and that's what he's trying to do."

"They (White Sox) soured on McCarthy in the last year and a half and it may have been because he's something of a loose cannon."

"Texas is showing more urgency for 2007 then the White Sox even though the Sox have all that talent and they have a short window with the Crede situation and Jermaine Dye about to hit free agency."

"The 1-4 spots is still a good rotation."

Asked about the almost Garland to Houston deal.

"It was on the verge, it was a done deal. The Sox though looked more closely into the medical records of Bucholtz and saw that he had labrum surgery a few years ago. Any type of labrum surgery sends up a red flag to the organization."
-----

Take it for what it may be worth to you.

Lip

PaleHoseGeorge
12-26-2006, 07:57 PM
Thanks for the recap. This doesn't sound nearly as shrill as Rogers' first take on the trade in Sunday's Cubune.

He didn't use the word "despicable" or "Reinsdorfian hole" anytime today, did he? He did in Sunday's Cubune (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-061223rogers,1,1115531.column?coll=cs-whitesox-headlines).

:?:

PaleHoseGeorge
12-26-2006, 08:00 PM
And did he use the term "polished workhorse" to describe McCarthy for the non-Cubune readership? He did on Sunday.

WhiteSox5187
12-26-2006, 08:03 PM
Ya know, when PK was testing the free agent waters he went out and got THome and I wonder if people were thinking "Oops, there goes Konerko. Thome is his replacement." Instead Thome was an asset but if Konerko left we would be okay. I bet KW is doing the same thing now. We're going to try and resign Garland and Buerhle, but if we can't, we have replacements.

Frater Perdurabo
12-26-2006, 08:07 PM
I know that Phil Rogers knows who butters his bread, but we all also need to know that every single one of his columns goes through Cubune editors before getting posted to the Cubune website or published in the print edition.

I agree with George, though. These quotes don't seem nearly as inflammatory as the words in his column. I guess we'll never know the extent to which his columns get polished, or which paragraphs/sentences get more Cubune "treatment."

Frater Perdurabo
12-26-2006, 08:10 PM
I'm sure you've been busy spending time with your family during the holidays, Lip, but I'm chomping at the bit to read your take on the Garcia, Gload and McCarthy deals.

ChiTownTrojan
12-26-2006, 08:20 PM
I know that Phil Rogers knows who butters his bread, but we all also need to know that every single one of his columns goes through Cubune editors before getting posted to the Cubune website or published in the print edition.

I agree with George, though. These quotes don't seem nearly as inflammatory as the words in his column. I guess we'll never know the extent to which his columns get polished, or which paragraphs/sentences get more Cubune "treatment."
I sincerely doubt that it was the editors that threw in terms like "despicable", "Reinsdorfian hole" and "polished workhourse".

ChiTownTrojan
12-26-2006, 08:28 PM
Ya know, when PK was testing the free agent waters he went out and got THome and I wonder if people were thinking "Oops, there goes Konerko. Thome is his replacement." Instead Thome was an asset but if Konerko left we would be okay. I bet KW is doing the same thing now. We're going to try and resign Garland and Buerhle, but if we can't, we have replacements.
Agreed. Young pitching is the most valuable commodity in baseball. If these kids develop, it gives Kenny all the options in the world on what he wants to do with this team. And BTW, Garland and Buerhle only hold two of the five spots in the rotation. I for one would like the two of them to be in White Sox uniforms and serve as the anchor of the rotation for the next 5+ years. Contreras and Vazquez are the ones who will definitely be gone at the end of their contracts (if not sooner), and I've got no problem with that.

Baby Fisk
12-26-2006, 08:37 PM
When did McCarthy become a "loose cannon"? Has that ever been brought up before? Or is he a loose cannon now that he's gone?

itsnotrequired
12-26-2006, 08:41 PM
When did McCarthy become a "loose cannon"? Has that ever been brought up before? Or is he a loose cannon now that he's gone?

Don't you remember the article OzzyTrain saw in the Sun Times a few weeks ago? It said Man Soo was fired for being a bad influence on the pitchers so it is reasonable to infer that he led McCarthy down the wrong path. Of course, the article was seen by no one else but OzzyTrain swears he has a copy of it buried in the snow or in his buddy's pickup truck or whatever other story you choose to believe.

:tongue:

Baby Fisk
12-26-2006, 09:41 PM
Don't you remember the article OzzyTrain saw in the Sun Times a few weeks ago? It said Man Soo was fired for being a bad influence on the pitchers so it is reasonable to infer that he led McCarthy down the wrong path. Of course, the article was seen by no one else but OzzyTrain swears he has a copy of it buried in the snow or in his buddy's pickup truck or whatever other story you choose to believe.

:tongue:

Damme! If only we could find that celebrated article. I'll go do a search at figmentofmyimagination.com.

digdagdug23
12-26-2006, 10:22 PM
Don't you remember the article OzzyTrain saw in the Sun Times a few weeks ago? It said Man Soo was fired for being a bad influence on the pitchers so it is reasonable to infer that he led McCarthy down the wrong path. Of course, the article was seen by no one else but OzzyTrain swears he has a copy of it buried in the snow or in his buddy's pickup truck or whatever other story you choose to believe.

:tongue:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=82359

Oh my God, my head hurts.

Definitely deserves classic status.

Lip Man 1
12-26-2006, 11:50 PM
Chitown:

For what it's worth to you, Rogers said that the Sox have decided the one guy who is going to remain with them is Contreras, the oldest guy, who'll be 39 (assuming that is his real age.) when his deal is done. Rogers said that simply didn't make sense given his age and wear.

Lip

areilly
12-27-2006, 01:23 AM
For what it's worth to you, Rogers said that the Sox have decided the one guy who is going to remain with them is Contreras, the oldest guy, who'll be 39 (assuming that is his real age.) when his deal is done. Rogers said that simply didn't make sense given his age and wear.

I don't know everything that Rogers does, but I might take that to just mean Contreras, in light of the age and wear you mention, would be the least easy to move to another team and the Sox are aware of this.

oeo
12-27-2006, 02:43 AM
Chitown:

For what it's worth to you, Rogers said that the Sox have decided the one guy who is going to remain with them is Contreras, the oldest guy, who'll be 39 (assuming that is his real age.) when his deal is done. Rogers said that simply didn't make sense given his age and wear.

Lip

I don't think he said they've decided on that...that's what Rogers speculates, just like all the other speculation he's been writing up. I don't know where he's getting it from, but until I hear Kenny saying that all the pitchers are going to be gone except Contreras, I'm going to take it as a load of BS.

Corlose 15
12-27-2006, 09:42 AM
I don't think he said they've decided on that...that's what Rogers speculates, just like all the other speculation he's been writing up. I don't know where he's getting it from, but until I hear Kenny saying that all the pitchers are going to be gone except Contreras, I'm going to take it as a load of BS.


Exactly. I'm not sure where Rogers gets all this "information" and I'm sure he knows more than me but it seems like all he's doing is speculating and trying to pass it off as a forgone conclusion. He doesn't know what the Sox are going to do with Garland, Buehrle, Crede, etc. but hey if it makes a good story...

Mohoney
12-27-2006, 10:15 AM
Exactly. I'm not sure where Rogers gets all this "information" and I'm sure he knows more than me but it seems like all he's doing is speculating and trying to pass it off as a forgone conclusion. He doesn't know what the Sox are going to do with Garland, Buehrle, Crede, etc. but hey if it makes a good story...

And I would have no problem with it if Rogers went about it in a Sam Smith kind of way, but it's being done under false pretenses.

Sam Smith is universally known for dealing in hypotheticals. Phil Rogers is talking like Buehrle, Garland, and Vazquez are ALL DEFINITELY gone, and it's a FACT.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-27-2006, 10:46 AM
Phil Rogers is talking like Buehrle, Garland, and Vazquez are ALL DEFINITELY gone, and it's a FACT.

This is the part that has me confused. I've read Phil's comments here and inside the Cubune, too. He is definitely speaking in a voice as though it's a done deal, but I can't for the life of me find where he SPECIFIES where he gets such information.

Is it his opinion? Is it a rumor? Is he speculating? Or is it something else. For example...

If it is a club insider's leak, I have serious doubts about its validity. This sort of "leak" smacks way too much of conveniently depressing the value of a ballplayer negotiating his next contract AND raising his value in any potential trade to another team who suddenly thinks a competitor might be able to scoop the ballplayer up. Certainly a sportswriter of Rogers' experience knows too well how he and is ilk are constantly being manipulated!
:o:

Is Phil Rogers willingly letting himself be made a boob? Is Phil's willingness to play the boob increased because he makes the SOX look bad while parroting the line, rather than a similar "boob" job that his sister division might pull over him? For example, Phil has flatly stated for all of us here that he can't find a way to criticize $300 million in spending... yet surely this very same spending has pre-ordained the '07 Lovable Losers as the first team in baseball history to turn Steinbrenner's Yankees into comparative skinflints on a wins-per-dollar-spent yardstick? Nothing to criticize about that from Phil Rogers?
:roflmao:

Phil has a lot to answer for, and he tried desperately to dodge as much as he could here. But the fish ain't bitin'.

maurice
12-27-2006, 01:15 PM
This is the part that has me confused. I've read Phil's comments here and inside the Cubune, too. He is definitely speaking in a voice as though it's a done deal, but I can't for the life of me find where he SPECIFIES where he gets such information.

Rogers said that he keeps saying it, and nobody in the White Sox organization has told him that he's wrong. In other words, he has no source. He just made it up.

I don't think he's being played here. He just really, really thinks that he's right, and refuses to acknowledge that the burden of proof is on him.

While sticking to his guns, he's just tying himself into more knots. For example, if the "window" of opportunity is '07 because Dye's a free agent, why talk about the guys who will be free agents after '07? If Dye's a goner after '07, that gives them more money to re-sign Buehrle. If the "window" of opportunity is through '08, why are we talking about the other guys who remain under Sox control through '08?

At least he finally acknowledges that the bullpen is improved and that the top 4 starters are good. Everybody knows that the Sox score a lot of runs, notwithstanding the widespread opinion that KW "needs" to improve CF, LF, and/or SS offensively (that would be wonderful, but it's obviously not "needed"). A 90-win team returning the same great offense + 4 good starters + talented young starting pitchers + a strengthened bullpen + payroll flexibility + multiple trading chips = playoff contention.

veeter
12-27-2006, 01:25 PM
What would Phil say, if the Sox announce an extension for Buehrle, let's say in June? He'd say nothing. But IMO, this is what's going to happen. The Sox are going to try very hard for this. It'll be up to Mark whether he wants to be filthy rich or filthy, stinkin' rich.

Frater Perdurabo
12-27-2006, 01:27 PM
This is the part that has me confused. I've read Phil's comments here and inside the Cubune, too. He is definitely speaking in a voice as though it's a done deal, but I can't for the life of me find where he SPECIFIES where he gets such information.

Is it his opinion? Is it a rumor? Is he speculating? Or is it something else. For example...

If it is a club insider's leak, I have serious doubts about its validity. This sort of "leak" smacks way too much of conveniently depressing the value of a ballplayer negotiating his next contract AND raising his value in any potential trade to another team who suddenly thinks a competitor might be able to scoop the ballplayer up. Certainly a sportswriter of Rogers' experience knows too well how he and is ilk are constantly being manipulated!
:o:

Is Phil Rogers willingly letting himself be made a boob? Is Phil's willingness to play the boob increased because he makes the SOX look bad while parroting the line, rather than a similar "boob" job that his sister division might pull over him? For example, Phil has flatly stated for all of us here that he can't find a way to criticize $300 million in spending... yet surely this very same spending has pre-ordained the '07 Lovable Losers as the first team in baseball history to turn Steinbrenner's Yankees into comparative skinflints on a wins-per-dollar-spent yardstick? Nothing to criticize about that from Phil Rogers?
:roflmao:

Phil has a lot to answer for, and he tried desperately to dodge as much as he could here. But the fish ain't bitin'.

Well done. Agreed on all counts. Indeed, how would it serve the interest of the Sox if KW confirmed or denied "Dr. Phil's" sepculation?

Maurice is right. The burden of proof is on Phil Rogers.

As usual, though, at least Phil has the gonads to show up here, defend himself, and take his lumps.

Hitmen77
12-27-2006, 02:05 PM
Rogers said that he keeps saying it, and nobody in the White Sox organization has told him that he's wrong. In other words, he has no source. He just made it up.

I don't think he's being played here. He just really, really thinks that he's right, and refuses to acknowledge that the burden of proof is on him.

I agree. He's not trying to be slanted or anti-Sox - he does believe the Sox definitely are letting all their pitchers go. Who knows? In the end he may be right. But our point is that, at this time, we do not know and KW planning for that possible outcome is not the same as KW and JR deciding now that letting all 4 veteran starters go is certainly going to happen.

Does Phil have access to more information than has been quoted that leads him to believe this is definitely the Sox plan? I don't know, but it sure sounds like the basis for his conclusion is the KW quote that he printed in his column.

Last winter, many Sox fans seemed to be certain that Contreras and Garland were not going to sign extensions and would walk after 2006. Certainly, many thought that only one of those two would sign. In both cases, the extension announcement came out of the blue and was a surprise to many.