PDA

View Full Version : Now it's the Sun-Times' turn to batter Sox


caulfield12
01-17-2007, 08:23 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/213644,CST-SPT-sox17.article

I'm starting to think Ross Perot was right about that "Dirty Tricks" campaign allegation...LOL. Nice job, Cowley, is there even a story here worth writing an entire column about?

To top it off, if you look on their sports page, there's another story about a former White Sox ballgirl complaining of discrimination.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/213740,CST-NWS-suit17.article

Lovely way for the Sox PR department to start their day, I'm sure.

russ99
01-17-2007, 08:44 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/213644,CST-SPT-sox17.article

I'm starting to think Ross Perot was right about that "Dirty Tricks" campaign allegation...LOL. Nice job, Cowley, is there even a story here worth writing an entire column about?

Actually, that's a pretty fair article given that the Sox have Crede's rights until tfall of '08 and the Sox track record with Boras. Since Hahn is handling all Crede-Boras negotiations, I have a little more positive feeling a 2-3 year deal might get done next offseason.

Everything Cowley wrote has pretty much been written before other than the 1-year deal and Hahn's quote. I think you're most offended by the headline and the first paragraph, which is quite sensationalistic and loosely based in fact.

Standing Ovation
01-17-2007, 08:49 AM
I don't really see what the big deal is. They guy was commenting about a transaction. I'd hate to think everythime I read a White Sox related article, that it's sugar coated.

caulfield12
01-17-2007, 08:51 AM
I'm not sure where this is idea is coming that Hahn has some magical ability to inject himself into the Crede/Boras situation and go in a completely different direction from what KW and JR are dictating. It's a nice theory, like the one that Ozzie is going to bring out flocks of Venezuelan prospects and star Venezuelan FA's are all going to sign with us...

Has there ever been a deal he negotiated that would have been lost had he not been involved? Just curious...was he involved in the negotiations for Contreras, Garland and Konerko? With the FA's that came in before the 2005 season? Any recollections?

caulfield12
01-17-2007, 08:54 AM
I don't really see what the big deal is. They guy was commenting about a transaction. I'd hate to think everythime I read a White Sox related article, that it's sugar coated.

Maybe my problem is with the headlines that were written for these two stories....coming together on the same day.

I'm not saying, put Dye or Konerko on some kind of community service project or send them on a mission trip to Appalachia or the Oglala Sioux Indian Reservation, but it seems we've had 80-85% negative press this offseason.

If it's not Uribe, it's being cheap. If it's not re-signing any of our pitchers, it's not trying to keep Crede or Dye. It just gets old.

Standing Ovation
01-17-2007, 09:13 AM
Maybe my problem is with the headlines that were written for these two stories....coming together on the same day.

I'm not saying, put Dye or Konerko on some kind of community service project or send them on a mission trip to Appalachia or the Oglala Sioux Indian Reservation, but it seems we've had 80-85% negative press this offseason.

If it's not Uribe, it's being cheap. If it's not re-signing any of our pitchers, it's not trying to keep Crede or Dye. It just gets old.

I agree...but it seems like that's the trend with everything these days. Negatives sell more papers I guess.

thedudeabides
01-17-2007, 09:34 AM
I agree...but it seems like that's the trend with everything these days. Negatives sell more papers I guess.

I have to agree with you. Look at the Bears, both locally and nationally. Winning alone is not good enough these days. You have to do it with some other major storyline in order to be media darlings.

Dick Allen
01-17-2007, 09:38 AM
It bothers me when this kind of garbage comes from the paper that DOESN'T own the Flubs.

kittle42
01-17-2007, 09:45 AM
Oh great, yet another thread where everyone pisses and moans because a Sox article has some negative-sounding comment in it. I still say that some of you won't be happy until the Sox get Iraqi information minister Trib-on-the-Cubs type treatment 100% of the timeby any and all news outlets. Which, of course, also makes those same people hypocrites.

soxfan13
01-17-2007, 09:46 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/213644,CST-SPT-sox17.article

I'm starting to think Ross Perot was right about that "Dirty Tricks" campaign allegation...LOL. Nice job, Cowley, is there even a story here worth writing an entire column about?

To top it off, if you look on their sports page, there's another story about a former White Sox ballgirl complaining of discrimination.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/213740,CST-NWS-suit17.article

Lovely way for the Sox PR department to start their day, I'm sure.

Actually in the real newspaper the ballgirl article is no where near the sports page. its on page 9 and dont you think that its news?

caulfield12
01-17-2007, 10:42 AM
Actually in the real newspaper the ballgirl article is no where near the sports page. its on page 9 and dont you think that its news?


I live in Kansas City and have no way of seeing the "real" newspaper, so I thought it was in the sports section because they were both grouped together with "Sox news" there.

cws05champ
01-17-2007, 10:45 AM
I have no problem with this article, I thought it was mostly unbiased. He is just stating his opinion in the article on what he belives to be happening ...get over it people! I have problems with most of the articles from the Trib because of the clear conflict of interest, no such case here.

JoeyCora28
01-17-2007, 10:51 AM
--"He became the first third baseman in Sox history to win the Silver Slugger as the league's top batter at his position, and his 30 homers were the second-most in franchise history by a third baseman, trailing only Robin Ventura's 32 in 1996."--


Not meaning to hijack or nitpick, but can't they even get facts straight? I guess the fact that Bill Melton hit 33 twice doesn't count anymore...

chisoxmike
01-17-2007, 10:56 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/213740,CST-NWS-suit17.article

Lovely way for the Sox PR department to start their day, I'm sure.

Well, I don't think she's telling the truth. But, if they did fire them becuase the Sox claimed they were the reason for the problems, she may have a case. But I don't see how ball girls could lead to people wanting to run on the field.:?:

chisoxmike
01-17-2007, 11:06 AM
Also, I don't see how and why KW would be involved in this...

Wilkes says Sox General Manager Ken Williams told her that "recent well-publicized incidents involving unruly fans entering the field was the reason for the termination."

caulfield12
01-17-2007, 11:12 AM
Also, I don't see how and why KW would be involved in this...


I suppose the idea that chubby (think Augustus Gloop or McGwire's kid) 14 year old ballboys would scare off and intimate the "field rushers" flies?

C'mon.

It would be one thing if they had a couple of twenty-five year old "Gabe Kaplers" patrolling the lines...they might actually make a person think twice. But the average MLB ballboy with the jersey 2 sizes too big?

BainesHOF
01-17-2007, 11:19 AM
It took two reporters to write that story?

the gooch
01-17-2007, 11:46 AM
I suppose the idea that chubby (think Augustus Gloop or McGwire's kid) 14 year old ballboys would scare off and intimate the "field rushers" flies?

C'mon.

It would be one thing if they had a couple of twenty-five year old "Gabe Kaplers" patrolling the lines...they might actually make a person think twice. But the average MLB ballboy with the jersey 2 sizes too big?
It says in the article that the ballgirls were replaced by security personnel. The job description changed, and she was not qualified.

caulfield12
01-17-2007, 11:53 AM
But didn't they keep the ballboys too, along with the additional security personnel?

I would think they would have a case for gender discrimination, potentially. Now, what type of redress or damages a civil court could instate would be another question altogether. Or perhaps they should have kept the ballgirls and changed the rules for all future employees under that job description.

Iwritecode
01-17-2007, 12:04 PM
Well, I don't think she's telling the truth. But, if they did fire them becuase the Sox claimed they were the reason for the problems, she may have a case. But I don't see how ball girls could lead to people wanting to run on the field.:?:

It seems to me KW fired her for saftey concerns. He doesn't want her on the field if another moron decides to jump the fence and attack somebody. Nowhere in his comments did I see him say that they were fired because "rowdy fans were more likely to charge onto the field when girls were present" which is what she is claiming.

That doesn't even make sense...

Hitmen77
01-17-2007, 12:45 PM
I guess the problem that I have with the Cowley article is that I don't follow the logic that the Sox and Crede agreeing to a 1 year deal "doesn't bode well" for Crede's future with the Sox.

Yes, Crede's future is a question mark. The insane FA market, his back problems, the fact that Boras is his agent, and the fact that the Sox have Josh Fields are definite factors in this equation that might mean Crede's days with the Sox are numbered.

....but what in the world does that have to do with this new 1 year contract? Why is this 1-year deal, in and of itself, a "bad sign"?:?: IMO, I would argue that this 1-year deal really doesn't tell us anything about Crede's liklihood to stay with the Sox. Given that he won't be a FA for 2 more seasons, this is just a typical deal for an arbitration eligible player. Actually, if I wanted to err on the side of optimism, I would even say it is a positive sign that the Sox and Joe were able to work out a deal and avoid arbitration. I think if Joe went through arbitration, then the "Doesn't Bode Well" tag would make more sense.

CWSRULE
01-17-2007, 02:46 PM
I'm not sure where this is idea is coming that Hahn has some magical ability to inject himself into the Crede/Boras situation and go in a completely different direction from what KW and JR are dictating. It's a nice theory, like the one that Ozzie is going to bring out flocks of Venezuelan prospects and star Venezuelan FA's are all going to sign with us...

Has there ever been a deal he negotiated that would have been lost had he not been involved? Just curious...was he involved in the negotiations for Contreras, Garland and Konerko? With the FA's that came in before the 2005 season? Any recollections?

According to White Sox media guide, Hahn negotiated the deals for Buehrle, Garcia, Konerko, Pierzynski and others. I seem to recall him also being the one annoucning the Contreras deal. Who knows if he can change the whole Boras thing, but at least the got a deal done with him instead of going to arbitration, which is what the Sun-Times story should have been about.

bechtel129
01-17-2007, 03:05 PM
Why couldn't they keep the ballgirls, and hire add'l security? The ballgirls along the foul lines were a nice touch to what was known as a sterile park at the time. Sounds very cheap to me to fire loyal employees that made $75 bucks a game! Sounds like grounds for a suit here, it is very disheartening to hear about this. The Sox will probably settle out of court to avoid arbitration!

caulfield12
01-17-2007, 03:11 PM
I remember in the Quad-Cities (Midwest League) where I grew up, there was this guy called "RoadRunner" that every one hated because he would sprint around the stadium (well, not sprint, he was an old, ornery guy) and take foul balls away from the fans, even the kids.

This lasted until the late 80's.

Minor league franchises certainly became fan friendly and popular/cheaper family entertainment alternatives as the 90's dawned.

areilly
01-17-2007, 03:31 PM
Maybe my problem is with the headlines that were written for these two stories....coming together on the same day.


For what it's worth, most reporters don't write their own headlines. Blame Cowley for whatever you like, but the "doesn't bode well" bit wasn't his doing.

rainbow6
01-17-2007, 03:40 PM
The logic goes something this:

Assuming Joe Crede continues to perform at his current level (near Gold Glove defense, 30 HR, etc) or improves, his price tag for a multi-year contract is only going to keep escalating as the year progresses.

If the Sox and Crede couldn't agree on a multi-year deal now, the likelihood of it materializing at a later date appears dim.

I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but I think that's what Cowley's angle was.


I guess the problem that I have with the Cowley article is that I don't follow the logic that the Sox and Crede agreeing to a 1 year deal "doesn't bode well" for Crede's future with the Sox.

Yes, Crede's future is a question mark. The insane FA market, his back problems, the fact that Boras is his agent, and the fact that the Sox have Josh Fields are definite factors in this equation that might mean Crede's days with the Sox are numbered.

....but what in the world does that have to do with this new 1 year contract? Why is this 1-year deal, in and of itself, a "bad sign"?:?: IMO, I would argue that this 1-year deal really doesn't tell us anything about Crede's liklihood to stay with the Sox. Given that he won't be a FA for 2 more seasons, this is just a typical deal for an arbitration eligible player. Actually, if I wanted to err on the side of optimism, I would even say it is a positive sign that the Sox and Joe were able to work out a deal and avoid arbitration. I think if Joe went through arbitration, then the "Doesn't Bode Well" tag would make more sense.

caulfield12
01-17-2007, 05:08 PM
Why couldn't they keep the ballgirls, and hire add'l security? The ballgirls along the foul lines were a nice touch to what was known as a sterile park at the time. If I were a 12 year old boy, I would much rather have a smokin' hottie pass me a foul ball rather than a 55 year old retired cop! Sounds very cheap to me to fire loyal employees that made $75 bucks a game! Sounds like grounds for a suit here, it is very disheartening to hear about this. The Sox will probably settle out of court to avoid arbitration!

How about Katie Rees, former Miss Nevada (thanks, Donald)?

Her and her "spring break" friends would allow us to expand the payroll to $150,000,000 if they performed down the foul-lines each game.

DumpJerry
01-17-2007, 06:05 PM
The Cowley headline is correct. Crede's signing does not bode well for the Tigers, Twins, Indians, Royals, etc.....

maurice
01-18-2007, 12:19 PM
The White Sox would like to think their contract agreement with Joe Crede on Tuesday brought them one year closer to a multiyear deal. Reality, however, is that the sides likely have moved one year closer to parting ways.

Nobody here or in the media knows how long Crede will be with the team, but why should we believe Cowley over Hahn?

Chicagosports.com posted something similar, but then edited the article and removed the remarks after Hahn said they weren't true.

As for the ball girl article, it barely qualifies as news. BS complaints are filed against businesses every day, and they don't appear in the papers. This one is no different.

She says that all the ballgirls were fired the same day as the Dybas thing. I remember. MLB insisted that the Sox ramp up on-field security and they decided to replace the ballgirls with well-qualified security personnel. Even if we all agree that ballgirls are lovely and should have been kept around, this does not remotely qualify as illegal discrimination.