PDA

View Full Version : More Rogers "Cubs love" & Drew to Cubs and caulfield12 Flubsession


caulfield12
01-20-2007, 09:49 PM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-070120rogers,1,6995345.column?coll=cs-home-headlines


This is getting to be almost humorous every week.

Vernam
01-20-2007, 10:11 PM
Rogers sez: The bottom line is that since the disastrous Juan Pierre trade, the Cubs have added a lot of talent without losing much. Hendry is using money instead of sacrificing young players to improve.:rolleyes:

If he had any prospects besides the already-legendary Pie, Hendry would gladly ship them off it it would save his job this year.

Despite being an ND fan, but I'm already sick of hearing about Samardzija. Has there ever been a franchise that was quicker to hype its young players, even before they play an MLB game?

Vernam

caulfield12
01-20-2007, 10:16 PM
Rogers sez: :rolleyes:

If he had any prospects besides the already-legendary Pie, Hendry would gladly ship them off it it would save his job this year.

Despite being an ND fan, but I'm already sick of hearing about Samardzija. Has there ever been a franchise that was quicker to hype its young players, even before they play an MLB game?

Vernam

I can see it now....Zbikowski is going to sing the National Anthem and then have a fight with Antonio Tarver after a Fox Game of the Week.

Or maybe Weiss will sing Take Me Out to the Ball game? LOL.

Domeshot17
01-20-2007, 10:24 PM
I can see it now....Zbikowski is going to sing the National Anthem and then have a fight with Antonio Tarver after a Fox Game of the Week.

Or maybe Weiss will sing Take Me Out to the Ball game? LOL.

Or maybe between the game and the fight, Weiss can compete in a hot dog eating challenge, Charlie vs Wrigleyville

caulfield12
01-21-2007, 06:22 AM
Or maybe between the game and the fight, Weiss can compete in a hot dog eating challenge, Charlie vs Wrigleyville


Now you've done it. All the ND fans (and Farmio) are going to jump on you for not realizing that he couldn't partcipate, he's had gastric bypass surgery.

soxtalker
01-21-2007, 08:57 AM
Rogers' column is usually one of the first ones I read in the Sunday morning paper, and today was no exception. I actually thought it was a very interesting analysis. And for a little perspective, I've been an avid Sox fan with no love for the Cubs since the early 60's.

Now, I know that a lot of WSI members have taken the view that Rogers compliments toward the Cubs' moves this off season indicate that he thinks that the Sox should do the same. I don't have the same interpretation. The Cubs are in a very different position than the Sox. They are a very bad team, and their management (GM in particular) needs to turn things around as fast as possible (probably to allow the option of a sale). They've thrown the one thing they have at the problem -- money. They've spent a ton of (mostly future) money in this off season on what looks to me like a fairly mediocre set of FA's.

I found two things interesting in Rogers article.

The first is that the 2007 salary figures for the Cubs is pretty close to the $100MM mark. That isn't overly surprising, but it does confirm that the Cubs management is paying with future dollars. I don't envy their payroll issues 3-5 years out.

The second was the strategy with signing minor league prospects. They are again using (mostly future) dollars to sign minor league prospects that have slipped past other teams, because they were considered poor signing risks. As we all know, Kenny has also been loading up on prospects. But there are a couple of contracts with the Cubs. First, he's using the tactic of trading
veterans. (It brings to mind the old phrase -- trade them a year too early, rather than a year too late.) Second, KW has largely gone after AA and AAA prospects, which are probably have a higher probability of success.

I would have preferred to read about the Sox (probably difficult, since three isn't anything new in the past couple of weeks) or about some of the Sox competition. But the article did make me think about the contrasts with the Sox. And it is the Cubs convention weekend, and we'll probably hear a lot more about the Sox after the Bears are done.

caulfield12
01-21-2007, 10:33 AM
Okay, smart aleck (whoever changed the thread title).

I'll make a deal with you. I won't ever mention the Cubs again on this site.

Why don't we ban all Cubs' talk? I'll tell you why, because it's half of what White Sox fans talk about. It's just like Yankees fans w/ the Red Sox and vice-versa, or Mets/Yankees, Cardinals/Cubs.

Rogers is fawning all over the Cubs, and he used to be a pretty objective baseball writer until about 2 months ago. In fact, I would have argued he was more "pro-Sox" than anything.

This isn't JFK, Conspiracy Theory stuff...anyone who monitors the articles this offseason can detect a noticeable shift in the tone and tenor of Sox articles and Cubs articles.

Do you think that's a coincidence, that the White Sox catching and even surpassing the Cubs in ratings, marketing, popularity...might not be affecting this at all?

White Sox fans will always be proud of their identities as "grinders" and "South Siders" and "blue collar," while Cubs will always be "yuppies" and "tourists" lacking knowledge of the game, parked on their cellphones and urinating in the streets.

But I will go along, if you want to ban everyone who mentions the Cubs at this site, it won't be hard for me.

itsnotrequired
01-21-2007, 10:48 AM
Why don't we ban all Cubs' talk? I'll tell you why, because it's half of what White Sox fans talk about. It's just like Yankees fans w/ the Red Sox and vice-versa, or Mets/Yankees, Cardinals/Cubs.

The difference is that Yankees/Red Sox and Cardinals/Cubs are actual, direct rivals. Cubs/Sox are not. I'm not an expert on Mets/Yankees fan relationships but from what I understand, neither team's fans really care about the others.

As for "half of what White Sox fans talk about" is the Cubs, you're certainly keeping that dream alive; 3 of the last 5 threads you have started are related to the Cubs.

caulfield12
01-21-2007, 10:53 AM
The difference is that Yankees/Red Sox and Cardinals/Cubs are actual, direct rivals. Cubs/Sox are not. I'm not an expert on Mets/Yankees fan relationships but from what I understand, neither team's fans really care about the others.

As for "half of what White Sox fans talk about" is the Cubs, you're certainly keeping that dream alive; 3 of the last 5 threads you have started are related to the Cubs.


Fine talk about the Sox...anything? This board has been dead for 2 weeks, and I usually post Rogers' stuff.

Last weekend, it was another criticism of the KW's offseason. If it had been about the Sox, I would have written about that aspect. ANd he also writes about other "general" baseball issues, trades, rumors, etc.

Satisfied, oh ye monitor of my Cubs' posts?

Grzegorz
01-21-2007, 11:01 AM
The difference is that Yankees/Red Sox and Cardinals/Cubs are actual, direct rivals. Cubs/Sox are not.

They sure are rivals. They share the same city so they must compete for players (as do all teams), fans, press, merchandising, etc...

itsnotrequired
01-21-2007, 11:03 AM
Fine talk about the Sox...anything? This board has been dead for 2 weeks, and I usually post Rogers' stuff.

Last weekend, it was another criticism of the KW's offseason. If it had been about the Sox, I would have written about that aspect. ANd he also writes about other "general" baseball issues, trades, rumors, etc.

Satisfied, oh ye monitor of my Cubs' posts?

The board has been dead for two weeks? What board are you reading? 10 of the last 14 days have post totals above the board average of about 650 posts a day.

I have no problem with discussing Rogers and his articles.

itsnotrequired
01-21-2007, 11:11 AM
They sure are rivals. They share the same city so they must compete for players (as do all teams), fans, press, merchandising, etc...

If you want to consider player competition, then every team should be considered a Sox rival. How about that Sox/Marlins rivalry?:D:

The Sox drew nearly 3 million to the park last year. The Chicago area has a large enough population base to support two MLB teams. Competition for fans shouldn't be an issue.

As for press, who cares? The Cubs could have as many newspaper articles and newsclips as they want. It isn't going to win any games for them or cause the Sox to lose anything.

I'm pretty sure profits from merch sales are split equally among all the MLB teams.

caulfield12
01-21-2007, 11:19 AM
As it turns out, probably most of the people in China would have to be walking around in Cardinal T-shirts to afford people like Zito and Alfonso Soriano. Here's how it works:

If you're interested in putting money into the Cardinal coffers, the best place to buy is the team store at Busch Stadium. That's where the team receives the largest percentage of sales, although Bryant said she was not at liberty to say what that percentage was or how much the team rakes in annually on merchandise sales and licensing fees.

Next best are the Cardinals Clubhouse shops run by Sports Avenue Inc. The team licenses Sports Avenue, which, in turn, pays a portion of license fees back to the Cardinals.

The worst place to buy is just about anywhere else. whether it's Macy's, Schnucks or Wal-Mart. All of the products sold at stores such as Macy's, Schnucks or Wal-Mart are licensed by Major League Baseball Properties and the league's 30 teams share equally in the royalties collected. So, whether you buy a Cardinal hat or (heaven forbid) a Yankee jersey, the Cards and every other team eventually wind up with a tiny portion of the sale.

from belleville news-democrat

soxfan13
01-21-2007, 11:38 AM
Okay, smart aleck (whoever changed the thread title).

I'll make a deal with you. I won't ever mention the Cubs again on this site.

Why don't we ban all Cubs' talk? I'll tell you why, because it's half of what White Sox fans talk about. It's just like Yankees fans w/ the Red Sox and vice-versa, or Mets/Yankees, Cardinals/Cubs.

Rogers is fawning all over the Cubs, and he used to be a pretty objective baseball writer until about 2 months ago. In fact, I would have argued he was more "pro-Sox" than anything.

This isn't JFK, Conspiracy Theory stuff...anyone who monitors the articles this offseason can detect a noticeable shift in the tone and tenor of Sox articles and Cubs articles.

Do you think that's a coincidence, that the White Sox catching and even surpassing the Cubs in ratings, marketing, popularity...might not be affecting this at all?

White Sox fans will always be proud of their identities as "grinders" and "South Siders" and "blue collar," while Cubs will always be "yuppies" and "tourists" lacking knowledge of the game, parked on their cellphones and urinating in the streets.

But I will go along, if you want to ban everyone who mentions the Cubs at this site, it won't be hard for me.

I dont know about tone but I think it is just a natural case of the Cubs doing alot more this off season and whether you like their moves or not the papers are going to say "why arent the White Sox doing more?" . I am pretty sure if it was the Sox making all the moves it would be reversed. Look at last off season for instance. One big move for the Sox(the Thome trade) and the papers were all over the Cubs for not doing enough to improve their team.

DumpJerry
01-21-2007, 12:09 PM
ok, ok. Let's all take a deep breath.

Caulfield, you probably think WSI is "dead" these days because this is, after all, the off-season. There are no Sox games to cheer or moan about, no news coming from the team until next month when pitchers and catchers report (except next weekend with Soxfest). Even if the Sox make a trade or FA signing, that generates about 2-3 days of postings and then dies off.

Spend time with your family, job and community. There will be plenty of Sox monitoring to do soon enough.

caulfield12
01-21-2007, 12:25 PM
Ok, DumpJerry, I'll help you earn your moderating keep...

Seriously, if someone has a problem with too many Cubs posts, send me a PM. Don't try to embarass me, of course I am going to react negatively. It's just a matter of respect IMO.

For instance, it gets aggravating when Fenway posts about the Red Sox in "Talking Baseball" and people jump all over him (occasionally). Why are they reading his posts if they don't care? It's it is something pertaining to another team, there are certainly appropriate places for it, and those articles and threads are free to be consumed by whoever so chooses.

I have a sense that almost everyone here has commented upon the Cubs once or twice in their lifetimes, because these threads have their own special category, which gets a lot more hits than Talking Baseball.

I've been to two Cubs games in my life. Unfortunately, my very first baseball game in 1979. And then when all my friends were going to NU and the Sox were out of town. Personally, having been director of PR for a minor league team, I think it's fascinating to watch the not exactly transparent media battle that's currently raging for positioning of the two ballclubs. Some Sox fans are already expressing disgust that the other NL Central teams are making it too easy for the Cubs to be in the pennant race even.

So once again, if anyone has something to say, please send me a PM instead of handling it like that, it's all I ask as a White Sox fan. When you call someone out publicly, flames are bound to fly. It happens on all message boards. Invariably, the free speech argument comes up, to be quelled by a response from board admins or owners.

FarWestChicago
01-21-2007, 03:41 PM
because these threads have their own special category, which gets a lot more hits than Talking Baseball.Fortunately, this is not true. There aren't quite enough of the Flubsessed for this crap forum to overtake Talking Baseball.

Dick Allen
01-21-2007, 03:54 PM
Hang in there, Caulfield. I'm with you all the way.

caulfield12
01-21-2007, 04:30 PM
You were there at chisox.com in the old ncorgbl era, weren't you?

Those were the days, lol!

bryPt
01-21-2007, 05:26 PM
I like Cub bashing, Cubune bashing, and seeing everyone rant about it here. If we can't do it here, under a page header that has LOSERVILLE HOME OF THE URINAL under it, where should we go?

Or is it because Mr. Rogers stopped here one day to defend himself and we don't want to hurt his feelings? I think if the guy writes a braindead article, or 30 in his case, then he should be in the firing line. If he can't take it, he should go work at a paper that nobody reads. (Which apparently more and more every day is the Cubune.)

TornLabrum
01-21-2007, 05:26 PM
You were there at chisox.com in the old ncorgbl era, weren't you?

Those were the days, lol!

I was a moderator there in those days. I don't think I can count the number of posts I had to alter, especially by that moron.

caulfield12
01-21-2007, 05:31 PM
ColSat46 really did pass away, didn't he? He was like the Lip of that board, I really started off not liking him because he was buddies with Voldemort, but we finally gained some respect for each other.

I was sad to hear of his passing, he really loved the White Sox. I was never a big military person myself, but my father was, and he had lots of story about the "good 'ol days."

By the way, I wish Jon Rauch came back from a torn labrum as well as Drew Brees did.

FarWestChicago
01-21-2007, 05:41 PM
Or is it because Mr. Rogers stopped here one day to defend himself and we don't want to hurt his feelings?No, it's because the Flubsessed are a walking stereotype and an embarrassment to Sox fans. :rolleyes:

Daver
01-21-2007, 05:45 PM
I like Cub bashing, Cubune bashing, and seeing everyone rant about it here. If we can't do it here, under a page header that has LOSERVILLE HOME OF THE URINAL under it, where should we go?

Or is it because Mr. Rogers stopped here one day to defend himself and we don't want to hurt his feelings? I think if the guy writes a braindead article, or 30 in his case, then he should be in the firing line. If he can't take it, he should go work at a paper that nobody reads. (Which apparently more and more every day is the Cubune.)

This has nothing to do with Phil's feelings, believe it or not, he doesn't give a rat's ass what you think of him. It is the fact that this is a White Sox board, not an Anti Cubs board. If you feel the need to post about the Cubs, do it at an anti Cubs site, this is not one.

itsnotrequired
01-21-2007, 06:02 PM
No, it's because the Flubsessed are a walking stereotype and an embarrassment to Sox fans. :rolleyes:

I grew up in Wisconsin so didn't experience the whole Sox fan vs. Cubs fan phenomenon as a child. After I moved here in 2001 and picked the Sox as my team, one of the first things people would ask me is how much did I hate the Cubs. Huh? I didn't get it. Now maybe its because I didn't grow up here but I always found the whole "part of being a Sox fan is hating the Cubs" angle to be a little goofy.

caulfield12
01-21-2007, 08:03 PM
The eighth "Cubune" thread has 18,711 views. None by me. Nor a single post.

Brian26
01-21-2007, 08:16 PM
The eighth "Cubune" thread has 18,711 views. None by me. Nor a single post.

You seem more Phil Rogers-obsessed than Flubsessed; neither of which is anything to be proud of.

Rogers has written a couple of debatable columns this off-season, but this week's wasn't noteworthy. It was neither anti-White sox nor overly pro-Cubs.

You seem to be grasping at unnecessary straws in some bizarre Phil Rogers witch-hunt. Nobody has a problem with discussing his more controversial columns, but you weaken your stance and your reputation in predictably calling him out every-single-week.

caulfield12
01-21-2007, 09:26 PM
You think fawning over a system that hasn't produced anything beyond Bobby Hill, Kevin Orie or Gary Scott is going a little overboard?

It might as well have been written by the Cubs' PR department. At least the White Sox prospects are close to being ready for the big leagues. That, and talking about the Vazquez, McCarthy and Garcia trades over and over again gets a wee bit redundant.

Brian26
01-21-2007, 11:20 PM
That, and talking about the Vazquez, McCarthy and Garcia trades over and over again gets a wee bit redundant.

The Vazquez, McCarthy and Garcia trades weren't mentioned in this week's column (the subject of this thread).

bryPt
01-22-2007, 09:30 AM
No, it's because the Flubsessed are a walking stereotype and an embarrassment to Sox fans. :rolleyes:

If this is so, I would seriously change the image at the top of this forum.

"LOSERVILLE, HOME OF THE URINAL," ronny woo woo in cub jersey, and sammy dancing with barney is all pretty stereotypical.

Actually, it is all KW's fault, if he would trade more and sign more free agents, we would have more Sox stuff to talk about!

WizardsofOzzie
01-22-2007, 10:31 AM
If this is so, I would seriously change the image at the top of this forum.

"LOSERVILLE, HOME OF THE URINAL," ronny woo woo in cub jersey, and sammy dancing with barney is all pretty stereotypical.

Actually, it is all KW's fault, if he would trade more and sign more free agents, we would have more Sox stuff to talk about!

:tealpolice:

Hitmen77
01-22-2007, 12:08 PM
The eighth "Cubune" thread has 18,711 views. None by me. Nor a single post.

So, how can you complain about the content of that thread if you've never looked at it even once?:?:

If you actually viewed that thread, you would see that the posts are mostly Onion-esque jokes poking fun at Cubune media bias. It's not just full of anti-media rants.

palehozenychicty
01-22-2007, 12:29 PM
The difference is that Yankees/Red Sox and Cardinals/Cubs are actual, direct rivals. Cubs/Sox are not. I'm not an expert on Mets/Yankees fan relationships but from what I understand, neither team's fans really care about the others.

As for "half of what White Sox fans talk about" is the Cubs, you're certainly keeping that dream alive; 3 of the last 5 threads you have started are related to the Cubs.

It heated up after the Subway series of 2000, but the Met/Yankee rivalry didn't span over a century of crosstown animosity, only about 40+ years. Cubs/White Sox also spans across a broader spectrum of tangibles incl. race/class/mindset. Thus, the Met/Yankee rivalry is nowhere near as intense.

caulfield12
01-22-2007, 04:11 PM
So, how can you complain about the content of that thread if you've never looked at it even once?:?:

If you actually viewed that thread, you would see that the posts are mostly Onion-esque jokes poking fun at Cubune media bias. It's not just full of anti-media rants.



My point was that if I was so obsessed with the Cubs, why would I never once post in one of the ubiquitous Cubune threads???

Well, I guess we can keep beating this thing in the ground. My point is that there is a lot of discussion here by many members of the board.

Oh, well.

DumpJerry
01-22-2007, 04:22 PM
It heated up after the Subway series of 2000, but the Met/Yankee rivalry didn't span over a century of crosstown animosity, only about 40+ years. Cubs/White Sox also spans across a broader spectrum of tangibles incl. race/class/mindset. Thus, the Met/Yankee rivalry is nowhere near as intense.
This season is the 45th anniversary of the Mets' first season.

There are still old timers in New York who act like the Giants and Dodgers never left. Baseball rivalries run deeper than ethnic rivalries around the world.

PennStater98r
01-22-2007, 06:07 PM
I can see it now....Zbikowski is going to sing the National Anthem and then have a fight with Antonio Tarver after a Fox Game of the Week.

Or maybe Weiss will sing Take Me Out to the Ball game? LOL.

Are you kidding me? You think that's all he's got? He's going to pilot one of the fighter jets for a fly over celebrating their 100 year "anniversary" of their last World Series championship.

:cool:

mshake10
01-28-2007, 07:21 PM
It is the fact that this is a White Sox board, not an Anti Cubs board. If you feel the need to post about the Cubs, do it at an anti Cubs site, this is not one.
Is that why the front page has a "Totally Biased NEWS WATCH", which watches the Tribune like a hawk (albet no posts in the past 9 months)? Is that why just about all of the columns on here are about ripping on the Cubs, or at least includes one shot when it's not even necessary?

And let's not forget the "Totally Biased" tagline, which in addition to this folder, seems to me that this site was created mostly out of spite and less so much on becoming a discussion for White Sox fans.

Of course, I was wrong about the whole teal thing, so who knows. :D:

ilsox7
01-28-2007, 07:24 PM
And let's not forget the "Totally Biased" tagline, which in addition to this folder, seems to me that this site was created mostly out of spite and less so much on becoming a discussion for White Sox fans.

Of course, I was wrong about the whole teal thing, so who knows. :D:

Do a little reading/research and you'll find out where the Totally Biased tag line came from.

FarWestChicago
01-28-2007, 09:12 PM
And let's not forget the "Totally Biased" tagline, which in addition to this folder, seems to me that this site was created mostly out of spite and less so much on becoming a discussion for White Sox fans.

Of course, I was wrong about the whole teal thing, so who knows. :D:And you are wrong about the origin and purpose of this site, also. Quit while you are behind.

DumpJerry
01-28-2007, 10:15 PM
Is that why the front page has a "Totally Biased NEWS WATCH", which watches the Tribune like a hawk (albet no posts in the past 9 months)? Is that why just about all of the columns on here are about ripping on the Cubs, or at least includes one shot when it's not even necessary?

And let's not forget the "Totally Biased" tagline, which in addition to this folder, seems to me that this site was created mostly out of spite and less so much on becoming a discussion for White Sox fans.

Of course, I was wrong about the whole teal thing, so who knows. :D:
Who said we watch the Tribune "like a Hawk?" the fact that the article is from April of last year should tell you something. When April 2nd rolls around, you will see what we mean by "Totally biased" coverage. It is the most subjective coverage of the White Sox in the world!