PDA

View Full Version : How Tribune Manufactured Buerhle Controversy


jeffmcmahon
01-28-2007, 04:37 PM
When they're not fawning over new Cub Alfonso Soriano, Tribune sportswriters are busy making up controversies for the White Sox, and here, broken down, is the anatomy of a particularly pernicious one:

In a Jan. 11 story, Tribune reporter Dave van Dyck stated outright that the White Sox would not re-sign Mark Buehrle after the 2007 season. In van Dyck's words:
So it should not be surprising that Sox general manager Ken Williams will not try to re-sign the team's recognized pitching leader after giving him a chance for an extension last spring.
"With the market as it is, I don't anticipate making that overture again," Williams said recently.
In other words Buehrle's $9.5 million this year will be his last salary from the Sox, who should have younger (and cheaper) options by next season.

The problem with van Dyck's story was immediately evident to many of us -- that "in other words" sentence was not an accurate interpretation of Ken Williams' actual words. Anyone who follows Kenny's work knows he wouldn't say that. A lot of Sox fans, who maintain a better understanding of Kenny Williams and a healthy skepticism of the Tribune, noticed the problem with van Dyck's story right away. Brian Dykes started a thread here (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1460633), and Sox fans dissected the situation in detail. We now know they dissected it accurately. More accurately than Dave van Dyck or any of the local journalists who have since covered the story.

With van Dyck's innacurate interpretation of Ken Williams still on the wind, Mark Buerhle comes to SoxFest and says, "Yeah, I saw the quote about him saying that I won't be in a White Sox uniform in 2008. That's part of the business. It's going to happen."

You see the problem: Kenny never said such a thing. A Tribune reporter said it. But now the Sun-Times and other local media, either oblivious or on bended knee to the Tribune, jump on the non-story, billing it as a fight between Ken Williams and Mark Buerhle. To quell the controversy, Williams apologizes to Buehrle. Now notice the precise wording of Kenny's apology, as quoted in the Tribune:

"I apologized because I should know better now than to answer direct questions with direct answers. I have to change the way that I'm doing this job.... In an effort to be truthful, honest, candid—it just doesn't work. On the surface, it would work if everything you said, every channel it went through after you said it, it would be interpreted the same way, in the same context. But that's not just the case. That's not just reality."

Kenny says he was misinterpreted, as Sox fans correctly surmised in their discussion of van Dyck's article. So he isn't apologizing for what he said, he's apologizing for trusting the people to whom he said it. He's realizing, again, that he has to be much more evasive with Chicago reporters, lest they pull a van Dyck and misinterpret and repackage a quote in a misleading way.

Here's what Buerhle had to say about it: "I told him there was no apology needed. It's something that some of the media people took differently and ran with it."

Now look at the cynical and insidious way the Tribune has played out a controversy that it created. First of all, the Williams-Buehrle story was the biggest story to come out of the first day of SoxFest, but the Tribune didn't cover it that day. Tribune reporter Mark Gonzalez was too busy looking for evidence of another controversy (http://www.cubune.com/2007/01/clueless-sportswriters-sow-doubt.html) that he tried, and failed, to manufacture. But how could the Tribune simply overlook this big Buehrle-Williams "battle," which made such a splash everywhere else? It was as if Tribune reporters knew, in their heart of hearts, that the story was false. What they needed was other media to pick up the story and give it currency. Thank you, Sun-Times, you're always on hand when the Tribune needs a gullible little brother to do its dirty work.

On Day Two the Tribune does start covering the controversy. Under the headline, "Who's Sorry Now? Williams," Gonzalez pulls yet another "in other words" interpretation. Here it is, Gonzalez's convenient misinterpretation of Williams' apology:
In other words, Williams didn't back off what he had said—he was just sorry he had said it publicly.
Wrong again, Mark. He's sorry he said it to people like you. Now Gonzalez is running interference for van Dyck and the Tribune. Even though Dave van Dyck had explicitly written on Jan. 11 that this was Buehrle's last year, Gonzalez tries to trace the controversy to a Williams quote from Dec. 8: "It would be if we did nothing and got old and got too expensive and then had to go out scrounging for leftover talent and overpaying for mediocre talent."

Notice that Mark Buerhle's name appears nowhere in that statement. The quote is not nearly as explicit as van Dyck's story. Let's revise a little history, shall we, to whitewash the Tribune's culpability. In another story today, under the headline "Buehrle: no apology necessary" Gonzalez tries to pin the inaccuracy of the media coverage on local radio.

We know better.

DaveIsHere
01-28-2007, 05:18 PM
Quite the 3rd post. Welcome!!

MarySwiss
01-28-2007, 05:40 PM
Anyone who uses the words "pernicious," "oblivious," "dissected," "surmised," "insidious," "mediocre," and "culpability" correctly in the same post is unobjectionable in my book! :D:

ondafarm
01-28-2007, 05:46 PM
Anyone who uses the words "pernicious," "oblivious," "dissected," "surmised," "insidious," "mediocre," and "culpability" correctly in the same post is unobjectionable in my book! :D:

It was a pernicious, oblivious, dissected, surmised, insidious, mediocre and culpable post.

soxfan13
01-28-2007, 05:53 PM
Again another issue with the Trib when almost the same thing was repported in the Sun Times.

DumpJerry
01-28-2007, 05:53 PM
I tend to ignore what goes on with the signings/trades/etc. the White Sox do until the deal actually gores down. I know that the media will focus on "conflict" even when there is none. This is not a White Sox conspiracy thing, just a general rule of media coverage of events.

I'm 100% certain that the Sox and Buerhle will try to work out a deal. Will it succeed? If I knew that, I would be buying up Lottery tickets.

RadioheadRocks
01-28-2007, 06:00 PM
Again another issue with the Trib when almost the same thing was repported in the Sun Times.


Just as the original post pointed out:

You see the problem: Kenny never said such a thing. A Tribune reporter said it. But now the Sun-Times and other local media, either oblivious or on bended knee to the Tribune, jump on the non-story, billing it as a fight between Ken Williams and Mark Buerhle.

DumpJerry
01-28-2007, 06:01 PM
Just as the original post pointed out:
Quote:
You see the problem: Kenny never said such a thing. A Tribune reporter said it. But now the Sun-Times and other local media, either oblivious or on bended knee to the Tribune, jump on the non-story, billing it as a fight between Ken Williams and Mark Buerhle
You talking about the Sun-Times? The same newspaper that employs Moronetti, the guy who copies quotes instead of getting them himself?

ILuvThatDuck
01-28-2007, 06:02 PM
I was about to say the same thing. :redneck

Gregory Pratt
01-28-2007, 06:20 PM
Bruce Levine reported that the deal offered by the Sox last year, turned down, was three years, thirty one million. If true, that's an incredible attempt to lowball him.

Frankly, I think this organization is going to decline to sign him because of money. I don't think anyone's worth what Zito got, but he deserves more than what was apparently offered. It all explains why they're so hungry for pitching of late, and brings truth to the story from December that the Sox will be replacing all their pitchers with prospects instead of re-signing them. I think it was Cowley who wrote that.

What the Sox should do is offer him five years, seventy million, with options that are automatically picked up if he meets incentives and can be picked up by management if he doesn't (or bought out, of course). Perhaps four years, with options for fifth and sixth years, might do, and that way management can protect itself a little.

caulfield12
01-28-2007, 07:04 PM
Geez, last July, it was a different world.

Do you think Sizemore, Crawford, Oswalt and Santana might want to get their clubs to take another look at their contracts right now?

Just look what Santana is getting and ask yourself how he feels, the unquestioned best pitcher in baseball right now.

Not that one had a lot to do with the other -- it's a simple fact that a healthy Santana would get far and away the largest deal ever for a pitcher should he sell himself to the high bidder. Still, Santana gave up his first two years of free agency to the Twins at a rather inexpensive rate (he signed a four-year, $40 million contract prior to 2005), and with the new ballpark opening up, the Twins should be able to make a fair offer to keep him beyond 2008. If Santana does become available in trade next winter, he's probably the one player the Yankees would give up Philip Hughes to bring in.http://fantasybaseball.usatoday.com/images/clear.gifSource: Minneapolis Star Tribune (http://www.startribune.com/508/story/905897.html)

jeffmcmahon
01-28-2007, 07:05 PM
Hey, thanks for the welcomes.

I don't know why Sun-Times lets Tribune set the agenda. If they stood up to Tribune, they'd have a lot more readers.

Scot Gregor at the Daily Herald probably had the best story on this today. He noted, for example, that both Buehrle and Williams had been posturing in their quotes, something Trib writers don't seem to notice, but Sox fans do. Why would Kenny ever say he's not going to sign somebody when he still has a year to do so? Dumb reporters. Kenny wants Buehrle to perform. Anyway, it's just amazing how devious the Tribune actually is, and it's not hard to document.

SoxandtheCityTee
01-28-2007, 08:13 PM
We know better.

We certainly do. We always have and always will. Welcome to the site.

DumpJerry
01-28-2007, 08:13 PM
Bruce Levine reported that the deal offered by the Sox last year, turned down, was three years, thirty one million. If true, that's an incredible attempt to lowball him.

Frankly, I think this organization is going to decline to sign him because of money. I don't think anyone's worth what Zito got, but he deserves more than what was apparently offered. It all explains why they're so hungry for pitching of late, and brings truth to the story from December that the Sox will be replacing all their pitchers with prospects instead of re-signing them. I think it was Cowley who wrote that.

What the Sox should do is offer him five years, seventy million, with options that are automatically picked up if he meets incentives and can be picked up by management if he doesn't (or bought out, of course). Perhaps four years, with options for fifth and sixth years, might do, and that way management can protect itself a little.
First of all, Levine is dead wrong factually on what he reports about 95% of the time. So until Levine starts citing sources by name, I'll ignore him. Of course if and when he were to cite his sources, we would be asking "who is the guy at the coffeeshop? Who is Levine's neighbor who sells siding?" I think those are his sources.

When the time comes, the Sox and Buerhle (he has no agent, but gets guidance from Arn Tellum-Big Frank's agent) will sit down and make a best effort to work out a deal. Mark has said he wants to stay here until the twiligh years of his career whereaupon he will probably go to the Cards (this is about 10 years away). The Sox realize the value of a steady left handed starter. Hopefully they will work it out.

oeo
01-28-2007, 08:16 PM
Bruce Levine reported that the deal offered by the Sox last year, turned down, was three years, thirty one million. If true, that's an incredible attempt to lowball him.

Oh come on, GP, consider the source.

tebman
01-28-2007, 08:27 PM
Welcome, Jeff! You do great work.

I've long thought that the Tribune isn't dishonest as much as it is narcissistic. It's so enamored with its own mythology that it reacts with amazement and outrage if anyone (like scruffy White Sox fans) dares suggest that it has conflicts of interest.

As you've pointed out on your website, the Tribune is first and foremost a marketing machine. Its business plan for decades has been to find synergy in print, broadcast, and entertainment behind a facade of old-money respectability. The Tribune bosses are running an advertising company, and promotion of the Cubs gives them a brand identity. If any good journalism happens to fall out, that's okay, but only as long as it's making money.

Of course it's not working so well for them right now because their assumptions about market dominance ran up against the FCC, the IRS, the refusal of the LA Times to submit quietly to cost-slashing demands, the softening of the advertising business, and (ahem) the White Sox' success. I don't think the writers are bad people -- I just think that the Tribune is a house of mirrors and the decision-makers don't understand what's going on outside.

Thanks again for your work. We need ornery, independent journalists much more than we need another corporate financial report.

champagne030
01-28-2007, 08:34 PM
We know better.

:worship:

Brian26
01-28-2007, 08:55 PM
This is one of the most well-thought-out, researched, and credible posts ever. Excellent work.

When they're not fawning over new Cub Alfonso Soriano, Tribune sportswriters are busy making up controversies for the White Sox, and here, broken down, is the anatomy of a particularly pernicious one:

In a Jan. 11 story, Tribune reporter Dave van Dyck stated outright that the White Sox would not re-sign Mark Buehrle after the 2007 season. In van Dyck's words:


The problem with van Dyck's story was immediately evident to many of us -- that "in other words" sentence was not an accurate interpretation of Ken Williams' actual words. Anyone who follows Kenny's work knows he wouldn't say that. A lot of Sox fans, who maintain a better understanding of Kenny Williams and a healthy skepticism of the Tribune, noticed the problem with van Dyck's story right away. Brian Dykes started a thread here (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1460633), and Sox fans dissected the situation in detail. We now know they dissected it accurately. More accurately than Dave van Dyck or any of the local journalists who have since covered the story.

With van Dyck's innacurate interpretation of Ken Williams still on the wind, Mark Buerhle comes to SoxFest and says, "Yeah, I saw the quote about him saying that I won't be in a White Sox uniform in 2008. That's part of the business. It's going to happen."

You see the problem: Kenny never said such a thing. A Tribune reporter said it. But now the Sun-Times and other local media, either oblivious or on bended knee to the Tribune, jump on the non-story, billing it as a fight between Ken Williams and Mark Buerhle. To quell the controversy, Williams apologizes to Buehrle. Now notice the precise wording of Kenny's apology, as quoted in the Tribune:



Kenny says he was misinterpreted, as Sox fans correctly surmised in their discussion of van Dyck's article. So he isn't apologizing for what he said, he's apologizing for trusting the people to whom he said it. He's realizing, again, that he has to be much more evasive with Chicago reporters, lest they pull a van Dyck and misinterpret and repackage a quote in a misleading way.

Here's what Buerhle had to say about it: "I told him there was no apology needed. It's something that some of the media people took differently and ran with it."

Now look at the cynical and insidious way the Tribune has played out a controversy that it created. First of all, the Williams-Buehrle story was the biggest story to come out of the first day of SoxFest, but the Tribune didn't cover it that day. Tribune reporter Mark Gonzalez was too busy looking for evidence of another controversy (http://www.cubune.com/2007/01/clueless-sportswriters-sow-doubt.html) that he tried, and failed, to manufacture. But how could the Tribune simply overlook this big Buehrle-Williams "battle," which made such a splash everywhere else? It was as if Tribune reporters knew, in their heart of hearts, that the story was false. What they needed was other media to pick up the story and give it currency. Thank you, Sun-Times, you're always on hand when the Tribune needs a gullible little brother to do its dirty work.

On Day Two the Tribune does start covering the controversy. Under the headline, "Who's Sorry Now? Williams," Gonzalez pulls yet another "in other words" interpretation. Here it is, Gonzalez's convenient misinterpretation of Williams' apology:

Wrong again, Mark. He's sorry he said it to people like you. Now Gonzalez is running interference for van Dyck and the Tribune. Even though Dave van Dyck had explicitly written on Jan. 11 that this was Buehrle's last year, Gonzalez tries to trace the controversy to a Williams quote from Dec. 8: "It would be if we did nothing and got old and got too expensive and then had to go out scrounging for leftover talent and overpaying for mediocre talent."

Notice that Mark Buerhle's name appears nowhere in that statement. The quote is not nearly as explicit as van Dyck's story. Let's revise a little history, shall we, to whitewash the Tribune's culpability. In another story today, under the headline "Buehrle: no apology necessary" Gonzalez tries to pin the inaccuracy of the media coverage on local radio.

We know better.

DickAllen72
01-28-2007, 09:10 PM
This is one of the most well-thought-out, researched, and credible posts ever. Excellent work.

I concur!

CLR01
01-28-2007, 09:28 PM
Hangar has a twin brother. Who knew.....:rolleyes:

Vernam
01-28-2007, 09:32 PM
Maybe Kenny's embarrassed about what happened in the press this weekend. Or maybe he's relieved that it didn't break into an all-out war with the media. If Ozzie's quotes start seeming carefully reasoned in comparison to Kenny's -- and they have, recently -- it could be a long season. KW keeps allowing himself to be goaded into saying things that, whether they're true or not, clearly aren't in his and the organization's best interests. In some of his comments after the Buehrle controversy hit the papers Saturday morning, KW stopped just short of blaming the media. Again, whether that's true, it damn sure isn't smart, and he's better than that.

The woman questioner who waved the Buehrle article in the Saturday seminar had a point (i.e., that he needs to control his temper) but took it too far, IMO, by wagging her finger at him and saying, "You should have learned your lesson with Frank Thomas." In an instant, Kenny went from conciliatory to icy. "That was a TOTALLY different situation," he said. I wonder if he realized later that he had just proven her point for her.

Reporters love to push buttons like that, and a major part of a GM's job description is knowing how to finesse the press. I've been one of Kenny's staunchest supporters, and I still am. His competitive fire is one that few can match. But he needs to stop saying how he doesn't care whether people approve of his strategy and start believing it.

Vernam

jeffmcmahon
01-28-2007, 11:14 PM
tebman and Verman, I agree with you both. Those are excellent points.

Kenny did get a little sloppy in the off-season. And he knows it now. The Daily Herald story ends with this quote from him: “I’m not going to let anyone bring me to that point ever again on a player. I’m just not going to do it.’’

It's amazing how many of the quotes in these stories refer to the coverage, but the reporters writing the coverage simply gloss their own role. And that's where we get to your point, tebman. I agree that these Tribune reporters aren't bad guys, for the most part, but they're inside of a culture that distorts their view of this city, they're too arrogant to feel their responsibility to the public, and they do things that are just plain wrong.

When this story started to blow up, someone at some newspaper needed to say, "Wait. This might just be a misunderstanding, and it might be our fault." It's amazing how far a statement like that will go to increase people's confidence in the press, but these guys won't do it. They routinely cover up for each other. It's also customary for reporters at rival papers to cover for each other. It's bad form to write critically about other journalists, but in this town, that's what needs to happen.

Not only do we have better reporters in the suburbs, but we have people on this forum who routinely outperform the sportswriters at our dailies. Only in Chicago. Only in Chicago. Thank you, Col. McCormick.

Risk
01-28-2007, 11:29 PM
Brilliant post. For once it is good to read a well-thought explanation rather than the usual babbling conspiracy theories.

Risk

HotelWhiteSox
01-29-2007, 12:36 AM
I think this can be traced back even furthur. If you remember early December, almost right after the Garcia trade was made official, Rogers had an article where he made it sound like Kenny went to the press and said that he was not going to resign any of the pitchers from the 05 staff, when this is what Rogers assumed because of the trade, and used that assumption as a big 'shame on the Sox' piece. At the time they were some pretty strong words for an assumption

ondafarm
01-29-2007, 01:18 AM
Frankly, I think this organization is going to decline to sign him because of money. I don't think anyone's worth what Zito got, but he deserves more than what was apparently offered. It all explains why they're so hungry for pitching of late, and brings truth to the story from December that the Sox will be replacing all their pitchers with prospects instead of re-signing them. I think it was Cowley who wrote that. . .

Try not believeing anything written in the Tribune or in the Sun-Times. The Sox will certainly be making a serious offer at Mark, especially given that he will have a very solid season this year.

bryPt
01-29-2007, 07:57 AM
Jeff, once again, you hit a home run. This one, a grand slam. The scary thing is, there are still on TON of people (lemmings) believing everything that rag puts out. Sox fans see right through their crap though, THANKFULLY!

Scary thought #2, how many other stories out there have the Cubune spun or manufactered that actually went under the radar? Thankfully, you have taken up the cause to track their crap so that there is a record out there for people to see.

If this is your first exposure to Jeff's wit, knowledge and accuracy, go on over to his site www.cubune.com (http://www.cubune.com) and give it a good read. His facts, humor and day to day tracking of Cubune bias is great, scary and funny. After reading it, you cannot believe how bias and incompetent the Cubune Company is.

veeter
01-29-2007, 10:09 AM
We certainly do. We always have and always will. Welcome to the site.Yes, welcome Jeff. And keep up the GREAT work.

maurice
01-29-2007, 12:32 PM
Excellent work, Jeff. Once again, the Cubune insists on repeating their invented story, even when it requires them to ignore and contradict the actual statements made by the key figures.

After MB's initial statement and KW's "apology," MB said that he's confident he'll resign with the Sox. KW said that he feels the same way about MB's deal as he once felt about Garland, Contreras, and Konerko.

Just thought I'd point that out here, since it probably will be ignored and / or contradicted by the Cubs' salaried press corps over at the Trib.

itsjustinf
01-29-2007, 12:37 PM
Great post. Great site (cubune.com). All in all, fantastic work. Well done.

bryPt
01-29-2007, 01:41 PM
Yeah know, I think it would be pretty funny if all of us here created a distribution list in your email software of all the IDIOT sportwriters email addys at the Cubune and emailed them the text of Jeff's freshest post at his site.

I know one of the I.T. guys over at the Cubune, and knowing him, it would take him weeks or months to block our email addresses through Exchange. So we would be able to email these idiots for weeks with the best of Jeff McMahon.

Oh heck, it would would just fall on deaf ears. They would care less. It would be like telling the Devil he is a bad person. At least we all know they are brainless, 401k money driven morons.

Iwritecode
01-29-2007, 01:55 PM
The woman questioner who waved the Buehrle article in the Saturday seminar had a point (i.e., that he needs to control his temper) but took it too far, IMO, by wagging her finger at him and saying, "You should have learned your lesson with Frank Thomas." In an instant, Kenny went from conciliatory to icy. "That was a TOTALLY different situation," he said. I wonder if he realized later that he had just proven her point for her.

She did it to him again? :o: What is this like the third time now?

One of these years he's going to get up and run when she steps up to the mic.

maurice
01-29-2007, 02:18 PM
She did it to him again? :o: What is this like the third time now?

Sure sounds like it.

caulfield12
01-29-2007, 02:55 PM
She sounds like a White Sox version of Helen Thomas.

southside rocks
01-29-2007, 03:41 PM
What a good post, Jeff McMahon.

Here's what I wish someone -- anyone -- would ask Mark Buehrle. I wish they would ask him, flat out, "Are you willing to sign a 3-year contract with the Sox?"

Because if he's not, if he's going to be looking for a 4-year, 5-year, or longer contract after the 2007 season, then he and the Sox will part ways. Williams is on record saying that the club won't do a long-term deal with ANY pitcher, that those deals never work out well for the club. I respect that and I don't expect that to change for MB.

I also respect MB's right and duty to get the best deal he can for himself.

So rather than huff and puff about who dissed who, I wish we could find out if MB will even consider a shorter-term deal on any money terms at all. Because that would answer a lot of questions.

I do realize that answering questions is not what the "writers" at the Sun-Times and Tribune really want to do, though.

Domeshot17
01-29-2007, 04:07 PM
Jeff McMahon, living proof that you can contribute more in 5 posts then some in 300. WoW, I bypass 95% of the bitching about the tribune that goes on here, but this was an incredible post. You bring more to the table with your 0.16 posts a day then some do with their 50

The Immigrant
01-30-2007, 08:57 AM
Williams is on record saying that the club won't do a long-term deal with ANY pitcher, that those deals never work out well for the club. I respect that and I don't expect that to change for MB.

I truly believe that this is just a negotiating tactic on KW's part. If the money is right the years shouldn't be a problem - especially when stiffs like Ted Lilly and Gil Meche are getting 4 or 5 year deals. Few people thought the Sox would commit 5 years to Paul Konerko, given his "degenerative hip condition" and all, and yet in the end a market deal was reached. Expect the same with Mark, who has the added benefit of not working with an agent. The real issue is whether the Sox should make Mark a long-term offer now or wait until he shows that the second half of last year was an aberration. That's a tougher call, and I can't blame KW if he at least waits until spring training to decide.

southside rocks
01-30-2007, 12:03 PM
I truly believe that this is just a negotiating tactic on KW's part. If the money is right the years shouldn't be a problem - especially when stiffs like Ted Lilly and Gil Meche are getting 4 or 5 year deals. Few people thought the Sox would commit 5 years to Paul Konerko, given his "degenerative hip condition" and all, and yet in the end a market deal was reached. Expect the same with Mark, who has the added benefit of not working with an agent. The real issue is whether the Sox should make Mark a long-term offer now or wait until he shows that the second half of last year was an aberration. That's a tougher call, and I can't blame KW if he at least waits until spring training to decide.

You may be right. I tend to take KW at his word on this, because I believe that the Sox (this current managerial team, anyway) have not ever given a contract of more than 3 years to a pitcher.

KW said that long-term deals with pitchers never work out well for the club that makes them, and I think he's got stats on his side in that ... So IMO a 5-year deal for Paul Konerko was unusual, but a 5-year deal for a pitcher is not going to happen. But I'll be very happy to be wrong on this!

There are two things that the Sox and MB need to agree on: the dollar figure, and the length of the contract. Either of those is a deal-breaker if the two sides don't agree. I'm hopeful that Buehrle will stay in Chicago, but I'm prepared for the worst, too, which is that he gets lured elsewhere by a 5- or 6-year deal. We'll see!

Tekijawa
01-30-2007, 01:57 PM
It was a pernicious, oblivious, dissected, surmised, insidious, mediocre and culpable post.

That's a perfectly Cromulant Observation.

soxtalker
01-30-2007, 02:34 PM
You may be right. I tend to take KW at his word on this, because I believe that the Sox (this current managerial team, anyway) have not ever given a contract of more than 3 years to a pitcher.

KW said that long-term deals with pitchers never work out well for the club that makes them, and I think he's got stats on his side in that ... So IMO a 5-year deal for Paul Konerko was unusual, but a 5-year deal for a pitcher is not going to happen. But I'll be very happy to be wrong on this!

There are two things that the Sox and MB need to agree on: the dollar figure, and the length of the contract. Either of those is a deal-breaker if the two sides don't agree. I'm hopeful that Buehrle will stay in Chicago, but I'm prepared for the worst, too, which is that he gets lured elsewhere by a 5- or 6-year deal. We'll see!

I agree. Those extra years simply represent risk that the Sox have not been willing to accept -- and there are other teams that will. And the gap of years is probably 2 or 3, as you suggest. Both sides are then likely to be put in the situation that it makes sense for him to sign with another team. It's not what I hope will happen.

Actually, although there was acrimony between the players and team management, it has often occurred to me that the Frank and Magglio situations also came down to questions of risk. Both were coming off of injuries, and the Sox simply weren't willing to take the risk. For Thomas, in particular, there were some contract timing issues that played a role. But in both cases, there were risks that the Sox just didn't think that they could afford to make.

mshake10
01-30-2007, 07:41 PM
Jeff, once again, you hit a home run. This one, a grand slam. The scary thing is, there are still on TON of people (lemmings) believing everything that rag puts out. Sox fans see right through their crap though, THANKFULLY!

Scary thought #2, how many other stories out there have the Cubune spun or manufactered that actually went under the radar? Thankfully, you have taken up the cause to track their crap so that there is a record out there for people to see.

If this is your first exposure to Jeff's wit, knowledge and accuracy, go on over to his site www.cubune.com (http://www.cubune.com) and give it a good read. His facts, humor and day to day tracking of Cubune bias is great, scary and funny. After reading it, you cannot believe how bias and incompetent the Cubune Company is.

The thread topic was a great article. Many of the articles on the site are great too, and quite accurate, although I don't think excluding the Sox (http://www.cubune.com/2007/01/tribune-stops-covering-white-sox-in_03.html) in an article in January counts as being bias :wink: .

jeffmcmahon
01-30-2007, 11:18 PM
The thread topic was a great article. Many of the articles on the site are great too, and quite accurate, although I don't think excluding the Sox in an article in January counts as being bias.

That's true, mshake, and we were teasing them a little bit there because they had actually gone several days without a White Sox story, but then a few days later we found out that Fred Mitchell column was actually more biased than we originally thought. Mitchell reported that Cubs President John McDonough won the "Lifetime Achievement Award," but McDonough actually won the Bill Veeck Lifetime Achievement Award." Hmm. Wonder why he left out those two words. And then he neglected to mention an award for Sox groundskeeper Roger Bossard, who I wouldn't trade for 1,000 McDonoughs, an award for Sox Scout Dan Durst, an award named after Bo Jackson, and recognition for Nancy Faust and Herm Schneider. All this in the midst of this drought of Sox news for the Tribune. Mitchell also left out an award for a veteran who lost an arm and two legs in Iraq. All to kiss McDonough's ass. What a newspaper.

ondafarm
02-01-2007, 02:22 AM
Maybe Kenny's embarrassed about what happened in the press this weekend. Or maybe he's relieved that it didn't break into an all-out war with the media. If Ozzie's quotes start seeming carefully reasoned in comparison to Kenny's -- and they have, recently -- it could be a long season. KW keeps allowing himself to be goaded into saying things that, whether they're true or not, clearly aren't in his and the organization's best interests. In some of his comments after the Buehrle controversy hit the papers Saturday morning, KW stopped just short of blaming the media. Again, whether that's true, it damn sure isn't smart, and he's better than that.

The woman questioner who waved the Buehrle article in the Saturday seminar had a point (i.e., that he needs to control his temper) but took it too far, IMO, by wagging her finger at him and saying, "You should have learned your lesson with Frank Thomas." In an instant, Kenny went from conciliatory to icy. "That was a TOTALLY different situation," he said. I wonder if he realized later that he had just proven her point for her.

Reporters love to push buttons like that, and a major part of a GM's job description is knowing how to finesse the press. I've been one of Kenny's staunchest supporters, and I still am. His competitive fire is one that few can match. But he needs to stop saying how he doesn't care whether people approve of his strategy and start believing it.

Vernam

So you're saying she was reading and evidently trusting in the Tribune. Sorry, I don't think much of people of that level of sophistication (or not.) I think Kenny knows he needed to talk to Mark as soon as any of this stupidity came out and tell him it is absolute fiction. As far as telling MB he needed to improve on his season, if he doesn't know that now, then he's not a professional baseball player.

RedHeadPaleHoser
02-01-2007, 08:09 AM
So you're saying she was reading and evidently trusting in the Tribune. Sorry, I don't think much of people of that level of sophistication (or not.) I think Kenny knows he needed to talk to Mark as soon as any of this stupidity came out and tell him it is absolute fiction. As far as telling MB he needed to improve on his season, if he doesn't know that now, then he's not a professional baseball player.

Well.....not sure if this was posted before, but found this nugget on the unbiased website, Chicagosports.com.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070128sox,1,6737847.story?coll=cs-whitesox-headlines

An apology? For what? Mark even says it was made up in the media. Where's the retraction from Mark Gonzales?

Vernam
02-01-2007, 12:46 PM
So you're saying she was reading and evidently trusting in the Tribune. Sorry, I don't think much of people of that level of sophistication (or not.) I think Kenny knows he needed to talk to Mark as soon as any of this stupidity came out and tell him it is absolute fiction. As far as telling MB he needed to improve on his season, if he doesn't know that now, then he's not a professional baseball player.(It was the Sun-Times she waved around, but same difference.) I didn't think much of her, either, especially because of her condescending tone. But as I said, Kenny played into her hands by getting pissed when she mentioned Frank.

As for your main point about people swallowing the crap they read, I think that's a problem not just with sports fans but with the whole damn country. It's sickening how quickly lies and half-truths become accepted "facts." A lot of Sox fans -- though, unfortunately not all -- are raised from birth to question what they read in the papers.

Vernam

jeffmcmahon
02-01-2007, 04:57 PM
You speak the truth Verman. If we must endure biased and mediocre media in this town, better to be a southsider who's suspicious of the media than a northsider who's a pawn of the media, with the Tribune's sticky fingers always reaching for your wallet.

ondafarm
02-01-2007, 11:23 PM
(It was the Sun-Times she waved around, but same difference.) I didn't think much of her, either, especially because of her condescending tone. But as I said, Kenny played into her hands by getting pissed when she mentioned Frank.

As for your main point about people swallowing the crap they read, I think that's a problem not just with sports fans but with the whole damn country. It's sickening how quickly lies and half-truths become accepted "facts." A lot of Sox fans -- though, unfortunately not all -- are raised from birth to question what they read in the papers.

Vernam

As MC Hammer says "Can't Touch that."