PDA

View Full Version : Chris DeLuca Drinking Cub Kool Aid


Pasqua's Mailman
01-30-2007, 09:55 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/deluca/234895,CST-SPT-deluca30.article

Chris DeLuca’s column today in the Sun-Times was either a pathetic attempt to mimic Jay Marriotti “Sports with an attitude” columns or the product of pure delusion… His basic thesis is that, at this point, the Cubs are now better than the Sox… Now, it is clear that the Cub have gotten better this off-season but to make this giant leap faith is just not based in fact… in fact, you can only come to this conclusion when you twist reality to a very great degree… DeLuca does so in the following ways:

Mod edit: Do not reproduce such a large amount of copyrighted material. You have the link to the article, that is all you may post.

So basically, DeLuca compares the Cub and the Sox, views the Cub through a “best case scenario” lens while viewing the Sox through a “worst case scenario” lens and concludes that the Cub are now better… Now that is great reporting… DeLuca is displaying the same type of delusional wishful thinking analysis that led all ten of ESPN football analysts to pick the Saint over the Bear… and we know where that got us… Way to go Chris, you are now an official member of the Cub “Sunshine Blowers” club…

Hitmen77
01-30-2007, 10:21 AM
Wow. That's just total crap. He makes a big deal about the Sox 5th starter question. But, who is the Cubs' 5th starter? Who is the Cubs fourth starter? According to Chris the Cubs have 7 starters.:?:

He raves about that intimidating Cubs middle lineup of Lee-Ramirez-Jones. Yeah, they make Thome-Konerko-Dye look like a total joke.

The only thing I'd agree with is that the Cubs may indeed have a better shot at the playoffs - but only because they play in such a crappy division where as the Sox play in a tough and talented division.

WizardsofOzzie
01-30-2007, 10:26 AM
Wow. That's just total crap. He makes a big deal about the Sox 5th starter question. But, who is the Cubs' 5th starter? Who is the Cubs fourth starter? According to Chris the Cubs have 7 starters.:?:

He raves about that intimidating Cubs middle lineup of Lee-Ramirez-Jones. Yeah, they make Thome-Konerko-Dye look like a total joke.

The only thing I'd agree with is that the Cubs may indeed have a better shot at the playoffs - but only because they play in such a crappy division where as the Sox play in a tough and talented division.

And dares to compare the Cubs' bullpen to the Sox of 05 which had a fantastic bullpen that came in and shut the door consistently after the starting pitcher usually put in 7 or 8 innings. Yes, the tandem of Howry, Eyre, Dempster, and Wood have me ****ting my pants when they come out of the pen in the 5th inning. This is the biggest joke of an article i've read in a long time

tebman
01-30-2007, 10:27 AM
I saw that too, and immediately recognized it as Mariotti-lite. De Luca grabbed some data points (Cubs writing big checks, Podsednik's surgery, etc.) and assigned arbitrary equivalence to them to make his broad point that the Cubs are better off this season than the White Sox.

Give me a break.

Stuff like this is only designed to agitate readers and get them to talk about it, and we've taken his bait. De Luca is trying to create a buzz around himself. He wants to be Max Mercy when he grows up.

Remember what the writer Max Mercy told Roy Hobbs in "The Natural":

Mercy: I'm here to protect this game.

Hobbs: Whose game?

Mercy: I do it by making or breaking the likes of you.

Hobbs: Did you ever play ball, Max?

Mercy: No, never have. But I make it a little more fun to watch, you see. And after today, whether you're a goat or a hero...

...you're gonna make me a great story.

See you around.

Flight #24
01-30-2007, 10:33 AM
#1SP: Zambrano v. Contreras -->Advantage Cubs
#2SP: Ted Lilly v. Jon Garland --> Advantage Sox
#3SP: Mark Prior v. Mark Buehrle --> Advantage Sox or push if Prior's hurt (again) and Buehrle struggles (again)
#4SP: Jason Marquis v. Javy Vazquez --> Advantage Sox
#5SP: Rich Hill v. Floyd --> Advantage Cubs
"Backup SPs": Sean Marshall/Carlos Marmol/Wade Miller v. Haeger/Broadway -->Slight advantage Cubs (Miller)

Bullpen:
Closer: Dempster v. Jenks --> Advantage Sox
RH Setup: Howry v. MacDougal --> Push (mediocre vet v. less predictable, younger guy)
LH Setup: Eyre v. Thornton --> Push
Other: Novoa, Ohman, Wuertz, Cotts v. Aardsma, Haeger, Sisco, Masset --> Slight advantage Cubs (experience)

C: Barrett v. AJ --> Push (AJ defense/pitch calling, Barrett offense)
1B: Lee v. Konerko --> Advantage Cubs
2B: DeRosa v. Iguchi --> Advantage Sox
3B: Ramirez v. Crede --> Push (O v. D)
SS: Cedeno v. Uribe --> Push
LF: Floyd v. Erstad/Podsednik/Fields --> Push (oft-injured, productive if healthy)
CF: Soriano v. Anderson/Erstad/Sweeney --> Advantage Cubs (despite Adnerson's D)
RF: Jones v. Dye --> Advantage Sox
No comparison for Thome

Bench: Murton, Pagan, Theriot, Ward, Blanco v. Erstad, Mackowiak, Ozuna, Cintron, Hall --> Advantage Sox

Looks like a slight advantage to the Cubs on O, but a sizable advantage to the Sox in pitching. The biggest advantage the Cubs have is a crap division though.

chisoxmike
01-30-2007, 10:44 AM
All the Cubs need is about 85 wins to go to the playoffs. With the team they have, they may be able to squeek in, unless they have a total meltdown. The NL Central is worse than the AL Central three years ago. The Cardinals got worse, the Astros are so-so, and Brewers, Reds, and Pirates have no shot.

I have to say, Soriano would better suit them in the heart of the order instead of leadoff, where they plan to use him I think.

seventyseven
01-30-2007, 11:16 AM
#1SP: Zambrano v. Contreras -->Advantage Cubs
#2SP: Ted Lilly v. Jon Garland --> Advantage Sox
#3SP: Mark Prior v. Mark Buehrle --> Advantage Sox or push if Prior's hurt (again) and Buehrle struggles (again)
#4SP: Jason Marquis v. Javy Vazquez --> Advantage Sox
#5SP: Rich Hill v. Floyd --> Advantage Cubs
"Backup SPs": Sean Marshall/Carlos Marmol/Wade Miller v. Haeger/Broadway -->Slight advantage Cubs (Miller)

Bullpen:
Closer: Dempster v. Jenks --> Advantage Sox
RH Setup: Howry v. MacDougal --> Push (mediocre vet v. less predictable, younger guy)
LH Setup: Eyre v. Thornton --> Push
Other: Novoa, Ohman, Wuertz, Cotts v. Aardsma, Haeger, Sisco, Masset --> Slight advantage Cubs (experience)

C: Barrett v. AJ --> Push (AJ defense/pitch calling, Barrett offense)
1B: Lee v. Konerko --> Advantage Cubs
2B: DeRosa v. Iguchi --> Advantage Sox
3B: Ramirez v. Crede --> Push (O v. D)
SS: Cedeno v. Uribe --> Push
LF: Floyd v. Erstad/Podsednik/Fields --> Push (oft-injured, productive if healthy)
CF: Soriano v. Anderson/Erstad/Sweeney --> Advantage Cubs (despite Adnerson's D)
RF: Jones v. Dye --> Advantage Sox
No comparison for Thome

Bench: Murton, Pagan, Theriot, Ward, Blanco v. Erstad, Mackowiak, Ozuna, Cintron, Hall --> Advantage Sox

Looks like a slight advantage to the Cubs on O, but a sizable advantage to the Sox in pitching. The biggest advantage the Cubs have is a crap division though.

I think you may be selling us short a little.

Uribe is better than Cedeno - no contest.

And the "experience" edge for the Cubs middle relief...experience in what? Blowing games?

I also would be highly surprised if Prior pitches at Buehrle's level this year.

FedEx227
01-30-2007, 11:26 AM
I have to say, Soriano would better suit them in the heart of the order instead of leadoff, where they plan to use him I think.

Teams recently, for whatever reason don't see that. While he does have great speed, you're absolutely wasting a majority of his power by having him leadoff. To be honest, I'm not sure why they want him to leadoff outside of the fact that he can steal bases. But hey, I welcome them to continue trying it, as well as putting him at CF. Should be a fun season on the North side. :bandance:

WizardsofOzzie
01-30-2007, 11:29 AM
My very lengthy rebuttal. Leave it to us Sox fan's to use statistics and logic!! :rolleyes:

Mr. De Luca,

I wanted to bring up a few points about your flawed logic in your recent column entitled "Early line: Cubs look better than Sox". I'll argue my points in order of things you said that i disagreed with.

1. "Not only do the Cubs look to be a more complete team than the Sox, but they appear to have a much better shot at winning their division in 2007."

Of course they have a better shot to win their division. The Sox play in a division that had 3 teams within 5 games of going to the playoffs while the Cubs play in arguably the worst division in the entire league where a whopping 83 wins will win the division and 88 wins will get you the wildcard in the NL, while it took 95 to win the wildcard in the AL.

2. "The Cubs have a dangerous leadoff hitter in Alfonso Soriano. And this team's success rises and falls on the quality of the leadoff hitter (remember Kenny Lofton, then think about Corey Patterson).

The Cubs back up Soriano with one of the most intimidating middle lineups in the National League in Derrek Lee, Aramis Ramirez and Jacque Jones." Didn't the Cubs have a "dangerous" leadoff hitter last year in Juan Pierre who racked up over 200 hits with similar OBP and SB to Soriano. And of course it makes complete sense to think that Soriano who has 836 strikeouts as compared to 224 walks in his career would be a good table setter, not to mention the fact that his ability to hit the longball will go to waste with bases empty situations. Also, anyone who tells you the 3-4-5 tandem of Lee, Ramirez and Jones is better than Dye-Thome-Konerko, needs their head examined.

3. "They have seven potential starters for their rotation. And their bullpen has four potential closer candidates -- Kerry Wood, Scott Eyre, Bob Howry and Ryan Dempster -- much as the Sox took four potential closer candidates into their 2005 championship season. Their bench is talented and deep."

Ok, the cubs have 7 potential starters. How many of them are actually proven, quality starters. The answer is 1, in Carlos Zambrano. Ted Lilly has a career record of 59-58 when he takes the mound with an era on the upside of 4.50. Jason Marquis is still young and may have a breakout year, but the fact that he is coming off a season where his ERA ballooned to over 6.00 proves that he can't be counted on to produce like a #3 or #4 starter should. Who's left? Mark Prior who's coming off a season where he only appeared in 9 games with a record of 1-6 with an ERA over 7. Prior has been placed on the DL 8 times in only 4 seasons, and 3 of those times were last season. It's no secret that the Cubs have the worst pitching coach in the league, and it's a smart bet to say that Prior will be back on the DL sometime this coming year and won't pitch more than 100 innings or so. Regarding your statement about the Cubs bullpen being similar to the 2005 White Sox bullpen is only something a homer would say. Read what i said again about Mark Prior and just insert Wood's name, and that's all that needs to be said about him. Dempster is a headcase, and by far the worst closer in the majors. 3 or 4 more meltdowns from him and they are going to need a bulldozer to get all the trash off of Wrigley that "The greatest fans in the world" threw onto it. The Sox bullpen of 2005 had a collective ERA of 3.23 with 54 saves and held opponents to a batting average of .232 while only having to pitch just over 400 innings thanks to the tremendous performance of the starting 5. The 2006 Cubs bullpen had a collective ERA of 4.04 with only 29 saves (Ryan Dempster blew 9 saves alone) and held opponents to a batting average of .248 while being overworked for 562 innings. It's also funny that you mention the Cubs bullpen and even have the guts to compare it to the 2005 Sox pen, but you don't even mention the one guy in the pen who was actually a member of the 2005 Sox pen and was one of the best relievers in the league in 2005. His name is Neal Cotts....Cubs fans should get to know it because he is easily one of the top 2 or 3 guys in the Cubs bullpen.

4. "Because of trades that looked to the future -- sending pitchers Freddy Garcia and Brandon McCarthy elsewhere -- the Sox are back to their worst nightmare, searching for a fifth starter among a group of unproven prospects."

So, remind me again that when the Sox have some unproven rookies battling for our 5TH spot in the rotation its a crisis, but when the Cubs bring in Jason Marquis and his 7+ ERA last year for the #4 or even #3 spot when Prior ends up on the DL again, its not even worth mentioning? Kenny Williams made deals that will make the Sox competitive for the next 5-8 years while the cubs ruin their financial future for the next decade by throwing monstrous contracts at mediocre players (Lilly, DeRossa) in what was quite possibly the worst FA market in the last 5 years. The Sox have 4 proven starters still while the Cubs have 2 AT BEST (which won't happen because Prior won't stay off the DL). Try actually doing some research on the rotations before you are so quick to praise the Cubs for their foolish spending and burn the Sox for actually improving their teams longevity instead of destroying it by paying 10 million a year for anyone who's pitched an inning of baseball, regardless of how well they've done.


Personally Mr. De Luca, i have no idea how you can call yourself a reporter, columnist, journalist, or anything along the lines of it when you write garbage like this. Your column involved zero research and was 100% biased and did not have one single positive thing to say about a team who breezed through the playoffs only a year ago and has posted back to back 90 win seasons, something the Cubs who are coming off 79 and 66 win seasons respectfully, while playing in the easiest division in the league, can only dream about. I speak for nearly all Sox fans and many other sports fans when i say that, after writing an article that is such a piece of garbage, you should be ashamed to call yourself a journalist.


I'll let you know if i get a reply. I'm sure it will be comedic gold

palehozenychicty
01-30-2007, 11:30 AM
#1SP: Zambrano v. Contreras -->Advantage Cubs
#2SP: Ted Lilly v. Jon Garland --> Advantage Sox
#3SP: Mark Prior v. Mark Buehrle --> Advantage Sox or push if Prior's hurt (again) and Buehrle struggles (again)
#4SP: Jason Marquis v. Javy Vazquez --> Advantage Sox
#5SP: Rich Hill v. Floyd --> Advantage Cubs
"Backup SPs": Sean Marshall/Carlos Marmol/Wade Miller v. Haeger/Broadway -->Slight advantage Cubs (Miller)

Bullpen:
Closer: Dempster v. Jenks --> Advantage Sox
RH Setup: Howry v. MacDougal --> Push (mediocre vet v. less predictable, younger guy)
LH Setup: Eyre v. Thornton --> Push
Other: Novoa, Ohman, Wuertz, Cotts v. Aardsma, Haeger, Sisco, Masset --> Slight advantage Cubs (experience)

C: Barrett v. AJ --> Push (AJ defense/pitch calling, Barrett offense)
1B: Lee v. Konerko --> Advantage Cubs
2B: DeRosa v. Iguchi --> Advantage Sox
3B: Ramirez v. Crede --> Push (O v. D)
SS: Cedeno v. Uribe --> Push
LF: Floyd v. Erstad/Podsednik/Fields --> Push (oft-injured, productive if healthy)
CF: Soriano v. Anderson/Erstad/Sweeney --> Advantage Cubs (despite Adnerson's D)
RF: Jones v. Dye --> Advantage Sox
No comparison for Thome

Bench: Murton, Pagan, Theriot, Ward, Blanco v. Erstad, Mackowiak, Ozuna, Cintron, Hall --> Advantage Sox

Looks like a slight advantage to the Cubs on O, but a sizable advantage to the Sox in pitching. The biggest advantage the Cubs have is a crap division though.

Personally, I think that Lee=Konerko is a push. Lee has always been a good defender, but he's only had one really great offensive year. Konerko has been much more consistent besides his poor 03 for the past six years, and his defense has improved to solid. Uribe is also better than Cedeno, for real. AJ is better than Barrett as well. Give me the stronger all-around player, and it's no contest. On paper, the Sox are a better team.

Johnnydogs
01-30-2007, 11:33 AM
#1SP: Zambrano v. Contreras -->Advantage Cubs
#2SP: Ted Lilly v. Jon Garland --> Advantage Sox
#3SP: Mark Prior v. Mark Buehrle --> Advantage Sox or push if Prior's hurt (again) and Buehrle struggles (again)
#4SP: Jason Marquis v. Javy Vazquez --> Advantage Sox
#5SP: Rich Hill v. Floyd --> Advantage Cubs
"Backup SPs": Sean Marshall/Carlos Marmol/Wade Miller v. Haeger/Broadway -->Slight advantage Cubs (Miller)

Bullpen:
Closer: Dempster v. Jenks --> Advantage Sox
RH Setup: Howry v. MacDougal --> Push (mediocre vet v. less predictable, younger guy)
LH Setup: Eyre v. Thornton --> Push
Other: Novoa, Ohman, Wuertz, Cotts v. Aardsma, Haeger, Sisco, Masset --> Slight advantage Cubs (experience)

C: Barrett v. AJ --> Push (AJ defense/pitch calling, Barrett offense)
1B: Lee v. Konerko --> Advantage Cubs
2B: DeRosa v. Iguchi --> Advantage Sox
3B: Ramirez v. Crede --> Push (O v. D)
SS: Cedeno v. Uribe --> Push
LF: Floyd v. Erstad/Podsednik/Fields --> Push (oft-injured, productive if healthy)
CF: Soriano v. Anderson/Erstad/Sweeney --> Advantage Cubs (despite Adnerson's D)
RF: Jones v. Dye --> Advantage Sox
No comparison for Thome

Bench: Murton, Pagan, Theriot, Ward, Blanco v. Erstad, Mackowiak, Ozuna, Cintron, Hall --> Advantage Sox

Looks like a slight advantage to the Cubs on O, but a sizable advantage to the Sox in pitching. The biggest advantage the Cubs have is a crap division though.


I agree with everything you wrote except, Cesar Izturis will be the starting SS for the Cubs and he's a Gold Glover. Advantage Cubs. I also think the Cubs have a slight edge on the bench with the addition of Daryle Ward; He had the highest SLG% and highest number of PH home runs (tied) in MLB for 2006.

itsjustinf
01-30-2007, 11:40 AM
My very lengthy rebuttal. Leave it to us Sox fan's to use statistics and logic!! :rolleyes:. . .

Well done. I wrote him a message too, not as thorough as yours though. But I did mention to him that he neglected to do any research as far as Pods and Uribe go.

WizardsofOzzie
01-30-2007, 11:42 AM
Well done. I wrote him a message too, not as thorough as yours though. But I did mention to him that he neglected to do any research as far as Pods and Uribe go.
I wanted to go even further into it but since i just wasted about an hour at work doing research and what not, i decided to wrap it up early :redneck

FedEx227
01-30-2007, 11:45 AM
I agree with everything you wrote except, Cesar Izturis will be the starting SS for the Cubs and he's a Gold Glover.

Please never use a gold glove to measure a good defender.

http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/53/2005/9O99.jpg

Johnnydogs
01-30-2007, 11:56 AM
Please never use a gold glove to measure a good defender.

http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/53/2005/9O99.jpg

LOL, yeah I know it can be a popularity contest. You can also look at Crede vs. Chavez to make this argument. However, Izturis is viewed as one of the better defensive SS in baseball.

soxtalker
01-30-2007, 12:03 PM
Well, it is an interesting perspective.

In contrast to the reaction of others so far, I wouldn't mind seeing a few more articles like this. It's ok with me if there's an impression among the media and general public that the Cubs are the better team. Being the reigning champs and favorite seemed to make us the target of every team -- including the Cubs.

However, I don't expect it. Even though there have been a number of sportswriters who have expressed big concerns about the Sox moves this winter and many who have praised the Cubs moves, most of those were taken from the perspective of last season's teams. And the Cubs were coming from awfully far back, while the Sox were one of the best teams in the game.

kittle42
01-30-2007, 12:07 PM
Personally, I think that Lee=Konerko is a push.

Ahh, the common Sox fan rallying point. I'll take Lee.

TDog
01-30-2007, 12:16 PM
People in baseball seriously question whether Derek Lee, since his injury, will ever again be the hitter he emerged to be in 2005. What these players have individually done in the past may not be what they do in the future.

Anyone who has any experience with Chicago baseball question the Cubs chances this year simply because so many people expect them to do well. The Cubs only do well when they are not expected to do well, although more often they live up to lowly expectations. It is the seasons they are hyped -- such as 2004 when many were picking them to win more than 100 games with the greatest starting rotation in the history of baseball -- when they are most disappointing. It doesn't only apply to the Cubs. The White Sox appeared to have better talent in 2006. As it turned out, they didn't because their pitchers didn't pitch as well as they did in 2005. Winning isn't just a matter of spending money. In seven years, seven cities have claimed World Series titles, and several of them didn't even finish the season in first place.

Maybe Lou Piniella will be the difference in the way Dusty Baker was supposed to be. Maybe the free agents will live up to the money they have been guaranteed into their futures. Maybe young talent on another team won't outperform the veterans the Cubs committed to for many times the salary.

A person in the business of baseball told me the Cubs would catch a lot of heat if they don't win this year, not because they would be facing a century without a title, which was my immediate reaction, but because they have done so much to make it appear to fans that they are building a winner at any cost.

This column doesn't irritate me. It's what people are thinking. Just as Shakespearean tragedies involve the high and mighty with a long, long way to fall, Cubs tragedies are best when their fans believe there is no way they can lose.

Not that 2007 will match the sudden death throes of 1984 or 2003. I don't think it will get that far.

Hitmen77
01-30-2007, 12:41 PM
#1SP: Zambrano v. Contreras -->Advantage Cubs
#2SP: Ted Lilly v. Jon Garland --> Advantage Sox.....

Looks like a slight advantage to the Cubs on O, but a sizable advantage to the Sox in pitching. The biggest advantage the Cubs have is a crap division though.

That's a pretty good summary. I'd like to add that pitching is the key to winning and I, like you, think the Sox still have a huge advantage there.
I'll note a few places where I differ.

#2SP: Ted Lilly v. Jon Garland --> Advantage Sox
#3SP: Mark Prior v. Mark Buehrle --> Advantage Sox or push if Prior's hurt (again) and Buehrle struggles (again)
- I would take both Garland and Buehrle over the Cubs #2 starter. As you stated, the question mark here is whether MB rebounds from that awful 2nd half

Bullpen:
LH Setup: Eyre v. Thornton --> Push
- I'll take Thornton over Eyre
Other: Novoa, Ohman, Wuertz, Cotts v. Aardsma, Haeger, Sisco, Masset --> Slight advantage Cubs (experience)

C: Barrett v. AJ --> Push (AJ defense/pitch calling, Barrett offense)
- Overall, I would take AJ (slight advantage)
1B: Lee v. Konerko --> Advantage Cubs
- Agreed, but Konerko is still very good. (so, not a huge Cubs advantage)
2B: DeRosa v. Iguchi --> Advantage Sox
- Agreed. IMO DeRosa had a career year in '06 and he's not much better than Cintron
3B: Ramirez v. Crede --> Push (O v. D)
- I'll take Crede's much better defense given that he's still pretty good offensively

RF: Jones v. Dye --> Advantage Sox
- HUGE advantage Sox

Bench: Murton, Pagan, Theriot, Ward, Blanco v. Erstad, Mackowiak, Ozuna, Cintron, Hall --> Advantage Sox

russ99
01-30-2007, 12:49 PM
Once I saw the "Reversal of Fortune" photo and caption on the non-Bear back page, I knew well enough to avoid that claptrap. No thank you.

More like "Reversal of spending a Fortune"

I may have to avoid these ridiculous sportswriters in general until the Cubs' annual collapse happens. :angry:

I'm also really sick of this "NL Central isn't tough" garbage. Every division is tough, and the NL Central has the 3 last teams to represent the NL in the World Series. IMO:The Cardinals and Astros will win at least 85 games, and the Cubs will be lucky to hit .500

Dick Allen
01-30-2007, 01:05 PM
Deluca is yet another in the Sun-Times' stable of Cub fans/pseudo journalists. Just remember that he replaced Handsome Mike Kiley as the Cubs' beat reporter, so he's got those big Cubbie Koolaid-shoes to fill.

WhiteSox5187
01-30-2007, 01:08 PM
The Sox are going to be back with a vegence next year. I don't know why, but I can't get rid of this silly feeling that I came down with on Sunday that the Sox are gonna cruise to another AL Central title while the Cubs are going to be scratching and clawing to .500. I still think that they're an injury away from being a 90 loss team. People talk about the Lee-Rameriz-Jones combo, well...how did they do when Lee went down? And someone mentioned the fact that there is strong questioning as to whether Lee will come back to form. I think the Cubs have more question marks than the Sox right now. But yea, I forsee a great year for the Sox and I forsee Mr. Buerhle (sorry to highjack the thread) returning to the Sox in '08.

But, what do I know? Nobody knows nothing. That's why they play the games.

spiffie
01-30-2007, 01:35 PM
Ahh, the common Sox fan rallying point. I'll take Lee.
Konerko - six seasons with OPS+ of 120 or more.
Lee - four seasons with OPS+ of 120 or more.

Lee's career numbers are extremely inflated by his 2005 season. If you remove just that one year which it seems unlikely he will approach again after the injury last season (and the fact he never even cracked 900 OPS before 2005, let alone closing in on 1.100), his career line is this:
.267 Batting Avg, .349 OBP, .474 SLG, .823 OPS

Konerko's career line: .283 Batting Avg., .353 OBP, .496 SLG, .849 OPS

Now, if you assume Lee of 2005 is what you're getting going forward, then sure I'd say Lee is a better player is well. But personally I'd like to see at least 2 years of MVP-level production before I accept that he has made the leap from being a very good player to one of the very best in baseball.

champagne030
01-30-2007, 01:49 PM
LOL, yeah I know it can be a popularity contest. You can also look at Crede vs. Chavez to make this argument. However, Izturis is viewed as one of the better defensive SS in baseball.

Izturis will start if healthy. Is his elbow really healthy? Outside of 2004, he really hasn't done jack at the plate. They're about equal in OBP, Uribe K's more, but at least hits for power. Izturis has no power. Meh, seems like a push at worst for Uribe.

UserNameBlank
01-30-2007, 02:02 PM
I want to hear Cubs radio ads with the guy who does monster truck ads for like Gravedigger and Bigfoot promoting such frightening new acquistions as Jason Marquis and Ted Lily. I bet every single Cub fan would be all pumped up too, and then I could place bets with them and take all their money.

Chisox003
01-30-2007, 02:06 PM
I read the first two paragraphs and had to stop from laughing. I don't think he could've made his bias any more obvious. Here's my favorite:

but there is no denying one team in town coming off a 96-loss season plugged all of its holes, while the other team coming off a 90-win season stumbles toward spring training with far too many question marks.
:roflmao:

Chris, that's embarrassing.

UserNameBlank
01-30-2007, 02:32 PM
After nosing around their respective winter fan festivals on consecutive weekends, a cold reality hits as hard as a Michael Barrett sucker punch to the chin: The Cubs look better than the White Sox.


I was going to read the article but thankfully this guy calls himself a moron in the very first sentence.

Hey idiot: watch a fight why don't you? People who hit hard - without gloves no less - don't leave their opponent standing there unphased. Either AJ has the toughest chin in pro sports history or Barrett hits like a ninety year old woman.

The cold hard reality is this: the Cubs spent a lot of money to suck. Go around and ask every single GM in baseball and besides maybe someone in San Francisco, every single GM will tell you that the Cubs could have gotten similar if not better production from the minor leaguers they have on the roster. The Cubs released Glendon Rush and signed another Glendon Rusch for more money. When the Cubs are staring up at St. Louis and Houston - two teams that would be unable to win a division that contained one of the KC Royals or TB Devil Rays - the morons will realize that they need to FULLY REBUILD FROM WITHIN if they can't sign any good free agents to reasonable contracts. All the Cubs are doing is setting themselves back one more year by stunting the development of home grown talent just to go nowhere.

Man, allegiances aside, how can any baseball fan anywhere not realize that the Cubs still suck?

maurice
01-30-2007, 02:46 PM
- At this point, you have to assume that Wood and Prior will be on the DL for most of the year. Can't say that about the Sox pitchers.

- If the Cubs have 7 starters, then the Sox have 12 starters. The reality is that the Cubs have only 1 established starter. He's very good, but the rest of the guys are either bad, inexperienced, or huge health risks. If 2 of them have good years, that would be a pleasant surprise for Hendry.

- The Cubs do not remotely have 4 closers. Heck, they arguably don't have ANY good closers. They gladly would take Jenks OR MacDougle and make him their closer. Half of their pen is Sox rejects anyway.

- Uribe > the Cubs' SSs.

- The Cubs have one of the worst defensive teams in MLB.

- You absolutely cannot discount the fact that the Cubs starting point was much, much lower than the Sox starting point at the end of the '06 season. The Cubs had a horrible record playing an unbalanced schedule in a horrible division. The Sox won 90 games in the best division in baseball. The Cubs would have to improve their team substantially just to come close to the Sox. The chances of them becoming better than the Sox in a single offseason are extremely remote.

PalehosePlanet
01-30-2007, 02:54 PM
[quote=spiffie;1474068]Konerko - six seasons with OPS+ of 120 or more.
Lee - four seasons with OPS+ of 120 or more.

Lee's career numbers are extremely inflated by his 2005 season. If you remove just that one year which it seems unlikely he will approach again after the injury last season (and the fact he never even cracked 900 OPS before 2005, let alone closing in on 1.100), his career line is this:
.267 Batting Avg, .349 OBP, .474 SLG, .823 OPS

Konerko's career line: .283 Batting Avg., .353 OBP, .496 SLG, .849 OPS

Now, if you assume Lee of 2005 is what you're getting going forward, then sure I'd say Lee is a better player is well. But personally I'd like to see at least 2 years of MVP-level production before I accept that he has made the leap from being a very good player to one of the very best in baseball.]

And even with Lee's MVP type year, Konerko's numbers are better, or even in some respects, across the board in pretty much every respect -- except SB, of course. Keep in mind that Lee's big year is his ONLY 100 RBI season of his 10 year career (PK 4 times and a 99er to boot.) Also, all the talk about Lee being "up and coming" is crap because he is a half year older than PK.

Zisk77
01-30-2007, 03:02 PM
Uribe > than Izturis. Juan is one of the better Defensive shortstops in the game. Cesar may be a little better defensively, but there is no comparison offensively. Uribe hits more Hrs., drives in more runs, and hits for at least the same average if not higher.

WizardsofOzzie
01-30-2007, 03:03 PM
- At this point, you have to assume that Wood and Prior will be on the DL for most of the year. Can't say that about the Sox pitchers.

- If the Cubs have 7 starters, then the Sox have 12 starters. The reality is that the Cubs have only 1 established starter. He's very good, but the rest of the guys are either bad, inexperienced, or huge health risks. If 2 of them have good years, that would be a pleasant surprise for Hendry.

- The Cubs do not remotely have 4 closers. Heck, they arguably don't have ANY good closers. They gladly would take Jenks OR MacDougle and make him their closer. Half of their pen is Sox rejects anyway.

- Uribe > the Cubs' SSs.

- The Cubs have one of the worst defensive teams in MLB.

- You absolutely cannot discount the fact that the Cubs starting point was much, much lower than the Sox starting point at the end of the '06 season. The Cubs had a horrible record playing an unbalanced schedule in a horrible division. The Sox won 90 games in the best division in baseball. The Cubs would have to improve their team substantially just to come close to the Sox. The chances of them becoming better than the Sox in a single offseason are extremely remote.
Sounds like we see very eye to eye on the topic :thumbsup: Still waiting for a response from Mr. Assclown

MeteorsSox4367
01-30-2007, 03:45 PM
Just a couple of random thoughts:

1. Yeah, those signings of Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis were awesome. Damn, that Cubs' rotation is good. You have Zambrano and...well, there's Zambrano...

Hey, Chris: The reason why the Sox didn't add to the core of their rotation is because they didn't need to. The Cubs made moves out of necessity.

2. The Cubs signed Soriano because if they don't do something this season, Hendry will be parking cars in the Taco Bell lot across Addison. Good luck with that Gold-Glove-winning outfield of Floyd, Soriano and Jones.

Maybe they won't have to play much defense with all the balls that will be hit onto Waveland and Sheffield off that awesome starting staff.

UserNameBlank
01-30-2007, 03:55 PM
Just a couple of random thoughts:

1. Yeah, those signings of Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis were awesome. Damn, that Cubs' rotation is good. You have Zambrano and...well, there's Zambrano...

Hey, Chris: The reason why the Sox didn't add to the core of their rotation is because they didn't need to. The Cubs made moves out of necessity.

2. The Cubs signed Soriano because if they don't do something this season, Hendry will be parking cars in the Taco Bell lot across Addison. Good luck with that Gold-Glove-winning outfield of Floyd, Soriano and Jones.

Maybe they won't have to play much defense with all the balls that will be hit onto Waveland and Sheffield off that awesome starting staff.

lol at this.

The only thing I disagree with here is the Cubs having to make those moves to their starting staff out of necessity. I'd take Angel Guzman, Sean Marshall & co. over Jason Marquis any day of the week. In fact, if I were GM of the Cubs and you paid ME $7mil per year to start Marquis instead of youth with some promise I still wouldn't do it.

Lilly is fine as a fifth starter, but man, as a #2 when Prior is simulating again? LMAO. Those 170 IP aren't going to mean **** for their playoff hopes. That bullpen is going to get worked hard.

WizardsofOzzie
01-30-2007, 04:02 PM
The Genius' response to my e-mail

Chad:

I appreciate your comments, but the point was the Cubs have done enough to stand out in a weak division and the Sox have not done enough to stand out in a strong division. It's all about reaching the postseason. This is not a side-by-side comparison of talent. Of course, the Sox have more overall talent than the Cubs. They had more overall talent last year than the Cardinals, but look what happened. Would you rather have another World Series title or a really talented third-place team?

As for my column being 100 percent biased ... um, uh, that's what makes it a COLUMN.

Chris

Flight #24
01-30-2007, 04:07 PM
The Genius' response to my e-mail

Chad:

I appreciate your comments, but the point was the Cubs have done enough to stand out in a weak division and the Sox have not done enough to stand out in a strong division. It's all about reaching the postseason. This is not a side-by-side comparison of talent. Of course, the Sox have more overall talent than the Cubs. They had more overall talent last year than the Cardinals, but look what happened. Would you rather have another World Series title or a really talented third-place team?

As for my column being 100 percent biased ... um, uh, that's what makes it a COLUMN.

Chris

IMO this is a true point, but one that he does not make in his article at all. had he focused on the weak division, it would be correct, but instead he focused on statements like "The Cubs have 7 starters, the Sox 4". Nice try though Chris.:rolleyes:

itsjustinf
01-30-2007, 04:17 PM
The Genius' response to my e-mail

Chad:

I appreciate your comments, but the point was the Cubs have done enough to stand out in a weak division and the Sox have not done enough to stand out in a strong division. It's all about reaching the postseason. This is not a side-by-side comparison of talent. Of course, the Sox have more overall talent than the Cubs. They had more overall talent last year than the Cardinals, but look what happened. Would you rather have another World Series title or a really talented third-place team?

As for my column being 100 percent biased ... um, uh, that's what makes it a COLUMN.

Chris


This was the same response that he sent me (besides the name, since my name isn't Chad). Based on the article it certainly seemed to be a side by side comparison, but maybe my reading comprehension is lacking.:rolleyes:

bryPt
01-30-2007, 04:18 PM
I just keeps getting worse and worse, doesn't it.

I guess the Sox painted a big bullseye on their back when they actually went out and WON a world series for this town. How dare they! If only they could equal the lovable losers on the north side for ineptness.

I may drop my current job and become a "journalist" for one of the 2 crappy papers in this town. I am sure I can do it. I can never leave my house and ist in a room with a radio, TV and internet access and just start spewing out BS and pretty much do what is being done now.

WizardsofOzzie
01-30-2007, 04:18 PM
This was the same response that he sent me (besides the name, since my name isn't Chad). Based on the article it certainly seemed to be a side by side comparison, but maybe my reading comprehension is lacking.:rolleyes:
Good to know he is unique when addressing criticism. I wonder if he just made that entire paragraph his e-mail sig :tongue:

santo=dorf
01-30-2007, 04:22 PM
I agree with everything you wrote except, Cesar Izturis will be the starting SS for the Cubs and he's a Gold Glover. Advantage Cubs. I also think the Cubs have a slight edge on the bench with the addition of Daryle Ward; He had the highest SLG% and highest number of PH home runs (tied) in MLB for 2006.
Uribe's defense is very comparable to Izturis' and they both don't walk and hit that well. Two things Uribe has over Izturis is health and power.
A bad year for Uribe > an average year for Cesar.

WizardsofOzzie
01-30-2007, 04:25 PM
IMO this is a true point, but one that he does not make in his article at all. had he focused on the weak division, it would be correct, but instead he focused on statements like "The Cubs have 7 starters, the Sox 4". Nice try though Chris.:rolleyes:
You are correct, it is a true point, but yes it is obviously a head to head issue. The first sentence regarding Barrett and AJ set the tone for that one. I believe the state of the NL Central was mentioned once the entire article if that. Also the arguement he made about if we would rather have a talented 3rd place team or a less talented WS winning team. Of course we would want the WS team, and if we played in the crappy NL Central we would probably have had it. What FA out there was going to "distinguish ourselves in a tough division" exactly? Soriano? Don't need him. Zito? Extremely overpaid and numbers are consistently getting worse every year. Schmidt? Nearly as overpaid as Zito. Not too many big names in the relief pitching pool this year, which was where our biggest hole was. I really hope this guy is ready to eat some crow at the end of the season

itsjustinf
01-30-2007, 04:36 PM
His generic response also neglected to justify his statement that "there is no reliable timetable for when he [Pods] will be ready." Was it not stated as soon as the surgery was announced that he would be ready to begin training in 6-8 weeks? Are White Sox press releases not reliable? And of Uribe, "his status remains in question." I seem to recall Kenny saying Juan would be at ST. Am I mistaken about these, or does De Luca know something about groin surgery and Dominican Republic legal proceedings that I don't?

cheeses_h_rice
01-30-2007, 04:51 PM
Allow me to translate this into Cubune-esque headlines...

SOMBER SPRING TRAINING
White Sox Gut Core of Team After Finishing a Pathetic Third Place in 2006
Kenny Williams to Fans: "No Playoffs for You!"*
Weapons Charges, Unexpected Surgeries, Williams' Gambles Look Certain to Put Sox in Hot Water Again in '07
Seriously, Sox Fans, Why Even Bother? You Know You're Headed for the Scrapheap of Irrelevancy in This Town Once Again
*not an actual quote

CUBBIE$ $UCCE$$ I$ A$$URED
Dynamite Hiring of Piniella, Soriano, and The Best Damn Free Agent Squad Available Has North Side Abuzz for Surge to 2007 World Series Crown
Cubs Controversy? Too Many MVP Candidates on One Team? Team Looking Forward to Wood, Prior, Lilly, Zambrano, Samardzija, Marquis All Battling It Out for Cy Young
City of Chicago Rekindling Love Affair with Baseball After Near Century of Futility

WhiteSox5187
01-30-2007, 05:26 PM
I was going to read the article but thankfully this guy calls himself a moron in the very first sentence.

Hey idiot: watch a fight why don't you? People who hit hard - without gloves no less - don't leave their opponent standing there unphased. Either AJ has the toughest chin in pro sports history or Barrett hits like a ninety year old woman.

The cold hard reality is this: the Cubs spent a lot of money to suck. Go around and ask every single GM in baseball and besides maybe someone in San Francisco, every single GM will tell you that the Cubs could have gotten similar if not better production from the minor leaguers they have on the roster. The Cubs released Glendon Rush and signed another Glendon Rusch for more money. When the Cubs are staring up at St. Louis and Houston - two teams that would be unable to win a division that contained one of the KC Royals or TB Devil Rays - the morons will realize that they need to FULLY REBUILD FROM WITHIN if they can't sign any good free agents to reasonable contracts. All the Cubs are doing is setting themselves back one more year by stunting the development of home grown talent just to go nowhere.

Man, allegiances aside, how can any baseball fan anywhere not realize that the Cubs still suck?
Dude, the Cubs have hurt themselves for the next FIVE years, not just one. They're really in trouble if they don't make the playoffs this year. I think they got about $400 mil tied up for the next four years. The Cubs could be in deep deep trouble.

AJ Hellraiser
01-30-2007, 05:36 PM
He should watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGT5MB6SmkE

mshake10
01-30-2007, 05:43 PM
Allow me to translate this into Cubune-esque headlines...

SOMBER SPRING TRAINING
White Sox Gut Core of Team After Finishing a Pathetic Third Place in 2006
Kenny Williams to Fans: "No Playoffs for You!"*
Weapons Charges, Unexpected Surgeries, Williams' Gambles Look Certain to Put Sox in Hot Water Again in '07
Seriously, Sox Fans, Why Even Bother? You Know You're Headed for the Scrapheap of Irrelevancy in This Town Once Again
*not an actual quote

CUBBIE$ $UCCE$$ I$ A$$URED
Dynamite Hiring of Piniella, Soriano, and The Best Damn Free Agent Squad Available Has North Side Abuzz for Surge to 2007 World Series Crown
Cubs Controversy? Too Many MVP Candidates on One Team? Team Looking Forward to Wood, Prior, Lilly, Zambrano, Samardzija, Marquis All Battling It Out for Cy Young
City of Chicago Rekindling Love Affair with Baseball After Near Century of Futility

And the point of this is..... besides hurting my eyes of course. :angry:

mshake10
01-30-2007, 05:51 PM
My picks:

Zambrano v. Contretas -> Cubs
Ted Lilly vs. Jon Garland -> Sox
Jason Marquis vs. Mark Buehrle -> Sox
Rich Hill vs. Vazquez -> Slightly Sox
Sean Marshall vs. Floyd -> Cubs
Backups -> Push

Dempster vs. Jenks -> Sox
Howry vs. MacDougal -> Push
Eyve vs. Thorton -> Push

The Rest -> Wuertz, Ohman, Wood, Cotts vs. Aardsma, Haeger, Sisco, Masset -> Cubs

Barrett vs. AJ -> Slightly Sox (Defense)
Lee v. Konerko --> Push (Lee's Defense vs. Konerko's slightly better offense)
DeRosa v. Iguchi --> Sox
Ramirez v. Crede --> Sox
Izturis v. Uribe --> Push
Murton v. Erstad/Podsednik/Fields --> Slightly Cubs
CF: Soriano v. Anderson/Erstad/Sweeney --> Cubs
RF: Jones v. Dye --> Sox

Bench: Floyd, Pagan, Theriot, Ward, Blanco v. Erstad, Mackowiak, Ozuna, Cintron, Hall --> Slightly Sox

The fact is that on paper, the Cubs improved a lot, and are looking at 78-90. The Sox has a lot of question marks, BUT still has a great team, and is looking at 83-95.

cheeses_h_rice
01-30-2007, 06:06 PM
And the point of this is..... besides hurting my eyes of course. :angry:

Excellent post!

I look forward to many more!

RadioheadRocks
01-30-2007, 06:20 PM
This was the same response that he sent me (besides the name, since my name isn't Chad).

I guess if nothing else, Chris DeLuca has mastered "copy and paste". :rolleyes:

Hitmen77
01-30-2007, 07:00 PM
The Genius' response to my e-mail

Chad:

I appreciate your comments, but the point was the Cubs have done enough to stand out in a weak division and the Sox have not done enough to stand out in a strong division. It's all about reaching the postseason. This is not a side-by-side comparison of talent. Of course, the Sox have more overall talent than the Cubs. They had more overall talent last year than the Cardinals, but look what happened. Would you rather have another World Series title or a really talented third-place team?

As for my column being 100 percent biased ... um, uh, that's what makes it a COLUMN.

Chris

Then why doesn't he say so in the article? :?:

His column sure the heck sounded to me like he thinks the Cubs are better "side-by-side" than the Sox.

dwalteroo
01-30-2007, 07:37 PM
Allow me to translate this into Cubune-esque headlines...

SOMBER SPRING TRAINING
White Sox Gut Core of Team After Finishing a Pathetic Third Place in 2006
Kenny Williams to Fans: "No Playoffs for You!"*
Weapons Charges, Unexpected Surgeries, Williams' Gambles Look Certain to Put Sox in Hot Water Again in '07
Seriously, Sox Fans, Why Even Bother? You Know You're Headed for the Scrapheap of Irrelevancy in This Town Once Again
*not an actual quote

CUBBIE$ $UCCE$$ I$ A$$URED
Dynamite Hiring of Piniella, Soriano, and The Best Damn Free Agent Squad Available Has North Side Abuzz for Surge to 2007 World Series Crown
Cubs Controversy? Too Many MVP Candidates on One Team? Team Looking Forward to Wood, Prior, Lilly, Zambrano, Samardzija, Marquis All Battling It Out for Cy Young
City of Chicago Rekindling Love Affair with Baseball After Near Century of Futility


Okay, that's hilarious! Nice work.

WizardsofOzzie
01-30-2007, 10:54 PM
Yet another response to me calling him out on the side by side comparison

"Well, at least I tried. Whenever you talk about any team, it's all relative to the division that team plays in. The Blue Jays looked good last year, until you realize the Red Sox and Yankees are in that division. The Padres looked mediocre, until you realize they play in the NL West. I think I'm done trying to spell it out for you. Next time, I'll try drawing pictures."- Chris De Luca


Oh what class :rolleyes:

RadioheadRocks
01-30-2007, 11:04 PM
The only thing I'd agree with is that the Cubs may indeed have a better shot at the playoffs - but only because they play in such a crappy division where as the Sox play in a tough and talented division.



Exactly... it all boils down to "Comedy Central" migrating from the American League to the National League. :cool:

maurice
01-31-2007, 11:23 AM
The article is titled "Cubs look better than Sox" and compares them, but he claims that he wasn't trying to compare the Cubs and the Sox?

E-mailers complain that he's biased against the Sox, but he claims that that's okay because it's a column?

This guy is a ****ing nitwit.

WizardsofOzzie
01-31-2007, 11:28 AM
The article is titled "Cubs look better than Sox" and compares them, but he claims that he wasn't trying to compare the Cubs and the Sox?

E-mailers complain that he's biased against the Sox, but he claims that that's okay because it's a column?

This guy is a ****ing nitwit.
Nobody said you have to be smart to be a beat writer for the cubs....actually i think it's required to be a nitwit

WizardsofOzzie
01-31-2007, 11:42 AM
Then why doesn't he say so in the article? :?:

His column sure the heck sounded to me like he thinks the Cubs are better "side-by-side" than the Sox.

Even IF the article isn't a side by side comparison, which it obviously is, his conclusions about both teams are so far out there its ludicrous. I really can't imagine someone (who is unbiased of course) at the Sun Times reading this and actually agreeing to publish it, let alone pay De Luca for writing it. Maybe I'm in the wrong profession. I can write down random **** that makes no sense and turn it in for money too!! :redneck

UserNameBlank
01-31-2007, 12:03 PM
This is all too funny.

Every time some local writer overly criticizes the Sox a thread will pop up somewhere on this site and in it there will be at least one comment about how negativity sells papers.

Then, when the Cubs make horrible personnel decisions and should be criticized, none of the writers want to say anything negative. Does that mean positivity sells papers?

I guess I'd like to know what sells papers and who is buying them because this is getting confusing.

areilly
01-31-2007, 01:50 PM
Yet another response to me calling him out on the side by side comparison

"Well, at least I tried. Whenever you talk about any team, it's all relative to the division that team plays in. The Blue Jays looked good last year, until you realize the Red Sox and Yankees are in that division. The Padres looked mediocre, until you realize they play in the NL West. I think I'm done trying to spell it out for you. Next time, I'll try drawing pictures."- Chris De Luca


Oh what class :rolleyes:

First of all, I agree with De Luca. The Cubs are in a better position than the Sox, but not necessarily a better division. There's a difference. Now please, everyone, tell me how "they" have got to me as well.

Second of all, since when is class a requirement for being a sports columnist? Or any kind of columnist, really? It's nothing more than professional ****-talking. Lighten up already.

maurice
01-31-2007, 01:55 PM
We've actually had Trib employees come here and simultaneously argue that:
(1) the 2003 Cubs were a huge story because their winning record was interesting, and
(2) the 2005 Sox were not a big story because wire-to-wire winning baseball is boring.

:rolleyes:

maurice
01-31-2007, 01:59 PM
As far as I can tell, everybody in this thread agrees that the Cubs are in an easier division, so that's obviously not the point.

The point is that the article doesn't address this; it just makes a head-to-head comparison. His e-mail denials are transparent lies.

WizardsofOzzie
01-31-2007, 02:04 PM
First of all, I agree with De Luca. The Cubs are in a better position than the Sox, but not necessarily a better division. There's a difference. Now please, everyone, tell me how "they" have got to me as well.

Second of all, since when is class a requirement for being a sports columnist? Or any kind of columnist, really? It's nothing more than professional ****-talking. Lighten up already.
I agree with both you and De Luca that the Cubs are in better position than the Sox because of their division. However, you aren't going to convince anyone that's what you were implying when you use statements such as:

"The Cubs look better than the White Sox."

" Not only do the Cubs look to be a more complete team than the Sox, but they appear to have a much better shot at winning their division in 2007."

"The Sox won the World Series in 2005, but they also knew they needed years of success -- measured in consecutive trips to the postseason -- to knock the Cubs off their perch atop the Chicago baseball world."


Only the 2nd quote mentions divisions, and that one clearly makes it a separate issue by saying NOT ONLY do the cubs look more complete than the sox, but they appear to have a better shot at the division too. If De Luca wanted to argue based on divisions, he sure as hell didn't make it obvious with statements like those above, especially the 3rd one which has no relevancy in the column whatsoever except to praise the cubs.

As for having class as a columnist, you're absolutely right, it isn't required, but it is just general decency to explain your points to someone other than being a total jerkoff and insult my intelligence by saying "next time I'll draw pictures." The only point in my e-mails that i was negative towards Mr. De Luca was when i told him he should be ashamed for calling himself a journalist for writing something so biased.....maybe i just always thought a real journalist should be a neutral party and base his or her opinions on fact.

PatK
01-31-2007, 02:20 PM
"The Sox won the World Series in 2005, but they also knew they needed years of success -- measured in consecutive trips to the postseason -- to knock the Cubs off their perch atop the Chicago baseball world."



I thought attendance couple with radio and television ratings already proved that after one World Series.

Does anybody else get the impression that the local media at times is not happy with Chicago becoming a *gasp* White Sox town?

caulfield12
01-31-2007, 03:50 PM
Even IF the article isn't a side by side comparison, which it obviously is, his conclusions about both teams are so far out there its ludacris. I really can't imagine someone (who is unbiased of course) at the Sun Times reading this and actually agreeing to publish it, let alone pay De Luca for writing it. Maybe I'm in the wrong profession. I can write down random **** that makes no sense and turn it in for money too!! :redneck


I think you mean ludicrous, not the rapper.

WizardsofOzzie
01-31-2007, 04:21 PM
I think you mean ludicrous, not the rapper.
Doh!!! Correct you are sir!!

cws05champ
01-31-2007, 10:22 PM
My picks:

Zambrano v. Contretas -> Cubs
Ted Lilly vs. Jon Garland -> Sox
Jason Marquis vs. Mark Buehrle -> Sox
Rich Hill vs. Vazquez -> Slightly Sox
Sean Marshall vs. Floyd -> Cubs
Backups -> Push

Dempster vs. Jenks -> Sox
Howry vs. MacDougal -> Push
Eyve vs. Thorton -> Push

The Rest -> Wuertz, Ohman, Wood, Cotts vs. Aardsma, Haeger, Sisco, Masset -> Cubs

Barrett vs. AJ -> Slightly Sox (Defense)
Lee v. Konerko --> Push (Lee's Defense vs. Konerko's slightly better offense)
DeRosa v. Iguchi --> Sox
Ramirez v. Crede --> Sox
Izturis v. Uribe --> Push
Murton v. Erstad/Podsednik/Fields --> Slightly Cubs
CF: Soriano v. Anderson/Erstad/Sweeney --> Cubs
RF: Jones v. Dye --> Sox

Bench: Floyd, Pagan, Theriot, Ward, Blanco v. Erstad, Mackowiak, Ozuna, Cintron, Hall --> Slightly Sox

The fact is that on paper, the Cubs improved a lot, and are looking at 78-90. The Sox has a lot of question marks, BUT still has a great team, and is looking at 83-95.


If you really want to pick a fight with ignorant Cubs fans, I found this thread on sportsline.com: http://www.sportsline.com/mcc/messages/chrono/1270313

It's really funny to see how delusional some of these fans are...

Hitmen77
02-01-2007, 11:09 AM
With all this talk from Deluca, Phil Rogers, and others about the Sox moves for '07, they keep failing to get to the bottom of the issue. Just like in 2006, the Sox success will depend on Mark Buehrle and Jose Contreras pitching like #1 or #2 starters should pitch.

IMO, the struggles of these 2 pitchers in '06 made enough of a difference to keep us out of the playoffs. I know we had other problems, but regardless, having solid seasons from MB and JC should have given us the 6 more wins to put us in the playoffs. Again in '07, I think these 2 guys will determine the Sox destiny.

Actually, I'm feeling pretty good about our chances in '07. I think MB will rebound thanks to a full offseason and being motivated by his pending free agency. I also think that Jose will get back on track. The bullpen looks better than last year. I think the rest of our lineup is more than good enough to win.

The bottom line is that the 2007 White Sox are good enough to make a serious run at a division title in the toughest division in baseball. I think that's great. For most of my life, I would have been very envious of watching other teams in that position.

I'm not saying there aren't question marks. 5th starter? What is it about Floyd that KW loves so much? Did KW really see something to show him that Gavin has turned the corner, or is he selling us snake oil on this deal? We'll see.

But at any rate, the Sox again will be one of the best teams in baseball and are well equipped to battle it out with the Twins, Tigers, and Indians. Sharing our division with baseball's top teams should give us good old fashioned hard-nosed baseball that promises to give fans a hell of a ride in 2007. Yet, instead of even acknowledging that the Sox still look to be a competitive, exciting team - the Chicago media chooses to embrace mediocrity and is gushing over the idea that the Cubs are overspending to plug their embarrassingly long list of holes so that they might sneak into the playoffs because they play against a bunch of weak teams. Yayyy!!!!!

SBSoxFan
02-01-2007, 12:49 PM
With all this talk from Deluca, Phil Rogers, and others about the Sox moves for '07, they keep failing to get to the bottom of the issue. Just like in 2006, the Sox success will depend on Mark Buehrle and Jose Contreras pitching like #1 or #2 starters should pitch.

IMO, the struggles of these 2 pitchers in '06 made enough of a difference to keep us out of the playoffs. I know we had other problems, but regardless, having solid seasons from MB and JC should have given us the 6 more wins to put us in the playoffs. Again in '07, I think these 2 guys will determine the Sox destiny.

Actually, I'm feeling pretty good about our chances in '07. I think MB will rebound thanks to a full offseason and being motivated by his pending free agency. I also think that Jose will get back on track. The bullpen looks better than last year. I think the rest of our lineup is more than good enough to win.

The bottom line is that the 2007 White Sox are good enough to make a serious run at a division title in the toughest division in baseball. I think that's great. For most of my life, I would have been very envious of watching other teams in that position.

I'm not saying there aren't question marks. 5th starter? What is it about Floyd that KW loves so much? Did KW really see something to show him that Gavin has turned the corner, or is he selling us snake oil on this deal? We'll see.

But at any rate, the Sox again will be one of the best teams in baseball and are well equipped to battle it out with the Twins, Tigers, and Indians. Sharing our division with baseball's top teams should give us good old fashioned hard-nosed baseball that promises to give fans a hell of a ride in 2007. Yet, instead of even acknowledging that the Sox still look to be a competitive, exciting team - the Chicago media chooses to embrace mediocrity and is gushing over the idea that the Cubs are overspending to plug their embarrassingly long list of holes so that they might sneak into the playoffs because they play against a bunch of weak teams. Yayyy!!!!!

POTW right there!

TDog
02-01-2007, 12:54 PM
If you really want to pick a fight with ignorant Cubs fans, I found this thread on sportsline.com: http://www.sportsline.com/mcc/messages/chrono/1270313

It's really funny to see how delusional some of these fans are...

This is funny. I find it humorous, although a little annoying, when people try to use words they don't really understand to make a point. I love the way a Cubs fan slamming the White Sox argues that the Sox have raised their ticket prices "exponentially." Speaking exponentially, if the Sox raised their ticket prices to the power of 2, a ticket in fair territory with a face value of $20 a couple of years ago would have a face value of $400. I haven't been in Chicago since 2003, but I am guessing ticket prices haven't risen that much.

As I understand it, there is a Chicago baseball team that may have sold tickets at prices exponentially above face value, although I've never figured the square root of a brokered prime seat for the Yankees or Red Sox visits into Wrigley Field.

WizardsofOzzie
02-01-2007, 01:02 PM
This is funny. I find it humorous, although a little annoying, when people try to use words they don't really understand to make a point. I love the way a Cubs fan slamming the White Sox argues that the Sox have raised their ticket prices "exponentially." Speaking exponentially, if the Sox raised their ticket prices to the power of 2, a ticket in fair territory with a face value of $20 a couple of years ago would have a face value of $400. I haven't been in Chicago since 2003, but I am guessing ticket prices haven't risen that much.

As I understand it, there is a Chicago baseball team that may have sold tickets at prices exponentially above face value, although I've never figured the square root of a brokered prime seat for the Yankees or Red Sox visits into Wrigley Field.

That and Cubs fans don't have much room to talk when the topic of ticket prices come up