PDA

View Full Version : Well will van Dyck quit???


caulfield12
02-04-2007, 10:14 PM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070204sox,1,5427122.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

I'm struggling to find one note of positivism in this one. Good grief...just because the Bears just lost, don't take it out on the White Sox.

ondafarm
02-04-2007, 10:24 PM
If the guy knew anything about baseball, he wouldn't be writing for the Tribune.

Grzegorz
02-04-2007, 10:36 PM
Dave van Dyck... There's not much to say here about him.

All I have to say is that it will be all that much sweeter winning in 2007. I love the Toby Hall deal & I like the Darrin Erstad deal as a hedge.

I have faith in the pitching moves and I believe BA will be better to the point of being an asset both offensively and defensively.

There is no linear relationship between spending money and winning World Series.

Hopefully this fact will be illustrated in spades this year.

WhiteSox5187
02-04-2007, 10:51 PM
As much as I'd hate to say it, I have to agree with him. The Sox do have a lot of question marks and the answer to those questions will only be answered on the playing field.

FarWestChicago
02-04-2007, 10:54 PM
As much as I'd hate to say it, I have to agree with him.If you hate to say it, why do you do so constantly? You are an very negative person for the most part.

ondafarm
02-04-2007, 10:57 PM
As much as I'd hate to say it, I have to agree with him. The Sox do have a lot of question marks and the answer to those questions will only be answered on the playing field.



I see you as a glass is half empty type of person.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-04-2007, 11:01 PM
Dave van Dyck needs to be terminated for gross incompetence. If he isn't an embarrassment to his bosses at the Tribune, then he is certainly an embarrassment to anyone working there with journalistic ethics.

Why would anyone in their right mind believe ANY characterization this man makes? He's already convicted.
:o:

soxtalker
02-04-2007, 11:11 PM
Well, maybe one positive is that baseball talk will now get into full swing (... well, maybe after a few days to dissect the Bears loss).

WhiteSox5187
02-04-2007, 11:35 PM
I see you as a glass is half empty type of person.
I am a sort of person who hopes for the best but constantly prepares for the worst. If you don't think the White Sox have some question marks (as does every team), you're nuts. We have a question mark at leadoff. We have a question mark in CF and a question mark for number five in the rotation. Now am I willing to write off the entire Sox season? No. Can these problems be solved? Of course, and we probably have the talent on the team to fix these question marks. But they are question marks none the less. AND THIS IS WHY WE PLAY THE GAME, TO ANSWER THESE QUESTION MARKS. There are question marks on every team, including the '05 team.

ZombieRob
02-04-2007, 11:53 PM
I think this team has a definite chance to be better then last years.Especially if core players get serious and come back in shape.I feel the bench is definitely better.And if Anderson struggles Erstad is not a bad option.The bullpen has a chance to either be explosive or just explode .With this i have all the confidence in the Sox coaches.

ondafarm
02-04-2007, 11:59 PM
I am a sort of person who hopes for the best but constantly prepares for the worst. If you don't think the White Sox have some question marks (as does every team), you're nuts. We have a question mark at leadoff. We have a question mark in CF and a question mark for number five in the rotation. Now am I willing to write off the entire Sox season? No. Can these problems be solved? Of course, and we probably have the talent on the team to fix these question marks. But they are question marks none the less. AND THIS IS WHY WE PLAY THE GAME, TO ANSWER THESE QUESTION MARKS. There are question marks on every team, including the '05 team.


In one sense, there are always questions, that's why you play the game. Or 162 of them.

As for lead-off, it seems the White Sox have bought themselves considerable insurance at lead-off, there are now two very capable guys, one who will be out for awhile (Pods). As to calling it a question mark, I'm not sure I'd go that far. A championship team should have two solid lead-off hitters and one acceptable back up. My opinion is that Pods, Erstad and Iguchi, if not Ozuna, fulfill those criteria. No, I don't really call lead-off a question mark.

As for center field, Anderson showed himself to be a very fine defensive CF last year. And he showed in the last half of the season that he can hit at a .250 level. That would be adequate. If Anderson shows up with a little more fire in the belly and reacts better to rookie type calls against him, then I expect him to hit in the .270s. For a #8 or #9 hitter that does not leave a question mark.

As for the #5 spot in the rotation the only real question is who will win the spot. The Sox have several contenders and at least one of them will step up, of that I'm certain.

So, no, I do not agree with you. I guess you'd call me nuts. You're not the first, not the last. On the other hand, since we're arguing baseball, a topic I do know more than a lot of people about. I'll revise my opinion. I see you as a glass is half broken and smashed kinda guy.

WhiteSoxFan84
02-04-2007, 11:59 PM
DvD is the Tribune's equal of Moronitti. He talks smack so that people, like you guys, can discuss his stuff and get his name out there. I barely know anything about him and don't care for him. Everytime I see his picture or name I just look to the next column. He, much like Moronitti, offers no insight, just bias & dumb opinions. I can write for the Cubune and Sun-Times if those are the only qualifications they look for.

Malgar 12
02-05-2007, 09:54 AM
I see you as a glass is half empty type of person.

I guess I'm not the only one who watches "Groundhog Day" every February 2nd.

ondafarm
02-05-2007, 10:01 AM
I guess I'm not the only one who watches "Groundhog Day" every February 2nd.

" . . . not driving on the railroad tracks, . . ."

"Umm, I happen to agree with that particular one."

Dan Mega
02-05-2007, 10:10 AM
Will the loss of fat mean a loss of velocity for closer Bobby Jenks?

Good grief...someone woke up on the wrong side of the Cubune this morning.:rolleyes:

jackbrohamer
02-05-2007, 10:16 AM
Hasn't Van Dyck been a sportswriter in town for a while? I recognize his name from a while ago, but it seems that he turned into this miserable hack Sox-hater only a year or so ago. Did he ever act like a professional or was I just lucky enough to have avoided the type of dreck that he now spews at the Cubune?

spiffie
02-05-2007, 10:18 AM
As much as I'd hate to say it, I have to agree with him. The Sox do have a lot of question marks and the answer to those questions will only be answered on the playing field.
Here are the question marks for the 2007 White Sox:

- How many games will they win the division by?
- Will they crack the 100 win mark?
- Will they top the 2005 Postseason mark of 11-1?
- How many people will attend the Championship Parade?

veeter
02-05-2007, 10:19 AM
With the Trib it's just so predictable. Every year, after the Bears play their last game, the Trib. puts out its, "The Cubbies are coming articles". The excitment over the Baker era, now the Pinniella and roster makeover stuff. It's always the same. The Sox are then portrayed as the stumblebums with only problems and holes. The truth is, the Sox won 90 games last year with guys not pitching nearly like they can. Do they have question marks? Yes. But the Sox have proven since about 1990, that their "little" moves, i.e. the Hall and Erstad signings, pay huge dividends. This year will be no different. We'll win the divsion and maybe the World Series. Screw the Trib.

soxtalker
02-05-2007, 10:43 AM
It is a fairly negative article, but I can't get terribly upset. It just seems that most of the sportswriters are nervous about the changes KW has made. That's true of a lot of fans.

This is also has to be a pretty tough time to be writing. The Bears are done, and the Blackhawks and Bulls don't look like championship material. The Sox probably do and are only one year removed from the WS, and the Cubs have made enough changes to make their faithful hopeful. So, you need baseball articles.

I think that we actually had a pretty exciting off season -- a number of trades and associated talk about how the Sox will likely change. While Kenny can always make a move, there probably won't be much in the way of trades until teams sort things out in ST. So, that makes for a lot of articles saying what has already been said ...

soxrme
02-05-2007, 10:51 AM
As much as I'd hate to say it, I have to agree with him. The Sox do have a lot of question marks and the answer to those questions will only be answered on the playing field.

I agree there are a lot of questions on some moves by KW. We will not know and anyone who agrees with all the moves has forgotten about the years of pitchers with potential who never made it. We still don't have a proven shorstop and center fielder. We basically gave up Garcia and Rowand for Thome. This is not a good trade to me. We will see what happens, I really hope KW is right.

thedudeabides
02-05-2007, 11:20 AM
I agree there are a lot of questions on some moves by KW. We will not know and anyone who agrees with all the moves has forgotten about the years of pitchers with potential who never made it. We still don't have a proven shorstop and center fielder. We basically gave up Garcia and Rowand for Thome. This is not a good trade to me. We will see what happens, I really hope KW is right.

So you don't count Floyd and Gio in those trades, not to mention the cash recieved for the Thome deal.

Viva Medias B's
02-05-2007, 11:24 AM
Van Dyck's article is overly negative. Sure, there may be some things that have to be sorted out in Tucson like who our fifth starter will be for sure. Nevertheless, we are in very good shape to win.

Don't let the Cubune spin fool you. Let them and their Cubbie-loving allies in the media go ahead and proclaim the 2007 Chicago Cubs as the greatest team in the history of all sports. A subdivision of hen houses will be falling on their faces come the end of the season when the Wrigley Field marquee sign reads "CONGRATULATIONS CHICAGO WHITE SOX" once again.

veeter
02-05-2007, 11:34 AM
I agree there are a lot of questions on some moves by KW. We will not know and anyone who agrees with all the moves has forgotten about the years of pitchers with potential who never made it. We still don't have a proven shorstop and center fielder. We basically gave up Garcia and Rowand for Thome. This is not a good trade to me. We will see what happens, I really hope KW is right.You mean the shortstop with the World Championship ring in his finger?

ondafarm
02-05-2007, 02:51 PM
Look, I actually like Lou Pinella. He's an intelligent baseball guy and I wish him well.

Any fan who really thinks the Flubs will compete as in actually has a shot at winning the pennant is just fooling themselves.

spiffie
02-05-2007, 03:10 PM
Look, I actually like Lou Pinella. He's an intelligent baseball guy and I wish him well.

Any fan who really thinks the Flubs will compete as in actually has a shot at winning the pennant is just fooling themselves.
Let me preface this with the note that this belongs in WTS, not the Clubhouse. That said, I don't think the Cubs are a very good team.

But look at the team they have right now, and if they get even just a career average performance from Lilly, a usual year from Zambrano, and a good year from any of (Miller, Marquis, Prior, Hill, Marshall, Guzman) and they can probably win 83-85 games. I honestly don't see them being all that different from the Cardinals of last season. Also, you know if they are anywhere even close to contention that Hendry will gut the farm system to pick up help at the deadline.

I think the Cubs would be lucky to finish higher than 5th if they joined the AL Central. But this team they have put together might be able to blunder to the division in the absolutely awful NL Central, and once in the playoffs anything can happen. I wouldn't bet on the Cubs to go to the World Series at anything like the odds I would bet the Sox, but if someone out there was giving 25/1 odds I'd jump on it.

areilly
02-05-2007, 04:05 PM
Here are the question marks for the 2007 White Sox:

- How many games will they win the division by?
- Will they crack the 100 win mark?
- Will they top the 2005 Postseason mark of 11-1?
- How many people will attend the Championship Parade?

You can't be serious in this post, but if you are I'll just go ahead and guarantee a resounding "no" to your second and third questions.

WhiteSox5187
02-05-2007, 04:10 PM
Here are the question marks for the 2007 White Sox:

- How many games will they win the division by?
- Will they crack the 100 win mark?
- Will they top the 2005 Postseason mark of 11-1?
- How many people will attend the Championship Parade?
Here are the question marks:
-Who is going to be our fifth starter? Now, I don't think that it is going to be the black hole that it was in the past. It's just a question of who gets it. In my humblest of opinion a good starter a good fifth starter is a guy who wins about 12 games, and Floyd is more than capable of doing just that.

-Who is going to be our leadoff man? This is a very legit question. Is Pods going to come back healthy and return to '05 form? Is Erstad going to be able to stay healthy? Does he still have enough juice in his legs to be a base stealing threat? This is our biggest question mark.

-Is Anderson going to turn it around? I'm 99.9% sure that he will turn around and become a .250 hitter. But if he doesn't we need him to get better and getting bunts down and moving guys over. Even if Anderson doesn't do well, we have Erstad as plan B.

-Is Crede's back going to hold out? Crede obviously has a back problems, even with these problems he managed to start 149 games and we have Fields, Mackowiak as backups, so this isn't a major problem. But in keeping with the hope for the best, prepare for the worst outlook that I have, is Fields ready to become an everyday 3B if Crede goes down for the long count? I dont' think it's going to happen, but we should be ready for it.

-Is Uribe going to be rotting away in a Dominican prison? This is a two parter, is he going to prison? I doubt it. Second one is more important, is he going to be overweight shortstop who hit .230 and couldn't move runners over, or is he going to come back in shape and have a productive output like he did in '05? And if he doesn't, who is our backup? Cintron?

So those are the question marks. Obviously some our minor (Crede, 5th spot in the rotation, and probably Uribe). The biggest one is our leadoff man, the rest are all but answered.

Juice16
02-05-2007, 05:13 PM
"Depending on your viewpoint, Williams is either tight-fisted or far-sighted. But one thing is for sure: Williams is taking a huge gamble with a team still good enough to win another championship."

I actually think this is statement is very true. Why is it when a writer doesn't praise the Sox he is a Sox hater?

maurice
02-05-2007, 05:29 PM
To put this into context, the Van Dick bottom-9 "lengthy list of worries" article ran side-by-side with Paul Sullivan's list of 9 Cubs storylines that he plans to write about in 2007:
1. Pinella will improve the Cubs' fundamentals.
2. Lee will be back; remember when he hit 46 HR in 2005?
3. Soriano will play CF, because of "athleticism," "a real nice
throwing arm," and "real good speed."
4. The Cubs have a great bullpen, but Howry might displace
Dempster as the closer.
5. Zambrano will make a lot of money (no mention that he's
certain to depart as a free agent after the season or that
"his sands-through-the-hourglass contract" might become
"a major distraction").
6. The Cubs have "7 or 8 choices" for the 5 starting rotation
slots, and they'll have "5 good ones out there."
7. Pinella hearts J. Jones, who will bat 5th in the Cubs lineup.
8. Izturis will be a great defensive SS and could end up batting
2nd in the Cubs lineup.
9. Will Cub fans at Hohokam boo Sosa?

The main difference between the 2 articles is that Sullivan does his job as "house organ" by setting out all the pro-Cubs talking points in the form of numerous coolaid quotes from the Cubs brass. By contrast, there are no quotes from the Sox brass in Van Dick's article; just the writer's "lengthy list of worries."

veeter
02-05-2007, 06:02 PM
Exactly, Maurice.

Domeshot17
02-05-2007, 07:45 PM
You mean the shortstop with the World Championship ring in his finger?

Worst

Arguement

Ever!

Timo Perez has a world series ring too, Does that mean he needs to come play CF instead of Anderson or Erstad?

Oh man, And what was PHILLY thinking? They signed Chase Utley long term, but WILLIE HARRIS HAS A RING, HE COULD HAVE BEEN HAD CHEAPER TOO!

Uribe is and always will be one of the absolute worst offensive short stops in baseball. His defense is good, but over rated because of 1 half inning in the World Series. After that, he got very lazy in every area of his game.

Rounding_Third
02-05-2007, 10:11 PM
Worst

Arguement

Ever!

His defense is good, but over rated because of 1 half inning in the World Series. After that, he got very lazy in every area of his game.

Worst Statement Ever! Last year, Uribe ranked 2nd(T) in fld%, 3rd in range factor, & 1st in zone rating "routine plays" among AL SS's. Which Uribe were you watching?

JB98
02-05-2007, 11:05 PM
The truth is on our side. The Cubs had the WORST offseason of any team in baseball. The only thing they did right was get rid of Baker and hire Piniella.

They gave Soriano way too many years. Lilly, Marquis and Wade Miller are all pure crap. Daryl Ward, Cliff Floyd and Jacque Jones are essentially all the same player. Why do they need the same guy three times?

DeRosa is a platoon player for a good team. On the Cubs, he's the everyday second baseman.

They suck. They'll be out of it by July.

IndianWhiteSox
02-05-2007, 11:20 PM
Here are the question marks for the 2007 White Sox:

- How many games will they win the division by?
- Will they crack the 100 win mark?
- Will they top the 2005 Postseason mark of 11-1?
- How many people will attend the Championship Parade?

:cool:

ondafarm
02-05-2007, 11:26 PM
The truth is on our side. The Cubs had the WORST offseason of any team in baseball. The only thing they did right was get rid of Baker and hire Piniella.

They gave Soriano way too many years. Lilly, Marquis and Wade Miller are all pure crap. Daryl Ward, Cliff Floyd and Jacque Jones are essentially all the same player. Why do they need the same guy three times?

DeRosa is a platoon player for a good team. On the Cubs, he's the everyday second baseman.

They suck. They'll be out of it by July.

Okay, I disagree here. I don't love the Flubs, quite the opposite.

They did exactly what they needed to this off-season. They made several splashy deals, they locked up some of their more exciting (not better) players and added more exciting players. For those fans of minor league - - - I mean, National League - - - baseball in Chicago they will be an exciting team, never out of games until the last out. That being said, they won't win the close games and they may beat the Cards and everyone else in the NLCD. Big deal. Charlotte should win the IL and I count that as important.

But the Flubs fans will be excited, fill that pit called the Urinal and they may get a division championship. So what, they won't get the pennant and they'd get murdered by much of the AL.

A bad, exciting team that will go nowhere. But for Flubs fans, it'll do.

WhiteSox5187
02-05-2007, 11:57 PM
Worst Statement Ever! Last year, Uribe ranked 2nd(T) in fld%, 3rd in range factor, & 1st in zone rating "routine plays" among AL SS's. Which Uribe were you watching?
I seem to recall a lot of balls that Konerko had to dig out of the dirt and a lot of missed routine plays...it seemed to me though that he was taking his at bats to the field (and a ton of other people said the same thing). I don't think much of him offensively, but he's solid defensively. Certainly not one of the best in the leagues, but he's solid.

A. Cavatica
02-06-2007, 12:04 AM
a good fifth starter is a guy who wins about 12 games, and Floyd is more than capable of doing just that.

That's why we call him Deep Pink Floyd.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if he wins 8.

Grzegorz
02-06-2007, 05:39 AM
As much as I'd hate to say it, I have to agree with him. The Sox do have a lot of question marks and the answer to those questions will only be answered on the playing field.

Every team has question marks; the regular season tends to answer those questions.

veeter
02-06-2007, 07:18 AM
Worst

Arguement

Ever!

Timo Perez has a world series ring too, Does that mean he needs to come play CF instead of Anderson or Erstad?

Oh man, And what was PHILLY thinking? They signed Chase Utley long term, but WILLIE HARRIS HAS A RING, HE COULD HAVE BEEN HAD CHEAPER TOO!

Uribe is and always will be one of the absolute worst offensive short stops in baseball. His defense is good, but over rated because of 1 half inning in the World Series. After that, he got very lazy in every area of his game.Your arguement is putting to bench guys that hardly played against the STARTING shortstop for the championship Sox. Yes, Juan was fat and lazy last year. But he's NOT unproven. We won the world series with him playing excellent defense EVERYDAY. In 2005 he was pretty darn good offensively too. Never an OBP guy, but does get timely hits. If anyone has the worst arguement ever, it's your, Timo/Willie thing. Every championship team has fringe guys that, don't really earn a ring, but receive one. C'Mon give Uribe a little more credit. Like someone always says here; are we expecting all-stars at every position?

veeter
02-06-2007, 07:20 AM
Make that "TWO" bench guys.

SOXSINCE'70
02-06-2007, 09:12 AM
They suck. They'll be out of it by July.

Will it actually take that long??

God,I can't wait to see highlights of Pinella's first tantrum.
At least Ozzie Guillen won't be the only manager
called "crazy" by the mediots this year.:rolleyes:

ondafarm
02-06-2007, 09:15 AM
That's why we call him Deep Pink Floyd.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if he wins 8.

Can you be pleasantly surprised?

RedHeadPaleHoser
02-06-2007, 10:07 AM
Will it actually take that long??

God,I can't wait to see highlights of Pinella's first tantrum.
At least Ozzie Guillen won't be the only manager
called "crazy" by the mediots this year.:rolleyes:

Unfortunately, he will.
Piniella gets a one year grace period.
Here are the 2007 Piniellaisms, courtesy of the Tribune.

Guillen: Crazy Piniella: Aloof
Guillen: Tempermental Piniella: Passionate(post tantrum)
Guillen: Arrogant Piniella: Confident
Guillen:(Players) Throwing Under the Bus Piniella: Holding Accountable
Guillen:(towards media) Mean Piniella: Passionate


Just a simple few - it will be obvious as soon as Lou has his first press conference meltdown. In his defense, with that team, I think it will be the 3rd week of April.

mshake10
02-06-2007, 10:52 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070204sox,1,5427122.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

I'm struggling to find one note of positivism in this one.

"But one thing is for sure: Williams is taking a huge gamble with a team still good enough to win another championship."

Not one note.

Hokiesox
02-06-2007, 12:23 PM
As much as I'd hate to say it, I have to agree with him. The Sox do have a lot of question marks and the answer to those questions will only be answered on the playing field.

Am I the only one who feels the same way I did before the 2005 season? We entered that season with a bunch of question marks. No reason not to be optimistic the question marks won't play well this time around. I say GO SOX!

KyWhiSoxFan
02-06-2007, 12:53 PM
That's why we call him Deep Pink Floyd.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if he wins 8.

I'd be surprised if he's the fifth starter. He may be long man in the bullpen, taking McCarthy's role. My money is on Haeger. I really like him and think he can win as many games as McCarthy could as the fifth starter. Haeger is going to be around a long time.

caulfield12
02-06-2007, 04:49 PM
"But one thing is for sure: Williams is taking a huge gamble with a team still good enough to win another championship."

Not one note.

Sure, "Sox GM Williams Trying To Mess Up Another Championship" definitely sounds positive to me...

Dolanski
02-06-2007, 06:10 PM
Why is it that everytime there is an article that questions the White Sox people go overboard and start attacking the article, the writer, and the paper?

I read the article and for the most part, it raised questions that we all have. Furthermore, the Trib did an article on the Cubs that put them in the same questionable light. Calm down, people.

It is one thing to have Moronetti going off to try and pick a fight with the organization, that's just plain self promotion and lack of integrity. Its another thing when a writer raises concerns over moves that have some Sox fans wondering what kind of team we will have this season.

JB98
02-06-2007, 06:30 PM
Am I the only one who feels the same way I did before the 2005 season? We entered that season with a bunch of question marks. No reason not to be optimistic the question marks won't play well this time around. I say GO SOX!

I honestly didn't think we were going to be very good in 2005. I was thinking 85 wins; maybe if everything went right we'd be in the wild-card race.

In my lifetime, the Sox have often been good when I least expected it. 1990, 2000 and 2005 come immediately to mind. I actually think we're going to be really, really good in 2007, so I hope that isn't a bad sign. :(:

maurice
02-06-2007, 08:36 PM
Furthermore, the Trib did an article on the Cubs that put them in the same questionable light.

No, they didn't. They ran an article that set out all the pro-Cubs talking points in the form of numerous coolaid quotes from the Cubs brass. Van Dick's article doesn't contain ANY quotes from Sox brass, much less positive quotes or pro-Sox spin. It's completely unbalanced, as the headline indicates.

Considered in a vacuum, I have no problem with an article that dissects a team's weaknesses.
Considered in context, the pro-Cub bias is apparent . . . again.

Beer Can Chicken
02-06-2007, 10:38 PM
since reading the article.

Who cares about the 5th rotation spot? Javier Vazquez is now our 4th starter. Most (including our bullpen b/c he couldn't get past 6) couldn't even handle him being our FIFTH starter last year.

Dan H
02-07-2007, 10:31 AM
Why is it that everytime there is an article that questions the White Sox people go overboard and start attacking the article, the writer, and the paper?

I read the article and for the most part, it raised questions that we all have. Furthermore, the Trib did an article on the Cubs that put them in the same questionable light. Calm down, people.

It is one thing to have Moronetti going off to try and pick a fight with the organization, that's just plain self promotion and lack of integrity. Its another thing when a writer raises concerns over moves that have some Sox fans wondering what kind of team we will have this season.

I agree. This was a huge overreaction. The Sox have plenty of question marks going into this season. That doesn't mean they won't have a good season. It just means these questions have to be answered positively for them to have that great season.

PaulDrake
02-07-2007, 10:49 AM
That's why we call him Deep Pink Floyd.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if he wins 8. I'll be pleasantly surprised if he makes the team.

Dolanski
02-07-2007, 12:42 PM
No, they didn't. They ran an article that set out all the pro-Cubs talking points in the form of numerous coolaid quotes from the Cubs brass. Van Dick's article doesn't contain ANY quotes from Sox brass, much less positive quotes or pro-Sox spin. It's completely unbalanced, as the headline indicates.

Considered in a vacuum, I have no problem with an article that dissects a team's weaknesses.
Considered in context, the pro-Cub bias is apparent . . . again.

And yes, there is a HUGE media conspiracy against the White Sox. Why is it some fans go out of there way to find some reason to have a chip on their shoulder when rooting for the White Sox? If its not the Tribune slighting us, its ESPN. If its not the local media against us, then its the national media who hates us. Get over it.

PaulDrake
02-07-2007, 01:02 PM
And yes, there is a HUGE media conspiracy against the White Sox. Why is it some fans go out of there way to find some reason to have a chip on their shoulder when rooting for the White Sox? If its not the Tribune slighting us, its ESPN. If its not the local media against us, then its the national media who hates us. Get over it. When it comes to Chicago Major League baseball both the national and local media will tilt toward the Cubs. While that may be true, the Sox and their fans should not be surprised that some sports journalists will be skeptical, if not hostile about their off season moves.

maurice
02-07-2007, 01:37 PM
Why is it some fans go out of there way to find some reason to have a chip on their shoulder when rooting for the White Sox?

Why is it that some people can't respond to specific points and have to try to change the subject? Oh, yeah. It's because they're full of ****.

Sullivan is the Cubs "house organ." That's why he dutifully writes up their talking points. If he doesn't, he gets called into the principal's office. How do we know this? Because Sullivan told us so. He even came up with the term "house organ." I guess he's just a closeted Sox fan who's making things up about his employer.

In the past few days, both Sullivan and Rogers have written coolaid comments about how great the Cubs pitchers will be in 2007, despite the fact that most of their staff is bad, injured, and/or unproven. Meanwhile, the Trib criticizes the 2007 Sox at every turn for relying on unproven pitchers, despite the fact that they're more highly touted than the Cubs collection of crap.

It's certainly possible to publish coolaid quotes about how great the young Sox pitchers will be in 2007. KW's been talking them up all offseason, and Ozzie has joined in the chorus. Here's (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/246383,CST-SPT-sox07.article) an example from today's papers. Of course, that didn't run in the Trib, because it undermines most of their talking points. If the Trib thinks the quotes are biased and not worthy of being published, I won't disagree . . . as long as they apply the same standard to the team they own.

The anti-Sox / pro-Cubs bias of the Trib has been documented on this site for many years. (No, I'm not talking about Hangar; I'm talking about posts from PHG, Vernam, Jeff, etc.). The data speaks for itself. If you think you can effectively criticize the data, knock yourself out. It would be a welcome relief from your baseless ranting and raving. If you think the topic is not worthy of discussion, stop hypocritically posting in this kind of thread.

Dolanski
02-07-2007, 04:09 PM
Why is it that some people can't respond to specific points and have to try to change the subject? Oh, yeah. It's because they're full of ****.

The anti-Sox / pro-Cubs bias of the Trib has been documented on this site for many years. (No, I'm not talking about Hangar; I'm talking about posts from PHG, Vernam, Jeff, etc.). The data speaks for itself. If you think you can effectively criticize the data, knock yourself out. It would be a welcome relief from your baseless ranting and raving. If you think the topic is not worthy of discussion, stop hypocritically posting in this kind of thread.

Let me ask you a question. How important is it if the national media and local media disrespect the White Sox? Seriously, how much do you think anyone here cares about it?

I certainly don't.

I am so sick of seeing thread after thread complaining about how much no one loves us. Every day someone posts how this writer or that paper, or that tv show criticized our team, or ignored us, etc. After awhile, all these posts just become the rantings and ravings of lunatic fans that can't accept any criticism whatsoever. Making moutains out of molehills.

You can show me all the articles, stats, etc about how we are so slighted, and guess what? It makes no difference. All that matters is what happens on the field. And that is all that I really care about.

caulfield12
02-07-2007, 04:44 PM
Wouldn't you agree that perception is 90% of reality?

Your argument is that you can't change something, so why fight it? If the "majority" wants to do something to the minority, then the smaller group (historically, the White Sox fanbase) should simply accept it, that's the way it has always been?

The whole idea of KW is to fight for the hearts and minds of this next generation of baseball fans. I guarantee if every White Sox fans stopped, enmasse, reading the Tribune or Sun-Times, they might think about changing their coverage.

Those people who want a raise in the minimum wage or health care benefits (or any battle you can think of), those in power will always see the "minority" as lunatics. They've been trying to "profile" Sox fans the last 100 years, vis a vis Cubs' fans. Much of it is not even subtle...simply writers choosing to hide behind carefully "coded" words.

For instance, George Washington was branded as a "terrorist" and "lunatic" by the British. If the Colonies would have lost the war, he would have been hung as a traitor, for mutiny/treason/sedition. What we call a terrorist today.

I'm using an extreme example, because nobody would think of him in this way. Most people are pragmatists, as you apparently are...however, there comes a point in time for every pragmatist to fight what he believes in, to become an idealist.

You've seen the "rear guard action" in evidence ever since the news came out that the White Sox ratings and "market share" in 2005/06 was equal or even surpassing that of the Cubs. Do you think there is no orchestration or synergy when a media conglomerate owns a baseball club? Baseball is no longer about who wins and loses, those boards exist (like the fantasy league ones or sabermetric discussions of OBP, OPS, VORP, RC/27, etc.), but IT very much is about business and economics and profitability.

Whatever affects the market share of the White Sox (in this case, the media), leads to a detrimental residual affect in attendance and ratings, with the cause and effect relationship leading to a lowered payroll and a diminished opportunity to win and lose on the field. If you don't want to see that, you're free to stick your head in the sand and pretend it's the 1950's, baseball is king, and Eisenhower is still President.

WhiteSox5187
02-07-2007, 04:55 PM
Let me ask you a question. How important is it if the national media and local media disrespect the White Sox? Seriously, how much do you think anyone here cares about it?

I certainly don't.

I am so sick of seeing thread after thread complaining about how much no one loves us. Every day someone posts how this writer or that paper, or that tv show criticized our team, or ignored us, etc. After awhile, all these posts just become the rantings and ravings of lunatic fans that can't accept any criticism whatsoever. Making moutains out of molehills.

You can show me all the articles, stats, etc about how we are so slighted, and guess what? It makes no difference. All that matters is what happens on the field. And that is all that I really care about.
I think it's better when we get disrespected, it puts a chip on our shoulder like '05 and we come out as the underdog. I like that.

But it does get kinda annoying. I thought ESPN showed us absolutely no respect in '05 (and the AL Central in general) and it's like "C'mon. Give us some credit, we just beat your Red Sox! Don't gimme that umpire crap!" It gets annoying, but we proved 'em wrong before and we'll do it again.

rdivaldi
02-07-2007, 05:03 PM
Let me ask you a question. How important is it if the national media and local media disrespect the White Sox? Seriously, how much do you think anyone here cares about it?

I certainly don't.

I am so sick of seeing thread after thread complaining about how much no one loves us. Every day someone posts how this writer or that paper, or that tv show criticized our team, or ignored us, etc. After awhile, all these posts just become the rantings and ravings of lunatic fans that can't accept any criticism whatsoever. Making moutains out of molehills.

You can show me all the articles, stats, etc about how we are so slighted, and guess what? It makes no difference. All that matters is what happens on the field. And that is all that I really care about.

I think that you are missing the big picture. Public perception is heavily created in the media, which in turn influences things such as ticket sales, merchandise sales, advertising revenue, etc. When you have a sport such as baseball where there is no salary cap, these inequities will hurt the team in question in terms of $$$.

I for one do not look forward to the day when only the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs and Dodgers have a chance year in and year out because they are the darlings of large media conglomerates. I'm glad that our fan base actually speaks out against the obvious Trib spin.

PaulDrake
02-07-2007, 05:05 PM
you're free to stick your head in the sand and pretend it's the 1950's, baseball is king, and Eisenhower is still President. I'm feeling flippant, so feel free to skip this and go on to the next post. Yes the 1950s, the best jazz and the best movies ever made. I got introduced to Riverview, Lorees ice cream sundaes and the White Sox. I liked Ike too. Now I will remove my head from the sand and everyone can go back to the subject at hand.

Dolanski
02-07-2007, 06:49 PM
Wouldn't you agree that perception is 90% of reality?

Your argument is that you can't change something, so why fight it? If the "majority" wants to do something to the minority, then the smaller group (historically, the White Sox fanbase) should simply accept it, that's the way it has always been?

The whole idea of KW is to fight for the hearts and minds of this next generation of baseball fans. I guarantee if every White Sox fans stopped, enmasse, reading the Tribune or Sun-Times, they might think about changing their coverage.

Those people who want a raise in the minimum wage or health care benefits (or any battle you can think of), those in power will always see the "minority" as lunatics. They've been trying to "profile" Sox fans the last 100 years, vis a vis Cubs' fans. Much of it is not even subtle...simply writers choosing to hide behind carefully "coded" words.

For instance, George Washington was branded as a "terrorist" and "lunatic" by the British. If the Colonies would have lost the war, he would have been hung as a traitor, for mutiny/treason/sedition. What we call a terrorist today.

I'm using an extreme example, because nobody would think of him in this way. Most people are pragmatists, as you apparently are...however, there comes a point in time for every pragmatist to fight what he believes in, to become an idealist.

You've seen the "rear guard action" in evidence ever since the news came out that the White Sox ratings and "market share" in 2005/06 was equal or even surpassing that of the Cubs. Do you think there is no orchestration or synergy when a media conglomerate owns a baseball club? Baseball is no longer about who wins and loses, those boards exist (like the fantasy league ones or sabermetric discussions of OBP, OPS, VORP, RC/27, etc.), but IT very much is about business and economics and profitability.

Whatever affects the market share of the White Sox (in this case, the media), leads to a detrimental residual affect in attendance and ratings, with the cause and effect relationship leading to a lowered payroll and a diminished opportunity to win and lose on the field. If you don't want to see that, you're free to stick your head in the sand and pretend it's the 1950's, baseball is king, and Eisenhower is still President.

OK, now we are getting a bit onto political, social, and economic topics in relation to a discussion about media coverage of a baseball team? A bit much, don't you think?

I am not arguing to fight, or change, or whatever. I just don't want to read these kind of threads everyday. It just doesn't interest me. I am a baseball and White Sox fan. How did being one of these suddenly get wrapped up in judging media coverage and hating everyone that has the gall to criticize our team?

Aside: This entire discussion, of course, omits Jay Mariotti from the discussion as he has made his criticisms of the White Sox a personal matter and vendetta.

Only a blind man would not acknowledge that we have been the second team in this city for some time. And, yes, I think everyone can understand why it happened for a variety of reasons that I need not repeat ad nauseum. But the one thing I do know is that it has NOTHING to do with a conspiracy against the White Sox, national or local. Sorry, newspapers and media people just aren't that bright, nor that conniving.

This thread and others support this ridiculous notion that the world is against the White Sox and that we must go out of way to defend our team against anyone or thing that questions it. Sorry, but you are chasing windmills, Don Quixote. Just because an article takes a critical stance does not make it instantly an adversary. And you are correct, if we are to take on ESPN, the Trib, et al, then stop watching, stop buying the paper and your voice will be heard. If this is so dire as you make it out to be, please let me know when you get http://boycottthetrib.com up and running.

My biggest issue with these discussions is that they promote the bitter, angry and obnoxious Sox fan. It becomes less about rooting for the White Sox and more about hating the critics and others who are perceived to be against us (i.e. Cubs, ESPN, Tribune, etc). As far as the Cubs go, I am all for ribbing and occasisonal joke at the expense of the Cubs and Cub fans seeing as we share a city, but when rooting for the White Sox becomes hating everything anti-White Sox, we have gone over the edge. That is the difference. Now ask yourself, which kind of fan are you?

Finally, if you want respect, fans for the future, there is one simple solution: Win.

caulfield12
02-07-2007, 07:13 PM
It's not about being bitter, but "vigilant"....being the underdog is part of the "identity" of the Sox and their fanbase. That's why 2005 was so special, nobody thought we could do it...us against the world, etc....remember Carl Everett's comments after clinching game on the DVD?

Our team lost that identity and got a little complacent last year.

I'm pretty sure the White Sox will never be as "loveable" as the Cubs (there are many here who will post about the times the Sox routinely outdrew the Cubs, and the reasons they lost that advantage are delineated in multiple threads), but there's a difference between JFK/Oliver Stone/9-11 conspiracies and the coverage of the Cubs vis a vis the White Sox over the last 4-5 months.

I guess there are some who refuse to believe that there is such a thing as "media bias" in general...just like some refuse to believe in global warming (see Michael Crichton) or the Democrats or Republicans who believe they honestly won elections in 1960 and 2000, LOL.

Dan Mega
02-07-2007, 09:53 PM
I guess there are some who refuse to believe that there is such a thing as "media bias" in general...just like some refuse to believe in global warming (see Michael Crichton) or the Democrats or Republicans who believe they honestly won elections in 1960 and 2000, LOL.

Well without touching those other political subjects you brought up, I think some people may or may not care either way.

Vernam
02-07-2007, 10:06 PM
Sorry, but you are chasing windmills, Don Quixote.<Clears throat, begins to sing> To dream, the impossible dream . . . :redneck

Speaking just for myself (and possibly for others here, but probably not for the ultimate paranoid Sox fan, Hangar), the fact that I occasionally indulge that side of my fandom shouldn't be construed as proof that I skulk around the house at all hours, seething over real and perceived slights from a bunch of editors and reporters who don't even know I exist. Posting about it on WSI is an amusement, which doesn't mean it's insincere, either. During that moment spent considering what I just read from Sully, Van Dyck, and others, I can't help but view their comments with the eyes of a fan who has followed for decades a team considered inferior to what is manifestly the worst franchise ever in professional sports. It's enough to drive anyone a little batty, wouldn't you say? Especially after we win it all, yet that isn't enough to turn things around, not that we ever fooled ourselves into thinking it would! Especially because it's all wrapped up in snobbism and class consciousness, things that aren't easily ignored by people on the wrong end of them.

I do concede it can be an unhealthy and tedious preoccupation, and taken to extremes, it can even be an embarrassment. But that doesn't mean none of the arguments have merit. There's at least a germ of truth, or Phil Rogers and other Trib staff wouldn't openly long for the day when Trib Co. might sell their team, to remove the taint of conflicted interests that are a legitimate subtext of every word the paper publishes about both teams.

FWIW, a neighbor of mine has a high-profile writing gig at the Trib (he's a Cub fan, not that I see any connection!), and he says the company is full of Sox fans who are even more paranoid about the "conspiracy" than we are here on WSI. That's what they get for working for the Evil Empire.

Vernam

rdivaldi
02-07-2007, 10:59 PM
OK, now we are getting a bit onto political, social, and economic topics in relation to a discussion about media coverage of a baseball team? A bit much, don't you think?

10/3/2005 - The Trib runs a story detailing the massive drug use and poverty around the Cell. Great timing, eh? Could it be any more obvious what they are trying to do?

ondafarm
02-07-2007, 11:12 PM
Do I care?

Yes I do. I don't like it when anybody badmouths anything that I love. Not that everyone has to be perfectly neutral, but I believe that the professional media should be professionally neutral. That being said, I can't think of a single major media outlet (newspaper, TV or radio) in the US today that does a very good job of being neutral on whatever they cover.

When media outlets bash the White Sox unfairly, I take it as a personal affront.

mshake10
02-07-2007, 11:50 PM
Do I care?

Yes I do. I don't like it when anybody badmouths anything that I love. Not that everyone has to be perfectly neutral, but I believe that the professional media should be professionally neutral. That being said, I can't think of a single major media outlet (newspaper, TV or radio) in the US today that does a very good job of being neutral on whatever they cover.

When media outlets bash the White Sox unfairly, I take it as a personal affront.
And what about when it's fairly, like this article?

caulfield12
02-08-2007, 12:36 AM
It's not the article itself, it's the constant reiteration of the same article with different faces and different authors, and almost complete reliance on "negative" possibilities or outcomes. You can spin anything positively or negatively...depending on what your objective is, just as statistics can be selected to support almost any argument.

In the meantime, there's the juxtaposition of the constant stream of Cubs' articles, which all paint a happy face on their similar issues. The Cubs' convention comes along and it's like the articles were just reprints of press releases, for all the "digging" that was done. The White Sox have to deal with the firestorm of a media-created "Buehrle is leaving" damnation and the paint had yet to dry on the signs in the Palmer House for SoxFest.

How many articles have been written in the Chicago media questioning the intelligence of signing Marquis and Lilly? They mention the overwhelming depth of the Cubs' starters, when most, if not all, are major question marks. They make Garcia and McCarthy into Cy Young winners when they were barely adequate and left a lot to be desired last year.

maurice
02-08-2007, 01:10 PM
I'm pretty sure the White Sox will never be as "loveable" as the Cubs

The Trib is trying damn hard to make sure of it. Contrast the Trib's "non-baseball" Sox articles like "there's pot smoke everywhere," "the Sox are bad neighbors," "a Sox fan murdered our Ivy," anything about Ligue, Dybas, Belle, etc. with their "non-baseball" Cubs articles like Mitchell's routine puff pieces on former Cubs, a recent puff piece on Sammy Sosa (the pendulum swings back now that they don't need him as a scapegoat), and the very 1st article on the 1st page of today's sports section:
Yankee Doodle Dandy may have caused
the Lovable Cubbie Curse TM Trib Co. - all rights reserved
:rolleyes:

gobears1987
02-08-2007, 02:18 PM
If the guy knew anything about baseball, he wouldn't be writing for the Tribune.QFT