PDA

View Full Version : Phil Rogers AGAIN....yawn.


cws05champ
02-14-2007, 08:46 PM
Title of this article:

Building, winning don't mix
Williams' moves, geared toward 2008, weaken Sox's attempt to compete this year

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070213rogerssox,1,6687332.column?coll=cs-home-utility

cws05champ
02-14-2007, 08:47 PM
Oh...I forgot to add the Cubs Spring training headline:

Leakage of talent reversed
$320 million is a lot, but Hendry's spending permits Cubs to add depth on many fronts

Grzegorz
02-14-2007, 08:57 PM
Title of this article:
Building, winning don't mix


As long as it someone else's money being spent...

The White Sox made some nice moves this year. Toby Hall solid, Erstad as insurance solid, and I believe the Garcia and McCarthy deals will be net pluses for the club.

KW built pitching depth and will deal the most precious commodity in the game for what the ball club needs.

Let's start the season now...

mshake10
02-14-2007, 09:15 PM
You know, if a Phil Rogers article makes you yawn, why even post a thread about it?

Oh right, Flubsession.

Besides, without reading the article (and I may change my opinion after I do), I agree with the subheadline. Kenny did trade a 17 game winner and a Major League ready replacement for others who probably won't be ready this year, or at least won't be as good this year.

caulfield12
02-14-2007, 09:24 PM
I can't disagree with anything he said, but I don't know that it needs to be reiterated every week.

I also think he's underestimating the improvement in the bullpen...and the fact it was unlikely that Garcia was going to be more like the 2005 version than last year's enigma.

We can't judge the Vazquez deal until after Javier leaves the Sox.

ondafarm
02-14-2007, 09:31 PM
Cubune, Baseball Smarts don't mix

itsnotrequired
02-14-2007, 09:31 PM
We can't judge the Vazquez deal until after Javier leaves the Sox.

Why not?

DumpJerry
02-14-2007, 09:36 PM
We can't judge the Vazquez deal until after Javier leaves the Sox.

Why not?
Because it will only then that we knonw all his numbers with the White Sox and how muich he contributes to the team.

After all, we did not know how big a catch that Frank Thomas guy was for us until he went yeard off Garland twice in one game last year.

gobears1987
02-14-2007, 09:39 PM
In a way I do agree with Rogers. I believe we have a chance to win this year, but KW's moves make winning in 2008 and future years more likely. That isn't a bad thing. It's the truth. After all, look at all the prospects we should have coming up in the next few years. I'm looking forward to seeing Broadway, Haegar, Gonzalez, and Floyd develop into good Major League pitchers.

I don't get all the recent Phil Rogers hate. His ranting about some of the moves aren't those of a typical Flubune employ. They are the emotional reaction of a fan.

gobears1987
02-14-2007, 09:40 PM
Because it will only then that we knonw all his numbers with the White Sox and how muich he contributes to the team.

After all, we did not know how big a catch that Frank Thomas guy was for us until he went yeard off Garland twice in one game last year.To be more realistic, we can't judge it until we see what Young does. If he flops, no loss. If he does well and Vazquez flops, then it's a loss. If Vazquez gets it together and Young does exceptionally well, then it's a good trade for both sides.

itsnotrequired
02-14-2007, 09:47 PM
Because it will only then that we knonw all his numbers with the White Sox and how muich he contributes to the team.

After all, we did not know how big a catch that Frank Thomas guy was for us until he went yeard off Garland twice in one game last year.

Do we need to wait until Thornton is done with the Sox to determine his worth to the team?

mshake10
02-14-2007, 09:53 PM
But you can compare Luis Vizcaino to his replacement for this year, and next year.

gobears1987
02-14-2007, 09:55 PM
Do we need to wait until Thornton is done with the Sox to determine his worth to the team?The way I see it, if that player has contributed in more than what you gave up, then you can assess while the players are still playing.

See the Garcia deal as an example of that.

In a case like the Vaz deal, it looks bad now, but Coop might fix him and then it's a sweet deal. Remember, it took Coop about a year to fix Jose.

Dan Mega
02-14-2007, 10:01 PM
Geez what the hell is wrong with investing in the future? Nothing. On paper, the White Sox are still a top 5 team in the A.L.

rdivaldi
02-14-2007, 10:21 PM
You know, if a Phil Rogers article makes you yawn, why even post a thread about it?

Oh right, Flubsession.

You know if a thread makes you upset every time it badmouths the Cubs or the Tribune, why even reply to it?

Oh right, :dtroll:

mshake10
02-14-2007, 10:28 PM
You know if a thread makes you upset every time it badmouths the Cubs or the Tribune, why even reply to it?

Oh right, :dtroll:
It's not the thread, it's the "yawn" comment, which usually means "whatever, I don't care." So seeing a thread on it is most interesting. :smile:

rdivaldi
02-14-2007, 10:49 PM
Don't spend your time trying to psychoanalyze the posters on this board, you'll go mad.

But as for the column, Phil has gone a biiiiit overboard this offseason with his disapproval of the trades. We get it Phil, you don't like them. There are many that agree with this but enough is enough. Anyway, I agree that this should be taken with a grain of salt. This is the same guy that predicted a championship because we had 4 guys who threw 190+ innings in the previous year...

fusillirob1983
02-15-2007, 12:05 AM
This was a pretty bad article. I don't have a problem with his questioning the Garcia trade, even if Floyd might turn out to be pretty good. I disagreed with the article on many occasions, but I can understand his questioning that trade. At least Downey's article, even if it was seen as immature, childish, unfunny by some, was not meant to be taken seriously. I highly doubt Phil meant to write any of his article in teal.

Some things that made me scratch my head or lose respect for him:

-His belief that rather than the approx. 1 run per game higher staff ERA, the CF, LF, and SS "contributed heavily" to the Sox only winning 90 games. I won't deny those being our weakest positions this season, it's pretty obvious our drop in pitching performance was more important.

-Stating outright that Crede, Buehrle, Garland, and Vazquez are definitely gone if given the opportunity, as though he makes decisions for the organization

-Chris Young is a possible ROTY candidate? Brian Anderson was last year.

-Second mention of Buehrle and Garland leaving due to not signing 4 and 5 year contracts, even though Garland signed a 3 year contract last year and Mark never said he wants at least 4 years.

-Complains we no longer have Stewart to catch Haeger. I'd rather have the solid bat against all the lefty starters in the Central than the hole in the lineup that is useful for catching 1 out of 12 pitchers.

-At one point he contradicts himself and says:
If the Sox make another playoff run this season, it will be because they get good seasons from guys they already had rather than the guys they acquired in recent moves.
So wouldn't it make more sense that our current starting pitchers need to improve rather than finding unattainable upgrades at LF, CF, and SS?

-I don't understand why he brings up Erstad being significant in the OF since '02. He's a backup. It makes no sense to have Sweeney or Owens sit on the bench either.

-He waits until the final paragraph to refer to the Sox as an "excellent team". Aside from people posting in this thread, did anyone read that far into the article?

I thought some bias existed, but typically thought people were overreacting a lot. Today though, as a whole, the Spring Training section of the paper made the bias pretty obvious, specifically the differences in headlines and the two columns written by Phil Rogers. To continue writing, however, would 1) take a lot more time and 2) would categorize this post as more fitting for the Tribune bias thread of a couple weeks ago.

caulfield12
02-15-2007, 04:49 AM
This was a pretty bad article. I don't have a problem with his questioning the Garcia trade, even if Floyd might turn out to be pretty good. I disagreed with the article on many occasions, but I can understand his questioning that trade. At least Downey's article, even if it was seen as immature, childish, unfunny by some, was not meant to be taken seriously. I highly doubt Phil meant to write any of his article in teal.

Some things that made me scratch my head or lose respect for him:

-His belief that rather than the approx. 1 run per game higher staff ERA, the CF, LF, and SS "contributed heavily" to the Sox only winning 90 games. I won't deny those being our weakest positions this season, it's pretty obvious our drop in pitching performance was more important.

-Stating outright that Crede, Buehrle, Garland, and Vazquez are definitely gone if given the opportunity, as though he makes decisions for the organization

-Chris Young is a possible ROTY candidate? Brian Anderson was last year.

-Second mention of Buehrle and Garland leaving due to not signing 4 and 5 year contracts, even though Garland signed a 3 year contract last year and Mark never said he wants at least 4 years.

-Complains we no longer have Stewart to catch Haeger. I'd rather have the solid bat against all the lefty starters in the Central than the hole in the lineup that is useful for catching 1 out of 12 pitchers.

-At one point he contradicts himself and says:

So wouldn't it make more sense that our current starting pitchers need to improve rather than finding unattainable upgrades at LF, CF, and SS?

-I don't understand why he brings up Erstad being significant in the OF since '02. He's a backup. It makes no sense to have Sweeney or Owens sit on the bench either.

-He waits until the final paragraph to refer to the Sox as an "excellent team". Aside from people posting in this thread, did anyone read that far into the article?

I thought some bias existed, but typically thought people were overreacting a lot. Today though, as a whole, the Spring Training section of the paper made the bias pretty obvious, specifically the differences in headlines and the two columns written by Phil Rogers. To continue writing, however, would 1) take a lot more time and 2) would categorize this post as more fitting for the Tribune bias thread of a couple weeks ago.

I didn't catch where it claimed Vazquez also would be gone.

Young is a much more highly-regarded prospect. BA was a candidate mainly because he was a sure starter coming into the season.

Every pitcher on the market at Buehrle's age wants as many years as possible. When Gil Meche can get five, why would Buehrle take less than offered? Same with Garland after next year.

Erstad is significant because he will play 2/3rd's of the time with Pods out and there's a 50/50 chance BA will go back to AAA, based on last year.

Sweeney or Fields won't be on the bench, only Owens.

If they take three lefties and 12 pitchers, things obviously change there as well.

veeter
02-15-2007, 06:15 AM
So, according to Phil the young guys will suck in 2007, but in 2008 they'll contribute. They're still going to be young next year. And why has McCarthy become the greatest pitcher ever, since he's been traded? According to Phil, McCarthy "rolled through the second half of 2005." Huh? He had a few VERY important spot starts. He pitched well in those few games, but he hardly rolled. Rolling would be a 11-2 second half or something like that. It's all part of the Sox smear campaign.

bryPt
02-15-2007, 06:50 AM
I am going to step out here. Mark it down, Feb. 15th, 2007 at 6:49 AM

Vazquez is going to have a damn good season this year. I feel he will win 15 for us. Coop figured it out in Sept. last year and it is going to carry over to this year. We will all be lovin Vazquez by June and riding his back into October.

call me loco, but I just got a feelin.

caulfield12
02-15-2007, 07:11 AM
I am going to step out here. Mark it down, Feb. 15th, 2007 at 6:49 AM

Vazquez is going to have a damn good season this year. I feel he will win 15 for us. Coop figured it out in Sept. last year and it is going to carry over to this year. We will all be lovin Vazquez by June and riding his back into October.

call me loco, but I just got a feelin.

I think a large majority here are predicting a good season from Vazquez, sub 4.00 ERA and 14-16 wins.

caulfield12
02-15-2007, 07:11 AM
So, according to Phil the young guys will suck in 2007, but in 2008 they'll contribute. They're still going to be young next year. And why has McCarthy become the greatest pitcher ever, since he's been traded? According to Phil, McCarthy "rolled through the second half of 2005." Huh? He had a few VERY important spot starts. He pitched well in those few games, but he hardly rolled. Rolling would be a 11-2 second half or something like that. It's all part of the Sox smear campaign.

See Contreras, Jose (August 05 through May 06).

Now that is the definition of a roll of extended dominance.

Jurr
02-15-2007, 07:50 AM
I have never understood this logic at all. The whole "established player" debate.

The media is terrible about championing the guy that has "proven" himself, be it one season or a number of seasons. Todd Ritchie was proven. David Wells was proven. Esteban Loaiza was NOT an established star. Each year tells a different story, unless the guy is Hall of Fame material.

Mark Buehrle is a great example. Yes, the guy is a proven stud. He has produced year in and year out. He had a bad season. Does that mean he's going to suck this year? Joe Crede and Aaron Rowand were once considered unproven liabilities. They soon became established big leaguers, and Crede is becoming an elite third baseman.

My point is this - why does the media automatically assume that because a guy put up certain numbers in year A that he's going to do the exact same thing in year B? It's ridiculous. Rogers missed the boat on this one. I guess he'd rather have the Sox keep all of their players into their late 30's, watch them regress over time as their contracts soar, then have the Sox fall into the gutter, rebuild for a few years, then find a way to get back into the mix.

Ridiculous. The good teams that have a lasting legacy find a way to continuously infuse talent into their organization, avoid contracts that will cripple their flexibility, and combine veteran players with up-and-comers. While player A, B, C, and D are entering the peak spots of their careers, players E, F, and G are coming into their own and becoming "established".

It's very rare that a player waltzes right into the league and starts racking up wins or hits .340. It takes time. That's why you play the young guys alongside the elite guys - to balance things out. Going into '05, Crede had yet to reach his potential, Cotts was still coming along, Garland wasn't a top pitcher, and we had a "rookie" at second. During the season, the young guys all progressed, and by the end of the year Garland, Crede, and Iguchi were considered "established, elite players."

Just because Gavin Floyd hasn't won 15-20 games in a season doesn't automatically mean that he's going to struggle with the Sox. Who's to say that the light won't turn on for Anderson? Given the chance, Haeger, Broadway, or Danks might become very reliable. That's what makes media prognostication so silly. Anyone can do it.

These guys plug a whole bunch of numbers together based on what the guy did last year, add 'em up, and make general assumptions. They automatically assume that losing Garcia's 17 wins and replacing them with Floyd's numbers equals a 10-15 game swing in the standings. They assume that Mark Buehrle and Javy Vazquez can't bounce back and have great seasons to offset the loss of a veteran. It's just ridiculous.

Yes, the Sox roster has been tweaked to bring in some (hopefully) future dominant pitchers. These guys just may be very good assets this year. You just can't know until the season plays out. No GM worth his salt is going to allow his team to get old, fat, and happy just to appease the fan base and the media, who laud the paper champions. Every "established" player does not go into the league established. He needs a chance. The good teams pick the right times to plug these guys in and let them grow.

WizardsofOzzie
02-15-2007, 09:22 AM
You know, if a Phil Rogers article makes you yawn, why even post a thread about it?

Oh right, Flubsession.

Besides, without reading the article (and I may change my opinion after I do), I agree with the subheadline. Kenny did trade a 17 game winner and a Major League ready replacement for others who probably won't be ready this year, or at least won't be as good this year.
Mods, I'm not trying to be an armchair moderator or anything but is there anyway you could possibly look into this guys posting history and consider the fact that he or she is a troll. It seem pretty obvious to me that they are and it's getting annoying. thank you!

oeo
02-15-2007, 09:32 AM
Someone needs to get this guy some news stories. We already know you don't like Kenny's moves...you've told us a billion times. And guess what? No one cares.

It's not the thread, it's the "yawn" comment, which usually means "whatever, I don't care." So seeing a thread on it is most interesting. :smile:

It's become quite obvious that you love your Cubbies...why are you here?

White Sox Randy
02-15-2007, 11:50 AM
I think that's the best article that Rogers has written in some time. I agree wholeheartedly!

Kenny's big moves since the end of 2005 have been very questionable. The 2005 offseason trades hurt more than helped and the 2006 offseason trades hurt 2007.

His smaller deals have been great - Cintron, Sisco, Hall, Aardsma.

Risk
02-15-2007, 11:57 AM
The 2005 offseason trades hurt more than helped and the 2006 offseason trades hurt 2007.

His smaller deals have been great - Cintron, Sisco, Hall, Aardsma.

How exactly have the 2006 offseason trades hurt 2007 when not a single game of the 2007 season has been played yet?

Risk

jcw218
02-15-2007, 12:06 PM
I think that's the best article that Rogers has written in some time. I agree wholeheartedly!

Kenny's big moves since the end of 2005 have been very questionable. The 2005 offseason trades hurt more than helped and the 2006 offseason trades hurt 2007.

His smaller deals have been great - Cintron, Sisco, Hall, Aardsma.

WE DO NOT YET KNOW THE OUTCOME OF THE 2007 SEASON, so we cannot say for sure that the deals that Kenny Williams has made this offseason have hurt the Sox for 2007. In YOUR OPINION the moves that have been made have hurt the Sox and you're entitled to your opinion. Just don't go stating that as a foregone conclusion when the results from the said season have not been gathered yet.

Which move of 2005 hurt the Sox - acquiring Thome? Vazquez? Resigning Konerko? Letting Thomas go?

fusillirob1983
02-15-2007, 12:12 PM
I didn't catch where it claimed Vazquez also would be gone.

Young is a much more highly-regarded prospect. BA was a candidate mainly because he was a sure starter coming into the season.

Every pitcher on the market at Buehrle's age wants as many years as possible. When Gil Meche can get five, why would Buehrle take less than offered? Same with Garland after next year.

Erstad is significant because he will play 2/3rd's of the time with Pods out and there's a 50/50 chance BA will go back to AAA, based on last year.

Sweeney or Fields won't be on the bench, only Owens.

If they take three lefties and 12 pitchers, things obviously change there as well.

He claims Vazquez is likely gone in the 9th paragraph.

Is it likely Mark and Jon will want similar contracts to others on the market? Sure, but Trib writers have been acting all offseason as though Mark's made comments comparable to Zambrano's earlier this week. I'm sure Mark also knows his ~5.00 ERA last year isn't worth Zito money.

I understand Pods will be out at the beginning, but over the course of the season, unless BA shows absolutely no improvement over last season, Erstad should only be playing part-time.

I agree, Sweeney won't be on the bench. I'm not sure Owens can help do more than pinch run too.

I'm confused by your comment about the three lefties and 12 pitchers.

Tekijawa
02-15-2007, 12:28 PM
2 pages and no one has brought up Rowand yet... Time must heal all wounds.:cool:

soxfanatlanta
02-15-2007, 12:34 PM
I think a large majority here are predicting a good season from Vazquez, sub 4.00 ERA and 14-16 wins.

I'd consider 14-16 wins, a 4-4.5 ERA along with 200+ IP a great season for him.

INSox56
02-15-2007, 12:36 PM
I'm also pretty excited about the thought of Vazquez this year. With how really good he was at the end of last season for a month and a half or more, I hope he carries that over. I think he can be a real dark horse here (for non-WSI folks ;)

I don't like the fact that Rogers is constantly stating, not that there's a possibility of it, but that it's definite that Burls and more ARE LEAVING after 07. I think that's a joke to state that all the time, honestly. When making statements like that, I like to have fact and unless he's privy to more than we are, there's no fact there. I will go ahead and say this though...I know that usually it's a good idea and sort of a policy for nothing more than 3 years for pitchers, but I think this time, Mark has earned a 5 year deal. I really do...the guy doesn't throw so hard that he may be an injury risk, he consistently throws the most or top-3 in IP, is obviously consistently good. He's earned it...GIVE HIM 5 KENNY

WizardsofOzzie
02-15-2007, 12:42 PM
I'm also pretty excited about the thought of Vazquez this year. With how really good he was at the end of last season for a month and a half or more, I hope he carries that over. I think he can be a real dark horse here (for non-WSI folks ;)

I don't like the fact that Rogers is constantly stating, not that there's a possibility of it, but that it's definite that Burls and more ARE LEAVING after 07. I think that's a joke to state that all the time, honestly. When making statements like that, I like to have fact and unless he's privy to more than we are, there's no fact there. I will go ahead and say this though...I know that usually it's a good idea and sort of a policy for nothing more than 3 years for pitchers, but I think this time, Mark has earned a 5 year deal. I really do...the guy doesn't throw so hard that he may be an injury risk, he consistently throws the most or top-3 in IP, is obviously consistently good. He's earned it...GIVE HIM 5 JERRY

Fixed it for you

White Sox Randy
02-15-2007, 12:42 PM
WE DO NOT YET KNOW THE OUTCOME OF THE 2007 SEASON, so we cannot say for sure that the deals that Kenny Williams has made this offseason have hurt the Sox for 2007. In YOUR OPINION the moves that have been made have hurt the Sox and you're entitled to your opinion. Just don't go stating that as a foregone conclusion when the results from the said season have not been gathered yet.

Which move of 2005 hurt the Sox - acquiring Thome? Vazquez? Resigning Konerko? Letting Thomas go?

I cannot say for sure that you exist.

Obviously everyone posts their opinion on here. But, here's a fact for you: in trying to repeat their World Championship the White Sox finished in 3rd place in their own division and out of the playoffs.

I've stated my opinion so many times on these trades that I'll spare the other readers. The Vazquez trade SUCKED BIG TIME FOR THE SOX.

Anyone that thinks the rotation is better now than at this time last year is fooling themselves.

Danks may help the Sox next year. Gio may help the Sox in 2009. These guys have a ways to go before they are consistent winners in the big leagues.

Sadly, Rogers is right. When Sox fans filled the ballpark like never before and spent on their team and supported them......the Sox started tightening the pursestrings. That's not right.

Our outfield is crap. Correction 2/3 of our outfield is crap. That's uncalled for.

The Tigers are surpassing the Sox as an organization. They are BOTH developing and keeping young talent and spending on keeping their key players and signing free agents. The Twins are a great organziation with loads of great young talent and Cleveland will be tough for years. The Sox could easily be left in the dust in this division and not see the playoffs again for a long time if they don't step up now and start adding some major talents.

pmck003
02-15-2007, 12:56 PM
I think that's the best article that Rogers has written in some time. I agree wholeheartedly!

Kenny's big moves since the end of 2005 have been very questionable. The 2005 offseason trades hurt more than helped and the 2006 offseason trades hurt 2007.

His smaller deals have been great - Cintron, Sisco, Hall, Aardsma.

I didn't like the big trades, but I realize now is that it will only take one of the younger starting pitchers to step up and have a previous Garcia-like season to make both trades (Garcia and McCarthy) reasonable. Even if Garcia or McCarthy go off and have an all-star year, I don't think anyone predicted that would happen in a White Sox uni.

In my opinion, the bullpen looks much better (in part to the McCarthy trade) and I think Erstad could be mildly surprising as a LF if they use him there.

I suppose Uribe has had enough time to develop further at the plate by now, and Anderson will have to show some continued improvement during the first quarter of the season. Without Pods, or if he struggles, I really don't know who is gonna bat first, I think Iguchi would have to.

jcw218
02-15-2007, 01:24 PM
I cannot say for sure that you exist.

Obviously everyone posts their opinion on here. But, here's a fact for you: in trying to repeat their World Championship the White Sox finished in 3rd place in their own division and out of the playoffs.

I've stated my opinion so many times on these trades that I'll spare the other readers. The Vazquez trade SUCKED BIG TIME FOR THE SOX.

Anyone that thinks the rotation is better now than at this time last year is fooling themselves.

Danks may help the Sox next year. Gio may help the Sox in 2009. These guys have a ways to go before they are consistent winners in the big leagues.

Sadly, Rogers is right. When Sox fans filled the ballpark like never before and spent on their team and supported them......the Sox started tightening the pursestrings. That's not right.

Our outfield is crap. Correction 2/3 of our outfield is crap. That's uncalled for.

The Tigers are surpassing the Sox as an organization. They are BOTH developing and keeping young talent and spending on keeping their key players and signing free agents. The Twins are a great organziation with loads of great young talent and Cleveland will be tough for years. The Sox could easily be left in the dust in this division and not see the playoffs again for a long time if they don't step up now and start adding some major talents.

Yes the White Sox finished 3rd in their division and out of the playoffs while winning 90 games. One reason that this occured was the overall underperformance of the pitching staff. At the time, the deal for Vazquez made a strong rotation even stronger. Could McCarthy have produced the same as Vazquez, the answer to that is maybe. But Vazquez replaced Hernandez in the rotation and was better in 2006. No one could have forescene that Cotts or Polittle would struggle the way that they did or that Hermanson's back would be as bad as it was.

As for the Vazquez trade, final analysis cannot yet be made. But so far you may be right in that the Sox have gotten the short end of the deal.

The White Sox payroll for 2007 is going to be at least the same as if not more than the payroll for 2006.

jackbrohamer
02-15-2007, 01:57 PM
The more vehement Rogers is about something, the more wrong-headed he is.

He lost any credibility with me when he attacked Jack McKeon during the 2003 World Series for starting Josh Beckett on short rest. His point was that McKeon was incompetent becasue he was old, and how he was needlessly risking Beckett's future. Of course, the move was brilliant and both McKeon and Beckett both have rings to show for it.

INSox56
02-15-2007, 02:03 PM
Fixed it for you

maybe...Kenny's still the one that's gotta convince Jerry to give him 5...

INSox56
02-15-2007, 02:20 PM
Our outfield is crap. Correction 2/3 of our outfield is crap. That's uncalled for.


I used to bash kenny for his lack of activity in our OF, but come on. Who else, really, was available that is better than our current situation?? Dave Roberts? Pierre? Drew? Don't even mention Soriano or Matthews because if you'd be happy paying those guys that money for that length of contract then I'll call you insane. Catalanotto would be the only other possibility and if you do that, we have no leadoff. Not that we do at this moment either, but at the time, no way. Trading for someone isn't really a good thing because that still could leave our pen in a tight spot. I'd say he did the best with what was out there....nothing.

ondafarm
02-15-2007, 06:18 PM
The more vehement Rogers is about something, the more wrong-headed he is. . .

Rogers is like the author of:

" . . . the rabbit dashed about trying to get underground. Finally, he found his burro and dove headlong in . . . "

Or at least his problem could be surmised with the same sentence, "Doesn't know his . . . in the ground." Well, you know the other bit.

FarWestChicago
02-15-2007, 06:21 PM
You know if a thread makes you upset every time it badmouths the Cubs or the Tribune, why even reply to it?

Oh right, :dtroll:Wrong. This is a Sox site. The Flubsessives are the trolls. :rolleyes:

maurice
02-15-2007, 06:23 PM
Most of this already has been covered. The primary flaw is that Rogers continues to argue that the Sox should have upgraded offensively in LF, CF, and/or SS instead of upgrading the bullpen. That's daft. Offense was not the problem. The bullpen was the biggest hole, and it was addressed. KW would have liked to address LF also, but no reasonable deal was available. KW reasonably suspects that both Anderson and Uribe will be better offensively in 2007 (not to mention Buehrle and other returning pitchers). What specific deal should he have made, Phil? Soriano? Matthews? Juan freaking Pierre?

Again, he assumes that McCarthy will be good as an every day starter in 2007 but insists that no young player currently on the Sox will play well. Moreover, he guarantees that McCarthy would have been good as an everyday starter in 2006! ("[H]e would have done better than thatóbook it.") This is laughable. Drop the double-standard, Phil. Young player currently on the Sox =/= inherently bad; young player currently on any other team =/= inherently good.

He also assures us that an early aging and declining Garcia will be good in 2007 (Garcia "will be missed badly. You can count on that.") OTOH, he refuses to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe Buehrle, Anderson, etc. might improve in 2007.

Again, he says that Buehrle and Garland are gone, and now he adds Vazquez, inexplicably saying that it is "likely" that all 3 will not re-sign. He passes over that all 3 are not FA at the end of the season. Moreover, while he and his co-workers at Trib Co. regularly tell us that Buehrle is a sure goner, he has yet to mention that maybe, just maybe Zambrano might walk. Meanwhile, Buehrle has said that he wants to stay and thinks he will stay. Zambrano said he's gone if they don't re-sign him in 6 weeks. Hendry has indicated that he's not going to re-sign him in 6 weeks. Again, drop the double-standard, Phil.

Finally, the most glaring mistake in the article: "It doesn't help that Williams traded the one catcher who can handle [Haeger], Chris Stewart."
Phil, Stewart did not catch Haeger in Charlotte.
Haeger's turn was Stewart's day off, because Stewart struggles at blocking balls in the dirt. For all his limitations, AJ is a better candidate to catch Haeger than Stewart, and Haeger did not present any problems when he was on the MLB team last year. Moreover, only a fool would believe that Stewart would help the Sox win more than Hall (the guy who took his spot on the 25-man roster).

caulfield12
02-15-2007, 08:19 PM
Most of this already has been covered. The primary flaw is that Rogers continues to argue that the Sox should have upgraded offensively in LF, CF, and/or SS instead of upgrading the bullpen. That's daft. Offense was not the problem. The bullpen was the biggest hole, and it was addressed. KW would have liked to address LF also, but no reasonable deal was available. KW reasonably suspects that both Anderson and Uribe will be better offensively in 2007 (not to mention Buehrle and other returning pitchers). What specific deal should he have made, Phil? Soriano? Matthews? Juan freaking Pierre?

Again, he assumes that McCarthy will be good as an every day starter in 2007 but insists that no young player currently on the Sox will play well. Moreover, he guarantees that McCarthy would have been good as an everyday starter in 2006! ("[H]e would have done better than thatóbook it.") This is laughable. Drop the double-standard, Phil. Young player currently on the Sox =/= inherently bad; young player currently on any other team =/= inherently good.

He also assures us that an early aging and declining Garcia will be good in 2007 (Garcia "will be missed badly. You can count on that.") OTOH, he refuses to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe Buehrle, Anderson, etc. might improve in 2007.

Again, he says that Buehrle and Garland are gone, and now he adds Vazquez, inexplicably saying that it is "likely" that all 3 will not re-sign. He passes over that all 3 are not FA at the end of the season. Moreover, while he and his co-workers at Trib Co. regularly tell us that Buehrle is a sure goner, he has yet to mention that maybe, just maybe Zambrano might walk. Meanwhile, Buehrle has said that he wants to stay and thinks he will stay. Zambrano said he's gone if they don't re-sign him in 6 weeks. Hendry has indicated that he's not going to re-sign him in 6 weeks. Again, drop the double-standard, Phil.

Finally, the most glaring mistake in the article: "It doesn't help that Williams traded the one catcher who can handle [Haeger], Chris Stewart."
Phil, Stewart did not catch Haeger in Charlotte.
Haeger's turn was Stewart's day off, because Stewart struggles at blocking balls in the dirt. For all his limitations, AJ is a better candidate to catch Haeger than Stewart, and Haeger did not present any problems when he was on the MLB team last year. Moreover, only a fool would believe that Stewart would help the Sox win more than Hall (the guy who took his spot on the 25-man roster).

So many brought up the Stewart/Haeger angle that it has become like an urban legend, like Pop Rocks and Pepsi exploding your stomach.

The one thing that will be annoying is seeing the Chris Young watch if he starts off well, and BA struggles at all. Of course, everyone will assume he would be putting up the same numbers in the far tougher AL Central.

rdivaldi
02-15-2007, 09:57 PM
Wrong. This is a Sox site. The Flubsessives are the trolls. :rolleyes:

It would be quite a stretch to call me "Flubsessed". Probably about 2% of my 1000+ posts are about the Flubs. Go back through that guys history and tell me that something isn't fishy...

FarWestChicago
02-16-2007, 08:08 PM
It would be quite a stretch to call me "Flubsessed". Probably about 2% of my 1000+ posts are about the Flubs. Go back through that guys history and tell me that something isn't fishy...I don't give a **** about your history. You were defending Flubsession. Get over it. Love the Sox. Who ****ing cares about the Flubs.

rdivaldi
02-17-2007, 02:39 AM
I don't give a **** about your history. You were defending Flubsession. Get over it. Love the Sox. Who ****ing cares about the Flubs.

I don't think that it's that people "care about the Cubs", it's that they care about the uneven coverage of both baseball teams by the huge media conglomerate that owns one of the teams. Without a salary cap the media plays a huge role in the success of major league baseball teams. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away, so people should use public forums to discuss the problem.

Secondly, check out mshake's post history. Think he's a Cub troll? If not you're all alone in that assessment.