PDA

View Full Version : A.J complaining about possible loss of playing time?


ZombieRob
02-20-2007, 11:05 AM
Read in the Trib today for whats its worth heres the article link :

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070219sox,1,7065528.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

SoxyStu
02-20-2007, 11:07 AM
He said that a few weeks ago when the Sox first signed Hall...with all the lefties in the division.

WizardsofOzzie
02-20-2007, 11:08 AM
Read in the Trib today for whats its worth heres the article link :

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070219sox,1,7065528.story?coll=cs-home-headlines
This was addressed in the mailbag on whitesox.com as well. Funny it dosen't have as much of a negative spin :rolleyes:
http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070219&content_id=1808271&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

skottyj242
02-20-2007, 11:11 AM
They'll be fine.

ZombieRob
02-20-2007, 11:13 AM
This was addressed in the mailbag on whitesox.com as well. Funny it dosen't have as much of a negative spin :rolleyes:
http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070219&content_id=1808271&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws
All i can say is this about it .All A.J can do is prove he can hit better then what is it .237 against lefties in a lefty loaded division .then he should be ok.


Edit: Think Ozzie may have a sit down with A.J about being so public with it?

veeter
02-20-2007, 11:17 AM
Another trib. spin today. Boy, they are on a freakin' mission. NOW, CLUBHOUSE STRIFE!! What I think AJ will be surpirised about is that Hall may end up spelling Thome against lefties. AJ struggled in the second half, but Thome was non-existent against lefties. Hall and Erstad will be looked on as two of the biggest free-agent signings in the whole AL, come season's end.

aryzner
02-20-2007, 11:21 AM
Another trib. spin today. Boy, they are on a freakin' mission. NOW, CLUBHOUSE STRIFE!! What I think AJ will be surpirised about is that Hall may end up spelling Thome against lefties. AJ struggled in the second half, but Thome was non-existent against lefties. Hall and Erstad will be looked on as two of the biggest free-agent signings in the whole AL, come season's end.
I must agree on this. I remember any time Thome was up against a lefty last year I'd pretty much expect the strikeout. :\

ZombieRob
02-20-2007, 11:24 AM
Another trib. spin today. Boy, they are on a freakin' mission. NOW, CLUBHOUSE STRIFE!! What I think AJ will be surpirised about is that Hall may end up spelling Thome against lefties. AJ struggled in the second half, but Thome was non-existent against lefties. Hall and Erstad will be looked on as two of the biggest free-agent signings in the whole AL, come season's end.
Certianly Hall for sure .That was a classic under the Radar move as far as baseball goes .And the man really is a talented catcher.I just hope it all works out becuse if A.J needs a late inning replacment, your more secure as a fan seeing Hall in there behind the plate then Alomar JR

Whitesox029
02-20-2007, 11:33 AM
Read in the Trib today for whats its worth heres the article link :

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070219sox,1,7065528.story?coll=cs-home-headlines
It is worth nothing, and that is what I will read it for. I already saw this addressed on whitesox.com (fast becoming the only reliable source of coverage on our team) and Ozzie says that AJ is his starter, and it will not be a platoon situation. Funny how that quote probably came after the one by AJ, and yet they spin it to make it sound like AJ is whining. I can just see tomorrow's headline:
Classy Barrett doesn't mind Blanco's presence
Sees him as a friend, not a threat to job

BainesHOF
02-20-2007, 11:40 AM
I have a question for many of you:

Why read the Tribune, and why in the world would you buy the Tribune?

Whitesox029
02-20-2007, 12:06 PM
I have a question for many of you:

Why read the Tribune, and why in the world would you buy the Tribune?
I don't pay for it- it's delivered to my building daily. The only other things I can get are the Daily Illini and USA Today. I actually get the Trib more for the comics and puzzles in Tempo, but as long as they cover Chicago sports, I read the sports section.

Murphy10
02-20-2007, 12:10 PM
I think what the sox should do with the whole catcher situation is just have AJ go up against all the righties. Then every third time they face a lefty put in Hall to come and hit. But during the game where Hall plays have AJ pinch hit later in the game.

WhiteSox5187
02-20-2007, 12:14 PM
There's an interesting quote though which of course is at the very end of the article "If that's the way they want to do it, that's the way they'll do it. I don't have any say. That's it." That doesn't sound like he's complaining, it seems to me he's just saying "Well, I might not get so many at bats this year, but oh well." Of course this is from the Tribune so what do you expect?

NorthSideSox72
02-20-2007, 12:30 PM
Let me get this straight. The Trib runs an article with a bunch of quotes from AJ, which are quite clear that he is concerned about losing AB's against LHP's. The article gives a bunch of stats, quotes Ozzie's response, and shows both sides of the story - negatives and positives for AJ and for the team. And people here claim negative bias.

The White Sox website, which has an obvious and direct need to put a positive spin on things, is slightly less objective, and its described here as "less negative spin".

I'm sorry, but that is just plain ridiculous. The trib article is a lot closer to fair reporting (and good reporting) than the Sox mailbag response.

And to answer a question asked earlier... people buy the Trib because it is far and away the best paper in the area. Their sports section isn't spectacular by any means, but as a complete paper, its far superior to anything else published here.

Madvora
02-20-2007, 12:37 PM
The White Sox website, which has an obvious and direct need to put a positive spin on things, is slightly less objective, and its described here as "less negative spin".

All team websites are owned and operated by MLB as far as I know.

NorthSideSox72
02-20-2007, 12:43 PM
All team websites are owned and operated by MLB as far as I know.
Sure. With a Sox-knowledgeable writer responding to the mail bag. And if you look at sites like MLB or NFL and their teams, they tend to be very positive in general.

My main point was about the Trib though.

oeo
02-20-2007, 12:49 PM
The White Sox website, which has an obvious and direct need to put a positive spin on things, is slightly less objective, and its described here as "less negative spin".

And the Trib is trying to do the exact opposite, so what's the point? You're not going to get a good opinion from either one. The only way to tell what AJ was saying, is to hear the interview yourself. They can do whatever they want with the words to make you believe there is some kind of controversy.

Until I actually hear the interview, I'm going to take this as the Trib trying to start crap, again.

NorthSideSox72
02-20-2007, 01:02 PM
And the Trib is trying to do the exact opposite, so what's the point? You're not going to get a good opinion from either one. The only way to tell what AJ was saying, is to hear the interview yourself. They can do whatever they want with the words to make you believe there is some kind of controversy.

Until I actually hear the interview, I'm going to take this as the Trib trying to start crap, again.
I don't need to hear it, his quotes are in there. The Trib did actual reporting on the subject, presenting positives and negatives. And if anyone thinks this isn't news, I think you'd find this would be reported from any team.

I think its journalistically terrible that the Trib owns the Cubs, and I've seen some things the Trib did that was just blatantly biased. But I prefer to judge things on their face, not going in with bias. Taking this article alone, I see absolutely nothing that indicates bias.

oeo
02-20-2007, 01:05 PM
I don't need to hear it, his quotes are in there. The Trib did actual reporting on the subject, presenting positives and negatives. And if anyone thinks this isn't news, I think you'd find this would be reported from any team.

I think its journalistically terrible that the Trib owns the Cubs, and I've seen some things the Trib did that was just blatantly biased. But I prefer to judge things on their face, not going in with bias. Taking this article alone, I see absolutely nothing that indicates bias.

Reading quotes is not the same. You can't hear the tone of voice he said it in, or exactly when he said what. The only way to tell for sure is to hear it. It's so easy to twist words to get what you want (you just told me that the White Sox website tries to put a 'positive spin' on things, but you don't believe that the Trib is trying to do what they want with the words, as well?); the Trib does it all the time, which is one of the reasons I'm calling :bs: on a controversy.

NorthSideSox72
02-20-2007, 01:21 PM
Reading quotes is not the same. You can't hear the tone of voice he said it in, or exactly when he said what. The only way to tell for sure is to hear it. It's so easy to twist words to get what you want (you just told me that the White Sox website tries to put a 'positive spin' on things, but you don't believe that the Trib is trying to do what they want with the words, as well?); the Trib does it all the time, which is one of the reasons I'm calling :bs: on a controversy.
:cool:

Fair enough. I think most of the bias in articles like this are in the eyes of the reader. But I realize I'm in the minority with that view, especially in regards to the Trib.

I do agree that quoted text can often be skewed without context. Though in that article, those are pretty clear sentences, to me.

chaz171
02-20-2007, 01:25 PM
weren't the rumors last year or two years ago that pyrzynski was on his way out before he even played a game? I won't put much stock in it..

chisoxfanatic
02-20-2007, 01:33 PM
The Cubune always seems to try to create controversey. This is just one of those days.

Whitesox029
02-20-2007, 02:13 PM
Let me get this straight. The Trib runs an article with a bunch of quotes from AJ, which are quite clear that he is concerned about losing AB's against LHP's. The article gives a bunch of stats, quotes Ozzie's response, and shows both sides of the story - negatives and positives for AJ and for the team. And people here claim negative bias.

The White Sox website, which has an obvious and direct need to put a positive spin on things, is slightly less objective, and its described here as "less negative spin".

I'm sorry, but that is just plain ridiculous. The trib article is a lot closer to fair reporting (and good reporting) than the Sox mailbag response.

And to answer a question asked earlier... people buy the Trib because it is far and away the best paper in the area. Their sports section isn't spectacular by any means, but as a complete paper, its far superior to anything else published here.
That's a fair statement to make right now, but just wait to see what happens with this story in the future. This article, biased or not, should be the end of the issue. Presumably AJ now knows what Ozzie said, and Ozzie knows what AJ said. It was a story, and now it's been reported, and now it is officially a non-story. If it resurfaces, it will be the result of some idiot reporter asking AJ "And now how do you feel about this?" and then the bias will be confirmed. Asking irrelevant questions about non-stories in an effort to make stories out of them is sensationalism in reporting, and crap journalism. That is exactly what happened with the Buehrle-Williams fiasco, and I would not be surprised if it happens with this.

NorthSideSox72
02-20-2007, 02:29 PM
That's a fair statement to make right now, but just wait to see what happens with this story in the future. This article, biased or not, should be the end of the issue. Presumably AJ now knows what Ozzie said, and Ozzie knows what AJ said. It was a story, and now it's been reported, and now it is officially a non-story. If it resurfaces, it will be the result of some idiot reporter asking AJ "And now how do you feel about this?" and then the bias will be confirmed. Asking irrelevant questions about non-stories in an effort to make stories out of them is sensationalism in reporting, and crap journalism. That is exactly what happened with the Buehrle-Williams fiasco, and I would not be surprised if it happens with this.
I pretty much agree with that. As for future articles like you describe, I don't call that particular thing bias, at least not bias against a team - I think it is, as you point out, just crappy journalism. Trying to create controversy where none exists.

Whitesox029
02-20-2007, 02:40 PM
I pretty much agree with that. As for future articles like you describe, I don't call that particular thing bias, at least not bias against a team - I think it is, as you point out, just crappy journalism. Trying to create controversy where none exists.
Well, that's not inherently a bias, but it is when you look across town and note that no one's trying to stir up controversy over there.
Take the Zambrano thing for example. There was a perfect opportunity to do some "revisionist" journalism as was done on Buehrle and Williams. Instead, they printed an article the same day titled "Cubs don't fret over Zambrano threat" including explicit statements from Hendry that it doesn't necessarily mean a deal won't get done after the season is over, thereby smoothing it all out and keeping everything bright and sunny in Cubbietown.

The Dude
02-20-2007, 06:02 PM
I have a question for many of you:

Why read the Tribune, and why in the world would you buy the Tribune?

Because it is a better paper than the Sun-times.:?:

NorthSideSox72
02-21-2007, 10:03 AM
Well, that's not inherently a bias, but it is when you look across town and note that no one's trying to stir up controversy over there.
Take the Zambrano thing for example. There was a perfect opportunity to do some "revisionist" journalism as was done on Buehrle and Williams. Instead, they printed an article the same day titled "Cubs don't fret over Zambrano threat" including explicit statements from Hendry that it doesn't necessarily mean a deal won't get done after the season is over, thereby smoothing it all out and keeping everything bright and sunny in Cubbietown.
I've read multiple articles in the Trib about Z's money demands, and they all seem to rightly reflect that Z (while obnoxious to no end) is right about his value, and the Cubs now have a tough decision to make, since they already spent big money elsewhere. Sounds about right to me. :?: