PDA

View Full Version : Did someone spike one of Phil's drinks?


caulfield12
02-27-2007, 02:55 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070226rogers,1,3251753.column?coll=cs-home-utility

Finally.

Maybe he's coming around after actually see our bullpen arms in action the last couple of days.

WizardsofOzzie
02-27-2007, 08:10 AM
Ehhh wait till the Sox lose a few games, then it will go back to "I told you the Sox would blow it this year. Now back to our 24/7 coverage of your Chicago Cubs who are in a tense battle to overtake the St. Louis Cardinals in the standings for 3rd place"

PaulDrake
02-27-2007, 08:52 AM
Call me naive if you want, but I think that Phil really does like the Sox and want them to win. That is the basis of his criticisms. Of course, I don't think he has much company in that regard among Chicago sports journalists, who are generally slavish in their devotion to the other team.

spawn
02-27-2007, 09:07 AM
I may be in the minority here, but good or bad, I actually enjoy reading Roger's articles. Unlike other mediots in this city, I think he tries to be as fair as possible in his evaluations.

rdivaldi
02-27-2007, 09:11 AM
Call me naive if you want, but I think that Phil really does like the Sox and want them to win. That is the basis of his criticisms. Of course, I don't think he has much company in that regard among Chicago sports journalists, who are generally slavish in their devotion to the other team.

I don't think Phil harbors any sort of resentment towards the Sox either, he just has to stick to the company line every once in awhile. I'll take him over most of the hired goons that re-cycle the same trash year in and year out over at the Cubune.

EastCoastSoxFan
02-27-2007, 09:35 AM
I may be in the minority here, but good or bad, I actually enjoy reading Roger's articles. Unlike other mediots in this city, I think he tries to be as fair as possible in his evaluations.Anyone who writes articles almost every day, no matter how good of a writer they are, is bound to come up with the occasional piece of absolute horse**** (like his article in '05 about how the Sox needed to trade for Rafael Palmeiro), but I agree that on the whole Phil Rogers is a fair-minded baseball writer...

Hitmen77
02-27-2007, 09:43 AM
Call me naive if you want, but I think that Phil really does like the Sox and want them to win. That is the basis of his criticisms. Of course, I don't think he has much company in that regard among Chicago sports journalists, who are generally slavish in their devotion to the other team.

I agree. Phil gets a lot of credit IMO for having the guts to post on WSI a few months back and defend his opinion to us.


I don't know how it works at the Tribune, but he apparently has been able to avoid the "re-education" training that Sully and Morrissey get sent to from time to time. Or perhaps Phil only drinks bottled water at the office because he knows the coolers are spiked with blue kool-aid.:redneck

Scottiehaswheels
02-27-2007, 09:51 AM
God this is sad... One article in our local papers that isn't complete crap and here we are at WSI heaping praises on the writer.... Sorry, gonna take a lot more than one article stating the obvious for me to "appreciate" Phil. One decent article doesn't make up for an entire winter of bull****.

PaulDrake
02-27-2007, 10:04 AM
God this is sad... One article in our local papers that isn't complete crap and here we are at WSI heaping praises on the writer.... Sorry, gonna take a lot more than one article stating the obvious for me to "appreciate" Phil. One decent article doesn't make up for an entire winter of bull****. Sorry, he's allowed to be skeptical or critical of KW's off season moves. I am too, at least I am in regards to the Freddy trade. It doesn't make him or me for that matter, less of a fan. I won't lump Phil in with the moron, Slezak, Sullivan and several others.

soxtalker
02-27-2007, 10:16 AM
Sorry, he's allowed to be skeptical or critical of KW's off season moves. I am too, at least I am in regards to the Freddy trade. It doesn't make him or me for that matter, less of a fan. I won't lump Phil in with the moron, Slezak, Sullivan and several others.

I agree on the first part. He gave his opinion. He wasn't trashing the Sox to bury them; he just cared a lot and thought that Kenny was probably making the wrong moves. I didn't agree with his conclusions; I liked the trades. But I also like reading his opinions.

spawn
02-27-2007, 10:27 AM
God this is sad... One article in our local papers that isn't complete crap and here we are at WSI heaping praises on the writer.... Sorry, gonna take a lot more than one article stating the obvious for me to "appreciate" Phil. One decent article doesn't make up for an entire winter of bull****.
And how many of Roger's articles have you read? His written more than one 'decent' article. This isn't Mariotti we're talking about. He's written quite a few articles praising KW and the Sox in the past. So what if he didn't write glowingly of KW's moves this past season. There were quite a few WSIers who agreed with him.

russ99
02-27-2007, 10:34 AM
I really have to disagree with you guys, since I have a long memory.

Up until about halfway through the '05 season he was spewing the company line about the Cubs, (wasn't he the Cubs beat reporter at one time?!?) and denigrating the Sox through the usual "Cubune" dirt.

Then when the Sox became a contender, he gave them fair coverage. Let's see how long that lasts this season, especially if the Cubs get off to a decent start before their annual "June Swoon"...

My beef with Rogers isn't his writing for the Tribune, where we expect this kind of bias, but he also writes for ESPN, where they should impartially (yeah, right) cover both Chicago teams.

He may (personally) like the Sox, but certainly knows where his paychecks come from.

miker
02-27-2007, 11:57 AM
...but he also writes for ESPN, where they should impartially (yeah, right) cover both Chicago teams.

ESPN's is impartial: we're one of those other teams that sometimes play the Yankees or the Red Sox!

maurice
02-27-2007, 12:33 PM
It's the persuasive power of WSI. Before his recent string of posts, Rogers was making nonsensical claims about the certain greatness of Garcia and McCarthy, the certain suckatude of the Sox young players, the certain free agency of Buehrle, etc., and the certain resigning of Zambrano. Afterwards, he softened his statements on a lot of these points, acknowledged that the Sox bullpen probably improved, suggested that the Cubs should consider trading Zambrano rather than losing him in free agency, and repeatedly stated that the team that sells a veteran for young pitching usually wins the deal.

rdivaldi
02-27-2007, 02:19 PM
ESPN's is impartial: we're one of those other teams that sometimes play the Yankees or the Red Sox!

That's exactly what I was thinking when I saw that.

rocky biddle
02-27-2007, 02:26 PM
It's gonna take a lot more than this from 'ol Phil before I forget the 'despicable' and 'polished workhorse' comments.

And I have a question- Doesn't Jon Garland have a no trade clause? If so, why do these writers constantly mention that he was "almost traded" this winter? Wouldn't he have to approve anything first? I guess that's 3 questions, but hopefully you get my point.

caulfield12
02-27-2007, 02:29 PM
It's gonna take a lot more than this from 'ol Phil before I forget the 'despicable' and 'polished workhorse' comments.

And I have a question- Doesn't Jon Garland have a no trade clause? If so, why do these writers constantly mention that he was "almost traded" this winter? Wouldn't he have to approve anything first? I guess that's 3 questions, but hopefully you get my point.


That only covered him during the 2006 season from my understanding.

veeter
02-27-2007, 03:52 PM
Today's article was great and a long time coming. I kind of like Rogers too. But he can get so hooked on a player, it drives me nuts. He LOVES Chris Young, and can't get past that trade. And he, for some time, couldn't stop suggesting the Sox trade Garland. Lately, though, he's recognized Jon's accomplishments.

Vernam
02-27-2007, 04:15 PM
It's the persuasive power of WSI. Before his recent string of posts, Rogers was making nonsensical claims about the certain greatness of Garcia and McCarthy, the certain suckatude of the Sox young players, the certain free agency of Buehrle, etc., and the certain resigning of Zambrano. Afterwards, he softened his statements on a lot of these points, acknowledged that the Sox bullpen probably improved, suggested that the Cubs should consider trading Zambrano rather than losing him in free agency, and repeatedly stated that the team that sells a veteran for young pitching usually wins the deal.Yeah, that Zambrano column was what really sent me 'round the bend. In it, Rogers blatantly contradicted (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1488721&highlight=zambrano#post1488721) most of his own arguments regarding the Sox' strategy of not over-paying for talent, especially pitchers. (Granted, Phil's and the Trib's and Hendry's definition of "over-paying" Zambrano is apparently somewhere around $25M/year. :thud:)

When PR apologizes to Kenny for the "despicable" comment, that's when he'll get taken off my **** list. :angry: Defending himself on WSI is admirable, and he's a likable guy, but that was some serious party line crap he was peddling over the winter.

Vernam