PDA

View Full Version : Rogers likes a White Sox move


ondafarm
03-01-2007, 10:42 AM
link (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070228rogers,1,6614727.column?coll=chi-sportstop-hed)

Well, I am marking today down. Rogers likes bring Darin Erstad to the team. He does seem to say that BA is done, which is typical Phil-dumb, but the White Sox having four outfielders, especially two good lead-off men, should be a huge factor in the team's improvement.

Hitmen77
03-01-2007, 10:52 AM
link (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070228rogers,1,6614727.column?coll=chi-sportstop-hed)

Well, I am marking today down. Rogers likes bring Darin Erstad to the team. He does seem to say that BA is done, which is typical Phil-dumb, but the White Sox having four outfielders, especially two good lead-off men, should be a huge factor in the team's improvement.

Did I miss it? I didn't see that he really mentioned or alluded to BA's future in this article.

As you said, I think Erstad will be a big plus for this team in '07. But if Rogers or other are suggesting that he's going to totally replace Anderson, I don't think so because the Sox can't rely on Erstad to be a full-time CF.

SBSoxFan
03-01-2007, 10:58 AM
link (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070228rogers,1,6614727.column?coll=chi-sportstop-hed)

Well, I am marking today down. Rogers likes bring Darin Erstad to the team. He does seem to say that BA is done, which is typical Phil-dumb, but the White Sox having four outfielders, especially two good lead-off men, should be a huge factor in the team's improvement.

That's two positive articles in a row from him!

fusillirob1983
03-01-2007, 12:01 PM
Interesting, because two weeks ago, Phil seemed extremely skeptical of the Darin Erstad signing.

ondafarm
03-01-2007, 12:13 PM
Did I miss it? I didn't see that he really mentioned or alluded to BA's future in this article.

As you said, I think Erstad will be a big plus for this team in '07. But if Rogers or other are suggesting that he's going to totally replace Anderson, I don't think so because the Sox can't rely on Erstad to be a full-time CF.

Perhaps I'm missreading this oblique reference:

Assuming his body doesn't fail him, Erstad seems likely to get 400-plus at-bats for the Sox, either anchored in center field or moving between center and left (where he could open with Scott Podsednik uncertain for Opening Day). Emphasis mine.

maurice
03-01-2007, 12:19 PM
I don't know that Rogers is taking a shot at Anderson in this article, but he has been very negative re. Anderson, Podsednik, and Uribe during this off-season.

Phil's comment re. the CF situation:
Assuming his body doesn't fail him, Erstad seems likely to get 400-plus at-bats for the Sox, either anchored in center field or moving between center and left.

If Erstad gets "400+ ABs anchored in CF" (more than Anderson got last year) that probably would be a very bad thing for the Sox and for Erstad's health.

mccoydp
03-02-2007, 08:46 AM
Well, he may have liked something, but he's back to his bull**** today:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070301rogers,1,499235.column?coll=cs-whitesox-headlines

Seriously, Phil, just shut up.

WhiteSox5187
03-02-2007, 08:56 AM
Well, he may have liked something, but he's back to his bull**** today:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070301rogers,1,499235.column?coll=cs-whitesox-headlines

Seriously, Phil, just shut up.
I didn't think it was THAT bad of an article. He was just saying that he didn't think the trades helped them get better for 2007. I'm not willing to go that far, but I think they are big question marks. Floyd isn't exactly a sure thing, and McCarthy has the potential to be a very good pitcher as does Danks so we gave up a lot for those guys...I disagree on his assement about the bullpen, I think we're vastly improved (though we may have jumped the gun on Cotts, but I'm told that was because he was interested in becoming a starter). Just because someone writes an article critical of the White Sox doesn't mean he's a blithering idiot. There are some question marks on this team, but I still like our chances. Mind you, Kenny Williams is not infallible. He's just as likely to make mistakes or misjudge talent as anyone else.

Having said that though, I think Phil is wrong about our bullpen and I love our chances this year.

rocky biddle
03-02-2007, 09:16 AM
A Tribune columnist ripping someone for toeing the company line is laughable. I wonder if Phil got dressed down for his last few offerings and had to even things out a bit.

mccoydp
03-02-2007, 09:21 AM
I didn't think it was THAT bad of an article. He was just saying that he didn't think the trades helped them get better for 2007. I'm not willing to go that far, but I think they are big question marks. Floyd isn't exactly a sure thing, and McCarthy has the potential to be a very good pitcher as does Danks so we gave up a lot for those guys...I disagree on his assement about the bullpen, I think we're vastly improved (though we may have jumped the gun on Cotts, but I'm told that was because he was interested in becoming a starter). Just because someone writes an article critical of the White Sox doesn't mean he's a blithering idiot. There are some question marks on this team, but I still like our chances. Mind you, Kenny Williams is not infallible. He's just as likely to make mistakes or misjudge talent as anyone else.

Having said that though, I think Phil is wrong about our bullpen and I love our chances this year.

You make good points; I'm just tired of his FUD, that's all.

soxtalker
03-02-2007, 09:31 AM
The article doesn't say much new, but it is from a slightly different angle. That's what a lot of the articles in the various Chicago papers sound like right now. It's still early. Give it a week or two, as things begin to sort themselves out. What might be more interesting at this point is to hear what the writers from other cities are thinking; maybe Rogers will have some of that in his normal Sunday baseball column.

thedudeabides
03-02-2007, 09:37 AM
The article doesn't say much new, but it is from a slightly different angle. That's what a lot of the articles in the various Chicago papers sound like right now. It's still early. Give it a week or two, as things begin to sort themselves out. What might be more interesting at this point is to hear what the writers from other cities are thinking; maybe Rogers will have some of that in his normal Sunday baseball column.

This is about the seventh time Roger's has written this article.

maurice
03-02-2007, 11:53 AM
He was just saying that he didn't think the trades helped them get better for 2007.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to pile on Rogers here and reiterate that he's already said this many, many times. The only "new" material is the laughable "kettle calling" claim that Guillen is a "company man" spouting the party line. If Guillen is just spouting the party line, *** is he claiming that Garcia will be great in 2007?
:rolleyes:

Rogers also continues to waffle on whether the '07 bullpen is better than bullpen that opened the '06 season. It seems that he recognizes that it's better, but can't bring himself to acknowledge that KW actually improved a key weakness of the '06 team.

Finally, he adds a gratuitous and delusional, pro-Cubune comment:
Speaking of Cotts, he looked so good early in camp in Mesa, Ariz., that some long-time scouts with the Cubs were asking reporters why the White Sox would have traded him. He had a poor year in 2006, yes, but in '05 he was one of the best lefties in the American League. At least you wonder how the Cotts-Aardsma trade is going to turn out.
This gets him 2 of these --->:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

maurice
03-02-2007, 12:01 PM
BTW, Phil, now that you've spent multiple columns and TV spots criticizing the Sox offseason moves and impugning the motivation of JR, KW, and Guillen, we eagerly await your 1st article criticizing the Cubs offseason moves and pointing out that the sudden influx of huge cash for mediocre players was motivated by Trib Co's desire to regain lost market share and to sell their team at peak value. Your friends at ESPN already have pointed out that the Cub contracts are ridiculous wastes of money. When's it gonna be your turn? Oh, I forgot . . . ESPN doesn't own the Cubs.

Also, nice touch recommending that the Cubs trade Zambrano for prospects a few weeks ago, because the team selling veteran pitching pretty much always wins the deal. It's odd that you keep leaving that bit of trivia out of your anti-KW columns.

Craig Grebeck
03-02-2007, 10:21 PM
God help this ballclub if Erstad gets that many AB.

ondafarm
03-02-2007, 10:58 PM
There's about 1600-1800 ABs in a season for three outfielders, could four hundred go to Erstad? I think so. That still leaves plenty for Dye, BA and Pods.

Craig Grebeck
03-02-2007, 11:18 PM
Erstad has been an offensive wasteland. It would be insanely detrimental to the team.

caulfield12
03-03-2007, 03:45 AM
If we only had Chris Young, he would be American League Rookie of the Year and we would go to the playoffs for sure.

Of course, BA's career with the Sox would be over as well.

RedPinStripes
03-03-2007, 12:57 PM
It's a good thing we have Phil's approval.