PDA

View Full Version : Sun-Times: CROSSTOWN SMACKDOWN, Replaying The Day


RadioheadRocks
03-05-2007, 02:32 AM
Anyone else get a load of this laughable piece o'**** in the Sun-Times?

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/282804,cst-spt-catchers04.article


Gotta love those "10 Reasons to Pop A.J."

Big ****ing surprise that the Cub players contributing to that list wished to remain anonymous. :rolleyes:

HotelWhiteSox
03-05-2007, 02:56 AM
Geez, going into the thread I figured it'd be a recap of today's game. What a waste of time that was (seriously, where do I find a job where I get to keep it after putting out a turd like this to the public). If they're going to go back, why not visit 1906.

Maybe we need to start a 'Guess the Suntimes Headline' Thread. After another Sox beatdown in 2 weeks, 'mysterious marijuana smell coming from around Tucson'.

RadioheadRocks
03-05-2007, 02:59 AM
Ergo why there was no byline with the story (aside from Gordon Wittenmyer's name popping up as the apparent gatherer of the "Top 10 List").

IndianWhiteSox
03-05-2007, 07:20 AM
THE PLAY: A scoreless game in the bottom of the second turned into a classic when Pierzynski came flying around third on Brian Anderson's blooper to left. Barrett blocked the plate as Matt Murton's throw came in, and Pierzynski took out Barrett to score. As the catchers got up, Barrett grabbed Pierzynski, paused for a moment, then punched him in the face. A bench-clearing brawl ensued.

They don't even remember that it was a SACRIFICE FLY that scored AJ not a blooper by BA. Then again, what do I expect from a newspaper which keeps Jay Moronotti and Carolyn Slezack employed.

WizardsofOzzie
03-05-2007, 08:14 AM
They don't even remember that it was a SACRIFICE FLY that scored AJ not a blooper by BA. Then again, what do I expect from a newspaper which keeps Jay Moronotti and Carolyn Slezack employed.
Thats what i thought but i doubted myself for a second. I should know never to trust the Sun or the Tribune before my own knowledge :redface:

Mohoney
03-05-2007, 08:40 AM
The guy that said "I don't want his championship belt" must have been Lee, because everybody else in that hellhole would sure love to have his "championship RING".

DrCrawdad
03-05-2007, 08:58 AM
Check out Cubune beat writer Paul Sullivan's recap of yesterdays game with his soft slam on Sox fans, 'It's only those lowly Sox fans who care what happens in a Cubs/Sox ST game' comments.

WizardsofOzzie
03-05-2007, 09:03 AM
Check out Cubune beat writer Paul Sullivan's recap of yesterdays game with his soft slam on Sox fans, 'It's only those lowly Sox fans who care what happens in a Cubs/Sox ST game' comments.
"Our pitchers aren't pitching very well and our hitters aren't hitting very well. Outside of that, we're OK." :rolling: :rolling: Oh lord Lou's already lost it

DrCrawdad
03-05-2007, 09:32 AM
Bottom line .... focus is on Sox on Sunday! Todays lineup was setting the stage. Don't forget for one second how much this team spent and how much is at stake this year. They need to put a product on the field that will sell advertising.


Any time The White Sox lose and the Cubs win, I'm happy.
When it comes against each other, I'm thrilled.
When it's on the first televised spring training game of the year, I'm enthused.
Come on Cubbies. No better time than today to get a W flag flying over HoHoKam.



I know this is only a ST game but I so want to beat the Sux. GO CUBS!!


Of course this was before the game. Fifteen minutes into the game no doubt most Cub fans had adopted the attitude of, 'We don't care about the Sox...It's just another ST game for us and only low class Sox fans care about the outcome.'

Viva Medias B's
03-05-2007, 09:50 AM
Proof exists everywhere that anti-Sox bias/Cubbie-loving infatuation in the media runs rampant. Not to sound flubsessed, but has anyone noticed (or previously brought up) that in the Sun-Times the Cubs spring reports are consistently in color while ours are consistently in black and white?

DMarte708
03-05-2007, 11:01 AM
Proof exists everywhere that anti-Sox bias/Cubbie-loving infatuation in the media runs rampant. Not to sound flubsessed, but has anyone noticed (or previously brought up) that in the Sun-Times the Cubs spring reports are consistently in color while ours are consistently in black and white?
You see, there's an explanation for that. Our team colors are black and white, so therefore, the pictures should only be in black and white. Whereas the Cubs are the color of freedom. Photos should be printed in full American glory. Anything less and the terrorists have won.

oeo
03-05-2007, 11:06 AM
Of course this was before the game. Fifteen minutes into the game no doubt most Cub fans had adopted the attitude of, 'We don't care about the Sox...It's just another ST game for us and only low class Sox fans care about the outcome.'

LOL.

I came into that game excited about not only watching the Sox for the first time this season, but seeing guys like Sisco, Danks, and Gio. I really didn't care if they won (although I'll never complain about a Flubbie smackdown...especially when it's their Opening Day starting lineup vs. Chicago/Charlotte :rolling:)...Flub fans are unbelievable.

bryPt
03-05-2007, 11:45 AM
Proof exists everywhere that anti-Sox bias/Cubbie-loving infatuation in the media runs rampant. Not to sound flubsessed, but has anyone noticed (or previously brought up) that in the Sun-Times the Cubs spring reports are consistently in color while ours are consistently in black and white?

check out www.cubune.com (http://www.cubune.com) about colors of photographs for each team in the Cubune. Sounds like ST is following the Cubune lead.

russ99
03-05-2007, 11:50 AM
No, the AJ list (to me) was harmless fun.

Also, that wasn't the worst part of Sunday's Sun Times sports coverage - it was the ongoing smear campaign by Moronatti against the Sox and especially Ozzie.

He seriously shoudn't be reporting on the Sox at all, talk about conflict of interest...

HotelWhiteSox
03-05-2007, 01:59 PM
And if you look at the Sun Times picture recap of the game, you get 2 pics of the DLee homerun, the Cubs turning a DP, and Rich Hill. Meanwhile for the Sox you get Garland and Konerko in their normal stance. Not a big deal, but it's little things like this that make me go :?:

UserNameBlank
03-05-2007, 02:12 PM
I read that as 10 reasons to wipe your *** with that newspaper. Thankfully I do not subscribe to either Chicago newspaper, and I never will.

I swear, every single person who comments in this or any other thread about a local newspaper media bias but still subscribes to that paper is a hypocrite. If you have the internet, get your news for free there from a real source. Don't give these people your money.

PatK
03-05-2007, 04:03 PM
I read that as 10 reasons to wipe your *** with that newspaper. Thankfully I do not subscribe to either Chicago newspaper, and I never will.

I swear, every single person who comments in this or any other thread about a local newspaper media bias but still subscribes to that paper is a hypocrite. If you have the internet, get your news for free there from a real source. Don't give these people your money.

Here Here!

Why do people even bother to read them anymore?

itsnotrequired
03-05-2007, 04:09 PM
Here Here!

Why do people even bother to read them anymore?

There is more to the paper than just the sports section.:D:

UserNameBlank
03-05-2007, 04:55 PM
There is more to the paper than just the sports section.:D:

True, but nothing you can't find on reuters or some other news site. It's not like the Trib or the Sun-Times are great papers or anything. No reason to buy them at all IMO.

itsnotrequired
03-05-2007, 04:59 PM
True, but nothing you can't find on reuters or some other news site. It's not like the Trib or the Sun-Times are great papers or anything. No reason to buy them at all IMO.

Reading on the train.

Soxfanspcu11
03-05-2007, 05:41 PM
Reading on the train.

Laptop.

Oh wait, you are a Sox fan, I don't expect you to know what a Laptop is. Even if you did, I'm sure that convicted felons don't have the money to buy one. :tongue: