PDA

View Full Version : Phil Rogers Can See the Future!


Dan Mega
04-19-2007, 08:07 AM
What does the Cubune first bring up after Mark's no hitter? Of course, his contract.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070418rogers,1,7380602.column?coll=chi-sportstop-hed

Lefty "likely headed elsewhere".:rolleyes:

WhiteSox5187
04-19-2007, 08:44 AM
Well...everyone I know seems to be convinced that Buerhle is leaving after this season, so it's not like he's in a minority opinion here. I, personally, think (hope, pray is probably the better word) that we're going to resign him either at the All Star break or after the season (assuming we make the playoffs). Having said that, I do think it is sad that after a no hitter all of this coverage turns to Buerhle's contract. We oughta let him bask in the moment and then ask him about what's going on with the contract.

The Immigrant
04-19-2007, 08:50 AM
That was another hack-static article by Phil Rogers, the company tool. I don't recall reading any similar pessimism about Zambrano's contract. To the contrary, the Trib kept reporting that the parties were "exceedingly close" to a deal and then completely ignored McDonough's comments that no signing was imminent.

Phil, you are a hack.

rocky biddle
04-19-2007, 08:51 AM
Despicable. I wonder if Phil and Levine had a quick meeting immediately after the final out brainstorming ways to tarnish Mark's accomplishment? Wonder power twins, Activate!

I was half-expecting some member of the exemplary Chicago media to mistakenly report that the maroon VT hat Mark wore during his press conference was a Cardinals hat.

Dan Mega
04-19-2007, 09:07 AM
In Phil's defense though, I believe him that he genuinely wants Mark back in a Sox uniform long-term. Unlike other media members in Chicago who seem all too happy at the prospect of him leaving the Sox.

cheeses_h_rice
04-19-2007, 09:29 AM
:moron

Don't forget about me, guys! I wrote another steaming pile of **** column today where I bring up Ozzie's big fat mouth, "fan incidents", and the fact that Mark will be pitching elsewhere next year.

daveeym
04-19-2007, 10:07 AM
:moron

Don't forget about me, guys! I wrote another steaming pile of **** column today where I bring up Ozzie's big fat mouth, "fan incidents", and the fact that Mark will be pitching elsewhere next year.Yeah, I had to peek at his column this morning just to confirm that he has no class. He's about as predictable as they come.

sox1970
04-19-2007, 10:45 AM
There's nothing wrong with talking contract today, as long as the main focus is the no-hitter itself.

As for Levine, I thought it was a dumb question to ask in the postgame press conference. But that's the media for you.

tebman
04-19-2007, 10:51 AM
I don't know what the deal is with Rogers. He's determined to keep banging on pots and pans saying how the White Sox have made, are making, and will continue to make terrible mistakes with the pitching staff. He claims his intentions to be good, wanting Buehrle and the rest to stay, while he clucks about how "despicable" Ken Williams' trades have been. Now that MB has pitched a no-hitter, he can only carry on about how this is the beginning of the end.

Meanwhile, as the concrete falls on Addison Street, Zambrano doesn't have an extension and somehow that escapes Rogers' fevered attention. Yeah Phil, we know your journalistic integrity is intact, you return your library books on time, and you only cross the street at the signal, but it's curious that you have a fixation on Buehrle's mishandled contract.

Same melody, different lyrics. Cubs=clever, prudent; White Sox=reckless, shortsighted. The Tribune sings on.

Bah.

Scottiehaswheels
04-19-2007, 10:58 AM
Meanwhile, as the concrete falls on Addison Street, Zambrano doesn't have an extension and somehow that escapes Rogers' fevered attention. You mean Cy Young? He of the lucky 7 ERA? 7.77 LOL

Beer Can Chicken
04-19-2007, 11:45 AM
Read the 4th paragraph in this, it isnt exclusively a Tribune thing.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/348806,CST-SPT-nohit19.article

Hitmen77
04-19-2007, 11:53 AM
In Phil's defense though, I believe him that he genuinely wants Mark back in a Sox uniform long-term. Unlike other media members in Chicago who seem all too happy at the prospect of him leaving the Sox.

You know, I hate the Trib's pro-Cub/anti-Sox bias as much as anyone, but I don't have a problem with Phil's article from today.

I strongly disagreed with him when he ripped the Sox for the Garcia and McCarthy trades. I also believe that he was putting words in KW's mouth when he said that the Sox were most definitely letting all their starters walk.

HOWEVER, I think he's right about the Buehrle situation. While there is no way the Sox could or should spend the insane $$$ it would take to lock up all of their starters at market prices, I do believe they should view Buehrle more as more of an elite/franchise player and one of those "special" players that you pay an exceptional amount to make him a Sox player for life and to build the rest of your staff around him.

We Sox fans like to complain that the media is mentioning MB's likely departure while not saying as much about Zambrano. Well, to be fair - if I'm not mistaken - KW did tell Buehrle and Dye that they should explore the market. I don't remember Hendry & Co. saying that to Zambozo. He still has a good chance of leaving the Losers via free agency, but I really don't see the Cubs holding the exit door open for him.

I know much has been said of JR's policy of only 3 yr deals for pitchers. About a month ago Comcast (or maybe WGN-TV) had an interview with him and he seemed to indicate they are willing to make exceptions in special cases of outstanding pitchers with a track record of endurance. I think the Sox should view MB as one of those pitchers you make an exception for. His history and style of pitching (not overpowering) strikes me as the type of pitcher who has a good chance of pitching well for another 10 years.

IMO, I think the Sox were seriously worried about Mark's drop off in the 2nd half of last year. I don't blame them, that was disturbing and if I were JR and KW, it would give me great pause to inking someone to a monster contract and I would view such a move as risky. But, what if Mark continues to show this year that he's still the same pitcher that started the '05 All-Star Game and helped us win the World Series? Yeah, he's going to cost the Sox, but he may be one of the very few who is worth it.

IMO, I think the Sox are right to think that someone out of Danks, Gio, Floyd, etc. can replace the likes of Garcia and McCarthy. I think eventually someone from that bunch could replace Garland. However, Mark Buehrle is not likely replaceable. I think he's a once in a generation pitcher for the Sox. I'm not sure where the Sox should draw the line in terms of offering him a deal, but I'm disappointed that they don't seem willing to go beyond giving him a similar type of deal (~3 yrs/$35 million) as they gave Vazquez and Garland.

tebman
04-19-2007, 12:11 PM
IMO, I think the Sox are right to think that someone out of Danks, Gio, Floyd, etc. can replace the likes of Garcia and McCarthy. I think eventually even someone like Garland is replaceable. However, Mark Buehrle is not likely replaceable. I think he's a once in a generation pitcher for the Sox. I'm not sure where the Sox should draw the line in terms of offering him a deal, but I'm disappointed that they don't seem willing to go beyond giving him a similar type of deal (~3 yrs/$35 million) as they gave Vazquez and Garland.
I absolutely agree. Buehrle is a rare combination of talent, reliability, and personality that we all love to see as Sox fans. That's why we hold guys like Appling, Fox, Pierce, Peters, Melton, Ventura, Fisk, and Buehrle is such high regard. Of course I want him to re-sign and I'll be deeply disappointed if he doesn't.

What makes me crazy is Levine, Rogers, Couch, and that puffy-haired creature at the Sun-Times constantly harping on MB's contract when none of them know what the hell they're talking about. It gets my dander up because I see these potshots as part of a pattern of insults to the White Sox and, by extension, to me as a fan.

The storyline is always the same: The White Sox are [cheap, vindictive, unappreciative, etc.], and their fans are [cheap, boorish, unattractive, ungrateful, etc.]. It's like Mad-Libs -- you can plug in the words in any combination and make a viable story.

We taped the replay of Mark's game last night. I plan to watch it again and re-appreciate the joy of a great performance in that moment. Whatever happens in the future, the moment is all we have.

Hitmen77
04-19-2007, 02:30 PM
I absolutely agree. Buehrle is a rare combination of talent, reliability, and personality that we all love to see as Sox fans. That's why we hold guys like Appling, Fox, Pierce, Peters, Melton, Ventura, Fisk, and Buehrle is such high regard. Of course I want him to re-sign and I'll be deeply disappointed if he doesn't.

What makes me crazy is Levine, Rogers, Couch, and that puffy-haired creature at the Sun-Times constantly harping on MB's contract when none of them know what the hell they're talking about. It gets my dander up because I see these potshots as part of a pattern of insults to the White Sox and, by extension, to me as a fan.

The storyline is always the same: The White Sox are [cheap, vindictive, unappreciative, etc.], and their fans are [cheap, boorish, unattractive, ungrateful, etc.]. It's like Mad-Libs -- you can plug in the words in any combination and make a viable story.

We taped the replay of Mark's game last night. I plan to watch it again and re-appreciate the joy of a great performance in that moment. Whatever happens in the future, the moment is all we have.

I agree that all the constant reporting about the Sox being "cheap" is getting old and seems like an ongoing effort to falsely convince readers that the Sox are not committed to winning.

However, even though I know it'll never happen, I don't want reporters to be apologists for the Sox like they are for the Cubs. I would rather have someone like Rogers take KW and JR to task for what seems to be transpiring with Buehrle rather than tell us what we want to hear. I don't put much stock in what reports imagine what the Sox are doing, but in this case we've heard enough direct quotes from KW and MB to back up what Phil Rogers is saying. I agree with you on the other morons taking potshots at the Sox, but in this case I think Rogers is making a good point and I hope JR and KW will greatly consider the possibility that Buehrle might just very well be that once-in-a-generation pitcher for whom you go beyond 3 years for and pay that extra $5 million a year.

At any rate, I agree with you about savoring this moment now. Regardless of what happens next year. This moment was special and I hope we have many more special moments in 2007.

spiffie
04-19-2007, 02:41 PM
Here's the problem. You can't make Buehrle sign with you. The only way it would seem to get him to completely pass up free agency would be to put up an offer so large as to be a poor business decision. Sure, if Jerry came to him and said 6 years/110 million they'd probably take it, but otherwise it seems Mark wants to see what his market value is, and I don't blame him.

That said, unless someone absolutely blows the roof off the bidding, I think the Sox will make a reasonable effort to keep him. It wouldn't surprise me to see them go 5-6 years, and up to 80-90 million for Mark if he has another typical Buehrle year.

hawkjt
04-19-2007, 02:44 PM
I would love to see them approach mark at mid-season with a 4 year deal worth about 50 million. at 12.5 that would only be a 2.5 million addition to his current salary.

the sox have a high payroll , they are not a cheapskate organization,period.

WhiteSox5187
04-19-2007, 03:20 PM
I would love to see them approach mark at mid-season with a 4 year deal worth about 50 million. at 12.5 that would only be a 2.5 million addition to his current salary.

the sox have a high payroll , they are not a cheapskate organization,period.
I would love to see them do this too, but as another poster said previously you can't make him resign. To sign him in the middle of the season you'd have to blow him away with an offer and I don't think the Sox are too likely to do that. I think that we could see something similar to Konerko where he filed for free agency (a lot of people forget that) and THEN resigned with us. Buerhle might do the same thing. I hope he does. However, if he does leave he is going to the Cardinals where at least he will destroy the Cubs and we can root for him there. I have a hard time envisioning him in a Red Sox or Yankees uniform.

thomas35forever
04-19-2007, 03:44 PM
I read both editorials, and I must say I'm not impressed with either of them. Not even baseball history can prevent Moronotti from calling out the "Blizzard of Oz." Rogers is just jumping to conclusions and saying the Sox won't be able to keep him around next season. Memo to both: don't rain on our parade.

JB98
04-19-2007, 05:33 PM
At least no one has accused Buerhle of "mocking Zambrano's religion" for pointing to the sky after successfully retiring the side in order in the first inning. :D:

Whitesox029
04-19-2007, 05:42 PM
I put the Tribune, front and back, on the outside of my dorm door today, after neatly cutting Rogers' article out and throwing it on the scrap heap. It's amazing how the Sox can "rue" something that, if it even happens, won't happen for about 7 months. I've got 4 final exams in a few weeks, and I sure would be annoyed if someone told me right now, "you're going to rue not studying for those exams," considering I still have two weeks to study for them.

And if you think the Tribune is bad, try reading the U of I student paper. They ran an AP story about the no-hitter, and above that, printed a column with the headline "Future for Sox looks quite bad." I know it's a college paper, and I don't expect much, but this makes Rogers, Downey and company look like the paragon of journalistic integrity, which is a pretty tough task. Suffice to say I won't be touching a sports section from that paper in my remaining 3 years here.

JB98
04-19-2007, 05:54 PM
I put the Tribune, front and back, on the outside of my dorm door today, after neatly cutting Rogers' article out and throwing it on the scrap heap. It's amazing how the Sox can "rue" something that, if it even happens, won't happen for about 7 months. I've got 4 final exams in a few weeks, and I sure would be annoyed if someone told me right now, "you're going to rue not studying for those exams," considering I still have two weeks to study for them.

And if you think the Tribune is bad, try reading the U of I student paper. They ran an AP story about the no-hitter, and above that, printed a column with the headline "Future for Sox looks quite bad." I know it's a college paper, and I don't expect much, but this makes Rogers, Downey and company look like the paragon of journalistic integrity, which is a pretty tough task. Suffice to say I won't be touching a sports section from that paper in my remaining 3 years here.

You should write a letter to the DI and tell them that the Cubs past, present AND future look "quite bad." :cool:

StillMissOzzie
04-19-2007, 05:55 PM
Meanwhile, as the concrete falls on Addison Street, Zambrano doesn't have an extension and somehow that escapes Rogers' fevered attention. Yeah Phil, we know your journalistic integrity is intact, you return your library books on time, and you only cross the street at the signal, but it's curious that you have a fixation on Buehrle's mishandled contract.

Same melody, different lyrics. Cubs=clever, prudent; White Sox=reckless, shortsighted. The Tribune sings on.

Bah.

Quoted.
For.
Truth!

And I couldn't have said it better.

SMO
:gulp:

PaleHoseGeorge
04-19-2007, 06:04 PM
Does anyone need any further proof that Phil Rogers is completely tone-deaf for figuring out what his Sox Fans readership wants from a baseball feature columnist?

Who but the Tribune would keep sending this guy a paycheck?
:o:

cws05champ
04-19-2007, 10:21 PM
However, Mark Buehrle is not likely replaceable. I think he's a once in a generation pitcher for the Sox. I'm not sure where the Sox should draw the line in terms of offering him a deal, but I'm disappointed that they don't seem willing to go beyond giving him a similar type of deal (~3 yrs/$35 million) as they gave Vazquez and Garland.

I love Buehrle, and I think he a is a very good pitcher...not once in a generation type pitcher, but very good franchise player. Also, didn't the sox already offer him 3/$33M last season? He did not sign. They are willing to sign him but I don't think they want to be locked into a 5-6 yr deal at $14-16M, not should they be. I'd love to have him around for the next 4-5 yrs, but if it will handicap the org from getting other players to compete...then no.

JB98
04-19-2007, 10:23 PM
I love Buehrle, and I think he a is a very good pitcher...not once in a generation type pitcher, but very good franchise player. Also, didn't the sox already offer him 3/$33M last season? He did not sign. They are willing to sign him but I don't think they want to be locked into a 5-6 yr deal at $14-16M, not should they be. I'd love to have him around for the next 4-5 yrs, but if it will handicap the org from getting other players to compete...then no.

I'd give him five years. He's only 28, and he's durable.

Hitmen77
04-19-2007, 10:34 PM
I love Buehrle, and I think he a is a very good pitcher...not once in a generation type pitcher, but very good franchise player. Also, didn't the sox already offer him 3/$33M last season? He did not sign. They are willing to sign him but I don't think they want to be locked into a 5-6 yr deal at $14-16M, not should they be. I'd love to have him around for the next 4-5 yrs, but if it will handicap the org from getting other players to compete...then no.

Just to clarify, I meant one in a generation for the Sox - not once in a generation league-wide.

At any rate, I hope the Sox at least offer something more that 3/$33 million. I like Vazquez, but I think MB is worth more than Javy.