PDA

View Full Version : Mr. Roger's Neighborhood


DrCrawdad
03-26-2002, 01:23 PM
Did you catch Mr. Roger's article on the Sox in today's Cubune? Mr. Rogers critiqued the Sox defense. While in general I agree with his article, I question some of the details.

http://chicagosports.com/columnists/content/column/0,2007,178670,00.html

"Robin Ventura was the last White Sox player who even was mentioned as a candidate."

Wasn't everyone's favorite Royce at least worthy of consideration?

"Like many AL managers, Manuel consistently has overlooked the defensive shortcomings of good hitters: Carlos Lee, Jose Valentin, Ray Durham and Frank Thomas, to name a few."

Ok on all of the guys but Frank. Frank rarely is going to be playing 1st base. And from what I've heard in ST Frank has made some fine plays at first.

Here's what I wonder about though, why doesn't Mr. Rogers breakdown the Cubs like he consistently does with Sox?

Hundley, Alou, McGriff, Mr. X at 3rd in Mueller's absence, none of these guys are defensive players. Even Mr. Hype Corey Patterson hasn't looked very good in the field.

IMHO the Cub outfield won't be much better than the Sox and maybe even worse.

So where is Mr. Roger's critique on the Cubs? Mr. Rogers and Teddy Greenstein should be writing for the Cub fanzine Vineline for all the Cubbie cheerleading they do.

- DrCrawdad

RedPinStripes
03-26-2002, 01:42 PM
Here's what I wonder about though, why doesn't Mr. Rogers breakdown the Cubs like he consistently does with Sox?

Of course not. He a scummy flubs fan who works for the cubune Like the rest of the idiots over there.



:moron
"Before i get run out of town again, I'm sending all my love to SamME over to the cubune where i belong. "

PaleHoseGeorge
03-26-2002, 01:58 PM
Shouldn't somebody wake up Phil Rogers and give him the news this isn't 1968 anymore? It would save him from embarrassing himself in the future writing such nonsense.

Year-round weight training, funny-looking pills, Tinker-toy ballparks, talented hitters who bat for the pitcher, and Cy Young candidates with 4+ ERA's are now the norm .

There is only two guys on the playing field that can possibly contribute more to the team with their glove and arm than their bat: the pitcher and catcher. The American League in 2002 could never be confused with the dead-ball era, FCOL!

:shammy
"What funny-looking pills?"

RedPinStripes
03-26-2002, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Shouldn't somebody wake up Phil Rogers and give him the news this isn't 1968 anymore? It would save him from embarrassing himself in the future writing such nonsense.

Year-round weight training, funny-looking pills, Tinker-toy ballparks, talented hitters who bat for the pitcher, and Cy Young candidates with 4+ ERA's are now the norm .

There is only two guys on the playing field that can possibly contribute more to the team with their glove and arm than their bat: the pitcher and catcher. The American League in 2002 could never be confused with the dead-ball era, FCOL!

:shammy
"What funny-looking pills?"


:shammy
"No pills george. Just big needles to stick in my ass for an extra muscle charge"

CerberusWG
03-26-2002, 02:43 PM
:shammy

I can spell Nandrolone! Can you!

PaleHoseGeorge
03-26-2002, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
:shammy
"No pills george. Just big needles to stick in my ass for an extra muscle charge"

LOL!!!

I was watching a tape of the 1971 World Series on ESPN Classic last night. I could not believe how scrawny all the ballplayers looked. These were the two best teams in the league!

Even Boog Powell looked small compared to Sammy Sosa--and unlike Shammy, Boog was NEVER a wirey outfielder.

Phil Rogers really needs to get a clue. I'm guessing he and Sam Smith have been swapping notes. They've both embarrassed themselves the past few days.

FarWestChicago
03-26-2002, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by CerberusWG
:shammy

I can spell Nandrolone! Can you! :fluffy

You know, you could probably make a fortune endorsing the stuff and they could then market it as Samdrolone. Sales would go through the roof!!

DVG
03-27-2002, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
[
Here's what I wonder about though, why doesn't Mr. Rogers breakdown the Cubs like he consistently does with Sox?

Hundley, Alou, McGriff, Mr. X at 3rd in Mueller's absence, none of these guys are defensive players. Even Mr. Hype Corey Patterson hasn't looked very good in the field.

IMHO the Cub outfield won't be much better than the Sox and maybe even worse.

So where is Mr. Roger's critique on the Cubs? Mr. Rogers and Teddy Greenstein should be writing for the Cub fanzine Vineline for all the Cubbie cheerleading they do.

- DrCrawdad [/B]


It would help you, Craw, if you realize exactly what type of
journalist you are dealing with. Mr. Rogers bleeds Cubbie blue
through and through. For proof, allow me to refer you to his
article of March 21, in which he wrote about the 1994 strike. One paragraph said, and I'm quoting here: "That strike did nothing
for anyone-except possibly Cub fan who were happy to see the
White Sox denied a chance to get to the World Series..."

And, I might add, Cubs fans masquerading as Tribune column-
ists.

MarqSox
03-27-2002, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by DVG



It would help you, Craw, if you realize exactly what type of
journalist you are dealing with. Mr. Rogers bleeds Cubbie blue
through and through. For proof, allow me to refer you to his
article of March 21, in which he wrote about the 1994 strike. One paragraph said, and I'm quoting here: "That strike did nothing
for anyone-except possibly Cub fan who were happy to see the
White Sox denied a chance to get to the World Series..."

And, I might add, Cubs fans masquerading as Tribune column-
ists.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but how come we never see anything wrong when Jon Kass writes one of his pro-Sox diatribes? Now, I'm as aware as anyone that such pro-Sox biases are rare in the Chicago media, but if we so actively revolt against pro-Cubs columnists, then let's do the same when a pro-Sox column pops up. Bias should either be always accepted or always ripped on. Like I said, you'll get no argument that the Sox columns are underrepresented, but I think it's unfair to attack the columnists themselves for being Cub fans. Dumb, yes, but unfair? Not so sure.

RedPinStripes
03-27-2002, 06:15 AM
Originally posted by MarqSox


Just playing devil's advocate here, but how come we never see anything wrong when Jon Kass writes one of his pro-Sox diatribes? Now, I'm as aware as anyone that such pro-Sox biases are rare in the Chicago media, but if we so actively revolt against pro-Cubs columnists, then let's do the same when a pro-Sox column pops up. Bias should either be always accepted or always ripped on. Like I said, you'll get no argument that the Sox columns are underrepresented, but I think it's unfair to attack the columnists themselves for being Cub fans. Dumb, yes, but unfair? Not so sure.

How many pro-sox columnists are in chicago? That's why they get shreaded. Dave Wills needs to write for the times. With as much as he hates the cubs and would show it, there might be a close score then. I'd be happy then.

RichH55
03-27-2002, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox


Just playing devil's advocate here, but how come we never see anything wrong when Jon Kass writes one of his pro-Sox diatribes? Now, I'm as aware as anyone that such pro-Sox biases are rare in the Chicago media, but if we so actively revolt against pro-Cubs columnists, then let's do the same when a pro-Sox column pops up. Bias should either be always accepted or always ripped on. Like I said, you'll get no argument that the Sox columns are underrepresented, but I think it's unfair to attack the columnists themselves for being Cub fans. Dumb, yes, but unfair? Not so sure.


Another line of thinking is that Kass(IIRC) is not writing for the Sports section...he writes essentially an opinion/gossip column..........two different things from being a sports reporter who in theory strives to maintain some sort of unbiased side to his stories