PDA

View Full Version : Mr. Rogers' view, as of today...


DrCrawdad
05-20-2007, 05:24 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/thumbnails/columnist/2003-05/7622751.jpg

In fact, of the two teams at Wrigley Field this weekend, the Cubs appear the more upwardly mobile. With solid starting pitching and productive hitters throughout the order, they should be better in the second half than the first. "Solid starting pitching?" This after the day when Jason Marquis gives up 5 ER in 6 IP? And if you were to honestly look at their rotation, who believes that Marquis, Hill and Lilly will continue with sub-3 ERA?

The White Sox appear to be going nowhere fast as they continue the post-World Series descent that began after the All-Star break a year ago.The reason according to Phil? The Sox trade of Aaron Rowand, Neal Cotts, El Duque and others.

Uh, Phil one of the reasons the '06 Sox missed the playoffs is because of Cotts - he stunk last season for the Sox.

And El Duque, he was huge in the post-season but in the regular season of '05 the Sox had to (finally) yank him from the rotation because he was awful.

I hope and expect that the Sox hitters will turn things around this season, at some point. The Sox starters have not been the Sox big issue, IMO. One big problem has been the bullpen as of late.

What has gone wrong? Ozzie Guillen didn't forget how to manage.Ozzie has had a bad couple games as manager against the Cubs. Barring Ozzie's brain fog and the sloppy jobs by the 'pen the Sox could very well be sitting on two wins.

For all the talk that has and will go on about this series "propelling" the Cubs, remember that in actuality that's just not been the case in the past.

Post-season appearances since I.L., and record in the "Crosstown Series:"


Sox
'00 split
'05 split

Cubs
'03 Sox 4 of 6
'98 Cubs sweep

Then as Roger's notes, the Sox in '06 won 4 of 6 from the Cubs. Sure it helped towards the Sox 90 wins but the Sox still finished in 3rd.

Finally, I still have high hopes and great confidence in this team. Win today Sox and move on.

southside rocks
05-20-2007, 07:36 AM
So in Rogers' neighborhood, Cotts has joined Rowand as a Lost Savior Without Whom There Can Be No Winning? Wow, that's pathetic, even for a Tribune writer. :rolleyes:

I don't read Phil Rogers because Jeff McMahon saves me the trouble of having to wade through that sewer. :tongue:
http://www.cubune.com/2007/05/affirmative-action-for-company-team.html

I hope Ozzie and the boys can get their heads together today and play good baseball. I still believe that this team can use the struggles of the past 6 weeks as toughening stuff and come out a determined, focused group. Here's hoping.

veeter
05-20-2007, 10:31 AM
Rogers has a couple of things he can't let go. First, trading Chris Young. Despite the fact they got a solid, durable major league pitcher for him, he says it was a bad trade. That the Sox would be kicking ass if only they had the great Young. Hey, idiot Rogers, if they had the broken down El Duque, they'd be searching for another pitcher and you'd rip that. Then he dismisses the McCarthy trade and Danks as being a "nice" pitcher. After ripping the trade initially, he ate a tiny bit of crow. But that trade was masterful. And he then intimates that if Massett gets beat today, the trade will be a total loss. I really think that the bashing he gets on this very web-site has led him to bash the Sox. His arguements are full of half-truths and an obvious personal agenda. Standing pat after the title would have no doubt been a mistake to him. Yet making pro-active moves has been wrong also. All because the Sox have dropped two games to the under .500 cubs. Chicago's media is jr. high level at best.

bryPt
05-20-2007, 11:21 AM
This guy is the biggest moron in chicago sports reporting. The only reason why he writes this crap is because he longs for attention from us and other Sox fans. He is an attention whore. If we stop commenting on his crap, he will just go away. He is clearly not a Sox fan, he clearly likes the cubs and likes to stir it up with Sox fans. He came to this place once to defend himself and didn't prove one point he has made in the last 2 years. How much longer can we beat this dead horse? I gave up reading that crap paper months ago, my blood pressure gets a work out enough the way the team is playing.

Ignore the tower, stop watching and reading all their little minion companies (yeah, comcast sportsnet is owned by them partically, so you have to give them a pass on that one), and move on. If we stop greasing their pocketbooks, then we hit them were it hurts the most. Then maybe they will just go away and we can get out town back.

Palehose Pete
05-20-2007, 11:22 AM
I guess I'll never fully appreciate that this series is a feeding frenzy for the Chicago media. The Chicago media is really just looking for an easy story to tell and sell. The truth shouldn't get in the way. I forget that sometimes until the cross town series.

The question I have to Sox fans is that given how the last two games were lost, do you all feel that the Sox are sliding towards a mediocre season or that the Sox are just going to keep plugging along, quietly winning series and ending up in the post-season?

kevingrt
05-20-2007, 11:45 AM
I read this in the Cubune this morning and just burst out laughing. It is comedy in itself. I love it. Must read for anyone that needs a good laugh on a drury May morning.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070519rogers,1,5873198.column?coll=cs-home-headlines

Phil Rogers writes.

itsnotrequired
05-20-2007, 11:47 AM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=87956

kevingrt
05-20-2007, 11:47 AM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=87956


Poop Close, destory, Kill this thread. I am lazy on a sunday morning.

kevingrt
05-20-2007, 11:48 AM
I am still laughing after reading this article five minutes ago. It is so CLASSIC. It makes me warm and fuzzy inside.

Brian26
05-20-2007, 11:51 AM
Another Sox website has this quote printed:

"I wonder what would be happening now if Williams and the front office had had more faith in some they cast aside. Aaron Rowand, Neal Cotts, Geoff Blum, Luis Vizcaino and Freddy Garcia and youngsters like Brandon McCarthy and center fielder Chris Young. Maybe even the high-maintenance man, El Duque."

However, that exact quote wasn't in my paper this morning. My paper only shows this:

I wonder what would be happening now if Williams and the front office had had more faith in some they cast aside.

That's an important edit. Did Phil edit the story after it was sent to Chicagosports.com last night? Did he realize that naming Freddy, Duque, Cotts, McCathy was a mistake?

kevingrt
05-20-2007, 11:54 AM
I think the best part of the story is that it is not even written that well. It is all over the place. If turned that in journalism class I would get a D for it.

UserNameBlank
05-20-2007, 12:53 PM
I'd like to see Phil come on here and try to defend this one...

...waiting...

I haven't seen Phil on here since he last tried to defend calling Brandon McCarthy a proven workhorse.

TDog
05-20-2007, 02:15 PM
...

That's an important edit. Did Phil edit the story after it was sent to Chicagosports.com last night? Did he realize that naming Freddy, Duque, Cotts, McCathy was a mistake?

I can't answer your question obviously because I wasn't involved in the writing or editing process, but I know you often find online versions of stories contain more detail. In my experience, that is because the space restrictions that are present in a print newspaper are not present online. Some newspapers will even point out in news stories that the online version contains more information, more quotes and such.

There may have been the need to cut a few lines from the story, and the editors may have considered the point made without the illustration. I don't know the structure of the copy flow at the Tribune. Columns may go independently to the sports copy desk and the Web site desk. Columns are just opinions. They aren't news. They aren't even news about sports, so there isn't as much editing demanding as there would be in a story about political corruption.

My guess is that if the writer had changed his mind about a point in the story, the point would be gone on the Web site before it wasn't printed in the paper.

tebman
05-20-2007, 04:17 PM
I saw his column too. We don't subscribe to the Tribune, but we get it on Sundays because of some giveaway deal the Tribune offered when they were desperately trying to boost their circulation.

What occurred to me is that Rogers has become Mariotti-Lite on this topic. It goes like this: The Sox traded Brandon McCarthy and Neal Cotts and are in the last year of Buehrle's contract, therefore they're cheap and self-destructive. Meanwhile, the Cubs committed several hundred million dollars to new players and signed the heroic, the legendary, the peerless Lou Piniella, therefore they're paragons of foresight and wisdom.

Just like Mariotti, you can predict what he's going to write. I might be tempted to give him the benefit of some doubt if his 401(k) didn't depend on the frat-boy money the Cubs provide to his bosses.

The Sox lost two games to a team they shouldn't have, but that's baseball. And while it bothers me now, I know it's a long season and after 45+ years of following this team I know that there really will be another game and another season. But also after watching the multiheaded Tribune Hydra monster shill for the Cubs, I know what to expect if I annoy myself by opening its pages.

DrCrawdad
05-20-2007, 04:34 PM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/thumbnails/columnist/2003-05/7622751.jpg

In fact, of the two teams at Wrigley Field this weekend, the Cubs appear the more upwardly mobile. With solid starting pitching and productive hitters throughout the order, they should be better in the second half than the first.

Marquis
6 IP
5 ER

Zambrano
6.2 IP
7 ER

Mr. Rogers, are you still standing by that ridiculous assertion?

DrCrawdad
05-20-2007, 04:40 PM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/thumbnails/columnist/2003-05/7622751.jpg

In fact, of the two teams at Wrigley Field this weekend, the Cubs appear the more upwardly mobile. With solid starting pitching and productive hitters throughout the order, they should be better in the second half than the first.

Marquis
6 IP
5 ER

Zambrano
6.2 IP
7 ER

Mr. Rogers, are you still standing by that ridiculous assertion?

It could be said that Sox starters have done better than the Cubs in 2 of the 3 games. And even in the Buehrle/Lilly match-up Lilly did only slightly better than Mark.

The Immigrant
05-20-2007, 04:53 PM
It could be said that Sox starters have done better than the Cubs in 2 of the 3 games. And even in the Buehrle/Lilly match-up Lilly did only slightly better than Mark.

Lilly got the win, but Mark was the better pitcher that day. Our bullpen let him down big time, which is the only reason Lilly got the win.

As for Phil, he's still a hack. Nothing to see here, move along.

oeo
05-20-2007, 05:13 PM
Marquis
6 IP
5 ER

Zambrano
6.2 IP
7 ER

Mr. Rogers, are you still standing by that ridiculous assertion?

Is this guy ever right? He should start writing his articles after the season is over if he wants to sound smart. I like how he comes here and tries to defend himself, too, making himself look like even more of an idiot.

TheOldRoman
05-20-2007, 05:45 PM
Rogers has a couple of things he can't let go. First, trading Chris Young. Despite the fact they got a solid, durable major league pitcher for him, he says it was a bad trade. That the Sox would be kicking ass if only they had the great Young. Hey, idiot Rogers, if they had the broken down El Duque, they'd be searching for another pitcher and you'd rip that. Then he dismisses the McCarthy trade and Danks as being a "nice" pitcher. After ripping the trade initially, he ate a tiny bit of crow. But that trade was masterful. And he then intimates that if Massett gets beat today, the trade will be a total loss. I really think that the bashing he gets on this very web-site has led him to bash the Sox. His arguements are full of half-truths and an obvious personal agenda. Standing pat after the title would have no doubt been a mistake to him. Yet making pro-active moves has been wrong also. All because the Sox have dropped two games to the under .500 cubs. Chicago's media is jr. high level at best.
:worship:

Brian26
05-20-2007, 07:23 PM
Hours after this story was printed, the little Masset/Danks for BMac trade looks even larger.

UserNameBlank
05-20-2007, 10:09 PM
Hours after this story was printed, the little Masset/Danks for Fingernails on a blackboard trade looks even larger.
I bet he thinks Masset's start was a fluke despite the fact that he is only 25 and made huge strides over the last year. Meanwhile he probably thinks Marquis is an excellent pitcher who is poised for dominace despite the fact that he turns 29 this year and has a career 4.44 ERA in the NL.

SOXPHILE
05-20-2007, 10:51 PM
SO, what does Mr. Rogers think of Neal Cotts' appearance today ? Remember, this is one of the guys the Sox "cast off", and would be in a much better position if the still had him...

oeo
05-21-2007, 01:14 AM
SO, what does Mr. Rogers think of Neal Cotts' appearance today ? Remember, this is one of the guys the Sox "cast off", and would be in a much better position if the still had him...

Let's not forget that we not only got David Aardsma in that trade, but we also got Carlos Vasquez, who is tearing it up in the minors this year; and if he continues to do so and Logan/Sisco continue to suck, he will be up here in no time.

StillMissOzzie
05-21-2007, 01:49 AM
I actually agree with Rogers' statement, but probably not for the reason he thinks. Yes, the Cubs starting pitching staff is more "upwardly mobile", because they are the ones with much more room to improve!

The Sox starters, on the other hand, have already delivered a boatload of quality starts, and anyone who blames the Sox mediocre start on the starting pitching has clearly not been paying attention.

[ Pssst, hey Phil...it's our hitting that's been pretty bad so far ]

SMO
:gulp:

TomBradley72
05-21-2007, 11:18 AM
I think some of his points are at least legitimate as part of an overal debate.

The El Duque/Young/Vizcaino for Vazquez trade is still too early to assess. El Duque and Vazquez had similar numbers in 2006 (though El Duque's were in the NL, this year he is 2-1,2.53), we could have used Vizcaino in our bullpen last year, and if Young lives up to his hype/potential (he's currently .268-6-16, 6 SBs, and will be cheap for years to come until he's FA eligible) and Vazquez continues to be an average pitcher (currently 2-2, 4.21)..the trade may not have been a great one. I won't second guess it myself...because I loved it at the time.

The Thome/Rowand trade is also worthy of scrutiny. We replaced one aging/injury prone/base clogging DH (Thomas) with another aging/injury prone/base clogging DH (Thome) and in 2006 we had to deal with Anderson/Machowiak as our CF. So that trade deserves scutiny as well. Again, I won't second guess it myself...because I loved it at the time.

I DO think Rogers is becoming Marriotti-Lite...and his assessment of the pitching trades this past off season is way off...but the post 2005 trades KW made are worthy of scrutiny.

IowaSox1971
05-21-2007, 01:38 PM
I think some of his points are at least legitimate as part of an overal debate.

The El Duque/Young/Vizcaino for Vazquez trade is still too early to assess. El Duque and Vazquez had similar numbers in 2006 (though El Duque's were in the NL, this year he is 2-1,2.53), we could have used Vizcaino in our bullpen last year, and if Young lives up to his hype/potential (he's currently .268-6-16, 6 SBs, and will be cheap for years to come until he's FA eligible) and Vazquez continues to be an average pitcher (currently 2-2, 4.21)..the trade may not have been a great one. I won't second guess it myself...because I loved it at the time.

The Thome/Rowand trade is also worthy of scrutiny. We replaced one aging/injury prone/base clogging DH (Thomas) with another aging/injury prone/base clogging DH (Thome) and in 2006 we had to deal with Anderson/Machowiak as our CF. So that trade deserves scutiny as well. Again, I won't second guess it myself...because I loved it at the time.

I DO think Rogers is becoming Marriotti-Lite...and his assessment of the pitching trades this past off season is way off...but the post 2005 trades KW made are worthy of scrutiny.




Thome hit 42 homers last year and he carried the team in the first half of last season. And he also was about the only guy producing in our lineup this year before he went on the DL. I know Rowand is having a good season in 2007, but we have the edge in this deal so far. Yesterday's game against the Cubs proves what a difference Thome can make. He just came up for a pinch-hitting appearance in the seventh and drew a two-out walk from Zambrano to move an insurance run into scoring position, and before you know it, we have a seven-run inning. I like Rowand, but I would much rather have Thome.

I agree that the Vazquez-Young deal is too early to assess. Vazquez is about an average pitcher, but finding an adequate pitcher who stays healthy and gives you innings is not an easy thing to do in this day and age. That's why the Cubs gave average pitchers like Lilly and Marquis such huge contracts. To get something of value, you often have to give up something in return. It's true that Vizcaino would have helped in our bullpen last year, but Riske ended up having about the same ERA that Viz had for us in 2005.

I found it ironic that right after Rogers wrote this story that Masset (acquired in the McCarthy trade) outpitched Zambrano. Rogers apparently was so upset about this that his next column calls for the Cubs to get rid of Zambrano.

Dick Allen
05-21-2007, 07:02 PM
At the beginning of the Boers & Bernstein show today, they were talking about how ridiculous and over-the-top the media coverage of the weekend series was. They said the Cub Times was the worst, but they also mentioned Rogers prominently.

minutia
05-22-2007, 07:50 PM
I might have missed the count but it took the Cubs a lot of pitchers on Saturday to beat us and that was Marquis day. I know our lack of situational hitting paired with some bad pitches from our bullpen certainly helped. Just something I noticed but I could be wrong.