PDA

View Full Version : Great Article By Rogers Today Re: Buehrle


Hitmen77
06-20-2007, 11:32 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070619rogers,1,1019012.column?coll=chi-sportstop-hed

I think this is a great article by Phil Rogers. Note that he agrees with the idea that the Sox shouldn't be offering a Zito-type contract.

I disagreed with Phil when he criticized the Garcia and McCarthy deals last winter, but he's spot on with this article. Also, unlike most columnists, he actually had the guts to admit he was wrong about the McCarthy and Garcia trades and that they both could end up being very good moves by the Sox.

veeter
06-20-2007, 11:54 AM
Most of us here want Mark back, so he's just reiterating what we've been saying and thinking. It's now up to Jerry, Kenny and Mark. Let's just see what happens.

sox1970
06-20-2007, 12:04 PM
Most of us here want Mark back, so he's just reiterating what we've been saying and thinking. It's now up to Jerry, Kenny and Mark. Let's just see what happens.

If Buehrle doesn't get traded, I'd be absolutely shocked--and very happy.

WhiteSox5187
06-20-2007, 12:51 PM
Phil Rogers nailed this. It's one thing if we trade Mark because we made him a reasonable offer and he turned it down. But to just let him walk or not trade him, that's inexcusable.

Noneck
06-20-2007, 12:52 PM
I think Rogers main point is for the Sox to put their best offer on the table for Burls before the trade deadline and publicize it. If Burls doesn't bite then get the most you can for him.

goon
06-20-2007, 12:56 PM
Good article, thanks for posting.

WSox597
06-20-2007, 05:39 PM
I agree, it was a good article by Phil Rogers. Unusual for him.

veeter
06-20-2007, 05:49 PM
It was a good article because it was a well thought out opinion. It wasn't him accusing the Sox of things they haven't done.

Jerome
06-20-2007, 06:02 PM
this pretty much sums up my view on Buehrle. Of course we want him back. But will he sign at a price the Sox can reasonably afford? Who knows. If not, he should be traded. The worst thing in the world would be to wait it out for the offseason and then he flees to a team throwing Zito money at him.

It was acceptable for the A's not to trade Zito because they were in a pennant race and he helped get them all the way to the ALCS. But the 07 Sox are going nowhere. So either sign him soon or trade him, because the Sox are sorely in need of help in a lot of places.

CashMan
06-20-2007, 06:09 PM
Phil Rogers nailed this. It's one thing if we trade Mark because we made him a reasonable offer and he turned it down. But to just let him walk or not trade him, that's inexcusable.



So let everyone know you can't sign him, so his trade value goes down? Brilliant move!

rocky biddle
06-20-2007, 06:17 PM
So let everyone know you can't sign him, so his trade value goes down? Brilliant move!

I think most teams already assume the Sox can't/won't sign him. There will be plenty of need for a pitcher of Mark's caliber at the trade deadline. This competition will ensure that KW gets top value in return.

Paulwny
06-20-2007, 06:20 PM
I know that MB stated that he wanted to stay with the sox however, as he sees this team implode and possibly going into a rebuilding mode and not being competative for a few yrs, he may be thinking-- yrs- money- and a contending team.
Also , possibly the same case with Garland next year.

slavko
06-20-2007, 11:49 PM
I know that MB stated that he wanted to stay with the sox however, as he sees this team implode and possibly going into a rebuilding mode and not being competative for a few yrs, he may be thinking-- yrs- money- and a contending team.
Also , possibly the same case with Garland next year.

OTOH, rebuilding means cheaper talent and that leaves more money to sign whatever you're going to keep. Like MB and/or JG. Unless you think they'll prefer to go to a winner and overlook the $$$?

GoSox2K3
06-21-2007, 09:42 AM
I know that MB stated that he wanted to stay with the sox however, as he sees this team implode and possibly going into a rebuilding mode and not being competative for a few yrs, he may be thinking-- yrs- money- and a contending team.
Also , possibly the same case with Garland next year.

I don't think that'll be a factor that drives them away from the Sox. It's not like we're the Marlins and we're totally gutting the team down to a minimal payroll.

INSox56
06-21-2007, 11:45 AM
So Schmidt is gone for the season for the Dodgers. Another team that will really need a good starter to compete

cws05champ
06-21-2007, 11:50 AM
This article is no different than hundreds of posters on WSI have been saying for months!! I agree with what he said...me thinks Phil :dtroll: Rogers came over to WSI and got his story.

Hitmen77
06-21-2007, 03:07 PM
This article is no different than hundreds of posters on WSI have been saying for months!! I agree with what he said...me thinks Phil :dtroll: Rogers came over to WSI and got his story.

I'm perfectly fine with this. If Phil Rogers agrees with what we've been saying and wants to publish it in a very well written article in a high-circulation newspaper, I'm glad to see it.

By the way, funny you should mention Phil Rogers coming to WSI. I'm not sure who was here to read it around the holidays this past offseason, but Phil actually did enter the "lion's den" here to defend what he was saying at the time about the McCarthy and Garcia trades. He knew he would take a lot of heat from us and he had the guts to come here and discuss with us. IMO, Phil is a real stand-up guy.

Chipol
06-21-2007, 03:24 PM
I generally agree with Phil's article, and I'd love to see Mark stay with the team. But the thing that bothers me about these articles (see also Crouch's piece in the Times) is how writers equate unwillingness to pay market value with unwillingness to match the offer of a desparate team willing to overpay. Just my two cents worth...

comet2k
06-21-2007, 06:28 PM
So let everyone know you can't sign him, so his trade value goes down? Brilliant move!

Buehrle's trade value will be based on his record and his potential. Ifthe Sox don't sign him, that won't change.

Daver
06-21-2007, 06:36 PM
I'm perfectly fine with this. If Phil Rogers agrees with what we've been saying and wants to publish it in a very well written article in a high-circulation newspaper, I'm glad to see it.

By the way, funny you should mention Phil Rogers coming to WSI. I'm not sure who was here to read it around the holidays this past offseason, but Phil actually did enter the "lion's den" here to defend what he was saying at the time about the McCarthy and Garcia trades. He knew he would take a lot of heat from us and he had the guts to come here and discuss with us. IMO, Phil is a real stand-up guy.

Phil has also been a guest in our chatroom, and has told me he will gladly do it again, the problem is me finding time to schedule the details.

Lip Man 1
06-21-2007, 06:43 PM
Phil was also kind enough to have an extensive interview done with him by WSI.

Lip

The Immigrant
06-21-2007, 07:29 PM
Phil also recently came here to defend the article where he claimed that Kenny's "dismantling" of the starting rotation was "despicable". He took some real heat from a few of us and earned my respect by defending his views (however wrong they may be).

PaleHoseGeorge
06-21-2007, 09:33 PM
I generally agree with Phil's article, and I'd love to see Mark stay with the team. But the thing that bothers me about these articles (see also Crouch's piece in the Times) is how writers equate unwillingness to pay market value with unwillingness to match the offer of a desparate team willing to overpay. Just my two cents worth...

There is no substitute for talent. Buehrle will command a premium price regardless, and deservedly so.

It's the high price of mediocrity that makes baseball payrolls so expensive, because there simply aren't enough pitchers of Mark Buehrle's quality to fill up the starting rotation of 30 major league clubs. That's where the "desperate team willing to overpay" bit goes over the deep end... overpaying for crap like Jason Marquis.

But naturally Phil Rogers misses all of this. No surprise... at least not to me. After Buehrle's lousy 2006, had the Sox signed him to a fat contract, Phil Rogers would have been the first to note last winter how much the Sox overpaid compared to the price the Cubs paid for Marquis.

That's how you operate when you're trying to make a name for yourself: making unreasonable **** sound reasonable. (See "Windsock, The.") It's getting harder and harder to tell them apart.