PDA

View Full Version : Rogers On Ozzie / 08 Sox


Lip Man 1
02-17-2008, 09:52 PM
Has some "interesting" points of view. Also continues to point out how in his opinion the Sox are going to miss all those "future All Star / Hall of Fame types" (quotes are mine..Phil doesn't say that in the story) that Kenny keeps trading away.

:rolleyes:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-080218-rogers-ozzie-guillen-tough,1,697993.column

Lip

JB98
02-17-2008, 10:06 PM
Not a lot new under the sun with Rogers. He just keeps hammering away about all these prospects who are going to come back and haunt the Sox. I'm just not real concerned about that.

I don't know why so many media members want the Sox to break it down and rebuild. It isn't like we have a host of minor-leaguers who are poised for a shot in the big leagues.

The young ones who deserve an opportunity, for the most part, are already here. Referring to Fields, Danks, Wassermann, Floyd, Richar and Owens.

The fan base is not going to put up with another 90-plus-loss season. KW has positioned us to be competitive, and hopefully we can surprise.

WhiteSox5187
02-17-2008, 10:46 PM
He doesn't say anything new, OK, so on paper Detroit and Cleveland are better than us right now, but we don't play the games on paper. There are obvious question marks in the rotation and I do think that Kenny's job could hang in the balance following another bad year (ie ninety losses). But we'll see.

FedEx227
02-17-2008, 10:48 PM
The young ones who deserve an opportunity, for the most part, are already here. Referring to Fields, Danks, Wassermann, Floyd, Richar and Owens.

That's the way I see it as well. Over the past few years I've wanted them to give these guys a shot and last year albeit awful, was a great chance to do that.

I didn't really expect Carter or Sweeney to ever make a splash. DLS and Gio looked nice but I believe we can survive without them. The best guys over the past 4-5 years were Fields and Owens and they are both here.

oeo
02-17-2008, 10:53 PM
I refuse to read Rogers' crap. You guys should do the same.

Patrick134
02-17-2008, 10:53 PM
I'm sure when they were traded , Rogers would have been quick to tell us that Kip Wells and Jeremy Reed were future hall of famers.

jabrch
02-17-2008, 10:55 PM
Has some "interesting" points of view. Also continues to point out how in his opinion the Sox are going to miss all those "future All Star / Hall of Fame types" (quotes are mine..Phil doesn't say that in the story) that Kenny keeps trading away.

:rolleyes:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-080218-rogers-ozzie-guillen-tough,1,697993.column

Lip


For one of the crappiest farm systems in baseball (even before this deal), it is amazing about the future AS/HOFers we had...

TheCommander
02-17-2008, 11:21 PM
I can't wait until we start treating Phil Rogers' rhetoric the same way we do the Moron's-banished to the ****house,links prohibited. :nod:

hold2dibber
02-18-2008, 12:55 AM
There's nothing in the article that I necessarily disagree with. The fact is, with Contreras, Danks and Floyd in the starting rotation, this season is a crap shoot at best. Does anyone really think all three of those guys will make it through the season without demotion/release? Hell, if two of them are still in the rotation at year's end, I would view that as a victory. I actually think the bullpen and the line-up are much improved. But I think they'll miss Garland a ton.

Corlose 15
02-18-2008, 05:23 AM
But Mark Buehrle and Contreras (10-17, 5.57 ERA a year ago) are all that's left of the World Series rotation, with Jon Garland following Freddy Garcia out of town. Buehrle and Javier Vazquez are a solid 1-2, but the Tigers and Indians have a lot more quality starting pitching.


Am I only the only one who isn't drooling over Detroit's rotation? Verlander is good, Bonderman is overrated and coming off of a plus 5 ERA season, Rogers is ancient and an injury concern, Robertson is average, and Willis is coming off a year with a plus five ERA in a pitcher's park in the national league. Not to mention their bullpen is nothing to write home about as well.


Even with the Indians you have a great 1-2 with Sabathia and Carmona and a solid rotation. However Carmona could break down this year with the number of innings he pitched last season.

I'm sick and tired of everyone talking about what a phenomenally great team the Tigers have. They have a great lineup and question marks in the pitching staff. I wouldn't pencil them in for 110 wins quite yet.:rolleyes:

kraut83
02-18-2008, 07:19 AM
Am I only the only one who isn't drooling over Detroit's rotation? Verlander is good, Bonderman is overrated and coming off of a plus 5 ERA season, Rogers is ancient and an injury concern, Robertson is average, and Willis is coming off a year with a plus five ERA in a pitcher's park in the national league. Not to mention their bullpen is nothing to write home about as well.

Nope, you're not the only one. After Verlander, they have a very average rotation (on paper). The back end of their bullpen is a question mark as well.

I think we will see a lot of 7-6, 8-7 games out of the Tigers this year.

KyWhiSoxFan
02-18-2008, 07:24 AM
There's nothing new in that story. He's written the same story about a dozen times already.

I think he overrates Detroit's chances. Their pitching is not that good. Yes, they will score a lot of runs, like last year, but that was not their problem. It was depth of starting pitching and the bullpen. They have not done anything with their bullpen in the offseason, and if Willis is the Willis of 2007, they have taken a step back with their starting pitching.

Cleveland had a lot of things go right for them in 2007. If they get off to a fast start again, they will be tough. If they don't, it will be interesting. It is far easier for teams to play loose when leading. Can Carmona have another big year? Can Sabathia have another career year?

For the Sox, it all comes down to the 3-4-5 slots. Those questions--and how many innings Floyd and Danks can contribute--is why they will carry 12 pitchers. Shortening games may turn out to be a good strategy. We'll see.

Frater Perdurabo
02-18-2008, 08:49 AM
Those of you who think Rogers is beating a dead horse about KW trading away prospects are yourselves beating a dead horse. What's that about glass houses and stones?

I counted one clause where Rogers actually mentions the issue:

...and Williams keeps trading away minor-leaguers he will miss down the road...

It's not even a full sentence!

I don't agree with Phil on this point, but in the context of this article it's a tiny mole hill that many of you are making into Mount St. Helens.

FarWestChicago
02-18-2008, 10:10 AM
Those of you who think Rogers is beating a dead horse about KW trading away prospects are yourselves beating a dead horse. What's that about glass houses and stones?

I counted one clause where Rogers actually mentions the issue:



It's not even a full sentence!

I don't agree with Phil on this point, but in the context of this article it's a tiny mole hill that many of you are making into Mount St. Helens.That's what happens when you are ridiculously repetitive and piss people off all the time. You make them oversensitive. :poke:

russ99
02-18-2008, 10:15 AM
Sounds to me like Rogers wants the Sox to rebuild so no one will show up to games or care about the Sox (in his mind) so he can go back to covering his beloved Cubbies.

I quote: "The Cubs are positioned for a second straight playoff appearance and for once might have history on their side. Hey, this is the year if they're going to win a World Series every 100 years."

First of all Phil, you're full of it, and secondly, what do the Cubs have to do about a story regarding Ozzie Guillen??

veeter
02-18-2008, 10:32 AM
He never mentions the guys Kenny trades for, are young themselves. Swisher at 27 is the oldest. Richar, Quentin, Danks, Masset and Floyd are young pups. Oh well.

russ99
02-18-2008, 10:47 AM
He never mentions the guys Kenny trades for, are young themselves. Swisher at 27 is the oldest. Richar, Quentin, Danks, Masset and Floyd are young pups. Oh well.

And all of them except Richar was a "top prospect" at one point.

The only guy Kenny dealt that bugs me is Chris Young. Not only because he's gonna be a heck of a player and maybe even a star, but he would have filled a huge need for the Sox the last year or so.

But still, we got Javy Vazquez for him, so in my book that's still a pretty fair deal.

cws05champ
02-18-2008, 02:42 PM
Another Rogers article where I can't disagree with everything he said, but really how he says some things. I used to respect Rogers as a baseball writer, but he and many other writers have had to tweak their styles to capture the headlines in these changing times. Good writers nowadays just get buried beneath the inane headlines by inferior writers because it's not shocking enough.
So writers like Phil have to adapt and conform to the style that sells, not what is good journalism. The Moron is a perfect example of a guy who beneath all the junk is a good writer, but he will write the most stupid and slanted piece just to grab a headline and get people talking about him. It's not about the sport, it's about him!

I just find it funny that Phil and a lot of media are handing the Central to Detroit, ignoring their pitching issues.

God I can't wait until they start playing games!

A.T. Money
02-18-2008, 02:57 PM
Why do people care what Phil Rogers says?

santo=dorf
02-18-2008, 03:47 PM
Why do people care what Phil Rogers says?
More general, why does anyone care what any Cubune writer thinks?

From the WSI code of conduct:
In particular, the Tribune has formally requested that WSI not allow reposting of their images or to allow quotes from their articles, so please do not do so. Feel free to post a link.

They don't even want quotes from their articles? **** them. If we can't quote them, how are we supposed to have an easy discussion? Lots of time there is one particular quote or point worth discussing, but apparently the Cubune wants everyone to click the link to increase their traffic. **** them.

Quit reading the Tribune, and quit going to that damn biased www.chicagosports.com (http://www.chicagosports.com/)

cws05champ
02-18-2008, 03:53 PM
More general, why does anyone care what any Cubune writer thinks?

From the WSI code of conduct:


They don't even want quotes from their articles? **** them. If we can't quote them, how are we supposed to have an easy discussion? Lots of time there is one particular quote or point worth discussing, but apparently the Cubune wants everyone to click the link to increase their traffic. **** them.

Quit reading the Tribune, and quit going to that damn biased www.chicagosports.com (http://www.chicagosports.com)

What I don't understand is they don't even want us quoting them...even if we give them credit for it. I'n no lawyer, but isn't this done all the time...people quoting other sources(and giving credit). I just don't understand.

TornLabrum
02-18-2008, 08:27 PM
More general, why does anyone care what any Cubune writer thinks?

From the WSI code of conduct:


They don't even want quotes from their articles? **** them. If we can't quote them, how are we supposed to have an easy discussion? Lots of time there is one particular quote or point worth discussing, but apparently the Cubune wants everyone to click the link to increase their traffic. **** them.

Quit reading the Tribune, and quit going to that damn biased www.chicagosports.com (http://www.chicagosports.com/)

The Tribune Co. doesn't want anybody quoting anything from their articles anywhere. People have been banned from here because of this policy both by them and by other newspapers.

Here's an example of what they have to say in their terms of service:

You may not republish any portion of the Content on any Internet, Intranet or extranet site or incorporate the Content in any database, compilation, archive or cache. You may not distribute any Content to others, whether or not for payment or other consideration, and you may not archive, modify, copy, frame, cache, reproduce, sell, publish, transmit, display or otherwise use any portion of the Content. You may not scrape or otherwise copy our Content without permission. You agree not to decompile, reverse engineer or disassemble any software or other products or processes accessible through [web site], not to insert any code or product or manipulate the content of [web site] in any way that affects the user's experience, and not to use any data mining, data gathering or extraction method.That pretty much says you can't copy anything.