With Friends Like The Tribune...

Today Tribune baseball expert Phil Rogers admits that he didn't vote for Harold Baines in Hall of Fame balloting this year because... drumroll... he forgot.

On Monday, the Tribune is changing their masthead to something "cleaner." If only it could say the same for its sports section.

--Brett Ballantini

Could Tribune Bias Be More Blatant?

Even though Rich Gossage began his career with the White Sox and spent five seasons on the South Side (1972-76), the Tribune apparently could not find an image of the Goose in a Sox cap:
Click the 'photos' tag below (and then scroll down, since the top of the page will look the same) for more visual proof of Tribune sliminess.

Reading the Chicago Daily Hypocrite

The Tribune ripped Ken Williams when he traded Freddy Garcia for Gio Gonzalez and two other prospects. Now they're ripping him for trading Gio Gonzalez. The Tribune has been badmouthing Ryan Sweeney for years — they urged the White Sox to trade him just a year ago — and now they're badmouthing Williams for trading him. The Tribune has scarcely even mentioned Fautino De Los Santos before, and suddenly, now that he's gone, he's the hottest prospect in Chicago.

The Tribune doesn't like anything Ken Williams does, beginning with winning a World Series for the South Side, being the first general manager to win a World Series for Chicago in nine decades, yes, winning a World Series before the Tribune's precious Cubbies.

Nick Swisher is coming to 35th and Shields. Here's our Brett Ballantini on Phlip-Phlop Phil Rogers' coverage of the trade:

I don't want to sound like a stats geek, but I simply don't feel Dr. Phil has earned a level of respect from me as a reader that causes me to swallow statements like "I loved what I saw from de los Santos in the Futures Game in July" as reason to hate a trade for an actual major leaguer, one who's actually good, and who actually brings life to the White Sox.

To be fair, Dr. Phil adds Santos' strikeout rate as further cause for concern. A strikeout rate at Single A. He says the Chris Young trade for Javier Vasquez "blew up in [Williams'] face," when by all accounts Javy is the team ace and one of the AL's best starters, and Young, though incredibly promising, is a strikeout machine. One asset in the D-backs' favor is that Young is younger, but I think both Chicago and Arizona knew that before they made the trade.

Dr. Phil chooses to overlook the fact that Sweeney had regressed after being essentially handed a job—remember when Ozzie couldn't stop raving about him, at the expense of BA, Owens, Young?—and that Sweeney recently hit something horrible in the Fall League, where every one of his hits were singles — instead saying that it was "over-coaching by an undistinguished group of minor-league hitting instructors" that caused Sweeney to suddenly suck.

And Gio? Believe me, I loved the thought of Giovanny pitching for the Sox. But you know, the guy's never pitched above AA. He led all minor-leaguers in strikeouts with 185 last year, says Dr. Phil, repeating Double A. Now, I'm not going to hold that against him, but as many have rightfully pointed out, we're raving about a guy who hasn't sniffed Triple A. I also think it's very safe to say that with Lance Broadway's gutty start at the end of last year, Gio was at best the No. 7 spring training starter for 2008.

So in return for three guys who weren't going to be playing for the White Sox in 2008, they get an A's prize, a guy Oakland clearly was not looking to deal. He's a Moneyball poster boy (imagine, the aw-shucks ol' KW, picking a Moneyball plum from the master himself). He's super cheap with regard to production: disregarding their superior defense, Swisher's HRs and RBI over the course of his contract will come at a cost of about 42% of Rowand's and 28% of Hunter's. I wanted those other guys, too, but jeez, this is a pretty nice consolation prize.

Worst of all, Dr. Phil bases nearly all of his criticism on the fact that the White Sox have no chance in 2008, so why are they making a move for "today?" (Which in fact is a false premise given Swisher is 27 and locked up through 2012). If that isn't typical Cubbies/Trib thinking, what is? So 2008 should just be one big Futures Game to the White Sox? They shouldn't even try to compete? Of course Boston, New York, Cleveland, Detroit, L.A. all look tougher than the White Sox right now. I'm sure at least that many teams did so in January 2005 as well. But Boston won the WS and could find itself in an accompanying hangover or arm fatigue this summer, New York's still thin on arms and lord knows there's the laughable "A-Rod curse," Detroit should hit .300 as a team but their arms, well, and even gilded Cleveland seems to have a penchant for choking away the big one--and speaking of big one, what are the odds on Cy Young Sabby showing up in March north of three bills?

I will never fault KW for guts. You win some, you lose some, especially when his stated missive is to not rip off anyone, but always get a deal that's good for both sides. This trade is a great example of that.

Minor leaguers are minor leaguers. If you have a killer 25-man roster--not saying the 2008 White Sox do--your minor leaguers will never play for you. Yes, they can be dealt for other good players, but you know what? If you trade them all, you get to draft and sign more, every year. Why is Dr. Phil treating them like the last of the world's oil reserves?

We know why: because he envies Ken Williams to the point of hatred. And from Cubune Watcher Brian Dykes, quoting Rogers in italics:

"What happened to the once responsible managers of the 2005 world series champions?" - So Ken Williams should spend money like Cub management? Don't trade the future, just buy anyone you can get! Look how well that's worked out for the Cubbies.

"That strategy blew up in his face when he sent center fielder Chris Young to Arizona for Vazquez, and this trade could make that one pale in its long-term cost." - Chris Young is a .230 hitter, Vazquez has won how many games the last 2 years?

"It's the kind of trade you make only if you have A) a deep farm system and B) a reasonably good chance to reach the playoffs in the near future. The White Sox have neither." - Kinda like when the Sox got rid of Mags and C Lee for nothing before the 2005 season? They had NO CHANCE to reach the playoffs after that.

"Perhaps Richar and Quentin will prove to be worth the gambles. But after their early tastes of the big leagues (138 games for Quentin and 56 for Richar), they are both .230 hitters." - But .230 is stellar for Chris Young in AZ?

"Gonzalez, who has now been in three White Sox trades, and de los Santos are both potential No. 2 starters, if not aces." - Sure, kinda like how Mark Prior and Kerry Wood are right now. These two guys are certain aces. And how many times have you been right about a sure bet, Mr. Rogers? Have you ever?

"It has been almost four years since Sweeney elicited Harold Baines comparisons from Roland Hemond in spring training. But with a change of scenery, and perhaps a break from over-coaching by an undistinguished group of minor-league hitting instructors, he could blossom into a hitter like the popular Swisher"

With a change of scenery, the guy the Sox just traded could become like the guy they got for him. Hmm. Is it too much to ask in this city to have baseball writers who make sense in print?

McGrath Spills His Bias

Tribune Sports Editor Dan McGrath, who has been known to insist his Sports Dept. is not biased against the White Sox, nonetheless included these lines in his predictions for 2008:

Story lines for '08
What will the Cubs look like under new ownership? Are the White Sox headed back toward irrelevance? Can the Blackhawks keep their momentum going? Whither Charlie Weis?

Now what would cause the sports editor to ask whether the White Sox are "headed back toward irrelevance?" The comment is relevant only to the commentator. The White Sox have never been irrelevant to their fans, and never been irrelevant to Chicago. The fact that attendance drops when the team loses is a sign not of irrelevance but of intelligence. Meanwhile, the Cubs managed to finish in last place in 2006 without being called irrelevant. Where can we find the irrelevance of which the sports editor speaks? Only inside the sports editor. That might explain the biased coverage.

Thanks to Brett Ballantini.