Breaking Up is Hard to Do

Cutting back, as the Cubbies are preparing to do as they look toward the 2009 season, is hard. But while team GM Jim Hendry seems resolute and resigned to not chasing dubious players with Monopoly money this offseason, the change in philosophy is hitting Hendry's fellow Tribune Co. employee Phil Rogers a bit harder.

First, Dr. Phil was sure the Cubbies would re-sign single-season ace Ryan Dempster to a contract, below market if need be, during the team's exclusive negotiating period. The Tribune "baseball expert" apparently based his hunch on marshmallows and moonbeams, because every other sound baseball source--including those similarly tinged with Cubbie blue--were saying Dempster was aiming for five seasons and $75 million. (Yes, in major league baseball, one strong season as a starter can translate into $75 million.)

As recently as November 9, Rogers wrote that Dempster was so happy in Chicago that he might sign an extension with the Cubs before Thursday.

Today, Dr. Phil tries another tactic to ensure his apparent karaoke partner doesn't leave the North Side: bullying. In his story regarding the rapidly-diminishing demand for San Diego Padres ace Jake Peavy, Rogers says that the "onus" is now on Ryan Dempster to sign a deal with the Cubbies quickly. Huh? In his very story, Dr. Phil points out that no team, including the Cubbies, has made San Diego a fair offer for Peavy. Dr. Phil even quotes San Diego GM Kevin Towers as saying that at present, he'd tell Peavy and his agent that it's likely the ace will be suiting up for the Padres next season.

So Ryan Dempster, sez Dr. Phil, you might have all the leverage here, but I'm gonna put an onus on you!

But really, the best, er, most interesting writing from Dr. Phil this week came in his swan song sung to the Tribune's decade-long darling, Kerry Wood. Rogers has long apologized for Wood's failings and rarely failed to shield this elusive talent from criticism over the years. Now that the parent company has hung Wood out to dry by failing to give the 10-year veteran--who had signed a series of one-year deals to make up for the fact that he hadn't felt he earned his salary in previous contracts--a courtesy call in advance of trading for another closer, Rogers was busy applauding the deal as a "sound baseball move."

Nothing could beat Rogers' conclusion to his Wood elegy, however.

Wood wasn't just a pitcher. He was a guy. And he will be missed.

When the day comes for the Tribune to fire Rogers (or more likely, push him from the top of the Trib Tower attached to a golden parachute), here's hoping he's treated with the same dignity and class.

And on that day, we won't' be lauding Dr. Phil as a very good baseball writer, nor will we anticipate missing his special brand of hack work, under an "expert" tag line or not. We'll probably praise the "sound business decision."

And we won't forget to mention: He was a guy.

--Brett Ballantini

The Moose is Loose Again

This week, the Tribune unveiled its new look. Paid media analysts could describe it better, but the "World's Greatest Newspaper" has moved off into a View-Master direction: Bigger pictures, less words.

Knowing the Tribune the way you do, that should undoubtedly be a good thing, right? Fewer words mean less smarminess, bias, and factual flubs. Jury's still out on that, though.

On page one of Saturday's Tribune sports sits Rick Morrissey, all by his lonesome. See, that's the way the Trib does it now; one supersized picture tells the "story," and then some copy at the bottom expounds on it for those of us who don't think a newspaper should be a series of flash cards.

Anyhow, Moose is writing about the White Sox, stuck in a two-game hole in the ALDS. Unlike Phil Rogers' page two story, which effectively dresses down the team's homer-or-nothing offense and highlights the astounding fact that on Friday, the White Sox had 12 hits, on which not a single runner advanced more than one base, the Moose wastes his lede on an old, tired tune. You know, the one that goes something like: White Sox fans hate the Cubbies more than they like the White Sox.

The way things are going, White Sox fans soon will be able to fall back on their natural pastime: the intense enjoyment of watching the Cubs fall apart.

Good one, Rick. See, a lede like that is rubber-stamped forward at the Trib copy desk because it's a twofold insult. First, dis White Sox fans (representing a huge percentage of Tribune readership in spite of themselves, by the way) by insulting their devotion and intelligence. Second, perpetuate the Tribune myth that The Shrine is the center of the universe by positing that White Sox fans, even on the heels of a thrilling and gutsy run into the postseason and in the midst of losses and offensive ineptitude in the ALDS, could give a flip about the North Side Bumblers.

Sure, Moose is the Trib's designated comedian, wedging one-liners into his copy so awkwardly you wish one day he had been booed off the stage at a Zanies amateur night just to spare him the future embarrassment of trying to be funny in print. But good lord, he had upwards of three hours to come up with a good joke lede--and you didn't have to watch every pitch Friday to know there were plenty available--and the best he can muster is a retread insult to White Sox fans?

With every outing, Morrissey seems more like that doofus you knew in school: well-meaning, not a kid you wanted to see picked on, but someone you hoped would grow up and get a clue.

Well Rick, you're in your fifth decade now. Time is running out for you to do so.

--Brett Ballantini

If He Cheated, and He Probably Did...and other baseball stories

While the steady diet of bias and misinformation wafting out of the Tribune Tower on behalf of its wheezing-its-way-into-oblivion newspaper is usually enough to keep things hopping here, occasionally attention must be shifted to the Tribune's all-Cubbies, all-the-time television network, WGN.

Now, there was no particular anniversary that drove the production of WGN's "All-Time Chicago Baseball Team," unless it was the unmentioned 102 years since the White Sox defeated the Cubbies in the World Series. But befitting a channel named for the "World's Greatest Newspaper," the program was an utter waste of time.

The program amounted to a poor man's version of the "Sportswriters on TV" show done so brilliantly by Bill Gleason, Ben Bentley, Rick Telander, and Bill Jauss. Unlike "Sportswriters," however, the program had no game footage or film of the players selected to the team. No Big Hurt wallbangers, no Sammy Sosa hops, and no Lou Piniella mock tirades. Hey, even Sportsvision ran game highlights during "Sportswriters," and that show's heyday was 25 years ago!

Here's the roster of Chicago's best:
Starters: Fergie Jenkins, Billy Pierce, Ed Walsh, Greg Maddux
Reliever: Bruce Sutter
C: Carlton Fisk
1B: Ernie Banks
2B: Ryne Sandberg
SS: Luis Aparicio
3B: Ron Santo
OF: Billy Williams, Sammy Sosa, Joe Jackson
DH: Frank Thomas
Manager: Al Lopez

Not altogether unreasonable, with a fair blend of White Sox (seven) and Cubbies (eight). The picks were made by baseball writers, broadcasters, historians, and former players both in Chicago and throughout the rest of the country.

But check out which voters were featured on the program's panel of "experts":

• Phil Rogers, Tribune "baseball expert," taking a brief break from sharpening his axe for White Sox GM Ken Williams
  
• Mike Downey, Tribune "sports columnist," master of the one-sentence paragraph
• Dave Van Dyck, Tribune baseball writer out of the bullpen, and the bitter boy of the bunch
  
• Dan McGrath, Tribune sports managing editor, the journalist charged with executing a campaign of bias and misinformation
• Rod Blagojevich, who has governed Illinois as well as the Cubbies have traditionally managed their baseball teams
• Mickey Morandini, former Cubbie who otherwise has no ties to the Chicago area
• Randy Hundley, former Cubbies catcher pretty directly responsible for the free agent monstrosity that was Cubbies catcher Todd Hundley
• Ron Kittle, former White Sox outfielder, feeling awfully lonely on a panel dominated by Tribune employees and Cubbies faithful
• Rich Lindberg, Chicago-area writer and White Sox historian

All presided over by another Tribune employee, Dan Roan.

The highlights, as it were, of the roundtable discussion:

Rich "Goose" Gossage, who started his career with and was transformed into a closer by the White Sox, was pictured in a Cubbies uniform. The newly-minted Hall-0f-Famer played five seasons for the White Sox, one for the Cubbies.

Dr. Phil, saying that Frank Thomas "had the yips about throwing his whole career." No mention of why Thomas had trouble throwing (the Big Hurt was a two-sport player at Auburn and suffered a serious right shoulder injury as a football tight end during his freshman season) or why there was a need to sully the All-Time Designated Hitter with talk of his defensive play.

Dr. Phil also made an extraordinary admission regarding Sammy Sosa: "if he cheated, and he probably did, he kept it hidden better than the others." Now there's a pick to be proud of. Interesting, however, considering the Tribune has been a staunch apologist for Sosa, with Rogers and Fred Mitchell serving as personal bodyguards to Hoppin' Sammy's legacy.

At second base, vanilla milkshake Ryne Sandberg was the obvious landslide winner to 2008 voters, but amazingly, four-season Cubbies veteran Rogers Hornsby finished second, with 21% of the vote. (How stacked did the Tribune feel it had to make the voters to get that absurd tally?) Finishing in third with 16%, 1959 American League MVP and 14-year White Sox second sacker Nellie Fox.

To make sure all viewers knew who was in charge, the Tribune dispatched Hit Man Hundley to admonish Kittle for, ahem, picking too many White Sox players for his All-Time Team. McGrath surely treated the Hit Man to a Tom Collins after that shot to Kitty's kneecap.

The two most misplaced baseball minds on the panel, Blago and Morandini (what, Ronnie Woo-Woo wasn't available?), both insisted that the best manager in Chicago baseball history was, double gulp, Lou Piniella!

And finally Lindberg, who actually was equipped to give an accurate assessment of Chicago's baseball history given he's a lifelong resident, fan, and historian, wasn't used much. Probably because he was the only one who knew what he was talking about. Or did the Tribune's henchmen out him by procuring a copy of Lindberg's first book, 1978's "Stuck on the Sox," before the taping?

--Mark Liptak and Brett Ballantini

Hell's Getting Chilly

What a remarkable two days it has been for Chicago White Sox fans.

First, Jay Mariotti, leading shouter at Sun-Times sports, resigned within hours of returning from his Bright One-sponsored visit to China. Word on the street is that the Mighty Mullet got no closer than a rickshaw to actual sporting competitions while overseas--a masterful feat given that dozens were held daily. (In Chicago, Jay merely must avoid one, at most two, active clubhouses per day in order to "take the pulse" of the Chicago sports scene.)

Today, arguably an even greater miracle occurred: unprompted praise of the White Sox, at the expense of the Cubbies, by Tribune "baseball expert" Phil Rogers.

You can read the article (White Sox are Cubs' Worst Nightmare) yourself, as we don't much enjoy a you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours arrangement with the Tribune. But this bit of honest analysis made for a stunning read this morning.

Mariotti resigns. Dr. Phil praises the Sox.

Due tomorrow: Minnie Minoso buys the Cubbies.

--Brett Ballantini

Slobberin' to Criticize

Phil Rogers, the Tribune "baseball expert" who picked Detroit (currently the 26th-best team in the majors) to win the Central Division this year, is so desperate to drag down the White Sox that he creates two new presumed fictions in his "Whispers" column in Sunday's Tribune.

Rogers quite fairly trashes Detroit Tigers infielder Miguel Cabrera, whose marks of .218 with runners in scoring position and .107 in close-and-late situations are simply pathetic. But Dr. Phil can't resist tweaking the South Side faithful, whose money apparently isn't green enough to help rescue his flailing, conflicted "newspaper" out of a debt that has mounted to billions. Asks Phil:

Remember when White Sox fans were angry [Ken] Williams didn't trade for Miguel Cabrera?

Yeah, Phil, White Sox fans were positively freaking out over the fact that Detroit sozzled the Florida Marlins with blue-chippers and didn't so much as sneeze at absorbing twiglegged BP tosser Dontrelle Willis in the process. Yeah, there was some surprise that Detroit would feel a need to augment its Motown Murderer's Row with yet another big bat. Certainly after the Tribune and other media outlets painted White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen as nothing short of Cabrera's favorite uncle, best baseball bud, and personal Jesus all rolled into one, the Migster's swap to a division rival was a shock.

And who could blame Phil for his outrage over the White Sox not being able to just go out and get whatever player they wanted? After all, his employer has committed more than $300 million in salaries to players, deserving or not, in just the past two offseasons. Apparently, if you're not rocking free agency old-school Yankees style by dumping $18 mil a year on an outfielder who is as mobile on the Shrine's green grass as a tree sloth, you're not doing much to GM a ballclub.

But as dumb as Rogers' Miggy-baiting was, worse still was the low blow on Williams and his son, Wichita State outfielder Kenny Williams Jr.

Rogers claims that a "draft source" called the White Sox's sixth-round plucking of Junior "a reach." (Far be it for us to expect real detail here, Phil, particularly when you're dissing the GM's son.) Dr. Phil cites no statistics or context for either the source's dismissal of Williams Jr. or his own decision to pad his column with a blind attack on Williams himself. Of course, this is nothing new; citation is Rogers' Kryptonite.

And worse, Rogers completely ignores the drama behind the situation. In its draft-day story, the Associated Press reports that, essentially, the entire White Sox draft war room had to persuade Williams that he shouldn't pass up picking his son in the sixth round.

All Rogers had to do in order to offer a more legitimate analysis of the pick and duck the sort of criticism he's getting here was read the wire story that everyone and his hamster had access to within hours of the pick.

Because it's pretty clear that research and reporting aren't Dr. Phil's strong suits, the Chicago Cubune Watch will make an exception and run to his aid before he slags Williams or his son off in a second straight "Whispers":

• This season, Williams Jr. hit .325 with 16 stolen bases for Wichita State.
• White Sox scouting director Doug Laumann calls Williams Jr. "somewhat of a project" and a "high-risk, high-reward guy."
• Laumann says Williams was not in the draft room when the White Sox picked his son, saying the GM really struggled with having him join the team. Reading between the lines, all indications are that Williams disassociated himself from the pick--at least as much as a GM can on draft day.
  

This does not in any way sound like the sort of nepotism Rogers implies when he chastises the White Sox for having picked Williams Jr. "in a round that matters." Still, to have cited anything more than the anonymous mumblings of a "draft source" would have legitimized Dr. Phil's praise or condemnation of the pick.

Shame on him for lazily extending his apparent personal vendetta against Williams, and moreso his sham newspaper for allowing such pseudo-journalism to run unabated, week after week, year after year.

Why is Dr. Phil so agitated? Shouldn't he celebrate the lone successful GM in the city of Chicago?

And by the way, memo to the Trib editors--next time Phil inserts one of his presumably fictional, anonymous sources to discredit the ballclub across town, at least change the dopey label "draft source." They're called scouts.

(And if they're not scouts, why the hell is Rogers "quoting" them in the first place?)

--William Melvin and Brett Ballantini

No Respect Roundup

There's been a trend of late in the Tribune Sports section. It's not anything new, just the typical downplaying of White Sox success that we've all come to understand is part of the Tribune's mission. But in the course of a seven-game winning streak, the Tribune's distortion of reality has become more glaring and obvious that usual.

First, a pop quiz: Which Chicago baseball team in first place on Sunday was ranked No. 1 in Phil Rogers' latest "Power Poll," and which Chicago baseball team in first place on Sunday was ranked No. 10? Here's a hint: The team that was in first, but ranked 10th, has defeated a division rival ranked ahead of it in the "Power Poll" twice this week.

More disturbing is the victory-snatched-from-defeat theme of White Sox story ledes that have been popping up in the paper throughout the winning streak. All the writing comes courtesy of Mark Gonzales, with the exception of Monday's story, written by Dave "Tricky" Van Dyck.

Wednesday's 6-1 win vs. the Angels:
Ozzie Guillen looked like a genius … for at least one night.

Thursday's 4-3 win vs. the Angels:
Jim Thome took a big load off his White Sox teammates and himself Thursday night.

Friday's 2-0 win over the Giants:
Manager Ozzie Guillen believes Cuban import Alexei Ramirez should have more home runs despite the lack of playing time and getting acclimated to playing in cold conditions for the first time.

Saturday's 3-1 win at San Francisco
There was plenty of traffic on the basepaths Saturday night. But Mark Buehrle topped Barry Zito when it came to escaping jams, particularly in avoiding the big innings that have inflated Buehrle's earned-run average.

Sunday's 13-8 win over San Francisco:
Earlier this month, the White Sox were mired in a six-game losing streak, dealing with a blowup doll controversy and facing questions about their feeble offense.

Monday's 4-1 win vs. the Indians:
If the White Sox need any more ammunition to show doubters this may be a special season, it came Tuesday night at U.S. Cellular Field when they beat Indians ace C.C. Sabathia.

Yesterday's 7-2 win over Cleveland:
After the White Sox were held to one hit through five innings and were on the verge of watching a sterling effort from Javier Vazquez go for naught, Jermaine Dye couldn't be blamed Wednesday night for spiking his bat and pumping his fist after solving nemesis Paul Byrd.

Keep in mind, these aren't random tidbits culled from the body of each game story. These are the ways the writers chose to begin the story, the one lede they arrived at out of all the possible directions their reports could have taken.

The lede establishes the tone of a story, particularly when it's a game result. We often begin reading having already seen the result the previous day. So the lede in game stories shapes perception--and, unfortunately for Tribune writers, exposes the author's biases, pro or con, toward players, teams, and game circumstances.

I wouldn't blame some skepticism at the start of the White Sox's winning streak, although leading with negatives night after night is still a bit harsh. But look at yesterday's story--the White Sox are the hottest team in baseball, in first place with a bullet. What does Gonzo trot out? How feeble the Chicago hitters were for five innings. That Javier Vasquez was about to have (another) great effort wasted. That Jermaine Dye is so weak that he had to celebrate "solving" Paul Byrd.

In every case, reading the lede exposes that the writer presumes the White Sox can't be for real, that they have no business in first place or finding any sort of success, even just a quarter into the season.

This organizational attitude, which encourages a Tribune writer to dismiss the achievements of the crosstown team even at the cost of his own credibility and the paper's status, permeates Tribune media. It's as if there's a memo circulated every season, reminding writers who signs their checks, contributes to their 401(k)s, and stands to enrich them once the Cubbies are finally sold off.

--Brett Ballantini

Who's Got the Power?

A week ago in Phil Rogers' "Power Poll" feature on ChicagoSports.com's "Hardball" blog, the 14-10, first-place White Sox ranked No. 4. The 16-9, first-place Cubs ranked No. 3.

Both teams had a rough week. The White Sox took the collar, losing the five games between polls, and falling to second place. Dr. Phil rightfully spanks the punchless Sox down to No. 11 in his poll. He also makes the incongruous comment that the White Sox have no run producers in the minors save for Josh Fields.

Dr. Phil, there's a guy on the White Sox named Carlos Quentin. White Sox GM Ken Williams acquired--the overeager might go so far as to say stole--him from the Arizona Diamondbacks for a Single-A first baseman, Chris Carter. Well Phil, on Sunday there were 11 players in the majors with an on-base + slugging percentage of better than 1.000. Astoundingly, only one of those players was in the American League.

His name? Carlos Quentin.

Quentin's the guy who made a preposterous throw from left field, on the fly, to double off a Tiger at first base early this season. He's already been hit by seven pitches this season, but he's such a bad-ass he doesn't wear any of that Barry Bonds armor to the plate. If Quentin was on the north side, fans already would be wearing some form of offensive T-shirt to "celebrate" him. So Phil, look him up; he's in the White Sox media guide, really.

Quentin is brought up not to deflect attention from the hapless White Sox offense. After all, saying this ballclub is the 11th-best in the majors is a fairly big stretch at the moment. But Rogers and his gratuitous shots at the White Sox GM are way out of line. Even in a short skinny as part of a space-filler of a power poll, Rogers can't resist letting loose on Sox brass.

The purpose of competing in the majors is to have the best major league roster you can. A terrific Single-A hitter like Chris Carter is an asset, but he's not a major-leaguer who earns you major league wins. Quentin's OPS+, is 177, essentially meaning he's hitting 77% better than the average American Leaguer. The next-best White Sox hitter is Joe Crede, whose OPS+ is 119. Quentin is by far the White Sox's best hitter through the first month, and he was essentially shoplifted out of the Diamondbacks organization. But your readers would probably rather read your fiction pieces about win-win trades with Arizona you're spinning as lopsided, so keep the cheap shots coming, Phil.

Oh, and the Cubs? They didn't have a very good week, either. They went 2-4 (and then lost Sunday night's game, which was completed after Phil posted his power poll), falling to second place. Funny, while Rogers admits the Cubs are "spinning their wheels" and have no closer, he can't see dropping the Cubs even one spot in his poll. His beloved bumblers choke away two series, one home and one away, to their two closest division rivals, but they're still the third-best team in the majors.

Another crisis averted. This is a the guy who Cubs manager Lou Piniella referred to as irreplaceable in the Tribune lineup?

--Brett Ballantini

Dr. Phil's Issues With Honesty

You might recall late last season, when Tribune "baseball expert" Phil Rogers apparently fabricated a story about White Sox GM Ken Williams refusing the Diamondbacks' request of CF Brian Anderson in return for Javier Vazquez, instead steering Arizona toward CF Chris Young. As we know, Young has blossomed into a star for the Diamondbacks while Anderson failed as a starter and had forgettable 2006 and 2007 seasons.

What made Rogers' unsupported assertion even more curious was that he cited no sources in his story, and a day or so later Arizona's assistant GM at the time was on record claiming Young was Arizona's primary, if not only, target in the trade. The timing was also suspect: Dr. Phil's "insight" came on the heels of Young spearheading a sweep of the Cubbies in the NLDS. Of course, the Tribune staff to a man predicted the Cubbies would advance to the LCS, and it seems the only way to salve the wounds of being so wrong all the time is to concoct a story that makes the GM on the other side of town look foolish. Apparently, 70 wins for the White Sox wasn't humiliation enough.

Recently, the popular baseball site MLB Trade Rumors opted to include the Rogers link, straight-faced, in a report about Young's contract extension with Arizona. (The sentence including the link reads: "Certainly Kenny Williams wishes he'd sent Brian Anderson to Arizona for Javier Vazquez instead, but the deal has still benefited both clubs." Rogers can't even be that kind.)

There's no obvious fiction involved today, but Dr. Phil sure has it in for Williams. In the category of "beating a dead horse" comes today's item:

"Young Piece to Build Around
Diamondbacks love former Sox farmhand

Javier Vazquez has replaced Mark Buehrle as the best pitcher on the White Sox staff. But the trade for Vazquez hasn't been a good one for the Sox, who lost 24-year-old center fielder Chris Young in the deal.

The Diamondbacks don't believe there was anything fluky about Young's 32-homer, 27-stolen base rookie season. They have signed him to a five-year, $28 million contract extension that makes him one of the faces of their franchise.

[Obligatory quote from Arizona general manager Josh Byrnes about how awesome Young is.]

The Sox were willing to trade Young because they were loaded with outfield prospects at the time. He played alongside Ryan Sweeney and Jerry Owens in Double A and Brian Anderson was one rung ahead of that trio. Young had the highest ceiling of the four, but Williams thought he was expendable.

Ouch."

And, in case you weren't sure how the Tribune was leaning on this one, three photos illustrate this afterthought of a piece. One is of Young, with the caption "Chris Young, whom the Sox traded to the Diamondbacks, has blossomed as Arizona's leadoff man." The other two, of Jerry Owens, and Anderson, have a shared caption: "White Sox GM Ken Williams believed that Jerry Owens and Brian Anderson were more major-league ready than Chris Young."

What's next, a Dr. Phil item mocking former Sox GM Larry Himes for dealing Sammy Sosa for George Bell?

All this would be fair game, even coming some two full seasons after the trade was made, if the Vazquez-Young trade was some sort of what-was-he-thinking? steal. But it's not even close to that.

Heading into today's start, Vazquez has gone 27-21 in his White Sox career. He has three complete games, 431.3 IP, 415 H, 111 BB, 411 K, a 4.30 ERA, and a 1.22 WHIP. In Vazquez's first full season with the White Sox, when he admittedly stumbled start after start, his ERA was still only 0.10 worse than the AL average. Last year, Vazquez's ERA was 1.00 better than average. At 31, he's still enjoying prime years at a fair market price of $12.5 million a year--a contract Williams didn't have the good fortune of inheriting from another GM, but extended himself. Vazquez's statistical twin is Brad Radke, and among the 10 most similar pitchers to Vazquez is Richard Dotson. Short of Young blossoming into Willie Mays, White Sox fans will take it.

Young has played one full season in the majors, and his future is certainly bright. His 32 HR, 68 RBI, and 27 SB from the leadoff spot were good enough to place him fourth in NL Rookie of the Year voting, but he also had some numbers that weren't exactly ideal: 43 BB and 141 K (nearly one K per game), a .295 on-base percentage, .237 average, and an OPS+ of 89 (the average NL player rates 100). His B+ Runs (-13) and BtWins (-1.2), measures of an individual's batting value compared with the rest of the league, were also below average.

It may be better to contrast Vazquez with the ace across town, the Cubbies' potassium-deprived, $18 million man, Carlos Zambrano. Z is 35-21 with 1 CG, 450 IP, 368 H, 218 BB, 405 K, a 3.60 ERA, and a 1.30 WHIP. Zambrano's most frequent comp? Ramon Martinez.

So, Zambrano has measurably more wins, a better ERA (even adjusted for being in the NL), and more mound meltdowns and locker-room brawls than Javy. Vazquez lets fewer batters reach base and strikes out more hitters than Z. You'd give Z the edge, although last year Vazquez blew him away. Is it a $5-6 million per year salary edge? Probably not. Call it a wash.

Imagine if the Cubbies traded a bright prospect--it should be too hard, they've done it countless times. In return, they received a starter who didn't miss turns and would become their best pitcher in a year or less. A Zambrano. A Vazquez. Do you figure some bumpkin baseball writer, two years down the line, would still be shedding a tiny tear over how terrible the trade was?

Look at how Rogers' piece opens: The White Sox acquired their ace, but the deal "hasn't been a good one." How is that possible? Rogers chides Williams for picking the wrong player to trade, although the Sox "were loaded with prospects at the time." Isn't this the very reason you trade a prospect, because you have a bunch? Even if you have no proven outfielders--and the White Sox did--prospects are just that, prospects. They are chips you use to acquire real major leaguers, and if too many of the prospects you trade become real major leaguers, you're in the unemployment line.

Rogers, then, could point out that Young is the first prospect Williams has dealt who is coming close to, if you want to be dramatic about a trade where your get an ace in return, "haunting" him. It's also important to keep in mind that we're talking about only one season's worth of spooking. But for Dr. Phil to do that would gut all his future criticisms of the Sox GM, ones that have come as recently as this offseason, when the White Sox "gutted their farm system" to acquire Nick Swisher. The same Nick Swisher who's now heralded for spearheading the resurgence on the South Side for the first-place White Sox.

The value of HRs and Ks and OBP and "attitude" can be debated until Phil Rogers is finally pushed out of the Tower with his golden parachute, but Swisher is a perfect representation of the player Williams needed on the 2008 White Sox (high-OBP slugger, flexible fielder, great attitude and leadership, reasonable pricetag). None of the players Williams supposedly missed on, including Aaron Rowand, Torii Hunter, and yes, Young, are. Yes, anyone could use 30 dingers out of your leadoff hitter and CF--that's why Swish is roaming out there on the South Side these days.

Dishonest, disingenuous, whoops-how'd-that-get-printed-again journalism has become the norm at the Tribune. Someone there ought to try to stem the tide. That would be Pulitzer-worthy.

--Brett Ballantini

Thanks to Baseball-Reference.com for the statistical support.

POSTSCRIPT: Vazquez started the game after this morning's post, going seven shutout innings, with five hits, nine strikeouts, and no walks in an 11-0 win over the Tigers. Thanks for the effort, Javy!

Opening Day!

And everybody in the Trib Tower is drinking that delicious blue Kool-Aid.

Gulping by the gallon is Phil Rogers, baseball expert.

Dr. Phil's Cubbies season prediction? 95-67. Yes, you read that correctly. 95 wins.

The Cubbies have won 95 games or more exactly twice in the past 62 seasons.

Such optimism deserves a deeper analysis.

Phil's Pros
Adding Kosuke Fukodome and Jon Leiber.

Oh, and--careful, bizarre qualifier coming--having "played .578 ball over the last four-plus months [of 2007] without any hitter having a career year." Too bad you can't just take your favorite chunks of each season and place it on the back of your baseball card, Phil.

Phil's Cons
Little things like no "high-profile [read: dependable] No. 2 starter and established closer." Those things probably wouldn't haunt a team in a 162-game season, would they, baseball expert?

In fact, it would probably be easy to win 95 (yes, 95!) games without those two things, right? Because, after all, you know, like, no hitter had a career year in 2007. And they got the guy from Japan, and they installed the most oft-injured and disappointing young pitcher in recent baseball history as their closer.

When Underachievement Means Overachievment
Know what's funny? Even if we assume the real Cubbies showed up sometime in June after Sweet Lou finally pushed the right tantrum button--that managing technique's not gonna grow old this year, is it, Phil?--and the true Cubbies are a .578 monster, .578 projects to only 93 or 94 wins over the course of a season. So in Phil's eyes, not only do the Cubbies get a mulligan for being horrible last April and May, they'll actually be better than their overachievement in the last four months of the season. Which, you'll recall, featured a car-crash sort of pennant race wherein neither the mediocre Cubbies or barely-there Brewers wanted to win the division.

You'll also recall that Dr. Phil and the rest of the Tribune crew decided to take the team's flaccid end to the season into account, instead oddly twisting it into a slingshot that would shoot the Cubbies to a NLDS win against the superior Diamondbacks (in fact, if you smoked enough of the Tower herb, like Paul Sullivan, you predict a sweep!).

Blind Spot: The NL Central
Dr. Phil doesn't even dare denigrate the gilded Cubbies by acknowledging that one reason he feels they could improve, or at least should win the division, is that teams in the NL Central would have trouble competing in the Pacific Coast League. That's a legitimate, simple statement that would largely shut up the critics who might be tempted to, y'know, poke holes in Dr. Phil's "analysis."

But no, as far as we can tell the good doc feels the NL Central is pretty dadgum good. Why else would he predict that five of the six NL Central teams would improve in 2008? And no, not just an improvement of one or two games, but the best turnaround of any division in major league baseball. According to Dr. Phil's breathless caffeination, the six teams of the NL Central--acknowledged even by grandmothers and house pets entirely indifferent to baseball as the worst division in baseball--will finish 488-484 this year!

Yep, this offseason the Cubs treaded water, the Brewers did about the same, the Reds added Dusty and a closer, Houston can't pitch, Pittsburgh is Pittsburgh, and St. Louis lost more major-league talent than anyone this season (at least in Phil's eyes). But somehow, some way, the division will get better by a whopping 29 games.

Phil Rogers: A Real Baseball Writer?
A real baseball writer wouldn't say the Cubbies would win 95 games and the division just because the company memo demanded it.

A real baseball writer would point out that Ryan Theriot had a "career" year, Jacque Jones most definitely hit better than anticipated, and Alfonso Soriano, Derrek Lee, and Aramis Ramirez may not have had "career" years, but performed about how you'd expect.

A real baseball writer would point out how preposterous it is that one of the Cubbies' best power men (Soriano) batted leadoff last year because, well, he wanted to. Or that this year's leadoff hitter, Theriot, had an on-base percentage of .326 last year.

A real baseball writer would point out that the team's splashy free-agent acquisition, Fukodome, essentially replaces a guy they already had in Matt Murton, whose .281/.352/.438 numbers in 2007 will be grounds for a Trib-sponsored Fukodome Rookie of the Year campaign if the Japanese import manages to match them. (Of course, that doesn't factor in the overseas ad dollars that will work their way onto the hallowed brick walls of The Shrine, but those numbers don't show up on a baseball card.)

A real baseball writer would acknowledge the team's lack of confidence in five-tool prospect Felix Pie could derail the career of the most promising player to come from their system in years.

And Wait a Minute...What About the Pitching?
While the offense (apparently) didn't have any "career" years or overachievers, the Cubbies' pitching staff did, which is something Dr. Phil conveniently ignores.

The team had a 4.04 ERA, second in the NL.

Ted Lillly went 15-8, 3.83, and pitched 207 innings with career bests in wins, Ks, and IP; for his career he averages 12-10, 4.46.

Rich Hill went into 2007 with career numbers of 6-9, 123 IP, and a 5.12 ERA; in 2007 he was 11-8, 3.92 ERA, 195 IP.

Sean Marshall entered 2007 at 6-9 with a 5.59 ERA and had a 7-8 season in 2007, with a 3.92 ERA.

Ryan Dempster managed 28 saves with a 4.73 ERA in 2007, which may have alarmed the bleacher bums, but Dempster's career ERA is actually 4.82. And his ballyhooed return--a retreat, really--to the rotation ignores the fact that as a starter, Dempster has a 5.01 career ERA.

Bob Howry posted a 3.32 ERA in 2007, better than his career 3.49.

Michael Wuertz has a 3.48 ERA in 2007, better than his career 3.59.

Lieber, the (consolation) prize pitching addition of the offseason, is 38, hasn't had an ERA under 4.00 in four years, has combined to go 12-17 with a 4.87 ERA in the past two seasons, and pitched well enough in spring training to...work in long relief to begin the season.

Even Carlos Marmol, the prize of the Cubbies pitching staff, is suspect. He brought a career ERA of 6.08 into 2007 and in his first relief season posted a 5-1 record with a 1.43 ERA.

2004 All Over Again
Four seasons ago, noted baseball expert Ron Santo wet himself over the idea that the Cubbies would win 100 games. Rather than joke about the notion, the Tribune took it seriously, assigning Paul Sullivan to provide a detailed analysis of just how the team would hit the century mark, month-by-month, game-by-game. Apparently it took months for the paper to see what the rest of us saw--a disintegrating club that would wheeze to a 89-73 finish--because it published several "updates" to this fictional 100-win campaign, deep into the summer.

The question is, has Ronnie been whispering sweet nothings to Tribune staffers again this spring?

--Brett Ballantini

Same Old Same Old

Did you notice that when the White Sox beat the Cubs 5-3 on Saturday, the Tribune barely covered the game? Instead, Dave van Dyck covered "a few oddities" he noticed during the game, such as Neal Cotts in a Cubs uniform. Could have sworn we saw that last year, but whatever, the Tribune has always been a little slow on the uptake. Dave seemed mostly concerned with making excuses for what remains, as April looms, the company team: "The visiting Cubs didn't bring their second, third or fourth hitters," he wrote, and suddenly we were transported back to the ballfields of our youth, which were paved with asphalt, and listening to the whiney babies who just lost saying, "Yeah, but we didn't bring our best players." You know if the Cubs had won that game the Tribune would have given them a banner headline: "Cubs Trounce Sox! And They Didn't Even Bring Their Best Players!"

Yes, it's like the ballstreets of our youth all over again, only with the Tribune cheerleading for the other team, it's like hearing it from the other team's parents rather than the kids themselves. Most unseemly.

---
From Cubune Watcher Brett Ballantini:

Reluctantly, Phil Rogers announces today that the Orioles may be looking for veteran infield help (Juan Uribe) in a Brian Roberts trade. I'm not sure how I feel either way about acquiring a guy from the substance abuse hit list, but Rogers' addendum is what caught my eye. Now, Rogers won't acknowledge that if Baltimore wants vet infield help back, the foregone conclusion of Roberts-to-Cubbies is scuttled. That would bust the company line, wherein, the Cubbies are supposed to be able to hold up any team they want to get the players needed to pathetically attempt to snap the streak before it reaches 100. No, Rogers points out that, y'know, Roberts-to-the-Sox sure SEEMS plausible, but the minor league system is so bare, there's no way a deal could be made.

Totally off the top of my head: Brian Anderson, Carlos Quentin, Brad Eldred, Jason Bourgeois, Lance Broadway, Andrew Sisco, Nick Masset, Jack Egbert, Mike McDougal, Joe Crede, Charlie Haeger...

More Pholly from Phil

When Phil Rogers isn't pimping the Cleveland Indians (you love the Wahoos, Phil, we get it, and although I despise that team even I'll stand up to say that Rogers' comparison of the 2007 model to the 2003 Cubbies doesn't even begin to be fair or accurate), he's cutting hard into the White Sox.

In his 2008 preview today, Dr. Phil again criticizes White Sox fans--season ticketholders specifically--for wanting to root for a winning team vs. a rebuilding team. Aside from the fact that if White Sox fans wanted to see the Charlotte or Birmingham teams play, we'd fly there and watch them, what's with condemning a fan base for wanting to see wins?

But here's his most puzzling point:

While the pitching staff as a whole was a big problem in 2006 and the bullpen a disaster in '07, the Sox's slide may have had even more to do with the complete lack of production from three spots in the lineup: center field, left field and shortstop.

Consider the year-by-year on-base-plus-slugging rankings among AL teams at those positions:

•In center, where Aaron Rowand was replaced by a cast including Brian Anderson, Darin Erstad and Jerry Owens: sixth in 2005, 13th in '06 and 14th in '07.

•In left, where Scott Podsednik was counted on as the regular all three seasons: 14th, 12th and ninth.

•At short, where Uribe has been the regular: 10th, eighth and ninth.

While no one's gonna argue with the paltry production put forth from those three positions, do you see anything wrong with the math? Center field has been mostly a disaster since the job was handed to the surf n' turf party boy in 2006, and it's no surprise that the White Sox's OPS rankings have plummeted there. But in exhibits B and C, LF and SS, the team rankings have gone UP since 2005, which runs contrary to whatever point Dr. Phil was trying to make.

He also chooses to spotlight the 917 at-bats given to Jerry Owens, Danny Richar, Andy Gonzalez, and Alex Cintron last season. As compelling an issue as that might be, and White Sox fans may forever wonder how so many at-bats were issued to those so little deserving, the latter two are the only glaring examples, and Rogers knows it. He makes it seem as if Owens and Richar were starters out of spring training, when in truth the two only saw playing time due to injuries (Owens replacing the broken Erstad) and trades (Richar plays after the Iguchi giveaway), in the second half of a lost season.

Rogers chastises Owens for not getting his first RBI until his 99th at-bat (crazy weird, but hardly a fair or sensible criticism who got many of those at-bats during a horrid first stint for the team and who, as the speedy leadoff guy is charged with piling up SBs--32 in 93 games, projecting to 52 in 150 games at a tasty 80% success rate--not RBIs); no mention is made of his improved and fairly impressive second-half numbers.

Richar was in his first major-league stint and while his on-base percentage was weak, he displayed impressive pop for a guy who looks like he weighs about 100 pounds. Apparently he hasn't rolled around in the infield dirt enough to acquire that Ryan Theriot "grit" (yet Richar as a 24-year-old rook went .230-.289-.406, the 27-year-old, eyeblacked Cubbie .266-.326-.346, in his third year).

The story that Ken Williams has been telling all offseason, true or not, is that the biggest key on offense for the White Sox is simply to have their reliables (Dye and Konerko, looking your way) push closer to their average seasons. Aside from the offhanded mention that Konerko is still on the team, there's no mention of this from Rogers. Wouldn't it have been informative to do a little research to find out if Williams' offseason-long plan (again, this wasn't a default belief of the GM's, but what he's said all winter) is a pipe dream (i.e. guys in their 30s don't ever bounce back to average seasons without HGH, etc.) or a reasonable expectation? As long as Rogers was counting up at-bats for fellas who are no longer on the ballclub, couldn't he have projected (with his own brutal math, common sense, or with the aid of a million Web sites and formulas out there) what the White Sox offense should produce this season? I mean, Dr. Phil has only had all winter to figure this out. Clearly the man does own a calculator, although at times you wonder if it's only used as a paperweight.

If you're going to roast the White Sox GM (and even their innocent season ticketholders) for foolishly wanting to compete against those world-beating Wahoos and Bengals rather than opting for prudent and austere "rebuliding," shouldn't your due diligence be to prove WHY this is the smarter plan? I mean, I'm a fairly intelligent baseball fan and I truly don't know what the smarter direction is. We're supposed to believe that rebuilding is the wise choice because, what, Phil Rogers is the Tribune's baseball expert? He watches a lot of baseball? He likes the Wahoos a whole lot? It's Detroit's, Cleveland's, Kansas City's, Minnesota's and Cubbies' turn? What's the reasoning? And shouldn't real, live editors at the Tribune be asking these questions BEFORE such an incomplete article reaches readers?

It just goes to show: new ownership or no, when in doubt, the Tribune will criticize the White Sox first, and do the math later.

-- Brett Ballantini

With the L Flag Flying, Trib Takes Shots at Sox

The Tribune's new Employee Stock Ownership Plan means that Tribune reporters Josh Noel and Emma Graves Fitzsimmons stand to benefit directly from the sale of the Cubs. So they stand to benefit directly from the notion, presented as unsupported fact in their story today, that the Cubs have a huge base of suckers ensuring continued Cubbie income:

There's considerably more interest than there was in the White Sox at the same point during their World Series run in 2005, he said.

"It's just a whole different demographic.... You're drawing from a wider base."

The guy they're quoting is a professional scalper. If you're a black guy scalping a single ticket on Waveland Avenue you can expect to end up in handcuffs, but if you're scalping thousands of them behind a company name you're an expert in the eyes of the Tribune (which has been known to indulge in some scalping itself), especially when you're taking a dig at the White Sox and perpetuating the myth — which has never been proven — that the Cubs have a larger fan base.

You see why the Tribune ignored the 1.75 million people at the Sox victory parade: that's actual numerical evidence that refutes their self-serving assumptions.

Meanwhile, Tribune baseball expert Phil Rogers manages to blame White Sox General Manager Ken Williams for the woeful woo-woo Cubbies' woeful woes:

Ken Williams is an equal-opportunity heartbreaker.

His heavy-handed management of the White Sox, post-World Series, is having consequences on both sides of Chicago. His deals contributed to the Sox going backward, instead of back to the postseason, and now one of them is threatening to stop the Cubs too.

Even with the Cubs in yet another tailspin to disaster, the Tribune continues to wage war against the first general manager in nine decades to bring a World Series trophy home to Chicago. Actually, come to think of it, they're probably waging war on Kenny precisely for that reason. Envy.

Or maybe Rogers is just embarrassed because he picked the Cubs to win it in four saying: "Zambrano, Lilly, Marmol and Howry are too much for a team with a pop-gun lineup. The Cubs' power hitting has shown up at the right time."

A pop-gun lineup. What a genius. Why does this pop-gun baseball expert still have a job?

Finally, here's a snide remark from supposed Sox fan Ed Sherman:

You could look at it a couple of ways. Either a number of Cubs fans have switched their alliances to the White Sox since 2003, or the combination of putting a playoff game exclusively on cable and starting it at 9 p.m. resulted in a big drop in the local ratings. Just a guess, but we'll go with the latter.

The fact is, in 2005 and 2006, the White Sox passed the Tribune-owned Cubs in every statistical measure of team popularity, including viewership on Tribune-owned WGN. But you can see how hard that is to accept for Tribune reporters/Cubs investors, even the ones who claim to be Sox fans.

If it's not woo-woo with these guys, it's boo-hoo.


Brett Ballantini contributed to this post.