I'm tired but feel obligated to post something

Hmmm. How to resolve that tension... I know! Another podcast with Cousin Sal! Writing is hard, but talking is really easy. When you've got a voice made for photography and a personality made for solo deep space exploration, there's nothing people want more than to hear you yap at them about nothing for 45 straight minutes. BONUS: some guy who is just like me but somehow less engaging will join me for the podcast and also yap! You're welcome.

Just kidding with all that snarksnarksnarksnark. When I'm tired but feel obligated to write, the actual solution is to do a grab bag post.

Picking on atrociously untalented members of the Chicago media used to be PNoles's thing, but seeing as how we couldn't pay his appearance fee for tonight you're going to have to let me walk you through some snippets of this Phil Rogers disaster. (Shout out to Erik if he's still reading. Now go win another fancy showbiz award and mail it to me, please.)

Talking baseball:

While I appreciate that he leads his article with a statement of its subject matter, I'm pretty sure I would have figured it out within the next six words.

These aren’t baseball cards we’re watching. They’re people.

That's the best opening line in the history of sportswriting. I love it. I'm going to get a tramp stamp tattoo that says it, and somehow work it into a seven letter acronym so I can somehow display it on a vanity license plate.

These aren’t baseball cards we’re watching. They’re people.

Fantastico.

These aren’t baseball cards we’re watching. They’re people.

Last one. Promise.

That’s why I really like the Dale Sveum/Theo Epstein dea of giving Alfonso Soriano a shot to hit leadoff again.

But what if Soriano was literally a baseball card? Would he not want to hit leadoff anymore? Would they only use him as a pinch hitter? How unsurprising would it be if Jim Hendry gave a small piece of cardboard a nine figure contract?

Like it or not, the Cubs still owe Soriano $54 million.

I'm pretty sure 0% of Cubs fans like the fact that the team owes him $54 million. I think that figure of speech is better used when it refers to something that the target audience could conceivably like or not like, such as "Like it or not, they're expanding instant replay" or "Like it or not, Dale Sveum is managing your team."

And, like it or not, he’s still one of their most productive hitters.

/checks Soriano's 2011 stats, then checks stats of rest of Cubs likely 2012 lineup

Jesus. As of spring training 2012 he's right. That is truly amazing.

So dropping him down in the batting order, as Lou Piniella and Mike Quade did over the last two years, really accomplishes little other than make angry fans feel better.

Well here's the thing: if you have Carlos Pena and Aramis Ramirez, like Quade did in 2011, Soriano is no longer "one of your most productive hitters." He's 4th best on the team, and 5th best if Geovany Soto manages to get his head out of his ass. That means Soriano doesn't belong in the middle of the lineup, and with that robust .300ish OBP, he doesn't belong at the top either. Seventh sounds like a pretty good spot for him. So let's rephrase Phil's statement: in addition to making angry fans feel better, dropping Soriano down in the batting order if it's 2011 makes a whole ton of sense. Dropping him down there in 2012 when he inevitably hits something like .250/.290/.440 will still make angry fans feel better, but will have less on field utility since Ian Stewart and Brian Lahair are now playing the infield corners.

Epstein would love for Sveum and hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo to get more out of Soriano.

And I would love to be an MLB GM, or to talk to a real live woman without first giving her my credit card number.

That might make it possible at some point to trade him to an American League team that could use him as a combination DH/left fielder, a role that clearly suits him better than being a full-time left fielder.

Just pick up something like $48 million of his contract and I think that dream might become a reality.

Pride is always a part of a baseball players’ emotional package, and for a hitter that does have something to do with where his name is written on the lineup card. The most professional guys work their best to perform the same regardless, but the lineup card always has something to say about a guy’s self esteem, as well as his standing within the clubhouse.

And moving him to 7th when his OBP is under .300 is a good way of saying "Dude, you're fucking terrible and you swing at everything. Stop."

That was clear when Alex Rodriguez was talking about his desire to continue to bat cleanup for the Yankees this year.

Joe Girardi: earning every dirty cent he gets paid.

I was in Tampa at the start of camp when Rodriguez was talking about how he felt he could be the most valuable to the Yankees as the No. 4 hitter, behind Robinson Cano.

“I’ll do what the manager wants me to do,’’ A-Rod said. “I take an enormous amount of pride hitting fourth.

I love dissonant statements like that. "I'm not going to blame the refs. They blew a ton of calls and probably cost us the game, but we don't have any excuses."

I think it’s been shown that lefty-righty-lefty is a very good way to the build the middle of your order.

Soak it up, people! Connie Mack over here is giving away free managerial tips.

I also think the track record shows I’m not very effective hitting eighth.’’

That, of course, was a reference to Game 4 of the 2006 Division Series against Detroit,

Not that A-Rod is a child or anything.

More than five years later, Rodriguez is still embarrassed.

More than five years AND A NEW MANAGER LATER, Rodriguez is still embarrassed. Lordy, I hate it when the media panders to dipshit mouthbreathing fans by piling on A-Rod, but man, that is some pretty pathetic bullshit right there.

Soriano never complained about Quade’s lineups last season.

What? THESE AREN'T BASEBALL CARDS, PHIL. THEY HAVE FEELINGS AND EGOS AND HEARTS AND BLOOD. I also like progression of the article. Hitters care about their batting order spot. In fact, a guy who doesn't play for the Cubs REALLY cares about it. Soriano, by all accounts, does not care much about it. But the Cubs should definitely treat him like he does.

He had more plate appearances as the No. 7 hitter (221) than anywhere else in the lineup, with sixth (186) the next most frequent.

Why not let Soriano hit first?

Because he never gets on base?

No, he’s not a strong on-base guy.

Why not let your worst pitcher start on opening day? No, he's not very good at pitching. Why not tell your catcher to attempt to steal every time he's on base? No, he's not very fast. Why not sign Soriano to a contract extension right now? No, he's not worthy of a roster spot on a contending team.

But he hits home runs and doubles, and that’s a pretty nice way to start an inning.

You could always trade for Mark Trumbo and hit him leadoff. He's like a better version of Soriano. Plenty of doubles and bombs. No, he doesn't really get on base much... but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Problem: solved. Now, to trade for Trumbo. Hmmm. Hey, why not just offer Soriano straight up? Wait, what? The Angels fired Tony Reagins? Fuck. Back to the drawing board.

Hitting him in the leadoff spot isn’t going to keep the team from winning.

It sure as fucking shit isn't going to help.

Finally, here’s one last benefit of hitting Soriano first, and it’s not a small one.

He's NOT a baseball card; therefore, he's able to swing a bat and run the bases.

He is clearly one of the Cubs’ most dangerous hitters. And by hitting him first, not seventh, you can get him four plate appearances and pull him for a defensive replacement one or even two innings earlier than normal. You get him to the plate four times and lessen your exposure in the field. That’s smart.

Oh. Oh my. GOODNESS GRACIOUS. I think I'm going to have to leave it at that.

Well, now I'm out of time and energy and I'm not even going to get to the other stuff I had planned to include in the grab bag. How very Simmonsy of me. Sorry kids. My schedule is a little full these days. Fun Larry B trivia: between June 2008 and December 2011, I didn't have a full time job. Kind of made it easier to blog. But look, now I have a job and I'm still writing. Don't I deserve awards and accolades for leading such a balanced life? God, I am so great. My sheltered, privileged existence has been extremely difficult but I'm still out here plugging away at this little game I like to call "life." Full time job AND spends 45 to 60 minutes a week writing bullshit about the sports media? HOW DOES HE DO IT, FOLKS? HE'S GOT THE WORK ETHIC OF TWO THOMAS EDISONS!

/was obviously born in the 80s and deserves to get his entitled face beaten in with a crowbar

Chronicling the Possible Collapse: The Nature of the Cubs' Fan Base

Let's talk about sports and the media.

The Chicago Tribune - a subsidiary of the Tribune Company that owns the Chicago Cubs - keeps up a steady stream of coverage to keep the Cubs' legions of fans sated with information. Since the Cubs' latest antics includes losing eight of their last nine, it's certainly the job of the Tribune's reporters to bring the grim news to the once-happy fans.

What's awesome/hilarious/terrible [depending on who you are] - is the manner in which they do it. Now, the Cubs, in case you didn't know, have a history of inept collapses. It's true - lots of teams have blown leads. The 1951 Dodgers, 1993 Giants and 2007 Mets are legendary for blowing leads. Here's an interesting article that looks at the statistical numbers - suggesting, actually, that the 1995 Angels were the biggest "chokers". Over the course of a hundred years of baseball, for every comeback team, there's a comeback victim.

But the best part about the Cubs' possible collapse, from the perspective of a non-Cubs fan, is watching the sharks swim around the damaged ship. They're circling - noting every little piece of evidence - that might bring down the ship. Until August 29, that ship had sailed quite pleasantly - running up to the tune of 85-50 and a .629 winning pct. But the recent spread of losses - which could easily be attributed by any sane fan to a small sampling of bad luck to an otherwise good team - has sent their writers into a frenzy.

Here are five recent media reports focusing on the Cubs' performance recently. Though some of them do contain real, thoughtful analysis of the Cubs' slide, a lot of them are full of some really awful claims.

Sample #1: Steve Rosenbloom's Tribune blog from Tuesday 9/9

And if it isn’t the specter of ’69 and the Cubs actually make the postseason,

Here's why I call hysteria on all this: the Cubs still have a 98.91% chance of making the playoffs according to PECOTA's projections. Wondering if "the Cubs actually make it" is completely nuts, Steve.

then Cubs fans rip open the scabs of ‘84 and ‘03

Jeez. That's some nasty prose.

and maybe even last year when manager Lou Piniella got all cute and yanked his best pitcher to keep him fresh for a game that still hasn’t been played.

LOLOL I GET IT! THE CUBS STILL HAVEN'T MADE LAST YEAR'S PLAYOFFS! I HAVE A ROCK IN MY SHOE! I AM DOING SUCH A SHIT JOB HERE!

That’s the way Cubs fans work, and wouldn’t that be a fascinating double-blind psychological study: Self-hating, death-wish Cubs fans -- nature or nurture?

Good question, Steve. I suggest you enlist Northwestern's graduate school of psychology to answer this question. Here, I'll save you the trouble: they are nurtured - by the sky-is-falling rhetoric of people like you.

Sample #2: Paul Sullivan, Tribune writer; "Scariest Thought for Cubs? 1969"

He carefully notes five similarities between the 1969 Cubs (who went 8-17 in September) and the 2008 Cubs. This includes such spurious comparisons as "ABSENT MANAGERS: Durocher skipped out to Camp Ojibwa and Pinella got lost!" - failing to note the clear distinction between a deliberately-absent manager going AWOL and a manager accidentally getting lost on a road trip. It's this kind of nonsense that - literally - spawns more of the Cub-curse nonsense. If I were a Cubs fan, I'd be insulted by this kind of spurious reasoning, but maybe that explains why I'm too smart to be a Cubs fan.

Sullivan closes with this doozy:
But if you see a black cat on the field at Shea Stadium when the Cubs make their final visit there in two weeks, prepare for a long winter

LOL BLACK CATS ARE EVIL AND BAD AND ONE WAS ON THE FIELD IN 1969.

Sample #3: Dave van Dyck's Postgame report on the Cubs' 4-3 loss to the Reds on Sunday

CINCINNATI - For those who believe in such things, the reason Ronny Cedeno went from hero to goat Sunday might have been that infamous billy goat's footprint changing the direction of a high-hopping ball near second base.

Wow. They let the goat walk on the field in between innings or something?

Even for those who don't believe the Cubs are eternally doomed, Sunday would give them pause.

If you don't believe in this sort of superstitious/divine/karmic nonsense, Sunday would give you enough pause enough to realize that the Cubs are still in first place by a large margin.

After losing seven of eight games, including Sunday's 4-3 stinker to the Reds, it is understandable that the mentality has evolved into a sky-is-falling September swoon.

No, it isn't. It's never understandable. It's only understandable because idiots like you keep writing this stuff - and the Cub fan base is either too comatose (from drinking) or too ignorant to call you on it.

Sample #4: Dave van Dyck's Article on the Cubs' Remaining Schedule

Most Cubs fans, at least those with a knowledge of history, are already climbing the figurative staircase to the top floor for the jump.

I like how he doesn't say "all" Cubs fans, because that probably wouldn't be true. I think, like Dave does, that most Cubs fans are idiots and would probably climb a figurative staircase and walk to the figurative ledge and consider figurative suicide even when their team is not-figuratively in a position where it is 98.9% likely that they will make the playoffs.

LOL GOOD THING ITS NOT A REAL STAIRCASE MAN THAT WOULD BE BAD

Losses in seven of eight games? A manager so upset he can't talk? Two pitchers hurting, an offense sputtering, the Cardinals waiting?

The Cardinals have an elimination number of eleven. And it's September 10. You are a hysterical moron.

Yes, yes, yes, but there's also a reality side to what's going on, which means the staircase can be used to get to the ground floor as well, although Cubs fans rarely realize it.

Criticizing your own fans in your column for a disease-ridden hysteria that you help create? Awesome! Nice work, Dave!

Dave also mentions some useful points - such as the Cubs' most-difficult-remaining schedule and the fragile arms and brains of Cubs pitchers. He presents a series of "panic" and "not-panic" scenarios like a "point" and "counterpoint" argument - with each ludicrous "panic" argument balanced by a reasonable "don't panic" argument. It's like Dave's inner self, fighting his intuition's desire to weep with his reason's cool logic.

Sample #5: 'Federal Agent Arrested At Reds Game' - WCPO-TV, Cincinnati

According to court records, when a concession employee working the View Level at Great American Ball Park refused to serve alcohol to 26-year-old Rafael Rosario, the Cubs fan asked two more times.

When Cincinnati Police asked to see Rosario’s I.D., he tensed up and claimed he was a federal agent and the officer had no right to see his I.D.

Records show Rosario is employed by the Transportation Safety Administration at O’Hare Airport in Chicago.

Police say he gave them an Illinois state drivers license, not a federal I.D. Police note Rosario, who was wearing a red Cubs shirt and blue Cubs hat, refused to cooperate with officers and had blood shot eyes and smelled of alcohol.

This has nothing to do with sports journalism. I just think it's hilarious.

I have no problem with using a really small sample size (read: one drunk Cubs fan) to generalize to the entire population of Cubs fans (millions of people, including a large portion of my family and friends) and call them a legion of drunken ignoramuses.

Because that's probably the only group of people that would tolerate this kind of writing.

Computers Don't Know Anything....After All, They Can't Love Or Hate Or Feel Pain!

Rick Morrissey has his own theories about how to predict the fortunes of baseball teams. There's a thing called a "hunch", people. We don't need no stinkin' computerboxes.

If computers ran the world, Steven Seagal probably would have won a few Oscars by now, assuming they judged him on the $2 billion his movies have earned. If computers had a way of measuring acting ability, he'd be running a martial-arts school in a strip mall.

Okay, equating judging an actor by how much money his movies make is sort of like evaluating hitters using batting average and evaluating pitchers using wins. It's stupid and useless. The computers you're about to declare worthless don't do anything that simple. Chalk up another to "terrible similes and metaphors."

But they don't run the world, yet, which means we can still type in our credit card numbers online without worrying that all our money is being sucked into a fund earmarked for global dominance by a dastardly computer.

Attention all forms of cerebral parasites: do not feed on the brain of Rick Morrissey. It is clearly diseased and "possesses the properties of the insane."

Computers have no use for heart, or least they can't quantify it. They can't analyze what's inside an athlete, for example. They can't tell you who has the heart of a lion or the backbone of an earthworm.

They can't!?!??!??!?! Whew. Good thing for computers that having the heart of a lion doesn't make a human being any more likely to hit a curveball. In one corner, we have a computer using projected stats to formulate run totals from run elements to predict a final season record of a team. In the other corner, we have Rick Morrissey arbitrarily placing people on a scale of (Earthworm) Jim to Simba to calculate wins. Vegas's odds on Ricky are 234.5:1. If you like Eckstein a lot, financial opportunity is knocking......

Computers can't tell you that White Sox first baseman Paul Konerko is upset with how he played last season.

They don't need to. Everyone who knows anything about Paul Konerko knows that. The job of computers (not that dissimilar to that of journalists) is to tell people things that they don't know.

All they can tell you is that he hit .259 in 2007, that he just turned 32 and, therefore, he must be on the downside of his career because that's what the model says is supposed to happen to him.

Really, that's it? How totally uninformative.

(Interesting side note: BP 2007 listed Tino Martinez as one of Konerko's top PECOTA comparables and pointed out that Martinez had a severe production decline at age 31, which was exactly what happened to Konerko. Damn unreliable squawkboxes!)

If you saw the piece about Baseball Prospectus' 2008 predictions in Sunday's Tribune, then you know the publication's computer has the Sox going 77-85 and finishing third in the AL Central, and the Cubs going 91-71 and winning the NL Central.

I know as much about computers as I do about astronomy

Which puts you in just an oh-so-good position to dismiss them as irrelevant, doesn't it?

but I believe the computer term for Baseball Prospectus' Sox prediction is "fatal error."

The prediction for the 2008 White Sox literally made the computer implode. Rick's not joking.

I have the Sox winning 85 games and giving Cleveland a run for its money for second place in the division.

Okay, sure. I'm positive you'll tell me what this is based on shortly. But as long as we're being insanely optimistic, why not go all the way and say they'll contend for the division lead? After all, there's no way Cleveland is that far below Detroit (if you ask me, Cleveland's slightly better).

I know, I know: The Indians are loaded with talent, and if it weren't for Detroit spending gobs of money, they'd be the favorites in the AL Central.

Actually....BP still has them as favorites anyway. But, moving on, moving on.

But, again, what about heart?

That thing that beats out grounders to first base? No....that's speed. That thing that makes the ridiculously tough play in the outfield? No....that's speed too, and good judgement and athleticism. Hit home runs? No....that's power. Striking players out? No.....good arm strength and pitch placement. And we all know that it can't be walking, because walking is like the anti-heart. Where does "heart" fit in there, Rick? I'm pretty sure that the Sox aren't trying any more gooder than the other teams. Plus, they punted Erstad (HAHA! HAHA! A PUN!), so they're already out 51 "cardions" in the heart statistic. See? You CAN quantify it!

Hal (or Smitty or Shecky or whatever the computer's name is)

We'll call him "Slobby", thanks to Ed Hardiman and the slobbermetrics it uses.

and I pretty much agree about the Cubs, which, given my track record on predictions, should make Hal/Smitty/Shecky do a lot of soul-searching

So you're pretty much admitting that you're wrong a lot on predictions? I could never have fathomed this! You base the things you say on so much excellent evidence!

...I...I thought we just named him Slobby.....

which is impossible because it doesn't have a soul, just an evil chip that makes it want to mate with Marie Osmond and produce robots that sing show tunes.

Oh no he di'int!

But: and this might seem like an irrelevant question, Rick. Does the soullessness (I'm inventing words, this guy is so stupid) of a computer stop it from predicting the outcomes of baseball seasons. Does it? Just answer, I won't go crazy and argue it has a soul.

Do feelings count? Or hunches?

Hunches....you mean those things that by definition are based on absolutely nothing? I have a hunch that Alfredo Amezaga will outproduce Matt Holliday this year. Just a hunch. It counts, dammit!

Where is there room in computers for the inexplicable?

Nowhere, just like there's no room in baseball for it either. Improbable, yes. Inexplicable, no.

Does the fact that it's the Cubs' 100th season since their last World Series title mean anything in the computations?

I dunno, Rick? Do you think that the last 100 Cubs seasons (which, by the way, primarily featured players not currently on the Cubs' roster) have any bearing on how many games this team will win?

Does it mean anything that the Cubs could be driven by the challenge of a century of dryness or, conversely, that they could cave in under the pressure of it and finish 10 games below .500?

Okay, let's assume that's true. Those two possibilities cancel each other out approximately, leaving the same initial prediction. The computer doesn't think these things CAN'T happen, Rick, just that they are unlikely. It just takes the record in the middle of the range of the most likely outcomes. Why is this so fucking hard to understand?

I believe the Sox are embarrassed by what happened last season and, not to belabor the point, there is nothing in a computer's innards that can measure the effects of that.

So what are you saying, an embarrassed with-something-to-prove Jose Contreras will be better than his physical ability?

That the Sox dropped from 90 victories in 2006 to 72 games last season was one of the shocks of the baseball season. But not to Baseball Prospectus, and the people who run it deserve their props. They chalk up a lot of what happened on the South Side last season to the inevitability of time catching up with older athletes. I chalk it up to a number of players having down years at the same time.

Right, you attribute it to that because you're not paying attention at all. The team is losing, so you exacerbate what went wrong, and fail to pay attention to what went right! For every player on the Sox who had a bad year (relative to the expected), there's one that had a pretty good year by his standards. Jim Thome fought aging very well, and had a very good season. Bobby Jenks broke out. Mark Buerhle, Javier Vazquez, and Jon Garland all had very good seasons by the standards of their ability. Players stopped being so absurdly healthy like they were when the team was performing very well.

Isn't there room for a number of Sox to have good years at the same time? Say, in 2008? If Jim Thome stays healthy, he could have an excellent season.

Just like he had last season! .328 EqA+!

The Cubs don't have a good enough rotation to do the impossible and win the World Series

The '06 Cardinals were famous for having an AMAZING starting rotation. Guys like Jeff Suppan and Jeff Weaver. Top-of-the-line talent, really.

but perhaps Carlos Zambrano's feistiness becomes contagious and the staff starts pitching like the '69 Mets did. Can a computer comprehend feistiness? I don't think so.

Oh dear Lord! The computer's calculations were leaving out feistiness! Silly computer! Move the K/BB ratio and GB/FB ratio projections, and remember that Carlos Zambrano has a fire in his belly! Ryan Dempster and Jon Lieber will rediscover their youth! Jason Marquis won't suck anymore, inspired by Zam punching random objects and pointing to the sky after every inning! I plan to destroy the computer on which I am typing after this post. How could it have missed this?

This is the time of year for predictions, so it's not surprising there would be a few bad tidings, especially for the Sox.

The problem with computers is that you can argue with them until you're blue in the face, and they don't even blink in response. There's no satisfaction in it. You can, however, achieve a higher level of contentment by hitting them with a baseball bat.

Agreed. So long, Compy. I hardly knew ye. I'm sorry for shouting aimlessly at you until my face turned blue.....I just....I just don't understand how you can't comprehend the grittiness of Pablo Ozuna and Ryan Theriot! Forgive me, we're from different worlds. Maybe we'll just never understand each other. ::sniff::

::CRASH!::

It Almost Seems Absurd to Take Mike Downey Seriously

...since he doesn't seem to take himself seriously, but his column in today's Tribune (registration required...please register) seems to be trying to make a legitimate point, a point that couldn't possibly annoy me more.

More 1/2-the-facts hindsight from the Chicago Tribune

As any Sox fan knows, the most popular person in Chicago is the backup quarterback for the Bears and the second most popular person is the white guy the Sox traded away. You saw it in 03 with Graffanino, in 05 with Rowand and in 06 with Ross Gload. Second-guessing Kenny Williams seems to be the way Tribune writers (and sports talk morons) make their bones, even though he's proven time and again to know what he's doing at the helm. Since almost all Williams's trades seem to work out in the Sox favor, creative "re-shaping" of the past must be used to make them look bad, and that's what Downey's trading in today. Observe.

And now, for each of you who made it home from Wrigley Field over the weekend and have sobered up, permit me to make your hangover worse. Have I an outfield for you! Aaron Rowand is hitting .333 for the Philadelphia Phillies. He has seven home runs, 23 RBIs, 54 hits (leads the team) and in more than 387 innings has not made an error. Magglio Ordonez is hitting .344 for the Detroit Tigers. He has nine home runs (leads the team), 38 RBIs (leads the team), 54 hits and has made one error. Carlos Lee is hitting .311 for the Houston Astros. He has nine home runs (leads the team), 40 RBIs (leads the team), 52 hits (leads the team) and has not made an error. It's a horror movie, "Attack of the Ex-Sox." I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if all three of these former Good Guys found themselves in San Francisco on the evening of July 10, suited up for the All-Star Game.

It must be noted that the Sox are hitting pathetically this year---their team average (if you buy into things like BA) is league worst. Even if you prefer another metric, you won't find one that will show the Sox to be anything but slumping miserably. Therefore these 3 potential 2007 "all-stars" would immediately become the best hitter on this White Sox team. So what's the problem? Well, there's a few.

1.) It's May 20th
2.)It's May 20th
3.) It's May 20th
4.) These players did not just leave this past offseason.

The thing is, though, each of these players leaving town was controversial, but the inevitable result was that Kenny made the right decision. Only by cherrypicking data has Downey made having these guys around seem even remotely palatable. Let's see how full of shit Downey is with his McCarthyesque (Sen. Joseph, not Pitcher Brandon...although with the way Phil Rogers harangued Williams for trading McCarthy (ERA 5.82) for John Danks (ERA 4.10) and Nick Massett (2-1 out of pen, 4.5 k/9) ravings

Aaron Rowand is hitting .333 for the Philadelphia Phillies. He has seven home runs, 23 RBIs, 54 hits (leads the team) and in more than 387 innings has not made an error.

Aaron Rowand was traded after the 2005 season along with Gio Gonzalez for Jim Thome. The only people who thought this was a bad trade at the time were the kind of people who regularly use words like "lunchpail" and "true grit." Although Rowand's replacement, Brian Anderson, struggled in 2006, Rowand didn't exactly light the world on fire, with an 87 OPS+. His batting average, if you're interested in that? .262. The guy plays a substandard CF and has very little tangible skills. He's not fast, doesn't hit for a lot of power, doesn't have great bat control, etc. So he's hitting .333 after a month and a half. Does that mean it's better to have him than Jim Thome, a man who, though sometimes hurt, stands as one of the only power threats in this lineup?

In other words, is there anyone who would trade Jim Thome for Aaron Rowand straight up right now (since the White Sox already got Gonzalez back in the Garcia trade)?

Carlos Lee is hitting .311 for the Houston Astros. He has nine home runs (leads the team), 40 RBIs (leads the team), 52 hits (leads the team) and has not made an error.

You'll get no argument for me that Carlos Lee is a great hitter. He was good with the White Sox and has only gotten better since being traded to the Brewers and later going to the various Texas teams. Would he immediately become the best left field option if he were on the White Sox right now? Absolutely. Is he infinitely better than the players Williams traded him for (Podsednik, Vizacaino, and a ptbnl I don't remember)? No doubt about it.

However, this was one of the most important (and successful) trades Williams ever made, and to even imply that it shouldn't have been done smacks of journalistic stupidity. The key to the trade wasn't getting a mildly effective leadoff hitter in Podsednik or a mildly effective middle-reliever in Vizcaino. It was clearing up over 8 million dollars in salary that the White Sox used to sign Orlando Hernandez and AJ Pierzynski, two keys to the 2005 world series run. Viz and Duque are both gone, Podsednik is injured, and AJ is no world-beater, but this trade led to a world series title.

Oh, and Lee who is one of the most overpaid players in baseball, would not likely be in Chicago this season anyway (unless the White Sox were willing to be saddled with the albatross of a contract that Texas coughed up).

This clamoring for Lee would be the stupidest thing in the article if it weren't for this:

Magglio Ordonez is hitting .344 for the Detroit Tigers. He has nine home runs (leads the team), 38 RBIs (leads the team), 54 hits and has made one error.

Before we get into the whole Ordonez hub bub, I want to point out how fucking stupid it is that Downey thinks that it's relevant to include how few errors these players have. Outfield errors may be the most irrelevant statistic in baseball (besides, I don't know, walkoff home runs, or one out grand slams). But I digress.

Ordonez? Was Downey in Chicago the past 3 years? Let me make this as simple as possible: Ordonez was a free agent. Kenny offered him, mid 2004, one of the richest contracts in White Sox history. I believe it was 5 years 70 million. Keep in mind, Kenny offered him this contract when Ordonez was still laid up from a season ending (both for Ordonez and the 2004 Sox) injury. Maggs refused, signed with Scott Boras, and decided to test the FA market. In the offseason, Magglio refused to let White Sox team doctors examine his knee, and ended up signing a 90 million dollar deal with Detroit that everyone was shocked they were willing to make. It seems to have worked out, however, Kenny went out and signed a gem of a deal with Jermaine Dye to replace Magglio. While it would be easy enough to call Jermaine Dye "World Series MVP" Jermaine Dye, it would probably be more effective to do an actual comparison.

2005 Dye
.274/.333/.512 118 OPS + 31 HR
2006 Dye
.315/.385/.622 152 OPS + 44 HR

Games played by Dye b/t 2005-2006: 291

2005 Ordonez
.302/.359/.438 113 OPS + 8 HR (eep!)
2006 Ordonez
.298/.350/.477 113 OPS + 24 HR

Games played by Ordonez b/t 2005-2006: 237

Oh, and Dye's a better right fielder than Ordonez....but nice try Downey

Downey goes on to give the current stats of the Sox outfield. They are, admittedly, awful. They are also, admittedly, much worse than these "ex-Sox". However there are four things to consider:


1.) It's May 20th
2.)It's May 20th
3.) It's May 20th
4.) These players did not just leave this past offseason.

Downey doesn't care. He needs to ask the extremely vital and relevant question:

Do the White Sox have an All-Star?

This is the world's stupidest question. Every team in baseball has an all-star. Or does he mean "true all-star"? Well, he seems to know, answering his own question later in the article

I don't know which Sox player would be All-Star worthy if the balloting ended today. Jenks, I guess. He is among the AL's leaders in saves.

Uh, yeah, Jenks, you guess. He's not just among the AL's leaders in saves. He is the AL's leader in saves, according to this website, which I guess would do at least as much research as you do (since anything is greater than or equal to zero)

Or how about Mark Buehrle, who has solid numbers, is a past all-star, and threw a no-hitter this year?

When a team is only 4.5 games out of first place in baseball's toughest division, someone must be playing all right--especially if the team's not hitting at all....

and anyway, it's the fucking all-star game. Last year the Sox had umpteen all-stars, most of them undeserving. In 2005 they had 4, and of them only 2 were truly deserving. Who cares about the fucking all-star game?

Mike Downey, I guess