Paul Sullivan's Pity Party

[jjgman21]

the hustle thing is overblown, but just a nitpick.

 

if the Giants set up the relay for second base like they should have, Aram is out by a mile at second and potentially out before Lee crosses home plate.

 

the only reason he wasn't out at second was the throw went toward third for a relay home, AND the Giants failed to cover second at all. if someone is covering when the outfield throw comes in, a throw to second probably gets Aram there.

 

 

oh, and the reason he hurt his knee, and the reason he reaggrevated the knee, were because he assumed an out after hitting the ball, then turned it on after it became apparent it would be a routine out. had he just run 3/4 out of the box on both occassions until routineness is actually determined, his knee probably isn't an issue at all right now.

 

 

nonetheless, Aramis rocks.

[Keener98]

Lets see, have Aram run as hard as he can, and hurt the knee that isnt still fully healed, and he misses the rest of the season, or sometimes jog out of the bos so he is here for the rest of the season? I think its pretty obvious

[jjgman21]

Lets see, have Aram run as hard as he can, and hurt the knee that isnt still fully healed, and he misses the rest of the season, or sometimes jog out of the bos so he is here for the rest of the season? I think its pretty obvious

 

this is not a "chocolate or vanilla" situation. there are other flavors from which to choose.

[FergieJ31]

Lets see, have Aram run as hard as he can, and hurt the knee that isnt still fully healed, and he misses the rest of the season, or sometimes jog out of the bos so he is here for the rest of the season? I think its pretty obvious

 

 

Exactly. This simple point is lost on guys like Paul Sullivan. Case in point: Nomar. Hustles out of the box on a DP ball two years ago, rips a groin muscle...

 

http://assets.espn.go.com/media/mlb/2005/0421/photo/a_garciaparra2_hi.jpg

 

... and we lose him for over half the year (good thing Neifi saved us).

[Coach C]

Mr Sullivan really needs to pop some Midol or something. Aramis is not the only one that does this stuff. There has been players in the past that does the bat flipping and strutting out from the box after a well-hit ball, which almost everybody in the stadium, and fans who are watching the TV thought that ball was gone, but for some reason, didn't go out, but it landed harmlessly in the outfield, near the wall.

 

This is nothing new. What I give Aramis credit is when he realized that ball may not get out, at least he hustled towards second, even if there wasn't a play. I also give Aramis credit for coming through the clutch when the Cubs needed it.

 

Say if he got thrown out at second becuase of whatever reason, sure I may be a little upset on him, but also at the flip side, he did produced 2 critical runs that the Cubs needed to win the game. It breaks even. Big Whop.

 

I'll tell you what Mr. Sullivan. You want to complain about something? All right, how about this then? Complain about Sheffield's comments. The man has no real idea what he is talking about. Or how about this one? Complain about the fans at Wrigley that was trashing the field, apparently for no reason (at least in my view).

 

There's plenty of things to complain about Mr. Sullivan. However, Aramis Ramirez should be the least of your complaints as of this moment, ESPECIALLY, when he came through the clutch when the Cubs needed to win the baseball game.

 

Gimmie a break.

Edited July 17, 2007 by Coach C

[Keener98]

Great post Coach

[davearm]

But why can't this work ethic that's brought his game so far along be applied to his baserunning too? He sure seems to remain lazy and disinterested in that facet.

 

His baserunning this year has been excellent. I've seen him run extremely hard on routine grounders all season. He got hurt trying to beat a ball out.

 

You're taking one incident, where he thought a ball was going out and didn't, and saying that he's still a lazy, disinterested baserunner. That's completely wrong.

Well I certainly hope you're right and I'm wrong in the general.

 

Doesn't change my opinion of the specific. ARam's mucked things up in the past by standing and admiring near-homers. It's frustrating to see it continue even when it doesn't wind up costing the Cubs.

 

When?

There are millions of babies starving in Africa, although if you wanted to challenge me on that, I couldn't name you even one.

 

I can't recall the exact dates and times when ARam's standing at the plate while the ball caroms off the wall has bit him and the Cubs in the behind.

 

But I can recall it happening more than once.

[RedIvyCub]

At least Cubs fans have universally called Sullivan a crybaby on the Tribune site.

 

One thing that I always think is funny is that most Tribune columnists respond to readers directly in the blogs if there is a point that is incorrect or the columnist chooses to defend him/herself.

 

However, Sullivan calls is a Cubs "mailbag" and lambastes readers for stupid questions. Personally, I like sending him the weekly email asking about the status of Prior and Wood because I know it bothers him so.

 

Just curious you knew that these emails are screened by someone in the interactive department and he doesn't see even half of them.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, Paul Sullivan himself has shown his face on NSBB

 

Wrong again...I am a female. So far people think I am Muskat and Sullivan. Pretty funny stuff.

 

But just stating a point...they do screen the questions as they get too many to go through all of them. Someone picks the ones he is going to answer and sends them to him.

[RedIvyCub]

I've never really met Sullivan, so I don't know him personally. He may be a great guy. That being said, I don't like the way he covers the Cubs. Whether intentional or not, he always appears to be snide or condescending. He writes as if he has an axe to grind and takes a tabloid-like approach.

 

I won't attack him personally, because I don't know him; however, his writing seems as if it would be more something I'd read in the The News-Star instead of the largest paper in Chicago.

 

Thank goodness for Bruce Miles.

 

That is fair...you are entitled to your opinion. He is just a disgruntled Cubs fan like everyone else. I guess one gets jaded after so many years in the business which is why they used to rotate beat writers regularly back in the day.

 

I too enjoy Bruce's work out of all of the beat writers in the city.

[Soul]

Just to reiterate... davearm and I are different people.

 

Don't get confused by the somewhat opposing opinions.

 

It confused me for a second, but then I looked a little closer at the screen names 8-)

[Soul]

But why can't this work ethic that's brought his game so far along be applied to his baserunning too? He sure seems to remain lazy and disinterested in that facet.

 

His baserunning this year has been excellent. I've seen him run extremely hard on routine grounders all season. He got hurt trying to beat a ball out.

 

You're taking one incident, where he thought a ball was going out and didn't, and saying that he's still a lazy, disinterested baserunner. That's completely wrong.

Well I certainly hope you're right and I'm wrong in the general.

 

Doesn't change my opinion of the specific. ARam's mucked things up in the past by standing and admiring near-homers. It's frustrating to see it continue even when it doesn't wind up costing the Cubs.

 

When?

There are millions of babies starving in Africa, although if you wanted to challenge me on that, I couldn't name you even one.

 

I can't recall the exact dates and times when ARam's standing at the plate while the ball caroms off the wall has bit him and the Cubs in the behind.

 

But I can recall it happening more than once.

 

We'd struggle to win 65 games without this guy, but you're going to damn him because of a couple non-specific times when he has 'mucked things up'??

 

Come on dave. That's silly and I venture to say you know it.

[soccer10k]

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2007/07/the-morning-aft.html

 

The Watcher. Yes, Aramis Ramirez likes to watch, as he proved again when he hit the game-winning double in the eighth inning of Monday night's win over the Giants. The ball wound up at the base of the left-field wall, so Aramis may need some glasses if he thought that one was going out. He's such a clutch hitter that it's hard to nit-pick, but it would be nice to see him hustle out of the box like Jacque Jones once in a while.

 

What's funny is that after his double, I posted in the game thread that someone in the media was going to complain aboutthe bat flip/stare, despite the fact that:

 

-He made it to 2nd easily

-He wasn't getting a triple

-It was a game winning hit

 

Someone almost immediately said it would be Paul Sullivan.

 

What's even funnier is that after 3.5 years of being nothing but productive, and signing a contract last winter for at least $20m below his market value, there are still media guys who clamor for him to be more like Jacque Jones, of all people.

 

Unreal.

 

I don't know if anybody read any of the comments attached to the blog entry - I didn't really read all of them, just scrolled down and happened to find this gem:

 

Seeing Jacque Jones hustle out of the batters box would require him to, I dunno, actually get a hit every once in a while.

 

The rest of the reply was about clutch hitting or something but I've got to give the guy/girl credit for this line.

[Banedon]

And there is a reason Teddy is off the baseball beat...he isn't allowed to travel. LONNNGGG story.

 

Any chance of hearing it anyway?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

At least Cubs fans have universally called Sullivan a crybaby on the Tribune site.

 

One thing that I always think is funny is that most Tribune columnists respond to readers directly in the blogs if there is a point that is incorrect or the columnist chooses to defend him/herself.

 

However, Sullivan calls is a Cubs "mailbag" and lambastes readers for stupid questions. Personally, I like sending him the weekly email asking about the status of Prior and Wood because I know it bothers him so.

 

Just curious you knew that these emails are screened by someone in the interactive department and he doesn't see even half of them.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, Paul Sullivan himself has shown his face on NSBB

Could be. It's a tribune IP address.

 

Is there free WiFi in the Tribune building? I never noticed an unemployed carpenter's union next to it before.

[Guest]

At least Cubs fans have universally called Sullivan a crybaby on the Tribune site.

 

One thing that I always think is funny is that most Tribune columnists respond to readers directly in the blogs if there is a point that is incorrect or the columnist chooses to defend him/herself.

 

However, Sullivan calls is a Cubs "mailbag" and lambastes readers for stupid questions. Personally, I like sending him the weekly email asking about the status of Prior and Wood because I know it bothers him so.

 

Just curious you knew that these emails are screened by someone in the interactive department and he doesn't see even half of them.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, Paul Sullivan himself has shown his face on NSBB

 

Wrong again...I am a female. So far people think I am Muskat and Sullivan. Pretty funny stuff.

 

But just stating a point...they do screen the questions as they get too many to go through all of them. Someone picks the ones he is going to answer and sends them to him.

I guess it's not Paul. But apparently someone that does have access to why Teddy doesn't cover the Cubs any longer. :)

[daske17]

Wrong again...I am a female. So far people think I am Muskat and Sullivan. Pretty funny stuff.

 

But just stating a point...they do screen the questions as they get too many to go through all of them. Someone picks the ones he is going to answer and sends them to him.

 

If they screened the questions properly, we would never hear about how much he hates Wood and Prior questions because he would never receive them.

 

I understand the jaded bit, but I mean come on. If you constantly insult the people who are reading your reports and boo-hooing at every perceived slight by the Cubs organization, who are you doing a service to?

[DurbanJer]

Wrong again...I am a female. So far people think I am Muskat and Sullivan. Pretty funny stuff.

 

But just stating a point...they do screen the questions as they get too many to go through all of them. Someone picks the ones he is going to answer and sends them to him.

 

If they screened the questions properly, we would never hear about how much he hates Wood and Prior questions because he would never receive them.

 

I understand the jaded bit, but I mean come on. If you constantly insult the people who are reading your reports and boo-hooing at every perceived slight by the Cubs organization, who are you doing a service to?

 

I've become convinced that Sullivan's work is largely schtick intentionally designed to give the impression that the Trib isn't providing biased coverage towards the team they in fact own.

[daske17]

Wrong again...I am a female. So far people think I am Muskat and Sullivan. Pretty funny stuff.

 

But just stating a point...they do screen the questions as they get too many to go through all of them. Someone picks the ones he is going to answer and sends them to him.

 

If they screened the questions properly, we would never hear about how much he hates Wood and Prior questions because he would never receive them.

 

I understand the jaded bit, but I mean come on. If you constantly insult the people who are reading your reports and boo-hooing at every perceived slight by the Cubs organization, who are you doing a service to?

 

I've become convinced that Sullivan's work is largely schtick intentionally designed to give the impression that the Trib isn't providing biased coverage towards the team they in fact own.

 

Just to play devil's advocate on this, say Bruce Miles had his articles published by the Tribune. Would the perception be that his work was biased?

 

Probably not, which goes back to the overall bitterness and some times sensationalistic quality of Paul Sullivan's work.

[USSoccer]

But why can't this work ethic that's brought his game so far along be applied to his baserunning too? He sure seems to remain lazy and disinterested in that facet.

 

His baserunning this year has been excellent. I've seen him run extremely hard on routine grounders all season. He got hurt trying to beat a ball out.

 

You're taking one incident, where he thought a ball was going out and didn't, and saying that he's still a lazy, disinterested baserunner. That's completely wrong.

Well I certainly hope you're right and I'm wrong in the general.

 

Doesn't change my opinion of the specific. ARam's mucked things up in the past by standing and admiring near-homers. It's frustrating to see it continue even when it doesn't wind up costing the Cubs.

 

When?

There are millions of babies starving in Africa, although if you wanted to challenge me on that, I couldn't name you even one.

 

I can't recall the exact dates and times when ARam's standing at the plate while the ball caroms off the wall has bit him and the Cubs in the behind.

 

But I can recall it happening more than once.

 

Not good enough. You can't disparage a guy's reputation with absolutely no evidence to back it up.

 

Name me one time where he's been thrown out because he jogged out of the box on a hard hit ball. I'll bet you can't.

[DurbanJer]

Wrong again...I am a female. So far people think I am Muskat and Sullivan. Pretty funny stuff.

 

But just stating a point...they do screen the questions as they get too many to go through all of them. Someone picks the ones he is going to answer and sends them to him.

 

If they screened the questions properly, we would never hear about how much he hates Wood and Prior questions because he would never receive them.

 

I understand the jaded bit, but I mean come on. If you constantly insult the people who are reading your reports and boo-hooing at every perceived slight by the Cubs organization, who are you doing a service to?

 

I've become convinced that Sullivan's work is largely schtick intentionally designed to give the impression that the Trib isn't providing biased coverage towards the team they in fact own.

 

Just to play devil's advocate on this, say Bruce Miles had his articles published by the Tribune. Would the perception be that his work was biased?

 

Probably not, which goes back to the overall bitterness and some times sensationalistic quality of Paul Sullivan's work.

 

Bruce Miles work is for a different organization. A different organization = different expectations or requirements. I'm not in any way trying to defend the drivel that is usually the tenor of Sullivan's work. I'm simply suggesting that he has his job because the Trib likes his 'unbiased' Cubs coverage.

[daske17]

Bruce Miles work is for a different organization. A different organization = different expectations or requirements. I'm not in any way trying to defend the drivel that is usually the tenor of Sullivan's work. I'm simply suggesting that he has his job because the Trib likes his 'unbiased' Cubs coverage.

 

I understand that, but at the same time there's an expected quality of work that underlies all reporters. By that rationale that he has to a report a certain way to provide "unbiased" Cubs coverage, wouldn't the Sox beat reporter have to provide glowing coverage of the Sox to show they're not beholden to the Cubs?

 

(I'm not disagreeing with you, just stirring some dialogue).

[Soul]

Wrong again...I am a female. So far people think I am Muskat and Sullivan. Pretty funny stuff.

 

But just stating a point...they do screen the questions as they get too many to go through all of them. Someone picks the ones he is going to answer and sends them to him.

 

If they screened the questions properly, we would never hear about how much he hates Wood and Prior questions because he would never receive them.

 

I understand the jaded bit, but I mean come on. If you constantly insult the people who are reading your reports and boo-hooing at every perceived slight by the Cubs organization, who are you doing a service to?

 

I've become convinced that Sullivan's work is largely schtick intentionally designed to give the impression that the Trib isn't providing biased coverage towards the team they in fact own.

 

Just to play devil's advocate on this, say Bruce Miles had his articles published by the Tribune. Would the perception be that his work was biased?

 

Probably not, which goes back to the overall bitterness and some times sensationalistic quality of Paul Sullivan's work.

 

Bruce Miles work is for a different organization. A different organization = different expectations or requirements. I'm not in any way trying to defend the drivel that is usually the tenor of Sullivan's work. I'm simply suggesting that he has his job because the Trib likes his 'unbiased' Cubs coverage.

 

Yes, I would imagine he has a job because the Tribune wants him to. Hard to come to any other conclusion than that.

 

We're talking about him on here, so I guess he would say "you're reading it," and that's the primary job he has: get people to read it.

[Connor McConnor]

Bruce Miles is treated differently around here because he posts here and lots of posters, for lack of a better phrase, suck up to him. I cringe when I see some of the "hey Bruce" posts.

 

If Sullivan posted as "Paul Sullivan" he would be treated differently.

 

Both of them do a fine job "covering" the Cubs in my opinion. It's not a difficult job. You report what you know....and speculate on all the rest. No big deal.

[DurbanJer]

Wrong again...I am a female. So far people think I am Muskat and Sullivan. Pretty funny stuff.

 

But just stating a point...they do screen the questions as they get too many to go through all of them. Someone picks the ones he is going to answer and sends them to him.

 

If they screened the questions properly, we would never hear about how much he hates Wood and Prior questions because he would never receive them.

 

I understand the jaded bit, but I mean come on. If you constantly insult the people who are reading your reports and boo-hooing at every perceived slight by the Cubs organization, who are you doing a service to?

 

I've become convinced that Sullivan's work is largely schtick intentionally designed to give the impression that the Trib isn't providing biased coverage towards the team they in fact own.

 

Just to play devil's advocate on this, say Bruce Miles had his articles published by the Tribune. Would the perception be that his work was biased?

 

Probably not, which goes back to the overall bitterness and some times sensationalistic quality of Paul Sullivan's work.

 

Bruce Miles work is for a different organization. A different organization = different expectations or requirements. I'm not in any way trying to defend the drivel that is usually the tenor of Sullivan's work. I'm simply suggesting that he has his job because the Trib likes his 'unbiased' Cubs coverage.

 

Yes, I would imagine he has a job because the Tribune wants him to. Hard to come to any other conclusion than that.

 

We're talking about him on here, so I guess he would say "you're reading it," and that's the primary job he has: get people to read it.

 

You got us there. We now have a 4 page (and growing) thread on one of his articles.

 

Must now go shower! :lol:

[USSoccer]

Bruce Miles is treated differently around here because he posts here and lots of posters, for lack of a better phrase, suck up to him. I cringe when I see some of the "hey Bruce" posts.

 

If Sullivan posted as "Paul Sullivan" he would be treated differently.

 

Both of them do a fine job "covering" the Cubs in my opinion. It's not a difficult job. You report what you know....and speculate on all the rest. No big deal.

 

No. Bruce doesn't write articles with a clear anti-Cub bias. When Bruce is critical, it's backed up with facts. Sullivan doesn't.

 

If Sullivan posted here, he'd be treated like we treat anyone who makes poor arguments. He'd be called out and made to defend his arguments.