I'd hate to hear what BF would say if Stone predicted the Cubs wouldn't win the division.
| Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| Stones Old Act, back again https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=156&t=44802 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | bigfan [ Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Stones Old Act, back again |
1st time I hear the guy this year, first thing out of his mouth, "The Cubs spent $146.5 million this year" and "thus they should be better than the other teams" Then Stevie tells me that "The ballplayers don't care how much is spent and what they are expected to do", how does this work? For 4 years now, since Stone was fired (Yes, I will continue to say he was fired), all he does is harp on how much the Cubs have spent. It's every report he does, every comment he makes, every thought he has that is publicized on baseball. I will bypass the axe grinding at this point, just to say Stone should find a new angle after 3 years. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stones Old Act, back again |
If you hear him give a different take, then you'll know he's found a new angle. If you don't, then you'll know he hasn't. |
|
| Author: | Score is doomed [ Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stones Old Act, back again |
He's just a bitter OLD man. Little wonder Ricketts said he has NO plans to bring in Stone. |
|
| Author: | bigfan [ Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stones Old Act, back again |
...but next week it will be a $144.85 M due and mentioned 5 times. If I use the Stone theory, wouldn't that mean the Sox should also beat the Twins as they spent close to $40 million more than the Twins? |
|
| Author: | rogers park bryan [ Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stones Old Act, back again |
bigfan wrote: ...but next week it will be a $144.85 M due and mentioned 5 times. If I use the Stone theory, wouldn't that mean the Sox should also beat the Twins as they spent close to $40 million more than the Twins? White Sox Team Payroll Rank 2006 4th 2007 5th 2008 5th 2009 12th 2010 7th Yet some still believe they are not big spenders. |
|
| Author: | cubbiegirlshamus [ Mon Apr 05, 2010 11:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stones Old Act, back again |
bigfan wrote: 1st time I hear the guy this year, first thing out of his mouth, "The Cubs spent $146.5 million this year" and "thus they should be better than the other teams" Then Stevie tells me that "The ballplayers don't care how much is spent and what they are expected to do", how does this work? For 4 years now, since Stone was fired (Yes, I will continue to say he was fired), all he does is harp on how much the Cubs have spent. It's every report he does, every comment he makes, every thought he has that is publicized on baseball. I will bypass the axe grinding at this point, just to say Stone should find a new angle after 3 years. Say what you want about Sosa and there is a lot to say but while Grace, Stone and Sosa all said they were going to put what happened with their Cubs exits behind them only Sosa has and it's been the same amount of time as Stone and much shorter than Grace. |
|
| Author: | Frank Coztansa [ Mon Apr 05, 2010 11:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stones Old Act, back again |
rogers park bryan wrote: White Sox Team Payroll Rank 2006 4th 2007 5th 2008 5th 2009 12th 2010 7th Yet some still believe they are not big spenders. some = bigfan |
|
| Author: | Reared on the Score [ Mon Apr 05, 2010 12:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stones Old Act, back again |
Not sure why they even have him give Cubs thoughts. He's the Sox color analyst, and he's a little busy doing that instead of paying attention to Cubs baseball. And it shows in his lazy opinions. |
|
| Author: | Frank Coztansa [ Mon Apr 05, 2010 12:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stones Old Act, back again |
Its just like with Ozzie. The media knows if they ask either Stone or Ozzie about the Cubs, they will get an answer. |
|
| Author: | Zippy-The-Pinhead [ Mon Apr 05, 2010 12:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stones Old Act, back again |
I'd hate to hear what BF would say if Stone predicted the Cubs wouldn't win the division.
|
|
| Author: | Tall Midget [ Mon Apr 05, 2010 1:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stones Old Act, back again |
Reared on the Score wrote: Not sure why they even have him give Cubs thoughts. He's the Sox color analyst, and he's a little busy doing that instead of paying attention to Cubs baseball. And it shows in his lazy opinions. The only problem is that his Sox opinions are also intellectually lazy. He is a decent-to-good in-game analyst, but he's definitely not a "big picture" thinker. The idea that he could succeed as a GM--once perpetuated by notable meatballs such as B&B--is preposterous. |
|
| Author: | SHARK [ Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stones Old Act, back again |
Reared on the Score wrote: Not sure why they even have him give Cubs thoughts. He's the Sox color analyst, and he's a little busy doing that instead of paying attention to Cubs baseball. And it shows in his lazy opinions. There's a reason why Steve Stone gives Cubs thoughts, Reared. Steve was the analyst on the North Side for years, and is as qualified as anyone to offer opinions on the Northsiders as well as the team he works for now, the White Sox. I don't have a problem with Stone talking Cubs as well as Sox. |
|
| Author: | Reared on the Score [ Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stones Old Act, back again |
Tall Midget wrote: Reared on the Score wrote: Not sure why they even have him give Cubs thoughts. He's the Sox color analyst, and he's a little busy doing that instead of paying attention to Cubs baseball. And it shows in his lazy opinions. The only problem is that his Sox opinions are also intellectually lazy. He is a decent-to-good in-game analyst, but he's definitely not a "big picture" thinker. The idea that he could succeed as a GM--once perpetuated by notable meatballs such as B&B--is preposterous. Completely agree, and it always bothered me when Stone would take pot-shots at younger GMs like Shapiro or Riccali or Epstein as if he had better qualifications. If he wanted a front office job he should've gotten one, just not think you'd immediately start as one of the 30 GMs in the world. |
|
| Author: | Reared on the Score [ Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stones Old Act, back again |
SHARK wrote: Reared on the Score wrote: Not sure why they even have him give Cubs thoughts. He's the Sox color analyst, and he's a little busy doing that instead of paying attention to Cubs baseball. And it shows in his lazy opinions. There's a reason why Steve Stone gives Cubs thoughts, Reared. Steve was the analyst on the North Side for years, and is as qualified as anyone to offer opinions on the Northsiders as well as the team he works for now, the White Sox. I don't have a problem with Stone talking Cubs as well as Sox. Fair enough, he can comment on the 2004 Cubs. As far as the current team, he actually has lower qualifications than most fans since he has a job that hinders his ability to follow the team (or the league) anymore. |
|
| Author: | Apologist [ Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stones Old Act, back again |
Stone has really lost his fastball. I always thought he was pretty sharp, years ago... turns out that was just the contrast with Harry. |
|
| Author: | bigfan [ Mon Apr 05, 2010 5:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stones Old Act, back again |
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote: I'd hate to hear what BF would say if Stone predicted the Cubs wouldn't win the division. Stone doesn't hate the Cubs, he just dislikes Jim Hendry and while he would never rip him by name, he rips the actions of Jim Hendry on a constant basis. (Warranted, but not by the guy who is suppossed to find me something I don't know about as an analyst) Fact is he didn't like that Jim hendry sided with Dusty when it came to Players v Announcers. Then they basically said please leave with 'Here is a new contract for less money and we are not renewing your partner", so factually speaking Stone can contiue to say he was not fired. Technically, either was North, just chose not to take the deal on the table. And I never said the Sox don't spend money. I was referring to the vast amount of money they spend more then the Twins, because Stone often likes to compare the Cubs payroll to other teams and says they should win. So, If I use Stones theory and see the Sox spending on average $40 million more than Minn, shouldn't they have owned them over the years? Right or wrong, time for Stone to find something new to discuss. However, it's probably pretty hard when you have another job to do as a TV announcer. Another year of Steve Stone's highlights thoughts and calls to Terry's Peeps. "I didn't watch the game and haven't seen too much of ________ but I talked to _______ about him and he said ___________" Steve Stone every Monday. |
|
| Author: | Scorehead [ Mon Apr 05, 2010 5:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stones Old Act, back again |
Reared on the Score wrote: SHARK wrote: Reared on the Score wrote: Not sure why they even have him give Cubs thoughts. He's the Sox color analyst, and he's a little busy doing that instead of paying attention to Cubs baseball. And it shows in his lazy opinions. There's a reason why Steve Stone gives Cubs thoughts, Reared. Steve was the analyst on the North Side for years, and is as qualified as anyone to offer opinions on the Northsiders as well as the team he works for now, the White Sox. I don't have a problem with Stone talking Cubs as well as Sox. Fair enough, he can comment on the 2004 Cubs. As far as the current team, he actually has lower qualifications than most fans since he has a job that hinders his ability to follow the team (or the league) anymore. Do you really think that most fans know more about Baseball than Steve Stone? Not a chance. That right there is a meatball statement. |
|
| Author: | Score is doomed [ Mon Apr 05, 2010 6:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stones Old Act, back again |
So Kirk, you apparently buy into the Stone is a baseball genius. It still amazes me that with all the GM turnover in the last 15 years, NOBODY ever even interviewed this abrasive putz for a GM job. Even ESPN got sick of him and canned his ass after the 2 year deal he had. OK, they didn't actually fire his ass, they just didn't offer him a new deal. He is the most over-rated baseball announcer in the history of the game. Baseball genius 
|
|
| Author: | Reared on the Score [ Mon Apr 05, 2010 6:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stones Old Act, back again |
Scorehead wrote: Reared on the Score wrote: Fair enough, he can comment on the 2004 Cubs. As far as the current team, he actually has lower qualifications than most fans since he has a job that hinders his ability to follow the team (or the league) anymore. Do you really think that most fans know more about Baseball than Steve Stone? Not a chance. That right there is a meatball statement. Maybe that was a bit of hyperbole, John Jirk, but take out the 'most fans' argument and I think as an audience we should get an actual Cubs analyst than someone who worked for them 6 years ago and now can't possibly follow them closely given his other responsibilities. |
|
| Author: | C_Howitt_Fealz [ Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stones Old Act, back again |
He just sounds like a resentful blowhard. I don't even listen to him any longer. I used to love him as the in-game analyst. Unfortunate turn. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stones Old Act, back again |
C_Howitt_Fealz wrote: He just sounds like a resentful blowhard. I don't even listen to him any longer. I used to love him as the in-game analyst. Unfortunate turn. Agreed. Last I heard, he's still great at the play-to-play analysis of a game (one of the best I've ever heard), not so good at analyzing some of the bigger issues of MLB itself. |
|
| Author: | Don Tiny [ Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stones Old Act, back again |
Tall Midget wrote: Reared on the Score wrote: Not sure why they even have him give Cubs thoughts. He's the Sox color analyst, and he's a little busy doing that instead of paying attention to Cubs baseball. And it shows in his lazy opinions. The only problem is that his Sox opinions are also intellectually lazy. He is a decent-to-good in-game analyst, but he's definitely not a "big picture" thinker. The idea that he could succeed as a GM--once perpetuated by notable meatballs such as B&B--is preposterous. Thank you. I'll go ahead and guess someone else has said something along these lines before on this board, but I've personally not seen it, and it likely wouldn't have been as clear and concise. The Steve Stone demagoguery has baffled me for longer than I care to remember. |
|
| Author: | denisdman [ Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stones Old Act, back again |
Frank Coztansa wrote: Its just like with Ozzie. The media knows if they ask either Stone or Ozzie about the Cubs, they will get an answer. God I love Ozzie. You can ask him anything, and he will answer it honestly. Stone, he is just an old bitter fool. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|