North calls it a crap signing (he may end up being right) and both say that he has no chance to make the team, but it's obvious that neither bothered to take 10 minutes, and look into Kenny's reasoning for signing him. Again, this is not to say that Perez is a great player - he's not, but he can be a nice role player on the bench.

His career numbers don't look good, but you have to realize he was only signed to face lefties, and for that reason, stands a very good chance of making the team.

Versus LHP last year

In 18 at bats last year he hit .273 with 2 hrs and an OPS of 1.152 against Johan Santana.
In 10 at bats last year he hit .400 with 1 hr and an OPS of 1.200 against Cliff Lee
In 3 at bats last year he hit .333 against CC Sabathia
In 24 at bats last year he hit .250 with 1 hr and an OBP of .379 & OPS of .754 against Kenny Rogers
In 9 at bats last year he hit .667 with 1 hr and an OPS of 1.838 against Nate Robertson

There is the problem with this show: no-one - Mike, Fred, the producers - do the detail required for a top flight sports show. The basic work of building a case to support your arguement.

Why?

Simply because they think it is an entertainment show and entertainment focused station; the Score has always prided itself on less stats than the other big market sports stations - and North and the group take full advantage of it: yell to make your point. convienently forget things you said so you don't look like an idiot ( see Boers and Bernstein).

I think you've touched on an oddity in the way the Score presents sports-talk. Sports talk, whether it's between you and me in a bar, or the old Sportswriters show on WGN many years ago, or current TV shows like Around the Horn or PTI, usually focuses on arguments, back-and-forth, give-and-take, and different opinions. Think about it--in the morning, North just spouts off, takes very few calls, and Fred agrees with everything he says. Murph pretty much flies solo, so he has no co-host to disagree with him, and he can get snippy at times with callers who call him out. B&B . . . well, volumes have been written on this board about how they always agree with each other and how they ridicule anyone with different opinions. The only major show with the framework for arguments between hosts or with callers is Mully & Hanley and it doesn't seem like you get a whole lot of that there, either.

I wonder if this is intentional or just the way it happened to evolve. I would love, for example, to have a North or a Boers paired with someone who would challenge them and make them support their positions in ways other than just shouting or calling people ass-wipes.

But, I guess they know what they're doing; they are the "#1 sports station in Chicago."