EXTRA: Preckwinkle vs. Madigan? Leave it to John Fritchey to decide

There are times when I think the only thing more dangerous than a reporter-type person doing math is a political-type person trying to tell a joke.

FRITCHEY: The judge

But it definitely was one of those light-hearted moments on Wednesday when the Cook County Board held its last official meeting for 2011.

AT ONE POINT, commissioner (and former state representative) John Fritchey was trying to talk about a measure related to the county’s print program when he began to have a little trouble getting his words out.

His throat was dry.

To which, county board President Toni Preckwinkle poured a cup of water and walked across the county board chamber to bring it to him.

“I never got that kind of service in the General Assembly,” Fritchey said, then quipped, “I knew I liked you (Preckwinkle) better than the Speaker.”

WHICH WAS ALL the county officials needed to hear before making all kinds of wisecracks about what kind of “retribution” would be handed down, should Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, ever learn about Fritchey’s less-than-deferential words.

MADIGAN: Won't bring water

Even Preckwinkle joined in the ribbing, telling Fritchey (who served in the Illinois House of Representatives from 1997 to 2010 before becoming a county board member), “the Speaker has his people everywhere.”

Literally, I don’t doubt that Madigan is capable of holding a grudge and taking governmental actions based on who might be slighting him in some way. I still remember a time when the Illinois House (at Madigan’s direction) killed off a Meigs Field-related measure because then-Mayor Richard M. Daley and Gov. Jim Edgar didn’t include him in negotiations.

But Fritchey (who represents Chicago’s Northwest Side in the county board) gave it the proper perspective by saying, “when I wind up in Commissioner (Joan Patricia) Murphy’s (southeast suburban) district after redistricting, I’ll know why.”

PRECKWINKLE: A full-service leader?

ALTHOUGH THIS LITTLE exchange of humor may not have even been the high (or low, depending on how you perceive it) point of Wednesday’s county board session.

For the county joined in the memorializing of former First Lady Maggie Daley, passing a resolution in her honor and many of the county board members feeling the need to chime in with personal praise.

Except for commissioner William Beavers, whose own “praise” for Maggie seemed more directed toward former Mayor Richard M., when Beavers said of Maggie, “she changed him from J.C. Penney’s to Marshall Field’s.

“She made him look good,” Beavers said.

  -30-

Do we all need courthouse crash course?

I recall a moment some two decades ago when I covered the Cook County Criminal Courts building for the now-defunct City News Bureau of Chicago. The “story” for the day involved a man who had raped and brutally-beaten a young woman.

It's really not that mysterious a place



He was promptly arrested, and on this particular day he was brought to 26^th and California for his first court appearance in this case.

I WAS SITTING in the courtroom so I could see just what kind of bond the judge would set in the case. As it turned out, I sat within earshot of two older women – whom it seems were related to the young woman who was the crime victim.

I had to hold back a chuckle when I overheard one of the women tell someone else, “There’s going to be a trial today.”

There were dozens of trials that took place in the Criminal Courts building that day, but not for this case. It was just a bond hearing; the first step in a legal process that may seem excruciatingly slow to some people but must be followed to the letter to ensure that our judicial system produces verdicts that can stand up to review on appeal.

In fact, if I recall, that particular case took about a year-and-a-half to get resolved. The defendant eventually pleaded guilty in exchange for a prison sentence with a few years knocked off of what it could have been.

I WONDER HOW disappointed and confused those women (whom I have never seen or heard from again in my life) were with what happened that day.

Because my guess is that it is remarkably similar to the confusion/dismay/disgust that was being expressed Tuesday morning with regards to the case of the former Penn State University assistant coach who now faces criminal charges that say he forced himself sexually on 10 young men.

SANDUSKY: Following the process

Tuesday was the day in Centre County, Penn., court that was supposed to be the preliminary hearing.  Yet what wound up happening was that Jerry Sandusky made a brief court appearance and waived his “right” to such a hearing.

So Tuesday was just a procedural point that lasted just a couple of minutes.

TO LISTEN TO the outrage that was being expressed on many of the cable television news reports I saw (many of which were broadcasting the event LIVE), there was massive disappointment.

Apparently, some people were expecting the legal equivalent of a head on a pike. Instead, they got a bit of legalese that – in the long-run – doesn’t mean much.

Perhaps it is evidence that I have hung around too many courtrooms as a reporter-type person during the past 24 years. But it always amazes me how mysterious the whole legal procedure is to people.

It’s no wonder that real criminals who come into contact with the system can better figure out their options than the so-called typical person who happens to stumble into the system.

FOR THE RECORD, the point of a “preliminary hearing” is that prosecutors are supposed to present in public the types of “evidence” they say they will have to use against the criminal defendant – should the case be allowed to proceed to trial.

In short, it is about requiring prosecutors to “put up or shut up,” so to speak, and justify why this person is suspected of a crime and why his arrest and criminal charges are warranted.

A judge, in theory, has the ability to rule that the evidence put forth is weak and that the person should never have been charged and dismiss the whole case.

But that usually doesn’t happen. Judges usually wind up ruling that the arrest and charges are justified, and that the case can proceed. In fact in Cook County, prosecutors usually announce that they superseded the need for a preliminary hearing by getting a grand jury to indict the defendant.

WHICH MEANS THAT Sandusky, with advice from his attorneys, likely decided it wasn’t really worth bringing all this up right now – particularly since the degree to which prosecutors have to prove anything (none of that “beyond a reasonable doubt” rhetoric at this point in the process) is low.

They just have to show that someone made a complaint, and that they have no reason to believe these young men are lying about what they say happened to them.

Instead, it was being billed as some sort of coverup. Sandusky and his people denied “the people” a chance to hear from the accusers. They did NOT get their chance to tell their stories.

Heck, they lost their chance to begin the process of emotional recovery from their ordeals.

NONSENSE!!!!!

That point, if it ever comes, will occur during an actual trial – which also is where we get into the details to a degree that we will truly be able to comprehend what really happened between Sandusky and these young men.

It may well turn out to be such a sordid tale that many of us won’t really want to hear it. Perhaps Jack Nicholson’s character in “A Few Good Men” was correct in screaming, “You can’t handle the truth!”

And the fact that we’re going to have to follow a detailed, complex process to get to those details is a good thing. It is going to be what justifies whatever verdict and/or punishment is ultimately handed down.

  -30-

GOP partisans truly seem determined to give us “four more years” of Obama

Why am I convinced that President Barack Obama is capable of overcoming the economic struggles of our society that are strong enough to take down the toughest of politicians and get himself re-elected to another term in office?

Is Mitt Romney's sense of humor ...



Perhaps it has something to do with $10,000 – the figure that presidential dreamer Mitt Romney offered up as a “bet” during a weekend presidential debate that is now being used as “evidence” of how out-of-touch the former Massachusetts governor is – compared to so-called “real” people.

I’D ARGUE THE people who think this is anything resembling a legitimate issue  are the ones who are out-of-touch, and that those of us “real” people ought to be grossly offended that these ideologues think they are among “us” in society.

Now for those of you who had real lives and didn’t watch the debate (personally, I watched my alma mater play college basketball that day), it seems that Romney opponent (and Texas governor) Rick Perry tried once again to claim that the health care reform plan that Romney pushed for in Massachusetts was identical to the plan that Obama pushed for on behalf of the American people.

You know, the one that the ideologues are now demonizing and desperately hoping that the Supreme Court of the United States strikes down as unconstitutional?

Romney’s response on Saturday to the latest repetition of this charge was to challenge Perry to a $10,000 bet that the statement he had just made was inaccurate.

OF COURSE, IT was ridiculous debate rhetoric, and Perry quickly backed down. But since then, he has been playing up the fact that Romney is some sort of rich guy who could afford to make a $10,000 bet.

It would be mere pocket change for him, Perry would like us to believe. Even though I personally find Romney’s explanation that the bet was “an outrageous number to answer an outrageous charge” to be completely believable.

... more lame than Barack Obama's?



Perhaps it is because I have covered so many campaign debates as a reporter-type person throughout the years that I realize nothing said by anybody during these staged events should be taken literally.

But this just reeks of being a non-issue.

IN FACT, IT didn’t surprise me at all to learn of a claim by FactCheck.org at the Annenberg Public Policy Center that said Romney was factually correct. Perry, in his attempt to simplify a charge to make a tight, pithy sound bite, did make a charge against Romney that was not accurate.

If there had been a real bet, Romney would have won.

If the people who are following the Republican primary blow-by-blow were interested in serious fact and learning more about the candidates, the “issue” now would be how Perry can’t get his facts straight.

Perhaps that he’s the one who’s willing to spread mistruths (although the gist that Romney’s former views on healthcare are remarkable similar to Obama’s current views is truthful).

INSTEAD, BECAUSE THIS is the primary cycle where Romney has perhaps one-quarter of the Republican Party in his favor and the remainder desperately convinced that they want anybody EXCEPT for Romney to be the GOP nominee running against Obama in the 2012 general election, they’re willing to go along with this kind of nonsense charge by Perry.

Which convinces me that the GOP is on the verge of nominating somebody whom the majority of the American people will despise more than their apathy causes them to distrust Obama.

It is moments like this that make it impossible for anyone of any sense to take any of these candidates seriously. It is turning this upcoming election cycle into the candidate we hate, versus the candidate we don’t care about.

Not the least bit inspirational, to be honest about things.

ALTHOUGH I WILL say one thing about Romney and his sense of “humor.”

It kind of reminds me of a moment from the 2008 election cycle when Obama was at an event of extremely-religious white people, and one person put a question to him that was meant to make him squirm in admitting to this heavily anti-abortion crowd that he was not on their side when it came to this issue.

Obama tried using humor to get out of answering the question; coming up with a lame line about how an appropriate answer was, “above my pay grade.”

It was a lame quip from Obama then. But one that may have been topped by Romney’s lame $10,000 wisecrack on Saturday.

SO WHAT DOES this mean? Romney’s not a comedian! Neither is Obama.

Then again, don’t we want to have a person who can get serious while sitting in the Oval Office?

Because if it turns out that we want a comedian in the White House, then I’m voting for Dick Gregory. It would only be 44 years after his real campaign – the one that got him some 47,097 votes. Too bad the late Pat Paulsen couldn’t be his running mate!

  -30-

Patti will still get, but won’t be rich off of, husband Rod’s federal pension

I must admit to not realizing it at first, but I am kind of surprised that former Gov. Rod Blagojevich did not get hit with all kinds of fines and other financial penalties as part of his punishment for his acts of government corruption.



BLAGOJEVICH: At least he was an honest Congressman



Perhaps it was a realization that the family Blagojevich is financially busted as a result of Milorod’s legal ordeal. Or perhaps U.S. District Judge James Zagel was more focused on imposing a lengthy prison term.

BUT IT USUALLY turns out in these kinds of criminal cases that the convicted person winds up getting hit with significant fines that everyone realizes will never be paid in full.

But their intent is to keep the defendant in debt even after a prison term is served. It keeps them in an untenable financial position so that they’re never able to rebuild and perhaps engage in their old habits once again.

In the case of Blagojevich, his fines and penalties come to just over $22,000 – a fact that got ignored in most of the news coverage of his sentencing last week.

Which strikes me as kind of odd, particularly with the activity that has occurred since then with regards to the Blagojevich pensions.

FOR THE ILLINOIS attorney general’s office (led by the same Lisa Madigan that Blagojevich once allegedly considered for the U.S. Senate seat that caused all this legal trouble to begin with) issued its legal opinion that ensured he’s not about to get a pension for his state government service.

His four years as a state legislator from the Northwest Side and his six years as Illinois governor would have been worth just under $65,000 per year upon his 55^th birthday – which, by coincidence, was on Saturday.

He will be refunded the nearly $130,000 that was withheld from his government salaries throughout the years as contribution toward his pension, although my guess is that the government will find a way of seizing at least part of that figure to ensure that his fines get paid.

But had the fines been larger, it could have been possible for the government to seize the rest of his pension.

FOR HE WAS a member of Congress for six years, which means that he is also entitled to a pension from the federal government upon his 62^nd birthday. Because to the best of anyone’s knowledge, he never did anything that could be considered criminal while serving in the House of Representatives.

Although I can already hear the wiseacres in my mind arguing he didn’t do much of anything, period, during his time serving in Congress.

Admittedly, that one is only going to be about $15,000 per year. But it won’t surprise me if government officials start trying to figure out ways to justify refusing to pay it out to Blagojevich or spouse Patti. Or they may try to find a way to confiscate it before ever giving it to her.

Because, otherwise, Patti Blagojevich will be entitled to that money beginning in another seven years.

SHE CERTAINLY ISN’T going to get rich off of it. But when one is trying to figure out personal finances (and is likely to have to fall back on her father for financial support for the next few years), every potential penny counts.

If anything, this might be the real punishment – the fact that Blagojevich and family goes onto a fixed income not much more than many senior citizens try to struggle on.

Having to wait by the mailbox so that one can snatch up the check and cash it as quickly as possible (while also enduring the fact that likely future Postal Service cuts will cause that check to take longer and longer to arrive).

For we all remember the reports that came out during the trial about the Blagojevich free-spending ways – particularly when it came to clothes and how even on his gubernatorial salary in the low-six figures, the family was in debt from 2002 to 2008.

NO MORE OXXFORD suits or shopping sprees at Saks Fifth Avenue, even when their income really couldn’t justify it to begin with.

It makes me wonder if we ought to compare the Blagojevich saga in one aspect to the cinematic one portrayed by actor Ray Liotta as Henry Hill in Goodfellas.

That 1990 film ended with Liotta’s character in a federal Witness Protection Program, uttering a line that could easily apply to the real-life former governor in the disappointment he and Patti will feel even after his prison sentence is complete.

“I’m an average nobody. I get to live the rest of my life like a schnook.”

  -30-

Capitol conniving takes place on both sides of the politically partisan aisle

Words such as “done deal’ are being used to describe the fact that the Illinois General Assembly will return to the Statehouse in Springfield ONE MORE TIME this year to try to pass a deal meant to bring an end to speculation that entities such as the Chicago Board of Trade and Sears will leave Illinois.



There may be a deal on corporate tax breaks for Sears and the commodities exchanges, but the trust level of legislators these days is about as gloomy as this century-old postcard image of the Illinois Statehouse.



Then again, in Springpatch Speak (that unique brand of double-talk used by state politicos), “done deal” merely means they’re going to try again – with everybody convinced that someone else will try to do the political equivalent of sticking a shiv in their spine.

I PHRASE IT so crudely because the mentality that goes into such strategy is blunt.

We have leaders for both Democrats and Republicans in the Legislature claiming to have a deal on the proposed corporate tax breaks, one negotiated in good faith and meant to bolster our state’s business climate – while also offering some aid to those of us who aren’t CEO’s of major corporations.

Yet the plotting of this event, which will begin when the Illinois House of Representatives returns to Springfield on Monday and could end with the state Senate doing their thing on Tuesday, makes it clear that nobody really trusts anybody else.

For the record, the legislators will be asked once again to vote on the concept of changing the way transactions taxes are figured for the Board of Trade and Mercantile Exchange.

BOTH CLAIM THEY are being extremely overtaxed (although many corporate types often give off the impression that they view ANY tax as over-tax).

There also is a tax credit being extended for another decade for Sears Holding Co., which could save that corporation about $15 million per year, and now legislators are being asked to consider a tax credit for Southern Illinois-based Champion Laboratories, Inc.

Which plays right into the hands of all those “Occupy Chicago” activist types who claim that the problem with our government is that it is too eager to benefit business at the expense of real people (a.k.a., the 99 percent).

The Illinois Senate had previously approved a version of this bill that also included an expansion of the earned income tax credit (from 5 percent to 10 percent) that could reduce the tax bills for low-income families.

BUT THE ILLINOIS House had rejected that notion (with its “infamous” 8-99 vote), claiming that the state can’t afford to lose the roughly $110 million such a tax break would cost to provide. And yes, it was the Republican caucus that instigated this particular opposition – although many Democrats also voted against the idea, largely because they seemed confused last week about what it was they were doing.

Which is why political people have now split this up into multiple bills that will require several votes to complete, and will probably take hours upon end to achieve a goal that many legislators seem to desire.

Yes, it will be staged so that the first “vote’ taken will be on the earned income tax credit expansion. The assorted tax breaks for business interests will come afterward, BUT ONLY if the tax credit for low-income families comes first.

If the earned income tax credit expansion fails in the Illinois House, then the tax breaks will never come up for a vote this year (which could backfire because Sears, at least, says it wants to know by year’s end what they can count on from the General Assembly). This won’t become one of those perennial bills that gets debated year after year after year – with promises of action some time in the distant future.

BECAUSE THE STATE Senate has also made it clear they will gladly cancel their scheduled emergency session date for Tuesday – if the Illinois House turns out to be incapable of passing anything.

Which also means the stage is being set for all the rhetorical blame that will be dished out.

Democrats will argue it is their GOP colleagues who caused the failure. If Sears were to leave for some place such as North Carolina, or if the commodities exchanges were really to relocate to a place such as Indianapolis, they will claim it is the fault of the GOP for not being willing to approve a deal.

Meanwhile, my mind can already envision the GOP criticism that will say Democrats who lead the Legislature let this matter get bogged down with what they’d like to consider an “irrelevant” issue.

PERHAPS THEY’LL EVEN claim this is “class warfare” by bringing tax breaks for poor people into the political mix on this issue.

Of course, the fact that this tax credit is being put into the mix is largely due to the fact that Democratic leaders of the Legislature want to have a little political cover. Otherwise, all the Occupy Chicago activist criticism that will be forthcoming will turn out to be true.

Our state’s business climate garbled up by officials more interested in partisanship and one-upmanship than trying to accomplish something, which is just as bad as those legislators in places like Indiana who are pushing for “right to work” laws because they think it will appease the conservative ideologue segment of voters come the next Election Day.

This whole issue is nothing but a political mess, particularly for one that officials are trying to describe as a “done deal.”

IT IS A done deal – provided that nobody decides to screw somebody else in the process between now and Monday/Tuesday.

On the Statehouse Scene, that concept is always a reality.

  -30-

Can Blagojevich “mend?” Or is his punishment meant to deter others?

This Blagojevich appearance in Streator was for show. Will the former Illinois governor soon do such labor for real? Photograph provided by State of Illinois



I believe the purpose of prison ought to be rehabilitation, although I am fully aware there are those in our society who want it to be about punishment.

Notice that I didn’t mention the word “deterrence” in the incarceration equation. That’s because I’m not convinced it has any relevance when a judge decides that the way to “protect” society as a whole is to take away the freedom of an individual for a set period of time.

I BRING THIS up because of all the legal punditry that got tossed out earlier this week in the moments after former Gov. Rod Blagojevich learned that he must serve a 14-year prison sentence.

Which, assuming that Blagojevich can behave himself sufficiently to qualify for all his “good time” toward early release, could translate into 11 years and 10-and-a-half months of real time lost.

He’ll be 67 by then, which pretty much puts him in retirement. Which means it is up to Patti now to figure out a way to work and earn a living that can help ensure some sense of financial security for herself and her family.

Because any little money the Blagojeviches had has long been gobbled up by legal fees.

BUT WHAT DOES it really mean that Milorod will lose more than a decade of his life – the period where he was probably counting on being able to work to put aside money that would allow he and Patti a comfortable retirement.

I certainly don’t think deterrence has anything to do with it, even though the Chicago Tribune certainly seems to hope so.

In fact, I think anybody who believes that the thought of Blagojevich receiving a 14-year prison term (far longer than any other political person ever got for their acts of corruption) will somehow scare any other political person into “not doing the crime because they don’t want to do the time” is being delusional.

Such a thought is as fictional as Baretta, the television character who inspired that line.

IT’S NOT JUST in the Blagojevich case. It is something I have always thought for the past couple of decades of being a reporter-type person when it comes to covering legal proceedings.

Some people commit acts that later get them in trouble with “the law” out of passion. They’re not thinking straight. They let themselves get swept up in the moment, then after the fact realize just how stupid their behavior was.

But most people who have any sense of cunning try to plan their actions out to what they think is a finite detail. These are the ones who are convinced that they won’t get caught, usually because they think “the establishment” is so stupid.

They believe they have covered every possible contingency. Although when the cases go to trial, it usually becomes so blatantly obvious that the only stupid person is the criminal defendant themselves.

THEY OVERLOOK SOMETHING major. Or they wind up trusting someone who should never have been considered trustworthy with significant details.

In short, I believe many political people are chuckling at Blagojevich these days and thinking to themselves, “What a meathead!” If they are plotting some action to enrich themselves either financially or politically (for some, it is power rather than money that intrigues them), they’re convinced in their minds that they’re “not as dumb” as Milorod.

The reality is they may be even dumber than Blagojevich (who by his own admission isn’t even close to being a Rhodes Scholar), but that is a topic for commentary another day.

There is one other factor when it comes to government officials who get arrested for acts of official malfeasance. They usually don’t have a clue that their actions can be construed as criminal (although in fairness to the politicos, it usually depends on how strictly the federal prosecutors want to interpret the law that determines which actions are criminal – and which are merely sleazy).

IN BLAGOJEVICH’S CASE, a lot of his tough talk as governor was motivated by a desire to not have the General Assembly walk all over him (which is what some people think the Legislature now does with Gov. Pat Quinn). But his tough talk wound up crossing the line.

If we presume that Blagojevich was being honest when he made his final statement on Wednesday to U.S. District Judge James Zagel just before sentence was imposed, the former governor falls into that category.

“I honestly believe I never set out to break the law or cross lines,” he said, adding later, “I thought things were permissible.”

And then, there’s the part that managed to offend so many people who were looking for more reasons to despise Blagojevich, when he said, “the jury decided I am guilty. I am accepting of the verdict.”

AS THOUGH IN some part of his mind, he believes he did nothing wrong but merely accepts that the legal system has the right to treat him this way.

Personally, if he had said anything stronger than he actually did, I would have questioned his sincerity – merely saying what he thought a judge wanted to hear, rather than what he actually meant.

So now, Blagojevich goes away – just a couple of days after a final Valentine’s Day with wife Patti. He’s in for a hellish experience – one that likely will put him in contact with a large number of people facing time in prison for drug crimes. Not exactly the crowd he is used to associating with. I have no doubt he’ll suffer physically and emotionally and come out of the experience a changed person.

But if anyone thinks that any other political person is watching this and plans to curb their own activity because of it, I’d say they’re delusional enough to also believe that the Chicago Cubs are going to win the World Series in 2012.

  -30-

Free agent purchases not a guarantee to victory, but Miami likely now more interesting than Chicago ball clubs

Seeing long-time Chicago White Sox pitcher Mark Buehrle join the Miami Marlins along with several other ballplayers in recent days can’t help but remind me of the California Angels of three-plus decades ago.

I’m speaking specifically of the Angels of the mid- to late-1970s, when long-time owner Gene Autry got fed up with the perpetual mediocrity he was putting on the field.

HE TRIED TO use the same free agency that the New York Yankees used to bolster their ball clubs of that era to bring in star ballplayers – believing that athletic talent would translate into championships galore for the team that represents the suburbs of Los Angeles.

I remember that first winter of 1976-77, when the Angels went out and gave “big money” (for that era) contracts to infielder Bobby Grich and outfielders Don Baylor and Joe Rudi.

Future years saw them acquire expensive talent such as future Hall of Fame members Rod Carew and Reggie Jackson, along with Lyman Bostock (who might have become a star had it not been for that unfortunate evening in Gary, Ind., in 1978 – R.I.P.)

They had interesting ball clubs back then, and had a nucleus that resulted in playoff appearances in 1979, 1982 and 1986.

BUT BY THE time the Angels actually won an American League championship and World Series title in 2002, NONE of those ballplayers had a thing to do with it. Even Gene Autry was gone from the scene – although I recall widow Jackie being at the ballpark as though she was channeling the Singing Cowboy’s aura.

My point in bringing any of this up is to say that ball clubs that actually manage to win something usually go beyond just ratcheting up a collection of ballplayers who run up the “best” statistics at their respective position.

Buehrle, relief pitcher Heath Bell of the San Diego Padres and shortstop Jose Reyes of the New York Mets may not be enough of a boost to bring a National League championship to Miami – not even if they also manage to lure Prince Fielder away from the Milwaukee Brewers with the promise of a “big money” contract.

It could turn out to be an overly-costly ($198 million committed in salary thus far) mess on the field and at the ticket booth – particularly if the Marlins do not wind up drawing the significantly-higher crowds to their games that they will need to generate the gate receipts that will cover these expenses.

ALTHOUGH I STAND by my previously-written thought that new Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen has a better chance of getting to a World Series before either Chicago ball club does so.

In fact, I’m getting my chuckles from the memory of all the anonymous Internet posters who took their pot-shots at Guillen when he departed the Chicago White Sox back in late September.

I recall some people specifically stating that Guillen’s leaving Chicago increased the chances that Buehrle would stay with the White Sox. After all, their convoluted logic went, Guillen’s “screwy” managerial style and strategy had hurt Buehrle as a pitcher in recent years. Buehrle would be glad to be rid of him. 

So what does Mark do? He winds up voluntarily picking the Marlins (reportedly over offers from the Washington Nationals and Texas Rangers) and ensuring that he and Ozzie will be a duo for the next four seasons (that is the length of the contracts both men have with the Miami ball club).

I WONDER IF in the White Sox’ front office on Wednesday, the thought of an Ozzie/Buehrle pairing hurts even more than if Buehrle had taken seriously those suggestions that the Chicago Cubs were interested in acquiring him.

Although Cubs fans will get to see the duo next season at Wrigley Field July 17-19. Will Buehrle beat the Cubs again, while Guillen bad-mouths the run-down conditions of the 98-year-old stadium?

Those moments could be the “highlights,” so to speak, of the 2012 season in Chicago.

While I’m not convinced that the Marlins have bought themselves a championship, I do believe it will be a more interesting baseball experience next season in Miami than it will be on either side of Chicago.

NO MATTER HOW much the Cubs want to talk themselves up as “major players” in trying to acquire the big stars who are now available, any serious rebuilding effort is going to take years. Theo Epstein is a success if the Cubs win anything before 2020.

And as for the White Sox, the loss of Buehrle (perhaps they believe they replaced him by acquiring pitcher Nestor Molina from the Toronto Blue Jays) convinces me all the more that this will be a roughly .500 ball club for the next few season.

Not incredibly awful. But not championship caliber either. And now, we don’t even have Ozzie’s mouth to keep things interesting.

In fact, I can think of only one potential move that would thoroughly inflict the pain on the Chicago baseball scene – if the Marlins were literally to work out a deal to take pitcher Carlos Zambrano off of the Cubs’ hands.

YOU KNOW THEY want to dump him.

But what if the next Miami Marlins championship team were to be led by a pitching staff featuring ex-Chicago hurlers Buehrle and Zambrano?

Admit it! That would be so in character for Chicago baseball.

  -30-