Jordan4life_2007

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 05:08 PM) I do realize that Trent Dilfer has won a Super Bowl. Ryan Theriot & Nick Punto both appeared in the starting lineup for the WS champion this October too. I'm not saying the 49ers will never have a chance, but I think in today's NFL you need way more offense than they have. It would be hard for them to beat the Saints, Packers, & Patriots 3 games in a row solely relying on their defense and run game. The league is different now than it was last decade when the Ravens & Buccs were able to ride their defense to the title. Maybe Alex Smith keeps maturingg under Harbaugh? He still has a bit of ways to go though. This. All of this. Now let me go away before I get "pwned" again.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 04:05 PM) I dunno J...I'm getting the feeling he's going to make a run for it this year... Perhaps. I'd still be surprised. Are they really a John Danks or CQ away from runnin' with the Yanks, Red Sox or Rays? Prince is the guy I think they're set on. Now that would be a "go-for-it" type move.

I'm sure there's been discussions. But I don't see anything happening here. Danks and CQ totally contradict what AA has preached and done for the last three years.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 11:02 PM) <!--quoteo(post=2525298:date=Dec 19, 2011 -> 10:12 PM:name=DirtySox)-->QUOTE (DirtySox @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 10:12 PM) <!--quotec-->With the Rangers getting Yu, look for Toronto to go after Gio. Garza is a serious option too as AA likes that he's pitched successfully in the AL East already. It seems to me that the Yankees and Red Sox are the two remaining teams that are most likely to be interested in Danks and or Floyd. With the Rangers out of the running, we really got to hope we can make a deal with the Yankees. I think they'd be more likely to acquire a guy on a 1 year deal than most teams, simply because they have the resources necessary to resign such a player if they so choose. It's really not about money, though. If they want Danks badly enough, they'll make a play for him (and more than likely get him) in FA without having to give up any of their prized prospects. And that's only if they can't nab Cole Hamels.

QUOTE (pktmotion @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 10:00 PM) Yes we do. We have to move Danks and Quentin at the very least. You realize they aren't signing extensions with the White Sox? Letting them go without compensation is a complete mismanagement of assets and should reflect negatively on KW. Good GMs can recognize/develop talent, great GM's know the precise moment to cash in those chips. Don't pay any attention to him. Just look at my sig.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 05:56 PM) Your statement was the Bears best case was to lose to the Packers. That is not even close to the Bears best case. I then showed why the Packers without Rodgers, likely would be just as bad as the Bears, showing that the Packers are just as thin as the Bears, because losing a QB like Rodgers would have effectively ended their Super Bowl chances. I have no clue what you are arguing. It seemingly is all over the place. If your argument is that the Bears offense is not as good as the Packers, that is true. But the Bears defense is likely better, so once again, Im not sure where you are going. The point remains, no team is built to withstand the loss of Cutler/Forte. Notice how I said : You then said "nope", implying that the Packers are good without Rodgers. Then you created something that wasn't there. Of course the Packers would suffer immensely without Rodgers. Where did I imply they wouldn't? I assumed you were saying the Packers were just as suspect as half the teams in the NFL because of their supposed "weaknesses".

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 05:51 PM) None of those teams would throw the defensive quality out that the Bears can throw out though. The 49ers, Steelers, and Ravens also don't have offenses that are anywhere near as explosive as the Packers, Patriots, and Saints, but those teams are going to be in the playoffs and may well be dangerous because they can (most of the time, Ravens) play some darn solid D. I have no problem admitting the Bears are easily a playoff team with Cutler. They could very well be the second best team in the conference with Cutler. That's not my argument. They don't have the requisite pieces on offense to get to and win the SB. And that's all that really matters. If management goes into next season with the thinking that, "Hey, if we don't lose Cutler, we're right there with the Packers - we don't need to make any major upgrades," then next season is already over before it begins.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 05:42 PM) They are just as fallible. If they lose their starting QB they arent a Super Bowl contender, just like the Bears. In fact the Packers rely more on a single player than most of the NFL, hence they are more fallible. This isnt rocket science, anyone who watches the NFL understands that most teams dont have multiple All-Pro QB's. Wait a minute? What point are you trying to make? MY point was that EVEN if Cutler doesn't go down, the Bears are still not in the class of the GB Packers. Yeah, they had a nice 4 game run before he got hurt. Fact is their offense, even with Cutler, is nowhere near as explosive as teams such as the Packers, Patriots and Saints. s***, maybe even throw the Giants in there. They don't have the weapons and never have.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 05:12 PM) So you think Green Bay is good with out Rodgers? Offensive Rushing YPG: 99.7 good for 25th overall Defensive Passing YPG: 298.4 good for 31st overall Defensive Rushing YPG: 108.4 good for 12th overall With Rodgers, they won 5 games by 7 points or less. The Packers with Flynn are maybe 8-6., but Id guess they are 500 or worse. Don't see what any of this is supposed to mean. You said the Packers were just as suspect or "fallible" then more than half the teams in the league. Which is watching Family Guy while drunk laughable.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 05:00 PM) Thats why its a "BEST CASE" scenario. I know that you may disagree on many things, but Im pretty sure we can all agree that the word BEST means. Its almost like you dont even realize bad things could happen to other teams. If Rodgers got hurt instead of Cutler,do you think the BEST the Bears could have done was losing to the Packers? Thats why its a ridiculous statement. The Packers are just as fallible (if not more fallible) than half the teams in the NFL. Um, nope.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 04:40 PM) Your best case scenario really isnt best case at all, its what we call "the most likely scenario". Best case scenario would have been Packers are eliminated their first game, Bears are the highest seed to advance, Bears make Super Bowl and beat the Tebow lead Broncos. Thats a best case scenario. Most realistic scenario? Your scenario would be dismissed by those that made "Angels in the Outfield."

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 04:16 PM) I really have a hard time condemning a team that made it to the NFC Championship Game last year and was the second hottest team in football prior to their franchise QB getting injured this year. Their fault lies with having zero depth. They lost 3 starts on the offensive line, the most productive rb in the league, and Jay Cutler in a span of weeks. That'd ruin any team. And you know Bears management will probably roll with that same loser-style attitude. "Well, we were playing so well before Cutler got hurt, we don't need to make any real changes." You're not winning anything in today's NFL with such mediocre WR/OL corps. The best they could've hoped for was an NFC rematch with the Packers in which the ass-whooping would've taken place in Lambeau instead of Soldier Field.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 03:46 PM) Where was the discussion in the beginning of the season? Everything throughout the year until today fell on Martz. This has been a flawed roster for a few years now, and the worse thing is, Angelo has yet to plug those holes. Urlacher and Briggs are getting older. Tillman is getting older. They've drafted a million defensive tackles with high picks who are out of the league or close to it. Chris Williams was a bust. They tried to patch up the WR spot. Yet, the story was the same with the fans, "Oh, well the offense is too complicated. Oh well, there should be more bootlegs. Oh well, they're not running the ball enough. Oh well, they're not threatening with the pass enough. They need to get it to the TE's more. They need to get it to Knox more." How about they need better players and admitting such from the beginning instead of looking at things through rose colored glasses. Dead-on. The Bears are actually very similar to the White Sox, as they've failed spectacularly at adapting to the obvious changes in the modern NFL. Running games are almost moot these days. They're still very important. But it's not 1992 anymore. The game is more than ever geared towards the pass. Teams are winning with explosive aerial attacks as their strength, with the running game as more of a supplement. The run no longer sets up the pass. It's the other way around now. The Bears keep going into every season with thrift-shop style offenses in hopes that they run into some luck and that the defense/ST will do what they've done during most of Lovie's tenure.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 03:05 PM) You know, it'll never happen, BUT: It sort of would make sense for the D'Backs to put a package together for Danks, who would be an awesome upgrade for Saunders, and have a really serious pitching staff and be the big favorites in the West. In that situation, it would make sense to make Parra a big piece in the deal and to get De Aza back, who would serve the 4th OF role without sacrificing as much potential. I wouldn't mind it if we got a pitching prospect back too. Parra could really play CF too, it's just Davis is even better defensively. What sense would it make for the Dbacks to dip into their prospect stash for a guy a year away from FA? Their current 5 is more than good enough to win that division.

Ricky Rubio definitely has game.

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 17, 2011 -> 04:43 PM) It depends what the result of losing is. If it is rebulding and building for the future, then it's not a big problem. I agree. But apparently only 15 fans will show up to the park and will be 62-100 for the next 15 seasons if we go the way of stripping it down in an effort to build it back up.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Dec 17, 2011 -> 04:19 PM) Winning solves a lot of problems Losing also creates a lot of problems.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 17, 2011 -> 04:05 PM) Not the biggest fan of his. Someone else on here loves him I know Hmmm. Was it Ace? I know somebody on this board is in love with Latos the way I'm in love with the great Clayton Kershaw. Just for fun. What kinda package would he command? Oh my goodness. Let's say the Nationals wanted to deal for him. Harper, Rendon, Meyer and perhaps Goodwin? Or replace Harper with Jordan Zimmerman?

QUOTE (hi8is @ Dec 17, 2011 -> 04:03 PM) Meh - if you say similar things this year - people will still give you crap. You can only say "*u^* this team I'm done being a white sox fan" so many times before upsetting us folk. You know the gig I won't. As long as there's a new direction and a long-term plan. If the '12 motto is, "Our guys that sucked last year can't possibly suck as bad this year," yes, I will raise hell.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 17, 2011 -> 04:01 PM) I can't believe people still get suckered into trading for pitchers who put up huge numbers in San Diego. Javy Vazquez would have been a Hall of Famer if he pitched there. Huh? This shocks me coming from you. Weren't you a huge Latos fan? And his numbers away from Petco are basically the same.

QUOTE (3E8 @ Dec 17, 2011 -> 03:49 PM) Considering what the Soxtalk community thinks would be an acceptable package for Danks, your reaction to what the Reds had to give up for Latos surprises me. Latos is as good if not better than Danks, three years younger, and under control for four years. Also, he's not a product of Petco. His home/road splits are identical. Other than it being a 4-1 deal, I don't see how anybody can say the Reds got fleeced. I love this deal for them. Latos, Cueto, Votto, Bruce, Stubbs, Chapman is an amazing young core to go into '12 with. No Pujols, more than likely no Fielder, and the rest of that division being either average (Cubs) or pathetic (Astros), and the Reds should be a major player.

QUOTE (hi8is @ Dec 17, 2011 -> 03:46 PM) You did that as well Yeah, and I don't want the same crap back next year. There's the difference.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Dec 17, 2011 -> 03:35 PM) So Yonder will be their starting 1B and Rizzo will go to AAA to "work on things" oh and according to Byrnes this is a "bitter pill to swallow" for Rizzo, sounds like he's getting dealt. Can Jed make it 2 for 2 on Rizzo in back to back years? This is hilarious as far as the Sox go. They're trying to deal the few assets they have yet other teams have better assets that are under control. Rizzo appears to be available. Mark Trumbo is not going to DH. I say this because even if the Sox wanted to deal Konerko, you've got some young/talented, potential 1B studs out there that a look a little more appealing than a 35-year old owed over $25 million the next couple years.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 17, 2011 -> 03:10 PM) Wow, the Padres absolutely robbed Cincy in this deal. Grandal and Alonso? Damn. I agree that the haul was steep. But you're not getting a guy of Latos' age, talent, and team-friendly contract for a bunch of B prospects. Yonder was not going to sniff 1B, obviously. Grandal was stuck behind a guy that's major league ready. Volquez has pitched a little over 200 innings in the last three years. And Boxberger is a reliever, though a talented one. This is what comes from having a deep system. They had the assets to move without hurting themselves in the short or long-term. Latos/Cueto 1-2 in that rotation is going to be nice.

QUOTE (Cali @ Dec 17, 2011 -> 03:15 PM) I honestly don't think Kenny has the ability to just rob another GM for prospects. It's either gonna be a break even kinda trade or a loss... Well, to be fair, KW won his fair share of deals - 5-6 years ago. But yeah, never has he made a deal in which the majority of the baseball world initially was in agreement that he straight fleeced someone.