Jordan4life_2007

QUOTE (chisox2334 @ Dec 3, 2011 -> 11:43 AM) i can hope for .270 avg 14 hr and 60 rbi season. So, in essence, his rookie year. After the last two, I'd take that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 3, 2011 -> 11:17 AM) "Trading for a former Angels catcher" hasn't been a failed strategy recently. Are you serious? Mathis is f***ing terrible.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 3, 2011 -> 09:59 AM) The only thing that makes sense is that Holland is under control for cheap and really, that's all that needs to make sense. Danks is better than Holland though (hell Danks just had his worst season since his rookie year and still put up a better WHIP, while both playing at hitters parks. Danks is an old f*** compared to Holland as well... he and his one year oldness) but both have a ton of similarities in their numbers however. It wouldn't make sense for Texas in that regard (even if Danks was a guaranteed re-sign over there), but I always thought they had a soft spot for Danks who is homegrown and who they helped develop (that DVD rotation I remember was the s*** back in their old farm days). I doubt they trade Holland in any case however. Depends on what Texas believes what Danks can become. (or pretty much... if they view him as high as I do down the line) Their career paths have been rather similar. Both got their asses kicked pretty good initially (Danks in '07, Holland in '09). Danks came back with a great '08 (his career year) and had been pretty steady until last year. Holland was flashing considerable improvement in 2010 before he got injured. '11 was his 'breakout' year so to speak. Even if Danks is better right now, it's certainly not by much. And like you said, the money/team control difference makes this proposal moot. It's just not going to happen.

QUOTE (Cali @ Dec 2, 2011 -> 02:11 PM) It would be Classic White Sox if JorDanks caught on with another team and flourished... Um, no. That's just being negative for no reason. And that's sad coming from me. Jordan wouldn't hit .200 in the big leagues as even a part-time player. He's left-handed Brian Anderson.

QUOTE (Real @ Dec 3, 2011 -> 05:42 AM) to be fair, before his injury (wrist i think?), he was pretty damn good offensively. the strikeouts were still there, but he had power to go with it, to summarize: he looked at least major league ready, whereas now, he's nowhere close offensively with that said, i agree, this isn't a huge deal. it's odd, as I thought the Sox were trying to keep John and Jordan together, even if they were traded. as it stands now, if Jordan gets picked up in the Rule 5, the only way John joins him is if we seek that team out and trade him to Jordan's new team, or if John signs w/ that team next year in FA Jordan Danks has never flashed enough power to even remotely offset his Dunn-like propensity to K. He's horses*** (as a player), never been much of a prospect and wouldn't have garnered anywhere near the attention he did for a while there if he hadn't been related to John.

QUOTE (striker @ Dec 2, 2011 -> 09:18 PM) It's not completely unrealistic. I'm offering two good prospects for him. Andrew Friedman disagrees with you.

QUOTE (pktmotion @ Dec 3, 2011 -> 05:25 AM) Thought I'd give this offseason a shot... John Danks to TEX for Derek Holland(SP) and Erik Morrison(2B) This is the second time I've seen this proposed. As I asked the first person, what single rational reason would the Rangers trade Derek Holland for John Danks? Holland might be Danks' equal right now. And he's a WHOLE lot cheaper and under control for a WHOLE lot longer. Makes no sense whatsoever.

Alex Gordon's '11 gives me hope.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 2, 2011 -> 12:00 PM) I'm glad that if the Marlins are trying to trade for Danks, we're asking for a high price. Yeah, but their system is 2007 White Sox bad.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 2, 2011 -> 11:46 AM) The Cubs line was lame. Oh ok.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Dec 2, 2011 -> 11:25 AM) Ugh. lol!

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 2, 2011 -> 11:38 AM) Go root for the Marlins. Um, what did greg say that was so bad there?

Did I really type that? Holy s***. I meant all of it. But I didn't mean to type it.

Nobody is trading me. If so, I'm definitely worth Bryce Harper.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Dec 2, 2011 -> 02:56 AM) I am drunk, and I love it. indeed, indeed. bourbon is my true love. but the opposite of luv is also hate. u know what i hate? i hate the pop they call cream soda. good god. what is that s***...it's so gross...you know what i hateee? i hate when people thank god whenever something good happens. but when something bad happenz, oh well that's just life. i mean. c'mon. u can't have iot both ways. you know what i hate? lord of the rings fans. get a life you boring ass f***ing geeks that s*** sucks ass. i like the book versions better than the wack ass movies with elijah woods rumplestiltzskin lookin ass. you know what else i hate? dolly parton. i mean cmon. how come she hasn't shown her boobies yet. thatz all shes ever be known for. she's like 100 now. i mean cmon. shopw us before you die. you know whaty else i hate? bowling. fat old dudes that think bowling is an athletic talent or something. i could go to the bowling rink now and drop a 160. i've done it. and i don't bowl. could you imagine if i train? thanks for your timse

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 03:41 PM) I remember ESPN talking about how the '07 Bulls could have been like that team. It's a shame they weren't. Ben Gordon by himself made that comparison a sham. I could drop 20 on him. Seriously. Kind of.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 03:30 PM) The last 10 years has there been a single team with only 1 superstar, or at least...star? Basically we only have the pistons with Billups, but Wallace was far and away the best d center at the time. That '04 Pistons team is criminally underrated. They didn't have that one dominant star. But you could argue that had as many as 5 all-star caliber players (depending on how you view Prince). Plus their bench was pretty deep as well. They were kind of the exception, though. In this league, superstars rule.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 01:17 PM) Think about this: It's likley that Mark is gone, and plausible that both Danks and Floyd are gone. If Peavy isn't healthy, Phil Humber could be our opening day starter. Ha Peavy Humber Sale Stewart Axelrod Now THAT, my friends, is a proper AL Central pitching rotation. Sweet jesus. 100 losses, easy. Though I doubt Floyd and Danks will be traded.

QUOTE (whitesox901 @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 02:40 AM) There was a rumor at the dead line for Danks to Texas for Derek Holland. They're (Texas) looking for a reliever now too. Maybe package Danks and Thornton for Holland and prospect(s)? I can say with confidence that I'll buy myself an authentic Juan Pierre jersey before Texas makes that deal.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 10:31 PM) Remember though, even a top prospect probably has close to a 50% bust rate, or even higher if it's only a moderate level prospect, so a 50% rate of not even getting to where Sergio currently is. That's why the price has to be higher than just 1 position player/pitcher top prospect. No question. I was saying one or the other as a centerpiece. You would definitely need more than just that. I'm having a very difficult time coming up with a reliever equivalent package to what the Indians gave up for Ubaldo that doesn't sound Tim McCarverish

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 09:01 PM) So we trade our closer who is under our control for six seasons, for a prospect who is under our control for six seasons. If said prospect(s) ceiling is that of a 5-6 WAR SP or position player, you bet. Craig Kimbrel had an X-Box type season and topped out at 3.2 WAR. Relievers are a distant third behind SP and position players in terms of importance. Give Reed a shot to close. If he bombs, find somebody else to pitch those 60 innings.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 07:29 PM) So you want to trade a once prospect who has had some success for more prospects? This logic baffles me. It makes sense if you're talking about SP or position prospects.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 02:55 PM) The salary rolls over into 2012 if we sign him. Economics seems to dicate that what we had in 2011 is still a valid total because we haven't started the baseball season for 2012. Until Mark is officially gone (remember we offered him arbitration, which isn't going to start at $1) his salary figures into our total. Now Pierre. Vizquel and Castro are gone Are you just never around when KW and Jerry say they have to scale back payroll next year? They failed miserably in '11, lost a lot of money, and are not spending another $127 million on this same product. Like I said, $90-$94 million in guaranteed money (not sure of the exact number) WITHOUT Buehrle, Danks and CQ. Pierre, Castro and Omar made s*** last year. That's not going to make a shred of difference.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 01:21 PM) Mark is still in that payroll equation. If we win then who cares if we are still at $127M. Apparently the money was not a problem last year. I am not buying into the "we are going broke" line No, he's not. He's a FA. As of right now, he's no more a member of the White Sox than I am.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 01:15 PM) Those two things aren't close really. You are talking about a guy who just gave you a cheap six year extension, versus a minor leaguer. Those things are going to be viewed very differently by people outside of the organization who might want to come here. Point is KW is going to do what he thinks, for better or worse, is good for the franchise. If a deal presented itself this year or next that he deemed appropriate, Santos is gone.