Jordan4life_2007

QUOTE (qwerty @ Apr 9, 2011 -> 05:35 AM) You can be a great player at some point, at some level, but no, you do not necessarily have to be at the major league level. Sure, in the grand scheme of things he is better than 99.9% of the world. We are not talking about a softball beer league, college, or the minors. We are discussing the major leagues. There are all different degrees of talent in the spectrum. This clearly goes for all sports. In the major leagues lillibridge has simply been a bad player, and i can't see how that can be disputed. Barring a situation that presents itself, sometimes bad (or worse) players end up making a team... because said team can't find anyone better... at least in their eyes. Also, there really is only so much talent in the league, and someone has to have the brent lillbridge's of the world. To me this is equivalent to saying a certain actor or actress ''can't act''. Are all of them automatically good and better? Do none suck? How can this be? When someone says someone can't act they simply mean in comparison to all the other examples they have witnessed before them. This actor that ''can't act'' on the big screen would blow the average person out of the water. This goes for writers, musicians, chefs. Compared to the rest of the world these professionals can write amazing, sing amazing, etc... i will in no way try to deny that. But to say they can't suck/be horrible comparison to the rest of those in their profession is just silly to me. Why do you ask? Because some honestly do. It's fair game to critique a players skill set in comparison to the rest of the league, i don't see how it can be any other way. One of these days, I'll learn to mimic your posting style. This is excellent. I can't believe I'm getting reamed because I'm pointing out the undeniable fact that Brent Lillibridge is a horrible baseball player. Forget about my earlier post. That was more me messing around than anything. But Lillibridge is an embarrassment to the game of baseball.

Good luck on getting into a statistical debate with chw42. You may as well try to convince me that Juan Pierre is better than Cargo.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 11:10 PM) Huge difference in mentality between getting situational save opps and 9th and being the designated "closer". No one is saying that Thornton is done with as a reliever, but his closer mentality should be in question. I know one thing...I'll never question those that play the 'mentality' card when it comes to closer ever again if Thornton ultimately fails. I never thought for a second he couldn't handle the role. But it's still early. Will see.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 11:04 PM) So if you project two years out, who is even likely to be in our rotation? Gavin Floyd Addison Reed Jacob Petricka Roadkill Puke

I missed the game. Can somebody explain to me how we gave up 9 runs to this offense?

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 04:57 PM) lol Though old posts probably should be brought up. I'm sure we've all said some dumb-ass things for as long as some of us have been here. Oh my goodness. You're gonna roast me over a post I made 6 years ago? lol. Different times and I was a different poster then. KW deserved the benefit of the doubt back then. But not now. And lol@my botched spelling of Javy's last name. Brutal.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 04:15 PM) To be fair, anyone who defended Vazquez instantly loses all credibility. Thank you. And I'm not responding to badger anymore because he's bulls*** and I don't want to get suspended.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 04:06 PM) So what if that cheap ? flames out and is in the minors for good by the end of 2011 or 2012? Is it still an economic fail? One side has the expensive Jackson, the other has a cheap pitcher who couldn't cut it in the majors? (I'm not trying to hate on Hudson. But that is a possible (more unlikely) outcome of the trade and I wonder if it would still be considered a failure?) Not you. LH. I pegged you as fair and balanced. You come up with the worst case scenario for one and the worst case for another.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 04:03 PM) I dont think anyone here has said Jackson is a sure thing. I know I havent, I wouldnt say any player is a sure thing because thats a recipe for disaster. All I have said is that Jackson's stuff is outstanding and there is reason to believe that he can be a great starter. That doesnt mean he certainly will be, it just means that he has the talent to make it happen. I personally think that as it stands today, April 8, 2011 that Edwin Jackson is better than Hudson. As for the rest, every player is a question mark. The White Sox determined that they would rather have Jackson as a ? at 7mil than Hudson as a ? at 350k. I tend to agree with them. But for you to say that there is no way the Sox can win this trade economically, just shows that you are completely biased. Because I absolutely admit that the Sox could lose this trade, I just think they will win. See the difference. Bulls***. Do you even understand what you're implying? That Jackson has to be one of the top 10 AL starters in baseball and that Hudson has to be Randy Wells for this trade to work out for us? Or than that, we have to win the World Series with Jackson going 19-5 with an ERA in the 2.90-ish range to justify it. I don't like those odds. In fact, they suck.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 04:02 PM) I'll forget the sweet, sweet sig you made last fall. Steve failed on every level last year. LeBron and Manny.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 03:56 PM) I dont care what everyone had to say about Vazquez in 2008, you can pull up threads from 2008 and see what I had to say about Vazquez (consistently defended him because people hated on him merely because he was traded for Chris Young.) I dont know what point you are getting at here. You made a statement that is factually incorrect, that this can never be an economic win for the Sox, you got called out on it. Huh? My point is fairly obvious. Edwin Jackson is a ? until proven otherwise. As is Hudson. But he's a cheap ? that doesn't get expensive for quite sometime. Big difference.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 02:56 PM) Cough, Zoomslowik, cough. Zoom knows his hoops. He's garbage at baseball. But he knows his basketball.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 03:49 PM) I have no idea what you are talking about. Edwin Jackson has considered a pitcher with amazing stuff since he broke on the scene in 2003 (you can go back and look at the innumerable posts about Edwin Jackson on this very site.) http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/featu...0s/dodgers.html http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/featu...0s/dodgers.html TOP PROSPECTS OF THE DECADE 2004 Edwin Jackson, rhp You are talking about a pitching phenom who was rushed to quickly. The guy is only 27 years old. There is no reason to believe that Cooper didnt see a flaw in his delivery (he was opening up to much), didnt fix it, and now Jackson is tapping into the unlimited potential that every single scout saw back in 2003. You are just so wrong on Jackson that its hard to take your opinion seriously anymore. Other than Jackson being younger, what differentiates him from Javy Vazquez? We've seen Javy record 25 Ks in two starts. Go pull up an '08 thread and see what everybody had to say about him. Then I'm supposed to kiss Jackson's ass? Please. I'll root for him and hope he proves me wrong because if he does well, my team does well. But I don't expect it.

And I want to apologize to Dick. He knew Manny was a fraud and would be a bust all along. But anything would've been better than Kotsay, or so I thought. Biggest waste of $4 million dollars in White Sox history. Go f*** yourself, Manroid.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 03:33 PM) What a f***ing loser. Talk about destroying a legacy at the very tail end of a career.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 03:24 PM) If Jackson has a breakout year, does he still have a chance of becoming a Type A free agent? If he were to become that and leave, we'd get 2 high picks and 1 1/3 years of Jackson in exchange for Hudson. Unless Hudson becomes a legit top of the rotation starter, I don't see how the trade is an economic loss. Sure, they don't help us in 2012, but those potential picks need to be considered before concluding which team received more value in the trade. And then we'd have to wait 2-3 years for those picks to possibly become something when we already had a major league ready pitcher in Hudson. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 03:25 PM) If Hudson turns out to be Kip Wells or Brandon McCarthy 2.0, the deal is not a fail. That's what pisses me off right there. We keep coming up with the worst case scenario when it comes to Hudson but the best case when it comes to Jackson. Hudson doesn't have to become Clayton Kershaw to make this trade a loser from the Sox's end. No matter what Jackson does. QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 03:31 PM) Its a statement that can not be defended. He said "NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS" So even if Jackson resigns with the Sox for $300k, wins 7 cy young awards and 7 world series, it will always be an economic fail. It should be pretty clear at this point some people refuse to look at the Jackson-Hudson trade fairly, I just hope the majority of White Sox fans can appreciate Jackson for who he is, not as some comparison to the mythical legend that is Daniel Hudson. As I've said many times before, it's a natural tendency for some to automatically think the team they root for can magically have an impact on a guy(s) that nobody else could. Jackson will never sniff a CY award. So I don't know why you went there. Can he be good? Sure. But so can Hudson.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 03:14 PM) So lets say we win it all this year, largely because of a monster year by Jackson. Is the trade still an economic fail? Winning the WS is a huge deal financially and I think our chances of doing that are much greater with Jackson. I just don't see us winning it this year with a Hudson in our rotation. I don't see us winning it this year because of Jackson, either. Now if he can prove me wrong and finally have that breakout year and spearhead us o a title, then damn, I won't have anything to say. Though it'd be a lock that we lose him after the year. But if something as dramatic as a World Series title has to occur to justify a trade then it probably wasn't a good one to begin with. QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 03:18 PM) (Edit Bigsqwert beat me to the punch, so this is in response to J4l) You actually are wrong there. If Jackson brings the Sox increased revenue which is greater than his contract (profit) that exceeds what the revenue minus Hudson's contract would have been, then Jackson would be an economic success. So lets call a spade a spade, Hudson is cheaper, but cheaper does not always mean economically better. Ill make it simple: There are 2 tacos I can buy, the first is from a shady restaurant and costs $1, the second is from a Rick Bayless restaurant and costs $13. Using your simplistic view, 13 costs more than 1 dollar, therefore economically the first taco must be a better buy. But if the taco I bought for $1 gives me salmonella and that costs me $1,000 in medical bills, it was not a better economical purchase, because $1001 (the real cost of the taco) is greater than 13. The only way we will be able to determine an economic fail would be to determine the actual value brought to the team by Jackson minus his cost, versus the actual value brought to the team by Hudson minus his cost. Its not just as simple as $7mil > $350k, you would have to wait until the end of both of their careers to really know who was the more economical player. I'm not waiting that long. As I've said before, I don't think Hudson is Strasburg the sequel. But I was against the trade as soon as it happened. Not just when Hudson went on to blitz the NL.

Jackson for Hudson will be an economic fail no matter what happens. That's the key. All thing being equal and I'd be fine with the trade. If Jackson has a breakout year then he's looking at 5 years and at least $70-75 million. And then we've still got the two giant elephants in the room that is Danks and Buehrle to worry about. And a farm in which Wite would be the team's top pitching prospect. And hes's garbage.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 03:34 AM) And you're crushing me in offense, fortunately my pitching is holding up and keeping this an interesting matchup. Yeah, I see that. I've got Gallardo and a bunch of #5 starters (though I like Zimmerman and Pineda a lot). It's gonna be close.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 12:25 PM) If you need this level of hyperbole to make your point, there's no reason for anyone to agree with you. I don't require people to agree with me to have an opinion. Lillibridge is a joke of a baseball player and I'm personally insulted by anyone who suggests otherwise. I mean like for real. My feelings are hurt.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 12:22 PM) I like Lillibridge. he is a scraper and fills the role he is supposed to fill very well. Folks seem to forget that a role player off the bench is not the all star player like Konerko, Dunn or others. They bench plays a specific role when called on. I believe Lillibridge does a good job for us and gives it his all. Wait a minute, there's a role on a Major League baseball team to be bad at everything? I can fill that role. I'm cheap, too. I'll do it for $50 G's

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 12:04 PM) They're just not the same team with out Perkins, that's pretty obvious. They'd be fine with a healthy Shaq/Jermaine. But both have been massive busts. They're a year older. And they didn't see any eastern conference team last year as good as this Bulls team. That said, you can't sleep on them and act as if they don't exist, either (not saying you're doing that).

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 12:02 PM) I'm not a Lillibridge fan at all, but that doesn't mean you keep Milledge. His numbers don't make up for his lack of effort. Again, he's a 4th OF'er. And? Who said otherwise? Nobody wanted Milledge to start. But I'll wait until more about this hopefully comes out. This can't be based off of a few mental lapses defensively over the course of a whopping two games. The White Sox have been home to some of the worst individual defenders the league has ever seen. '07 to '09 Jermaine Dye, CQ and Teahen.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 11:50 AM) People need to look at Lillibridge's minor league numbers. He's a terrible offensive player period. He'll probably hit around .200 - .230 at the major league level. He doesn't provide plus defense at any position either. He only offers speed and versatility. The problem is with a four man bench, he'll sneak into the lineup far too often. He will start costing us games. In a sport where every regular season game matters, small moves like these add up and can make the difference between making the playoffs and not. +111111

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 7, 2011 -> 05:45 PM) Yet its more believable, that I (some one who has been a regular at this site before you), would for absolutely no reason point you out as being unnecessarily negative on Jackson. Disagree if you want, but there is a reason I believe it, and its based on your posts. /shrugs Perhaps if you dont want Jackson to fail, you should maybe add caveats to your posts like "While Id hope Jackson proves me wrong", etc. Instead of just coming off as completely negative, when you were basically hell bent against the guy last year. I really dont care, my reputation is what it is. I don't get it. What have I said about him that it's so over the top that it's obvious I have a blind hatred? Are you saying that he hasn't been inconsistent his entire career? It's not like I'm questioning Roy Halladay. Just ask yourself what your opinion would be of him were he a Cub or Twin. Then the bias would disappear.