Jordan4life_2007

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 04:40 PM) Okay, that last f***ing pick was not on Cutler. Anyone that says it was is football retarded. So who's fault was it then? The line? Lovie's? Turner's? Josh Mcdaniels? Maybe it was my fault?

QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 04:32 PM) Cutler doesn't have much of a chance with the turnstiles he has blocking in front of him....I don't blame him totally but he does make some bad choices. That last pick was all Cutler.

What an awful throw by Cutler. He might end up with 30 picks this year with the pace he's on.

You've gotta be f***in' kidding me. Way to go, knocks.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 04:11 PM) Right. And he is only going to be 23 when the season starts, so there is probably more development time to be had. We'll see what happens in the spring. But I also wouldn't be shocked if he gets dealt. Cool. If we do keep him, I'd much rather him begin the season at AAA. Keep us updated if you hear anything.

We don't even belong on the same field as the Vikings.

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 03:28 PM) If anyone has interest: http://www.ilemi.com/channels/channel36.html Thanks, knight.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 10:25 AM) Ladies and Gentleman, Grady F-in Sizemore LOL, wtf Am I gay if I'm slightly turned on by his 6-pack? Alright let me stop.

LOL. Buchholz, Ellsbury, Bard and Casey Kelly for Hanley? And I don't think that's enough.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 03:45 PM) I don't think it would be out of the question for him to get some innings in relief, but ultimately he will start. I don't debate that his long-term future is that of a starter. But assuming everybody is healthy (obviously Freddy is the one to worry about the most as far as health goes), there's not going to be a rotation spot open.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 03:26 PM) By the way, Hudson is not going to be a reliever. So outside of an injury, is Hudson starting next season at AAA?

QUOTE (chisoxt @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 10:47 AM) To clarify, I did not necessarily agree that we had they guys to replace Scott. My point was that if we had an organization good at developing and keeping players the strategy of replacing bullpen guys with younger arms from your own system is a good one, assuming you as an orgaization have the talent to do so. It is not good payroll management to overpay for guys like Linebrink, and Dotel, whereby for 8 million dollars we get 1 whole win over a replacement level player (Source: fangrapghs.com). I guess that as on organization, the Sox are paying dearly for the drafting sins of the past. This just shows that if a team does not spend the $ on the drafting and developmental side, they end up paying throught he nose just to fill roster spots with replacement level players. You'll get no rebuttal from me on anything you said right here. The drafts of 2000-2006 were beyond deplorable. We're just recently (2007, 2008 and hopefully 2009) seeing a gradual upswing in the drafting department. If you have a decent yet limited payroll, refuse to ever go after elite free agents (I.E. anybody with Boras as their agent), you better be able to develop your own talent. Otherwise, like you said, we're forced to overpay for guys like Linebrink and Dotel. We're forced to bring Scott Podsednik back from the dead. We're forced to take on multiple reclamation projects every year. That's simply no formula for year in and year out success (as only 2 playoff appearances in the last 9 years has proven).

QUOTE (chisoxt @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 09:48 AM) OK, I'll bite. You sided with KHP's opinion that there had to be somebody better that could've been brought up to replace Linebrink. Then right after that you state (and you're right) that terrible draft after terrible draft after terrible draft left us with basically zero legitimate alternatives to turn to in which we could replace Linebrink.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 07:10 AM) That's the other thing, Ozzie and KW did themselves no favors calling out Jenks if they plan to trade him. It seems to me they are getting their arbitration ammo in order. Last spring I was shocked when a reporter asked Ozzie about Jenks' weight, he just said he didn't care what he weighed anymore. Maybe they were giving him one shot at doing things his way, and all things considered, he probably had his worst year with the White Sox. His FIP (fielding independent pitching) was 4.47. That's pretty bad for a closer. And easily the worst of his career. Just a bad year? Or did Bobby peak in 2007? That's the million dollar question.

QUOTE (chisoxt @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 08:27 AM) I can understand Rangers point but side withe KHP on this debate. I see a trend in baseball now whereby even the big market teams like the Yankess and Red Sox are turning to their farm system to stock their bull pen corps. The reason the Sox have to stick with expensive rag-armed options like Linebrink, MacDougal etc is because the Sox inexcusably drafted crappy low ceiling pitchers for several years and thus have few alternatives in their system to turn to. (This is why that I am hoping that Kenny does not trade Daniel Hudson this off season. I see Hudson taking over Linebrink's role at mid season.) There's a contradiction somewhere in this post. I'll see if you can find it.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 10:55 PM) J4L, It's really difficult to point out guys that we can say with any certainty would have done better, especially considering they really didn't give anyone else a chance. How can I point to someone who did statistically better when they weren't allowed to pitch in the first place? And you and others will argue that the reason they didn't pitch is because the Organization didn't believe they were ready. And that's where this becomes a circular argument and goes on and on and on... I think what KHP and I are trying to say is that Linebrink reached a point in which it was no longer a question whether or not he would be bad. It was pretty much every time from mid-August onward that he was just terrible. At that point, yes, KHP and I are of the opinion that they should have gone with someone else, whether he was judged to be "ready" or not. BUT, this argument has run its course and its pretty clear that we should all just let it go. That being said, I think something else this conversation has spawned is the argument about whether players with large contracts should continue to play, or whether teams should cut their losses. Additionally, I think another great debate that has come out of this is how much the game and industry of baseball has to learn from those that are not members of that industry. I think those are positive debates which we can continue without this spiraling down into a big pile of crap and personal insults. The difference between you and KHP is that you're advocating that they should've given another guy a chance in an attempt to see if a bad situation (Linebrink sucking) could be even partially rectified. I don't have a problem with that. But KHP seems to believe that he knows for an absolute fact that there had to be multiple guys they could've gone to that would've been better. Just like he claims to know for 100% fact that we could've gotten more for Brandon Allen than Tony Pena. That's the s*** that gets on my nerves. But you're right. This subject is pretty tired now. I'm done.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 10:11 PM) Go compare Mark's 2nd half in 2006 with Linebrink's second halves over the last few years and then get back to me. You either missed or ignored the point all together because it doesn't support your argument. Mark was so bad he brought back images of Jamie Navarro. By your logic, there just simply had to be somebody out there better. Somebody, anybody that could've out performed Mark. The hotdog guy? The beer guy? Just anybody. You brought up 2007 as some kinda barometer as in how can you call up no-name minor leaguers and get lucky from time to time. And yes, it's a lot easier to do that when your 10+ games out before the all-star break. And even with that he's still far more proven than any of the scrubs that were sent down in 2007. That was my point. Of course there's options. I mean, every team has pitchers in their minor league system. Doesn't mean you call up crap to replace a struggling guy just to throw some s*** at the wall to see if you can get lucky. You replace a guy that's struggling because you legitimately think another guy can do the job. And I have no reason to believe there was anybody in the system they could've came up and performed, especially when we're battling two other teams for a playoff spot. Why do you keep saying this as if it's an undeniable fact? What do you know that Buddy Bell, Kenny Williams, Rick Hahn, ect, don't know? And there's nothing wrong with questioning or having an opinion. But you gotta come with something better than "well, there just HAD to be better options out there. I just KNOW it." Otherwise you're just b****ing just to b****.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 09:27 PM) I started this whole argument by responding to Ranger's comments on some of the callers who would phone in to his show to b**** about Linebrink. I posted the stats a few pages back, and for the exception of about 5 innings or so from Nunez, everyone on the team was better than Linebrink in the second half. To assume there was no one who would have performed better than Linebrink is a massive assumption considering how bad Linebrink was. I've seen others comment on Linebrink's past success as well as his stuff as reasons to keep going to him over someone else on the farm. I'll respond by again pointing out that 1) Linebrink has had a terrible second half in each of the last 4 seasons, so for past success you really do have to go back pretty far, and 2) Linebrink's "stuff" doesn't mean jack if he can't use it properly. For example, why were Aardsma, MacDougal, Sisco, and Masset sent down in '07? We called up Ehren Wassermann that year, who in comparison has pretty much nothing as far as stuff, and yet Ehren performed extremely well. Ryan Bukvich, who also had much lesser stuff, came up in '07 as well and pitched a hell of a lot better than the other guys he was replacing. DJ Carrasco is yet another example of the "stuff" argument not always panning out. DJ has been one the most important pieces to our bullpen the last two seasons, possibly THE most important piece given the amount of innings he's taken off the arms in the back of the pen, and yet Carrasco will be the guy with the weakest stuff on the entire 2010 pitching staff. Carlos Torres is another one. Torres has pretty much nothing to work with at all, and yet he still was a much better pitcher in the second half than Linebrink was. At least Torres tries to mix it up and work to both sides of the plate rather than the "fastball right down the chute" style Linebrink uses. My whole point was that Ranger's arguments for running Linebrink out there were terrible arguments that can be easily refuted with statistics. The only reason the Sox ran Linebrink out there was because of the vast amount of money owed to him, and possibly, if you want to dig that far, because the Sox wanted him to help Peavy with his transition. Therefore it is a complete dick move for Ranger to laugh at the callers who voiced their displeasure on his show, because the callers were making valid points, and they had valid reasons for their complaints. And as I said before, if you don't want to blame it on the contract over the radio, then at least don't come here and start that s*** again because you're going to get an actual baseball argument in return. Ranger can make some points, and most of the time he does and he is easy to agree with, but he still can be a snob to a lot of his callers for no reason. It's one thing to rip on someone for saying something completely irrational, but you should at least look at the numbers first, because Linebrink really was that bad. Literally *anyone* else in our pen could have done better, and when it comes to what we had on the farm, there were definitely other options, including no-risk candidates like Derek Rodriguez and Fernando Hernandez, who everyone knew would be left unprotected after the season ended anyway. And again, I know Linebrink was out there because of his contract. That's the Sox decision, that's their money, their player, etc. But if you disagree with the Sox decision, you still have every right to b**** about it. Maybe b****ing about it is pointless and gets you nowhere (looking at the CF situation from 2006-09) but there's still a valid argument there. Let me ask you this...during the second half of 2006, you know, when Mark Buehrle was getting lit up like a Christmas tree, were you pining for the Sox to bring up any random minor leaguer simply because "well, he can't be any worse than Mark right now"? And your 2007 reference is kinda corny. First of all, we were out of it well before the all-star break. So it's a lot easier to throw some minor league crap (which Wasserman and Bukvich were) out there and seeing what happens. Second, none of the guys that were sent down that year had anywhere near the proven track record Linebrink has (even with the second half fades). And you can't even call 2008 a fade. It wasn't until he got hurt and then came back that he struggled. Which wasn't all that surprising. Third, and this goes for Shack as well, where are the names of these guys the Sox should've called up? Just any random pitcher? No matter who? Last I checked, we weren't exactly s***tin' out quality prospects, relief or any other kind for that matter. I can only speak for myself, but I don't want to see Jon Link or Fernando Hernandez in critical situations in which we're legitimately fighting to get into the playoffs. But that's just me.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 05:53 PM) I'm thinking some reasoning behind the deal would be Theo Epstein sometimes does deals for the sake of doing deals (Kotchman-LaRoche, and I can't see any other reason for Kotsay-Anderson). Plus, you get the possibly elite SS in Alexei and a closer backup plan/setup man in Bobby. Why would they need Jenks to be setup/closer guy when they have Bard, who easily has the ability to excel in either role, for over 6 million dollars less? Not to mention there's no concerns about Bard's weight/conditioning.

Ranger, Shack...How 'bout an old fashioned steel caged death match to settle this debate? I'll ref.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 03:02 PM) I completely accept your explanation of why Ozzie handled Linebrink the way that he did. I've conceded within this debate that I even agreed with the way he handled it up to a point. My issue with your argument is your assumption that 1) the way Ozzie handled the situation was the correct way; 2) that the way Ozzie handled it is the only possible way in which to yield positive results; 3) that the historical common practice of baseball somehow required Ozzie to handle the situation in the manner in which he did; 4) that the current common practice of baseball somehow required Ozzie to handle the situation in the manner in which he did; 5) that even if the historical common practice of baseball suggests that Ozzie should have handled the situation in the manner in which he did, that that would somehow dictate that no other method of handling it would have produced positive results; 6) that even if the present common practice of baseball suggests that Ozzie should have handled the situation in the manner in which he did, that that would somehow dictate that no other method of handling it would have produced positive results; 7) that fans, or mere spectators, are incapable of thoughts or ideas that are better than those employed by the industry of baseball, simply by the fact that those fans are not employed by the industry of baseball; 8) that the game, industry, and business of professional baseball are not rapidly evolving; 9) that intelligent people, mere "fans" by your definition, and not previously having participated in the game of baseball or the industry and business of professional baseball have not recently produced major statistical contributions and/or studies about the way in which the game of baseball has been played or is played, and/or the manner in which the business of baseball has been or is currently operated that are now being utilized by teams within Major League Baseball; 10) that some of those same intelligent people have not recently been hired by Major League Baseball teams to help in the decision-making process regarding strategy in how the game is played, or how the economics of the industry might be approached; 11) that some of those same intelligent people are not now in General Manger, Assistant Manager, or consultant positions within teams of Major League Baseball; 12) that the teams those individuals are employed by have not attempted a manner of operating that was/is considered against the common practice of the industry; 13) that those teams that have attempted a manner of operating that was/is against the common practice of the industry have not realized significant measures of success; 14) that that very success has not been recognized or has not begun to be recognized by other teams within Major League Baseball; 15) that success using operating practices outside the common practice of the industry does not validate those operating practices; 16) that success is not the primary objective. There are your assumptions I have a problem with. Good god, shack. Is that the lawyer in you talkin'? I literally got a headache readin' this post. I don't like it when I'm forced to think. Stop it!

QUOTE (scenario @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 11:59 AM) Whoa there.... Bard has a cannon for an arm, but so did Ricky Vaughn... who Bard, so far in his career, seems to be emulating. 6.0 BB/9 in the minors?? 4.0 BB/9 this year for Boston? That ain't going to cut it in the majors. Bobby had similar numbers in the past and found he had to 'dial it down' to get his walks down... which is critical for a reliever if he wants to survive in MLB. Don't be surprised if Bard figures out he has to do the same. So can Bard be a very good pitcher? Sure. Could he be successful as a major league closer with his current control issues? Doubtful. So, is he better than Jenks right now? Absolutely not. Maybe saying he's better right now was overdoing it a tad (although I think he will undoubtedly be better very soon). But when you factor in age, cost, stuff, there isn't a GM in baseball that wouldn't take Bard over Jenks.

Amen@longshot. I get sick of all this holier than thou crap. It's easy when you're not in the spotlight to tar and feather somebody like Bonds. People break the law in some way shape or form every minute of every day. We all have our skeletons. It's just we can keep them buried because we're not in the spotlight. I just smoked a blunt the size of Bartolo Colon's right titty. And that's illegal, obviously. How am I any different than Bonds?

QUOTE (BearSox @ Nov 27, 2009 -> 08:32 PM) lol @ the idea of Omar Vizquel being able to be a quality starter at 2B. This aint 1999 anymore. The idea of him being a starter under any circumstance outside of multiple injuries at the same time to GB and Alexei would have me calling for a new GM and manager.

Theo Epstein would have to enter the witness protection program if he were even to consider this ridiculous trade proposal by Heyman. It's so unbelievably one-sided that you can't even call it an XBOX trade. Bard is better than Jenks RIGHT NOW. And he's gonna be dirt cheap for a while (compared to Jenks who's about to be overpaid). Jacoby Ellsbury is one of the premier leadoff hitters in all of baseball (not to mention he's also dirt cheap and under team control through 2013). And we'd get Okajima as well? LOL. I like Alexei. I think he has gold glove potential at a premium defensive position. And offensively, I think will see more 2008 than 2009 from him. But you don't trade guys like Ellsbury and Bard unless you're getting a superstar (I.E. Halladay) in return.