jackie hayes

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 19, 2006 -> 07:30 PM) Because Soriano's Numbers, at least to my eyes, are much much better than Jeter's, and Todd Helton's numbers are way way down in the last 2 years (35 home runs in the last 2 years, for example). My eyes see a much higher obp from Jeter, more consistency, and a higher sb %. Defensively he's more valuable. And Helton's been a monster over most of that contract, it's not even close. You expect Soriano to not have a dip at the end of this contract, as he approaches 40? This is an awful contract.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 19, 2006 -> 07:21 PM) I'd take him over Jeter and Helton at those prices. Umm... Why?

QUOTE(Chisox_10 @ Nov 19, 2006 -> 04:04 PM) I'm a die hard Sox fan but anyone that thinks this is a bad move is out of their mind. Then I'm really, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY out of my skull.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Nov 19, 2006 -> 03:57 PM) I have a hunch they wont have a problem putting Derosa in the OF is Soriano wants to play 2b. So Murton or DeRosa goes to cf? I doubt it. I didn't mean they'd worry so much about keeping their word, just that they've already planned for 2b. If they wanted Soriano for 2b, they'd have held off on DeRosa.

They JUST promised 2b to DeRosa, Soriano definitely won't be playing there.

QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Nov 19, 2006 -> 03:37 PM) I'm guessing its gonna be more along the likes of a Jason Marquis and Gil Meche type of pitcher. Even better.

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Nov 19, 2006 -> 03:35 PM) So he's going to convince the Trib to throw him another $100 million to get Zito or Schmidt? s***, they've probably tapped out all of their reserves given to them, and they're offering Matthews or Pierre $10 million a year. Not Zito or Schmidt, but I imagine they'll go after Lilly or Igawa.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Nov 19, 2006 -> 03:26 PM) Alot of teams could have been aggressive. I give credit to other GM's for not being f***ing crazy. Cubs f up again. I live for this.

If true...omfg, that's hilarious.

QUOTE(beck72 @ Nov 19, 2006 -> 06:54 AM) From Buster Olney's blog: • Hearing a lot of chatter about a possible Atlanta-Baltimore trade built around right-hander Tim Hudson, a free agent coveted by the Orioles a couple of years ago. You would have to assume that either Adam Loewen or Hayden Penn, two of the Orioles' better young pitchers, would be involved in the discussions. If that's the case, I'd keep Loewen rather than deal him for Hudson, considering the veteran's increasing inconsistency -- his WHIP has climbed in each of the past three seasons, from 1.075 in 2003 to last season's 1.44 -- but I would use Penn as a bargaining chip in a trade for Hudson. --I'd have to say the O's would like Garland if they are after Hudson. I don't know much about Loewen, thoguh IIRC, he had control issues in the past--or Penn. Though I don't think they are in the Danks/ Hurley category. Loewen is, although he's older (about a year older than Danks), and there are control issues. Penn, maybe a step below (though only 6 months older than Danks). But more to the point, this is the Orioles, you can't reason with them.

QUOTE(knightni @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 07:49 PM) Broadway instead of Anderson then? Jmho, probably not enough. Baldelli and Crawford could each get them a good package of young pitchers. It depends how highly they think of Broadway. The rumor is Baldelli to the Marlins for some of their young pitchers. Most of those (if Florida actually will give one of them up) are more valuable than Broadway. I've read stuff about 4 pitchers for Baldelli, which sounds absurd to me, but what do I know? And Santana could be had for Crawford, probably more. And Fields can't be that useful to them after getting Iwamura. Dunno, just don't see it. QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 07:51 PM) They're not ridding themselves of Baldelli and Crawford in one fell swoop. Yeah, and that too.

QUOTE(knightni @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 07:17 PM) Ooh 3 way trade maybe? Angels get Garcia and Baldelli D'Rays get Fields, Santana and Anderson Sox get Crawford and Figgins No way the DRays do that.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 06:24 PM) Does anyone else realize the ridiculousness of this "proposed" trade? There have been a couple of posts about how successful Freddy has been pitching in Anaheim, but then look at Santana's home numbers. Over the next 5 years, chances are Santana will win more games than Freddy and get paid a few lifetime's worth of money less, couple with the fact that Garcia could walk after 1 season, but Santana is still under the club's control for another 4 or 5. If the deal really is Santana + for Garcia, KW would have jumped at it so fast before the Angels could change their minds. I think a lot of people are thinking this, but...it's in the paper. The only way it makes sense to me is if Crede's going, too. A couple people have mentioned that idea, but it's just speculation now, doesn't give much to talk about.

QUOTE(Thedeepsea @ Nov 14, 2006 -> 02:06 PM) Their is a lot of different music that I listen to when I'm driving depending on my mood. When I'm in the mood to drive crazy I listen to Offspring's "Total Immortal" and Sugar Ray's "RPM." I also have my sing along songs, but we won't go there. What do you listen to? Offspring, Bad Habit. On repeat. But I hate both those songs you play. Really, really hate them. Really. Heard someone playing them last week. I got so MAD. What's your license plate, btw?

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 12:38 AM) My mistake. I was under the impression he did have a lower one. Don't get your panties twisted. Don't try to change what you said. You seemed to think it would be telling if Uribe had a lower career obp. Now that Gonzalez does, that suddenly goes out the window.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 12:10 AM) Yup, so lets sign Alex Gonzalez of the career .292 OBP variety to 3/$15. How's that sound? f*** boppers -- let's get guys who have the amazing ability of not being able to get on base nor hit for power. Woohoo! QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 12:11 AM) Still higher than Uribe's. Also, Uribe has shown a tendency to have his head in his ass on the defensive side of the ball when he's doing bad offensively and he seems unmotivated at times. I don't think that would be a problem with Alex. QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 12:25 AM) Uribe's OBP for the year: .257 Gonzalez = .299 Gonzalez has only had 2 as bad years as Uribe did this year in terms of his OBP. His rookie year and the other happened 7 years ago. He also isn't a mental midget in terms of bringing his offensive problems over to the defensive side. What's so hard to understand? You said Uribe's CAREER obp was below Gonzalez's.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 12:11 AM) Still higher than Uribe's. Or not. .297. But an excellent point.

Damn. First Freidman, now Friedman. A rough day for Miltons.

QUOTE(SoxHawk1980 @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 09:51 PM) Quick point here. A reliever in the NL with a 4.08 ERA and a 1.30 WHIP is not a good season. Of course not. Let's not be intentionally obtuse. His one great year shows that he can, at least under some circumstances pitch very well in the majors. I don't know if he'll ever do that again. But there is more evidence that he will, than this Aardsma character who hasn't shown a thing. Oh yeah, except for that one good month! Huh? Put the crack pipe down. And what's your support? A radar gun reading and the fact that you watched him pitch a few times and you like his makeup? My opinion is based on what he's actually done and not done on the field. Not true. It's an above average season. That is, better than most players. Much better than most rookies. And much, much better than Cotts's rookie season. You say we shouldn't ignore bad seasons, but then you refuse to discuss anything but 2005. Makes sense. My opinion comes very little from what I've seen, because, as I was very clear about, it isn't much. I'm going mostly off a solid rookie season plus consistent performances in the minors. You're going off the fact that Aardsma's rookie season isn't as good as Cotts's best season. Taking the best season is just a silly way to evaluate a player, and especially a reliever.

QUOTE(SoxHawk1980 @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 09:42 PM) Because he just isn't that good. Well, now I believe you. All I needed was to read it 15 times without any support. Thanks for the insight.

QUOTE(SoxHawk1980 @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 09:38 PM) Granted, the statistical evidence on Aardsma isn't voluminous, but what there has been isn't very impressive. Nor is his one good, but not great pitch. And I don't think Cotts is a world beater, but he's a lefty who has managed one great season in his brief major league career. That is one more than Aardsma. He had one great season where he helped the team a lot, and two poor seasons where he hurt the team some. Aardsma had one good season where he was a solid contributor. That's a huge discrepancy? So if someone has one great year, his "actual performance" is only that one year, and you should just throw out everything else? Lol. Basically, you're saying that you wouldn't trade Cotts for anyone who hasn't had as good a season. Anything short of Jake Peavy, and SH1980 ain't biting. Okay...

QUOTE(JDsDirtySox @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 09:31 PM) For those bashing Aardsma... I wonder how many have actually watched the kid pitch. I have liked David Aardsma ever since I first saw him as the closer for the Rice Owls. Aardsma is a good pitcher who really started to come around at the end of last year. From Whitesox.com: Aardsma showed steady improvement with each time up at the Major League level, and he posted a 2-0 mark with a 3.12 ERA after the All-Star break. He was even more impressive in the final month of the season when he recorded a 1.65 ERA in 16 1/3 innings, including a stretch of 12 scoreless innings from Sept. 2-19. When will people learn to trust in the objectives of KW and his staff. This is what I don't get. When I saw him this year, which admittedly was only a few times, he looked good. And his numbers are pretty good. Why is everyone s***ting all over this guy?

QUOTE(SoxHawk1980 @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 09:26 PM) You're welcome. So, you'd rather evaluate a pitcher based on amateur scouting, rather than what he's actually done on the field? Actual performance tells you more than mercurial BS like what someone once said about his stuff and "makeup". "Makeup" is one of the most meaningless words used on this board. I think the point is that it's his first year. It really wasn't a bad rookie season. And anyway, if you believe all this, why are you so pissed, when Neal hasn't been any better in "actual performance" over the course of his career, and was certainly worse than Aardsma in 2006?

QUOTE(SoxHawk1980 @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 09:06 PM) Long story short: We gave up Cotts for a pitcher who is worse than Riske and a nothing prospect. Cotts is not a great pitcher but in his short major league career, he at least has one excellent season. This trade was pretty much a give away. Yer funny...

QUOTE(fathom @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 04:54 PM) I believe that KW and Cooper are arrogant, and they believe they can turn any pitcher around. The problem is that while they do have some magic (Thornton, Contreras, etc), we also have seen some pitchers regress and no solution was in sight (Cotts, Buehrle, etc). Could someone please tell me what has to be turned around? We got a guy who in his rookie season pitched above-average baseball, who before that pitched well in the minors every year. It's nothing like Thornton, who just flat sucked in his major league chances. Why does everyone think it'll be some miracle if Aardsma pitches well, when he was doing just that?