TheBigHurt

I don't remember that. O__O

Yes, let's take 7 games to start the season to base the entire argument on but ignore the last 4+ years entirely. That's NOT stupid, right? You simply have to be pulling my leg. I don't care how much money he's making. When your starter is clearly out of steam, you don't just leave him in there to start the next inning, much less pitch long enough to load the bases unless you're purposely trying to lose a game or don't know better. That's a big point behind the job you call "managing," genius. If you played an entire season behind your senseless mindset you'd lose a LOT of extra games. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose. Either that or you're just doing some HARDCORE trolling because your arguments are void of any logic. Ok so you ARE trolling.

You're "loling" at ME when you were the one who argued because "you believed" that it wouldn't make a difference that it wasn't a good idea, even with NO drawback and NOTHING to lose. And NOW you argue that it's not Ozzie's fault for not pulling a guy in a 2 run game who's clearly out of stream because "tired or not, he should throw strikes?" So just let things spiral out of control when you can do something about it? What do you think a bullpen is for? You are utterly hysterical.

LOL @ these types of responses. Maybe that when it's clear a guy has run out of steam/stuff that maybe he shouldn't pitch the next inning in a 2-run game... or something like that.

Hell, did he really even need to start the 7th???

Wow, you've gotta be s***ting me.

Son of a b****.

The same as it looks now if you think hard enough about it. Trust me, I was optimistic about Jackson; that didn't change the idea for me that it was longevity-wise and financially a pretty damn bad trade.

I suck because I don't commend you for making a bad, repetitive joke?

But I also happen to be a Cardinals fan.

Technically what he is saying is (bluntly) true. But I guess you gotta consider the source.

Honestly... no.

I thought you said you were a master troll? You're just getting repetitive and boring now.

Anybody know what song that is they play when Paulie comes to the plate?

I dunno from most of the arguments I'm seeing J4L is pretty correct.

Regardless of my feeling so far in terms of fundamentals... so far Beckham and TCQ are raking and even Rios isn't off to a bad start. That's very exciting.

You must have an agenda to say something that silly. I do believe a lot of leaked names from that report we saw a while back never even became that great. Ramirez was still an amazing hitter, as was Bonds. Your suggestion surprises me coming from someone who usually seems like a pretty knowledgeable guy. Steroids or no steroids you need to have some talent to really make it like Manny, Bonds, A-Rod, etc. have. Interesting article: http://www.csnchicago.com/04/08/11/Manny-d...&feedID=661 From Jenks: lol.

I keep repeating it and yet you appear to keep missing the point: it doesn't MATTER because he's gone after the year (again, if I'm wrong please correct me); it doesn't matter HOW good he becomes unless we make the playoffs because the chances we re-sign him are slim to none. If and only if he make the playoffs will I say the trade was worth it but still going by how the trade looked at the time IMO it was not a good one.

The thing is we're only going by "what ifs" and if you maximized those comparisons Hudson is more valuable. "What if" they both are amazing this year? Hell, what if neither of them are? Either way, we only got Jackson for this year IIRC (correct me of I'm wrong) as opposed to like 5 for Hudson. And since Hudson is a "potentially good" prospect and Edwin in the past hasn't been very relevant, it's just an overall painful comparison; but at face value, looking at all the important factors, it was a bad trade. Like I said, the ONLY way it turns into a good trade is if we make the playoffs this year and that's it.

I agree with that notion. But if you're thinking long term (which you should) then Hudson was a better fit. In short, I think it becomes a huge tragedy if the Sox don't make the playoffs this year. Once again, for the most part it seems a lot of people are hung on "I believe," "I think," and "if." Same goes for my earlier argument about Walker/the offense. I think putting all opinions/preconceptions aside, logically going with Hudson would be an overall more conservative decision. If we win it all this year or even just go to the playoffs I guess it become null, I admit that. But if not, then it just looks like a huge waste... which is exactly how it looked at the time of the trade (which IMO is the most logical way to look at it; value the trade for how it looked at the time of).

The problem is that's all you guys are going by is "ifs." What we KNOW is that we gave up a potential future stud who could be had cheap for a long time for a guy on a much shorter term who's a Boras client and has proven to be inconsistent in the past. While I agree either way it's a risk, but Jackson clearly seems like the bigger one; I think you simply saying "What if Hudson doesn't pan out?" is a bit silly when the same thing applies to Jackson, and more critically IMO.

Agreed, but I don't think their rotation has looked that bad the last 4+ like our offense has. Plus, our biggest hole during this time was always offensive incompetency IIRC; I'm pretty sure most of our pitching staffs in that time frame on paper looked good whereas the Yankees' does not; but who knows how they'll perform? Let's be real: our 2005 staff didn't really look all that poised but look what happens sometimes; you almost feel more confident finding lightning in a bottle then meeting expectation of a team that looks good on paper.

I didn't get home until the 7th inning so forgive me if I forgot someone significant. Funny because I like Lily and always have. I was under the impression he was generally liked around here from what I recall last season. Imagine my surprise to revisit the board at the start of the season and see so much hatred for him. I was like "WTF? Where did all this come from?"

No, that's not it. Don't get me wrong; some people think me to only point out faults and not give credit. Trust me, I HAVE given Walker/Ozzie credit for things in the past and still do... it's just that, to be realistic, it's easier to be observant and vocal about negatives than positives. Sad, but true.

I dunno... you're gonna have to show a lot more than THIS to make THAT bold a statement! And hey... no Frank for pre/post game this year???