iamshack

QUOTE (gatnom @ Dec 25, 2010 -> 11:30 PM) I don't expect him to put up an ERA over 5, and I don't expect him to be as good as he was down the stretch for us. I have absolutely no idea what Edwin Jackson will pitch for us next year. He could be anywhere between our best starter and our worst starter, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see it happen. At the time we acquired him, he was a pitcher who had been pitching with greater than a 5 ERA with one year left on his contract for way more than he was worth at the time. He also has little history of success with a career ERA of 4.62. I think Hudson could get you pieces, even pieces like Adam Dunn, you would need to surround him with more than just Brent Morel. First of all, if you think a guy like Jackson is viewed in the same light as others that put up a 5 ERA, then I think you're mistaken. Secondly, I think you're ignoring the fact that you were only getting Dunn for 70 games or so. It's not like you were getting him for 1.5 seasons or more.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Dec 25, 2010 -> 11:06 PM) Sure he has a hell of an arm. He had one hell of an ERA too. There's a pretty big disconnect in your argument here shack. Either Dan Hudson is worth a lot, and KW overpaid considerably (Holmberg is a decent prospect, as well), or Dan Hudson isn't worth even a struggling back of the rotation starter. That's bs Gatnom, and you know it. It's not like they went out and acquired Rodrigo Lopez or something. Do you expect Jackson to post an ERA of 5 this season? He proved he was capable of much more than that in his stint with us and I expect him to be even better this coming season. He's a guy that has struggled but has the potential to be a very solid #2, as he was in Detroit in 2009. You also have to consider the situation we were in. We were trying to reach the postseason and could not risk Hudson having growing pains, and so our hand was forced a bit. Regardless, I really don't want to have this debate again. If you believe a kid like Hudson doesn't have the ability to get you a good acquisition at the deadline, then we simply have a difference of opinion.

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Dec 25, 2010 -> 10:54 PM) The lack of pitching depth in the Sox system is going to severely hamper their ability to trade for anyone of any impact. Odds are the payroll being maxed-out will serve the same function.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Dec 25, 2010 -> 09:42 PM) I'm not saying he can't be the ace he was with us. At the time of acquisition, he was not good. It's plain fact. If all we could get for Dan Hudson was pre-deadline Edwin Jackson, then clearly he is not worth a whole lot in the market. Well, I think we probably could have gotten more if we really cared about maximizing the value of Dan Hudson. But KW doesn't care about that stuff. He targets a player we like, he makes the deal if he feels the offer is reasonable. Personally, and this is evident in the debate Balta referenced, I feel like Edwin is a hell of an arm to bring back for Hudson. But I don't really care to have that debate again. If what you're arguing is that a middle of the rotation starter isn't going to bring you back much in the trade market, than this entire discussion is fairly moot, because it's not worth trading these kids if you're not getting good value back, especially for a rental player.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Dec 25, 2010 -> 10:32 PM) I just said "middle of the rotation" because that seems to be more of the consensus around the league in terms of scouts, rankings, and the like. I don't doubt he could be a #2 type pitcher (which really is roughly middle of the rotation anyways). A cost controlled starter is incredibly valuable, but not so much in the trade market. Hell, all he got us in a trade was a struggling starting pitcher with an ERA over 5 who was due $8 million the next season. Are you honestly going to argue that a #2 starter in this league with almost no service time is not worth much on the trade market? I couldn't disagree more. Secondly, let's not sell Edwin short here. He's not just a struggling starter with an ERA over 5. That doesn't really tell the whole story there, and you know it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 25, 2010 -> 10:30 PM) And after our legendary debate over the Jackson deal? Sir, you disappoint me. Why? I still stand behind the trade for Edwin. And notice I said Hudson will probably ultimately be a middle of the rotation starter. These two debates are not really related, Balta.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Dec 25, 2010 -> 10:23 PM) A middle of the rotation starter and a league average third baseman isn't a whole lot of trade value. I think it's also worth noting that Hudson had taken a slight step back from his previous season while in AAA. And, I'll concede the point about being more proven than any old draft pick. I personally think that until you show something in the majors you haven't really shown anything, though. For 70 games of Adam Dunn? I disagree. A middle of the rotation starter with almost no service time is incredibly valuable, especially to a young team like Washington. And I'm not going to concede that Hudson's ceiling is "middle of the rotation," although my guess is that will probably be what he amounts to ultimately. But he's already pitched at a higher level than that in his short time, and yes, I know it was a short time, with Arizona. But it's just hard for me to limit the guy's potential to middle of the rotation when he's already shown glimpses of being better than that in his very short time in the majors.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Dec 25, 2010 -> 10:08 PM) Well, they do have that Zimmerman guy... As far as the draft, the players they pick up are just as likely to succeed or fail as Morel and Hudson are, and they would most likely have higher ceilings. They would obviously have to pay and develop them a little more, but it all kind of depends on how soon they plan on competing. You also have to take into account that trading Dunn for Hudson and Morel is kind of a fail. Why is that a fail? And I disagree with you in terms of the draft picks being as likely to succeed as Hudson and Morel. Players that are MLB ready have already beaten big odds in terms of draft picks. Obviously the biggest step is producing in the Major Leagues, but success at AA and AAA for draft picks, even high draft picks, is by no means guaranteed.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 25, 2010 -> 09:04 PM) Brent Morel is pretty much worthless to them. They have that "Ryan Zimmerman" guy at 3b. And trading for a prospect who is already blocked is silly because everyone knows you can't keep both. Ahh, didn't even think of that. The point still stands though.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Dec 25, 2010 -> 09:55 PM) That is a little delusional. However, two draft picks are probably worth about as much as we offered to them anyways. Unless KW was willing to do both Viciedo and Hudson in the same trade. Not sure about that. Between the risk you take in drafting anyone, the $ it takes to sign them, it was probably a better deal to take a young major league ready pitcher and another prospect. They probably could have had Hudson and Morel, and had two mlb-ready players that are cost-controlled for 6 years for two months of Adam Dunn. Instead, now they've got to navigate the minefield that is the draft, shell out some major dough to sign the guys, then hope that one or both can contribute 2-3 years down the road.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Dec 25, 2010 -> 08:41 PM) I agree to a degree, but what else was he supposed to ask for beyond Viciedo? Perhaps I don't remember the rumors properly, but I think the final rumor was Jackson + Viciedo for Dunn? I know I wouldn't agree to any deal centered around Tyler Flowers. I think my overall point with our farm system is that it should be a lot better than what it is based upon our payroll. You could get a LOT of impact talent for the money you blow on players like Mark Teahen and Scott Linebrink. He wanted Gordon Beckham. For 2 months of Adam Dunn. Yeah, ok. He could have asked for Hudson and any number of other prospects and that would have been a pretty solid deal for the Nats, especially given their desire for young pitching. But he never lowered his demands from Beckham.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Dec 25, 2010 -> 09:27 PM) Or an Adam Dunn. Well, I think that was more the case of an unrealistic GM than a player we couldn't reasonably acquire. So I guess I'll throw an addendum on there that says a young superstar player or an unrealistic general manager.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 25, 2010 -> 09:08 PM) KW loves Viciedo. I would be shocked if he traded him. He's been working out with Cora this winter at 3B. He obviously has to play there or a corner OF spot. If he can be decent at 3B, it will really help the offense IMO. Vizquel could spell him in late innings. Morel may be able to hit in the major leagues someday, he's hit pretty well in the minors, I just think throwing him at 3B in 2011 on a team who has a marketing slogan "All In" is a recipe for failure at the plate not for just 2011 but perhaps longer, no matter his defensive prowess. See 2006, Anderson, Brian. From what I have been told, they absolutely love Morel. I think they're going to give him every opportunity to lock down the job unless some obvious and clear upgrade becomes available.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 25, 2010 -> 07:39 PM) But they do have Viciedo, and the possibility of Flowers, Phegley and Jordan Danks rebounding (at least one of the 3). A lot of scouts are intrigued with T. Thompson, Escobar and Infante/Carter. Combine that with some of the starting pitching from the last two drafts having a Daniel Hudson, Brandon McCarthy or DeLosSantos "breakout" season and you still have enough to trade for an impact player without killing yourself or subtracting from the MLB roster. Sox pretty much have to keep Mitchell to replace Pierre eventually, and the jury's still out with Viciedo fitting into the future picture or not. I agree....while the depth isn't strong, they do have enough pieces to get most of the players they might want come the midseason, barring the availability of young superstar player.

I don't think LeBron is going to be able to play out his contract with the Heat. He'll go along with things this year, and they very well may win a title. But my guess is he'll get tired of playing second fiddle to Wade and start looking to force his way out of there eventually. I wouldn't be shocked if Melo ends up in New York, and LeBron ends up either in Chicago or somewhere else with CP3 down the road.

Ok, bets are down. Bears -2 Raiders +3 Chargers -8 Eagles -14.5 Niners +2.5 Bills +7.5 Saints +2.5 Packers -3

QUOTE (Markbilliards @ Dec 25, 2010 -> 10:56 AM) A long battle has finally been won. I never thought this day would come. Never trust a Cub fan. There must be an ulterior motive....like she just bought herself a $3,000 dress and put it on your credit card or something...

The Cardinals seem to be the pick to cover tonight, based on the information I read on a weekly basis. I just can't make myself do it, especially considering how much the Cowboys have been scoring as of late. I would take the Cowboys, but I trust what I have read enough to pass on the game. Plays this week are going to be Oakland +3/Niners +2.5/Bears -1/Buffalo +8/San Diego -7.5/New Orleans +2.5/over 40 in the Phi-Min game/over 44 in the NE-Buf game/over 49 in the NO-Atl game. Really love Oakland and Chicago.

Black Ops is on sale for one day only at Amazon.com for $39.99 today.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 24, 2010 -> 03:47 PM) But who else has come close to offering what the Angels did? I don't blame them for pulling their offer. Why bid against yourself? The A's.

I would have been more in favor of signing Beltre than Konerko, but I don't think there was ever a chance to acquire both. Unfortunate too, because we would be an odds-on favorite to win the AL IMO if we could sign Beltre.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Dec 24, 2010 -> 12:20 AM) Viagra Triangle I'm astounded that I have heard form the hostess and a couple of other people that I "made the party" for many of the guests. The crazy thing is all I did was make decent drinks for people, but in this day and age decent drinks are the exception rather than the rule. Hopefully that is slowly changing. Jim, that is great news! Perhaps she will refer you to all her rich friends and you can get gigs at all kinds of hauty-tauty philanthropic events!

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 24, 2010 -> 12:28 PM) This post is all over the place. First of all, what do you mean by "hate the minor leagues"? Because I don't give two s***s about overall minor league records, playoffs and championships? If that means I hate the minor leagues then so be it. You couldn't pay me to care if the Knights won the AAA title or not. Your minor league system serves exactly two purposes: To supplement your major league team with impact talent and to be able to go out and upgrade at other positions with other talent. We've done a solid, not great, job with the latter. But a horrible job with the former during the KW era. And why are you acting as if the only difference between the masses ranking our system at the bottom compared to maybe middle-tier is one first round pick getting to the majors quickly? Now I'm not gonna lie. I don't get to see a lot of these guys. It's not like minor league games are on TV all the time. All I can go by is statistics, scouting reports, projections, age appropriate guys for whatever league they're in, ect. And when our system is consistently ranked in the bottom 5 by people who get paid to do this for a living, that's enough for me. I like Mitchell and Viciedo's potential. Besides that? Color me extremely unimpressed with what we currently have (and I'm not counting Sale, he's not really even a prospect anymore at this point). I think it's pretty clear what you want, J4L, and that's a system stocked with high-ceiling guys that have the potential to turn into mlb all-stars or superstars. No one is going to fault you for that. It's no secret that you love young players with high-ceilings, and you tend to be very impressed by organizations that have brought players like this to the major leagues recently. I can agree that it would be exciting to bring up a player like CarGo or Kershaw or Stanton or Posey. But I think there are two things in play here that cause you to gravitate towards those teams. First, you tend to see more of our young players and therefore their flaws are a bit more evident. You see guys like Beckham and Sale struggle at times and so the luster wears off a bit more than it might with guys like Kershaw, who you see primarily when he pitches well, on highlight reels and such. Secondly, I think being that you are a fan of the White Sox and not so much these other teams, you get frustrated with the failures of our mlb club and this causes you to become a bit more impatient with the overall scheme of things, whereas you are not a die-hard Rockies fan or Dodgers fan or Marlins fan. You don't become frustrated with the overall scheme of things in those organizations and therefore, you can remain positive on their young prospects because the failures of their mlb club does not frustrate you in the way that the White Sox do. But you read enough message boards to know that despite the rosy outlook of some of these other organization's young players, they have real failures and real issues elsewhere, particularly with their mlb teams, that their fanbases are frustrated too; they're just frustrated about different things. These fans are tired of hearing how great their prospects are and want to see the rubber meet the road. They want to see tangible results. Well, IMHO, the White Sox are much more focused on tangible results than on MiLB rankings or Baseball America or what Keith Law has to say. Perhaps that's because their payroll allows them to approach things this way, and this probably goes hand-in-hand with Kenny's philosophy on the farm system. I think many of the organizations you're high on would love to be in their division race every year. They would be happy to make the playoffs every few years and feel like they have a chance to win the World Series almost every season. That is something that we, as White Sox fans, do indeed have. At least I feel like we do. The simple reality is that almost every team, save for the Yankees, Red Sox, and maybe one or two others, have to approach the concept of winning in a particular way. Some teams choose the develop from within route; others try to manipulate the market place a bit; others try to sign big names. And it's been proven that there are more ways than one to reach the ultimate goal of winning a World Series. But while some teams have success with one method, others have success with other methods, and as fans, we tend to see one team succeeding doing one thing, and another succeeding doing another, and we want OUR team to succeed doing them all. Well, in most cases, that is simply not feasible.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 24, 2010 -> 09:19 AM) Seriously. Some of it is on the receivers, but Clausen is so mfing bad. Can't throw the deep ball, can't throw the intermediate ball, hell, can't throw the short ball, and he can't move once pressure gets to him. How the hell is he going to succeed in the NFL? I remember reading the Scott Wright staked his reputation on Jimmy Clausen being better than Sam Bradford. Uhhh...oops. He also falls down once a defender breathes on him. He's horrible.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Dec 23, 2010 -> 03:41 PM) I think this is a Steelers or no play pick tonight regarding the sides. I'm not confident in Carolina getting more than 10 points. If I took the game I would probably take the under. I could see a Pittsburgh winning a 24-7, 24-10 type game. Good call Ryan. Good call, Balta.