iamshack

Now that we've got Manny, we've got 1 hitter who goes up there with a plan.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Sep 1, 2010 -> 09:48 AM) Just because you're not sure what you have in Hudson doesnt mean you trade him for that value. Edwin may have held alot of value to the White Sox, but that doesnt mean he had alot of value on the market. Thus, it was a fine idea to trade for him, just not at the price we paid. Obviously, you disagree, Im just saying I wouldve offered Holmberg and one of Flowers/Morel/Danks2, and maybe a throw in lower level guy. When you consider what Jackson makes next year, and the fact we didnt receive any financial help, I just cannot agree with the trade for what we gave up. Jackson's value was not worth that much. Trading Hudson, your one legitimate young MLB starter ready to start now, will hurt you in the long run because now you have a $54 million starting rotation next year, and if you trade one of those starters you will ahve to fill that hole somehow. Thus, youre forcing yourself to trade for a starter or have to sign an overpriced FA. You would have offered Holmberg and something less, and they would have said no thanks and moved on. You really don't know what Jackson's value was, Russ. I think you forget that he's still only 26, still viewed as having very good stuff, a very good arm, and had succeeded in the AL recently. Simply because he struggled with AZ for half a season didn't destroy his value and force the DBacks to give him away. As of right now, it seems as though you and some others who were most vocal about the trade when it was made simply want to continue complaining no matter how well Edwin pitches for us.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Sep 1, 2010 -> 01:45 AM) Nope. Just like Jackson showed me nothing all season that proved he could turn into prime Curt Schilling. Baseball is funny like that. I still don't like the trade overall. And I say that giving Jackson his full due for what he's done so far. Maybe not this year, but Jackson has succeeded before, in the American League, and in the AL Central in particular. Additionally, he has unanimously much better stuff than Hudson, as well as a much higher ceiling. The odds of Jackson doing what he is doing were probably far greater than Hudson doing what he has done, especially considering he had not done it before in his brief opportunities up until that point. But hey, you guys keep complaining about giving up a maybe top 75 prospect for a year and a half of what looks like potentially a top of the rotation starter. I guess we should only trade a guy like Hudson for Evan Longoria.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Sep 1, 2010 -> 01:16 AM) Yeah, 3 full starts really proved that. I said he did not prove he could pitch in the AL. Can you dispute that? I didn't say he was incapable of it, just that he failed to prove that he was. And we would have all loved to have given him more of a chance, but unfortunately, we couldn't exactly afford to wait and find out. Answer me this, did he show us anything in his three starts that would have led you to believe he would pitch as well as he has for the DBacks?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 31, 2010 -> 11:55 PM) Shack makes a good point, but he sure seemed like a guy that was a salary dump and many of us hate giving up Hudson for him. But you are right. If Jackson keeps this up into next season it will be hard to complain about this deal. He certainly has done a great great job. It was not a salary dump. Jackson is a high-risk/high-reward kind of pitcher. He has a very high ceiling, and we are seeing that now. Remember, the guy is still only 26 years old. And another point: Just because Jackson pitched poorly in the NL this season, and Hudson has pitched well, does not prove anything. There is no inverse relationship present where Jackson pitching poorly and Hudson pitching well in the NL equals Jackson pitching well in the AL so Hudson therefore would pitch well in the AL. It does not work that way. Hudson did not prove he could pitch well as a starter in the AL and Jackson has, and until Hudson does prove that, the fact that Hudson has succeeded in a place where Jackson did not means very little. I'm very skeptical that Hudson would be doing what Jackson has been since the trade was made.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Aug 31, 2010 -> 11:05 PM) I hate how people are still chiming in "For those who hated the deal look at Jackson now!" and all that crap. If you look at most of the arguments on this site, you will see it wasnt the fact we got Jackson, but the price we paid. In fact, most people were intrigued by Jackson, and welcomed him to the team. That said, we paid a steep price for the value that Jackson held at the time, and without Hudson we have a very expensive starting rotation next year without any ready replacements if we decide to trade a starter. If we kept Hudson and still got Jackson, we can go ahead and trade one of our starters, fill some holes, while still being 5 strong. IMO, and I know Im not a GM but looking at recent trends and the value of young, MLB starters with potential, I would say Hudson/Holmberg was too much for Jackson and no salary relief. For those who use the NL excuse for Hudson's success thus far, then how do you explain such a steep price for a 5 era in the NL Jackson? Not to mention he really has had only a year and a half of success, and has struggled with every team he has been on. Oh my goodness, this is Chris Young all over again. I'm not sure how anyone could fault the price paid for this guy at this point. Bottom line is, we were very confident we could turn Edwin into a nasty pitcher for us, without much of an adjustment period. We have done exactly that. What we were not sure of, was what we had in Hudson. But let's face it, he showed very little signs of being the guy he has been in AZ when he was here. Just like Edwin looked nothing like the guy he was in AZ since he has been here. Can't we ever just say that the trade has worked out for both sides thus far? Sure, you can argue that we gave up the pre-arb player with no accumulated service time under his belt. But you can't say with any relative certainty that we would be getting out of him what AZ is getting out of him right now. You just can't. There were absolutely no signs of that this year in his 3 starts. So maybe we would have never gotten it. Maybe it would have taken three more starts before we got it. Maybe it would have happened just the way it has with AZ. But we didn't know that at the time. What we did know, was that we could get quality starts out of EJ, and we have. So just let it be for what it is. We acquired a guy who has pitched to a 1.36 ERA (or whatever it is) and has eaten innings and been absolutely filthy while doing it. If I would have told you what Edwin would do in his first 5 starts for us at the time we made the Hudson trade, I doubt any of you would have been against pulling the trigger.

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 31, 2010 -> 08:38 PM) Twins winning 4-3 now after 7 What a joke. Great job Coke. Had Mauer 1-2. And how do you even walk JJ Hardy? What a bum.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Aug 31, 2010 -> 01:30 AM) MLB Network seems to like us unless maybe that's just Harold Reynolds. Harold Reynolds, as well as Steve Phillips have always treated us fairly well in regards to the national media. Otherwise, yeah, we are pretty much an afterthought.

QUOTE (T R U @ Aug 30, 2010 -> 12:43 PM) i wanna die This is normal.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 30, 2010 -> 07:29 AM) Barry Bonds was an MVP when he weighed 185 lbs. I think a lot of people assume Manny just started with the PEDs when he was busted. I would be willing to bet he took them most, if not all of his career in Boston and maybe some in Cleveland. Manny is a huge douche. Did Bonds ever fly out to the OF and not even run to first, just walk back to the dugout? Manny did. Manny dicked his way out of Boston and now LA. Maybe it will work out for 30 days. I tend to doubt it, but to me the worst thing that can happen is Manny plays well, the Sox still lose and they ignore history and give Manny some money in the winter. Even Ozzie said the other day Manny says hi to you one day and the next acts like he's never met you. He's a clown. I'm not even going to bother arguing with you, because you see things your way, and this is based only partially on fact and the rest on wild speculation. I'll just note that I pretty much disagree emphatically with this entire post.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 29, 2010 -> 10:45 PM) The AP story I just read said we still may have to give up a player or two as well as pay several million dollars. WTF. I'm against bringing him in, but if we are, no sense dwelling on what's done. Hopefully he can change our mojo of late and we'll play better on this road trip. He has a chance to start anew with us for this month. Hopefully it'll just be the next two months in a Sox uniform and that's it. This taken from the AP story: "The dreadlocked outfielder is batting .311 with eight homers and 40 RBIs in 66 games in 2010." That doesn't sound like a savior to me. We're not giving up any players, from what I understand. Just paying his salary. Secondly, he's not the savior. He's a middle of the order bat that hopefully can offset some of our pitching inadequacies right now. Thirdly, I'm hoping this gives un an inroads into possibly signing him next year for less than what might otherwise be the case if he was not playing here for the last thirtysome odd games.

QUOTE (J.Reedfan8 @ Aug 29, 2010 -> 10:34 PM) I respect this post as well. Hey if you don't like him, there should be no poster here questioning that. It is perfectly understandable. You, Balta, Dick Allen etc.. I respect alot through all this. There were posters here who ripped Bonds when some of us wanted him here years ago, and now all of a sudden love Manny even though he isn't any different except less of an overall douche. Be consistent with your posting... love him or hate him, no flip-flopping. He will be here, so said posters will cheer for the sox and Manny even if you boo him every time he steps to the plate and contributes. I'm not one to hate Barry Bonds, but I do think they are different, other than Bonds being a more of an "overall douche." I'm not sure what Manny's level of PED use was, but I'm fairly certain it does not approach the level of Bond's use. And that's not to judge Bonds or Manny, but to say they are the same, in terms of what they have done to ensure success on the baseball field, I think is incorrect.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 29, 2010 -> 08:00 PM) What are the random numbers and one letter for? Positional numbers. I think for B he meant DH.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 28, 2010 -> 03:08 PM) It could be a lot of things. It could be straight and he's not ready for the better pitching in the league. He could still be a huge injury risk in the field and they can't DH him. They may think they really have very little chance and want to sit him and if they lose 2 out of 3, dumping him won't seem so bad, if they win 2 or 3 and get closer, they can say they won without him. Its anyone's guess, and if Nightengale is right and the teams have not had trade discussions prior to the claim, dumping the financial obligation is a pretty big motivator IMO if you really think you are probably dead anyway or better off without him. I couldn't have been more wrong with how I thought this scenerio was going to go, but if I was betting now I'd say Manny will be a White Sox if he agrees to come by Tuesday. My guess is that they would rather avoid playing him so as to avoid injury, but the decision was not made very difficult Friday night, as he was 1-13 lifetime against Ubaldo with like 7 K's. Does seem interesting though that they would sit him and yet not engage in any serious talks with us. One would think a healthy and productive Manny would help their bargaining position, at least a little. Additionally, they are probably worried he'll get a game winning walk-off hit or something, in which case it would be pretty impossible to move him afterwards because of PR and clubhouse implications.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 28, 2010 -> 06:41 AM) Some fan you are. You were saying before last night's game that we would lose and Freddy had no chance. Why bother watching and coming in here with all of your negativity? Oh you...

We need Danksy to step up and pitch like the guy we know he can be. I feel like he's let us down in a few big starts this year (although he has certainly stepped it up a few times as well). Step it up, John. This is one of those games where you put us on your back and carry us.

I've always thought Fuentes throws like a girl. Am I the only one?

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Aug 27, 2010 -> 11:01 PM) That what happens when your GM puts together a team more suited to win the UZR title than a division title. Hah, well then they shouldn't have given up 6 runs!

Jeesh, the Mariners have blown two huge scoring chances, including bases loaded and no one out in the 8th without scoring a run...ouch

QUOTE (J.Reedfan8 @ Aug 27, 2010 -> 04:29 PM) See this I can respect. Same with what Balta said earlier, I respect posters who hated Manny before and will still not be a fan of his here but will still cheer for the team to win even if you feel dirty about it. Same with people who hated Bonds and would still hate him if he was here. I can't stand the flip-flop posters. I don't know how you can watch a guy like Manny Ramirez hit over the course of his career and not respect the guy. I have never found him to be obnoxious like a Barry Bonds or a Curt Shilling, but I can understand how people get tired of his antics. Personally, I have always enjoyed watching him hit. I think he's one of the most talented hitters of the modern era, and I would absolutely love to get to see him hit in our uniform for the remaining 30-odd games left, and hopefully into the postseason.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 26, 2010 -> 07:06 AM) Can he still be placed on irrevocable waivers? i.e. if the team was just happy to get rid of his salary and was willing to take nothing back, could they put him on waivers again? Maybe after September 1, I'm not sure. But in that case he would be ineligible for the postseason roster. But if a player gets claimed, and the teams cannot work out a deal, then they cannot just go and place him on irrevocable waivers before the August 31st deadline.

QUOTE (smalls2598 @ Aug 26, 2010 -> 06:43 AM) This is where i'm confused, and I'm hoping someone could clarify for me.... Manny has a no trade clause. If a team (in this case, say WAS) puts a claim on Manny, Manny can block that trade, right? So does that end the Waiver process for him? So he won't be able to make it to another team? Because it wouldn't be fair if he can block a trade to every team that claimed him, unless he really wants to go there, right? Yes. See what just happened with Johnny Damon and the Red Sox. The Red Sox claimed him, the Tigers and Red Sox were willing to make a deal, but Damon used his NTC to block the deal. He cannot be placed on waivers again this season.

So this is presuming that Manny was placed on waivers sometime Monday morning/afternoon?

QUOTE (tonyho7476 @ Aug 25, 2010 -> 01:15 PM) Canseco made it pretty clear in his book how well steroids improved his ability to see the ball. Manny is insanely talented, but steroids take stars and superstars to even higher levels. I thought it was HGH that improved vision? Secondly, if you are admitting he is insanely talented, I don't really care to argue with you anymore. We're not really arguing different points.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Aug 25, 2010 -> 01:23 PM) http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/08/mann...on-waivers.html Manny on waivers Not a surprise since the Angels guys hit them yesterday.