bigruss

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 14, 2010 -> 11:17 AM) For an extra $12-15 million in 2011 of course I said these are the ones who could outperform Pierre.....

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2010 -> 11:02 AM) So now that we have the list of 2010-2011 FA's, who is a better option? Players that I'm seeing on the list that could outperform Pierre (not necessarily in the traditional leadoff way): Crawford Crisp Damon Kearns Magglio Ordonez

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 04:16 PM) You don't agree with the logic, but you obviously have to know what the arguments are. They are the same each time, and it just keeps getting stated and stated, over and over, day after day, week after week, etc. I don't try to bring it up when possible, but the trade is relevant to everything in this offseason because of the financial standpoint of the organization. Plus, people still don't seem to understand the ramifications of the move, and firmly believe that it must've been right because Kenny made the move. I'm sorry, that's bulls*** and people should get called out for it. It's one thing to have faith in your org's leadership, it's another to not even think of the ramifications. And as usual, I will point out that I wasn't against trading for Jackson, but the price we paid which ended up in this argument.

QUOTE (Special K @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 04:24 PM) Big Russ, you're killing me. The verdict is still out on this deal. Maybe Coop does to Jackson what he did with Floyd, and Jackson has his best year ever next year. While I think it is definitely pricey, we do have Jenks coming off the books, so hopefully those two things kind of even out. Certainly i'd rather have Konerko here, and if the Jackson deal meant no Konerko, then i'm not happy w/ that deal. But we do have some money coming off the books. As great as Jackson could be next year, he has to outperform 6 years of Hudson (and whatever Holmberg turns into) to make that trade even. Almost all of the money being saved from expiring contracts will be going to arbitration and raises, we have some $85 million tied up with obvious keepers like Danks. Even after that we're down Konerko, Jenks, Putz, Vizquel, Jones and AJ. We'll need a catcher, a 1B, possibly a 3B depending on Morel, a closer, a setup man, and possibly some bench pieces. All that for less than $15 million. Now tell me that Kenny did not shoot himself in his foot with the moves leading to this situation. He now has to trade from an area of strength to recover from his weaknesses, and with the Peavy injury, that strength is already in question.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 04:13 PM) Your signature. Haha good catch, I will step off my high horse to fix that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 03:42 PM) I'd probably do Votto for Beckham. If Alonso is any good that's a deal that actually makes sense for the Reds by filling their SS hole. I would pay for Beckham's ticket to Cincy if that was possible.

QUOTE (Special K @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 04:11 PM) I wouldn't consider 3-2 out of 6 games started that September terrible. His ERA was high, but by no means did he kill his team. Anyways, if we look back to now, he was very solid for us during his brief stint last year. I think he was 4-2 w/ an ERA in the mid 3s. I will certainl take that production (if possible for him to maintain) all year next year. I'm anxious to see how Hudson does, if he keeps up those numbers, than bravo to him and Kenny looks like a moron. All I know is that Hudson WAS NOT getting it done for us when we needed him to. Keep it in context, we were in the middle of a playoff race and that spot in the rotation was getting blown up. Jackson came in and changed that. In fact, he was probably our best pitcher down the stretch. If our bullpen didn't implode and our team made the playoffs that move would have looked great. Lots of fans would have gotten angry w/ Kenny for not solidifying that spot in the rotation in the middle of a playoff race. First off, never use wins as a way to judge a pitcher's performance, wins are almost always out of the hands of the pitcher as an offense can score 10 runs to save a pitcher or none to kill a great performance, look at other stats to determine a pitcher's worth. Second, you don't trade a young, talented pitcher who struggled in one key area, walks, but showed in the past that those struggles would go away. Jackson was a decent pickup, but he was not worth Hudson, period. Kenny is shooting himself in the foot with this trade, and you'll see this when we have a Dewayne Wise/Mark Kotsay starting in our lineup somewhere because we ran out of funds, or we can't resign key players (and not just Konerko, who I think will get more money regardless elsewhere, but guys like Putz that we need in the bullpen).

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 03:04 PM) I may be one of the few like really likes the potential of Webb, he just looks like a beast. He stuck out to me, I mean he is huge. Looked decent on the plays I saw too.

Haven't seen much SOA talk lately, maybe Im missing it somewhere but as usual I have been thoroughly enjoying it.

QUOTE (Special K @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 02:28 PM) Case in point Clayton Richard... Year Age Tm Lg W L W-L% ERA G GS GF CG SHO SV IP H R ER HR BB IBB SO HBP BK WP ERA+ WHIP H/9 HR/9 BB/9 SO/9 SO/BB 2009 25 TOT MLB 9 5 .643 4.41 38 26 3 1 0 0 153.0 154 81 75 17 71 0 114 3 98 1.471 9.1 1.0 4.2 6.7 1.61 2010 26 SDP NL 14 9 .609 3.75 33 33 0 1 1 0 201.2 206 89 84 16 78 6 153 2 4 861 98 1.408 9.2 0.7 3.5 6.8 1.96 Compare his 2009 year where he played a majority w/ the Sox, and then his 2010 year where he played solely w/ the Padres. In 2009 he started about 10 less games, but he was on pace to give up the same amount of hits over the same amount of innings pitched, his WHIP's were relatively similar, and so were the k/9. However, not pitching at the cell translated into a dramatic drop off in homeruns and runs scored. This translated into a an ERA of almost .75 difference. Jackson has two solid seasons, not including what he did for us last year. He pitches better in the central, i'm not positive why he does, but if it's because he is more comfortable, or because Cooper helped him work a couple things out is fine with me, because we are getting the results. Everyone in the Sox organization thought Hudson was at-best a back of the rotation starter. That's why they were fine w/ letting him go because Jackson has much more upside, and has much filthier stuff. Petco park is completely different from straight up pitching in the NL. It's like CarGo in Colorado vs. away. Jackson has had one good season, and even then he was TERRIBLE in September when his team needed him. And if the Sox thought Hudson was a back end rotation starter than shame on them and they should be called out for it. He may not have been a future ace, but he had swing and miss stuff, and combined with his peripherals in the minors he easily projected to a 2/3 starter, and IMO was a 4/5 starter NOW. Just because you don't value your own player as much as another team doesn't mean you should give them away for the price you value them, if a team likes him more you price him at that.

Once again, I liked picking Jackson up, it's just ridiculous the price we paid to get him. I'm sorry if you are shortsighted and cannot understand the financial implications losing Hudson gives the Sox.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 03:10 PM) Not sure if I understand your argument. Are you saying, you're valuing him because he's under control for 6 years, and not based on projections? I don't think you are, but if that's the case, Jackson was in the same position when he came up. It would be like saying it was a stupid idea to trade him. And Jackson showed promise his first year with the Dodgers. Hudson has too. Now what if Hudson falls flat on his face next year? What if Edwin pitches like he has in the AL? Are we still going to argue that the trade is bad? I think some people are too afraid of this becoming a Todd Ritchie situation all over again, and the others just don't like Jackson period. I was stating that you have to not only look at their projectability but also how many years of service they have under a team's control to judge value. Of course not every prospect pans out, but not every MLB player pans out too and Edwin had just as much as risk as anyone if he would ever be more than a 5th starter for a full season. Even if Jackson proves to be able to pitch in the 3.5 ERA area he still has to greatly outproduce Hudson not only next year but for future years with the Sox because Hudson is under contract for the next 6 years. Even if Jackson is stellar next year, Hudson would still give the Sox a 3/4 starter for 5 plus years of being cheaper than Jackson in his 1.25 seasons here. So not only is it about talent, but its in terms of how long you have that talent and what you are paying them.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 01:27 PM) Because you don't project 6 years in the future for even the most can't-miss of can't-miss prospects with any degree of certainty. Any prospect has a significant corollary attached to their projection, let alone the likes of Dan Hudson. The dude hasn't had a full season in MLB yet. While I agree that he projects relatively well, to say that we just traded off 6 years of successful pitching is waaay premature. Edwin Jackson was a bigger 'spect than Dan Hudson, and I believe you would characterize him as below-average thus far, though that is putting words in your mouth and you should certainly feel free to remove them if they're incorrect. Wasn't just projecting him, but you have to value him at 6 years because that is how long he is under team control. Jackson, when being brought up, was also being valued under the 6 years, you can't just look at what a player gives you for one year, but what impact does taht have on the organization after that too.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 01:16 PM) That is WAAAAY premature. Why, he pitched well in the minors with good peripherals, and has shown swing an miss stuff at the mlb level. Scouts believe he will be a good 3 starter in the future and the way he has performed in hte minors and majors now shows that this is a very real possibility, including for next season.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 01:04 PM) Potentially. If we do trade him, though, even for a modest return, are we really that much worse off without Hudson? A huge list of potential starters has already been posted in a couple of topics. I dunno, it just seemed like a reasonable risk to me, considering we were attempting to steal a playoff spot. I don't see us as crippled because of it, either, because we can still trade the dude. Yes because you would have had Hudson for 6 years. With his talent and performances he is exaclty what the Sox need, a 3/4 starter cheap for years to come.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 01:05 PM) $1.375 million if you want to be exact. I thought there were incentives, maybe I'm wrong.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 12:42 PM) Maybe you're right, but the tone of the post was that we CAN'T trade Jackson and get anything significant in return. I agree that there's depreciation involved but he can still be flipped and we can get some value back. I really don't think this was a case of Kenny having significantly more love for Jackson than any other GM, I think a number of people probably covet him somewhat and will give up SOMETHING (more than just a B-level 'spect) for him if we're really that desperate for salary relief. The way I look at it, if you paid $10 for a chance at the postseason, didn't make it, but you can still sell it for $8, that's not (necessarily) evidence of a stupid move. Obviously, those were arbitrarily chosen numbers, not reflective of anything. Seriously, though, people have been arguing since this trade happened that Jackson is now valueless and we'll never get anything but a bucket of balls for him, but I disagree and don't understand why he can't be flipped for decent return and salary relief. No people are concerned that Jackson won't be as valuable as the Sox may think he would be even after a strong finish to the season. He'll be worth a decent price, but not what we gave up for him and that could haunt the Sox this offseason.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 12:26 PM) I've enjoyed a few of those. David Cross in Alaska "freezing my Blue Man Group off"... and the narration of Wilde "making a huge mistake". The references aside, the show is really hitting it's pace and cracking me up. Haha yea there have been some good ones. The show itself has gone from forgettable in the first episode to quite enjoyable. I just hate the girl narrator, they should change that ASAP.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 12:16 PM) Even if we assume Vizquel isn't going to match his .673 OPS next year...he was basically according to fangraphs a replacement level player this year. He's had 2 years in his recent career where he performed significantly worse than that, 2007 and 2008 in S.F. Both last year with the Rangers and this year with the Sox he gave approximately the same performance with the bats, and his numbers the last couple years were similar to his numbers from his mid 30's. Between his versatility and ability to cover 3 defensive positions and the fact that he's probably going to be around replacement level with the bats, there's little reason not to bring him back, other than the fact that a crazed manager might try to make him a 150 game starter. Vizquel cost almost $2 million last year, I don't see him being even worth that on the bench and of course Ozzie will over play him. Ozzie still doesn't see what's wrong with playing Vizquel at DH, even though the whole league, including Vizquel, was laughing at it. If Ozzie understands that Vizquel is part time, and they shore up the infield so that it forces Ozzie to not to play him as frequently as he would like.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 12:16 PM) You are choice? Wait what? I'm not seeing what you're trying to point out.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 12:10 PM) To bring this post full-circle, the last two episodes of "Running Wilde" have been hilarious. Mostly because they've left the mansion and entered the corporate environment where Will Arnett is at his best. Agreed, and I was laughing at the AD remarks when telling David Cross to stop saying "C'mon!"

QUOTE (LVSoxFan @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 12:07 PM) Hey I have nothing but respect for Vizquel after that performance this season. People forget but the moment he took over for Teahen is when the season turned around. Coincidence? Maybe. But he's a great fielder and if you're going to have a veteran, he fits the bill. I don't see Vizquel even matching his .673 OPS next year, and really think that Morel would be the best choice given cost, youth, and performance. Thanks Vizquel for everything you did and brought but it's time to move on, put Lillibridge or someone of that ilk in that position and save some cash. As well as the Sox played with Vizquel at 3B, he was and is not the answer.

QUOTE (Special K @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 09:40 AM) I don't understand why you think that was a trade down? I concede that it was a bad move in terms of money, because Hudson can be had on the cheap and probably would have been serviceable. That money could obviously be used to sign/resign players. But Jackson is a better pitcher. Hudson doesn't have the type of season he did in the second half with the D-Backs here in Chicago. He would have been pitching in a playoff race, in a harder ball park to pitch, and most importantly in the AL. Jackson is a fine pitcher who will hopefully get back to his all star form. You know this how? Looking at Hudson's performances and stats and you'll see that he had a VERY uncharacteristically high amount of walks. In the minors, and now with the DBacks, he has always been a low walk guy. With the Sox, he was walking too many batters and putting himself in trouble but never really got hit hard. He was showing swing and miss stuff which is important, couple that with his history of good control and his success with the DBacks had a very good chance of happening with the Sox. And if you're going to through out that NL no-pennant race bulls*** than you have to look at the first half that Jackson had, and tell me why the hell we gave up so much for a terrible pitcher in the NL who wasn't on a good team. Jackson has had about 1 good season of pitching total in 4, he had just as much risk as Hudson of performing well down the stretch. Remember his August/Sept. stats from Detroit last year, they were AWFUL. He has shown no consistency and no tendency to perform well in high pressure situations.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 11:43 PM) Sure would be nice to have Gonzalez, Hudson, to go along with Sale, waiting in the wings to take over for Buehrle and to allow us to trade Danks for a sick package. Why do we keep bringing up past trades?!?!?!?!

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 09:50 AM) It was good, Boat episode was really funny, too. But the first two weeks sucked. I was cracking up in last weeks episode, but yea the first two had a few laughs but overall just "decent" episodes and not Sunny worthy.