gatnom

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Apr 30, 2011 -> 12:16 PM) You might be, yes. One's a former Cy Young winner. The other has played for like 6 teams. Edwin Jackson? I'm with you though.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 03:10 PM) Edwin has closers stuff that is for sure. I wouldn't have a problem with him being the closer if we couldn't find anyone else, and if Peavy and Humber pitched well enough to allow it. But Edwin as closer right now? Wow. He'd fit right in.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 02:54 AM) Stephen Upchurch having himself quite the year. 19 K to 2 BB in 17 IP with a 1.56 ERA, and like a 0.60 WHIP (guessing) He's a name you haven't heard of much lately.

The GREAT Edwin Jackson: 5.86 ERA. Fun with sample sizes!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 28, 2011 -> 02:27 PM) How do you replace Danks if you let him walk away from draft picks? You have even less to replace him then. I'm perfectly fine with trading Danks if we can't re-sign him as well as letting him walk if that's our best option. I'm also fine with dealing with a down year every once and awhile. You're the one who mentions how Soxtalk would go crazy if the Sox did anything in the vein of spending on the draft or rebuilding, correct?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 28, 2011 -> 02:14 PM) They have tried. I am saying that it isn't as easy as just "drafting better". For my money, I'd rather not gamble the teams future at something they have failed at pretty consistantly. I understand that they've tried. I also understand that they have a ways to go. They haven't had a lot of success trading away veteran talent either, and really just trades in general have been bad lately in my opinion. The returns on the Swisher and Vazquez trades have been... not so good. This isn't exactly relevant to the thread, but who do you replace Danks with presuming you trade him in the offseason? You only have Floyd, Peavy, and Sale under contract next year.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 28, 2011 -> 02:07 PM) Yeah that it's it. Why didn't I think of that. I think I am going to start having a million dollars in my bank account to while I am at it. Well if you have no faith in your team's drafting, maybe you should try to fix the actual problem instead of trying to circumvent it is all I'm saying. I don't really understand your metaphor.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 08:32 PM) Kenny Williams needs to stop trading away our young talent. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 28, 2011 -> 07:42 AM) And we should totally not trade our stars who won't resign with us so that we get the draft picks. Or... we could just start drafting/signing better?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 10:27 PM) Little early to be declaring Humber a Coop masterpiece, isn't it? Remember Scott Schoenweis? Forget it, he's rolling.

I think it's mostly because nobody really goes into an argument for the sake of getting to the truth. The argument itself and who wins it are more important to the human brain once it gets involved. When you add in the fact that there are so many variables in political arguments, it gives anybody the freedom to write off any fact or statistic used by the opposition as faulty and biased, and they might even be able to present their own facts or statistics which support their side. There is just no way to win an argument where there is anything less than 110% certainty of one side being correct, and even then you'd probably have a conspiracy theorist pop up... Just my 2 cents.

What's most likely? He hits about 40 home runs with an OPS around 900.

I know this was something being discussed a few pages ago, but I'd just like to point out that every move in baseball is a crapshoot. Even if your picks fail, the amount you invest in him is much less than that of even a Teahen or Linebrink who "bust" quite frequently too. And, if we didn't want to break Selig's slot rules, we could at least try to redirect some of that money to signing players in Latin America etc. The idea, in my mind, is to strike a good balance between signing and re-signing major league talent versus drafting and developing minor league talent. That being said, unless somebody was on record saying they wanted to pick Trout over some of the others available, they really can't say anything bad about the Mitchell pick. He's certainly the type of player you would want the Sox to pick instead of their old safe picks, and neither has proven anything at the major league level yet.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 24, 2011 -> 12:32 PM) I see a lot of people saying that. Is that an educated guess or was this stated by KW or JR? Educated guess, but Oney believes otherwise if you think he's worth listening to.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 23, 2011 -> 06:26 AM) I disagree about your thoughts about the thread. Last season we constantly heard how great Daniel Hudson was. How terrible of a trade it was because of what he did in AZ, even though Jackson was pretty much lights out with the Sox. As for Hudson's value, I would guess if KW is shopping him, and believe me I'm no KW fan, he probably has a better idea of that than we do, and if Hudson is 0-4 with high ERA in the NL, how will that translate to the AL? Its just another case of love for mediocre prospects on this board. Hudson may be a decent 4 or 5 starter but that's his ceiling. When Brandon Allen got traded the outrage was just as intense, and he can't beat out Russell Branyan 3 years later. There were posts that he would be an All Star. I believe people on Soxtalk have a way higher view of some White Sox prospects than the guys who get paid to evaluate. . No, that had absolutely nothing to do with why anybody was angry with it. The people who didn't like the trade thought we didn't get adequate value for 6 years of well below market value for a mid-rotation starter, while leaving us with almost completely nothing in the minors in terms of pitching talent. Anybody who mentioned the "greatness" of Hudson was only responding to the idea that Hudson was only some sort of "NL" pitcher even though he was having a better year than Jackson, against better competition, in a more hitter friendly park. Hudson's ERA was less than 1/3 of Jackson's in Arizona, yet somehow Jackson was the only one possibly capable of handling the AL all of a sudden, which is absolutely absurd. I'll agree to disagree on this issue, but my problem with this trade has nothing to do with how "great" Dan Hudson is. The point is that Hudson doesn't have to be better than Jackson for us to lose this trade. Even if he's only the 4-5 starter you pessimistically peg him as, and I agree he's not as good as he was last year, we could still lose this trade. The argument has nothing to with Hudson being better than Jackson. It has everything to do with money.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 22, 2011 -> 03:44 AM) WHERE THE WHITE WOMEN AT she looks very, very young...hope Chris Hansen wasn't around It may not be Chris Hansen, but there is definitely a police officer right behind him...

QUOTE (T R U @ Apr 22, 2011 -> 02:32 AM) So if its too early to judge Daniel Hudson on his 33-35 starts, how come you are flying off the handle about our 7 game losing streak into a 162 game season? Is it not pretty much the same thing? I'm not going to speak for J4L (though I think he's actually been one of the more "optimistic" people around here), but the vast majority of Dan Hudson's starts have been pretty damn good. It's just the small sample size this season that hasn't been good. Also, I love how the op manages to both misunderstand the argument against the Hudson/Jackson trade and then use a small sample size to prove his point. But, we all know the arguments, and it's unfortunate that it had to be brought up again in some sort of childish I was right and you were wrong post meant to stir the pot.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 08:24 PM) Oh God, am I tired of being compared to other losers. And despite them having short playoff appearances, they've had many more appearances in a much shorter span of time. Beating us in the process.

QUOTE (hi8is @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 02:50 PM) Actually, I'd rather see this than what our bullpen displayed. The offense will be fine and isn't a concern for me. Peavy?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 16, 2011 -> 04:42 PM) Palm Springs, LA, Chicago, Rockford and South Bend will get to see the game on Fox when it finally starts. The rest are SOL. 5:15 first pitch. Talk about fair and balanced coverage.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Apr 13, 2011 -> 10:20 PM) I dislike Ozzie, but there is no way he should be blamed for the recent struggles. These relievers have been hilariously bad and there's nothing a manager could do. But no matter whose fault it is, both the GM and manager need to be let go if the team doesn't make the postseason. I agree that it's ultimately the players' fault that the pen hasn't gotten it done, but that doesn't change the fact that Ozzie set his guys up to fail today and shouldn't have pulled Buehrle a couple days ago.

Good way to get over a bad loss is to see Dunn back in the lineup. Love me some Dunn.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 12:08 AM) I understand your point. To me, it's not about putting Thornton in the best spot for him to succeed, it's about getting the best option at closer in there. I can see that. However, this bullpen is kind of screwed in my opinion if he can't at least be a shell of his former self, and I wonder if showing a lack of faith in him here could do more harm than good in the long run. For me, the best case scenario would be to not need a closer for a couple games and then to give Thornton one last chance at it, and hopefully he can pull his head out of his ass (or perhaps is arm...).

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 12:01 AM) I never made the argument about ruining him, although it does make sense. I personally don't give a f*** about Matt Thornton or any other individual player. If they are a detriment to the team, I want them moved. It's all about what the best move for the team is (same reason I was upset about Milledge being DFA'd, as I felt he was the best for the team). You responded to my post to those people. If you want to remove him from the closer's spot after three games, I can sort of understand after going through Jenks the past couple years, but people have this idea that Matt Thornton all of a sudden loses his talent in the 9th inning. Removing him from the 9th isn't going to make everything better with him; he's the same pitcher regardless of inning.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 11:51 PM) He's not a child, f*** his ego. We should keep him in his current job, which he's terrible at, because taking him out of the job he's terrible at might also cause him to be terrible at another job. That's perfectly fine, but don't give me some BS like we're ruining him purely by messing with his mind. If that were the case, he's already done for. And, I think he should be given another shot or two considering he's been our best reliever for a couple years now, a slightly larger sample size than three damn games.