Jump to content

WHITE SOX WINNER!!!


justBLAZE

Recommended Posts

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Edwin Jackson has been considered a pitcher with amazing stuff since he broke on the scene in 2003 (you can go back and look at the innumerable posts about Edwin Jackson on this very site.)

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/featu...0s/dodgers.html

 

He’s the best homegrown pitching prospect the Dodgers have developed since Pedro Martinez, and they don’t plan on letting this one get away.

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/featu...0s/dodgers.html

 

TOP PROSPECTS OF THE DECADE 2004 Edwin Jackson, rhp

 

You are talking about a pitching phenom who was rushed to quickly. The guy is only 27 years old.

 

There is no reason to believe that Cooper didnt see a flaw in his delivery (he was opening up to much), didnt fix it, and now Jackson is tapping into the unlimited potential that every single scout saw back in 2003.

 

You are just so wrong on Jackson that its hard to take your opinion seriously anymore.

 

(Edit)

 

Its not like I am saying Ohman will be magically good, we are talking about a player who was considered one of the best pitching prospects in baseball due to his stuff. Its always been a question of can a team teach him to harness it. No one has ever questioned his stuff.

Edited by Soxbadger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 03:49 PM)
I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Edwin Jackson has considered a pitcher with amazing stuff since he broke on the scene in 2003 (you can go back and look at the innumerable posts about Edwin Jackson on this very site.)

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/featu...0s/dodgers.html

 

 

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/featu...0s/dodgers.html

 

TOP PROSPECTS OF THE DECADE 2004 Edwin Jackson, rhp

 

You are talking about a pitching phenom who was rushed to quickly. The guy is only 27 years old.

 

There is no reason to believe that Cooper didnt see a flaw in his delivery (he was opening up to much), didnt fix it, and now Jackson is tapping into the unlimited potential that every single scout saw back in 2003.

 

You are just so wrong on Jackson that its hard to take your opinion seriously anymore.

 

Other than Jackson being younger, what differentiates him from Javy Vazquez? We've seen Javy record 25 Ks in two starts. Go pull up an '08 thread and see what everybody had to say about him. Then I'm supposed to kiss Jackson's ass? Please. I'll root for him and hope he proves me wrong because if he does well, my team does well. But I don't expect it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont care what everyone had to say about Vazquez in 2008, you can pull up threads from 2008 and see what I had to say about Vazquez (consistently defended him because people hated on him merely because he was traded for Chris Young.)

 

I dont know what point you are getting at here. You made a statement that is factually incorrect, that this can never be an economic win for the Sox, you got called out on it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 03:56 PM)
I dont care what everyone had to say about Vazquez in 2008, you can pull up threads from 2008 and see what I had to say about Vazquez (consistently defended him because people hated on him merely because he was traded for Chris Young.)

 

I dont know what point you are getting at here. You made a statement that is factually incorrect, that this can never be an economic win for the Sox, you got called out on it.

 

Huh? My point is fairly obvious. Edwin Jackson is a ? until proven otherwise. As is Hudson. But he's a cheap ? that doesn't get expensive for quite sometime. Big difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think anyone here has said Jackson is a sure thing. I know I havent, I wouldnt say any player is a sure thing because thats a recipe for disaster.

 

All I have said is that Jackson's stuff is outstanding and there is reason to believe that he can be a great starter.

 

That doesnt mean he certainly will be, it just means that he has the talent to make it happen.

 

I personally think that as it stands today, April 8, 2011 that Edwin Jackson is better than Hudson.

 

As for the rest, every player is a question mark. The White Sox determined that they would rather have Jackson as a ? at 7mil than Hudson as a ? at 350k. I tend to agree with them.

 

But for you to say that there is no way the Sox can win this trade economically, just shows that you are completely biased.

 

Because I absolutely admit that the Sox could lose this trade, I just think they will win.

 

See the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 03:58 PM)
Huh? My point is fairly obvious. Edwin Jackson is a ? until proven otherwise. As is Hudson. But he's a cheap ? that doesn't get expensive for quite sometime. Big difference.

 

So what if that cheap ? flames out and is in the minors for good by the end of 2011 or 2012? Is it still an economic fail? One side has the expensive Jackson, the other has a cheap pitcher who couldn't cut it in the majors?

 

(I'm not trying to hate on Hudson. But that is a possible (more unlikely) outcome of the trade and I wonder if it would still be considered a failure?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 04:03 PM)
I dont think anyone here has said Jackson is a sure thing. I know I havent, I wouldnt say any player is a sure thing because thats a recipe for disaster.

 

All I have said is that Jackson's stuff is outstanding and there is reason to believe that he can be a great starter.

 

That doesnt mean he certainly will be, it just means that he has the talent to make it happen.

 

I personally think that as it stands today, April 8, 2011 that Edwin Jackson is better than Hudson.

 

As for the rest, every player is a question mark. The White Sox determined that they would rather have Jackson as a ? at 7mil than Hudson as a ? at 350k. I tend to agree with them.

 

But for you to say that there is no way the Sox can win this trade economically, just shows that you are completely biased.

 

Because I absolutely admit that the Sox could lose this trade, I just think they will win.

 

See the difference.

 

Bulls***. Do you even understand what you're implying? That Jackson has to be one of the top 10 AL starters in baseball and that Hudson has to be Randy Wells for this trade to work out for us? Or than that, we have to win the World Series with Jackson going 19-5 with an ERA in the 2.90-ish range to justify it. I don't like those odds. In fact, they suck.

Edited by Jordan4life
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 04:06 PM)
So what if that cheap ? flames out and is in the minors for good by the end of 2011 or 2012? Is it still an economic fail? One side has the expensive Jackson, the other has a cheap pitcher who couldn't cut it in the majors?

 

(I'm not trying to hate on Hudson. But that is a possible (more unlikely) outcome of the trade and I wonder if it would still be considered a failure?)

 

Not you. LH. I pegged you as fair and balanced. You come up with the worst case scenario for one and the worst case for another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand exactly what Im implying,

 

Im implying that Im not going to make statements that cant be proven, Ill wait until the dust settles. I dont parade around acting like my predictions are fact.

 

Do you understand that is what you are doing?

 

Plenty of people on this board have different predictions, different beliefs on players. Most of us realize that our opinion is just that, an opinion, and that we could be wrong.

 

You seem to be of the belief that there is absolutely no set of circumstances where you could be wrong, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that is just completely untrue.

 

(Edit)

 

There is only 1 person who refuses to be fair and balanced, its you J4L. That is a fact and I have no problem standing by it.

Edited by Soxbadger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you take enough shots, you are going to miss on some.

 

Thought the idea behind the trade was good (Sox had a history of OF prospects busting, Borchard, Reed, Anderson), Vazquez never could consistently make it happen. The guy will always frustrate me because he was so up and down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

 

And dont worry you wont get suspended, Im a big boy, Ill ask that the admin allow you to say anything you want to me. Im not an admin so I cant promise that theyll honor my request, but I strongly believe that:

 

 

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

 

But you guys are 100% right, because Ive missed 1 time in the 9+ years Ive been on this site, my credibility is worthless.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Man I can not stop laughing at the fact that people think they are right all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 03:56 PM)
I dont care what everyone had to say about Vazquez in 2008, you can pull up threads from 2008 and see what I had to say about Vazquez (consistently defended him because people hated on him merely because he was traded for Chris Young.)

 

I dont know what point you are getting at here. You made a statement that is factually incorrect, that this can never be an economic win for the Sox, you got called out on it.

 

People hated on Vazquez because he was an overpaid underachiever. Don't get that wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No when the trade first happened, the main b**** about Javy was that how could the Sox give up on The Chris Young.

 

The Sox traded El Duque for Vazquez plus cash

 

Vazquez was set to make $11.5 mil, El Duque was to make 4.6 mil + he had a 2 mil bonus on innings.

 

Thus when Vaz was first acquired his total cost in terms of money was 11.5-4.6 = 6.9 and the Sox got more cash on top of that.

 

He didnt become overpaid for the Sox until they resigned him to a new contract.

 

But lets not talk about facts.

 

(Edit)

 

Strangesox,

 

lol

 

Okay that makes a lot more sense, it caught me off guard because J4L quoted it like it was a serious statement and that it was actually a good argument.

 

I generally do take comments like that as humorous.

Edited by Soxbadger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 04:36 PM)
Strangesox,

 

lol

 

Okay that makes a lot more sense, it caught me off guard because J4L quoted it like it was a serious statement and that it was actually a good argument.

 

I generally do take comments like that as humorous.

 

I really did hate Vazquez, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 04:09 PM)
Not you. LH. I pegged you as fair and balanced. You come up with the worst case scenario for one and the worst case for another.

 

Well I think my point came across wrong, so let me try again. I was never a fan of the trade, so I'm not just trying to shoot down everything you say. Jackson's well-documented inconcistency as well as the $$$$ issue made me really question the deal.

 

I just have an issue that you say that it's a guaranteed economic failure no matter what happens. Hudson definitely could have been a solid inexpensive starter for 5-6 years for the Sox. But he also could have had some struggles and been moved out of the rotation at some point, then your 350k goes to nothing anyway. The former is a much more probable result than the latter, but either could happen. Then the cheaper pitcher gave you little anyway, so maybe spending the money for EJax was worth it.

 

I think that down the line, the Sox will definitely wish they had held onto Hudson, unless 2011 turns out to be magical, but I can't already doom the trade a 100% failure without letting the players play.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...