Y2HH Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 29, 2011 -> 11:10 AM) It's baseball dumb to say that the trade didn't directly contribute to the Cards winning the WS. They had lost 7 of the last 8 games McClellan had started when they traded for EJax to replace him. Their bullpen had cost them countless games all year and needed to be shaken up. I never said the White Sox made a bad trade or that they shouldn't have made it. But in the long run, it will probably be an inconsequential trade for them. The trade directly contributed to a World Series title for St. Louis. Winner! It is, so I apologize for taking too far of an opposite view stance on this, because normally I wouldn't. The absurdity of Soxtalk when it comes to White Sox baseball is my excuse for bringing out the worst in me in this case. The trade -- not simply for EJ, but all of the guys the Cards brought in -- contributed to their eventual win. The trade -- had it not happened -- would NOT have helped the White Sox. Period. I'm not directly speaking about you, but I read a few posts where people eluded to the fact that we lost the trade because the Cards got EJ (just one piece of the puzzle that helped them in the end), and they won a WS...as if to say had we kept him we would have. Fact is we would have done nothing with or without him. And getting rid of Teahen makes this trade a super win for the Sox considering that contract. You have to understand that on Soxtalk, 99% of what is said is negative, even when things are going VERY well. And if they [Crew Neg] can go back and find a story that turned into a positive for another team (such as this specific story), they will bring it back up to show how inept the Sox are. I was here before 05, and having to read posts here was like hanging out with Randy Quaid in the bleachers in Major League, "There just gonna blow it..." Even AFTER we won the WS, the negatives slowly crept back into the conversations about how they won, and how they won in spite of every major mistake the organization could have made. If they could find a negative and ruin everyone's good time...they will. And all of you know who you are. It's why 99.9% of my posts are now in the Filibuster, because talking baseball here is like talking to one huge collective of nothing. And things haven't gotten better -- if anything -- they've gotten WAY worse. Edited October 29, 2011 by Y2HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 29, 2011 -> 12:43 PM) It's why 99.9% of my posts are now in the Filibuster, because talking baseball here is like talking to one huge collective of nothing. And things haven't gotten better -- if anything -- they've gotten WAY worse. Balta and 2k5 fighting over economics is less painful than the baseball talk here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 QUOTE (Pale Sox @ Oct 29, 2011 -> 01:54 AM) I have a hard time believing the Blue Jays regret trading a bunch of non-cornerstone bullpen pieces for Colby Rasmus, a potential star CF. They are going to regret having to pay Mark Teahen next year at least. Rasmus needs to actually hit to make that worth while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Oct 29, 2011 -> 11:11 AM) Did anyone say the Sox lost the trade? Nobody's heard of a win-win? But unless the Sox or Blue Jays win a title with players received from this trade, the Cardinals won the most. Oh come on...that's ridiculous. It's quite possible that Colby Rasmus may contribute far more to the Blue Jays' than the players received by the Cardinals, even though the Cardinals went on to win the World Series. Maybe Zach Stewart goes on to win 18 games in 2014 for the White Sox and is the Postseason MVP as they capture the World Series. Are you going to come back then and say the White Sox won the trade the most? The trade worked out well for the Cardinals, and for the Blue Jays and White Sox, it's still a work in progress...but to say that because the Cardinals happened to win the WS this year, that they have and always and forever are the clear winners of the trade is not possible. That's like saying if Kate Winslet didn't play Rose in Titanic it would have never won Best Picture. Yes, it worked out with her in the role, but there is no telling that it wouldn't have done just as well or better with a different female lead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 29, 2011 -> 12:31 PM) Oh come on...that's ridiculous. It's quite possible that Colby Rasmus may contribute far more to the Blue Jays' than the players received by the Cardinals, even though the Cardinals went on to win the World Series. Maybe Zach Stewart goes on to win 18 games in 2014 for the White Sox and is the Postseason MVP as they capture the World Series. Are you going to come back then and say the White Sox won the trade the most? The trade worked out well for the Cardinals, and for the Blue Jays and White Sox, it's still a work in progress...but to say that because the Cardinals happened to win the WS this year, that they have and always and forever are the clear winners of the trade is not possible. That's like saying if Kate Winslet didn't play Rose in Titanic it would have never won Best Picture. Yes, it worked out with her in the role, but there is no telling that it wouldn't have done just as well or better with a different female lead. Absolutely. I will find this thread the day after the clincher once I sober up. When the trade happened, everyone said the Blue Jays had committed highway robbery & the Cardinals were the dumbest team ever. Looking back at hindsight, the trade solidified the Cards pitching staff, they got hot and won the wild card by a single game, and ended up as champs. We still don't know if Colby Rasmus is more Matt Kemp or more like Brian Anderson. Right now, the Cardinals are the big winners of this trade. Period. Your analogy doesn't work cause we saw what the Cardinals looked like before the trade, and plus Titanic should have never won Best Picture, no matter who the female lead was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 29, 2011 -> 11:54 AM) Absolutely. I will find this thread the day after the clincher once I sober up. When the trade happened, everyone said the Blue Jays had committed highway robbery & the Cardinals were the dumbest team ever. Looking back at hindsight, the trade solidified the Cards pitching staff, they got hot and won the wild card by a single game, and ended up as champs. We still don't know if Colby Rasmus is more Matt Kemp or more like Brian Anderson. Right now, the Cardinals are the big winners of this trade. Period. Your analogy doesn't work cause we saw what the Cardinals looked like before the trade, and plus Titanic should have never won Best Picture, no matter who the female lead was. No one is saying the Cardinals didn't benefit from this trade. And secondly, you can't attribute the success of the Cardinals post-trade completely to the deal. Anyone who's watched baseball for any number of significant time is well-aware that teams go on streaks, both good and bad, for any number of reasons. The White Sox went on their run in 2010 for 2 months...why? Why were they so good during that time but then not so good later or before, essentially with the exact same players? Regardless, the manner in which you are viewing this is completely wrong. There is the capacity for all teams to benefit tremendously from any trade. The best way to put it is that a trade is not a zero sum game. That puts it into perfect perspective. I'm not sure everyone understands what that means, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 29, 2011 -> 12:31 PM) Oh come on...that's ridiculous. It's quite possible that Colby Rasmus may contribute far more to the Blue Jays' than the players received by the Cardinals, even though the Cardinals went on to win the World Series. Maybe Zach Stewart goes on to win 18 games in 2014 for the White Sox and is the Postseason MVP as they capture the World Series. Are you going to come back then and say the White Sox won the trade the most? The trade worked out well for the Cardinals, and for the Blue Jays and White Sox, it's still a work in progress...but to say that because the Cardinals happened to win the WS this year, that they have and always and forever are the clear winners of the trade is not possible. That's like saying if Kate Winslet didn't play Rose in Titanic it would have never won Best Picture. Yes, it worked out with her in the role, but there is no telling that it wouldn't have done just as well or better with a different female lead. It's a good thing I didn't say that they always and forever are the clear winners of the trade. I said they're the clear winners. I can only speak on what has happened now. If the Sox do that, which is highly unlikely, then we can say they did just as well. But that hasn't happened. The fact is that the Cardinals have won a World Series due, at least in part, to the trade. The World Series title is a trump card as of right now. You people are over thinking it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 29, 2011 -> 02:02 PM) No one is saying the Cardinals didn't benefit from this trade. And secondly, you can't attribute the success of the Cardinals post-trade completely to the deal. Anyone who's watched baseball for any number of significant time is well-aware that teams go on streaks, both good and bad, for any number of reasons. The White Sox went on their run in 2010 for 2 months...why? Why were they so good during that time but then not so good later or before, essentially with the exact same players? Regardless, the manner in which you are viewing this is completely wrong. There is the capacity for all teams to benefit tremendously from any trade. The best way to put it is that a trade is not a zero sum game. That puts it into perfect perspective. I'm not sure everyone understands what that means, however. Like saying all of the teams won? That's what I said might be the case, but the Cardinals have clearly won the most because they won the World Series. Simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Oct 29, 2011 -> 02:32 PM) It's a good thing I didn't say that they always and forever are the clear winners of the trade. I said they're the clear winners. I can only speak on what has happened now. If the Sox do that, which is highly unlikely, then we can say they did just as well. But that hasn't happened. The fact is that the Cardinals have won a World Series due, at least in part, to the trade. The World Series title is a trump card as of right now. You people are over thinking it. Stop Milk. Your making too much sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolishPrince34 Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 29, 2011 -> 10:52 AM) There's no real way to prove that they wouldn't have won without him just as well. The point is, to say the Cardinals "won" in the trade simply because they "won the series" is just cause-and-effect bulls*** that cannot be proven. The Sox didn't lose in that trade, regardless. The Sox weren't going to win the WS (let alone the division) with EJ and Tehen anyway, so getting rid of both and getting anything in return, as far as I'm concerned, is a win for the White Sox in that trade. So in saying the Cards won in that trade and the Sox lost is simply disingenuous. To say otherwise is just baseball dumb. Sox lost the trade when they decided to trade Daniel Hudson and Dave Holmberg for Edwin Jackson. Still shaking my head on that one. Edited October 29, 2011 by PolishPrince34 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Zelig Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 The Sox did not trade with St. Louis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 <!--quoteo(post=2503082:date=Oct 29, 2011 -> 11:43 AM:name=Y2HH)--> QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 29, 2011 -> 11:43 AM) <!--quotec-->If they could find a negative and ruin everyone's good time...they will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prochisox Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Oct 29, 2011 -> 02:32 PM) The Sox did not trade with St. Louis. You are correct. This was 2 separate deals. First trade was between us and the Blue Jays. Second trade was between the Blue Jays and Cardinals. For our trade: Edwin Jackson (Type B FA) vs. Jason Frasor (Type B FA or 2012 club option) = Both can be offered arbitration for a similar draft pick, but KW can exercise the club option for Frasor and either keep him for another year, when he will probably be a Type B FA again, or deal him for immediate help. His club option at 3.75M will/should be easier to deal to a team instead of that team offering multi-year contracts to a free agent reliever. Sure, Frasor didn't perform as well as he should have in Chicago, but his history in the AL East speaks for itself and thus his salary is a bargain. Advantage: White Sox Mark Teahen (5.5M 2012 guaranteed contract) vs. Zach Stewart (cost controlled pitcher) = Easy call here. Getting rid of the 5.5M and getting a pitcher who may or may not pan out is easily in our favor. Clear winner: White Sox The White Sox also managed to save a few million, possibly 6 or 7, during the 2011 season. So after breaking down this deal, we are clearly winners, unless Teahen magically turns into Albert Pujols, which is unlikely to occur. Then after KW made this deal, the Blue Jays made a deal with the Cardinals, which we were not a part of. The deal broke down as Rasmus to Toronto for pitching (Jackson, Dotel, Scrabble) and Corey Patterson. The Cardinals excelled with all these players, while Rasmus is still searching for his breakout 2010 season, which may or may not have been a fluke. The Cardinals won the World Series with the help of these players in this deal. So after looking this over, I come to the conclusion that the White Sox won their deal clearly and the Cardinals won their deal clearly. Rasmus may become something special, but no way St Louis win the World Series without this trade, where winning the World Series is the ultimate goal. Edited October 29, 2011 by GO CHI SOX! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolishPrince34 Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) We orginally traded for Edwin Jackson and his high contract 8.35 million for Daniel Hudson and Dave Holmberg who might be a Top 10 lefty prospect in all of the minors. Then we trade Edwin Jackson and Teahen for Zach Stewart and saving close to 9.5 million. That trade was horrible when we could of had Hudson/16 wins this year for 6 years before becoming a free agent and we threw in our Top pitching prospect even though he was in rookie ball. Pathetic job by Kenny Williams. Edited October 30, 2011 by PolishPrince34 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Oct 29, 2011 -> 02:34 PM) Like saying all of the teams won? That's what I said might be the case, but the Cardinals have clearly won the most because they won the World Series. Simple. I think this is one of the stupidest posts I have ever seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 QUOTE (SoxAce @ Oct 29, 2011 -> 02:47 PM) Stop Milk. Your making too much sense. Oh why don't you disengage your tongue from his anus already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 29, 2011 -> 08:58 PM) I think this is one of the stupidest posts I have ever seen. Explain how it's stupid. Say you and two friends make a trade. You all end up with money in the end (or saving money), but one friend uses his end of the trade to buy a winning lottery ticket. Each one of you has won, but that last guy clearly won the most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Lmao@ this thread. This reminds of the time last year when I was at this party at ISU and multiple alcohol-induced fights broke out. I just stood there and watched. It was oh so fun., Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Oct 29, 2011 -> 09:07 PM) Explain how it's stupid. Say you and two friends make a trade. You all end up with money in the end (or saving money), but one friend uses his end of the trade to buy a winning lottery ticket. Each one of you has won, but that last guy clearly won the most. So many reasons. First, you can't attribute this trade as the reason the Cardinals won. Second, it's impossible to tell who has won the most right now. What if the first friend bought 10,000 shares of Google stock in 1996 with his money, and the lottery winner buys a luxury home but then squanders the rest? I know you're trying to say that you're only talking about the early returns, but your previous posts in the thread certainly belie that. Your entire point on the issue makes no sense when put the way you have put it. I believe you said the Cards won the WS, thus they won the trade, no point in further arguing it. To put it that way is to imply finality, which is exactly what several of us have been cautioning is impossible with a baseball trade this early in its infancy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 *Google didn't exist in 1996.* Not even a matter of them not having their IPO for > 5 years...they literally didn't exist. /Balta's contribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 29, 2011 -> 08:21 PM) *Google didn't exist in 1996.* Not even a matter of them not having their IPO for > 5 years...they literally didn't exist. /Balta's contribution. Sometimes I wish I could punch you in the face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgrad70 Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (PolishPrince34 @ Oct 29, 2011 -> 07:04 PM) We orginally traded for Edwin Jackson and his high contract 8.35 million for Daniel Hudson and Dave Holmberg who might be a Top 10 lefty prospect in all of the minors. Then we trade Edwin Jackson and Teahen for Zach Stewart and saving close to 9.5 million. That trade was horrible when we could of had Hudson/16 wins this year for 6 years before becoming a free agent and we threw in our Top pitching prospect even though he was in rookie ball. Pathetic job by Kenny Williams. Indeed it was. I hated the trade to get Jackson and I hated what we got for him. Jackson was a constant reminder to Kenny how he got played by Rizzo last year when he thought he had secured Dunn for Jackson. Recall how Kenny told the poor guy to stay at the hotel because he was so sure Jackson was heading to DC. Kenny no doubt figures had Dunn come here and stunk up the joint for the rest of 2010, he probably doesn't get a long-term deal. And of course there would have been no Manny either. If Jackson had won 25 games for the Sox, he still wasn't staying here. Edwin for all his trouble ended up with a World Series ring...there is cosmic retribution. Edited October 30, 2011 by mcgrad70 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 29, 2011 -> 10:23 PM) Sometimes I wish I could punch you in the face. Frankly I'm actually in the mood to have that happen. Sitting here just working on a paper. Would provide some spice to the evening Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 29, 2011 -> 09:33 PM) Frankly I'm actually in the mood to have that happen. Sitting here just working on a paper. Would provide some spice to the evening You have to much value to society. Hit the Beam instead... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 29, 2011 -> 10:44 PM) You have to much value to society. Hit the Beam instead... Why do you think I got past the writers' block? Not kidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.