Hey Jim Hendry! Yeah, you, with the doughnut. Put it down and come over here so I can smack you. You're really gonna do it, aren't you? You're really going to bring Jim Edmonds, my 2nd least favorite ballplayer of all time (Jeff Kent is my all time least favorite player) to Wrigley and let the motherfucker wear a Cub uniform. I hate you. I know that won't change your mind about bringing Captain Mascara to the Cubs, but I thought you should know. I'm just curious, but if we really needed a light hitting left hander to play some center field, why didn't we just keep Jacque Jones? Or Angel Pagan, who was better than Edmonds or Jones?
Super Jock had his issues. He struck out like crazy while making faces like he was constipated. His throws in from the outfield often were eaten by turf monsters. Sometimes he seemed to have a bad attitude. But more importantly than all that, Jacque Jones is NOT Jim Edmonds. I've had my issues with Jacque. Called him names, made fun of his red bat. (Never any racial shit, though. The Poet doesn't play that way.) However, deep down, I don't dislike Jacque Jones. And here are some reasons why:
1. The guy hustles. Sure he can't throw and he goes through stretches where he forgets to stop swinging at everything, but when Jacque connects with a ball, he's busting ass down the line. Doesn't matter if it's a well struck ball or a little infield bloop, Jones always ran them out.
2. He was MUCH better in center than he was in right. He used that hustle to cover a lot of ground and I recall him making some pretty sweet plays out there last year. I know he's a much better center fielder than the remains of Jim Edmonds.
3. Jacque may be a streaky hitter, but holy crap when he's hot, he's scalding. There was a period last year when Jacque was getting clutch hits left and right. I'd rather take a chance on him getting hot than running "Jimmy Ballgame" out there.
4. Jacque Jones is NOT JIM EDMONDS. I can't stress that enough.
To be honest, I never understood why we dealt Jacque to begin with. He was signed rather cheaply, given the way contracts for outfielders exploded the year after we signed him. He has the skills to play in the bigs, he seemed like a team player (even if he was fond of Dusty Baker), and when he was hot, he could hit pretty good, despite his power sort of melting away. He still would be a great platoon partner for Reed Johnson. In addition, the Jones trade accomplished virtually nothing. Sure, the Tigers assumed part of the financial responsibility of his contract, but big whup. The guy we got back, Omar Infante, we promptly packaged with Fat Ohman and sent off to Atlanta for Jose Ascanio. If your response to that was "who the fuck is Jose Ascanio?", I'm sure you're not alone. So basically, we didn't even come up even for all the wheeling and dealing. I think we should have just kept him. Now Florida will get him and we won't even get anything good out of it.
I would take Jacque over Jimmy Ballgame any day, despite the fact that Jones's batting average was just over 10 points lower than Edmonds's. Jacque finished last year at .285 and I have faith that given the chance, he could repeat that figure. Jim Edmonds ended up at .252 and I don't believe it'll ever get that high again and I don't think any one would give a shit if it did.
So Jim Hendry. I know you're gonna sign Jim Edmonds. I've resigned myself to it. But think about what you threw away for peanuts, only to turn around and sign a worse version of what you gave away. In conclusion, you suck.
Welcome to the Wild
Effectively Wild is your place for mediocre coverage of the Chicago Cubs, Chicago Blackhawks, Arsenal FC, and FC Kaiserslautern.