The GREAT Daniel Hudson

[macsandz]

0-4 5.92 ERA.

[lostfan]

oh, this

[kjshoe04]

I love soxtalk.

[Vote4Pedro]

i didnt realize his stats were that bad.... glad we have EJAX

Edited April 22, 2011 by beckham15

[witesoxfan]

Gavin Floyd, 2010, first 4 starts - 0-2, 19.1 IP, 8.38 ERA, 2.02 WHIP

Gavin Floyd, 2010, final line - 10-13, 187.1 IP, 4.08 ERA, 1.37 WHIP

 

zOMG Dan Hudson had a bad start and it badly inflated his ERA! He must be bad!

 

[Jordan4life_2007]

oh, this

 

lol. He started it. So I have to offer a rebuttal. If this thread goes 15 pages it's not my fault.

 

First of all, why do you (not you lost) wait until he has a terrible start against an elite offense to make this thread? Hudson's ERA was 4.26 coming into today. Is that great? No. But we're still in the early stages of the season where one good game or bad game can drastically alter a pitcher's ERA. And for the love of the devil...Who has ever said that Hudson was great? Or that he's a HOF? Or that he's the next Greg Maddux? s*** is so annoying. My beef has always been giving up on a cheap/controllable starter for a guy that's a bigger name but not a better pitcher, whom there's a good chance of losing at the end of this year. Why is this so hard to comprehend? If we were the Braves and had 3-4 ready or damn near ready starting pitchers on the brink of the big leagues this wouldn't be a big deal. But the Braves we are not.

[witesoxfan]

lol. He started it. So I have to offer a rebuttal. If this thread goes 15 pages it's not my fault.

 

First of all, why do you (not you lost) wait until he has a terrible start against an elite offense to make this thread? Hudson's ERA was 4.26 coming into today. Is that great? No. But we're still in the early stages of the season where one good game or bad game can drastically alter a pitcher's ERA. And for the love of the devil...Who has ever said that Hudson was great? Or that he's a HOF? Or that he's the next Greg Maddux? s*** is so annoying. My beef has always been giving up on a cheap/controllable starter for a guy that's a bigger name but not a better pitcher, whom there's a good chance of losing at the end of this year. Why is this so hard to comprehend? If we were the Braves and had 3-4 ready or damn near ready starting pitchers on the brink of the big leagues this wouldn't be a big deal. But the Braves we are not.

 

Man up, let this petty s*** go. Save your breath...breath?...hands and wrists for more important issues that we can yell at each other about over the Internet.

[maggsmaggs]

Hudson obviously was not as good as he was with Arizona last year, but he is not as bad as he has been this year. He still is a solid, young pitcher. I think E-Jax is a better for this year, but you have to look at the money in this comparison. One guy is a free agent who will command 10+ million and the other is locked up for a few years at a cheap rate. E-Jax = better 2011; Hudson better 2012 on.

 

 

[Swingandalongonetoleft]

I never got the feeling that Hudson was anything special. I didn't think he was s*** either. Having said that, the Sox got Edwin Jackson for him in the midst of a pennant race. Yeah, it didn't work out last year, but you can also probably find a nice 4 or 5 starter on the cheap somewhere if you need one. Sox have done this before, as recently as Garcia part II last year. Just because Hudson is young and easy on the payroll doesn't change the fact that he is a back of the rotation pitcher, of which there are many that are cheap (though admittedly, not young, but why is that important if the performance is the same?).

Edited April 22, 2011 by Swingandalongonetoleft

[maggsmaggs]

I also think the big problem, too, with losing Hudson is when we lose E-Jax to free agency after 2011 and then Danks in 2012. Sadly, I have very little confidence in us retaining Danks. His brother sucking balls in the Sox system probably has endeared the family to the Sox, either, not that the Sox have anything to do with Danks' horrible contact rate, but they may contend that they didn't develop him well.

[lostfan]

Brian Anderson had so much talent but he never got a legit shot here. Ozzie killed his career

[Leonard Washington]

Hudson obviously was not as good as he was with Arizona last year, but he is not as bad as he has been this year. He still is a solid, young pitcher. I think E-Jax is a better for this year, but you have to look at the money in this comparison. One guy is a free agent who will command 10+ million and the other is locked up for a few years at a cheap rate. E-Jax = better 2011; Hudson better 2012 on.

I don't even know that Hudson is better than Jackson from 2012 forward. But I think it's a hell of a good bet that he'll be the better value.

[maggsmaggs]

I don't even know that Hudson is better than Jackson from 2012 forward. But I think it's a hell of a good bet that he'll be the better value.

I actually just mean if he stayed with the Sox because he would be on the Sox whereas with E-Jax, I don't think he is on the Sox next year and thus, has no value to us. On pure performance, I agree with you that E-Jax might be better and on your value statement.

[Leonard Washington]

I actually just mean if he stayed with the Sox because he would be on the Sox whereas with E-Jax, I don't think he is on the Sox next year and thus, has no value to us. On pure performance, I agree with you that E-Jax might be better and on your value statement.

Gotcha. Yeah, I agree. I just hope Jackson can gain type-A status and we get a couple picks (which also means he pitches fairly well for us).

[Paint it Black]

I also think the big problem, too, with losing Hudson is when we lose E-Jax to free agency after 2011 and then Danks in 2012. Sadly, I have very little confidence in us retaining Danks. His brother sucking balls in the Sox system probably has endeared the family to the Sox, either, not that the Sox have anything to do with Danks' horrible contact rate, but they may contend that they didn't develop him well.

So because his brother his bad at baseball...he won't sign here?

 

What?

 

Also on Hudson, if he continues to suck I don't care how cheap and controllable he was. Bad is bad.

 

 

[LittleHurt05]

So because his brother his bad at baseball...he won't sign here?

 

What?

 

Also on Hudson, if he continues to suck I don't care how cheap and controllable he was. Bad is bad.

 

Danks won't sign here because he already turned down a contract extension that similar pitchers accepted. Also, the Sox front office won't offer the years that other teams will. (which I don't disagree with)

 

I agree about Hudson. I'm not a big Jackson fan at all, but cheap and controllable is only good if you keep the guy in the rotation for that many years. He never seemed to be considered a top prospect until he was traded. He might turn out to be a decent pitcher still, but I'd rather wait to see it happen than just assume he is.

[Leonard Washington]

In the subject of prospects, you need to have good internal scouting, and you need to trust it. For the most part, the Sox have done well with this. I don't know if their scouts have changed recently, but they haven't done nearly as well of a job separating the duds from the good ones. You look at the Angels, for example, and you see Brandon Wood. There was a time and place where he could have been the centerpiece for the best available player in baseball. Now he's DFA'd and can be had for peanuts. They took the risk of keeping and depending on him, and lost a ton of value. KW takes equally big risks, but usually in reverse. He'll take the risk that the guy doesn't develop the value he's expected to, and he sells high. He's been good at it, but he's losing his touch a little bit, as are the people he relies on. I'm OK with Hudson being gone, because I'm not that high on him personally. The only guy I'm still really upset about is Gio. There's a lot of doom and gloom about our management, but it's not easy to put together a team that's expected to compete year after year after year. Our division has something to do with it, but our division also has something to do with their decision making I'm sure. I'm rambling, but it just seems there's a whole lot of arguing going on that really is just hindsight being 20/20.

 

And for the record, I hated the Jackson trade. But I don't necessarily hate them for making it. Just for clarity.

[Quin]

Can we impose a ban on Daniel Hudson threads until after free agency this year? We all literally know the ensuing pointless bloodbaths that follow.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Quinarvy

[T R U]

But we're still in the early stages of the season where one good game or bad game can drastically alter a pitcher's ERA.

 

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?

[gatnom]

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.

 

 

[Dick Allen]

lol. He started it. So I have to offer a rebuttal. If this thread goes 15 pages it's not my fault.

 

First of all, why do you (not you lost) wait until he has a terrible start against an elite offense to make this thread? Hudson's ERA was 4.26 coming into today. Is that great? No. But we're still in the early stages of the season where one good game or bad game can drastically alter a pitcher's ERA. And for the love of the devil...Who has ever said that Hudson was great? Or that he's a HOF? Or that he's the next Greg Maddux? s*** is so annoying. My beef has always been giving up on a cheap/controllable starter for a guy that's a bigger name but not a better pitcher, whom there's a good chance of losing at the end of this year. Why is this so hard to comprehend? If we were the Braves and had 3-4 ready or damn near ready starting pitchers on the brink of the big leagues this wouldn't be a big deal. But the Braves we are not.

Yet if it were any pitcher you didn't like, Hudson's current stats would be proof he is garbage. The way Hudson was written about since the Jackson trade, you would think he couldn't lose 4 games in his career.

[Jordan4life_2007]

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?

 

Wait, what? Show me a post where I declared the season over. Yeah, I've been critical. But never have I deemed the season over. BOS waited until Hudson had one bad start to create this thread. Basically with the intention to mock those that weren't in favor of the Hudson/Jackson trade. Should I start a thread the next time Jackson gives up 5-6 runs in 4 innings?

 

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.

 

lol. I'm glad somebody notices this. I haven't been nearly as bad as Milkman, Sqwert and others. s***, greg has been worse. Though I will release my rage (in a clean way, of course) if a month from now we're sitting at 3-5 games below .500 or worse.

 

Yet if it were any pitcher you didn't like, Hudson's current stats would be proof he is garbage. The way Hudson was written about since the Jackson trade, you would think he couldn't lose 4 games in his career.

 

That's your misconception. Don't put that on me. And it's not about me "liking" Hudson or not. I've been consistent from day one (though I will concede that I obsess) with my stance on the trade from the moment it went down. Google the thread if you don't believe me.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Jordan4life

[Quin]

Wait, what? Show me a post where I declared the season over. Yeah, I've been critical. But never have I deemed the season over. BOS waited until Hudson had one bad start to create this thread. Basically with the intention to mock those that weren't in favor of the Hudson/Jackson trade. Should I start a thread the next time Jackson gives up 5-6 runs in 4 innings?

 

 

 

lol. I'm glad somebody notices this. I haven't been nearly as bad as Milkman, Sqwert and others. s***, greg has been worse. Though I will release my rage (in a clean way, of course) if a month from now we're sitting at 3-5 games below .500 or worse.

 

 

 

That's your misconception. Don't put that on me. And it's not about me "liking" Hudson or not. I've been consistent from day one (though I will concede that I obsess) with my stance on the trade from the moment it went down. Google the thread if you don't believe me.

 

Damn straight you're consistent, thats why this thread is blatantly a thread to bait you out into this. Also, no s*** you've been one of the more optimistic ones lately, I've been avoiding Pale Hose Talk it's become so overwhelmingly negative. At least when you're negative its got logical reason behind it.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Quinarvy

[Balta1701]

Can we impose a ban on Daniel Hudson threads until after free agency this year? We all literally know the ensuing pointless bloodbaths that follow.

As a person who hated this deal when it went down, I'd like to add my agreement for this sentiment.

[Paint it Black]

Danks won't sign here because he already turned down a contract extension that similar pitchers accepted. Also, the Sox front office won't offer the years that other teams will. (which I don't disagree with)

 

Just because Danks didn't sign the extension doesn't mean he wont. He's simply betting that he can get more money, and I don't really blame him.

 

Ultimately I think he signs if the Sox pony up for 5 years which in this particular case I have no problem with. He has shown he can stay healthy and I think he has been the best pitcher on the team the past 3 years.