QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 07:48 PM)
Of course Hudson wouldn't land us a better, cheaper starting pitcher. Who the f***, in their right mind, would do that?
Whenever someone says, "it is what it is," I've come to expect some funny explanations afterward. Hawk uses it all the time when he just doesn't have the patience to explain what's happening in front of him.
I just want to switch scenarios here -- if we had Jackson and traded him for a pitcher of Hudson's caliber (which, may be nothing more than a #3/#4), while saving 7.5+ million, everyone here would be ecstatic.
It may not be a bad trade in the sense one pitcher drastically outperforms the other, but ultimately, how much have we improved? Now, is this improvement worth a net increase in payroll of 7.5 million come next season? Are we doing this deal to perhaps improve one victory? And no, I don't want to hear you or anyone use that as justification, with some line of bulls*** following it about 'one game being the difference!"
But...one game could be the difference...