White Sox Acquire Edwin Jackson

[scenario]

Deferred comp is typically established via a trust. And it's possible that trust has already been funded, leaving only the regular salary left to be paid.

 

[iamshack]

Thinking back to the negotiations I would guess that the money has been set aside as well, because it sure sounded like they were only talking about money from this season.

Well, looking at teams that might claim him...I don't know how far he falls...San Fran could claim him....Philly, especially if Howard is going to be out for any significant period of time...would Boston be crazy enough? Cincinnati?

 

Should be really interesting, especially considering the Dodgers are now 6.5 out of the WC with 4 teams in front of them...

Edited August 2, 2010 by iamshack

[Pumpkin Escobar]

Wrong. Some of the best talent in the game today were waiver deals.

It happens all the time:

 

Adam Dunn was a waiver trade in 2009. He's an extreme value.

Carl Pavano was a waiver trade last season. He's an extreme value.

Rios was a waiver claim last season. He's an extreme value.

Billy Wagner was a waiver trade last season. He's an extreme value.

 

Adam Dunn, claimed by the 2nd place Dbacks. In 2008 btw. Not 2009. They were in second place in the NL west at the time and that was .500. Meaning a whole 5 teams declined on the free agent to be. Those teams being Padres, Giants, Nationals, Braves and Pirates. Ya, real quality found for a first place squad in the opposing league some 20 teams later in our case this season.

 

Pavano? Extreme value? Especially at the time of his waiver deal. Moderate value at best? I'd let that slide. Considering his career era is north of 4 and his AL career ERA is hovering close to 5. Good season this year, happy for the guy but come on. Extreme value? And then trying to say it'd make it to a first place club? Thats the biggest thing you don't get. They don't last to first place clubs and if they do, there is something wrong with them.

 

Rios, as stated, on waiver at this point last year was viewed as a salary dump for an uncertain, declining talent. Claimed by one of the worst teams in the AL, being us, and since we were the 6th worst team in the AL, 5th excluding Toronto who released him and him not needing to pass through the NL. That means 4 teams, the royals, baltimore, cleveland and Oakland rejected him. Not exactly teams opening the books for a guy who had sucked with a ton of money left. He didn't last long since we claimed him, thus preventing possibly a first place team to get him. Now that wasn't our intention but if the Yankees were banking on him, then you can compare them to us this season and how being low man on the totem pole isn't a good thing in waiver deals.

 

Billy wagner. Again, a pathetic comparison just used because of his name. He had pitched a total of 2 scoreless innings since returning from surgery at 38 years old. Hadnt even been a full year since TJ, so not exactly the elite closer hitting the market midseason. He was a question mark, which is why he survived through 2 leagues until Boston claimed him.

 

So please no more convicting "wrongs" when clearly you have no clue what you're talking about.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Pumpkin Escobar

[greg775]

Dealing Hudson for him is tough to swallow because much like Richard, the NL will prove weaker and his numbers will look better.

 

 

I agree.

I wonder what would have happened had Hudson had 3 incredible starts for us, instead of mediocre ones? Would we have kept him? Would we have gotten Dunn? Jackson for Hudson doesn't thrill me.

Edited August 2, 2010 by greg775

[macsandz]

Adam Dunn, claimed by the 2nd place Dbacks. In 2008 btw. Not 2009. They were in second place in the NL west at the time and that was .500. Meaning a whole 5 teams declined on the free agent to be. Those teams being Padres, Giants, Nationals, Braves and Pirates. Ya, real quality found for a first place squad in the opposing league some 20 teams later in our case this season.

 

Pavano? Extreme value? Especially at the time of his waiver deal. Moderate value at best? I'd let that slide. Considering his career era is north of 4 and his AL career ERA is hovering close to 5. Good season this year, happy for the guy but come on. Extreme value? And then trying to say it'd make it to a first place club? Thats the biggest thing you don't get. They don't last to first place clubs and if they do, there is something wrong with them.

 

Rios, as stated, on waiver at this point last year was viewed as a salary dump for an uncertain, declining talent. Claimed by one of the worst teams in the AL, being us, and since we were the 6th worst team in the AL, 5th excluding Toronto who released him and him not needing to pass through the NL. That means 4 teams, the royals, baltimore, cleveland and Oakland rejected him. Not exactly teams opening the books for a guy who had sucked with a ton of money left. He didn't last long since we claimed him, thus preventing possibly a first place team to get him. Now that wasn't our intention but if the Yankees were banking on him, then you can compare them to us this season and how being low man on the totem pole isn't a good thing in waiver deals.

 

Billy wagner. Again, a pathetic comparison just used because of his name. He had pitched a total of 2 scoreless innings since returning from surgery at 38 years old. Hadnt even been a full year since TJ, so not exactly the elite closer hitting the market midseason. He was a question mark, which is why he survived through 2 leagues until Boston claimed him.

 

So please no more convicting "wrongs" when clearly you have no clue what you're talking about.

 

All my waiver examples are some of the best talent at what they do in the game today. Not sure how this is confusing to you. But you keep on with the "pathetics" and "convictings" if it makes you feel better.

 

[scenario]

Great baseball discussion guys. Keep it going. But please don't escalate the personal stuff.

[southsider2k5]

Deferred comp is typically established via a trust. And it's possible that trust has already been funded, leaving only the regular salary left to be paid.

 

If that is the case, it would seem that the Dodgers would be on the hook for that money almost for sure.

[Pumpkin Escobar]

All my waiver examples are some of the best talent at what they do in the game today. Not sure how this is confusing to you. But you keep on with the "pathetics" and "convictings" if it makes you feel better.

 

K. Pavano is having his 2nd good season of his career. Hardly one of the "best talents". I still cannot believe I am reading that. More then once, no less. It's like you'll say anything to try and pretend your point is more valid then it is.

 

And you failed to accept that US, the White Sox, being a first place team, have minimal chance of seeing that "kind of talent" through waivers.

 

Even if we used your cheap evidence of a whole 4 names in the history of the waiver deadline, out of the hundreds of talented ballplayers in baseball today, only Wagner made it through almost both leagues when claimed. Of the four guys you used.

 

Rios, since you missed it, lasted 4 or 5 teams. Didn't see the top AL teams and didnt make it to the NL. Meaning, if it was this season when a guy like Rios was being claimed, a team like Detroit, would be in the place to get him and theyre much better then we were last season at the point of claiming Rios.

 

Dunn, same deal, last 5 teams in the NL in 2008. Didn't see the frontrunner's of the NL and certainly not the other league. Sure Zona was in the race but the whole division was under .500 or at .500 at the time of the claim and most of the NL Central and NL East didn't get to see Dunn because they had better records then the lowly NL West.

 

Fairly certain I can't make this any easier to comprehend. There is no certainty, since that is how this debate started, that a "impact bat" will be there for us in the roll we covet. That role, being a DH, preferably LH power bat. Maybe someone does get out there and i'll jump for joy but the point is that it is not as often as you're pretending it is, nor on the level of which we need. I hope someone is there and if so, thats great but rarely, rarely do you see the most vital need for a team, their biggest weakness, just sitting out there for a first place team to claim without someone stepping in and blocking it. That or the player isn't out there and they settle for a decent player - which we may do, but hardly the likes of Dunn or whoever you're insinuating is/will be out there.

 

I'm sure we could find a minor bat but not "some of the games best talent". Doesn't work that way.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Pumpkin Escobar

[caulfield12]

In recent years, names like Adam Dunn, Larry Walker, Jamie Moyer, Brian Giles, Jason Bay and Rickey Henderson have been traded to contenders in August, and those are but a few of many examples.

 

Just last season, we saw 27 trades or waiver claims within the month of August — moves that involved notables such as Billy Wagner, Scott Kazmir, Jon Rauch, Carl Pavano, Jim Thome, Alex Rios, Ivan Rodriguez, Jon Garland and Jose Contreras. So history suggests the trading game in 2010 is far from over.

foxsports.com

 

Scott, Dunn, Fielder, Ramirez, Hawpe, D-Lee and Figgins are some of the prominent names being mentioned....

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

Scott, Dunn, Fielder, Ramirez, Hawpe, D-Lee and Figgins are some of the prominent names being mentioned....

Half of those guys will get claimed early and pulled back.

[chw42]

K. Pavano is having his 2nd good season of his career. Hardly one of the "best talents". I still cannot believe I am reading that. More then once, no less. It's like you'll say anything to try and pretend your point is more valid then it is.

 

And you failed to accept that US, the White Sox, being a first place team, have minimal chance of seeing that "kind of talent" through waivers.

 

Even if we used your cheap evidence of a whole 4 names in the history of the waiver deadline, out of the hundreds of talented ballplayers in baseball today, only Wagner made it through almost both leagues when claimed. Of the four guys you used.

 

Rios, since you missed it, lasted 4 or 5 teams. Didn't see the top AL teams and didnt make it to the NL. Meaning, if it was this season when a guy like Rios was being claimed, a team like Detroit, would be in the place to get him and theyre much better then we were last season at the point of claiming Rios.

 

Dunn, same deal, last 5 teams in the NL in 2008. Didn't see the frontrunner's of the NL and certainly not the other league. Sure Zona was in the race but the whole division was under .500 or at .500 at the time of the claim and most of the NL Central and NL East didn't get to see Dunn because they had better records then the lowly NL West.

 

Fairly certain I can't make this any easier to comprehend. There is no certainty, since that is how this debate started, that a "impact bat" will be there for us in the roll we covet. That role, being a DH, preferably LH power bat. Maybe someone does get out there and i'll jump for joy but the point is that it is not as often as you're pretending it is, nor on the level of which we need. I hope someone is there and if so, thats great but rarely, rarely do you see the most vital need for a team, their biggest weakness, just sitting out there for a first place team to claim without someone stepping in and blocking it. That or the player isn't out there and they settle for a decent player - which we may do, but hardly the likes of Dunn or whoever you're insinuating is/will be out there.

 

I'm sure we could find a minor bat but not "some of the games best talent". Doesn't work that way.

 

Pavano actually had a pretty good season last year peripheral wise. It was a great pickup for the Twins at the time. His FIP and xFIP were a whole run lower than his ERA. That horrible Cleveland infield killed him.

 

[caulfield12]

Pavano actually had a pretty good season last year peripheral wise. It was a great pickup for the Twins at the time. His FIP and xFIP were a whole run lower than his ERA. That horrible Cleveland infield killed him.

 

The Twins' fifth starters in 2003 (Kenny Rogers at the beginning of the year), Livan Hernandez in 2008 and Pavano 2nd half of 2009 all played, at least in my mind, THE crucial roles in those three division titles...and I'm convinced that if they would have dumped Livan about 3-4 weeks earlier, they would have won two years ago. That was the one year where going cheap bit them, along with 2005 and 2007.

 

 

[Pumpkin Escobar]

Pavano actually had a pretty good season last year peripheral wise. It was a great pickup for the Twins at the time. His FIP and xFIP were a whole run lower than his ERA. That horrible Cleveland infield killed him.

 

 

The Twins' fifth starters in 2003 (Kenny Rogers at the beginning of the year), Livan Hernandez in 2008 and Pavano 2nd half of 2009 all played, at least in my mind, THE crucial roles in those three division titles...and I'm convinced that if they would have dumped Livan about 3-4 weeks earlier, they would have won two years ago. That was the one year where going cheap bit them, along with 2005 and 2007.

 

I'm glad his peripherals were decent. Decent isn't good. The kid mentioned elite talent or best talent, I decline to put pavano in that category. He has 2, if you really really want last season, I'll give you 3 good seasons in his career. Which has been 10+ years? So 3 good years makes him elite? I consider elite or best maybe 15 SP, the rest can be considered good, then average. Pavano is avg.

 

Again, I'm not talking about what waiver guys did after the claim or the season after. These weren't waiver guys but Brady Anderson and Fernando Tatis had massive seasons once in their careers. The rest of the time they were mediocre or garbage. I'm not gauging what he did after the Twins got him. There is a reason he was able to slide past other teams, because he isn't an extreme talent. I'm sure we could find a Pavano like hitter on the market, someone who hits 15 homers a year but magically hits 20 every once and a while. Those guys aren't the type of guys every team covets, teams go out of their way to claim or block, they're just not. Pavano was a mediocre arm and the Twins needed backend of the rotation. I've never once heard this kind of love for Carl Pavano, it's like the twilight zone.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Pumpkin Escobar

[caulfield12]

It's just because he's on the Twins, our hated rival, and he's pitching as well as he has since his early NL career.

 

Just a couple of seasons ago, he was one of the biggest jokes and worst contracts in baseball, he's quietly redeemed himself a bit from that low point.

 

Finally, because of the Jose Valentin/Leroy Nieman/Rollie Fingers/Snideley Whiplash Moustache.

Edited August 2, 2010 by caulfield12

[WCSox]

It's just because he's on the Twins, our hated rival, and he's pitching as well as he has since his early NL career.

 

Just a couple of seasons ago, he was one of the biggest jokes and worst contracts in baseball, he's quietly redeemed himself a bit from that low point.

 

It's amazing how health and quality pitching go hand-in-hand.

 

[VAfan]

Most of this discussion took place while I was on vacation and away from the internet. And I confess I haven't read nearly 1800 posts. But I've read a lot of them, and I find myself disagreeing with most of the position's taken.

 

Position #1 -- Jackson is a lousy pitcher. While I don't totally disagree with this view, I think the more accurate view is that Jackson is a pitcher with an electric arm who hasn't consistently harnessed his talent yet. As a 26-year old with several years of ML service, Jackson still has plenty of time to become not only a good pitcher, but a dominant one. He's got to learn how to locate the strike zone better, mostly. And not tip his pitches. These are fixable problems.

 

Position #2 -- Jackson isn't worth Hudson and Holmberg. A lot of this argument was made on the length of Sox control and relative cost difference between the players. These are not invalid points. But almost no one seemed to notice that Jackson is the type of power pitcher the Sox do not have, and who could be immensely valuable in the postseason if he fixes his mechanical/tipping problems. Hudson would be almost worthless to the Sox in the postseason this year. (Anyone here willing to start him against the Yanks, Rays, or Rangers? Would you use him in relief in anything other than a game that has already been lost?) Jackson could be a starter that might pitch anywhere from the #1-#4 positions. He could get crushed. But he could also dominate and win you a ballgame almost by himself.

 

Position #3 -- We shoulda gotten Dunn, and KW was an idiot for getting Jackson without a guaranteed flip for Dunn. I wrote a while ago that I didn't want Dunn, and I'm glad we didn't get him. He is the definition of the 2-month rental. IMHO, Jackson is the more valuable piece, especially if he rights himself, because he could win a postseason game by himself, and he's got a second year on his contract. I wanted Roy Oswalt, not Jackson. But Roy was refusing a deal to Chicago, and in Jackson we get a guy with Roy's power pitching arm albeit in a much less polished form. So the job is to straighten out Jackson, not pine for Dunn. Freddy Garcia made Dunn look silly this year. Don't you think the Yanks/Rays/Rangers lefties could do the same in the postseason?

 

I think Jackson is a reasonable addition. Not ideal, perhaps, but very reasonable. Don Cooper can certainly fix his tipping pitches problem. If can also get him to control his wildness, he could be the key to the postseason.

 

Danks, Floyd, Buehrle, Garcia look overmatched to me in postseason matchups against the Yanks and Rays at least. By inserting Jackson for Garcia, I think the Sox will have a better chance to advance. Again, I would rather have had Roy Oswalt, but he wasn't available.

[witesoxfan]

Most of this discussion took place while I was on vacation and away from the internet. And I confess I haven't read nearly 1800 posts. But I've read a lot of them, and I find myself disagreeing with most of the position's taken.

 

Position #1 -- Jackson is a lousy pitcher. While I don't totally disagree with this view, I think the more accurate view is that Jackson is a pitcher with an electric arm who hasn't consistently harnessed his talent yet. As a 26-year old with several years of ML service, Jackson still has plenty of time to become not only a good pitcher, but a dominant one. He's got to learn how to locate the strike zone better, mostly. And not tip his pitches. These are fixable problems.

 

There are not a ton of pitchers who go throw 800 innings of mediocrity in their career and then have the light switch on. The best example I can think of is Chris Carpenter, but he also had Dave Duncan as his pitching coach, and Dave Duncan has turned mediocrity into good and good into great on several occasions.

 

I honestly think one of Jackson's biggest problems is that he really doesn't have much of a secondary fastball. If he can throw a 2-seamer or cutter effectively, while also maintaining some semblance of control, he could be a very good pitcher. He is still young, and his arm is still good, so all we as fans can do is hope.

 

Position #2 -- Jackson isn't worth Hudson and Holmberg. A lot of this argument was made on the length of Sox control and relative cost difference between the players. These are not invalid points. But almost no one seemed to notice that Jackson is the type of power pitcher the Sox do not have, and who could be immensely valuable in the postseason if he fixes his mechanical/tipping problems. Hudson would be almost worthless to the Sox in the postseason this year. (Anyone here willing to start him against the Yanks, Rays, or Rangers? Would you use him in relief in anything other than a game that has already been lost?) Jackson could be a starter that might pitch anywhere from the #1-#4 positions. He could get crushed. But he could also dominate and win you a ballgame almost by himself.

 

I would have had no problem using Hudson in relief. In fact, with 2 plus pitches, I think he could be incredibly successful as a reliever.

 

Further, Jackson can't technically win a game by himself, unless he was pitching in games 1, 2, 6, or 7 of the World Series. He needs some help. And, on the flip side of that, a hitter can't win a game all by himself either. He can go 4-4 with 4 solo home runs, but if no one else gets on and the pitching staff gives 5 runs, 4 solo home runs can't win the game either.

 

Position #3 -- We shoulda gotten Dunn, and KW was an idiot for getting Jackson without a guaranteed flip for Dunn. I wrote a while ago that I didn't want Dunn, and I'm glad we didn't get him. He is the definition of the 2-month rental. IMHO, Jackson is the more valuable piece, especially if he rights himself, because he could win a postseason game by himself, and he's got a second year on his contract. I wanted Roy Oswalt, not Jackson. But Roy was refusing a deal to Chicago, and in Jackson we get a guy with Roy's power pitching arm albeit in a much less polished form. So the job is to straighten out Jackson, not pine for Dunn. Freddy Garcia made Dunn look silly this year. Don't you think the Yanks/Rays/Rangers lefties could do the same in the postseason?

 

The biggest problem area on this team is offense, and there is one key area where the Sox could improve, and Dunn fit that mold perfectly. That's reason #1 fans wanted him. Dunn is also very close to attaining type A free agent status, and the Sox could then offer him arbitration and either retain Dunn for a semi-reasonable rate, or let him go to free agency and collect two draft picks for him. That adds future value to the franchise, and it's something Edwin Jackson almost certainly will not do unless he can pitch well enough this year to lower his ERA to respectability and then pitch extremely well next year. That is reason #2.

 

I think Jackson is a reasonable addition. Not ideal, perhaps, but very reasonable. Don Cooper can certainly fix his tipping pitches problem. If can also get him to control his wildness, he could be the key to the postseason.

 

Danks, Floyd, Buehrle, Garcia look overmatched to me in postseason matchups against the Yanks and Rays at least. By inserting Jackson for Garcia, I think the Sox will have a better chance to advance. Again, I would rather have had Roy Oswalt, but he wasn't available.

 

This I can agree with for the most part, though as of this moment, it would be a coin flip for me between Jackson and Garcia. Jackson is a much more talented pitcher, and has some experience in the postseason, but Garcia has been better this year and has a more impressive postseason track record, even if he was a completely different pitcher during that time frame. Garcia has adjusted to his new style of pitching quite well, and I honestly don't have huge anxiety throwing him into the postseason rotation. Maybe I'm crazy, but I almost think his style of pitching would work well in the postseason.

[VAfan]

Whitesoxfan, you and I both posted before last night's game.

 

While I would say the sample size is small, and therefore the jury is still out, I wouild note that Mr. Cooper has already done a fair amount of magic with Mr. Jackson. Looking only at last night's game, and realizing further improvement could be made, don't you think the Jackson trade is looking a whole lot better than almost anyone on Sox Talk thought? Not only was he not tipping pitches, but he didn't walk anyone until the 8th inning, and didn't even get to 3 strikes on them. And for all the Tiger singles, I'm trying to remember if any of them even reached 3rd base before Jackson was pulled.

 

I'm thrilled with the trade at this point. I think with further improvement -- for example, several of the Tigers hits looked like they came off Jackson's change up or whatever that soft-tossing pitch was that he threw up to guys he had 2 strikes on -- Jackson could perform as well as Jake Peavy might have.

 

As for the Dunn v. Jackson debate, we aren't going to outslug the Yankees or Rangers with our without Dunn. We have to outpitch them to win. Jackson gives us a much better chance to do so than we had a week ago.

[whitesoxfan101]

I'm sure this was already addressed in this thread, but does this trade show a lack of confidence in Hudson short term, a lack of confidence in Hudson long term, a lack of confidence in the long term prognosis of Jake Peavy after his weird injury, the belief that Edwin Jackson can thrive under Coop, all of the above, or some of the above?

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

I'm sure this was already addressed in this thread, but does this trade show a lack of confidence in Hudson short term, a lack of confidence in Hudson long term, a lack of confidence in the long term prognosis of Jake Peavy after his weird injury, the belief that Edwin Jackson can thrive under Coop, all of the above, or some of the above?

 

I would say more lack of Rizzo being a doucher and going back on what he said he wanted for Dunn.

[thedoctor]

i don't follow the salary stuff as closely as others but what are the odds that the opening day rotation next year is buehrle, peavy, danks, floyd, and jackson?

 

for the purposes of this question, i will say that there are no hiccups in peavy's rehab and he's ready to roll when spring training starts next year.

[chetkincaid]

I think we might have been hosed if Rizzo did take Jackson in a trade for Dunn. Who would have been the 5th guy in the rotation? I know Brett Myers was brought up, but who could the Sox have traded to Houston for him?

[whitesoxfan101]

I think we might have been hosed if Rizzo did take Jackson in a trade for Dunn. Who would have been the 5th guy in the rotation? I know Brett Myers was brought up, but who could the Sox have traded to Houston for him?

 

Myers signed an extension in Houston, which is one of the reasons I'm now skeptical of the idea we traded for Jackson specifically to acquire Dunn, and then were caught with our pants down when Rizzo changed his mind. It seems like we just wanted Jackson IMO, perhaps with one of the reasons being the doubt about Peavy's long term prognosis.

Edited August 5, 2010 by whitesoxfan101

[balfanman]

This I can agree with for the most part, though as of this moment, it would be a coin flip for me between Jackson and Garcia. Jackson is a much more talented pitcher, and has some experience in the postseason, but Garcia has been better this year and has a more impressive postseason track record, even if he was a completely different pitcher during that time frame. Garcia has adjusted to his new style of pitching quite well, and I honestly don't have huge anxiety throwing him into the postseason rotation. Maybe I'm crazy, but I almost think his style of pitching would work well in the postseason.

 

I don't necessarily disagree on the bolded part Witesoxfan, especially if you mean pure physical ability at this stage of Garcias' career. I happen to think a big part of a players, particularly a pitchers, "talent"is between the ears. Over the years Garcia has shown as much smarts & mental toughness (cajones if you well) than anyone else that I can think of. Taking that into consideration, I personally believe that Garcia has as much "talent" as anyone on the team. Does Jackson? I don't know. I hope so, but we'll have to see.

[RockRaines]

FYI, Rizzo said there were two other teams closer to getting Dunn than the Sox, I would really stay away from the Dunn points from here on out.