Daniel Hudson watch thread

[witesoxfan]

If we trade Jackson for a big bat this offseason, then it's essentially the same as trading Hudson for that big bat. I don't see why trading FOR Jackson was dumb, and then trading AWAY Jackson is dumb. Unless of course you are trying to say that trading away Hudson for ANY bat would be a bad idea, in which case I disagree with that too.

 

And then the Sox are left with a hole at the end of the rotation. Williams' MO pretty much throughout the entirety of his career is that if he trades pitching, he's getting pitching back. Garland for Cabrera is about the only deal I can think of where that wasn't the case.

 

Beyond that, which big bat is Edwin Jackson going to net you? He's only got one year left on his contract at $8 mill, he may not net you draft picks at the end of the year, and he's been quite mediocre throughout the entirety of his career. That doesn't sound like an overly valuable asset.

 

 

Ok, and how does having Hudson solve any of that? It's not like we traded away a 1B, C, or DH in the trade. It was pitcher for pitcher, so the rest of the holes we have are still the same. To me, that sounds irrelevant, if, as I said before, we trade Jackson in the offseason because then we have added no additional salary.

 

If you don't trade Hudson, you don't have an additional $7.5 mill tied up in payroll, and you have cost certainty beyond 2011 too (in fact, you have cost certainty until like 2016). Beyond that, many of us believe that Hudson was more valuable than Jackson, because he can virtually replicate what Jackson does on the mound AND he is cheaper AND he is controlled for longer.

 

So let me get this straight.....you are cool with trading 2 top prospects and 2 other prospects for an injured pitcher who makes $16M+, and one of those top prospects has proven himself as a good starter, but you are NOT cool with trading 1 top prospect for a healthy pitcher who makes half the salary as Peavy, and the prospect we traded is unproven.....

 

In no world was Aaron Poreda a top prospect. He can throw like 95 from the left side, but that's about it. There were concerns about his breaking and offspeed pitches, and he has no control of his stuff whatsoever. Dexter Carter has been terrible again this year, and Adam Russell is AAA fodder. Clayton Richard is benefitting heavily from throwing in the NL at Petco Park, and that was observed when, even though his ERA was half a run lower in the NL, his ERA+ was higher during his time with the White Sox last year. None of those guys looked like they would be successful starting pitchers. If anything, I thought Richard was going to be a dynamite reliever but that he didn't have what it took to become a good starter in the AL. I would make that trade again in a heartbeat.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Beyond that, which big bat is Edwin Jackson going to net you? He's only got one year left on his contract at $8 mill, he may not net you draft picks at the end of the year, and he's been quite mediocre throughout the entirety of his career. That doesn't sound like an overly valuable asset.

 

Well, Rizzo was apparently wanting Jackson for Adam Dunn, so I would have to say that's a pretty big bat, and that was when Jackson was pitching like s*** in the NL West. Now that he is dominating in the AL, why should I have reason to believe he still wouldn't have just as much value? Sure, he is coming for 2 months less, but he is also pitching exponentially better. $8M for a start of his caliber with Detroit and with us now is a bargin. There is value there.

 

 

If you don't trade Hudson, you don't have an additional $7.5 mill tied up in payroll, and you have cost certainty beyond 2011 too (in fact, you have cost certainty until like 2016). Beyond that, many of us believe that Hudson was more valuable than Jackson, because he can virtually replicate what Jackson does on the mound AND he is cheaper AND he is controlled for longer.

 

This is why I said it's not 2011 yet. We haven't begun to pay the $8.35M he is owed next year. Until next April rolls around and you see Jackson in a Sox uni, then don't complain about what is owed yet. Kenny tried trading Jackson less than a day after acquiring him, so why shouldn't we believe he wouldn't try and trade him this offseason? I ask for you to wait at least until April to b**** about his 2011 contract.

 

In no world was Aaron Poreda a top prospect. He can throw like 95 from the left side, but that's about it. There were concerns about his breaking and offspeed pitches, and he has no control of his stuff whatsoever. Dexter Carter has been terrible again this year, and Adam Russell is AAA fodder. Clayton Richard is benefitting heavily from throwing in the NL at Petco Park, and that was observed when, even though his ERA was half a run lower in the NL, his ERA+ was higher during his time with the White Sox last year. None of those guys looked like they would be successful starting pitchers. If anything, I thought Richard was going to be a dynamite reliever but that he didn't have what it took to become a good starter in the AL. I would make that trade again in a heartbeat.

 

Aaron Poreda was ranked our #2 prospect, and #63 prospect in baseball. Daniel Hudson was ranked our #3 prospect, and #66 in baseball. If you don't consider Poreda a top prospect back then, then don't consider Hudson one now. Whether or not you liked Poreda, or regardless of what he is doing now, he was a top prospect when we traded him. Sure, you can use hindsight and say he is not good anymore, but then wait that same period of time before you make your judgement on Hudson. He could very well lose it and go back to sucking too. But at least Edwin Jackson has a history of success in the American League. Hudson, did not.

[Balta1701]

But at least Edwin Jackson has a history of success in the American League. Hudson, did not.

 

Really? That's not exactly a strong argument there.

[witesoxfan]

Well, Rizzo was apparently wanting Jackson for Adam Dunn, so I would have to say that's a pretty big bat, and that was when Jackson was pitching like s*** in the NL West. Now that he is dominating in the AL, why should I have reason to believe he still wouldn't have just as much value? Sure, he is coming for 2 months less, but he is also pitching exponentially better. $8M for a start of his caliber with Detroit and with us now is a bargin. There is value there.

 

There have been several reports that have been published by a number of different people that state that Rizzo didn't want Jackson and that the Sox were 3rd in the Dunn race, and that by the end of July, the Sox weren't even interested in Dunn anymore. Rizzo wouldn't come down from Beckham.

 

I'm also not saying he doesn't have value, but you have to consider what type of hitter he can truly bring in. It would also almost certainly be a trade similar to the Garland trade of trading for a player with 1 year left on his deal. Another trade with the Angels, this time for Abreu, could be a possibility.

 

This is why I said it's not 2011 yet. We haven't begun to pay the $8.35M he is owed next year. Until next April rolls around and you see Jackson in a Sox uni, then don't complain about what is owed yet. Kenny tried trading Jackson less than a day after acquiring him, so why shouldn't we believe he wouldn't try and trade him this offseason? I ask for you to wait at least until April to b**** about his 2011 contract.

 

I'm not sure Williams ever did attempt to trade Jackson again. I'm pretty sure Williams traded for Jackson with full intention to keep him.

 

Aaron Poreda was ranked our #2 prospect, and #63 prospect in baseball. Daniel Hudson was ranked our #3 prospect, and #66 in baseball. If you don't consider Poreda a top prospect back then, then don't consider Hudson one now. Whether or not you liked Poreda, or regardless of what he is doing now, he was a top prospect when we traded him. Sure, you can use hindsight and say he is not good anymore, but then wait that same period of time before you make your judgement on Hudson. He could very well lose it and go back to sucking too. But at least Edwin Jackson has a history of success in the American League. Hudson, did not.

 

You are looking at this in a vacuum, where one #63 rated prospect is perfectly equal to another, and they have to be better than the #64 and have to be worse than #62. That's quite obviously not the case.

 

Aaron Poreda had a "pedigree" simply because he was a 1st round pick. He was also left handed and could throw the ball pretty hard. I honestly don't remember being all that enamored with him in the first place (because I wanted the Sox to pick Porcello, and I didn't like the Poreda pick at all), and I realized that he looked like he might be a decent prospect. He didn't have off the charts peripherals by any stretch of the imagination, and I don't seem to recall him ever really developing a good breaking pitch (which was vital to him performing in the big leagues). It doesn't look like he ever did.

 

Daniel Hudson was a 5th round pick, so he didn't have the "pedigree" that Poreda did. He was also right handed, and there were several big shot writers who questioned his stuff, though when I saw him pitch, I saw that he had good velocity and movement on his pitches. The biggest question for Hudson has always been his performance against good left handed hitters. Dan Hudson also pitched at 5 levels last year, and, though the levels of success varied, he was still very successful at each stop.

 

So, no, just because Aaron Poreda was the #2 prospect and was higher rated than Hudson, I don't have to think he was as big of a prospect. I had no problem with the Sox dealing Poreda when they did, but I would have been upset had they dealt Hudson.

 

Beyond that, you have to look at the return these guys acquired. When Poreda was dealt, it was for a potential Cy Young winning pitcher who was under team control for another 3 seasons (4 if you include the option year), and he wasn't even the centerpiece of the deal. When Hudson was dealt, he was traded for a starter who had an ERA of 5 in the NL who had 1 year in his entire career with an ERA below 4 and, though his peripherals improved in that year, there was still plenty of reason to believe that he was lucky to keep his ERA that low, and on top of that, the pitcher is only locked up for 1 more year.

 

---

 

I can use foresight and sound reasoning to look at the numbers and realize that it's entirely possible that the Sox could deal one of these 5 starters in the offseason, but that only leaves another hole on the 25-man roster that needs to be filled. In the meantime, I can see that the Sox have about $88 million tied up between 14 players and I realize that is also a problem. I can also look and realize that there is not a whole lot on the farm that can be dealt for good value at the moment. Of the White Sox top 10 prospects going into the season according to BA, Brent Morel is probably the player who has improved his value. Even he is considered to be just a good defensive 3Bman who will be an average at best offensive 3Bman, and though that has value, it's not the centerpiece of a deal to acquire a big bat. The Sox have quite a few holes to fill next season, not much money to work with, and not a ton of trading chips to deal. Because of that, I felt that Dan Hudson was going to be a big part of the transition period for the White Sox in the next 2-3 years while the Sox filled their other holes with the money and any other remaining chips they had to deal. Instead, I feel that Williams made a very short-sighted deal in trading Dan Hudson for Edwin Jackson, and because of that move, it's going to be much more difficult for the White Sox to fill out their roster with a competitive team next year, and I imagine the Sox will have another small sell-off, similar to what they did before the 2009 season when they dealt Swisher and Vazquez.

Edited August 18, 2010 by witesoxfan

[SoxAce]

There have been several reports that have been published by a number of different people that state that Rizzo didn't want Jackson and that the Sox were 3rd in the Dunn race, and that by the end of July, the Sox weren't even interested in Dunn anymore. Rizzo wouldn't come down from Beckham.

 

I'm also not saying he doesn't have value, but you have to consider what type of hitter he can truly bring in. It would also almost certainly be a trade similar to the Garland trade of trading for a player with 1 year left on his deal. Another trade with the Angels, this time for Abreu, could be a possibility.

 

 

 

I'm not sure Williams ever did attempt to trade Jackson again. I'm pretty sure Williams traded for Jackson with full intention to keep him.

 

 

 

You are looking at this in a vacuum, where one #63 rated prospect is perfectly equal to another, and they have to be better than the #64 and have to be worse than #62. That's quite obviously not the case.

 

Aaron Poreda had a "pedigree" simply because he was a 1st round pick. He was also left handed and could throw the ball pretty hard. I honestly don't remember being all that enamored with him in the first place (because I wanted the Sox to pick Porcello, and I didn't like the Poreda pick at all), and I realized that he looked like he might be a decent prospect. He didn't have off the charts peripherals by any stretch of the imagination, and I don't seem to recall him ever really developing a good breaking pitch (which was vital to him performing in the big leagues). It doesn't look like he ever did.

 

Daniel Hudson was a 5th round pick, so he didn't have the "pedigree" that Poreda did. He was also right handed, and there were several big shot writers who questioned his stuff, though when I saw him pitch, I saw that he had good velocity and movement on his pitches. The biggest question for Hudson has always been his performance against good left handed hitters. Dan Hudson also pitched at 5 levels last year, and, though the levels of success varied, he was still very successful at each stop.

 

So, no, just because Aaron Poreda was the #2 prospect and was higher rated than Hudson, I don't have to think he was as big of a prospect. I had no problem with the Sox dealing Poreda when they did, but I would have been upset had they dealt Hudson.

 

Beyond that, you have to look at the return these guys acquired. When Poreda was dealt, it was for a potential Cy Young winning pitcher who was under team control for another 3 seasons (4 if you include the option year), and he wasn't even the centerpiece of the deal. When Hudson was dealt, he was traded for a starter who had an ERA of 5 in the NL who had 1 year in his entire career with an ERA below 4 and, though his peripherals improved in that year, there was still plenty of reason to believe that he was lucky to keep his ERA that low, and on top of that, the pitcher is only locked up for 1 more year.

 

---

 

I can use foresight and sound reasoning to look at the numbers and realize that it's entirely possible that the Sox could deal one of these 5 starters in the offseason, but that only leaves another hole on the 25-man roster that needs to be filled. In the meantime, I can see that the Sox have about $88 million tied up between 14 players and I realize that is also a problem. I can also look and realize that there is not a whole lot on the farm that can be dealt for good value at the moment. Of the White Sox top 10 prospects going into the season according to BA, Brent Morel is probably the player who has improved his value the most. Even he is considered to be just a good defensive 3Bman who will be an average at best offensive 3Bman, and though that has value, it's not the centerpiece of a deal to acquire a big bat. The Sox have quite a few holes to fill next season, not much money to work with, and not a ton of trading chips to deal. Because of that, I felt that Dan Hudson was going to be a big part of the transition period for the White Sox in the next 2-3 years while the Sox filled their other holes with the money and any other remaining chips they had to deal. Instead, I feel that Williams made a very short-sighted deal in trading Dan Hudson for Edwin Jackson, and because of that move, it's going to be much more difficult for the White Sox to fill out their roster with a competitive team next year, and I imagine the Sox will have another small sell-off, similar to what they did before the 2009 season when they dealt Swisher and Vazquez.

 

In the words of Stacey King...

 

STOP IT! STOP IT! DON'T DO HIM LIKE DAT!!!

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

There have been several reports that have been published by a number of different people that state that Rizzo didn't want Jackson and that the Sox were 3rd in the Dunn race, and that by the end of July, the Sox weren't even interested in Dunn anymore. Rizzo wouldn't come down from Beckham.

 

I'm also not saying he doesn't have value, but you have to consider what type of hitter he can truly bring in. It would also almost certainly be a trade similar to the Garland trade of trading for a player with 1 year left on his deal. Another trade with the Angels, this time for Abreu, could be a possibility.

 

 

 

I'm not sure Williams ever did attempt to trade Jackson again. I'm pretty sure Williams traded for Jackson with full intention to keep him.

 

 

 

You are looking at this in a vacuum, where one #63 rated prospect is perfectly equal to another, and they have to be better than the #64 and have to be worse than #62. That's quite obviously not the case.

 

Well, there were even more reports saying that Rizzo wanted Jackson, and the team to get Jackson would be the team to get Dunn. I guess we won't really know, on that front.

 

And to the bolded part, I am not saying that Poreda was better because he was ranked with a lower number than Hudson, I am merely saying that they were BOTH considered top prospects. Whether one was better than the other is irrelevant to my point that they were both considered in the same class of prospect. I too think that Hudson was better than Poreda, but either way, they were both a top prospect when we traded them.

 

 

All in all, I will continue to root for Jackson and hope he keeps up the dominance. If it's your thing, you can continue to root for Hudson and maybe hope Jackson fails to fulfill your notion that it was an awful trade and we wasted money that we haven't begun to pay for yet. To each their own.

[danman31]

There's no way Hudson is this good. 10 K to 0 BB? That translates to the NL being no better than the International League at this point. How's John Ely doing? Stop rushing to judgments after 4 starts. If you did that after his first four starts, everyone would love the trade.

[maggliopipe]

Some very interesting discussion in this thread regarding value of players. There's oftentimes a difference between true value and perceived value, a difference which can only be truly evaluated in retrospect. Sometimes KW seems to ignore an "objective" view of perceived value (I know, that doesn't make sense) in trades. For instance Jackson has pitched like ass this year... Oh wait I take that back, he threw a no hitter. His perceived value was low. Now, Coop may have seen something in his delivery he thought he could fix, but that's internal knowledge that shouldn't affect his value to the league. It's like KW paid for Jackson as if he was already a Coop-repaired commodity. You know AZ was dying to shed the salary commitment for next year... it just sucks that KW paid so high a price. Same goes for trade targets in the past: trading for Thome coming off a bad injury with a huge contract, trading the studly arb-eligible BMac for an unknown commodity in Danksy, taking on the enormous contract of injury-riddled Peavy for a couple of highly-regarded young players. The fact that many players he's traded haven't panned out is irrelevant, it just means that their value has decreased from where it was when he made the trades.

 

He may do this knowingly; perhaps his MO is to keep trade partners happy and willing to trade with him in the future. The anti-Mike Rizzo.

[iamshack]

There's no way Hudson is this good. 10 K to 0 BB? That translates to the NL being no better than the International League at this point. How's John Ely doing? Stop rushing to judgments after 4 starts. If you did that after his first four starts, everyone would love the trade.

Ahh, very good point. Very good point.

[Rowand44]

I just finished reading through most of this thread. Pages 5-7 have some of the most bizarre arguments I've ever seen on this board.

[bigruss]

I like Jackson, I think he will be a competent 4th starter with potential to go higher, problem is I see Hudson the same way. Tie in the fact that Hudson was the only minor league pitcher the Sox had ready to come up and contribute in significant ways makes this deal really tough. Yes, we could trade Jackson after the season, but then we're down to 4 starters again and no young, cheap replacements.

[southsider2k5]

There's no way Hudson is this good. 10 K to 0 BB? That translates to the NL being no better than the International League at this point. How's John Ely doing? Stop rushing to judgments after 4 starts. If you did that after his first four starts, everyone would love the trade.

 

The best examples ever of that have to be Josh Fogg and Kip Wells.

[Brian]

This is off topic, but I get a chubby thinking of a rotation next year of Danks, Floyd, Edwin, Buehrle, and hopefully a healthy Peavy. Chris Sale as back up.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

I like Jackson, I think he will be a competent 4th starter with potential to go higher, problem is I see Hudson the same way. Tie in the fact that Hudson was the only minor league pitcher the Sox had ready to come up and contribute in significant ways makes this deal really tough. Yes, we could trade Jackson after the season, but then we're down to 4 starters again and no young, cheap replacements.

 

The idea being that Sale can do in 2011 what Hudson did in 2010 for us, and I think that's pretty fair.

[Balta1701]

The idea being that Sale can do in 2011 what Hudson did in 2010 for us, and I think that's pretty fair.

Traded mid-season for an NL starter with an ERA over 5?

[witesoxfan]

There's no way Hudson is this good. 10 K to 0 BB? That translates to the NL being no better than the International League at this point. How's John Ely doing? Stop rushing to judgments after 4 starts. If you did that after his first four starts, everyone would love the trade.

 

Except that the National League is far better than the International League, and you know that. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Dan Hudson is as good as he's been in his 4 starts with the Diamondbacks, but I don't think anyone is suggesting that Jackson is going to be as good as he has been in 3 starts with the White Sox either.

 

I also don't think it's fair to compare John Ely and Dan Hudson. I never thought that Ely would be stick. Right handers whose fastballs can't break 90 MPH usually don't fair well, unless they're throwing knuckleballs. Dan Hudson has averaged 93 MPH in his time in the majors, both last year and this year, so he actually has some velocity to work with to keep hitters honest.

 

Personally, I think Williams should have taken your advice about not rushing to judgment after 4 starts. Hudson's track record in the minors suggested he was going to be a better pitcher than the mediocrity he'd thrown with the White Sox, and Williams panicked and traded him for Edwin Jackson.

 

The best examples ever of that have to be Josh Fogg and Kip Wells.

 

Except that, again, Dan Hudson put up far better numbers than either of them. Wells is about the only one who you can compare to Hudson in regards to stuff, and he never put up the results that Hudson did in the minors (partly because the Sox rushed the hell out of him).

[Balta1701]

It's worth mentioning, I think, that Edwin Jackson's been fantastic with the White Sox: 1.35 ERA in three starts, with 24 strikeouts and five walks.

 

Unfortunately, because of the future costs associated with each pitcher, this trade works for the White Sox only if Jackson's better than Hudson in the near term and Jackson's performance gets the White Sox into the playoffs. Otherwise it's just an awful, awful deal.

 

That's one example of a "challenge trade": I'll trade you my [position] guy for your [same position] guy." We don't have many examples, but we've got another fine one this season: shortstop Yunel Escobar for shortstop Alex Gonzalez. When the deal was made, the point (from the Braves' perspective) was supposedly addition by subtraction, as the Braves were reportedly disenchanted by Escobar's attitude as much as his slow start this season, statistically.

 

Since the trade? In 27 games, Escobar's batted .297/.350/.414, right in line with his career numbers. In 31 games, Gonzalez has batted .250/.317/.411, almost exactly in line with his career numbers. They're both good defensive players. The only real difference between them -- leaving aside attitudes, I mean -- is that Gonzalez is six years older and slightly more expensive.

 

We'll see what happens. But I suspect that in both cases, we'll wind up figuring the teams getting the younger players did better.

Some national discussion of this deal.

[fathom]

Hudson with another dominating start. UGH!!

[SoxAce]

Updated stuff:

 

7.0 IP 4 H 0 R 0 ER 2 BB 9 SO

 

3.10 ERA, 1.15 WHIP

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Man, I never thought I would be rooting so hard AGAINST Hudson, but it looks like all your Jackson haters are making me wish bad starts towards Huddy.

[Quin]

Man, I never thought I would be rooting so hard AGAINST Hudson, but it looks like all your Jackson haters are making me wish bad starts towards Huddy.

 

He's flourishing like Carlos Silva.

[fathom]

He's flourishing like Carlos Silva.

 

So why didn't Edwin Jackson flourish?

[Quin]

So why didn't Edwin Jackson flourish?

 

No idea. Jackson should have been pitching like Ubaldo Jimenez with the AL-NL differential.

 

Maybe it's a comfort thing? Who knows.

[danman31]

Except that the National League is far better than the International League, and you know that. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Dan Hudson is as good as he's been in his 4 starts with the Diamondbacks, but I don't think anyone is suggesting that Jackson is going to be as good as he has been in 3 starts with the White Sox either.

 

I also don't think it's fair to compare John Ely and Dan Hudson. I never thought that Ely would be stick. Right handers whose fastballs can't break 90 MPH usually don't fair well, unless they're throwing knuckleballs. Dan Hudson has averaged 93 MPH in his time in the majors, both last year and this year, so he actually has some velocity to work with to keep hitters honest.

 

Personally, I think Williams should have taken your advice about not rushing to judgment after 4 starts. Hudson's track record in the minors suggested he was going to be a better pitcher than the mediocrity he'd thrown with the White Sox, and Williams panicked and traded him for Edwin Jackson.

I think the players have similar value for the next couple years. My problem with the trade is finances and finances only, but people are going about this all wrong by looking at Hudson's few starts with Arizona so far. With Hudson, the judgment has to be made over a year or so. Hitters will adjust to him, his stuff isn't good enough to dominate the NL like this.

 

In the short term, Jackson has been as good so there really can't be a complaint in terms of the quality of player we received for Hudson. Not yet at least.

[Balta1701]

I think the players have similar value for the next couple years. My problem with the trade is finances and finances only, but people are going about this all wrong by looking at Hudson's few starts with Arizona so far. With Hudson, the judgment has to be made over a year or so. Hitters will adjust to him, his stuff isn't good enough to dominate the NL like this.

 

In the short term, Jackson has been as good so there really can't be a complaint in terms of the quality of player we received for Hudson. Not yet at least.

His stuff isn't good enough to totally dominate the NL, but an ERA in the low 3's in the NL is, IMO, entirely reasonable for him.