Jordan4life_2007 Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 QUOTE (Real @ Aug 28, 2010 -> 04:11 PM) It's gotta be easier, by leaps and bounds, for a kid like Hudson to pitch when there's no pressure on... in a weaker hitting league, in a pitchers park Just sayin LMAO@ Chase field being a pitchers park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Aug 27, 2010 -> 12:45 AM) The two best pitchers in baseball the last month have been Jackson and Hudson. Go figure. Trades are weird like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigruss Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 Why is it that Hudson gets most of his credit due to the NL switch, yet barely anyone (besides Balta) brings up the point that Jackson was in the NL for months!! Jackson sucked in the NL. Jackson has been great with us, but I still dont like the value we gave up for him, mainly because of our lack of depth. That is what will stick with me through the history of this trade (not to mention the financial strangehold Jackson's contract puts us in). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrlesque Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Aug 28, 2010 -> 01:55 PM) That's pretty obvious considering that NL teams substitute a great hitter (DH) for a non-hitter (pitcher), and usually build team around less power and more speed. Wait, are we talking about Ozzie Guillen? I thought he managed in the AL?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrlesque Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Aug 29, 2010 -> 03:22 AM) Why is it that Hudson gets most of his credit due to the NL switch, yet barely anyone (besides Balta) brings up the point that Jackson was in the NL for months!! Jackson sucked in the NL. Jackson has been great with us, but I still dont like the value we gave up for him, mainly because of our lack of depth. That is what will stick with me through the history of this trade (not to mention the financial strangehold Jackson's contract puts us in). Totally, 100% agree with this. Jackson is great, but he didn't require us giving up our top prospect to get him. Value-wise, that trade will never make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 Edwin f'n Jackson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 (edited) QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Aug 29, 2010 -> 10:06 AM) Totally, 100% agree with this. Jackson is great, but he didn't require us giving up our top prospect to get him. Value-wise, that trade will never make sense. Just because he's the White Sox top prospect doesn't mean the White Sox should overvalue him. They have to realistically slot him as the rest of the league does especially if you see something of value you really want, and the White Sox said they saw some stuff on Jackson that they thought they could quickly fix. As far as Edwin Jackson's contract goes, well the deadspin documents shed a lot of light on how you can't always go by what we the public may think is a realistic revenue, they play in the 3rd largest market, a lot of things like TV and other stuff are going to be higher, the Rangers TV contract is about 60m, with the Sox owning 25% of Comcast, it's not unrealistic to think the Sox is in that ballpark... also, look at some of the things like Jumbotron messages on those sheets, they are a lot more than many people I've talked to thought they were. Edited September 1, 2010 by SoxFan562004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 Daniel who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 1, 2010 -> 09:33 AM) Daniel who? The last name is Hudson. Sporting a 1.85 ERA in his last 6 starts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 (edited) QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Sep 1, 2010 -> 10:29 PM) The last name is Hudson. Sporting a 1.85 ERA in his last 6 starts. I can't believe how many Sox fans devalued Hudson on such a short sample size, his work with the Sox this season. What was it three starts? It sure seemed to me we could have got Jackson for much less. The perception to me at least was he was a guy who they desperately wanted to dump for salary purposes. I know some on here have disagreed with me on that. Jackson has been amazing. So that's a consolation, but couldn't we have given up a couple s***ty prospects for Edwin? Edited September 2, 2010 by greg775 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigruss Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 1, 2010 -> 10:28 PM) I can't believe how many Sox fans devalued Hudson on such a short sample size, his work with the Sox this season. What was it three starts? It sure seemed to me we could have got Jackson for much less. The perception to me at least was he was a guy who they desperately wanted to dump for salary purposes. I know some on here have disagreed with me on that. Jackson has been amazing. So that's a consolation, but couldn't we have given up a couple s***ty prospects for Edwin? Oh my god, I...I...I actually agree with you, on alot of that. I dont agree just a couple s***ty prospects would have gotten him, but some midlevel prospects shouldve been fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 1, 2010 -> 10:28 PM) I can't believe how many Sox fans devalued Hudson on such a short sample size, his work with the Sox this season. What was it three starts? It sure seemed to me we could have got Jackson for much less. The perception to me at least was he was a guy who they desperately wanted to dump for salary purposes. I know some on here have disagreed with me on that. Jackson has been amazing. So that's a consolation, but couldn't we have given up a couple s***ty prospects for Edwin? Probably not. If the D'Backs would have taken s***ty prospects, don't you think the Sox would have done it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrlesque Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Aug 31, 2010 -> 09:06 PM) Just because he's the White Sox top prospect doesn't mean the White Sox should overvalue him. They have to realistically slot him as the rest of the league does especially if you see something of value you really want, and the White Sox said they saw some stuff on Jackson that they thought they could quickly fix. As far as Edwin Jackson's contract goes, well the deadspin documents shed a lot of light on how you can't always go by what we the public may think is a realistic revenue, they play in the 3rd largest market, a lot of things like TV and other stuff are going to be higher, the Rangers TV contract is about 60m, with the Sox owning 25% of Comcast, it's not unrealistic to think the Sox is in that ballpark... also, look at some of the things like Jumbotron messages on those sheets, they are a lot more than many people I've talked to thought they were. The trade was a success from the standpoint that Jackson has been purely awesome with the Sox, and I'm not saying it was wrong to acquire him. But if the situation was reversed, and the Sox had a $8 million pitcher with a 5+ ERA in the NL they were looking to dump, I doubt KW would have obtained a prospect as good as Hudson for him. Jackson could have an 0.00 ERA for the rest of the season, and Hudson could suck hard for the rest of his career, it won't change the relative values they had on July 30, 2010. All that said, thank God we have Jackson now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Sep 2, 2010 -> 04:35 AM) Oh my god, I...I...I actually agree with you, on alot of that. I dont agree just a couple s***ty prospects would have gotten him, but some midlevel prospects shouldve been fine. A lot of posters have said in various posts at various times they agree with me. My positions aren't always that radical. It's probably the force and repetition in which I state my case that makes it seem I always differ from others' opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 1, 2010 -> 10:37 PM) Probably not. If the D'Backs would have taken s***ty prospects, don't you think the Sox would have done it? Exactly. I doubt Kenny led with Daniel Hudson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigruss Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 2, 2010 -> 02:27 PM) Exactly. I doubt Kenny led with Daniel Hudson. That still doesnt excuse the trading of the value that Hudson was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Sep 2, 2010 -> 02:39 PM) That still doesnt excuse the trading of the value that Hudson was. If you see something in Edwin Jackson, and you want him, and that's the price... then you pay it. Edwin Jackson is a pimp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 2, 2010 -> 04:59 PM) If you see something in Edwin Jackson, and you want him, and that's the price... then you pay it. Edwin Jackson is a pimp. Just like CQ was a pimp in 2008. Or how Beckham was last year. Edwin is pitching out of his mind right now. Will need at least a half season to fully gauge if this is the real Edwin. And when I say that I don't mean a 1.47 ERA over a full season. But a legitimate one or two, or at the very least an all-star caliber starter. I will say that he definitely, and this has always been the case, has the arsenal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 I'm sorry, but the Hudson love is on overflow. Does anyone honestly think he would've done as good as he has in the AL? How about in a small sandlot that we play in? Jackson always had the stuff and he's still pretty young. Hudson has decent stuff who didn't have the problems that EJ did. With that said, Jackson always had the higher potential. I'm sure KW wasn't like "We'll give you Hudson for EJ...waddayasay?" He probably started with Threets and found out he had to give up Hudson. Maybe Coop didn't like something Hudson did, or didn't do, similar to BMac. Maybe the people who still want Hudson here were BMac's biggest supporters. Either way, keep in mind Jackson was in high demand. You were going to have to give something up. Especially considering they give up Scherzer for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexSoxFan#1 Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 EFJ is for reals, homey...that is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Sep 2, 2010 -> 07:03 PM) I'm sorry, but the Hudson love is on overflow. Does anyone honestly think he would've done as good as he has in the AL? How about in a small sandlot that we play in? Jackson always had the stuff and he's still pretty young. Hudson has decent stuff who didn't have the problems that EJ did. With that said, Jackson always had the higher potential. I'm sure KW wasn't like "We'll give you Hudson for EJ...waddayasay?" He probably started with Threets and found out he had to give up Hudson. Maybe Coop didn't like something Hudson did, or didn't do, similar to BMac. Maybe the people who still want Hudson here were BMac's biggest supporters. Either way, keep in mind Jackson was in high demand. You were going to have to give something up. Especially considering they give up Scherzer for him. I don't think it is. Some people are arguing his exact worth, but I don't see anyone blowing him up too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Sep 2, 2010 -> 07:03 PM) I'm sorry, but the Hudson love is on overflow. Does anyone honestly think he would've done as good as he has in the AL? How about in a small sandlot that we play in? Jackson always had the stuff and he's still pretty young. Hudson has decent stuff who didn't have the problems that EJ did. With that said, Jackson always had the higher potential. I'm sure KW wasn't like "We'll give you Hudson for EJ...waddayasay?" He probably started with Threets and found out he had to give up Hudson. Maybe Coop didn't like something Hudson did, or didn't do, similar to BMac. Maybe the people who still want Hudson here were BMac's biggest supporters. Either way, keep in mind Jackson was in high demand. You were going to have to give something up. Especially considering they give up Scherzer for him. Chase Field is more of a hitters park than the Cell. And Edwin will have to drastically outperform Hudson for this trade to be a net gain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 (edited) QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Sep 2, 2010 -> 11:29 PM) And Edwin will have to drastically outperform Hudson for this trade to be a net gain. Or at the very least re-sign with us. Hell I'll take what he's making now for two more years, I just don't wanna have a one more year and done from him (which bothers me more-so than the higher dough) unless KW trades him. (or trades for another pitcher) Best of luck to us talking with Scott Boras though. Edited September 3, 2010 by J.Reedfan8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 (edited) QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 1, 2010 -> 10:28 PM) I can't believe how many Sox fans devalued Hudson on such a short sample size, his work with the Sox this season. What was it three starts? It sure seemed to me we could have got Jackson for much less. The perception to me at least was he was a guy who they desperately wanted to dump for salary purposes. I know some on here have disagreed with me on that. Jackson has been amazing. So that's a consolation, but couldn't we have given up a couple s***ty prospects for Edwin? Why didn't they then? It's so easy to say that or decide how the rest of the league valued Hudson and then use it as an argument to slam KW and the Sox, when none of us really know what the rest of the league and the White Sox valued Hudson when the trade went down, how the White Sox valued E-Jax, who else was calling about E-Jax and what were they offering... etc... So do you think KW purposely overpaid for him or got hoodwinked? QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Sep 2, 2010 -> 05:04 PM) Just like CQ was a pimp in 2008. Or how Beckham was last year. Edwin is pitching out of his mind right now. Will need at least a half season to fully gauge if this is the real Edwin. And when I say that I don't mean a 1.47 ERA over a full season. But a legitimate one or two, or at the very least an all-star caliber starter. I will say that he definitely, and this has always been the case, has the arsenal. Same can be said for Hudson, and he gets to do it in the NL. Good for him that he's pitching well in the NL on a team that was completely out of the race when they got him. So many things can happen, NEVER would want to see this but Hudson can throw a pitch and get hurt, the league can adjust and he gets batted around or at least even out. I like Hudson as a prospect, don't get me wrong, but that's all he still is at this point, and yes, all E-Jax is an up and down vet who is peaking right now, so we'll definitely see what has to happen. However, E-Jax is 26 and was once a top prospect, Cooper has a good track record with those guys, a perfect 100% track record of fixing them? Of course not, no pitching coach will ever have that. Edited September 3, 2010 by SoxFan562004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBolt Posted September 4, 2010 Share Posted September 4, 2010 (edited) Nice little interview with Huddy. A couple cool excerpts "Do you still follow the White Sox closely? Yes, I'd love to see them do well. I keep in touch with a bunch of guys, especially (pitchers Matt) Thornton, Sergio Santos, Erick Threets. Any regrets during your stay? I wish I had met Jim Thome when he was there. We went to Detroit the last series of the season, and he got everybody a $300 credit for all the young guys to buy clothes at a store. That's a testament to how great a guy he is. (Note: Thome was traded from the White Sox to the Los Angeles Dodgers on Aug. 31, 2009.) " http://content.usatoday.com/communities/da...ed-man/1?csp=34 Edited September 4, 2010 by Thunderbolt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.