bigruss Posted September 4, 2010 Share Posted September 4, 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. How do you know anyone else was after Jackson? How do you actually know how much he was worht? We couldve been fleeced for all we know. If people are going to argue taht we dont truly know the value of Hudson then you honestly cant say the true value of Jackson at the time of the trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigruss Posted September 4, 2010 Share Posted September 4, 2010 A young pitcher with 6 years of cheap playing time who can perform from anywhere between a #3-5 starter during that time holds a tremendous amount of value because of how cheap he is. Hell, Jackson's salary next year may be the combined total salary of the next 4-5 years of Hudson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted September 4, 2010 Share Posted September 4, 2010 QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Sep 3, 2010 -> 09:07 AM) 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. This is such a bulls*** copout. Hudson could win the CY and we'd hear "Well, he did it in the NL." Newsflash: Jackson SUCKED in the NL. Jackson SUCKED for a team that's been out of the race from day 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted September 4, 2010 Share Posted September 4, 2010 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Sep 4, 2010 -> 04:11 PM) This is such a bulls*** copout. Hudson could win the CY and we'd hear "Well, he did it in the NL." Newsflash: Jackson SUCKED in the NL. Jackson SUCKED for a team that's been out of the race from day 1. I don't think it's a copout, thanks for using wonderful language to spice up your argument too, it's an easier league, flat-out.. I think it's a copout when people go crazy over prospects, it's easy, they are complete unknowns and then if they miss you can fall back on "it's a crapshoot, even with top prospects, nobody is perfect." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted September 4, 2010 Share Posted September 4, 2010 QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Sep 4, 2010 -> 06:11 PM) I don't think it's a copout, thanks for using wonderful language to spice up your argument too, it's an easier league, flat-out.. I think it's a copout when people go crazy over prospects, it's easy, they are complete unknowns and then if they miss you can fall back on "it's a crapshoot, even with top prospects, nobody is perfect." I apologize for the language. But how is that not a copout? You guys use the fact that he's in the NL as some kinda permanent security blanket. No matter what he does, he's in the NL and it's a lock he couldn't do well in the AL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 Hudson's only problem with the White Sox was throwing strikes consistently. When he does it, and when he did it with the White Sox, he was hard to beat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 6, 2010 -> 05:54 PM) Hudson's only problem with the White Sox was throwing strikes consistently. When he does it, and when he did it with the White Sox, he was hard to beat. And...that's a very, very common thing for a rookie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitlesswonder Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Sep 4, 2010 -> 06:11 PM) I don't think it's a copout, thanks for using wonderful language to spice up your argument too, it's an easier league, flat-out.. Using "It's an easier league" to dismiss Hudson's success is a copout. Not having to pitch to a DH is an advantage, but people have looked at projecting an ERA moving from the NL to AL and it's around a 0.4 difference in ERA. Even if you tack that onto Hudson's NL ERA, he'd have something like a 3.70 ERA in the AL. Moreover, Jackson was getting his ass handed to him in the NL...Hudson has significantly outperformed what Jackson did in AZ just to confuse matters. Jackson looks like a good pitcher who is under control for one more year at $8M. Hudson looks like a good pitcher under control for 5 more years and very cheap for 2 of those. It was not good trade. Probably not the worst that KW has made over the last decade, but it just wasn't a good trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R U Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 QUOTE (hitlesswonder @ Sep 7, 2010 -> 10:48 AM) Using "It's an easier league" to dismiss Hudson's success is a copout. Not having to pitch to a DH is an advantage, but people have looked at projecting an ERA moving from the NL to AL and it's around a 0.4 difference in ERA. Even if you tack that onto Hudson's NL ERA, he'd have something like a 3.70 ERA in the AL. Moreover, Jackson was getting his ass handed to him in the NL...Hudson has significantly outperformed what Jackson did in AZ just to confuse matters. Jackson looks like a good pitcher who is under control for one more year at $8M. Hudson looks like a good pitcher under control for 5 more years and very cheap for 2 of those. It was not good trade. Probably not the worst that KW has made over the last decade, but it just wasn't a good trade. it depends on what Hudson and Jackson do next season before you can call this a bad trade.. Hudson looked like crap this season for us, Jackson has been elite when we have needed it the most.. We may be further back if we had Hudson starting in place of Jackson.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigruss Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 QUOTE (T R U @ Sep 7, 2010 -> 04:36 PM) it depends on what Hudson and Jackson do next season before you can call this a bad trade.. Hudson looked like crap this season for us, Jackson has been elite when we have needed it the most.. We may be further back if we had Hudson starting in place of Jackson.. Soriano probably wouldve helped us win a few more games in 2006, but that doesn't mean he was worth giving Brandon McCarthy up for. Overpaying for a player is just that, it doesn't matter what that player does afterwards, because at the time of the trade you paid too much. It's a philosophy that will hurt you longterm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatnom Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Sep 7, 2010 -> 04:42 PM) Soriano probably wouldve helped us win a few more games in 2006, but that doesn't mean he was worth giving Brandon McCarthy up for. Overpaying for a player is just that, it doesn't matter what that player does afterwards, because at the time of the trade you paid too much. It's a philosophy that will hurt you longterm. While I agree that it was a bad trade, I think you're missing the angle that getting that one player who puts you over the top to get you into the playoffs could end up actually benefiting you in the long run. Based on an article somebody posted on this site awhile back, the revenue added is somewhat negligible unless you end up winning the world series (though I'm not sure how it would affect ticket sales etc. for next year's team... I would suspect that it would affect it little, but I'm not sure). It's the kind of move a GM like Kenny makes and is usually praised for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R U Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Sep 7, 2010 -> 04:42 PM) Soriano probably wouldve helped us win a few more games in 2006, but that doesn't mean he was worth giving Brandon McCarthy up for. Overpaying for a player is just that, it doesn't matter what that player does afterwards, because at the time of the trade you paid too much. It's a philosophy that will hurt you longterm. Soriano would have been a rental, we still have Jackson next season as well.. And I still think you are way ahead here on Hudson.. He could fall flat on his face next season with a full MLB rotation spot, you never know.. its too hard to say this was a bad trade right now.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 QUOTE (T R U @ Sep 8, 2010 -> 04:04 AM) Soriano would have been a rental, we still have Jackson next season as well.. And I still think you are way ahead here on Hudson.. He could fall flat on his face next season with a full MLB rotation spot, you never know.. its too hard to say this was a bad trade right now.. That's exactly why the deal for Soriano fell through...KW doing the deal was contingent on Soriano signing a big money extension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted September 9, 2010 Author Share Posted September 9, 2010 Watched a lot of Hudson's start tonight. Hitters just don't take good swings against his change-up. He's going to be a very good pitcher in the NL for a while if he can stay healthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 Hudson, Richard, Garland, oh my. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 8, 2010 -> 10:45 PM) Watched a lot of Hudson's start tonight. Hitters just don't take good swings against his change-up. He's going to be a very good pitcher in the NL for a while if he can stay healthy. But he did it against an NL team. It doesn't count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 8, 2010 -> 11:17 PM) Hudson, Richard, Garland, oh my. Hmmmm which one of these doesnt fit into the equation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxbsbllvr Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Sep 8, 2010 -> 10:21 PM) But he did it against an NL team. It doesn't count. Hmmmm maybe if the Sox waited he would be doing it against the AL as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted September 9, 2010 Author Share Posted September 9, 2010 QUOTE (soxbsbllvr @ Sep 9, 2010 -> 05:47 PM) Hmmmm maybe if the Sox waited he would be doing it against the AL as well. Couldn't agree more. It's not like he was getting hit hard in 2 of those 3 bad starts. If Beckham had any range at all, he could have had a decent start vs the A's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted September 10, 2010 Share Posted September 10, 2010 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 9, 2010 -> 06:46 AM) Hmmmm which one of these doesnt fit into the equation Ha, no s***. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted September 10, 2010 Share Posted September 10, 2010 QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 9, 2010 -> 12:49 PM) Couldn't agree more. It's not like he was getting hit hard in 2 of those 3 bad starts. If Beckham had any range at all, he could have had a decent start vs the A's. Come on Fathom...you were one of his harshest critics in the game threads...we can't always play revisionist history here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted September 10, 2010 Share Posted September 10, 2010 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 9, 2010 -> 11:46 AM) Hmmmm which one of these doesnt fit into the equation I think Garland is a good pitcher. All three of these guys would be decent additions to our staff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted September 10, 2010 Author Share Posted September 10, 2010 QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 10, 2010 -> 05:57 PM) Come on Fathom...you were one of his harshest critics in the game threads...we can't always play revisionist history here... I was saying his slider was awful compared to reports of it being his best pitch. I was always impressed with his change-up, but he definitely had control issues with his fastball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 10, 2010 Share Posted September 10, 2010 QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 10, 2010 -> 03:10 PM) I was saying his slider was awful compared to reports of it being his best pitch. I was always impressed with his change-up, but he definitely had control issues with his fastball. His control issues, at least to my eyes...were almost entirely of the sort I expect from a rookie; he was trying to paint the corner on every pitch rather than being willing to miss over the plate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted September 10, 2010 Share Posted September 10, 2010 QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 10, 2010 -> 01:47 PM) I think Garland is a good pitcher. All three of these guys would be decent additions to our staff. outside of this year, Garland has been pretty meh since he left the Sox. 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.