MANNYPALOOZA 2-0!!! SOX WIN!!!

[Jordan4life_2007]

I hate how people are still chiming in "For those who hated the deal look at Jackson now!" and all that crap. If you look at most of the arguments on this site, you will see it wasnt the fact we got Jackson, but the price we paid.

 

In fact, most people were intrigued by Jackson, and welcomed him to the team. That said, we paid a steep price for the value that Jackson held at the time, and without Hudson we have a very expensive starting rotation next year without any ready replacements if we decide to trade a starter.

 

If we kept Hudson and still got Jackson, we can go ahead and trade one of our starters, fill some holes, while still being 5 strong. IMO, and I know Im not a GM but looking at recent trends and the value of young, MLB starters with potential, I would say Hudson/Holmberg was too much for Jackson and no salary relief.

 

For those who use the NL excuse for Hudson's success thus far, then how do you explain such a steep price for a 5 era in the NL Jackson? Not to mention he really has had only a year and a half of success, and has struggled with every team he has been on.

 

The NL excuse card is pretty ridiculous, considering Hudson has faced better lineups than Jackson has.

 

[bigruss]

The NL excuse card is pretty ridiculous, considering Hudson has faced better lineups than Jackson has.

And it's not like Jackson was in the middle of a race too.

[caulfield12]

He had a fantastic first half for Detroit last year. His success hasn't come out of nowhere.

 

He must have a sign on his back that says "I like throwing too many pitches." Leyland had him throw too much (thus the second-half slide), then he threw 150 pitches in his no-hitter, now Ozzie (who is usually excellent on managing pitch counts) has him throw 130.

 

 

Who do you go to there in the bottom of the 9th?

 

Jenks? Pena? Linebrink?

 

You're sure?

 

Jackson has proven he can extend himself while pitching in Detroit and especially with the no-hitter. I think 130 was the magic number where Ozzie wasn't going to go over it, he was just hoping that he wouldn't have to pull him for the Rocky Jenks Picture Show.

[TheBigHurt]

Ladies and Gentlemen, Edwin f***ING Jackson.

 

I guess I owe the man an apology. He keeps pitching like this and we should be happy to give him 8 mil next year.

[Jordan4life_2007]

I guess I owe the man an apology. He keeps pitching like this and we should be happy to give him 8 mil next year.

 

You don't owe him anything. He's not THIS good. He's going to normalize. And he still hasn't seen a legitimate lineup. Give him full credit for what he's done thus far. But that's it.

[caulfield12]

I guess I owe the man an apology. He keeps pitching like this and we should be happy to give him 8 mil next year.

 

 

Well, it's all relative.

 

Look at how much we gave Garland, Contreras and Javy to pitch for us.

[iamshack]

I hate how people are still chiming in "For those who hated the deal look at Jackson now!" and all that crap. If you look at most of the arguments on this site, you will see it wasnt the fact we got Jackson, but the price we paid.

 

In fact, most people were intrigued by Jackson, and welcomed him to the team. That said, we paid a steep price for the value that Jackson held at the time, and without Hudson we have a very expensive starting rotation next year without any ready replacements if we decide to trade a starter.

 

If we kept Hudson and still got Jackson, we can go ahead and trade one of our starters, fill some holes, while still being 5 strong. IMO, and I know Im not a GM but looking at recent trends and the value of young, MLB starters with potential, I would say Hudson/Holmberg was too much for Jackson and no salary relief.

 

For those who use the NL excuse for Hudson's success thus far, then how do you explain such a steep price for a 5 era in the NL Jackson? Not to mention he really has had only a year and a half of success, and has struggled with every team he has been on.

Oh my goodness, this is Chris Young all over again.

 

I'm not sure how anyone could fault the price paid for this guy at this point. Bottom line is, we were very confident we could turn Edwin into a nasty pitcher for us, without much of an adjustment period. We have done exactly that. What we were not sure of, was what we had in Hudson. But let's face it, he showed very little signs of being the guy he has been in AZ when he was here. Just like Edwin looked nothing like the guy he was in AZ since he has been here.

 

Can't we ever just say that the trade has worked out for both sides thus far?

 

Sure, you can argue that we gave up the pre-arb player with no accumulated service time under his belt. But you can't say with any relative certainty that we would be getting out of him what AZ is getting out of him right now. You just can't. There were absolutely no signs of that this year in his 3 starts. So maybe we would have never gotten it. Maybe it would have taken three more starts before we got it. Maybe it would have happened just the way it has with AZ. But we didn't know that at the time. What we did know, was that we could get quality starts out of EJ, and we have.

 

So just let it be for what it is. We acquired a guy who has pitched to a 1.36 ERA (or whatever it is) and has eaten innings and been absolutely filthy while doing it. If I would have told you what Edwin would do in his first 5 starts for us at the time we made the Hudson trade, I doubt any of you would have been against pulling the trigger.

[greg775]

AJ's bomb was a thing of beauty.

Jackson has been amazing and was again tonight.

Bpbby got the job done

Pierre got 2 more hits.

Good thing we are finally beating Cleveland cause Minnie keeps winning.

Minnesota is f***ing 20 games over .500. We are 12 over.

 

[TheBigHurt]

Well, it's all relative.

 

Look at how much we gave Garland, Contreras and Javy to pitch for us.

 

Yeah, but compare what Garland and Contreras did for us compared to Javy. Garland won 18 games two years straight and was a vital part of our WS title, as was Jose who was the best f***ing pitcher in baseball for quite a while. IF Jackson can pitch like that next year he'd still be worth the investment.

 

Keep in mind, good right now or not I still don't like the trade in hindsight.

[greg775]

Oh my goodness, this is Chris Young all over again.

 

I'm not sure how anyone could fault the price paid for this guy at this point. Bottom line is, we were very confident we could turn Edwin into a nasty pitcher for us, without much of an adjustment period. We have done exactly that. What we were not sure of, was what we had in Hudson. But let's face it, he showed very little signs of being the guy he has been in AZ when he was here. Just like Edwin looked nothing like the guy he was in AZ since he has been here.

 

Can't we ever just say that the trade has worked out for both sides thus far?

 

Sure, you can argue that we gave up the pre-arb player with no accumulated service time under his belt. But you can't say with any relative certainty that we would be getting out of him what AZ is getting out of him right now. You just can't. There were absolutely no signs of that this year in his 3 starts. So maybe we would have never gotten it. Maybe it would have taken three more starts before we got it. Maybe it would have happened just the way it has with AZ. But we didn't know that at the time. What we did know, was that we could get quality starts out of EJ, and we have.

 

So just let it be for what it is. We acquired a guy who has pitched to a 1.36 ERA (or whatever it is) and has eaten innings and been absolutely filthy while doing it. If I would have told you what Edwin would do in his first 5 starts for us at the time we made the Hudson trade, I doubt any of you would have been against pulling the trigger.

 

Shack makes a good point, but he sure seemed like a guy that was a salary dump and many of us hate giving up Hudson for him.

But you are right.

If Jackson keeps this up into next season it will be hard to complain about this deal.

He certainly has done a great great job.

[Rowand44]

You don't owe him anything. He's not THIS good. He's going to normalize. And he still hasn't seen a legitimate lineup. Give him full credit for what he's done thus far. But that's it.

This is what is still stopping me from going absolutely crazy about him. Absolutely love and am ridiculously appreciative of what he's done so far but he's faced some bad, bad teams so far. My gut tells me he's going to continue to dominate against even very good hitting clubs but I got to see it before I'm 100 percent convinced.

[iamshack]

Shack makes a good point, but he sure seemed like a guy that was a salary dump and many of us hate giving up Hudson for him.

But you are right.

If Jackson keeps this up into next season it will be hard to complain about this deal.

He certainly has done a great great job.

It was not a salary dump. Jackson is a high-risk/high-reward kind of pitcher. He has a very high ceiling, and we are seeing that now. Remember, the guy is still only 26 years old.

 

And another point: Just because Jackson pitched poorly in the NL this season, and Hudson has pitched well, does not prove anything. There is no inverse relationship present where Jackson pitching poorly and Hudson pitching well in the NL equals Jackson pitching well in the AL so Hudson therefore would pitch well in the AL. It does not work that way. Hudson did not prove he could pitch well as a starter in the AL and Jackson has, and until Hudson does prove that, the fact that Hudson has succeeded in a place where Jackson did not means very little.

 

I'm very skeptical that Hudson would be doing what Jackson has been since the trade was made.

[Jordan4life_2007]

It was not a salary dump. Jackson is a high-risk/high-reward kind of pitcher. He has a very high ceiling, and we are seeing that now. Remember, the guy is still only 26 years old.

 

And another point: Just because Jackson pitched poorly in the NL this season, and Hudson has pitched well, does not prove anything. There is no inverse relationship present where Jackson pitching poorly and Hudson pitching well in the NL equals Jackson pitching well in the AL so Hudson therefore would pitch well in the AL. It does not work that way. Hudson did not prove he could pitch well as a starter in the AL and Jackson has, and until Hudson does prove that, the fact that Hudson has succeeded in a place where Jackson did not means very little.

 

I'm very skeptical that Hudson would be doing what Jackson has been since the trade was made.

 

Yeah, 3 full starts really proved that.

[iamshack]

Yeah, 3 full starts really proved that.

I said he did not prove he could pitch in the AL. Can you dispute that?

 

I didn't say he was incapable of it, just that he failed to prove that he was. And we would have all loved to have given him more of a chance, but unfortunately, we couldn't exactly afford to wait and find out.

 

Answer me this, did he show us anything in his three starts that would have led you to believe he would pitch as well as he has for the DBacks?

[Jordan4life_2007]

I said he did not prove he could pitch in the AL. Can you dispute that?

 

I didn't say he was incapable of it, just that he failed to prove that he was. And we would have all loved to have given him more of a chance, but unfortunately, we couldn't exactly afford to wait and find out.

 

Answer me this, did he show us anything in his three starts that would have led you to believe he would pitch as well as he has for the DBacks?

 

Nope. Just like Jackson showed me nothing all season that proved he could turn into prime Curt Schilling. Baseball is funny like that. I still don't like the trade overall. And I say that giving Jackson his full due for what he's done so far.

[iamshack]

Nope. Just like Jackson showed me nothing all season that proved he could turn into prime Curt Schilling. Baseball is funny like that. I still don't like the trade overall. And I say that giving Jackson his full due for what he's done so far.

Maybe not this year, but Jackson has succeeded before, in the American League, and in the AL Central in particular. Additionally, he has unanimously much better stuff than Hudson, as well as a much higher ceiling.

 

The odds of Jackson doing what he is doing were probably far greater than Hudson doing what he has done, especially considering he had not done it before in his brief opportunities up until that point.

 

But hey, you guys keep complaining about giving up a maybe top 75 prospect for a year and a half of what looks like potentially a top of the rotation starter. I guess we should only trade a guy like Hudson for Evan Longoria.

[caulfield12]

And, in the end, if the finances aren't nearly the issue KW and JR always make them out to be, the other 75% of the complaining about this trade evaporates as a reason for not liking it, IF Jackson continues to perform like one of the top starters in the AL (while pitching in the heat of a pennant race in the AL, not for one of the worst teams in baseball in the pitcher-friendly NL West).

 

(Of course, the argument will be why wasn't E-Jackson pitching better for AZ under similar conditions? Well, you can ask Don Cooper and JAX for the answer on that one? And maybe, just maybe, there's a relationship that Hudson's new pitching coach has with Daniel that couldn't be established in Chicago, but I honestly think Cooper believed Jackson's upside was simply higher and that the "fix" was a relatively simple one, which it has proven to be so far).

[Kyyle23]

Edwin has seen plenty of these legitimate lineups you guys are talking about, while he was with the Rays and Tigers. And last year in the first half EJ was mowing them down before his second half fade. If you look at his splits on baseball reference, he actually had some decent success against some of the better hitting teams of the AL

[Leonard Zelig]

The NL excuse card is pretty ridiculous, considering Hudson has faced better lineups than Jackson has.

 

So your "NL is vastly inferior" stance only applies when you want it to?

[RockRaines]

Maybe not this year, but Jackson has succeeded before, in the American League, and in the AL Central in particular. Additionally, he has unanimously much better stuff than Hudson, as well as a much higher ceiling.

 

The odds of Jackson doing what he is doing were probably far greater than Hudson doing what he has done, especially considering he had not done it before in his brief opportunities up until that point.

 

But hey, you guys keep complaining about giving up a maybe top 75 prospect for a year and a half of what looks like potentially a top of the rotation starter. I guess we should only trade a guy like Hudson for Evan Longoria.

Like I said before, it wasnt about who can pitch better at the time, it was that Jackson gave us a better chance to possibly save the bullpen and eat quality innings which was a must vs grooming a young guy throwing 4 innings. Huddy isnt going to be Halladay so who cares.

[chetkincaid]

Ladies and Gentlemen, Edwin f***ING Jackson.

 

You could have closed this thread after this post. Nothing more needed to be said.

[Harry Chappas]

He had a fantastic first half for Detroit last year. His success hasn't come out of nowhere.

 

He must have a sign on his back that says "I like throwing too many pitches." Leyland had him throw too much (thus the second-half slide), then he threw 150 pitches in his no-hitter, now Ozzie (who is usually excellent on managing pitch counts) has him throw 130.

 

The guy hit 100 with his last or next to last pitch. I do not think he was tiring.

 

I do not know what Edwin Jackson is going to turn into but this is what an ace looks like.

 

He is also 26 years old.

Edited September 1, 2010 by Jenks Heat

[BigSqwert]

The guy hit 100 with his last or next to last pitch. I do not think he was tiring.

 

I don't think he should have been out there with well over 100 pitches in the 9th. He should have been pulled after the first batter reached base. I know our bullpen sucks but I don't want to mess up our best starter's arm.

[bigruss]

Oh my goodness, this is Chris Young all over again.

 

I'm not sure how anyone could fault the price paid for this guy at this point. Bottom line is, we were very confident we could turn Edwin into a nasty pitcher for us, without much of an adjustment period. We have done exactly that. What we were not sure of, was what we had in Hudson. But let's face it, he showed very little signs of being the guy he has been in AZ when he was here. Just like Edwin looked nothing like the guy he was in AZ since he has been here.

 

Can't we ever just say that the trade has worked out for both sides thus far?

 

Sure, you can argue that we gave up the pre-arb player with no accumulated service time under his belt. But you can't say with any relative certainty that we would be getting out of him what AZ is getting out of him right now. You just can't. There were absolutely no signs of that this year in his 3 starts. So maybe we would have never gotten it. Maybe it would have taken three more starts before we got it. Maybe it would have happened just the way it has with AZ. But we didn't know that at the time. What we did know, was that we could get quality starts out of EJ, and we have.

 

So just let it be for what it is. We acquired a guy who has pitched to a 1.36 ERA (or whatever it is) and has eaten innings and been absolutely filthy while doing it. If I would have told you what Edwin would do in his first 5 starts for us at the time we made the Hudson trade, I doubt any of you would have been against pulling the trigger.

Just because you're not sure what you have in Hudson doesnt mean you trade him for that value. Edwin may have held alot of value to the White Sox, but that doesnt mean he had alot of value on the market. Thus, it was a fine idea to trade for him, just not at the price we paid. Obviously, you disagree, Im just saying I wouldve offered Holmberg and one of Flowers/Morel/Danks2, and maybe a throw in lower level guy.

 

When you consider what Jackson makes next year, and the fact we didnt receive any financial help, I just cannot agree with the trade for what we gave up. Jackson's value was not worth that much. Trading Hudson, your one legitimate young MLB starter ready to start now, will hurt you in the long run because now you have a $54 million starting rotation next year, and if you trade one of those starters you will ahve to fill that hole somehow. Thus, youre forcing yourself to trade for a starter or have to sign an overpriced FA.

[bigruss]

Like I said before, it wasnt about who can pitch better at the time, it was that Jackson gave us a better chance to possibly save the bullpen and eat quality innings which was a must vs grooming a young guy throwing 4 innings. Huddy isnt going to be Halladay so who cares.

I care when we have to trade a starter next year just for financial reasons. Not only do we lose a player, but teams are going to know that we cannot afford our rotation, thus hurting their trade value, or we will have a suck ass offense again, which we all know how much we love.