Edwin Jackson Megathread...

[Jordan4life_2007]

I dunno, if I'm drafting a guy in the 1st round...I really want him to at least be tried as a starter. I want him to be moved to the bullpen because I have 5 reasonably priced guys signed for several years and no where else to put him.

 

How many of the games great closers, past or present, were first round picks? I know Lee Smith was a second round pick. As far as today, Broxton was a 2nd round pick. You just don't draft pitchers with your first round pick unless you're almost 100% sure they're starter caliber.

[southsider2k5]

I dunno, if I'm drafting a guy in the 1st round...I really want him to at least be tried as a starter. I want him to be moved to the bullpen because I have 5 reasonably priced guys signed for several years and no where else to put him.

 

I'd like him to be a starter. I just won't call him a "wasted pick" if he ends up as a stud in the pen.

[Balta1701]

I'd like him to be a starter. I just won't call him a "wasted pick" if he ends up as a stud in the pen.

ON that I'll agree, but I'm still allowed to be a little disappointed. Especially if we traded away another starting pitcher recently (augh, that again!)

[Jordan4life_2007]

I'd like him to be a starter. I just won't call him a "wasted pick" if he ends up as a stud in the pen.

 

Maybe "wasted" was the wrong word to use. But for a system that lacks, well, everything, I don't think it's really good organizational strategy to use a critical first round pick on a guy you're not damn near 100% sure can cut it as a starter. Closers are a dime a dozen these days. It'd be like an NFL team using their first pick on a C.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Jordan4life

[bigruss]

ON that I'll agree, but I'm still allowed to be a little disappointed. Especially if we traded away another starting pitcher recently (augh, that again!)

It's in the Edwin Jackson thread so it's okay

[bigruss]

This post is spot on. Most of us seem to forget that we were right in the middle of a race with the twins for the AL Central crown and a trip to the playoffs when Jackson was acquired. I for one, felt a lot better with a proven veteran like Jackson going in a big game than I would have felt about an unproven youngster that could have poo pooed on the mound in that big game.

 

Plus Coop has probably forgotten more about pitching than any of us could ever know, and HE wanted Jackson. In Coop I trust.

You don't overpay for a mediocre pitcher when your farm system is already bare and can't feed your MLB team with young, cheap starters.

[bigruss]

Doesnt come off harsh. I dont know beyond a reasonable doubt, but Im pretty sure using deduction and rationalization I can come to those conclusions.

 

1) How do I know what the rest of the league thought of him?

 

Well that is simple enough.

 

In 2010 Hudson was rated as the 3rd best prospect in the Sox minor league system. (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prosp...010/269333.html)

 

Furthermore at the start of the season, Hudson was considered the 66th best prospect in baseball with a grade of 65.

 

66 DAN

HUDSON RHP, WHITE SOX

Best Tool: Command.

BA Grade: 65.

Opening

Day Age: 23 ETA: 2010

 

Now to the deduction and argument.

 

KW has been/is one of the most aggressive GM's in baseball. Based on this, I believe that KW called as many teams as possible concerning Hudson and using Hudson to bring in talent to the White Sox. Based on the fact that KW was only able to get Edwin Jackson, I believe that Jackson was the highest price any other team was willing to pay. The highest price any other team was willing to pay, is the value of Hudson on the open market.

 

As for the Nationals, how do I know that they didnt want Hudson straight up for Dunn? Well it assumes that KW valued Dunn over Jackson, and that KW wanted Dunn over Jackson. If those are true, then it is likely that KW offered Hudson for Dunn. The fact that Dunn was not traded for Hudson suggests that the Nationals valued Dunn more than Hudson. If Hudson was > Dunn in the eyes of the Nationals, they would have made the deal. The only other conclusion is that the Sox believed that Jackson > Dunn and therefore trading Hudson for Jackson was actually getting the highest possible value.

 

It could be possible that Diamondbacks didnt want any other spect than Hudson and that Jackson was "KW's guy", that just doesnt make a lot of sense in the grand scheme of things. From all accounts the White Sox #1 priority was offense. The fact that Hudson was traded for pitching not offense, seems to suggest that KW could not get an offensive player who had more value than Jackson, so he made the trade for Jackson to maximize value for Hudson.

 

As for dirt cheap middle of the rotation starter, sure those are great if your aspiring to be Kansas City or Cleveland. If you want to win a World Series ring, you need some one who can potentially dominate in the playoffs. Jackson had the stuff to be dominant. If you are going to be a contender you some times have to give up on unproven prospects for a chance to win that season. Its the nature of trading.

If you're not the Yankees or Red Sox, you need good young starters to complement your team. Hell, look at their rotations and you'll see that they probably rely on young starters just as much as anyone else.

 

Ignoring this is ridiculous, the Sox cannot afford this rotation as is and still truly be competitive next year unless Kenny pulls a rabbit out of his ass.

[bigruss]

The Dodgers rushed him and then gave up on him. The Rays had confidence and Jackson improved tremendously under them, but it made no sense to pay Jackson through the arb system when they had so much top-level pitching coming up the pipeline (an extremely uncommon situation in MLB BTW). The Tigers got him and Jackson continued to get better there as well, but the Tigers were up to their necks in bad contracts and had to cut salary somewhere, so they traded him and Granderson since they couldn't just dump Magglio, Robertson, Bonderman, etc. on anyone. Jackson got better and better until his first half in AZ, and then they went into salary destructo mode and were still able to trade him for a big return after giving up a lot to get him in the first place.

 

I don't think confidence is really the issue here. It's very rare to see the type of young pitching depth the Rays have and had at the time, and then the other two deals were made when ownership mandated a cut in payroll. Saying Jackson was moved because of a lack of confidence is just an assumption, however we know KW was shot down on several Hudson deals because a lot of other evaluators didn't think the ceiling was there. Ceiling was never a question with Jackson.

The Rays got a terrible package back for him though.

[southsider2k5]

Maybe "wasted" was the wrong word to use. But for a system that lacks, well, everything, I don't think it's really good organizational strategy to use a critical first round pick on a guy you're not damn near 100% sure can cut it as a starter. Closers are a dime a dozen these days. It'd be like an NFL team using their first pick on a C.

 

If that is your standard, then you NEVER draft pitching in the first round. There is no such thing as near 100% sure, except maybe a couple of times a decade.

[bigruss]

Konerko was brought in when he was pre-arb. Buerhle was home grown. The point is that cheap guys eventually become expensive if they are good. That is having a pipeline flowing. Over 10 years or so the Sox have had different home grown talent play for them.

 

 

 

Well have to see what we have in the future. Prospects are a crap shoot, a guy could be a top prospect and do nothing, he could be unheard of and become a star.

 

The Sox have had plenty of cheap talent, just over time if you want to stay consistently competitive you are going to have to pay. And eventually you are going to end up trading younger cheaper talent for more proven veterans.

 

If you want to win you have to risk.

Wait, so if I'm reading this correctly, you state players that were brought in cheap and stayed with the Sox for years as productive players, but then you are okay with trading good young and cheap talent for decent talent that is expensive and only has one year left on his contract? Whaaaaaat?

[Balta1701]

If that is your standard, then you NEVER draft pitching in the first round. There is no such thing as near 100% sure, except maybe a couple of times a decade.

That's the wrong interpretation and I think you know that.

 

You don't draft a pitcher in the first round with the idea that this pitcher will be a Closer. Whether or not there's such thing as a 100% shot, you don't limit yourself to a 1 inning guy in the first round.

[Jordan4life_2007]

If that is your standard, then you NEVER draft pitching in the first round. There is no such thing as near 100% sure, except maybe a couple of times a decade.

 

Again, look all around baseball, past or present. How many legitimate closers were first round picks? Now if something unexpected happens (i.e. an injury) that forces a guy to the 'pen then that's one thing. But there were questions about Sale's long-term projections before the draft. But I'm not going to make this an issue right now. All signs point to him being given every opportunity to start as early as next year.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Jordan4life

[RockRaines]

Maybe "wasted" was the wrong word to use. But for a system that lacks, well, everything, I don't think it's really good organizational strategy to use a critical first round pick on a guy you're not damn near 100% sure can cut it as a starter. Closers are a dime a dozen these days. It'd be like an NFL team using their first pick on a C.

Not even all first round picks make the show. Your evaluation and defense of your viewpoint is remarkably negative. Your criteria for our minor league system is you "being sold" on a player.

 

And using a first round pick on a very good center in the NFL is not a bad pick at all. All-pro centers are most certainly not a dime a dozen.

[RockRaines]

Again, look all around baseball, past or present. How many legitimate closers were first round picks? Now if something unexpected happens (i.e. an injury) that forces a guy to the 'pen then that's one thing. But there were questions about Sale's long-term projections before the draft. But I'm not going to make this an issue right now. All signs point to him being given every opportunity to start as early as next year.

What were the questions about his long-term projections? For the most part scouts loved the pick. Not to mention he was one of the first players up in the majors after being draft and showed dominance earlier than 99 percent of draft picks. He will start for this team, his floor is a VERY good reliever. Thats a pretty damn good investment.

[Soxbadger]

Wait, so if I'm reading this correctly, you state players that were brought in cheap and stayed with the Sox for years as productive players, but then you are okay with trading good young and cheap talent for decent talent that is expensive and only has one year left on his contract? Whaaaaaat?

 

No youre not reading correctly. You have parsed out very important points:

 

As for dirt cheap middle of the rotation starter, sure those are great if your aspiring to be Kansas City or Cleveland. If you want to win a World Series ring, you need some one who can potentially dominate in the playoffs. Jackson had the stuff to be dominant. If you are going to be a contender you some times have to give up on unproven prospects for a chance to win that season. Its the nature of trading.

 

And eventually you are going to end up trading younger cheaper talent for more proven veterans.

 

If you want to win you have to risk.

 

Hudson was unproven, you had no idea what Hudson would bring for the rest of the season. Jackson was far more proven, furthermore Jackson had far more talent.

 

Some times you have to trade a young unproven cheap talent for an expensive more proven more talented player.

 

You are acing like Hudson has more talent than Jackson. Jackson is the more talented player, Jackson is the more proven player. Generally more talent + more proven = more expensive.

 

The only thing Hudson had going for him was being cheap, and Im sorry but keeping Hudson just because he was cheap is not a good plan if you are trying to win this year. You never know what is going to happen in the future, so you try and give your team the best shot when they have one.

[southsider2k5]

That's the wrong interpretation and I think you know that.

 

You don't draft a pitcher in the first round with the idea that this pitcher will be a Closer. Whether or not there's such thing as a 100% shot, you don't limit yourself to a 1 inning guy in the first round.

 

I'm not saying you do. I am saying if the standard is being 100% sure this guys is going to be a major league starter, well you drafted Strausburg in the last 10 years, and that is about it.

[Jerksticks]

No youre not reading correctly. You have parsed out very important points:

 

 

 

 

 

Hudson was unproven, you had no idea what Hudson would bring for the rest of the season. Jackson was far more proven, furthermore Jackson had far more talent.

 

Some times you have to trade a young unproven cheap talent for an expensive more proven more talented player.

 

You are acing like Hudson has more talent than Jackson. Jackson is the more talented player, Jackson is the more proven player. Generally more talent + more proven = more expensive.

 

The only thing Hudson had going for him was being cheap, and Im sorry but keeping Hudson just because he was cheap is not a good plan if you are trying to win this year. You never know what is going to happen in the future, so you try and give your team the best shot when they have one.

 

JR said on The Club that this deal was "a no-brainer". Those are powerful words and your points seem to back up Jerry's line of thinking; mine as well.

 

I'm so much happier having Jackson for 2011 than Hudson. He's got ace-stuff; he's probably our best pitcher, and I always thought Hudson would have at least a year of growing pains in our park, and in the AL.

 

Do you people that hate the trade think Hudson would have put up those AZ numbers here? Color me curious. It's too bad for you guys that Peavy didn't get hurt earlier so we could have evaluated Huddy a bit more.

[Jordan4life_2007]

What were the questions about his long-term projections? For the most part scouts loved the pick. Not to mention he was one of the first players up in the majors after being draft and showed dominance earlier than 99 percent of draft picks. He will start for this team, his floor is a VERY good reliever. Thats a pretty damn good investment.

 

I'll have to search for the links to some of the draft articles I read. But there were multiple ones stating that while Sale's talent is not in question, his size/delivery could relegate him to the 'pen. And I disagree. A good reliever is not a good investment with your first round pick. You won't convince me otherwise. There are much less expensive ways to find relievers/closers than to burn first round picks.

[nitetrain8601]

One thing that definitely should be cleared up, Jackson was not dumped several times. He was traded for Danny Baez one year, then traded for Matt Joyce who was a top prospect IIRC, then traded with Curtis Granderson in a deal that netted them Austin Jackson, Phil Coke, Max Scherzer and Daniel Schlereth.

[nitetrain8601]

The Dodgers rushed him and then gave up on him. The Rays had confidence and Jackson improved tremendously under them, but it made no sense to pay Jackson through the arb system when they had so much top-level pitching coming up the pipeline (an extremely uncommon situation in MLB BTW). The Tigers got him and Jackson continued to get better there as well, but the Tigers were up to their necks in bad contracts and had to cut salary somewhere, so they traded him and Granderson since they couldn't just dump Magglio, Robertson, Bonderman, etc. on anyone. Jackson got better and better until his first half in AZ, and then they went into salary destructo mode and were still able to trade him for a big return after giving up a lot to get him in the first place.

 

I don't think confidence is really the issue here. It's very rare to see the type of young pitching depth the Rays have and had at the time, and then the other two deals were made when ownership mandated a cut in payroll. Saying Jackson was moved because of a lack of confidence is just an assumption, however we know KW was shot down on several Hudson deals because a lot of other evaluators didn't think the ceiling was there. Ceiling was never a question with Jackson.

 

Good valid points which is what I tried to do with my last post, but kinda failed. And again, he was traded for decent pieces, not scrap like so many people want you to believe.

[nitetrain8601]

I'll have to search for the links to some of the draft articles I read. But there were multiple ones stating that while Sale's talent is not in question, his size/delivery could relegate him to the 'pen. And I disagree. A good reliever is not a good investment with your first round pick. You won't convince me otherwise. There are much less expensive ways to find relievers/closers than to burn first round picks.

 

There are usually concerns with every player not take top 3 overall. The only reason he was passed on was delivery concerns, yes, but the reason why everyone loved the pick was his potential and his stuff. They think his projection will reflect that higher of a guy who is normally picked in his slot.

[RockRaines]

I'll have to search for the links to some of the draft articles I read. But there were multiple ones stating that while Sale's talent is not in question, his size/delivery could relegate him to the 'pen. And I disagree. A good reliever is not a good investment with your first round pick. You won't convince me otherwise. There are much less expensive ways to find relievers/closers than to burn first round picks.

Sale's bonus wasnt even 2 million dollars. I'm not sure if you thought it was more than that?

[Jordan4life_2007]

Sale's bonus wasnt even 2 million dollars. I'm not sure if you thought it was more than that?

 

I'm using the wrong words. When I said expensive I didn't mean money. I just meant the pick (first round) itself.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Jordan4life

[Jordan4life_2007]

There are usually concerns with every player not take top 3 overall. The only reason he was passed on was delivery concerns, yes, but the reason why everyone loved the pick was his potential and his stuff. They think his projection will reflect that higher of a guy who is normally picked in his slot.

 

I don't disagree with anything you said here. And I admitted I used the wrong word when I said waste. But I will be extremely disappointed if Sale turns out to be nothing more than a reliever. But like I said, that's not an issue at the moment.

[ScottyDo]

I'll have to search for the links to some of the draft articles I read. But there were multiple ones stating that while Sale's talent is not in question, his size/delivery could relegate him to the 'pen. And I disagree. A good reliever is not a good investment with your first round pick. You won't convince me otherwise. There are much less expensive ways to find relievers/closers than to burn first round picks.

Okay but if you're 80% sure he's a dominant starter with a 20% shot that he's a dominant reliever, how can you possibly say it's a bad pick? I mean, retrospectively, if he ends up in the 'pen permanently, yeah, it ended up being somewhat of a waste but it doesn't make the decision poor.

 

He's gonna get every opportunity to start unless we end up with a Papelbon situation.