Nationals broke deal on Dunn/Jackson

[joeynach]

If KW traded for EJax with absolutely 0% intention of keeping him, instead of just brokering a 3-way deal with WAS & ARI, then that's a borderline fireable offense.

 

Dont you remember that episode of the club. KW came to his people sitting in the War Room and discussed the trade. He said we have a strong chance of being able to land Jackson for Hudson. They then started discussing are they a better team going forward with Jackson in the rotation instead of Hudson. That was it, there was no talk of flipping Jackson or only acquiring Jackson to get Dunn. Im sure there was some discussion, but I still think the KW and his team came to a consensus that even if Jackson wasn't flipped over to the Nats the sox were still an improved team with Jackson starting over Hudson.

[BigSqwert]

Dont you remember that episode of the club. KW came to his people sitting in the War Room and discussed the trade. He said we have a strong chance of being able to land Jackson for Hudson. They then started discussing are they a better team going forward with Jackson in the rotation instead of Hudson. That was it, there was no talk of flipping Jackson or only acquiring Jackson to get Dunn. Im sure there was some discussion, but I still think the KW and his team came to a consensus that even if Jackson wasn't flipped over to the Nats the sox were still an improved team with Jackson starting over Hudson.

That whole video was broadcast well after the trade. Who knows if they edited it to reflect what really happened. Perhaps they had discussions about flipping him but since it didn't pan out they only showed the clips as we saw them.

[G&T]

That whole video was broadcast well after the trade. Who knows if they edited it to reflect what really happened. Perhaps they had discussions about flipping him but since it didn't pan out they only showed the clips as we saw them.

 

Wouldn't it be tampering if they were on a TV show saying that they wanted Dunn?

[BigSqwert]

Wouldn't it be tampering if they were on a TV show saying that they wanted Dunn?

I don't think so. Isn't it tampering if you contact the player?

[G&T]

I don't think so. Isn't it tampering if you contact the player?

 

I'm pretty sure teams can't publicly discuss players under contract with another team. What's the difference between contacting directly and publicly making a statement?

 

Edited January 5, 2011 by G&T

[Steve9347]

What does an NL pitcher look like? Can you give me a detailed description so I know for future reference.

I'd say a guy who can hack it against weak NL pitching but isn't someone you put in a rotation when going for a World Series Championship in the AL.

 

We get it, J4L, you still hate the Hudson deal. Get over it.

[LittleHurt05]

Dont you remember that episode of the club. KW came to his people sitting in the War Room and discussed the trade. He said we have a strong chance of being able to land Jackson for Hudson. They then started discussing are they a better team going forward with Jackson in the rotation instead of Hudson. That was it, there was no talk of flipping Jackson or only acquiring Jackson to get Dunn. Im sure there was some discussion, but I still think the KW and his team came to a consensus that even if Jackson wasn't flipped over to the Nats the sox were still an improved team with Jackson starting over Hudson.

 

You can't believe everything you see on TV, but I do believe that KW did like Jackson and thought he'd improve the team. Just the way that article was presented, IMO, it sounded like it was all about getting Dunn, not about Jackson at all.

[DirtySox]

The rationalization that Hudson must be an NL pitcher because he struggled in 3 AL starts is hilarious. Never mind the sterling minor league track record, solid scouting reports, and inherent major league growing pains. Keep it up.

[Milkman delivers]

This is now, without a doubt, my most hated subject on Soxtalk that just won't go away.

[southsider2k5]

This is now, without a doubt, my most hated subject on Soxtalk that just won't go away.

 

We could start talking about bringing back Joe Crede!

[scenario]

Anyone remember the context of Rizzo's comments on B&B the day after the deadline?

My memory is hazy but I seem to remember him saying there was no Dunn deal in the works.

[LittleHurt05]

This is now, without a doubt, my most hated subject on Soxtalk that just won't go away.

 

Thankfully, the Sox will win the WS in 2011, & EJax will be a big contributor so then it will finally all go away.

[fathom]

Anyone remember the context of Rizzo's comments on B&B the day after the deadline?

My memory is hazy but I seem to remember him saying there was no Dunn deal in the works.

 

Rizzo all but stated he wanted Jackson and Viciedo in return for Dunn, and KW wouldn't even consider trading Viciedo.

[Milkman delivers]

We could start talking about bringing back Joe Crede!

 

I think I'd gladly bring that discussion back to replace this one. It's the same arguments by the same people back and forth with nothing new to speak of. Nobody bends and nobody changes their stance on it. We get it. I don't f***ing care anymore.

[Jerksticks]

Not to mention when the trade happened, Hudson wasn't very good...at all.

 

Exactly. Too bad you just get hindsight arguments all the time on here. JR is quoted on the club saying trading Hudson was "a no-brainer". So to call the trade a reason to fire KW just looks misinformed on a few different levels.

[bighurt574]

Exactly. Too bad you just get hindsight arguments all the time on here. JR is quoted on the club saying trading Hudson was "a no-brainer". So to call the trade a reason to fire KW just looks misinformed on a few different levels.

 

+1

 

It's also funny that the original article criticizes Washington for losing both Jackson and Dunn and ending up with a couple draft picks instead. Well, we're in the exact opposite position -- we got both Jackson and Dunn, and gave up a draft pick to do it (we would have lost Hudson anyway if the Jackson-Dunn trade went through). If Washington was foolish for losing both players, it sure seems like we're the beneficiary in the end. Sure, we could have had Dunn instead of Jackson for a few months last year (not sure that would have gotten us any extra wins since Jackson pitched well), and now we have both for all of next year.

Edited January 5, 2011 by bighurt574

[Jerksticks]

+1

 

It's also funny that the original article criticizes Washington for losing both Jackson and Dunn and ending up with a couple draft picks instead. Well, we're in the exact opposite position -- we got both Jackson and Dunn, and gave up a draft pick to do it (we would have lost Hudson anyway if the Jackson-Dunn trade went through). If Washington was foolish for losing both players, it sure seems like we're the beneficiary in the end. Sure, we could have had Dunn instead of Jackson for a few months last year (not sure that would have gotten us any extra wins since Jackson pitched well), and now we have both for all of next year.

 

Hell yea. We got the best 2 out of the 5 players involved here: Jackson n Dunn. Arizona got Holmberg n Hudson, and the Nats are stuck with a 1st rounder. I don't care if Hudson goes on to do pretty well because he didn't look ready to help us at the time, and he'll never have half the stuff that EJax has.

[Jordan4life_2007]

I'd say a guy who can hack it against weak NL pitching but isn't someone you put in a rotation when going for a World Series Championship in the AL.

 

We get it, J4L, you still hate the Hudson deal. Get over it.

 

Except Hudson did a tad more than just 'hack' it. 7-1, 1.69 ERA, 0.841 WHIP in 11 starts. Oh, yeah, Jackson sported an ERA of 5.16 in the same league. And for those tired of the debate, put my ass on ignore. My rage has returned now that we know the full truth behind the deal.

[Paint it Black]

lol. The Jackson/Hudson trade is even more despicable now.

It is? I'll take the dude with unbelievable stuff with the upside over the 3rd starter any day.

[Dick Allen]

Except Hudson did a tad more than just 'hack' it. 7-1, 1.69 ERA, 0.841 WHIP in 11 starts. Oh, yeah, Jackson sported an ERA of 5.16 in the same league. And for those tired of the debate, put my ass on ignore. My rage has returned now that we know the full truth behind the deal.

Yet in the AL where they both would be pitching for the White Sox, Jackson sported the much better stats. I give it until June 1 when people realize Hudson although a decent pitcher, isn't exactly Cy Young.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Yet in the AL where they both would be pitching for the White Sox, Jackson sported the much better stats. I give it until June 1 when people realize Hudson although a decent pitcher, isn't exactly Cy Young.

 

No doubt about it. 3 starts is more than enough to prove that Hudson was indeed not worthy of the AL. I wish I had the scouting pedigree of some of y'all. All I know is Chris Sale better f***ing dominate his first three starts or I want his ass gone. No excuses. You don't own AL hitters right away, you get traded.

[witesoxfan]

There are more than a few people who are upset the White Sox gave up 6 years of Dan Hudson for a year and a half of Edwin Jackson. The trade is over and done with, and it still irks me to this day that Williams made the move. However, Jackson has ridiculous stuff and, outside of one bad start against Kansas City, he was also pretty phenomenal. The organization obviously didn't have as much faith in Dan Hudson, and whether you agree with it or not, it's over and done with, and at the end of the day, the Sox have both Adam Dunn and Edwin Jackson now. They're going for it all this year, and if it doesn't work, they'll bring in all the prospects people can jizz over (and inevitably, people will be upset that the Sox are not winning, even if they do have a top 15 farm system).

 

So can we just f***ing drop this? Seriously, burn these threads and blame it on the Twins.

Edited January 6, 2011 by witesoxfan

[southsider2k5]

Honestly before this story broke, I would have agreed with you. But with this about the handshake falling apart, it puts a new spin on this deal. Is dealing Hudson for Dunn (through Jackson) better than Hudson for Jackson? Could it have helped more in the race for the division?

[Ranger]

If KW traded for EJax with absolutely 0% intention of keeping him, instead of just brokering a 3-way deal with WAS & ARI, then that's a borderline fireable offense.

 

If it was a calculated risk, then that's different. If KW said, "I like EJax for Hudson, but I'd prefer Dunn" then I can live with that. But if they wanted nothing to do with Jackson, and strictly acquired him to move for Dunn and got played, then that's bad and a GM cannot be making decisions like that.

 

That's exactly what happened and it was said at the time. And in regard to your next sentence, Steve pretty much nails it:

 

Listen, KW doesn't do Hudson for E-Jax unless he's ok with being "stuck" with E-Jax. Hudson looks every bit of a National League pitcher, while Edwin looked great for us.

 

We have both now, no need to sweat the small stuff.

 

There is just no way a GM with any sort of working brain would get suckered into something like this unless he he knew the potential of a deal falling through. Williams isn't stupid and Rizzo probably didn't do himself a ton of favors when it comes to having to deal with any teams in the future.

[gatnom]

This is now, without a doubt, my most hated subject on Soxtalk that just won't go away.

 

I have to agree with Milkman here. Watching people belittle Hudson because of 3 starts and playing in the NL drives me absolutely insane. It's one thing if you have a hard on for Edwin Jackson because Coop "fixed" him, but it doesn't mean you have to go and try to justify the trade by saying Hudson is some terrible pitcher.